Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2009 September 29

= September 29 =

Cannot edit in K-Meleon?
I was browsing with K-Meleon, and I found that I could not edit the text in the edit window. I could edit the edit summary, Subject/headline, and search window, but not the text. At first I thought the page was protected, but the logs indicate that it was not. I cannot edit sometimes, but at other times I can. This is very annoying, as I'd like to use K-Meleon to browse Wikipedia, as it has features I like that are similar to Google Chrome, but it is much faster than Chrome and a bit faster (and a lot easier to use) than Safari. Any idea why I cannot edit?  Intelligent  sium  02:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you tried both while logged-in to Wikipedia, and while not logged-in? Do you have any extensions enabled on K-Meleon? Which version of K-Meleon are you using? Have you noticed any similarities between the pages you are able (or unable) to edit? For example, are all the pages which you cannot edit very large?–RHolton ≡ – 18:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Be it resolved...
I have an LG monitor and Vista Home Premium SP2. When I leave the PC unattended for a while, the screen resolution changes. LG technical support was unhelpful. Is there a way to lock the resolution? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe you have a screensaver which is changing the resolution? Nimur (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds like the issue. One circuituous way to lock the resolution would be to use an account on your computer without admin privileges (which hopefully you are doing anyway).  I believe that Vista requires admin rights for a screen resolution change.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Aha! I don't seem to be the only one having the problem. The recommended solution seems to be to disable Transient Multi-Monitor, which I'm going to try. Odd that it didn't happen on my defunct Philips or a new Samsung I tried though. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

How To Get Google Search Results To Only Show Results Which Include Every Word In The Search Terms....
....rather than lots of links with only one or two words from the search included? Interestingly enough, I wanted to get an example to illustrate my problem, but googling 'Paris Hilton' didn't give me loads of links to the city of Paris or the Hilton hotel chain. --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 10:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Use " " or click on the advanced search button and narrow that way. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c) By default, Google searches for pages that contain all words in your query. To find pages that contain your query in the exact same order, which is useful for longer queries, use quotes (e.g. "Paris Hilton"). You only get what you describe when you type "Paris OR Hilton". Xenon54 / talk / 10:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Google will often use synonyms for some of your search terms, for example expanding US state abbreviations like NY to New York. You can use the + operator to force it to only use the term you entered.  You can also use the "allintext:" operator at the start of your query to eliminate "these terms only appear in links pointing to this page".  More nifty tips here.   -- LarryMac  | Talk  11:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * LarryMac said "You can also use the "allintext:" operator at the start of your query to eliminate" that stupid google excuse for not finding search terms. This IS NOT TRUE. See the following link: when you click the cached page or the regular page, you won't be able to find the word "mohican" ... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=ubv&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=allintext%3Amohican+gaza+strip+%22war+news+updates%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= 66.91.111.24 (talk)

Flaming
When I say flaming, what comes to mind?Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 13:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My first thought is "why do you ask?" Vimescarrot (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A friend of mine, dosnt think it means attaking an internet user.Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 13:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tell him to see Homonym and Flaming. Vimescarrot (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * While we're at it, see Context (language use). In other contexts, there are a lot of possible interpretations.  Nimur (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The act of writing intentionally inflammatory emails or web posts, specifically to belittle someone you disagree with. APL (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think I've ever seen "flaming" in this sense. I've seen "flamed" and "to flame".  Perhaps it is simply because it is rare that anyone would write about the act of flaming while it occurs.  They write about it before or after it happens, as in "He is going to flame..." or "He flamed...". --  k a i n a w &trade; 15:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Bob has a lot of posts in the beginner's forum, is he helping those newbies?" "No, he's just flaming them." APL (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Alternatively : "If you'd spend less time flaming people, and more time listening to what they say [...]" APL (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Forum rules section: 'No flaming other users'. I would think this one would be flaming obvious! --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 03:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "I like my beer cold, my TV loud, and my homosexuals flaming". Oh wait, that's not the same ....  -- LarryMac  | Talk  18:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I must say that the Reference Desk is not for polls like this; you should go to a discussion board for that. Now that I have said this, I'm going to be your enabler by answering for myself:  "Inflammatory posts criticizing a user of the Internet".  Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There was once a time when "to flame" meant to talk (or post) excessively about a topic that fascinates that person - but is generally boring to everyone else. However, that's not a particularly modern usage - and for at least the last 10 years, it has come to mean something like "Being overly critical or insulting to another user".  But I think some sense of the original meaning is still there.  The simple statement "Joe is an idiot" isn't really a flame.  You've got to go on for several paragraphs, going into every detail of WHY Joe is an idiot before you could truly say that Joe was flamed. SteveBaker (talk) 04:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Video of computer monitor
I'm looking for a school project. I thought I could make a program that reconstructs the original video from a video of a computer display or tv (as often seen on the internet). Unfortunately my English is quite limited, so I need a little help to find any existing studies on this (google tells me 'hand-captured video' isn't canonical English). If anyone can hint where to find lots of suitable videos or has anything else to say they would also be welcome. --194.197.235.240 (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to capturing the video directly from the computer, or clearifying the picture and eliminating scan lines and other artifacts that come from taking video of a CRT? The most common way of acomplishing a clear picture of a computer monitor or TV (especially when CRTs were more common to see in movies) is to either use bluescreen techniques or to otherwise overlay the screen's video on top of the "real" monitor.  If this is not the answer you are looking for, you might be talking about eliminating scan lines and other artifacts from existing video that contains TV screens.  This seems to me to be incredibly difficult to accomplish as the "interlacing" that you'd be reversing can be anything from an annoying flickering effect to a large black bar movnig slowly from bottom to top (or top to bottom) of the screen... even potentially a stationary black bar in the middle of the screen if the framerate and refresh rate match up.  You could probably get a pretty decent reconstruction of the video on the screen in the event of a flickering type effect as you are getting full frames at roughly half the framerate as normal, but for a slow crawling scan bar you would need to reconstruct the missing portions of the image which in many cases would be next to impossible to do as the black bar moves too slowly to fill in the missing information from other frames. Caltsar (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the existing video case. --194.197.235.240 (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to capture the screen, then I would recommend using Camtasia. It's a program. If you use a camera, it will look horrible and take up un-necessary disk space.--Drknkn (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Memtest working too fast
Hello there, I have just burn memtest86 3.5 on CD and boot system from it. I noticed that it was testing the ram too fast (without any error) and soon after that it was booting constantly. Most of the time percentage reaches to 48. During booting interval I rejected CD from cd rom. Is it normal? How many times should I test?

