New user registrations no longer admin moderated

I have changed the forum to only allow new users that I personally activate. This has become necessary due to a recent step-up in abuse among forum spammers. It also should make things easier for those of you that live at @aol.com addresses, since sometimes the forum is unable to get those messages through.

If you have any problems registering, please contact me[=http://www.thornvalley.com/help/contact.php]contact me.

Also, if any of you have suggestions for a suitable replacement for this forum's software that has better anti-spam measures and can import phpBB messages and users, please let me know.

Edit: If you want to make sure your registration goes through, please specify "NIMH" as one of your interests on the registration form. Otherwise, I may mistake your registration as spam.

Edit2: I have added a bit of additional security to the registration page that seems to be very effective in stopping spam registration. Since I have gone 2 days without a single spam registration, I feel that it is no longer needed to require registrations to be admin-approved.

Fine by me, Simon.

I don't plan on re-registering unless I have to. If there's any way I can help with this moderation of new users, let me know. I'll be happy to.

Yeah, I remember notifying you a few times about spammers and pornographic links here on this forum. Now that you got this new system in, you can get rid of them before they have a chance to cause trouble. :)

Do you mean to tell me that some sick moron has actually put links to porno here!?! Put a virus in his rig, just leave us out of it, please. Some people here are probably not old enough to legally view porn. Keep it family friendly people.

Do you mean to tell me that some sick moron has actually put links to porno here!?! Put a virus in his rig, just leave us out of it, please. Some people here are probably not old enough to legally view porn. Keep it family friendly people.

In most cases, it's a web-crawling bot that signs up, and posts ads, and stuff to various types of websites on forums. I doubt its a specific individual making posts in most cases.

I had a spammer not to long ago on my forum remember Cedric? Now that you have this installed, you can activate the user if you want to or not.

I had a spammer not to long ago on my forum remember Cedric? Now that you have this installed, you can activate the user if you want to or not.
_____________________________________________________________
-Nimhster 8)

You mean that bum that cussed us out? yeah I remember. But what's this about activating a user?

This just comes to let all new comers to stay aware that they should not spam up good forums.

Anyone who wants to ruin good forums should be shot immediately, never mind waiting until dawn. If you bums can't say anything nice, sell your computer and get outa our lives!

Anyone who wants to ruin good forums should be shot immediately, never mind waiting until dawn. If you bums can't say anything nice, sell your computer and get outa our lives!

As I said, a lot of times it's computer programs that are designed to search out forums, register, and post spam ads in the forums. That's also why you often have to enter a 'code' on some forums to register. The spam bots can't read, and correctly enter the random 'code' meaning they can't register and ultimately make unwanted posts.

I had to step up some added security to my community at http://www.tgi-media.com/xooped/ to prevent spammers as well.

I had to step up some added security to my community at http://www.tgi-media.com/xooped/ to prevent spammers as well.

Insert shameless plug here! ---------------^ heheh! ;)

On another note VictorDTarsus, you might want to consider reducing the size on the image in your signature. It's rather huge for a forum. Not only that, but its rather annoying to other users with slower internet connections such as myself. Took me a good bit of time -just- to load the image in your signature. I know at the very least I'd appreciate a more dial-up friendly signature image! :D

You still use dialup? I thought that format died ages ago. My grandparents' computer has a phone modem but never did go online even when they paid for the service.
But anyway, I agree that that banner is good-sized. It's nice, beauty-wise, but it might be in everyone's best interests to reduce the size or get a smaller one.

You still use dialup? I thought that format died ages ago. My grandparents' computer has a phone modem but never did go online even when they paid for the service.

Until very recently the only way I could get online is with Dialup. Broadband isn't available in rural areas, or even any significant distance outside of towns. Many people are still on dialup because that's the only form of internet connection they can get.

Hopefully soon I'll be using fixed wireless broadband.

Say no more, its done. Sorry it was so big, but as a digital media designer, I go BIG with my graphic designing skills. So now its a lot smaller.

Dial-Up is still available here in Canada as well. To say the least, its cheap and affordable but sucks big time for speed and download time. I am on a cable connection which is a step up from Dial-Up, but I want ADSL through TELUS. TELUS is Alberta & British Columbia's telephone & mobile carrier as well as Internet provider. Apparently TELUS Mobility is available in the province of Ontario, but Bell rules Ontario for telephone and Internet.

