Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Who needs oil? (Score 1) 239

by prisoner-of-enigma (#47707929) Attached to: If Fusion Is the Answer, We Need To Do It Quickly

Fusion would break the stranglehold of petro-exporting countries in the Middle East as well as belligerent exporters like Russia and Iran.

You're assuming said fusion plants would be radically cheaper to construct and operate than existing fission plants...something the anti-nuclear activists would probably complicate despite the obvious benefits of fusion over fission. Never underestimate the public fear of the word "nuclear" even if the processes involved are ridiculously different.

I can hear the rallying cry now: "They want to build a plant that works the same way as a thermonuclear bomb! Do you want a nuclear bomb IN YOUR BACKYARD???"

People are still terrified of fluoride in their water. Can you imagine their reponse to the above?

Comment: The power of the future... (Score 2) 239

by prisoner-of-enigma (#47707879) Attached to: If Fusion Is the Answer, We Need To Do It Quickly

Fusion power is roughly 20 years away from being viable...and has been for the last 40 years LOL.

Seriously, I'll start worrying about proliferation risks when a commercially viable fusion reactor DESIGN is created. Building one -- assuming it's ever viable to begin with -- would take years, which is plenty of time to address proliferation concerns before it came online.

Comment: Re:Microsoft (Score 2) 267

by Ed Avis (#47620655) Attached to: Skype Blocks Customers Using OS-X 10.5.x and Earlier
Well, you get what you pay for I guess. But if Skype has ambitions to replace ordinary telephony, it needs to adopt some of the same attitudes. It would never be acceptable for your phone company to suddenly cut you off without warning and tell you to buy a new phone. They should have a minimum six month period in which they warn that you will need to upgrade. Mac OS 10.5 is the last version running on PowerPC; if you have an older iMac or Mac Mini then it is not that cheap to upgrade to an Intel one, even second-hand. Back in 1995 the idea of using a decade-old machine was laughable. But hardware has been at the 'fast enough' level for a while now and there is no longer so much difference between old and new machines for many applications. Sure, you wouldn't expect to run the latest games or 4k video editing on your old box, but most bread and butter things like text editing and Web browsing work just fine on older hardware. Voice-over-IP is one of those basic things nowadays (even with crappy webcam video accompanying it). I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation that your PC which was capable of making voice calls in 2004 should still be able to make them in 2014.

Comment: How big is it? (Score 5, Insightful) 184

by prisoner-of-enigma (#47619125) Attached to: Man-Made "Dead Zone" In Gulf of Mexico the Size of Connecticut

To put this in perspective, 5,000 sq. mi. is a square about 71 miles on a side. Compare this to the total area of the Gulf (615,000 sq. mi) and you'll see this "dead zone" occupies just 0.8% of the Gulf. Is this something that needs addressing? Absolutely. But it's not some horrific cauldron of death like the headline tries to make it out to be.

Comment: Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (Score 1) 398

by thule (#47541271) Attached to: Enraged Verizon FiOS Customer Seemingly Demonstrates Netflix Throttling

Thanks for this! Both you and the previous poster explaining BGP. So many people have misconceptions on how the Internet works. Then there is the added complexity of business.

I really proves nothing that Netflix over a VPN is faster than without a VPN. We already know Verizon-Level3 peering is saturated. Both sides have admitted it. It comes down to how to solve the problem. It is not a technical problem. It is a business problem

So what if Level3 offers to pay for the upgraded link. If the existing agreement is settlement-free upgrading the link will likely push the traffic exchange outside the agreement. So if Level3 starts sending more traffic than it received from Verizon, then they should pay Verizon for transit of that traffic. Verizon has probably told them that. Level3 comes back and says, "But we'll pay for the upgraded equipment." Verizon says, "So what? If the traffic isn't equal, then you pay." And on and on it goes. So, as stated above, the best thing to do is for Netflix to create peering connections with Verizon that have no expectation of equal traffic. They will have to pay Verizon for these connections.

This is NOTHING new people. This is how the Internet has always worked.

Comment: Re:I don't see the problem. (Score 1) 667

by prisoner-of-enigma (#47500643) Attached to: Russian Government Edits Wikipedia On Flight MH17

It seems that the launch site has been rather precisely determined. Perhaps you missed that memo.

And no matter how much evidence the US or Ukrainian government produces, no matter how detailed and annotated, Russia will dismiss it with a wave of a hand as fabricated, slanted, biased...whatever they want. They'll never admit responsibility.

Comment: Re:I don't see the problem. (Score 1) 667

by prisoner-of-enigma (#47500627) Attached to: Russian Government Edits Wikipedia On Flight MH17

What they need to do is to organize UN peacekeeper mission there, not wage proxy war with US.

Yes, because UN peacekeepers have such a long, sterling reputation on stopping stuff like this from happening.

But regardless, the UN will never do anything in this conflict. Russia holds a veto in the Security Council, and they will stop any such measures from ever happening.

Comment: Re:But scarcity! (Score 0) 390

by thule (#47482693) Attached to: Verizon's Accidental Mea Culpa
That is exactly why I don't think complaining to the FCC will solve the problem. Just the opposite, it could make it much worse. It is much better to work at the local level. Push for more competition at the local level. Not city owned fiber, but companies like Google that can come in a put in their own fiber. This is where the real action is.

Comment: Re:don't drive with nobody in it? (Score 1) 435

by prisoner-of-enigma (#47470699) Attached to: FBI Concerned About Criminals Using Driverless Cars

Imagine long range trucking where the vehicle didn't need a driver and wasn't subject to driving limits. It would make trucking a lot more competitive against trains.

It would also make automated trucking a lot more competitive against human driven transport services...thus the unions will immediately be against it.

Comment: Dumb question... (Score 1) 69

by nebaz (#47450897) Attached to: FCC Public Comment Period For Net Neutrality Ends Tomorrow, July 15

When the FCC proposed net neutrality regulations earlier, which seemed to actually be net neutrality rules, they were sued and the courts said that they didn't have the power to implement these regulations. The regulations going forward, are these the "fast lane" type regulations? If so, the same companies will clearly not sue, but don't they still lack the power to implement these regulations?

Why do we want intelligent terminals when there are so many stupid users?