Theranos, CEO Holmes, and Former President Balwani Charged with Fraud - <AUTHOR> https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-41 <comment><USER2> Ok, this is the money line in that press release for me:

 _"The charges against Theranos, Holmes, and Balwani make clear that there is no exemption from the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws simply because a company is non-public, development-stage, or the subject of exuberant media attention."_

For all those entrepreneurs are trying to "fake it until you make it" be aware that the SEC considers your strategy both fraudulent and they feel they have the jurisdiction to prosecute you. And while I doubt the SEC is going to go after every CEO that raised a Series A on a pitch deck that was pure fantasy, the people who participated in the round might bring them in if it served their purposes.

<comment><USER3> >For all those entrepreneurs are trying to "fake it until you make it" be aware that the SEC considers your strategy both fraudulent and they feel they have the jurisdiction to prosecute you.

Holmes was, in many ways, embodying that HN mentality, acting on the basis:

\- that an entire industry has been doing it wrong

\- that it can be fixed by a low-bureaucracy, Angel-funded startup

\- that once you have enough success you can just rewrite the laws that were slowing you down

\- that no one knows what they're doing anyway, major projects are 100% guesswork, and you should just "fake it till you make it"

\- that any skill is just a matter of 10,000 hours of practice

\- that you can outsmart an industry before even passing or placing out of sophomore level classes

\- that any self-doubt must be Impostor Syndrome, and so it's not worth your time to even check if that doubt has a factual basis

Yes, I've posted this twice before but I'm citing it and admitting to it, and it got heavily upvoted both times (thanks to Algolia for making comments so easily searchable btw):

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12071172](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12071172)

<comment><USER4> > that HN mentality

Is that the HN mentality? It might lean more that way now, I suppose, but I've always felt it was more in the "scratch your own itch" territory and less in the "complete industry outsider disrupts XYZ industry with revolutionary ideas" area

<comment><USER5> Maybe "that YC/startup news mentality" would be a better qualifier. The whole "better to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission" mentality. You can find some of that on HN but I hope we're a little more diverse than that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> His name is Tyler Shultz.

He is the main reason we know know what Theranos was doing.

He had his life destroyed, he knew it would happen, what Theranos would do to him, and he did the _right_ thing all the same. Tyler Shultz is a hero.

 _Never_ let someone tell you that you don't matter. Try _hard_ to do what is right. We _need_ more people like him, be one of them too.

Be like Tyler Shultz.

[https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/explosive-new- detail...](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/explosive-new-details- emerge-in-lawsuit-against-theranos)

Edit: Pic: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3944392/Theranos- whi...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3944392/Theranos- whistleblower-revealed-George-Shultz-s-grandson-Tyler-exposed-flaws-Elizabeth- Holmes-technology.html)

<comment><USER7> Wait... How did he have his life destroyed? It just says that he hasn't talked to his grandfather in awhile...

He went on to start a biotech company (that seems to be doing alright) and was a Forbes 30 under 30 in 2017...

I don't see how his life was destroyed...

<comment><USER8> It's probably more accurate to say that, at the time he became a whistleblower, he had reasonable idea to believe that it could wreck his life. From the WSJ article:

[http://archive.is/wO4B0#selection-955.0-958.0](http://archive.is/wO4B0#selection-955.0-958.0)

> _He says he was told by his parents that Ms. Holmes called the elder Mr. > Shultz in the summer of 2015 to complain that their son was being > unreasonable. Tyler Shultz says he also got a tip that private investigators > were watching him._

> _In a conversation in his parents' kitchen, they pleaded with him to agree > to whatever Theranos wanted, he says. Even though his heart sank when they > discussed selling their house to cover the costs of defending him against a > potential Theranos lawsuit, Mr. Shultz didn't make a deal with the company._

> _His parents said in a statement: "Tyler has acted exactly like the man we > raised him to be, and we are extraordinarily proud of him."_

 _" His parents said in a statement"_ \-- I remember when reading this story when it was originally published (2016) thinking how odd it was that his parents didn't agree to be interviewed in person. Or at least were worried about speaking out of turn at that point in time.

<comment><USER9> If you're involved in a complicated legal case, and you're not 100% sure what you're doing, no speaking to the press at all is your first preference, by a wide margin, and only speaking to the press in carefully considered, short, written statements in your second. Actually speaking to the press is for those with nothing to lose, and plenty to win -- or specialised training.

This is exacerbated by the dynamic that the part of the press you'll feel most eager to speak to, is that which are making upsetting misrepresentations about you or something you care about -- ie., those who have something to gain by manipulating you to say something controversial or incriminating.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> _Theranos and Holmes have agreed to settle the fraud charges levied against them. Holmes agreed to pay a $500,000 penalty, be barred from serving as an officer or director of a public company for 10 years, return the remaining 18.9 million shares that she obtained during the fraud, and relinquish her voting control of Theranos by converting her super-majority Theranos Class B Common shares to Class A Common shares. Due to the company's liquidation preference, if Theranos is acquired or is otherwise liquidated, Holmes would not profit from her ownership until – assuming redemption of certain warrants – over $750 million is returned to defrauded investors and other preferred shareholders. The settlements with Theranos and Holmes are subject to court approval._

Someone help me out: Does this settlement really make the affected parties feel the pain? Does it discourage other companies from attempting the same thing? Given the scale of the fraud, shouldn't these two simply be in prison right now?

<comment><USER11> > shouldn't these two simply be in prison right now?

Compare and contrast with Shkreli sentencing. Some animals are more equal than others.

<comment><USER12> Well, Holmes and Balwani didn't actively and loudly antagonize most of the country.

Most rich criminals know that when you scoff at the law, you should do it _quietly_.

<comment><USER13> It also helps to have lots of family and friends who have given lots of money to lots of politicians. For nonviolent crime like this, the law really is different for different people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> People keep complaining about lack of jail time. As has been repeated in a number of subcomments: The SEC cannot send people to jail. Full stop.

They have only civil authority.

They refer criminal cases to the US attorneys/DOJ, and offer assistance. All evidence suggests they did so here.

The decision to criminally prosecute or not is out of their hands.

<comment><USER15> Why can't the SEC send people to jail? I don't understand the point you're making. If people believe something is an injustice should they just shut up? Even if they can't send people to jail people should complain if they feel that shouldn't be the case -- it's a signal that perhaps the current process is wrong. After all, all restrictions and rules were created by us to begin with. Complaining can be useful feedback.

<comment><USER16> Because it does not have the authority to do so.

[https://www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alerts- bulletins/ib_invest...](https://www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alerts- bulletins/ib_investigations.html)

<comment><USER15> I've already read that -- it does not explain _why_. It simply states that it cannot. What law restricted it? Why was that law put into place? How often are recommendations for prosecution followed up on successfully?

EDIT: Thanks everyone for the information -- very interesting.

<comment><USER14> Federal agencies are explicitly affirmative authority grants. Their powers are laid out in those acts. They can only do those things.

They cannot do other things just because "no law restricts it".

The exact authority grant is complicated.

You want:

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78d](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78d) and following sections, plus a whole bunch of stuff enacted elsewhere.

The part you are probably most looking for is: [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78u](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/78u)

There you can see most clearly their civil authority and what they are allowed to do. You can see it says "Whenever it shall appear to the Commission that any person is engaged ... in acts or practices constituting a violation of {a bunch of stuff} .. it may in its discretion bring an action ... to enjoin such acts or practices ... . The Commission may transmit such evidence as may be available concerning such acts or practices as may constitute a violation of any provision of this chapter or the rules or regulations thereunder to the Attorney General, who may, in his discretion, institute the necessary criminal proceedings under this chapter"

It then goes on to add additional monetary penalty authority that you see exercised here.

<comment><USER15> Thanks DannyBee. I appreciate your reply.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Again, I will just state that the reason we (maybe secretly) take so much satisfaction / schadenfreude at this story is that someone who was so hyped and the darling of Silicon Valley got so much funding and attention. While others who toil away on good ideas, without nearly so many connections and silver spoons, struggle to even get 1 minute of air time with the kind of funders and backers that she got.

Separately, I hope that they absolutely nail and jail Sunny Balwani, who threatened and intimidated whistleblowing employees with their careers for exposing the massive fraud that Theranos was.

Finally, we should be thankful that the SEC and agencies like DHHS and CMMS actually still have some teeth and reputability to follow through on issues like this and have not been totally gutted. Imagine 100 years ago when hucksters like this were touting every fake medicine under the sun and people were actually grateful for public-serving regulation. The order from CMMS to Theranos actually essentially said, "You are in immediate jeopardy of violating the law and must provide proof that you're reversing the harm caused by your inaccurate / fraudulent medical test results. Simply closing your lab will not remove this jeopardy." Thank god for rules.

<comment><USER18> _Schadenfreude_ is a word commonly used in discussion of the Theranos debacle and it really aggravates me because it presumes that anyone not throwing a pity party for these pathological liars defrauding people of money and potentially putting lives at stake with their bullshit tests that don't work are somehow bad people with negative personality traits.

