July 18

I am looking to buy a new printer as my current one is totally ready to break soon. With all the searching i have done the only type of printers to my liking that i can find are only photo printers with all in one features. Could i use a photo printer as a regular document printer with the occasional photo. I just can't seem to find a printer these days that is regular. Also will regular inks and inkjet paper work with these types of printers.--logger (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can use photo printer to print normal documents. You can use regular paper but you need to use a compatible cartridge for the printer. --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've used a photo printer by Samsung and the first time the paper jammed, it refused to work ever again. The quote to fix it was too much. After some investigation, I found it out it was more expensive to buy the photo paper and ink for the printer than taking your pictures to a convenience lab for printing.

talk) 07:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

What are you defining as "regular"? I mean, I think that's the problem. There are a million inkjet and laserjet printers out there. If you get something that requires expensive inks it'll cost you a lot in the long run. Inkjet printers are generally dirt cheap because the ink subsidizes the cost. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question... yes, you could use an all-in-1 photo printer to print out regular documents, but I think you would find it expensive to run, especially if you use the fancy photo paper as well. If you don't need colour, perhaps a better solution would be a small b&w laser printer. A new one can be bought for around £50/$100 and they last a long time - I've used the same HP Laserjet 6L for nearly 10 years and the cartridge is only now coming to the end of it's life. Astronaut (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it does seem very difficult to find an inkjet that doesn't include photo printing nowadays - though if you find one that doesn't I wouldn't expect much price discount. The laser printers are a good choice in general (even colour ones are afforable) - but I think if you require v.fast draft prints the inkjet will be better than the laser. If you want quality printing (note the ink on laser printers doesn't run like on inkjets) then the laser is a good choice.87.102.86.73 (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Correction) laser printer can be as fast or faster than inkjets, and not all inkjets have ink that runs.87.102.86.73 (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Correction 2) - I've found lots of print-only printers on the web - though they do seem to be getting rarer in the shops.87.102.86.73 (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do I access my system volume information file (C:\_system volume information)? It's driving me nuts. I set the computer to boot in safe mode. I logged in on Administrator and tried to access it via command prompt. Access was denied. I looked for it with the "show hidden files" on. I still couldn't see it. The only way I can tell it was there is that SUPERAntiSpyware scanned it. If a program can access it, it is obviously accessible so how can I get to it? Thanks, Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 01:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By default the folder is only accessible by "system", all you have to do is give yourself (administrator) access rights through the security tab of the folder properties. Let me save you some time, it's not very interesting. ;) Vespine (talk) 05:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the directory that stores

System restore

save points. There is no reason to access it as it is self cleaning and managing. If you wish to truely "start fresh" disable system restore and then reenable it. The easiest way to access it is to use something like the "Ultimate Boot CD for Windows". It's a Windows environment that boots off a CD and lets you fully access the NTFS volume on the main computer.

Let me stress this again - there is really no reason to access it that I know of. Of course geeks will be geeks and want to know whats in there so here's a guide to opening it. [1]. Please skim though this as well [2]--mboverload@ 05:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC

Just an encrypted .log called "tracking.log"? That's it. That's kind of disappointing. It really isn't that interesting. Thanks for helping me access it though :), Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 16:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a digital wrist watch that displays either Unix time or Metric time. I can't find any mention of said watch on Wikipedia. The closest thing I can find is Swatch Internet Time, but it appears the company has stopped production. 68.59.171.147 (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is an LED binary watch. Pretty geeky. [3]. All the wierd watches I know of are located here [4] --mboverload@ 05:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that ThinkGeek is probably your best bet.

talk) 08:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You will most likely get the same response that I received when looking for a watch with red LEDs instead of black... make it yourself. Nobody is going to waste time setting up a manufacturing and shipping process for a watch design that may be lucky enough to produce 10 sales. --

™ 12:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Do you perhaps mean LCDs? Otherwise I'm reminded of the controls in

Hotblack Desiato's ship - "Every time you try to operate one of these weird black controls that are labeled in black on a black background, a little black light lights up black to let you know you've done it." --LarryMac | Talk 13:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

