"in my opinion this guy is like Jenny McCarthy"

When Jenny McCarthy found out that what she was saying was wrong and harmful, she largely retracted her entire position. Oz knows what he's saying is wrong and harmful, but he keeps doing it, for the money.

"and not micromanage it". That's the rub. The micromanaging, the reporting and compliance costs, can be over 50% of the cost for some federal contracts, but most of the time that's required by thousands upon thousands of pages of federal law. When you have a comoany that knows how to do a certain thing , aka one of those evil corporations, getting hired by the federal government, some people want to do a lot of paperwork and stuff to keep track of what's going on, and other people go crazy with it. The organization I work for used to do a lot of federal contracts. We quit and now just do state contracts for states that are reasonable.

    Still other people added a bunch of requirements for federal contracting that aren't really relevant to the project. For example, how many black women work for each of your major suppliers? How much do your interns make? Are all of the web pages and documentation you've ever made fully accessible to people who are both blind and deaf?

We quit dealing with the feds and certain states because it's just not worth it. It would cost SPACEX five times as much to build a federally-contracted rocket than it costs to build their own.

You can't fire a faculty member because outside the scope of his duties he expresses an opinion you don't like -- even if it's a clearly crackpot opinion. If you could, Stanford would have kicked Linus Pauling out when he became a Vitamin C crackpot.

The difference, though, is that Pauling was a sincere crackpot -- brilliant people are often susceptible to crackpottery because they're so used to being more right than their neighbors. Dr. Oz is a snake-oil salesman; when he's faced with people who are educated -- not necessarily scientists but critical thinkers -- in a forum he doesn't control, he speaks in a much more equivocal fashion. That shows he knows the language he uses on his show and in his magazine is irresponsible.

So selling snake-oil isn't crackpottery, it's misconduct. But somebody's got to find, chapter and verse, the specific institutional rules of conduct Dr. Oz's misconduct violates. There will have to be due process, particularly if he's a tenured professor, which will probably require lesser disciplinary measures than dismissal be tried first.

The charges (as given in the summary) didn't explicitly mention Monstanto. Personally, I believe that GMO foods are a good idea...as long as they aren't patented, and are evaluated for safety by people who don't have a financial stake in the result.

Unfortunately....

Rather Dr. Oz has an agenda in spinning his response so it looks like his accusers have an agenda.

Police: Joe robbed a grocery store last week and shot five people this week!

Joe: It's not fair to say I robbed the grocery store. The owner was greedy and ripping people off!

Here's the relevant portions of the letter in question:
As described here and here, as well as in other publications, Dr. Oz has repeatedly shown disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine, as well as baseless and relentless opposition to the genetic engineering of food crops. Worst of all, he has manifested an egregious lack of integrity by promoting quack treatments and cures in the interest of personal financial gain.

Thus, Dr. Oz is guilty of either outrageous conflicts of interest or flawed judgements about what constitutes appropriate medical treatments, or both. Whatever the nature of his pathology, members of the public are being misled and endangered, which makes Dr. Oz's presence on the faculty of a prestigious medical institution unacceptable.

I see one reference to GMO opposition and two or three references to quack science and conflicts of interest. Dr. Oz's rebuttal on the other hand only specifically mentions the GMO's.

It's a clever PR ploy on Dr. Oz's part, focus on the milder part of the accusation and suggest a conspiracy. Meanwhile ignore the more serious accusations that are much harder to defend.

Only because it's socially unacceptable to even joke about that / most people don't find that very funny / some people may not recognize it as a joke, and it can cause panic since the joke is too "believable", so even jokingly it's a terrorist threat.

On the other hand..... "Dropping O2 masks"; isn't the same.

Even if it's not a joke: how exactly is that life-threatening?

Dropping O2 masks falsely would be property damage for the airline, since now they would incur additional expenses after the flight to restore/reset safety systems, not a life-threatening event in itself.

So?

There had been smart phones around for years before the iPhone. And before that, we had PalmPilots. And yet, the first round of apps from the App Store and the first round of apps on Android, were both pretty craptacular too. The first round of apps on the iPad were little more than inflated versions of their iPhone counterparts. Most of the early (decent) PS4 games were just "remastered" released of PS3 titles. And then there's the whole Windows 8 fiasco, which took place years after desktops, smartphones, and tablets had all been on the market for years, but managed to be bloody awful on all three.

When developers target a new platform, it takes a bit of time before they get good at it. News at eleven.

When you don't know all the facts, you go with the probabilities. When you can't call everyone in for an interview, you call in the more promising candidates. This is going to screw some people over, and that's not fair. It's going to happen, and somebody who tries to judge job applicants by a limited number of things is going to do slightly worse than somebody who intelligently uses all available data.

Nor am I talking about automatically hiring a woman. I'm talking about reasoning that, statistically speaking, a woman may be a better hire than a man of equal qualifications. Obviously, if you think an applicant might be disruptive, you don't hire that person, regardless of sex, species, or planet of origin.

Please, then, point me at an explanation of General Relativity that can be understood by somebody with the math ability of my sister-in-law. We'll assume that, if she worked hard enough, she'd be reasonably competent in algebra, which is a bit of a stretch. I can explain Special Relativity using only that level of math, but not General Relativity.

More likely it's a PR thing, you want the biggest media splash when the device is available for purchase, not before when you only have a handful of people willing to preorder.

OS matters. Lots of enterprise software comes on one OS, take it or leave it, and paying them to change anything would counteract any savings from buying less expensive hardware. Custom software can be appallingly expensive to develop.

Moreover, iPads are not particularly expensive for what you get. Getting quality Android tablets wouldn't cost all that much less, if any.

Really? How about they start by not doing anything, i.e., give up the patent nonsense on Android.

MS is nothing more than a snake waxing all indignant while the family dog is now a lump sliding down its body.

You mean like the iPhone...Oh, wait, that was a rushed piece of [bleep] as well.

Especially if you held it "wrong".

I've heard that arrogance before and it's silly. If people are doing free work for you you don't get to set the terms of how they do it. This guy did free security work for them, they shouldhave been beating a path to his door to make the best use of that work. Or, you know, being entirely free to ignore it at their peril. Which they did.