Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:How is this new? (Score 1) 171

Yeah they will, and they do. All that needs to be done is to reshape the bottle, and nobody will be the wiser. This (and watering the product down, it's just like the drug market) is a very common method of making your inflation figures look good.

Nah because if they could've they already would've, to the most possible.

Comment: Re:Risk Management (Score 2) 689

by sociocapitalist (#49345031) Attached to: Germanwings Plane Crash Was No Accident

According to a CBS article, the US has a policy that no one single person can be in the cockpit alone during a flight. If one of the pilots needs to leave the cockpit, a member of the flight crew will step in until the other pilot returns.

Apparently this is not the case in Europe. Perhaps it will be now.

How unfortunate this happened.

According to the Telegraph:
"[Carsten Spohr, CEO of Lufthansa,] said that in the US there is a rule that a steward remains in the cockpit when a pilot leaves, but that this is not the case in Europe and that he does not think it is necessary to change the procedures, despite the tragedy. "

Penny pinching CEO sticking to the low cost line no matter what.

Comment: Re:not necessarily ridiculous (Score 1) 226

by sociocapitalist (#49343659) Attached to: How Nuclear Weapon Modernization Undercuts Disarmament

Imagine that a nation had a small "clean" nuke that could be delivered with pinpoint precision. At that point it's basically just a more efficient form of high explosive. Why *wouldn't* they use it? (As opposed to tens or hundreds of conventional bombs.)

The issue with nukes is that they're WMDs. If they got to the point where they were no longer WMDs but rather just a very efficient way of blowing up a relatively small area (a single remote military installation, for example) then people are going to use them.

Maybe, maybe not. There could be international law against the use of such weapons and as with any technology, one side not developing such weapons doesn't mean the other side is not going to do so.

Comment: Re:How is this new? (Score 1) 171

You're thinking about it all wrong.

You turn it over, half the bottle dumps onto your food. You have to buy twice as much. Effectively they can increase food waste, and therefore sales, under the guise of environmentalism. Sure, we'll help you get every last drop ... just all at once.

I know the last thing my wife wants is for me to have the mustard come out of the bottle any faster. I always end up with far too much as it is. ;-)

If the ketchup came out faster we'd be doomed.

My favorite are the hand wash products that when you give a push the gel shoots right out over your hand, missing it completely.

In second place are the shower products with holes big enough that you just can not get a small quantity out.

Comment: Re:How is this new? (Score 1) 171

There is absolutely no incentive for Heinz to put this into their bottles. This means people will spend less on average on ketchup per year since they can get every last bit out of the bottle. I know it may not seem like much, but multiply it by millions of bottles sold and it adds up to a hefty hit on their bottom line.

And thus a need for...regulation.

And for all you who think that the free market works well without government intervention- enjoy your wasted ketchup (or whatever) because this ain't never gonna happen wi'out no reg-u-la-shun.

Comment: Re:its unlikely to gain any traction (Score 1) 184

by sociocapitalist (#49337019) Attached to: New Bill Would Repeal Patriot Act

the Patriot act is affected through the Homeland Security Act, which in turn uses wings of the FBI and CIA to implement various measures but most importantly it uses the Department of Homeland Security. with a quarter of a million people employed and a sixty billion dollar budget, many southern senators and politicians would likely find the bill, or any bill that touches DHS for that matter, toxic. customs and border protection agents, largely composed of veterans who would otherwise find themselves unemployed, make up the bulk of nearly 60,000 employed by the agency. Expect Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico senators to turn a blind eye to this legislation as no one wants to face an election with the fact they voted to axe these jobs, however pointless and destructive.

expect the administration --any administration for that matter-- to object to strengthening whistleblower protection. The laundry list of whistleblowers in federal government whos actions have directly led to their chronic unemployment and ostracization from society is evidence enough that we as a society care more about the idea of american patriotism than the actual functional implementation and repercussions of it.

The jobs don't particularly need to be lost in order to restore the constitutional rights that have been infringed upon. (not saying I like it - just sayin')

I'd rather have the TSA and have my rights than have the TSA and not have my rights.

Comment: Re:You should title this "Patriot act to be repeal (Score 4, Insightful) 184

by sociocapitalist (#49335715) Attached to: New Bill Would Repeal Patriot Act

No. This should be titled "No chance in hell".

The people who currently control congress are the same people who created the Patriot Act.

Considering the Democrats who controlled both parties failed to do anything but renew it, the Republicans may be our best shot - particularly while they don't control the executive branch.

There are some (on both sides) that thought the bill was a good idea at the time but now realize how awful it really is. Additionally, a very large portion of the Republicans in Congress today were not in Congress when the first bill passed.

That's like saying "We failed to find snow in hell so our best chance now is to find it on the surface of the sun"

Comment: Re:SMH! (Score 1) 331

Google 'tumblr self harm' and have a look at what comes back.

Way too much of it is feedback to kids that self harm is cool and that they will get attention if they do it.

A kid has to be solid - and I mean 100% solid - to be unaffected by this shit.

Comment: Re:Teenagers shouldn't be driving NEW cars anyway (Score 1) 224

by sociocapitalist (#49322057) Attached to: Chevy Malibu 'Teen Driver' Tech Will Snitch If You Speed

Teenage drivers with fresh licenses should be driving older cheaper-to-buy cars.

Unless a teenager (or their parents) are rich, they should be buying an older cheaper car that doesn't require taking out a massive auto loan. In Australia the usual recommendation/good option is something small and Japanese like a Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, Suzuki Swift, Mitsubishi Lancer, Nissan Pulsar, Mazda 323, Honda Jazz or something like that but in the US the best option may be different.

Yes but in 5-10 years this car will be older and cheaper to buy

Comment: Re:How to REALLY lie with statistics (Score 1) 233

Remember incidents like this when you see lists of countries supposedly being ahead of other countries in terms of test score results... without knowing how much cheating is going on, such lists are usually pretty worthless predictors of real-world results.

And yet these people are qualified to take away local jobs.

Comment: Re:Why isn't public transport 'free'? (Score 1) 198

I'd say there are two main reasons people don't use public transport: it's inconvenient to schedule your transport around someone else's timetable and path, and it's inconvenient to have to carry the correct quantity of cash / make sure a bus card has enough money on it.

3) it's not reliable, for whatever reason (mechanical, strikes, etc)

Comment: Re:They should go (Score 1) 198

Yes, but you're missing the crucial point that "No Diesel" is very hard to enforce -- typically diesel commuter cars have only a small badge (if that) to distinguish them from the petrol versions, and the badge is different in appearance and placement between manufacturers and models. By contrast, banning cars based on license plate is very easy to enforce, as they are standard across vehicles and police are already accustomed to inspecting them by habit.

In short, a non-optimal rule that can be enforced is much better than an optimal rule that can't.

It can be enforced by simply requiring a sticker on the windshield saying what kind of car it is and then impounding any car that doesn't have a sticker that matches the motor (or whatever the requirements are) in the car.

After Goliath's defeat, giants ceased to command respect. - Freeman Dyson