It's quite obvious that the NSA, FBI, CIA, or one of their friends abroad are trying to publicly discredit this guy.
If that's what you think, you may want to reconsider everything else in your life that appears obvious to you.
Seriously the guy is such an asshole that some people in his own organization were wondering if he could have been a spy sent to sabotage the infosec community. Tinfoil hats all around.
Wake me when there's a court judgement and actual investigation has been done, not someone badmouthing people online and calling attention to rumors like some trashy tabloid.
You mean a court judgement like owing $30,000 to someone over a $75 printer dispute? Or the OJ Simpson one? Or Casey Anthony?
That's how sociopaths like Appelbaum or Assange can get away with stuff that would make a rockstar lose his hardcore fanbase. Anyone who complains about those guys is crucified by legions of idiots. This is the same kind of uncompromising, full-on hate behavior of the Westboro baptist church or the abortion clinic bombers. Different dogma and cult leaders, same mindless worshipping and mob mentality.
Nobody accused Snowden of being a rapist or an overall asshole. You know why? Because he didn't harass, bully or walk over people for years. Yet he's a much bigger "target" than a developer on a government-funded security project or a pathetic has been whistleblower.
In a business context, leadership is all about leveraging people's strengths, not fixing their flaws. So when I have an opportunity to solve a problem quickly and get the resources focused on value-added tasks, I take it.
If common problems include Caps Lock being on and the first letter being capitalised, sounds like the user frustration is with the input device.
I have a coworker who is Caps Lock challenged, so I configured her computer to have that key behave like Shift. Life has been a lot easier for everyone since then.
Linux distros, pure crap, unless you mean Slackware. Full of cargo-cult programmers who think they're cool because they're not using Windows. Crap is crap no matter what OS they're using, they just get to circle jerk with a bunch of other yuppies who think they're awesome for hating on M$.
Yeah those people are not as sophisticated as those who think they're awesome for hating on M$ AND Linux. Clearly the more O/S you hate, the more awesome you are. That's why I hate Windows, Linux and *BSD. I prefer OpenVMS, which is not perfect but those people are a lot more mature and realistic.
Windows has alternatives, but some products like Kindle have only lousy competitors.
I read a lot, 2 books a week on average, and for me Kindle has been a huge improvement over paper books which are a pain to move, search or bounce around. I use the Kindle app on my phone or tablet when I'm at work or waiting at the DMV, but for long enjoyable reading sessions those are not as good as the Kindle device.
So my options are: 1) have ads on the screensaver/powered off screen 2) pay a $20 ransom to Amazon to free my Kindle from their ads, even though they're fhe one selling me that Kindle in the first place 3) don't use a Kindle, and there's no real alternative
Having to pay Amazon for a reading device and for books, and then having to fork over another $20 not to see ads on MY device is infuriating. It reminds me of that situation in The Girl Wih the Dragon Tattoo where she has to give blowjobs to the lawyer that controls her money whenever she wants him to give her a little bit of her own money.
I've always been a loyal customer of Amazon but now I'll jump ship at the first occasion.
Use a proper compiler and make system. GCC + make.
Or let go of antiquated technologies and use the javascript compile and make system. It's called "CTRL-S", although some geeks use ":wq" or "ZZ" on linux.
If 4,000 represents 0.01%, it means that 40 million people use Visual Studio to code. Yet according to IDC there's about 18.5 million programmers in the world, including hobbyists. This means Microsoft controls roughly 220% of the software development market. I had no idea they were so successful!
Wrong. Based on their own SourceSafe commit history they knew it would never be done in time, they've been working instead on the 128 bit version since 2007.
Notepad++? Meh. I use "echo -n" and write directly to the executable file. That way I don't need makefiles or even "source code", I just put my bash_history in git; when I need to build on Winblow$ I use AutoHotKey and a cygwin shell with a bunch of "arrow up + enter" macros.
I have witnessed his kind of situation often and unfortunately it seems like a real pattern: an Indian gets promoted, and suddenly all key roles in his direct reports go to Indians, often ones that are not that competent (or threatening to the alpha one). Seems like a cultural thing because I haven't seen the same thing with other groups, except maybe the French.
I don't think that happens out of some form of racism, I think it's more a solidarity thing combined with less worries about being overly politically correct.
What's hard to understand is how people can fall that easily for such obvious gimmick. That's like going to the car dealership and being thrilled that "you get a $2000 discount if you agree not to have the seats & rims luxury package".
Here's the bottom line: when you pay for a device, the manufacturer shouldn't force ads on you. But we're past that, now with ads injected by tv manufacturers and ISP and everyone else. It's a sad world.
each Windows 10 user must generate so much ad revenue that it is worth trying to stomp out each and every one
they could learn from the masters... On the new Kindle there's ads on the screensaver/lock screen. If you don't want to see ads, you have to pay Amazon $20 on top of the $125 or more for the device.
Now THAT is innovation. Ad-supported paid devices.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless those victims made verbal testimonies, slander is not even relevant. Don't use words you don't understand
It's quite obvious that the NSA, FBI, CIA, or one of their friends abroad are trying to publicly discredit this guy.
