Listeria pathogen is prevalent, persistent in retail delis

Purdue University research shows that standard cleaning procedures in retail delis may not eradicate Listeria monocytogenes bacteria, which can cause a potentially fatal disease in people with vulnerable immune systems.

A study led by Haley Oliver, assistant professor of food science, found that 6.8 percent of samples taken in 15 delis before daily operation had begun tested positive for L. monocytogenes (mah-noh-sy-TAH'-gin-eez).

In a second sampling phase, 9.5 percent of samples taken in 30 delis during operation over six months tested positive for the bacteria. In 12 delis, the same subtypes of the bacteria cropped up in several of the monthly samplings, which could mean that L. monocytogenes can persist in growth niches over time.

"This is a public health challenge," Oliver said. "These data suggest that failure to thoroughly execute cleaning and sanitation protocols is allowing L. monocytogenes to persist in some stores. We can't in good conscience tell people with weak immune systems that it is safe to eat at the deli."

In healthy individuals, eating food contaminated with L. monocytogenes may lead to common food poisoning symptoms such as diarrhea or an upset stomach. But the bacteria can cause listeriosis -- a serious systemic infection -- in immunocompromised people such as the elderly, infants and children, pregnant women and people with HIV. In severe cases, L. monocytogenes can pass through the intestinal membrane and into the bloodstream or cross the blood-brain barrier. The bacteria can also cross the placental barrier in pregnant women, which can trigger abortion.

Ready-to-eat deli meats are the food most associated with L. monocytogenes, which can grow at refrigerator temperatures, unlike Salmonella and E. coli.

Stringent control measures and inspections have tamped down the presence of L. monocytogenes at meat processing plants, but there are no regulations specific to Listeria for retail delis. Recent risk assessments suggest that up to 83 percent of listeriosis cases linked to deli meats are attributable to products contaminated at retail.

"It's kind of the Wild West," Oliver said. "Manufacturing has a zero-tolerance policy for Listeria, but that dissipates at the retail level. The challenge of developing systematic cleaning procedures for a wide variety of delis -- which are less restricted environments than processing plants -- can make Listeria harder to control."

Oliver and her team tested for L. monocytogenes and other Listeria species in 30 delis in national supermarket chains in three states. The researchers swabbed surfaces that come into frequent contact with food, such as meat slicers and counters, and surfaces that typically do not.

About 30 percent of the delis never tested positive for the pathogen, while some delis tested positive in 35 percent of the samples collected over six months.

"The prevalence of L. monocytogenes is higher than we expected in a significant percentage of delis, and the bacteria is persisting in these delis over time," Oliver said.

Most of the positive samples were collected from surfaces that usually do not come into contact with food, examples being floors, drains and squeegees. But the bacteria can be transferred unintentionally from these surfaces to food, Oliver said.

While the percentage of L. monocytogenes found on food contact surfaces was low, "these numbers would never be acceptable in manufacturing," she said. "The reason we haven't had a listeriosis outbreak tied to a deli is because it's a disease with a long incubation time, and it's difficult to track to a source. There are only about 1,600 listeriosis cases a year. But the likelihood of death is huge."

The research team tested 442 of the L. monocytogenes isolates collected from delis to determine how virulent the isolates were -- that is, how great the likelihood was that they could cause disease. They found that less than 3 percent of the isolates had a lower potential for virulence.

"The vast majority of the isolates were 'hot' -- comparable to wild-type L. monocytogenes," Oliver said. "These are particularly cause for concern."

She said that delis' standard sanitation operating procedures can keep the bacteria at bay only if the delis are in good condition, thoroughly cleaned and have sloped floors. But cleaning and sanitation may not effectively manage Listeria in a deli with structural damage such as missing grout, loose wall coverings or a drain that is not working properly. L. monocytogenes can flourish when it finds a moist niche that is infrequently cleaned.

Delis with contamination problems should "minimize the 'stuff' in the deli," Oliver said, to make it possible to clean the area thoroughly and train employees on how to maintain a sterile environment.

Consumers with vulnerable immune systems should buy prepackaged deli meats or heat ready-to-eat meats to 165 degrees, she said. Meat contaminated with L. monocytogenes will not show signs of spoilage, such as sliminess or odor.

"That's the challenge with pathogens such as Listeria, Salmonella, E. coli and norovirus: They don't cause changes in the characteristics of the products," she said. "Can you smell a food and tell if it's safe? Absolutely not."

Well That Didn’t Work: The 1899 Car With a Full-Size Wooden Horse Head Stuck to the Front

courtesy US Patent office

The early years of the American auto industry looked a lot like Silicon Valley today. Instead of countless apps and startups aiming to fix problems that probably don’t exist, the entrepreneurs of the age were making all sorts of new kinds of cars, before the industry was pared down to just a few juggernauts.

That includes Uriah Smith of Battle Creek, Michigan, a Seventh-day Adventist preacher who also dabbled in engineering. He figured the biggest problem with cars was that they scared the bejeezus out of horses, with dangerous results.

This was a serious issue: Horses scare easily and run fast, which is a problem when people have tied them to heavy carts. (They also bite, kick, and liberally distribute manure.) In 1900, they killed 200 people in New York City, according to the University of California Transportation Center’s ACCESS magazine. In 2014, when the city’s population was four times larger, fewer than 300 people were killed in all traffic accidents.

So presumably, anything that could make horses less likely to freak out would have been welcome. And in 1899, Smith announced his vehicle, the Horsey Horseless. According to his patent, it was a “new and original design for a vehicle body, and it has for its object to provide a design of this character that shall be both useful and ornamental.” (If you’ve ever wondered how someone who spends his time in the pulpit would write a patent application, there’s your answer.)

More simply, it was a car with a big wooden horse head stuck on the front of it. It looked as if someone had grabbed the figurehead from the prow of a ship and plunked it on a car as a massively oversized hood ornament. Added bonus: The hollow equine bust doubled as a fuel tank.

The idea was straightforward: If a car looks like a horse, actual horses won’t be scared of it. And they won’t cause a ruckus. “The live horse would be thinking of another horse,” Smith said, “and before he could discover his error and see that he had been fooled, the strange carriage would have passed, and it would then be too late to grow frantic and fractious.” Problem solved.

The Horsey Horseless didn’t catch on. It’s not even clear if Smith ever produced or sold one. But we do know that had he convinced people to give him money for this thing, it wouldn’t have worked. “A horse would not be fooled,” says Lauren Fraser, a horse behavior consultant in British Columbia. “The animals deserve—but don’t always receive—a bit more credit than that for their intelligence.” They didn’t get it from Smith.

Plus, Smith missed the bigger point: Visual trickery wasn’t the way to go. “The biggest thing that horses use for recognition is smell,” says Dr. Carey Williams, an equine specialist at Rutgers University. It doesn’t matter how much mare urine you pour on the wooden sculpture, “it’s not gonna smell like a horse.” Especially since the vehicle will produce other scents—like gasoline, oil, and wood—that reveal it to be something else.

Yes, horses can spook easily. But they also have good memories, and stop freaking out once they’re used to a new thing. For today’s carriage horses in cities like New York, for example, “their first or second time might be a little scary because it’s all new,” Williams says. But after a few more trips, “they don’t even look at the cars anymore, cause they know they’re not gonna get hurt.” Ultimately, it’s that ability to learn—not the inability to distinguish a piece of wood from a fellow Equus ferus caballus—that made their cohabitation with the automobile possible.

