Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2010 September 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Computing desk
< September 28 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 30 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


September 29[edit]

Two hardware questions[edit]

Hello Refdeskers! I have two separate but related questions:

  1. As you may be able to tell from my userpage, my computer is a piece of junk that can barely run more than one application at a time. So I've been planning a major motherboard upgrade to the following components: AMD Athlon II x3 440, 3.1 GHz, tri-core CPU; 2 GB of RAM; and the integrated ATI Radeon HD 4200 graphics chip all on an Asus M4A785-M motherboard. (Of course other components will be upgraded, but they are irrelevant to this question.) The power supply is rated at 250 W; I plan to keep that as is. My question is: does the Reference Desk, in its infinite wisdom, think this is enough power to watch and record HD video? I was told on another forum that a 2 GHz dual-core Pentium would probably be enough, but I would like to make absolutely sure before I buy anything (and this particular CPU is on sale!).
  2. I recently appeared on a local TV show. This particular show is only broadcast on a local station in my area, but there are family in other parts of the U.S. that would like to see my appearance. I plan to record the show in Windows Media Center using an HDHomeRun, but then there is the problem of actually getting the recording to the relatives. Right now I plan to burn the show to DVDs and mail them out (obviously ignoring the potential copyright issues) but since that is a bit cumbersome and involves cost on my part, is there a better, preferably free way that someone in the same situation has tried before? The show is 30 minutes long and produced and broadcast in 1080i HD, so we're talking very large (~2 GB) file sizes here. Xenon54 (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
For (2), you can use Dropsend [1] or a similar service to send fairly large files (up to 2 GB, in Dropsend's case). This is only feasible if you and the recipient have reasonably speedy internet connections. Buddy431 (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
For (2), why not just ask the show's producers for several copies of that particular episode? I've been on a few local programs in my time and the staff was always happy to provide copies for myself and some relatives. That's a very common request. You may have to pay a small fee for their trouble, but to me that seems the easiest solution and you won't run afoul of any legal restrictions. Just give em a call and ask! The Masked Booby (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes that is more than enough CPU power to watch and record HD video, although you should probably look at getting 4GB (2×2GB) of RAM instead. The power supply seems woefully inadequate - even my old computer bought in 2002 had a 300W PSU! 250W means it's either very old or proprietary for small form factor (or both) and I doubt you can even use it on modern hardware at all. Pick a modest (eg. 400W) PSU from a reputable brand, they aren't that expensive anyway.
As for (2), you can also host the files on your computer and get your relatives to download it directly from you (use a VPN like Hamachi if you want a little bit more privacy), but that'd require you leaving your computer on most of the time. If they don't have fast internet access you could perhaps use a flash drive as a medium instead of DVDs to reduce costs and transfer times, maybe establish a family sneakernet or something. --antilivedT | C | G 03:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
If it's a quality and real 250W ATX2.0 (i.e. decent 12V) PSU I suspect it could power a modern hardware. See for example what some 300W can power [2]. I'm not saying I recommend it Nil Einne (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
See also the second last post here [3] of a system running a picoPSU-160-XT which is a DC-DC converter which takes 12V and outputs the other necessary voltages (3.3V, 5V) and rated at 160W typical, 200W peak. You may also be interested in looking at real world (i.e. not theoretical) measured usage of various systems under maximum possible power usage load that people can achieve. Nil Einne (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, so I found a 380W power supply for $20 from Newegg and I'll upgrade that. What would you say the lowest I can go is in terms of CPU? In order to save money I'm looking at a 3.0 GHz dual-core Athlon II instead of the tri-core. Would that be enough power? Xenon54 (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what PSU you are looking at but that sounds rather cheap and looking at PSUs at that price on Newegg I didn't see anything that particularly inspires confidence. I did find [4] which should be a decent enough PSU. I'm not saying it's the cheapest decent PSU you can find, I didn't look that well and I'm not familiar enough with all I saw anyway (I come from NZ where there's less choice).
Cheap crap PSUs have a tendency to die much sooner then better quality ones. Far worse though is they can kill hardware when they die. Well I suspect all PSUs have a chance of doing so even if technically the ATX standards say they shouldn't, but cheap crap PSUs tend to do it a lot more then better ones. Since you're buying a relatively cheap system, this perhaps isn't quite as big a deal as those who buy super expensive systems then use crap PSUs but worth considering. Another important thing is cheap crap PSUs can also have problems giving a reliable supply leading to stability problems (whether from the beginning or as they die). Cheap crap PSUs also tend to be overated, so often you might as well get a decent but lower rated better PSU (380W isn't that high but I saw some 300W which would potentially be better then a cheap crap 380W).
You may also want to consider efficiency. You can get a 80 PLUS certified PSU (not the earlier linked one I think although its efficiency probably isn't to bad) for example the Antec Earthwatts 80 PLUS [5] or the Corsair 430CX [6] (not certified but the manufacturer says it's primarily because they have submitted it and it should meet the standards [7]). Note again I'm not saying these are the cheapest high efficiency PSUs they're just ones I came across (the Antec I looked for since it's one of the cheapest 80 PLUS PSUs here in NZ).
I'm not sure what the efficiency of the cheap crap PSUs are but it wouldn't surprise me if they are around 70% or even less at certain ranges especially the lower ranges e.g. 20-50% (where your computer is likely to be most of the time) which means more heat and more power used (i.e. more cost to you). [8] says 72% for one cheap PSU but doesn't specify at what output. The efficiency savings are unlikely to be enough to make up for the difference but the price may difference may not be as big as you think over time. For example if your power supply is 70% efficient at 100W it's drawing 142.86W vs one that is 82% efficient at 100W that's drawing 121.95W or 20.91W difference. If you take 8 hours per day of that, that means a saving of 167.25Wh a day or 61.087kWh a year. I don't know how much you pay for power but since you live in the US from [9] 11 cents/kWh is probably not unresonable so a savings of $6.72 per year on your power. 100W is probably a little high, I suspect your computer will be close to idle most of the time it's on but even so a few dollars savings per year is probably not unresonable.
In terms of the CPU and HD playback (which I think is primarily what interests you? Recording is largely irrelevant of course presuming your are referring to recording digital broadcast TV), you haven't specified what sort of HD content you are talking about. If you are talking about terrestrial HD broadcasts in the US, AFAIK most well probably all of these are MPEG2 which isn't really that demanding even in HD. In any case, but particular for H264 it's IMHO worth using the GPU instead of the CPU. The HD4200 does hardware decoding for H264, MPEG2 and VC-1 so it should be fine if set up properly and with the right codec. From memory, the HD4200 needs a hypertransport 3 (well greater then 1400mhz hyper transport I think) CPU for all the PureVideo goodies to work at their best although I think that's primarily an issue for stuff like quality deinterlacing rather then hardware decoding and AFAIK all Athlon II CPUs have HT3.
In any case, a decent dual core should also be fine even if you do use CPU decoding provided it's an efficient codec and although as I've said that wouldn't be my recommendation anyway. One instance where you may need CPU decoding is with likely copyright infringing downloads, as these may occasionally be encoded with settings the GPU doesn't support (although nowdays I think most are avoiding that especially given playback on game consoles where you have no option). Bear in mind certain programs like VLC on Windows don't support multithreading anyway so there's no advantage to a triple core over a dual core at the same speed in that sense or even a single core really (well some minor advantage due to background processes perhaps).
Nil Einne (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft Windows update frequency[edit]

