Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Actually, no. The Quasar wasn't the first. (Score 1) 113

I remember seeing pictures of the Quasar in Popular Mechanics in the mid 70's myself. The Quasar may possibly have inspired the Ecomobile, which evolved into the Monotracer, but I seriously doubt it, unlike Pax681, who avers definitively that it was. The Ecomobile bears much greater resemblance to the little enclosed cab trike delivery vehicles popular all over Europe, Asia, and the Caribbean in th 50's and 60's.

Comment Re:Actually, no. The Quasar wasn't the first. (Score 1) 113

What part of "not the first" did you fail to comprehend? You're assuming that the Monotracer was inspired by the Quasar. Care to back that up? The cabin motorcycle concept had been around for half century before the Quasar, which is considered a "feet forward" motorcycle, not a cabin motorcycle. There were many other cabin motorcycles before the Monotracer; the Quasar is not one of them, so it's a reach to state that the Quasar was the inspiration for the Monotracer. The Quasar certainly brought attention to the entire enclosed motorcycle concept, but only sold about 20 units total.

Comment Re:Not as cool as the Monotracer (Score 1) 113

You're correct, the price is so high because of the limited production and the fact that they're all hand-built (apparently only about 400 or so have been produced). Cabin motorcycles were originally envisioned as low-cost "two-wheeled cars", and if they were produced in large enough numbers I certainly think the cost could be a lot lower than $50,000. The $77,000 you quoted is a big step down from the $92,000 I heard last year, so that's already extremely encouraging. And that's the gasoline-powered Monotracer. The E-Tracer costs about $108,000. Incredibly cool vehicles though; I'd love to have one.

Comment Not as cool as the Monotracer (Score 3, Interesting) 113

The Tron bike is pretty cool, but impractical. The Peraves Monotracer is a Swiss-built cabin motorcycle which is not only practical, it has to be one of the coolest vehicles ever produced (video in German). The electric version, the E-Tracer, which boasts a top speed of 200 mph, an average equivalent fuel consumption of 203 mpg, won the Progressive Automotive X Prize for electric vehicles. Now if only I could afford one...

Comment Really? Why? (Score 2) 218

Out of curiosity, why should Apple split the stock? Their revenues aren't impacted by their valuation, and by keeping the price high they're deterring the day traders. Only serious institutional investors will be willing to buy the stock, and they're more likely to hold it long term, making it much more stable. Day traders and speculators tend to make a company's market cap gyrate wildly since so many of them base their stock picks on hearsay, gut feelings, the phase of the moon etc. The only reason they'd have to split the stock is because they have a burning desire to be on the Dow, which is a pretty piss poor reason in my opinion.

My eldest brother is the majority shareholder of a privately-held financial company, and over the years he's been bombarded with queries about when he's offering an IPO. His answer? "Never. I refuse to have the stock price of my company set by know-nothing day traders. They're busy watching the fluctuations on the scoreboard, not the developments on the field."

Comment Another insightful comment. (Score 4, Interesting) 302

As you said, of course Microsoft is working on a Metro version of Office. They'd be crazy not to be. Office is Microsoft's cash cow, the castle that all their other ventures serve to protect, and it's probably the number one reason why people continue to use Windows. They, and everyone else (including Apple), were caught flatfooted by the runaway train that is the iPad, and I'm willing to bet that its incredible success sent deep chills through the executive suites in Redmond, when they realized that an entire vast new market was developing and they didn't even have a toehold in it. People want tablets (the argument over whether they want "tablets" or iPads can wait for another day), and Microsoft is faced with a twofold challenge: to have a viable tablet OS; and to develop a version of Office that can run on it.

Forgive me for not recalling the source, but I read a piece sometime last year about the severe political infighting inside Microsoft, and as an example the writer gave an anecdote about internal discussions concerning the creation of a touchscreen version of Office. The discussions came to an abrupt screeching halt when the head of the Office division at the time flatly refused to have anything to do with it. Try to imagine anyone at Apple telling Jobs that.

The article painted a portrait of a deeply dysfunctional company, riven by rivalries among the various divisions, and of Ballmer's part in the creation of a nightmarish corporate culture where backstabbing and naked ambition rule. One gets the distinct impression that Microsoft under Gates was like the former Yugoslavia under Tito, with only a strong personality holding together a loose confederation of rivals. With Gates's departure (Tito's death in the case of Yugoslavia), all the bitter divisions came bubbling to the surface, and not only was Ballmer incapable of controlling it, he seemed to actively encourage it in order to weaken potential rivals, similar to Milosevic's misrule in Serbia. Now it's biting Microsoft in the ass, as they find themselves culturally ill-equipped to respond quickly to an external threat.

