What they DO NOT DO is show that this hybrid system would be effective in a real organism, as opposed to a petri dish. I am going to bet that once you get this puppy inside the bloodstream, all hell is going to break loose via the immune system and create a bunch of untoward side effects.
According to MIT's Press Release (and their published works): "Most of the tests reported in this study were done in human and animal cells cultured in the lab, but the researchers also tested DRACO in mice infected with the H1N1 influenza virus. When mice were treated with DRACO, they were completely cured of the infection. The tests also showed that DRACO itself is not toxic to mice."
This may not pan out to being the panacea promised, but it certainly does work inside of animals. There are tons of questions about how such a drug should be used if it were to become available and pass testing, whether it should be reserved for viruses that will kill you very quickly, or whether it should be prescribed to keep people missing work from a cold or flu, but the fact is, there's something worth researching here.
And it's not like MIT's not going to publish the biggest claim they possibly can to draw in as much research funding as possible for this, even if it does turn out to only be effective against a handful of virus types, or if it does just kill the host organism or a incredibly significant portion of their remaining cells, re-releasing viruses into their systems in the case of long-term virus infections such as Herpes or HIV.
Still, the researchers are right that there's not a lot of hope the viruses have resistance-wise, as there's nothing for them to actively select around. The viruses that could survive this kind of onslaught are ones that can deliver a payload while remaining an intact virus, which would require some kind of in-virus payload replication, which would make it... you know.. not a virus anymore, some kind of protobacteria. We just wonder if the host can also survive the damage wrought by this drug.
Still, it seems incredibly unlikely that only humans and cats are born deaf.
(Must have one of those Vulcan pinch phone holders...)
In this case, you're completely wrong. Apple has its own complete PDF stack which is used from its display server (Quartz, which is itself derived from Display PDF) up; the advantage is that you can dump a PDF from basically anywhere (what's on screen if it isn't 3D, offscreen widgets, etc) and print that exactly to your documentation, etc. It would make less than no sense for Apple to license Adobe's code, since it would be a complete duplication of something already in their software stack.
The loss of vertical resolution is really killer if you do anything like writing/programming/reading long webpages. Sure, you can up-end a 16:9 monitor and gain quite a bit, but then you lose horizontal resolution (which isn't as big a problem for the earlier tasks, but really destroys e.g. gaming, video watching, etc.)
My solution was to buy two 22" monitors and mount one of them in the tall fashion and the other regularly, but it always turns heads, and I'd really just love to have a huge 24-27" 5:4 monitor (with the same pixel density too.. if at all possible).
Or, GStreamer on Linux, OS X and Windows, since GStreamer supports playback through QuickTime and DirectShow natively. Why code for three frameworks when one portable one does everything you need?
That's not GNOME, that's Canonical. And there's a simple solution: don't use it. Just remove it and everything will go back to normal.
Why is not patching the system acceptable? Shouldn't it just determine if the DLL was damaged and replace it with the correct, working patched version if it is? Sorry, but automatically throwing their hands up and saying "you're fucked" is the Microsoft shortcut for not being able to fix their own security problems.