My PC is about 3 years old and runs Windows Vista. I like to know what is installed, so pretty much as soon as I got it I configured Windows update to download and let me know about updates (I know that's not Microsoft's recommendation, but I like it like that). When I first got the PC the updates came often, almost every day in fact. Recently I've noticed the updates have become much rarer (perhaps every 2 weeks) but there's usually several updates to be done at the same time. My PC is still reporting it is up to date, so has Microsoft changed the way in which Windows update works to reduce the frequency of updates? Astronaut (talk) 04:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

see Patch_Tuesday 194.39.218.10 (talk) 05:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
As the article says, Microsoft issues patches for Windows every second Tuesday of every month. However, some days there may be less updates that other days, so maybe that's whats happened to you. Chevymontecarlo - alt 06:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't think it's that - Patch Tuesday was introduced in 2003. When I said recently I meant with the last few months. Indeed, if I look at the history of updates on my PC I can see for example in April 2008 I got updates on the following dates: 2, 3, 6, 10, 13, 15, 16, 18, 23, and 24. Updates continued in this fashion until March 2010 (which had updates on 2, 6, 10, 12, 14, 15, 25, and 31). Since then, updates have only been received twice a month so last month I got 1 update on 3 August and 17 updates on 13 August. Astronaut (talk) 09:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed the same with my updates of Vista (which I do manually for connectivity reasons). I'd assumed that Microsoft were losing interest in Vista. Dbfirs 07:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Remember, though, that there's much less to patch when it comes to Vista. Service Pack 1 was 434 MB! And then they had SP2, which was another 348 MB. Windows XP's SP2, in comparison, was 266 MB. I'd imagine there's not much left to patch.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. When an operating system first comes out there are lots of things to fix, but it's been 4 years since Vista came out so I think it's not unreasonable to assume that the fact the patches are less often is literally because there are less things left to fix. Remember the updates don't (generally) add new features, they usually require you to upgrade to a newer version of Windows for that, the updates are just to fix problems with the existing software.  ZX81  talk 17:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
There might be something in this, but I would have expected a gradual tailing off of updates rather then a sudden reduction to a couple of days a month. Then again, the change in frequency reduction seems to have started 6 months after the retail release of Windows 7 in October 2009 - one could speculate 6 months might be a significant time step in Microsoft's update/support policy. Astronaut (talk) 07:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Video WB correction[edit]

