The list of authors and affiliations should be enough to give anyone pause: of the 13 authors the corresponding one (i.e., the one who got the study published) is Stephen S. Dominy from Cortexyme, Hatice Hasturk is affiliated with The Forsyth Institute "reinventing oral and overall health through pioneering biomedical research and transformational healthcare practices", and most of the others come from departments of oral immunology, dental medicine, periodontology, etc.
This alone should be enough to make anyone very suspicious but, in the event it isn't, the introduction clearly states:
"Infectious agents have been found in the brain and postulated to be involved with AD, but robust evidence of causation has not been established [...] P. gingivalis lipopolysaccharide has been detected in human AD brains, promoting the hypothesis that P. gingivalis infection of the brain plays a role in AD pathogenesis.
[...] We developed and tested potent, selective, brain-penetrant, small-molecule gingipain inhibitors in vivo. Our results indicate that small-molecule inhibition of gingipains has the potential to be disease modifying in AD."
So, according to the author(s) there is "no robust evidence" that P. gingivalis is really the cause of AD, but Cortexyme will be happy to sell you something that may (or may not) work. In other words, the article is just another press release in disguise.
I don't want to cast unfair aspersions on the pointiness of this new telescope, but, IIRC, the Hubble Space Telescope was fairly blunt, and is not a high benchmark for judging the acuteness of new observatories.
Fair enough but, unless you actually want to cast aspersion, could you please get your facts straight Mr. AC? Although new instruments become operational on a regular basis, this "new" telescope has been operating since 1997.
2. Windows 8/10 Tablet interface. I am sorry, the new interface still hasn't got me sold. I am using a PC with a keyboard and a mouse, I do not need big touch friendly displays, taking up real estate.
I agree with the other points you make, but the only Windows defaulting to a tablet interface (even on desktops) was Windows 8. Poor choice, I concur, but it was easily fixed with third party tools like Classic Shell -- and things went back to normal with 8.1 and 10 anyway.
With the Search icon (A Circle with a line attached) is next to the power off icon (A Semi Circle with a Line). Granted we never had an accident with this yet. It is just really bad location for it.
First, even if you hit the wrong (Power) button by mistake you still have to go through the menu with the the usual choices of Sleep, Hibernate, and so on; second, and more to the point, why not just press the Windows key instead? Focus shifts to the search box and you can start typing right away. At least I do, since once of the very first things I do is disable Cortana. Not for privacy concerns, but because it still feels way too weird to talk to a computer...
The iPhone was monstrously better than anything that existed prior, and was the first device to make smartphones mass-market items. For the majority of the world, the iPhone was the first smartphone that mattered.
I agree about the mass-market appeal and the smart "take whatever technologies are available, make them work seamlessly together and wrap them in a good looking package" approach, but let's not forget that the very first iPhone:
1) Didn't have 3G (which was already deployed across the rest of the world) but was using GPRS and EDGE for data transfer, and the "real web" at 64 kbit/s was not fun;
2) Didn't have GPS (at least assisted GPS was quite common);
3) Didn't have video recording;
4) Didn't have copy&paste (again, a common feature);
5) Didn't have MMS (likely because AT&T/Cingular didn't support the technology);
And most notably: remember that Steve Jobs’ original vision for the iPhone was no third-party native apps. -- the App Store came later and apparently as a reaction to jailbreakers and developer backlash.
You might think you had a smart phone earlier than 2007, but you really didn't. [...] In 2007 - 2008, that's when we got real browsers that delivered the real HTML web that people wanted instead of using watered-down half-assed "WAP" sites
Hey, Steve! How's life down there?
Could you please tell my grandfather Bob to stop pestering me in my sleep? Assuming you're not too busy with that reality distortion field of yours, eh?
I'm sorry, but I'm really struggling to figure out how this is wrong.
What part of "paying key customer Apple to not use chips made by Qualcomm's rivals" you didn't get?
Hint: it's not about "discounts" and it's not about beating the competition with a better product; it's about abusing your market dominance to prevent rivals from even competing in the market.
