What would be great is if you could add a clause stating that any assertion of copyright (by them), including automated systems, would result in a revocation of the license. Then whenever you get a notice from youtube respond by demanding take-down or monetization of their videos.
Everyone seems to criticize Theranos but I'm 99% sure other labs have similar variances in results without a WSJ story. The FDA should investigate Quest and the other labs. With the Electronic Health Records, relying on a single lab result could be problematic.
It appears that most tests done by Theranos are using the same techniques as any other lab, so naturally the variances would be similar. The only test their Edison machine is FDA approved for is herpes simplex. They have caught some flak, however, for allegedly diluting blood samples before standard analysis.
Basically, the story is this:
1) The founder of Theranos is afraid of blood
2) Theranos invents a new low volume blood draw technology and test mechanism (which contains many subtests)
3) The test they use to augment their limited test is a commercial product that works on larger volumes of blood
4) because their test doesn't actually work all that well (I actually don't know enough about this part, as their work is mostly secret) they have to pivot a bunch of of their tests to using a different company's test machine
5) Those other commercial products actually do work with smaller volumes of blood, diluted to larger volumes, in case you can't get a large volume from a patient
There isn't anything wrong with Theranos diluting blood to make their tests work with another commercial product (this is a legitimate use). However, it does seem to suggest that the technology that hyped Theranos up to a multibillion value isn't as good as was claimed; instead, Theranos is mostly just another conventional provider of diagnostic tests. If they're just another conventional provider, it sort of kills the whole startup story and investment, because why would you invest in a disruptor if you can make money from the establishment?
That said, it's common to see startups start with a really ambitious goal, fail, then pivot to become more conventional companies with decent but not spectacular revenue streams.
> because their test doesn't actually work all that well (I actually don't know enough about this part, as their work is mostly secret) they have to pivot a bunch of of their tests to using a different company's test machine
This is like if every time you fetched an Uber, a yellow cab showed up! Except for one market out of 200, where they run five black cars, in a small SF neighborhood.
My understanding is that only the Edison machine uses finger prick amounts. However, it sounds like since these machines don't work they are using standard instruments. For these they take venous blood draws, just using a child-sized vacuum tube instead of an adult-sized vacuum tube. She talked about using the child-sized vacuum tubes in an interview. Not really a big differentiator in my opinion.
> As of January 5, 2015, a search in PubMed using Theranos as a search term identified affiliations for only 2 unrelated articles coauthored by Theranos Inc employees, although these 2 reports do not offer insights about their company.
> Clarke argues that finger-stick blood tests aren’t reliable for clinical diagnostic tests; because the blood isn’t drawn from a vein, the sample can be contaminated by lanced capillaries or damaged tissue. Holmes strongly disagrees: “We have data that show you can get a perfect correlation between a finger stick and a venipuncture for every test that we run.” When I asked for evidence, I was sent a document by Daniel P. Edlin, Theranos’s senior product manager, titled “Select Data.” It purported to show favorable results from numerous comparison tests. I asked Edlin if the tests had been conducted by an independent third party. He replied by e-mail: “The clinical tests were conducted by a combination of Theranos and external labs,” but he wouldn’t say which ones.
> When I asked Holmes for evidence that her tests were independently audited, she said that there have been “tens” of audits and “external third-party comparisons” of Theranos’s tests, including those done by the hospital groups that are adopting its finger-prick tests and the pharmaceutical companies that have contracted with Theranos for testing their products. Holmes says that Theranos is certified in forty-eight states, with two more applications pending, under the federal Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988. Under the amendments, laboratories like hers must be certified before they can perform tests for the general public, and their performance is evaluated three times a year by the College of American Pathologists. Holmes also pointed me to a pilot study published by Hematology Reports, an online-only peer-reviewed journal; she is listed as a co-author. The report, released in April, concluded that Theranos tests “correlated highly with values obtained” from standard lab tests.
One thing about the RPV/Quadcopter debate that is rarely mentioned is the reason why they don't use ADS-B transponders.
The FAA requires ADS-B trasponders to have high accuracy GPS, and that pushes the cost to over $2,000 per device. It would be logical for the FAA to relax the GPS requirement slightly, so a cheap GPS module is sufficient to alert nearby aircraft of RPV activity over a certain altitude (eg. 200ft AGL) These RPV-grade ADS-B transponders could use a limited signal output, to avoid nuisance pop-ups from longer distances. The transponder Mode-S ID uniquely identifies the RPV.
It would be possible for a transponder to use an alternate channel frequency, similar to how many General Aviation aircraft use 978Mhz ADS-B. Even with an alternate RPV channel, the RPV operators would still be alerted to regular aircraft operations.
Interesting idea although there are a lot of technical issues that would make what you describe more challenging. A simpler approach is positive enforcement. Force manufacturers to hard code drones to not fly near airports or other restricted areas and not fly above 200 ft.
Model aircraft have existed for a long time and there's been a good relationship with the FAA and few incidents. The challenge is that technology has advanced to the point that these modern "drones" are almost too easy to fly. Any idiot can watch some YouTube videos and then they think they're a pilot. Given that, to the extent possible the aviation regulations should be enforced at the device level to make these things as idiot proof in terms of busting airspace regs as they are idiot proof to fly.
A "drone region lockout" bypass (using spoofed GPS signals) was showcased by a team at Def Con this year. They showed video of their drone taking off inside restricted airspace in Beijing. In other words, if someone wants to deliberately break the rules, they're going to find a way. I guess it would still prevent accidental airspace violation.
My main concern is that the definition of "restricted airspace" is likely to increase if this becomes a standard. E.g. the National Park Service would probably lobby to have all of their airspace included, even though it's a nuisance to some people in national parks instead of a safety concern.
