Forbes Just Cut Its Estimate of Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes's Net Worth From $4.5 Billion To Zero (qz.com)

Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 05:53 · Score: 0

Snake oil is snake oil - from what stories I've read, Theranos did demos of their setup taking the samples out of the room without showing potential investors the actual tech at work - and people *still* bought into it?

Re:Boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 06:50 · Score: 0

yes, but the true innovation here was to sell snake oil in tiny little vials.

Re:Sexism! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 05:54 · Score: 1

There goes all that nice Karma. How dare anyone mock the idea that strong, empowered women can do no wrong by virtue of their magic vaginas??

"net work" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 05:57 · Score: 1

Fscking hell, editors! Paraphrase the title correctly, you cannot.

Re:"net work" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 07:48 · Score: 0

Testy you are, hmmmm?
Re:"net work" by leftover · 2016-06-01 10:15 · Score: 1

Through nose, wine is. Yeeeee...eessss.

--
Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.

900,000,000 != 0 by The-Ixian · 2016-06-01 05:58 · Score: 0

Am I missing something here? Her net worth was valued at about $4,000,000,000 and about 1/4 of that is essentially 0?

I wish I had essentially 0 dollars...

--
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.

Re:900,000,000 != 0 by The-Ixian · 2016-06-01 06:00 · Score: 0

And... of course, I didn't mean 1/4... but the point still stands... $900 million is nothing to shake a stick at...

--
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Re:900,000,000 != 0 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 06:03 · Score: 0

Yeah, you're missing something. It's in the summary.
Re:900,000,000 != 0 by bws111 · 2016-06-01 06:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

The $900M is the value of the COMPANY, not her net worth. They figure the only way to get value out of the company is to liquidate it, and she would get almost none of the proceeds. So HER net worth is $0.
Re:900,000,000 != 0 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 06:04 · Score: 0

Her stock is common stock, meaning she only gets money selling after the investors gets their investment back so essential her stock is worth zip right now. She was playing with other peoples money not hers.
Re:900,000,000 != 0 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 06:05 · Score: 0

At the current evaluation, all the preferred stock issued would get paid first if the company had to be sold. Her common stock would be worth basically nothing. That's what they are saying. Obviously, things could go either way with either a bankruptcy or IPO, depending on if there's something to save. If she tried to sell her common stock today, she would barely get anything for it, that's the gist of the valuation.
Re:900,000,000 != 0 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 06:07 · Score: 3, Informative

What she owns are shared, and if her shares are not preferred, when the company declared bankruptcy what will happen is that all its assets will be liquidated and preferred investors paid first. Nothing will be left for her because of that. Therefore, her net worth is zero.
Re:900,000,000 != 0 by squiggleslash · 2016-06-01 06:07 · Score: 4, Informative

The argument is that she owns ordinary shares, and while those shares might be kinda sorta worth $100-200M on paper (I can't be bothered to do the calculations...) the reality is she can't sell them (the price would tank if she tried) and if the company goes bankrupt, and Forbes thinks it's very, very, likely it will, then as an ordinary shareholder she'll be last in line to get paid. Bondholders, preferred stock holders, and even the credit card company are ahead of ordinary shareholders when it comes to being paid back after a company is liquidated.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:900,000,000 != 0 by porges · 2016-06-01 06:09 · Score: 2

That's the valuation of the company. If the editors had made it easier to get the the ACTUAL news report, you could see the explanation, which is that because of the way the investors are paid off before she is, her stake is what's now presumed to be worthless.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ma...
Re:900,000,000 != 0 by RavenLrD20k · 2016-06-01 06:10 · Score: 4, Informative

$900M isn't Holmes' net worth; it's the entire net worth of Theranos as a company. Last line of the summary is a bit confusing but what it's saying is that if the company were forced to liquidate all current assets, Holmes would be among the last to get paid. Other investors in the company with preferred shares would be paid first. By the time it gets to the point where Holmes could legally be paid from the liquidation, it's more than likely there'd be nothing left for her to get.
Re:900,000,000 != 0 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 06:10 · Score: 2, Informative

Rough numbers:
She owns 45% of the company
45% of 9B = 4B
But...someone else invested 1B, and they have rights to the first 1B in a sale.
If the company is only worth 900M, then all of that 900M is allocated to the investor first, and she get $0.
Re:900,000,000 != 0 by Dorianny · 2016-06-01 06:19 · Score: 1

Am I missing something here? Her net worth was valued at about $4,000,000,000 and about 1/4 of that is essentially 0?
I wish I had essentially 0 dollars...
Forbes is estimating that in very likely that Theranos can't recover and the business will fail. In case of a a liquidation bankruptcy proceedings the banks that have loaned it money recover their money first from the sale of the assets, second is the shareholders who hold preferred stocks, these are shareholders that bought shares early on from Holmes to fund Theranos. Once these 2 groups that take precedence are paid back there is essentially nothing left to divide among the common shareholder. In fact it is very likely that there probably isn't even enough to completely cover the preferred shares and they are going to take a loss
Re:900,000,000 != 0 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 06:29 · Score: 0

She owns 50% of the company. This is the poster child for diversification of the portfolio.Theranos is private so the stock is only as valuable as the next private market buyer will pay.
Re:900,000,000 != 0 by bluefoxlucid · 2016-06-01 06:30 · Score: 1

Modern common stock doesn't even have voting rights, and common stock has always had such diluted rights as to effectively have zero. It's also defined as being canceled if the company files bankruptcy; the only real rights you get with common stock are profit sharing, and that is elective (most companies don't pay dividends; the ones that do will cancel their dividend when finances are bad--a wise move, as they need the money for restructuring). Common stock is only worth what you can sell it for on a perceptive secondary security market, where people buy things because they think other people will buy those things from them for more money later.
This woman's net worth is entirely in common stock in her company; she'll get none of it when her company folds. The company is worth apparently $900 million; when it goes under, less than $900 million will be generated by liquidation; the investors will get all of that; she'll get $0.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:900,000,000 != 0 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 06:47 · Score: 0

Last line is clear, people are just financially illiterate so when the text reads that she has common rather than preferred stock, it's meaningless to them and is as useful as gibberish. Note that's not me insulting the average Joe: I'm only quasi-literate myself (other things to focus on besides stocks), I just studied stock matters in high school as part of the special kids' class (study what you want).
Re:900,000,000 != 0 by wesgray · 2016-06-01 06:47 · Score: 1

No one is going to be paid anything from this, the 'revolutionary' process this company was based on is a fraud. Maybe some of the customers of the unreliable tests that were performed will be compensated in court after liquidation. The non working Edison machine is their only asset. Who would buy that?
Re:900,000,000 != 0 by David_Hart · 2016-06-01 07:16 · Score: 5, Informative

She owns 50% of the company. This is the poster child for diversification of the portfolio.Theranos is private so the stock is only as valuable as the next private market buyer will pay.
Preferred investors get paid first. She only has common stock. So, nothing left for her no matter how much of the company she owns.
Re:900,000,000 != 0 by rahvin112 · 2016-06-01 08:05 · Score: 2

Not all ownership is the same. There are common shares and preferred shares. The preferred shares get paid before anyone else. Her shares are common shares and get paid only after every dollar of preferred shares has been paid. Then she only gets 50% of whatever remains. The $900 million they estimated won't cover the preferred shares so she and the other common shareholders won't get anything.
Re:900,000,000 != 0 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 08:09 · Score: 0

What she owns are shared, and if her shares are not preferred, when the company declared bankruptcy what will happen is that all its assets will be liquidated and preferred investors paid first. Nothing will be left for her because of that. Therefore, her net worth is zero.
Forbes is relying on the written law to figure that out. But this is the age of Obama. As we saw with the GM bankruptcy proceedings during the auto bailout, the government can order the bankruptcy judge to ignore the law and pay whomever the government wants paid. This allowed the union to get paid before shareholders despite the law saying the shareholders had priority.
So, all this women needs to do is promise a hefty donation to Obama and she can walk away with all of the ~$900 million.
Re:900,000,000 != 0 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 08:51 · Score: 0

Too bad "net worth" includes things other than shares in companies. Even homeless people don't have a zero net worth.
Re:900,000,000 != 0 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 09:18 · Score: 0

How did the founder and CEO end up with common shares?
Re:900,000,000 != 0 by mythosaz · 2016-06-01 09:22 · Score: 2

Correct. It also includes your debt.
Plenty of people (and companies), homeless or otherwise, have a less-than-zero net worth.
Re:900,000,000 != 0 by crunchygranola · 2016-06-01 09:55 · Score: 3, Informative

Forbes is relying on the written law to figure that out. But this is the age of Obama. As we saw with the GM bankruptcy proceedings during the auto bailout, the government can order the bankruptcy judge to ignore the law and pay whomever the government wants paid. This allowed the union to get paid before shareholders despite the law saying the shareholders had priority.
There is no liar like a right-wing AC liar. In the GM bankruptcy proceeding debts were paid in strict accordance with the law. The bondholders (not shareholders) that were upset about not getting preferential treatment were unsecured creditors, unlike the banks that did get paid off first, and had no seniority in settling GM's obligations. They were in the same asset category as the union to whom GM owed a lot of money, and it is up the administrator of the filing to determine how the parties in the same category get treated.

