lol based on his statements since then. Duh. Look it up.
As opposed to, either buying a bracelet as a fashion accessory, if you're into that, or else buying a nice looking watch that tells time.
Or waiting until somebody figures out what problem "smart watches" solve. All the examples I've seen are just replacements for an exercise assistant comp with email notification. Unless you're a 1%-er who is allowed to exercise while you're supposed to be working, you don't need the email notification; you're on break, you'll get it after you shower and go back to work.
If you're into accessories enough to want useless computerized jewelry, you're that much less likely to be interested in the very cheapest model. Probably the only reason to have one at $350 is to sell to developers who want to write apps for the expensive ones.
This is exceptionally bad for their brand image IMO. They're back-ordered, of course they are; the company has a lot of "fans" in addition to regular customers. The fans cause the back-ordering of everything they make, but the regular customers who follow after are the source of most of the profit. The biggest danger is a product like this that makes the fans look really foolish to the normals. The brand image they've developed, the fans look a bit silly in buying things early, but the perception is that they're buying something that they like for certain important reasons. There is the presumption that it is aesthetically superior. That sort of brand image can be substantially undermined if the perception shifts from artistic elitism to money elitism.
... that's all consistent with what I said, but you phrase it like a smoker looking for excuses.
I'm not sure what you thought you were adding to what I said.
The only way to end up in Guantanamo is to be captured on a known battlefield bearing arms without a uniform.
Hong Kong's light handed period is ending, the transition plan to being a regular part of China was recently announced.
That wikileaks guy found a neutral embassy to hide in. There are lots of places. New Zealand, of course, is not a "neutral" country. They are First World ally. If he can't get to the Americas, that is rather pathetic. He could have just hired McAfee.
We can just use Jupiter as fuel for Spaceship Earth.
Woven graphene, all the way to space. The Yellowstone Space Elevator.
You seem to be mistaken in your logic. If you prevent it sometimes, then you do in fact prevent it. Your argument is based on a perceived absolute that is not actually implied by the words used.
It is well established that in people who eat a non-balanced diet, introducing anti-oxidants reduces their cancer risk. (that means it prevents cancer!) However, people who eat whole foods (e.g., a traditional balanced diet) already have the protective level of nutrients that the human body is evolved to expect, and additional anti-oxidants don't help. Nor does eating only whole foods, or extra whole foods.
If you're ready to vilify peanuts because a small number of people have allergies, I don't think you're really ready for rational discussion.
You're conflating the nutters with the real research, unfortunately. Presumably you think you're being very sciencey. But no amount of lame, fraudulent diet books will undo the giant mountain of research that says a traditional diet including substantial amounts and variety of whole fruits and vegetables will reduce the risk of cancer. (and almost all other significant ailments) The risks don't go away, but almost any "grandma diet" is going to be protective when compared to a diet based on processed foods.
Eating processed meats is correlated with increased colon cancer, for example.
Eating "fiddleheads" is known to cause cancer.
Eating foods rich in anti-oxidants is known to prevent cancer... in people with low anti-oxidant levels. So it is true that a traditional healthy diet of balanced ingredients can appear protective for people currently eating a narrow diet of processed foods. However, additional anti-oxidants beyond the levels achieved by a traditional balanced diet do not appear protective.
But there are absolutely known foods that increase cancer risks.
If the bacon is natural bacon, then it is not a risky food for cancer. If it is the processed, reformed lard attached to small pieces of processed pork scraps, then it has not been studied to see if it has the same risks as processed lunch meats and hotdogs.
Of course vaccines don't prevent measles. That is one reason why the herd mentality is important since it is not 100% effective
But if it was herd immunity instead of herd mentality, then maybe the conclusion would be different too.
That said, you succeed in introducing probability in one place, then you follow by trying to reject it when working in the other direction. The word "prevent" does not require or imply an absolute, though. If the context is already probabilistic risk of some event (cancer) then you only have to reduce the event in order to have prevented some cases.
If you're pointing out that "preventing some cases" is not "preventing all cases," you're just correcting the part you misunderstood, not what was being said. And preventing some is still preventing.
Your attempted correction doesn't prevent any misunderstanding, that much is certain.
That is not consistent with the current medical theory of cancer, where all of the different risk factors each could cause cancer, but the actual cancer you get was caused by a single one of those instances of cell damage.
Very very different than the theory for nearly every other type of disease based on harmful substances, where only past certain thresholds or combinations do things start to cause disease.
Not true; diet is known to have lots of effects on cancer treatment. Many of the treatments involve taking lots of toxic medicines, and a healthy diet can make the difference between a successful treatment, or not.
Learning the wrong thing is just as stupid as believing some book based on an individuals claimed experience.
The lesson here is just that the specifics she claimed were not true for her; it actually tells us nothing about the relative value of nutrition in cancer treatment; it doesn't support or refute any science at all, and in fact, it has nothing to do with science and it never did.
Reasonable beliefs about diet and cancer risk/treatment can only be based in medical science. Anything else is wild speculation, and a false speculation is just garbage.
This is just the kind of ignorance I'd expect to see on slashdot voted up to +5, especially since it is nasty and full of excrement-language and logical fallacy. It even throws out the word "snake oil" while also making unsubstantiated medical claims. But the opposite bullshit is not truth, it is just horseshit.
Reducing risk is the same as preventing if you're one of the people who would have gotten it. It may not be knowable for an individual person, but that doesn't actually matter to any of the involved decision-making; personal or public-health.
Risk means that for some people will really happen. If you reduce a risk, then for some people who it would have happened to otherwise, now it won't. So when you have a large population to talk about, even if you don't know who they are, if you're sure the risk was reduced, then you're sure that the thing was prevented too.
That is true of all risk analysis where the risk is high enough that the bad thing does really sometimes happen.
ASUS has a full product line including PCs, but they're a TV/monitor/tablet company mostly. Toshiba still sells laptops, but they mostly do other stuff.
(disclaimer: I own lots of ASUS stuff, and nothing from Acer)
Apple is mostly a phone, laptop, and portable audio company. They do still sell a few PCs, of course.
Donald Trump vs Michael Dell battling to the death with the sharpened bones of downsizing victims.
Thunderdome: The Apprentice
The future of television.
And if you need to decompress after being subjected to that, here is a good old anti-TV song to help: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The part that some apple fans miss is that the rest of the world doesn't use your "PC means Microsoft Windows" code-words. PC means "Personal Computer."
The funniest though are the people still saying "wintel." That one always creacked me up, especially the time I was running a linux PC with a cyrix CPU and an apple guy kept pronouncing "linux PC" as "a wintel." Of course, Apple's personal computers are also running Intel now. Though most of my PCs are on AMD.
Here is another PC that used to be popular: