Unheard of, yes, and no dissent, curious, but an indicator that it's a political ploy by the heads of those 17 agencies, not to me, because many of them (most famously the head of the FBI) are firmly and unapologetically Trump supporters. They would not produce or agree with such damming conclusions about their guy, imo, without clear evidence. It is more than unfortunate that we won't see that evidence, if it exists, during this administration. I expect it to stay classified by presidential order so he can deny it's existence.

I do agree, what we've seen in the redacted public report is far from proof, and the intelligence community as a whole has a terrible record of lies and misdirection. I think the recent need for public attention and political involvement has only made that worse. With such a horrendous reputation, it behooves them to make public their proof as quickly as possible.....leak it?

Roomba, making pet shaped dust spots on the floor 15 years and still going. Pets be dammed.

I broke the dam.

From the guy who owns the property and posted the video:

Update:
DAM REBUILT
6 weeks after this Collapse the Beavers rebuilt the dam to 4 ft high. The pond is now two thirds full and their house entrance should be accessible for the winter. By next summer I expect it to be totally rebuilt. -yt

Also here is a video with the new beaver pond in it(beginning of video), about four months after the original damn broke, I assume, as the videos were posted that far apart. https://youtu.be/ubk9vXVJ1q4

That's a Gorges dam.

Your video, World's Largest Ship Elevator Opens at Three Gorges Dam, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 21 Badge!

The real question, if this is so damming for Hillary, is when to leak them?

If now she has time to recover.
If 30 days before election then ouch.

The ones he leaked we not trash talk. It showed collusion at the DNC to not only hinder Bernie in Hillary's favor but also how the media is also politically invested with Hillary.


Why would the DNC do this on their own? Hillary and DWS have to have conspired to win the nomination. Will the leaks will indicate this? Guess we will have to wait.

Dam, that was cool.

Their specs say the LED runs at 100mw on "high".

1kg falling 1m is roughly 2.5 mwh, so yeah, you'll need either a lot of a rocks or a long fall to run much more than an LED for very long. Even then they can't be losing too much if they can have it running for 20 minutes.

I suppose its also worth remembering that gravity is harnessed on a massive scale for the generation of electricity by dams, so yeah, in some parts of the world its quite possible your computer would be gravity powered.

Mr. Van Dam sure has let himself go since his Bloodsport days...

Sorry to jump the thread here; not sure if dubious is the word either, but pretty amateur and more fear mongering with no supporting data.

First, the suggestion that no more reactors should be built because people use them to aid in production of nuclear weapons. Well kids, that ship has already sailed: In June 2014, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reported that nine nations (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea) possessed approx. 16,300 nuclear weapons in total. So someone builds one or 10 more? Yeah, that will matter. Someone needs to read up on the concept of deterrence.

When talking about waste: "Germany has literally tons of the stuff just laying around" - well, that's just horseshit.

Regarding accidents and number of deaths due to nuclear reactors: "devastating disasters every 30 years" - devastating? Come on, people died, but compared to other sources of energy, according to the WHO, it is by far the safest. Consider:

Energy Source Mortality Rates; Deaths/yr/TWh

Coal - world average, 161
Coal - China, 278
Coal - USA, 15
Oil - 36
Natural Gas - 4
Biofuel/Biomass - 12
Peat - 12
Solar/rooftop - 0.44-0.83
Wind - 0.15
Hydro - world, 0.10
Hydro - world*, 1.4
Nuclear - 0.04

* Includes the 170,000 deaths from the failure of the Banquao Reservoir Dam in China in 1975

So, if not dubious, certainly cheap and pedantic.

No, my first paragraph attempts to spell out why solar PV is a dud for people who do it the worst way possible, by selling all the electricity produced at drastically reduced rates to the grid, then buying it back at exorbitant rates, you are wasting well over 75% of what you could be saving. Of course it looks bad when you waste that much.
I have no mechanism needed to make it financially viable, and the idea that it might take more energy to produce a panel than it will produce itself is ridiculous.
I didn't 'make time' for anything, it just so happened that my lifestyle was perfect for solar, since I already did my housework during the daytime.
I have what's called a 'time of use' meter, which means it splits the day into 3 time zones, and keeps track of what I produce vs what I use from the grid. That means I essentially do get 1:1 for my production, which never reaches the point where they owe me money, but does offset almost all the juice I use (during the daytime) At night, we use normal grid power at normal grid rates. Too bad Australia doesn't do it that way.

yes, there are costs to an array, but they are one time costs, and FAR less than what's saved. That part is simple math. My system cost around $34K after rebates, maybe $40 without them, and it saves me around $5K per year in electric costs (based on 2007 rates, which have gone up). That includes production costs, installation cost, shipping cost, permit cost, etc.
Here in the US, daytime IS peak power use time. it's when business are using the most power, and when AC units are on, so the grid uses the power I feed in without problem. Industry uses WAY more power than homes. Solar offsets them using the hydro, gas turbines, and ramping up nuclear plants during the day, when they are used the most.
If my bill is lower, it means I used less fossil fuel generated electricity, so it IS working like a charm. How do you think otherwise? it's not perfect, and doesn't erase all other production, and is not a solution to ALL energy production problems, but it is a good part of the solution, unless it's done in the least productive manner possible.

What are you talking about, 2-3X the energy input? If you actually only count the costs, not the profit made at each stage in selling/installing panels, they probably come in more like 5-10 times the energy input, with little or no carbon footprint (many factories make the panels using power produced by other panels...as in pure solar factories).
My calculations (verified by my bills) put it at <1/2 the cost of buying (mostly coal produced) electricity from the grid at 2007 prices (even without any rebates), so how do you figure coal power production is cheaper, even ignoring all the other costs/problems? Coal may give a 30 to 1 return if you ignore ALL the other costs involved in using coal. If you count them, it's more like 1 to 2, because the effects of coal are so incredibly expensive, as is the cost of digging it up, transporting it, storing it, burning it, and disposing/storing the toxic waste products.

The cost of restoring a river is far more than the value of 100% of the power generated by a dam during it's lifetime.

Put simply, if solar PV is such a bad deal, how are they saving me so much money even without any rebates?

Well, it seems the big problem there is that you buy electricity at 4.5 times the price of what you sell it for, and you seem to sell off almost all of what you make. That means you're wasting over 75% of what you generate, no wonder it seems like a bad deal. If you could find a way to use the power you generate instead of selling it and buying it back for 4.5 times as much, things would change I think. That could be as simple as starting your laundry and dishwasher as you leave in the morning rather than at night. Since I'm home all day, it wasn't a change for me to use most of our power during the day, which made it totally economical for me, even when I do my calculations based on power costs from 9 years ago, if I added in the rise in power rates here, my savings would seem even larger.

True enough about the batteries, but I only use them for backup power in outages, so they'll last a while as long as I keep them full of acid. By the time I need new ones, perhaps I can use a flywheel for storage instead. They're great, but expensive right now.

It depends on your point of view, hydro decimates river systems for about 15 years of power. Totally a worse deal than coal's significant part in global warming/climate change, in my eyes, and coal is terrible. A dam can kill a river in one season, coal takes quite a while to do it's damage. That said, coal does it's damage over a much larger area. Hard math to try to figure out, comparing the two. Here in the US, we're removing dams to try to save the last few fish species in many rivers.
Wave generation seems like it could be a promising method of power generation, you don't damage anything by capturing some wave energy. Too bad it's not seeing much advancement (that I know of).

Curveball off a dam (Magnus Effect) has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Curveball-off-a-dam-Magnus-Effect