Author Archive

One Hour Translation’s Patented Tech Enables Speedy And Accurate Real-Time Translation Of Online Content

One Hour Translation

Founded in 2008, One Hour Translation is one of the oldest and largest online translation companies, with more than 15,000 active translators in 100 countries who cover more than 75 languages. The Cyprus-based company processes 100,000 projects a month for customers ranging from large corporations (including Toyota and Shell) that need enterprise-grade multilingual content management systems to smaller companies in search of a more polished alternative to cutting-and-pasting content into Google Translate.

Over the last five years, CEO and founder Ofer Shoshan, who bootstrapped One Hour Translation, has seen an increase in demand for online translation as companies seek to diversify into global markets.

“When there are financial crises in certain markets, we see customers from those markets that want to start getting international customers,” says Shoshan. “In this context, the translation market has done well. It’s a huge market, worth more than $ 30 million last year.”

Though there are many online translation services now available (including Gengo, Conyac and Dakwak), Shoshan says that One Hour Translation’s advantages are its scale, speed and patented technology.

The company’s proprietary products includes WeST (short for Web site translation), its latest offering. WeST allows administrators to add multilingual support to their sites by inserting a few lines of code. Once implemented, WeST maps all site text and automatically sends updates to human translators. This allows content to be translated on an ongoing basis. One Hour Translation’s Translation Memory cloud, another of its patented technologies, reduces the cost of translation by eliminating charges for repeated phrases. The company’s platform also allows real-time peer edits of translations for quality assurance.


Though technology facilitates the speed and accuracy of its translations, One Hour Translation’s most important resource is still its 15,000 translators, who have to pass an exam before they start working for the company. Translators only translate content into their native language and include people who specialize in copywriting and app localization, as well as legal, medical and financial documents.

Want to try out One Hour Translation? The company is offering free home page translation (up to 200 words to any single language) for the first 1,000 TechCrunch readers who use this link.


Ride Easier With The Rubbee Easy Electric Bike Conversion Gadget On Kickstarter

5d253ef1f8e91187b42baebe2638087b_large

Electric bikes are becoming more popular as the cost to own one goes down, and the cost to own a gas-powered vehicle goes up. If you ask a true cyclist what they think of an electric bike, you might get your head bitten off, but there’s no doubt that there’s a market out there for them. Rubbee wants to appeal to that market with an easy conversion device that turns your existing bike into an electric one in just a few seconds.

The Rubbee is a portable, 14lb attachment for your existing ride that offers up to 15 miles of travel on a full charge with a top speed of 15 mph, thanks to a built-in battery pack of 20,000 mAh that chargers fully in around 2 hours. It’s an elegantly simple solution that easy installs and uninstalls without the need for wires and tools like a standard conversion kit, and it features a design intended to reduce wear on your bike’s wheel, which is used to charge the Rubbee’s battery pack through kinetic force. Plus, you can make sure that the tire doesn’t touch the Rubbee at all if you need a break during a ride.

It fits nearly every type of bike, and has an integrated rear LED for safety at night powered by the same battery that drives the wheels. The best part for people who want their bikes to still look like their bikes, however, is that it’s actually surprisingly minimal in terms of how it changes the look of a bike aesthetically.

The Rubbee is the product of a team of four co-founders with engineering expertise, and a background in electric vehicles, mechatronics and logistics. The London-based team has spent two years perfecting the Rubbee from its earliest prototype, and now says the Rubbee is ready to into full production, with proven suppliers on board to provide parts and assembly.

The most daunting aspect of the Rubbee is the price: £799 ($ 1,240 USD) is currently required to back at a level that includes pre-orders, which is around the same price as a dedicated e-bike will cost at some online distributors. But the Rubbee adds flexibility – buying an e-bike means you can’t also use it as a mountain bike, for instance, and you can share the Rubbee with a group pretty easily, too. Project funding closes in just four days, and the team still has to raise about £6,000 to reach its target, but this is just a first step for a tech that could become even more low-profile and consumer friendly.


