Or, should we trust The Science™?

Many people have heard of GMO foods, but they are usually imagining things within the plant kingdom -- not the animal kingdom. Where has the trend in transgenic animals gone in the last decade or so? Let's take a look.

First a little backstory.

Milk resembling human breast milk has been produced by genetically engineered cows.

Chinese researchers announced in the journal PLoS ONE this week that they had engineered cows to secrete milk containing lysozyme, a protein found in human breastmilk that boosts the immunity of breastfed babies.

The researchers from the China Agricultural University and GeneProtein Biotechnology Company, both in Beijing, say alternatives to breastmilk are important because mothers are sometimes reluctant or unable to breastfeed.

"Modified bovine milk is a possible substitute for human milk," they wrote.

The researchers inserted human lysozyme genes into the nuclei of cells in the bodies of cows, and then used a technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer (the 'Dolly method') to clone the cows.

But what could go wrong?

If it has the same effects in humans, Maga said, the milk could someday help ease malnourishment caused by diarrhea, which is a leading cause of infant mortality in some developing countries. The modified cow milk wouldn't be just for babies; conceivably any malnourished person, or person lacking in gut bacteria, could benefit from drinking it.

But before that happens, transgenic milk must move to the human testing phase. In the United States and Europe, genetically modified food gets a bad rap, and so human trials will probably be much slower to happen here than in China.

"Any transgenic animal product that goes on the market has to undergo extensive characterization beforehand. I'm sure in China they have a program to do that just like they do here," Maga said. But the difference is, China has a lot more resources and personnel working on it, as well as a completely different attitude toward genetic modification (GM), she explained. "In this country and in Europe there's a very loud anti-GM lobby, with advocates claiming that GM is unsafe."

Keith Schneider, a food scientist at the University of Florida who studies food safety, concurs. "With as much flak as we have in this country over GM, it will probably take much longer than three years to make it through (the testing stage) to the market," he said.

By contrast, Sky News in Beijing reported that a man, Jiang Yao, recently tasted the human/cow transgenic milk, and had this to say about it: "It's good. It's better for you because it's genetically modified."

Now that we've all been through the COVID Scare, things are no longer looked at the same way. Most of the public is now aware of the fact that Big Science has lied to them. The Science™ is no longer trusted because it has proven to be driven by motives that do not align with safety. In fact quite the opposite.

We know this because of numerous court cases filed against Pfizer which have been thrown out. It's not that Pfizer was not implicated in the production of dangerous products marketed as vaccines -- but because the US government expressly allowed for that in contracts.

In United States ex rel. McBride v. Halliburton, a 2017 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and again in a 2018 decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, United States ex rel. Berg v. Honeywell Int’l, the courts dismissed fraud cases simply because the contractors in question cited “continuing government payments.”

And in 2018, the DOJ further diluted the False Claims Act via the issuance of the Granston Memo, which instructed government attorneys to reject more lawsuits filed under the Act.

In the two years which followed, dismissals of False Claims Act cases increased.

The newly proposed False Claims Amendments Act of 2021 would adjust the materiality standard to include instances where government payments have continued despite knowledge of fraud — this could affect Pfizer, which has contracts with the U.S. government to provide COVID vaccines.

But I'm sure that this milk is just fine. It might even be "safe and effective."

Scientists insist genetically modified foods are unlikely to pose a threat to food safety and in the United States consumers have been eating genetically modified foods for more decades.

However, during two experiments by the Chinese researchers, which resulted in 42 transgenic calves being born, just 26 of the animals survived after ten died shortly after birth, most with gastrointestinal disease, and a further six died within six months of birth.

Researchers accept that the cloning technology used in genetic modification can affect the development and survival of cloned animals, although the reason why is not well understood.

A spokesman for the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals said the organisation was "extremely concerned" about how the GM cows had been produced.

She said: "Offspring of cloned animals often suffer health and welfare problems, so this would be a grave concern.

