Netflix runs fine from my laptop, tablet and PC. It's just those two devices and they have the same issues at roughly the same points in the stream. I really should revisit it but so far I'm no worse off for it, I guess.

The problem is that they let the quality of service as an ISP suffer compared to the pampering they give their primary business. Last week while we were at a friend's house streaming off Netflix, the cable Internet cut out at least three times. Yet the cable TV in the living room rolled along with no problems.

Not to question your ability here but are you sure it was the internet that failed?

I have two streaming boxes in my house (Apple TV and a Samsung smart BluRay player) and both of them seem to have buffering problems with NetFlix to the point that I don't even use them for it anymore. At first I thought it was my router since performance on the router degraded after using either one of the units but even after replacing the routers with a new one the problem contiued on the boxes while the router didn't suffer from the latency issues that the old one had.

I'm not real happy with the whole set up to be honest with you and I find it hard to believe that my story is typical given how popular these kinds of devices are. As a side note, my AppleTV streams great through AirPlay from my laptop. I really haven't tried any of the other services on the Samsung unit as I've just resorted to watching Comcast OnDemand for as much as I watch that TV anyway. It's only about an hour a day when I'm riding my stationary bike.

To the best of my knowledge I have not lost my internet feed from Comcast at any time.

I think a gun in a safe would only protect against the colimbine and newtown shootings. In both, there was ample oppertunity to open a safe and shoot the criminals when they passed a doorway.

But more importantly, schools being gun free zones broadcasts a no resistance message where even empty safes with the sugestion of arms being present lowers the expectations of the criminals a bit. I think the threat of being stopped would have asignificant impact on the potential shooters. Remember, most of them commit suicide which is their ultimate goal. In cases like columbine and sandy hook, most of if not all the collateral damage would have been stopped if someone armed could have stepped up when the shots were first fired.

I'm not surre it would matter if they could pick locks or not. The safes would only have weapons in them when people are around and to that extent only some of them- which ones wouldn't be known- would have them. Thats without even getting into the idea of locks on safes bring harder to pick then regular lockd. But if someone is going to bother with that much effort, they might as well break into a home or store and steal a gun. They would likely have more success in finding one with less chance of being caught.

As for your 9/11 comment. You do realize the tapes were released right? They are availible on the jnternet and the news has played a variety if them including the one i mentioned as it was played repeatedly right aftrr the release about a month ago. Is this backwards day or something? Because if knowing about that makes someone a conspiracy nutjob, i'm not sure what ut makes them.

Most armed teacher proposals i have seen include a gun safe which the weapon is stored in until needed. In fact, probably just instally the gun safes with no armed teachers and jyst the suggestion of them could likely have the same deterent effect. However, the knocked out and gun taken problem can happen with the police also. It is not unique to teachers who would be trained. Cops often enter the schools with their side arm to deal with students who are seriously unrully. It would be the same as a teacher with a conceal carry when they are surprise attacked.

I guess the big difference between teachers and cops would be the amount of time between knowing something is happening and being able to do something about it. 9/11 tapes of sandy hook show that an armed staffer could have ended the shooting before any student was ever harmed. The janitor talked with operators the entire time Lanza was using his gun to try and open the door to get in. They told him to hide- to seek safety which i think was reasonable since there likely would have been nothing he could do unarmed outside of trying to notify others of the impending danger which he already was doing. It must really suck comming out of something like that knowing how helpless you really are in a situation that ended so horrifically.

I find that interrsting. Should we only protect dpeevh that was possible when the first amendment was created? Should we only allow free expresion of ideas that were availible at that time too? Should the protections agaisnt searchs only exist to the extent availible when thr fourth amendment was created? Should your due process rights only exist for the laws that were in place whenn the condtitution was created? How about religion freedom or freedom of the press? Csn the government force you to house and feed the marines, airforce, or navy troops because they weren't around when the constitution or amendments were ratified.

I think the idea of limiting the constitution to only what was around when it was created is the most uninteligent concept ever. It completely ignores the realities of life. If you do not like something in the constitution, there is a process to amend it. But to ignore it or dhoe horn it into a box so small it becomed irrelevant is idiotic. I mean just look at the indefinate detention of the patriot act, warrant-less wire taps, people being stopped and searched in NY for simply being in public and looking like someone undesirable to some underpaid and likely underqualified patrol officer, look at the fines with absolutely no due process under the PPACA, the NSA data collection and lots more appearant violations of rights of the citizens when we ignore the constitution or parts of it at will or refuse to extend provisions past what was availible at the time of adoption. But i guess none of that matters because your argument seems to be one of emotion rather than logic.

