but the HD's you're stuck with the smell. Time to upgrade those.
Those should be replaced anyway since all the accumulated aerosolized pork would be interfering (clogging) any filtered pressure-balance mechanisms in the drives.
Cooling fans coated in grease tend to attract a lot of dust and will need some good manual cleaning (remove the dust, and the grease). Changing environmental conditions might also cause any accumulated fats to solidify...
all actual new money is created as debt by banks, not by the government. If you borrow money from the bank, they just "make up" the money,
There is no net creation of money when banks lend principal. The money lent out is added to the economy when it is used to buy things, and removed from the economy when it is paid back to the bank. Unless the borrower defaults, the conservation of principal remains in tact.
Interest charged, on the other hand, may generate money since that portion of the borrower's debt never left the bank into the economy. Depending on who you talk to, interest may not create any money if the principal is used to add value to something, or it may create or destroy money depending on how the principal is invested by the borrower.
Then there are weirder situations where debt is bought or sold for less than its face value by people and entities other than banks...
Unscrew panel with screwdriver, unplug RJ-11 to premesis punch-down box, plug in $5 phone, dial, reverse hardware changes. Total time: 30 seconds+length of call.
Versus buying a PI badge from eBay and engineering a company...
But it does matter how things are re-mapped. You said: "... a FAT or something similar, which is generally going to live in one spot on the disk-- you're going to hit the max writes on that segment fairly quickly."
Fine. Wear out the FAT at CHS 0/0/1 with 100,000 writes. Then write once to the lookup table at some non-addressable location to point the FAT to 0/0/2, or whereever. By the time the lookup table wears out (100,000[bad sector]*100,000[lookup table] writes, or 10,000*10,000 writes if you're cheap), your card is probably out of good sectors. If you like, have a lookup table for the first lookup table, and make it durable for 10,000*10,000*10,000 FAT relocations (enough to cover 1 trillion sectors, or conservatively, ~0.5 TB of addressable storage at 512 bytes per sector). And so forth...
In the end, the location of a single-copy FAT in flash media will not be the limiting factor in using flash drives to hold general purpose operating systems. This problem has been solved for spinning disks (by storing remapping information in NVRAM or other on-board flash memory...) and the same or a very similar solution would work for flash memory.
There's no way for you to know what the original was.
Except that kju, tqz, and wmk are not conventional words in the english language, while cat, bad, and dog are. Longer strings make isolating the correct original easier, as there are fewer possible correct permutations according to syntax and context (which you know or have an idea of).
But a hard drive needs a FAT or something similar, which is generally going to live in one spot on the disk...
One address on the disk. It isn't that difficult for the wear-leveling or related logic to remap logical CHS 0/0/1 (or whereever the FAT is stored in your particular file system) to physical CHS 0/0/1 or 37/6/9 or whatever.
This research shows that prion molecules/complexes begat more prion molecules/compexes. *Most* poisonous molecules don't initiate the formation of more of themselves.
This study doesn't explain why prions don't denature when they are cooked, but being able to make them means that that kind of study becomes much easier.
Indirectly, the study also strengthens the theory that prions act like crystals, where regular protiens remain useful/soluable like water molecules in clouds until something (prion) becomes a nucleus for the formation of insoluble hailstones. Prion 'crystals' could be expected to both be more stable under cooking and enzymatic digestion than loose protiens, and be able to initiate disease.
Am I correct in supposing the cost of living in Canada is similar to that of the Northern US? I'm sure it is significantly less then tech-heavy places like California.
Not as such. Just as there is cost of living diversity among states and cities in the U.S., there are differences among provinces and even cities therein.
Here in Alberta (debt-free province, no provincial sales tax, top 3 IT hubs in Canada), cost of living and wages are approximately 10-15 per cent less than in Toronto, Ontario. However, services like education can be up to 50 per cent cheaper than in Ontario or BC. Within Alberta, prices for many consumer goods and services are about 10-15 per cent cheaper in Edmonton than in Calgary, while the total cost of a four year degree costs about $1,500 more per student than it does in Calgary (yet students pay approximately the same in tuition). In both Edmonton and Calgary, it is possible for one to live comfortably on approximately $US 11,000 per year gross, and still be called a yuppie.
Interestingly, Edmonton is always in demand for computer tech people with experience in the oil industry while Calgary seems to have a bit of a glut of such individuals at the moment. Some combination of the three hour drive between the cities, and the different cultures is appearently keeping the natural solution from emerging.
