-
Posts
39730 -
Joined
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by TwiceHorn
-
-
3 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:
One thing that is possible is that Mueller concluded that members of the Trump campaign did work with Russians to release damaging info on Hillary, but that such acts did not violate any law. Which would be very bad, even if not criminal.
I have wondered about this. The law forbidding foreign contributions seems broad enough to encompass most of that, but maybe some of the facts just didn't fit.
-
11 minutes ago, Nueces River Rat said:
The fact they got federal approval for lab service by DHS without them even looking at the device inside and out should give everyone the shits about how really safe conventional blood testing labs are operating.
It would have been nice to see how much money they contributed to politicians and exactly how much each got in key congressional committees, etc.
That's a great point. They weren't initially certified or regulated at all under the Laboratory Developed Test "loophole." https://www.statnews.com/2016/11/18/fda-lab-test-loophole/ But, were subject to inspection, leading to the downfall.
So not applicable to testing labs more generically.
-
Just now, JimmyJames said:
Its hilarious that the right wing trolls and their multiple socks have suddenly come back in full force, even though nobody knows what the report says.
Its almost like it was, I dunno, coordinated somehow.
These guys are as predictable as the morning sun.
You and Hugo need to find a word other than troll for the people you disagree with that aren't trolls in any conventional sense of the term.
-
7
-
1
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Laxtonto said:
If there are no other indictments, sealed or otherwise, and the report won’t contain anything that would be disparaging to those not charged with a crime, doesn’t that mean it is going to pretty much contain nothing very little substance? Based on this , it can really be about Russia collusion and essentially will a troll farm, process crimes and Manafort and then what?
We don't know that bolded part. Certainly has been emphasized lately. But, as I said, I think there's a difference between those not charged for lack of evidence and those not charged because of an immunity.
-
15 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:
CNN just reported unequivocally no, nothing sealed, it's done. (At least from Mueller, that doesn't mean SDNY doesn't have farmed out cases.)
That has to be correct. There should be nothing left for the SCO to do with the delivery of this report. I suppose he's even handed off the Gates and
MattisFlynn, sentencings and the further Stone proceedings. There's the sentencing of that one schmuck that was complicit with the Russian, too. -
8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:
This is just the beginning. If true, the reports that Barr is going to brief congress over the weekend indictes Barr, Rosenstein, and Mueller had a plan in place and they are executing it.
Not sure how to read the swiftness being good for Trump.
Eh. I think the plan was just to follow 28 CFR 600. Depending on whether the report is 60 or 600 pages, maybe Barr had some advance notice of the contents.
Also, I think this is probably the last great hope for articles of impeachment. The congress lacks the competence, much less the political will, in my opinion, to develop a case for impeachment.
-
3 minutes ago, Gap03 said:
So how many of the sealed indictments in DC are from the SCO? And when do they get unsealed?
I'm also curious about the mystery company subpoena. The SCO is still pursuing that but is somehow in a position to release the report anyway. Does that mean that they have sufficient info to indict or release a conclusion about whoever was tangled up in that mess, and they're just pursuing info from the foreign govt. to put an extra nail in that person's coffin?
Now it's just a principle of law, I guess. Pretty clearly the evidence not critical to the investigation.
-
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:
From the Special Counsel's office, yes.
From other jurisdictions, no.
Yup, believe this is right.
Also:
Quote"I am reviewing this report and anticipate that I may be in a position to advise you of the Special Counsel's principal conclusions as soon as this weekend," Barr wrote in a letter on Friday to a group of lawmakers on the House and Senate judiciary committees.
That indicates to me that it is, indeed, a comprehensive report.
-
2 hours ago, Not a cat said:
How the hell does anyone within 200 miles of DFW, much less an SMU alum, not realize SMU is expensive as hell? Even if he was on the GI bill, he had to have some idea how much it cost.
I think I'm roughly the same vintage as twicehorn (began UT in Fall 87) and I vaguely remember sending my SAT scores to UT and that's about it. I don't remember exactly what else was required but it could not have been too complicated if my mess of a teenage self was able to handle it.
Why would parents of an only child, when there's a local, decent, but not great school, be aware that SMU had extraordinarily high tuition? I graduated HS in 84 before SMU was a household name for profligate spending of all types. It was just assumed that that was what college was going to cost, with allowances for public/private and other variations. It sort of represented average to them. $4 a semester hour was almost incomprehensible. Dallas County Community Colleges were more than that, $32/hour I believe.
I don't know when it became really expensive. Maybe it always has been. By the time I was looking at colleges, we were aware that they could afford just about any place without further sacrifice. My parents were maniac savers.
