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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:No, drinking soda != smoking (Score 1) 570

They ban smoking indoors, remove all the ashtrays, then people whine about that.

But, I think what the OP meant when asking whether soda were the "new smoking" is, have people been shamed into quitting by a consensus that's been reached, mostly through reports in the media, that soda is awful? In that sense, I think it's decent comparison. The attempt at social engineering wasn't quite so deliberate, or concerted, in this case, but it's been effective.
I think another aspect of this is that it's part of the trend of over-protectiveness we see in parents nowadays. The fears are mostly around giving it to children, and parents have to worry they'll get dirty looks if their kids are seen drinking it. And certainly this attitude influences the way people think about soda for themselves, as well.

Comment Re:Finally, and end to 2nd hand soda (Score 1) 570

That would be third-hand carbonation, if your exposure results from contact with the children of soda drinkers. Following the same immutable Laws of Homeopathy that apply to tobacco smoke, third-hand carbonation is many times more deadly than drinking it straight! I'm surprised the media isn't already on top of this.

(By all means, surprise me with a link)

Comment Re:GOOD GRIEF! (Score 1) 570

It's also great for cleaning records and filling my humidor! Not sure I've ever tasted it, though.

Here's what I think of all this: Food is not medicine. I can't understand why people get obsessed about this kind of thing. The only thing I worry about getting from food, or drink, is a delicious taste in my mouth, and maybe a buzz. A little common sense goes a long way.

Comment Re:Amount of claim is for legal fees (Score 1) 212

I love it. "We decided to hire a lawyer, now you must pay for it." Nevermind that they could've simply picked up the phone and asked the dude to take down the posters.

Here's what I wonder: Why not simply not pay them? Even if they went to court and won, it's usually impossible to enforce this kind of stuff.

Comment I Love This Sort of Thing (Score 1) 399

"Unfortunately, they were not willing or able to produce a search warrant or any court documents suggesting they had a legal right to take my property. In addition, they were persistent about requiring my passwords for all devices,” Silva said.

I always get a big kick out of hearing the reactions of middle-class people when they run into law enforcement, and aren't treated like middle-class people. They're never prepared for the reality, because they were taught in school that they had "rights", and all that other baloney.

"Silva was also told he had “no right for a lawyer to be present” and that being a U.S. citizen did not “entitle me to rights that I probably thought.”

Yep. I tell ya, if middle-class people always got the same treatment as poor folk, it'd be a different country pretty quickly.

Submission + - Ask Slashdot: Why Are Websites Suddenly Keen to Inform Me About Cookies? 4

sudon't writes: Over the past year, or so, I've been seeing more and more banners appearing on websites which inform me of the ostensible purpose of cookies, i.e. "to ensure you get the best experience on our website" as opposed to, say, "so we can follow your every move". Typically, you must acknowledge this message in order to get rid of it, by clicking a button.
Certainly I understand that the masses have begun to be aware of how much spying is going on, but it seems to me that you would want users to forget about the existence of cookies, rather than calling attention to them. For instance, these banners always remind me to immediately clear my cookies. I can't help but think this is not their intended purpose.
Why the sudden proliferation of these banners? What do site owners hope to accomplish by them? I'd love to hear from any web designers whose bosses explained their thinking on this.

Comment Re:Stupid people are stupid (Score 1) 956

In the school's defense, imagine if this were the headline:

"Muslim student detonates bomb in school--school officials said they knew he was carrying a device that looked like a bomb, but didn't say anything because he told them it was a clock."

I bet you would call them stupid then too.

Yeah, that's a likely scenario. I know you hear about terror everyday, (there's a reason for that), but actual terror attacks are quite rare in the US. Doing a quick googling, I couldn't find any attacks carried out by children. It's this kind of thinking that gave us zero tolerance in the first place.
And here's the other thing - the school officials ought to have at least had a look at the thing, and once they saw it was harmless, everyone should've went back to their business. Had they done that, there would be no headlines, period. Instead, they went fucking bananas over nothing.

You've been Berkeley'ed!