This sub-thread assumes the individual seeking the drive lives near the US/UK/Asia where old computer junk are plentiful and easy to buy. How many eBay auctions will ship to the Southern Hemisphere for cheap?
I'm curious as to what preparation process you used to preserve the fragile 3-D structure of the Zn whiskers. How did you differentiate the between the Zn whiskers from something like fibreglas insulation and other atmospheric floaties in your sample collection, or did you just plate everything?
Also, what kind of controls did you use?
(Curious because this may have an application outside of old floortiles.)
I though growing crystals were slow to enlarge and fragile.
Don't underestimate the physical forces possible at the pointy end of a metal stick measured in um or #100s of atoms wide! (Compare the puncturing to your foot when you step on a tack vs stepping on a pebble.)
If I understand http://nepp.nasa.gov/whisker/experiment/exp2/index.html correctly, the whiskers are growing *under* 1-2mm of essentially varnish (Uralane 5750) on top of the electrical surface, and deforming the varnish.
The experiment shows (among other things) that the whiskers can form as a result of atomic migration of Zn from within the electrical surface, and not necessarily from deposition from the outside. Whatever is forcing the metal atoms (or quasi-ions) to move through the sea of other metal atoms to get to their nucleation point (the needles) probably doesn't care that there is a layer of flexible covalently-bonded (and mostly non-reactive with respect to metal ions) carbon, hydrogen and oxygen near it. And because this appears to be a slow process, a small force applied over time requires little energy, the loss of which is difficult to detect.
Also, hard epoxy would have fracutring issues when applied too generously to anything that experiences temperature change, like electronics.
Re:My experiences with Gmail invitations
on
Gmail in the News
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
And this thread is how some spammer out there just received a high-quality, targetted list of addresses. Ironic, no?
I think I'm glad they settled, because of the alternative. Had Opera won this in a courtroom setting, random browser/software makers would be that much closer to successfully litigating in the future against their competetitors for not making their products compatible.
Also, this $12 million settlement keeps Opera from getting any more media attention now, which is very cheap compared to what the cleanup would cost Microsoft. In those regards, this isn't a loss for Microsoft.
If combination cell-phone+GPS units are available commercially in a cola prize can form factor, why not make it an safety device (like an avalance beacon plus)? Those who want to be found in case they're lost or incapacitated can carry one and activate it when necessary (or make it dial home if some switch isn't activated once every n hours), while those who want to be invisible can stay that way. Or have it dial home periodically, since presumably anyone carrying such a thing wants to be findable.
No tracking is necessary since the route to a lost individual is somewhat less important than the location of that individual.
As long as such a device isn't mandatory, everyone should be no worse off than present.
>> "Microsoft cannot vouch for the validity or quality of download packages offered by third parties not sanctioned by Microsoft."
> I think that this comment from microsoft highlights one reason why open source is a much more trustworthy method than closed.
Any entity that would blanket vouch for another's products without inspection or a solid track-record has suspect judgement, open source or not. Microsoft, not having expended resources regression-testing this unofficial service pack, did the right thing by not making any claims about it, just as Red Hat would do if I released patches for a six year old version for their distribution. There is no business reason to make such claims (and several compelling legal reasons not to).
Would you claim that $open_source_package is bug-free? malware free? regression tested? without first doing a through QC?
Like the flu shot, this thing would have to be programmed for specific cancers.
In the research cited, they looked at two different kinds of cancer, lung and prostate. From each, they selected four indicators (protien and RNA levels) of the cancer in a cell. For each cancer, the DNA computer was programmed to detect (much handwaving) each of these indicators and release the attached drug sequence (which is specific to the particular cancer the computer is going after) if the correct indicators were found.
To adapt, as you query, the DNA computer would first need to be more living-esque (at least able to reproduce in some manner), which is a different problem than simply attaching recognition sequences for indicators specific to whatever cancer we hope to treat today.
Finding those indicators and the correct nucleotide sequences to fix whatever is causing the cell to become cancerous can be far more difficult than building this thing due to the variety of cancers and the different ways in which they interact with cells at the molecular level. Also, there's the problem that not all cancers or diseases can be grown in a lab, but I digress.
What if the computer accidentally got a mutation, and instead of recognizing cancer patterns, it would recognize and "treat" normal patterns?
