I know it's Slashdot and nobody expects you to RTFA, but you didn't even read the summary:

1) I'm pretty sure she'd know it's truly her daughter, but maybe you want them to do a maternity test first?
2) The daughter wasn't in Uganda at the time of the phone call.
3) The summary doesn't mention that the mother was ever exposed or at risk of exposure.
4) The daughter (not the mother) was in the airport and, according to the summary (I know, I know... who bothers to read all the way through before posting?) she was pretty clear the bumps were from bed bugs.

The one part of your post that is seemingly correct is the subject line. However, that was probably a coincidence as you probably intended to be pointing the "Ha ha, you're stupid!" finger away from yourself.

I've never been able to find a satisfactory answer to this one, but why hasn't Harvard tried to argue that Facebook belongs to them? When I was in school, there was a policy that anything invented or created while a student using university resources is the property of the university, not the student. Isn't that why Dean Kamen didn't graduate? To keep his ideas and invent them on his own?

Does Harvard not have such a policy? Is there really no evidence that he used University resources in creating it?

... call the service provider and ask them is they take a US credit card instead of posting your question on Slashdot. If that fails, I'm sure there are plenty of other more suitable forums for this discussion elsewhere on the web. (A simple google search found plenty of discussions on internet service in Canada... suprise!)

I'm not sure why Slashdot continues to pander to a US-centric audience, and waste space on personal interest stories instead of "news for nerds" and other "stuff that matters".

What's next? A story on how "My Grandmother can't get on facebook and I think it's a problem with this box of flashing lights plugged into the wall, can someone help me?"

The amount of data used by most widgets is incredibly small. I have an Android phone and use around 100MB per month.

Did you happen to mention to the flight attendant that you were uncomfortable, or that you had a medical reason to need to stand occasionally? Perhaps the pilot simply forgot that he/she had left the light on, and a simple polite reminder from the FA

Did you check the baggage policy before you flew? I think most people by now realize that almost all carriers charge for checked bags now, due to the ad campaigns (noteably by Southwest) about how they allow free checked bags. I suggest you make informed choices before purchasing, as that information should be clearly available on each airlines' website.

They don't take cash at all, or they don't carry change? I know it is a burden for airline crews to make sure they had a supply of small denomination bills for each flight. On all of my flights recently, they have asked for exact change and will accept it.

Note, the American Airlines website states that food "can be purchased" with credit and debit cards. It does not state that cash is not accepted. In fact, it notes that some flights are not able to accept cards at all.

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.