And I'm reminded of a friend of a friend who was building an amp for his guitar. He said he wanted black LEDs for indicator lights. To which my friend said "Like blacklight light bulbs?". To which the other guy replied, "No. They'd shine black light. It would be like red or green or whatever but instead be black." He's not the smartest guy in the world... Dismas|^(talk) 15:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OR and slightly off topic, but black light LEDs suck. They have warnings that it's unsafe for your eyes (and they are), and don't give remotely good glow effects like normal black lights. --129.108.40.143 (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did his knobs go to 11? --

™ 15:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Spinal Tap indeed. Cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for some sort of oversight here. Who actually uses use-net nowadays, is it very popular? Has it a useful purpose?87.102.86.73 (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people still use it, though it's nowhere near as its popular as it used to be. (I, for example, occasionally use it, though it has been at least six months now.) I wouldn't call it very popular, but I'm under the impression that the binary groups still see a great deal of use. As far as a useful purpose goes, it's just about as useful as any other discussion forum on the internet, which is to say that that it's usefulness depends largely on what people talk about on it. For some people, it's undoubtedly very useful; for a lot of others, it means nothing. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - is is primarily academic use ? - I got that impression.87.102.86.73 (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much, anymore. It's mostly for people who want to discuss a narrow subject, which might not have a bulletin-board forum on the web, or for sharing large files. Both functions are being wiped out by the web and P2P, respectively, but some folks still prefer the old ways. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a pile of old paper documents that I need to convert into pdf files. Many of the documents are multi-page, and these multi-page docs need to become a single pdf file. I do not have Adobe Acrobat. I am willing to spend some money on software, but hopefully less than what acrobat costs. I have looked through downloads.com, but it wasn't clear to me if any of these applications would be particularly good for what I want to do. Do you have any recommendations? ike9898 (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want the PDFs to be searchable (that is, to have been OCRed) or just a-bunch-of-scans-in-a-pdf? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• One option is to use CutePDF. There's both a freeware and professional version. It works as a printer - you print from any application, but select CutePDF as your printer instead of whatever you normally pick. That aside, your main issue will be that which Finlay McWalter raised - you can scan in a document ok, but to convert it to text you'll need OCR software. - Bilby (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would check around for office places (like Kinkos). Most office work centers (scan/fax/copy machines) also do scan to email. So, you can go there, put your papers in the scanner, and scan them to your email account. They arrive as PDF documents. It shouldn't cost much since you won't be printing anything. --

™ 14:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

It's kinda expensive, but the best solution I've seen is the Fujitsu ScanSnap 510. It comes with Acrobat, so you're effectively getting a nice scanner with a copy of Acrobat Standard for free. I've got experience with their higher-end products, and am trying to scrape up the cash for this one, as I'm wanting to do the same thing you are. I've seen lots of good recommendations on this product. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second the "check with Kinkos" bit. Most of them should have high speed photocopier/scanners with feeders on them that can scan to PDF. Alternatively, if you have your own scanner, it is not hard to compile individual scanned PDF pages into a single PDF without the use of Acrobat (a tool like

pdftk can do it), but it is more time intensive than would be just taking it to Kinkos or somewhere else with a copier/scanner. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

High-end multi-feed scanners include "Scan to PDF" software that includes the kind of feature your looking for. Expect to pay about 300$. ---