But before the scandals in the 80s, nobody really thought of SMU as some expensive haven for rich spoiled brats who partied a lot and did tons of drugs. It's where a lot of people in Dallas went to college. Fin.
-
1 minute ago, Chewbacca said:
You would be too if you knew she was full of shit and you were vindicated years later. I'm sure she took a lot of heat over the years over that stance.
Eh, "everyone's a critic." I don't think she took any heat because I don't think she was public with it. She's barely mentioned in Carreyrou's book (he apparently considered and rejected her as a source) and I've never seen anything that indicated that she was the great doomsayer of Theranos. She is also associated loosely in the book with that maniac Fuisz, who seems to be a narcissistic headcase in his own right, although clearly coming in second to Lizzie.
-
2 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:
In the podcast, she got more into why she thought Holmes was full of shit. Primarily, she had been at Stanford for one semester and was an engineering student. She didn't know jack shit about medicine or blood testing. Gardner saw that what Holmes wanted was a quick path to greatness and wealth and that's when she pawned her off on the other Stanford professor that Holmes snowed.
That I can definitely buy. She came off as a little smug in the HBO doc, but that could have just been editing.
-
2 hours ago, Incredulity said:
I have personally experienced a number of occasions where large companies did everything in their power to stop innovations because they had such a vested interest in the status quo.
Also, even if the culture of the company is to innovate getting an innovation implimented past the 14 senior VP's is a monumental task. The VP's motivation, very often, is to keep the train on the tracks till they can retire. Not burn the thing to the ground so the consumer can get 200 blood tests in real time.
P.S. the above isn't an anti-capitalism rant. Actually the exact opposite. The most common mechanism that allows new innovation to see the light of day is start-ups and smaller organizations.
2 hours ago, HouTex said:Agreed. Many companies simply don't innovate even when the innovation would seem obvious. You'd have thought Yellow Cab could have easily developed something like Uber. They already had a network of drivers and a brand.
As for Holmes, I see people like this all the time in business. They are very smart and driven. They think that sheer will power can overcome the technical problems with their idea. I have seen several smart oil and gas CEO's with similar personality traits during the latest oil bust--during the earlier one's as well. Their businesses failed not because they bet wrong on oil and gas prices and/or their assets sucked, and/or they simply had too much debt. Their execution was brilliant. It was someone else's fault--the Saudis were a prime target--it's easy to blame them.
Another thing about people like Holmes. Investors/employees/the public often fall for smart, articulate people. Especially the articulate ones. Carnival barkers did well because they were great speakers. And when the barker is smart, they can really do some damage if they have no scruples.
Holmes dismissed out of hand the negative comments to her patch idea by the Stanford professor. In her mind, because it's her idea and because she's the smartest person in the room, she can make it happen. I'm sure she will tell a convincing lie in her criminal trial. She's charming enough that she just might get off saying that she thought it could work and never knew it couldn't.
I don't doubt that these companies exist, but they don't live and die by research and product development like Abbott, Beckmann Coulter, Siemens and others in this "space."
Most smart companies know that you can't bury an idea forever and doubly or triply so if it has entered the patent system. It's going to get out and you are going to have to compete with it at some point. So you get busy livin or get busy dyin.
Cab companies are a great example. Never known for innovation, they blew it off and are busy dyin.
-
4 minutes ago, bschoolprof said:
On The Dropout podcast, they interviewed a Stanford med prof who met Holmes when she was a Freshman. The prof said a) she told Holmes (at the time) her ideas were full of shit and would never work, and b) Holmes had a normal voice back then. This prof saw Holmes a few years later at an event with her fake voice and was appalled.
She's featured in the HBO doc. Phyllis Gardner. In the doc, she acted like she "saw through everything," but the only thing she articulated is that you cant administer antibiotics through the skin because the dosage requirements are too high. That was an aspect of Holmes' earliest conception of her invention, but formed no real part of Theranos. She didn't for instance, point out that skin prick sampling is always going to be highly problematic because of contamination on the skin and by the puncture, and the low volume sample that doesn't dilute that contamination. And it just goes downhill, technically, from there.
-
56 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:
The way the do their uppers is probably a way to save on costs. First, they are slightly shorter than traditional boots. Less material, lower costs. Second, they are not sewn through like most nicer boots. The lining leather has no seems poking out inside and the little stitching they have doesn't go through the lining. They tout these inside out uppers as a good thing on their website, but if you compare most nicer boots with cheaper work boots you will only see this in cheaper boots. Whether or not this effects the longevity of them I don't know. They also talk about a cork footbed under the foot. This usually means that the Goodyear welt is attached to fabric that is then glued to the insole (not the semiremovable bit of foam and fabric, but the innermost layer of structural leather). This is opposed to the traditional and more expensive method of stitching the welt directly to the insole. The glue method obviously doesn't last as long and is harder to repair if something happens, but having a cork filler doesn't automatically mean they use the glue method. I'd have to have a pair in hand to deconstruct to say for sure. Regardless, they are obviously good boots and get good reviews from virtually everybody, and I'd have to tear them apart along with other boots in the same price range to really determine how they are made and whether or not they are better.
