So what? That's like saying: there's billions of people driving cars out there so a brand new electric car that cost $500 and that goes 100,000 miles per charge would interest a lot of people. Doesn't mean someone has done it.
In other words, you don't offer any evidence to evaluate.
Yeah, just like my ex who kept accusing me of disrespecting her, but could never come up with a single specific incident because "there's too many of them"
It helps to actually read the thing someone's replying to. Here's the whole thread up to your response, with my emphasis added:
Could public cloud providers be penetrated in such a way that all your data and activities belong to NSA, China, etc?
They probably already are. The reason you won't hear about it is because the people that break in to systems like that are very careful to go unnoticed. Hacking those systems is worth billions of dollars.
Tinfoil hat much
But to your inference, the intelligence community also sees monetary value in their interception and exploit programs, obviously, which is why they've invested in those programs. Bang for buck, investing in electronic intelligence almost certainly pays bigger dividends in aggregate than investing in human intelligence—at least that is what they must assume.
And with that said, if you were more preoccupied by the mention of China, and for some reason assuming corporate, rather than imperial, espionage... I'm even more at a loss at your accusation of paranoia.
None of this is relevant. The point is that nobody has made billions secretly hacking AWS and Azure. This is just FUD with no basis in reality.
As for China having backdoors to AWS and Azure, that's also absurd and it shows a very poor knowledge of the actual situation in China, where: 1) The government is not one big unified organization, but instead a bunch of small fiefdoms, a lot more similar to the EU than the USA 2) The technical capabilities are just not there; lots of noise and scanning, but still very low capabilities beyond human intelligence which has little reach outside of Chinese nationals abroad
Right of course. The intelligence community was exposed for intercepting every electronic communication they could and were allowed to continue doing so until private businesses were able/compelled to do it for them, and continually compromise and publicly undermine encryption. But imagining that they're actually using the power they've accumulated... that's paranoid and anyone suggesting it should be mocked.
The AC said: "Hacking those systems is worth billions of dollars". That doesn't suggest NSA interception, that suggests a commercial endeavor to hack AWS and Azure. Those are two different things.
The relationship between hosting companies and spammers is fascinating. I strongly recommend Krebs book on this topic, it makes for an entertaining and educating read (book is called "Spam Nation").
Checkout this post on his blog about spammers and IBM:
Last month, anti-spam group Spamhaus.org listed Softlayer as the “#1 spam hosting ISP,” putting Softlayer at the very top of its World’s Worst Spam Support ISPs index. Spamhaus said the number of abuse issues at the ISP has “rapidly reached rarely previously seen numbers.”
Wait, let me get this straight, you can sell herbal supplements with the same claim and weak/non-existent scientific support and be in the clear, but this is worthy of a fine? Or how about selling "unlimited" data plans that are explicitly NOT unlimited, and not be hit with false advertising either?
It's like complaining about someone finding a cure for lung cancer while liver cancer still kills people.
Those apps that prey on people's quest for better health are a shame and it's a good thing if they get fined. There are other crooks out there but let's celebrate the victories, not use them to promote vague accusations of bribery.
Apple software and hardware is disposable and has a life expectancy of 4 years, if that.
I'm impressed you managed to type that with a straight face, Fandroid, when you're lucky to get device updates 18 months after you bought it. Lots of people engage in situational reasoning, confirmation bias and double standards - bun not in the same breath.
Gloating about updates on IOS is a bit rich given the topic, which is people suing Apple because the updates crippled their phones. Situational reasoning much?
That's probably where they took the money to pay the patent-infringement fine to Ericsson. Of course we don't hear about that one, we just hear when it's Apple that is allegedly screwed by a competitor.
Enough already with the "fragmentation" bullshit. It is a LOT easier to create an app that works well on the Android tablet my grandma bought in 2011 and on my fancy new Moto X than an app that works on an iPod Touch bought in 2011 and an iPhone 6 with retina.
Apple software and hardware is disposable and has a life expectancy of 4 years, if that. Meanwhile at the office we have a legacy piece of shit 20 years old VB5 application and it works on Windows 10.
Theranos is a privately-held company. How are you going to "track down and verify" information given by ex-employees? It's he said she said - and if you read the article, the company says that what the ex-employees are saying is either false or grossly inaccurate.
I'm fairly certain Walgreens is going to be taking a pretty hard look at the whole situation, with lawyers in tow. The company I work for is privately held, but we have partners/clients in here weekly walking the plant, doing audits, pretty much being pains in the asses but ensuring their products and investments are protected. Just because they don't have public shareholders to answer to doesn't mean nobody is going to be poking and prodding. Sure, they could just tell them to F off, but Walgreens could just as easily turn around and do the same and they'd have no current outlet to sell their services.