No, Holmes and her people are bad people with negative personality traits. The folks going "Fuck yeah, this bullshit never made sense to me and I am glad to learn I am not crazy" aren't suffering some personality disorder. They just are glad to find reality aligns with their understanding of reality.

Also: Justice is a thing. Righteous anger over bad behavior is not _schadenfreude._

<comment><USER19> Why do you think schadenfreude is a negative personality trait or a personality disorder? It is just a name for a specific emotional state. It seems perfectly apt here.

<comment><USER18> It means taking joy in someone else's suffering, which is basically sadism. I don't see that as being the same thing as being happy to see the truth come out and justice finally happen.

<comment><USER20> I don't think justice and schadenfreude are terribly different.

Schadenfreude is taking joy in someone else's suffering.

Justice is taking joy in the meting out of suffering to people who deserve it. People argue about who deserves what, and laws and justice systems exist to manage those arguments. But the idea of righteous retribution for a wrong is pretty close to universal, and looks like schadenfreude to me.

<comment><USER18> Well, in my mind, retribution and justice aren't closely related. Taking revenge on wrongdoers and making things right are not inherently the same thing. I can think of lots of situations where taking revenge on the wrongdoer in no way makes anything right.

"Two wrongs don't make a right" and all that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> First, Kuddos to John Carreyrou from the WSJ for great investigative journalism. I'm too tired of all these "fake it till you make it" lines of thought, and it is not only a YC issue, it is pervasive across the valley. Cloning flappy birds, "uber" for pet grooming, etc I don't care. But when things get serious and your life and money is at stake, there is no room for BS "disruptors" with 20 hours of training on subjects such as insurance, medical care, banking, or your lifetime investments. The list of "pseudo disruptors" is pretty long: Remember Zenefits' Parker Conrad fraud: [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/zenefits- scand...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/technology/zenefits-scandal- highlights-perils-of-hypergrowth-at-start-ups.html) or that 3D printer for makeup: [https://techcrunch.com/2014/05/05/mink-is-a-3d-printer- for-m...](https://techcrunch.com/2014/05/05/mink-is-a-3d-printer-for-makeup/) There are a lot of very comments here, at least that is reassuring. Folks get it.

</comment><comment><USER22> From the Financial Times:

Here's the nuance of her formula:

Commit fraud as an attractive, well-connected WASP woman who happened to be neighbors with well-connected VC Draper family.

Tell a great story: Stanford drop-out who studied Chinese, afraid of needles, wants to help the world.

Leverage Silicon Valley connections to pull in other really big fish, such as Kissinger, et al, who would be really, really embarrassed that they were so hoodwinked by an ingenue.

Use that cognitive dissonance to raise more and more money, while having no technology whatsoever.

Get even more and bigger fish such as Biden to vouch for you.

Wrap your company in total mysterious secrecy.

Declare anyone against you as against women in business. Works like a charm and will happen again in the future.

<comment> shaki-dora Be a man: "what a scammer"

Be a woman: "this woman used her gender to scam"

<comment><USER23> I mean, in this case, she literally did use her gender as part of the cynical narrative.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> "Holmes subsequently raised $6 million in funding, the first of almost $700 million that would follow. Money often comes with strings attached in Silicon Valley, but even by its byzantine terms, Holmes's were unusual. She took the money on the condition that she would not divulge to investors how her technology actually worked, and that she had final say and control over every aspect of her company. This surreptitiousness scared off some investors. When Google Ventures, which focuses more than 40 percent of its investments on medical technology, tried to perform due diligence on Theranos to weigh an investment, Theranos never responded. Eventually, Google Ventures sent a venture capitalist to a Theranos Walgreens Wellness Center to take the revolutionary pinprick blood test. As the V.C. sat in a chair and had several large vials of blood drawn from his arm, far more than a pinprick, it became apparent that something was amiss with Theranos's promise."

</comment><comment><USER8> I hadn't seen this before, or if I had, I've forgotten, but Theranos created an account on HN to post to the "Who is hiring?" threads

[https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Theranos](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Theranos)

First message was May 5, 2014

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7701095](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7701095)

> _Visit a lab for a Doctors appointment recently? Two vials of blood is a lot > isn 't it? Theranos is looking to completely redefine healthcare by solving > speed and accuracy issues of current lab testing by combining SW engineering > and life sciences using 1/1000 less blood than what is typically drawn > today; our process have results in Doctors' hands in as little as 2 hours > allowing them to provide significantly more accurate treatments in a timely > manner._

The first time someone replied:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8401792](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8401792)

> _I was rather disappointed that the site doesn 't say much about the > underlying assay technologies you're using._

</comment><comment><USER25> >Theranos and Holmes have agreed to settle the fraud charges levied against them. Holmes agreed to pay a $500,000 penalty, be barred from serving as an officer or director of a public company for 10 years, return the remaining 18.9 million shares that she obtained during the fraud, and relinquish her voting control of Theranos by converting her super-majority Theranos Class B Common shares to Class A Common shares. Due to the company's liquidation preference, if Theranos is acquired or is otherwise liquidated, Holmes would not profit from her ownership until – assuming redemption of certain warrants – over $750 million is returned to defrauded investors and other preferred shareholders.

3 years ago, I never would have thought that such an outcome would actually happen.

<comment><USER26> Pretty good outcome, especially if she avoids criminal charges.

Presumably she's still pretty wealthy, enough not to have to work again or to lie-low for the next decade before staging a comeback.

<comment><USER27> If I recall, she hasn't gained any liquid wealth from Theranos - her net worth was recently reported to be zero.

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2016/06/01/from-4...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2016/06/01/from-4-5-billion- to-nothing-forbes-revises-estimated-net-worth-of-theranos-founder-elizabeth- holmes/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> [http://www.paulgraham.com/founders.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/founders.html)

> 4\. Naughtiness

> Though the most successful founders are usually good people, they tend to > have a piratical gleam in their eye. They're not Goody Two-Shoes type good. > Morally, they care about getting the big questions right, but not about > observing proprieties. That's why I'd use the word naughty rather than evil. > They delight in breaking rules, but not rules that matter. This quality may > be redundant though; it may be implied by imagination.

> Sam Altman of Loopt is one of the most successful alumni, so we asked him > what question we could put on the Y Combinator application that would help > us discover more people like him. He said to ask about a time when they'd > hacked something to their advantage—hacked in the sense of beating the > system, not breaking into computers. It has become one of the questions we > pay most attention to when judging applications.

Too naughty, Sam? I suppose it all depends on whether or not you pull it off. If her oversold, semi-vaporwear tech ultimately panned out, and she ultimately got the Defense Department deals she lied to her investors about having, I could easily see her being held up as another celebrated example of "fake it 'till you make it." (Or until the SEC shuts you down for fraud).

</comment><comment><USER29> I still find it crazy that her response to a question on how the tech worked was:

"A chemistry is performed so that a chemical reaction occurs and generates a signal from the chemical interaction with the sample, which is translated into a result, which is then reviewed by certified laboratory personnel."

<comment><USER30> Exactly. "A Chemistry is performed"... yeah, that's a phrase I'd expect out of a second grader, not a Stanford dropout...

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I'll be very curious to see how and if her charges compare to Martin Shkreli who got the book thrown at him (7 years and $7.4m). Shkreli was a scapegoat mostly because of his public/social media persona, cockiness, and arrogance.

Meanwhile the crooks that caused the financial meltdown have not been charged with anything.

Bene vixit, qui bene latuit— "He lives well who conceals himself well."

<comment><USER32> I don't think he was a scapegoat per se, he did actually do illegal things. But I imagine that things would have gone a lot better for him if he had not jacked up the price of Daraprim to the extent he did. It seems that drew attention to his previous activities.

<comment><USER31> > jacked up the price of Daraprim

Which by the way is completely legal and common in the pharmaceutical market, but the media outrage and SJW backlash made it seem illegal.

<comment><USER8> Didn't realize President Trump is/was a SJW

[http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-martin- shkreli-d...](http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-martin-shkreli- daraprim-drug-cost-2015-9)

<comment><USER18> You learn something new everyday.;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> The SEC title says _Massive Fraud._ I think the title here should reflect that.

<comment><USER34> is the "Massive" part just grand standing, or does it correspond to a legal qualification of the alleged offense? Interestingly I can't google that because I get drowned under Theranos results.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Unfortunately pricks.com, by Blake Ross, is no longer online. However, the CDN that hosted it is still up so here is the direct link - it's a script for a comedy show based on theranos, and painfully close to reality [https://web.archive.org/web/20160604083644/http://static1.sq...](https://web.archive.org/web/20160604083644/http://static1.squarespace.com/static/56345cc7e4b017e2546ad875/t/563aaac5e4b025f66b293ec8/1446685381777/pricks.pdf)

<comment><USER36> Hah good memory! I guess I'll resurrect it for the trial :)

<comment><USER35> I passed it on to everyone I knew that was in any way related to the comedy/entertainment industry. And a lot of other people besides. It's excellent writing, even though it's for a medium I generally don't enjoy. Thank you for putting it out there! And that was an excellent use of that domain name.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Why is there such a culture of fake it till you make it in SV? If the tech is good, no need for faking. If the tech is bad, figure it out, don't fake it. Otherwise, if it doesn't work and it is faked, things will get really bad and at worst lives could be lost.