I live i'd say 20KM north of the city of Grande Prairie, AB and just as of this Month of February, ADSL is finally available for a limited range of rural towns and home owners around 20 - 50 kilometres away from the city. City people have had ADSL for more than 7 years and now we country folks are finally getting a piece of the Broadband pie, about time :? .

@VictorDTarsus,

Thanks. Not saying large graphics are bad in general, but on the web, especially in forums when there may be other graphics put up by users, and where your graphic may show up several times per page via multiple posts. Not to mention they interrupt the actual context of the thread, it all kind of gets irritating. Being on dialup just adds injury to insult. ;)

I'm in Ontario myself. Dialup is available in most places. I doubt there's a country where you can't find Dialup. Its got much greater range than DSL or Cable. Though I wouldn't entirely call dialup 'cheap' here it ranges from $15 - 25 for 28.8kbps to 56Kbps. That's not including the minimum of $25 that it costs for the phone line. In my case I have a dedicated phone line for my dialup, so my dialup costs about $50/month for a 28.8kbps connection.

Actually, I think you've got it a bit backwards. A/DSL is a step up from dialup as it still uses telephone lines. Cable on the other hand has a much larger bandwidth capability, and generally offers greater speed over A/DSL on average. Next up after that is Fiber, which is available to the home in some areas.

I'm waiting for the WiMAX technology to mature some more to equal closer to cable speeds. Right now it's limited to about A/DSL speeds. However even that is better than dialup. We'll never see A/DSL or Cable in Rural areas. If we do, the 'standard' for cities will likely be fiber and still much faster than anything we're able to get in rural areas. That's only because right now running -any- sort of line dedicated or capable of handing broadband speeds is way too expensive to install. Dialup is available because the lines are already in place. In the future, unless running hard lines becomes -very- cheap, the 'standard' for rural broadband is going to be some sort of fixed wireless IMO. Can cover a larger and more remote areas at minimal cost to install the infrastructure to support it. As it matures, the speeds should be expandable to match 'modern' wired speeds and is/can be as reliable as a wired connection.

Anyway, we're getting a bit off-topic for this thread. Perhaps we should continue in a new thread, or via private message or email? Thoughts?

I don't work here (or anywhere, for that matter), so my vote doesn't really count. But I'm not entirely sure what the original topic for this thread was, so it's probably gone off topic.
Also, I didn't know dialup was that fast. I've got Charter internet, and I get connections at 50 kbps.
But I would probably guess it's off topic, anyway.

Telus dial-up over here in Alberta/British Columbia is around 12 dollars a month for 12/hours of surfing time....the plan sucks, but you also get 100MB towards a web space complete with a domain name for that web space.

The Occasional Surfer plan as they call it is the only Dial-Up plan TELUS still carries for those who are in rural areas or still using the service because if you had either the 100/Hour a Month or Unlimited before the full swing into broadband several years ago, their accounts might have been downgraded to Occasional Surfer plans. Not to mention, if you go over the 12/hour limitation is a $1.50 for every hour...crap is all I can say to dial-up. I at least have a cable setup.

Also, I didn't know dialup was that fast. I've got Charter internet, and I get connections at 50 kbps.
But I would probably guess it's off topic, anyway.

Dialup is not fast at all. It tops out at 56kbps where average broadband typically ranges from 1 - 6Mbps (1,000 - 6000kbps) Its a LOT faster than dialup will ever hope to be. In most cases if you get full 56K over dialup, you're lucky. Most one can hope for with dialup is 48.8kbps - 50kbps. That's just the nature of the beast

@VictorDTarsus;
I pay about $24.95/ month with 24 hour service, and unlimited hours. Technically it's a 56k connection, but given distance and quality of lines i only get 28.8.

Should have the wireless by the 16th of March, or by the end of march at the latest. licrosses fingersli

Odd, I use the broadband cable. But I don't get anywhere near the full use of it.

Odd, I use the broadband cable. But I don't get anywhere near the full use of it.

uhh I'm sure you use a good portion of it. Its not so much capacity that you 'choose' to use, it more allows you to do what you want to do faster. Think of it as drinking a thick milk shake. Dialup is a tiny narrow straw, while broadband is like a big thick straw. Which straw would be easier/faster to get at the milk shake? ;)

Well, my LAN gets 100MBps. But I think that is the standard for all LANs.

Well, my LAN gets 100MBps. But I think that is the standard for all LANs.

