Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:don't you know? (Score 1) 302

There is something endearing about a human being's deep-seated need for meaning which creates such extraordinary stories and beliefs.

Considering the amount of propaganda and descriptions of atrocities committed in the name of God, I find the Bible (as well as many other historical scripture) mostly disturbing and sometimes amusing (the penalty for having sex with livestock, ridiculous claims of old age probably due to mistranslation, ...).

Also, taking into account the number of past and present religious belief systems as well as the amount of modern fiction, I don't consider these stories particularly extraordinary, but I agree that this deep-seated need for meaning you mention is fundamental to human nature:

We are not Homo sapiens, Wise Man. We are the third chimpanzee. What distinguishes us from the ordinary chimpanzee Pan troglodytes and the bonobo chimpanzee Pan paniscus, is something far more subtle than our enormous brain, three times as large as theirs in proportion to body weight. It is what that brain makes possible. And the most significant contribution that our large brain made to our approach to the universe was to endow us with the power of story. We are Pan narrans, the storytelling ape.

- Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen, Science of Discworld II

As an aside, I find it quite surprising that a lot of people self-identifying as Christian (as in: follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ) aren't as disturbed by the Bible as I am. Frankly, I don't cosider such people Christian at all, as they have made the Bible their golden calf instead of heeding the word of their living god.

Comment Re:don't you know? (Score 1) 302

While not considering himself an atheist, Einstein's views on the Judeo-Christian religion are pretty explicit:

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. ... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong ... have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything “chosen” about them.

Comment Re:Wrong scare (Score 1) 536

we can test the radiation levels

It isn't (or shouldn't be) about background radiation levels, but concentration and type of radioactive isotopes: The problem is continued direct exposure through bioaccumulation.

Comment Re:Wrong scare (Score 5, Informative) 536

The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission disagrees with your assessment - this is what the chairman has to say in the official report:

Message from the Chairman

THE EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI of March 11, 2011 were natural disasters of a magnitude
that shocked the entire world. Although triggered by these cataclysmic events, the subsequent
accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant cannot be regarded as a natural
disaster. It was a profoundly manmade disaster – that could and should have been foreseen
and prevented. And its effects could have been mitigated by a more effective human response.
How could such an accident occur in Japan, a nation that takes such great pride in its global
reputation for excellence in engineering and technology? This Commission believes the
Japanese people – and the global community – deserve a full, honest and transparent answer
to this question.

Our report catalogues a multitude of errors and willful negligence that left the Fukushima
plant unprepared for the events of March 11. And it examines serious deficiencies in the
response to the accident by TEPCO, regulators and the government.

For all the extensive detail it provides, what this report cannot fully convey – especially to
a global audience – is the mindset that supported the negligence behind this disaster.
What must be admitted – very painfully – is that this was a disaster “Made in Japan.”
Its fundamental causes are to be found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture:
our reflexive obedience; our reluctance to question authority; our devotion to ‘sticking with
the program’; our groupism; and our insularity.

Had other Japanese been in the shoes of those who bear responsibility for this accident,
the result may well have been the same.

Following the 1970s “oil shocks,” Japan accelerated the development of nuclear power in
an effort to achieve national energy security. As such, it was embraced as a policy goal by
government and business alike, and pursued with the same single-minded determination
that drove Japan’s postwar economic miracle.

With such a powerful mandate, nuclear power became an unstoppable force, immune to
scrutiny by civil society. Its regulation was entrusted to the same government bureaucracy
responsible for its promotion. At a time when Japan’s self-confidence was soaring, a tightly
knit elite with enormous financial resources had diminishing regard for anything ‘not
invented here.’

This conceit was reinforced by the collective mindset of Japanese bureaucracy, by which
the first duty of any individual bureaucrat is to defend the interests of his organization.
Carried to an extreme, this led bureaucrats to put organizational interests ahead of their
paramount duty to protect public safety.

Only by grasping this mindset can one understand how Japan’s nuclear industry managed
to avoid absorbing the critical lessons learned from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl; and how
it became accepted practice to resist regulatory pressure and cover up small-scale accidents.
It was this mindset that led to the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant.
This report singles out numerous individuals and organizations for harsh criticism, but the
goal is not—and should not be—to lay blame. The goal must be to learn from this disaster,
and reflect deeply on its fundamental causes, in order to ensure that it is never repeated.
Many of the lessons relate to policies and procedures, but the most important is one upon
which each and every Japanese citizen should reflect very deeply.

The consequences of negligence at Fukushima stand out as catastrophic, but the mindset
that supported it can be found across Japan. In recognizing that fact, each of us should reflect
on our responsibility as individuals in a democratic society.

As the first investigative commission to be empowered by the legislature and independent of
the bureaucracy, we hope this initiative can contribute to the development of Japan’s civil society.
Above all, we have endeavored to produce a report that meets the highest standard of
transparency. The people of Fukushima, the people of Japan and the global community
deserve nothing less.