"Why do we need this milk what is it giving us that we haven't already got."

Helen Wallace, director of biotechnology monitoring group GeneWatch UK, said: "We have major concerns about this research to genetically modify cows with human genes.

"There are major welfare issues with genetically modified animals as you get high numbers of still births.

"There is a question about whether milk from these cows is going to be safe from humans and it is really hard to tell that unless you do large clinical trials like you would a drug, so there will be uncertainty about whether it could be harmful to some people.

"Ethically there are issues about mass producing animals in this way."

Professor Keith Campbell, a biologist at the University of Nottingham works with transgenic animals, said: "Genetically modified animals and plants are not going to be harmful unless you deliberately put in a gene that is going to be poisonous. Why would anyone do that in a food?

"Genetically modified food, if done correctly, can provide huge benefit for consumers in terms of producing better products."

It's very easy to see why this hasn't gone as far as most people would have imagined. However, I don't think it's the ethical concerns that have so far stemmed the tide on the GMO cattle. The real reason is that creating these transgenic animals is complicated, and usually doesn't pan out so well. Most of the time there are only a handful of them that live to maturity, and they are unable to reproduce with other animals of the same species.

It would seem that the human antigen in cow's milk is the thing of the past. The Science™ is looking even further into the future this time. Now they're trying to produce cattle that have insulin in their milk.

"Mother Nature designed the mammary gland as a factory to make protein really, really efficiently," explained study leader Matt Wheeler, a professor of animal sciences at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. "We can take advantage of that system to produce a protein that can help hundreds of millions of people worldwide."
...
"Our goal was to make proinsulin, purify it out to insulin and go from there," Wheeler said in a university news release. "But the cow basically processed it herself… The mammary gland is a magical thing."

To produce the transgenic cow, a segment of human DNA was inserted into the cell nuclei of 10 cow embryos. It contained coding for proinsulin, a precursor of the active form of insulin. Through genetic engineering, the human DNA was targeted for expression in breast tissue only.

The altered embryos were then implanted in the uteri of normal cows in Brazil, and one transgenic calf was born.

Once she matured, researchers used artificial insemination to try to impregnate her. When that failed, they used hormones to stimulate her to produce milk for the first time.

Though she made less than a successful pregnancy would have produced, the milk not only had detectable levels of human proinsulin but also insulin itself. Researchers didn't expect that.
...
The next step is to re-clone the cow. Researchers are hopeful they will achieve greater success with pregnancy and full lactation cycles in the next generation of animals.

Eventually, the goal is to create transgenic bulls, mate them with the transgenic females and create a "purpose-built" herd. Even a small herd could quickly outpace existing methods for insulin production — without any need for highly technical facilities or infrastructure, Wheeler said.

"I could see a future where a 100-head herd, equivalent to a small Illinois or Wisconsin dairy, could produce all the insulin needed for the country," he said. "And a larger herd? You could make the whole world's supply in a year."

While all of this sounds exciting to scientists, it's very creepy to most people. Who wants to drink GMO FrankenCow™ Milk? Milk that is "unlikely to pose a threat to food safety."

I know what is unlikely to pose a threat to food safety -- natural foods!

Has anyone wondered why there are so many diabetic people to begin with? Why is that not "the science" we're looking for? Wouldn't it better suit mankind as a whole to heal people -- and not just treat their symptoms?

What about those kids dying from malnourishment because of diarrhea? Why are there so many who are malnourished? And why would there be so many adults lacking in gut bacteria? Shouldn't these be things the science is looking for?

It's like they're looking for a workaround for everything -- instead of addressing the root of the problem. This is not good science, it's tampering with multiple genomes because economic and political situations are bad.

Correct the economic and political issues -- and stop trying to play Victor Frankenstein.

What do you think?

Buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

Can you punish the "evil" out of someone? I don't know to tell you the truth -- but I'd be willing to bet the answer is NO. Can you sit someone in the corner until they decide to stop being evil? Likely not. Keep in mind that this essay is about hypotheticals.

Is it even possible to sufficiently punish someone, to the extent that they no longer want to commit malice towards others, or is it that you can scare them into submission, or perhaps they continue to get away with it -- until someone stops them? Once stopped, can they truly be reformed?

These are serious questions, because they determine how most people perceive the world around them.

Throughout history there have been evil people. But the level to which they are seen as "evil" varies based on the time period. For example, medieval torture practitioners were considered at the time to be "eccentric." We look at those acts now, and they are seen (rightfully so) as cruel and unusual.

Fast forward to today and things are quite different, in most of the world.

But there have been truly evil people running reeducation camps and torturing large numbers of people. In some parts of the world they still are, you just don't hear about it. Here in the US, the camps most hammered into people's minds are those run by Nazi Germany, but those were not the only reeducation camps. There were camps in many other countries that were specifically designed to break the spirit of the people contained within. Not to "reeducate" them, but to torture them until their very last breath. A sort of Hell on earth situation, run by the most sadistic people that could be found.

I think it's hard to argue that those who committed such acts are not evil. Similarly, I don't think a strong argument could be made that someone with the capacity to perform such acts could be "reformed."

A mental line is crossed when someone gets to that point. Perhaps they were always that way? Perhaps it was learned behavior. Many people who have come home from wars are haunted by the things they were capable of in such situations. Nobody can be sure how they will act in all situations. It's in those moments that people truly have to face their own being. That can be one of the most deeply moving, and deeply disturbing situations a person will ever encounter.

But back to the issue at hand. Can any of these kinds of human actions be avoided by the proper amount of punishment? Well, let me throw another curveball into this situation. Consider, what if the punishment makes the person (being punished) realize that they didn't commit their crimes in the "proper manner?" In other words, they are being punished because they didn't cover their tracks (well enough) -- not because what they were doing was wrong. I imagine that that is the situation the vast majority of the time, at least as it pertains to murderers.

Keep in mind that the majority of people who commit premeditated murder have already rationalized it in their minds. This is usually because the situation that drove them to the point of wanting to kill someone -- was outside of the bounds of law. Someone might have bullied them, or tormented them in a way that's technically "legal, but seriously messed up. Crimes can and are committed within the bounds of the law.

So what is any society to do? Well, there are limited options, and most of these issues have been fleshed out long ago. In fact, most people intrinsically understand this -- it's only in modern times that people have become so sheltered, as to believe that everything and everyone can be "healed." That's simply not the case. Not everyone can be afforded a second chance, nor do they want it.

Righteous indignation is not something that can easily be thwarted. People don't forget a perceived wrong -- not easily. And if that perceived wrong is "wrong enough" their perceived answer might be to put the perpetrator to death. We've seen this exemplified throughout history.

If everyone can be "healed" (their perceived wrongs corrected) why couldn't we end crime -- by capturing all of the criminals? Wouldn't there be a point where the last criminal is captured? Or, as I believe, some criminals are created spontaneously as various situations and opportunities present themselves.

Considering all of the above, what is the answer? The most obvious answers are containment, or death. After a horrific crime has been committed what other options are there?

How do you head off this possibility? I would imagine it would involve some form of "social engineering." Not the overt kind, but the kind that achieves largely positive outcomes by design. A system that rewards positive behavior as a result of participating in society. That is not to say that the laws should not punish bad behavior, but rather, laws should support and foster the methods and outcomes that result in people (whether knowing it or not) working on tasks that are beneficial to society.

However, this seems antithetical to what is expected in a free society. Social engineering to the level necessary get rid of all crime, would likely be tyrannical. As a result "right and wrong" would be highly subjective and often weighed against the overall outcomes of various people groups, and not based on individual outcomes.

A rights based system is the only way to achieve an approximate balance between right and wrong -- without moving into overtly tyrannical territory. God given rights can be clearly defined, and are far less subjective to opinion than what is right or wrong.