Well That Didn’t Work: The 1899 Car With a Full-Size Wooden Horse Head Stuck to the Front

courtesy US Patent office

The early years of the American auto industry looked a lot like Silicon Valley today. Instead of countless apps and startups aiming to fix problems that probably don’t exist, the entrepreneurs of the age were making all sorts of new kinds of cars, before the industry was pared down to just a few juggernauts.

That includes Uriah Smith of Battle Creek, Michigan, a Seventh-day Adventist preacher who also dabbled in engineering. He figured the biggest problem with cars was that they scared the bejeezus out of horses, with dangerous results.

This was a serious issue: Horses scare easily and run fast, which is a problem when people have tied them to heavy carts. (They also bite, kick, and liberally distribute manure.) In 1900, they killed 200 people in New York City, according to the University of California Transportation Center’s ACCESS magazine. In 2014, when the city’s population was four times larger, fewer than 300 people were killed in all traffic accidents.

So presumably, anything that could make horses less likely to freak out would have been welcome. And in 1899, Smith announced his vehicle, the Horsey Horseless. According to his patent, it was a “new and original design for a vehicle body, and it has for its object to provide a design of this character that shall be both useful and ornamental.” (If you’ve ever wondered how someone who spends his time in the pulpit would write a patent application, there’s your answer.)

More simply, it was a car with a big wooden horse head stuck on the front of it. It looked as if someone had grabbed the figurehead from the prow of a ship and plunked it on a car as a massively oversized hood ornament. Added bonus: The hollow equine bust doubled as a fuel tank.

The idea was straightforward: If a car looks like a horse, actual horses won’t be scared of it. And they won’t cause a ruckus. “The live horse would be thinking of another horse,” Smith said, “and before he could discover his error and see that he had been fooled, the strange carriage would have passed, and it would then be too late to grow frantic and fractious.” Problem solved.

The Horsey Horseless didn’t catch on. It’s not even clear if Smith ever produced or sold one. But we do know that had he convinced people to give him money for this thing, it wouldn’t have worked. “A horse would not be fooled,” says Lauren Fraser, a horse behavior consultant in British Columbia. “The animals deserve—but don’t always receive—a bit more credit than that for their intelligence.” They didn’t get it from Smith.

Plus, Smith missed the bigger point: Visual trickery wasn’t the way to go. “The biggest thing that horses use for recognition is smell,” says Dr. Carey Williams, an equine specialist at Rutgers University. It doesn’t matter how much mare urine you pour on the wooden sculpture, “it’s not gonna smell like a horse.” Especially since the vehicle will produce other scents—like gasoline, oil, and wood—that reveal it to be something else.

Yes, horses can spook easily. But they also have good memories, and stop freaking out once they’re used to a new thing. For today’s carriage horses in cities like New York, for example, “their first or second time might be a little scary because it’s all new,” Williams says. But after a few more trips, “they don’t even look at the cars anymore, cause they know they’re not gonna get hurt.” Ultimately, it’s that ability to learn—not the inability to distinguish a piece of wood from a fellow Equus ferus caballus—that made their cohabitation with the automobile possible.

The Best All-in-One Desktops for Dorm Rooms and Small Offices

Apple iMac with Retina 5K Display Josh Valcarcel/WIRED

Desktops are dead—we get it—but there’s one subcategory of this oldest-of-old-school computer type where innovation is thriving, because customers are still interested in the unique features these machines have to offer. If you haven’t checked out an all-in-one desktop lately, you might be surprised how much is happening behind that big screen.

All-in-ones have broad market appeal among style- and space-conscious users, but we wanted to look at some specific use cases for the all-in-one. Particularly, we filtered these reviews through the eyes of a few prototypical types of users—those needing a do-it-all device for a dorm room, small apartment, or small office, a single machine that would do double duty for both work and leisure, equally apt at spreadsheets as it is at handling an Xbox.

We asked several manufacturers for all-in-ones and gave them each an extensive wish list. Because these devices wouldn’t just be used as computers but also as television monitors, we wanted 23 inches of screen real estate as a minimum, with the best resolution possible and a touchscreen if available. Audio should be integrated (no room for bulky speakers). Ideally we wanted lots of inputs: multiple HDMI inputs for external consumer electronics equipment, a TV tuner, and an integrated Blu-ray reader would all be ideal. We knew we wouldn’t get every single item on the list—and that some features, like Blu-ray or the TV tuner, may not be critical to every user—but we felt this configuration offered maximum flexibility, literally an “all-in-one” device.

Here’s what we got, and how the machines fared.

Apple essentially invented the all-in-one category (at least as far as the modern era is concerned), and the latest iteration of the iMac—the Apple iMac 27-inch with Retina 5K Display ($2,500; RATING: 7)—is as glorious a machine as you could ask for to sit on your desk. It’s really all about that screen: 5120 x 2880 pixels of the brightest all-in-one display I’ve ever tested—so bright that at its maximum brightness setting, it’s physically painful to look it. Under the hood components like the 3.5GHz Core i5, 8GB RAM, ATI Radeon R9 M290X graphics, and a 1TB hard drive are all acceptable, and upgradeable if needed. There is no touchscreen option, however.

The tiny, chintzy keyboard notwithstanding, as a computer, the machine is tough to beat on its merits. The only noteworthy downside is how closed off this machine is from the rest of the tech universe, which bodes poorly from this comparison’s perspective. Four USB 3.0 ports, an SD card slot, Ethernet, and two Thunderbolt 2 ports are the only ins and outs, which means you won’t be able to use the iMac as an external display. Why? Because while the iMac technically supports Target Display Mode, the Thunderbolt connection doesn’t support a 5K input, it doesn’t support connections via DVI or HDMI adapters, and TDM only works with other Macs, not consumer electronics devices from other manufacturers. So, put simply, you just can’t use this iMac as a gaming or other CE device monitor at all, and your only option for watching optical media is through a $100 USB player add-on. That price is tough to swallow, too.

Acer

At the other end of the cost spectrum is the Acer Aspire Z3-615-UR14 ($800; RATING: 5). Acer’s rig is barely a third the cost of the iMac, but it shows. With a design straight out of the ’80s, it’s hardly a sleek and elegant companion for your cramped loft. But if you’re going for more of a Brutalist motif in your decorating, hey, it just might work.

The 23-inch monolith includes a 10-point touchscreen (with 1920 x 1080 pixels of resolution), and specs include a 2.9GHz Core i3, 6GB of RAM, and a 1TB hard drive. Graphics are integrated, and expansion ports include five USB ports (two are USB 3.0), Ethernet, HDMI in and out, and an SD cart slot. A DVD burner is built in.

No corner has gone uncut with the Aspire Z3 in order to hit that rock-bottom price. The system is achingly slow, and benchmarks bear out its plodding performance. The screen is comparably dim next to the competition, but it’s bright enough for casual use, while the audio quality is loud but boomy. The wireless keyboard and mouse (included) feel like they came out of a Happy Meal—and even the AAA batteries included for the keyboard were dead on arrival.

