Well, NAFLD is a real thing and related to NASH.

One issue I have, is that the very first sentence of the abstract is probably incorrect. NAFLD doesn't lead to diabetes, it's the other way around. In the full article, they back away from saying NAFLD causes diabetes and merely says they are related. The biggest problem, is that they used rats, and rats just don't get diabetes, NASH, or NAFLD (or heart disease either, for that fact), so they have to heavily heavily manipulate the rats' genetic background, as well as a ludicrous diet. I'm not saying their study is bad, but just that in a heavily modified animal model system, well... let's not break out the champagne and Noble prizes just yet. What might be more interesting is the chemistry involved to make a "safe" form of DNP. Don't tell the high school girls, they'll all want it!

The title of the Slashdot summary should really be edited to end with "... in rats."

More like misuse.

Ha! I'm already training to be a robotics repairmen repairman!

The error range for the strenuous jogging group is absolutely huge and only represents 2 deaths out 36 (or 40, depending on which plot you're looking at). Yeah, the differences between strenuous jogging and sitting on your ass might be technically statistically significant, but are the numbers in these groups sufficient to tell if there's a difference, ie is the study sufficiently powered?

You'd be surprised, actually...

Linky with higher res PDF than website...

http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...

Yes, the National Institutes of Health already has an anonymized database of the health records from patients in their clinical trials and a company called Explorys (no, I don't work for them, either), is doing something similar on a larger scale across multiple hospital systems. Having CMS and HHS involved to add more data is definitely a good thing, if done correctly. Links below.

http://btris.nih.gov/
https://www.explorys.com/
https://www.explorys.com/about...

Completely agree. However, if the bandwidth is so dramatically improved, can't the caps be also dramatically increased? Kind of like how when 4G first came out, that was unlimited, while 3G was capped or something like that? I might have that situation reversed but still, you get the idea.

Aren't carrieres already calling LTE and 4G+, etc 5G? Since it seems like 5G is such a dramatic improvement, should it have an entirely new name? A la Intel's move away from the x86 lines of processors?

"The only winning move is not to play"

You obviously aren't aware of a tool called rhetoric. Using facts, logic, and argument are useful for rhetoric but not necessary. These people are using rhetoric (shockingly well, in some cases) and not interested in using facts, logic, and argument at all.

Yes, sooner would have been better but at least they got around to fixing it, right?

Correct, you aren't a feminist. News flash: women have brains and they do what they want. They don't want to code, because they are passively (mostly) discouraged from pursuing that hobby/career. Deal with it.

There, FTFY.