May 30

I know AP computer science material, but if I want to really program, like a professional would, where do I go from there? Books or web resources would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.132.242 (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are lots of books on programming. Most of them are not very good. Here's a nice posting from fairly interesting programming blogger about what types of books there are and which ones he's found valuable. It's an interesting blog post, both in its recommendations as well as its general discussion of the question as to whether or not "real" programmers actually read books. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you really want to get good at programming, program. You learn alot by just goofing around with code, and instead of relying solely on textbooks you can also learn from coding communities and forums. Computer science texts certainly are useful, but without a guide (i.e. teacher) they can be pretty dense to work through on your own. Just poke around, programming communities are a dime a dozen. --Shaggorama (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, I don't know if this is the kind of thing for this page. But if someone feels like jumping on board and helping out, that'd be great :).

Anyways, I'm looking for a laptop, meeting this requirements:

• Brand: HP/Compaq, Sony, Toshiba, Acer
• OS: Windows XP or Vista
• Processor: Intel or AMD. If Vista, able to run it well. Though the Centrino Core™ 2 Duo Processor is nice. 32 or 64 bit.
• RAM: 2GB
• Video: Not an issue (not my game machine)
• Screen: at least 15"
• Optical: DVD read, cd read/write, DVD write is unnecessary
• Wireless: 802.11b/g
• Fullsize keyboard

Other than that, as inexpensive as possible.

Little of this is absolutely critical so if you find a good deal that doesn't meet something here, let me know (except no Dells please). If someone feels like taking on this challenge and finds a great deal I end up picking up I can't really offer you anything, but I'd do 10 "community-service" hours of RC patrolling in your honor :). Thank you.

Peace, Chris M. (talk) 03:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can it be refurbished? If so, here's this one. If not, what is your maximum price? Useight (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to keep it under 700 if possible, but if there's an amazing $800 one, then that'd be cool too :). Refurb isn't bad, and that one is pretty good. Chris M. (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's one that's got a faster CPU and more hard drive space for $699 or there's this one for $599 if you don't mind a no-name brand. Useight (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How is the 4th-largest computer manufacturer in the world a no-name brand? .froth. (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've probably heard of Lenovo's laptop division under another name: IBM. --Carnildo (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, so IBM owns 6.7% of Lenovo. I still consider it an inferior good. When I purchase expensive things, I want a well-known brand, not one that'll look like this. I guess I just have to keep up with the Joneses. Useight (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not about the 6% ownership, it's about the fact that Lenovo took over all of IBM's personal computer division. What used to be IBM (like ThinkPads) are now Lenovo. It's the same thing. As for what you don't like about that photo, I don't know. It looks like all IBM laptops do/did. They're not bad machines at all. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I don't like about that picture of the laptop is that it says "lenovo" on it. If it said "IBM" then that'd be different. If I was carrying that around and someone was like, "Lenovo?" and then I have to explain, "Oh, it's just like an IBM ThinkPad, just repackaged in anther brand." I don't think so. Useight (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dude, if you are so concerned about the looks of the logo, can I suggest that you get a mac? Would you buy an Acer and still call Lenovo an inferior brand?

I personally wouldn't buy a laptop at all. I have my desktop and I've invested quite a bit in it. I built it myself. Useight (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not trying to sell you Macs. I plead not guilty on the charge. (I do plead guilty on being an accomplice, knowingly or unknowingly) in the FUD against Vista. I would say keep clear of Vista, unless you get Ultimate. Thinkpad T61s are awesome, just ask User:Froth. I might even choose one over a first generation macbook pro. My second computer these days is a Toshiba Satellite so you might want to take a look at that as well. Kushal (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with avoiding Vista. Besides, Windows 7 isn't too far off. Useight (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I was going to recommend a Dell just like the one I'm using right now, but it seems the OP isn't interested in Dells. I'm sure you can use a price comparison site like Nextag to find what you want at a price you're happy with - like this Toshiba perhaps? Astronaut (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(reset) You know, if you get a mac, you can press option + shift + k and get the apple logo like this  (which does not show up on a default Windows XP installation). Well, and it shares a few features with Linux. You can buy a Thinkpad and head off to http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/ThinkWiki to get your dose of GNU/Linux. Kushal (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Found this somewhere on wikipedia:

"Another example is a program's source listing that was formatted to resemble an empty tic-tac-toe board. Each pass through the program modified the sourcecode to show a turn in the game, to be executed for the next move."