The fact that Walgreens has lawyers has nothing to do with it. You stated that tracking down and verifying the allegations of ex-employees is easy, and I explained to you that it isn't.
What happens to the business relationship is a different matter completely. You can assume whatever you want about that, but anyone doing any kind of investigation in this matter will quickly see that there is no substance in those WSJ articles, it's all misrepresented information and has been refuted by Theranos.
Theranos is regulated by multiple federal agencies (FDA, Medicare/Medicaid, etc). Those are the ones who can act if something funny is going on, and contrary to the WSJ they are not going to base their decisions on the word of someone who has worked for 2 months at Theranos in 2005.
You don't have to write a long-winded paragraph like that to rehash bad info that was already detailed. They DID NOT do that. Read their explanations or watch the fucking video. THIS. DID. NOT. HAPPEN.
They debunked the WSJ bullshit "evidence", they provided affidavits from many of the sources used in the WSJ article explaining that the reporter has misrepresented what they said. But nobody listens! People like you are too busy "explaining" how they diluted blood samples and other bullshit that DID NOT HAPPEN.
They do 2 kinds of tests as part of their regular business (not as "proof" of anything).
1) regular tests, like other labs, with the regular kind of blood sample, not thru Walgreens or other retailers (which is why they have regular machines)
2) proprietary tests using their finger prick sample (for a limited series of tests)
Some idiot misunderstood that and misunderstood that the "dilution" is just one of the standard steps in ONE specific test and ran with it.
This is unbelievable. This story shows that you can print any kind of bullshit in a newspaper and it just gets repeated and repeated and repeated and nobody looks further than that, people just mindlessly join the angry mob.
The problem is that the lab tests are not giving the correct results.
Can you support that with more than the WSJ's claims, which are based on testimonies from ex-employees (including one who worked there for 2 months in 2005) and misrepresented statements from various sources, many of which came forward to contradict the way they were quoted in the article?
The question is why do they no longer work there? Were they fired for being terrible employees?
Out of the 4 ex-employees used as sources by the WSJ, the only one that was identified worked for Theranos for 2 months in 2005 (and was fired). There is nothing else provided by the reporter to explain who are the ex-employees and what was their job and credentials.
I can't get my head around how they raised so much money with nothing but the most basic outline of an idea and not even an original one.
Here's how they raise money: their business model is TRULY disruptive. It's not an ad-supported gimmick or a pretty website on top of existing local services. What they propose (and currently do) is to make blood tests that cost a lot less than what current private labs charge.
The whole Edison thing with sophisticated disease detection is just a small part of it, and that's not what they sold investors. It's gravy R&D on top of their bread & butter.
Just look at their website, you'll see stuff like this:
Our test prices are 50–80% off of Medicare reimbursement rates – and far below commercial lab prices.
They're not selling a fake tricoder, they're doing lab tests for less.
Theranos is the first testing lab to go through a FDA validation process. They've done that voluntarily in order to pave the way for future stuff they want to do.
That company is like the Walmart of blood testing, and not just on their proprietary platform. They do all kinds of tests on regular machines so they can build a customer base and deliver tests for less money, hoping that in the future they'll be able to do more tests without draining people of their blood and money.
But instead of getting kudos, they're being painted as crooks who promise to detect cancer with a $2 self-service widget sold at Walgreens. Shame on the WSJ.
Something like blood testing should have a outside validation for their machines. Why is the company validating these machines on their own?
They have done tests with outside labs, sending blood samples taken the regular way and processed on regular machines to compare with the results they get on their own machines from samples taken with the finger prick thing. They have a proprietary technology. How do you want other labs to "validate" those machines otherwise? Publish schematics?
The problem in this case is not what Theranos is doing. The problem is that someone who doesn't understand the process took bits and parts of what they heard from ex-employees and used it to paint a picture that is wrong.
Take the example of the "dilution" accusation. The reporter said that Theranos took finger samples and "diluted" them so they could be tested on regular machines that need bigger samples. Do you really need a PhD in bio-whatever to understand that this makes no sense? How the fuck a machine that needs 1L of blood can run a test based on 1 drop of blood that has been "diluted"? What clearly happened is just that someone took a sentence or test step out of context and came up with this bullshit.
This whole thing is a witch hunt led by people who couldn't tell what a witch looks like.
