Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2007 September 25

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.

September 25

Windows local security policies

I'm looking for the option to specify how long Windows gives you to break the screensaver before it will require a password. I think the default is 5-10 seconds or so, but I want to set it to 0. I think in XP I saw the setting in

%SystemRoot%\system32\secpol.msc

but it's not included with vista home premium and apparently MMC won't add the snapin manually. I hear it's possible to manually enter settings at HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System but I don't know the exact name of the value. Can someone with XP or a better version of Vista check their secpol.msc and find the name of the setting? --froth^t 00:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

One silly question

If I were to ask you to suggest me ONE brand of laptop, which would be the best deal that I can get? If I had a total budget of USD 1,500 dollars (inclusive of sales tax, electronics tax, consumer recycle tax, shipping costs and what not) to spend on a decent laptop AND a printer, what would it be? Wikilink or delete thread at will. Regards, Kushal

If I were to ask you to suggest me ONE brand of laptop, which would be the best deal that I can get? If I had a total budget of USD 1,500 dollars (inclusive of sales tax, electronics tax, consumer recycle tax, shipping costs and what not) to spend on a decent laptop AND a printer, what would it be? Wikilink or delete thread at will. Regards, Kushal--Click me! write to me 00:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Deja vu, anyone?--Click me! write to me 00:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

One brand? Lenovo/IBM. I've had a plethora of problems with laptops, but I've dropped this thing like 5 or 6 times now (the desks at school tend to tip when I stop looking at them) and, while the case is damaged, it runs beautifully. But it was a tad but more than 1,500 >.> Kuronue | Talk 00:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

YES thinkpads are the best laptop. HOWEVER as kuronue said they're pricy (mine was a bit..... ok WAY over $1500 >_<). Lenovo bought thinkpad out of the consumer PC market awhile ago and they've released a few designs of their own since then, using the IBM name. The T60 was still very good (though it's a bit plasticky for my tastes) but I'm not a fan at all of their latest offering the T61. What a nasty design- the screen's not centered in the fold-up flap, the body is wider to accomodate speakers on the sides of the keyboard (how dumb is that?..) and the very very slick magnesium-composite body has been replaced with rugged plastic with a "roll cage" reinforcement. Thinkpad is still by far the best laptop brand (and the most compatible with open standards if you care) with its top notch OEM utilities, quality construction as kuronue mentioned, the ultrabay (<3), the only laptop keyboard I can stand (full size!), the adored-by-many trackpoint, and renowned america-based tech sopport :P. So don't mind my earlier complaining- you'll see that a lot from thinkpad fans as the brand is polluted by the inevitable move away from solid simplicity :( As for anything affordable whatsoever, try Acer? In any case avoid mac like the plague. I can paste that quote from the guardian again if you're not convinced --froth^t 01:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will avoid the MacBook (as read in earlier RD posts). Any more comments? Apecific brand names product codes are also welcome. --Click me! write to me 02:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you own a Sony VAIO VGN-N325E/W ? Do you have an opinion on it? Have you heard of it? --Click me! write to me 03:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to start a war, but I'm curious to see the quote that inspires "avoid mac like the plague", as a happy long-time Mac laptop user. :) Pinball22 17:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Cue 10 years of nasal bleating from Mac-likers who profess to like Macs not because they are fashionable, but because "they are just better". Mac owners often sneer that kind of defence back at you when you mock their silly, posturing contraptions, because in doing so, you have inadvertently put your finger on the dark fear haunting their feeble, quivering soul - that in some sense, they are a superficial semi-person assembled from packaging; an infinitely sad, second-rate replicant who doesn't really know what they are doing here, but feels vaguely significant and creative each time they gaze at their sleek designer machine. And the more deftly constructed and wittily argued their defence, the more terrified and wounded they secretly are.

— Charlie Brooker, The Guardian

The title of that story is "I Hate Macs". Hardly an unbiased opinion. --24.249.108.133 18:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