Hi,

I want to perform some white balance correction on some video footage and am wondering if anyone had any software recommendations?

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.33.162 (talk) 07:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but you could probably try Adobe Premiere or a similar, lower-budget program. --Belchman (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Can't access a certain website[edit]

Hello wikipedians, I see to have problems accessing one particular website - www.monash.edu.au and anything under that domain. It's a rather large university so i doubt it would be down constantly and http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/www.monash.edu.au/ says it is up for everyone else. I'm at a loss to why this one particular website doesn't work, when i go on it or any other pages under that domain i get the "Unable to connect" page in firefox.

I've checked the hosts file and thats all fine. I'm an administrator on this computer, no viruses that im aware of (why would they target that site anyway), i checked my MTU was 1500.

I recently (~3 months ago) upgraded to ADSL2+ and got a new router, not sure if i had problems before then.

I checked the router settings and there doesn't seem to be any blocking on this website.

I tried a laptop connected to the same home network im on and it had the same problems, this is a fairly new laptop so i doubt it is my singular computer.

Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.139.24 (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried accessing it from a proxy? Sir Stupidity (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes i have, i thought i put that in the post but i forgot to hit edit i guess ((using a proxy such as http://www.proxyforall.com/ makes the website work, i just checked. I'm not sure if this because it encrypts the URL names in some fashion or because it has a different IP or something totally different)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.139.24 (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Try flushing the DNS. Also try a traceroute to see if there's a problem somewhere between your computer and the host. Assuming you're on windows here's how or use this 82.44.55.25 (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Try http://130.194.11.149. As with many webhosts, they use some sort of virtual server so this won't lead you to the main page but I think it should work even without any DNS. If that does work, then it may be some sort of DNS issue. While testing this, I also found Monash has an AAAA record for their website. If you have a misconfigured IPv6 setup then this could also be the cause as many browsers default to the AAAA. Try turning off IPv6 for the network adapter and see if this helps. Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that worked more than it has been working, the IP address. I could actually see the title in firefox and the page but it was text only, no images. As far as im aware i dont use IPv6(Except with utorrent but thats tunneled through something i think). Flushing the DNS did nothing, thanks for the idea though. Here are the trace-route outputs Monash , google(as reference) wikipedia(reference)
Sorry but if uTorrent is using IPv6 then IPv6 is enabled. Whether it's using Teredo tunneling or whatever is somewhat irrelevant since uTorrent still I'm pretty sure relies on the IPv6 stack of your OS. While I don't think it's a problem in this case from the traceroutes, it's likely worth disabling it for the network adapter when troubleshooting.
Anyway from the traceroutes, the problem may be because your trying to connect to the server 32.1.3.136. This is odd since from a lookup both locally and via a public web nslookup services it appears that the correct address is 130.194.11.149. It's possible I think that there may be some reason for this, e.g. they use a different server or some sort of cache for your ISP but I wonder if it's a problem with your ISP. I find some discussion of 32.1.3.136 primarily related to Ubuntu servers in Australia perhaps with Telstra. I also see some suggestion that disabling IPv6 may help in a few cases although this appears to be with Ubuntu, but you may want to try it just in case (I don't really see why it's relevant here since you seem to be getting an A record).
I would suggest you try setting your network adapter (or router) to use some other DNS server like Google Public DNS. Once you've done so make sure you flush your DNS cache etc as suggested above. If the problem goes away, and then returns when you use your ISPs DNS server again, it seems likely there's a problem with your ISPs DNS servers (they're giving you a IP for the server which either isn't the proper one or isn't working). Therefore in that case and if the problem remains after a few days, I would contact your ISP and tell them. Even if the problem isn't technically their fault but is caused by the Monash or some other NS server providing their NS server strange records, it's likely easier for them to work out what's wrong. (If your up to it, you could try querying Monash's NS server yourself and if it works, see what A record they give you for www.monash.edu.au.)
If the problem doesn't go away when you use a different DNS server, are you sure you haven't set a funny IP for Monash in your hosts file?
Nil Einne (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

