Apple needs to get their shit together. OSX has gone downhill fast, they don't seem to know who their target audience is, the new Macbook Pro's have crap battery, what else could they even do wrong at this point?
They need to completely turn things around if they are going to keep the developer community. I guess they just worry about the iPhone, but by ignoring everything else they're going to alienate their customers.
I'd like to see better evidence of the US election being hacked, but I understand they wouldn't want to release anything that could cut off their ways into Russian systems. I don't know how anyone expects to get real proof of it without us deciding to give away strategically important gaps in Russian infosec.
Do you think sanctions are not a casus belli? This is economic warfare, Russia is effectively a land locked county without a warm water port, the US encircles it with troops, has strategic nuclear weapons on its door step and the only bordering region that the US does not directly control is another not especially friendly nuclear super power.
People don't see the chess board and make Russia look like the villain; look at NATO in 1991 and look at it today if Canada would have joined the Warsaw Pact and if Russia was keeping enough nukes in Mexico to kill every living human in the continental United States where do you think we would be now?
All what Russia sees is a military alliance pushed onto their border, a continuous presence of US nukes in Europe, the US never stopping it's strategic air command nuclear bomber flights and then criticizing Russia for resuming them, the EU and the US pushing to bypass Russia's pipelines in the Caspian Sea and the US deploying a missile shield in Europe that would nullify Russia's current strategic arsenal after unilaterally withdrawing from the anti-ABM treaty.
And you say Russia is reckless and is a threat to world peace?
1) Where do we have nukes in Europe?
2) Russia invaded Georgia and stole Crimea, that's more hostile activity than anything we've done in response.
3) Russia has started making advanced missiles to bypass missile defense systems and will have them soon, so who really cares of the missile defense shield?
4) Russia is an autocratic nightmare state where Putin, a man rumored to have engineered the terrorist attacks that led to his quick rise to power, kills or exiles any opponents or critics.
5) Russia hacked the fucking DNC to make Trump win, which is an act of war.
6) NATO has never threatened Russia. If Russia is terrified of NATO, it is due to paranoia.
7) Russia isn't encircled by US troops.
8) It makes sense for the EU and US to avoid using Russia's pipelines when Russia is a morally reprehensible country the way it is being run right now.
"Obama was referring to the roughly 200 B61 nuclear bombs that the US has deployed in five Nato nations stretching from the Netherlands to Turkey - and a Russian arsenal estimated at 2,000 tactical weapons."
" ... The same goes for tactical nuclear weapons: compared
to the momentous issues that the East and West have
tackled since the end of the Cold War, the scattering of
hundreds (or in the Russian case, thousands) of battle-field weapons throughout Europe seems to be almost
an afterthought, a detail left behind that should be
easy to tidy up."
Google NATO Nuclear Sharing;
WHY THE FUCK are there nukes in freaking Belgium, when Russia had 12 missiles in Cuba the US almost started WW3, today the US is keeping nearly 100 of them in Turkey.
2) Russia invaded Georgia and stole Crimea.
HAHAHAHA
Seriously, Russia did not start the Georgian conflict, sure they "overreacted" but Georgia did invade first, they were prompted by the west and then Bush folded and withdrew his advisers.
The Georgian conflict was about oil, the EU was building a new pipeline to circumvent Russia, they made a power play and Russia returned in kind.
"Stole" Crimea is probably the most laughable statement I can think of considering how the entire Ukrainian conflict started, the US and the EU pushed for elections they didn't like the results so a political proxy war was started which ended with the ousting of the pro Russian president which all the US and EU observers stated was democratically elected.
Russia was at risk of losing their only warm water port, and the most ironic thing is that whilst Crimea holds Russia's most important naval base in the region it's pretty analogous to another little piece of "stolen" land that you might know as GITMO, the big difference is that GITMO is not that strategically important to the US in fact it's not important at all, all US naval bases are in effect warm water ports, GITMO isn't even geographically important since mainland florida is just a day of sailing away.
3) Russia has started making advanced missiles to bypass missile defense systems and will have them soon, so who really cares of the missile defense shield?
Russia started improving their missiles as a counter to the work the US had conducted on missile defense, the US pulled out of the Anti-ABM treaty which was criticized by nearly everyone around the world and now it has a more or less effective missile shield.