Or is competition good only when it fits your narrative?
This immediately leads to questions about why a president might trust a foreign power over his own agencies.
No, the real question and, as far as I know a question that no one is asking, is: if the elections have really been hacked, why not void them and have a do over?
Of course that's a rhetorical question, since putting the blame one someone else is easier than admit that enough people voted for the man, so you now have to deal with it. Trouble is, so does the rest of the world.
Austria's leader is a giant douche. He rapes babies. Once I saw him watching hardcore bestiality porn in his car, stealing WiFi from a nearby cafe. I hate him. This is hate speech.
No, I think this could be technically described as libel: "the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of someone".
Calling Frau Eva Glawischnig "lousy traitor" and "corrupt bumpkin" certainly doesn't qualify as hate speech either, or at least it shouldn't, but once the proper legislation is in place it doesn't take long to abuse it, and in fact this sound more like censorship to me. A more sensible course of action would have been to have Facebook reveal the identity of the poster and bring him to court but, let's face it, even insulting someone is far from libel material!
I'm not an explosives expert, but maybe someone who is can comment on the plausibility of this? It seems like an ipad or laptop couldn't carry enough explosives to take the plane down.
You don't need to take the plane down, causing enough damage will suffice (think sudden decompression).
That said, I call bullshit on this one. At least here ("Large European City", second airport in the country traffic wise) they always ask you to power on notebooks, tablets and even cameras to verify that they're real. Heck, I even had to turn on my camera and let the man wave his hand in front of it to check that it was actually his own hand showing on the display!;-)
That's precisely what I said WAS changing, which was my entire point. The phrase "more and more people are born each year" means U *is* changing you dumb fuck!
Well, how could I possibly argue with such fine reasoning? *grin*
Make a fool of yourself in public if you like, but U doesn't automatically increase just because more people are born. Unless you give each of them a Mac as a present, that is. I'm sure babies would love that!
But wait, you're posting as AC, which means you don't even have the balls to make a fool of yourself in public, so I'll stop feeding the trolls.
AC here is being an asshole, but really does have a point. The concrete numbers here do matter, and by the looks of things none of us actually know them.
Fair enough, but jumping conveniently between market share and absolute numbers depending on the point you want to make it's the very definition of "putting a spin on it". Anyway, I just answered to the AC in question and you can take a look if you're interested in my reasoning.
I'm not sure that replying to some AC is the best way to spend my time but, for the sake of the discussion, I'll oblige anyway.
You state that "more and more people are born each year", which is clearly a fact, but then you follow up with "if the market share for mac users stayed exactly the same or even decreased, you're still getting more mac users every year" which makes no sense whatsoever: if there are more people (fact) but less macs are sold (another fact) how can there be more Mac users?
In other words:
P(opulation) : 100 = U(sers) : M(arket share)
Let's be generous and say that M is 10%. Please explain how could you keep M constant when P increases without also increasing U (by selling more Macs) because if you can't it means that "more and more consumers buy Mac computers" is just a blatant lie.
tbh, it looked like a negative review to me. A reviewer can't actually say too many negative things and get away with it, but the sarcasm was deep here. Basically:
Same tired plot.
Trite, ridiculous characters.
Boring tutorial.
Long, boring, open spaces.
Scenarios that don't make sense (hiding in a barrel, picking apples).
It seems that you stopped reading just before the part that says:
And then there's the new Breath of the Wild (BotW), a Zelda game that throws off this established rhythm so quickly, and with such force, that it practically feels like a whole new genre. In doing so, Breath of the Wild offers a compelling take on a stagnating series, bringing a sense of wonder and excitement back to Zelda that hasn't been felt this strongly since the original NES game.
No they are not. The design is old. The hardware is new.
Uh? We could talk about the other things you wrote, and I would even agree with some of them, but you are wrong on this one. This is the very same Mac Pro that has been introduced on December 19, 2013 and is still sold at the same price for the same components: Ivy Bridge E Xeon processors, Dual AMD FirePro GPUs, etc. Note that even the full roundoup from my first link reads:
Chips appropriate for an upgraded Mac Pro have been available since 2014, so it is unclear what Apple is waiting on before introducing a new Mac Pro machine.