It seems like there is a lot of stupid money around and a lot of scam artists trying to suck the supply dry.

<comment><USER38> > Why is there such a culture of fake it till you make it in SV? If the tech > is good, no need for faking.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. If you don't work hard to hype and oversell your cure for cancer, investors will be passing you by to invest in this nonexistant blood analysis product hyped to the skies.

In VC it doesn't matter what's you have. The game is to attract enough captital to the point where you can hopefully crate what you sold investors on already having before he house of cards collapses. It's like one big hype/investment ponzi skeam after another, however companies can openly loose money for years after years without anyone calling bullshit as long as the prospect of gains are hyped enough. Though importantly, you have to work the right line between outright lying and hyping. Prefix everything with "might be" and "could potentially" dumb investors will still be fooled but you might survive the legal fallout more gracefully.

<comment><USER37> Believing your own hype does not make it any less a scam.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> For those interested in learning about the United States government moving from prosecuting white-collar criminals to settling, the difference between the SEC and Justice Department misses the point.

The book The Chickenshit Club [https://www.amazon.com/Chickenshit-Club- Department-Prosecute...](https://www.amazon.com/Chickenshit-Club-Department- Prosecute-Executives/dp/1501121367) by a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist tells a more thorough and comprehensive, though infuriating and tragic, story.

</comment><comment><USER40> Aside from everything else rightfully pointed out in this thread - the other interesting bit is that it's likely that their investment in commercial real estate will net a pretty massive return. I can't think of many places in the Bay that are better for a large office that can hold 100's of employees.

For reference, the HQ they built in PA: [https://www.google.com/maps/place/1701+Page+Mill+Rd,+Palo+Al...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/1701+Page+Mill+Rd,+Palo+Alto,+email@example.com,-122.1537814,3a,75y,145.99h,83.72t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sSa9Do8oPZ7jhSbrBHYOkEw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DSa9Do8oPZ7jhSbrBHYOkEw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D392%26h%3D106%26yaw%3D126.308975%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!4m5!3m4!1s0x808fbabdef9cac33:0xf011ccf019f54d02!8m2!3d37.408248!4d-122.152764)

<comment><USER41> They didn't actually build it. Stanford owned the land and building (and built most of it) while Theranos paid for internal improvements. Stanford also recently sold the property (maybe a year or so ago) and 1701 is available for lease now.

<comment><USER40> Oh wow, TIL. I thought they had bought it from HP.

<comment><USER41> It was actually a Wall Street Journal building before it was torn down to build the building Theranos moved into.

Theranos was previously in 1601 California Ave (the old Facebook building), which was previously HP/Agilent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> You can commit most crimes in this world with relative impunity, but the number one rule is never steal from the rich.

<comment><USER43> I have seen this idea from time to time. I don't think it's right. The problem is they are stealing from people with abilities, smarts, and resources. Of course, there are going to be backlashes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Times like this when I appreciate big government and bureaucracy. This is exactly what they should be doing. This is in the interest of the public.

</comment><comment><USER45> call me back when the ex board members get hit for this..

IMHO the fraud wasn't the investors getting fleeced, it was the US public through obamacare payments made for pharmacy blood screening..

and given the players this will never, ever, ever see the light of day..

for now, it sounds like they are taking the fall to cover the higher ups to me..

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theranos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theranos)

Since its incorporation in 2003, Holmes has been the company's chief executive officer. She recruited Channing Robertson, a chemical-engineering professor at Stanford, to be a technical advisor and the company's first board member during its early years. Sunny Balwani, a software engineer Holmes had met during high school, joined the company as its president and chief operating officer in 2009.[54] In July 2011, Holmes was introduced to former Secretary of State George Shultz, who joined the Theranos board of directors that same month.[55] Over the next three years, Shultz helped to introduce almost all the outside directors on the "all-star board," which included William Perry (former Secretary of Defense), Henry Kissinger (former Secretary of State), Sam Nunn (former U.S. Senator), Bill Frist (former U.S. Senator and heart- transplant surgeon), Gary Roughead (Admiral, USN, retired), James Mattis (General, USMC), Richard Kovacevich (former Wells Fargo Chairman and CEO) and Riley Bechtel (chairman of the board and former CEO at Bechtel Group).[55][56][57] The board was criticized for consisting "mainly of directors with diplomatic or military backgrounds."[11]

As of May 2016, the Theranos board of directors were:[64]

        Elizabeth Holmes, Founder and CEO
        Riley Bechtel, former Bechtel Group CEO
        David Boies, a founder and the chairman of Boies Schiller & Flexner
        William Foege, former director U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
        Richard Kovacevich, former Wells Fargo CEO and chairman
        James Mattis, retired USMC General
        Fabrizio Bonanni, former executive vice president of Amgen

<comment><USER46> Board members may have been incompetent, guilty of a dereliction of duty, or were tricked themselves. Meeting minutes would shed light on this.

<comment><USER27> It's noteworthy that none of the board members had experience in the medical device industry. They were most likely just in over their heads.

<comment><USER45> if you look at the timeline of events, I highly doubt this..

[https://taskandpurpose.com/mattis-theranos- questions/](https://taskandpurpose.com/mattis-theranos-questions/)

for starters. Not to mention rushing approval just months prior to obamacare taking effect and conveniently lining up drugstore partnerships at around the same time.

The board composition makes everything all the more suspicious.

Not to mention the same executive of _that_ western union..

The level of shrewdness of, and resources available to, people operating at this level makes any claims of 'over their heads' tantamount to 'gross negligence' at the very least..

the phrase 'plausible deniability' didn't get invented in a vacuum...

and lets not even get into the business about the researcher who committed suicide because he didn't want to lie long before any of this other stuff happened..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Is Holmes still rich after this? I can't tell just how much of her wealth she's being forced to return in form of shares.

<comment><USER48> >Is Holmes still rich after this?

But why it matters at all? Penalty should be proportional to the deed, not to the person's finances.

<comment><USER49> As a curious aside: In some scandanavian countries, the penalties are directly tied to wealth (e.g. the $103,000 speeding ticket [1]). The idea is to make the punishment proportional to each individual so that wealth cannot simply grant you a free pass to violate "minor" laws.

[1] [https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland- home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/)

<comment><USER50> I like that, instead of "the punishment should fit the crime" it should be "the punishment should disincentivize the person from doing it again"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Why don't they have to serve jail time for this?

<comment><USER52> Two major differences:

The SEC can only bring civil charges, not criminal ones. So SEC investigations won't bring jail time by themselves, although if the FBI or other agencies get involved that could happen

Also, Holmes and Theranos settled, which probably had some impact that on the penalties they faced

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Are Meredith Perry and uBeam next?

<comment><USER54> Didn't she sort of demonstrate that it worked? Or least that is the headline I read.

<comment><USER55> My (limited) understanding is that they've demonstrated a level of wireless power transmission, but nothing approaching some of the early hype that had things like mobile phones recharging in people's pockets whilst they were in a coffee shop.

The controversy there isn't whether you can transfer wireless power or not, but whether you can transfer enough in an easy enough way to make a practical consumer product.

If you want (alot) more detail this is a good thread to read [http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam- faq/1175/](http://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/the-ubeam-faq/1175/)

<comment><USER56> > mobile phones recharging in people's pockets whilst they were in a coffee > shop.

While not using the same Qi-like charging mechanism, the physics has been proven: [https://www.disneyresearch.com/publication/quasistatic- cavit...](https://www.disneyresearch.com/publication/quasistatic-cavity- resonance-for-ubiquitous-wireless-power-transfer/)

<comment><USER57> Without commenting on the viability of the method in that link one way or another, I will point out that the physics is described are completely different than what uBeam has said they are working on.

uBeam has said they are wirelessly transmitting power via high frequency sound. This link describes a method that uses magnetic fields.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Ugh Finally.

More than just the financial fraud, these folks engaged in behavior that actively endangered the public. I hope this isn't the end of the government actions against them.