--
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
Re:900,000,000 != 0 by crunchygranola · 2016-06-01 10:05 · Score: 1

This is normal practice. Common shares get to vote, preferred do not. The CEO needs/expects to have voting power in her/his own company. The issuance of preferred shares is how venture capital is attracted. Venture capitalists don't really care a fig about the future of the company, its technology, or anything -- they just want to get paid and won't invest unless they are first in line for payment.

--
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
Re:900,000,000 != 0 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 13:03 · Score: 0

But who would pay $900m for a company shown to be sham?
Re:900,000,000 != 0 by NormalVisual · 2016-06-01 13:11 · Score: 1

Venture capitalists don't really care a fig about the future of the company, its technology, or anything -- they just want to get paid and won't invest unless they are first in line for payment.

Plus they don't really care about voting, since they hold the purse strings and can pretty much dictate how things are run from a practical perspective.

--
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Re:900,000,000 != 0 by david_thornley · 2016-06-02 04:50 · Score: 1

Hint: shareholders are the last to get paid, preferred shares before common shares, and this has been the law for a long time. The shareholders are the owners of the business, and they get whatever's left* once all the debts are paid off. Money owed to employees is debt, and has to be paid before anything is left for shareholders.
*Chapter VII bankruptcy happens when the company owes more than the worth of its assets, and isn't expected to recover, so unless there's unusual circumstances the debtors won't get paid in full and there will be nothing for the shareholders.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 05:59 · Score: 1

What I need to ask is, did the value actually exist in the first place if it could disappear so quickly when things went sour?

Re:Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 06:09 · Score: 0

Of course it did. She owns stock (not options but actual shares) and they had an estimated value. Just because the value of something goes down doesn't mean it didn't have value in the first place. The price of gold fluctuates, if it goes down your gold doubloons lost value, but the value that had was real.
Re:Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 06:16 · Score: 1

There's a difference between "value" and "price". The "value" of gold remains nearly constant due to comparatively little change in demand and supply. It's the "price" of gold, when measured in a non-gold currency like the US Dollar, which varies. That variance is due to the "value" of the USD fluctuating due to its demand, but mostly its supply, being far more volatile and not being fixed like gold's is. That's why gold is often referred to as the ultimate store of "value"; its "value" doesn't change much, even if the nominal "price" of it, when measured in non-gold currencies, fluctuates wildly.
Re:Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by alexander_686 · 2016-06-01 06:50 · Score: 1

Yes, sort off.
From what I have been reading, it looks like they rolled out their processes too quickly and promised too much. A buggy beta release of the latest FPS will cause the wroth of fan boys. But that is o.k. because the fan boys knew they were downloading a buggy beta release. Medical testing is a different ball of wax.
That being said, we know the lab has been able to do some pretty nifty things in terms of amount of work that could be done with a drop of blood. So there has to be something there.
Re:Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 07:20 · Score: 1

What disappeared?
Certainly not $9 billion.
Take the current value minus the money that investors put in,
and that is what disappeared
So, who were the biggest losers (investors)?
Re:Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by rdelsambuco · 2016-06-01 07:35 · Score: 1

That just ain't right, otherwise people would be buying gold all over the world.

--
I comment occasionally so that I can mod others -1 overrated or -1 offtopic.
Re:Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by ColdWetDog · 2016-06-01 08:00 · Score: 1

We do? I have never seen credible evidence to that effect. We've seen plenty of marketing blurbs echoed in various publications but actual, verifiable data, not so much. The FDA complaint, in part, also makes mention of the lack of hard data to their micro sample claims.
This seems like a case of some early promising research not quite panning out and one hell of a lot of money being fronted in the meanwhile.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 08:03 · Score: 3, Informative

There's a difference between "value" and "price". The "value" of gold remains nearly constant due to comparatively little change in demand and supply. It's the "price" of gold, when measured in a non-gold currency like the US Dollar, which varies. That variance is due to the "value" of the USD fluctuating due to its demand, but mostly its supply, being far more volatile and not being fixed like gold's is. That's why gold is often referred to as the ultimate store of "value"; its "value" doesn't change much, even if the nominal "price" of it, when measured in non-gold currencies, fluctuates wildly.
Gold is mostly used to make jewelry. And so the demand varies greatly with economic stability. Gold has no magic stability.
Re:Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by ncc74656 · 2016-06-01 08:23 · Score: 3, Informative

Another observation of value: back in 1964, you could've bought a gallon of gasoline for about 20 cents. Those two dimes would've contained about 0.144 troy ounce of silver. At about $16 per troy ounce, the silver in those two dimes is now worth about $2.30. Strangely enough, that's about what you'd pay in today's debased currency for a gallon of gasoline.

--
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Re:Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by alexander_686 · 2016-06-01 08:34 · Score: 1

Here is one article that should not be behind a pay wall. : http://www.economist.com/news/...
If I have time I will try to dig up more. I don't think we are that far off from each other. I think their tech is better than "early promising research" even if it is not up to production quality.
Re:Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by smooth+wombat · 2016-06-01 08:47 · Score: 1

Theranos has never provided any evidence to substantiate their claims. They haven't allowed anyone to replicate their results or see how the process supposedly works.
This has been a long time coming and I am glad this fraud is being exposed.
If their process is so grand why have they been using standard testing procedures at their labs rather than their own?

--
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Re:Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by bazmonkey · 2016-06-01 10:23 · Score: 1

I remember mention during the recession about a gas station in upstate Washington that to this day will accept silver pre-64 quarters for a gallon of gas (in addition to regular currency at today's prices).
Re:Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 10:48 · Score: 0

Jesus Christ, dude! It takes literally minutes of research to show that the "value" of gold is not nearly constant (unless there was some severe deflation happening in the mid-to-late nineties that I somehow missed). Minutes!
Re:Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by kamapuaa · 2016-06-01 11:17 · Score: 1

It's a meaningless coincidence. Silver prices fluctuate wildly, much more than the price of gas. It's mostly driven by speculation, although in the long run precious metals are just about the worst investment one can make.

--
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Re:Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by j33px0r · 2016-06-01 11:43 · Score: 1

What a worthless response to a great post about the difference between value and price. Let's try this again with a comparable example that might help you understand: The price of water does not change the value of water. Or how about replacing the word "value" with "desire" as desire is the classical reason people want gold, logical or not: The price of gold does not change the desire for gold or better yet for all the foodies out there, the price of chocolate does not change the desire for chocolate.
Re:Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by j33px0r · 2016-06-01 12:28 · Score: 1

It's a meaningless coincidence. Your mother's prices fluctuate wildly, much more than the price of gas. It's mostly driven by speculation
FTFY.
Re:Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by GrpA · 2016-06-01 14:48 · Score: 1

Why? Her value disn't disappear. It was just cut to 10%. Effectively, they decimated her.
I just wish I was only worth 450 Million.

--
Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
Re: Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by doppe1 · 2016-06-01 15:10 · Score: 2

First off your reply doesn't follow in this thread. That aside, you should read the article. The company was devalued to 10%, which was only just above the amount obtained from VC money. Since they have preferential stock and get paid out first, she does have a zero net worth as she would get paid nothing after the investors get paid first.
Re: Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-02 04:27 · Score: 0

Actually, that AC had a good point, and you are a moron.
Re:Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-06-02 06:03 · Score: 1

All value is assigned by people. If people suddenly decide they don't want something as much as they used to, the value of that thing decreases. Asking "did the value actually exist in the first place" betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of value. The company was worth that much because people were willing to pay that much to own pieces of it. Now they aren't, so the value has gone down.

--
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Re:Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-06-02 06:05 · Score: 1

No, value and price aren't fundamentally different. Something is worth what someone else will pay for it. Gold demand does fluctuate, and if it ever dropped significantly, gold's value would also drop. Gold is only valuable because people think it is.

--
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Re:Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-06-02 06:08 · Score: 1

The price of water does not change the value of water.
Of course it does. Price, as a measure of supply and demand, is an excellent indicator of value. If water is scarce, it's price and value are both higher. If it's abundant, each unit of water has low price and value. Water overall certainly has value, but how much value each unit of water has is certainly a function of supply and demand.

--
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Re:Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by Godwin+O'Hitler · 2016-06-02 07:12 · Score: 1

Decimating is knocking 1/10 off, not dividing by 10.

--
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
Re:Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by Coren22 · 2016-06-03 04:08 · Score: 1

Who do you think is running these companies if not "people"
https://www.google.com/search?...
Why do you think that with the economic collapse we just went through that these companies were advertising so heavily?

