Guy who hacked Houston Astros database gets 4 yrs in prison; Stanford rapist gets 6 months and Elizabeth Holmes 0?

You are completely wrong on Theranos. They are still under investigation so that means that you don't know what the problem is or if a problem even exists. No one outside of Theranos knows how their technology works. That doesn't automatically mean that it doesn't work. There is a difference.

Theranos is having problems because of their lab in California, not because of their technology.

sbeefyk1 wrote:

The Theranos lady never committed fraud. She simply marketed some BS that had zero credibility. People bought it and boom she made money. Doesn't that sound like every product in the world?

It's not illegal to start a business. You can go open a sand shop tomorrow and tell people if they rub it on their stomach they will get the perfect abs of their dreams in 8-10 months. Slap on a nice 60 days money back if not satisfied guarantee and boom you'll make your millions and you won't go to prison when it turns out 10 months later that it's just regular sand and you lied.

She actually did commit fraud. She delayed and even silenced experiments that demonstrated the inefficacy of her product. She was certainly told by many medical professionals and scientists that the technology was not feasible based simply on the nature of blood testing. She failed to pass this data on to her investors and spun much of the more ambiguous data to support her case. No one in the VC or biotech world worth their salt ever thought this technology was feasible. She sold her female Steve Jobs BS and a bunch of people bought it and then some bandwagon investors got in on the assumed due diligence of her financial backers. That part is true, but the way that she carried on as if the clearly absurd device even had a glimmer of potential was absolutely fraudulent and you can bet that if this was a young man (who incidentally never would have gotten this far) there would be a sentence much harsher than the lab ban she got. She'll get a slap on the wrist and the new york times will publish and article about how she was a victim of the high-pressure male-dominated world of Biotech and high finance.

Yeah, Stanford dude probably deserved more.

Baseball hackers probably didn't deserve anything.

But why hate on Elizabeth Holmes, last time I checked, divorcing Tom Cruise wasn't a crime.

Of course not wrote:

She actually did commit fraud. She delayed and even silenced experiments that demonstrated the inefficacy of her product. She was certainly told by many medical professionals and scientists that the technology was not feasible based simply on the nature of blood testing.

I did not hear anything supporting this. Can you provide sources or proof?

Uh....

...now, of course, I can't provide more data because Theranos hasn't allowed any to be published. All of the source data from this article is available publicly online btw.

You have to be a Theranos marketing person, a Theranos attorney, Henry Kissenger (...who is / was a Thernos board member), or Elizabeth Holmes' relative to believe what you wrote.

This technology doesn't work. Again, progress is great. Technological advancement is great. The ideas we have all seen in major sci fi movies are really, really cool. But, there is a BIG difference between a great idea and reality in medicine.

Of course, Holmes being uber connected politically will escape any real punishment. Furthermore, she and her big political / big money supporters will spin the hell out of this and turn into a "poor Genius Lizzy was persecuted by evil big medical corporations unfairly". This will play even better now given the political climate as they can work the "sexist" angle.

Man, can you imagine a movie based on all this...maybe staring J-Law as the strong-powerful women fighting for people's right to (inferior) laboratory testing against the big-bad medical-laboratory industrial complex!?! The movie nearly writes itself. Well I'll be a.....

Um, no...... wrote:

Uh....

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/86318

...now, of course, I can't provide more data because Theranos hasn't allowed any to be published. All of the source data from this article is available publicly online btw.

You have to be a Theranos marketing person, a Theranos attorney, Henry Kissenger (...who is / was a Thernos board member), or Elizabeth Holmes' relative to believe what you wrote.

No, I am none of those people. I'm a rational person unlike you. Obviously didn't read that paper very well. From my quick skim just now, that paper shows that Theranos is comparable to existing technologies as far as error rates go. Theranos only has a significant difference in a few categories. This means that more often than not, Theranos performs as well as existing technologies but at a fraction of the cost. That means their technology DOES work. Their technology is both about the test technology and the cost of the test technology.

Like you said, further more useful data is unavailable because Theranos hasn't released it. That doesn't mean it doesn't work. It means they haven't released it.

They are currently being investigated. If the technology did not work, there would be no investigation. How is it that you know more than the court?

Um, no...... wrote:

Uh....

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/86318

...now, of course, I can't provide more data because Theranos hasn't allowed any to be published. All of the source data from this article is available publicly online btw.

You have to be a Theranos marketing person, a Theranos attorney, Henry Kissenger (...who is / was a Thernos board member), or Elizabeth Holmes' relative to believe what you wrote.

Also, in that paper, did they use Theranos' California lab?

The problem with your explanation of the Stanford kid is that if it truly was that ambiguous of a case, he should have been acquitted. Judges aren't supposed to make the sentence lighter because the evidence is or isn't clear, that is for the jury to decide. The judges job is to select the appropriate punishment after the jury decides guilt.

The jury decided it was rape. The judge should have then ruled accordingly. He isn't supposed to hedge his sentence halfway between guilty and innocent.

