Q: Is it possible to fax something to an e-mail account?
A: No. It is not possible. This myth got started when some e-mail accounts allow you to pay for an additional fax receive number or voicemail receive number where the incoming message or fax are included as an "attachment" and accessible via your e-mail inbox. It is something known as "universal inbox". However, it is NOT a widespread feature. The e-mail provider must explicitly provide this feature, and the number cost extra.

Image via Wikipedia

Q: Is it possible for a function in a programming language to return multiple values?
A: No. By definition, a "function" in a programming language returns only ONE value. You can "fudge" it by combining the separate values into a "composite" value, such as an array, or a struct/custom type, or such, but it really is returning a single value. You will have to de-couple the values outside the function.

Image via Wikipedia

Q: What are the relations among DPI, pixels, and print-size?
A: A complicated questions, and a LOT of misunderstanding. However, here's something that should clear it up:

DPI = dots per inch

Pixels are just that, pixels (concatenation of "picture elements"). Basically, a pixel is a 2-dimensional dot.

Pixels (or dots) multiplied by DPI (dots per inch) = length (in inches)

1200 pixels x 300 dots / inch = 4 inches

1200 pixels x 72 dots / inch = 16.67 inches

A picture has a particular resolution (i.e. X by Y dots). A specific output device has its own DPI. The best output is achieved when the calculated DPI (based on the picture's resolution, and desired print size), matches the output device's DPI. If the calculated DPI is LESS than the device's DPI, then the device will have to scale up the picture, which would make the image blurry (you zoomed in and saw too much detial). If the calculated DPI is LARGER than the device's DPI, then the picture is SHRUNK to the device's DPI (like zooming out, and not see the details).

For example, you CAN make a 1024x768 (0.8 megapixels) print on 16" by 12", but the picture at that physical size is a mere 72 dpi (calculated, 1024 dots / 16 inches = 72 DPI), but the output device is VASTLY superior to that (300, 600, even 1200 dpi), so the output will look VERY blurry.

Whereas if you print the same picture on a 3" x 2", the DPI you calculate backwards, is 1024 / 3 = 340 DPI, which is superior to 300 DPI, so the picture will be clear, but isn't as large as it COULD be without sacrificing details.

Best output is when you get EXACTLY 300 DPI, so 1024 / 300 = 3.413 inches. You can do the match for the Y dimension. Now the picture is as large as it can, without any zooming or scaling of pixels.

Image via CrunchBase

Q: Is there a way to use Outlook with webmail, such as Mail.com?
A: Two ways

1) Pay for their "premium" service. Once you do, they'll give you the SMTP and POP3 addresses to their server, and your special login.

2) Use a POP3 emulator such as Freepops. You'll need to consult their homepage on configuration. I've used it and it DOES work, and often updated. Freepops is free, as the name suggests.

Image via Wikipedia

Q: What is the difference between CD+R and CD-R?
A: There is no such thing as CD+R. CD-R is CD-Recordable, which means you can write ONCE to it.

DVD recordable have two standards: DVD-R and DVD+R, but there are really no practical difference between them to the consumer, and most if not all drives will read/write both with no practical difference.

So again, there is no such thing as CD+R. Someone was very confused and assumed that since DVD recordable have two versions: +R and -R, CD recordable must have two versions as well. That is simply not true.

There is something called CD+G, but that's basically some graphics recorded on audio CDs (G = Graphics), and playable on some special screen-equipped audio-CD players.

Q: I plan to buy a solid state drive (SSD), which is basically flash memory packed into a hard drive case and accessed like a hard drive (through SATA, IDE, whatever). I have heard that it is bad to defrag a SSD. Is that true, and why is that so?

A: The "random access time" of an SSD is so fast that "defrag" it is pointless.

On a regular HD, the head have to move from track to track. On an SSD it's instantaneous (well, just about). Thus, defrag is pointless. If there is no appreciable "gap" between blocks of data, then defrag is not necessary. After all the idea of defrag is to move the data so it can be read as a contiguous segment as possible, so the read head doesn't have to jump around to get the data.

Also, on flash memory, each cell can only be read and written X number of times. (that X is actually in the millions) In order to improve reliability, flash drives (and SSDs) have what's called "load levellers" that purposefully SPREAD OUT the data so each cell is used equally as much as possible. This actually fragments the data. However, such is NOT a concern on SSD, as stated before.

Thus, if you defrag an SSD, not only you will NOT see any gains, you will actually defeat the load levelling feature, increasing those frequently used cell's chance of failure, and thus, decrease reliability of the entire drive. Of course, you may be shaving off only fraction of a percent in reliability, but why borrow trouble?

Q: Is it possible to run 64-bit OS, such as Vista 64-bit, on a 32-bit CPU? I don't care how slowly it runs, if it runs at all.

A: No, it would not be possible. 64-bit OS would issue 64-bit commands to the CPU, and 32-bit CPU would not understand those commands at all, and will crash (for the geeks, it would be "invalid opcode" error).

I suppose you *could* write a virtual machine that emulates a 64-bit CPU, and run the OS within that, but then you have to intercept very single call an OS can make... pass-thru if necessary... Why? When 64-bit CPUs are readily available?

Q: Is there such thing as an external video card? So I can get better video for my laptop / notebook? Something that I can play a DECENT game with? The built-in Intel GMA is pure ****, if you know what I mean.

A: Brother, I share your pain. I have a Sony VAIO laptop that has the Intel 965 and no decent action game will run on it. However, there are no such thing on the market.

A prototype was demonstrated in Taiwan last year, and two companies have announced products. However, neither have reached market a year later. Looks like it's pretty dead.

I can see why too. The device itself will cost like $200, NOT COUNTING cost of the video card that you plan to use. And even then, the ExpressPort's bandwidth does not come CLOSE to PCI-E x 16 port that the video card really needs. So the video card will really be running at half-speed or worse. They'd be better off designing ExpressPort video card instead, if there aren't so many variants on the market...

Q: I used _________ to convert some AVI files to a Video DVD format folder. However, I was browsing it when I noticed that while the VIDEO_TS folder has a whole bunch of files, AUDIO_TS folder is empty! Does that mean the conversion failed?


A: No. Video DVD does NOT require the existence of the AUDIO_TS folder. The VOB files in VIDEO_TS folder contains video, audio, AND subtitle data (if any), even multiple sound tracks. Some conversion programs like to put that folder there, just for completeness' sake. Don't worry about it.

Q: What is a .LIT file? It seems to be an e-book but I don't know how to open it.

A: It's Microsoft Reader. You can download it free at http://www.microsoft.com/Reader/