I'm sure they would catch a bad batch in QC. Having said that, depending on what the payload is, it could be benign (dumping some nucleotide sequences that want to hybridize with cancer-esque RNA won't do much), or horribe (dumping some nucleotide sequences that want to hybridize with RNA sequences needed to produce... Na/K channels would suck somewhat). Excepting bad immune responses to whatever the payload is (in which case you likely lose whether the DNA computer is working properly or not), if the payload only acts on (binds to) cancer products (many to most current chemotherapy treatments), normal cells won't be disrupted.
However, it is very unlikely that all of the cancer-recognitiion sequences in a DNA computer (the article describes four used by the researchers, adding more should be comparatively trivial) would be simutaneously broken in such a way that only good cells would be treated and that all bad cells are ignored. In that unlikely event, the DNA computers that release the anti-drug (which inhibits whatever the bad DNA computer would be releasing) would scrub most of the payload by releasing the anti-drug or inhibitors in great quantities in the healthy cells only, as the drug DNA computers and anti-drug DNA computers are simutaneously administered.
Mis-recognition of healthy cells will be more of an issue once the payload becomes more sophisticated, for example, by having the DNA computers permanently correct things in the nuclear DNA instead of just temporarily screwing with cytoplasmic contents. But that's a few years off.
No. a) This nucleotide sequence isn't likely to interact with any human-made malicious ones as it is not linked to any conventional computer network or disk drive. Even if you were to cross-contaminate with something nasty, this thing doesn't self-replicate, which limits its ability to spread. (If we did make something de novo that self-replicated, that would be the news item, whether it carried a nasty or not.) Also, this DNA computer is subject to the same stray nucleotide degradation rules and enzymes as anything else. b) For something to infect this class of computer, either it has to be in the wild long enough for *something* to adapt its infectious abilities to this DNA computer, or we have to engineer something that does the same. c) Granted, you could swap the medicine/inhibitor loop for something nasty, but that technology is at least ten years away from the average skript kiddie.
But since CinePaint is based on Gimp I have my doubts about your claim being even true...
Please feel free to disagree with their documentation and their program.
Even if you install a crappy desktop-distribution, there aren't any different shortcut keys for cut/copy/paste in any application that is in the default install.
It's hard to take that entirely at face value since your statement is broad and general. BUT AS I SAID IN MY ORIGINAL POST, THINGS ARE GETTING BETTER.
Neither you nor I have been exposed to the full range of Linuxes out there. From my experience, cut/copy/paste has been a problem (as you and sundry others admit in Netscape 4). Also from my experience, this is a usability problem that is being fixed, although it has not been fixed in its entirety. Your experiences are evidently different.
FUD-swingers constantly use them to discredit...
1) Hold your unfounded accusations. I'm not trying to discredit anything here. I'm pointing out problems which have existed on some desktops, which have improved, but not to the entire extent possible. Take it as an example of how previous usability issues have been improved, or an indication that I'm an old fogie for comparing X GUIs as they are now to what they were like in 1994. If I were FUDding, I would do a better job by spewing benchmarks about blts per second, middle-clicks, zorder and such. 2) Feel proud that you've drawn in some other unrelated problems. I'll not argue them here.
This is about Linux usability, which includes your GUI applications (popular or otherwise), and also shells, text editors, media players and many other programs, and making all of that more usable. To imply that no cut/copy/paste usability problem exists because you have not found any thus far is silly. Even more so is to imply that non-popular applications need not conform to accepted UI design standards.
If (the royal) you simply focus on usability of specific apps, you miss the forest for the trees. Usability arises from the total user experience, although consistency is a significant part of that.
* xv, Brahams and the USGS metadata stack came to mind first, but those are probably less popular among the general population, however that is defined.
And thus you have hit squarely on the head a major reason why new operating systems are difficult to use for some people: New paradigms.
Every year, I walk about 100 people through Mac OS basics, most from Windows backgrounds. The trickiest thing in OS 9 and OS X for most is the topline menu, which is fixed at the top of the screen, unlike the window-attached menu bar in most windowing environments. (Ejecting discs is near the top of the list too, since the trash means delete for everything else, and "put disc in trash" is not mentally akin to "give me my data"...)
Next comes multi-/range-selecting (lists, image areas, etc), which is Ctrl/Shift+click in Windows. OS 9 is inconsistent with some apps regarding what lists can and cannot be multi-selected (some will allow multi-select but not range select!), or require unique Command/Option/Shift voodoo to do one kind of select in a way that's different from other apps. This got fixed in OS X (mostly). Most users end up trying different multi-selects until one works.