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by Coren22 · 2016-06-03 04:13 · Score: 1

The whole reason the company is crashing is because all those claims where smoke. There is no new technology that means a smaller sample (which they diluted) can give accurate results. There is no breakthrough here, just smoke and mirrors.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-03 04:50 · Score: 0

I see you collapsing against apk repeatedly Coren22 https://slashdot.org/comments.... , https://slashdot.org/comments.... + http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Re:Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-03 05:23 · Score: 0

Whatever small credibility you had collapsed heavily vs. apk Coren22 https://slashdot.org/comments.... , https://slashdot.org/comments.... + http://slashdot.org/comments.p... you did it to yourself.
Re:Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by Coren22 · 2016-06-03 05:32 · Score: 1

Speaking of smoke and mirrors, in comes APK the king of false claims!

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-03 05:58 · Score: 0

Coren22 Apk wiped you and your false claims quoted right out 3 times hahahaha https://slashdot.org/comments.... , http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , https://slashdot.org/comments.... and proved you're full of smoke and that's about it. He produced a good ware others here like. You can't. Jealous much Coren22?
Re:Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by Coren22 · 2016-06-03 06:37 · Score: 1

Where is any actual evidence of an actual argument? You like to rabidly repeat the same damn things, but I already responded to all of those. Maybe if you keep posting them yet again, suddenly they will become true and you will finally win an argument?
Burn thinks you're annoying, get over it. You can't write code for shit, and you only think you are a security expert. Keep up the argument, I am sure that windmill will tip over any time now APQuixote.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:Did the value exist at all if it disappeared? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-03 06:56 · Score: 0

Evidence's your lies quoted and destroyed by apk https://slashdot.org/comments.... , http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , https://slashdot.org/comments.... Burn of malwarebytes hosts and recommends apk's work. How about yours that doesn't exist? Hahahaha

Essential zero? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 06:00 · Score: 0

Cut from $9,000,000,000 to $900,000,000.

I'd like essential zero dollars if that's the world we're living in.

Re:Essential zero? by bws111 · 2016-06-01 06:06 · Score: 1

Learn to read. The $9B is the value of the COMPANY, not the value of her stake in the company. She owns only common stock, which is essentially worthless.

Re:Sexism! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 06:00 · Score: 1

You're far from the first:

http://fortune.com/2015/12/10/...

Economy built on pipedreams by ihtoit · 2016-06-01 06:06 · Score: 1

...such as this is in deep, deep trouble.

Whatever happened to the value of good honest labour?

--
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel

Re:Economy built on pipedreams by NotDrWho · 2016-06-01 06:11 · Score: 2

Whatever happened to the value of good honest labour?
It got bought out by Angel VC's in Silicon Valley.

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Re:Economy built on pipedreams by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 06:11 · Score: 0

> Whatever happened to the value of good honest labour?
Never had of such a thing, dude.
Re:Economy built on pipedreams by Noah+Haders · 2016-06-01 06:15 · Score: 2

Bernie's trying to make it $15/hr.
Re:Economy built on pipedreams by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 06:15 · Score: 1

Are you fucking kidding me? "Good honest labor" has never been valued you fucking dingus. The only people that believe that are the ones that actually have to do the fucking labor. The ones with money just say that shit to keep pathetic pieces of shit like you digging their ditches and picking their cotton.
Re:Economy built on pipedreams by Killall+-9+Bash · 2016-06-01 06:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

Whatever happened to the value of good honest labour?
Replaced by 3rd world commodity labor. Soon to be replaced by robots.

--
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
Re:Economy built on pipedreams by ShanghaiBill · 2016-06-01 06:34 · Score: 1

Whatever happened to the value of good honest labour?
To be fair, Elizabeth had a reputation for working very long hours. She arrived early, stayed late, and worked through the weekends. Her tech may have failed, but it wasn't because of a lack of hard work.
Re:Economy built on pipedreams by NotDrWho · 2016-06-01 06:54 · Score: 3, Funny

Like my granddad used to say "Working hard at being stupid is much less valuable than half-assing being smart."
Of course, he also warned me to never trust a kraut or jap, so take it for what it's worth.

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Re:Economy built on pipedreams by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 07:08 · Score: 0

Worth it's weight in gold.
Re:Economy built on pipedreams by sunking2 · 2016-06-01 07:22 · Score: 0

Her tech. Lol. She just got mom and pops to bankroll the initial start up rather than pay for her college. She's a business person, nothing more.
Re:Economy built on pipedreams by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 07:27 · Score: 0

Of course she worked late, she had to find a way to make her invention work, but it doesn't work and most likely never will.
Re:Economy built on pipedreams by DarkOx · 2016-06-01 07:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

She arrived early, stayed late, and worked through the weekends. Her tech may have failed, but it wasn't because of a lack of hard work.
You know that is actually characteristic behavior of financial fraudsters. They avoid delegating large numbers of essential tasks because they don't want others seeing the books and asking questions. They like to be the first there and last to leave to make sure nobody is nosing around too. Finally they like taking care of certain transactions with third parties over weekends and after hours were things get done 'out of process' and it may be possible to evade some other normal checks and controls.
Its actually considered a good anti-fraud practice to have anyone who handles accounting or inventory to take a least one mandatory five consecutive business day vacation each year! That way someone else has to perform at least some of their job functions for a time and there is a second pair of eyes on things. It also may cause some schemes where things have to be kept in constant motion like 'lapping' to fall apart.
A fraud investigator would consider her 'work ethic' here a reason to be more suspicious not less.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:Economy built on pipedreams by fsagx · 2016-06-01 08:01 · Score: 1

Plus, nearly every picture you see of her shows her sporting a black turtleneck! She's hardworking and a visionary.
Re:Economy built on pipedreams by guises · 2016-06-01 08:14 · Score: 1

Honestly, I find this to be moderately encouraging. I had expected her to walk away from this scam with hundreds of millions, even though she had produced nothing of value and the existence of Theranos was a net drain on society. The fact that she's getting nothing, as she should, is one of those rare little hopeful moments which indicate that the system is working. At least, it's working on an occasional basis. That's something.
Re:Economy built on pipedreams by ffkom · 2016-06-01 08:49 · Score: 1

And after that, to be replaced by human labour again, but this time not working for other humans, but for the robot overlords.
Re:Economy built on pipedreams by s122604 · 2016-06-01 08:49 · Score: 1

Its actually considered a good anti-fraud practice to have anyone who handles accounting or inventory to take a least one mandatory five consecutive business day vacation each year!

Accountants who never take a vacation is a classic red flag for auditors, both private and government.
Re:Economy built on pipedreams by Tailhook · 2016-06-01 09:24 · Score: 1

Whatever happened to the value of good honest labour?
They off-shored that to China, which is why they can afford to build a blue-water navy now.

--
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Re:Economy built on pipedreams by NormalVisual · 2016-06-01 13:22 · Score: 1

Unfortunately it also means that anyone at Theranos that's has unpaid wages is out of luck. Unsecured creditors are higher up on the BK ladder than employees.

--
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Re:Economy built on pipedreams by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 13:28 · Score: 0

Kissinger and all sorts of other similar people have invested in this. The net gain to society is their loss.
Re:Economy built on pipedreams by pete6677 · 2016-06-01 13:44 · Score: 1

" Unsecured creditors are higher up on the BK ladder than employees."
Could you be any more wrong if you tried?
Re:Economy built on pipedreams by NormalVisual · 2016-06-01 14:36 · Score: 1

Here's the relevant law.

Unsecured bank debt falls under 11 USC 507(a)(2), unsecured debt incurred after declaring is under (a)(3), and wages fall under (a)(4) and are limited to $10,000. Secured debt is covered under 507(b) and is explicitly declared to be higher priority. Private (i.e. non-bank) debt is in fact lower priority than wages - I actually hadn't known that.

If you feel I've misinterpreted things, I'm open to discussing it - I've been wrong before and will be in the future, but what I'm reading here jives with the two BKs I've been involved with as an employee. Just the same, if there's no money left after the secured creditors get their cut, the employees aren't getting anything.

--
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Re:Economy built on pipedreams by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 18:54 · Score: 0

What the hell will the robot overlords need humans for? They'll probably just keep a few genetic samples just in case then wipe out all biological life with neutron bombs.
Re:Economy built on pipedreams by jbmartin6 · 2016-06-02 00:06 · Score: 1

I believe a lot of financial institutions now require an "offline" vacation, as in no contact is allowed back to the office. No remote, no BYOD email, etc. Aside from the origins as an anti-fraud measure, it also works great in IT where it forces people to cross-train to provide coverage.

--
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.

Re:Sexism! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 06:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's an interesting question: how come so many of these "successful females in IT" are just charlatans? For another example the ex-CEO of Reddit, married to an extremely unscrupulous gay man.

Perhaps they view technology as a "social construct"? That's quickly turning into a dog-whistle word for a con-man. Or con-woman, whatever.

