OpenDNS hijackes NXDOMAIN failures, which is one of the big reasons to drop many ISP's DNS in the first place. I don't want to get into evaluation of motivation and such, but the effect is the same.
Nice misdirection, firstly the typical windows shell sucks, secondly it ignores the Windows XP style start menu which is also vastly superior to the typical Windows shell (did I mention that windows shells typically suck?).
I could have been clearer, but I was including typical Unix shells in that as well.
Actually if you define a command-line shell as a text-based program that you use to launch and interact with other programs, the Vista/7/8 search mechanism for launching programs works better than every command-line shell that I've ever used if you just want to launch the program with no command-line arguments (which is the usual thing when starting a GUI program).
Take Word, remove the space bar and replace it with a button in the GUI. Can you imagine the pain caused by this?
If you're launching programs with anything approaching the frequency of typing a space, you're doing something really weird.
But fine, take a different example: a web browser. Browsers are primarily a mouse-driven program -- scrolling is arguably nicer with a mouse, and clicking links and such is definitely nicer with a mouse. But if you want to go to a new URL, what do you do? Type it out, even though that's only a momentary use of the keyboard.
Why should there be a sharp line between GUI and text interface? In other words, the question shouldn't be "should this typing thing be in a GUI" and should instead be "is this (or when is this not) a good way of launching programs?"
For instance, I'm actually one of the relatively few people who actually really liked Vista, and a lot of that was on account of the search feature of the start menu. I'd have taken it over XP on the basis of that feature alone, that's how much it improved my usability. (Possibly XP + Launchy would have satisfied me, but I discovered it a bit too late to use it much with XP and view it as pretty much obsoleted by Vista+.) For several reasons, I think it's even significantly easier and faster overall to use the start menu search than it is to use tab completion in a typical shell to launch a GUI program.
(And incidentally, this is one reason that I'm almost completely indifferent about Win8, which I suspect you don't see. I pretty much ignore the fact that metro exists except when launching programs, and I launch programs pretty much identically to how I launched them in Vista & 7.)
No one says "hey I actually have to type when creating a document in Word; what gives?!" even though Word is pretty much undeniably a GUI.
I think that in a lot of cases, the same can be said for the start menu. If you're on a desktop/laptop, most of the time pressing win then typing a few characters is just fundamentally going to be the fastest way to start a program. The Win8 problem comes from the fact that in other situations, or if the user doesn't know you can do that, or if they just don't want to type, the start screen is pretty hard to use well.
Windows NT has had a journaling FS since its introduction in 1993.
But (on any OS) a journaling FS usually just means that the file system metadata itself is consistent; most journaling FSs don't journal data changes as well, so you could have a half-committed change to the contents of a file from a program. Even if it did, that still doesn't guarantee that a program will issue file operations in a way that has any chance of being considered atomic.
You could make an argument that journaling fixes some of the least important file system consistency issues.
Uh... no. I'm not saying no one uses those terms the way you define it, but "dynamic range" is pretty much the only term I've seen used for what you call exposure range.
For example, if I Google "dynamic range photo" (and in the interest of fully disclosing my methods, that's the first search term I tried), the first five results are:
"Overall, the dynamic range of a digital camera can therefore be described as the ratio of maximum light intensity measurable (at pixel saturation), to minimum light intensity measurable (above read-out noise)."
"In photography, dynamic range is the difference between the lightest light and darkest dark which can be seen in a photo."
"The dynamic range of a sensor is defined by the largest possible signal divided by the smallest possible signal it can generate." This one is closer to your definition of dynamic range.
The wikipedia hit I get goes right to the HDR articles, which says "In photography, dynamic range is measured in EV differences (known as stops) between the brightest and darkest parts of the image that show detail." If you follow the link to the dynamic range article, you get "Photographers use "dynamic range" for the luminance range of a scene being photographed, or the limits of luminance range that a given digital camera or film can capture, or the opacity range of developed film images, or the reflectance range of images on photographic papers." (emphasis mine)
The fifth link, http://www.stuckincustoms.com/..., doesn't have any definition of dynamic range, and is basically an ad site.
So if I'm generous and count dpreview for you (and then count the fifth link as neutral), that's 1 out of 4 links that agree with you and 3 out of 4 that use "dynamic range" to mean what you call "exposure range".
Can you install Windows 8 on an 8-year old PC and expect it to run acceptably?