World daylight map - free screensaver?[edit]

Where could I find a free screensaver that shows which part of the world is in daylight, like this image http://wwlln.net/TOGA_network_global_maps.htm Thanks 92.15.9.254 (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not necessarily a screensaver, but possibly a preferable set of images: http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/.
Wavelength (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Something like EarthView or else play with this google search. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I've followed this tutorial to get daylight background map with clouds on my FreeBSD GNOME desktop with Xplanet. --Dereckson (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

hard drive[edit]

Is this hard drive about to fail [IMG]http://imgur.com/wZy7X.gif[/IMG] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.139.74.140 (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a symptom, but not necessarily a guarantee, of "imminent" hard-disk failure. See our article's list of S.M.A.R.T. attributes for some context. The long answer is that statistical analysis of hard-disk failures indicates that these SMART attributes are weak indicators of potential failure - many times, their data is not a very good predictor of failure. Nimur (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The indicators tell you if something is abnormal, but with the robustness in modern hard drives the question becomes "will that little problem ever become a big problem?" and the answer may be no. I have had several hard drives fail while giving off SMART warnings, and in all cases I was able to recover the data gracefully and have them returned for warranty. Ignoring the SMART errors probably would have put the data in jeopardy if I simply waited until the drives completely failed. If the disk is under warranty by all means get it replaced when *any* SMART error comes up, that's why drive makers offer such long warranty periods (3 to 5 years is typical.) With all that being said, I have had a drive give off the exact SMART error you are seeing; I took it out of primary service and use it as a temporary bulk storage drive and have not had it deteriorate in about 2 years of use. It does exhibit occasional 'hiccups' due to the spin problem whereby it will not transfer data for a few seconds, but it doesn't lose or corrupt data. So, ask yourself what your definition of "fail" is... --144.191.148.3 (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
IMHO, if the data on the HDD is valuable to you, either replace the HDD or make regular data backups. If the HDD is still under warranty, exchange the failing harddisk for a new one. Waiting until the harddisk actually fails can cost you money or the loss of valuable data. Rocketshiporion 03:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I think both of you guys are over-exaggerating. How old is this drive? I have five HDDs in my PC -- some of them a few months old -- and HD Tune Pro gives the spin-retry count on each one as "100." I saw another screen shot in the manual of a drive with a retry count of 249. Also, you don't have any re-allocated sectors. I've seen screen shots with a high number of re-allocated sectors. But, then again, there is nothing in the data column for any of my drives. Nor does it say "warning." Instead, it says, "ok" for the status. Do you get any more info when you click on "Log"? It should tell you in plain English that you have a damaged HDD if that's the case. Nevertheless, I would recommend backing up your hard drive. In fact, I recommend that everyone backs up up their hard drive. You don't have to replace it, though.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ping Localhost[edit]

When I try and ping localhost I get this:

Pinging Unknown-PC [127.0.0.1] with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 127.0.0.1:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),

The internet is working fine. I started Apache and browsing to localhost in Firefox works fine too. What is going on here? 82.44.55.25 (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