His argument appears to be that people shouldn't use Macs because only superficial, insecure fashonistas use Macs, which doesn't seem like much of an argument. :) I'm sure there are people who use them just because they think it's cool, but that doesn't work as a reason not to use one if it's the right thing for you... I think the right answer should be to use whatever you're most comfortable with. I use a Mac for lots of reasons, the biggest one being that it's an easy way to have a Unix-based OS in a laptop without pesky hardware compatibility issues. Pinball22 18:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"the more deftly constructed and wittily argued their defence, the more terrified and wounded they secretly are" ... :D --froth^t 21:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that quote is just silly. Bottom line: use a Mac if you prefer them. There's little to argue about hardware-wise these days (since the hardware is all pretty standard stuff) so it's down to the OS and user interface. Like Pinball22 above, I like my Macbook because it's the best desktop unix I've ever used. For whatever reasons, some people enjoy hating Macs, just as others enjoy liking them. In my experience, a lot of the Mac-haters base their opinions on things that were either never true, or stopped being true several years ago. So, look beyond the religious arguments, and use what you like. Friday (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do enjoy burning out the chaff products of the computing industry and purifying the minds of mac users everywhere by pasting this quote across the internet.. forcing them to realize just how many people despise mac (and mac users too, at least on the internet) and perhaps causing them to question their loyalty. And other than the religious hatred for the mac, there are some actual arguments for my intellect to chew on when my rage tanks are on empty..

PCs are the ramshackle computers of the people. You can build your own from scratch, then customise it into oblivion. Sometimes you have to slap it to make it work properly, just like the Tardis (Doctor Who, incidentally, would definitely use a PC).

And a little farther into the article..

Ultimately the campaign's biggest flaw is that it perpetuates the notion that consumers somehow "define themselves" with the technology they choose. If you truly believe you need to pick a mobile phone that "says something" about your personality, don't bother. You don't have a personality. A mental illness, maybe - but not a personality. Of course, that hasn't stopped me slagging off Mac owners, with a series of sweeping generalisations, for the past 900 words, but that is what the ads do to PCs.

The forces of flamedom can be too easily marshalled against someone claiming to have a mac.. so just keep quiet if you do, unless you think you can out-flame the entire rest of the internet. ... Is it just me or has this thread gotten slightly off topic? --froth^t 21:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying you're too much of a wuss to use a Mac? ;) And yes, this thread has gotten slightly off-topic. Pinball22 00:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Lemme get this straight: a machine that's "ramshackle" and that sometimes has to be slapped to make it work properly is superior? So manifestly so that anyone who dares to claim otherwise is, according to you, at risk of being flamed off the face of the net by the legions who all prefer ramshackle? Strange arguments... —Steve Summit (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

YES! Ohhhh absoLUTELY yes! Yes. Yes. YEs. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. The point of a computer is not to look shiny and it's not to even work properly at all! The point is understanding it inside and out, from the electrons slowly trundling about in endless lines through the CPU to the helical pattern of crystals in the LCD screen. The point is working it out; the point is, like the MIT AI Lab hackers, writing your own operating system and all your own tools, breaking open the computer and sorting out the maze of wires, adding new instructions to the PDP processor by rewiring, building your own components and knowing it'll work.. the point is to work with the hardware, to be able to enter a few commands and have your computer execute millions of instructions, and know that you understand every step in between.. the point of computers is to understand them, and to control them completely, to have mastery over every mathematical nuance of its operation and programming, to know that a component under the left control panel sometimes comes loose so you know that if the tardis isn't working right you just give it a good slap. Have you ever seen Star Trek? The engineers of the Enterprise.. scotty, geordi, and b'ellana especially, they're always cannibalizing their ships, tearing out wires and replacing components. When there's a burn out in some random system they dive into the jeffries tubes with a wrench. Do you think they'd like a shiny new ship that always "just works" and never breaks and has the perfect warp field alignment, but is totally sealed and you never need to crawl through the jeffries tubes and you don't even have the ability to tweak the warp field. I'm sure starfleet command would love that, but no self-respecting engineer would ever work on such a ship. And only the utterly amoral would design such a ship. Substitute "big business", "hacker", and "microsoft". --froth^t 03:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. (A bit romanticized, perhaps, but as an incurable romantic myself, I can't complain. :-) ) Couple points, though:

1. You've gotta balance doing everything for yourself versus getting anything done. "Stand on the shoulders of giants -- not on their toes." [H. Spencer] (Are you reading Wikipedia using a browser you wrote yourself, under an OS you wrote yourself, running on a CPU you built yourself?)
2. When you say "Do you think they'd like a shiny new ship that always 'just works' and never breaks and has the perfect warp field alignment, but is totally sealed...", you set up a false dichotomy. How might they like a ship that "just works" and never (well, hardly ever) breaks and has the perfect warp field alignment, but is totally open and fixable if need be? (And how might they like it if the reason for the rare breakage and the perfect alignment was their own former efforts?)