In 2020 the US missile shield will likely to make all current Russian strategic weapons ineffective which would drastically change the balance of power in effect negating any nuclear deterrence this brings us closer to a nuclear war not further away.
Russia can't afford to spend trillions on ABM like the US has since the early days of the SDI, but making more and better missile is affordable to them, however this puts them again as an aggressor even tho the only thing they do is to attempt to restore the deterrence.
4) Russia is an autocratic nightmare state where Putin, a man rumored to have engineered the terrorist attacks that led to his quick rise to power, kills or exiles any opponents or critics.
It's not Finland but it's not an autocratic nightmare, Putin was an intelligence officer, he refused to participate in the general's coup in 1991, you should really read more about how he rose to power.
Russia doesn't have the same democracy as the US, the "unique" flavor of what they call "managed democracy" works it's not perfect, it might not be even "good" but it's far from being an autocratic nightmare.
5) Russia hacked the fucking DNC to make Trump win, which is an act of war.
The US prompted up more dictators than the Soviets ever did, they interfere in elections openly all the time including in those of allies, and when they don't like the results they impose sanctions or start civil wars so give me a break.
Meddling in the elections of other states was always something nation did and will continue to do, you want to make sure the person in power is some one would would end up working best for you.
The US effectively elected Yeltsin, the also have actually helped out Putin in the early years; Putin was somewhat of a surprise to both Russia and the West he was prompted for being effective but not threatening.
So far I haven't seen any evidence that show that Russia hacked the DNC, and if it did that it had any effect on the elections.
Russia did not make the FBI reopen the investigation in the 11th hour.
Russia did not make the media and the white house downplay the email scandal.
Russia did not make Hillary run her own mail server violating the federal records act which is a criminal offense in the US.
Russia did not make Wikileaks publish the emails that were not delivered during the investigation, it did not make Hillary instruct her IT guy to scrub mails from the server, Russia did not make Redditors find the guy and figure what he did and Russia did not organize a congressional hearing about this.
6) NATO has never threatened Russia. If Russia is terrified of NATO, it is due to paranoia.
Russia has never threatened NATO either, doesn't stop the level of paranoia in the west does it? it's not about threats it's about agency Russia would not leave it's fate in the hands of the guys who are running DC or Brussels.
Look at NATO in 1991 and look at it today, I would be worried too.
7) Russia isn't encircled by US troops.
Google US troop deployments.
8) It makes sense for the EU and US to avoid using Russia's pipelines when Russia is a morally reprehensible country the way it is being run right now.
No it makes sense for them to do it if they want to be able to strong arm Russia, calling Russia a morally reprehensible country while the amount of (justified or not) human rights violations conducted by the west on a daily basis is probably the most hypocritical thing you can do.
Russia did not make the MQ9 Reaper the national bird of so many nations, Russia did not compromise virtually every communication network on the planet in order to spy on corporations and members of state so the US would have an upper hand on negotiations and Russia for sure did not decide to deploy a dragnet of internet surveillance against the general populous.
Now you can say they would if they could, and I would be inclined to agree, but you can't do that and then take the higher moral ground because considering just how morally bankrupt the west is we have no real ground to stand on.
@ quick rise to power, I was referring to this:
"The Russian apartment bombings were a series of explosions that hit four apartment blocks in the Russian cities of Buynaksk, Moscow and Volgodonsk in September 1999, killing 293 and injuring more than 1000 people and spreading a wave of fear across the country. The bombings, together with the Dagestan War, led the country into the Second Chechen War.
The blasts hit Buynaksk on 4 September, Moscow on 9 September and 13 September and Volgodonsk on 16 September. A similar explosive device was found and defused in an apartment block in the Russian city of Ryazan on 22 September.[1] The next day Prime Minister of Russia Vladimir Putin praised the vigilance of the inhabitants of Ryazan and ordered the air bombing of Grozny, which marked the beginning of the Second Chechen War.[2] According to sentences of judicial authorities of Russia, acts of terrorism were organized and financed by heads of the illegal armed group Islamic institute "Caucasus".[3] Thirty-six hours later, three FSB agents who had planted this device were arrested by the local police. The incident was declared to be a training exercise. There are allegations that the bombings were a "false flag" attack perpetrated by the FSB in order to legitimise the resumption of military activities in Chechnya and bring Vladimir Putin to the presidency.[4][5]"
I for one, think Putin orchestrated said bombings.
