Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Carbon and fuel taxes (Score 2) 577

by RugRat (#44106119) Attached to: Obama Reveals Climate Change Plan

Rarely have I wished to have mod points as much as I do now to mod parent up.

Pollution is an externality. By not internalizing the cost (through a revenue-neutral tax), we are subsidizing the polluter. Yes, level the playing field and let the market figure it out.

At $24/ton CO2, the price of electricity (100% coal) would increase $0.024/kWh. For natural gas derived electricity, $0.013. Assuming a fuel mix of 50% coal, 25% gas, 25% CO2 free, then that's an increase of $0.015, assuming no market-based substitution. And if revenue neutral, that money would be returned to tax payers.

Perhaps someone can explain why we should continue to subsidize coal?

Comment: Re:No (Score 1) 503

by RugRat (#38463932) Attached to: Tesla Motors Announces Prices For Their Upcoming Models

You clearly would not be a candidate for this car then. This is a luxury sports sedan. Generally luxury sports sedans get well below 25 MPG.

I'd also suspect, if your electricity is $0.18, then your gas is likely higher than $3.50.

It also appears that the Tesla roadster gets 4 miles / kWh and some super-efficient electric cars are above 10 miles per kWh. So yes, the calculations are very sensitive to the inputs.

As a matter of policy, I'd prefer to see the (US) government get out of the business of subsidizing oil and picking winners and let the market produce whatever the consumer demands. I think we'd see a lot more people (in the US) driving cars like yours -- 45 MPG.

Comment: Re:No (Score 5, Informative) 503

by RugRat (#38461826) Attached to: Tesla Motors Announces Prices For Their Upcoming Models

Perhaps the most important question is what is the all-in cost per mile of operation and how many miles to I need to operate it annually for it to make financial sense. For a SWAG: Assume $0.10/kWh, 3 miles/kWh, or $0.033/mile for electricity, vs. 25 MPG, $3.50/gallon, $0.14/mile for gasoline. Effective difference of $0.10/mile. At a US average annual distance of 12,000 miles, the fuel cost difference is $1,200. Electric vehicle advocates also suggest that you save another $200/yr on oil changes, oil filters, etc.. If you assume an average ownership period of 10 years, that's a $14,000 savings in OpEx. Of course, currently the car is more expensive, you're limited (slightly) in range, and there are (currently) limited number of places where you can fast-charge (15-20 minutes full charge).

Since when do Slashdot readers bet against technology?

Comment: Re:Here's The Thing. (Score 1) 413

by RugRat (#38166752) Attached to: Climate May Be Less Sensitive To CO2 Than Previously Thought

On what do you base your assertion that [insert climate action] will wreck the economy?

From a passionate moderate standpoint, I think the scientists have done a better job demonstrating a causal relationship between our CO2 emissions and climate change than the skeptics have done in demonstrating that doing anything about climate change will wreck the global economy.

Comment: Re:Fact-based solutions already exist (Score 2) 737

by RugRat (#37601608) Attached to: Should Science Be King In Politics?

Regarding (b), a less expensive (administratively speaking) would be to apply the tax at the point of extracting the previously sequestered carbon. In this manner, there are fewer inspectors required and orders of magnitude less complexity for the market.

The most compelling implementations of this that I've heard are to make it revenue-neutral and phase it in slowly. Ultimately however, a price still needs to be determined. In the US, the analysis I've seen suggests that given our fuel mix, a $15/ton CO2 tax would result in ~6% increase in electricity prices assuming no fuel switching. If phased in slowly to permit technology improvements and fuel switching, it should be much less.


Survey Shows That Fox News Makes You Less Informed 1352

Posted by samzenpus
from the fair-balanced-and-simple dept.
A survey of American voters by World Public Opinion shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources. One of the most interesting questions was about President Obama's birthplace. 63 percent of Fox viewers believe Obama was not born in the US (or that it is unclear). In 2003 a similar study about the Iraq war showed that Fox viewers were once again less knowledgeable on the subject than average. Let the flame war begin!

One Night Stands May Be Genetic 240

Posted by samzenpus
from the getting-in-your-genes dept.
An anonymous reader writes "So, he or she has cheated on you for the umpteenth time and their only excuse is: 'I just can't help it.' According to researchers at Binghamton University, they may be right. The propensity for infidelity could very well be in their DNA. In a first of its kind study, a team of investigators led by Justin Garcia, a SUNY Doctoral Diversity Fellow in the laboratory of evolutionary anthropology and health at Binghamton University, State University of New York, has taken a broad look at sexual behavior, matching choices with genes and has come up with a new theory on what makes humans 'tick' when it comes to sexual activity. The biggest culprit seems to be the dopamine receptor D4 polymorphism, or DRD4 gene. Already linked to sensation-seeking behavior such as alcohol use and gambling, DRD4 is known to influence the brain's chemistry and subsequently, an individual's behavior."

Apple Removes Wi-Fi Finders From App Store 461

Posted by timothy
from the you've-been-very-very-naughty dept.
jasonbrown writes "Apple on Thursday began removing another category of apps from its iPhone App Store. This time, it's not porn, it's Wi-Fi. Apple removed several Wi-Fi apps commonly referred to as stumblers, or apps that seek out available Wi-Fi networks near your location. According to a story on Cult of Mac, apps removed by Apple include WiFi-Where, WiFiFoFum, and yFy Network Finder."

Throttle Shared Users With OS X — Is It Possible? 403

Posted by timothy
from the throttle-the-snot-instead dept.
whisper_jeff writes "I work in a design studio where the production director is also the owner's son (translation = he can do no wrong). He is fond of accessing a designer's computer via filesharing and working directly on files off of the designer's computers rather than transferring the files to his computer to work on them there. In so doing, he causes the designer's computer to grind to a near-halt as the harddrive is now tasked with his open/save requests along with whatever the designer is doing. Given that there is no way he's going to change his ways (since he doesn't see anything wrong with it...), I was wondering if there was a way to throttle a user's shared access to a computer (Mac OSX 10.5.8) so that his remote working would have minimal impact on our work. Google searches have revealed nothing helpful (maybe I should Bing it... :) so I was hoping someone with more technical expertise on Slashdot could offer a suggestion."

Possessions increase to fill the space available for their storage. -- Ryan