(But of course this is now almost completely off-topic.) —Steve Summit (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The quotations presented above from the essay "I hate Macs" make it seem that the author's opinion is that the only reason people would ever use Macs is that they're trendy, chic, and fashionable. No one would ever use a Mac because of technology reasons. Never mind that the OS is easier to use, it's the shiny white exterior that Macs are all about! (Disclaimer: I'm not a Mac user but my sister is. I don't actually know if the OS is easier to use.) This reminds me of the countless times I've seen Linux mentioned in a footnote in a beginner's guide to computers. The books always say that you shouldn't even consider Linux unless you can write 80x86 assembler in your sleep. The writers should have a look outside and realise it's not 1990 any more. I have seen Linux terminals in public libraries, running KDE, and people go there happily surfing on the Internet, perhaps not even realising they're using this scary h4xx0r OS. JIP | Talk 16:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the point of those footnotes is that most people are fine with their toy OSes that "get work done" and nonsense like that, but for those of us interested in things like writing x86 assemblers and outraged over microsoft EULAs and paranoid about windows update stealing our documentz, there's Linux. But for the rest of the world, there's microsoft and apple.. these people have never known anything but garbage so they're used to it- no reason to liberate them if they're perfectly happy in their ignorance :P --froth^t 17:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The thread just below reminds me: the saddest part is that if you are non-tech-savvy, and if you choose the more popular of the mass-market alternatives, and if you do not pay someone (who is tech-savvy) extra money to support your machine and protect it against the everevolving threats to its armored-swiss-cheese "security model", You Will Be Pwned. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I find mac laptops are easier when connecting to the internet, especially wirelessly. Less menus, etc. I'd choose a mac if you aren't tech savy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.6.88 (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not gonna say which platform(s) I use, because these holy wars are very old, very tedious, and ultimately very silly. But I do have to say two things:

1. I most certainly do not choose my computers just to make a fashion statement! (I'd be rather insulted if anyone thought I did.) I'm not a "joiner"; I'm not a trend-follower. I choose and use them because *I* like them, because they work better (much better) for me.
2. It's true that computers are just tools; it's true you should use the ones that work for you. But the various alternatives are not at all the same! The differences between them are much more than cosmetic; in many cases they're deeply fundamental. The technically better machines really are better, despite the self-justifying protestations of the folks stuck using the inferior ones.

—Steve Summit (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to spoil all the fun, I am not tech-savvy at all. But I would like to learn more about computers and Unix seems to be cool. I want college to be a place where I can get out of my comfort zone and really learn about myself. If I buy a mac and truly hate it for the next four years, I think thats ok for me because I can reflect on that in later years (if I live that long, lol).

Anyways, I am glad that we are having this healthy discussion. Please go on ... Regards, --Click me! write to me 03:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: Some may call me anti-Microsoft but I think I am only a bit jealous of their tremendous market share. Does it make any sense? Not to me ... --Click me! write to me 03:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it over now? --69.150.163.1 22:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC) User:Kushal_one

I found this Lenovo machine. ThinkPad R61e Some other food for thought: Sony Vaio VGN-N325E/W (Is there any way to get this computer without vista or any OS preloaded?)

Please comment. --69.150.163.1 22:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Annoying website

Whenever i connect to internet a website automatically opens up and stays opened forever.I can not close it.The title bar always shows that web site's name even if i have opened other web sites.This is very annoying.What can i do?Pl Help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.74.174 (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Get an anti-spyware program and have it clean your system. SpyBot works well. --24.147.86.187 01:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And Ad-aware. Can you give us more detail on how "a website opens up" ? What Internet browser are you using ? Does a new window or tab open up within that browser or is it just your initial home page ? You say you can't close it. Does the window have an X in the upper, right corner ? If so, what happens when you click on it ? StuRat 01:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the URL? Right-click on it and look for ways to find that out (depends on the browser - which one do you use?). Then block that URL (how also depends on the browser). DirkvdM 13:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Many ISPs' setup programs install a branded version of Internet Explorer, with the title bar saying something like "Internet Explorer provided by Your ISP". The poster may be describing this problem, as well as a default homepage set by the ISP. Possible solutions might include: changing the homepage, looking in Add/Remove programs to remove the branded version of Internet Explorer, re-installing Internet Explorer, and as a last resort, searching the registry for the branded phrase and removing it. --Bavi H 19:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia edit window problem