WRE) 03:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I suspect, though I'm not sure, that my apartment may be entered by unknown persons while I'm away. Motion activated video captures by my webcam seem rather unreliable. Short of moving, is there a low-cost solution to detecting intrusions in my apartment? Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you need such a high-tech solution? Wedge a matchstick or small piece of paper in the door frame (a few inches above the floor near the hinge should do). If it's missing/moved when you return, then your door has been opened. Astronaut (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use the movie cliche' spy trick of plucking a hair and matting it down with a bit of saliva so that it bridges the gap between the door and the door jamb. Or you could do the same with a piece of transparent tape ("Scotch tape"). Dismas|^(talk) 15:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These solutions assume that the intruder isn't savvy enough to figure these things out. Is this a hypothetical question, Imagine Reason? I mean, could we expect the intruder to be a ninja who is wily to matchstick tricks and such? (Also, you want a solution that is essentially foolproof -- if the detection device can be triggered by accident, such as the hair becoming loose of its own accord or a breeze moving a piece of paper, that's no good -- you'd definitely want to avoid a false positive.) If this is a real-life situation, what makes you think that someone has been there? Could you, for example, photograph items you think someone is messing with with a digital camera and thus record their exact positions, and carefully and methodically see if something has moved when you return? Or could you perhaps buy a voice-activated recorder (preferably a digital one that operates silently, so the intruder doesn't hear it start) and see if you can here sounds of movement or talking in the apartment when you're gone? Should you perhaps consider changing your locks? Or, if someone is really entering your apartment -- presumably with a key, but without your permission -- should you just call the police, if only to establish a history, even if they can't do anything right now? -- Captain Disdain (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The low-tech alternatives are great idea, but the false positives would be a problem. Captain Disdain, yes, this is a real world problem. I suppose I'll call the cops and also look into a voice activated recorder as well as perhaps a magnet alarm that sounds when separated? Imagine Reason (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the door might seem like the obvious entry point but for someone entering surreptitiously it might not be. Any thief worth a damn knows not to go in the front door. I would give the low tech ones a shot before calling the cops, personally, because without compelling reason they're not going to treat you seriously, and it's not going to help you at all for them to think you are crying wolf. A very small piece of tape up on the top of a doorjam will probably not fall off. If you want to avoid false positives just build a little redundancy into the system. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression (which may be wrong, but that's what you get for providing a bare minimum of information, Imagine Reason...) that we're not talking about a thief so much as someone who has access to the apartment, like a landlord or a friend with a spare key, but who isn't supposed to use it. If this was a case of money, valuables or other items clearly missing, he wouldn't need to convince himself that someone is doing this; that'd be enough evidence in itself.

Also, I really would call the cops, Imagine Reason -- just explain to them why you think that someone might be doing this and admit that you don't have any really solid evidence for this right now. Then, if you have to call them again if something else happens, they should have a record of this happening and know that this has been going on for a while, or if your neighbors report similar incidents, that'll probably get their attention. Of course, this kind of assumes that you have some reason to suspect these intrusions other than a strange feeling or intuition or something. And then again, if you suspect it's a friend or an ex of yours or something, involving the cops may not be what you want to do. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theft isn't always so easy to detect. Say he has a relative with a drug addiction who has a way to get into his place. They may just steal enough to buy that day's drug supply. A few dollars each day may not be noticed, but only give you the vague feeling that you have less money at the end of the week than you expected. StuRat (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's possible. Without knowing much of anything about the circumstances, this is all pretty much speculation... -- Captain Disdain (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's something like what StuRat said, except it'd be more likely the landlord or a former tenant than anyone I know. Imagine Reason (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this might not exactly what your looking for, but why not set up time-laps program for your webcam? Assuming 8 hours and photos at 1 min increments you'd have about 480 photos per day to glance though. ---

WRE) 03:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, that's a great idea. Imagine Reason (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some scumware has found it's way onto my brother-in-law's PC (XP-professional). The most visible effect seems to be that just after accessing the internet, a new Internet Explorer window will pop up advertizing something from a short list of sites (no, these are not regular pop-ups). A short while later, McAfee will leap into life saying it has disabled "Generic Rootkit.a", but the new IE windows continue appearing. Looking round the system and searching the internet, I have narrowed it down to something called "lanmandrv.sys" and it's associated files: lanmanwrk.exe, qmopt.dll. Unfortunately, something has disabled the XP taskmanager (no longer have enough privileges to run it) and lanmandrv.sys is hidden (both in explorer and regedit) by a rootkit. Anyway, this weekend I'm going round armed with Icesword and McAfee Rootkit Detector and I'll download some others too. I'm pretty experienced at removing scumware from his PC, but is there anything else I need to be on the lookout for? Any particular tool that is recommended above others? And how do I get the XP task manager back into action? Astronaut (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page might help with the Task Manager. A LiveCD of your choice of Linux flavors might be useful as well. Good luck. --LarryMac | Talk 15:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I'll take a Live CD. I've already tried using gpedit to get the task manager back on, but the "remove taskmanager" setting wasn't "enabled". Could the rootkit hide that from me as well or could the taskmanager.exe be locked out from me by another method? Astronaut (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astronaut - you have to go into GPedit and force Task Manager enabled. Don't leave it default. --mboverload@ 02:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was a lot of hassle to get rid of. It had hidden at least 5 different programs!! The hint to use a linux live CD was a good one and helped me get rid of the scumware when all else failed. I'm pretty impressed with IceSword too. Thanks for all your help. Astronaut (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sir i want to know about the origin of e-mail.who invented it? i want to know how e-mail related to MASS MEDIA.121.247.108.36 (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered using a cool site called Wikipedia? It is an encyclopedia and has all kinds of cool articles, including