The Acer’s HDMI input means it can work as a monitor for your game console or other electronics, but this was wildly erratic in my testing, failing to work at all most of the time and limited at others—namely since there’s no way to control the volume on your HDMI-connected devices from the Acer. Turns out you do get what you pay for.

Lenovo

The Lenovo A740 ($1,750, RATING: 7) takes a different approach to the typical all-in-one design by splitting up the screen and the motherboard. The 27-inch, 2560 x 1440-pixel touchscreen is mounted on a dramatically swiveling hinge, while underneath, the base is populated with the other components, including all the ports. If you don’t like fumbling around behind the screen to plug stuff in, this design works well. Four USB 3.0 ports, an SD card slot, Ethernet, and HDMI input can all be found on the base. An external DVD burner is also included. At press time, Lenovo’s website mentions a TV tuner option, but the company says this upgrade is not presently available.

The highlight here is the swiveling hinge that lets the screen go from fully upright to laying completely flat against the table. If you’re looking for a computer that can work as a tabletop gaming device, well, you won’t find a better way to play backgammon.

Otherwise, the system is compelling, if short of exemplary. Graphics benchmarks are top-notch, making this a capable gaming rig (video courtesy of an Nvidia GeForce GTX 850A), and while the 2.8GHz Core i7, 8GB of RAM, and 1TB hard drive sound impressive, general application benchmarks weren’t all that stellar. While the display is hardly on par with Apple’s, the A740’s snazzy screen does make up for a lot of the trouble, as does that beefy audio. I was far less enamored with the gummy-feeling texture on the mouse, though.

I had trouble getting older HDMI-based gear to work with the Lenovo A740, but a Blu-ray player of a newer vintage had no problems. That said, unfortunately, the A740’s utility as a media hub is limited. Like the Acer, it has no external volume control, and it automatically switches to HDMI input whenever something is plugged in to the HDMI port and powered up. The only way to switch between HDMI input and using the A740 as a PC is to manually unplug the HDMI cable, which is a pretty crude solution for a device that costs nearly $2,000.

Beats

Finally, there’s the HP Envy 23xt Beats Special Edition ($1,000; RATING: 7), which is as an audacious a Beats-branded product as I’ve ever seen. Slathered in Beats-red paint, it is so committed to the Beatsiverse that it features a slide-out hanger on which you can drape your Beats headphones and a big, backlit “b” front and center in the speaker grille, below the screen. That red “b” never goes out, even when the computer is asleep, and that’s pretty amazing. What better nightlight could a college kid ask for than one that promises that Dr. Dre is watching over them while they sleep?

Behind the red paint, the 23xt is appointed with a 23-inch touchscreen (offering 1920 x 1080 pixels) 1.9GHz Core i5, 8GB of RAM, a 1TB hard drive, and an integrated DVD burner. There are ample USB ports (6 of them, all USB 2.0), plus Ethernet, an SD card slot, and HDMI input. On the left side of the screen is the 23xt’s killer feature, a small button that reads “HDMI IN.” Just punch this button and the 23xt slips—seamlessly—from standard PC to a monitor for your gaming device or other HDMI output. And—praise Jesus!—the volume controls on the keyboard actually work while you’re displaying HDMI video (something termed “game mode” by HP).

There’s only one problem with the 23xt, and that is, sadly, its performance as an actual computer. The 1.9GHz CPU is woefully underpowered and the hard drive is extremely slow—both of which drag this machine down no matter what you’re trying to do. Booting is slow, installing or launching apps is slow, and benchmarks are appropriately awful. On general apps, even the Core i3-powered Acer Aspire Z3 outperformed the HP by up to 60 percent. That’s simply appalling. Graphics are roughly in line with what you can expect from the typical system with integrated graphics—barely acceptable for anything but older games at lower quality settings.

That’s a bummer, because otherwise this is a perfect machine—and really, the only machine we tested—that actually fits the bill of our do-it-all device. The HDMI switching system is perfect. The screen, though a bit on the dim side, looks nice, and the audio quality is phenomenal. I guess this doctor actually knows what he’s doing in the sound department. My best advice is to spring for an upgraded CPU and an SSHD drive, and pass the bill on to mom and dad.

The Best All-in-One Desktops for Dorm Rooms and Small Offices

Apple iMac with Retina 5K Display Josh Valcarcel/WIRED

Desktops are dead—we get it—but there’s one subcategory of this oldest-of-old-school computer type where innovation is thriving, because customers are still interested in the unique features these machines have to offer. If you haven’t checked out an all-in-one desktop lately, you might be surprised how much is happening behind that big screen.

All-in-ones have broad market appeal among style- and space-conscious users, but we wanted to look at some specific use cases for the all-in-one. Particularly, we filtered these reviews through the eyes of a few prototypical types of users—those needing a do-it-all device for a dorm room, small apartment, or small office, a single machine that would do double duty for both work and leisure, equally apt at spreadsheets as it is at handling an Xbox.

We asked several manufacturers for all-in-ones and gave them each an extensive wish list. Because these devices wouldn’t just be used as computers but also as television monitors, we wanted 23 inches of screen real estate as a minimum, with the best resolution possible and a touchscreen if available. Audio should be integrated (no room for bulky speakers). Ideally we wanted lots of inputs: multiple HDMI inputs for external consumer electronics equipment, a TV tuner, and an integrated Blu-ray reader would all be ideal. We knew we wouldn’t get every single item on the list—and that some features, like Blu-ray or the TV tuner, may not be critical to every user—but we felt this configuration offered maximum flexibility, literally an “all-in-one” device.

Here’s what we got, and how the machines fared.

Apple essentially invented the all-in-one category (at least as far as the modern era is concerned), and the latest iteration of the iMac—the Apple iMac 27-inch with Retina 5K Display ($2,500; RATING: 7)—is as glorious a machine as you could ask for to sit on your desk. It’s really all about that screen: 5120 x 2880 pixels of the brightest all-in-one display I’ve ever tested—so bright that at its maximum brightness setting, it’s physically painful to look it. Under the hood components like the 3.5GHz Core i5, 8GB RAM, ATI Radeon R9 M290X graphics, and a 1TB hard drive are all acceptable, and upgradeable if needed. There is no touchscreen option, however.

The tiny, chintzy keyboard notwithstanding, as a computer, the machine is tough to beat on its merits. The only noteworthy downside is how closed off this machine is from the rest of the tech universe, which bodes poorly from this comparison’s perspective. Four USB 3.0 ports, an SD card slot, Ethernet, and two Thunderbolt 2 ports are the only ins and outs, which means you won’t be able to use the iMac as an external display. Why? Because while the iMac technically supports Target Display Mode, the Thunderbolt connection doesn’t support a 5K input, it doesn’t support connections via DVI or HDMI adapters, and TDM only works with other Macs, not consumer electronics devices from other manufacturers. So, put simply, you just can’t use this iMac as a gaming or other CE device monitor at all, and your only option for watching optical media is through a $100 USB player add-on. That price is tough to swallow, too.

Acer

At the other end of the cost spectrum is the Acer Aspire Z3-615-UR14 ($800; RATING: 5). Acer’s rig is barely a third the cost of the iMac, but it shows. With a design straight out of the ’80s, it’s hardly a sleek and elegant companion for your cramped loft. But if you’re going for more of a Brutalist motif in your decorating, hey, it just might work.