Her public behavior was exceptionally bizarre and almost none of what's been revealed comes as any real surprise. For timeline purposes:

Dec 24, 2017 - They get $100m lifeline investment [https://www.wsj.com/articles/blood-testing-firm-theranos- get...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/blood-testing-firm-theranos- gets-100-million-lifeline-from-fortress-1514057523)

June 21, 2017 - Walgreens settlement [https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos- walgreens-reach-deal-t...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-walgreens- reach-deal-to-settle-lawsuit-1498037580)

May 30, 2017 - Crisis on the Board [https://www.wsj.com/articles/court- documents-shed-light-on-t...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/court-documents- shed-light-on-theranos-boards-response-to-crisis-1496136600)

April 21, 2017 - Caught using outside lab gear to fake tests [https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-secretly-bought- outsid...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-secretly-bought-outside-lab- gear-ran-fake-tests-court-filings-1492794470)

April 5, 2017 - Holmes found to owe $25m to her own startup [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14047457](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14047457)

Jan 19, 2017 - Closes last lab after failing inspection [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13433840](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13433840)

Jan 17, 2017 - second lab fails inspection [https://www.wsj.com/articles/second-theranos-lab-failed- u-s-...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/second-theranos-lab-failed-u-s- inspection-1484708428)

Jan 6, 2017 - Lays off 41% of workforce [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13338996](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13338996)

Nov 17, 2016 - Whistleblower comes out [https://www.kqed.org/futureofyou/283681/theranos- whistleblow...](https://www.kqed.org/futureofyou/283681/theranos- whistleblower-was-george-shultz-grandson-wsj)

July 8, 2016 - Banned from operating a lab for 2 years [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12053721](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12053721)

Jan 27, 2016 - Letter from the feds [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10983747](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10983747)

Dec 20, 2015 - Some skepticism [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10765562](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10765562)

Oct 16, 2015 - Struggles with tech [https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-has- struggled-with-blo...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-has-struggled- with-blood-tests-1444881901)

<comment><USER59> pls reorder in time-sequence typo: $25 ==> $25mm

<comment><USER58> great catch. Appreciate the note. Fixed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> VCs seem to care a Stanford/google background more than anything else. They should be punished by watching "moneyball" non-stop for a week.

</comment><comment><USER61> It still baffles me how this ever got started. How does a 19 year old sophomore dropout have sufficient expertise in microfluidics plus clinical testing to garner hundreds of millions in investment with pure vapor? Nevermind the learning curve of running the business and developing a real saleable product.

</comment><comment><USER62> Here's the complaint: [https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2018/comp- pr2018-4...](https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2018/comp- pr2018-41-theranos-holmes.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER63> So this was complete bullshit too?:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGfaJZAdfNE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGfaJZAdfNE)

</comment><comment><USER64> Here's the danger of "Fake it till you make it."

</comment><comment><USER65> So do those of us accused of sexism for not supporting Holmes a few years ago now get vindicated? Attacking her competence and questioning the Theranos Kool-Aid was seen as sexist and unfair, but it turns out we were right — she is a criminal — or at least a civil violator of securities law.

<comment><USER66> The accusations (at least the ones I made) were never about her guilt or innocence.

From what I remember, HN and similar just had dozens and dozens articles each week on this case, far more than for other, comparable cases. MtGox was around the same time, I believe.

My subjective impression was also that Holmes featured far more prominently in the articles and discussions than male CEOs in other cases.

Here is one commentator in this thread comitting all sorts of crimes against grammar to accentuate her gender: "The FBI should recommend charges for this Holmes lady."

Edit: I just noticed the comment I cited was by the same user I was replying to :) I guess my sexism-radar is well-tuned today.

<comment><USER67> I think some perspective is needed. The idea that medical services you may get could be a fraud and nobody who matters really cares is much more threatening to the average person than some cryptocurrency exchange losing money or other cases of wealthy speculators being defrauded. Lots of news articles were written about the LIBOR scandal too, but even if I read them, I don't believe deep down that it affected me meaningfully.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> 700 million dollar fraud, 500.000 dollar penalty. That's an impressive RoI for the fraudsters.

<comment><USER69> No one is lining up to buy Theranos shares, where is the ROI here?

<comment><USER68> In salaries, perks etc ... I can imagine that a large part of the 700 million dollars would have been spent on salaries, perks etc ... 500,000 dollar fine seems paltry when you've essentially been able to con people out of 700 million.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Martin Shkreli = 7 years, $7.5M fine

Investor capital lost = ~$0

Elizabeth Holmes = $500k fine, D&O bar

Company value lost = ~$8 billion

</comment><comment><USER70> People have been talking for a while about the SEC moving towards some sort of regulation/legislation of ICOs. I believe the following paragraph in their announcement is telling (emphasis mine):

"Investors are entitled to nothing less than complete truth and candor from companies and their executives," said Steven Peikin, Co-Director of the SEC's Enforcement Division. "The charges against Theranos, Holmes, and Balwani make clear that there is no exemption from the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws simply because a company is __ non-public, development-stage, or the subject of exuberant media attention __."

</comment><comment><USER71> Theranos is a case study about the consequences of Wizard of Oz Experiments.

</comment><comment><USER72> It's about time. Blatantly lying to investors is fraud and should be prosecuted as such. People who defraud others should face consequences for doing so.

</comment><comment><USER73> Why no jail time? We should start sending CEOs to jail.

</comment><comment><USER74> Good. While they had a good idea, it's run by unethical and terrible people who really have no regard for the safety of the public. It seems like every time they were forced to show any level of proof they lied until they were caught. If a pharmaceutical company operated like they do, I doubt anyone would be praising them for any reason.

<comment><USER75> What was the good idea exactly? As far as I'm aware the details of their (non- existent) tech have never been shared, not even with investors. Anyone can think up some pie in the sky idea.

<comment><USER74> > What was the good idea exactly?

Using tiny amounts of blood to do a whole entire blood workup.

> their (non-existent) tech

Some of it existed. It just required them lying about using other companies' products with a standard volume of blood. The rest of course was entirely made up.

> Anyone can think up some pie in the sky idea.

I agree. I just said the idea was good but unfortunately for her, even being a mega-uber-disrupter-genius like Elizabeth Homes, our level of technology isn't there yet and maybe never will be.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> Most of the wealthy did similar things but were not prosecuted.

Behind Every Great Fortune There Is a Crime.

Very few super wealthy made their money honestly.

</comment><comment><USER77> I think there is a fair distinction between "fake it until you make it" and actually willfully defrauding your investors and customers. Sure this may work at the beginning but you have to do some kind of magic or goal at the end of "faking it" and have results.

</comment><comment><USER78> While we enjoy the fruits of capitalism we should also accept its Dark Side. There will always be people who abuse a Goodwill system. I'm not completely satisfied with the outcome, but I hope this serves as a warning to the abusers of capitalism.

Thank you SEC and the Justice Department.

</comment><comment><USER79> Again, what have you expected? [https://medium.com/multiple-personalities- order/how-to-be-th...](https://medium.com/multiple-personalities-order/how-to- be-the-best-investor-in-the-world-ed31163fe965)

</comment><comment><USER80> Fake it 'til you break it...

</comment><comment><USER81> So how are they able to still operate? It was revealed to be a scam a couple of years ago now? How are they still running? Even if no one is jailed right away, I would expect everyone to leave and them not be able to hire anyone again.

</comment><comment><USER82> It seems the settlement of a $500k for Holmes was rather weak justice and sends the wrong message. With the kind of fraud she perpetuated to investors jail time would be more appropriate.

</comment><comment><USER83> This should terrify pretty much anybody who did an ICO last year.

</comment><comment><USER84> So if you commit massive fraud you get a slap on the wrists. Meanwhile people committing minor crimes (in comparison) are incarcerated.

</comment><comment><USER40> This is why due diligence is important folks.

</comment><comment><USER85> I'm guessing she wasn't renting a small studio in Palo Alto. Wonder if they'll claw back any of these ill gotten gains.

</comment><comment><USER86> Wouldn't she be going to prison for this? Did I read incorrectly, or are they not trying to send her to prison

</comment><comment><USER87> What does "charged" mean here? Is this criminal or civil?

</comment><comment><USER88> Could the SEC litigation be whybthe VCs has to keep quiet?

</comment><comment><USER89> the more these stories come out, the more that Holmes is coming off as sociopathic, to me at least.

</comment><comment><USER90> It took them long enough!

</comment><comment><USER91> Fake it till you make it?

</comment><comment><USER92> Won't see a day of jail time while Shkrelli gets 7 years.

<comment><USER93> Martin Shkreli was, honest to god, an idiot. He got several chances to "kiss the ring" and show remorse, and what did he do? He put some extra oil on the fire and kept acting like an idiot until the very last moment. Sometimes you need to realise when to fold and suck it up.

<comment><USER11> Alternative take: it's disgusting and offensive to the foundational concept of blind justice that punishment is more highly correlated with charisma and obsequiousness to judges than it is to actual crimes committed.

<comment><USER94> I kind of agree [1], but I don't think that's why there's a difference between the cases.

First of all, the Theranos people haven't _yet_ been brought up on criminal charges, but it's still possible they could be, no?

Secondly, I think there were lots of material differences between the two cases that caused them to be prosecuted differently. You can't just lump every instance of fraud as the same thing.

[1] The reason I only kind-of agree: you're phrasing it in a way that makes it seem clear. But I can easily phrase it as "it makes sense that defendants who show remorse, and are therefore less likely to commit the crime again, will get a lighter sentence, as opposed to defendants who are much more likely to repeat the crimes".

<comment><USER93> On showing remorse: it's a bit ridiculous to think of this, since showing remorse does not mean you actually feel remorse. But it might mean you are intelligent enough to realise you need to show remorse to get off the hook.

<comment><USER8> Martin Shkreli was extremely intelligent, and the court recognized that. He continued to not show remorse (I think it's arguable that he did a bit more than simply not show remorse), why shouldn't the court believe that he truly is not remorseful?