Backed By Social + Captial, Brilliant.org Is Finding And Challenging The Brightest, Technical Talent In The World

Prática

Pharrell Wu began doing math at age one and was trading stocks at age three. Living in the Philippines, Wu became bored with the math curriculum at his school and started Googling for hard math problems on the one computer his parents owned at home. He came upon Brilliant.org, a recently launched online community that challenges and brings together technical minds to colve math and analytics problems, and started completing problems. Brilliant’s founder Sue Khim saw that Wu was crushing college students in some of the math exams and immediately matched the young boy with a mathematics professor from the University of Michigan for private tutoring sessions to study undergraduate level linear algebra. According to his now mentor, Wu is already at the level of an exceptional undergraduate math major, and is scoring better on tests than almost all of the professor’s college students.

There are brilliant technical minds like Wu across the world, and the internet is bringing these minds together, explains Khim. Brilliant.org is hoping to be the community where these individuals (both young and old) come together to challenge themselves, find like-minded talent, and find opportunities to use their skills.

Khim says the inspiration for Brilliant came in the realization that the current model to find technical talent who will become leaders in science, medicine and technology is broken. In many countries, high school students are encouraged to focus on studying for one national exam, which will determine where they go to college. In university, these students are measured on rote learning skills which are irrelevant to how they will be using skills to solve real problems. “There is a mismatch between nurturing intellectual skills in top students vs. what they actually have to spend time on to be successful in the system,” she says. But unfortunately, she explains, there is no way to get noticed if you don’t succeed in this system.

So Khim decided to create a place where these students can succeed and challenge themselves, and realize their true potential. She has enlisted a number of math professors, scientists and other technical minds to create difficult problems on the site. Brilliant features weekly olympiad-style challenges offer rigorous problem sets in math and physics. Users can not only solve problems but share your solutions and your process in solving the sets.

In March of this year, Khim presented Brilliant at the Launch Festival and caught the eye of investor and Social+Capital founder, Chamath Palihapitiya. Palihapitiya has been particularly focused on investing in some of the disruptions around education and saw huge potential in what Khim was trying to do.

Although the site only had a few thousand users at the time, Palihapitiya told Khim that he believed Brilliant could one day have millions. He, along with Kapor Capital, 500 Startups, Learn Capital, RTA Capital, and Hyde Park Angels; seeded Brilliant to help scale the site. After less than a year, Brilliant has 100,000 users from 135 countries and is doubling users every two months. Khim thinks that the site could hit one million users within a year. Users range from 13 years of age to the elderly.

When a student arrives on the site, he or she takes a brief diagnostic exam that will assign a level of mathematical or problem solving skill (1-5). Each week, the student will gain access to problem sets tailored to their abilities and designed to be more challenging and interesting than problems they would get in school. Students get three chances to arrive at the correct answer to each question in a problem set. When they solve problems, they receive points that can be traded in for academic opportunities and other prizes. If the student performs well in their current level for 2 weeks in a row, Brilliant will bump them to the next level.

As Khim explains, at first Brilliant started employing professional to develop challenging problems in physics and math, but not more and more content is being user-generated and professors and technical minds are actually enjoying creating the problems to see if anyone can solve them. For example, Brilliant is currently running competitions game theory technical programming called “The Hunger Games.” Users write an algorithm to fight to the death (online of course) against other algorithms.

In terms of the competition, there are many problem solving websites and competitions (Art of Problem Solving, Project Euler, TopCoder, Kaggle, IXL, Peking online judge and other online judge sites, etc.), but not a lot of very active problem solving communities. Reddit, Quora, Stack Overflow, and other forum-based sites all have math/science communities, but these sites are built for a different purpose.

Khim sees her closest analogues as offline math clubs, competitions, and science clubs.

While the site is still young, Khim and Palihapitiya already have their business model. Eventually Brilliant will connect these great technical minds with universities (as they are already doing with Wu) and with companies and organizations that need this talent. There has never been more of a demand for talent in math, science and engineering, explains Khim, and she believes they can build an audience around this. “This won’t be just another job board,” she says. “This will be the pipeline to opportunity.”

Khim is onto something. Beyond the story of Wu, there are already many more that are similar in that Brilliant is helping find and provide opportunity to brilliant minds who may have otherwise gone unnoticed. As she says, these are the minds that will be solving major problems in the areas of finance, science and medicine for our world.