I run Win8 on a 6 1/2-year old PC. Believe it or not, that's actually my main computer at home. Works fine. Only upgrades were more RAM (2->6GB), an SSD, and a new GPU (only because the old one died). The only one of those that had anything to do with the OS upgrade was the SSD -- I used the "well I have to reinstall anyway" as an excuse to move from 7 to 8. Barring any HW failures, it is almost certain that will remain my primary computer until it is more than 7 years old.
Would I see benefit from an upgrade? Yeah, occasionally. Would I see enough benefit that it's worth the money? No, not since I've gotten a dedicated gaming machine.
Besides, your question isn't even the right question. It's not a matter of "would it run fine if you installed the latest and greatest thing" -- it's a matter of "is it running fine with what it has already".
Did you not turn on subtitles?
I'm not the OP, but I hate subtitles. Especially for a game like Portal, so much of the humor is in the delivery of the lines that I feel that seeing the subtitles appear and reading ahead (which is essentially impossible to avoid, at least for me) spoils the experience a lot. I also feel like it takes me out of the experience a bit.
If the games had an option to "show me subtitles but only display the subtitle for a line after the line is complete" I'd probably use it a lot more, but I explicitly go in and turn off subtitles when they're on by default, and only turn them back on after I hit multiple points where I can't understand the dialog.
That said, my Steam account has 126 Linux games from 627 games total.
I was curious so I thought I'd see it for my library even though I figured won't be gaming on Linux any time soon. And even though that latter thing is still true, I was surprised; several titles that I thought were not available for Linux have been added, like Mark of the Ninja.
For me, 25 of 84 titles in my library (I have a much smaller collection than you, apparently
And if you count Portal 2, then if I total the amount of time that Steam says (it lies, but hopefully in an unbiased manner) I've played games that are available for Linux as opposed to the amount of time I've played all games, it's even bigger: 47% of my time playing any Steam game has been spent in something available for Linux.
So I'm impressed by their library. Not impressed enough to move my gaming PC to Linux by any means (there are too many old games that will probably never be ported for that to apply until there is a compelling advantage to Linux for this), but impressed nevertheless.
Just make shells recognize postfix commands as arg1 arg2 arg3, cmd (e.g. foo bar, echo will print "foo bar") and then alias it to dammit!
This isn't really anything anyone hasn't already said, but....
Ignoring the general stupidity of many TSA practices, and that this is an artificial market created by government inefficiency, what's so fundamentally wrong with paying more to get through faster?
Nice airline ticket there. It'd be a shame if you missed it.
I don't count putting the mouse cursor in the corner a gesture. For instance, while I could be wrong I don't think I've ever heard someone call the action opening Expose a gesture.
If you do, then I guess I have used one on a handful of occasions -- but not any more. The only thing from the charms bar I'd want is "settings" and "start", and I open both of those with the keyboard.
Like I said, I'm not saying Win 8's design is good -- I just disagree with the gesture characterization.
...ith the added insult of requiring gestures even on a mouse-based machine!
I've been using Windows 8 for quite some time, and without commenting on my overall opinion, I have never once done anything that I would consider a "gesture."
This sounds like a very useful idea to a relatively small market. For instance, for several years I didn't drive to work, but instead took the bus. "If my car is at home, the package can be delivered there" doesn't necessarily apply to everyone, for instance me. Given the choice between having it go into my trunk or onto the front porch of a house or even the hallway of a "secured" apt building, the trunk sounds like it would be much more attractive for many deliveries.
Not all games are VAC-protected, and not all VAC-protected games have every server VAC-protected (I think). For instance, you won't have VAC running for single-player games.
I'll also say that ideally, even in a case like the one you mention, ideally what the instructor would do is grade some of the tests, see that it was way out of line with reality, and then go back and reevaluate how much of the test a good student "should" have been able to do. For instance, look at what the TAs were able to accomplish and dial down that expectation a bit, or something like that. Then once you have reestablished your expectations, then go back and continue grading & regrading.
I suspect basically all teachers have at least some feedback from the raw scores students achieve to the letter grade; eliminating that entirely is both psychologically hard and probably pedagogically undesirable. (E.g. if you can move a grade boundary a little bit to get it out of a cluster, that'll often be good, and it leaves you unresponsive to your own mistakes.) But too much feedback is almost as bad as too little in most cases (not yours).