No surprise here, especially considering that this one is really a study by Cortexyme, Inc that is developing treatments for Alzheimer's and other degenerative disorders.

The list of authors and affiliations should be enough to give anyone pause: of the 13 authors the corresponding one (i.e., the one who got the study published) is Stephen S. Dominy from Cortexyme, Hatice Hasturk is affiliated with The Forsyth Institute "reinventing oral and overall health through pioneering biomedical research and transformational healthcare practices", and most of the others come from departments of oral immunology, dental medicine, periodontology, etc.

This alone should be enough to make anyone very suspicious but, in the event it isn't, the introduction clearly states:

"Infectious agents have been found in the brain and postulated to be involved with AD, but robust evidence of causation has not been established
[...]
P. gingivalis lipopolysaccharide has been detected in human AD brains, promoting the hypothesis that P. gingivalis infection of the brain plays a role in AD pathogenesis.
[...]
We developed and tested potent, selective, brain-penetrant, small-molecule gingipain inhibitors in vivo. Our results indicate that small-molecule inhibition of gingipains has the potential to be disease modifying in AD."

So, according to the author(s) there is "no robust evidence" that P. gingivalis is really the cause of AD, but Cortexyme will be happy to sell you something that may (or may not) work. In other words, the article is just another press release in disguise.

RT.

Fair enough but, unless you actually want to cast aspersion, could you please get your facts straight Mr. AC? Although new instruments become operational on a regular basis, this "new" telescope has been operating since 1997.

RT.

Where are the mod points when I need them? ;-)

Please, mod +1 informative!

RT.

I agree with the other points you make, but the only Windows defaulting to a tablet interface (even on desktops) was Windows 8. Poor choice, I concur, but it was easily fixed with third party tools like Classic Shell -- and things went back to normal with 8.1 and 10 anyway.

First, even if you hit the wrong (Power) button by mistake you still have to go through the menu with the the usual choices of Sleep, Hibernate, and so on; second, and more to the point, why not just press the Windows key instead? Focus shifts to the search box and you can start typing right away. At least I do, since once of the very first things I do is disable Cortana. Not for privacy concerns, but because it still feels way too weird to talk to a computer...

RT.

Are you aware that ultimately everything we eat gets turned into glucose with digestion, yes?

If you really mean no fruit and no vegetables: how healthy do you think it can be in the long run?

RT.

I agree about the mass-market appeal and the smart "take whatever technologies are available, make them work seamlessly together and wrap them in a good looking package" approach, but let's not forget that the very first iPhone:

1) Didn't have 3G (which was already deployed across the rest of the world) but was using GPRS and EDGE for data transfer, and the "real web" at 64 kbit/s was not fun;

2) Didn't have GPS (at least assisted GPS was quite common);

3) Didn't have video recording;

4) Didn't have copy&paste (again, a common feature);

5) Didn't have MMS (likely because AT&T/Cingular didn't support the technology);

And most notably: remember that Steve Jobs’ original vision for the iPhone was no third-party native apps. -- the App Store came later and apparently as a reaction to jailbreakers and developer backlash.

RT.

Hey, Steve! How's life down there?

Could you please tell my grandfather Bob to stop pestering me in my sleep? Assuming you're not too busy with that reality distortion field of yours, eh?

RT.

What part of "paying key customer Apple to not use chips made by Qualcomm's rivals" you didn't get?

Hint: it's not about "discounts" and it's not about beating the competition with a better product; it's about abusing your market dominance to prevent rivals from even competing in the market.

Or is competition good only when it fits your narrative?

RT.

No, the real question and, as far as I know a question that no one is asking, is: if the elections have really been hacked, why not void them and have a do over?

Of course that's a rhetorical question, since putting the blame one someone else is easier than admit that enough people voted for the man, so you now have to deal with it. Trouble is, so does the rest of the world.

RT.

Kurt Vonnegut, witty as usual, did it before during one of his lectures. There's even a written, longer version which includes references to Kafa and Hamlet.

RT.

No, I think this could be technically described as libel: "the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of someone".

Calling Frau Eva Glawischnig "lousy traitor" and "corrupt bumpkin" certainly doesn't qualify as hate speech either, or at least it shouldn't, but once the proper legislation is in place it doesn't take long to abuse it, and in fact this sound more like censorship to me. A more sensible course of action would have been to have Facebook reveal the identity of the poster and bring him to court but, let's face it, even insulting someone is far from libel material!

RT.

You don't need to take the plane down, causing enough damage will suffice (think sudden decompression).

That said, I call bullshit on this one. At least here ("Large European City", second airport in the country traffic wise) they always ask you to power on notebooks, tablets and even cameras to verify that they're real. Heck, I even had to turn on my camera and let the man wave his hand in front of it to check that it was actually his own hand showing on the display! ;-)

RT.

Well, how could I possibly argue with such fine reasoning? *grin*

Make a fool of yourself in public if you like, but U doesn't automatically increase just because more people are born. Unless you give each of them a Mac as a present, that is. I'm sure babies would love that!

But wait, you're posting as AC, which means you don't even have the balls to make a fool of yourself in public, so I'll stop feeding the trolls.

RT.

Fair enough, but jumping conveniently between market share and absolute numbers depending on the point you want to make it's the very definition of "putting a spin on it". Anyway, I just answered to the AC in question and you can take a look if you're interested in my reasoning.

RT.

I'm not sure that replying to some AC is the best way to spend my time but, for the sake of the discussion, I'll oblige anyway.

You state that "more and more people are born each year", which is clearly a fact, but then you follow up with "if the market share for mac users stayed exactly the same or even decreased, you're still getting more mac users every year" which makes no sense whatsoever: if there are more people (fact) but less macs are sold (another fact) how can there be more Mac users?

In other words:

P(opulation) : 100 = U(sers) : M(arket share)

Let's be generous and say that M is 10%. Please explain how could you keep M constant when P increases without also increasing U (by selling more Macs) because if you can't it means that "more and more consumers buy Mac computers" is just a blatant lie.

RT.