"but burning the hydrogen doesn't produce a net gain of energy"
I'm more than a little disappointed when I see people think that this is the goal we need to achieve in order for a system to be viable for use. Our current systems don't produce a net gain of energy, but that is not the point.
The point is that we need a source of energy that is relatively easy to extract and easy to transport in the vehicles it's intended to be used for. It would be awesome if we could also get a net gain in the process, but that is not the problem that's trying to be solved.
The fact that we have to extract the hydrogen out of water to get hydrogen fuel is no different than having to convert oil into gasoline. There is no net gain, but there is a result that we need.
This is pretty awesome to read. The problems with fusion have always been how to get enough energy in to cause fusion to happen without creating radioactive waste (read: hydrogen bomb), and how to collect the massive amount of energy that comes out once the atoms fuse together.
Seeing them able to model how the sun does it is just incredible. I wish the article described more how they actually collect the resulting energy.
Somehow I sincerely doubt peering is going on between Netflix and just about any other major provider. That kind of setup mostly describes how Tier 1 ISP's handle hooking their networks up to each other, not how a content provider handles hooking it's very tiny (comparatively) local network up to the ISP's.
As to who Netflix pays directly, ya, it might not be Verizon. Generally speaking, I'm treating paying whatever ISP they are as paying Verizon because Tier 1 ISP's use peering.
I cannot even begin to understand what you think is happening here. How does traffic across the internet have anything to do with Netflix's internal network? Or what do you mean by "their own service"?
I would argue that Verizon is already being paid twice, and in fact is looking to triple dip.
Netflix would need to pay for a connection to upload anything to customers in the first place. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course, but I can't see any way Netflix could deliver anything to anyone if it wasn't paying someone to let it do that already.
While I agree with what the article is saying, something seems off with the claims made by DSLreports.
It claims we're behind Uruguay? I lived in Uruguay for 2 years, in several different areas of that country both inside the main city of Montevideo and in the countryside, and I can firmly tell you that almost no one there has internet in their home. They all go to internet cafe's to use the internet.
It makes perfect sense for a business to have a faster internet connection than a personal home does, so I'm just saying that they seem to be coming to a conclusion without really looking at some of the reasons why the countries might show a higher speed then we typically have here.
I agree that ISP's in the US are not competing at all and that it is causing a major lag in the speeds we have available here.
"Additionally the disclosure, or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government, and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism "
Wait, so creating political propaganda is an act of terrorism? Doesn't that make all politicians terrorists?
I'm sorry, but I got the unique chance (if you can call it that) to try developing on the Blackberry Playbook before it was released at the company I worked for at the time, and all I can say is that it is a piece of absolute crap.
When your devices OS can't even get the spec right for the language you chose to use, how on earth is anyone supposed to make anything for your device? That combined with the fact that it was slower than mud, and you have another happy paperweight courtesy of Blackberry.
I still stand confused as to how they apply the DMCA to this at all. The anti-circumvention clause is about protections put in place to prevent copying. What do these locks on the phones have to do with copying the phone???
This has nothing to do with religious anything. Choosing to have an abortion is the exact equivalent of choosing to murder someone. The fetus is alive, whether you like it or not.
Pretending that this is a religious issue is simply ridiculous. By your logic, my saying that murder is wrong is just as much religious intolerance as saying that abortion is wrong.
And yes, law should remove the option, the same as it does with many things. Laws in our country are based on what the majority of the ppl believe (most of the time). If those beliefs are because of their religion, that's fine. Sometimes things we don't like will be made into law, that's one sometimes unfortunate side of democracy. Welcome to it.