Welcome

Welcome to my Blog. I mostly re post articles that i find interesting on the web. After the article you will find a link that leads you to the original one.

Sunday, March 09, 2008

Act's Large Bottle Of Mouthwash May Say 2x, But It's Really Half The Strength [Caveat Emptor]

Bullshit....

 

Get%20Your%20Act%20Together.jpgAct mouthwash may look like it comes in two sizes, but according to Mouseprint, the large and small bottles are actually entirely different products. The labeling looks largely the same until you get to the active ingredient. The small bottle contains .05% of sodium fluoride while the large bottle contains .02%. Hit the jump for Act's sneaky explanation.

Now who would ever expect that a different size bottle would have a different strength of the active ingredient? In fact, if you look at the larger bottle, there is a "2x" on it. Without reading carefully, one might assume that "2x" means twice the strength or twice the size, but certainly never half the potency. A closer examination reveals that is says "2x a day". Okay, so you can use the product twice daily.

As it turns out, the company says the smaller bottle is a once a day product, and the larger one is a twice a day product. Apparently you get the equivalent amount of fluoride using the diluted version two times a day.

Who in their reasonable mind would expect a larger bottle to contain anything other than more product? Act is reaping undeserved profit while consumers think they are getting protection that just isn't provided.

We guess Act and Listerine share the same rotten marketing team.

Act Fluoride: Twice the Size, Half the Strength [Mouseprint]
PREVIOUSLY:Thought Process Behind Listerine Label Finally Revealed

Thursday, March 06, 2008

Transformation

Man didn’t know he lived above a bomb shelter

Why would you want to get rid of it?  That is so coooool.    

shelter

When Scot Simpson bought the circa 1953 house in Charlottte NC, little did he know that he would find an 8-by-12-foot bunker buried beneath his lawn mower shed.

“The bomb shelter was built about 1960 or 1961″, said Earle Heath, who still lives next door. Heath was 12 or 13 back then. “The owner of the house was in the construction business”, he said, “and sent workers over to dig the hole and pour the concrete”.

That would have been just before the Cuban missile crisis, when many Americans feared nuclear Armageddon.

Simpson would like to get rid of the poured concrete and steel bunker, but doesn’t know what’s involved in getting rid of it.

Source:Charlotte Observer

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Why It’s a Bad Idea to Tease a Croc

 

HAHAHA.....

 

 

That’s Israeli fisherman Novon Mashiah, who thought that it would be a good idea to pose with a 12-foot crocodile. Here’s what happened:

The crocodile had swum towards the boat hoping to be fed fish. "I was shocked, the animal clearly wanted to kill me," said 27-year-old Mr Mashiah.

"One minute I was leaning over the boat teasing it for a picture. The next minute it burst out of the water with incredible speed.

"I jumped back and the croc landed on the boat and then slapped into the water. I was shaking."

MrMashiah’s friend Doron Aviguy, 22, took the photograph from a bigger boat nearby. The two Israelis are working as fishermen on the South Alligator River in the Northern Territory of Australia.

Mr. Mashiah said: "They come near the boat all the time, probably because we are fishing. I was laughing, but it wasn’t funny in the end. I didn’t realize that crocs were so aggressive."

Link (with much better, bigger pics)

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

State Supreme Court appears split in gay marriage hearing

The justices pose varying questions during arguments over the constitutionality of California's ban on same-sex marriage. They have 90 days to reach a decision.

The California Supreme Court appeared divided today over the constitutionality of the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

The courtroom was packed for the long-awaited hearing, with lawyers for various sides taking turns at the podium. Attorneys for same-sex couples and for San Francisco argued that the state marriage law violated equal protection rights and anti-discrimination laws, while lawyers for the attorney general's and governor's offices, and for pro-family and religious groups, insisted that cultural tradition justified a ban on gay weddings.

 

L.A. Times