As for Wu, it’s unclear what his journey would have been if he had not been noticed by Brilliant, Khim and her team. He’s now doing graduate-level mathematics work with the professor in weekly Google Hangouts and plans to come to the U.S. to attend college in a few years. He has ambitions of becoming an investment banker, but who knows which research institution or university or technology giant might beat Goldman Sachs to the punch.



New Rule: Congressmen Who Thought Iraq Had WMDs Can’t Talk About NSA Effectiveness

shut-up-fool-001

Senator Saxby Chambliss is either a blind war hawk or is deliberately misleading the public. Last week, after the National Security Agency had intercepted an al-Qaida conference call plotting attacks against U.S. embassies, Chambliss claimed it was proof that mass surveillance programs were effective. But the AP reports that the NSA’s controversial phone and Internet monitoring programs “played no part in detecting the initial tip.”

The press should have known — and reported on — the fact that Chambliss had a history of hawkish interpretations of intelligence reports after he voted for the Iraq War in 2002. Indeed, the most ardent defenders of the NSA are exactly those members of Congress who wrongly believed we needed to invade Iraq after believing that there was an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Since the public can’t scrutinize classified documents, we have to trust that elected representatives are capable of critically evaluating intelligence reports. Anyone who voted for the Iraq War has lost the public’s trust and shouldn’t be allowed to comment on the NSA — without getting hammered by the press and party leaders.

It’s not just Republicans who voted for the Iraq War. “Please know that it is equally frustrating to me, as it is to you, that I cannot provide more detail on the value these programs provide,” said Dianne Feinstein, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and one of the NSA’s most ardent supporters. Feinstein argues that NSA surveillance prevented the Najibullah Zazi 2009 New York subway bombing, but public documents reveal that it was local law enforcement that got the first tip during the course of searching his co-conspirators’ computers. Feinstein was wrong about the impending threat of Saddam Hussein in 2002, so why should we believe her now?

Feinstein’s Senate Intelligence Committee colleague, Ron Wyden, who voted against the Iraq War, has seen the exact same intelligence reports on the NSA and concluded there is no evidence mass surveillance was critical to stopping attacks. “I’ve seen zero evidence it is needed,” he tweeted.

In a public statement, Wyden further argued, “Saying that ‘these programs’ have disrupted ‘dozens of potential terrorist plots’ is misleading if the bulk phone records collection program is actually providing little or no unique value.”

Perhaps we  should heed Wyden’s advice. Back in 2002, during the ramp-up to the Iraq War, he wrote:

“First, I am not convinced, regarding a clear and present threat, Saddam Hussein currently imposes a clear and present threat to the domestic security of the Nation. While my service on the Senate Intelligence Committee has left me convinced of Iraq’s support of terrorism, suspicious of its ties to al-Qaida, I have seen no evidence, acts, or involvement in the planning or execution of the vicious attacks of 9/11.”

Voting for or against the Iraq war should have permanent consequences for each member’s reputation, and the press needs to qualify the statements of our elected officials every time they speak on intelligence issues.

Yet, a member’s vote on the Iraq War isn’t completely sufficient for us to trust them, either.  Representatives can be influenced as much by personal convictions as the political calculations of re-election.

As a result, two former judges of the court charged with approving NSA requests, The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), have proposed a “public advocate” — a lawyer specially appointed to defend civil liberties. This independent advocate would be free of both the military hierarchy and the political machinations of Congress. We hope Congress will let this advocate speak to the American people and voice his own confidence in the value of our intelligence systems.

If both an advocate of the people and a critic of the Iraq War saw evidence that the NSA had, indeed, foiled attacks, citizens would have all the confidence they needed to make a more informed choice.

Until then, Feinstein and Chambliss need to step out of the limelight and let someone with credibility talk. And if they dare to keep on talking, the press shouldn’t let them get away with it.


Princeton Review Founder Is Plotting Out The Future Of Education

John Katzman

The American higher education system is a dysfunctional money-sucking machine, according to John Katzman, Noodle Education CEO. 

“If you look at the increase in tuition in higher ed in the last thirty years, it makes the housing bubble look like a pimple,” Katzman said. “In a sense, [universities] are working to create the iron lung machine. They’re looking to build something that can’t possibly be the right answer. The right answer is that we have to dramatically lower tuition, while improving quality.”