Or look at it this way, what system requires very specific behavior of its adherents -- to the point that they are ruled over to the extent that the outcomes are very predictable? Prison. That's the system that forces compliant behavior, a prison system.

Understanding that people are flawed is the philosophical basis for equally applied laws in a free society. People will never be perfected, as such, government and laws are necessary. And sometimes people have to be taken out of society -- because they will not follow the law. The law of course covers those who can not follow the law as well, those who lack mental capacity, or those who are insane.

Criminals, and the criminally insane will likely end up being removed from "voluntary society" and moved into some sort of prison, where societal norms are forced, not coerced.

The picture I used at the beginning of this essay is from one of the creepiest two Sci-Fi episodes I've ever seen. If you're unfamiliar with Doctor Who, you might be more interested after this particular episode S2 E18 and E19 (of the newer Doctor Who series).

Doctor Who is a time traveler, thousands of years old, and has pretty much seen it all, but in this episode even he is freaked out.

The entity he and his time travelling companion encounter is unlike anything he's dealt with before, and in fact might be the actual "Devil" as is referred to in many religious texts.

To the Doctor's question as to which Devil he is, given that there are so many religions, the Beast answers that he is all of them. He explains that the Disciples of the Light rose up against him leaving him defeated, and subsequently chained in the pit for all eternity. He states this occurred before the creation of this universe, to which the Doctor retorts that this is impossible as nothing could exist before the creation of the universe. The Beast asks the Doctor if that is his religion; a question that the Doctor can only answer with that is what he believes. The Beast tells the crew that they know nothing.

This begs the question, why was the Devil imprisoned by the Disciples of the Light and not reformed? Because sometimes people can't be reformed -- sometimes they are just evil.

What do you think?

Buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

Many people are fed up with Windows Updates. They can't be turned off, and they're a serious nuisance. In an earlier post I covered how to effectively turn Windows Updates off through Group Policy. However, If you don't have Windows 10 or 11 Pro, you don't have access to the Group Policy objects, or even the Group Policy Editor.

Never fear, there is a way to install the Group Policy objects and editor in Windows 10 and 11 Home edition.

Before we get into it, it I have put up the usual disclaimers:

1. Backup your computer before starting.
2. Backup the Windows Registry before starting.
3. Ask your doctor if Windows Group Policy is right for you.
4. WindUpRubberFinger.com may contain testimonials by users of our products and/or services. These testimonials reflect the real-life experiences and opinions of such users. However, the experiences are personal to those particular users, and may not necessarily be representative of all users of our products and/or services. We do not claim, and you should not assume, that all users will have the same experiences. YOUR INDIVIDUAL RESULTS MAY VARY.
5. Void were prohibited.

Now that we have that out of the way we can start. If you've attempted to correct issues on a corrupted Windows 7 and up installation you might be familiar with DISM. DISM (Deployment Imaging Servicing Management [tool]) is used to repair corrupted Windows Images, pulling files either from some local repository or an online Microsoft repository.

DISM is often used in conjunction with the SFC (System File Checker) command.

The sfc /scannow command will scan all protected system files, and replace corrupted files with a cached copy that is located in a compressed folder at %WinDir%\System32\dllcache.
The %WinDir% placeholder represents the Windows operating system folder. For example, C:\Windows.

DISM is how you add the Group Policy Objects and Editor to your Windows Home installation.

I found the instructions below on Microsoft TechNet, somebody must have flown under the RADAR, or it was their last day working for M$. I would credit the author, but I only copied the text. I was in the middle of migrating my VMs from ESXi 6.0 to Proxmox 8.2.2 (but that's a story for another day). I came across this tutorial while looking for something completely different -- but I new it was worth saving.

I haven't personally done this but I have no reason to believe that it wouldn't work.

Fortunately, Windows 10 Home has the undocumented option to install the gpedit.msc editor from the Windows image packages and manifests repository (\Windows\servicing\packages).