If that's what you think, you may want to reconsider everything else in your life that appears obvious to you.
Seriously the guy is such an asshole that some people in his own organization were wondering if he could have been a spy sent to sabotage the infosec community. Tinfoil hats all around.
Wake me when there's a court judgement and actual investigation has been done, not someone badmouthing people online and calling attention to rumors like some trashy tabloid.
You mean a court judgement like owing $30,000 to someone over a $75 printer dispute? Or the OJ Simpson one? Or Casey Anthony?
Get real.
That's how sociopaths like Appelbaum or Assange can get away with stuff that would make a rockstar lose his hardcore fanbase. Anyone who complains about those guys is crucified by legions of idiots. This is the same kind of uncompromising, full-on hate behavior of the Westboro baptist church or the abortion clinic bombers. Different dogma and cult leaders, same mindless worshipping and mob mentality.
Nobody accused Snowden of being a rapist or an overall asshole. You know why? Because he didn't harass, bully or walk over people for years. Yet he's a much bigger "target" than a developer on a government-funded security project or a pathetic has been whistleblower.
I wonder if the NSA can snoop on carrier pidgeon traffic.
In a business context, leadership is all about leveraging people's strengths, not fixing their flaws. So when I have an opportunity to solve a problem quickly and get the resources focused on value-added tasks, I take it.
If common problems include Caps Lock being on and the first letter being capitalised, sounds like the user frustration is with the input device.
I have a coworker who is Caps Lock challenged, so I configured her computer to have that key behave like Shift. Life has been a lot easier for everyone since then.
I'm a C# coder
That explains a lot.
Oh I see, it's funny because you imply that being a C# coder is bad! Good one!
Linux distros, pure crap, unless you mean Slackware. Full of cargo-cult programmers who think they're cool because they're not using Windows. Crap is crap no matter what OS they're using, they just get to circle jerk with a bunch of other yuppies who think they're awesome for hating on M$.
Yeah those people are not as sophisticated as those who think they're awesome for hating on M$ AND Linux. Clearly the more O/S you hate, the more awesome you are. That's why I hate Windows, Linux and *BSD. I prefer OpenVMS, which is not perfect but those people are a lot more mature and realistic.
Windows has alternatives, but some products like Kindle have only lousy competitors.
I read a lot, 2 books a week on average, and for me Kindle has been a huge improvement over paper books which are a pain to move, search or bounce around. I use the Kindle app on my phone or tablet when I'm at work or waiting at the DMV, but for long enjoyable reading sessions those are not as good as the Kindle device.
So my options are:
1) have ads on the screensaver/powered off screen
2) pay a $20 ransom to Amazon to free my Kindle from their ads, even though they're fhe one selling me that Kindle in the first place
3) don't use a Kindle, and there's no real alternative
Having to pay Amazon for a reading device and for books, and then having to fork over another $20 not to see ads on MY device is infuriating. It reminds me of that situation in The Girl Wih the Dragon Tattoo where she has to give blowjobs to the lawyer that controls her money whenever she wants him to give her a little bit of her own money.
I've always been a loyal customer of Amazon but now I'll jump ship at the first occasion.
Use a proper compiler and make system. GCC + make.
Or let go of antiquated technologies and use the javascript compile and make system. It's called "CTRL-S", although some geeks use ":wq" or "ZZ" on linux.
If 4,000 represents 0.01%, it means that 40 million people use Visual Studio to code. Yet according to IDC there's about 18.5 million programmers in the world, including hobbyists. This means Microsoft controls roughly 220% of the software development market. I had no idea they were so successful!
Wrong. Based on their own SourceSafe commit history they knew it would never be done in time, they've been working instead on the 128 bit version since 2007.
Notepad++? Meh. I use "echo -n" and write directly to the executable file. That way I don't need makefiles or even "source code", I just put my bash_history in git; when I need to build on Winblow$ I use AutoHotKey and a cygwin shell with a bunch of "arrow up + enter" macros.
I have witnessed his kind of situation often and unfortunately it seems like a real pattern: an Indian gets promoted, and suddenly all key roles in his direct reports go to Indians, often ones that are not that competent (or threatening to the alpha one). Seems like a cultural thing because I haven't seen the same thing with other groups, except maybe the French.
I don't think that happens out of some form of racism, I think it's more a solidarity thing combined with less worries about being overly politically correct.
What's hard to understand is how people can fall that easily for such obvious gimmick. That's like going to the car dealership and being thrilled that "you get a $2000 discount if you agree not to have the seats & rims luxury package".
Here's the bottom line: when you pay for a device, the manufacturer shouldn't force ads on you. But we're past that, now with ads injected by tv manufacturers and ISP and everyone else. It's a sad world.
each Windows 10 user must generate so much ad revenue that it is worth trying to stomp out each and every one
they could learn from the masters... On the new Kindle there's ads on the screensaver/lock screen. If you don't want to see ads, you have to pay Amazon $20 on top of the $125 or more for the device.
Now THAT is innovation. Ad-supported paid devices.
cortaaaaanaaaaa
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.
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-...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.