Again, this shouldn't NEED to be said, but you really seem to miss it: more and more people are born each year. This is an observable, provable fact. That means that even if the market share for mac users stayed exactly the same or even decreased, you're still getting more mac users every year. Duh, much?
Oh, boy. You sure can spin it with the best of them! Are you working for Apple by chance? If you don't, you should.
You're ignoring the difference between proportional market share, and absolute numbers.
Okay, but then your are splitting hairs. Or just ignoring reality, I don't know. That's okay, though. I do it a lot myself. Ignoring reality, that is. Does me no end of good too!;-)
Sales and marketshare have nothing to do with users [...] And the user base for Macs is increasing steadily.
Fair enough, but then according to your reasoning the user base for PCs is also increasing? Fine, but we warned: don't let Phil Schiller hear you talking about keeping "Macs for 5 years and longer" or he will poke fun at you mercilessly. Yes, even when a " brand new"Mac Pro is 1169 days old, a Mac mini is 868 days old, an iMac 506 days old, etc. Talk about double standards!
More and more consumers? am I missing something? I thought OSX marketshare had nearly halved in the last year or so, after reaching almost 10% it has been in gradual decline ever since.
Yes, this has been discussed has been discussed here not too long ago. For the record, TFA read "Mac sales dropped roughly 10% and personal computers overall dropped 5.7% for the year", so this must be some definition of "more and more" I wasn't previously aware of.
Because TFS was written by a marketer, there's no hint of what this magical technology might be good for.
Except for the fact that it's Windows 10, which was also written by marketers.
Apparently switching SIMs (typically while traveling abroad) is so much trouble that "they", out of their boundless kindness no doubt, have a "solution" for you: reprogram it remotely so you could switch mobile carriers just by going to the settings page on your smartphone. Me? I'd rather trust my fat fingers than some company or some service that might work as advertised or not, thank you very much.
It is bad to be the loser in this case. Blackberry still has a little bit of product line left, Nokia doesnt even have one left to speak of.
It's about mobile network products, not phones and Nokia is still doing fairly well there, or there would be little reason to sue -- you don't sue someone with no money to pay up, do you?
Even the summary says "The mobile network products and services are provided to companies including T-Mobile and AT&T for their LTE networks", so you're way off-topic here.
They chose to build their factory in Fremont apparently because those are the people they really wish to hire, so it's time to pay them for their apparent specialness.
No, the only reason the factory is in Fremont is because it used to be the New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI), which closed in 2010 just to reopen a few months later as a 100% Tesla Motors-owned production facility (link to Wikipedia entry is in the summary). Besides, I guess Tesla got the plant for cheap, therefore Musk really has not reason to blame the UAW for "killing" NUMMI -- quite the opposite, in fact!
Just what we need - more government telling us what to do with our own damn homes.
Reason 124,151,813,523 Trump won.
What part of "The Macon St. property was discovered to have inadequate fire alarms, sprinklers, illegal subdivisions" you didn't get? Or maybe you missed the "Hank Freid was once crowned one of NYC's "Worst Landlords" by a watchdog group in 2005" part?
Newsflash: it might be your own damn home, but it's likely close to someone else' and, surprise surprise, you can't do as you please with it.
Slashdot Mirror
until you factor in the inevitable greed variable from the Pharmaceutical Cartel.
No surprise here, especially considering that this one is really a study by Cortexyme, Inc that is developing treatments for Alzheimer's and other degenerative disorders.
The list of authors and affiliations should be enough to give anyone pause: of the 13 authors the corresponding one (i.e., the one who got the study published) is Stephen S. Dominy from Cortexyme, Hatice Hasturk is affiliated with The Forsyth Institute "reinventing oral and overall health through pioneering biomedical research and transformational healthcare practices", and most of the others come from departments of oral immunology, dental medicine, periodontology, etc.