<comment><USER93> He was not remorseful. He probably should have acted like he was remorseful if he wanted to get off the hook. He was also disrespectful of the court, I guess.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER95> There's often a thin line between "startup founder" and "confidence man".

<comment><USER94> No, there isn't _often_ a thin line. Most founders are not out there committing massive fraud. They may be doing a lot of marketing, and are probably promising things that still have to be built, but they're not out there lying that they have millions in revenue from contracts that don't exist, or falsifying demos.

<comment><USER96> Right.

"We had $50 million in bookings this year" \- Misleading because it seems like that should mean $50 million in revenue but all of the bookings were for 10 year contracts so it is really only $5 million in revenue, but it is not fraudulent because it isn't factually untrue.

"We will be able to raise prices enough to be profitable" \- Often optimistic to the point of delusion, but without a time machine it is not a statement of fact so it isn't fraud.

<comment><USER97> Every founder is optimistic to the point of delusion. It's a requisite.

Investors know how to deal with that. What they don't know how to do is deciding if "those complicated papers that use words you never even heard before say we can do X" is a lie or not.

<comment><USER98> How so? Isn't that what due diligence is? You get a third-party expert (be that in accounting or biology) with a signed NDA, and have them verify those results.

What they probably can't handle is outright fabrication.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER99> Take a TV from a truck that's left open behind a warehouse; get months if not years in jail.

Deliberately commit fraud for years and steal millions and millions of dollars; slap on the wrist.

Our system is so ridiculous.

<comment><USER100> The SEC is a civil agency and can not jail anyone for anything, they can only levy penalties. Justice has to take over the case for an offender to go to prison.

<comment><USER101> How does that make the above statement any less ridiculous? Isn't that exactly what he or she is pointing out? That the system is explicitly preventing these people from serving jailtime?

<comment><USER102> No. The system doesn't do any such thing.

Since the SEC only deals with civil penalties, they can act quickly and without the certainty required for criminal convinctions. They can also refer cases to the Justice Department, who can (and do) levy criminal charges.

Just because the SEC is the only body to publicly announce a resolution doesn't mean that Holmes or Theranos are off the hook criminally. The Obama DOJ initiated a criminal investigation in 2016 that is apparently still active and could absolutely result in jail time:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/19/business/theranos-sec- jus...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/19/business/theranos-sec-justice- department-investigation.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER103> Good. Now lets put everyone who they paid to hype them in prison as well, every journalist, blogger, hacker news poster who received money in exchange for writing a favorable comment.

</comment><comment><USER104> So... the punishment for getting caught in massive fraud is that you just have to give back the stuff you got through fraud? Sign me up.

<comment><USER105> Unless of course you steal Holmes' car. Then you'll probably be killed, or at best, incarcerated for 10 years.

Remember kids, the rich are not playing the same game the rest of us are.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> What exactly needs to happen for white collar criminals to be punished commensurate with their crime and consistent with the magnitude of "regular" criminals' punishment?

Holmes' punishment is effectively nil. Meanwhile:

[1] A man sells $40 with of cocaine and eventually 5.9g of weed lands him _20 years_ in prison.

[2] "Illegal" voting lands a woman 8 years and deportation.

[3] Possession of a few shotgun shells gets a man 15 years.

Meanwhile, defrauding investors hundreds of millions results in... nothing, really?

There's a word for this.

 _Unacceptable._

[1] [http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-ci- twe...](http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-ci-twenty-years- marijuana-case-20150507-story.html)

[2] [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/us/illegal-voting-gets- te...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/us/illegal-voting-gets-texas- woman-8-years-in-prison-and-certain-deportation.html)

[3] [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/11/opinion/sunday/kristof- hel...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/11/opinion/sunday/kristof-help-thy- neighbor-and-go-straight-to-prison.html?hp&_r=1&)

<comment><USER106> > There's a word for this. Unacceptable.

Expressing emotion and anger can be healthy. But let's discuss this and find out why this is and can and what should be done?

* US justice system is designed for settlement. In US 97% of civil cases are settled or dismissed without a trial. 90% of federal criminal cases resolve without trial. 94% of state cases end via plea bargain.

* Normal criminals accept harder sentences when they plead guilty. Is it because it's easier to find them guilty or because they don't have access to better lawyers?

* Criminals can be put into prison only if they can be convicted. Many financial crimes are very hard to prosecute and end result is uncertain. Proving intent can be very hard. Concrete proof even harder. Getting something is better than getting nothing. When federal prosecutors go ahead, it's not uncommon that the result is acquittal.

sources and backround

The Difficulty of Proving Financial Crimes [https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/the-difficulty-of- pr...](https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/the-difficulty-of-proving- financial-crimes/)

What prosecutors have to prove in order for you to be charged with a financial crime [http://www.businessinsider.com/what-proof-for-financial- crim...](http://www.businessinsider.com/what-proof-for-financial-crime- prosecution-2017-1?r=US&IR=T&IR=T)

So what do we want? Do we want to relax the the burden of proof in financial crimes? More regulation and paper work that leads easier to prosecute trail (called bureaucracy that increases the cost of enterprise).

<comment><USER107> > Criminals can be put into prison only if they can be convicted.

Huh? A large percentage of those jailed in the USA have not been convicted of the crime for which they are charged. They are detained until trial because they cannot afford bail.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER108> I wonder if Holmes was male if she would be treated like Martin Shkreli and attacked in every horrible way possible. Don't see much rhetoric against her.

<comment><USER109> Theranos was a punch line in my office just this morning, and she'll forever be associated with that.

But Shkreli has brought on himself another order of magnitude of personal criticism because of his statements and actions beyond the price fixing. In my experience from the days after his sentencing, people who know nothing about tech or healthcare know his name and react to it with scorn, while quite few of them know the name of his funds or companies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER110> Isn't she a pretty close relative of some congressman? If so, this could be a good test of how much justice there is left in the justice system. It's pretty hard to deny she caused a significant amount of damage.

</comment><comment><USER111> Guys, we're talking about some serious meme potential here.

</comment><comment><USER112> Headline is misleading. _Securities Fraud_ is not _fraud fraud_.

</comment><comment><USER113> > Holmes — a Steve Jobs wannabe who dressed exclusively in black turtlenecks — > settled with the regulators for $500,000 while neither admitting nor denying > the accusations.

What Holmes did is most likely a fraud... but what the regulators did in this part above is pure and simple blackmail and extortion... the only problem is that who's gonna prosecute the persecutors....

This is really not far from wild wild west hundred years ago, where everyone was wearing guns at their belts. Truly mind boggling!!

<comment><USER114> > but what the regulators did in this part above is pure and simple blackmail > and extortion

Settling out of court is blackmail and extortion?

If they thought they were innocent they could have had their day in court but instead they basically pleaded "no contest" and took their lumps.

<comment><USER113> Neither part admit or deny accusations. What the heck?? So why does DOJ even exist in the first place when such dipsy doodle can occur?

<comment><USER8> "No contest" pleas are a policy of the U.S. judicial branch, and are handled on a case-by-case basis [0]. The DOJ is an agency within the U.S. executive branch.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolo_contendere#United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolo_contendere#United_States)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER115> Still slightly amused that my uncle thru marriage..his brother was the CEO of a very well known national store who invested in Holmes. My uncle in 2014 mentioned how excited his brother was to help Holmes out and her mission. Which seems like there was no mission just a spoiled brat telling lies for her ego's sake all the while leading all her parents rich friends to be defrauded.

I tried so many times to get investment from his brother yet his brother just played along/followed his rich friends vs. helping out a distance family member. I even had a startup in which I met with Google per their invitation to talk about buying us and every huge tech name knocked on our door. We only received 25k of investment from a Baltimore incubator, yet tried to get additional but I'm not a cool kid or a kid with rich friends or parents with rich friends.</comment>


Android is a Viable Revenue Stream - Advanced Task Manager application - <AUTHOR> http://arronla.com/2010/08/android-revenue-advanced-task-manager/

<comment><USER2> Ironic that one of the best-selling Android apps would be an app that so many Android users swear isn't necessary.

<comment><USER3> I won't swear it _isn't_ necessary (and I'm not an Android user, quite the opposite, I dislike it), because I haven't used all Android configurations and programs to be sure it has no beneficial effect. But it is definitely something that shouldn't be necessary.

Of course, sales for items like this where necessity is very subjective really have no bearing on whether or not they provide any benefit. Otherwise the hundred-million dollar a year industry that is homeopathy would not exist.

<comment><USER4> > _Otherwise the hundred-million dollar a year industry that is homeopathy > would not exist_

Just because there are crooks in the world that became rich by seeling fake homeopathic remedies, that doesn't mean there aren't homeopathic remedies that work.

The placebo effect doesn't work on me because it is in my nature to be pessimistic about everything. Having asthma also makes my lungs sensitive to any cold I catch.

Paracetamol [1] doesn't work on me. Oscillococcinum [2] does.

And I'm not into homeopathy, but I'm a tea addict and I know from personal experience the effects dozens of plants have on my body. Just last week I drank tea made from cherry tails ... it made me go pissing every half an hour (really useful when you've got prostate problems).

