Remember this about the shutdown: neither side wanted to compromise. After it ended, Obama said (paraphrasing a little because I don't have the direct quote): The Republicans refused to compromise, while the Democrats stood by their principles.
Understand, neither side wanted to compromise their principles, but, of course, Obama couldn't say that.
Understand also that tghe Republicans did give in, while the Dems absolutely refused to compromise at all.
So, who was responsible? Both sides, because neither wanted to compromise.
Yet, that's what politics is: compromise. Something that the Dems, under Obama, refuse to do.

You never heard of Cabbage Patch Kids???

Efficiency is but one of the characteristics of AI.
Speed is another.

But one that I think is being missed here is that AI must still be programmed by people, and people can be either compassionate or malevolent. If bad intentions are programmed into any AI, that AI will have bad intentions.
Think of current FPS games; one side is usually considered to be the 'bad' side, and that side's AI reflects that. It's programmed in.
Consider the algorithms that control traffic signals, as an example. It doesn't take much in the way of 'bad' AI to really screw up rush hour traffic, to 'help' the public accept light rail.
Or, as another example, consider that the plot of some stories is to reprogram a bank's computers to steal on penny (or slightly more) from each deposit. It happens (see "Salami slicing").
AI can be very dangerous. It depends on how it's done. And the rule of unintended consequences, as always, applies.

On *MY* 7D, I found it:
Press the MENU button, then press the INFO button, and there it is.
The Q button has not produced that info for me yet.

That's an interesting economic theory; that the only reason prices should raise is because of a higher minimum wage. And that the only reason the *do* raise is because of higher company profits.
I suppose higher education costs (meaning higher taxes), tighter environmental policies (meaning higher costs, including more taxes), stricter reporting of all sorts (meaning higher costs to do the reporting), more expensive raw materials, higher "safety net" costs, and on and on (which most who have never even looked into what it takes to keep the smallest of businesses going) have no economic impact on prices?
It's getting harder and harder (mostly due to governmental policies) to keep a small (less than 100 employees) going today. This is one reason "big box" stores are pushing the small local businessman out; large scale means lower costs, and lower prices, which means more business.
Throw a higher minimum wage into this, and it's obvious that that extra cost must come from somewhere. Either more customers or lower costs somewhere else, or higher prices. Take your pick. It must come from somewhere.

I have a 7D, and I don't see such a number, either.
However, I like to think I'm a 'practical' person, and "999" says to me that I have a lot of shots to go, so I don't worry about that at all. :-)

So...
Bush served, Obama didn't.
Bush is rumored to have used cocaine, Obama is a self-confessed cocaine user.
Tell me how *this* makes Obama better.

I looked at several strap alternatives, and ended up with a Blackrapid Classic type.
Works well when I'm on my scooter, and relieves the neck pain with a Canon w/70-300 zoom.

Which is better? The one you have.

Are you sure?
I believe that, at, say, f8, the amount of light that will fall on each square millimeter will be the same, regardless of sensor size, as long as the lens is designed to cover the sensor size used. So, no change in exposure is needed.

Need has absolutely nothing to do with it. Here in the US, the right to own and carry a gun is constitutionally protected. This means, according to the Second Amendment, that the various governments are not allowed to pass laws that limit that right.
Obviously, *some* limits are needed (mental defectives, drug addicts, etc., because such people do not understand or disregard the responsibilities that go with *any* right), but to limit otherwise law-abiding citizens from exercising that right is specifically forbidden by the highest law in the land, the Constitution.
I understand that this is hard to understand by people who have never had that kind of right, and have been told from birth that they should not have such a right.

Why care what we use?
What's important here is what *you* want to use.
Do you want to really reach out and touch something? Then you want a really long zoom.
Do you want really high quality? Hard to get (and expensive if you do).
Do you want low-light (low F-number) capability? Really limits your choice (and, again, expensive).
Do you want something that will cover all eventualities (talking here about wide angle to long telephoto)?

Each choice has its answers. But you need to ask the right question to get the right answer. There are a lot of zooms out there.

I'm not so sure this is right.
When I got my EF 17-40 F4L lens, I tested it against my EFS 18-55 kit lens on my Canon Rebel.
Here's what I found...
Here in Phoenix, on a clear sunny day, in open shade, camera set to aperture preferred, each lens set to 35mm focal length, each lens set to F8, the 17-40 used a higher shutter speed than the kit lens. Repeatedly. Why? The 17-40 uses better glass, which transmits more light. Not a LOT more, but more.
I've tried this on my 30D, and on my 7D. Same results.
I've tried this experiment with other overlapping focal length lenses of different qualities, and get the same results.
While the F-stop formula remains the same, the quality of glass does, IMO, make a difference.

That's a nice, complicated theory.
Unfortunately for the theory, US drones are flown from Creech Air Force Base in Nevada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creech_Air_Force_Base). Thus, there are no Command and Control centers in Afghanistan.
Sorry.
Maybe the plane was shot down by a sniper on a grassy knoll?

It might be noted that the vast majority of these shootings have taken place where guns are not allowed.
This being so, maybe those who would like to further restrict guns should rethink their policies, as the ones they have now aren't working.