Katzman is best known as the founder of test prep and admissions consulting company The Princeton Review. He founded Noodles in 2011 with the aim of helping to navigate the complex web of educational resources.

“I’ve come to realize that as frustrating as it is for education providers, universities, schools, tutoring companies, fitness instructors, anybody to find students, it is equally frustrating for parents and kids to find the right education,” Katzman said. “It just struck me that that was fixable.”

Noodle offers a comprehensive gateway for educators and students, helping users find the right schools, tutors, and tutorials for them.  For example, a prospective graduate student can look up different schools in their area or abroad based on price, field, and type of program. The goal of the Noodle search is to help students find the tools that are the right fit for them, instead of the tools that are the most well-known. A key to the business are the alliances that Katzman built nationally to pool resources into one, sleek portal.

Katzman argues that better information is the first step to reform.

The technologists can’t figure out how to work with the educators,” Katzman told us. “The educators can’t reach the right students and parents … if you can clarify it, find a way for everybody to find everybody, you’re going to get better learning, better innovation, and you’re going to get lower costs.”

Katzman expects that online education will be a big part of the solution.

“[In online classes] the professor’s time is spent teaching a small number of students, and every moment you’re together is a dialogue,” he said.

Noodle represents one of many ways that online education tools are disrupting the university system, as forecasted by Harvard Business School Professor Clayton Christensen. Change is coming and this company could help students find their way forward.

SEE ALSO: Online Courses Have Reached A Turning Point

Join the conversation about this story »


    




Does Leaked Audio Of Tim Armstrong Firing An Employee In Front Of 1,000 Coworkers Damage His Reputation? (AOL)

Tim Armstrong AOL CEO

Wall Street loves AOL CEO Tim Armstrong for the way he’s been able to turn around the company’s stock price since 2012.

During the spring of that year, AOL stock was trading  below $ 18 per share. Armstrong was facing a proxy fight from an activist shareholder and it looked like he might lose. It was a very real possibility that he could lose his job.

Suddenly, AOL appeared to come up with a billion dollars out of thin air. It sold its Netscape patents to Microsoft for $ 1 billion. Immediately, Armstrong promised to return the cash to shareholder in a buyback.

The stock price took off, and today, it’s over $ 37.

So Armstrong gets a lot of credit from shareholders.

But then, on Friday, Armstrong hosted a conference call with 1,000 employees who work in one of AOL’s under-performing divisions, Patch.

About two minutes into a rallying speech, Armstrong suddenly fires one of the employees. It’s a bizarre moment.

What impact will it have on Tim Armstrong’s otherwise healthy reputation?

Listen to it here, and then take our poll, below.

Join the conversation about this story »


    




The Smartphone Is Dead

zombie iphone nokia lumia ad

This year has been a big bummer for gadget nerds hoping the next big thing would arrive soon.

It hasn’t.

That’s not to say there haven’t been some great new devices. There have been plenty: The HTC One. The BlackBerry Z10. The Samsung Galaxy S4. The Moto X. They’re all really good phones, and you’d probably be happy buying any of them.

But despite all the marketing hype surrounding each phone, despite all the glitzy events, despite the months of executives openly teasing their next product, none of the devices launched this year have been the revolution they claimed to be. They’re all on parity with each other. Apple may have leapfrogged the competition with the introduction of the first iPhone in 2007, but since then, everyone else has caught up.

For most people, all of these devices do pretty much the same things. They let you run apps, browse the Web, watch video, check your email, and play endless rounds of Candy Crush. It doesn’t matter how much you paid or what kind of special features your phone’s manufacturer touts. It’s all the same these days. The concept of a “smartphone” is dead.

As someone who watches the mobile industry so closely, it’s frustrating to see companies still try to do for phones what Apple did six years ago. It’s almost gotten absurd.

Last week, LG introduced its new flagship phone called the G2. Its distinguishing feature? The volume controls are on the back of the device, right below the camera.

Nokia introduced a phone last month called the Lumia 1020 that had a 41 megapixel camera, an over-the-top feature that most people will never need, let alone care to spend an extra $ 100 for.

Samsung was probably the worst offender with its Galaxy S4 phone. It packed in so many useless gimmicks like touchless gestures and eye tracking that it actually made the device more complex and frustrating to use, not better. 