The 23-inch monolith includes a 10-point touchscreen (with 1920 x 1080 pixels of resolution), and specs include a 2.9GHz Core i3, 6GB of RAM, and a 1TB hard drive. Graphics are integrated, and expansion ports include five USB ports (two are USB 3.0), Ethernet, HDMI in and out, and an SD cart slot. A DVD burner is built in.

No corner has gone uncut with the Aspire Z3 in order to hit that rock-bottom price. The system is achingly slow, and benchmarks bear out its plodding performance. The screen is comparably dim next to the competition, but it’s bright enough for casual use, while the audio quality is loud but boomy. The wireless keyboard and mouse (included) feel like they came out of a Happy Meal—and even the AAA batteries included for the keyboard were dead on arrival.

The Acer’s HDMI input means it can work as a monitor for your game console or other electronics, but this was wildly erratic in my testing, failing to work at all most of the time and limited at others—namely since there’s no way to control the volume on your HDMI-connected devices from the Acer. Turns out you do get what you pay for.

Lenovo

The Lenovo A740 ($1,750, RATING: 7) takes a different approach to the typical all-in-one design by splitting up the screen and the motherboard. The 27-inch, 2560 x 1440-pixel touchscreen is mounted on a dramatically swiveling hinge, while underneath, the base is populated with the other components, including all the ports. If you don’t like fumbling around behind the screen to plug stuff in, this design works well. Four USB 3.0 ports, an SD card slot, Ethernet, and HDMI input can all be found on the base. An external DVD burner is also included. At press time, Lenovo’s website mentions a TV tuner option, but the company says this upgrade is not presently available.

The highlight here is the swiveling hinge that lets the screen go from fully upright to laying completely flat against the table. If you’re looking for a computer that can work as a tabletop gaming device, well, you won’t find a better way to play backgammon.

Otherwise, the system is compelling, if short of exemplary. Graphics benchmarks are top-notch, making this a capable gaming rig (video courtesy of an Nvidia GeForce GTX 850A), and while the 2.8GHz Core i7, 8GB of RAM, and 1TB hard drive sound impressive, general application benchmarks weren’t all that stellar. While the display is hardly on par with Apple’s, the A740’s snazzy screen does make up for a lot of the trouble, as does that beefy audio. I was far less enamored with the gummy-feeling texture on the mouse, though.

I had trouble getting older HDMI-based gear to work with the Lenovo A740, but a Blu-ray player of a newer vintage had no problems. That said, unfortunately, the A740’s utility as a media hub is limited. Like the Acer, it has no external volume control, and it automatically switches to HDMI input whenever something is plugged in to the HDMI port and powered up. The only way to switch between HDMI input and using the A740 as a PC is to manually unplug the HDMI cable, which is a pretty crude solution for a device that costs nearly $2,000.

Beats

Finally, there’s the HP Envy 23xt Beats Special Edition ($1,000; RATING: 7), which is as an audacious a Beats-branded product as I’ve ever seen. Slathered in Beats-red paint, it is so committed to the Beatsiverse that it features a slide-out hanger on which you can drape your Beats headphones and a big, backlit “b” front and center in the speaker grille, below the screen. That red “b” never goes out, even when the computer is asleep, and that’s pretty amazing. What better nightlight could a college kid ask for than one that promises that Dr. Dre is watching over them while they sleep?

Behind the red paint, the 23xt is appointed with a 23-inch touchscreen (offering 1920 x 1080 pixels) 1.9GHz Core i5, 8GB of RAM, a 1TB hard drive, and an integrated DVD burner. There are ample USB ports (6 of them, all USB 2.0), plus Ethernet, an SD card slot, and HDMI input. On the left side of the screen is the 23xt’s killer feature, a small button that reads “HDMI IN.” Just punch this button and the 23xt slips—seamlessly—from standard PC to a monitor for your gaming device or other HDMI output. And—praise Jesus!—the volume controls on the keyboard actually work while you’re displaying HDMI video (something termed “game mode” by HP).

There’s only one problem with the 23xt, and that is, sadly, its performance as an actual computer. The 1.9GHz CPU is woefully underpowered and the hard drive is extremely slow—both of which drag this machine down no matter what you’re trying to do. Booting is slow, installing or launching apps is slow, and benchmarks are appropriately awful. On general apps, even the Core i3-powered Acer Aspire Z3 outperformed the HP by up to 60 percent. That’s simply appalling. Graphics are roughly in line with what you can expect from the typical system with integrated graphics—barely acceptable for anything but older games at lower quality settings.

That’s a bummer, because otherwise this is a perfect machine—and really, the only machine we tested—that actually fits the bill of our do-it-all device. The HDMI switching system is perfect. The screen, though a bit on the dim side, looks nice, and the audio quality is phenomenal. I guess this doctor actually knows what he’s doing in the sound department. My best advice is to spring for an upgraded CPU and an SSHD drive, and pass the bill on to mom and dad.

US Healthcare Is So Screwed I Fly to Britain for My Medication

Getty Images

Every six months, like clockwork, I fly home to the UK for three days for one reason: to pick up my supply of prescription medication.

I consider myself lucky—drugs are cheap in there, where a national health service exists that I can partake of as a UK citizen. The very vast majority of Americans are not as fortunate. John Oliver, fellow Brit, comedian, and host of Last Week Tonight, said Sunday in a skit about Big Pharma that the cost of drug spending in the U.S. last year “works out to be about a thousand dollars per person.”

That’s why my biannual trek is so important. Though it’s nice to see friends and family, they are not the point. The drugs are. Without them, I would be worthless. I wouldn’t be able to enjoy my loved ones anyway. Without my pills I would barely be able to stand, let alone walk. I wouldn’t be able to string a sentence together. Vocal as I would be, it would be mostly groans of agony and then sudden clashes of curse words.

Zack Whittaker

Zack Whittaker is a New York-based freelancer who writes mostly about security for ZDNET and CNET. You can follow him on Twitter @zackwhitaker.

I suffer from severe Tourette’s syndrome. The hallmark “swearing tic,” seen as a common trait of the condition, is by far the least of my troubles. The symptoms can be so bad that my arms flail out and hit walls and people. And when there isn’t anyone else around none other than my own my crotch bears the brunt of my body’s abuse. My legs will shake so intensely that the muscles burn. My head jerks and throw itself back—sideways, frontwards, and any other way it can as though it’s an oversized cantaloupe attached to a Slinky toy.

Tourette’s won’t kill me—at least not directly—but it does affect my ability to function properly. But there is good news. Mercifully, I can be brought back from this jibbering, flubbering, and dribbling mess for a mere $12 every six months — the cost of a large and complicated mug of Starbucks coffee (and a pastry on the side).

But not in America. Here in New York, where I live and work, to fill my prescription at any pharmacy in the city would cost just shy of $720 per month. And that figure is one of the cheapest “quotes” I’ve heard in my quest; the price varies depending on where you go in the city. Some pharmacies further out into Queens and Brooklyn will sometimes charge as low as $548 for a month’s supply of the correct dosage, but the figure can fluctuate wildly.

I’m in my 20s, making ends meet as a writer. Needless to say, I cannot pay those prices. But here’s a fact you may not expect: I have health insurance. It’s just my health insurance won’t help.

The root of the problem is this: There is no generic version of my medicine available in America.

