I recently bought a new laptop to replace my old Windows laptop. I ended up getting Macbook precisely because of the extraordinary quality of the retina screen.

I do allot of reading, writing and some coding on my laptop, and the change has been extremely pleasing. For the same price, I could have gotten a marginally more powerful machine with more memory and disk space and touch screen, but all things considered, the high-def "retina" screen *completely* trumped that for me. High-def screens is one of those things I think you need to experience yourself. My girlfriend has a lower resolution screen, and I find it hard not to get annoyed at pixels when I use it, and everything seems blurred. I find reading much easier on the eyes on the new machine than others. To me that means its not just a luxury thing - it really makes a difference.

So, I for one welcome our new high resolution overlords with open arms. The very argument "X should be enough for everyone, no need to progress" was invalidated a long time ago anyway. Screen tech is obviously evolving in synergistic ways between laptops, phones and tablets, and as long as they can make them better, please do.

I was about to say the same. I own a development kit, and the pixels are really visible at today's 720p in a 7 inch panel. People call this the "screen-door effect as the space between the pixels resembles the wires in a screen door). For this tech to be as crisp as we all would like, what you suggest sounds about right. Even though they are showing off the HD prototype (1080p), they are very careful not to say the problem is gone with that model. And even if the pixels dissipated, it's in VR that you really want to seek out that retina resolution (:

I have no doubt VR-devices will drive not just screen tech, but also 3D-graphics in the years to come, and take over as the pushing force that mobiles provide today. (The 3D has to improve since the level of detail you desire is much higher with the Rift than on a flat panel - you get closer, see more - also it must run at a higher resolution eventually).

I feel that consumer VR is becoming a reality because of cellphone evolution, but future cellphones (whatever form they might take - AR, anyone?) will be a reality because of VR evolution.

So if I have not shared the key with anyone else, at the very least two of my computers needs to be online at any given time, and of those at least one with the most current version?

So this thing stores segments of your synced stuff in a distributed fashion across multiple unknowns computers. right? I've been following a recent article series on Arstechnica about cracking passwords, and that left me worried. Now, what is to stop anyone participating in my sync from forcefully cracking and viewing encrypted parts of my files?

It seem too me that the capacities of surveillance tech has evolved much faster than public understanding and emotion on the issue. As a non-US citizen, I am disgusted by the idea of my emails or metadata derived from them are massively stored away if they pass through the US, or even my own country. I understand and respect that some level of this must exist in modern society, but we need to have checks and balances that can be vetted by he public.

And can it not be wrong, even though I have nothing to fear? Have I nothing to fear from this system even if I am not a criminal?

Ethically, it is limiting to my freedom that there exists a stash of information somewhere that might be abused when taken out of context. Does that not limit my freedom to express radical opinion in private discussions, or even do so satirically? Can I no long play with unpopular ideas using electronic communications? Can I no longer listen to the voice of my opponent without fear of at some point being labeled one of them?

Legally, how can it be that an email is less of my property than a letter I store in a deposit box in my bank, or send in the mail? Is it not mine or the recipients only? If the state had an army of people standing by to make copies of every letter sent, the situation would be perfectly analogous. Is that not ransacking me, or confiscating my property only to provide me a copy?

Safety wise, if a record of my life is aggregated in a single source that I have no knowledge of, how can I know that it is truly safe? How can I ensure politicians spend enough on it's safety? I keep my IDs safe to prevent identity theft. What happens the day my life is stolen, but the theft is classified?

And last but not least, what happens to the balance of power between a state and its people here? The state is the servant of the people, and it should always respect that. When the people become submissive to the state, nothing good happens. We've spend much blood in the past to put it where it belongs, but it always threatens to slip back. We need people like Edward Snowden to blow the whistle when that happens. The very fact that he is now in hiding shows how the power-balance has it's centre of gravity atm.

Perhaps the fact that we cannot ourselves (easily) update our tablets and phones says something about how much control we've lost on our devices? That scares me. If i buy one of the new style of laptop-tablet hybrid, can I expect the same? Will this not easily cut years of value off these things, and slow down the software ecosystem?

I had an _expensive_ Window Phone. Then Microsoft told me I could not upgrade my 6 months old phone to WP8. I felt so cheated, and still do. I will never buy another. It is such a disrespect for the customer.

I guess the most interesting point in this article is what is written towards the top: "we believe these results do provide some reassurance that coffee drinking does not adversely affect health.". If it was poison, this study would show. I remember learning about cafestol at some point (by a researcher), and how recommendations should be given to make sure to only drink filtered coffee. It's, according to our teacher, the most "cholesterologenic" substance know. So I guess a single factor does not a guideline make.

