Computing desk
< September 9	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 11 >

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 10

Game Programmed in Ruby Over the Internet/Network

Hi, I'm making a game in Ruby (kind of like chess meets a scaled down final fantasy tactics, nothing to fancy) that I want to play with my friends, each having their own game running on their own computer. Unfortunately, I am an absolute idiot with networking. Essentially, I was thinking that one computer would host the game and that the other computers would connect into this one. More specifically, somebody would take their turn, their comp would send data describing their turn to the host, the host would update the game, then send the data out to all the players comps that would be needed to update the board and other such. The problem is, I don't know how to do this part. Thus, would this basic setup work? How would you go about setting it up (really, if somebody could give a good explanation of how to send info of any type between computers in Ruby, I could do the rest.)? And, is there any difference in doing this over the internet -vs- a home network? Thank you for any and all help, I apologize if this is poorly explained, I can give any extra details. Thanks again 209.252.235.206 (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use Ruby, but here's a suggestion: You might search for something like Ruby chat server client to find examples of a simple chat server and chat client programs. You could use the same ideas in your game, where the "chat" is actually the game data being sent back and forth.

When you host a server on your computer, you'll have to set up your computer's firewall to allow incoming connections to your server program. If the client programs are on the internet, you'll also have to set up your router to send incoming internet connections for the port you choose to your computer (port forwarding). --Bavi H (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ram-backed ssd

hi, is there a ram-backed ssd option to be even faster than flash (though much smaller)? I'm thinking like 32-gb "drive", all ram adn when power is pulled it uses an onboard battery to quickly dump to ssd.... thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.234.207.120 (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Faster in what way? I believe a number of flash based SSDS can saturate a 300mbps SATA link so unless you have a better interface you're not going to get higher transfer speed. You may get better access/seek times/latency but I'm not sure that will be much of a benefit over a SATA link as I mentioned in a answer you can find in the archives. In any case, IIRC last time I looked (for the answer I referred to), modern RAM based SSDs only seemed to be made in the very expensive, very high speed, and far larger then 32GB devices Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you are describing is a hardware RAM disk (though that article is 95% about virtual RAM disks) with an option to write its contents to an SSD. Here is a cool looking hardware RAM disk ... though I don't know of any RAM disk that has the option you describe. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A 'hardware RAM disk' is an SSD so are discussed in that article as the headers in both articles note. I didn't mentioned above, but there are some older lower capacity (often not even 32GB) DRAM based SSD which may still be available e.g. I came across [1] (which is 4GB and has flash storage but I'm not sure it has a battery backup or expects the user to provide power via a UPS) while looking at our SSD article. I didn't mention these because even if they are still available, I'm not sure their performance is still then better something solely based on flash nowadays. Even then, most of them don't use SATA. Also most of them aren't exactly designed for the kind of people who would have to ask about them on the RD (except perhaps RocketShipOrion). Nil Einne (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Nil Einne, I'm referring to a real hardware DRAM disk. Here's an example. I remember an external SCSI solution having been marketed for early Macintosh computers. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean using DIMMs or SIMMs? If not I'm not sure what's the difference between what you mentioned and what I discussed (as I specifically mentioned DRAM based SSDs.) In any case, a DIMM based DRAM storage device is still an SSD. See for example the i-RAM which is correctly described as an SSD in our article. I didn't specifically mention DIMM devices in my answer since they all fall in to the old category but they are mentioned or pictured in Solid-state drive which as I said above discusses DRAM based SSDs. And in fact the DDR drive I linked to above is an example of a partially DIMM based device and I found it from the SSD article. Note that whether the DRAM based SSD uses DIMMs or chips connected directly to a circuit board of the SSD would often be of only limited interest to the end user. Sometimes they may be upgradable but sometimes not particularly if you want battery backed flash backup. Edit: Actually the i-RAM seems to be what you are referring to and even the article you linked to says "solid state-storage device" so I'm not sure why there is any confusion. Edit2: I was trying to find out why the DDR drive X1 has DIMMs even though it doesn't seem to be designed to be user upgradable (since it has flash backup storage as I mentioned). I didn't actually find the answer but did find [2] which suggests it was originally designed to be something different and I guess the design was reused in the final product which was apparently launched in 2009 (I think). More importantly I found [3] which confirms what I was saying about the device relying on the user to provide backup power. Nil Einne (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a similar question from the archives with some answers you may find useful AvrillirvA (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the question correctly, you're looking for something like Acard's ANS-9010BA or ANS-9010. Rocketshiporion ♫ 19:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

exposed financial information

I did a very dumb thing: I sent by e-mail a list of my assets, including account numbers of financial holdings, my social security number and even my home address. Worse, the message was entitled, "assets." Am I doomed? Will thieves likely intercept the e-mail? What can I do? Thanks, --Halcatalyst (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are someone of great importance and wealth who is being actively spied upon or you sent it to someone highly malicious, odds are you're perfectly fine. It's very unlikely that anyone would single you out, a much bigger threat is accidentally logging into a spoofed version of a legitimate site or logging into your bank online and spyware snatching your password. In short, I wouldn't really worry.Phoenix1177 (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At first I read this question as I sent to an email list a list of my assets, including account numbers...social security number and even home address. Wow, just wow. As it stands, if you didn't send it to a list, but only a single recipient, you should be fine! 82.234.207.120 (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the above, it's possible that a bad guy now has that list. E-mail is sent in plaintext and passes through the hands of an unknown number of computers before it reaches the destination. If a system administrator on any of those computers has modified his system to look for words like "assets" or "citibank" then it would be easy to harvest all such e-mails that pass through his computer. This is probably a criminal act, for what it's worth. Certainly don't do that again. I agree with Phoenix1177 that logging into a phishing site is worse, and certain to get you into trouble; but sending your account numbers through e-mail is also risky. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely you're fine... Yes, it's not a good thing to do but generally you don't have to worry about any 1 specific email. That being said, there are things you can do to recover somewhat...

For example, if both you and your recipients are using Microsoft Exchange accounts, you can try doing a message recall (more info: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook-help/how-message-recall-works-HA001091760.aspx )

Otherwise, assuming you know the person (or persons) on the 2nd end of the email, ask them to delete it and make sure they delete it off their email server as well. Chances are low that you would be intercepted at any given time unless you or they were already compromised, but if they fail to clean out their email periodically and later get compromised then you would still be at risk. Acoustic visions (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Independent of what you did wrong, it's important to track possible cases of identity theft: check your credit rating every once in a while, an bank statements regularly. Quest09 (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

finding a blog post

Resolved

I am looking for a blog post that is marked "about a month ago" in the Date, it begins by __link__ing to his other blog post about replacing his desktop computer recently; then he goes on to say that what he wants to replace his laptop as well, and what he is looking for is one that is "the macbook air but not the macbook air": i.e. being as similar to it as possible in every way but without being it; then he introduces Intel's push toward what Intel calls "ultrabook", noting that Intel would like 40% of laptop's to be "ultrabooks" within a certain amount of time; it also details the author's quest for a notebook "like" the macbook air in all these ways (ssd, metal case for inductive cooling, etc etc) noting that in all these things his requirement is like a macbok air. He does note that he would like an ultrabook that boots in 7 seconds, which Macbook Air can do "in a pinch".

And that's as far as I got. I would really like the article - I probably (but this might be a red herring) got to it via hacker news or slashdot or reddit or something. please help me find it so I can finish reading it. My usual bookmark manager, Google, is not working for some reason. Thank you. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was it this? (Found using Google's blog search.) Looie496 (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that seemed to be like the text, but it did not start with a link to the other blog post. So I googled a part of the text you provided "(Oh, and they should boot in 7 seconds or less (which at a pinch, the MacBook Air can probably pull off, too)" and got to what I was actually looking for: http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2011/09/ultrabook-intels-300-million-plan-to-beat-apple-at-its-own-game.ars linking to http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/08/what-processor-should-i-buy-intels-crazy-pricing-makes-my-head-hurt.ars (which is what had the "one month ago" date). Thanks for the help! This was driving me crazy... (And with good reason, ars technica is excellent writing). I've marked this resolved now... --82.234.207.120 (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that this was driving me crazy, I remembered so much of the article I got to (but not verbatim, e.g. I tried to search "in a pinch" with other terms, but the article actually used "at a pinch", etc)... grrr... thanks again! 19:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Problem with Gateway LX6810-01 Desktop PC and tuner card

Resolved

Hello, i have a Gateway LX6810-01 Desktop. It recently crashed so i had to format the drives and ive installed Win 7 x64 ultimate. (it used to be some version of vista) .... all is working fine except i dont have drivers for my TV tuner card. I looked on the gateway website:

http://support.gateway.com/us/en/product/default.aspx?tab=1&modelId=2308

and they have nothing about my card or what type it is. Im hoping my drivers are here somewhere?:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/windows-7/en-us/Browse.aspx?type=Hardware&category=TV%20Devices&subcategory=TV%20Tuners

but theres no way to know what i even have. Any ideas? Thanks.

137.81.118.126 (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did allow Windows to search for drivers for the card right? This may sound like a dumb question but a search for 'Gateway LX6810-01 tuner' found [4] suggesting it may be an M791-B tuner. The model sounded familiar as a possible Avermedia device to me and sure enough the picture shows an AverMedia label printed on the metal enclosure of the silicon? tuner. Anyway a search for Avermedia M791-B finds [5] where one respondent said drivers automatically downloaded on both Windows 7 x64 and x32. If you didn't allow Windows to try to download drivers, note you should always do so, particularly on Windows Vista and 7 where Windows update drivers seem more common. Even if you want to search for other drivers, it at least may help you to identify the card. Nil Einne (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if Windows really doesn't find drivers for your card, you could try [6]. There's a fair chance they won't work, according to [7] they are probably related but binary drivers released by the manufacturer often don't work on customised OEM products, often on purpose. Also I came across [8] which again suggests there should be Windows update drivers although it also suggests they may be problematic and you should use the Gateway ones which you unfortunately couldn't find. Fortunately a quick search for M791 on the Gateway website finds [9] which has drivers for Vista x32 (which probably work on Windows 7 x32 but not Windows 7 x64) although I do hope they aren't for the ATI 550 as the site suggests since the evidence suggests your card doesn't have that ATI chip (and that chip only supported analog anyway). You might want to ask Gateway why their Hardware Vendor Detection Utility didn't find your card and also why they don't link to drivers for the card in the support page for your computer. (I'm presuming you did run the 'Hardware Vendor Detection Utility' the Gateway page you linked to recommends.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, my bad. Windows update did fix it. Thanks for the help!

137.81.118.126 (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]