Resolved

When I edit a large page and try to highlight a paragraph (to cut and paste it into a spellchecker), the edit window wants to rapidly scroll right/left or up/down so that the text I wanted is now well off the screen. Is there any way to stop it from doing this ? I'm using the Opera browser. StuRat 02:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, I know what you mean. I think it does that in every browser. If you go into "options" and then "browsing," browsers usually let you control scroll speed. I've never used opera though, so I don't know.--130.126.67.144 02:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much the speed that's the problem. I want it to scroll up or down rapidly if I move the cursor above or below the edit window. However, I don't want it to scroll while the cursor is within the edit window. Is there any way I can stop this ? StuRat 04:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps try shift-clicking the selection (i.e., click once at the start of the text, hold down shift, then click once at the end, rather than dragging the mouse cursor across it - making the assumption of course that this shift-clicking would work in Opera). It may work; it's not really a fix, but is at least a potential workaround. --jjron 10:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that works. I do a regular click at the start of the desired area, then do a shift-click at the end. I can also do a regular click at the end, then a shift-click at the beginning. This even works if I have to scroll to get from the start point to end. Thanks, everyone, I have my workaround ! StuRat 13:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Shockwave video on iPod

I have a shockwave flash video—is there a program that can convert it to a format suitable for my iPod? There's a lot of adware out there I don't want to touch, and I was wondering if any wikipedians out there knew about a freeware converter.--130.126.67.144 02:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

WinFF [1] can convert FLV to many formats, including MP4 (which I believe is playable on an iPod). It is free and opensource, and I have not had any malware problems with it when downloaded via the official distribution. Nimur 04:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Will it convert .swf files?--130.126.67.144 04:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

SUPER by eRightSoft will do it for you; it's not the prettiest program around, but it's free, I know of no issues with spyware, etc, and it will convert almost any media files from/to any other format. --jjron 10:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are running Mac OS X, try Tasty Software's FLVR, it gives Safari a download button to convert FLV to MPEG-4/h.264. --24.249.108.133 18:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia in Microsoft Word

Word has a fancy "Research" toolbar that allows you to serach through a few sources. Several of them (especially encyclopedias) you need to register/pay for. Is there a way to add Wikipedia to this? You can add a reference by website, but it says wikipedia does not respond, most likely because Wikipedia is not set up for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.95.240 (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What URL did you add? The Word Research function is not explicitly mentioned in WP:Special/Search, but in the "Browser Specific Info" section, it indicates that the full URL should be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%s. I'm not really sure if that %s would work or need to be changed. This is the only page from Microsoft that I can find about adding research options, and it's not very detailed. --LarryMac | Talk 16:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a keyword bookmark defined in firefox so I can just type, for example, wp WP:RD/C and it takes me here. This is the URL that I use: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%s" but search might be better for things that might not have their own articles. Actually, why not just use your browser? :X --froth^t 18:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because he spent some five hundred bucks [2] and wants full use of that money? I am sorry if I offended you, by the way. --Click me! write to me 07:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Grin ..on the internet? Heh, don't think so. Anyway, there are plenty of features in Office that are useless- I wouldn't consider it wasted money if I never used the research bar. However if I started using aspell as a spell checker, and an external graphics library for clipart and wordart, and a browser for research, and an external formatting tool (?), (and these alternatives do their jobs better than their Office counterparts) then I wouldn't consider it wasted money, but I would consider whether Office is worth purchasing again when they think up some other superficial upgrade. --froth^t 09:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Radius on a map web site?

I am looking for a map web site, such as Mapquest, Yahoo! Maps, or Google Maps, which might have a feature in which one can enter an address and a distance (say, 25 miles) and have the site generate a map displaying a circle centered at that address with a radius of that distance. Does anyone know of such a site? Thanks for your help. --Metropolitan90 03:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

So, which cities are you planning to nuke ? :-) Seriously, it sounds simple enough, but I'm not aware of any site that does this. StuRat 04:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this request was inspired by the fact that diplomats from certain countries are limited to traveling within a 25-mile radius of Manhattan when attending the United Nations. --Metropolitan90 05:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You can sorta do that with the ruler in Google Earth. Straight westward you can go a little past Madison. Northwards you land in something called Nyack. Eastward you land in Levittown, NY. Southwards you land just on the coast of the Atlantic at the south border of Raritan Bay, basically at the Highlands. Cheers! --Oskar 06:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Correction: southwards you actually land pretty much smack dab in the middle of the Highlands Army Air Defense base. Many diplomats who'd want to go there, I imagine :) --Oskar 06:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a pretty silly way of doing it: use this site, plug in a value of 41000 kt, and the largest visible circle should be exactly 25 miles. --24.147.86.187 14:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can get your hands on a copy of Microsoft MapPoint, that can give you both the distance radius and the time radius (the further you could travel from a point in a given time). You can download a free trial from Microsoft or might be able to use the online "Test Drive" function.[3] Laïka 16:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There are many simple Google Maps API users out there with something like what you want. [4], [5], ... --Sean 16:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! The second link cited by Sean [6] is the exact kind of utility I was looking for. --Metropolitan90 04:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