This alone should be enough to make anyone very suspicious but, in the event it isn't, the introduction clearly states:
"Infectious agents have been found in the brain and postulated to be involved with AD, but robust evidence of causation has not been established
[...]
P. gingivalis lipopolysaccharide has been detected in human AD brains, promoting the hypothesis that P. gingivalis infection of the brain plays a role in AD pathogenesis.
[...]
We developed and tested potent, selective, brain-penetrant, small-molecule gingipain inhibitors in vivo. Our results indicate that small-molecule inhibition of gingipains has the potential to be disease modifying in AD."
So, according to the author(s) there is "no robust evidence" that P. gingivalis is really the cause of AD, but Cortexyme will be happy to sell you something that may (or may not) work. In other words, the article is just another press release in disguise.
RT.
I don't want to cast unfair aspersions on the pointiness of this new telescope, but, IIRC, the Hubble Space Telescope was fairly blunt, and is not a high benchmark for judging the acuteness of new observatories.
Fair enough but, unless you actually want to cast aspersion, could you please get your facts straight Mr. AC? Although new instruments become operational on a regular basis, this "new" telescope has been operating since 1997.
RT.
Where are the mod points when I need them? ;-)
Please, mod +1 informative!
RT.
2. Windows 8/10 Tablet interface. I am sorry, the new interface still hasn't got me sold. I am using a PC with a keyboard and a mouse, I do not need big touch friendly displays, taking up real estate.
I agree with the other points you make, but the only Windows defaulting to a tablet interface (even on desktops) was Windows 8. Poor choice, I concur, but it was easily fixed with third party tools like Classic Shell -- and things went back to normal with 8.1 and 10 anyway.
With the Search icon (A Circle with a line attached) is next to the power off icon (A Semi Circle with a Line). Granted we never had an accident with this yet. It is just really bad location for it.
First, even if you hit the wrong (Power) button by mistake you still have to go through the menu with the the usual choices of Sleep, Hibernate, and so on; second, and more to the point, why not just press the Windows key instead? Focus shifts to the search box and you can start typing right away. At least I do, since once of the very first things I do is disable Cortana. Not for privacy concerns, but because it still feels way too weird to talk to a computer...
RT.
Basically, don't eat sugar, or stuff that turns to sugar [...]
Are you aware that ultimately everything we eat gets turned into glucose with digestion, yes?
Recently I have gone zero carb [...]
If you really mean no fruit and no vegetables: how healthy do you think it can be in the long run?
RT.
The iPhone was monstrously better than anything that existed prior, and was the first device to make smartphones mass-market items. For the majority of the world, the iPhone was the first smartphone that mattered.
I agree about the mass-market appeal and the smart "take whatever technologies are available, make them work seamlessly together and wrap them in a good looking package" approach, but let's not forget that the very first iPhone:
1) Didn't have 3G (which was already deployed across the rest of the world) but was using GPRS and EDGE for data transfer, and the "real web" at 64 kbit/s was not fun;
2) Didn't have GPS (at least assisted GPS was quite common);
3) Didn't have video recording;
4) Didn't have copy&paste (again, a common feature);
5) Didn't have MMS (likely because AT&T/Cingular didn't support the technology);
And most notably: remember that Steve Jobs’ original vision for the iPhone was no third-party native apps. -- the App Store came later and apparently as a reaction to jailbreakers and developer backlash.
RT.
You might think you had a smart phone earlier than 2007, but you really didn't. [...] In 2007 - 2008, that's when we got real browsers that delivered the real HTML web that people wanted instead of using watered-down half-assed "WAP" sites
Hey, Steve! How's life down there?
Could you please tell my grandfather Bob to stop pestering me in my sleep? Assuming you're not too busy with that reality distortion field of yours, eh?
RT.
I'm sorry, but I'm really struggling to figure out how this is wrong.
What part of "paying key customer Apple to not use chips made by Qualcomm's rivals" you didn't get?
Hint: it's not about "discounts" and it's not about beating the competition with a better product; it's about abusing your market dominance to prevent rivals from even competing in the market.
