*nix on "classic" systems

On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 09:58 -0500, John Foust wrote: Sorry, John, that's simply not true. Casual observation will show that; there's no need for a $50M study to determine it. In point of fact, job sites where typing output needs to be maximized tend to use old copies of WordStar for their text editing, as ALL commands in WS can be accomplished by the standard typewriter keys, plus the control key. People can then type without breaking their concentration by either trying to find the correct shift state (Shift, Control, and Alt) function key, or taking hands off the keyboard to reach for the mouse, move the pointer up to the proper pull-down menu, open it, find the correct selection, and select it. I note that this is a classic example of buying results. "Hey, we have 50 Million, and we want to prove that a mouse system is faster than a keyboard system. Who wants to help?" I'm sure this study, if published at all, was published in The Journal of Irreproducible Results. What are the methods? I would be willing to bet that it has not been peer-reviewed. The phrases "media buy," "bollocks" and "Public Relations" come to mind immediately. Scientists and researchers have recently shown themselves to be whores for their funding. There is no clearer proof of this than the relatively small number of scientists protesting the furor over the imaginary link between planetary temperature cycles and alleged human effects. While a simple logical case can be made for a human cause of the current warming trend, even a cursory examination of the data already collected indicates STRONG support for the idea that humans play no, or close to no, role in the current warming. Scientists have discovered that panic induces increased funding, so, strangely enough, all of their recent releases are panic-inducing. Those who don't "play along" lose their funding. Peace, Warren E. Wolfe wizard at voyager.net