Here's the text:
"We are writing to provide you advance notice that the price of your Prime membership will be increasing in 2015. Your 2014 annual renewal will remain at the original price of $79. In March 2015, your membership will renew at $99/year."
I order about $2000 to $2500 worth of stuff per year from Amazon. Like somebody else said, I'd spend more than that per year on gasoline going to the various stores locally. And that's IF the product is even available locally. Most of what I buy online I can't find around here.
I still buy a ton of stuff from New Egg, too. They usually ship from Memphis to my home here in Birmingham, AL, so a lot of the time I get the stuff in a couple of days.
The snus I buy comes from Sweden. Nobody has it here in the U.S., so shipping is quite high, but I can order on Sunday and have it on Wednesday.
I'd say more but there's a drone landing in my front yard. I think my order has arrived!!
Why do we keep insisting on experimenting with the way we educate our children? It ain't rocket surgery - we've been doing it for thousands of years. Why not just teach the stuff they need to know and cut out the political correctness and zero-tolerance crap? Hold the students accountable and flunk them if they don't make the grades necessary.
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.
One of the main reasons oil from Canada is being transported by rail instead of pipelines is money. Warren Buffet is making money hand over fist transporting oil by rail, and he's one of Obama's biggest campaign contributors. THAT'S the sole reason for delaying the Keystone pipeline.
How many more trains are going to blow up and how many lives are going to be lost before we learn?
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.
I've always thought that somebody who has their own armed guards (politicians, celebrities, sports stars, etc) speaking out against firearms was hypocrisy to the extreme.
Oh, why do nearly all of the Federal agencies have their own armed officers now? Why have they been buying millions of rounds of hollow point ammunition? Why have they been buying sniper ammunition? Why does an FDA agent need a firearm? How long before they decide that they're the only ones who have firearms. Hmmm?
Stay in your country if you like it so much, and stay out of our discussions. You don't vote here.
The four basic food groups are good enough for me - caffeine, nicotine, bacon, and pussy. Without those, life has very little meaning.
As George Carlin would say, "Now THAT'S entertainment!"
With K-cups you never know how old the coffee is or where it came from. I've had some that was delicious, but a lot that was yuck. I just kept quiet and never insulted the machine's owner.
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".