What *should* be scary but is being ignored by the larger public is how utilities are increasingly running "peak load" assets as if they were "base load" assets. To wit, combined-cycle turbine plants are not usually designed for continuous operation like this; they're designed to be brought online during peak load *only*. Base load assets like coal and nuclear carry the non-peak loads. The peak load assets are going to have much more intensive maintenance costs if they keep running them like this, leading to higher prices for consumers and the ugly potential for brownout/blackout when these peak load assets break down unexpectedly.

Disclosure: I'm a tech consultant working with TVA right now, and this info comes direct from people who run these assets. We *need* more base load assets like coal and nuclear, but government regulations are making that extremely difficult. Indeed, we're having to *shut down* coal plants due to new government regulations, further stressing an already-fragile national power infrastructure. Thank god we're *finally* building some new nuclear assets (TVA's Watts Bar Unit 2, and Georgia Power's Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4) but we need to be doing this on a much larger scale to meet growing demands for power. Conservation will only take you so far; at some point -- a point I think we passed some years ago -- you must expand capacity to keep your system fault-tolerant.

Being a former Marine, I've followed the development of the USMC version of the F-35 with some interest. And I'm disgusted by it. This plane is inferior to its predecessors in every way possible that matters to the main mission of USMC air power: Close Air Support. Sure, it's stealthier. And it's a better dogfighter than the AV-8B (but arguably not the F-18 Super Hornet). But neither of those matter a damn with CAS missions. You need a reliable, rugged bomb truck for CAS. The F-35, with its internal weapons bay, is pathetic for CAS. Stealth doesn't matter much for CAS, either...or at least it doesn't matter in ways that make the F-18 Super Hornet notably inferior. And let's not forget you can buy *three* Hornets for the cost of *one* F-35.

Really, what I've always thought the USMC needs is an A-10 Warthog. Surely the cost of a carrier-spec A-10 would be much cheaper than even Super Hornets...just not as glamorous to fly by fighter jocks. But us grunts on the ground would much appreciate having a GAU-8 Avenger 30mm Gatling cannon on call any day over the whizz-bang-but-underarmed F-35. If jet jockeys want fast fighters, let them join the Air Force or the Navy. We want CAS platforms.

+100 Ivanova points for you!

You can quit when you reach the last digit of Pi. That'll be enough. Call me when you're done.

Why? To satisfy some policy he never violated in the first place? He turned Glass off. That should be enough. That was enough to comply with the "do not record" policy. Prescription eyeglasses aren't cheap. You've no reason to demand he carry around Glass *and* another set of glasses with the same prescription.

You only need to look marginally further into the future to see a point where the functionality of something like Glass could be feasibly *implanted* and thus *non-removable* by the end user *by design*. What then? Do you ban implants? Good luck with trying to stop the march of technology because everyone in history who's tried has failed miserably.

Perhaps you missed the part about where this fellow's Google Glass also happened to be his prescription eyeglasses. You can order Glass that way, you know. And Glass is not detachable from the lenses once this is done. So the best you can do is turn Glass off...which is exactly what this fellow did. Or would you prefer he try to watch the movie all blurry and out of focus?

What part of "Glass with prescription lenses, which he needed to even *see* the movie" did you not understand? He wasn't wearing Glass to be an ass; he was wearing them because those were his prescription glasses.

Except that, if you'd read the fucking article, you'd know he *needed* Glass because he was wearing them with *prescription lenses*. Taking them off would kinda make it hard to see the movie. Idiot.

And it's guys like you who don't RTFA that give...well, guys like you a bad name. The fellow had Glass ordered with *prescription lenses*. He wasn't wearing Glass to be an ass; he was wearing Glass because he needed them to actually see the movie.

If they do then every patron with even a relatively modern cell phone is violating this rule. No, what you see is there is a "No Recording" sign. And this fellow wasn't recording anything; Glass was off.

It doesn't matter whether the casual observer can or can't easily determine whether Glass was on or off. Coming in and snatching a $1500 piece of hardware off someone's face is not the proper way to handle this.

Dave, let me ask you this: if I bring a video camera into a theater and point it at the screen the entire time a movie is playing...yet the camera is *off*...exactly what crime have I committed? Since when is *carrying* a camera considering sufficient evidence to say a crime has been committed? There is no statute, law, or even *warning* at a movie about carrying a camera. There *are* warnings about *recording* the movie, but he wasn't recording it and nobody could prove he was before they snatched them off his head. If somebody had tried that with me in a darkened room, this former Marine would've given them a broken arm and my foot on their neck immediately thereafter. And *I'd* be perfectly within my rights to do so given the cost of Google Glass and my immediate perception of attempted theft of property.

And I'll remind you, this fellow was wearing *prescription lens* Google Glass, which means he *needed* the glasses to actually see the movie. The fact that Glass was attached is incidental.

The beauty of living in a free country is the author is not required to carry two kinds of prescription glasses. If he wants to carry one pair, he can carry one pair even if Google Glass is attached to it. Just *having* an item that *might* be used to commit a crime does not make you a criminal, nor does it give the police/FBI the right to treat you as one. Your logic is the same asinine "logic" used to impugn non-violent, non-threatening people who wish to carry weapons purely for self defense.

There's sufficient molecular oxygen dissolved in seawater for a fish. Humans have much higher metabolic rates and require a great deal more oxygen...too much for a device like this to supply. The "gills" would either have to be massively larger or they'd have to have a very powerful pump pulling huge quantities of seawater through them. The former is obviously not the case, and the latter would require a much larger battery and pump.

Well, that's true if you consider "knew what they were doing" as disabling all the safety measures, disregarding all standard operating procedures, and operating the reactor in a known-unsafe condition. The Chernobyl operators were doing and ill-advised, poorly-planned, badly-implemented test of some reactor systems that involved going completely off the farm vis-a-vis approved operation of the reactor. True, the RBMK designs were fickle and dangerous to begin with, but they'd operated for a long time without incident because operators *respected* that danger. Chernobyl was an example of what happens when you don't respect it. Had the reactor been operated within its safety margins, nothing would've happened.

My understanding of the situation is Fukushima had a PORV for hydrogen venting but *not* a flare-off stack that would be present in more current designs. They vented the hydrogen only to prevent reactor vessel overpressurization, and crossed their fingers there wouldn't be an ignition source that would cause an explosion. Obviously they lost that gamble.

I work in the nuclear power industry as a consultant (IT, not nuclear tech, but I'm around a lot of nuclear engineers who I chat with). It was ridiculous that a flare-off stack was never implemented at Fukushima. I'm really curious why. I know first hand that modifications to existing plants is a red tape nightmare, but adding a flare-off stack should've been something that was easy to get approved and to implement given it's a proven technology.