And as it turns out, that’s the rub. You see, America’s health insurance system is uniquely bizarre. Here’s a common phenomenon: You are prescribed an expensive, name-brand drug by your doctor, but before your insurance will pay for it, it requires you to try a less costly or generic version first. If those don’t work, your insurance will consider covering the cost of the more expensive drug. This process is called “step therapy”. But you see, if there isn’t a generic version available, you may not be covered at all. The insurance company may simply require you to take a totally different drug that’s cheaper. If you need what’s on the prescription, you might have to pay full price for it. It depends entirely on your insurance.

I arrived in America just as Obamacare was rolling out. Since I couldn’t meet the deadline for insurance, I sought out private health coverage through a company (as a freelance writer, it was my only option). The plan offered good choices for about $400 a month — it even had dental. I could get hit by a car a dozen times over and I would be patched up with great care and minimal costs. I could take a baseball bat to the teeth, and only pay a few bucks for the dentist’s time. But then I learned that it wouldn’t cover the one drug I needed. For that one drug, I would have to pay the full price out of pocket on top of what I was already paying for my coverage.

Is this a unique situation? Do I need a specialist drug that’s sold to just a handful people each year? Not even slightly. The drug I need happens to be the most prescribed (and profitable) in America.

Otsuka Pharmaceutical, which makes Abilify, is said to have made $6.9 billion in sales from the drug last year. Abilify treats bipolar disorder, depression, conditions associated with autistic spectrum disorders, and schizophrenia — illnesses that affect tens of millions of Americans. In a low dose, it also happens to reduce my symptoms by as much 90 percent with no side effects.

For me, Abilify is a wonder drug. And that’s probably why Otsuka can sell it for as much as it does.

For the $720 a month (or $4,320 every six months) my medication costs in America, I may as well fly back to the U.K. in style—a first-class flight, a room in the Ritz London hotel for two nights, and yet still have a few dollars left to pick up my drugs.

The reality is that a coach ticket and a modest hotel for a couple of nights can save thousands of dollars a year on necessary drugs. I pretend it’s a vacation, but, in fact, it’s a laborious and disruptive journey that I should not have to take, and yet am grateful I can afford.

This isn’t a problem just with Abilify. New figures from The Commonwealth Fund’s biennial health insurance survey reported 12 million working-age American adults with insurance who suffer from a chronic illness (like hypertension, diabetes, and asthma) and require medication for it did not fill prescriptions or missed doses because they couldn’t afford the drugs.

Because so many of these life-changing brand-name drugs are not regulated in price, those who need them may have to pay whatever price the drug maker sets. Drug companies regularly patent their inventions, and can drive wild profits annually by being the sole provider. But when those patents expire—typically after 20 years—other drug companies can create cheaper, yet identical generic versions. Otsuka’s patent on Abilify will expire in April, costing it an estimated $65 billion over the next four years. A generic version of the drug could follow soon after, barring any legal spats. My fingers are crossed.

The U.S. government does not regulate the price of branded drugs, but its neighbors do.

For two hours on a plane to Canada, you can pick up Abilify and most other common prescription drugs for a fraction of the cost. One drug store quoted me $78 for a month’s supply. (For me, though, it doesn’t make much sense to fly to Canada instead of the U.K. The overall expense, including doctor’s visits and flight costs, would equal that of a trip to London, where I do get the added bonus of a visit with family.)

For anyone out there in a similar circumstance who would rather not go all the way to Britain, I suggest cashing in a few vacation days, and packing a bag. I hear Toronto is beautiful this time of year. Or you could head south to Mexico, where you can buy Abilify without a prescription for about $65 a month.

Did the NSA and the UK’s Spy Agency Launch a Joint Cyberattack on Iran?

The GCHQ in Scarborough, England, July 30, 2014. Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

An NSA document newly published today suggests two interesting facts that haven’t previously been reported.

The Intercept, which published the document, highlighted that in it the NSA expresses fear that it may be teaching Iran how to hack, but there are two other points in the document that merit attention.

One concerns the spy tool known as Flame; the other refers to concerns the NSA had about partnering with the British spy agency Government Communications Headquarters and Israeli intelligence in surveillance operations.

Did GCHQ Partner With the NSA on Flame?

In the document, prepared in April 2013 for a meeting between the NSA director and GCHQ, the author cites the Flame attack against Iran as an example of a US/GCHQ partnership. Flame was a massive spy platform exposed by Kaspersky Lab and Symantec in 2012. Flame targeted more than 10,000 machines in Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Sudan, the Israeli Occupied Territories and other countries in the Middle East and North Africa and was active for at least six years before it was discovered. It used some of the same code that Stuxnet used, leading researchers to conclude that it had been created by the same US/Israel teams that had created Stuxnet. The Washington Post reported in 2012 that the US and Israel were both behind Flame, quoting anonymous US officials. But the new Snowden document hints that GCHQ might have been involved in Flame with the US.

Although the document doesn’t say overtly that GCHQ partnered with the US in creating and unleashing Flame, it hints obliquely at cooperation. The document notes that the NSA has “successfully worked multiple high-priority surges with GCHQ” and cites Flame as an example. But, oddly, it doesn’t say they worked together on creating Flame. Instead, it simply cites Iran’s discovery of Flame in a list of projects on which the GCHQ and the US collaborated.

These jointly worked events include “the storming of the British Embassy in Tehran; Iran’s discovery of computer network exploitation tools on their networks in 2012 and 2013; and support to policymakers during the multiple rounds of P5 plus 1 negotiation on Iran’s nuclear program,” the document reads. The reference to an embassy attack presumably refers to the 2011 attack on the British embassy by protestors in Iran. The reference to the P5 plus 1 relates to negotiations between Iran and Western powers over Iran’s nuclear program. The network attacks are identified by name as the Flame attacks in another part of the document.

It’s unclear what else this might refer to if not the two countries partnering in the creation and unleashing of Flame. Other documents leaked by Edward Snowden have spelled out in more detail how the NSA and GCHQ have partnered over the years in other spy operations, ranging from sharing data siphoned from undersea cables to the hacking of telecom networks, like Belgium’s Belgacom, to monitor mobile traffic. The new document suggests that the two countries might also have partnered on Flame in some way, though it’s unclear to what extent. If this is correct, and the previous Post is correct as well, it would mean the three nations teamed up to spy on Iran, presumably over its nuclear program.

NSA Expresses Concern About Partnering with GCHQ and Israel

Although there are numerous examples released in the Snowden documents of NSA-GCHQ cooperation as well as NSA-Israeli cooperation, the 2013 document published today expresses concern about a trilateral agreement between the three nations.

It appears in a section discussing a collaboration between the NSA, GCHQ and ISNU—a reference to the Israeli SIGINT National Unit, the Israeli counterpart to the NSA. Under the heading “Potential Landmines,” the document notes that GCHQ has long pushed to work with the NSA and ISNU “in a trilateral arrangement to prosecute the Iranian target.” And it notes that the NSA and GCHQ have agreed to share information gleaned from their separate partnerships with Israeli intelligence. But with regard to a trilateral partnership, the NSA had reservations. The document notes that the “SID policy has been opposed to such a blanket arrangement.”