Theranos still worth $900 million? by afeeney · 2016-06-01 06:11 · Score: 2

I'm surprised that it has that high a value at all, given that their legal and accounting expenses must be tremendous (even if they were somehow to win every lawsuit against them) and their liability insurance provider is doubtless going to fight them over every single claim.

The real question is whether Holmes was as good at deceiving herself as she was at deceiving others. If she was, her net worth may indeed be limited to personal property (which certainly she'll get to keep since it's very difficult to confiscate personal property from the wealthy), but if she was aware of just how much of it was all smoke and mirrors, then I'm sure she found ways to hide as much as she could.

What she really needs to do is declare that she's found religion, write a book, and then become a talk show guest.

Re:Theranos still worth $900 million? by Gilgaron · 2016-06-01 07:21 · Score: 1

Lab equipment is expensive and has a secondary market. Just because their assay is bunk doesn't mean they didn't buy real deep freezers and so on.
Re:Theranos still worth $900 million? by Noah+Haders · 2016-06-01 08:04 · Score: 1

> Defining something as distinctly un-manly because it's a thing that defines how women act tends to draw more attention when someone breaks from the norm. I still don't know how to portray that, because the thing I defined is so alien to any society.
What was the thing that you defined?
Re:Theranos still worth $900 million? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 08:16 · Score: 0

I still don't know how to portray that, because the thing I defined is so alien to any society.
It's called the Cassandra Metaphor, it's not at all alien.
Your problem is that you're trying to make it a fantasy, it'd work easier if you just rewrote Gas Light.
Re:Theranos still worth $900 million? by bluefoxlucid · 2016-06-01 08:22 · Score: 1

First paragraph.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Theranos still worth $900 million? by AmiMoJo · 2016-06-01 09:38 · Score: 1

I'm more interested in how much this devalues Forbes. $4bn to zero in one year suggests their opinion on such things is also pretty worthless.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Theranos still worth $900 million? by Noah+Haders · 2016-06-01 17:41 · Score: 1

off topic, but can I just tell you how cool is bernie sanders? when he first started, at every press conference they would ask him Are you a socialist? Instead of getting defensive or denial about it, he would answer yes, and then explain what a socialist is and why he identified that way. You know what happened then? People stopped asking him about it. The issue went away. compare this to hillary and all her scandals. the choice is clear, people!
Re:Theranos still worth $900 million? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-06-02 06:14 · Score: 1

Sad that a GoT quote was marked "Flamebait".

--
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.

Re:Sexism! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 06:11 · Score: 3, Funny

Mod me down if you wish but I gotta say...All slashdotters seem to do these days is hate, she's actually trying to do something to help the world.

For example, here's an image of her developing an estimation mechanism for calculating the girth of penises, a sorely needed tool that she had a hand in developing for the porn industry:

https://www.epo.org/learning-events/european-inventor/finalists/2015/holmes/HolmesGallery1.jpg?lenya.module=svg&height=371&width=556

So the real question is how many slashdotters can make a claim to inventing something as innovative as that? Not many I suspect.

WHAT, no FORBES link?! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 06:12 · Score: 0

They're actually relevant to the story here!

Re:WHAT, no FORBES link?! by ShanghaiBill · 2016-06-01 06:41 · Score: 2

They're actually relevant to the story here!
Please, no Forbes links. I tried to read a Forbes article, and they insisted that I whitelist their site. So I did, and the very first page was filled with blinking and flashing ads. Bad behavior should not be rewarded, so no links to Forbes.
Re:WHAT, no FORBES link?! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 07:57 · Score: 0

If someone asks to be whitelisted, they are asking for execute permission on your box and your brain. Always say no, do not trust!

More bullshit by lucm · 2016-06-01 06:17 · Score: 0, Flamebait

The original article was essentially bullshit, using people who worked at Theranos for 2 weeks 5 years ago as "internal sources", and debunking claims that Theranos never made. What they did was like posting a story saying that the Linux kernel doesn't "truly" prevent computers from being infected by viruses (a claim nobody ever made) and that the GNU didn't it grant it a GPLv3 license.

I don't know if this total incompetence or if there's a hidden agenda, or maybe it is in fact a case of blatant sexism, but the coverage of Theranos by the Wall Street journal is awful and careless. And the other big media gobbled this up without thinking twice about it.

There was a video interview of Holmes by some grinning moron from the WSJ posted on Slashdot a while ago. Anyone watching that video could see that this whole story is essentially sensationalistic reporting with no basis in reality. But who cares about facts, it's much easier to call that girl a crook and move on to the next scandal.

I actually cancelled my Audible subscription to the WSJ after watching that interview and doing my own research into this story. Who knows what proportion of their stories are full of bullshit like this one. They remind me of that guy from the movie Shattered Glass.

--
lucm, indeed.

Re:More bullshit by Trailer+Trash · 2016-06-01 06:23 · Score: 3, Funny

The original article was essentially bullshit, using people who worked at Theranos for 2 weeks 5 years ago as "internal sources", and debunking claims that Theranos never made. What they did was like posting a story saying that the Linux kernel doesn't "truly" prevent computers from being infected by viruses (a claim nobody ever made) and that the GNU didn't it grant it a GPLv3 license.
I don't know if this total incompetence or if there's a hidden agenda, or maybe it is in fact a case of blatant sexism, but the coverage of Theranos by the Wall Street journal is awful and careless. And the other big media gobbled this up without thinking twice about it.
There was a video interview of Holmes by some grinning moron from the WSJ posted on Slashdot a while ago. Anyone watching that video could see that this whole story is essentially sensationalistic reporting with no basis in reality. But who cares about facts, it's much easier to call that girl a crook and move on to the next scandal.
I actually cancelled my Audible subscription to the WSJ after watching that interview and doing my own research into this story. Who knows what proportion of their stories are full of bullshit like this one. They remind me of that guy from the movie Shattered Glass.
Hi, Liz. Why did you make up this "lucm" name?

--
Do you have ESP?
Re:More bullshit by jratcliffe · 2016-06-01 06:33 · Score: 5, Informative

Yeah total bullshit.
After all, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services haven't proposed pulling Theranos's license (and hence qualification to do tests that can be reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid), and haven't proposed banning the Theranos founders from running a lab for two years. Oh, wait, they did. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04...
After all, the company didn't just throw out all the results done on their machines in 2014 and 2015. Oh, wait, they have. http://www.wsj.com/articles/th...
Re:More bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 06:34 · Score: 0

Is it true that everyone who works in Silicon Valley startups are aliens?
Re:More bullshit by lucm · 2016-06-01 06:43 · Score: 1, Flamebait

this kind of comment is the modern day equivalent of joining a witch hunt. You use Slashdot buttons instead of a pitch fork, but the spirit and enthusiasm for expedient "justice" is the same. And anyone who gets in your way has to be in cahoots with the witch, right? Zero chance that maybe you're just plain wrong.

--
lucm, indeed.
Re: More bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 06:43 · Score: 0

Let me guess.. You are an investor of the company.
Re:More bullshit by ShanghaiBill · 2016-06-01 06:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

The original article was essentially bullshit
If true, then Theranos could quickly debunk their BS by publicly demonstrating their technology in front of credible experts. Please explain why they haven't done that.
Re:More bullshit by lucm · 2016-06-01 07:02 · Score: 1

Because you can't prove a fucking negative. They NEVER claimed what the article say

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:More bullshit by jratcliffe · 2016-06-01 07:09 · Score: 2

They never claimed that the lab tests they conducted on their own machines (that they've now thrown out and told doctors to disregard) were accurate?
Re:More bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 07:23 · Score: 0

Didn't you read the label?

FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY
I'm shocked, shocked to find that diagnosis is going on in here!
Re:More bullshit by lucm · 2016-06-01 07:28 · Score: 1

Did you read the articles? I don't know why I even bother with this because people are not looking for what this is all about, they're just out for blood like with that fucking gorilla that got killed.
The first article you post has nothing to do with Theranos using an unproven technology. It's essentially an internal letter (not an actual decision) citing issues with lab procedures for a specific incident. None of the R&D stuff at Theranos is related to Medicare coverage.
The second one is just a follow-up from the same bullshit WSJ article that keeps bashing the old prototype (that Edison machine) for things Theranos never claimed it did. It doesn,t bring up new facts at all.

