Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2013 September 15

= September 15 =

Remember when youtube would load the whole video while paused?
What was the problem with that?OsmanRF34 (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I suspect having the entire video in memory at once made it easier to make copies. StuRat (talk) 07:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I used to pause to allow my slow internet to download a reasonable amount so that I could watch without it stopping and stuttering, but now this doesn't work. Now I have to download the whole thing (even when I don't want to keep it) before I can watch it.    D b f i r s   08:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I too have noticed this and used to pause videos as you did, though I now have a 'faster' Internet link. Has YouTube made any 'official' comment on this issue? ψ 220  of  Borg 11:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Weird - doesn't work for me, either. But then again I don't watch YouTube videos nearly as much as I used to, and this was never really an issue on my laptop anyway. Basically if I pause it right at start the video will load to about 5cm (rough estimate) accross the bar and then stop. If I play it, then it will continue loading but if I pause it again, the bar will stop loading. So it looks like there's a little "start-up" loading at the beginning, but after that... nothing. I couldn't find anything online official or recent unofficial (best I could get was forum posts from last year) about this. -- .Yellow1996. (ЬMИED¡) 18:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Copying YouTube videos is trivially easy anyway. I suspect it probably has to do with total bandwidth usage. By only buffering a small fraction of the video they're saving a fantastic amount of bandwidth on users that, for whatever reason, don't watch the whole video. (Or who switch resolutions before the end.)  APL (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * What is the actual question here? Is it an RfC?  Yes, I have noticed the difference.  I don't mind, as before there was no way to pause loading.  Now I just download with real player if I want to see the whole thing at my leisure. The motivation is obviously to save bandwith on YT's part. μηδείς (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

rearm count
how to reset rearm count? Aravindv.nair1999 12:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aravindv.nair1999 (talk • contribs)


 * I assume you are referring to Windows 7 (I Googled "rearm count".) See What is the meaning of the term "rearm count" ? and follow the instructions there. ҩ 220  of  Borg 14:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Spelling anomaly
Is it possible for words on a wiki page, such as Wikipedia's article President of the United States, to be spelt differently on different users' screens?

I ask because of Talk: President of the United States. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's possible if there was a recent change and there are caching issues, but that is unlikely particularly for two logged in editors and as you said, the article hasn't changed in that way in recent times (and recent changes), if it ever was spelt differently. (Well technically there's no limit to the amount of time and the number of changes that may be preserved but it's a lot less likely a very old version but in time and in number of changes will be preserved.) There are also other more unlikely possibilities like a rogue or intentional plugin which modifies words or attempts corrections on live pages (which you obviously shouldn't use if editing wikipedia). However I don't think any of this is likely here, as I said on the article talk page I expect it's simply confusion over what is being contested. You are saying it says 'juridical' not 'juridicial' which is correct. Zdawg1029 is saying it says 'juridical' or 'juridicial' when they think it should say 'judicial', and they think you are saying it already says 'judicial' or at least does not say either 'juridical' or 'juridicial' (they are course also correct since it does says 'juridical' even if they spelt it wrong once). Edit: Zdawg1029 seems to have confirmed my theory. Nil Einne (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. For most of Wikipedia's history, we always linked dates when possible, because it permitted autoformatting; depending on your preferences, 2009-02-03 would appear as February 3, 2009 or as 3 February 2009, and either of those, if typed, would appear the other way if you had that as your preference.  Also note how the Chinese Wikipedia somehow is set up to switch between simplified and traditional characters.  Given that these are possible, it would surely be possible for something to be set up to switch specific spellings, but I can't see why the developers would want to do that.  2001:18E8:2:1020:34BE:9914:31CB:EBF9 (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)