Computing desk
< June 14	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 16 >

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.

June 15

Balancing a network

If I have a DSL, UMTS or whatever network conection, I experience different speeds. I suppose that these speeds are determined by the server and by the use of the network at the moment. But, is there some sort of administration (from the side of the provider) to balance the network or it "just happen"? Is there some sort of traffic central that provides more bandwidth for user that have downloaded less or are requesting less? Do some ports (like http or VoIp ports) get preference? GoingOnTracks (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see traffic shaping. --antilived^{T | C | G} 01:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AT&T telephone compatibility

can I use a at&t post paid cell phone set on the at&t go phone network? Kushal (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They use the same cellular network. All you have to do is put a GoPhone SIM card in your phone, and activate it on their website or in a store. Unfortunately, I don't think they sell the SIMs by themselves, so you may have to buy a cheap GoPhone and use the SIM that comes with it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. If its true, its a bummer. :( Kushal (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online TV guide

Is there a website where I can see all the upcoming over-the-air digital broadcasts scheduled for the week for Detroit, Michigan, USA ? StuRat (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a number of them, in fact. Try entering terms like "television", and "program schedule" into Google. Some of them seem to handle local listings (channel selection) better than others, but I can't remember enough offhand to be able to make a specific recommendation. --Prestidigitator (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use titantv.com. I don't see why it wouldn't have broadcasts for Detroit. -- kainaw ™ 13:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That site's pretty good, but it doesn't list the Canadian stations we get in Detroit; Channels 9 (CBC) and 32 (TVO). StuRat (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audio file

I have an MP3 file on my computer that I downloaded. However, the audio only comes from 1 side (speaker or headphone) when I play it. I'd like to be able to listen to it on my ipod. What is the easiest way to equalize the audio so that sound comes from both sides? I am on Windows XP. Thanks. Nadando (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Control Panel --> Sounds and Audio Devices --> Audio tab --> Volume button under Sound playback, and a window pops up. Move the icons in the Balance fields to be in the middle. This also may be due to your speaker (or headphone) chord being partly unplugged; this has happened to me a few times.--十八 07:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's trying to re-equalise the file so that both channels have sound. Download Audacity and play around with it. If you still need help post them here. --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audacity seems a bit of a waste to me. Presuming you are willing to completely discard one channel and it is not joint stereo, there may very well be a way to losslessly convert one channel to a mono MP3 Nil Einne (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A waste? i don't get it. You mean overkill? Kushal (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Save video file from MMS source with Linux?

With Linux, I can use Xine to stream a video file directly from an Microsoft Media Server (MMS) source. But how can I instead save it to disk so I can view it later at my leisure? JIP | Talk 10:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mmsrip --Juliano (T) 12:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MiMMS --h2g2bob (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

algorithum key?

Is there such a thing is a algorithum key on the pc that can mess up the fan or something. A certain "person" on a MSN chat made a threat saying he knew my encribiton algorithum key , which is bs. Btw, I did report it to MSN. Is that bs or what . That guy is probly just some punk that has no life.--Rio de oro (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encryption algorithms have keys. In particular, anything on your computer that is encrypted will have a key, and that includes your communication with secure web sites via SSL (or has that been completely superseded by TLS?). I doubt there is any particular one that can be referred to as the encryption algorithm key of your computer, that your fan is encrypted, or that a random person will have access to any of the keys associated with your computer. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice, it makes "breath" more easier at night now. That guy started to run his "mouth" , saying some bs that he knew the key , to "make my fan slow down",and to cause "your pc to slow down". I know its bs because I have Zone Alarm on.--75.24.66.226 (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the above post was made by rio(myself) . For the record. 75.24.66.226 (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian Encyclopedia Search Toolbar

Hello. How can I get The Canadian Encyclopedia search toolbar if possible on Internet Explorer 7? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fastest speed data

What is the world record for the fastest speed data has traveled?

The speed of light... If you expected a different answer you will have to be more specific. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They may be talking about the speed of data transfer, that is, number of bits per second, which really isn't speed at all but if i were to hazard a guess the "fastest" would be the transfer systems they use at the LHC (or at least the fastest actually deployed) at over 300Gb/s (see LHC Computing Grid) -Benbread (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OP undoubtedly did mean data transfer rate, but that's still ill-defined since data transfer is additive. If you have two lines transferring 1Mb/s each, together they transfer 2Mb/s. If you have many lines going from the US to other parts of the world, with varying rates, then together the transfer rate is probably measured in TB/s. And you can, of course, sum all forms of data transfer all over the world, and probably go into the PB/s. If the OP is not interested in such quantities, he should be very specific about what he is interested in. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With some very rough calculations, I figure that a semi-trailer carrying hard drives can easily make the PB/s over a distance of a few kilometres. That doesn't take loading time into account, but I'm pretty sure I underestimated capacity as well. (And you've got to put some data on the hard drives first, too.) Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 04:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've given that answer before (and even right here on one of the Reference Desks) and it's still almost-certainly the right answer, especially when you consider that a modern 3-1/2" disk drive now stores a terabyte of data.

Atlant (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP over Avian Carriers has the potential for very fast transfer, but is susceptible to high losses. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly if you select the Errol transport medium!

Atlant (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forget birds. Snails are where it's at. Check out this paper from the Annals of Irreproducible Results APL (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Blue-Ray HD Film Storage Format already obsolete?

... with the recent release of a 32gb SD card (which presumably can hold a full HD film file in one of the several native video file formats (ie .AVI or MPEG4)) .... am i right in thinking that (from a theoretical point of view) the device manufacturers/film distributors could easily leapfrog the entire Blue-Ray Player/Disc technology framework right now (effectively making Blue-Ray redundant) by producing players that could read such a file off an SD card????

(ps ..... i know the price of these larger cards has to come down and i know the content providers will probably force Blue-Ray only formatted films on everybody until they get their money back but i am really eager to know if there are any technical reasons why SD cards could not be used in such a way?)

Grazer1 (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How will the movies be distributed? Suppose I want to go to the store and buy a movie. Will it be given to me in the form of a 32GB SD card containing the movie? These seem to cost 100's of dollars, and that's a sum I, for one, am not willing to pay for a movie. The point of optical discs is that they are dirt cheap per unit storage. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi meni - thanks for your reply but you have not really answered my question regarding SD card file format capabilities .... as mentioned in my ps ... i am fully aware large gb SD cards are currently v. expensive but so were 256kb SD cards when they came out and now they are worth pennies ... the blue ray optical disc with its four layers/lower wave length light etc was the ONLY option at the time for cheaply storing 30-50gb of content but this simply will not be the case in 12-18 months time ... solid state storage is the future and as for distribution ... 100mbps broadband is already readily available in some countries! Grazer1 (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good question, but a couple of things need to be considered. Blu-Ray is great as a read-only format, due to the resilience of the media. One of the reasons they became popular though was that existing DVD manufacturing plants could be re-tooled to manufacture Blu-Ray discs relatively easily. As the film industry already had working relationships right the way through the distribution chain, I guess it made sense to use what was already in place instead of radically redeveloping your manufacturing and distribution process. Going on to your other points though, there's no doubt that solid-state media does offer huge potential benefits in the area of rewritable media, so it's possible that HD camcorders will emerge that will use these cards as a medium. As for distribution via broadband - this method is already being trialled for movie rentals and other 'on demand' products. The risk with buying a permanent copy of a movie as a download is what happens when your computer fails - will the DRM allow you to make a backup copy, will you be able to re-download the movie and will your movie still play if your online store closes? After the difficulties consumers have had with their music becoming unplayable when their online stores have closed, I think consumers would be more comfortable with physical media for the time being. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 23:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to correct Gazimoff for a sec. It was HD-DVD that was easy for DVD duplicators to convert to, not Blu-Ray. Blu-Ray is extremely comparitively expensive as it requires all new technology to manufacture. The scratch resistant coating and the thickness of the base layers all require a different manufacturing process and all contribute to completely new and more expensive duplication machines. If you've touched an HD-DVD, it looks and feels like a regular DVD as its made using the same fabrication process. If you've touched a BD disc, they are slightly thinner, smoother and are also bound to a more flexible base polymer. Blu-Ray duplication is tightly controlled by Sony. If memory serves, there are only four Blu-Ray duplicating companies in the United States. --70.167.58.6 (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) As Meni pointed out, cost per unit will continue to be Blu-ray's selling point for the short term. As for the long term (beyond eight years or so), even Sony realizes that Blu-ray will not be enough for ever. 100 mbps or 12.5 MBps is not yet readily available in a significant portion of the market, either because of the prohibitive cost or simply because they are not available. A small telco that I know recently announced it upgraded its network to 400 MBPS. Grazer1, your vision is perfectly accurate. However, it will take some time for it to be widely feasibe. By the way, if we can ever get beyond the stupidity that some ISPs are showing, we could have BlockBuster, Apple iTunes, Netflix and so on providing HD movies over the Internet to the lucky ones of us. Kushal (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the price of flash-based media and broadband transfer will decrease. But so will the price of optical discs, and at the same time the expectations of consumers will increase. By the time 32GB SD cards become affordable, consumers will expect 400GB movies, and there will likely be an affordable optical medium to provide it. It all boils down to which happens faster and what technology reaches its foundational limits sooner, and this requires greater soothsaying skills than any of us possesses.