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:More bullshit by Gilgaron · 2016-06-01 07:35 · Score: 1

If the tech works then it will be licensed or sold for lots of money as the company tanks. I wouldn't hold my breath on that...
Re:More bullshit by jratcliffe · 2016-06-01 07:57 · Score: 2

Did you read the articles? I don't know why I even bother with this because people are not looking for what this is all about, they're just out for blood like with that fucking gorilla that got killed.
The first article you post has nothing to do with Theranos using an unproven technology. It's essentially an internal letter (not an actual decision) citing issues with lab procedures for a specific incident. None of the R&D stuff at Theranos is related to Medicare coverage.
The second one is just a follow-up from the same bullshit WSJ article that keeps bashing the old prototype (that Edison machine) for things Theranos never claimed it did. It doesn,t bring up new facts at all.
I did read the articles. How you could honestly think that it's not a big deal if a company whose core purpose is doing blood tests has admitted that the tests they've done aren't reliable, and is facing being barred from doing work for the largest customer for blood test services in the country, then I really don't know what to tell you.
Theranos claimed that their Edison machine (the core of their business) accurately performs blood tests with less blood and at lower cost than competing devices. That's turning out not to be true, at least on the accuracy front. If you don't think accuracy is important, then I've got a ballpoint pen here on my desk. It can perform blood tests using no blood at all, and at trivial cost. Can't vouch that they'll be accurate, though...
Re:More bullshit by Trailer+Trash · 2016-06-01 08:03 · Score: 1

this kind of comment is the modern day equivalent of joining a witch hunt. You use Slashdot buttons instead of a pitch fork, but the spirit and enthusiasm for expedient "justice" is the same. And anyone who gets in your way has to be in cahoots with the witch, right? Zero chance that maybe you're just plain wrong.
Dude, chill. I've seen your history, you're obviously not Liz because you actually comment intelligently on tech stuff.
It was a joke.

--
Do you have ESP?
Re:More bullshit by DRJlaw · 2016-06-01 09:07 · Score: 1

Because you can't prove a fucking negative. They NEVER claimed what the article say.
If only they recorded TEDMED talks and wrote articles concerning them prior to the WSJ article.
Or was the New Yorker conspiring with the WSJ 10 months beforehand, with both of them drugging Holmes into publicly stating gems like:

Since then, she told the audience, the company has developed blood tests that can help detect dozens of medical conditions, from high cholesterol to cancer, based on a drop or two of blood drawn with a pinprick from your finger.... From that one sample, Holmes said, several tests can be runâ"all less expensive than standard blood tests, sometimes as much as ninety per cent below the rates that Medicare sets.
Do us a favor and specify what you think they never claimed, and I suspect that we can document that they did.
Re:More bullshit by DRJlaw · 2016-06-01 09:13 · Score: 1

The original article was essentially bullshit, using people who worked at Theranos for 2 weeks 5 years ago as "internal sources", and debunking claims that Theranos never made.
Never made?
Re: More bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 09:35 · Score: 0

Yes but both lucm's comments are marked as "-1 flamebait" for expressing an opinion contrary to the Slashdot orthodoxy.
Re:More bullshit by lucm · 2016-06-01 12:05 · Score: 1

Can you explain how you link is relevant? Exact quote and how it constitutes a rebuttal of my point?

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:More bullshit by lucm · 2016-06-01 12:23 · Score: 1

But that's not what is being disputed! Are you unaware that Theranos is a private lab that does all kinds of tests, and this whole finger prick thing is taken out of context and spinned as if that's actual core business?
Look at their website:
https://www.theranos.com/test-...
They are researching ways to get more tests per blood sample, and they invented procedures and equipment for that. The "detect cancer from a drop of blood" is not what they do on a daily basis, it's part of their R&D program. But the WSJ made it look like they claim to do all their tests with that experimental technology, then ridicule them when they try to explain why they do tests with "normal" equipment.

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:More bullshit by lucm · 2016-06-01 12:29 · Score: 1

They never claimed that it's ready. They've said over and over that the prototype was flawed and no longer considered, that they were working on new avenues.
These people are truly working to improve lab testing (which is their actual business), it's not a startup that does nothing but try to invent a new thing. They do millions of regular tests, for less money than the competition, and they should be praised for that, not bashed because some of their R&D programs are not yet viable.

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:More bullshit by lucm · 2016-06-01 12:45 · Score: 1

Theranos claimed that their Edison machine (the core of their business) accurately performs blood tests with less blood and at lower cost than competing devices. That's turning out not to be true, at least on the accuracy front.
Accuracy: that's the key point. The WSJ make it look like Theranos is using that technology to do all their tests, and that's simply not true. Even on the limited number of tests designed to work with this new method, they stopped using that prototype a while ago.
The big point of the WSJ is that no outside lab has reviewed the secret test procedure. They have compared results (and they come "within spitting distance" as described in the article) but the external labs were not allowed to see how those tests were performed, and the article make it look suspicious. But it's like saying that iPhones may or may not make phone calls properly because Apple didn't share their source code with Samsung. It's absurd.

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:More bullshit by lucm · 2016-06-01 13:37 · Score: 2

Worst thing is, I don't like her, and part of me can't help but feel vindicated that her own "I'm the Steve Jobs of biotech" persona is backfiring, big time. I was truly disgusted by her attitude during interviews prior to the WSJ article, she reminded me of Marissa Mayer.
I used to work for an investment bank that makes shitloads of money (like billions and billions, year over year) but is never in the news, unlike the competition which hold press conferences and goes on TV shows, often bragging about returns or technology that is significantly less impressive. The reason my former employer keeps a low profile is that once you publicly brag about something, you're on the radar of the media, and you're a target when the rainy days come - and the media tend to use nukes, not sniper rifles. Maybe Mrs Holmes has learned that by now.
As for this latest "news", what is it, really? A made up valuation that has zero basis in reality and no actual financial impact has now been revised by the people who made it up, based on controversy that very few people take the time to thoroughly examine. This is nothing but clickbait built upon clickbait, yet we get the constant flow of Slashdot experts chiming in without having even the most basic understanding of the real issue. I guess this is how the world works, I should get into the clickbait business instead of bitching about it.

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:More bullshit by speedplane · 2016-06-01 13:44 · Score: 1

The original article was essentially bullshit ...
Based on the WSJ's coverage, Theranos retracted previous tests results and the FDA threatened to shut them down. I don't claim to know the details of the Theranos technology, but those two facts are enough to be very suspicious of the company.

--
Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
Re:More bullshit by DRJlaw · 2016-06-01 15:15 · Score: 2

But that's not what is being disputed! Are you unaware that Theranos is a private lab that does all kinds of tests, and this whole finger prick thing is taken out of context and spinned as if that's actual core business?
Oh, but it is what is being disputed. Nobody valued Theranos at $9 billion dollars because they were copying Labcorp's business model. Walgreens did not enter into a partnership with Theranos because Theranos would provide a phebotomist on site to draw multiple 5mL samples and ship them to Theranos.

They are researching ways to get more tests per blood sample, and they invented procedures and equipment for that.
Yes. Researching using commerical samples resulting in the invalidation of two years of sample results in one fell swoop.

But the WSJ made it look like they claim to do all their tests with that experimental technology, then ridicule them when they try to explain why they do tests with "normal" equipment.
Yet again, nobody is interested in a startup that performs tests with "normal" equipment. Theranos touted this very capability in 2014 as something the could already do, not as a multi-year research project.
"And we're able to do all the testing using just a single microsample, rather than having to draw a dedicated tube for each type of test."
So if I got a blood test and my doctor saw the results and wanted other tests done, I wouldn't have to have more blood drawn?
"Exactly. And on their lab form, the physician can write, "If a given result is out of range, run this follow-up test." And it can all be done immediately, using that same sample."
Keep 'em coming. Theranos provided lots of PR material that contradicts you... you just have to specify what they supposedly didn't claim and I can search for more documentation saying otherwise.
Re:More bullshit by DRJlaw · 2016-06-01 15:25 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, but you need actually specify your point first - what part of "debunking claims that Theranos never made" concerns a claim that Theranos never made, exact quote and how the WSJ article was incorrect?
That TEDMED talk is chock full of claims. Appears pretty relevant to the rest of us.
Re:More bullshit by DRJlaw · 2016-06-01 15:40 · Score: 1

Even on the limited number of tests designed to work with this new method, they stopped using that prototype a while ago.
And just when would that be? Because the FDA reports that they were using Edison devices in June 2015, and those limited number of tests were the ones whos results were invalidated for all of 2014 and 2015.
So please, provide a source for when they "stopped using that prototype." Because I'm thinking they stopped when CMS told them to in 2016, and Theranos went into deperate survival mode.
Re:More bullshit by lucm · 2016-06-02 02:18 · Score: 1

The original article was essentially bullshit ...
Based on the WSJ's coverage, Theranos retracted previous tests results and the FDA threatened to shut them down. I don't claim to know the details of the Theranos technology, but those two facts are enough to be very suspicious of the company.
Those events are unrelated. Theranos is a private lab and they do regular tests on regular equipment; they apparently had bad QA procedures in at least one of their labs, which caused the issue with federal authorities. This has nothing to do with their secret technology (although it doesn't inspire confidence). They do millions of tests for less money than other labs but with the same kind of equipment.
Meanwhile they also have this R&D program that aims at getting more test results out of smaller blood samples. That technology has been used only in a small number of tests, and the earlier prototype they used proved to give faulty results, and when they found out they invalidated the tests done with that machine.
The problem is that the WSJ article and later follow-up by lazy reporters "merged" these things and made it look like all tests at Theranos are done on experimental technology and that they covered the problems by redoing tests on regular equipment.
I don't give a shit about Theranos, and if I needed tests I wouldn't use them because of all those QA problems. But the way this story has been spinned by the WSJ makes me wonder about how often reporters misrepresent things to make their stories more exciting. Either that or they're total tools, and eiher way I'll never trust that newspaper again.

