You were probably using the "Touch Cover", which is indeed very difficult to use (since there's no tactile feedback). There's also the "Type Cover", which is basically like a super-thin laptop keyboard (backlit mechanical keys), and it's also the only one available for the Surface 3 (it's a different size, and Microsoft seemingly didn't bother making a Surface 3 Touch cover). Unfortunately, the keyboard has to be purchased separately, and it's also rather expensive ($130).

"Hi, we've detected a virus on your machine etc etc"

"Which one? Is it my old [OS] system downstairs, or the newer one upstairs running [OS]?"

".....[click]beeeeeeeeeeeeeeee"

For best results, pick semi-recent Windows versions OSes (XP, Vista, 7, 8, or 8.1) that you aren't actually running and see if they actually try to guess which one it is, then see how they react when you casually mention that it's been turned off for the past several months or suffered from a hardware failure.

Considering that Server 2003 is a different underlying OS version (NT 5.2 / build 3790 instead of NT 5.1 / build 2600, having a completely different set of service packs), this might be easier said than done. The only way you could "safely" accomplish something like this would be to install Server 2003 [R2] and then somehow hack it from Server mode to Workstation mode. Now, if you were running Windows XP x64 Edition (which is NT 5.2), this would be much more plausible (because it takes the same updates as Server 2003 x64, including the service packs).

If you really want to insert an IP address without it pointing to a real computer, you have a bunch of choices:

• RFC 5737: IPv4 Address Blocks Reserved for Documentation - 192.0.2.*, 198.51.100.*, and 203.0.113.*
• RFC 3927: Dynamic Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses - 169.254.*.*
• RFC 1918: Address Allocation for Private Internets - 10.*.*.*, 172.16.*.* thru 172.31.*.*, and 192.168.0.* thru 192.168.255.*

Including numbers greater than 255 just makes it look obviously fake.

Technically, they're "colorblind" in the same way that some people are colorblind (people with protanopia, red-green color blindness, have only 2 types of color receptors in their eyes).

Teachers interact with a vertical touch UI, known as a "blackboard" and "chalk", for hours on end every day. They even do so standing. How is this possible, given what you just wrote above? Well they aren't standing there in front of the board like a zombie; they are putting their arms down when they aren't drawing on the board.

They're also standing less than a foot away from the board, so they don't need to extend their arms in order to reach it. If you could put your computer monitor less than 12 inches from your face, gorilla arm probably wouldn't be as much of a problem (though I can't say the same about eyesight).

I just tried disabling nvsvc32, but I discovered that it doesn't exist on my system - the NVIDIA Display Driver Service is named "nvvsvc.exe" (and the Update Service Daemon is "daemonu.exe"), and while I did find an "nvsvc64.dll", I could not find a single file named "nvsvc32.exe" anywhere on my system.

Is this something that only exists in the 32-bit drivers (I'm running Win7 x64), or is it something that disappeared in the 310.70 drivers released last week?

How on earth do you translate 240p to "240 frames progressive" without making the [effectively] industry-standard terms "480i", "480p", "720p", "1080i", and "1080p" equally meaningless?

It means 240 scanlines progressive - old NTSC television sets normally like to run at 480i, but they're tolerant enough to handle video signals which don't have the extra half-scanline at the end of each frame and display it non-interlaced.

Microsoft's compiler has a similar warning - "C4706: assignment within conditional expression", and it actually doesn't let you suppress it just by adding extra parentheses - instead, you have to add a comparison around it.
Thus, your second example would have to be while ((list = list->next) != NULL)", which is probably more readable anyways.

They're probably using "apps developed for Windows RT" to mean "Windows Store apps that the developer didn't bother to compile for i386/amd64", which is going to be a very small set of apps (in practice, it appears to generally be the other way around - apps that the developer didn't bother to compile for ARM).

What you've said is certainly true... for Windows 95/98/Me, which were indeed built on top of Windows 3.1 and MS-DOS and not properly designed to be multi-user. If you think Windows 7 falls under that same category, you are sadly mistaken - that traces back not to 16-bit Windows 3.1 but to 32-bit Windows NT 3.1, which was designed to be multi-user (and even multi-CPU) from the very beginning.

If you did never lock up your drive wheels using engine braking, you haven't tried hard enough.

Last I checked, "wheel lock up" means the wheels cease rotation and start skidding uncontrollably, so the only way you could possibly lock up your drive wheels with engine braking would be if you stopped the engine - as long as it's still running (and the transmission is engaged), the wheels will keep turning (though they won't provide much torque unless you're driving an automatic and you're at a complete stop).

I will agree, though, that strong negative torque from engine braking (equivalent to what would cause your brakes to lock up the wheels) can definitely cause you to lose traction and start skidding, but it won't lock the drive wheels unless you define locking differently.

My guess would be that in low-traction situations, even light pressure on the brakes can be enough to lock the wheels, while engine braking cannot possibly cause the wheels to lock.

A man with three clocks will invariably find some convoluted way of using them to tell the time:

"This one runs ten minutes slow every two hours. This runs twenty minutes fast every four hours. The one in the middle is broken and stopped at two o'clock. I take the ten minutes on this one and subtract it from the twenty minutes on that one. Then I divide by the two in the middle."

EAS alerts have a distinctive noise they make before the announcement.

Specifically, that noise is a data burst which encodes most of the details of the alert (who sent it, what happened, where it happened, when it happened, etc.). Wikipedia provides a reasonably detailed description of the signal structure and the data encoding.