Two fairly simple things (the latter of which is probably due to a lifetime of unsafe Windows disk unmounts...) cause most of the learning curve pain.
This brings me to various window managers we see in Linux. With all due respect to diversity of code, freedom, etc, having three or more different sets of commands to copy/cut/paste text makes me think too much about what app has focus. Seriously.
Copy=Ctrl+C, XOR Alt+C, XOR something+delete, XOR (middle/right/4-click) in ALL apps, or all four in all apps would be better for productivity (as much as this would confuse emacs). Knoppix, Debian, etc are mostly consistent about this, but until this becomes consistent across most things, teaching novice users Linux GUIs will remain more of an uphill battle than it needs to be.
Also, it would help if the major window managers would agree on the default behavior for single-click things on the desktop, and how the taskbar behaves when applications in it are clicked. Finally, eject needs to be simpler than # eject/mnt/cdrom !
Find me a CEO/senior executive of something important (company, government) who doesn't use speech writers, and you will have found a failed executive.
Does anyone seriously think Bill, Bush, Gore, Gates, Thatcher, Scott, Arnold, etc. really have time to research and prepare up to a dozen dozen speeches every week on topics ranging from youth education, the state of the automobile industry, and how the new initiative will enhance health care in a region?
PR firms and flacks write speeches all the time because they are the ones with the time and training to parse highly specilised information into something Joe 6 p.m. nightly news reporter can understand, while making disasters look good for the company or government. Executives, however, are tasked with leading/spearheading/announcing important things when they happen and providing overall organizational leadership and management.
It would sometimes be nice if $leader fully understood the consequences of bituminous petro extraction and writes the entire speech himself before he speaks about it before their association, but I'd rather have $leader worry about leadership and management things which I might be paying him for through holdings or taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
but the HD's you're stuck with the smell. Time to upgrade those.
Those should be replaced anyway since all the accumulated aerosolized pork would be interfering (clogging) any filtered pressure-balance mechanisms in the drives.
Cooling fans coated in grease tend to attract a lot of dust and will need some good manual cleaning (remove the dust, and the grease). Changing environmental conditions might also cause any accumulated fats to solidify...
all actual new money is created as debt by banks, not by the government. If you borrow money from the bank, they just "make up" the money,
There is no net creation of money when banks lend principal. The money lent out is added to the economy when it is used to buy things, and removed from the economy when it is paid back to the bank. Unless the borrower defaults, the conservation of principal remains in tact.
Interest charged, on the other hand, may generate money since that portion of the borrower's debt never left the bank into the economy. Depending on who you talk to, interest may not create any money if the principal is used to add value to something, or it may create or destroy money depending on how the principal is invested by the borrower.
Then there are weirder situations where debt is bought or sold for less than its face value by people and entities other than banks...
telephone hacking skillz
Unscrew panel with screwdriver, unplug RJ-11 to premesis punch-down box, plug in $5 phone, dial, reverse hardware changes. Total time: 30 seconds+length of call.
Versus buying a PI badge from eBay and engineering a company...
But it does matter how things are re-mapped. You said: "... a FAT or something similar, which is generally going to live in one spot on the disk-- you're going to hit the max writes on that segment fairly quickly."
Fine. Wear out the FAT at CHS 0/0/1 with 100,000 writes. Then write once to the lookup table at some non-addressable location to point the FAT to 0/0/2, or whereever. By the time the lookup table wears out (100,000[bad sector]*100,000[lookup table] writes, or 10,000*10,000 writes if you're cheap), your card is probably out of good sectors.
If you like, have a lookup table for the first lookup table, and make it durable for 10,000*10,000*10,000 FAT relocations (enough to cover 1 trillion sectors, or conservatively, ~0.5 TB of addressable storage at 512 bytes per sector). And so forth...
In the end, the location of a single-copy FAT in flash media will not be the limiting factor in using flash drives to hold general purpose operating systems. This problem has been solved for spinning disks (by storing remapping information in NVRAM or other on-board flash memory...) and the same or a very similar solution would work for flash memory.
There's no way for you to know what the original was.
Except that kju, tqz, and wmk are not conventional words in the english language, while cat, bad, and dog are. Longer strings make isolating the correct original easier, as there are fewer possible correct permutations according to syntax and context (which you know or have an idea of).