As I said, they're faced with a twofold challenge, to succeed with a touchscreen device, and to have a version of Office that can run on it. Each by itself is an extremely difficult proposition. Success at both may prove to be an insurmountable problem.

Comment Insightful comment (Score 1) 302

Damn, where are mod points when you need them? Insightful comment indeed, and I agree with everything you said, particularly about a home compute appliance to which your mobile devices connect. And it's interesting you should say that Apple and Google have given the future of mobile much thought. Remember it was Jobs who coined the term "Digital Hub", and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it unspool very much like your prediction. I personally envision something along the lines of a Mac mini/Time Capsule-type hybrid device to fulfill the role of network storage, wireless router, and media/application server, with Thunderbolt ports to connect monitors and peripherals. Kudos. Sharp thinking on your part.

Comment Are you an idiot? (Score 1) 172

Helping people access cheap medication seems very non-evil. Don't think there were many reports of people being harmed. The FDA is 90% about controlling the market for profit and 10% about safety.

Helping people access cheap medication wIthout prescriptions, and which they know may cause harm, by deliberately ignoring the ramifications and enabling the suppliers solely because it's profitable, seems very non-evil to you?

You're not an idiot; you're a fucking idiot.

Comment The FDA actually DID THEIR JOB. (Score 3, Informative) 172

First of all, TFA makes it sound like a straightforward case of "don't advertise illegal crap". Google didn't outright take ads for vendors of illegal drugs, they took ads for entirely legal Canadian pharmacies. The FDA just doesn't like anyone cutting in on US pharmaceutical industry profits (even when the drugs come from those very same US companies).

I suggest that you go to the source. Here's the release from the Department of Justice outlining the settlement, and here's the relevant passage:

The importation of prescription drugs to consumers in the United States is almost always unlawful because the FDA cannot ensure the safety and effectiveness of foreign prescription drugs that are not FDA-approved because the drugs may not meet FDA’s labeling requirements; may not have been manufactured, stored and distributed under proper conditions; and may not have been dispensed in accordance with a valid prescription. While Canada has its own regulatory rules for prescription drugs, Canadian pharmacies that ship prescription drugs to U.S. residents are not subject to Canadian regulatory authority, and many sell drugs obtained from countries other than Canada which lack adequate pharmacy regulations. ... “This investigation is about the patently unsafe, unlawful, importation of prescription drugs by Canadian on-line pharmacies, with Google’s knowledge and assistance, into the United States, directly to U.S. consumers,” said U.S. Attorney Neronha. [Emphasis mine]

It's not a matter of "advertising illegal crap", as you put it, and the fact that the Canadian pharmacies are "entirely legal" is irrelevant. As the statement in the DOJ release makes clear, these pharmacies aren't subject to the Canadian food and drug regulations, and are basically allowed to sell drugs to Americans from any source they see fit, however questionable. The FDA is in fact fulfilling it's basic mandate in this case, namely protecting the American public from drugs and medication whose standards they cannot ensure.

And for the consumption of idiots who think that Google is somehow the victim, here's another passage from the statement:

An investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Rhode Island and the FDA/OCI Rhode Island Task Force revealed that as early as 2003, Google was on notice that online Canadian pharmacies were advertising prescription drugs to Google users in the United States through Google’s AdWords advertising program. Although Google took steps to block pharmacies in countries other than Canada from advertising in the U.S. through AdWords, they continued to allow Canadian pharmacy advertisers to target consumers in the United States . Google was aware that U.S. consumers were making online purchases of prescription drugs from these Canadian online pharmacies, and that many of the pharmacies distributed prescription drugs, including controlled prescription drugs, based on an online consultation rather than a valid prescription from a treating medical practitioner. Google was also on notice that many pharmacies accepting an online consultation rather than a prescription charged a premium for doing so because individuals seeking to obtain prescription drugs without a valid prescription were willing to pay higher prices for the drugs. Further, from 2003 through 2009, Google provided customer support to some of these Canadian online pharmacy advertisers to assist them in placing and optimizing their AdWords advertisements, and in improving the effectiveness of their websites.

Google blocked foreign online pharmacies after being notified by the FDA in 2003 — except those from Canada. The statement also makes clear that customers were willing to pay online pharmacies a premium if they didn't have a valid prescription, and that not only did Google not block these Canadian online pharmacies, they offered them customer support in improving their ad effectiveness for six years after being notified by the FDA .

In one sentence, Google blocked all but Canadian pharmacies, whom they continued to assist for six years, because they were profitable, while knowing full well they were complicit in perhaps exposing American consumers to unsafe medications.

Anyone here still believe the "Don't Be Evil" motto is anything more than cynical marketing hypocrisy?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Why can't we ever attempt to solve a problem in this country without having a 'War' on it?" -- Rich Thomson, talk.politics.misc

Working...