Or is competition good only when it fits your narrative?
RT.
This immediately leads to questions about why a president might trust a foreign power over his own agencies.
No, the real question and, as far as I know a question that no one is asking, is: if the elections have really been hacked, why not void them and have a do over?
Of course that's a rhetorical question, since putting the blame one someone else is easier than admit that enough people voted for the man, so you now have to deal with it. Trouble is, so does the rest of the world.
RT.
Apparently, it's gotten so bad that even when it's different, it's the same.
Kurt Vonnegut, witty as usual, did it before during one of his lectures. There's even a written, longer version which includes references to Kafa and Hamlet.
RT.
Austria's leader is a giant douche. He rapes babies. Once I saw him watching hardcore bestiality porn in his car, stealing WiFi from a nearby cafe. I hate him. This is hate speech.
No, I think this could be technically described as libel: "the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of someone".
Calling Frau Eva Glawischnig "lousy traitor" and "corrupt bumpkin" certainly doesn't qualify as hate speech either, or at least it shouldn't, but once the proper legislation is in place it doesn't take long to abuse it, and in fact this sound more like censorship to me. A more sensible course of action would have been to have Facebook reveal the identity of the poster and bring him to court but, let's face it, even insulting someone is far from libel material!
RT.
I'm not an explosives expert, but maybe someone who is can comment on the plausibility of this? It seems like an ipad or laptop couldn't carry enough explosives to take the plane down.
You don't need to take the plane down, causing enough damage will suffice (think sudden decompression).
That said, I call bullshit on this one. At least here ("Large European City", second airport in the country traffic wise) they always ask you to power on notebooks, tablets and even cameras to verify that they're real. Heck, I even had to turn on my camera and let the man wave his hand in front of it to check that it was actually his own hand showing on the display! ;-)
RT.
That's precisely what I said WAS changing, which was my entire point. The phrase "more and more people are born each year" means U *is* changing you dumb fuck!
Well, how could I possibly argue with such fine reasoning? *grin*
Make a fool of yourself in public if you like, but U doesn't automatically increase just because more people are born. Unless you give each of them a Mac as a present, that is. I'm sure babies would love that!
But wait, you're posting as AC, which means you don't even have the balls to make a fool of yourself in public, so I'll stop feeding the trolls.
RT.
AC here is being an asshole, but really does have a point. The concrete numbers here do matter, and by the looks of things none of us actually know them.
Fair enough, but jumping conveniently between market share and absolute numbers depending on the point you want to make it's the very definition of "putting a spin on it". Anyway, I just answered to the AC in question and you can take a look if you're interested in my reasoning.
RT.
Spin? Name a single untrue thing I said. Do it.
I'm not sure that replying to some AC is the best way to spend my time but, for the sake of the discussion, I'll oblige anyway.
You state that "more and more people are born each year", which is clearly a fact, but then you follow up with "if the market share for mac users stayed exactly the same or even decreased, you're still getting more mac users every year" which makes no sense whatsoever: if there are more people (fact) but less macs are sold (another fact) how can there be more Mac users?
In other words:
P(opulation) : 100 = U(sers) : M(arket share)
Let's be generous and say that M is 10%. Please explain how could you keep M constant when P increases without also increasing U (by selling more Macs) because if you can't it means that "more and more consumers buy Mac computers" is just a blatant lie.
RT.
tbh, it looked like a negative review to me. A reviewer can't actually say too many negative things and get away with it, but the sarcasm was deep here. Basically:
Same tired plot.
Trite, ridiculous characters.
Boring tutorial.
Long, boring, open spaces.
Scenarios that don't make sense (hiding in a barrel, picking apples).
It seems that you stopped reading just before the part that says:
And then there's the new Breath of the Wild (BotW), a Zelda game that throws off this established rhythm so quickly, and with such force, that it practically feels like a whole new genre. In doing so, Breath of the Wild offers a compelling take on a stagnating series, bringing a sense of wonder and excitement back to Zelda that hasn't been felt this strongly since the original NES game.