All that means is your computer isn't responding to ping. No big deal. -- kainaw 15:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I know the computer isn't responding to ping; I want to know why, and how to fix it. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
What is your operating system? Do you have a firewall running? Do you have SELinux running? -- kainaw 15:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The computer is Windows 7. The standard Windows firewall is running, and I haven't changed any settings there recently. I tried disabling the firewall but ping still doesn't work. I don't know what SELinux is, but I'm pretty sure I don't have it. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
In Windows 7 it is almost always the firewall. See here. -- kainaw 17:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I tried disabling the firewall but ping still doesn't work. I added a new "Inbound Rule" as the guide you linked to suggested, but again ping still doesn't work. I can ping everything BUT localhost - pinging google.com works as normal for example. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Why do you want to ping 127.0.0.1, anyway? It's pretty pointless. You already know that the machine is up.—Emil J. 10:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Pinging localhost should work. The fact that it doesn't indicates a problem with the computer. I want to resolve it in case it leads to something else which does effect the computer in a more serious way. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Microsoft considers responding to a ping to be a security flaw. So, it is disabled. It should NOT work on Windows 7. If it does, you have done something to the computer that Microsoft considers to be weakening the computer. -- kainaw 12:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Is this right? We ping Windows 2003 servers all the time to see if they are up. Has the default changed? If so its something we will have to take into account when we upgrade (and change from the default setting or find some other way of testing for a server's presence). -- Q Chris (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so how do I enable it then? From the first time I installed Windows 7 2 years ago I've been able to ping localhost without altering any settings whatsoever. This problem has only started in the last few days. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The server is being delivered with a bit different default settings than Win7 for home users. It is assumed that home users will be inherently unsafe with their computers. So, ping is disabled in many areas of the computer. The firewall blocks it by default. Many other services block it, such as the AGN filter interface. Further, if you stop the firewall, it disables the network interface by default (that took a long time to figure out). You have to keep the firewall running, but set it to disabled. We simply don't try to ping Win7 on desktop machines. It isn't worth the trouble to get them to respond. -- kainaw 13:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand. If ping is disabled by default, then how can I still ping everything except localhost? I can ping google.com, en.wikipedia.org etc and they all respond as normal. I've completely disabled the firewall (here is a picture) and it's still not working so it can't be the firewall causing this. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
google.com, en.wikipedia.org etc have not disabled ping on their servers. This has nothing to do with settings on your computer.—Emil J. 13:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I haven't disabled ping on my computer either. It was working until yesterday 82.44.55.25 (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Don't confuse a ping host with a ping server. When you run the ping program to check on another computer, you are running the ping host. The other computer has a ping server that responds. When you ping localhost, you are having the ping host on your computer try to talk to the ping server on your computer. In Win7 set up for homes, Microsoft has gone to great lengths to stop the ping server from responding. They block it with the firewall. They block it with network filters. They renamed it to "echo server" so people won't find it. They don't have it running by default, so you have to go into network services and start the echo server. Even after all of that, every update seems to find another way to stop the server from responding. -- kainaw 13:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Can you help me enable it again then? I don't know what has turned it off, I have windows update disabled and I haven't changed or run any new programs in the last few days. Disabling the firewall hasn't worked, and adding the rule exception you linked to earlier didn't work either. What are network filters? How do I start the echo server? 82.44.55.25 (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Kainaw I think you are wrong. Surely Windows 7 would enable a user to ping their own computers loopback device, even if it blocked all incoming ping requests from external sources. Indeed, Microsoft themselves recommend pinging localhost as a way to test TCP/IP connectivity. 109.193.227.56 (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Two things.
1) That article is for Windows XP. If you visit it with Windows 7 or Windows Vista or some other OS you will get "This article applies to a different version of Windows than the one you are using. Content in this article may not be relevant to you.Visit the Windows...". Microsoft can of course change their minds about how to do stuff.
2) While I don't know if Kainaw is correct, it sounds like Kainaw is saying Microsoft is wanting to make it difficult to enable responding to echo requests, by doing various things including disabling the actual server. This isn't possible if you want to be selective. Microsoft may also be concerned about possible bugs in their implementation of localhost only so prefer not to try (in particular, by disabling the server by default, it's one less server which could have bugs and which could be exploited). Microsoft may also be concerned that by enabling it for local host, people may get confused (I can ping myself, why can't others ping me). In other words, there are several reasons why Microsoft would want to disable it for everyone including local host.
Nil Einne (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
So how do I enable pinging localhost again? And what has caused pinging localhost to be disabled after 2 years of working? 82.44.55.25 (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Why? Possibly a program accessing the the internet decided that it could not allow you to ping your computer. Or an Windows update has also in the process stopped you to ping it. Sir Stupidity (talk) 07:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't run any Windows updates, and I haven't run any new programs recently. How do I enable pinging localhost again? 82.44.55.25 (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you should re ask the question again as everyone thinks this issue has been resolved. Sir Stupidity (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if we think this issue has been resolved. I didn't but I wasn't sure how to help. Nil Einne (talk) 06:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
My laptop runs Windows 7 and it responds to pings directed at 127.0.0.1. The Windows firewall is turned on, too. Usually, when I can't ping 127.0.0.1, the computer won't connect to the Internet. In such a case, I usually re-install TCP/IP. (See this article for more information.) However, as the OP said, his connection is working. So, if it isn't broke, I wouldn't try to fix it. They could break something else while trying to fix the ping issue.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

free touchscreen software like a whiteboard to save handwritten documents[edit]

hey, i wanted to use my laptop like a notebook in uni lectures, but it doesn't seem t ohave software already instlled to do that. in school we used to have interactive whiteboards at the front of the class and the teacher would digitally write on that and be able to save each virtual sheet. and many sheets could be open at one time, and the each sheet could be scrolled down to the bottom and extended. the software they had is exactly what i want, but i think it came with the interactive whiteboards and i want somthing that's free... or i don't mind downloading illegally if it's easy to find to download. thanks for any help! 192.150.181.62 (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