This sounds absolutely fascinating to me.. does anyone have a copy of the code? Do you have any idea how jaw-dropping it would be to code a self-modifying ELIZA/figlet? .froth. (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh found it already. Even more fascinating is that it's self-modifying not only in the sense that it writes its moves onto itself, but also that it apparently uses a changing "strategy" bit mask to learn how best to defeat its opponent after successive games o_o .froth. (talk) 05:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Be sure to check out the other IOCCC entries as well. There's a high proportion of amazing ones. -- BenRG (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does anyone know anywhere you can get music software titles or music making softare except these places?

• http://making-music.blogspot.com/2006/01/big-list-of-free-music-making-software.html
• http://making-music.blogspot.com/2006/02/list-with-recommended-commercial-music.html
• http://www.hitsquad.com/smm/win95/MULTITRACK_RECORDING/

I'm not sure if this is the best place to post this, so I'll post it at Entertainment as well. Thanks.68.148.164.166 (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

you may find Category:Free audio editors interesting. Audacity is a popular freeware music editing program. If you don't want to download any software, the Beaterator is an award winning music maker that works in-browser. --Shaggorama (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is Macromedia flash as a multimedia tool?41.209.23.34 (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this your homework? Try reading Adobe Flash. --grawity 14:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what is crosstalk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.213.57 (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crosstalk (electronics) --LarryMac | Talk 13:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the circle and line symbol seen on many computers called? -- penubag  (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a power symbol (or possibly specifically a standby symbol). Algebraist 15:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Algebraist! -- penubag  (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I recently found out of a way to supposedly damage your computer (physically) with a floppy disk, and I wanted to hear some considerations on its feasibility. The instructions are simple: open the floppy disk cover, and cover the exposed disk with a thin layer of pulverized match heads and nail polish remover. Reassemble the disk, and try to read it on a computer. The mixture will supposedly ignite and burst your computer to flames (or at least scorch your floppy drive). Is this possible? Thanks in advance, Kreachure (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found a couple links that describe the method but nothing that seems more reliable than your typical Anarchist Cookbook sort of stuff, which if you've never read it, it's not all that accurate all the time either. Dismas|^(talk) 18:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Supposing that it does ignite, it's not going to set the computer on fire, unless you somehow manage to put a lot of nail polish in that floppy, enough to make it leak out of the floppy drive and drip into the computer. I'm pretty sure it'll put the drive in question out of commission for good even if it doesn't ignite, though -- but then you could probably manage that just by lighting a couple of matches and sticking them into the drive through the slot, or by taking a pressurized can of shaving cream and shooting that stuff into the drive. Or just sticking a ruler in and rattling it around for a while. It's not like they're terribly robust pieces of equipment that are hard to break. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyway, who uses floppy disks anymore? --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this were true, I would expect to find videos on YouTube, but I can't. APL (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was not intended for destroying your floppy drive, but destroying your PC and burning your HD to a crisp to remove data. I.e. a criminal might do this in order to not have incriminating evidance found on his drives. I imagine if this was TRUE, a large number of pedo's would use this method? --203.49.231.99 (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want a 15" thing for watching TV. Will a 15" LCD monitor do good? I think TV is 640 X 480 resolution and 15" LCD monitor is 1024 X 768. will watching non high definition TV in a 15" computer monitor be as good as watching TV in a 15 inch flat CRT TV?

