Computing desk | ||
---|---|---|
< December 3 | << Nov | December | Jan >> | December 5 > |
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. |
What software tool can be used for implementing a paywall for online content (articles)? One with membership management, query limits for each member, and so on. I don't want just one of those "soft" paywall that news sites implement since a while ago. Those can easily be circumvented. -- 3dcaddy ( talk) 01:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm running some simulations in MATLAB (R2012a, 64 bit) on a 4-core CPU in OSX. Today I noticed that the process sometimes is listed at 101-105% CPU usage. Some quick googling suggests that is relative to cores, and that processes taking over 100% is not uncommon. My question, then is: how can I let Matlab use more CPU resources? If my understanding based on the above is correct, then I should be able to have all processes sum to ~400% CPU usage, yet for some reason, even when seemingly CPU-limited, Matlab never takes more than 105%, and the total for all processes seems to never go over ~110%. I'll also add that the process does not seem to be memory limited (using ~10Gb, >1Gb free), and not disk limited (disk read/writes are very low for most of the runtime) Thanks, SemanticMantis ( talk) 16:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
So I'm having a hard time quickly understanding what syntax parfor allows. Can someone help me get it to work with this example code? I think this must be the type of case where it would help. Thanks, SemanticMantis ( talk) 18:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Sample code - three nested for loops
|
---|
for step_ind1=1:steps1;
for step_ind2=1:steps2
for t_ind=1:sim_time
dom_eigs(1,step_ind1,step_ind2,t_ind)=max(eig(squeeze(Lambda(1,:,:,step_ind1,step_ind2,t_ind))));
dom_eigs(2,step_ind1,step_ind2,t_ind)=max(eig(squeeze(Lambda(2,:,:,step_ind1,step_ind2,t_ind))));
end
end
end
|
Ok, it was just something simple, matlab doesn't like loop indices to appear in two different lines within a parfor. The code below runs with parfor, perhaps not as well as possible but well enough for me to see performance increases by utilizing multiple cores:
working Sample code - one parfor inside two fors (cannot nest parfors)
|
---|
for step_ind1=1:steps1;
for step_ind2=1:steps2
parfor t_ind=1:sim_time
dom_eigs(1,step_ind1,step_ind2,t_ind)=max(eig(squeeze(Lambda(1,:,:,step_ind1,step_ind2,t_ind))));
end
end
end
for step_ind1=1:steps1;
for step_ind2=1:steps2
parfor t_ind=1:sim_time
dom_eigs(2,step_ind1,step_ind2,t_ind)=max(eig(squeeze(Lambda(2,:,:,step_ind1,step_ind2,t_ind))));
end
end
end
|
SemanticMantis ( talk) 15:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
can we use templates (That will contain some footer-text for example) in MS word? Usage similar to MS Excel templates.
I ask this because I've about 10 documents that all must have the same footer text and I have no intention to change it 10 times manually in any case I want to make a small change in their' footer. Ben-Yeudith ( talk) 20:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I saw on E-Bay that a guy was selling off a lot of domain names. (For this discussion, let's say that his name saw Bill.) For example, one domain name was something like "delicious pizza.com" (or something like that). So, it appears that Bill "scoops up" some domain names that might be popular and that someone else might want to buy off of him. So, of course, Bill makes a profit from this venture. So, if I buy it from Bill, I now own it. But, my question is, how did Bill own it to begin with? Where do these names originate and who owns them to begin with? Who owns them, originally? And -- a follow up question -- is every single "name" out there already owned by someone? For example, "delicious pizza 1.com" or "delicious pizza 78.com" or "delicaious pizza USA.com", etc., etc., etc. Is every single combination or permutation of characters already owned by someone? If so, who? If not, how do I originate my own so that I now own it? Say, for example, if I want the name "delicious pizza 83764.com" (or some such) and no one else already owns it. How do I become the owner of it? How does this all work? Thanks. 20:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D13:6D70:6CC2:1D1C:D0F0:9193 ( talk)
How replication happens in AD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjaytak7 ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
As of the latest Firefox update, email attachments no longer appear or function the same way, and it's not the email program because its tied to when I updated Firefox, and the change is the same when I look at yahoo mail attachments or gmail attachments.