On a funny personal note, this news came exactly on the day I decided to cut down my own consumption :p

Depends on wether CD47 is enough on it's own to have the macropahges dispose of the cell it's attached to. Antibodies (IgG types at least) also trigger destruction of the cells they strike and it will be more efficient at this if they attach to multiple targets in close proximity (opsonisation). If CD47 is overexpressed on cancer cells, perhaps it could trigger an immun response on the cancer cells, but not regular cells.

If the antibodies mentioned here do not trigger an immune response, but rather inhibits CD47 function to prevent the cells from being disposed if, that might also be enough given other signals from the cell to macrophages that it is someyhing wrong with it.

In both cases, normals cells would be largely spared, but cancer suffer. Much like chemo, really, but perhaps more targeted.

Sorry if I offended you somehow or made my post seem redundant, that was never my intention /: I was trying to add to the discussion by saying that I think the overeating and lack of physical activity is more fair to see as the primary causes of type 2 diabetes rather than genetics, and that by blaming the genes we're ignoring the point that our bodies might not be build for our current way of life (: I would rather say that modern life has revealed that some people are not as well adapted as others to that lifestyle.

I think you have it for life if you have aquired it, but for type 2 diabetes, loosing weight (and exercising) is the primary treatment, and according to the widely used Norwegian Electronic Doctor's Manual (NEL) almost all cases can be prevented by preventing obesity (: They reference an article here, amongst others, for this claim. The goals of therapy is stated to be to reduce the condition to a non-symptomatic one if possible, and this is what weight loss and exercise seems to achieve (but medicines might also help, and acute cases needs medical intervention).

Regarding weight loss as treatment, I'm not sure if this resource is available for free everywhere, but it's also clearly stated here and here. Wikipedia also references an article on this.

That's of course not to mention all those other things that a healthy diet and working out does for your body. Seems like an attractive package for just about everyone (:

Diabetics with type 2 first goes through a fase where insulin fails to control blood glucose levels (if you have allot of glucose in your blood, this is sensed by you pacreas and it secretes insulin - a stubstance that signal to the other cells of your body to start absorbing the glucose, and thus reduce how much is circulating). After enough time in this state, your pacreas gives up and stops producing insulin, much like in type 1. So it has two stages.

Autoimunity might be a hypothesis (does type 2 diabetes respond to immunosupressants? Do you have states where antibodies conversly increase uptake of glucose from the blood w/o insulin?), but I think the prevailing idea is that fat accumulation in muscle cells interferes with a signaling pathway that originates in cell membrane fats (the IP3/DAG pathway), making it less efficient. Think of it like wire that is loose and only occationally gets contact. The signal is supposed to convey the fact that insulin is present from the surface of the cell into the cell, where glucose transporter (GLUT4) is to be mobilized to the surface of the cell and start taking insulin out of ciculation and into the cell for storeage and burning. If the signaling pathway thus breaks, this manifests as less effect by insulin, and the body compencates with increased levels over time, and eventually burnout of the pacreas.

If accumulating fats are to blame, it might also explain why a negative energy balance (starvation) would help. Fat is the main energy store of the body, and it might get burned off, restoring normal insulin sensitivity.

Causality is tricky, but not without answers. If avoiding cheeseburgers and twinkies causes you *not* to get T2D even if you are predisposed, I would say that both are causal factors and are right to blame. However, the *type* of environmental factor also plays in. If you feed a cat paracetamol, it will die. Does this simply "reveal" a underlying condition? Is the cat sick to start with? Feeding the cat the substance is what killed it, but the reason it died from it is biological and exposure to a substance it would not encounter in nature. If you happened uppon a cat that survived, THAT would be the oddity.

If you are born with relevant genes, you are, and need to look out. You carry one of many polymophisms in the gene pool, but you are not sick or nessearily abnormal. It just means that under a heavy diet with little exercise - an unnatural lifestyle - you might get sick faster than others. It's *multifactoral*, like most conditions we can get. If you are not very good at skydiving, you should not skydive even if everyone you know does. Cheeseburgers and sedentary lifestyle need to take the blame more than genetics.

As far as I understand the mechanisms though, the reason cancer develops over time is that a certain number of mutations have to occur (5-7) for the cells to show hyperplasia, mutator phenotype etc. and eventually metastasize. But in people who lack one or more DNA repair mechanisms, cancer will arise sooner, since the risk (and thus rate) of the mutation is greater (they are not supposed to ever get an X-ray, e.g., or develop breast cancer at a young age. People with xerodema pigmentosum is a example, and they get all sorts of skin cancers eve as children - but you might not want to google that). So I'm asking if there should not be vanguard of sorts, a group of people in which we could detect this. If they have an already identified condition, it might be possible to see that they are getting allot of cancers since cellphones became commonplace.

I'm not sure that is the question studies have asked. There is difference between asking "have you ever owned a cellphone" and "how much did you use it?". If you can confirm that heavy users get more gliablastomas, you have an interesting correlation - a dose-response relationship. Its perfectly valid to look at people's past in retrospect to see if there has been an exposure that might relate to the condition.