I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea. Simply put, the “wow” factor in today’s smartphones doesn’t exist. They’re all just…phones. It’s going to take more than a handful of gimmicks to convince the public that a new era in mobile computing has arrived.

Meanwhile, it’s worth taking a look at the overall smartphone market. The high-end of the market is nearing saturation, meaning just about everyone who wants a new top-tier device like the iPhone 5 or HTC One already has one. It’ll be nearly impossible for another player to come in and whisk away the market share Apple and Samsung have already scooped up.

That’s why we’re seeing some companies like Nokia making bigger bets on the low-end of the smartphone market by producing phones that only cost a few hundred dollars (without a contract from your carrier), yet still offer the full suite of features in Microsoft’s Windows Phone 8 operating system. It’s also why Apple will reportedly release a low-cost iPhone later this year and why Samsung churns out several cheaper variants of its Galaxy phones.

To be clear: I’m not saying people are going to stop buying phones. (They won’t.) I’m not saying the phones companies release are bad. (They’re not.) I’m saying we’ve reached the point where all devices are pretty much the same, and it’s silly for them to try and differentiate themselves with useless gimmicks. 

Mobile devices aren’t going away, but the concept of a “smartphone” is dead.

Join the conversation about this story »


    




LEANING IN PAYS OFF: Sheryl Sandberg Clears $91 Million In Stock Sale (FB)

Sheryl Sandberg

Facebook stock is finally above its IPO price of $ 38 per share.

On Friday, COO Sheryl Sandberg took the opportunity to sell $ 91 million worth of stock, according to SEC filings.

Sandberg still has stock and vesting options worth more than $ 1 billion, making her one of the world’s few self-made billionaire women.

Sandberg earned the money. When she joined Facebook in 2008, the place ran more like a frat house than a corporation. Under her guidance it’s grown into a $ 92 billion company with thousands of employees and fast-growing, multi-billion dollar profits.

Meanwhile, Sandberg’s memoir/feminist manifesto Lean In, has been the world’s second best-selling non-fiction book for months now.

Insanely impressive.

Join the conversation about this story »


    




E-Cig Companies Will Never Promise To Help You Quit Smoking

girlsmoking

Two or three years ago, e-cigarattes were exotic. These strange sticks, their ends LED-lit and their owners expelling odorless smoke – “It’s vapor!” – would look as futuristic as a Replicant’s food injector. They gave the smoker nebulous powers, namely the ability to smoke on a plane, and they were expensive and hard to find.

Now, they’re everywhere. Even Leonardo DiCaprio was caught sucking on one on set. But are they safe? And what will they really do for the hard-core smoker?

Today the e-cigarette industry is worth around $ 3 billion globally, outpacing the entire stop-smoking industry including patches, gum, and other addiction killers.

Yet unlike smoking cessation products, which are sold over the counter in pharmacies, e-cigarette companies will never, ever make a claim that e-cigs will treat smoking addiction. In fact, these companies claim the opposite in their marketing materials, citing that they are not intended “to treat, prevent or cure any disease or condition.” This is the same language that appears on other dubious health concoctions

Even though it seems obvious that e-cigarettes are meant to help people tame their addiction to analog cigarettes — and there is even anecdotal evidence suggesting they are more effective than smoking cessation therapies — the claims made by these companies will partially determine the fate of the entire industry.

But before we get into the regulation of tomorrow, let’s look at the history of the tobacco industry.

A Brief History

In 1906, the Food and Drug Administration was created under President Theodore Roosevelt. In 1938, the FDA passed the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, giving the federal government jurisdiction over products like foods, medicines, and other substances that could harm the public health.

For years, that didn’t include tobacco products. It was only in 2009, under President Barack Obama, that the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA) was put into place, giving the FDA the power to regulate the Tobacco Industry.

Before this, big tobacco was allowed to experiment with new products and market their wares however they pleased, with regulation coming from state governments. In the 1950s, the realities of smoking were just beginning to show their ugly head. We began to realize there was a clear connection between smoking cigarettes and developing cancer and other fatal illnesses.

So what did the industry do? They created something called “harm reduction products”, which were meant to be “safer” than your usual cigarette. In the beginning, this simply meant adding a filter. By the 80′s, companies were taking it a step further.