SID refers to the Signals Intelligence Directorate. Under the SID Management Directive 422 (.pdf), the intelligence community is prohibited from delegating a mission to a non-USSS element—that is, a non-US SIGINT System—without first obtaining a memo of understanding between the NSA and the non-US entity. NSA activities are government by a number of directives, most important among them is USSID 18, which governs what the US can and cannot collect on US persons and how it must handle information collected incidentally on them. Including a foreign spy agency in data collection raises issues about oversight and legality if it involves data pertaining to U.S. persons. This may be in part why the NSA was concerned.

As noted, the NSA has partnered separately with both the GCHQ and Israeli on intelligence collection. Previously released Snowden documents discussed how the NSA shared raw intelligence with Israel.

And according to the new document, the US, UK and Israeli spy agencies engaged in discussions in 2013 about a possible three-way partnership in tackling issues with Iran. “In January 2013, during an NSA-ISNU analytic workshop on Iranian Leadership, the first ever trilateral VTC on an Iranian issue was held with NSA, CCHQ and ISNU particiants,” it notes.

But the US was apparently hesitant about expanding the surveillance agreement outside of the issue of Iran. “The trilateral relationship is limited to the topic and will serve as a proof of concept of this kind of engagement,” the document notes. But “this specific trilateral should not be interpreted as a broad change of approach.” In other words, in areas not to do with Iran, the NSA and CCHQ have agreed to continue to share information gleaned from their respective bilateral relationships with the ISNU, but apparently are reluctant to make Israel a part of their exclusive club on a regular basis.

US Healthcare Is So Screwed I Fly to Britain for My Medication

Getty Images

Every six months, like clockwork, I fly home to the UK for three days for one reason: to pick up my supply of prescription medication.

I consider myself lucky—drugs are cheap in there, where a national health service exists that I can partake of as a UK citizen. The very vast majority of Americans are not as fortunate. John Oliver, fellow Brit, comedian, and host of Last Week Tonight, said Sunday in a skit about Big Pharma that the cost of drug spending in the U.S. last year “works out to be about a thousand dollars per person.”

That’s why my biannual trek is so important. Though it’s nice to see friends and family, they are not the point. The drugs are. Without them, I would be worthless. I wouldn’t be able to enjoy my loved ones anyway. Without my pills I would barely be able to stand, let alone walk. I wouldn’t be able to string a sentence together. Vocal as I would be, it would be mostly groans of agony and then sudden clashes of curse words.

I suffer from severe Tourette’s syndrome. The hallmark “swearing tic,” seen as a common trait of the condition, is by far the least of my troubles. The symptoms can be so bad that my arms flail out and hit walls and people. And when there isn’t anyone else around none other than my own my crotch bears the brunt of my body’s abuse. My legs will shake so intensely that the muscles burn. My head jerks and throw itself back—sideways, frontwards, and any other way it can as though it’s an oversized cantaloupe attached to a Slinky toy.

Tourette’s won’t kill me—at least not directly—but it does affect my ability to function properly. But there is good news. Mercifully, I can be brought back from this jibbering, flubbering, and dribbling mess for a mere $12 every six months — the cost of a large and complicated mug of Starbucks coffee (and a pastry on the side).

But not in America. Here in New York, where I live and work, to fill my prescription at any pharmacy in the city would cost just shy of $720 per month. And that figure is one of the cheapest “quotes” I’ve heard in my quest; the price varies depending on where you go in the city. Some pharmacies further out into Queens and Brooklyn will sometimes charge as low as $548 for a month’s supply of the correct dosage, but the figure can fluctuate wildly.

I’m in my 20s, making ends meet as a writer. Needless to say, I cannot pay those prices. But here’s a fact you may not expect: I have health insurance. It’s just my health insurance won’t help.

The root of the problem is this: There is no generic version of my medicine available in America.

And as it turns out, that’s the rub. You see, America’s health insurance system is uniquely bizarre. Here’s a common phenomenon: You are prescribed an expensive, name-brand drug by your doctor, but before your insurance will pay for it, it requires you to try a less costly or generic version first. If those don’t work, your insurance will consider covering the cost of the more expensive drug. This process is called “step therapy”. But you see, if there isn’t a generic version available, you may not be covered at all. The insurance company may simply require you to take a totally different drug that’s cheaper. If you need what’s on the prescription, you might have to pay full price for it. It depends entirely on your insurance.

I arrived in America just as Obamacare was rolling out. Since I couldn’t meet the deadline for insurance, I sought out private health coverage through a company (as a freelance writer, it was my only option). The plan offered good choices for about $400 a month — it even had dental. I could get hit by a car a dozen times over and I would be patched up with great care and minimal costs. I could take a baseball bat to the teeth, and only pay a few bucks for the dentist’s time. But then I learned that it wouldn’t cover the one drug I needed. For that one drug, I would have to pay the full price out of pocket on top of what I was already paying for my coverage.

Is this a unique situation? Do I need a specialist drug that’s sold to just a handful people each year? Not even slightly. The drug I need happens to be the most prescribed (and profitable) in America.

Otsuka Pharmaceutical, which makes Abilify, is said to have made $6.9 billion in sales from the drug last year. Abilify treats bipolar disorder, depression, conditions associated with autistic spectrum disorders, and schizophrenia — illnesses that affect tens of millions of Americans. In a low dose, it also happens to reduce my symptoms by as much 90 percent with no side effects.

For me, Abilify is a wonder drug. And that’s probably why Otsuka can sell it for as much as it does.

For the $720 a month (or $4,320 every six months) my medication costs in America, I may as well fly back to the U.K. in style—a first-class flight, a room in the Ritz London hotel for two nights, and yet still have a few dollars left to pick up my drugs.

The reality is that a coach ticket and a modest hotel for a couple of nights can save thousands of dollars a year on necessary drugs. I pretend it’s a vacation, but, in fact, it’s a laborious and disruptive journey that I should not have to take, and yet am grateful I can afford.

This isn’t a problem just with Abilify. New figures from The Commonwealth Fund’s biennial health insurance survey reported 12 million working-age American adults with insurance who suffer from a chronic illness (like hypertension, diabetes, and asthma) and require medication for it did not fill prescriptions or missed doses because they couldn’t afford the drugs.

Because so many of these life-changing brand-name drugs are not regulated in price, those who need them may have to pay whatever price the drug maker sets. Drug companies regularly patent their inventions, and can drive wild profits annually by being the sole provider. But when those patents expire—typically after 20 years—other drug companies can create cheaper, yet identical generic versions. Otsuka’s patent on Abilify will expire in April, costing it an estimated $65 billion over the next four years. A generic version of the drug could follow soon after, barring any legal spats. My fingers are crossed.

The U.S. government does not regulate the price of branded drugs, but its neighbors do.

For two hours on a plane to Canada, you can pick up Abilify and most other common prescription drugs for a fraction of the cost. One drug store quoted me $78 for a month’s supply. (For me, though, it doesn’t make much sense to fly to Canada instead of the U.K. The overall expense, including doctor’s visits and flight costs, would equal that of a trip to London, where I do get the added bonus of a visit with family.) For anyone out there in a similar circumstance who would rather not go all the way to Britain, I suggest cashing in a few vacation days, and pack a bag. I hear Toronto is beautiful this time of year. Or you could head south to Mexico, where you can buy Abilify without a prescription for about $65 a month.

Did UK’s Spy Agency Partner with NSA for Cyberattacks on Iran?