@ troop deployments, having a smattering of troops in countries around Russia doesn't really make them "surrounded by troops" imo
@ autocratic nightmare, lol, yes, it is an autocratic nightmare state. Putin kills or exiles opposition and press that is in any way negative towards him. There is no freedom of the press in Russia. There is no right to protest in Russia. Gay people are regularly killed or imprisoned in Russia. Corruption reigns supreme in a way that we could never even touch.
As for the rest, I never said the US was morally pure. I disagree with many things that we do, but that doesn't change the fact that I consider the manipulation of our elections to be tantamount to an attack on our country.
Russia may be backed into a corner in many ways, but that doesn't excuse them fucking with European and US politics.
That's because ever since Snowden he's started to turn into a Russophile. I think him being attacked for releasing Snowden triggered him to start just ranting against any US political or "establishment" forces and start supporting Russia because they helped out his source in the biggest story he's ever written.
Isn't her activity like the textbook definition of fraud? Not to mention the dude who she basically pushed into committing suicide. I hope she gets at least as much time as Madoff.
What Madoff did was illegal and malicious from the outset.
Do you believe that when Holmes was handed the opportunity, at 19, to bring the Edison to market that she set out with the intent of defrauding investors?
The only thing she's provably guilty of thus far is believing in her company a little more than is sensible and being preternaturally competent as a fundraiser.
When Musk claims he can get people to Mars for $200k, do we say 'That's preposterous!', and slap him in cuffs? It's up to the investors of Spacex to decide whether or not they want to gamble on that proposition.
Would you put 100 million into Magic Leap because Rony Abovitz says 'it's rad', or would you insist on seeing a demo first? Because none of Theranos investors did that.
There's a difference between saying "I believe we can develop X" and "we currently have X." As I understand it, Holmes and Theranos did the latter. And that's fraud.
The answer is "extremely far, so it's not sensible to compare them."
It's perfectly fine to say "We are going to attempt to build something, here's our plan" and then fail. It's completely unacceptable to say "We have something" when you don't.
The only way Theranos could be analogous to Musk is if he had got up on that stage in Guadalajara and said "we have a Mars rocket ready to go, we've tested it extensively, it works, we'll begin commercial flight soon, the line for reservations is on your left, please bring your checkbooks."
> The only way Theranos could be analogous to Musk is if he had got up on that stage in Guadalajara and said "we have a Mars rocket ready to go, we've tested it extensively, it works, we'll begin commercial flight soon, the line for reservations is on your left, please bring your checkbooks."
Devils advocate but isn't that what SpaceX told facebook when launching their satellite? I would assume they asked for money to launch that thing and I would also assume facebook didn't want it blown up.
There's no comparison to be made between an accident occurring in an inherently risky field and peddling technology that you know doesn't work.
Nitpick mode: Facebook didn't own that satellite and their only involvement in it was a plan (now, obviously, altered) to lease a decent chunk (but by no means all) of its capacity from its owner once it was operational. I'm not sure why everyone decided it was Facebook's satellite.
If Spacecom wanted a demo to prove SpaceX could launch rockets, they only had to look at the previous 28 Falcon 9 launches that all (bar one) launched successfully.
Exactly. If Elon wants to spend his billions building spaceships, as long as they don't routinely fall and kill people, then everyone will cheer for him and that's fair. Screwing up people's blood tests and then seemingly lying about, is a whole different thing.
The fact that Madoff's intent was criminal from the outset and that Holmes' probably wasn't is irrelevant. The point is that it became criminal. And that's why she's in the firing line today.
At what point did she shift from being an optimistic entrepeneur to a criminal? Was it when she started getting magazine covers? Was it when Hwnry Kissinger joined the board of directors? She's still giving her company 110% in spite of everything that has transpired. Usually the correct time for a startup founder/CEO to call it quits is when they run out of capital, until then it's their job to try and make it work come hell or high water.
