Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2014 July 22

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.

July 22

Rip off of the deleted website by the FBI

I heard there's a website containing survey when somebody downloads a file and it's a rip off of the old Megaupload website that was shutdown because of Copyright Infringement. It's called megadown.us that was not created by KimDotCom. Should wikipedia have articles about survey protected file hosting websites like FileIce or something like that?--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There's a large volume of such websites, and related, that are fading into, and out of, existence and usage all the time. Most are not in any way notable, nor do most have any pertinent sourced information pertaining to them. If one is the subject of media reports, and becomes notable, then that specific site might be worth adding an article on - or, perhaps, an article on the topic of such sites, if sources can be found - but, in general, there is very little compelling reason to give these sites articles.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Some of the websites that has the contact button or whatever may not let us go to that page and find their info, but we can however trace the site's IP address.

Update: Fileice's IP address to the site is 66.252.2.22, the domain name that it uses is PROXYSHIELD.gigeservers.net and it was founded in Arlington Heights, Illinois.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 05:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Not only is this information not really overly interesting on its own (as in, there wouldn't be much point to putting it in an article in the first place), but I don't see why this site, or any other like it, are notable enough to be included as articles. Is this site the subject of a news article? Several articles? etc.? If not, I see no reason this should have an article, is there a reason you believe it should? Finally, the reference desk really isn't the place to discuss this - to be honest, I'm not active enough on the other parts of Wikipedia to tell you what would be the place to discuss it, sadly.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Help Desk, probably. But no, nothing seems notable here. I wouldn't bother, Logolover. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

VoIP - two questions

I have two questions about VoIP:

1. When I use Skype, there is a long delay, almost as long as when they were talking to astronauts at the Moon. My landline has no noticeable delay. Does VoIP have that delay?
2. On my landline, I can talk and listen at the same time, as with a normal conversation. Does VoIP allow that, or can you only do one at the time? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 07:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Skype is VOIP. They are all different, and the delay can be dependent on the Internet speed of both participants, as well as any intermediary server that the VOIP is running through. Zzubnik (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I imagine some people with fibre connections and decent VoIP systems probably have lower average latency for medium distance calls (albeit neither being noticable) and probably longer ones too (presuming they're using a dedicated provider with decent routing, not just routing them randomly over the internet). And just because you're using your landline doesn't mean there's no VoIP somewhere in the system. I suspect in the modern world, the longer distance the call, the greater chance there's VoIP somewhere in the system. (Remember VoIP is just voice over internet protocol and has nothing to do with the internet per se.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Not answers, but related comments:

1) Using satellites to communicate, especially the much farther out geosynchronous satellites, can cause this "satellite delay", as even at the speed of light, there's a noticeable delay in sending info that far. Undersea cables, on the other hand, are much shorter, and therefore faster. Of course, this all assume you are talking with somebody on the other side of the world.

2) Duplex (telecommunications) allows sending info both ways at the same time. However, you need a headset that isolates the speaker from the microphone, or they need to take steps to electronically prevent audio feedback. StuRat (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

No citations or sources, just based on my own experience:

1. I do not experience a delay when using VoIP (Skype in my case) between developed countries. I did experience a delay while calling home from the middle of nowhere in Africa though.
2. I've never noticed an inability to do duplex over VoIP - not even on a laggy line. If the line is lagging it can get confusing if both speak at the same time though.

WegianWarrior (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you. Duplex is the name for what I was talking about. In a traditional telephone, the mice and receiver are far enough apart so that feedback isn't a problem. The natural delay to and back a satellite is less than 0.25 second, but the delays now are longer than that. I've been Skyping to 800-900 miles away, and the delay is quite bothersome. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The path traveled by the signal might be far longer than the distance between sender and receiver. Both signals may go to a central hub, far away, and then sent on their way. Beyond that, there may be delays for processing the signals, and an overloaded system may put your signal in a queue until resources become available. StuRat (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Processing definitely takes a long time. Back in the days of analog TV, when they would have a satellite hookup across the ocean, there wasn't nearly as much of a delay as there is now. And I can flip from a HD TV channel to its non-HD version, and the HD version is a long way behind the other one. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)