Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2010 September 26

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 26

Android Tablets

Can I get the names of some Android-powered tablets that:

• Have at least a 1 GHz processor.
• Have 512 MB of RAM.
• A USB port.
• At least 8 GB of built in storage.

--Melab±1 ☎ 03:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Asus Eee Pad EP101TC will meet those requirements.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Send a kiss?

I have a touch screen laptop, I've just got it, it's one of those ones that the screen can flip around so it can be turned into a tablet. Sometimes it's nicer to handwrite things as it seems more personal, but I don't appear to have software installed to do that (I have a HP TouchSmart tm2 - it can support multitouch) and so I just open up MS Paint and write in that. It's not the best, but it does the job. I wanted to send a kiss though, not just as "x" but properly send one, by kissing the screen and having my lip marks on there to put at the end of a letter, but unfortunately that doesn't work at all with MS Paint; it draws a couple of apparantly random lines with no resemblance to lips at all. So how would I do it? Thanks for any help you can provide, and if you can't provide any, thanks for reading anyway. 192.150.181.62 (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Multi-touch screens only record a handful of individual touch points (see List of Multi-Touch Computers and Monitors). Most do only two or three; a few do 32 or more (mostly really expensive special-purpose things like Microsoft Surface). To properly image something touching the screen you'd need many more points. Even an array of 16x16 points (needing 256 individual touches, more than all but one of the displays on that list) would give a very blocky image (a lip impression would be nothing more than an indistinct shape). So we're quite a way off the technology being able to do what you suggest (at least for things that are commercially and generally available). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 14:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Immediately after applying black lipstick, kiss a sheet of paper. Wait for it to dry. Scan the paper. Marnanel (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame commercially viable technology is unable to do very much. Thank you both, and I think I might just try that low-tech approach. 192.150.181.62 (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, your assessment of what it should be able to do is based on a basic misunderstanding of how it works. In any case, this is a pretty specific requirement you have for it, one without a lot of other applications. To increase the density of the touch points to the level that you'd want would probably be expensive, with almost no everyday benefits. By contrast, just using a scanner to import an image (which is all you are really trying to do) is tried-and-true, easy-and-cheap technology. You'll only need to do it once to have an infinite number of kisses to apply. I'm not sure you should be disappointed with it! --Mr.98 (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to use a tablet, a simple solution would be some sort of software which captures it from a webcam the tablet may have Nil Einne (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

And if you have a small piece of glass or clear plastic you can get the full squished lip effect. ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Spurious http redirect, can anything be done?

This is in reference to an issue that came up at WP:AN#What's this? (strange site-redirect). Somebody tried to go to wikipedia.org but accidentally typed wikkipedia.org instead, and was redirected to a site called survey.prizesgiveaway.com. It seems to me that that's either a violation of the .org rules or a hacked system, but the question is, if one wanted to take action, what action would be appropriate? Looie496 (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That domain name is registered through Moniker. If you have a complaint, you must contact them. -- kainaw™ 16:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(Without offering legal advice) - it is probable that Wikimedia Foundation could sue the infringer on some grounds of trademark infringement, or some similar thing. However, litigating would be expensive - the benefits of shutting down this site are probably not worth the cost. Such cases of "stolen" web domain-names are often settled out of court with informal exchanges; for example, as stated in Microsoft Bob, Microsoft traded "bob.com" for "windows2000.com" after deciding that one was more valuable than the other. In general, unless the site is pretending to be something it is not, it will be difficult to construct a clear-cut legal case against them; but a civil lawsuit can be filed for virtually any reason, including "diluting the brand-name." Nimur (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm pretty sure there is a rule that .org addresses can't be used by for-profit entities. How that rule is implemented and enforced is more than I know, though. Looie496 (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

According to our .org article, "Although org was recommended for non-commercial entities, there are no restrictions to registration. There are many instances of org being used by commercial sites". Rojomoke (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

For example http://yahoo.org 82.44.55.25 (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, .org is entirely voluntary compliance, not followed at all. It is for all intents and purposes unregulated (unlike .edu or .gov or .mil). You should not assume that .org sites are any less commercial or more trustworthy than .com or .net sites. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As Typosquatting notes, a lawsuit may not be necessary as there is the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (although either party can still sue after losing that*). Still costs money but the process was set-up to try and reduce the costs and I believe it's usually works in that way. Notably from Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-08-17/News and notes#Foundation secures typosquatting domains it seems the foundation is actually active in this area, so there's a fair chance they'll be interested although I suspect they'll already know. *Note that there are specific areas of law in the US that deal with this if it does go to a lawsuit. Nil Einne (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I've left a note on User talk:MGodwin Nil Einne (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You read that red banner on top of his talk page before doing so? Guess not... -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I did hence why I specified in my message ([1]) "I thought it might be better to leave this message here rather then by e-mail so others see it's been raised." Perhaps you didn't bother to read my message before leaving pointless admonishments about it. As this is not an urgent issue, I saw and see no reason why it matters if it takes even a few months for him to get it. In any case, a few months seems unlikely considering a simple look thorough his contrib history will confirm he probably uses his account at least once a month on average. In fact, unless I made a mistake, since he became the WMF lawyer there's only been 2 times when he didn't edit at least once in a month (period between editing could over course be over 30 days even if he edits in consecutive months), which was in 2009 he didn't edit in April or May and this year in July.