That's the standard for Ethernet. Though at some point the standard will become 'gigabit Ethernet' which is 1000mbps. Your internet connection is barely even a fraction of the possible 100mbps that your LAN can support. Though that doesn't make it any less broadband. Nobody really has an internet connection that can utilize anywhere near most of what 100mbps Ethernet can offer.

Well TELUS has had some better dial-up plans, but the "Occasional Surfer" plan is all that remains of TELUS's dial-up. See as your from Ontario Xavier, its safe to assume that you are using Bell's dial-up?

I sure hope you get the wireless, I have wireless here in my home, but the router who's connected to the cable modem is a wireless one. For future reference, if anyone here ever buys a Macintosh, Link-SYS wireless routers are useless with a Mac. It has been designed specifically for Windows PCs. D-Link routers of all kinds, including the wireless variety are the best to use with a Macintosh's built-in wi-fi Airport Extreme Card.

Well TELUS has had some better dial-up plans, but the "Occasional Surfer" plan is all that remains of TELUS's dial-up. See as your from Ontario Xavier, its safe to assume that you are using Bell's dial-up?
I sure hope you get the wireless, I have wireless here in my home, but the router who's connected to the cable modem is a wireless one. For future reference, if anyone here ever buys a Macintosh, Link-SYS wireless routers are useless with a Mac. It has been designed specifically for Windows PCs. D-Link routers of all kinds, including the wireless variety are the best to use with a Macintosh's built-in wi-fi Airport Extreme Card.

Yeah I'm on Bell Sympatico. The price isn't bad for what I'm getting really, I just wish I was able to make use of all the bandwidth I was paying for. But otherwise I'm paying $25 for unlimited hours and 24/7 service. The 24/7 service has been exceedingly handy at times. On the up side, I seem to have been able to get 20% more bandwidth out of my connection with a small tweak available in XP PRO. Some places say it doesn't work, but I found a -measurable- difference.

Wireless Broadband and Wi-Fi are two different things.

Wi-Fi is simply just a wireless networking tool with limited range, typically only 100' at best give or take, and meant more as a method to connect to a LAN wirelessly. It just so happens a internet connection can be shared via wi-fi.

Wireless Broadband, or rather 'fixed' point to point wireless broadband is what is provided by a WISP (Wireless Internet Service Provider) that has a range of around 10km radius give or take (technologies differ slightly in this area) and is typically supplied by WISP owned broadcasting towers.

The end user is sold/rented a wireless receiver/transmitter that is secured to the outside of the house somewhere (such as outside wall, TV antenna tower, etc.) Often both the broadcasting tower and subscriber antenna is set up so that ONLY subscriber antennas supplied by the WISP will work with the WISPs broadcasting towers. However, one can connect the subscriber antenna via Ethernet directly to a PC or a WAN port on a router and achieve the same shared internet connection over a wi-fi LAN.

Of course, given it's similarities to Wi-Fi and the fact it's still an RF frequency it has a few other uses, and is not limited to just use with WISPs. One of the most commonly used wireless 'technologies' is a one called 'Wi-MAX'

We actually already have two wireless routers, and a wired LAN installed in prep for the WISP's broadband connection. Given we live in a bungalow, one router won't service the entire home. Since I already had a 100' CAT5 run through the length of the house, and knowing the broadband was coming 'soon' I upgraded our switch-centralized LAN to a router, which led me to discover that one wasn't enough. To solve this, and conveniently I found a second wireless router for about $2.99 after rebate, and now have both routers hooked to eachother. The first router (a D-Link) has two of the three computers in the house connected to it at one end of the house. A third cable runs the length of the house (the 100' Ethernet mentioned earlier, and formerly connected directly to my PC) and to the second router (a TRENDnet wireless router) that is acting strictly as a switch and a wireless 'access point' for the D-Link.

It's rather neat being able to walk with a wireless laptop from one end of the house to the other, and watch the signal get weaker, then suddenly start to get stronger again. The two routers hand a connected device from one to the other without missing a beat.

Ironically, the TRENDnet router that I got for $2.99 is WAY more reliable than the D-Link I have. Ive been waiting for the TRENDnet router to go on sale again (it has several times now) so I can pick up another one.

Anyway sorry for the logish post :roll:

I'm also known to make long post, so don't worry about it Xavier. I myself only need the one Wi-Fi D-Link router because I'm the only one who uses the wireless functions with both my Mac Mini with its built in Apple Airport Extreme card and the little wireless adapter that I bought for my XBOX 360 so I can have both a wireless connection to XBOX Live and stream all of my Music, Pics and Vids from my Mac Mini to the 360 instead of wasting the much needed 360's HDD space on music and videos.

