November 22

Using Speedtest.net, I test my university's campus wired connection and received the following results:

Download: 68.6 Mbps
Upload: 19.29 Mbps
Ping: 5 ms

Am I correct in assuming that this is pretty damn fast?

Acceptable (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fast is subjective. It's a lot faster compared to say a normal home internet connection, but very slow compared to popular website (google, wikipedia, facebook, etc) connections or FTP servers which are usually many Gbps 82.44.55.25 (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That would be a very fast connection for North America. In my area, the fastest connection you can buy downloads at 50 mbps for $99 a month. I believe that you can get a connection that fast in Japan, though. So, like the guy above me said, it's all relative.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your connection is still faster, because he only has to share with other university students, staff and faculty, but you would have to share with EVERYONE in your household. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.67.51 (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As my internet connection is 7.2Mbps on paper (although I've never seen it go over 2.4Mbps in reality), I would personally say that your internet connection is very fast. Rocketshiporion♫ 09:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's light speed compared to what we have in South Africa. Stop showing off grrrr.... Sandman30s (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You upload 20 times as fast as I can. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a relevant article at Internet in the United States.Smallman12q (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how to know if it's really fast: Look at the server the speedtest app picked for you, then manually select a server on the opposite side of the country. Test it against that, then pick one more server somewhere in between. If all 3 tests are within a reasonable range of each other (say 20%), your internet connection is indeed fast. The only thing the first test proved was that the connectivity between you and the speedtest server (could be right on your campus for all you know) is quite fast. --144.191.148.3 (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My hp dx2480 desktop pc was working fine, but if i want to add external cards like DV Card or Ethernet Card it was not support. After fitting the external card, while booting it shows error, "Hardware error, call for hareware vendor" But While install Intel ethernet card or Zotac Graphics card, the error not coming. Give me solutions to rectify the problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosewood260 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of 'external card'. Do you mean some sort of ExpressCard or something of that sort? Or a simple USB device (often these aren't in card format)? And why are you using external cards on a desktop PC? Or did you mean an internal card by chance? In which case I presume it's PCI express? Nil Einne (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way? Double newlines, <br> or <br/> don't work. I am bamboozled. --62.142.167.134 (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

¶? --Ouro (blah blah) 05:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any free tools that can take an HTML file and convert it into an ePUB file on OS X. I'm looking for something that's not Calibre. --CGPGrey (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The things listed ePUB#Editingsystems under Mac OS X (or perhaps Web) and that are free perhaps? I would guess many can take HTML in some way. I fooled around with Sigil (application) once and it seemed decent enough although I can speak directly to how well it does HTML conversions. Nil Einne (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i need a keylogger like this http://www.refog.com/home1.html except i need to be able to send them a email link and it will install it on their computer. i cant manually install it on their computer. i need it to monitor a employee of mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kj650 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have manual access to your employee's computer? You're probably looking for Privacy-invasive software. If it's the employee's personal computer, you'd be violating information privacy laws. Smallman12q (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove answers it is rude, if they are not satisfying to you clarify, comment and discuss. Basically I think Smallman12q is right it is illegal in most circumstances. In any case if you let your employee do work from a computer that will covertly install programs when opening email you have bigger problems than how to install spyware. --Gr8xoz (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it is a company issued laptop, also i dont live in the usa. it is legal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kj650 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the "Company" owns the laptop, then it is entitled to recall the laptop at any time to install any software. Any other procedure sounds illegal (or at least immoral IMHO). Dbfirs 21:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you disregard privacy info, just go to their computer after working hours, and install it. However, I really think that is not a good idea, because mt may pick up passwords, etc (haven't checked the program yet), and it's not right unless you ask him/her. General Rommel (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