"Real" airplanes have the same issue. That's why all the charts and databases are updated frequently and pilots are responsible for ensuring the latest data is available and loaded into the onboard computers. On a typical small general aviation airplane that typically involves uodating the electronic flight bag app on your iPad and popping a new memory card into the on board navigation computer.
Other short term updates (like firefighting flight restrictions) are reviewed by the pilots on official FAA endorsed websites or by calling a flight service center (like customer support for pilots) before each flight. One of the most basic elements of the required preflight planning for any flight of a "real" airplane is to do all the above to make sure you have the latest data and know about any temporary restrictions.
There's no reason why drone pilots couldn't or shouldn't be required to perform a simplified version of the above before flight (if you want to do anything other than flying the thing under the treeline in your own backyard).
Certification and also a lot more technology behind figuring out when the position data is inaccurate. Aviation GPS units will run forward looking simulations (for example when flying a GPS landing approach) and figure out that satellites are about to be in a suboptimal position and warn the pilot accordingly.
That makes no sense, unless your software guys work for free. The cost of software development has to be paid for out of the price of the devices. Aviation is a very limited market, so you don't have a lot of sales to amortize those costs.
The sales volume of consumer GPS units, however, is extremely large; if there is any pure software improvement to be made, even if the benefit for those devices is quite low, I'd expect it to be commonplace. Does anyone have a citation for aviation GPS using more sophisticated algorithms than consumer GPS?
Aviation stuff isn't necessarily an improvement for consumer units, though. For example, an aviation unit used for precision approaches or collision avoidance needs to detect when accuracy decreases below minimums, alert the pilot, and disable the functionality. For a consumer unit you just keep pumping out inaccurate, best-effort numbers.
Appeal to fear isn't an argument. Either the precision is right or it isn't. Precision requirements aren't unique to aviation and aviation doesn't even have the strictest requirements. The required precision of surveying equipment is much higher than what aviation needs.
I would have much more faith in an open source project with lots of people independently verifying the precision of calculations for known devices than closed source stuff from aviation companies that hide behind fear rather than real justifications for the price.
The cost of these devices are much greater than the cost to implement the feature we are talking about though (alerting on bad precision). You can argue that the cost should be high because of intelligence about runway approaches, but just knowing that the precision is bad is not an excuse.
Just how accurate is this 2000$ GPS supposed to be? Because my 40$ Ublox M8N GNSS modules on several copters produce a solid lock with constant HDOP<1.5 under normal conditions, averaging around ~1.5m horizontal position deviation, and altitude is locked in via barometer down to several cm. To get more position accuracy, you really need DGPS, which AFAIK planes don't normally use either... and do those couple meters really matter?
Sounds like a market that is ripe for disruption. $2,000 cannot be remotely close to the cost of production. This price is the result of having a small, wealthy customer base that is required by law to purchase it. If someone introduces one with pricing that reflects both the cost of production and a dramatically expanded customer base, that company will make a ton of money.
Just like medical devices or military hardware don't cost X to manufacture the cost is in the degree of certification required. Your MVP might look like it does all the same stuff but it is about proving things like mean time between failure, climatic conditions it can operate in etc.
In this case, any up-front costs, such as certification and R&D, can be amortized over each unit sold in the dramatically expanded market. If the market suddenly goes from a few thousand units per year to a few hundred thousand, the contribution that each unit sold must make to recoup up-front costs gets very close to zero.
The problem today is that with LinkedIn and Facebook, some CIA personnel are stupid enough to actually mention their status with the Agency, or are friends/connections with known CIA Analysts etc. who do mention their status.
Honestly, the CIA should want you to too. The more randos listing fake intelligence activities that can't be easily discounted, the more time russian counterintelligence has to spend chasing down false leads.
The first part matters a lot less now that the enemy has a copy of all the data the office of personel had collected (everything on everybody with a security clearence who were not CIA). If somebody has access to classified material as part of his/her work and is not on that list that person is CIA.
Some people work for the CIA as analysts or even basic jobs like accounting. It's not all one big super secret thing. If it were you wouldn't have the top spots like the head of recruitment or the director known. There's one professor at my alma mater who is openly known as a in-resident CIA officer and helps people with their tradecraft, it's all on his university site profile page.
I interviewed with the CIA out of college. The first thing they do during interviews is disabuse the applicant of any notion he's applying to be James Bond. The clandestine people are only a tiny, tiny portion of the organization.
Mostly what people do in Langley is move paper from one side of the (electronic) desk to the other, and I don't think foreign powers have any trouble photographing and identifying them as they arrive at the office.
Not for the price. $1 trillion is a really step price tag for a "decent aircraft". As for the sensor package and stealth, I'm not entirely sure that suitable upgrades to the F-16 and F-18 series wouldn't have been a better option. Besides, for $1trillion, it should be possible to develop three or four different aircraft with specialist capabilities and use them together.
i agree, albeit by that rationale you'd better get a Rafale - its the same kind of plane as the F35, minus a few nice features but much cheaper. Which is exactly why the only nations getting an F35 are US allies not making their own aircrafts. others either:
There is actually a FDA "waiver" process known as a "Humanitarian Device Exemption" for medical devices.
The FDA does allow compounding pharmacies  to produce orphan drugs that are not otherwise available commercially.
The big issue with using compounding pharmacies to produce orphan drugs is that these drugs can't be marketed for a specific use. The approval is as much about how the drug is marketed as the drug itself.
The reason why the case of Daraprim  is so outrageous is that the drug is approved and in production, and the increase is profit for the "marketing" drug company.