Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

+ - Netflix pay us. Verizon keeps throttling.

Submitted by Chas
Chas (5144) writes "Even though Netflix caved to Verizon's demands and is now paying protection money to them to ensure better service, Netflix performance still has not improved on the Verizon network.

This is the problem with giving in to extortion like this. Sure, Comcast at least made a token effort to improve performance for end-users. Verizon just treated it as a payday, and maintained status quo, continuing to blame Netflix."

Comment: Re:You fail statistics forever. Science too! (Score 1) 223

by Chas (#47495355) Attached to: EPA Mulling Relaxed Radiation Protections For Nuclear Power

Sorry but your body (and the things living in it) are used to certain levels of radiation. With ZERO radiation (which is pretty much impossible as the entire biosphere is at least marginally radioactive), you'd get a canary in the coal mine effect with your body's symbionts. Which would initially make you very ill, and you likely wouldn't recover as you wouldn't acquire new ones and your body wouldn't function well without them.

Don't take my word for it through. Talk to a real medical doctor about it.

Comment: Because 3 months is an appropriate timeline (Score 1) 759

by Chas (#47494323) Attached to: States That Raised Minimum Wage See No Slow-Down In Job Growth

Yeah. Because the kick started back in April with Connecticut voting to bump its minimum wage to 10.10...gradually...by 2017.

And that was in late March.

Everything else has happened since April (or later).

Sorry but this study is bunk. It hasn't had a long enough time to affect the market in any statistically significant way.

There's no allowances that existing open jobs weren't filled, as they had previously gone unfilled due to the pay being insufficient for people to bother.

Comment: Re:headed in the wrong direction (Score 1) 223

by Chas (#47493863) Attached to: EPA Mulling Relaxed Radiation Protections For Nuclear Power

There's always going to be some minimal risk.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you (see "SELLING SOMETHING").

There has to be a minimum acceptable level of risk. But there's STILL a risk.

If you think this makes you "safe" you're nuts.

But you have to weigh it against the other risks.

You want to keep dumping tons of nuclear waste into the open environment? Want to kill off most of the population of this planet by disrupting the environment? Keep burning fossil fuels.

For the record, I don't think the current generation of nuclear reactors and their solid fuel systems are any better.

Honestly, the LFTR design looks like the best and safest bet for clean, essentially unlimited energy for our society without the environmental drawbacks.

Comment: Re:Some studies on Tritium (Score 1) 223

by Chas (#47492709) Attached to: EPA Mulling Relaxed Radiation Protections For Nuclear Power

Great. That's Tritium (Hydrogen 3). When combined with oxygen it produces so-called "heavy water" T2O. Which means your body treats it like water. And it can pretty much go anywhere good old H2O can in your system. So yeah, with that kind of intimate exposure in your system, it can do lots and lots of potential damage.

Comment: You fail statistics forever. Science too! (Score 2) 223

by Chas (#47492691) Attached to: EPA Mulling Relaxed Radiation Protections For Nuclear Power

There's no such thing as "zero" radiation.

You'd DIE in a zero-radiation environment, as your body and its symbionts are accustomed to certain levels of naturally occurring radiation in the background.

Also, contrary to your assertion, there's no such thing as a linear progression of exposure levels to cancer.

Average background radiation is usually between 1-3 mS. But there are places like Guarapari, Brazil, where the background radiation is something in excess of 175 mS.

But you do NOT find 175x the instances of cancer there.

Try again.

Comment: Re:headed in the wrong direction (Score 1) 223

by Chas (#47492533) Attached to: EPA Mulling Relaxed Radiation Protections For Nuclear Power

Additionally, if added radiation puts a hundredth of a percent of the population at greater risk, but stops or significantly reduces global warming?

GREAT! Even if it means I'm one of that "unlucky" percentage.

Sure, 800K people MAY die sooner. MAYBE.

But having this planet melt down will likely kill us ALL.

Possible 800K vs DEFINITE 8 Billion?

Comment: Re:headed in the wrong direction (Score 0) 223

by Chas (#47492513) Attached to: EPA Mulling Relaxed Radiation Protections For Nuclear Power

I'm not equating a damn thing.

I'm telling you, flat out, that there's no such THING as "safe". PERIOD.

Once you get over that little fantasy, then you can start having a meaningful dialog.

And, nuclear proliferation is only a concern for certain types of reactors.

With something like an LFTR reactor, your nuclear proliferation risk may not be zero, but it's a sum only slightly above zero. Unlike current, decades-old dry fuel reactors.

Comment: Re:Banquiao, baby. 230,000 killed by hydroelectric (Score 0) 223

by Chas (#47492109) Attached to: EPA Mulling Relaxed Radiation Protections For Nuclear Power

Fukishima killed 1,000 people, which is really sad.

Uh. Actually, Fukushima killed NOBODY.

The earthquake and the tsunami killed people, sure. But not the reactor meltdown.

NO short-term radiation exposure fatalities were reported.
There were 37 physical injuries and 2 people taken to the hospital with radiation burns.

But no deaths.

So sure, if Fukushima happened once a year, we'd wind up with a lot of earthquake and Tsunami victims at first.
Then we'd build structures that can withstand those conditions, and even be able to stop the meltdowns. Either through better engineering or by switching to safer nuclear technology (oh yeah, and not trusting those ass-covering cock-mongers at TEPCO).

Comment: Re:There is no "safe" amount of ionizing radiation (Score 5, Insightful) 223

by Chas (#47492077) Attached to: EPA Mulling Relaxed Radiation Protections For Nuclear Power

Sorry, but YES.

This isn't about "brighter colors" and "whiter whites".

It's about providing for the world's energy needs WITHOUT massive greenhouse gas pollution, whose effects could kill off significant chunks of life on this planet.

Unless YOU want to be one of the unlucky 99% who is volunteering to go shiver and starve in a cave someplace.

"The Street finds its own uses for technology." -- William Gibson

Working...