That's quite a different argument and not one I think you could prove where you suffered any consequence.

Given the fact that T-Mobile has invested in their infrastructure so much that it can compete or beat Verizon's, your experience before "Binge On" is almost always going to be worse than the present.

You have exactly that if you turn off "Binge On."

It is trivially easy to turn it on and off at your whim.

Bias runs both ways.

Yes.

If you had knowledge the world was round and MrsKaos was posting on a website about how it is obviously flat, and your shipping business depending on it, wouldn't you say something?

I'll be here, "freakishly", waiting to help answer any questions you have.

Brain cells and associated nerve connections are necessary to operate muscles. If you exercise more, or perhaps even hone a skill associated with exercise (playing basketball or tennis perhaps), then you would also expect the brain to grow connections associated with these activities.

So yes, the brain grows. Does it make a person smarter? Not necessarily, it makes a person more able to move that muscle with finer control.

Also, this seems to be a repeat of the same study in the past, though its first occurrence on /.?:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/10/study-people-who-exercise-have-larger-brains-later-in-life/264017/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2013/10/13/how-exercise-makes-your-brain-grow/#18d2c88248c1

In case you didn't see the reply of raymorris below, your guess that "you", the "train passenger", pays for infrastructure for motorists is quite in fact blatantly wrong and actually the inverse; motorists pay a portion of the infrastructure costs of a "train passenger."

Also I second what raymorris says; the problem of traffic jams is factors such as accidents. I would add that, related to Chicagoland, my rant:

Policemen sitting on the side of the road causes traffic to slow down dangerously and abruptly when 'stupid' drivers see the police officer (since everyone is 'speeding' above the 55mph) and think that by braking they are going to somehow help the situation; in fact it causes a chain reaction of brakeing aka traffic. On this topic I think it would be great public policy of Policemen weren't allowed to sit on the side of the road acting like they're going to pull someone over for speeding; they never do! What are they doing? Waiting for an accident to happen so they can go respond? They're really raising the probability of an accident it seems by creating traffic.

On that topic 90% of drivers think they are in the top 50% of skilled drivers, and that drivers who don't drive like them are 'wrong' and 'stupid', including myself. So this means when you get the idiot incapable of managing a short but safe distance, breaking irregularly, or enforcing a 60mph speed in a 55mph zone because "people who break the law by speeding are stupid and I need to do something about it", this also causes traffic. I follow cars extremely close and drive 70+mph like a majority of drivers in rush hour Chicago, and it works great as long as everyone else maintains the pattern; counting on the fact that the driver 4 cars ahead of you braking will cause the car 3 cars ahead of you to need to brake, etc., but not really caring about the driver directly ahead of you because for all intents and purposes the driver ahead of you should be driving and not braking on the interstate highway system.

I would gladly give up my extremely-close-following-speeding driving pattern when we all have cars driven by AIs and the cars are almost touching bumper to bumper in a much more optimal configuration for high density traffic, but for now I'll just have to continue cursing at the idiots who actually think they are helping by being the standout fool braking and leaving too much space. Thanks for the traffic today, stupid person!

But when you drive down I-65 in Indiana and all the windmills aren't turning, what do you do?

1. Write a letter to Congress by the candlelight asking to re-institute regulated markets and then loosen regulations on nuclear plants and coal plants

2. Pray to the sky fairy for better storage technology next year before your third kid dies from lack of electricity at the local hospital.

Does it really matter that $WindPower can reach astonishingly low $/kWh "some" of the time?

Fission power plant fuel has minor enrichments to the level of 3-4% U-235. Artificially made elements that occur through the transmutation of U-238 and other transuranics in the fuel material are also contained within the cladding. What "artificially made" elements are you referencing? Humans do not come into contact with "artificially made" transuranic elements that are of concern for internal exposure in their daily lives.

Sorry but

Yes: http://science.time.com/2013/0...

You: http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...

Can: http://www.who.int/ionizing_ra...

You literally get more radiation living next to a coal power than you would living next to Three Mile Island at the time of the disaster, or presently.

Coal source 1: http://www.scientificamerican....

Coal source 2: http://www.reboundhealth.com/c...

Do you life next to the damaged Fukushima reactor? You have a problem. Do you live 15km away from the Fukushima reactor? You are getting less radiation exposure than living in Colorado. Were you exposed to radionuclides after the Chernobyl disaster in Belarus, Ukraine, or Russia? Take the iodine pills the Soviet Union gave you immediately; after that your biggest health risk is the stress of living in what you "perceive" to be a toxic environment (though it was later proved not!).

Not that I should make an appeal to authority or that you should trust me solely based on my credentials, but since you "called me out" for not understanding it I will inform you that I am a trained nuclear engineer working in the nuclear industry, wasting my time posting on the internet fighting someone like you because the level of misinformation out there is too much to bear. Please listen to experts and stop your conspiracy theories and stop spreading true ignorance of the basic reality.

The true problem is a stigma attached to the concept of radiation.

I do hear people in the U.S. fearing any exposure of radiation is negative.

Apologies with my reply to your other comment, I really wanted to back up and support your case, sorry that wasn't more clear.

Meanwhile check out MrKaos, the true enemy referenced earlier who replied to another of my posts here:

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Drafting a response to try to change his opinions with facts now...

No sorry, I meant to be on your side.

Please elaborate. Even though you shouldn't trust someone because of their title, I literally work as a nuclear engineer in the nuclear industry and deal with these issues on a daily basis. I have the scientific and engineering training to calculate, assess, and actually understand the problems you are posing.

All of the waste of fission reactors are contained in the cladding. You actually get more radiation exposure living next to a coal plant, since the heavy metals are released into the atmosphere.

I don't want to discount your point that internal exposure is greatly more important for alpha emissions, but you cannot say that the environment has any alpha-emitting radionuclides that you can accidentally get into your body and worry about. Literally all radionuclides that you need to worry about for internal exposure are intentionally and deliberately ingested. The most recent case was the intentional poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko; that will not be happening to ordinary citizens.

TL:DR stop spreading irrational fear about nuclear fission power plants.

Not OP here but going to defend him.. he never indicated speeding or reckless behavior.

All he said was, when driving conditions reduced, it is invaluable to having the lines on the road.

So Potassium is a great example of internal radiation, which is in biological equilibrium with your body almost always. That's routinely discussed for laypeople.

In my example of professions, both things I noted are based on external exposures; there are no internal exposures.

How radionuclides get in the body just follow the same path as how any chemicals get in the body; breathing, eating, absorbing, etc.

What is your problem with my statement?

It's "one" or "two" or "seven" for now, but what if they include "removing road paint" in the next transportation budget, based on a "sound" recommendation!