Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2017 August 22

= August 22 =

Looking for iPod
My iPod Classic that I got in 2011 is in its death throes, and pretty soon I'll need to get a new one. Sadly, the iPod Classic is no longer manufactured. My iPod Classic displayed the time when you chose the Clock or Calendar option, and it displayed the time when the music is playing and you iaven't pressed any buttons in over a minute. But not when the light is on and you can see the title, artist and album name for the song. I want my new iPod to be like that -- I don't want one that will display the time every moment it's turned on. Should I get the iPod Touch, the iPod Shuffle, or the iPod Nano? Enzingiyi (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you not want to see the time? Another option is to buy one second hand, or store your music on your smartphone if you have one of those. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * For OCD reasons. Enzingiyi (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe stick tape over the area that displays the time. I am trying to boot my old iPod at the moment but it will take a while to charge. You can have my old one for free, but you'll have to pay the shipping costs. The shuffle doesn't seem to have a screen, and the nano and touch both display the time topcenter, but probably also on the lockscreen. If you jailbreak the ipod touch then you can remove the clock from the lock screen, and a small bit of tape topcenter on the screen will hide that clock too. . Another option is to simply buy a new battery for your old iPod classic (costs around 16 euro over here) and your old iDevice will be as good as new. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'll pass. I've foind an iPod Classic on Buy It Now. Enzingiyi (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You could put Rockbox on a Nano, or a used Classic, and then make it do whatever you want. (Although, some programming may be required if you really want to take a hatchet to things.) --47.138.161.183 (talk) 08:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Java: AES-NI when cipher spec is "Rijndael"?
Will Java use AES-NI instructions on x86-64 if the algorithm I specify is "Rijndael" rather than "AES", but the block size happens to be 128 bits? Neon Merlin  23:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Because of the lack of openness with the JRE, I decided to take a different route. I did AES with 128 bits and Rijndael with 128 bits. I ran a million random strings through each one and timed them. From a theoretical standpoint, AES is a subset of Rijndael and at 128 bits, they are the exact same algorithm. So, they should take the exact same time to encrypt a million random strings. If one uses special CPU instructions and the other doesn't, the one that doesn't use the CPU instructions should take longer. After testing, they were very similar in run time. A second run and then a third gave the same result. Both run in nearly identical time. So, I have no reason to suspect that specifying Rijndael is causing the JRE to do the work instead of passing it off to the CPU. Of note: AES-NI is on by default if supported and my CPU supports it. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)