they take it home with them, so they can do work at home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kj650 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any member state of the United Nations, such an action is almost certainly illegal as it is a violation of basic human rights. In the United Kingdom, the only legal way to record the actions of an employee is to incorporate it into their employment contract and/or into the agreement they sign which allows access to your network. The employee must know that they are being monitored otherwise it is illegal! If you live outside of the United Kingdom, the law will be different but most likely similar. --tb240904 ^{Talk Contribs} 04:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite any basic human right in the UN charter that says or implies employee computers may not be monitored against their knowledge? I think it's kind of a ridiculous assertion, even if I have no desire to help the OP facilitate their goals. The UN generally doesn't protect you from things like that. The UN Declaration of Human Rights, which is essentially unenforced (and applies to states, not individuals), says that states must protect their members against "arbitrary interference" with their privacy, but whatever this is, it's not arbitrary (employers do have some rights to monitor use of employer-owned computers; whether this goes to far is another question). --Mr.98 (talk) 05:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds dodgy. I don't help dodgy. --Mr.98 (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Dbfirs has stated before your response, it seems there's no reason why you can ask for the laptop back and install the software. The fact that they take it home with them is irrelevant if it is your companies laptop. It would probably be a wise idea to inform them of what you're doing, it may be required in some countries although even then there's no guarantee it will be enough and no one is going to provide legal advice here. Nil Einne (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably illegal - see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/20/us-school-accused-laptops-spying - all kinds of trouble for a school that put software on school issued laptops allowing them to covertly activate the webcam to spy on students. Exxolon (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm strong limerence with a girl I know, though I have never expressed my feelings to her and she has never rejected them; I am just content to have her as a friend. I don't have a Facebook account but I often check on her profile to see if she has updated anything, her profile pic etc as her profile is only semi-private which lets non-registered users view certain parts. Today I entered the url as usual but was taken instead to the facebook home page. I tried several times with the same result. However if I view the same link via a proxy her profile is displayed as normal, so obviously she has not changed any privacy settings. Has Facebook detected that I regularly visit her page and blocked me? Will Facebook tell her about it and warn her about stalkers or something? I'm worried because I don't want her to know that I check her page, feel creeped out by it or be offended and confront me over it in real life. I just wanted to keep up to date with her, I didn't intend anything nefarious. 109.104.186.182 (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have a Facebook account, then I don't see how Facebook could identify you to this girl, so she'd never know it was you. Might I suggest it would be easier to make your own Facebook account? If you add her as a friend, your Facebook homepage will tell you about any updates to her profile. Vimescarrot (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook will only allow registered users access to the profiles of other users. Visitors cannot view the profile of any user. Facebook will also not share the details of any visitor, whether a registered user or not, with anyone else. For more information, please see Facebook's privacy policy here. --tb240904 ^{Talk Contribs} 04:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. I don't have a facebook account and I've always been able to access some profiles, usually celebrities and such. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 10:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. By default Facebook greatly limits what info people who aren't friends or perhaps friends of friends can see. But Facebook is well known for allowing people to easily make available to everyone whatever info they want (successfully limiting what info people see they don't have such a great record). The tb is apparently under 18, it may be that Facebook prevents people under 18 from doing so. Nil Einne (talk) 10:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Actually on further consideration I was confusing 2 things. For most people, even if they allow everyone to see their info, the info you see if you don't have an account is limited (and looks different). As 82 notes, this doesn't apply to all accounts, special accounts like those of celebrities show the info to people without an account.(I'm not sure if there is any way for 'ordinary' people to share their info even to people without accounts, perhaps if you change your account so everything is visible to everyone it will work I didn't go that far although I doubt it.) If you are signed in to a Facebook account, you may be able to see more info, depending on what the person has shared and you do get a different looking page (like the typical profile page but with whatever info is available). If you go to the wrong page, you may sometimes be asked to log in but you should usually be able to get some rather limited info page without logging in. Note that even with an account, Facebook doesn't tell people who has visited their profile. Of course as Vimescarrot said, it's not clear why you can't create an account and add this person (and one would presume others) as a friend if you are a friend of their as you stated. Nil Einne (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You "feel creeped out by it"? Really, imagine how creeped out she would be to find out you are stalking her. Perhaps you should talk to this girl - you know... face to face. 212.123.243.220 (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read the question carefully before accusing people of stalking. The OP never said they were creeped out by anything; they were worried that she might be. Matt Deres (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evening all.

I have a machine which previously was running Mac OS Leopard, and was able to connect quite happily to a large corporate network running on NT boxes. Connection was via the smb:// protocol, dialogue appeared wherein one entered domain\username and then password, all much as you would expect.

However, on installing Snow Leopard on the Mac box, this no longer works; an 'invalid username or password' alert appears.

Any ideas what's occuring? pablo 22:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windows NT? Really? Snow Leopard might be less forgiving about what security protocols it allows to carry passwords across the network; NT is likely not up to spec and without manually forcing lower grade methods to be used it might be trying to tell you something (such as get away from anyone using Windows NT in a practical workplace environment.) --144.191.148.3 (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the Windows NT article says: "not to be confused with Windows NT 4.0" (ie, Windows 7 and 2008R2 are NT6.1). If it's actually NT4 or earlier, I could imagine Apple not testing interoperability with it anymore. Can't help the OP though, all I know is Snow Leopard works fine against Samba servers. Unilynx (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just like all Macs are the same, right? Where I am from, we call things what they are not what we think someone else might figure they might be if given enough guesses. --144.191.148.3 (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this has caused confusion. Some of the servers are 2008, others (I think) 2003. Network guy I spoke to refers to them generically as 'NT'. There is a problem apparently with Snow Leopard and Active Directory. The only fix I have found involves binding the mac to the AD server, this would require logging in to the AD server from the client, which would need an Active Directory admin account and isn't really a possibility. I was hoping there's some sort of configuration I could do purely on the client computer.  pablo 22:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]