It's of course possible he may still use his account, and therefore see new messages even without any editing. It's of course also possible he may choose to ignore new messages even if he does edit. I can't say. But for a not particularly important or urgent issue I just wanted to let the the Mike know about in case the foundation wants to take action, I made the judgement call to just leave a message on MGodwin's talk page, after having read the message which I note does not say "I will ignore all messages left on my talk page" but instead suggests it's best to email for the primary reason that messages may not be read in some time, MGodwin's talk page being a public place where others will see it and know it's been raised so he hopefully won't get 10 messages about it in the future, thinking that in all likelihood he will read it sooner or later and will deal with it if he wants to.

If you don't agree with my judgement call to the extent that you feel I need to know about it, you are free to discuss it but I feel my talk page would be a better place. You are also free to email him yourself if you really think that's the better solution.

I did BTW consider emailing him in addition, but in the end decided it wasn't necessary for what as I've said is an issue that isn't that important. (You may be interested to know I have emailed him before.) I also considered using the foundation mailing list, but decided there were numerous reasons not to including of course that I didn't want to join the mailing list, didn't want to check what the rules are to see if my email would be appropriate and ultimately that it probably wasn't important enough that it really mattered. You may also note I included webcitations, partially because it did occur to me things may have changed by the time he reads the message, particularly with the page that is using the wikipedia logo and given the issue was raised in a public page (although now that I think about it, user talk pages aren't indexed so it's not going to be found in most general websearches, something I admit didn't occur to me until now).

Of course while many of these things went thorough my mind, I'm not saying I spent several hours agonising over what to do. Instead I did what I expect many people do when dealing with something that isn't that important (in their opinions), considered a few options, and made a decision. Perhaps if I had spend several hours or even days considering my options, I would have reached a different decision, I can't say, but as I've said, I don't see any reason why it's that important as you perhaps think it is.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Remote Desktop

I'm trying to use the windows remote desktop between two computers (XP, 7). The problem is, if I don't set a password for the account on the computer I want to connect to, the remote desktop program refuses to connect saying "account restrictions". But if I do set a password for the account, I still can't connect to the computer because it's sitting at the login screen waiting for the password to be entered on the physical keyboard. What is the solution? 82.44.55.25 (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Make sure the account you are logging into is both a member of the Remote Desktop users group and has a password. I know that missing either of those will result in an "account restrictions" error. -- kainaw™ 17:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It is. I can connect just fine if I enter the password on the host computers keyboard, but unless I do that it's like the computer doesn't activate the network card and I can't detect or connect to it, despite the fact that it's on and waiting. More strange, if I log in then out again, I can then connect to it from the other computer. I think it's a problem with activating the network card, but I can't see any options to change it 82.44.55.25 (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that a wireless network, by chance? If so, your idea regarding the network being inaccessible might truly be the reason. I've seen Win7 machines with wireless interfaces staying offline until a user logs on. Maybe Win7 stores the network key (if it is a WEP, WPA or WPA2 encrypted wireless network) in user space? -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not wireless, I'm connecting the two computers with an ethernet cross-over cable. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 09:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

How to diagnose slow internet?

In recent months I've noticed that my supposedly broadband internet can be as slow as when I had dial-up. This is particularly true when I expect it has lots of users, such as during rainy Sunday evenings. Currently pages from Wikipedia are loading extremely slowly, if at all.

Is there any way of finding out what the slowness is due to? In other words, is there any objective way of determining if the slowness is due to poor service from my ISP, or some other cause? Thanks 92.15.22.106 (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Try running WinMTR to a known stable site like google.com. In the past I've had problems with my ISP's immediate upstream provider (a bulk internetwork provider) - packets were delivered quickly and reliably to the ISP's immediate node, but their jump from there to the bulk supplier was slow and unreliable. This is mostly of academic interest (as there's nothing I can do), other than helping my ISP yell at their supplier. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thermal past on an i5-750

I finally decided to upgrade my PC today (I've had the parts lying on dining table for about 3 months!). I have an i5-750 and an Asus motherboard and some DDR3 memory. Everything seemed to go OK, all the fans are going, it's booted up fine and I've been installing the huge number of windows/software/hardware updates that take forever on my 2 meg connection for about 2 hours. I got bored and installed the CPU temperature probe program and my CPU temp is hitting 60° quite often which sounds an alarm in the Asus software.