How to Enable the GPEdit.msc on Windows 10 and 11 Home?

To install the Local Group Policy Editor in Windows 10 Home edition, open a command prompt as administrator and run two one-line commands in sequence:

FOR %F IN ("%SystemRoot%\servicing\Packages\Microsoft-Windows-GroupPolicy-ClientTools-Package~*.mum") DO (DISM /Online /NoRestart /Add-Package:"%F")

FOR %F IN ("%SystemRoot%\servicing\Packages\Microsoft-Windows-GroupPolicy-ClientExtensions-Package~*.mum") DO (DISM /Online /NoRestart /Add-Package:"%F")

Also these commands can be used to install gpedit.msc console in Windows 11 Home.

For convenience, you can save this code to a text file gpedit-install.bat and run it as administrator. Wait a while until DISM installs the packages from the Windows 10 component store.

In my case, the ClientTools and ClientExtensions packages were installed in Windows 10 Home:

Microsoft-Windows-GroupPolicy-ClientTools-Package~…~amd64~~….mum
Microsoft-Windows-GroupPolicy-ClientTools-Package~…~amd64~en-US~….mum
Microsoft-Windows-GroupPolicy-ClientExtensions-Package~…~amd64~~….mum
Microsoft-Windows-GroupPolicy-ClientExtensions-Package~…~amd64~en-US~….mum

Now try to run the gpedit.msc console. The Local Group Policy Editor interface should open (no reboot required). The GPO editor is fully functional even in the Home edition of Windows 10 or Windows 11, and contains all the necessary policy sections that are available in the Pro/Enterprise editions."

Once this completes, you'll be able to use the information in my previous post How To Stop Constant Windows Updates (Windows 10 and 11).

I would test this in a VM, but I don't have a copy of Windows Home.

If you use this method, let me know in the comments.

Buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

I'm sure that anyone using Windows 10 or 11 is tired of the constant "forced" updates.

You might have something open in a word processor, or maybe you're even testing something for work. The updates that are pushed are a problem -- because you can't be sure that your computer isn't going to be restarted when you're not looking.

For me, it reminds me of pausing a game on the Nintendo Game Console from the 1980s. Sure you can pause it, and go back to it the next day (for games that have no save feature or codes) but is the machine actually going to work the next day? Well, I'm sure anyone who has play Nintendo back in those days remembers, normally the console is frozen the next day.

Micro$oft Windows should (definitely by now) be more reliable than a 1980s Nintendo Game Console. But alas, because of constant updates -- it's really not.

However, there is a work-around, but it requires that the user have a Windows 10 or 11 Pro or Enterprise installation. If you don't have a Windows 10 or 11 Pro or Enterprise installation, you won't be able to make the necessary settings changes.

I'll have to do another post on how to enable Group Policy settings on Windows Home installations. I have seen the instructions to do it, but I've never personally implemented them because I've always run Pro versions of Windows since the XP days.

You'll have to open the Group Policy Editor, in order to do this, open a Windows run dialog by pressing the Windows key on your keyboard, then typing "gpedit." The group policy editor should show up.

I'll illustrate how to stop the automatic updates here:

Then there's this:

You might notice where I have a comment of just "y" in the Group Policy Editor. I did this so that when I make changes, I can easily find the objects I have changed. In the Group Policy Editor, you can sort by comment "yes" or "no." This makes it easy to go back to objects I have changed in the past.

With these two settings configured, your machine will auto download updates, but will not auto install them. Furthermore if the updates are installed, the machine will not auto restart, a user will have to allow it to restart.

The only reason I allow for the auto downloading of updates is because there were issues in the past when Windows would go too long without downloading updates. There sometimes could become corruption of the files that are used in the updates. So, I allowed them to be downloaded, only because there would be a running history of whatever updates should be done, stopping the Windows Installer from going wonky.

If you implement these changes, you'll still be nagged by Windows, but you will not be forced to update, and your machine will not restart on its own.