If they all came back and said "yeah those guys are cheating dicks, i hope they burn", that's one thing, but to come back with specific details about who did what and when, it's a lot easier to track it down and verify.
Theranos is a privately-held company. How are you going to "track down and verify" information given by ex-employees? It's he said she said - and if you read the article, the company says that what the ex-employees are saying is either false or grossly inaccurate.
This whole thing is blown out of proportion. If you take the time to read more than that clickbait WSJ article, you'll see that Theranos went themselves to the FDA to get approval to use the small device that collects blood (NOT the diagnose-cancer-machine), and that the FDA's "investigation" was just an audit to see what is Theranos QA process in regard to those tubes. That's it.
I think they key issue here is that they suck at PR. They make those spectacular announcements regarding what they want to achieve (not what they can actually do right now), but it somehow gets received in mainstream media as snake oil claims.
Most of these claims come from ex-employees. It's like having my ex-wife write my biography; I'm sure she'd find a way to put a negative spin on that time I saved puppies from a house fire (like: "he went back inside to grab things he cared about but left my cherished family photos to burn").
Microsoft could barely be described as a bit player in hardware outside the Xbox division (which I suspect still hasn't paid back the vast investment Redmond has put into it).
It's so easy to google you wrong, why do you not take a minute to check before making this kind of empty comment
Yes. Typical cycle would clean at 150F with a peak at 167F in the final stage. In the sanitize mode, it goes up to 180F or even 185F.
In my experience, most "dishwasher proof" plastic like tupperware are okay with the sanitize temperature, but cheap stuff like no-brand plastic jugs or cups come out bent out of shape.
Good thing with sanitize mode is that it does a good job with plastic cutting boards. Most people think that plastic cutting boards are better than wood, but it's true only if the board isn't scratched. It's more difficult to effectively sanitize a scratched plastic cutting board than a wood one.
Slashdot Mirror
None of this is relevant. The point is that nobody has made billions secretly hacking AWS and Azure. This is just FUD with no basis in reality.
How many businesses do you think run on AWS and Azure? Considering revenue for AWS is at $2.1 billion dollars. AWS also offers a cloud computing aimed at the Feds, which certainly wouldn't be of interest to anyone else out there.
So what? That's like saying: there's billions of people driving cars out there so a brand new electric car that cost $500 and that goes 100,000 miles per charge would interest a lot of people. Doesn't mean someone has done it.
"Without going into detail..."
In other words, you don't offer any evidence to evaluate.
Yeah, just like my ex who kept accusing me of disrespecting her, but could never come up with a single specific incident because "there's too many of them"
It helps to actually read the thing someone's replying to. Here's the whole thread up to your response, with my emphasis added:
Could public cloud providers be penetrated in such a way that all your data and activities belong to NSA, China, etc?
They probably already are. The reason you won't hear about it is because the people that break in to systems like that are very careful to go unnoticed. Hacking those systems is worth billions of dollars.
Tinfoil hat much
But to your inference, the intelligence community also sees monetary value in their interception and exploit programs, obviously, which is why they've invested in those programs. Bang for buck, investing in electronic intelligence almost certainly pays bigger dividends in aggregate than investing in human intelligence—at least that is what they must assume.
And with that said, if you were more preoccupied by the mention of China, and for some reason assuming corporate, rather than imperial, espionage... I'm even more at a loss at your accusation of paranoia.
None of this is relevant. The point is that nobody has made billions secretly hacking AWS and Azure. This is just FUD with no basis in reality.
As for China having backdoors to AWS and Azure, that's also absurd and it shows a very poor knowledge of the actual situation in China, where:
1) The government is not one big unified organization, but instead a bunch of small fiefdoms, a lot more similar to the EU than the USA
2) The technical capabilities are just not there; lots of noise and scanning, but still very low capabilities beyond human intelligence which has little reach outside of Chinese nationals abroad
Get real
Right of course. The intelligence community was exposed for intercepting every electronic communication they could and were allowed to continue doing so until private businesses were able/compelled to do it for them, and continually compromise and publicly undermine encryption. But imagining that they're actually using the power they've accumulated... that's paranoid and anyone suggesting it should be mocked.
The AC said: "Hacking those systems is worth billions of dollars". That doesn't suggest NSA interception, that suggests a commercial endeavor to hack AWS and Azure. Those are two different things.
I'd take Spamhaus more seriously if many of their actions weren't just as bas as the spammers.
Like what?
these companies should not be fined for for their customers own stupidity
Are you from Nigeria?