MSN Virus "image36.zip"

A lot of my friends have been getting this MSN virus, you know the type which sends the virus to all the victim's contacts and says something along the lines of "hey can i put this pic of u on my myspace?". On this latest virus the message varies somewhat (one time it said "you seen me naked yet?!" :P) but the file name is always "image36.zip". Anyone know how to get rid of this virus cuz it's driving me and my friends nuts... --Candy-Panda 11:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I recommend you do a full virus scan on your computer to eliminate the threat. If you don't already have a virus checker, you can download and use the free AVG Anti-Virus (website). --Andrew (My talk) 12:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Combining black and white and colour images

I have two photographs which are exactly identical except for in two ways: 1) One of them is in greyscale, while the other is in full colour. 2) The black and white image is of much higher resolution than the colour one. Is there some way to use the colour image to "colour in" the greyscale one, without significant loss of detail from the greyscale? (In case you are wondering what caused this unlikely chain of events, for some reason, the image I need from the FHWA site is only available in large greyscale or small colour image - don't ask me why) Laïka 16:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried overlaying one over the other at 50% transparency? Without the images, I can't be certain which of the many methods is best. It is my gut opinion that colorizing the black and white will look poor. -- kainaw™ 17:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• I just tried that, and it looked pretty good. I'm not too clever with the GIMP, so I'm sure someone more experienced at it could do much better using the B+W image as a layer mask, etc. --Sean 17:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If I did that, I'd probably end up with a with Bleach bypass of the original image, which would screw up all the saturations. It's moot now, anyway, as I've managed to find a similar Creative-Commons image of higher resolution. Thanks anyway. (In case you're curious, these are the two images - I'm not sure as to the copyright status of the black and white one, though, so I've gone for the CC alternative, Image:Snow sweeper Helsinki.jpg) Laïka 17:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You'd have hell combining those anyway. They are not cropped the same, so you'd have to spend hours playing around until the images lined up. -- kainaw™ 18:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• All you have to do is zoom in on a small item in the image, set the top layer to 50% alpha, and line them up. It's easy! --Sean 23:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't that easy. There are two images. They are cropped at different spots. They are set at different aspect ratios. They are saved as different sizes. So, to line them up, you have to know how much to resize both the width and height (being a different amount each, since the aspect ratio is different), and then hope the images aren't slightly rotated - which it appears they are. -- kainaw™ 14:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it could be done. First you'd have to align the two images: one way to do that would be to use a panorama stiching program like hugin. Then export them into a raster graphics editor (such as Photoshop or GIMP) as layers of a single image, and combine them so that the luminance channel comes from the high-res b/w image and the chrominance channels from the low-res color image. Depending on the program, this may be as simple as changing the blending mode on one of the layers, or you may have to mess around with channel decomposition. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to break up the pixel lines of the colour image. On the simplest level, you could do this with a slight blur (or if one of the images is rotated, rotating the colour image will likely do the job, so long as anti-aliasing is enabled). --Nathan (Talk) 12:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Polygon union

I have a set of n polygons defined by their sides $((x_{n1},y_{n1}),(x_{n2},y_{n2})),\ldots ,((x_{nm},y_{nm}),(x_{n1},y_{n1}))$. (these are zip codes) I want an efficient algorithm for merging adjacent polygons into single polygons. These are not necessarily simple polygons, and even if they were, once I've begun the union process, it's very likely that I'll end up with enclaves. It's also likely that I'll end up with situations where the shared boundaries will not be entire sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald Hosek (talk • contribs) 17:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

One method is to leave them as separate polygons in some type of structure which notes that they are unioned together. Then, if you want to determine if a point is within the unioned polygon, just determine if it is within any of the individual polygons. This also makes it simple to remove a polygon from the union later. One thing that this approach doesn't do particularly well is allow you to determine the total area, because there will be many overlaps. BlindMoglin 17:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this is that it makes rendering the polygon as an overlay in google maps inefficient. Donald Hosek 17:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The answer depends very much on wether your data is perfect or not.

