Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2011 October 18

= October 18 =

External link rot detection
On pages of Wikipedia, internal links to non-existent pages are easily recognizable their red color. However, external links to non-existent pages are not recognizable. Is it possible to make them recognizable? That would make the checking of lists of external links much easier. (For recognizing a link to a non-existent external page on a second external website, would suggesting such a feature to the World Wide Web Consortium be advisable?) —Wavelength (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you probably want Village pump rather than the reference desk, but I don't think it's likely to get added simply because of the bandwidth issues. Wikipedia knows what pages exist on this site so colouring a link is easy, but to verify external links it would literally have to connect to those other sites to check. With the millions on external links all over Wikipedia that would be rather a lot of bandwidth and even more if it were to keep checking the links to make sure they're still valid.  ZX81    talk  00:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * ...and it still wouldn't be protection from losing a source, only archiving a copy can do that. ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If you're only interested in checking lists of links, there are tools that can do that. There are probably GreaseMonkey scripts out there that do this if you want them to. (In fact, Googling "Greasemonkey dead links" pops up a specific tool for finding dead links on Wikipedia: .) The processing problem (it is probably not a bandwidth issue, but it would take a lot of little scripts whirring away) is if Wikipedia starts trying to do that itself for all of this links — that's a lot of links, and you'd have to check and re-check on a regular basis. For individual folks like you and me, it's not a lot of bandwidth to check as we go. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I have found WikiProject External links and Link rot, but neither of those pages mentions the feature which I have in mind. —Wavelength (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Security risks from AI, neural interfaces etc.
What work, if any, is being done to prepare for the security risks that technologies such as strong AI, neural interfaces, mind uploading and nanorobotics are likely to introduce as they develop? Neon Merlin  00:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think this stuff is really on the radar screen yet. The technologies I've seen security people start pre-emptively discussing are mostly nano-, cyber-, and synthetic-bio- related, because those are either here or just-about-here. Even in those arenas you're still talking about mostly theoretical discussions, not concrete measures. There is a lot of work being done regarding thinking about nano, both from a safety perspective (what happens if you inhale a bunch of nanobots?) but also a security perspective (what if nano lets you generate viruses on the fly, or enrich uranium really easily, and so on?). My understanding — perhaps I am out of date — is that the only concrete things being proposed at this point are sketches of safety plans. (You might want to add "quantum computing" to the list of "things that aren't current security risks but might be in generation." I'm not sure mind uploading is quite on that level, though — that strikes me as quite a ways off. Ditto strong AI.) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Keeping Windows 7 updated without installing Service Pack1 ?
Some programs that do work under Windows 7 RTM do not work under Windows 7 SP1. Therefore I wonder: Is it possible to keep Windows 7 updated (using Windows update or in other ways) without installing Service Pack 1 ? --Seren-dipper (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I doubt it; you're essentially asking to keep Windows updated without updating it. Just turn off automatic updating, or download a fix for the offending software.--Shantavira|feed me 07:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * When a new service pack is released, Microsoft supports the old service pack for 24 months after the new service pack. (see "Service Pack Lifecycle Support Policy") I presume this applies to RTM releases as well but I'm not certain. If it is the case, you probably have until 21/02/2013 before Microsoft drops support for Windows 7 RTM. There is obviously a time for which the RTM release remains supported after the SP because otherwise all enterprise and other customers would have to update as soon as the service pack is released which is not generally considered viable. I can't remember whether the service pack is an optional or recommended download on Windows update but either way you should be able to reject it while still using Windows update. Do remember this is only Microsoft's policy, other vendors may refuse to support Windows 7 RTM long before 24 months in their products (for that matter Microsoft can as well). Also there is obviously some fixes including I expect some security related which are included in SP1 but not offered by Windows update . Nil Einne (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you! :-) --Seren-dipper (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Zensar or CSC...........
One of my friend got placed in both software company through collage campus recruitment..CTC of both company is same...   Now he is confused that which company should he join....so that he can have better growth opportunity... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.96.217 (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We have an article on Zensar, and I assume by CSC, you mean Computer Sciences Corporation. (Our CSC article lists many companies with that acronym.)  Unfortunately as outsiders there's really no way for us to give advice on this, much less with a reference.  It depends a lot on the sort of group that your friend joins, on his or her manager, and on which company's culture and needed skill set are a better match for your friend.  The friend should ask a lot of questions of the hiring manager at each company to try to figure out which would be the best company for his or her career growth.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

850 Mhz processor for Android 2.3
I am planning to buy a smartphone that is samsung Galaxy Y having 850 Mhz processor and running on Android 2.3 OS. I want to know is 850 Mhz processor sufficiant for running Android 2.3 efficently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.96.217 (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That really depends on how much you expect of your phone, and how much you want to do with it. Just as important as the processor is the amount of RAM the phone has; the Galaxy Y has 256 megabytes.  The Galaxy Y has a faster processor and the same amount of RAM as the Motorola Droid/Milestone, which was the premier Android smartphone two years ago.
 * Of course, most Android phones today are running at 1 GHz or higher, and many are dual core. RAM has increased up to 1 GB in many cases.  Will the Galaxy Y run Android as well as they do?  No.  Will it run Android well enough?  There's no reason why it shouldn't, as long as you accept that you can't do as many things as you can on a high-end smartphone.
 * However, effective speed sometimes doesn't correlate well to stats. Many people complained of lag on the original Galaxy S, despite having a very fast processor and lots of memory.  This was due to a software design choice with the filesystem.  The Droid, on the other hand, was considered to be very fast, despite a considerably slower processor.
 * The best way to learn this is to read a reputable review of the phone; however, it appears the Galaxy Y is not yet available. gnfnrf (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Too many fonts?
Hello. In my graphic design work, I use a lot of different fonts. For some of the more unusual fonts, I download them from my collection that I have on CDs, then delete them when the project is done. Sometimes I am working on multiple projects, so I have the fonts for all of them on my hard drive. Loading and unloading fonts takes time, and sometimes I forget to remove some. My question is: Is there anything that can happen to my computer if I have a large number of fonts on it? What is the maximum number I should have so that nothing goes wrong? Thank you. — Michael J 20:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Having huge numbers of fonts can slow things down and cause weird glitches due to hard-to-diagnose corrupt fonts. Most designers swear by font manager programs that take care of the loading/unloading and let you set up specific sets that can be all loaded together and so on. I've mostly muddled along with too many fonts, but have definitely noticed negative side effects (e.g. some software — yes, GIMP and Inkscape, I'm thinking of you two — will just lock up during their font loading phases). --Mr.98 (talk) 00:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)