Yep, I have no doubt that the "corded" shaft is a cost-cutting measure. I have never owned corded shaft boots, so I don't know if any stitching is supposed to come through the lining, but it is on regular, stitched boots. Last time I was in a western store, I noticed that a number of the cheaper boots (including, I think, shockingly some Lucchese 1883 or whatever their low end model was/is) had multi row stitching that didn't go through the lining. Weird looking.
There is a video on their site showing their construction methods to some degree. I believe you can see both pegs and brass nails being used in the arch.
https://player.vimeo.com/video/141478656
I'd be real interested in your comments and observations on that.
-
38 minutes ago, baboso said:
Heel slippage is normal until the boot breaks in to your foot.
This is true, but that also implies a pretty tight instep (a bitch to get on/off). If he can almost sling it off his foot, it doesn't fit right. Heel slippage should be due to the stiffness of the sole, not the fact that your foot moves up and down in the boot because it's too wide or long.
A really proper-fitting western boot will be the most comfortable, and not just because it isn't rubbing/pinching your heels or toes or whatever. When it's just right, your foot is "caught" over the arch and there isn't any tendency to slide forward or back and there isn't a ton of weight on the ball of your foot, so it doesn't feel like wearing a hard, leather soled shoe. And that type of fit tends to mean that it is pretty difficult to get on and off at first, and, until the sole breaks in, slips a little at the heel.
If you have never had a proper fitting boot, getting one will be a revelation, most likely.
-
Just now, Catdaddyhorn said:
Maybe it was more about the intimidation of a big school and financial aid stuff. Because you're right applying was the easy part. But figuring out dorm request, financial aid, I remember UT being a lot less responsive in those matters than friends who went to smaller schools.
True enough. My Dad had gone to SMU on the GI Bill, and I was a late, adopted child. So my parents had saved sufficiently to pay for SMU, not realizing it was among the most expensive schools in the country at the time (~$400/hour vs. $4 for Texas), so I was set from a financial standpoint.
But yeah, those collateral things like housing were where you got a flavor for how little of a fuck UT gave about you.
On the other hand, by the time I hit upper division with good grades, I was rather surprised how much attention you started to get.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:
Yeah I agree. As a guy who got into UT during the mid 90s I take for granted how easy it was to get in back then compared to now and how the perception of UT as a super elite institution has also changed. It's not just the 10% rule that has changed things and made it more competitive. The internet has made going to college and getting financial aid much more transparent and thus less intimidating for kids who probably didn't apply to a school like UT back in the day ( your guy or girl from 1st generation immigrant families, or white kid whose parents didn't go to college, kids from rural outpost, and kids from the inner cities). Back in my day even for a guy whose parents went to UT applying for college, financial aid, and everything that came with it was almost a blackbox process. There was a lot of uncertainty surrounding test preparation, applying for schools, and getting financial aid stuff together. My Dad paid for some guy to walk us through the process. I can think of a lot of high school friends who were extremely smart but either applied to small schools like Trinity or Austin college or stayed at home to go to UTD, UTA, SMU, & North Texas because applying and going to UT seemed overwhelming. Now every person who fits the above category applies to UT with no hesitation.
Weird. I just sent my SAT score to UT and got a letter back saying "you're in." I also applied to Plan II and Honors Engineering, and for some small merit-based 'ships, which were all more like a private school and a bit of a hassle. I can't imagine that Austin College, Trinity, and SMU were any easier to apply to.
But I was one of the last years where you could get in on test score alone. But, as I recall (and I may be confusing LSAT here), didn't CTS do a distillation of your high school transcript also that you could send along with your SAT score?
-
16 hours ago, Kyle said:
That's one way to spin regulations enacted by a Democrat DOJ in light of the recent impeachment of said Democrat President. Tell me more how Russian hackers changed paper ballots.
Not really spin, pretty factual. The DOJ policy is based on a 73 policy established by a Republican administration on the eve of resignation.
The Special Counsel rules are facially neutral and just filled a vacuum left with the expiration of the Independent Counsel law, which Clinton had vigorously supported that last time it was up for expiration. One thing they did do, according to Katyal, the drafter, was give the SC and AG some latitude with respect to the report so that the Monica Lewinskys of future investigations perhaps would not receive so much attention.
If you feel a need to attach a bias to any of it, it's more pro-President than pro-anything else.
