There are 8 sonography machines with embedded keyboards in my lab.

Mainly because he's giving people peptides, and ingesting someone else's half-metabolized enzymes does fuck-all, so he hasn't been convicted of anything more serious than fraud. Ironically, if his 'drugs' were more potent/toxic, he'd have been responsible for a few injuries, and arrested for them. That said, he's already been sued for not meeting FDA approval, and there's a complaint lodged in 2010 by the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners against him which, once it works its way through the courts, will surely mean the suspending of his license to practice.
This show's almost over, folks. Just takes a while - at this point he is 'treating' very few, and these suits from him will probably be the last we hear of him doing much more harm. I hope.

And there's plenty of middle ground in-between: Anyone who posts their political affiliation, sexual preference, religion, graduation date and place, home town, phone number (PHONE NUMBER!?), voluntarily, does so with the specific intention of letting others see it. Things like purchases and browsing habits, personal and unsolicited data mining are somewhat involuntary, and are legitimate privacy issues. Things like getting political ads because you posted your political party affiliation on the page of a public, ubiquitous site, are not legitimate privacy concerns, because you have already chosen to make them public. They wouldn't be on facebook, otherwise: it's not as though you need to put it on paper to remind yourself of these bits of information, and 'close friends and family' would likely already know these details, so on some level it's pretty obvious that you want people to know these things about you easily. That includes corporations. Don't like it, then don't post it. The only thing facebook requires of you is name, age, and an email address. And I've never gotten one bit of spam or directed mail to that address.

Maybe I'm just not on the right wavelength, but what sort of danger are we talking about here? I mean, yes, on a personal level, intentionally creating something close to actual lighting is going to be potentially dangerous to those in immediate proximity, but this is no nuke. Early rocketry exposed its researchers to explosive risks, but it didn't take long to anticipate and accommodate those risks, such that most of the time, the only casualty was a chunk of ground and a little pride.

Build your lighting tower, charge 'er up, and go really far away. sensor packages and telephoto lenses, and who could really get hurt? There's plenty of desert in this country, where localized RF disruption hurts no one, and the ground is so unchanging its practically a constant. We've tested all sorts of explosives in the middle of nowhere for far less noble purposes. I think understanding lightning as a natural phenomenon is a reasonable goal with acceptable, highly localized - and mostly predictable risks. Bring on the lighting machines.

^ This IS good advice, particularly at this stage. Buying a full featured DSLR because the smartphone's pinhole camera isn't very good is basically brute forcing your way into better quality pictures - with money. While I WOULD recommend stepping up from where you are (in terms of lens size), all it sounds like you need is device that's primary purpose is taking pictures. The rest is technique - and if you want candid shots, a fast finger on the button. Better to toss 20 digital pictures for the one great shot than to take one OK picture, and wish you had more.

yeah, I've been there - right near the hippodrome. I agree with you wholeheartedly - if I'm gonna spend 4 bucks before a show, it's going to be on coffee.

Thank you for explaining the nature of the system succinctly. Mod parent up.

Specifically, fictional robot people. My newest is Lopez.

why isn't this being used as an opportunity to let the FDA step in and do its job? I don't like the idea of the TSA self-regulating, it's counter-productive at best.

*Must* we go through this routine every three years?

Step 1: PC Games outperform consoles and offer more customization, but somewhat lower profit margins. Console market saturates. Industry Pundits declare PCs to be the future of gaming.
Step 2: New Generation of consoles is produced with the latest hardware, and exclusive titles, licenses, bells and whistles. Console market swells as gamers invest in the newest consoles, games, peripherals, AV Hardware.
Step 3: PC Gaming market declines as publishers reorient towards console hardware. Console hardware offers reliability and impressive visuals with less fuss to creators and consumers. PC Ports abound. Industry Pundits Declare PC Gaming is dead and consoles are the future.
Step 4: Time passes. New PC Hardware is produced and prices drop, while console hardware becomes increasingly obsolete. Publishers resume producing more PC oriented titles.
Step 5: go to Step 1.

Let's face it, neither market is going to muscle out the other. It all ebbs and wanes. Of course PCs are making the consoles look obsolete. they *are* obsolete, by industry standards. There's a second cycle re:software, wherein flashy superficial titles alternate with innovative, gripping titles depending on where you are in the console life cycle and calendar. And of course, there's legacy hardware and software on both platforms with dedicated fans. But this whole "Console gaming is outdated/PC Gaming is dead" tug-of-war is just boring. This is 7th generation, people. The only difference with these yearly articles is technical information and buzzwords.

I agree with you, mostly. 2+3 could have been condensed into one, which would have made for a tighter film (why aim for the magic trilogy?), and there was a lot more straightforward sci-fi in them, but I thought they were enjoyable and well made, if a bit less groundbreaking.

Oh, wait, he died in the third film, I just remembered. so wtf?

Anybody else parse "Woodpeckers from space" the wrong way?