Computing desk
< April 5	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 7 >

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.

April 6[edit]

Atto FastFrame NS14 Quad-Port 10GbE NIC Card - Transceiver Removability[edit]

Hello Fellow RefDeskers!

I trying to determine whether the four 10Gb transceivers on the Atto FastFrame NS14 Quad-Port 10GbE NIC Card are removable or soldered in. If the transceivers are removable, I'd like to buy this card this card to use with Direct-Attach Cables. But I don't want to buy the card before determining whether the transceivers are detachable, and the Atto website has not been of any help.

Thanks in advance to all RefDeskers! Rocketshiporion ♫ 12:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, you need transceivers at both ends to connect an NIC to an iSCSI SAN disk-array, even if you're connecting the server directly to the disk-array without using a switch. I don't see where on the website it says that the card comes with transceivers - the photo seems to show the card without any transceivers installed. The transceiver should be removable from the NIC card, but there's not really any point in detaching the transceiver unless you're swapping out a faulty transceiver. 124.197.110.96 (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hacking[edit]

For some reasons my computer got some kind of virus i have no idea of. It seems to me that the virus only works on Wikipedia site. I tried to go to many other websites and none of them get affected by the virus. Only Wikipedia site got affected. Every time i go to Wikipedia, there is some kind of ads pop up (there is a little words down at the bottom says that ads are not from this site). I know for the fact that Wikipedia doesn't allow any ads. I think the virus must have somehow invaded Wikipedia on my computer. Does anyone know how to get rid of the ads on Wikipedia?65.128.167.101 (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of the virus with an anti-virus program. 46.208.224.194 (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have one. Plus i thought Wikipedia has the most secure anti-ads system. It turned out that it is the weakest since it is the only affected. Doesn't Wikipedia has some kind of anti-ads program that i can run on my computer?65.128.167.101 (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several people have had this problem recently. You need to disable a browser plugin called Codec-c 1.0 then get yourself some antivirus software to stop it happening again. There are plenty of good free ones these days, see list of antivirus software.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as an anti-ads system for a website. Once malware (what you have is not necessarily technically a virus), is on your system, it can do whatever it wants. For whatever reason, they chose to put ads on Wikipedia. (They might also be replacing the real ads on Google, etc. with their own ads; this would be more effective than merely adding their own, and is also potentially unnoticable.). You might want to try anti-malware software. Paul (Stansifer) 21:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFAQ#ADS, and please don't post the same question to multiple reference desks. RudolfRed (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can i disable Codec-c 1.0? Where can i find it? If possible, tell me in steps. Thanks!65.128.167.101 (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is your browser? Try to find "Plugins" or "Extensions" in its menu. Since it's malware, it may try to prevent removal. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is google chrome. Where can i find "Plugins" or "Extensions"? Can you tell me in steps how to get there? Thanks.65.128.167.101 (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Type chrome://plugins/ into the address bar. Vespine (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to determine if an email was forwarded?[edit]

As above, is it possible to determine by some means (like the analysis of code data) whether an email I've received is a forwarded copy of other email and not made up just to look like a forwarded one? Regards Trybald (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically no. You could check with the senders of the original email. Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spammers use a variety of techniques to track emails as they flow through the network. Some of their techniques are quite clever, and can usually distinguish between human- and non-human consumer of email. For example, some methods only flag when the email's embedded HTML is rendered, which may cause the user to make an invisible server-query. However, such techniques are susceptible to false-positives, false-negatives, and are generally ill-regarded as "spammy" or privacy-invasive techniques. All of these techniques require that you are the original crafter of the email.

If you have access to server logs (which very few people do), you can also verify the email's embedded history (i.e., the route it claims to have taken) against the servers' own logs. Because most people use third-party email servers (like Hotmail and Google), and these providers don't publish their server-logs to the public, there's no way to validate. But if the mail is routed through your server, you can check your logs; this is a major reason why large companies use internal email servers, rather than third-party providers; operating the SMTP and IMAP servers guarantees access to an extra level of accountability tracing. Nimur (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About call back advantage[edit]

can anyone tell me about call back advantage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocalabs9 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found here something globaltel[dot] com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocalabs9 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean the system where, when a call can't be completed immediately, it waits until the line is clear, then calls the party again on your behalf ? It could be useful for an extremely high priority call, where getting through as soon as possible is paramount. However, for normal calls I find it quite annoying. I want to initiate the call, not a machine, so I can time it when I want, and am prepared for it (have the info I need handy, etc.). StuRat (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Javascript regex question[edit]

Hi all, I have a Javascript regex to grab the content between square brackets:

/\[[^\]]+\]/g
"this is [a test] expression"
=> "[a test]"

This works great, except I want to to ignore any inner brackets:

"a b c [d e [f g] h] i [j k]"
= "[d e [f g] h]", "[j k]"

Any thoughts on how to do this? Thanks! — Sam 71.192.35.33 (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary regular expressions can't deal with nested brackets. I don't think Javascript regexes have extended features that would let you do that, but I don't know for sure. You might have to just write a loop that goes through the string character-by-character. 130.76.64.115 (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you need is recursive regular expression. A google search for "recursive regex" ([1]), yields many useful discussions, including some very similar to your case. Unfortunately, I do not believe recursive regular expressions are available in JavaScript. They are available in Perl and environments that support the entire Perl regex syntax. If you could use Perl, you could write something like $regex = qr/\[([^\[\]]|(??{$regex}))+\]/;. Parsed out, the expression looks like:

   \[              /* Opening bracket */
   (
     [^\[\]]       /* Some character other than left/right bracket */
     |             /* or */
     (??{$regex})  /* A nested bracketed string */
   )+              /* one or more (non-empty) */
   \]              /* Closing bracket */

Note that the first part now excludes both left and right brackets. The second part contains a nested reference to the entire expression that recursively defines a properly nested bracket sequence. To get a similar behavior without recursion, you will need to manually replace the "(??{$regex})" part with a copy of the whole expression and repeat that substitution for however many levels of nested brackets you need to support. (I'll leave that as an exercise. It gets longs and messy fast.) The innermost nesting would simply disallow any bracket characters with "\[[^\[\]]+\]". Note that your initial example required that the bracketed lists be nonempty. To support empty lists, replace "+" with "*". -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This may actually be a case where a non-regexp parser is simpler and easier to use. You aren't performing general expression matching; you're just scanning for a specific magic character ']' and you want to ignore it if it's nested. So, implement a counter; scan the string character-by-character; start a match-string on the opening '[' and for each subsequent '[', increment the counter; for each ']' decrement the counter; and when your counter is back to 0, close the match on the first ']'. This can be implemented with a while() loop and charAt() in JavaScript. Be sure to gracefully handle the corner cases, like when an unmatched '[' opens, but is never closed, and you reach the end of the string. Nimur (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]