I'm (mostly) happy with my Lumix GF1 -- I bought mine with the 20mm lens, which is nice for indoor shots without a flash, and the 45-200, which is a nice lens for the money -- though the 100-300 is better for birds (also more expensive) -- I spent around a grand for everything including, a glass screen protector and uv(c) filters to protect the lenses, extra battery, lenspen and Bag. I also got a converter to use my old nikon manual lenses, which is fun.

I think the GX1 is a little better, but my one wish is that my GF1 had less noisy high-ISO. I can't really use anything beyond about 800, and in a lot of cases, really more like 400. I had hoped (based on reviews) that 800 would be usable. Perhaps the review sample's sensor was better then the one in my unit.

The other thing is that I don't really care for the "fly by wire" manual focus. I'm getting used to it, but I prefer the manual focus on my old Nikon lenses. I'm thinking of investing in a ClearViewer, for shooting in bright sun, since I don't have the EVF, since I figured that'd defeat the purpose of having a bulky, but still pocketable camera.

If I were doing it again now, I'd probably get the T3i -- though the GFX with the 14-45 pancake does look nice, and would certainly be in the running.

I do appreciate the fact that even full of kit, my bag is pretty light, and if I want to, with the 20mm pancake, I can put the whole camera in my coat pocket and run out the door. Can't do that with the T3i. There's the adage: You can't take any good photos if you don't have your camera with you. So there's something to be said for (relatively) light and pocketable.

How about this one:

http://www.gizmag.com/rochair-lever-rowed-wheelchair/20128/

Human powered, and more maneuverable than a standard wheelchair.

Too true. Though I have my home theater audio set up so I only sometimes need to ride the volume, even with less-then-stellar audio mastering on some DVDs... Though we don't watch a lot of explosion-centric movies. ac3filter config was useful when I used that, though my current setup seems not to need as much tweaking.

Crappy Audio.

I've been to the movie theater maybe 7 times in the last 10 years. That's how many movies there have been of the requisite quality and type to make me want to actually go to the theater. I've watched nearly 1000 films in the same time period on my home theater system. I don't mind (and can enjoy) loud entertainment, but the louder you make your audio the more important it is that it NOT BE CRAPPY!

Every movie theater (except one) I've been in the last 10 years has had the audio too loud for the installed system to handle. It's crackly, tinny and rattly. Probably would have sounded BETTER turned down lower, with a compressor to pull up the low parts. If you want high dynamic range, you need good gear.

I did go to an iMax once. That was awesome, though I didn't see a title filmed with iMax. Havta do that someday. It was good though. Nice loud sound and huge screen.

So yeah, bad sound, and screens that are TOO SMALL. If I want to watch a movie on a small screen, I'll stay home. I want a HUGE screen. At least 10 meters. Most of the theaters around here have 3-4 meter screens or worse. And the selection is terrible. There are thousands of great films out there, it's just that most of them aren't shown in mainstream theaters.

How hard is it to set audio levels properly, or invest in clean amplification? That stuff shouldn't be that expensive nowadays.

I don't think all GM crops are automatically bad. That's like saying that all plastics are bad, for all applications, which is silly.

However, there are a number of reasonable scientific, specific concerns about specific GM products and practices. Here's one:

Dr. Huber Explains Science Behind New Organism and Threat from Monsanto's Roundup, GMOs to Disease and Infertility

There are others, but I think the potential issues with roundup-ready corn, soya and now alfalfa and similar products are serious enough to warrant at least *really* investigating the consequences of their use, rather than just rubber stamping "Yes, sir, Monsanto, Oh, sure you can do whatever you want, we trust you *wink* *wink*".

Totally new world economy not based on consuming breakable crap, please! I'd like one.

Well designed, well-engineered products, that last, would be more "expensive", but in the long run, humanity and the planet will be better off when we finally switch over to a less wasteful system.

Fortunately we do have examples (like the Voyager probes) of good engineering, not that our washing machines and TVs need to be *quite* that well-engineered, but still, there's a lot of room for improvement.

There are many multiple-source inverter systems available that work in conjunction with (or function as) an automated transfer switch for when utility power is unavailable, though such an inverter does add to the total cost to the system. A battery system is not necessary, although a small battery system for limited power at night isn't really all that expensive, compared with total system cost.

I would *love* to be able to produce 5kWh per day! That's just a little less than half our energy usage, and would be sufficient to hum along during an extended power outage almost indefinitely, especially with a genset running occasionally to fill a water pressure tank and heat water.

What if you're a secular humanist and also a mystic?

While that is certainly true, there's something to be said for decentralized energy generation. In areas with a lot of sun, if you can get a majority of buildings to install solar heating/cooling/lighting and photovoltaic, and some local storage, you can make a big dent in the energy requirements (from coal) in a particular region.

In areas with less sun, solar systems can still be viable, though less economical, and augmented with wind, micro-nuclear (maybe someday), ground source heat pumps, and even wood burning furnaces.

If we then keep going with high-efficiency systems (thermal barriers, pumps, major appliances) with individual and community installations approaching energy self-sufficiency, there is a benefit even beyond the reduction in coal burned, in that the grid can be more resilient in the event of power plant or distribution issues.

Having had *three* long term (more than a week) power outages here in the northeast US in the past few years, I know if I could afford it, I would be installing a grid-connected system that could keep us going on emergency power (enough for a little heat, water and communication systems) for extended periods, even if we can't generate 100% of our needs, the peace of mind that would bring is priceless.

It may be a negative in some respects, but there *are* a lot of people losing their homes, mostly due to the activities of a few very rich men. So symbolically it is appropriate... It probably can't be sustained long term, at least in it's current form. In the 60s, many "communes" formed. Most of them were not successful, though a few survive to this day. I think that idea could do better now than it did then. Not in the "flower power" sense, but in the practical living and survival sense, in an increasingly monetized existence.

If the President were to roll tanks on the "occupy" protests, as was done to the Vets, that would probably create a bit of a stir. There are probably almost as many OWS protesters are there were people in the Bonus Army, if not more, although they're not all in one place, yet.