What kind of laptop do you have? Is it a tablet? Looie496 (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, a HP TouchSmart tm2 which is a tablet - it's like a normal laptop but the screen turns and folds to make it a tablet. 192.150.181.62 (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

To make sure we're all on the same page: you know, I take it, that your computer came with a digital pen and an application that allows you to write handwritten notes and save them. (I haven't used one, but this is my understanding.) What you want is a better note-taking application. Is that correct? Looie496 (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I might be missing the point here, but what's wrong with a notepad and pen? Both are considerably cheaper and lighter than a tablet PC, require no electricity, are resistant to rough handling, and very flexible for notetaking in university lectures. Astronaut (talk) 11:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
"Windows:Tablet Edition" is supposed to come with "Windows Journal" which does exactly what you describe. It's quite handy.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/tabletpc/russel_03january20.mspx APL (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find any application on my laptop to do this. Windows Journal is EXACTLY what I wanted, thank you, it's not in the list of all programs in Start Menu oddly, but I searched it and it came up. Thank you so much. THe problem with a notepad an pen is that I lose all my notes, and they're ont organised or anything,cwhereas this does it all, and the notes can be duplicated and transmitted in seconds. Thanks again! 192.150.181.62 (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

computer[edit]

what is the name of the first computer used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.93.81.1 (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Not the easiest question to answer, for it depends on your definition of computer. History of computing explains the difficulties, and would probably answer "a piece of string with 12 knots". History of computing hardware takes you through the various epochs of hardware development. But I suspect something like the table in ENIAC is probably what you're after. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
"The first working von Neumann machine was the Manchester "Baby" or Small-Scale Experimental Machine, developed by Frederic C. Williams and Tom Kilburn at the University of Manchester in 1948" according to the article linked above. 92.29.120.195 (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
On a related note, what was the hostname of the first computer where that parameter would have been relevant? I'm guessing it would have been an early private network, and I'd bet that the hostnames were "terminal" and "computer," respectively... but can't find this in our history of the internet or related articles. Nimur (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Networking and server-host systems existed before ARPANet/Internet. So, it would precede the history of the Internet. If you are specifically looking for Internet usage, I'd check with Iowa State University because I figure they had one of the first computers on the network. -- kainaw 13:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Used how? The first modern computer (to be publicly known) is considered to be the Z3 completed in 1941.Smallman12q (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

What regulatory issues have to be considered when exporting or building products that heavily use cryptography?[edit]

What federal laws do you have to be aware of when implementing software that incorporates cryptographic protocols? This question is for the US as well as internationally. Procrastinatus (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Our article section Cryptography#Legal issues and our article Export of cryptography in the United States have some information that will be useful. Unfortunately our general article Export of cryptography is a stub. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No legal advice should be given here and both of you quit striking through each others comments. We're done here.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

None if you do it anonymously. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
This is false. Just because you don't put your name on something doesn't mean it can't be traced back to you, and certainly doesn't mean you can ignore legal requirements. "Do it illegally" is both bad legal advice, and bad advice anyway. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
If it can be traced back to you, you didn't do it anonymously. Doing things in accordance with laws (that apply to you or do not) won't keep you out of trouble, either. The only way to be sure is to be anonymous. Also, I'll thank you to leave my comments alone. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
We strike on the Reference Desk when really bad advice is being given. This is not article space and it is not talk space. Anyway, "do it illegally, but don't get caught" is both legal advice and bad advice. If you disagree with my striking it out, please feel free to complain on the talk page, but I think you'll find you're in the minority on this one.--Mr.98 (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Not that you seem to care at all, but see second paragraph. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Note that the Reference desk is not supposed to give legal advice.—Emil J. 10:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
So far I have only seen one instance of "legal advice" above (which I removed; it was not informed, anyway, just suggesting that they "do it anonymously" and could therefore ignore the law, so there is no loss) — the rest is just pointing in a general direction towards resources for further information, which is completely valid. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I would get in touch with the Electronic Freedom Foundationif you want a really comprehensive and probably accurate answer that has real legal analysis behind it. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)----
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.