In case of perfectly aligned polygons, which share any common vertex on the exact same point the problem is merely combinatorial. In this case the best way is to find the "triangle points" where common borders of polygons start or end and then split all polygons at these point and finally recombine the line segments to new polygons. You can find these points by comparing polygons pairwise. It is not necessarily easy to cover all special cases, but it can be implemented fast, even on huge datasets. If you have zip code areas from a single supplier, the data is probably perfectly aligned (the vendors of these datasets aim for it specifically).

In the case of arbitrary polygons, you will have to use a general line intersector (sweepline) to find all intersections, split all polygon boundaries at their intersections and create a topological datastructure containing vertices, lines and faces. Then apply the desired set operations on the faces and regenerate your merged polygons. This approach is slower than the first, mainly because of the intersector.

If you don't know what I am talking about, by all means use a library. You cannot solve the second case without good knowledge of algorithmic geometry. Try the java topology suite for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.187.24.216 (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Forum Spammer

Hello, I'm a forum moderator, and we're having quite a bit of hassle from our resident spammer. They keep getting in and flaming members, excessive smilies and being a pain!! I ban the username, the email and IP address, but he keeps getting back. Obviously, he is changing his IP and there remains little I can do about it, apart from adding new ban triggers for his list of new IP addresses.

Any idea how I can combat him? or is it a case of just banning his IP everytime he gets a new one? - Fred Riding —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.6.88 (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of anything automatic off the top of my head, but can you make the sign-up process require manual approval? That would also be a pain, but only for you, not for all of your members. --LarryMac | Talk 20:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Never get in a fight with a pig; all that will happen is that you both get dirty, but the pig enjoys it". Maybe just stop playing this game, which he's obviously enjoying? Put up with his excessive smilies, and eventually he'll get bored or discover girls, and life goes on. --Sean 20:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The other thing you could do is use WHOIS to determine the ISP of the offender and contact the admin cntact (many ISPs list an abuse contact). If you tell them the IP and the timestamp (UTC) of the abusive edits, they can determine which of their users was loged on at the time and make sanctions. Chances are they are breaking their ISP's terms and conditions of service. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 02:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As a former Forum Administrator, a quick ranged-ban on IPs stops things. Mind you, make it quick, just enough to annoy them, but not too much so as to stop wanted traffic. You can make a list of their IPs and see if they are in a specific subrange, so the range doesn't have to be very large. And off the top of my head: See if you can enforce a smiley limit (say 5) so it doesn't get annoying or lag, or censor some of his common words. Or simply enforce post moderation temporarily (this annoys people, though). x42bn6 Talk Mess 03:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Depending on the forum software, you could annoy him as much as he annoys you. For vBulletin software for instance, there is a mod available that can be used to make life on the board hard for a particular user. It's called the "Miserable User Mod" and is available at vbulletin.org. Basically it makes life hard for a particular user. Certain actions have a failure rate percentage applied to them so that if they try to go to your forum's home for instance the user has a 25% chance of actually getting the page. The other 75% of the time, they get a server time out error or something similar. Dismas|^(talk) 04:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, some good ideas. Only being the Mod, and not the admin means I'm restricted in what I can do. I'm using forum SMF version 1.1.3. I don't think i can apply a blanket ban. But some nice ideas anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.6.88 (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I once heard of a forum that put annoying users in limbo. That is, instead of blocking the user, the forum admin made it so only he could see his own posts. That is, to everyone else, he disappeared, but he thought he was posting just as normal. After a while, when they don't get any reactions they just go away, and even if he doesn't you don't get to see his posts. Just hope he doesn't figure it out :) --Oskar 09:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Change IP in wiki editing??

You know those little links in an IP discussion page, telling where they came from? I'm not sure what they are, but when I plugged in some IPs from a recent vandalization from another wiki to "WHOIS", they all point to different directions! Some claim to be from China and some from Germany. The IPs are all radically different, yet all their edits are links to the same "get free 'spyware'" website. How did they do that??

Proxy. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 23:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Or possibly a virus that has compromised insecure computers all over the net. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 02:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As Timotab said, see botnet. -- kainaw™ 14:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So how do you fight these things?

You revert them each time they happen. If it is too much to handle, you block anonymous edits until the botnet targets someone else. -- kainaw™ 01:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

So in other words, you want me to fight an automated bot??