I have 4 gb transcend ddr2 800 MHz ram. Thank you--119.30.36.42 (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not seen this occur personally, but would suspect that memtest86 is hitting some bad memory at the 48% point; so bad that the CPU resets. Try unplugging your memory DIMMs and rearranging them (while the computer is off!  And be sure they are all well-seated after you move them!), and seeing if memtest still chokes.  If this behavior keeps occurring, I would get new RAM and see if that fixes the problem.  Are you experiencing crashes or sudden restarts when you use the computer normally?  Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I am not experiencing any crashes or sudden restarts right now, just testing this software. Is there any problem with memtest86 3.5 version? or what else?--119.30.36.49 (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Update: Ok, I have figured out problem from here.It was because of the version. Thanks--119.30.36.49 (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Other messengers?
Can anyone give me any other programs that access the same function that AIM does? IE, a friend of mine is stubborn and won't install AIM. What other programs can I use to communicate with him using my AIM account? --76.120.179.184 (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If he uses GMail, the Google Talk client built into the GMail interface can talk to AIM. The Comparison of instant messaging clients article lists several other programs that operate with AIM.  -- LarryMac  | Talk  20:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is Pidgin. (Formerly "Gaim") This is an opensource client that'll connect to the AIM network.  No reason to ever install any software created AOL.  (Pidgin is better, anyway.) APL (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * From the Pidgin article, you will see versions of Pidgin and programs that use its libpurple library to get the same functionality. In my opinion, these are better than AIM because they designed to be useful.  They are not designed as a marketing tool to track and harass the user. --  k a i n a w &trade; 21:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Amazing what you learn on the refdesk - I hadn't even heard of this AIM program before reading this, seems to be loved in the US though. Nanonic (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It makes sense that AIM is only widely known in USA. It's an offshoot of the America Online service, which is primarily a USA-only service. APL (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

iPod Touch Current Location Malfunction
Alright, I've had my iPod touch for a few months, and the current location device has worked perfectly. However two weeks ago I spent 3 days in Sumter, South Carolina, and used my iPod (and apps requiring current location) there. I get back to Banner Elk, North Carolina, and now any app that requires my current location puts me as still in Sumter, South Carolina. How can I change this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubydane (talk • contribs) 23:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What puzzles me is how it knew your location in the first place! The iPod touch has no GPS and no cell-phone capability to fall back on.  I can't imagine how it could possibly know it's location. SteveBaker (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe the programs use the wifi's ip address? But that would mean it would automatically change when I came back to Banner Elk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubydane (talk • contribs) 02:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But your WiFi's "address" is just an internet address - you can't get any kind of precise location from that. Your ISP must work over thousands of square miles and (assuming you have a dynamic IP), it'll allocate specific addresses to individual customers at random.  I don't see how the iPod could use that productively.  Anyway - the online iPod touch manual says:
 * iPod touch uses Location Services to determine your location. Location Services uses available information from local Wi-Fi networks (if you have Wi-Fi turned on). This feature isn’t available in all areas. If Location Services is turned off, you’ll be prompted to turn it on. You can’t find your current location if Location Services is turned off. See “Location Services” on page 118. To conserve battery life, turn Location Services off when you’re not using it. In Settings, choose General > Location Services.
 * So I think it's relying on the WiFi provider giving your location. That might work in commercial places like coffee shops and airports that offer free WiFi - but WiFi access points in general don't have to do that.  My WiFi gizmo in my house certainly doesn't know where it is any more than the iPod does...unless I tell it.  So anyway - it looks like you need to go to "Settings" choose "General > Location Services" and turn it back on (presuming that it's somehow gotten turned off) - and perhaps you're locking on to a different WiFi system than you used to pick up...perhaps you're getting a stronger signal from some new WiFi node that doesn't offer this service??  SteveBaker (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)