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


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:caveat emptor (Score 1) 136

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


> 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

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

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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing succeeds like excess. -- Oscar Wilde