But a hard drive needs a FAT or something similar, which is generally going to live in one spot on the disk...
t ors-c.html
One address on the disk. It isn't that difficult for the wear-leveling or related logic to remap logical CHS 0/0/1 (or whereever the FAT is stored in your particular file system) to physical CHS 0/0/1 or 37/6/9 or whatever.
This type of bad sector remapping to spare sectors (mostly invisible to the operating system) has been happening in the internal hard disk logic for some time now:
http://www.pcguide.com/ts/x/comp/hdd/errorsBadSec
This research shows that prion molecules/complexes begat more prion molecules/compexes. *Most* poisonous molecules don't initiate the formation of more of themselves.
This study doesn't explain why prions don't denature when they are cooked, but being able to make them means that that kind of study becomes much easier.
Indirectly, the study also strengthens the theory that prions act like crystals, where regular protiens remain useful/soluable like water molecules in clouds until something (prion) becomes a nucleus for the formation of insoluble hailstones. Prion 'crystals' could be expected to both be more stable under cooking and enzymatic digestion than loose protiens, and be able to initiate disease.
Ahh fudge. 3 a.m. post as someone who just coded for eight hours straight at the Uni. I'll login this time!
Am I correct in supposing the cost of living in Canada is similar to that of the Northern US? I'm sure it is significantly less then tech-heavy places like California.
Not as such. Just as there is cost of living diversity among states and cities in the U.S., there are differences among provinces and even cities therein.
Here in Alberta (debt-free province, no provincial sales tax, top 3 IT hubs in Canada), cost of living and wages are approximately 10-15 per cent less than in Toronto, Ontario. However, services like education can be up to 50 per cent cheaper than in Ontario or BC. Within Alberta, prices for many consumer goods and services are about 10-15 per cent cheaper in Edmonton than in Calgary, while the total cost of a four year degree costs about $1,500 more per student than it does in Calgary (yet students pay approximately the same in tuition). In both Edmonton and Calgary, it is possible for one to live comfortably on approximately $US 11,000 per year gross, and still be called a yuppie.
Interestingly, Edmonton is always in demand for computer tech people with experience in the oil industry while Calgary seems to have a bit of a glut of such individuals at the moment. Some combination of the three hour drive between the cities, and the different cultures is appearently keeping the natural solution from emerging.
This sub-thread assumes the individual seeking the drive lives near the US/UK/Asia where old computer junk are plentiful and easy to buy. How many eBay auctions will ship to the Southern Hemisphere for cheap?
Zinc in the amounts being discussed here likely isn't unhealthy unless inhaled (then it becomes like that other famous mineral fibre). Besides, zinc may be anti-bacterial or anti-fungal:i e=UTF-8&hl=en&meta=
http://www.google.ca/search?q=zinc+antibacterial&
I'm curious as to what preparation process you used to preserve the fragile 3-D structure of the Zn whiskers. How did you differentiate the between the Zn whiskers from something like fibreglas insulation and other atmospheric floaties in your sample collection, or did you just plate everything?
Also, what kind of controls did you use?
(Curious because this may have an application outside of old floortiles.)
I though growing crystals were slow to enlarge and fragile.
x .html correctly, the whiskers are growing *under* 1-2mm of essentially varnish (Uralane 5750) on top of the electrical surface, and deforming the varnish.
Don't underestimate the physical forces possible at the pointy end of a metal stick measured in um or #100s of atoms wide! (Compare the puncturing to your foot when you step on a tack vs stepping on a pebble.)
If I understand http://nepp.nasa.gov/whisker/experiment/exp2/inde
The experiment shows (among other things) that the whiskers can form as a result of atomic migration of Zn from within the electrical surface, and not necessarily from deposition from the outside. Whatever is forcing the metal atoms (or quasi-ions) to move through the sea of other metal atoms to get to their nucleation point (the needles) probably doesn't care that there is a layer of flexible covalently-bonded (and mostly non-reactive with respect to metal ions) carbon, hydrogen and oxygen near it. And because this appears to be a slow process, a small force applied over time requires little energy, the loss of which is difficult to detect.
Also, hard epoxy would have fracutring issues when applied too generously to anything that experiences temperature change, like electronics.
And this thread is how some spammer out there just received a high-quality, targetted list of addresses. Ironic, no?
-M5B
I think I'm glad they settled, because of the alternative. Had Opera won this in a courtroom setting, random browser/software makers would be that much closer to successfully litigating in the future against their competetitors for not making their products compatible.
