Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Scary idea (Score 2) 350

Without vigilance, there might be a widespread problem with people getting these vaccines against their will.

I could easily see it being court mandated, especially upon a DWI conviction. The effect seems to be short lived (30 days for mice), so unless major improvements in longevity of the effect, it would seem to be no more permanent than a jail sentence, but a lot less costly.

Comment Re:Scary idea (Score 3, Interesting) 350

Worst case it would be ruined for 6 months.

When you read TFA, is says:

With one dose of the vaccine, the mice’s drinking habits diminish by 50% for 30 days.

That would suggest the effect is far shorter than 6 months, and the vaccine far less effective than most here seem to think.
Chances are, the occasional, small. glass of wine wouldn't even affect most people.

If the effect only lasts for 30 days, (or, giving the benefit of the doubt, 6 months), the true alcoholic would find excuses
to miss that second shot.

As for accidentally getting this shot, don't discount the possibility of a court order, or at the very least, a court
ordered choice, the shot or jail. A shot with this short period of efficacy probably isn't likely to be successful
in either combating alcoholism or preventing drinking, simply because it appears to be so short acting.

In fact, one wonders if it really qualifies as a vaccine. One of the hallmarks of a vaccine according to wiki is: "[an agent that] stimulates the body's immune system to recognize the agent as foreign, destroy it, and "remember" it, so that the immune system can more easily recognize and destroy any of these microorganisms that it later encounters."

This treatment seems merely to be an agent that suppress the production of a naturally occurring bodily enzyme, but only while the agent is present in quantity sufficient to trigger the suppression. It seems to have no lasting effect.

Comment Re:Dreamy (Score 1) 215

Agreed.

First thing I noticed was the Insulating Buildings.
Glibly thrown out there like it's cheap, quick, or even possible in a city the size of New York with a bazillion buildings of various ages.
It takes 6 months on a small two story building, and could take 6 years and hundreds of millions of dollars for any building over 20 floors.

Comment Re:Tesla kept logs. (Score 4, Insightful) 609

They know exactly what Broder did with the car. It's like your son telling you he didn't visit that porn site when his laptop's IP address is logged by your router as having done so. Seriously, the guy didn't understand the technology he was fucking around with and his lack of credibility is about to be exposed in a big way.

Exactly.
Tesla reps told him to drive 80?
Tesla told him to undercharge even though the range indicator said he wouldn't make it. Not once, but THREE times?
Tesla told him to lie about limping along at 45, even tho the log shows he never drove at 45?

Caught in a latent lie he tries to blame others. But mom, dad said I could....

Comment Missing Details... (Score 5, Informative) 1176

Details Missing from the quoted article is this bit:

The Frenchman, who suffers from epilepsy and drives a specially-modified car that has controls on the steering wheel to operate the throttle and brake, has filed a legal complaint against the vehicle's manufacturer.

Source here.

Unless Renault did these modifications for him, I doubt he has a chance in hell of winning his suit.

I've never seen a car you couldn't force into Neutral even under heavy acceleration.

Comment Re:Lawyers must be happy (Score 1) 841

A $100,000 car is "mass market"?

They were originally targeting a $50k price tag with the S but rapidly gave up on that idea. Cool car though.

-l

The Model S starts at $52k. That seems pretty close to me.

Every car is currently custom built. This makes it pretty much impossible to meet production volumes that would easily allow it to get under $50K. It also makes it pretty much impossible to quote a realistic price. The highest end model comes in at $87.4k before the buyer adds options. And some of what Tesla sells as an option are pretty much standard equipment on most 50K cars.

Comment Re:By all accounts, the Model S is a great car. (Score 1) 841

They are selling them faster than they can make them and it has received spectacular reviews from the automotive press--or at least any automotive press that hadn't already made up their minds that "electric cars suck". This is a car which is more than competitive within its segment (luxury sports sedan). It's just a matter of time until the technology becomes more affordable and trickles down into mass market segments.

Hold on there....

They are purposely holding production down to just under what the market will absorb, because its important not to have a "sale" on a $87,000 car. With only a few charging stations around, they had to grow that network before they could possibly expect to sell cars in any volume.

Musk has already stated this is company policy for the first few years:

"To produce a vehicle that meets our quality standards requires us to carefully analyse each step of our production ramp, improve the efficiency of our manufacturing processes and continue to train our employees,"

Further, the car under review, Model S Performance isn't price competitive with the vary same car that Tesla's own website prefers to compare it with (the BMW 535i).

True, the car is well within the range of a wealthy owner. And the range has finally reached an acceptable level (265 miles on the largest available battery). And the promised (but not likely to be met) 20,000 vehicles in 2013 should see the car gain some traction in the market.

But to say they are selling them faster than they can make them is a bit of a twist on the fact that they are making them only as fast as they are selling. Read their sales page. Every car is bespoke. They are not producing ahead of a confirmed ($5000 minimum) reservation order.

Comment Re:Summary is Misleading (Score 1) 105

Yup.
Nothing wrong with either of those.

The Chemical council was not the petitioner in this case.
They merely called attention to the fact that a principal researcher was chairing an evaluation of her own work.
They were insisting that the same rules they were required to live by be followed in all cases.
No conspiracy here. Except the one in your mind.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne

Working...