Yeah, but the one with wings and an engine costs 6,000$ extra... :(

tl;dr

WipeOut v0.1

Did she just say: "I used to charge for this"???

Wow... you're right because everything that Wikipedia says is true!!!
If you compare nuclear energy with wind or solar energy, you'll realise that it's a better solution in the long run.
Nuclear energy requires several steps to make the most of the fuel, whereas wind or solar requires only one step and has no excess waste material.
0 waste material > some waste material.

My comment was ment to be a response to b3astofthe3ast...

Fix your commenting system engadget!

Nuclear energy isn't clean it's just CO2 neutral.
Clean energy means that the process has no emissions or waste leftover that are harmful in any way to anyone.
Storing nuclear fuel rods is just postponing a disaster. I'll only support nuclear energy when they find a way to make the fuel rods into happy rainbows and ice cream.

I saw ..

OMG! People you are missing the point!
What has it been 4~5 years since we heard of the 90.000 microfilm-lenses.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825255.000
It's great to hear that they are making some progress, although he only mentioned that they could put it in between the camera and the lens, not that they had made a final product :(
BTW I thought that 4/3 cameras were open to manufactures...

I know that the paparazzi is a pain in the ass, but enjoy it while it lasts... It might be your only 15 minutes of fame