what can I choose? a)15" CRT TV b)15" LCD monitor itself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.104.149 (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue is that a standard computer monitor does not have a television tuner in it. So, you need a separate tuner. Then, you have to ensure that there is some way to get the video signal from the tuner to the monitor. This is not always easy. Most 15" monitors have basic SVGA connectors. The newer ones are coming out with DVI connectors. Tuners, on the other hand, are commonly from cable/satellite companies or a DVD/Video recorder. Either way, you likely have an RCA and a SVGA source out of those (since you specifically didn't mention HDTV formats). So, assuming the most common equipment found in homes today... you need to figure out how to convert that RCA connector on the cable box to SVGA (yes, there are converters, but they are expensive). -- kainaw™ 18:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I can resolve connecting issues because my DTH provider gives LCD TV option. But I am just asking whether watching TV in a 15" LCD monitor will be of good quality, a quality got when watched through LCD TV or CRT TV. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.104.149 (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Analog TV is not quite 640x480, depending on where you are check out PAL or NTSC. To answer your question, LCD monitors are interchangeable with LCD TV's which are essentially monitors with built-in tuners to accept a signal, so yes the resolution quality would be the same. Of course there are other factors such as colour depth and so on, but it all boils down to "you get what you pay for", and "size counts"... Sandman30s (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some years back, when the internet was young(ish), and everyone was using dialup, there were various fraudulent tricks where someone would hijack your internet connection, and use the phone line to dial a premium service, charging by the minute. Our beloved phone company, Telstra, of course made the victim pay up. Is this still possible in the days of broadband, or is it bypassed because people aren't using the phone connection directly to access the internet? Does the presence of a voip line make any difference, and is naked dsl different to normal adsl? thanks, 203.221.127.63 (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(There's an article: Dialer#Fraudulent dialers)

Your existing Internet connection actually has nothing to do with that scam, except for being the medium through which the malicious program was given to you. The required ingredients are:

• You have a modem with a phone line plugged in.
• You are dumb enough to run a program you found on a porno web site, or (even worse) in an unsolicited email message.
• Your phone company is unforgiving of your stupidity.

DSL modems generally don't qualify for the first part since they don't have the ability to make or receive phone calls. It needs to be a modem that knows how to dial.

The situation is really not very different from a child picking up the phone and dialing a toll number without parental permission. In one case, you lost control of your kid. In the other case, you lost control of your computer. If the phone company doesn't get the money from you, they're stuck arguing with the toll number operator about whether his business is fraudulent, based on your claim that you were tricked into dialing his number. They don't like doing that. It's much easier to make you pay for your mistake.

If your VOIP service allows you to dial toll numbers (and charges you for them) then it could potentially be used the same way. Having little VOIP experience and no experience attempting to dial 1-900 numbers over VOIP, I'll leave that question open for someone else. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 21:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that answer. It's a shame no one else contributed to expand on this, but your answer tells me that it is probably pretty much the way I thought it was. Thanks, 203.221.126.29 (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have been given an image, which is confidential, so it's been watermarked. HOWEVER - the thumbnail I'm seeing in Windows XP Explorer has no watermark, so I guess it's the original file showing through or something. Question is - how do I get at it? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 21:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I assume it's showing you the Exif thumbnail. Ask google for an exif thumbnail extractor. You won't find the full-size original in there though. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 21:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or Try deleting thumbs.db (hidden file) in the same directory as the image to make Windows regenerate the thumbnail. --antilived^{T | C | G} 23:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi all,

I don't know whether this would be better here or at WP:BOTR; please move it there if that's where it should be. I was wondering if a bot genius would be able to make a bot complete the task listed at the very bottom of the documentation in Template:Languageicon/Notes.

That is, to add template documentation to all of the pages in Category:Language icons (except obviously the first two). Also, to remove [[Category:Language icons]] from the template. Then, to create /doc subpages for all of them with the same, uniform text, this:

((Documentation subpage))<!-- PLEASE ADD CATEGORIES AND INTERWIKIS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE -->
==Usage==
((Languageicon/Notes))


<includeonly><!-- CATEGORIES AND INTERWIKIS HERE, THANKS -->
[[Category:Language icons]]
</includeonly>

Well, if it could be done, that'd be great. An example's at ((es icon)). It might be a bit tricky as some of the templates have empty template documentation at the moment. Thanks, Drum guy (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed the redirect from Category:Language_icons so it's not in the category anymore. .froth. (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]