™ 15:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Is there something of a Transatlantic Internet meltdown going on? I'm struggling to access a lot of sites hosted in the US, failing in many cases - news sites, Microsoft's services, eBay, not Wikimedia yet, though. It's the same on all the computers in the house - there are four currently working. Yet I can find no evidence of some major problem anywhere. Anyone know what's going on? Have I just bust something here at home, or is something more important damaged? It's interesting to note that both a relative's Hotmail account and eBay were accessible momentarily at one stage - at exactly the same time, suggesting again some link. Thoughts? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I just failed to access an Australian site, too. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's most likely a local problem -- perhaps your ISP's

DNS server is not working right, for example. That could account for why you have trouble accessing some sites but not others, and why when you do have access, you have it to all affected sites. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

That would be Demon. For now, they aren't mentioning any problems. Not that that means they don't have any. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can always call and ask. I use RoadRunner and their site rarely mentions anything that the customer support actually knows about. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: When a user claims that a website is down, it is usually a failed DNS lookup. The website is working just fine and everyone with a functioning DNS can access it. --

™ 18:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I had a similar experience two weeks ago with Tiscali ISP. Symptoms were all BBC domains were not found. I narrowed it down to Tiscali's Domain Name Servers, using these useful tools:

• downforeveryoneorjustme.com - which told me "It's just you"
• samspade.org - which gave me the IP address of bbc.co.uk so I could access it direct

I then used a different DNS to finally establish it was just Tiscali. -84user (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can run a traceroute and it'll tell you where the packets are getting hung up. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a little fighting tracert I got there. It seems one of the international servers/whater-they-call-them is down somewhere. A message has been sent to one of the ISP's with a server immediatly before the dead bit, so they should know what's up. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using Internet Traffic Report for years. It's a great summary of what web traffic is doing, and includes up-to-date information on which central routers are down/overloaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HandThatFeeds (talk • contribs) 13:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That site is wonderful, thank you. The dead one seems to be a Sprintlink system in New York. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd been wondering about this. I can't remember the exact day, but one night for about an hour only half of the internet worked (I'm on SBC-Yahoo). I had google, but none of the results would work. AOL and Wikipedia were down, www.uu.net came up properly, myspace and facebook worked, Yahoo worked, and a number of video sites (youtube, myspace videos, google video, clipser) would work, but none of the videos would load. Some other sites would work with none of the images loading, and it was about half-and-half with other sites working or not. I hypothesized something had killed a connection between some of the tier 1 networks. It lasted from about 3AM to 4AM Eastern time, then everything started acting normally again. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's well known that when one boots a computer in "safe mode", there is a default profile called "Administrator". Is there any way I can turn this account on in normal boot mode or give my account these rights? (The computer is not registered to my profile, but my profile has admin rights. It's just that the "Administrator" account and the account to which the computer is registered have more rights than just the run of the mill admin account.(?)) Thanks, Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 23:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WinXP Pro? The "Administrator" account and any account in the "Administrator" group have the same rights. If not XP, then we'll need to know your OS. ---

WRE) 00:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Oops, sorry about that. Yes, it's Windows XP 5.1.2600 SP2 Home Edition. Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 00:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that running your computer in admin mode (esp. with XP) all the time is a considerable security risk. (As is having an admin account without a non-default password.) If you do get a virus it will exploit that to the fullest extent. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I accept that risk.

J.smith, are you sure they have the same rights? I wrote and compiled some C++ to see if I could make a .exe to shutdown my computer. It worked fine but when I decided to delete it, it gave me an error message. I safebooted and logged on the Administrator account and deleted it without any problems. Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 00:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 90% sure. It was most-likely the act of logging out and then logging back in that "unlocked" the file. ---

WRE) 00:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Log into your main account. Right click on "My Computer" and go to "Manage". Go to "User and Groups" then go to "Users". Enable the Administrator account if enabled. Right click and set the password if you want. Log off. Hit "Ctl-Alt-Delete" twice to bring up the logon window. Type in "Administrator" and your new password. TaDa. --mboverload@ 02:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]