Computing desk
< November 6	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 8 >

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.

November 7

TO SAVE BLOG PAGES AS PDF

I want to save some blog pages as pdf files. How can I do this? When I try to save as a web page (html or htm) I could not save the pictures and charts and the format also changes. Pl. help me. Thank you.175.157.12.88 (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's what you want to do: Go to File > Print. When your Print dialog pops up, instead of printing to a physical printer, you want to select "Print to file" and then choose to print it as a PDF. Hope this helps. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 12:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that will work - it will produce a file using the control language of the currently-selected printer. You first need to install a PDF printer driver such as CutePDF. CutePDF will then appear as an option in the list of printers; if you "print" to this it will create a PDF (I'm assuming a Windows machine here). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It works in Firefox 16 on Ubuntu without anything special installed. Output either as PDF or postscript. I remember the old "print to file" where you installed a printer driver on a pc, printed to file and then used that file on the computer that was connected to the actual printer. Seems "print to file" can mean several things now. Don't know if this works the same on windows. Ssscienccce (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wildcard idea: grab the whole window as a jpg using printscreenGzuckier (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to be completely anonymous on the Internet?

I know that other people on the Internet can track you with adequate effort and resources by these means:

Cookies
IP Addresses
Google Analytics and reverse ID lookup
Word and character frequency analyses

I understand how a person could disable cookies on his computer or delete all cookies after using the Internet browser, how a person may hide his IP address by getting an account, how a person may avoid using Google Analytics, but I don't get how a person can avoid his own writing style. Is it possible to successfully hide one's own writing style to ensure maximal success of anonymity? How is it possible to hide your own voice on the Internet? 140.254.121.35 (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you read our article section on comparisons between anonymity and pseudonymity? Nimur (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it is possible to change your writing style. im doing it rite now lol XD 92.233.64.26 (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be hard to reliably disguise your idiolect once your corpus of writings become substantial, and as computerized text analysis becomes more powerful, especially if your new persona focuses on interests already associated with your old one. They caught the Unabomber that way after all. It might help if you learn a new language from scratch and have your new persona write in it exclusively, though I'm just guessing about that and it might not help at all. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One immediate tip is to register here on Wikipedia. Right now I can very easily tell from your IP address that your are probably posting from Ohio State University. Logging on with your own user name would hide that information from me. HiLo48 (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about SSD

…in solid state drive’s context what does “IOPS” means?

Looking in newegg.com some SSD disks show max sequential speed by MB/s and other by IOPS…

So… any idea?

Iskánder Vigoa Pérez 21:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iskander HFC (talk • contribs)

IOPS 92.233.64.26 (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MB/S is the serial transfer speed (copy a lot of data in one big operation) and IOPS is the number of (small) operations you can do in a second. Older SSD's had crappy IOPS because the overhead of launching an operation was relatively large, especially write operations. Anandtech.com has informative SSD reviews so that's a good place to look. I'm thinking of grabbing a Samsung 830 since they are good drives being closed out at low prices because of the coming 840 and 840 Pro. I'd be hesitant to get an 840 despite its good specs until there's more of an experience base. The 840 Pro is more conservatively designed but costs a lot more. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

second answer: a lot more helpful (to me) than the first…

any way thank you very much

and what do you think about the OCZ vertex 4??

there is any parameter in a SSD that suggests more lifetime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iskander HFC (talk • contribs) 02:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I keep hearing that the Samsung 830 is the most reliable and best performing consumer-priced drive. I'd buy it over the OCZ drives. "Enterprise" drives will survive more write cycles but are several times as expensive. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to hijack someone else's thread, but what do you guys think of this Samsung 840 SDD? NewEgg is selling it for $190 and I'm thinking of getting one. Is this a good drive? Is it a good deal? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncomfortable with using TLC (three level cell, a misnomer since it's actually a 3-bit (8 level) cell) flash memory as general purpose computer storage that will be rewritten a lot, at least until there's more of a long term reliability record. So I'd buy the 830 (which is cheaper now anyway, since it's being closed out) in preference to the 840 despite the 840's slightly better paper specs. The 840 Pro uses 2-bit (4 level) cells like the 830 and is also attractive, though more expensive. Anandtech's review of the 840 here has some write wear figures that they think are reassuring but I find worrisome. I'd want to wait and see, before believing that the drives hold up as well in the field as they did in the lab. (Edited slightly). 67.119.3.105 (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok... the samsung is a good brand... but what’s wrong with the OCZ??

Reference manuals

I'm looking for C++ standard library reference manual and VBA for Excel 2010 reference manual , although a general C++ reference, Excel function reference, or VBA reference, would also be helpful. The C++ suite I have seems to have a library reference, but I need to know the function name, and the version of Excel's (Macro) help maps to part of the manual at office.com, which is inadequately hyperlinked. For example, from a type, it will not produce the list of members or methods.

Any ideas? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For C++, the articles C++ Standard Library and Standard Template Library, and the various articles linked in the infobox, link to some very good resources. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although you're often better reading the documentation for the implementation of the library that ships with the specific compiler you're using. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. "The" manual for C++ is a little bit ambiguous. It's probable that most of your day-to-day code uses a common subset of C++, but if you get into the development of software of any complexity, you need to specify the toolchain more precisely. For example, GNU Standard C++ is explicitly not ISO C++; but it's free software, and its documentation is also free. If you want the ISO C++ reference, it isn't free. On my unix system, I can simply type man in the terminal and my currently-selected compiler's manual opens up. Your unix-like system may vary in its manual coverage. On Windows, I use the MSDN as my primary reference. Nimur (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

cppreference.com has some gaps but I've found it generally adequate as a day to day reference source. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]