I've bought the boxed i5-750 with stock heatsink/fan. I assumed those metallic grey bits on the heatsink were thermal paste? But now I'm a bit concerned. All the googles I do for 'i5-750 p7p55d temperatures' are about overclocking and using thermal paste. It's been about 10 years since I last built a sytem from scratch and I didn't have to worry about thermal paste back then. I haven't tried to overclock but should I have stuck some paste in there? Writing now on wiki the temp is a happy 27° 87.113.175.51 (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If the CPU and fan came with a set then the grey stuff on the fan is thermal paste. If it was there you should not add more, since too much paste also serves to insulate. Modern motherboards will shut down before CPU heat causes damage so unless your computer starts to "mysteriously" shut itself down I would not worry. Taemyr (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep it was a boxed set, not separate bits. With it being so long since I installed a new mobo, CPU and RAM I didn't want to risk a stupid mistake. Thanks for the reassurance :-) Spoonfulsofsheep (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it bad for my laptop to leave it playing me music all night long every night?

Is it bad for my laptop to leave it playing me music all night long every night? It's never switched off; when i leave it I just close the lid and it logs me off and stands by. Thanks. 192.150.181.62 (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no inherent reason that it should be a problem, assuming that basic things (like overheating) are not a problem. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Short answer: no. Longer answer: computer components have finite life expectancies that might be shortened somewhat by leaving them on for more hours per day, the hard drive and the display backlight especially. The screen will (or can be set to) shut off after a few minutes. If you're playing the same set of songs over and over, they will be cached in memory and the hard drive will be able to shut off also. Otherwise, it will probably spin all night (which is not the end of the world). -- BenRG (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's great, thanks!! 192.150.181.62 (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Burn mark on laptop screen

Annoying "burn mark"

Lately, I've noticed what resembles a "burn mark" appearing in the lower right corner of my five year old FSC laptop. I also notice that area of the screen becoming really, really hot. The burn mark appears after a few minutes of normal use - it is not there after a re-start. The computer otherwise behaves normally. Does anyone have any idea what the cause of this might be? Thanks in advance, decltype (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Try squeezing that area of the screen with your finger and thumb - does the mark move and wobble? If so, that might be the layers of the display sandwich separating, which mostly happens when the screen has been bumped, or the fastenings that hold the screen together have worked loose or snapped. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried that, but the area is really too hot to touch. The description below is a closer fit to the problem I'm experiencing. Regards, decltype (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Five year old? There's your cause. A new laptop will cost less and have more. ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not a helpful answer. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure it is. ¦ Reisio (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. The OP came here with a specific problem and your answer was basically "your computer is old buy a new one". Firstly, just being old would not cause the problem the OP reported - laptop screens do not have an expiration date and they do not just break after 5 years. Secondly, recommending they get a new laptop doesn't answer the question. They might not be able to get a new laptop, or might need that specific laptop for some reason like running legacy software. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure it is. Hardware does wear out and break over time, and that might be the cause of the burn mark, which absolutely answers his question (not that what I said couldn't have been a useful comment regardless... we're allowed to comment as well). They might not be able to do a lot of things based on "the answer", that doesn't make it any less of one. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. It is true that the laptop is old, but if you compare it to a brand new computer, the difference in performance for single-threaded applications isn't really that great. But as it turns out, this is probably what I'll end up doing. Regards, decltype (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems, according to this site, that the CCFL is broken. While you can replace the CCFL in a laptop by yourself, it is a delicate job and if you aren't experienced it can take many hours. Taking it to a repair shop will cost more and they will probably replace the whole LCD panel since it's much easier to do. If you are going to fix this yourself, buying a new display will likely be the best investment. 206.131.39.6 (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. The description of the problem on that site, even the image, seems very similar to the problem I'm having. I guess I have an excuse to get a new laptop then. A new display for a five-year-old laptop doesn't seem like the best investment to me. Regards, decltype (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that a laptop with a somehow damaged display will usually still work fine when hooked up to an external screen, or could be re-tasked for something that doesn't require a screen (a small media or general file server, maybe?). So, instead of throwing it away, you might want to re-purpose it, or find a computer geek in your neighborhood who wants it for such a purpose. When giving it away, DBAN is a good way to make sure none of your personal data remains on the hard drive. -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

DBAN is overkill. If a single pass of zeros doesn't set your mind at ease, then you should just destroy the device. ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've hooked it up to an external monitor for now. Will probably be using it as some kind of server, as 78... suggested. In the event that I wanted to give it away, but retain the operating system and applications, I would probably just delete personal files and wipe the free space with cipher.exe, a little-advertised EFS utility that comes with Windows. Very convenient and secure enough for my purposes. Regards, decltype (talk) 09:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)