If this store is eating the $0.05 cost of the plastic bags anyway, then isn't it the store that saved $75, not you? Most grocery stores around where I live do the same sort of thing too, largely to try to reduce the amount they spend on plastic bags. I know some stores have even started giving away rather than selling reusable bags in hopes of getting more people to use them.

I really wasn't being snarky in my post; the whole thing is a good idea. The stores save money, and we reduce the amount of waste.

Whoever came up with this one was a genius. Charge people for the reusable bags, and then save money at the same time by not having the store have to cover the cost of plastic bags.

Not true. Advertisers typically proofread their text for blatant mistakes before publishing it.

Man, here I was hoping helm's deep would reinvigorate LOTRO. And yes, I had even pre-ordered it.

There are some who might say that the solution to bad policy is to fix the policy, not augment it with more bad policy.

Because that's not the scenario that either of the parent posts (1 2) that you replied to were talking about.

You're not understanding the point of what he's saying. The non-legitimate user in his scenario doesn't have the legitimate user's password. If you require a password to disable this function, then the person who should have access can disable it, while the person who should not cannot.

Perhaps we could perform experiments and gather data on the subject.

Nah, that's way too science-y for Slashdot. Better to just proclaim that it will never work and earn some karma.

worst first post ever.

True enough, but this sentence pretty clearly shows that this is a case of an article written by somebody who has no idea what watts are -- since the "peak capacity" explanation doesn't make any sense in context.

I realize that you're dead, but you browsed the Internet while driving... on dialup? That's pretty hardcore.

One answer is here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last. The short version is that with current techniques, and usage levels, the available uranium will last a couple hundred years. However, there are methods that we expect would increase that by multiple orders of magnitude.

Around here, they were barricading parking pullouts along the highway to prevent people from looking at the mountains in a national park. Yeah, I'm sure that was prompted by safety concerns.

Only where "sane" is defined as "what rseuhs is used to."

3.0 was released on 21 Jul 2011. Given the expected timeframe for 4.0 (if he decides to go through with this proposal, of course), then that's roughly 3.25 years per major version. So the answer to your question would be sometime in 2061.

With this proposal, it does mean something. It means that a 4.0 release is the result of focused testing and bugfixing of the changes and features added in the 3.x series. If the model seems to work, then 5.0 would probably be the culmination of the work put into the 4.x series. Sure, the meaning is different than is used for most projects, but that doesn't make it worse.