Well, I don't know what they're planning, but ISTM that if they divide the storage area they can greatly extend the time at which they're generating energy in exchange for nearly halving the peak generation capability...and without much pumping (which adds an additional inefficiency or three).

OTOH, the amount of energy that can be generated by water stored at a particular height depends on the fall distance. So the potential generation capability will vary a lot as the tide changes. Maybe some of the inflow could be used to drive a hydralic ram to lift some of the water higher than max high tide level. But that *does* introduce additional inefficiencies.

All in all, I don't know, but it looks pretty iffy.

You don't need a huge tide, that just makes it more efficient, and cheaper to build, and requiring less land and construction. So perhaps it's only feasible in a few places, but any country with a coast on the Atlantic, the Pacific, or the Indian Oceans should be able to make it work with enough effort and expense. Most of them just wouldnt' find it practical.

OTOH the Soviets had a serious love affair with RTGs ...

Nevermind the RTGs - I'm much more concerned with the nasty fission reactors they've put up there. The US put one up, too.

Tidal power would seem to have a lot going for it, but there's probably a good reason that it hasn't taken off before now. Of course, that reason may have been solved...

For that matter, cost overruns are also likely on large nuclear plant projects. (Every one I've heard about has had a significant cost overrun, of course there's a huge selection bias...)

Ah...Little Bobby Tables.

You can turn in your man card at the desk on the way out.

Wah. Allowing some stranger dictate to you what you must do or be, based on his own arbitrary conception of masculinity, is a pretty spineless way to live.

Actually, making tools and organizing labor is we're really good at. I personally have never killed anything larger than a bug in my life; I suspect a lot of other people haven't either. I've never had to, because there have always been other people who are willing to do those unpleasant tasks for me, in exchange for modest amounts of money.

Granted, I could learn those skills (and others) if I had to, but it would probably take me some days or weeks before I got good at it. It's not clear I would survive long enough to learn them.

So yes, humanity is the most deadly predator the planet has ever had. Any particular human being, OTOH, most likely is not -- we're more likely to be the most effective C++ programmer the planet has ever had, or the best Fedex deliveryman, or some other not-so-helpful-during-the-zombie-apocalypse skill.

How long would it take the 95% to eliminate (or convert, if you prefer) most of the 5%?

nope. They can block IR thermal cameras, but 99.987641% of all security cameras are not the multi thousand dollar FLIR type camera.

a $1.00 pair of mirrored lense sunglasses will also do this. Sorry AVG, your best and brightest are way behind the curve.

If you want to make their version, buy retroreflective tape and apply to your face or a set of cheap sunglasses.

... they buried him in a photon torpedo-shaped casket, wearing a black robe.

Yep, That is why anyone that is not aggressively paying off all the debt they have right now is a complete and utter fool.
I have friends that are buying new cars, etc... They are morons, raging morons... "but it's 1.2% ITS FREE MONEY!" they forget the loan origination fees they pay or are tacked on the loan... Oh that $35,000 car loan has a $1900 set of "fees" on it.... But we dont count that as part of the interest rate...

If you are having a time of prosperity, PAY DOWN ALL YOUR FUCKING DEBT! Because the next crash will come around sooner than you think because the banks are doing the same shit again.

Banks need heavy regulation put back on them. I also suggest we have a Bank police that goes around tazing executives at random if we even think they are thinking of anything "clever"

problems of epistemology, including in science.

Note that there are no shortage of facts whose veracity depends on nuanced facets of context and condition, some of which are disputed.

For example, fact or not: "Linux is a difficult operating system to use, and is a better choice for geeks and hackers than for regular users."

Or how about:

"Android is an operating system written by Google."

Or how about:

"The Bermuda Triangle region has seen an unusually high number of ship and plane disappearances over the years, and may be a particularly dangerous place to travel."

Because unless Google's algorithms are very, very nuanced in their approach, each of these is going to be seen as carrying high levels of factuality based on the preponderance of content out there, particularity in high-authority sources.

Of course, statements like the first and third are too complex for Google's rankings to evaluate and rank, and it can only work with very simple assertions on the order of "Milk is white," or "Obama is a Democrat," the it's going to do practically nothing (good or bad) at all for the rankings, since facts with this level of consensus are generally undisputed, even by those that promote falsehoods.

I was thinking about upgrading and figured I'd wait until the S6 was available, but those two flaws make it a deal breaker.

from gameability (in short, SPAM) to politics. Rather than punish above-board or non-predatory websites, it will punish both subversive and innovative thought that runs well ahead of social consensus. Sure, it will also eliminate willful misinformation, but it turns Google into an inherently conservative, rather than socially innovative, force.

Can't say I think it's better. Probably not any worse, but certainly not panacea.