Let the hive mind of Engadget get that for you.
"We need a digital camera that can be switched on and fire off that first shot fast. It's not a commonly tracked statistic on any review site, and nobody seems to have this information for every camera. We were hoping other readers could inform us as to what small digital cameras can fire off their first pics in under a second (ideally under half a second). It needs to be small, but mostly, just really quick in operation. Thanks!"
I think that it is wonderful that such developments are being made in the field of prosthethics; a proper way to fuse skin to metal is a giant leap.
However, I find it selfish for an owner to spend the kind of money that it would cost to have this prosthetic for a dog. I wish that the site would post how much it cost for the dog's owners or insurance company, if it covers pets. Probably around five thousand dollars, or more, considering some of the brand new technology involved with the device.
Think about how many vaccines or other types of health care could be supplied to REAL HUMAN BEINGS for the price of replacing the dog's foot. I'm entirely for what happened in this case because the knowledge learned from it will benefit the unfortunate PEOPLE who have suffered an amputation, yet an actual market for spending this kind of money (that could be much more practically spent) on PETS is rather disturbing. (sorry, run-on sentence.)
"Storm's owners, Francesca and Derek Taylor, had the foot amputated rather than having him put down."
That's a little more reasonable to me, IMHO.
I guess, if someone actually has the kind of money to spend on getting a state-of-the-art prosthetic limb for their dog, I'd hope that they would make a donation of an equal amount towards research for human diseases.
TL;DR
Damn cool technology, lets see it put towards the interests of people.
It sure is easy to spend other people's money, isn't it?
Indeed.
Point taken.