They now appear as much larger icons than previously, and if you click them, they preview rather than downloading. When you put your cursor over them, s small download bar appears as part of the image, so they are giving you the option, but I can no longer just click and download. Anyone know a fix?-- 108.21.87.129 ( talk) 23:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Another sign this is coming from the email client is that Google will probably show a save to Google Drive icon, whereas Yahoo obviously doesn't. The third sign is that in Google, your URL will change to something with projector in it.
The fact you're seeing this on multiple webmail clients isn't exactly surprising, this popup/theater/projector style view is all the rage, used by Facebook and other social media and a number of news sites. Even the Wikimedia Foundation controversial introduced it to most of the wikis they manage.
As to why you're only seeing this after a browser upgrade this is more surprising. It could be that the feature requires a browser feature which your old browser didn't have but I'm pretty sure Gmail at least has had this popup preview on Firefox for at least a few versions and you didn't mention you were using a very old version like LTS or whatever, so I presume this isn't the case. Perhaps the more likely alternative is you have a plugin which used to disable this projector view which isn't working anymore.
As to how to change this, I couldn't find mention of a simple setting for Gmail. I'm sure you could find a ScriptMonkey script to disable it, or perhaps a specialised plugin. Note there's no need to click the attachment to get the download link. When you however over the attachment before clicking, in both Gmail and Yahoo, there should be a download button. If you're using a touch screen device I think there's some way too, but I can't remember offhand.(Just noticed you already know that.)
Nil Einne ( talk) 13:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
However most of what I said above still applies albeit the specifics are a bit different. You can tell this is function of the webmail client because it's different between clients. On Gmail when you hover over you will generally get the save to Google Drive icon as well as the download one. Yahoo has the download and a somewhat hidden option to save to Dropbox. The thumbnails are also different. Google thumbnails are rectangular and larger than Yahoo ones which are square.
In addition, in Gmail at least the larger thumbnails which require you to hover over to download has I'm pretty sure been supported in a few versions of Firefox.
BTW, one alternative besides scripting to change this behaviour is to actually use a email program like Thunderbird, rather than rely on what the providers webmail client which you have limited control over.
Computing desk | ||
---|---|---|
< December 3 | << Nov | December | Jan >> | December 5 > |
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. |
What software tool can be used for implementing a paywall for online content (articles)? One with membership management, query limits for each member, and so on. I don't want just one of those "soft" paywall that news sites implement since a while ago. Those can easily be circumvented. -- 3dcaddy ( talk) 01:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm running some simulations in MATLAB (R2012a, 64 bit) on a 4-core CPU in OSX. Today I noticed that the process sometimes is listed at 101-105% CPU usage. Some quick googling suggests that is relative to cores, and that processes taking over 100% is not uncommon. My question, then is: how can I let Matlab use more CPU resources? If my understanding based on the above is correct, then I should be able to have all processes sum to ~400% CPU usage, yet for some reason, even when seemingly CPU-limited, Matlab never takes more than 105%, and the total for all processes seems to never go over ~110%. I'll also add that the process does not seem to be memory limited (using ~10Gb, >1Gb free), and not disk limited (disk read/writes are very low for most of the runtime) Thanks, SemanticMantis ( talk) 16:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
So I'm having a hard time quickly understanding what syntax parfor allows. Can someone help me get it to work with this example code? I think this must be the type of case where it would help. Thanks, SemanticMantis ( talk) 18:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Sample code - three nested for loops
|
---|
for step_ind1=1:steps1;
for step_ind2=1:steps2
for t_ind=1:sim_time
dom_eigs(1,step_ind1,step_ind2,t_ind)=max(eig(squeeze(Lambda(1,:,:,step_ind1,step_ind2,t_ind))));
dom_eigs(2,step_ind1,step_ind2,t_ind)=max(eig(squeeze(Lambda(2,:,:,step_ind1,step_ind2,t_ind))));
end
end
end
|
Ok, it was just something simple, matlab doesn't like loop indices to appear in two different lines within a parfor. The code below runs with parfor, perhaps not as well as possible but well enough for me to see performance increases by utilizing multiple cores:
working Sample code - one parfor inside two fors (cannot nest parfors)
|
---|
for step_ind1=1:steps1;
for step_ind2=1:steps2
parfor t_ind=1:sim_time
dom_eigs(1,step_ind1,step_ind2,t_ind)=max(eig(squeeze(Lambda(1,:,:,step_ind1,step_ind2,t_ind))));
end
end
end
for step_ind1=1:steps1;
for step_ind2=1:steps2
parfor t_ind=1:sim_time
dom_eigs(2,step_ind1,step_ind2,t_ind)=max(eig(squeeze(Lambda(2,:,:,step_ind1,step_ind2,t_ind))));
end
end
end
|
SemanticMantis ( talk) 15:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
can we use templates (That will contain some footer-text for example) in MS word? Usage similar to MS Excel templates.