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:More bullshit by lucm · 2016-06-02 02:33 · Score: 1

Appears pretty relevant to the rest of us.
If you believe you can talk for "the rest of you" there's no wonder you can't tell what the issue is.
If you haven't done so, watch the interview. She calmly explains things point by point. If after watching this interview you still believe they're a bunch of crooks making false claims and getting caught lying, there's nothing more I can do to make you understand.
http://www.wsj.com/video/full-...

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:More bullshit by lucm · 2016-06-02 02:46 · Score: 1

The FDA was involved at the demand of the Theranos to validate their test tubes, not the Edison technology. And Theranos limited the tests to herpes until they would get the thumbs up from fhe FDA.
Watch the fucking interview she explains that part in details in the first few minutes, including the inspection in the summer.
http://www.wsj.com/video/full-...
If you think it's easy to get something approved by a federal agency you're unaware of all the tedious, expensive and endless hoops they make people jump through. It's not just a pass/fail inspection, it's a grueling process that takes forever. Taking one element of this and spinning it as "FDA thinks that..." is ridiculous, and as you will see there's absolutely no one from the FDA who went on the record to support that statement.

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:More bullshit by DRJlaw · 2016-06-02 11:09 · Score: 1

Can you explain how you link is relevant? Exact quote and how it constitutes a rebuttal? Yet again - you are saying that Theranos never claimed certain things. An half hour interview published after the WSJ article does nothing to show that they didn't claim something before the article.
You can gleefully ignore the nanotainer "pause," the Edison device quality control issues, and the fact that their only commercial partners -- who have an actual financial interest in what Theranos can and cannot do -- are fleeing for the hills. But you're essentially alone in that stance. The FDA does not agree, Medicare does not agree, and Walgreens does not agree. They have no chance for an IPO at this point, and the valuation that will be applied during their next funding tranche, assuming that they aren't driven into bankruptcy first, is going to be a small, small fraction of that applied last year. Because, again, nobody was valuing Theranos at $9B due to their ability to lose money by performing the same tests as LabCorp at below-cost rates.
Re:More bullshit by DRJlaw · 2016-06-02 11:25 · Score: 1

The FDA was involved in both, you tool. Try reading the linked articles for a change. The nanotainers were the subject of the October 2015 FDA findings and the Edison device test results the March 2016 FDA findings. The latter, specifically concerning the quality control and operating of Edison machines, caused Theranos to invalidate all Edison machine-generated test results in 2015-2016. Now Theranos is being sued over those invalidated results.
The "fucking interview" conducted in October 2015 is incapable of addressing the FDA reports released in March 2016. They are two different situations. Deal with it.

Due Diligence... anyone, anyone, Bueller? by Morpeth · 2016-06-01 06:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

What I don't get is did no one bother to see if her so-called game changing blood tests actually WORKED? I get the impression, no

I'm just kind of dumbfounded that no one thought to check with some actual PhDs, MDs, researchers, etc.

--

'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates

Re:Due Diligence... anyone, anyone, Bueller? by nemesis42 · 2016-06-01 06:42 · Score: 2

Everyone was just too willing to accept the idea that the existing companies involved in blood testing are crooks (Spoiler alert: they are), that they were all too willing to jump on board with "disruptive" technology that will "change the game" and "beat the system."
Re:Due Diligence... anyone, anyone, Bueller? by ledow · 2016-06-01 06:49 · Score: 1

Nobody cared.
They have preferred stocks in a company worth millions. The more they are hyped, the higher the price went, until it gets to the point just before the news breaks that they are worthless and pointless... and then they sell making money from - quite literally - investor's stupidity.
It's up to the investors to investigate about viability at the early stages (i.e. before they put a product to market or out for FDA approval, etc.) and they didn't bother because it's a game of hot-potato and if they get out, they win lots of money, and if they don't, they still have first bat at getting all their money back, plus ANY profit whatsoever.
If they are really, really wrong, the company collapses, they STILL get a shed-ton of money back (so little risk), they move on to the next venture.
Welcome to the world of corporate hot-potato roulette, where the options are "lose slightly, win big, win bigger".
Re:Due Diligence... anyone, anyone, Bueller? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 06:55 · Score: 0

I think because there is a lot of wishful thinking and mutual benefit relationships behind the scenes.
So an investor is either a clueless outsider with wishful thinking or someone depended on the success of the company.
Who do you think would want to cause trouble for the company and risk all their investment?
Re:Due Diligence... anyone, anyone, Bueller? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 06:56 · Score: 0

Due diligence isn't Agile. Get with the program, it's current year for crying out loud!
Re:Due Diligence... anyone, anyone, Bueller? by lucm · 2016-06-01 06:59 · Score: 1

Well did YOU make your own due diligence before coming to the conclusion that it doesn't do what Theranos actually claims it does (as opposed to all the made up bullshit)? or did you just jump on the bandwagon and assumed that if there's a story about it in the WSJ then it must mean Theranos are crooks?
do you even KNOW what the real story is about, or did you just assume that Theranos claimed miracles of some kind and got caught in their lies?
post a fucking link that proves that Theranos themselves actually *claimed* that this test does something magic. Only things you'll find will tie back to that bullshit WSJ article (which Theranos disputes) that mixes a bunch of false assumptions and unverified facts to spin a spectacular story painting Theranos as snake oil salespeople.
It's a fucking terrifying situation because it shows how even the shallowest nonchalant "reporting" in one article triggers a shitstorm of epic proportions, with no one listening to the accused and just adding their own layer of indignant comments based on top of countless piles of misinformation.
Due diligence? what a fuckingly ironic accusation

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:Due Diligence... anyone, anyone, Bueller? by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-06-01 07:21 · Score: 1

Everyone was just too willing to accept the idea that the existing companies involved in blood testing are crooks (Spoiler alert: they are) [...]
My third-grade teacher recommended her child doctor to my mother, who took me to see him for various childhood aliments. Each visit ended with the doctor shoving his finger up my fat ass and requesting a blood test from the lab. Turned out he had a financial arrangement with the lab. He retired to Florida in a hurry before the police shut down the lab and the DA office made an announcement to the press.
Re:Due Diligence... anyone, anyone, Bueller? by jcr · 2016-06-01 07:26 · Score: 1

Even after the Enron and Bernie Madoff debacles, hardly anyone bothers with due diligence, because they stupidly believe that the SEC looks out for stock fraud.
-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:Due Diligence... anyone, anyone, Bueller? by Morpeth · 2016-06-01 07:27 · Score: 2

Sounds like you invested in them, financially if not emotionally. 10 secs of searching shows they're under federal investigation for fraud, and have themselves invalidated 2 years of tests basically admitting it was all bogus.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/1...
http://www.businessinsider.com...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/08b1...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...

--

'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
Re:Due Diligence... anyone, anyone, Bueller? by tazan · 2016-06-01 08:02 · Score: 1

Years ago when when I saw the first article on this I showed it to my wife who's a Med Tech in a hospital lab. She was immediately very skeptical. She said you can't do some of those tests they were claiming with a finger stick. Apparently it's not the volume of blood that's the problem it's the location you get it from. So, no, I guess they didn't.
Re:Due Diligence... anyone, anyone, Bueller? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 08:22 · Score: 0

So far you haven't posted anything constructive, so the only appropriate response is: u mad bro?
Re:Due Diligence... anyone, anyone, Bueller? by Morpeth · 2016-06-01 08:58 · Score: 1

Interesting. It's hard to grasp (to me anyway), that people wouldn't do some pretty basic investigating especially with the kind of money involved.
Most things still fall under that "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" category.

--

'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
Re:Due Diligence... anyone, anyone, Bueller? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 09:20 · Score: 0

Oh it's a FEMALE run company?
We don't need proof your tech works because we don't want to be called sexist and have the media jump up our ass.
Re:Due Diligence... anyone, anyone, Bueller? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 10:17 · Score: 0

The usual biotech VCs did have that reaction and they ran away in terror because it was obviously not legit.
They shopped the company around to some other investors without biotech experience and that's how they got people to buy in.
Re:Due Diligence... anyone, anyone, Bueller? by lucm · 2016-06-01 13:11 · Score: 2

10 secs of searching shows they're under federal investigation for fraud, and have themselves invalidated 2 years of tests basically admitting it was all bogus.
Then you should have taken 11 seconds because here's a quote from one of your articles.

