Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2008 January 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Computing desk
< January 1 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 3 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


Contents


[edit] January 2

[edit] special characters

hey, does anyone know how to insert unicode chaaracters on a laptop (nonextended keyboard) without having to poen character map or copy and pasting them everytime? are there any alternate ways? thanks a bunch!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.28.132.92 (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Many laptops have a faux numeric keypad on the letter keys to the right, look for numbers in the corner of the keys. If this is the case, you can usually activate this numeric keypad by pressing Fn or Num Lock. If your keyboard does have such a function, hold down the Alt key, press the Fn key and then type the numbers using the pseudo-keypad. -Canley (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

hey it works!!! Thanks so much!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.28.132.92 (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia server load

The Wikipedia database is temporarily in read-only mode for the following reason: The database has been automatically locked while the slave database servers catch up to the master

This is probably due to routine maintenance; if so, you will be able to edit again within a few minutes. We apologize for any inconvenience this might have caused. You can continue to browse Wikipedia articles while the database is locked. For further information, you can visit the #wikipedia channel on the freenode IRC network.

Would more expenditure on server machinery stop this from happening? ----Seans Potato Business 01:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, though this lock is only very temporary. It exists to ensure consistancy across the wikipedia databases. If you had better servers (as opposed to more) it might decrease the amount of times this happens. 202.10.86.59 (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This isn't something "you" can allieve, this is a wikipedia-specific message and that server syncing is very specific to wikipedia's massive server setup of mediawiki. If you want to run multiple database servers and connect to them all directly from mediawiki, then you'll have to solve a similar problem. --ffroth 17:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
That is the problem, but it still stands to reason though that more/better equipment would probably prevent those lags from occurring. Although the more efficient solution would be to just write new software from the ground up. MediaWiki wasn't meant to be used this way, and proprietary software could probably eliminate these lags even on the current equipment. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:38, 2 Jan 2008 (UTC)
It's hard to imagine a project centered around openness using something proprietary for its fundamental software component. --Sean 18:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Just because it's proprietary doesn't mean it can't still be open-source. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:01, 2 Jan 2008 (UTC)
But it can't be "Open Source" in caps. *rolls eyes* Anyway we need better db servers, not more. If we had more, we'd have to sync more often. --ffroth 16:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I know I am getting out of track but I don't see what you are hitting at, equazcion. Kushalt 12:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In a very real sense MediaWiki is designed to be used in exactly this way, since running Wikipedia has always been and still remains the number one target application for it. Whether it has been well designed for it is, of course, a different question. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Huh? MediaWiki was written for Wikipedia? Are you sure 'bout that? Equazcion •✗/C • 13:00, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)
If only there were an article somewhere would one could read the history of MediaWiki.... --LarryMac | Talk 15:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Now just where would we find such an article? Oh, I know! There is a place, one which hasn't been mentioned in this discussion yet, and I'm not sure everyone here is aware of. It's called "Wikipedia".
Seriously though, isn't it obvious? Before Wikipedia, hardly anyone had an idea what a "wiki" is. In fact, to this very day some people think that "wiki" is short for Wikipedia. It's unlikely that someone would have put a lot of effort into designing something as complex as MediaWiki and just hoping a use for it will be found eventually. Even the name "MediaWiki" is an obvious play on the Wikimedia's foundation name. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know that. No need for sarcasm. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:30, 3 Jan 2008 (UTC)
My first paragraph was just a joke, no offense was intended. I usually specifically designate any sarcastic remarks as such, but this was so obvious that I didn't feel the need.
It is, however, important to keep in mind the point raised by Larry - we are all here working within what is probably the largest encyclopedia in the world, in which one can easily find answers to technical questions such as "why was MediaWiki created?". Following Ilmari's link to MediaWiki would be a much faster way to verify his claim than asking about it, and in fact this is probably what he had in mind when he added those brackets. Just something to note to make your life easier in the future.
No offense was intended in my second paragraph, either. I was just a little surprised by your surprise, for even if the historical fact was unknown to you, it looks to me like something that should "make sense" - especially since it is probable that you have seen Wikipedia use Mediawiki much before you've seen anyone else use it. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Windows XP CHK DSK?

Upon my last start up, (after previously defragging my Hard Drive, using a third-party piece of software, and making some registry edits via the automated cleaning program CCleaner), Windows XP, right before the welcome screen popped up, started CHK DSK. I assume this is "Check Disk", but I don't know hwy this happened. It has never occured before. CHK DSK claimed my C: Volume was "dirty". Can someone shed some light on this?

Thanks in advance,

Perfect Proposal Speak Out! 15:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right that it is "check disk". In Windows XP, a check disk can be requested by a program (including Windows itself), in which case the next time you reboot, the check disk scan will run. This can happen if:
  • ...a program thinks your hard drive may have damaged sectors (areas),
  • ...a program needs to check for errors before performing a major disk operation, such as a change to partitions
  • A maintenance program can also request a check disk as a preventative measure, to keep your hard drive healthy
  • Windows can initiate a check disk if it detects hard drive issues.
In this case, I'd say your defrag program probably requested the check disk. Some programs allow you to manually initiate a check disk on the next reboot (a feature in Diskeeper), so you may have inadvertently checked this option while playing with settings. The defrag program could have also detected problems and made the request automatically, as any "bad sector" problems would need to be cleared up before a defrag can occur. In the end, it's usually nothing to worry about. Even if there are bad sectors on your hard drive, check disk can usually "fix" them quite easily. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:23, 2 Jan 2008 (UTC)
If chkdsk says that the volume is dirty, it means that the dirty bit is set. NTFS doesn't have a real dirty bit, but it has a bit called the "dirty bit" that can be set to force chkdsk to run. So, if you're using FAT, chkdsk is probably running because Windows didn't shut down cleanly. If you're using NTFS, what Equazcion said. -- BenRG (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Software please!

This isn't the most technical question, but what is good software to convert youtube videos into audio files? I'm running Mac OSX, so one for that system would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.12.248 (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've used iSquint quite successfully to convert FLV videos to Quicktime ones, but that's not quite the same thing. If you have Quicktime Pro, that would work very well for this and many other conversion issues. You could probably get VLC to do it, though I've had very spotty results with its OS X port (crashes quite often with FLVs). --24.147.86.187 (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Second the VLC recommendation (to wit, I've (a) used it successfully, but (b) had a few problems with it, too). —Steve Summit (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I once used Audacity to do that, by hitting the record button and then playing the video file. It's worth going through the preferences first to make sure it'll record it in the right way and set up the MP3 encoder. It worked very well, though if you have to do lots of files, using Audacity's going to be inconvenient because you have to wait for the video to play. • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 13:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)