The bottom line: No, blu-ray is not yet obsolete. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 11:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An earlier application might be to record 1080i or 1080p broadcasts. It would be nice to put them on an SD card. And, unlike the incredibly expensive equipment one would need to record onto Blu-Ray, no special recorder is needed. Also, being able to reuse the SD card once you no longer need the original contents is nice. Finally, SD cards fit in my shirt pocket, while Blu-Ray disks don't. StuRat (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi all - many thanks for your contributions - was hoping to also get the definitive update on Mpeg4/AVI I/O usage but will keep fingers crossed - note - the cost of BlueRay discs as a component of the overall film cost is already pennies but to move to the next level (ie triple layer disc sides? / UV wavelength resolution micropit reading?) using optical discs to me would take a significant time to develop and will again be highly expensive to the user in terms of the need for a reader - the SD card apparently can go up to 128gb in capacity and at the rate of current development i'm pretty certain it will catch up with the more sluggish 1080i tv standard and HD film back-library content capabilities by the end of next year - i do not think i am alone in this view - the already seen proliferation of SD card readers in nearly all new devices (tv's/set-top boxes)to me shows that the SD card will soon be the de facto standard for re-writable digital content transfer between digital devices - going down the optical disc route made sense when there was no solid state alternative but as we speak this is clearly not the case for HD films of a size 30gb - presumably - the 64gb SD card is already in development and it will be out well before the 1080p display (and therefore content) limit is expanded again given current user uptake/content production inertia - even if 100mbps broadband takes time to roll out the volume use of 32gb SD cards is possible right now and, as StuRat has commented, would obviate the need for special readers or format wars! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grazer1 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe the film studios are very afraid of anything that's a downloadable file. No matter how hard the DRM is, it'll be cracked. By having content locked away on a physical disc that they can control, they don't have to fear cracked files (or at least not as much). I can envision a licensed, encrypted memory card that you drive down to Best Buy to "refill" with content at an ATM type machine. But even if they allowed downloadable content to flash memory, I would imagine studios would create a custom memory card that would not be able to fit into any standard SD device (similar to the Nintendo DS Cartridge). That special card would only be playable on a special movie player that would be connected to the net so studios could monitor for illegal content on your card. --70.167.58.6 (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, current trends are that the price of flash media is dropping at about 1/2 every 12 months. In other words, in 12 months a 16gb will cost the price of a 8gb now. The price of a 8gb flash disk (the cheapest per gb) is currently about $37 here. This means that in 24 months, the price of a 32gb will be about $37. While this is retail, even if the wholesale price is say $15 this is still a hefty price when the price of producing a bluray disc is likely to be in cents (particularly by that time). Given that the studios are going to want a profit of say $20 at least, this implies a price tage of $20 versus $35, I know which one I bet the consumer is going to choose. All in all, I don't see it happening in the immediete future. And as 70.167 says, the idea this will eliminate the need for special readers completely ignores the fact the studios are not going to accept anything without DRM they have complete control over. A lot of it depends on how important HD ends up being to the consumer, and how quickly it's taken up (and how willing the consumer is to accept the DRM restrictions imposed). As to the ATM style device, I also don't see it having much success, consumers still like to keep their content when they pay for it. I'm not going to pay $20 for the privilage of downloading something to a card and then delete it a few days later. At best this will work in the rental market but thats IMHO not of sufficient interest to the studios for them to develop something specific like this. Nor are consumers likely to be willing to buy a special player (let's not forget this will need very fancy DRM for the studios) just for rentals and let's not forget DIVX failed. Although BluRay DRM is onerous, it doesn't require a permanent connection to the internet or a phone line for example I believe Nil Einne (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi neil - you have some very good points - personally - with SD card slots appearing in many more standard devices i'm wondering (hoping!) that an increase in general usage (and size) of these cards will drive the unit cost down at an even greater rate compared to the current depreciation gradient you are observing - of all the feedback so far - to me DRM rather than cost appears to be the key factor limiting this format's uptake by the content providers - it's a real pity that the ease of (re)use of these mini-hard drive type devices is the very feature halting their general use by the studios! - presumably - taking the whole thing even further - laptops may become obsolete eventually as we all start carrying around our own apps/files/OS on such cards and insert them in the nearest (free?) viewer/I-O devices (on the back of aircraft seats or in cafes!)Grazer1 (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2008 June 15

Contents