Everyone is talking about the Stanford rape case and a few people about Holmes.

I suppose I will chime in on the St. Louis hacker. You aren't quite right. They had a list of several of his former passwords and they went through them until they found one that he was using again. According to Correa it wasnt even the same it was "similar"

"Correa illegally accessed the Astros' computers in the following way: In December 2011, as Victim A [Luhnow] prepared to leave the St. Louis Cardinals and join the Houston Astros, he was directed to turn over his Cardinals-owned laptop to Correa - along with the laptop's password. When Victim A joined the Astros, he re-used a similar (albeit obscure) password for his Astros' email and Ground Control accounts. No later than March 2013, Correa began accessing Victim A's Ground Control and Astros' email accounts using this variation of the password to Victim A's Cardinals laptop."

The big problem is that after it became clear that they had been breached, they changed out the passwords and system URLs....Correa then broke into Luhnow's email to get the new info, and used the emails to phish two other account passwords to access the system.

Then he stole and released Intellectual Property to the public, AND accessed the system DURING THE DRAFT to see what the Astros were up to....and the Cardinals drafted in the position right in front of the Astros.

Correa was engaged in IP theft and corporate espionage, over the course of FIFTEEN months from multiple accounts. And the info he stole and/or released was valued at 1.7 MILLION dollars. This was massive scale corporate espionage.

Another probable reason Correa is getting four years (out of a max possible five) is that he is figuratively falling on the knife for his bosses. By making the claim that none of them knew what he was doing or that he did it (despite the fact that the fact he was checking them out on draft day makes it reasonable to make the assumption that they did in fact know what he was doing)

Swimmer boy was convicted of "sexual assault" which is defined as rape in other legal venues and States.

White privilege at work and yet you Stanford a-holes are all so preciously politically correct when it involves others.

Money may not buy you love, but it buys lots of other things.

rojo wrote:

The justice system confuses me non-stop.

The director of scouting for St. Louis hacked his former employers database (they didn't change the password) and gets 4 years in prison.

That seems overly harsh considering the rapist at Stanford got 6 months.

And then you've got Elizabeth Holmes - CEO Of Theranos - who hasn't even been charged with anything. She's put people's lives at risk and still the CEO of company worth 900 million. How she hasn't been at least fired is beyond me.

One could easily argue that the one who has done the worse (Holmes) has received the least punishment.

How can anyone think six months is enough for this RAPIST from Stanford. He knew what he was doing. Read her story and tell me she's lying. He is a rich, spoiled liar and he got off very easy. I hope he finds out the "difference" between sexual assault and rape when he's in prison.

Oh, okay, the very person who is now banned from medical testing and whose "technology" was basically a black box or really a black sweater and a delivery company to take the samples to a real medical products testing company was in fact a revolutionary who could cut medical costs by half or more?This cartoon description of the Theranos story tells it very aptly:http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/07/18/486171949/rise-and-fall-of-theranos-in-a-biotech-cartoon

D1ckless wrote:

How can anyone think six months is enough for this RAPIST from Stanford. He knew what he was doing. Read her story and tell me she's lying. He is a rich, spoiled liar and he got off very easy. I hope he finds out the "difference" between sexual assault and rape when he's in prison.

Nobody cares that Big Bill is a rapist either. Just wait for the Democratic convention and they treat him like a hero.

William Jefferson wrote:

D1ckless wrote:

How can anyone think six months is enough for this RAPIST from Stanford. He knew what he was doing. Read her story and tell me she's lying. He is a rich, spoiled liar and he got off very easy. I hope he finds out the "difference" between sexual assault and rape when he's in prison.

Nobody cares that Big Bill is a rapist either. Just wait for the Democratic convention and they treat him like a hero.

+1

War on women Hillary? You knew nothing just as you knew nothing about the video that started Benghazi, or the server you secretly set up.

William Jefferson wrote:

D1ckless wrote:

How can anyone think six months is enough for this RAPIST from Stanford. He knew what he was doing. Read her story and tell me she's lying. He is a rich, spoiled liar and he got off very easy. I hope he finds out the "difference" between sexual assault and rape when he's in prison.

Nobody cares that Big Bill is a rapist either. Just wait for the Democratic convention and they treat him like a hero.

Don't forget The Donald.

Ummm... He was found guilty. After a trial. Beyond a reasonable doubt. That guy wishes you were on the jury. Also, passing out = NO CONSENT. You need to look at the evidence. The guys who chased the guy down didn't do it for no reason. They saw him humping an unconscious woman.

So you are looking for justice, is that what I am to understand?

If you are doing nothing wrong behind a dumpster why do you run from two Swedes on bikes?

If your medical testing device is revolutionary, why don't you publish in peer-reviewed journals as is standard practice? It would not affect any sort of patent...Edison is a fitting name in that it was a front for technologies and advances others had created. In this case those were the standard blood-testing technologies that already existing, except they watered down the blood first in order to have the proper volume for testing. Oops!