Also, this $12 million settlement keeps Opera from getting any more media attention now, which is very cheap compared to what the cleanup would cost Microsoft. In those regards, this isn't a loss for Microsoft.
Missing iBook G4...
If combination cell-phone+GPS units are available commercially in a cola prize can form factor, why not make it an safety device (like an avalance beacon plus)? Those who want to be found in case they're lost or incapacitated can carry one and activate it when necessary (or make it dial home if some switch isn't activated once every n hours), while those who want to be invisible can stay that way. Or have it dial home periodically, since presumably anyone carrying such a thing wants to be findable.
No tracking is necessary since the route to a lost individual is somewhat less important than the location of that individual.
As long as such a device isn't mandatory, everyone should be no worse off than present.
>> "Microsoft cannot vouch for the validity or quality of download packages offered by third parties not sanctioned by Microsoft."
> I think that this comment from microsoft highlights one reason why open source is a much more trustworthy method than closed.
Any entity that would blanket vouch for another's products without inspection or a solid track-record has suspect judgement, open source or not. Microsoft, not having expended resources regression-testing this unofficial service pack, did the right thing by not making any claims about it, just as Red Hat would do if I released patches for a six year old version for their distribution. There is no business reason to make such claims (and several compelling legal reasons not to).
Would you claim that $open_source_package is bug-free? malware free? regression tested? without first doing a through QC?
Like the flu shot, this thing would have to be programmed for specific cancers.
In the research cited, they looked at two different kinds of cancer, lung and prostate. From each, they selected four indicators (protien and RNA levels) of the cancer in a cell. For each cancer, the DNA computer was programmed to detect (much handwaving) each of these indicators and release the attached drug sequence (which is specific to the particular cancer the computer is going after) if the correct indicators were found.
To adapt, as you query, the DNA computer would first need to be more living-esque (at least able to reproduce in some manner), which is a different problem than simply attaching recognition sequences for indicators specific to whatever cancer we hope to treat today.
Finding those indicators and the correct nucleotide sequences to fix whatever is causing the cell to become cancerous can be far more difficult than building this thing due to the variety of cancers and the different ways in which they interact with cells at the molecular level. Also, there's the problem that not all cancers or diseases can be grown in a lab, but I digress.
What if the computer accidentally got a mutation, and instead of recognizing cancer patterns, it would recognize and "treat" normal patterns?
... Na/K channels would suck somewhat). Excepting bad immune responses to whatever the payload is (in which case you likely lose whether the DNA computer is working properly or not), if the payload only acts on (binds to) cancer products (many to most current chemotherapy treatments), normal cells won't be disrupted.
I'm sure they would catch a bad batch in QC. Having said that, depending on what the payload is, it could be benign (dumping some nucleotide sequences that want to hybridize with cancer-esque RNA won't do much), or horribe (dumping some nucleotide sequences that want to hybridize with RNA sequences needed to produce
However, it is very unlikely that all of the cancer-recognitiion sequences in a DNA computer (the article describes four used by the researchers, adding more should be comparatively trivial) would be simutaneously broken in such a way that only good cells would be treated and that all bad cells are ignored. In that unlikely event, the DNA computers that release the anti-drug (which inhibits whatever the bad DNA computer would be releasing) would scrub most of the payload by releasing the anti-drug or inhibitors in great quantities in the healthy cells only, as the drug DNA computers and anti-drug DNA computers are simutaneously administered.
Mis-recognition of healthy cells will be more of an issue once the payload becomes more sophisticated, for example, by having the DNA computers permanently correct things in the nuclear DNA instead of just temporarily screwing with cytoplasmic contents. But that's a few years off.
-M5B
No.
a) This nucleotide sequence isn't likely to interact with any human-made malicious ones as it is not linked to any conventional computer network or disk drive. Even if you were to cross-contaminate with something nasty, this thing doesn't self-replicate, which limits its ability to spread. (If we did make something de novo that self-replicated, that would be the news item, whether it carried a nasty or not.) Also, this DNA computer is subject to the same stray nucleotide degradation rules and enzymes as anything else.
b) For something to infect this class of computer, either it has to be in the wild long enough for *something* to adapt its infectious abilities to this DNA computer, or we have to engineer something that does the same.
c) Granted, you could swap the medicine/inhibitor loop for something nasty, but that technology is at least ten years away from the average skript kiddie.
-M5B
But since CinePaint is based on Gimp I have my doubts about your claim being even true...