The GCHQ in Scarborough, England, July 30, 2014. Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

An NSA document newly published today suggests two interesting facts that haven’t previously been reported.

The Intercept, which published the document, highlighted that in it the NSA expresses fear that it may be teaching Iran how to hack, but there are two other points in the document that merit attention.

One concerns the spy tool known as Flame; the other refers to concerns the NSA had about partnering with the British spy agency Government Communications Headquarters and Israeli intelligence in surveillance operations.

Did GCHQ Partner with the NSA on Flame?

In the document, prepared in April 2013 for a meeting between the NSA director and GCHQ, the author cites the Flame attack against Iran as an example of a US/GCHQ partnership. Flame was a massive spy platform exposed by Kaspersky Lab and Symantec in 2012. Flame targeted more than 10,000 machines in Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Sudan, the Israeli Occupied Territories and other countries in the Middle East and North Africa and was active for at least six years before it was discovered. It used some of the same code that Stuxnet used, leading researchers to conclude that it had been created by the same U.S./Israel teams that had created Stuxnet. The Washington Post reported in 2012 that the U.S. and Israel were both behind Flame, quoting anonymous U.S. officials. But the new Snowden document hints that GCHQ might have been involved in Flame with the U.S.

Although the document doesn’t say overtly that GCHQ partnered with the U.S. in creating and unleashing Flame, it hints obliquely at cooperation. The document notes that the NSA has “successfully worked multiple high-priority surges with GCHQ” and cites Flame as an example. But, oddly, it doesn’t say they worked together on creating Flame. Instead, it simply cites Iran’s discovery of Flame in a list of projects on which the GCHQ and the U.S. collaborated.

These jointly worked events include “the storming of the British Embassy in Tehran; Iran’s discovery of computer network exploitation tools on their networks in 2012 and 2013; and support to policymakers during the multiple rounds of P5 plus 1 negotiation on Iran’s nuclear program,” the document reads. The reference to an embassy attack presumably refers to the 2011 attack on the British embassy by protestors in Iran. The reference to the P5 plus 1 relates to negotiations between Iran and Western powers over Iran’s nuclear program. The network attacks are identified by name as the Flame attacks in another part of the document.

It’s unclear what else this might refer to if not the two countries partnering in the creation and unleashing of Flame. Other documents leaked by Edward Snowden have spelled out in more detail how the NSA and GCHQ have partnered over the years in successive spy operations, ranging from sharing data siphoned from undersea cables to the hacking of telecom networks, like Belgium’s Belgacom, to monitor mobile traffic.

NSA Expresses Concern About Partnering with GCHQ and Israel

Although there are numerous examples released in the Snowden documents of NSA-GCHQ cooperation and NSA-Israeli cooperation, the 2013 document published today expresses concern about a trilateral agreement between the three nations.

It appears in a section discussing a collaboration between the NSA, GCHQ and ISNU—a reference to the Israeli SIGINT National Unit, which is the Israeli counterpart to the NSA. Under the heading “Potential Landmines,” the document’s author notes that GCHQ has long pushed to work with the NSA and ISNU “in a trilateral arrangement to prosecute the Iranian target.” And it notes that the NSA and GCHQ have agreed to share information gleaned from their separate partnerships with Israeli intelligence. But with regard to a trilateral partnership, the “SID policy has been opposed to such a blanket arrangement,” the document notes.

SID refers to the Signals Intelligence Directorate. Under the SID Management Directive 422 (.pdf), the intelligence community is prohibited from delegating a mission to a non-USSS element—that is, a non U.S. SIGINT System—without first obtaining a memo of understanding between the NSA and the non-US entity. NSA activities are government by a number of directives, most important among them is USSID 18, which governs what the U.S. can and cannot collect on U.S. persons and how it must handle information collected incidentally on them.

The NSA has partnered separately with both the GCHQ and Israeli on intelligence collection. Previously released Snowden documents discussed how the NSA shared raw intelligence with Israel.

According to the new document, the U.S., UK and Israeli spy agencies engaged in discussions in 2013 about a three-way partnership. “In January 2013, during an NSA-ISNU analytic workshop on Iranian Leadership, the first ever trilateral VTC on an Iranian issue was held with NSA, CCHQ and ISNU artici ants,” it notes.

But the U.S. is apparently hesitant about expanding the surveillance agreement outside of the issue of Iran. “The trilateral relationship is limited to the topic and will serve as a proof of concept of this kind of engagement,” it notes, but “this specific trilateral should not be interpreted as a broad change of approach.” In other areas outside of Iran, the NSA and CCHQ have agreed to continue to share information gleaned from their respective bilateral relationships with the ISNU, but apparently are reluctant to make Israel a part of their exclusive club on a regular basis.

The Big Problem With the Latest Plan to Build EV Chargers in California

Car Culture/Corbis

One of the biggest obstacles to the widespread adoption of electric vehicles is the lack of on-the-go charging. It’s easy enough to charge at home if you have a garage—not so useful for apartment-dwellers who could benefit the most from EVs—but, unless you have a Tesla and access to the company’s Supercharger network, plugging in on the go is a pain.

That’s why build-out of the EV charging network is so important to the longterm success of the technology. According to PG&E, the utility that provides electricity to 16 million people in northern and central California, that state will need 100,000 public Level 2 chargers in its service territory by 2025, to support the 1.5 million EVs that Governor Jerry Brown wants in the state.

To do its part, PG&E wants to install 25,000 charging stations through 2022 in its service area, it announced Monday. The infrastructure will cost some $650 million, to be raised by increasing electric rates paid by all its ratepayers. The company says the average residential customer would see their bill rise by 70 cents per month. This means the whole project is essentially free for PG&E, because the tab would be picked up entirely by its rate paying customers.

PG&E would own all the physical infrastructure, at no cost to site owners, such as parking garages and malls. The utility would pay third party companies to install and maintain the chargers, as well as handle billing and payment of electricity to drivers, who will pay some amount of money for the privilege of plugging in (pricing hasn’t yet been ironed out). California’s Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction over all rate increases in the state, and will hear public comment and hold hearings throughout 2015 and perhaps have an answer by the end of this year.

This all sounds great—adding all those places to charge could encourage more people to buy electric cars and reduce air pollution. But don’t think the PG&E execs are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.

The company stands to sell a ton more electricity over the next couple of decades to electric car buyers and, thanks to the increase in rates on all its customers, doesn’t really have to pay for a lot of the infrastructure. It also has to play its part in meeting the state’s ambitious clean air and climate change goals, which include reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Electric cars make renewable energy more practical: One problem with things like solar panels and wind turbines is they produce energy sporadically, and the grid is designed to deliver power, not hold onto it. EVs, with their big batteries, are made to store power, so they can help line up supply and demand. That’s good for everyone.

But the charging station scheme would also give PG&E a major advantage over competitors that don’t have millions of captive users to cover the tab for construction. And that could decimate the existing market for EV infrastructure, which is not so good for everyone.

The utility argues that its plan would spur growth in the market for electric chargers, but who can compete with free?

“We should have the freedom to compete on innovation and we’re happy to exist in a market where we’ll compete on price,” says Pasquale Romano, CEO of ChargePoint, the nation’s largest charging provider. “If they [PG&E] own the hardware, they have no incentive to bring the price down.” Why would a mall choose to buy EV chargers from ChargePoint when it can get them for free from PG&E?

