...matter, which is one of the main reasons I continue to look at slashdot. Thanks for all insights provided.

In my opinion and limited but significant knowledge, killing an application in such a way is exactly (a) the power a company like MS has with their proprietary code base and (b) perfectly consistent with that I perceive to be their business model.

"Every need's got an eagle to feed."
("A pimper's paradise, that's all she was...")

Amount that I esteem BM: immense, though I can by no means claim to fathom his actual dimensions.

Amount that I esteem some middle American's thought about Darwin awards: immeasurably small

According to Bob Weir of the Grateful Dead, from whom he borrowed the reference Cowboy Neal (ie. Cassady) was "at the wheel of a trip to never-ever land."

This is just a guess, though still something you should have specified in your original description.

If when it originally died on the off chance that you initially powered back up into Windows first, then this Paragon thing (with the above mentioned deficiencies) would sound like the likely culprit. Otherwise, as people have mentioned, it is very strange that disk-wide issues should result from a loss of power.

Bro, yea, chkdsk, that's just ironic enough to be possible in a Windows universe! "Oh, and remember to be sure to allow it to complete uninterrupted!" lol

It's not the what that should be eligible for copy-right protection, it's the how. APIs are the what. The implementation is the how.

Or consider this - the genes they were looking at had nothing in the world to do with it. Problem solved! ;)

On what basis do you believe it/yours to be inherited?

I do not feel that I could definitively know the cause of this complex condition, but I feel some affinity with it (and aversion to its contemporary medical analysis). My favorite thing that I read was the (initially (in the US) lionized and ultimately demonized) Bruno Bettelheim's Empty Fortress. He was an early one to point out the genetic twins point, something which has somewhat amazingly been able to be glossed over by all the test-tube monkeys. Basically, I am concerned that, perhaps the primary political entity, parents, have been able to dismiss this, a virtual Emperor's New Clothes type scenario/campaign. Extreme as it sounds, I myself would not dismiss this out of hand. Finally, I am not at all about assigning any kind of blame, just getting to the truth of the matter.

Oh, we're talking about random MUTATIONS (ie. some other basis of non-identical genetic twin genes?) able to counteract this (purported) complex genetically coded condition IN ALL OF ITS MAJOR ATTRIBUTES???

Oh, and, to my knowledge, identical gestation environments theoretically equates to identical expression, NO, or do all of these (purportedly multiple) genes involved in this expression, simultaneously (in concert) decide whether to express themsleves or not?

If the preceding is not essentially the case with genetically identical twins, how is it that they even end up resembling each other consistently in the vast majority of the cases? Is it just that we can dispense with (the law of) genetic resemblance for this one special case?

"Autism has a strong genetic basis, but so far efforts to identify the responsible genes have had mixed results. The reason for this is that autism is influenced by many different genes, and different genes are involved in different individuals, making it hard to find the common genetic ground between patients."

Perhaps, alternately to considering a more complex/obfuscated genetic basis, we should again consider a NON-genetic basis?

How about the experiment everyone conveniently chooses to forget, the occurrence of autism in only one genetic twin (sharing identical genes, gestation environments, etc.).

"Faithful genetic transmission over successive DNA-to-XNA cycles allowed researchers to select for only those XNAs that attached to certain target proteins from a pool of random samples — a process akin to evolution over multiple generations."

A material's just being "sticky" is no kind of confirmation of the sequence uniformity. They would have to be sequenced to confirm this.

The article only provides the most superficial description, and this is Science and Nature, though it also smacks of some (by no means atypical these days) grand-standing.

detective shows. You just shade over it with a pencil, revealing the indentations. Of course, first you make a xerox copy in case you corrupt the original.

I have been using their online service for ~6+ years now, previously at the Premium level (~$50). This year I saw something pretty much unprecedented for an online services provider. They advised the Deluxe level (about half the price) for returning customers. (Note: they say that pretty much any version should be adequate for just about any normal user to fill out their forms correctly. They all have access to the same forms. The only difference is in the tools and menus that facilitate the data entry.)

For the first time I made an error filling out one of the forms and had a smooth 2-stage process talking to their support (first technical, then tax) to correct it. At only $30 I still save about $270 compared to going to a professional, and have decent confidence. At that price I can justify it on the convenience of fairly mindlessly filling out e-forms (ie. as opposed to hard copy) alone.

covert operators give me wood.

Agreed. That statement, actually nearer than near, is coincident with idiotic, and the article unworthy of its subject.

Better he should have shot your face off, then for the doctors to replace it with your ass. Heck, I'd want a gander at that!

You saying no one (yourself included) has ever made a mistake?