...
Please feel free to disagree with their documentation and their program.
Even if you install a crappy desktop-distribution, there aren't any different shortcut keys for cut/copy/paste in any application that is in the default install.
It's hard to take that entirely at face value since your statement is broad and general. BUT AS I SAID IN MY ORIGINAL POST, THINGS ARE GETTING BETTER.
Neither you nor I have been exposed to the full range of Linuxes out there. From my experience, cut/copy/paste has been a problem (as you and sundry others admit in Netscape 4). Also from my experience, this is a usability problem that is being fixed, although it has not been fixed in its entirety. Your experiences are evidently different.
FUD-swingers constantly use them to discredit
1) Hold your unfounded accusations. I'm not trying to discredit anything here. I'm pointing out problems which have existed on some desktops, which have improved, but not to the entire extent possible. Take it as an example of how previous usability issues have been improved, or an indication that I'm an old fogie for comparing X GUIs as they are now to what they were like in 1994. If I were FUDding, I would do a better job by spewing benchmarks about blts per second, middle-clicks, zorder and such.
2) Feel proud that you've drawn in some other unrelated problems. I'll not argue them here.
CinePaint.*
But you miss the point.
This is about Linux usability, which includes your GUI applications (popular or otherwise), and also shells, text editors, media players and many other programs, and making all of that more usable. To imply that no cut/copy/paste usability problem exists because you have not found any thus far is silly. Even more so is to imply that non-popular applications need not conform to accepted UI design standards.
If (the royal) you simply focus on usability of specific apps, you miss the forest for the trees. Usability arises from the total user experience, although consistency is a significant part of that.
* xv, Brahams and the USGS metadata stack came to mind first, but those are probably less popular among the general population, however that is defined.
And thus you have hit squarely on the head a major reason why new operating systems are difficult to use for some people: New paradigms.
/range-selecting (lists, image areas, etc), which is Ctrl/Shift+click in Windows. OS 9 is inconsistent with some apps regarding what lists can and cannot be multi-selected (some will allow multi-select but not range select!), or require unique Command/Option/Shift voodoo to do one kind of select in a way that's different from other apps. This got fixed in OS X (mostly). Most users end up trying different multi-selects until one works.
/mnt/cdrom !
Every year, I walk about 100 people through Mac OS basics, most from Windows backgrounds. The trickiest thing in OS 9 and OS X for most is the topline menu, which is fixed at the top of the screen, unlike the window-attached menu bar in most windowing environments. (Ejecting discs is near the top of the list too, since the trash means delete for everything else, and "put disc in trash" is not mentally akin to "give me my data"...)
Next comes multi-
Two fairly simple things (the latter of which is probably due to a lifetime of unsafe Windows disk unmounts...) cause most of the learning curve pain.
This brings me to various window managers we see in Linux. With all due respect to diversity of code, freedom, etc, having three or more different sets of commands to copy/cut/paste text makes me think too much about what app has focus. Seriously.
Copy=Ctrl+C, XOR Alt+C, XOR something+delete, XOR (middle/right/4-click) in ALL apps, or all four in all apps would be better for productivity (as much as this would confuse emacs). Knoppix, Debian, etc are mostly consistent about this, but until this becomes consistent across most things, teaching novice users Linux GUIs will remain more of an uphill battle than it needs to be.
Also, it would help if the major window managers would agree on the default behavior for single-click things on the desktop, and how the taskbar behaves when applications in it are clicked. Finally, eject needs to be simpler than # eject
-M5B
OS X/slackware/Red Hat/AIX/Windows user
Find me a CEO/senior executive of something important (company, government) who doesn't use speech writers, and you will have found a failed executive.
Does anyone seriously think Bill, Bush, Gore, Gates, Thatcher, Scott, Arnold, etc. really have time to research and prepare up to a dozen dozen speeches every week on topics ranging from youth education, the state of the automobile industry, and how the new initiative will enhance health care in a region?
PR firms and flacks write speeches all the time because they are the ones with the time and training to parse highly specilised information into something Joe 6 p.m. nightly news reporter can understand, while making disasters look good for the company or government. Executives, however, are tasked with leading/spearheading/announcing important things when they happen and providing overall organizational leadership and management.
It would sometimes be nice if $leader fully understood the consequences of bituminous petro extraction and writes the entire speech himself before he speaks about it before their association, but I'd rather have $leader worry about leadership and management things which I might be paying him for through holdings or taxes.