Theranos has also had issues with quality control of tests run on the standard blood-testing devices that Theranos uses for most of its tests.
See, that whole Medicare thing is not about the "bleeding edge" technology, it's about the regular Theranos business, which is to become the Walmart of private labs. But the way it's spinned in the media, it looks like it's all one big scam.
They do millions of tests for less money than other labs. Did they cut corners doing that? Apparently so, although some of the complaints in that report seem flimsy (like having a lab director that was also running a dermatology clinic).
But what they didn't do is claim that they were doing all their tests using a single drop of blood using kits that people buy at Walgreens. That's their goal but they've been very open about not being there yet. It's been grossly misrepresented by the WSJ and people have jumped to conclusions since then, without oaying attention to what Theranos said to defend themselves. After all, who cares about the accused has to say, what matters is the accusation.

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:Due Diligence... anyone, anyone, Bueller? by lucm · 2016-06-01 13:14 · Score: 1

I'm not your personal research assistant, bro. The point is, don't point fingers at people for not being diligent if you can't yourself be bothered to look into what the situation really is.

--
lucm, indeed.
Re:Due Diligence... anyone, anyone, Bueller? by Morpeth · 2016-06-02 04:36 · Score: 1

"I'm not your personal research assistant, bro" Back at you, except I'm not your bro, fortunately for me.
Since it looks like you've posted 15 times on the topic, raging at everyone who considers Theranos a problematic company at best, a scam a worst -- I'll just move along let you continue trolling and flaming. Seriously though, you might want to chill a bit, it's not good for your health.

--

'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates

Re:Sexism! by MightyMartian · 2016-06-01 06:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

I have no common cause with the Libertarian neanderthals around here that clearly despise and fear women, but in this case, Theranos looks like little more than a scam. But I wouldn't like that to the CEO being a female, since there are no lack of male-run scam outfits who are briefly market darlings before it's revealed that the company's core technology is a load of unmitigated bullshit.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Re:Sexism! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 06:36 · Score: 0

I think you're confusing her with John Holmes, dude.

Hat Tip by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 06:44 · Score: 0

Props to Slashdot Editors for not linking the paywalled source by default this time. Thanks for listening.

News? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 06:51 · Score: 0

Normally hate posts like this, but... How is this news for nerds?

An economy void of pipe dreams is in deep trouble by ranton · 2016-06-01 06:54 · Score: 1

[An] economy built on pipe dreams such as this is in deep, deep trouble.

Once people stop dreaming our economy will stall to a level not seen in hundreds of years. Most of human history has shown a 1-2% rate of economic advancement until the industrial age. The dreamers are the ones who have given us the advancements our ancestors 200 years ago couldn't even have dreamed of.

--
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke

Hmm by NetNed · 2016-06-01 06:54 · Score: 2

So Theiranus was full of shit?

Re:Hmm by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-06-01 07:12 · Score: 1

Most unicorns are.

"her net work" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 07:00 · Score: 0

American idiots. As usual.

Perhaps they meant "her network" instead of "her net worth"...

Re:Sexism! by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-06-01 07:04 · Score: 4, Informative

More likely it's the fact that Silicon Valley is a liberal/SJW stronghold, where investors will happily throw money at any company with a female CEO.

As we say in California, what are smoking and where can I get some?

http://valleywag.gawker.com/silicon-valley-named-13th-best-conservative-city-in-ame-1458838034

Re:Sexism! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 07:08 · Score: 0

You're a reactionary nitwit, dumb even by Slashdot standards, and there's no need to say you're not the Doctor. He's wise, you're the opposite.

She's probably worth less than zero by JoeyRox · 2016-06-01 07:11 · Score: 1

When you account for potential criminal defense legal fees.

Re:She's probably worth less than zero by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 07:20 · Score: 0

CEOs (and other C-level types) are routinely insured for such legal fees (paid for by the company of course) so... no real risk to her. But you know, because they have no personal risk like that, and get a big payout if they turn out to be incompetent and get fired, is exactly why they deserve 8 figure salaries, right?
Oh... wait...
Re:She's probably worth less than zero by slew · 2016-06-01 08:52 · Score: 2

CEOs (and other C-level types) are routinely insured for such legal fees (paid for by the company of course) so... no real risk to her. But you know, because they have no personal risk like that, and get a big payout if they turn out to be incompetent and get fired, is exactly why they deserve 8 figure salaries, right?
Oh... wait...
Actually, C-type are generally indemnified by the company, not independently insured. There is a difference.
Indemnification is that the company itself promises to pay for legal consul and any resulting judgments against for actions you take in the course of your job (save some fraudulent action on your part). The directors and officers insurance that the company purchases to cover this may or may not fully cover this liability in the case that the company fails**. The theory is that plaintiff lawyers generally won't sue for judgments they can't get (only so much blood from a turnip) so as long as the limit is high enough, plaintiffs will settle for the insurance limit.
Of course the employment contract with most C-types generally require the company to maintain a certain amount of "side A" coverage but with a unicorn company, buying enough to satisfy investors losses might be very expensive, so companies often buy some type of umbrella excess "side A" coverage supplement at a higher limit, but plaintiff lawyers can often bleed this umbrella coverage by lengthy corporate investigations and the person that is eventually sued can't do anything about it...
**Such policies are pretty complicated. The "side A" coverage in such a policy would pay the person in case the company can't pay the indemnity (e.g., goes BK), where "side B" would pay to the company if it needed to tap it to pay an indemnity but might be unavailable if the company was insolvent or under administration by a court.

Mass Media coverage with no Peer Review by bargainsale · 2016-06-01 07:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

The dead giveaway on Theranos is the splurging of publicity in mass mainstream media without anything at all published in relevant peer-reviewed specialist journals.

As soon as anyone asks why they would do that, the answer is obvious. You'd think.

--
Aberrations have appeared in my destiny prognostication engine!

Re:Mass Media coverage with no Peer Review by ColdWetDog · 2016-06-01 08:16 · Score: 1

The argument against publishing in the scientific literature is that there are bucketloads of patented / confidential technology that would have to be exposed. However, they could have gone a long way to assuaging all of the complaints by allowing unbiased observers to give them known samples and observing the Theranos machines in an open room without restrictions. That they never did that suggests that they have something to hide.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Mass Media coverage with no Peer Review by NormalVisual · 2016-06-01 13:31 · Score: 2

Patented technology is already exposed by definition. Technology that remains a trade secret should be questioned as to why it hasn't been patented already if it's legitimate.

--
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Re:Mass Media coverage with no Peer Review by david_thornley · 2016-06-02 05:11 · Score: 1

Trade secrets do have some advantages over patents, such as not having an expiration date. If Coca-Cola had been patented, people could make exact duplicates now, but they keep their recipes secret.
However, I'd think patents would be much better for medical purposes, since I'd think it would be difficult to certify procedures that are trade secrets.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Re:Sexism! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 07:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

More likely it's the fact that Silicon Valley is a liberal/SJW stronghold, where investors will happily throw money at any company with a female CEO.

As we say in California, what are smoking and where can I get some?

http://valleywag.gawker.com/silicon-valley-named-13th-best-conservative-city-in-ame-1458838034

GAWKER?!?!?!?!

Yeah, that's a trustworthy source.

Jesus H. Fucking Christ, you scraped right through the bottom of the barrel.

Re:Sexism! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 07:19 · Score: 1

Did you think that reactionary fools like you have something to contribute? Delusion and hate are not valuable commodities. They've become far too common since the ignorant Conservatives lost their minds from listening to hate-radio, reading wingnut blogs, and watching Fox News. The damage done to these people is incalculable, they're in a media-driven cult that rejects information and craves absurd propaganda, and they're taking the Republican party down with them by electing increasingly extreme idiots.

So, she's like a female Reed Slatkin? by jcr · 2016-06-01 07:24 · Score: 1

Is she a scientologist, too?

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."

Re:Sexism! by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-06-01 07:30 · Score: 1

Jesus H. Fucking Christ, you scraped right through the bottom of the barrel.

This is Slashdot. You must be new around here.

Re:Sexism! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 07:41 · Score: 0

You're right about the first part, /. is just a place where undateable rage-nerds hang out these days, rather than a useful tech blog, but you might be too high to comment, and confusing your Holmes'.

/. is most useful for seeing what stupid reactionaries are thinking, without having to go straight to a cesspool like Breitbart or FR.

What Theranos does by wonkey_monkey · 2016-06-01 08:00 · Score: 1

Thanks to all the evidence that Theranos' technology is largely a gimmick and false advertising

Theranos's main product, by the way, is a blood-testing device, which may or may not actually work as well as Theranos says it does.

You could have at least briefly hinted at this in the summary.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.

Re:Sexism! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 08:00 · Score: 1

y u angry at women bro? are u ... forever alone?

Re:Sexism! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 08:07 · Score: 0

I have no common cause with the Libertarian neanderthals around here that clearly despise and fear women...