RT.
" brand new" Mac Pro is 1169 days old,
No they are not. The design is old. The hardware is new.
Uh? We could talk about the other things you wrote, and I would even agree with some of them, but you are wrong on this one. This is the very same Mac Pro that has been introduced on December 19, 2013 and is still sold at the same price for the same components: Ivy Bridge E Xeon processors, Dual AMD FirePro GPUs, etc. Note that even the full roundoup from my first link reads:
Chips appropriate for an upgraded Mac Pro have been available since 2014, so it is unclear what Apple is waiting on before introducing a new Mac Pro machine.
RT.
Again, this shouldn't NEED to be said, but you really seem to miss it: more and more people are born each year. This is an observable, provable fact. That means that even if the market share for mac users stayed exactly the same or even decreased, you're still getting more mac users every year. Duh, much?
Oh, boy. You sure can spin it with the best of them! Are you working for Apple by chance? If you don't, you should.
RT.
You're ignoring the difference between proportional market share, and absolute numbers.
Okay, but then your are splitting hairs. Or just ignoring reality, I don't know. That's okay, though. I do it a lot myself. Ignoring reality, that is. Does me no end of good too! ;-)
RT.
Sales and marketshare have nothing to do with users [...] And the user base for Macs is increasing steadily.
Fair enough, but then according to your reasoning the user base for PCs is also increasing? Fine, but we warned: don't let Phil Schiller hear you talking about keeping "Macs for 5 years and longer" or he will poke fun at you mercilessly. Yes, even when a " brand new" Mac Pro is 1169 days old, a Mac mini is 868 days old, an iMac 506 days old, etc. Talk about double standards!
RT.
More and more consumers? am I missing something? I thought OSX marketshare had nearly halved in the last year or so, after reaching almost 10% it has been in gradual decline ever since.
Yes, this has been discussed has been discussed here not too long ago. For the record, TFA read "Mac sales dropped roughly 10% and personal computers overall dropped 5.7% for the year", so this must be some definition of "more and more" I wasn't previously aware of.
RT.
Because TFS was written by a marketer, there's no hint of what this magical technology might be good for. Except for the fact that it's Windows 10, which was also written by marketers.
Apparently switching SIMs (typically while traveling abroad) is so much trouble that "they", out of their boundless kindness no doubt, have a "solution" for you: reprogram it remotely so you could switch mobile carriers just by going to the settings page on your smartphone. Me? I'd rather trust my fat fingers than some company or some service that might work as advertised or not, thank you very much.
Incidentally, Apple has been talking about this for a while -- another reason to steer clear of it.
RT.
It is bad to be the loser in this case. Blackberry still has a little bit of product line left, Nokia doesnt even have one left to speak of.
It's about mobile network products, not phones and Nokia is still doing fairly well there, or there would be little reason to sue -- you don't sue someone with no money to pay up, do you?
Even the summary says "The mobile network products and services are provided to companies including T-Mobile and AT&T for their LTE networks", so you're way off-topic here.
RT.
They chose to build their factory in Fremont apparently because those are the people they really wish to hire, so it's time to pay them for their apparent specialness.
No, the only reason the factory is in Fremont is because it used to be the New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI), which closed in 2010 just to reopen a few months later as a 100% Tesla Motors-owned production facility (link to Wikipedia entry is in the summary). Besides, I guess Tesla got the plant for cheap, therefore Musk really has not reason to blame the UAW for "killing" NUMMI -- quite the opposite, in fact!
RT.
Just what we need - more government telling us what to do with our own damn homes.
Reason 124,151,813,523 Trump won.
What part of "The Macon St. property was discovered to have inadequate fire alarms, sprinklers, illegal subdivisions" you didn't get? Or maybe you missed the "Hank Freid was once crowned one of NYC's "Worst Landlords" by a watchdog group in 2005" part?
Newsflash: it might be your own damn home, but it's likely close to someone else' and, surprise surprise, you can't do as you please with it.
RT.