         [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracetamol
         [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscillococcinum

<comment><USER5> Woah! An anecdote! Now, that sure is convincing!

bad_user, say hi to the Placebo effect. It's so awesome, it even works when you believe it doesn't.

<comment><USER4> Haha, yeah, maybe it is Placebo :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A shame the android market only offer paid apps in some countries. Only free apps here in Norway, for example.

<comment><USER7> It's flabbergasting to me that Google haven't fixed this. Cynics say it's because it boosts the ad income, but if you want to compete against iPhone and iPad, surely this is a huge boon in those markets and developer communities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Good news, although a utility that works around OS problems that should never have existed isn't exactly a good example IMO.

<comment><USER9> They don't exist: [http://android- developers.blogspot.com/2010/04/multitasking-...](http://android- developers.blogspot.com/2010/04/multitasking-android-way.html)

<comment><USER8> I'm not sure which is worse: that Advanced Task Manager fixes a problem in Android or that it's a placebo.

<comment><USER10> The problem with the backgound taskS is that we don't how how much battery they drain. I found out , for instance, that GoogleTalk is a huge battery drain. I have a FM radio on my device and this one really sucks. It simply won't stop and drain the battery in a few hours. The GUI is crapy too any way. So I don't use it.

The key problem people are fighting for is to save battery life time. This is the only reason people are using this software. Backups and such are not as much a problem. Any software that will contribute to save the battery lifetime will be a hit. An equivalent of the unix top for instance.

The battery life time is the nuisance number one on smart phones. This is why the iPad is a master piece and all these me too players are a joke regarding this. It's the energy, stupid.

HTC is apparently planning to release devices with faster cpu. What's the point if the phone can't run more than 6h with a GPS app, even if continuously connected to the cigar plug? Bluetouth enabled because of driving. The result is that I end up restricting my use of the phone to save battery and this is frustrating and not smart (phone).

So looking around to find means to save battery, the ATM app pops up immediately and it worked for me. I could extend battery lifetime from 1 day to three days by keeping it clean.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> An application that could be useful is one that would help determine what app/service drains the battery. A correlation between running apps and battery consumtion would help.

If google removed the ability to manage services or background apps, they got it wrong. Unless they provide a mean to optimize battery usage.

<comment><USER11> There's a built-in listing of which applications use what proportion of the battery.

<comment><USER12> I had to look this up. It's Settings->About Phone->Battery Use

<comment><USER13> You also get diverted to it if you tap "Why?" when the "Battery < 15%" notification appears, for what it's worth.

Took me ages to notice that since it's next to "Okay", and poorly-designed dialogs have me trained to assume that that's a "Cancel" button that does nothing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Very interesting, although he comes to some unfounded conclusions. Especially the "if I had increased the price I'm sure I could've gotten a lot more revenue" remark. Maybe 99 cents is exactly the sweet spot, or by lowering the price he might increase his sales disproportionally and earn even more.

</comment><comment><USER15> While an interesting read, this article as well as the others arguing the opposite, are all anecdotal. What needs to be done is a proper statistical study on Android _and_ on the iOS and the results compared.

</comment><comment><USER16> Related HN post - Why Android devs are losing money, and it's not due to piracy :

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1609643></comment>


Pastebin to hire staff to tackle hackers' 'sensitive' posts - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-17544311

<comment><USER2> Considering the none of the top posts on the Trending Pastes page contains any source code, I'd say the site has drifted from it's original mission of "The website is mainly used by programmers to store pieces of sources code or configuration information"

However they state everyone is welcome to post any text, so they aren't discriminating. Users are just mainly using their service for a different purpose than they intended.

<comment><USER3> On the other hand, it seems most of the new public pastes are source code or configuration.

I assume that anybody sharing code snippets via pastebin is using it in a disposable way, since we have other places like github to share code in a more robust way. Thus they never end up on the "Trending" page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm beginning to think that this marks the point where people who post 'sensitive' information will start to move to other services.

</comment><comment><USER5> There is definitely room for a Pastebin-like service for plain text (blog posts). When Pastebin had massive traffic from Anonymous posts, I considered building something (I got blogb.in), but couldn't continue due to personal reasons.

<comment><USER6> <http://jottit.com>

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Even though not even mentioned in the story, I'm guessing he also got a visit or two from The Man.

</comment><comment><USER8> Jeroen Vader, only you could be so bold. (Sorry, couldn't help it.)</comment>


NSA to Release Their Reverse Engineering Framework GHIDRA to Public at RSA - <AUTHOR> https://www.rsaconference.com/events/us19/agenda/sessions/16608-Come-Get-Your-Free-NSA-Reverse-Engineering-Tool <comment><USER2> Useful commentary from /u/hash_define on /r/ReverseEngineering:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/ReverseEngineering/comments/ace2m3/...](https://www.reddit.com/r/ReverseEngineering/comments/ace2m3/come_get_your_free_nsa_reverse_engineering_tool/ed7vbld/)

<comment><USER3> > "Useful commentary from /u/hash_define on /r/ReverseEngineering:"

I would say that a lot of the GH/IDA differences probably come down to UI and usability. Most of the tooling in the RE world today is lacking in those spaces. The software simply isn't "comfortable" or intuitive enough to work with. Be it IDA/olly/windbg/radare, they're all desperately lacking a proper, solid UI. The good news is, most of them support a plugin/extension architecture - so in theory, most of the features GH provides could've ended up as an IDA plugin - so that the researchers receive the best of both worlds.

<comment><USER4> Um, I'd expect IDA to have a better UI, being a paid commercial tool as opposed to an internal tool for the intelligence community.

Not that I know anything about Ghidra yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> CIA bothered to get it from NSA it must be good for something, or has extra features not available in IDA Pro.

Maybe they simply don't want to pay IDA Pro licenses $3k a pop. Getting an enterprise organization or the government to pay for stuff like that is not trivial sometimes.

CIA also made this a standard part of a developer's setup:

[https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_34308123.html](https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_34308123.html)

Install XCode, setup SSH, IRC, and install Ghidra ...

<comment><USER6> > _Maybe they simply don 't want to pay IDA Pro licenses $3k a pop_

What prevents three-letter agencies from using software without paying for it? Tendering a bid usually requires surrendering source code. One's odds of finding out about unauthorized use is slim. And even if you do, legal discovery can be blocked on national security grounds.

<comment><USER7> > What prevents three-letter agencies from using software without paying for > it?

The law, same as anyone else.

Having worked in the public sector, there's a _lot_ more law than there is compared to the private sector. That's because anything that the legislature does or doesn't want your organization to do has to be coded in law. That's the legislatures only means of direction. Further, executive directives related to your organization also carry the force of law. What that means is you can't not follow it. You can't chose to ignore the law or executive directives. You don't get to ask for clarifications or exceptions. The former come from a judge and the latter do not exist until the legislature creates them. It doesn't matter that there's no direct penalty for it; you're not allowed to chose to not follow it. This is one of the worst parts about the public sector: there is often much less wiggle room, especially for broad issues.

I'm sure that the TLAs negotiate with IDA for site licenses, or bind them to confidentiality contracts, but I have no doubt at all that they legitimately pay for the COTS products they use.

<comment><USER8> Spare us the lecture please, the rampant systemic law breaking over the last 50 years by government agencies is a known fact. Keyword: Systemic

Who has been punished for the numerous constitutional breaches by the TLA's? At last glance absolutely no one and that's not going to change.

Meanwhile the whistleblower who spoke up about illegal government activities is in exile and can likely never travel anywhere on Earth for the rest of his life.

<comment><USER9> The breaches of law you mentioned are of a specific kind, and I wager that the agencies did not agree in every case that they breached the law.

On the other hand, blatantly stealing their tools instead of buying them is not the same kind of breaching the law, and it is obvious to everbody that it is illegal.

Also, even more so than persons, institutions can behave contradictivly when viewed from the outside. From within it may seem consistent and sound to surveil everybody and legally buying the tools they use for it. The evil is banal.

<comment><USER10> They surely don't believe they have breached the law. For example:

The fact that the phone spying case was even accepted by the Supreme Court should be enough to confirm that the law wasn't clear. Had the law been clear, the NSA would have lost in a lower court and the Supreme Court would have refused to consider the case.

<comment><USER11> >> The fact that the phone spying case was even accepted by the Supreme Court should be enough to confirm that the law wasn't clear.

That's not actually the way legality works. If the law is unclear, the justice department will provide their interpretation (which will typically give more power to the government). If you disagree with the interpretation and are affected by it, you are free to challenge it in a court of law which will clarify. Or you can lobby lawmakers to change the law.

This is different from how for instance organizational guidelines work in private industry - in case of ambiguity, you will ask for a clarification from the author. That option is basically not available because laws are made by the legislature which is a body distinct from the executive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Some good resources to brush up on before it is released.

[https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering- faq](https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq)

[https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Reverse_Engineering/Legal_Aspe...](https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Reverse_Engineering/Legal_Aspects)

</comment><comment><USER13> It was in CIA Vault 7 documents[1]: Its purty cool ---> Q: Is it a serious competitor for IDA Pro?