I'm also known to make long post, so don't worry about it Xavier. I myself only need the one Wi-Fi D-Link router because I'm the only one who uses the wireless functions with both my Mac Mini with its built in Apple Airport Extreme card and the little wireless adapter that I bought for my XBOX 360 so I can have both a wireless connection to XBOX Live and stream all of my Music, Pics and Vids from my Mac Mini to the 360 instead of wasting the much needed 360's HDD space on music and videos.

Ah, that would do it. So most/all of your wireless uses are in close range of the router, and not really mobile. I wanted more complete coverage for when we did have broadband and if/when I have a laptop, or my Brother in Law comes to visit (which is somewhat regular, for extended periods) with my sister and their family, whom also has a laptop and a micro ATX form-factor PC with Wi-Fi card. Given one is mobile and the other isn't easily set up with a wired connection, having greater coverage was in order.

I've never been fond of wireless save for portability of electronics. Especially game consoles. Although I don't have any that really require a connection to the internet/LAN. Not that I have the connection to utilize it anyway. I always opt for wired connections when I can, and its convenient. Especially for fixed devices. Especially for things such as the X-Box 360. The 'first party' wireless bridge is WAY over-priced for what it does. Not sure if it will work with a PC as a wi-fi antenna or not, which would at least add some value, but knowing MS, it is probably limited to use with just the XBOX

Looking on Froogle the XBOX network adapter is around $100. Alternative D-Link Wireless Bridge can be found for around $50, isn't limited to USB (uses Ethernet) and can be used with any/all game consoles, along with PCs or other Ethernet equipped devices. Heck, one could get a cheap wired Ethernet switch, hook the bridge to the switch and hook multiple Ethernet equipped devices (multiple consoles for example) to one bridge.

Best part to me is, I know the bridge can be used with other devices when the 360's life cycle ends, and it should be as easy to configure as plugging a completely wired Ethernet cable into the 360, or any 'wired' device for that matter.

Of course, I'm not trying to fault your choice and what have you. Just merely stating I'd take a slightly different route if I were to solve connectivity issues of my consoles. As it is, I've got it planned once the wireless broadband is installed in our home, I'm going to run a Ethernet cable from the router in my room, back through the floor and up on the other side of the room behind my TV/Consoles to a standard Ethernet switch, to which I'll hook all of my consoles, giving them a nice hardwired connection.

Looks like I went and made another huge post hehe.

I've never been fond of wireless save for portability of electronics. Especially game consoles. Although I don't have any that really require a connection to the internet/LAN. Not that I have the connection to utilize it anyway. I always opt for wired connections when I can, and its convenient. Especially for fixed devices. Especially for things such as the X-Box 360. The 'first party' wireless bridge is WAY over-priced for what it does. Not sure if it will work with a PC as a wi-fi antenna or not, which would at least add some value, but knowing MS, it is probably limited to use with just the XBOX.

In my case, the cable modem and router are up stairs. Having to drill a hole for two Ethernet cables for my Mac Mini and 360 would take too much effort to install, so I just use the wireless all the way. Soon, I'll be buying a another Macintosh computer, one of those new iMacs which is basically an all-in-one flat-panel LCD computer. This one too has an Airport Extreme card built in with the standard option to opt for wired connections. Yet again, I'll be utilizing my small, but effective wi-fi network. However when it comes to transferring files and data from my Mac Mini to the new iMac, I won't use either wi-fi or Ethernet as connecting a FireWire cable between two Macs using Targeted Drive Mode will do me just fine. Targeted Drive Mode is achieved only among Mac computers when a FireWire cable connects them, I simply will just turn off my Mac Mini and re-start it holding the "T" key down to essentially turn my Mac Mini into a FireWire external hard drive for the new iMac to copy data from the Mac Mini's 80GB HDD to the new 250GB HDD in the new iMac.

Once this is all done with and a backup of all my files and data from the Mac Mini are stored and ready for use on the iMac, I will be able to share files on the fly over the wi-fi network using Mac OS X's File Sharing option turned on in both Macs. I could string up a simple Ethernet cable from one Mac to the other, but I am aiming for less cables then needed. Of course I will be taking all of my music off of my Mac Mini and authorizing my iPod for the new iMac instead of my old Mac Mini. This is where a FireWire targeted drive connection is more handy than transferring the files over a 10/100base Ethernet connection or wi-fi.