I ask this because I've about 10 documents that all must have the same footer text and I have no intention to change it 10 times manually in any case I want to make a small change in their' footer. Ben-Yeudith ( talk) 20:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I saw on E-Bay that a guy was selling off a lot of domain names. (For this discussion, let's say that his name saw Bill.) For example, one domain name was something like "delicious pizza.com" (or something like that). So, it appears that Bill "scoops up" some domain names that might be popular and that someone else might want to buy off of him. So, of course, Bill makes a profit from this venture. So, if I buy it from Bill, I now own it. But, my question is, how did Bill own it to begin with? Where do these names originate and who owns them to begin with? Who owns them, originally? And -- a follow up question -- is every single "name" out there already owned by someone? For example, "delicious pizza 1.com" or "delicious pizza 78.com" or "delicaious pizza USA.com", etc., etc., etc. Is every single combination or permutation of characters already owned by someone? If so, who? If not, how do I originate my own so that I now own it? Say, for example, if I want the name "delicious pizza 83764.com" (or some such) and no one else already owns it. How do I become the owner of it? How does this all work? Thanks. 20:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D13:6D70:6CC2:1D1C:D0F0:9193 ( talk)
How replication happens in AD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjaytak7 ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
As of the latest Firefox update, email attachments no longer appear or function the same way, and it's not the email program because its tied to when I updated Firefox, and the change is the same when I look at yahoo mail attachments or gmail attachments.
They now appear as much larger icons than previously, and if you click them, they preview rather than downloading. When you put your cursor over them, s small download bar appears as part of the image, so they are giving you the option, but I can no longer just click and download. Anyone know a fix?-- 108.21.87.129 ( talk) 23:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Another sign this is coming from the email client is that Google will probably show a save to Google Drive icon, whereas Yahoo obviously doesn't. The third sign is that in Google, your URL will change to something with projector in it.
The fact you're seeing this on multiple webmail clients isn't exactly surprising, this popup/theater/projector style view is all the rage, used by Facebook and other social media and a number of news sites. Even the Wikimedia Foundation controversial introduced it to most of the wikis they manage.
As to why you're only seeing this after a browser upgrade this is more surprising. It could be that the feature requires a browser feature which your old browser didn't have but I'm pretty sure Gmail at least has had this popup preview on Firefox for at least a few versions and you didn't mention you were using a very old version like LTS or whatever, so I presume this isn't the case. Perhaps the more likely alternative is you have a plugin which used to disable this projector view which isn't working anymore.
As to how to change this, I couldn't find mention of a simple setting for Gmail. I'm sure you could find a ScriptMonkey script to disable it, or perhaps a specialised plugin. Note there's no need to click the attachment to get the download link. When you however over the attachment before clicking, in both Gmail and Yahoo, there should be a download button. If you're using a touch screen device I think there's some way too, but I can't remember offhand.(Just noticed you already know that.)
Nil Einne ( talk) 13:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
However most of what I said above still applies albeit the specifics are a bit different. You can tell this is function of the webmail client because it's different between clients. On Gmail when you hover over you will generally get the save to Google Drive icon as well as the download one. Yahoo has the download and a somewhat hidden option to save to Dropbox. The thumbnails are also different. Google thumbnails are rectangular and larger than Yahoo ones which are square.
In addition, in Gmail at least the larger thumbnails which require you to hover over to download has I'm pretty sure been supported in a few versions of Firefox.
BTW, one alternative besides scripting to change this behaviour is to actually use a email program like Thunderbird, rather than rely on what the providers webmail client which you have limited control over.