[1] [https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_51183656.html](https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_51183656.html)

<comment><USER14> Most likely not. Since everyone uses IDA I don't think there is anything better. ( also NSA probably also use IDA )

<comment><USER10> GHIDRA is good. In some ways it beats IDA Pro.

People didn't choose IDA Pro just for quality. GHIDRA was highly restricted. Even the people with access to GHIDRA were hesitant, because they didn't want to learn a tool that they couldn't take to another employer.

The other players in this market, binja (Binary Ninja) and Hopper Disassembler, are much newer. Inertia keeps them back. Imagine introducing a new editor, like vi or emacs, but with everything just a bit different. It could even be a slightly better editor. Uptake will be slow. People don't want to relearn or repurchase.

Until recently, normal people could only choose IDA Pro. You paid, or you had to suffer with awful substitutes like Radare2 and objdump.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Here's hoping it's actually Open Source, and not just a no-cost download of a binary-only tool.

<comment><USER10> Open Source has been the plan for many years. It has been a long process, starting with determining which parts can be declassified. The current deal is some sort of FOUO, with government contractors able to run copies on non- networked computers but without all the extra high-security stuff.

This will be some interesting competition for IDA Pro, Binary Ninja (binja), and Hopper Disassembler. People with access to GHIDRA have been avoiding it because they prefer to develop skills with software that can be used at all employers, but soon that thinking will favor GHIDRA. IDA Pro is a few thousand dollars, and the other choices are a few hundred dollars.

<comment><USER16> Throwing r2 Cutter in the mix..

<comment><USER17> Radare as a project has some issues that may prevent it from having a large contributor base.

<comment><USER18> Oh, what issues?

<comment><USER17> The existence of this repository, for example [https://github.com/radare/r2hate](https://github.com/radare/r2hate)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Charlie Miller (Apple Mac hacker and former NSA employee): This tool was already there when I left 13 years ago!

<comment><USER19> the nsa would never release cutting edge tools that had functionality unavailable in other forms.

<comment><USER13> Certainly, Maybe revealed of CIA Vault7 is the reason!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I don't get an excitement. There is already IDA Pro and Binary Ninja, developing at a big pace and with actual support. Moreover, there is FOSS radare2[1] and Cutter[2], that also being developed at crazy speed. We have even work in progress decompiler radeco[3][4], though there is still a lot to be done. If people would contribute - there is a lot of time until March (time of GHIDRA release).

[1] [https://github.com/radare/radare2](https://github.com/radare/radare2)

[2] [https://github.com/radareorg/cutter](https://github.com/radareorg/cutter)

[3] [https://github.com/radareorg/radeco](https://github.com/radareorg/radeco)

[4] [https://github.com/radareorg/radeco- lib](https://github.com/radareorg/radeco-lib)

<comment><USER21> Surely you can see how something that combines the best of both worlds (FOSS like r2 and feature-rich / has a working decompiler like IDA / binja) would be of interest to people right?

<comment><USER20> RSA talk description never said anything about open sourcing it. Only about "free". And from WikiLeaks Vault7 documents it appears to be buggy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Someone please tell me this is a Godzilla reference: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Ghidorah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Ghidorah)

<comment><USER23> Close, final fantasy:

[http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Ghidra](http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Ghidra)

<comment><USER24> I think final fantasy ripped it from Godzilla (see the etymology section):

""" Ghidra, also known as "King Ghidorah," is an enemy monster in the Godzilla series. Typically, Ghidra is Godzilla's fiercest opponent, and it usually fights against humanity. """"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Robert Joyce (NSA): The GHIDRA platform includes all the features expected in high-end commercial tools, with new and expanded functionality NSA uniquely developed

</comment><comment><USER25> Would this be useful for reverse engineering proprietary graphics driver and wifi driver blobs?

<comment><USER10> Yes, it would be an excellent tool for that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Will it benefit to Radare2 and Frida?

[https://github.com/dukebarman/awesome- radare2](https://github.com/dukebarman/awesome-radare2)

[https://github.com/dweinstein/awesome- frida](https://github.com/dweinstein/awesome-frida)

<comment><USER10> No. It will make Radare2 completely obsolete.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Please forgive my ignorance -- is this some sort of decomplier? Something more?

<comment><USER28> That's pretty much what it is. Its an interactive, disassembler. Its goal is to help you reverse engineer a compiled binary. From what I read, its similar to the commercial IDA Pro( [https://www.hex- rays.com/products/ida/index.shtml](https://www.hex- rays.com/products/ida/index.shtml) ) There are a few photos on the site, to give you an idea of how everything is laid out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> What is their motivation to release this? It's not like SELinux where improving general security can be seen as a national security objective.

<comment><USER30> Having a more robust reverse engineering community seems like it would be a national security objective, in a broad sense.

This tool lowers the bar for security researchers to analyze malware, and seems to be part of a broader effort by the NSA to share their tools and foster public-private partnerships.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> What is their motivation for releasing this now?

<comment><USER32> It's been in the works for at least 5 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Fingers crossed</comment>


Google's library for dealing with URLs (C++) - <AUTHOR> http://code.google.com/p/google-url/

<comment><USER2> I would be careful using this with data from untrusted sources without knowing exactly what you are doing, especially if you don't provide any hard limits of length of URL data from users.

e.g. within a few minutes of looking, I found this:

      void Append(const T* str, int str_len) {
        if (cur_len_ + str_len > buffer_len_) {
          if (!Grow(cur_len_ + str_len - buffer_len_))
            return;
        }
        for (int i = 0; i < str_len; i++)
          buffer_[cur_len_ + i] = str[i];
        cur_len_ += str_len;
      }

cur_len_, buffer_len_, and str_len are all signed int (31 bits on most modern 32 and 64 bit compilers). Say cur_len_ is 1000, buffer_len_ is 1024, and I convince the program to call append with a string of length 2147483647 (2^31 - 1). Then cur_len_ + str_len = 2147483647 + 1000 = -2147482649 < 1024, so the first if passes, and my data gets copied to the heap past the end of the allocated buffer.

This might crash the program in this case, but if I have more memory and can control all parts of the URL, I could arrange to only write a few bytes over, change headers used by the allocator, and exploit the system.

It took me longer to write this comment than it did to find something dubious in the codebase, so I'd strongly suggest auditing the library carefully before using it.

</comment><comment><USER3> I use this library at my work, and I'm happy with it - but a word of warning: it's not trivial to integrate into your project. There is no makefile included here, and you'll have to modify the logging.cc/logging.h code to even get this to build under linux.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> There's also some Python bindings for it: <http://code.google.com/p/python- google-url/>

<comment><USER4> Python already has url processing functions inbuilt. Are the google ones better in any way?

<comment><AUTHOR> Python has urlparse, which parses a url into its various components but this library handles canonicalization among other things. It also handles uri schemes that urlparse does not. Not to mention the speed difference between the two libs (google-url can handle more urls per second). I think it also is able to distinguish between the domain name and the public suffix.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Really interesting that this project was last modified in 2007, but it's still news. Still news because there's so much great, open stuff out there and even with ... google ... it's still hard to discover.

If you know what you are looking for google is great, but I think this post is a good example of why I rely so much on Hacker News.

</comment><comment><USER6> Does anyone know of a Perl-like strings library for C? Perl's string replacing code is miles better than anything I can find for C.

For instance, the PCRE library provides Perl compatible regular expressions. Why not the same for strings?

<comment><USER7> Maybe not exactly Perl-like, but you may find the bstring library useful: <http://bstring.sourceforge.net/>.

The documentation also lists alternative string handling libraries like c2lib, wxString etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> At last!

<comment><AUTHOR> At last, what? This project has been around since at least Aug 7th, 2008.

<comment><USER9> At last he's found out about it, duh.</comment></comment></comment>


Why the Red Delicious No Longer Is (2005) - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/04/AR2005080402194.html

<comment><USER2> Orange Pippin (<http://www.orangepippin.com/>) has a ridonkulous amount of info on other apple varieties.

Among the commonly available types, my favorites are Honeycrisp and Pink Lady.</comment>


Why Van Halen had brown M&Ms contractually removed - <AUTHOR> http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/vanhalen.asp <comment><USER3> NOTE: to those who're reading the comments here instead of RTFA [because you're like I am...], you should RTFA.

I first heard this story about 3 months ago and was blown away [because everyone knew that Van Halen were prima donas, right?!]. That Van Halen plays IROC-Z rock doesn't mean they _aren't_ big time business people. There are certainly outliers, but big time business people are big time business people without regard to the business and that's a lesson most of us need.

EDIT: I attended an alternative educational conference where the theme was "Taking Yourself Seriously". Naturally, I sat thinking "I write computer programs! I'm a serious man!". Learning about Van Halen's idiotic-but-wait-oh- my-god-that's-super-insightful contract drives home the point that I might not be taking myself seriously enough... There's always room to improve.

EDIT: to those who're pointing out that this is a re-hash, this is an important re-hash. Yes, it was discussed two years ago, but it bears repeating. Even an atheist, such as myself, appreciates hearing the 10 Commandments reasonably frequently.

</comment><comment><USER4> Reminds me of the Alice Cooper scene from Wayne's World.