-
8 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:
Even at UT flunking out of school typically has nothing to do with whether one is smart enough to do the work. It has everything to do with whether they're willing or disciplined enough to do the work. A person who isn't prepared or equipped enough to finish some majors such as any of the engineering disciplines can always find another major they can finish, even at UT.
Don't disagree. But at least until recently perhaps, UT has not considered itself super-selective, so they don't maintain the facade of "you can't come here unless you prove you can do the work." Texas, particularly in our day, was "bring it, dildo, we'll flunk your ass out with quickness if you aren't ready and willing, regardless of your record (and you will have been only an SSN to us)."
I would submit that Texas' solid reputation is based not on elite admissions, at all, but rather on graduates who proved they could do the work and by requiring substantial work to graduate.
-
2
-
-
12 hours ago, Incredulity said:
No defense of Theranos/Holmes. Faking till you make it with blood tests is criminal.
There is a lot of truth in the fake it till you make it. Get the job figure the details later is very common. Also, don’t overestimate the capability of large organizations like Siemens, Abbot.... they rarely are able to execute much innovation due to the scale and bureaucracy of their organizations.
Thoroughly disagree here, although I guess we can quibble about the meaning of "execute much innovation."
Yes, there are often details to be worked out in any kind of invention. But the scale of what Holmes proposed was pretty huge in terms of number of required innovations to execute to make it work.
One way to gauge the likelihood of success of an invention is to look at the competitive landscape. Is it full of well-capitalized companies with R&D departments that pump out new/improved products at a healthy clip? If so, it's pretty likely that they are either working on the same type of things (as reflected by their patent filings) or have failed in their efforts because the "invention" is impractical.
Holmes' idea wasn't that ground breaking. It was essentially do it faster and cheaper with less blood. I suspect every company in the diagnostic space is working on innovations in that area.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:
Mueller was never going to link Trump to collusion because how would he do that? What would that look like? What would be the criminal charge? You can't indict a sitting president therefore "no crime took place".
Trump colluded with Russia in broad daylight, I don't know if that's a crime but everyone could see it if they looked.
I never understood why we needed Mueller to come out and be some minister of truth to tell us what most of us already know.
People chose to ignore overwhelming evidence pre-Mueller, they will choose to ignore overwhelming evidence post-Mueller.
/active measures works
I get that the Special Counsel rules were drafted with discretion and flexibility built in with the underlying idea of taking care not to besmirch the uncharged and relatively innocent (e.g. Monica Lewinsky) in any report.
But I don't think that notion applies when the uncharged party is immune under law or policy. I have always maintained that, if the facts support it, Mueller would state "there is probable cause to believe the President committed the following offenses . . . . . Nevertheless no indictment has been brought on these charges because of the policy against indictment of a sitting President under 24. Op. OLC 222."
I suppose it's possible that there is no such language, but I hope it's somehow clarified that it's because theres no evidence, not simply because there are no charges. The rules specifically contemplate reporting of declination decisions to the AG, so one would have to think the report will itemize those "chargeable but uncharged."
I find it difficult to believe that Mueller doesn't prepare a comprehensive report, whether required to or not. It seems to be within his discretion to do so.
-
4 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:
That's a pretty big assumption. If they bribed their way into school it is not out of the question that they could buy their grades as well.
True enough, but again, kind of depends on how complicit the kid was. Also, "buying" an entire degree's worth of grades (shorthand for any form of cheating), without being caught a) seems unlikely and b) would seem to require some institutional complicity (UNC).
I think one reason the schools are getting so uptight about this is it punctures the facade that they have stringent entrance requirements because only the academically elite can handle their work.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Fudge Nuggets said:
Now this sounds like something the NCAA could get involved with.
Reggie Bush, iimo.
-
On 3/20/2019 at 10:24 AM, Beau Vine said:
Being concerned about "the appearance of education" is actually much worse than not being concerned about education, IMO.
That's what caused this whole situation, you know. See also Rick Perry's "Closing the Gaps" initiative that tried to turn every university in the state into diploma mills.
Probably right about this from a moral standpoint. However, I was thinking more along the lines of "put kid in school, kid still has to put in the work to really get anything from it."
One might think that an unqualified kid whose parents have to resort to these measures would flunk out pretty quick, but because USC is revoking degrees, it would appear not to be the case. I have kind of mixed feelings about that. I certainly get that a fraudulent entry maybe should render the whole thing "void ab initio," particularly if the student was complicit. On the other hand, they did put in the work.
The Robert Mueller Investigation
in Cloak Room
Posted
If making conclusory posts and not contributing anything of substance to threads is trolling, and trolling is a bannable offense, then we need to ban about 95% of this board.
Being wrong or a gloating asshole without justification is still not trolling.