But you do have common cause with dermatologist nutbags that want to cut up women's faces against their will to make them more beautiful. There, I'm just as logical as you.

Re:Sexism! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 08:10 · Score: 0

or DemocraticUnderground or MSNBC.

Re:Sexism! by MightyMartian · 2016-06-01 08:15 · Score: 1

What's it like being a fucking idiot? I'm just curious. Because your attempt at an analogy looks more like a fucking retard trying to string words together in some bizarre facsimile of a rejoinder.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Off to prison? by mr.bri · 2016-06-01 08:19 · Score: 1

So who's going to prison? Not for harming shareholders (who cares about them!). But for injuring/killing countless people who used their faulty tests to make medical decisions?

That should be the real story here. Create a false company, pull in $9B of investment money, generate life-threatening product, go to prison. At least, that's how it should work.

Re:Sexism! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 08:38 · Score: 0

Maybe because all the sexism blocks them, so they have to cheat to be on equal footing.
Or perhaps they just get more press. There's vastly more charlatan males, they just don't get attention because it's so common.

Too bad for her by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 08:51 · Score: 0

But TRUMP is still worth north of $10 billion, thanks to his mastery of The Art of the Deal!

Re:Sexism! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 09:01 · Score: 0

y u think women can do no wrong bro? U.....magina?

Re:Sexism! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 09:18 · Score: 0

Smack-talking AC. Film at eleven.

Re: Sexism! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 09:21 · Score: 0

I assumed that he (it must be a he) was referring to something in your posting history but who knows? Your original comment was spot on.

Re:Sexism! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 09:21 · Score: 0

What's it like being a fucking idiot? I'm just curious.

Why be curious? You are one, so ask yourself. To be specific, you are a bigoted sexist idiot.

Re:Sexism! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 09:21 · Score: 0

Stopped reading at "SJW". Anyone who uses that term is part of the problem, not the solution.

Shut the fuck up, you hopeless mangina. Go rescue some women from patriarchal micro-aggressions or something and stop polluting this site.

Re:Sexism! by roman_mir · 2016-06-01 09:45 · Score: 0

/. moderators wouldn't know a troll if one bit them on the dick. Here is a clue: MightyMartian is a troll.

I am not a libertarian, I am an anarcho capitalist, however I am quite certain that there is nothing about libertarians that makes them more or less likely to 'despise and/or fear women'.

--
You can't handle the truth.

Forbes! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 10:04 · Score: 0

Why do you hate women so!?

Modern stock market is a sccam by johncandale · 2016-06-01 10:19 · Score: 1

You know over 50% of trades on the markets are made by algorithms? just computers trading with other computers looking at little changes in prices

Why not hire her for a speaking engagement? by Fragnet · 2016-06-01 10:26 · Score: 1

Tech visionary and genius Elizabeth Holmes is changing the medical landscape!. Specialising in nanotechnology, she successfully shrunk her wealth from $4.5 billion to zero. Book her now!!!

Re:An economy void of pipe dreams is in deep troub by crunchygranola · 2016-06-01 10:27 · Score: 1

[An] economy built on pipe dreams such as this is in deep, deep trouble.

Once people stop dreaming our economy will stall to a level not seen in hundreds of years. Most of human history has shown a 1-2% rate of economic advancement until the industrial age.

Not hardly. Before the Industrial Revolution the economic growth rate was 0.1-0.2%, one tenth of what you suggest (actually over the very long term it was just 0.01%). After the IR growth rates shot up to almost 1% initially, eventually reaching 2-3% annually in some decades of the 19th Century (see The Handbook of Economic Growthby Steven Durlauf, Philippe Aghion, 2013, chapter 5).

--
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age

Wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 10:34 · Score: 0

Forbes estimating her net work to be $4.5 billion

Man, that's a lot of Cisco gear.

Re: Wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 12:06 · Score: 0

Should make an interesting engineering ethics case study...

Re:Sexism! by thesupraman · 2016-06-01 11:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

I would however suggest that you have a common cause with some group, due to your use of a several highly derogatory terms for people who apparently do not agree with you, but hey.

More to the point, I think a major reason people are giving the responses they are to this long slow train wreck of Theranos is how Ms Holmes was held up to be such a glowing example of the truth and light behind women in business by certain groups. It has become quite apparently that this particular train wreck mostly comes down to her belief that hype and contacts has a billion dollar market value, and others supporting her in this. It is quite clear looking back at the hype machine that a good quantity of that has come from 'And look, she is a woman!', so that is a factor, one that she was quite happy to play.

The takeaway here should really be 'step carefully before you raise someone to sainthood for your cause'. This is of course a common mistake, especially these days (by many many different types of groups of course).

The interesting part comes next - Do the people who truly believe in their cause try and shout down any detraction of her as being sexist, or do they quietly admit there is some egg-on-face here and that she was not the saint she was held up to be. Time will tell.

oil, gold, dollar by egork · 2016-06-01 11:56 · Score: 1

It is widely discussed that oil price is rather stable measured in gold. So by this line of though it is not oil price that fluctuates but rather dollar value. Recently revealed conspiracy of banks to manipulate dollar gold price adds yet another dimension to this speculation

--
...a stunned silence fell upon the hall.

Forbes is a bunch of liars by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 12:14 · Score: 0

She has a vagina, tits, and mouth. She's worth something to someone or many someones. Fuck you Forbes.

Re:Forbes is a bunch of liars by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 18:55 · Score: 0

You forgot her asshole.
Three holes, no waiting !

Re: Sexism! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 13:25 · Score: 0

Lol you cited a gawker article?

What's next? Bat boy living in Arizona?

And she has likely cashed out quite a bit by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 14:09 · Score: 0

Has she sold any shares? Bought a house perhaps?

Re:Sexism! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 14:12 · Score: 0

Well... I agree that plenty of people probably wanted to see her fail.

On the other hand... the reason she was given such an absurdly long leash in the first place is that the world desperately wanted to see a female Steve Jobs in a STEM field. The story was *so* good.

So while many wanted her to fail for being female, you can't deny that many wanted her to succeed for the exact same reason.

That's sexism too.

same shit by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-01 17:31 · Score: 0

Why are most of these posts repeating the same shit? Did you all post within seconds of each other?

Re:Sexism! by david_thornley · 2016-06-02 04:41 · Score: 1

We don't have true equality just because competent women can become CEOs. We're more equal when female scam artists can become CEOs.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Re:Sexism! by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2016-06-02 06:10 · Score: 1

Actually, both right wing and left wing politics have been full of both delusion and hate. The term "Regressive Left" exists for a reason.

--
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.

Re:Sexism! by painandgreed · 2016-06-02 08:58 · Score: 1

Jesus H. Fucking Christ, you scraped right through the bottom of the barrel.

This is Slashdot. You must be new around here.

New enough that they haven't created an account yet and are having to post as an Anonymous Coward.

Plenty of scam artists by Firethorn · 2016-06-02 12:56 · Score: 1

As you say, there's lots of scam artists out there. Holmes doesn't hold a candle on Bernie Madoff, for example.

But still, I think one could make the argument that she used her gender to increase her success. Madoff, for example, used his being Jewish to seem more trustworthy in the Jewish community, allowing him to obtain more investors. She could have done the same with the 'feminist' community, who may have invested in her, at least partially, as a political statement.

Same deal with her deliberately manipulating her image to create associations with Steve Jobs.

Personally I'm saddened she turned out to be a fraud. I was so hyped about the possibility of 'hundreds of medical tests on a chip!'.

--
I don't read AC A human right

Re:Sexism! by Firethorn · 2016-06-02 13:22 · Score: 1

Indeed, I am a libertarian, you dirty anarcho capitalist scum*, and my philosophy has approximately zero in the way of even caring about somebody's gender beyond 'why the hell should we poke our noses in?' because the republicans and democrats care.

* ;)

--
I don't read AC A human right

Re:Sexism! by Coren22 · 2016-06-03 04:20 · Score: 1

That was kind of my attitude towards the legislation about bathroom use. Who cares? Who is going to check to make sure you don't have dangly bits when you are entering the women's room?

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Re:Sexism! by Firethorn · 2016-06-03 04:39 · Score: 1

Plus, if you're a lesbian creeping it up in the women's room, or a gay guy creeping up the men's room, there are still legal solutions to that problem.

Note: I'm NOT saying that homosexual people are creepers. I'm saying that IF you happen to get somebody who's both, or just that fucked up, the problem is fixable under current rules in at least most states. There might be a state that has fucked up laws.

Personally, I'm for unisex bathrooms - beef up the stalls, provide a changing room, call it a day.

--
I don't read AC A human right

Re:Sexism! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-06 05:13 · Score: 0

y u strawman and make men look like morons?

Slashdot Mirror

Forbes Just Cut Its Estimate of Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes's Net Worth From $4.5 Billion To Zero (qz.com)

215 comments