Computing desk
< June 17	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 19 >

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 18[edit]

Adding memory to HP 250 G2[edit]

I have an HP 250 G2 with 4GB of memory. I bought an additional 4GB and would like to install it. I was unable to find any information on how to do that on the HP web site, so I looked on Google and YouTube for videos or instructions, also without success. There are many videos showing how to work with other HP laptops, but the internals of the HP 250 are different and it's not clear how to proceed. Ma^t_chups 00:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this video? -- BenRG (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the service manual: [1]. Remove the battery and the L-shaped cover on the bottom. The RAM is under that cover and uses a simple spring-loaded clip and socket. The manual goes into detail for each step of the process. Katie R (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. Unfortunately, the video shows how to remove the cover, but not how to find the memory. The manual shows an image of the memory, but I don't see anything at all like that on the device. Ma^t_chups 14:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments in CSS vs. HTML[edit]

Can anyone tell me why the markup for comments in HTML and CSS are different? HTML was already well established by the time CSS came around, so why didn't the developers of CSS carry over the convention of using  into their standard? Dismas|^(talk) 04:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The standards organization who publish documentation that codifies the official form of CSS is the World Wide Web Consortium. You can read their archived discussions on their thought-processes, and cross-reference the official standard documentation for CSS comments syntax. Notably: "CSS also allows the SGML comment delimiters (<"!--" and "-->") in certain places defined by the grammar, but they do not delimit CSS comments. They are permitted so that style rules appearing in an HTML source document (in the STYLE element) may be hidden from pre-HTML 3.2 user agents."

Nimur (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Syntax and Re: Comment syntax: a roaringly exciting archived discussion that raged for a few weeks in 2012... ultimately, the challenge comes down to ensuring compatibility with every conceivable possible standards-compliant user-agent, web-browser, and parser. Nimur (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Okay, so that just bogs me down in minutia that I don't understand. So, back to your summary... To ensure compatibility with all standards-compliant user-agents, etc. Those agents would have already been compatible with handling the  syntax. So my question remains, why use a different syntax? I could understand if CSS also worked with something like C (since at the time there were likely more lines of code written in C than HTML) which already uses the /* comment syntax but it doesn't work with C. Dismas|^(talk) 02:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Javascript predated CSS and used a C-like syntax with C-style comments, so any CSS comment style would have been inconsistent with something. (Naturally, they chose to be inconsistent with both, by allowing /* */ comments but not //.) Since both languages need their own lexers anyway, using HTML-style comments probably wouldn't simplify the implementation. It might complicate it slightly since the comment-scanning code would be duplicated and HTML comment syntax is harder to match correctly. Also, using HTML comments would have precluded the hack that was used to hide inline Javascript and CSS from older browsers (as Nimur already mentioned).

In Javascript there's also the problem that < ! -- is a legal sequence of three operators in the language. (But then, / * is a legal sequence of two operators in C...) -- BenRG (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google blackmail ?[edit]

I've noticed that when I search Google for one pizza chain, the map also includes other pizza chains nearby. I'm wondering if Google only does this for chains that haven't paid them not to do so, in which case they show other chains that have paid. This would be a more subtle way to shake down businesses for money, as outright refusing to show the chain's locations at all would also make Google less valuable and people would switch to other search engines. StuRat (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can add the location of their business on Googly maps. So I would say it is the keyword 'pizza' that ranks highest. Thus, all 'pizza' parlors, that have been entered, show up on a search. If someone visiting a new town fancies a pizza, they might just google (out of habit) their familiar local purveyor. If that chain does not have a local outlet then any other will probably do - when you are suffering a bad attack of the munchies. So it saves a second search. However, if they search on Bing, it may well spell-check the entry and recommend them to the nearest leaning tower in Pisa. Bing seems to delight in offering up anything that you're not looking for.--Aspro (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a nice echo of the many meanings of wikt:bing, well into the dozens depending on how sloppy one is with transliteration. Meanings include: ice, cold, freeze, soldier, weapon, and penis. However, this seems to explain the poor results. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 06:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my case, the pizza chain I entered was found, so listing other pizza chains nearby seems like Google trying to get me to change my mind and go elsewhere, and I have to think they didn't get paid and are trying to get even. StuRat (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know one does not need to pay google anything to place anyone’s business on googly maps so in my view (and I'm willing to be corrected) this is a non sequitur. If you need a better map application for when you get the munchies, then try [2]. In the last few years it has become my main stay. But that doesn't charge either. So I don't think google will ever be able to monetizes business entries in the way that you suspect.--Aspro (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure you are getting the subtlety of what I'm saying. I agree that any business can get their business listed in Google maps for free. What I'm asking about is if they can then pay a premium to have their business listed alone, when the user types in the name of their business, as opposed to listing competitors as well. StuRat (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting a category on MediaWiki software[edit]

Just a heads-up, an editor is asking for assistance regarding a personal project using MediaWiki software. The original posting can be found here. Kurtis ^(talk) 20:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]