When diagnostic medicine was being conducted with technology she knew wasn't what it was claimed to be. We threw the Enron guys in prison and they only hurt people's wallets, not their health. I don't think she gets off the hook because she's a Sillicon Valley sweetheart.
> At what point did she shift from being an optimistic entrepeneur to a criminal?
Going out on a limb here, I would say when found out their machine didn't provide accurate results. Yet waited until threatened to be closed for two years before voiding results. This is not Uber for Dogs, and puppy doesn't get to the park to play with its friends, but potentially life or death situations. We are not talking just a 0.01% error rate, this is stuff like like 20-40% error rates in some tests.
> Was it when Hwnry Kissinger joined the board of directors?
Well, some would say it would be a warning sign, for sure ;-)
Basically, when she said "our machines, which we have already deployed in production and doctors are using them to make potentially life/death decisions, can do X". At that point.
The examples you are comparing are not similar at all.
Musk should be collecting money for the situation to be similar.
>being preternaturally competent as a fundraiser.
Why are you trying put a positive spin on this whole mess like a PR agency ? What would you describe Madoff as in that case ? A man of great persuasive ability ?
How do you know that Madoff was malicious from the outset, I wonder? The guy had a 30 year career, have you studied his beginnings? Maybe you did, but knowing nothing I'd find it more plausible that the guy started small fudging a couple of numbers hoping the next year would be better and eventually snowballed out of control.
My somewhat cursory read of Madoff was that he tarbabied himself. He had been running a successful investment company, but hit losses.
The good, and lawful, thing to do would have been to come clean at that point. He didn't, and his downfall began there.
Instead he did the bad, and illegal, thing: doubled down and paid off the small number of exiting investors with new investor's deposits, whilst lying about returns.
If you've read John Kenneth Galbraith's The Great Crash: 1929 (a short and highly readable account), you'll find a very familar story in Madoff. He fell prey to what JKG calls "the bezzle".
There is civil fraud and criminal fraud, which require proving the same things. But generally, the government will only pursue criminal fraud prosecutions when there is a public interest component. Madoff defrauded a large number of people, and his fraud affected little old ladies' pensions. The government will generally stay out of fraud directed at a handful of sophisticated investors.
It seems like clear fraud was directed at the general public and their health outcomes. I don't care much about the investors, they can take it. It was something like 6% of tests were fraudulently performed by their "technology", with potentially dangerous results.
On the other hand, so are some of her investors. And there I think it comes down to protecting their reputations; if they can point to criminal fraud, they can paint themselves as victims rather than fools. We'll see how it plays out.
I think they come off as fools either way; people aren't any prouder to have been conned by a criminal, than having made a stupid investment. If they're concerned about saving face, they'll lay low for a while.
Yeah, except they don't include any sort of scientific advance. Who cares about the natural age limit? We're mankind, the first species to be able to guide our own evolution. Basically this article means nothing significant.
If Facebook likes were votes Sanders would be trouncing Clinton in the polls and Trump would be the only person left running for the Republicans. However, people discussing politics on Facebook tends to be completely toxic and representative of the most enthusiastic, sometimes vitriolic, people around. It's very, very different than the layout of voters as a whole.
I agree with your opinion of politics & Facebook, it's one of the reasons I ended up closing my Facebook account. But the Facebook likes on the Republican side are closer to the current delegate counts (as of April 6) than I would have expected. If you narrow down to Trump, Cruz, Rubio & Kasich:
Trump: 48% Delegates, 53% Republican Likes
Cruz: 32% Delegates, 28% Republican Likes
Rubio: 11% Delegates, 16% Republican Likes
Kasich: 9% Delegates, 3% Republican Likes
Though if you add Carson back in, it stops matching up. And certainly the Facebook Like counts don't match delegate counts on the Democrat side. But I thought it was odd how closely the Facebook figures were matching for the Republicans.
Woohoo, the Sanders people found some lobbyists that have a connection with a foreign bank that happen to be connected to the Clinton's. By their logic, this proves Clinton is a pawn of Vladamir Putin.
This has got to be about the least interesting thing to come out of the Panama Papers.
They need to completely turn things around if they are going to keep the developer community. I guess they just worry about the iPhone, but by ignoring everything else they're going to alienate their customers.