Chairman:

Kiyoshi Kurokawa

Comment Re:fp (Score 1) 594

In C int f(void) is a function with no parameters returning an int,
int f() is a function with no parameter specification returning an int.
They are not the same and should not be treated as such.

This only applies to declarations which are not part of a definition. In particular,

int main() { ... }

and

int main(void) { ... }

are the same.

Comment Re:fp (Score 1) 594

If gcc was strictly adhering to the C std it would tell you that int main() is undefined behaviour on hosted environments and implementation-defined on freestanding environments.

This is incorrect: Additional prototypes of main() are implementation-defined even on hosted implementations, so as long as gcc documents its behaviour, everything is fine as far as the standard is concerned.

However, this doesn't actually apply in this particular case: When a function declaration is part of a definition, an empty parameter list is equivalent to a prototype declaration with a single unnamed void parameter (see C99 6.7.5.3 10 and 14).

Comment Re:explanatory update please? (Score 3, Informative) 396

Quarks come together in groups of 2 or 3 to build particles like protons and neutrons (and a whole bunch more). These are what you'd consider matter (Fermions).

You probably meant hadrons (particles made of quarks), not fermions (particles with half-integer spin, in contrast to bosons with integer spin). In particular, there are both fermionic and bosonic hadrons.

There are also particles that serve as "force carriers" - all the fundamental forces like electromagnetism and the nuclear forces can be thought of as exchanges of these other particles. They have integer spin, and we call them Bosons.

All force carriers are bosons, but not all bosons are force carriers. Force carriers are also called gauge bosons, as they are bosonic excitations of gauge fields.

The problem with finding bosons is that they're really just intermediary particles - photons are obvious enough only because they travel at the speed of light. Bosons with mass go much slower, and wind up decaying or interacting before we can directly observe them. So this find by the LHC is *indirect* evidence of the Higgs, based on how much energy they're missing from various collision interactions. But it matches the predictions to a very high degree so far, so they're calling it good.

The problem isn't the bosonic nature of the particle, but rather its mass and strength of interaction with other particles, which affect the energy needed for its production, its lifetime and the possible channels of decay.

Comment Re:midnight (Score 1) 568

They're turned off nuclear power plants in August/September, so they are net exporter because nuclear power plants worked through most of the year.

That's factually wrong. Dates of shutdown of the reactors under consideration:

  • Unterweser: 2011-03-18
  • Krümmel: 2009-07-04
  • Biblis A: 2011-03-18
  • Biblis B: 2011-03-18
  • Philippsburg 1: 2011-03-17
  • Isar/Ohu 1: 2011-03-17
  • Neckarwestheim 1: 2011-03-17
  • Brunsbüttel: 2007-07-21

Now, take a loook at the import/export 2011-03 - 2012-02. It's not obvious what the result will be at the end of the year.

Comment Re:energy != electricity (Score 1) 568

Are you suggesting wood or coal heating in the HOME!?

Not coal, but wood which makes it CO2 neutral: You only release the amount of CO2 which was previously taken from the atmosphere while growing the trees. Of course the secondary emissions from processing and transport remain.

The relevant technologies would be Pelletheizung and Hackschnitzelheizung (both articles from German Wikipedia - the English version is less detailed).

Comment Re:Solar doesn't replace other power sources. (Score 1) 568

If there are good economical reasons to switch to renewables in the future, then we'll see investments in them in the future.

Fixed that for you: There are pretty good reasons to switch away from fossil fuels and fission reactors right now. Politics is not about money in the first place (or at least it shoudn't be), and it's the duty of the government to step in where free markets break down.

But I expect you to as well face the reality, how horribly unreliable solar and wind power is. No matter how much money and innovation you throw at wind and solar, they still have long periods, when they produce nothing or next to nothing. That's a design flaw that can't be fixed and should not be ignored.

The solution to that diversification: Wind energy is fairly reliable if distributed over a large enough area, and the final goal would be a European solution: For example, solar power from Spain, hydro power from Norway, wind energy from $anywhere combined with pumped storage and gas turbine plants to cover remaining fluctuations should in priciple be sufficient to cover most of our needs.

However, this can only happen if necessary changes in infrastructure are made, which will take time. I'm arguing for starting with that right now.

The existing 'legacy' facilities (nuclear reactors in France, coal plants in Germany) of course won't go away immediately and can be taken offline when they become unnecessary.

Comment Re:Solar doesn't replace other power sources. (Score 1) 568

Color me surprised: I'm living in Frankfurt, and I do not think I know anyone who heats electrically, but according to BUND, about 14% of electric power consumption of homes is due to electric heating.

This PDF contains some more information - in particular a ranking of cities by number of electrically heated residence, and it turns out that Frankfurt is in the second-to-last place with an estimate of only 8000 in the whole city.

Comment Re:midnight (Score 1) 568

Germany still was a net exporter in 2011. You expect that will no longer be true in 2012, but right now, that's just a prediction.

Also, look at the chart: Germany only started to be a consistent exporter in 2003, so there's obviously a need to panic: Can you still remember the big blackouts of the 80s and 90s?</sarcasm>

Slashdot Top Deals

It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.

Working...