I do not understand what you think is so wrong about that. I have hunted since i was seven and i participated in the school trap and skeet courses. We could and regularly did bring our own shotguns to school for use directly after or we could use the ones the school had. Most people opted for their own because the school's guns were not taken care of very well and considered junk by most students.

There was even a target proficiency course that used .22 weapons. These were all parts of the olympics and common in some schools just like track and field and ice skating and skiing.

Granted, our parents had to notify the school when we brought the guns in and were to take them home and they were stored in an equipment room with a security door and locks with the ammo in the office. We had no shootings at my school or any around us. This was also in the late 70's and 80s with the programs being canceled due to funding before any "safe zones" or 24-7 coverage of idiots on rampage in schools with no way of protecting students other than calling someone miles away to come and help after the fact.

I find your view of others to be more disturbing then what you try to paint them as.

That is so true. The gun control nuts think that crime is directly related to firearms. It is more related to culture and economics. There are countries in europe that have far more homes with guns in them as a percentage of population with a lower overal crime rate and even lower murder rates than the US and the rest of Europe countries. I'm thinking of the swiss but i think there are others that keep or at one time did keep military weapons in the homes of citizens as part of their military service obligations and defense strategy built out of the cold war. The countries also have different social-economic realities and culture.

The set of people responsible for scheduling time on actual supercomputers don't intersect with the set of paranoid kooks who think the Federal Reserve is going to collapse any second now.

The latter group is the one interested in alternative currencies.

This is so true.

Besides, i prefere to know who the racist are. Words do not hurt anyone unless the are directing violence at someone or something similar. That point is even debatable. But you knowing who the racist are makes it a hell of a lot easier to know who you do not want around and if some action truly is racist rather than circumspect. I mean how do you really know an employer or manager is a racist and the low minority employment rates are not because of that instead of the lack of qualified applicants if you don't let him show his true colors.

You mean the woman with armed guards, a CCW and her own firearms who tries to ban civilian ownership of guns is a hypocrite? Who woulda thunk it.

The pressurization control system in a large modern aircraft is a system-controlled hole at the back end of the plane. Considering the pressure differential, throwing someone up against that hole, perhaps headfirst top make things more like the birth process, would result in the desired consequences. It would also provide a reminder to others of the penalty involved as their ears popped during the short burst of extra air pressure, and then the sudden release.

Well, it is blatantly obvious which issue YOU think they should be more concerned about. I think it is just as blatantly obvious which issue they actually ARE more concerned about. That's the issue that has a direct visible impact on their daily lives. The NSA "outrage" isn't costing them money out of pocket every month and isn't forcing them to select less comprehensive insurance plans to protect themselves and their families.

As for "unconstitutional", many people still think Obamacare is an obvious, direct example of that. Yet you claim that nobody should be talking about that issue.

So you fail to see the hypocrisy of calling someone who doesn't talk about exactly what you want him to talk and only what you want him to talk about about a totalitarian.

I think you are a perfect example of why those talk show hosts you denounce don't express your viewpoints and your viewpoints alone on-air. If any of them made the asinine claim that someone who wasn't outraged by the NSA activities was committing treason their audience would vanish. I, for one, don't listen to Michael Savage because of his strident tone and arrogant attitude, and you, sir, are well beyond Michael Savage in both.

Then THEY didn't RTFA either. Quoting from it:

The benefits may only be slight--Nissan says it cuts peak-hour electricity use by about 2.5 percent--

"Cut electricity use by 2.5%" is NOT "provided all electricity for 2.5% of the day". Pick a number for peak use. Take 97.5% of that. That's how much you're still using from the grid.

For those six cars to be able to provide full service to the building for ANY part of the day, the use at that time would have to be 0.025 times the peak use. One fortieth of the peak. I don't know the ratios between peak use and minimum use for normal office buildings, but I'm guessing with data centers that run 24/7 the ratio doesn't make it to 1/40.

One poster went into a long discussion about how businesses pay for electricity to try to support the numbers, but since the article uses the 2.5% number referring to quantity and not total cost, that explanation falls flat.

You don't even need to RTFA to see what the actual claim was. Simply RTFS.

Implement something like this. Of course, since the company benefits from the employee it should be the one paying for the taxi instead of the taxpayers, but the concept is the same. Depending on the government involved, it would probably still be the taxpayer picking up the tab anyway.