The relationship between hosting companies and spammers is fascinating. I strongly recommend Krebs book on this topic, it makes for an entertaining and educating read (book is called "Spam Nation").
Checkout this post on his blog about spammers and IBM:
Last month, anti-spam group Spamhaus.org listed Softlayer as the “#1 spam hosting ISP,” putting Softlayer at the very top of its World’s Worst Spam Support ISPs index. Spamhaus said the number of abuse issues at the ISP has “rapidly reached rarely previously seen numbers.”
http://krebsonsecurity.com/201...
Tinfoil hat much
Wait, let me get this straight, you can sell herbal supplements with the same claim and weak/non-existent scientific support and be in the clear, but this is worthy of a fine? Or how about selling "unlimited" data plans that are explicitly NOT unlimited, and not be hit with false advertising either?
It's like complaining about someone finding a cure for lung cancer while liver cancer still kills people.
Those apps that prey on people's quest for better health are a shame and it's a good thing if they get fined. There are other crooks out there but let's celebrate the victories, not use them to promote vague accusations of bribery.
Question is: will you still be coding when you're back in diapers?
Not in a cool startup that's for sure.
My thoughts exactly. If there is one place where you do not have to explain what CP/M is, it's here.
Exactly. We all know what CP/M is and we all know that CPC has a much better ROI and CTR.
I'm impressed you managed to type that with a straight face, Fandroid, when you're lucky to get device updates 18 months after you bought it. Lots of people engage in situational reasoning, confirmation bias and double standards - bun not in the same breath.
Gloating about updates on IOS is a bit rich given the topic, which is people suing Apple because the updates crippled their phones. Situational reasoning much?
That's probably where they took the money to pay the patent-infringement fine to Ericsson. Of course we don't hear about that one, we just hear when it's Apple that is allegedly screwed by a competitor.
Enough already with the "fragmentation" bullshit. It is a LOT easier to create an app that works well on the Android tablet my grandma bought in 2011 and on my fancy new Moto X than an app that works on an iPod Touch bought in 2011 and an iPhone 6 with retina.
Apple software and hardware is disposable and has a life expectancy of 4 years, if that. Meanwhile at the office we have a legacy piece of shit 20 years old VB5 application and it works on Windows 10.
Theranos is a privately-held company. How are you going to "track down and verify" information given by ex-employees? It's he said she said - and if you read the article, the company says that what the ex-employees are saying is either false or grossly inaccurate.
I'm fairly certain Walgreens is going to be taking a pretty hard look at the whole situation, with lawyers in tow. The company I work for is privately held, but we have partners/clients in here weekly walking the plant, doing audits, pretty much being pains in the asses but ensuring their products and investments are protected. Just because they don't have public shareholders to answer to doesn't mean nobody is going to be poking and prodding. Sure, they could just tell them to F off, but Walgreens could just as easily turn around and do the same and they'd have no current outlet to sell their services.
The fact that Walgreens has lawyers has nothing to do with it. You stated that tracking down and verifying the allegations of ex-employees is easy, and I explained to you that it isn't.
What happens to the business relationship is a different matter completely. You can assume whatever you want about that, but anyone doing any kind of investigation in this matter will quickly see that there is no substance in those WSJ articles, it's all misrepresented information and has been refuted by Theranos.
Theranos is regulated by multiple federal agencies (FDA, Medicare/Medicaid, etc). Those are the ones who can act if something funny is going on, and contrary to the WSJ they are not going to base their decisions on the word of someone who has worked for 2 months at Theranos in 2005.
You don't have to write a long-winded paragraph like that to rehash bad info that was already detailed. They DID NOT do that. Read their explanations or watch the fucking video. THIS. DID. NOT. HAPPEN.
They debunked the WSJ bullshit "evidence", they provided affidavits from many of the sources used in the WSJ article explaining that the reporter has misrepresented what they said. But nobody listens! People like you are too busy "explaining" how they diluted blood samples and other bullshit that DID NOT HAPPEN.
They do 2 kinds of tests as part of their regular business (not as "proof" of anything).
1) regular tests, like other labs, with the regular kind of blood sample, not thru Walgreens or other retailers (which is why they have regular machines)
2) proprietary tests using their finger prick sample (for a limited series of tests)
Some idiot misunderstood that and misunderstood that the "dilution" is just one of the standard steps in ONE specific test and ran with it.
This is unbelievable. This story shows that you can print any kind of bullshit in a newspaper and it just gets repeated and repeated and repeated and nobody looks further than that, people just mindlessly join the angry mob.
