Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: GOOD GRIEF! (Score 1) 521

The recycling argument is a weak one, especially when it comes to plastic. New plastic is cheap enough that recycling plastic isn't sufficiently profitable to put a lot of effort into it. Unlike aluminum. So plastic recycling options aren't as readily available and companies which collect the trash don't put as much effort into fishing out the plastics for recycling. Ultimately, disposable plastic bottles just shouldn't be used at all.

This is what the poster up towards the top of the thread was saying, then another person chipped in with that, "What? You just want to put companies out of business?" nonsense, etc.

To answer your question: there are many ways that the profusion of plastic bottles in our oceans is the drink companies' fault. Most are pretty benign, just one aspect of that business. For example: why do we have plastic bottles in the first place? Most countries still use glass bottles for their soda. Reason: Americans treat their sodas as drinks rather than as snacks. If you go someplace and buy a soda and drink it there, on the spot, and return the bottle, then it can be washed and reused. This is cheaper and more environmentally friendly and really better in every respect than plastic. Americans aren't willing to do this though, they want to take the bottles with them and glass would make that more expensive.

Why do Americans want to do this? It has a lot to do with how we look at labor and time, which makes it possible here and not in many other places, but it's also about marketing: encouraging this lead to more sales.

This does not mean that the entirety of the blame rests on the drink companies. Obviously that person should have recycled their plastic bottle, but it would be better for everyone (except drink company shareholders) if that plastic bottle didn't exist in the first place.

Comment Re:meanwhile (Score 1) 355

This kind of jealous attitude is destructive.

Yes, he's getting special treatment. Yes, that's bad. Responding with the suggestion that he should be brought down to your level makes the problem worse, not better. The constructive response is: "They should not have done that to him, or to anyone else."

Comment Re:If you're so altruistic, why pick Delaware? (Score 1) 40

New York might be worse than... Where, exactly? I've lived in New York and New Orleans and it's like comparing apples and rotting oranges as far as corruption is concerned. The US has a lot of corruption problems, but among the big cities New York is better than... some. I'd put it in the middle somewhere.

Seriously, where is this non-corrupt paradise? Cleveland? I don't know squat about Cleveland. It's probably Cleveland.

Comment Re:System76 (Score 1) 236

I'm typing this on a ZaReason and I'm a little disappointed with it, to be honest. It works well enough, but it's just a cheap plasticey generic with a ZaReason logo stuck on it. The keyboard is functional but does not feel good, the battery is pretty bad (though it is replaceable), and some of the special function keys (like the wifi toggle) don't work. I believe the same is true for System76 (which I think are rebrands of Clevo laptops) and also true for pretty much all of the other small-time laptop makers.

I can certainly forgive them for this, it's not really reasonable to compare them to Thinkpads and wonder why they can't produce a superior product with a fraction of the budget, and I do appreciate the fact that my laptop has a nice little Linux sticker instead of a Windows one, and there's a picture of Tux on what would otherwise be the Windows key... but my next laptop is probably going to be a Toughbook.

Comment Re:So much noise about F-35 (Score 1) 320

First, the F-35 had better work because at this point we are stuck with it.

This isn't exactly true. It's not going to happen, but if we needed to we could just buy a bunch of Eurofighters or Rafales. They're perfectly capable planes and we'd have no trouble buying them for a lot less money than the F-35. But, of course, that would never happen for reasons.

Comment Re:"Yes. And you're smart, too." (Score 5, Funny) 235

What if she also isn't pretty? Then Barbie has lied to her twice. Clearly Barbie's answer to any question should be: "I am an inanimate doll and can only repeat an assortment of facts selected from the 2011 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (TM). Would you like to know when horses were first domesticated? Yes / No?"

"Research suggests that domestication took place by approximately 6,000 years ago. In prehistoric times the wild horse was probably first hunted for food."

Comment Re:Money (Score 1) 246

... Regardless of whether or not the analogy is accurate, I'm wondering how it's false. It *is* your obligation to quit if your job is doing something harmful. Whether your gas guzzler meets that threshold is up in the air, I suppose it depends on just how much gas you guzzle. If you're driving one of these monsters every day, just to get to work, and you can't come up with any alternative, then yeah - you should probably quit.

Comment Re:Are we supposed to believe *everything* they sa (Score 1) 317

Real link to what? A reporter wrote a report on some leaked information. You're asking for the source material? The emails which were leaked? The Guardian isn't Wikileaks, they operate under the old model of credibility - you're supposed to read the article and believe it not because you've gone through hundreds of emails yourself, but because the Guardian is Britain's most reputable newspaper and you trust that they've done due diligence.

This is not unreasonable, they have nearly two hundred years worth of claim to that trust, but okay - let's say you love Wikileaks and hate traditional journalism. Even if that's the case, there are instances where publishing source material can compromise the safety and identity of the informant. Even Wikileaks recognized this and acted with some measure of caution with the State Department leak. They gave the information unredacted but confidentially to some traditional journalists who then picked out and published only the pertinent information... and then blew the whole thing by publishing the encryption key. Okay fine, but that was accidental.

The point being that even if it might be nice for a traditional paper to change their methods a bit and publish more of the source material, now that the internet exists and archives like that are easy things to make available, the onus of believeability should be on the lobbyists to disprove this.

Comment Re:total bullshit? (Score 1) 344

I'm not sure what topic you're replying to, but this was about Hillary Clinton using an independent email server. The story summary was talking about how that could be a security risk, and the person to whom I replied had stated that they believed that she knew that this would be controversial and did it anyway. I said that it seemed plausible to me that she wouldn't have given something like that much consideration.

We want to create puppets that pull their own strings. - Ann Marion