If you read the article, it notes that the effects were short term (~1 week). However, it doesn't say why. Probably because they haven't actually fixed the cause of the diabetes, which, as you noted, is often autoimmune in nature.

It sounds to me kind of like this:

Problem: My car isn't moving.
Reason: There isn't any fuel.
Solution: Push the car down the hill.

They are "fixing" the problem while ignoring the actual cause of the problem. Therefore, the problem will continue to reappear.

I guess we'll have to wait for the actual paper to be published before we can really discuss the science intelligently. In the meantime, we have a fancy headline that people will forget by the time the actual paper comes out and we realize that the headline is complete BS. According to the article, the research team is presenting it at a meeting currently. I presume this means that they haven't completed writing up their findings yet. (I couldn't find the article online.)

The problem with science reporting in the mainstream media is that they jump on anything that can be given an interesting headline, but the reporters never understand (or bother to analyze critically) the actual science. This is an ongoing problem and annoyance to many scientists who would prefer that the public not be misled.

For example, the Slashdot article posted a few days ago about 2 father mice producing offspring. In one paragraph, the media is saying "We can save species from extinction even if there are no females left!" and "This will allow gay couples to have their own offspring". In the very next paragraph, they are explaining that the researchers also needed 1) a blastocyst, and 2) a female womb. Do they bother to care or speculate where we are going to get those things if there are no females involved? Of course not.

A jar of pennies sent COD?

And take pictures of the check presentation with the house in the background, and post them on the Google Blog announcement about the lawsuit?

Why is it that summarizing the article, point for point, gets a score of 5 informative?

Perhaps it's because:

1) Nobody expected anyone to actually read the article.

2) The summaries presented do not actually summarize the article, but simply copy and paste the first couple of sentences.

I should just start summarizing every article on Slashdot, without adding any insight or information, just to raise my karma.

Thank you so much. I wish there was a way to sticky your post to the submission. Well deserved mod points for you.

Seriously, where is the actual article? I'm starting to think it is fake.

I have searched and searched.

If I search Google for the quote from the article, I only find Western media sites quoting that phrase. That quote doesn't seem to appear on the English version of the People's Daily.

I have also tried searching Google for "site:peopledaily.com.cn +ipad" and all I get are news articles or positive articles about the product.

If I add "disadvantages" to the above search, I get nothing...

Ok, so the Slashdot post links to Tech Dirt ad Tech Dirt links to Christian Science Monitor and Christian Science Monitor fails to link to the original article.

Anybody have a link to the ACTUAL article in the People's Daily? I want to see how badly those snippets were taken out of context, or if they are the result of glorified translation from the original Chinese.

So, first I am in China for the chicks. Then, in your next post, I'm in China because I couldn't get a job in my home country and I can take advantage of the demand for English language teachers in China.

For the record, I'm married, I have an advanced degree, and I don't teach English. I am working for the same company that I worked for in my home country - just from a different location.

It appears that my post above offended you. Obviously, there are Chinese people who care about this a great deal. With 1 billion people, of course there will be a percentage that care, and even a small percentage is a large number of people.

I was posting from my experience. The Chinese people that I know don't appear to care that much. I've discussed it with them, and none of them were outraged by the prize being awarded as it was. I compared it to the Obama award because, to me, it felt the same. Americans were, I think, more puzzled than outraged that Obama got the award before he really had a chance to do anything. The Chinese people that I know feel similarly. They are puzzled or flabbergasted, but not angry.

Yes, I'm a foreigner in China. I'm not sure what your problem with foreigners is, but it's pretty narrow-minded of you to think you know me simply because I was not born here. I'm surprised at your comment about Chinese people hating foreigners because the truth is that everyone has been very friendly to me here. People say hi to me all the time. They want to talk to me, know where I am from, ask for a photo, or just make a new friend.

You may be Chinese, but I really don't think you speak for all Chinese people in this regard.

Being that you are so narrow minded, I'm guessing you see this issue (the Nobel) as black and white. It isn't. Nothing is. My time in China has taught me to re-evaluate many things I previously believed to be true. There are two sides to every story. The truth usually contains a bit of both, and lies somewhere in the middle. China and the West are usually on opposite sides of that truth. Western media tells one side. Chinese media tells the other. Regardless of what country you are in, people are equally ignorant unless they seek out alternative views and consider all of the information objectively.

When observing these events, I feel it is much better to question and be humble, rather than to state things as fact. Things are usually not as clear cut as they seem.

In an effort to pre-empt any assumptions about access to information, I am in China and I have been able to access news sources and most articles online using Google News and various Western media outlets linked therein. Searches seem to be filtered by key-word, but most Chinese are aware of the award. Honestly, most of them don't care that much. They all know that the award often carries a political agenda. See: Barack Obama. Some feel it's just the West finding new ways to apply pressure to China on these issues where there has been long-standing disagreement. They are aware of the news though.

Mainly, I think the government is trying to avoid any large gatherings, unrest, or protests in the wake of this decision. We'll see what happens.

I've never had a problem accessing Slashdot from here. Some of the linked articles, yes, but not Slashdot itself. *ducks*

I registered my account in the US. Used it there for years. Move to China. Use it every day here. Never got a warning message.

Does Google track my normal usage pattern? If so, they should warn me of any anomaly, not just from China but any other country that is outside the norm for my account.

I am in China. I access my Gmail every day from here. I have never seen this message. Somehow, they must know that is the norm for me. Will I get a warning if my account is suddenly accessed from the US?

Everyone is focused on the view from inside the plane, but what about from the outside. Wouldn't this make the planes harder to see while in flight?

I know that we have neat technology like radar to track the planes, but what if that fails and pilots aren't able to see other planes around them clearly?

Similarly, if you use this technology for small tourist planes (which seems to me to be a better idea) don't most of those planes follow visual flight rules? IANAP, so perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

Furthermore, would this increase the incidence of "bird strikes" if the birds aren't able to see the plane coming?

Will the lavatory compartment be transparent too?