Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:caveat emptor (Score 1) 136 136

> You don't state why, but I'm guessing for intimidation/control purposes.

Correct.

> It is also in the FSB's interest to have people underestimate their powers so they will be incautious, using systems they believe are secure which the FSB can crack.

I doubt it. Perhaps for NSA it is true, but most of FSB's power is based on raw force and intimidation, not any particular competence.

And people who are really serious about security would use more secure systems in any case.

Comment Re:Authors are lawyers (Score 1) 533 533

Not quite. The liquid will dry up pretty quickly and the chances of contamination will decrease dramatically. Certainly, the chances are higher than in a single use bag, but not that much higher. Moreover, what percentage of food poisoning is due to the in-bag contamination? I don't have any data but hard to imagine it being very large.

Comment Re:Authors are lawyers (Score 2) 533 533

Presumably, raw meat and such would be in a plastic bag or package within the reusable bag and whatever leaks would be a small amount.
After that it needs to touch something that you eat raw without washing too much. It is not impossible, but does not seem too likely to cause problems. Certainly, the same thing can happen within a single use bag.

The authors, on the other hand, are claiming huge percentage increases in food poisoning. Had to believe.

Comment Re:Like Obama? (Score 1) 430 430

In every modern society many services are provided by the government and cannot be provided by a private enterprise. Is it possible in principle -- how do I know? Is communism possible? There is not law of nature saying it is impossible, but there is no reason to think it is possible either.

"It's the best thing since professional golfers on 'ludes." -- Rick Obidiah

Working...