RJ Reynolds introduced a type of smokeless cigarette called Premier, which seemed to disgust everyone and eventually went off the market, only to resurface itself as the Eclipse. The American Cancer Society claimed that the Eclipse line, which went on sale in 2000, was not as safe as the marketing campaign suggested, as it still delivered carcinogens and other harmful substances.

In other words, harm reduction has long been a strategy for Big Tobacco to keep sales up in the face of… well, cancer. Keeping that in mind, it’s not too much of a surprise that harm reduction products have never really taken off. Until now.

E-Cigarettes and Harm Reduction

In public perception, smoking cessation products are the good guys. These are the products like Nicoderm CQ and Nicorette that are sold by pharmacies only, used for a temporary period, and regulated as treatment and/or therapy. I quit smoking for a while with the help of the patch, and got more congratulations during that period then I did graduating from NYU, winning State Championships in volleyball, or landing a job at TechCrunch.

Harm reduction products, on the other hand, seem like ploys. Many people hear “safer” and “cigarette” in the same sentence and assume it’s yet another trick to increase sales.

But e-cigarettes are different. The movement wasn’t led by Big Tobacco. The e-cigarette industry began to boom in 2007 led by hundreds of smaller companies. Eventually, Big Tobacco took notice. Unlike the patch, or the gums, e-cigarettes actually made a dent (a small, but noticeable one) in cigarette sales.

Rather than fight it, major tobacco companies are now investing in e-cigarette offerings. Lorillard, the maker of Newport, Maverick and Old Gold cigarettes acquired Blu eCigs for $ 135 million in April 2012. Reynolds American, which makes Camel, Pall Mall, Kool and others, is now selling its own Vuse e-cigarettes in select cities as a trial run. And Altria (formerly Phillip Morris), seller of Marlboros, now sells an e-cigarette line named MarkTen.

This has pushed distribution of e-cigarettes far beyond what small, independent companies could ever manage.

However, Big Tobacco’s involvement is a double-edged sword. While distribution is greatly increased, pushing these devices into the far reaches of the country, big tobacco also gives off the perception that these devices, like the products they’ve sold for centuries, will probably kill you.

“What are these products?” asks Dr. Michael Siegel, Professor at Boston University’s Public School of Health and supporter of e-cigs. “Are they harm reduction or are they smoking cessation? It’s a tough situation because, on the one hand, you have what it does and on the other you have the claims are that are allowable under the law. It’s a strange situation where they are being regulated as tobacco products. But they are not tobacco products. There’s no tobacco in them.”

Safety

To be clear, any product that delivers nicotine into the human body is automatically considered “unsafe.” That’s the nature of nicotine itself. It’s not meant to be in our bodies.

That said, smoking cessation products like Nicoderm and Nicorette are automatically forgiven. Their purpose is to wean you off the nicotine addiction, and then be discarded. No one quits smoking and says, I’m going to use the patch for the rest of my life. That’s not how it works. In fact, doctors who prescribe smoking cessation therapies have strict limits on how long they can continue to provide the patch, gums, etc.

E-cigarettes are different. These companies don’t want you to quit smoking entirely; they simply want you to switch from smoking to vaping. In fact, the business model is built around your return. The idea is that you pay a larger sum up-front, for the device and a first set of cartridges, making an investment in it, and then return to buy refills.

In this way, e-cigarettes are simply a cigarette alternative, and not a therapy to help you quit.

But even though e-cigarettes deliver nicotine into the body, and for an extended period of time, many experts agree that they are much, much safer than combusting cigarettes.

Right now, however, clear cut information on their safety is limited. To start, there have been no finished clinical trials to measure the difference, and holding a clinical trial that is effective becomes difficult knowing that subjects would be exposed to a known carcinogen.

Moreover, the lack of regulation here allows e-cigarette companies to be lazy or negligent. The nicotine dosage may vary from one product to the next, or perhaps they’re using something other than propylene glycol (the standard liquid found in e-cigarettes). They might even have a shoddy battery or wiring that exhausts burning plastic along with the nicotine.

Many e-cigarettes are manufactured in Asia, sold at gas stations, and the consumer is none the wiser that these products haven’t been checked out by any governing body. In short, there is no oversight.