The problem is that the lab tests are not giving the correct results.
Can you support that with more than the WSJ's claims, which are based on testimonies from ex-employees (including one who worked there for 2 months in 2005) and misrepresented statements from various sources, many of which came forward to contradict the way they were quoted in the article?
The question is why do they no longer work there? Were they fired for being terrible employees?
Out of the 4 ex-employees used as sources by the WSJ, the only one that was identified worked for Theranos for 2 months in 2005 (and was fired). There is nothing else provided by the reporter to explain who are the ex-employees and what was their job and credentials.
I can't get my head around how they raised so much money with nothing but the most basic outline of an idea and not even an original one.
Here's how they raise money: their business model is TRULY disruptive. It's not an ad-supported gimmick or a pretty website on top of existing local services. What they propose (and currently do) is to make blood tests that cost a lot less than what current private labs charge.
The whole Edison thing with sophisticated disease detection is just a small part of it, and that's not what they sold investors. It's gravy R&D on top of their bread & butter.
Just look at their website, you'll see stuff like this:
Our test prices are 50–80% off of Medicare reimbursement rates – and far below commercial lab prices.
They're not selling a fake tricoder, they're doing lab tests for less.
Theranos is the first testing lab to go through a FDA validation process. They've done that voluntarily in order to pave the way for future stuff they want to do.
That company is like the Walmart of blood testing, and not just on their proprietary platform. They do all kinds of tests on regular machines so they can build a customer base and deliver tests for less money, hoping that in the future they'll be able to do more tests without draining people of their blood and money.
But instead of getting kudos, they're being painted as crooks who promise to detect cancer with a $2 self-service widget sold at Walgreens. Shame on the WSJ.
Something like blood testing should have a outside validation for their machines. Why is the company validating these machines on their own?
They have done tests with outside labs, sending blood samples taken the regular way and processed on regular machines to compare with the results they get on their own machines from samples taken with the finger prick thing. They have a proprietary technology. How do you want other labs to "validate" those machines otherwise? Publish schematics?
The problem in this case is not what Theranos is doing. The problem is that someone who doesn't understand the process took bits and parts of what they heard from ex-employees and used it to paint a picture that is wrong.
Take the example of the "dilution" accusation. The reporter said that Theranos took finger samples and "diluted" them so they could be tested on regular machines that need bigger samples. Do you really need a PhD in bio-whatever to understand that this makes no sense? How the fuck a machine that needs 1L of blood can run a test based on 1 drop of blood that has been "diluted"? What clearly happened is just that someone took a sentence or test step out of context and came up with this bullshit.
This whole thing is a witch hunt led by people who couldn't tell what a witch looks like.
If they all came back and said "yeah those guys are cheating dicks, i hope they burn", that's one thing, but to come back with specific details about who did what and when, it's a lot easier to track it down and verify.
Theranos is a privately-held company. How are you going to "track down and verify" information given by ex-employees? It's he said she said - and if you read the article, the company says that what the ex-employees are saying is either false or grossly inaccurate.
This whole thing is blown out of proportion. If you take the time to read more than that clickbait WSJ article, you'll see that Theranos went themselves to the FDA to get approval to use the small device that collects blood (NOT the diagnose-cancer-machine), and that the FDA's "investigation" was just an audit to see what is Theranos QA process in regard to those tubes. That's it.
I think they key issue here is that they suck at PR. They make those spectacular announcements regarding what they want to achieve (not what they can actually do right now), but it somehow gets received in mainstream media as snake oil claims.
Most of these claims come from ex-employees. It's like having my ex-wife write my biography; I'm sure she'd find a way to put a negative spin on that time I saved puppies from a house fire (like: "he went back inside to grab things he cared about but left my cherished family photos to burn").
Microsoft could barely be described as a bit player in hardware outside the Xbox division (which I suspect still hasn't paid back the vast investment Redmond has put into it).
It's so easy to google you wrong, why do you not take a minute to check before making this kind of empty comment
Yes. Typical cycle would clean at 150F with a peak at 167F in the final stage. In the sanitize mode, it goes up to 180F or even 185F.
In my experience, most "dishwasher proof" plastic like tupperware are okay with the sanitize temperature, but cheap stuff like no-brand plastic jugs or cups come out bent out of shape.
Good thing with sanitize mode is that it does a good job with plastic cutting boards. Most people think that plastic cutting boards are better than wood, but it's true only if the board isn't scratched. It's more difficult to effectively sanitize a scratched plastic cutting board than a wood one.