Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:But... (Score 2) 238

Well, I don't know where you live, but I have a lot of experience in Hamburg, Stuttgart, and Munich - not exactly known as cheap cities -, and spending 5 EUR on any one-way travel in the extended inner city is nearly impossible.

Maybe your experience is outdated. Specifically if you just cross a "circle" for Munich the one-way ticket is 5.40 ... wait just for the next 2 days because then it goes up to 5.60, they were probably thinking it's too cheap...

Note that what they call "Inner District/Munich" is 4 circles and if you go again to the same circle you have to count it again. Like you go 2-1-2 it is 3 circles = 8.40 EUR.

I'm sorry, but that is wrong, and I hope you haven't overspend for long. There is a significant difference between rings and zones. There are just 4 zones (the coloured ones on this plan). For single-trip tickets, you only count the number of zones, not the number of rings. Anything in the white zone (which is all of the built-up area of Munich) is just one zone, and is (currently) EUR 2.70 per trip. The most you can pay is EUR 10.80, which is for "4+" zones, and allows you to travel, say, from Tutzing to the airport (nominally 7 zones). And you can get a group day ticket for the green and white zones for EUR 12.20, which gets you out to Lake Starnberg, then to the Garching campus of TUM, and back to Goetheplatz for Theatre...

The smaller rings are only used to calculate the price for subscriptions, not for single-trip and day tickets.

Comment Re:But... (Score 1) 238

One-way one person is around 5 euros for anything but the shortest stretch (you can easily pay 4.65 euro even for just one stop if crossing the tariff zones). And there's no cheaper option for a return ticket so you're looking at 20 euros for a return trip for two persons. It just doesn't compare with 1 euro in gas plus 1-1.5 euro parking (if needed).

Well, I don't know where you live, but I have a lot of experience in Hamburg, Stuttgart, and Munich - not exactly known as cheap cities -, and spending 5 EUR on any one-way travel in the extended inner city is nearly impossible. I'd agree that it is still too expensive, but its not as bad as you say. For EUR 20 you can typically get a 5-person all-day unlimited ticket.

I'm glad if your car does not depreciate, needs neither oil changes nor other service, is untaxed, and the insurance is free. Otherwise, comparing the price just based on fuel and parking is like judging the calories of a triple-size double chocolate sundae with extra cream by ignoring everything but the cherry on top...

Comment Re:HAHAHAH (Score 0) 667

Of course when you dig up half a billion years worth of stored organic carbon and burn in in a century, the carbonate-silicate cycle ain't gonna fix that.

It quite probably will fix it - though of course it will take half a billion years, give or take a few orders of magnitude. It will probably not fix it in time for the human species.

Planet one: "I'm not feeling very well. I think I'm infected with humans!"
Planet two: "Don't worry - that always passes."

Comment Re:Great for China! (Score 1) 600

Who are they going to trade with, and for what? Other than South Korea, every other Asian country is dirt poor.

For highly developed nations, consider Japan, Singapore, Taiwan.

And then there are less developed large nations, like Indonesia.

And if you go by geography, beyond TPP candidates: Russia, Saudi Arabia, India (poor per person, but number 3 in the world by PPP GDP, number 7 by nominal GDP), and so on.

Comment Re:cost (Score 1) 201

[...] germany where the well-intentioned but shortsighted Green party has put a ban on new nuclear power plants and they're driving the existing ones down.

The Green Party in Germany has never been in power. It has been the minority partner in a coalition with the Social Democratic Party for 7 years (1998 to 2005) - over ten years ago. The current exit from nuclear energy in Germany is due to a law supported CDU (conservatives), SPD, FDP (liberals) and Greens in 2001.

Comment Re:Too early to celebrate (Score 1) 201

Very odd that this story comes out now, as I just read study about CO2 and fossil fuel emissions that concluded there is no correlation between emission and CO2 concentration. Here's a link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p... I'm not a statistician, so I can't attest to it's accuracy or validity, but it was an interesting read.

It's not a study, but just an analysis. And it is neither peer-reviewed nor properly published, but just uploaded to the Social Science Research Network - think arXiv, but without any pedigree for natural sciences. The author is an Emeritus - and was a professor of Business Administration (!). Google Scholar shows an h-index of 6, with a153 citations in total. But nearly all the publications are on SSRN or equivalent, and nearly all the citations are self-citations - indeed. ResearchGate computes the h-index without self citations as 1. These are not numbers your average research assistant would be happy about.

I'm not a statistician, either, but I can see at least one obvious problem (apart from data quality): He uses CO2 measurements from a single source, Mauna Loa, and works on an annual time scale. But CO2 does not magically spread around the world - it takes about a year until a pulse has reasonably mixed world-wide. Also, of course, human emissions are only a small part of the total flow of CO2 (although significant because they only go one way). So the signal he is looking for is quite small.