And what incentive will PG&E have to innovate and offer a good charging experience for its customers? “We compete for site owners’ business by bringing innovative features” to our chargers, says Romano. “What a retailer wants is to attract customers to the store.” ChargePoint offers services like the ability for retailers to offer free charging for a few hours, then raise the rates to encourage turnover, or to pay extra for retracting charge cable.

An electric utility is not one of many brands like Exxon or Shell, where you can choose from a ton of different places to fuel up your gas-burner. If PG&E were to build their 25,000 charging stations, they might end up being the only charging game in town. Good for PG&E shareholders, bad for everyone else.

Nikon’s New Full-Frame DSLR Is Built To Capture Space Photos

Nikon

Nikon’s full-frame D810 DSLR already comes in a few different flavors. There’s the standard D810, and there’s the D810E, which is the same camera without an optical low-pass filter.

Now there’s a third model in the D810 lineup, and it’s a space camera.

The new Nikon D810A has an “A” tacked onto its name for “astrophotography”—that means it’s made for taking pictures of stars and planets, not for taking photos of Jose Altuve. The camera has an optical IR-cut filter that lets in all the light captured by a regular camera, plus the red H-alpha-wavelength light emitted by many of your favorite nebulae and galaxies. It’s optimized for that narrow band of light (656 nm) and visible light, but it doesn’t let in infrared light (700nm and up).

To be clear, this is a camera built for space photography and space photography only. As Nikon explains in its press release, if you were to use the D810A in normal daylight conditions, images would come out with a red cast.

There are a few features that lend themselves well to astrophotography. For one, the 36.3-megapixel full-frame sensor—space photos often require a lot of cropping, and the extra resolution helps keep things sharp. There’s also a super-long exposure mode leaves the shutter open for 15 minutes, as well as a special live-view preview for those long-exposure long-distance shots.

The rest of the D810A’s core specs are similar to the other D810 cameras, including 1080p video capture at 24/30/60fps with manual controls.

The D810A will be available in late May, and while there’s no pricing information for this specialized full-frame DSLR, it’s sure to push $4,000. It’s the only full-frame DSLR built with astrophotography in mind, but there are several H-Alpha filters available for other DSLRs. Most of them appear to be optimized for CCD-sensored cameras—and there haven’t been many of those available in the past five years.

The Big Problem With the Latest Plan to Build EV Chargers in California

Car Culture/Corbis

One of the biggest obstacles to the widespread adoption of electric vehicles is the lack of on-the-go charging. It’s easy enough to charge at home if you have a garage—not so useful for apartment-dwellers who could benefit the most from EVs—but, unless you have a Tesla and access to the company’s Supercharger network, plugging in on the go is a pain.

That’s why build-out of the EV charging network is so important to the longterm success of the technology. According to PG&E, the utility that provides electricity to 16 million people in northern and central California, that state will need 100,000 public Level 2 chargers in its service territory by 2025, to support the 1.5 million EVs that Governor Jerry Brown wants in the state.

To do its part, PG&E wants to install 25,000 charging stations through 2022 in its service area, it announced Monday. The infrastructure will cost some $650 million, to be raised by increasing electric rates paid by all its ratepayers. The company says the average residential customer would see their bill rise by 70 cents per month. This means the whole project is essentially free for PG&E, because the tab would be picked up entirely by its rate paying customers.

PG&E would own all the physical infrastructure, at no cost to site owners, such as parking garages and malls. The utility would pay third party companies to install and maintain the chargers, as well as handle billing and payment of electricity to drivers, who will pay some amount of money for the privilege of plugging in (pricing hasn’t yet been ironed out). California’s Public Utilities Commission has jurisdiction over all rate increases in the state, and will hear public comment and hold hearings throughout 2015 and perhaps have an answer by the end of this year.

This all sounds great—adding all those places to charge could encourage more people to buy electric cars and reduce air pollution. But don’t think the PG&E execs are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.

The company stands to sell a ton more electricity over the next couple of decades to electric car buyers and, thanks to the increase in rates on all its customers, doesn’t really have to pay for a lot of the infrastructure. It also has to play its part in meeting the state’s ambitious clean air and climate change goals, which include reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Electric cars make renewable energy more practical: One problem with things like solar panels and wind turbines is they produce energy sporadically, and the grid is designed to deliver power, not hold onto it. EVs, with their big batteries, are made to store power, so they can help line up supply and demand. That’s good for everyone.

But the charging station scheme would also give PG&E a major advantage over competitors that don’t have millions of captive users to cover the tab for construction. And that could decimate the existing market for EV infrastructure, which is not so good for everyone.

The utility argues that its plan would spur growth in the market for electric chargers, but who can compete with free?

“We should have the freedom to compete on innovation and we’re happy to exist in a market where we’ll compete on price,” says Pasquale Romano, CEO of ChargePoint, the nation’s largest charging provider. “If they [PG&E] own the hardware, they have no incentive to bring the price down.” Why would a mall choose to buy EV chargers from ChargePoint when it can get them for free from PG&E?

And what incentive will PG&E have to innovate and offer a good charging experience for its customers? “We compete for site owners’ business by bringing innovative features” to our chargers, says Romano. “What a retailer wants is to attract customers to the store.” ChargePoint offers services like the ability for retailers to offer free charging for a few hours, then raise the rates to encourage turnover, or to pay extra for retracting charge cable.

An electric utility is not one of many brands like Exxon or Shell, where you can choose from a ton of different places to fuel up your gas-burner. If PG&E were to build their 25,000 charging stations, they might end up being the only charging game in town. Good for PG&E shareholders, bad for everyone else.

Nikon’s New Full-Frame DSLR Is Built To Capture Space Photos

Nikon

Nikon’s full-frame D810 DSLR already comes in a few different flavors. There’s the standard D810, and there’s the D810E, which is the same camera without an optical low-pass filter.

Now there’s a third model in the D810 lineup, and it’s a space camera.

The new Nikon D810A has an “A” tacked onto its name for “astrophotography”—that means it’s made for taking pictures of stars and planets, not for taking photos of Jose Altuve. The camera has an optical IR-cut filter that lets in all the light captured by a regular camera, plus the red H-alpha-wavelength light emitted by many of your favorite nebulae and galaxies. It’s optimized for that narrow band of light (656 nm) and visible light, but it doesn’t let in infrared light (700nm and up).

To be clear, this is a camera built for space photography and space photography only. As Nikon explains in its press release, if you were to use the D810A in normal daylight conditions, images would come out with a red cast.

There are a few features that lend themselves well to astrophotography. For one, the 36.3-megapixel full-frame sensor—space photos often require a lot of cropping, and the extra resolution helps keep things sharp. There’s also a super-long exposure mode leaves the shutter open for 15 minutes, as well as a special live-view preview for those long-exposure long-distance shots.

The rest of the D810A’s core specs are similar to the other D810 cameras, including 1080p video capture at 24/30/60fps with manual controls.

The D810A will be available in late May, and while there’s no pricing information for this specialized full-frame DSLR, it’s sure to push $4,000. It’s the only full-frame DSLR built with astrophotography in mind, but there are several H-Alpha filters available for other DSLRs. Most of them appear to be optimized for CCD-sensored cameras—and there haven’t been many of those available in the past five years.