I was raised to believe that these hedonistic punks knew only sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Learning that they were in fact professionals who intimately knew their craft (and, yeah, also liked to have fun) is a blessing of age.

<comment><USER5> There were plenty that were just hedonistic punks. The lesson is that you can't just apply a blanket label to people.

<comment><USER6> The other lesson is that once you apply a blanket label to people, it cannot be removed under penalty of law.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Repeat from about two years ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=743860>

I suspect it's not the first time. It's a great story.

<comment><USER8> The current submission is also just a heavily plagiarized rehashing of that part of David Lee Roth's autobiography, as (properly) quoted by Snopes.

<comment><USER9> It's not plagiarism if it's attributed.

(edit: looks like the submission url was edited. I guess it wasn't snopes earlier.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Iggy Pop's concert rider appeared on the Smoking Gun several years ago, and it's a very amusing read -- they were clearly sick of venues screwing things up as well by not reading carefully. It's only 18 pages: <http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/lust-laughs>

<comment><USER11> That was very good. Thank you. I ended up using this one as the paging on Smoking Gun was annoying:

<http://josgrain.com/StoogesRiders.pdf>

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Back in 2009 This American Life covered the issue with aplomb. [http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/386/f...](http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio- archives/episode/386/fine-print)

</comment><comment><USER13> Makes me think of the trick we used a large website I used to work for: we'd have everybody and their mother copy our T&S because that was easier that writing it themselves. So we added a 2 very uncommon spelling mistakes into it on purpose. After that just a simple google Alert on those keywords would tell us immediately when someone copied our T&S.

Adding something weird/uncommon can make something easily measurable (as showcased in both my example as the article).

<comment><USER14> Map makers do it too:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_streets>

<comment><USER15> As well as dictionaries: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquivalience>

I wonder what other companies that make a living by selling data sets do this sort of thing?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Nowadays, something like this can also be seen as somewhat insulting to a venue. We spend hours pouring over contract riders to make sure we meet the specifications, and many more hours pricing out the materials and labor necessary for an event. If the lead singer of the band is putting M&M clauses into riders, instead of the touring production manager dealing with the venue TD directly, there's already something wrong with the negotiations.

<comment><USER17> It might be insulting to your venue, but other venues aren't as detailed as yours. And this process (or variation of) could still today provide an initial indicator that the venue is cutting corners and not following the details.

<comment><USER16> At the same time, you know that someone (the venue, the promoter, our the tour manager) is cutting corners when actual insightful communication isn't happening between all parties. Just as the tour will send a contract to the venue, the venue sends it's contract and technical specifications to the tour. The tone and types of communication with a venue or tour before they even get two cities away is just as good an indicator towards the likelihood of problems.

Nothing, not even brown M&Ms can make it so all of a sudden we don't need to communicate through the proper channels and follow procedures.

<comment><USER18> I get it, you're a professional. 30 years ago, you know when the IBM PC was introduced, the variation of quality of venues was likely higher. Big name, technical shows simply did not go to smaller venues, because they would fuck up.

It's not intended to be an attack on you. It's not an attack on your profession. It highlights how a professional organization can raise the quality of everyone they interact with. Like it or not, wal-mart makes its suppliers better. Maybe it takes talking, cajoling or even dirty tricks, but the key idea is you can make your suppliers better. Don't be afraid to be very sneaky in your thinking to get what you need from your suppliers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Down for me, but

[http://web.archive.org/web/20080305234616/http://jimcofer.co...](http://web.archive.org/web/20080305234616/http://jimcofer.com/personal/?p=621)

worked

<comment><USER20> or google cache: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fF_iKzP...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fF_iKzPOgaQJ:jimcofer.com/personal/%3Fp%3D621+van+halen+site:jimcofer.com/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The counter-argument is, of course, that someone who knows they can't fulfill all contractual clauses will try to check off the easy ones only - <USER2> the risible demand that M&Ms be sorted. The argument in the article is simply invalid, because it can be used to justify everything - the more unreasonable, the better!

Instead of such a ridiculous demand, they could have just picked a couple of random, but useful clauses from the contract (like the number of sockets) and checked those instead. Yes, it would have taken a couple of extra minutes, but certainly a huge concert is worth that.

<comment><USER22> You might be being downvoted because:

Even if you are right (that they might just implement the easy ones), you don't actually lose anything by adding the clause. At worse case, you're as bad off as if you didn't have it. Not exactly a "counter-argument" since you don't actually lose anything.

As for why not just pick something else...It's hard to tell without the full list...how do you test that something can hold 600lbs? Even if there is something relatively easy, say, that sockets are X feet apart from each other...again, what's the harm in 1 additional quick check? (and if you say their reputation, I'd argue it might have helped their reputation as oppose to harm it)

<comment><USER23> You waste the time and resources of the venue and cause some lackey to hate his job.

<comment><USER24> Said lackey just got paid to eat a whole bunch of brown M&Ms.

<comment><USER25> Not to mention the fact that once you've acknowledged that you've read the contract, likely you'd be able to strike the M&M provision.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Always assumed they were just a bunch of divas for doing this, but now it makes sense :)

When I was in charge of leading meetings as chairman of a study association, I used to do something similar. Every once in a while, the secretary and I would conspire to put some easter eggs in the list of decisions or action items, such as "Person X will bring a fresh, home-baked cake to the meeting on Y". If that person did not object during the meeting the minutes were accepted, it was a playful reminder to prepare for meetings, with a perk of free cake :D

</comment><comment><USER27> So I have a question about these riders: some of them specify a lot of specific equipment like amps and mixers... does the venue really provide that? Do they rent it, or is the listing just like a minimum spec and the artist and venue negotiate to use what is already on site at the venue?

<comment><USER28> Power requirements back in the early days of mega-tours were a big deal. Some arenas did not have power capacity much in excess of what was necessary for the house lights and PA. An acquaintance in the mobile generating business used to tell stories about when an act like Van Halen came to town they would need to set up several semi-trailers worth of portable diesel generators at the back of the venue to be able to power their light show and amplifiers.

<comment><USER29> I've often wondered before about this. How do you plug in a big generator set without disturbing the power company? I imagine they would get pissed if all of a sudden they are getting weird frequency or voltage perturbations down the line.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> There was a very detailed Metallica rider online that I read some time ago. Quite entertaining. Might be this one?

<http://www.thesmokinggun.com/backstage/hall-fame/metallica>

<comment><USER14> You mean FRANTIC INC.,(METALLICA)? You'd miss that important distinction if you didn't look closely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> This really made me want to put aside some time to read the David Lee Roth autobiography. I love learning little bits like this about people who are generally recognized as idiots in the public eye. Fantastic.

</comment><comment><USER32> Seems like re-using the same stipulation wouldn't work longer term.

<comment><USER33> It's not this specific stipulation that matters, but the arbitrary specificity of the particular requirement that clues you into whether or not they read the contract. You can change it from Brown M&Ms to something like 'a blue fur coat' or 'two pairs of wooden clogs' and it would have the same effect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> maybe we should have had van halen review the CDS contracts that nearly brought down the financial system.</comment>


Why You Shouldn't Watch Porn on Your iPad or iPhone - <AUTHOR> https://ma.ttias.be/when-private-browsing-isnt-private-on-ios-html5-and-airplay/?m

<comment><USER2> I thought this was going to be about a much riskier issue that I've heard surprisingly few complaints about. iOS apps take a screenshot when you close them so they can show that right away when reopened to cover the load time. This makes perfect sense except the problem is the screenshots seem to frequently get mixed up and you'll get a random screenshot from weeks ago when opening Safari.

This happens to me often and I have a moment of, "Wait, I didn't think that was still ope-- oh, there's the real last site." But I've thought about what would happen if someone was watching porn weeks ago and then opened Safari in front of others in a professional setting.

</comment><comment><USER3> So it basically means we could track users using local storage instead of cookies...?

This is bad.

</comment><comment><USER4> Just dedicate a browser other than your normal one to porn. Eg if you use Safari use the Opera browser for porn.

<comment><USER5> That doesn't prevent opera from storing data in HTML5.

<comment><USER4> Just kill the app afterwards.

"This meta info of the media played is only removed after you forcefully close the browser."

And no worries about the saved screenshot either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It would be nice if apple would disable all these "features" when the user wants to go incognito.

</comment><comment><USER7> i think the porn word in the title is some poor link bait.</comment>


Spain struggles with shifted-schedule interruptions like some startups - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/world/europe/spain-land-of-10-pm-dinners-ponders-a-more-standard-time.html?hp&_r=1

<comment><USER2> One thing I notice as a Brit living in Barcelona, look at it on the map. The majority of Spain is west of Grenwich meridian. Yet the clock is set an hour forward of GMT. So if you are going to bed here at 1am, then in the UK it will be still be 12am, yet most of Spain will have more light.

At the end of the day its just a number, as most of you will probably have it shifted by an hour a couple of times a year.

</comment><comment><USER3> Spain is probably the best place to party. I love their 10PM dinners and going out till morning, but probably I couldn't live with their schedule every day.</comment>