We have several ways to know that atmospheric CO2 increase is largely anthropogenic. The easiest is simple accounting. We know that the increase in atmospheric CO2 corresponds to about half of our emissions (much of the rest is currently absorbed by the oceans). If the cause of the increase is not our emissions, then a) they need to magically vanish somewhere and b) an equivalent amount has to magically appear from somewhere. Oh, and the new magic source has to magically match the isotope ratio of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion.

Comment Re:One party rule (Score 1) 2837

You said: 1. All of Trump's campaign promises violate the constitution. (wrong). 2. But he won't do any of them anyway.

So according to you, Trump will actually follow the constitution. Looks like that puts him ahead of the current administration.

Logic fail. He can do (or at least try) unconstitutional things he did not promise.

Comment Re:Not just Southern Spain DGW - Dinosaurs WARMED! (Score 2) 282

First off. I wrote it. I figured that I should "improve it" to refute your supposed refutations.

Well, as far as I can tell, so far you haven't - you just repeat it. But I'd suggest you first try to figure out how valid (or invalid) your point is before you work on the details.

But you fucking people are god damned worthless anyways. You never offer solutions to your AGW. If you have no solutions and the solution is to remove mankind, [...rest of the rant deleted]

The scientific truth of a statement has nothing to do with the question of an adequate way to handle the problem identified in the statement. I'd love to have Star-Trek-like superluminal travel, but that wish has nothing to do with the validity of the theory of relativity.

I happen to think that it is better to know and understand a problem even if we don't yet have a perfect solution to it - indeed, I find that usually that is a necessary precondition for addressing the problem. And even if we never come up with an acceptable way to at least partially control global warming (I think there are plenty, and the side benefits alone probably outweigh the associated costs), I still would want to understand the mechanisms that cause it. Indeed, if ever they drag me to my execution, I'd still like to know how the guillotine works. Hi, my name is Stephan and I'm a scientist.

Comment Re:Not just Southern Spain DGW - Dinosaurs WARMED! (Score 4, Insightful) 282

The Jurassic period. [...]

How often do you repeat this canned nonsense and where did you get it? It've rebutted a previous incarnation here. Of course, it's not atypical for creationists and similar groups to keep repeating refuted arguments over and over again - it is, of course, much easier than to come up with real arguments. And chances are your audience does not know enough to understand the state of the art and the quality (or lack of same) of the argument. So while intellectually dishonest, it may be an economically efficient strategy if you are interested in propaganda more than in understanding...

Comment Re:DGW - Dinosaurogenic Global Warming (Score 5, Insightful) 357

The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere was 130% modern levels. CO2 was at 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. The temperature was a whole 3 DEGREES C over modern times!

The Jurassic period was really quite long, and long ago. Long enough for solar evolution to be significant. At the beginning of the Jurassic, the sun was about 2% fainter than now, at the end about 1.5% fainter. That is about 26W/sqm on the solar constant, or about 4.6 W/sqm of radiative forcing if corrected for albedo and averaged over the whole surface of the Earth. 5 times modern CO2 is about a radiative forcing of ln(5)*5.35, or 8.6W/sqm. So just the change in the sun cuts the effect into half, leaving 4W/sqm, which our current climate models translate into 3.2K of temperature difference. So even without taking other effects (minor orbital variations, configuration of the continents) into account, your claim agrees quite nicely with our current theoretical results. Of course, the sun is unlikely to get significantly fainter or stronger over the the next few thousand years, so there will be no free lunch from that angle. If we go back up to 5 times current CO2, we can expect about 7K of temperature increase.

And who wants more CO2 @1950 ppm, you know, to make all those plants and trees convert that CO2 into a higher O2!

Since our increase of CO2 produced by burning fossil carbon with atmospheric oxygen, at best we'll get back the O2 we sucked from the atmosphere. Not that a significant quick increase would be advantageous - it would play havoc with the biosphere and massively increase the risk of and by fires.

Comment Re:Glad I don't live in the US... (Score 3, Informative) 195

Socialized Heath Care is more efficient too. The waiting rooms double as morgues!

Socialised health care is not perfect, but it typically has a much better outcome for the average patient - both per dollar and absolutely. The US is neck and neck with Cuba in health care effectiveness (see e.g. this Forbes article). It spends 17.9% of the GDP on health care - Cuba spends 10% And since GDP per person is around US$55000 for the US, US$6700 for Cuba, the Cuban system is about 15 times more efficient.

Comment Re:people exhale co2 (Score 1) 191

Are we talking about the same CO2 that we use in fire extinguishers?

To quote Babbage: "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question". But yes, the CO2 we exhale and the CO2 we produce by burning hydrocarbons and many other carbon-based materials is chemically the same substance that is used in some kinds of fire extinguishers, that is used to carbonate soda pops, and that is released by baking powder to raise a cake.

Slashdot Top Deals

Kill Ugly Processor Architectures - Karl Lehenbauer