Give it a try and tell me what you think.

Buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

I'm sure that this isn't a particularly interesting subject, but if you've used Linux as a desktop OS you might just be interested.

I've become more and more annoyed by Micro$oft as the years have gone by.

That being said, Linux is the obvious choice. Linux has come so far in recent years that it rivals any paid-for operating system -- even for novice users. Linux is stable and runs the same software (for the most part) that you might run on a Windows or a Mac machine.

I'm writing this post on a Toshiba laptop running MX Linux, It was given to me by a relative. It originally had Windows 7 on it. I put 16 gigs of RAM in this machine for $18 after tax. The only downside was that it had a mechanical hard drive, not an SSD, but I fixed that.

I installed MX Linux 23.4 and began setting things up.

I love the OS, it's snappy and things work well. Most of the software I use is preinstalled as part of the standard package.

The only downside was the mouse sensitivity. I'm running the vanilla XFCE version, which allows for lots of configurable options, themes, and tweaks to the GUI to make things look and feel the way you would like them. However, when I plugged in my Logitech M17c wireless mouse, things got squirrelly. So I went to adjust the mouse settings and go about my business, but something was missing!

Notice there is acceleration and sensitivity.

Here's what I saw.

There is no sensitivity. These newer mice all have really high DPI so their sensitivity is insane. That's why mouse pads are now made of super smooth cloth-type material.

Without a sensitivity setting, there was no way to tamp down the overly sensitive mouse. Highlighting things was a nightmare, because 1/16th of an inch of movement was equal to 7 characters of a size 12 font!

After searching for quite some time about how to change the mouse sensitivity I found that the driver used by XFCE had changed, the current one lists different properties than the older one did. It's not that things can't be adjusted, they just have to be adjusted a different way.

More searching revealed that not many people knew how to adjust the mouse sensitivity. Normally with anything Linux related you can find where people have run into and solved the vast majority of issues you might run into. But not this time.

There are commands you can issue that will show what the mouse settings are, but first you have to find out which device it's listed as.

$ xinput -list
⎡ Virtual core pointer                    	id=2	[master pointer  (3)]
⎜   ↳ Virtual core XTEST pointer              	id=4	[slave  pointer  (2)]
⎜   ↳ SynPS/2 Synaptics TouchPad              	id=11	[slave  pointer  (2)]
⎜   ↳ Logitech Wireless Mouse                 	id=13	[slave  pointer  (2)]
⎣ Virtual core keyboard                   	id=3	[master keyboard (2)]
    ↳ Virtual core XTEST keyboard             	id=5	[slave  keyboard (3)]
    ↳ Power Button                            	id=6	[slave  keyboard (3)]
    ↳ Video Bus                               	id=7	[slave  keyboard (3)]
    ↳ Power Button                            	id=8	[slave  keyboard (3)]
    ↳ TOSHIBA Web Camera - HD: TOSHIB         	id=9	[slave  keyboard (3)]
    ↳ AT Translated Set 2 keyboard            	id=10	[slave  keyboard (3)]
    ↳ ACPI Virtual Keyboard Device            	id=12	[slave  keyboard (3)]
    ↳ Logitech Wireless Mouse                 	id=14	[slave  keyboard (3)]

Now that you know the device ID you can issue another command to show the properties for that device ID, the Logitech mouse:

$ xinput -list-props 13
Device 'Logitech Wireless Mouse':
Device Enabled (177):	1
Coordinate Transformation Matrix (179):
0.370000, 0.000000, 0.000000,
0.000000, 0.370000, 0.000000,
0.000000, 0.000000, 1.000000
libinput Natural Scrolling Enabled (323):	0
libinput Natural Scrolling Enabled Default (324):	0
libinput Scroll Methods Available (327):	0, 0, 1
libinput Scroll Method Enabled (328):	0, 0, 0
libinput Scroll Method Enabled Default (329):	0, 0, 0
libinput Button Scrolling Button (665):	2
libinput Button Scrolling Button Default (666):	2
libinput Button Scrolling Button Lock Enabled (667):	0
libinput Button Scrolling Button Lock Enabled Default (668):	0
libinput Middle Emulation Enabled (333):	0
libinput Middle Emulation Enabled Default (334):	0
libinput Accel Speed (335):	0.440000
libinput Accel Speed Default (336):	0.000000
libinput Accel Profiles Available (337):	1, 1
libinput Accel Profile Enabled (338):	1, 0
libinput Accel Profile Enabled Default (339):	1, 0
libinput Left Handed Enabled (340):	0
libinput Left Handed Enabled Default (341):	0
libinput Send Events Modes Available (300):	1, 0
libinput Send Events Mode Enabled (301):	0, 0
libinput Send Events Mode Enabled Default (302):	0, 0
Device Node (303):	"/dev/input/event14"
Device Product ID (304):	1133, 16468
libinput Drag Lock Buttons (342):	
libinput Horizontal Scroll Enabled (343):	1
libinput Scrolling Pixel Distance (344):	15
libinput Scrolling Pixel Distance Default (345):	15
libinput High Resolution Wheel Scroll Enabled (346):	1

However, there is no sensitivity setting listed -- only acceleration. This is why it didn't show up under the mouse settings.

The question then becomes, "Is this the result of using a Logitech mouse, or is this a just the way that the XFCE driver works?" It appears that it's at the driver level. I tried multiple different mice, and none of them show properties for sensitivity.

Some versions of Linux use the "evdev" kernel-level driver and others use "libinput" the xorg-driver. That's where the difference is. Apparently the libinput driver is better suited for touch pads from what I've read.

Wanting to modify the OS as little as possible, I looked for some way to adjust the mouse sensitivity natively. Again this was a long and exhaustive search. Eventually I started poking around on my own.

I decided to change the Coordinate Transformation Matrix values. They appear in (3) groups of (3) numbers.

The first two groups of 3 represent the (x) and (y) coordinates, the last value of 1.000000 needs to be left unchanged, if it is changed to anything other than "1" none of the other changes will take effect. I started by changing all of values of 1.000000 to 5.000000, and nothing changed at all. So then I tried changing them to fractional values, this also resulted in no change. Lastly, I tried changing just the first two from 1 to 5 -- that made the mouse nearly useless it was so sensitive. But there was a change. Next I tried with fractional values and found that the sensitivity was reduced. After messing around with the sensitivity and acceleration I found what worked best with my wireless mouse.

Here's what the optimal settings look like.

$ xinput -list-props 13
Device 'Logitech Wireless Mouse':
	Device Enabled (177):	1
	Coordinate Transformation Matrix (179):
0.370000, 0.000000, 0.000000,
0.000000, 0.370000, 0.000000,
0.000000, 0.000000, 1.000000

The downside is that if I unplug the mouse, or reboot the computer the defaults return. I'm sure there is a way to make the changes persistent, but I wasn't sure what might happen if I use a different mouse at some point. So I decided to write a simple shell script and place it on the desktop so I can double click it and put the mouse settings to where I want them.

#!/bin/sh

# This will set the mouse properties for a Logitech M317 wireless mouse.
# The default sensitivity is too high.

#Mouse Sensitivity
xinput --set-prop 13 179 0.370000, 0.000000, 0.000000, 0.000000, 0.370000, 0.000000, 0.000000, 0.000000, 1.000000

#Mouse Acceleration
xinput --set-prop 13 335 0.500000

exit 0

For now this will suffice. I don't change the mouse that often, and I usually suspend this computer when I'm not using it, so I don't have to change the settings frequently enough to worry about it.

I read many articles where people were searching for a way to adjust the mouse sensitivity -- and that was the only reason that they weren't using Linux as their primary operating system. Maybe this can help someone to make the switch!

Buy me a Ko-Fi 😉👉

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"