Thankfully, according to Dr. Siegel, e-cigarettes are “orders of magnitude safer” than combusting cigarettes.

“Even if e-cigarettes only cause a five to ten percent reduction in cigarette consumption, you have to understand that from a public health perspective, that is an enormously positive impact,” said Dr. Siegel.

On the other hand, it’s the lack of regulation that makes e-cigarettes potentially dangerous. So what can be done?

Regulation

This is where things get tricky.

The FDA is set to regulate the e-cigarette industry over the next year, at the latest. How they will regulate them is anyone’s guess.

There are three possible scenarios:

The first is that e-cigarettes will be regulated just like traditional cigarettes, with rules on how they can be marketed. This would still allow for distribution, letting e-cigs be sold anywhere traditional cigarettes are sold, but it would limit these companies’ ability to market themselves as a cigarette alternative, or at all.

The second option is that these products will be regulated in the same way as smoking cessation therapies. They would be sold only in pharmacies, over the counter. This would limit visibility and distribution enormously.

The third option is that the FDA will create brand new regulation for e-cigarettes, which would covers things like dosage, materials used, quality control testing, etc. but would still allow for broad distribution and marketing.

There is a raging debate right now over these options, or more pointedly, the time it will take to get to these options. Those that are pro-e-cigs want to ensure that the regulation is fair, and are willing to wait as long as they’re waiting for something close to option three.

Others believe that the e-cigarette companies are purposefully stalling, asking the FDA to wait for more hard evidence on the effects of e-cigarettes (especially compared to traditional cigarettes) in order to grow marketshare in an unregulated field. They see this as a huge risk considering that the e-cig industry is growing rapidly, and these unregulated products are in the hands of more and more unknowing consumers every day.

Bloomberg is even working to essentially ban e-cigarettes in New York.

Big Tobacco’s involvement in the matter only muddles things further. The industry doesn’t have a great track record when it comes to reducing public harm (or even admitting their products cause it in the first place), so in a way, Big Tobacco’s investment in the industry almost discredits e-cigarettes as just another marketing ploy.

On the other hand, Big Tobacco has the brawn to lobby the FDA in a way that these small manufacturers wouldn’t be able to do. Thanks to Big Tobacco, e-cigarette companies now have a voice in the pending regulation of their products.

The future of the industry is surely in question, but one thing is quite certain: this isn’t the last you’ll hear about e-cigarettes and the debate is heating (not burning) up.


I’M ON A BOAT: Tech Boys And Their Big Floaty Toys

david karp tumblr boat

There’s a saying:

“The only difference between men and boys is the size of their toys.”

A few tech moguls have some very big, floating toys. Mark Cuban, Larry Ellison, and Paul Allen are just a few who own some of the largest yachts in the world.

Others vacation on yachts with models. Others zip around with friends.

Eric Schmidt was selling his 255-foot tugboat yacht in April. It was once valued at $ 48 million. He also bought a yacht that was bigger than Larry Page’s.

Eric Schmidt has owned multiple yachts. In 2011, New York Post reported that Schmidt had purchased a yacht larger than Google CEO Larry Page’s. The 195-foot yacht was purchased in 2009 for a reported $ 72.3 million.

In addition to the mega-yacht, Schmidt and his wife Wendy “accumulated some $ 60-odd million in assets for ‘ocean studies,’” according to The ODP. That $ 60 million included two boats, one which was priced at $ 48 million.

There are pictures of the large tugboat yacht here.




Steve Jobs designed a 250-foot yacht run by 27 MacBooks that’s now owned by his family.

One year after his death, the yacht Steve Jobs personally designed was completed.

It’s a 250-foot yacht with a large sun deck designed by Philippe Starc. It was built in the Netherlands by shipbuilder Koninklijke De Vries.

There are more photos of the yacht, here.




Amazon’s star engineer James Hamilton lives on a boat and often works remotely from Hawaii.

James Hamilton, a star Amazon engineer who makes sure its Web services business is always up and running, lives on a boat with his family.

His boat, The Dirona, is a custom-built, 52-foot Nordhavn yacht.

Pictures of the yacht can be found here.



See the rest of the story at Business Insider