I also wanted to add that the AirPort Extreme Base Station[=http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=1B3CD69&nplm=MA073LL%2FA]AirPort Extreme Base Station which is Apple's wireless gateway which can be connected to a standard router or directly coming off a cable/DSL modem to offer wireless connection abilities not only for official Apple Macintosh hardware, but can also be used with Windows based PCs as well. Of course the base station is also a 3 port LAN and has a USB Port to setup a shared Printer and/or external Hard Drive over the air waves in the range of the broad casted signal. Personally, I'd like the share a HDD on the base station and setup a way to transfer a lot of my old files from the PC upstairs to it via Wi-Fi and then connect to the same drive with either Mac to retrieve the files flawlessly.

http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/ae-diagram.gif[" alt=""/img]

Here is a snap shot of the back of an Airport Extreme Base Station.

@VictorDTarsus

Ah that would do it. Sometimes its just not practical to install wired connections, unless you're keen on wires strung everywhere or you want to root around in the walls. What we did here was just punch a hole through the floor along the wall behind the computer desk and ran a CAT5 cable through it and down through the basement and crawl space to the end of the house to my room. Of course, as I said, with the layout, and construction of our house makes Wi-Fi a bit impractical as it won't reach the opposite ends of the house, and placing the router in the middle of the house won't really work all that well. Though I suppose it is doable, if not a bit inconvenient. As it is, having the dual-router setup is a much better solution anyway for full coverage. At least for us. However, I kind of enjoyed wiring the house. It was fun to run the line and get everything working. :)

Do you know if you can plug the MS 360 wireless adapter and use it as a USB wireless network adapter for a computer? Or is it just restricted for use with the XBOX360? I ask out of curiosity to see whether MS pulled one of their age old incompatibility tricks.

Huh, I never knew macs could be connected like that. Very cool though! Sounds much easier than trying to network them. Though I'm not sure what would be faster, firewire or Ethernet. I know Gigabit Ethernet would have them both beat. You could always use your Mac Mini as a file server, much like a network attached storage device would attached to your router. Heck you could store all of your music and such on the mac mini's 80gb hdd with its entire drive shared and any system in the house could access just like another attached HDD, including your 360.

So you mean your current Wi-Fi Access point is -Just- an access point? I'm afraid to ask how much you paid for that. I hope it at least has security features built in. Though I was under the impression that even the airports still uses standard 802.11B/G and both macs and PCs could connect to it. Wasn't aware that any Mac Wireless networking devices were 'Mac only' That would have prevented me from buying one right there, and would have opted for a 'regular' router, or the base station you mention. THough $180 is a bit expensive for a USB equipped router. You can find the same thing from D-Link or Linksys for $150 or less. That's my biggest problem with Apple products. Sure they're often well built, but sometimes you pay a major premium for a shiny case and possibly no better performance than a much less expensive alternative.

Then again, I paid $50 for my D-Link router, and found the TRENDnet router I got for $3 was significantly better in terms of reliability and performance. Of course, that doesn't apply to -all- apple products. The Mac Mini especially. Not a bad value for a pretty capable Mac.

I wouldn't be suprised if it worked at all, Xavier. I can only assume that the adapter has some kind of propritary hardware on it its internal design to only work when connected to a 360. Still, it is USB powered, so it may work if there was an official MS Driver released for PC computers to use it. Hell, your better off buying a cheap 3th party wireless network adapter for a 360 than the over priced MS adapter. After all is said and done, its $99.99USD and $129.99CAD. I have never paid more than a hundred dollars for a USB network adapter ever, until this crap.

I wouldn't be suprised if it worked at all, Xavier. I can only assume that the adapter has some kind of propritary hardware on it its internal design to only work when connected to a 360. Still, it is USB powered, so it may work if there was an official MS Driver released for PC computers to use it. Hell, your better off buying a cheap 3th party wireless network adapter for a 360 than the over priced MS adapter. After all is said and done, its $99.99USD and $129.99CAD. I have never paid more than a hundred dollars for a USB network adapter ever, until this crap.

Should give it a try on one of your macs and see if it shows up as a network adapter. They might have been nice and made it a 'generic' network adapter. However I'm doubtful. Given I have multiple consoles, and unless the wireless is built in (which I may or may not opt to use anyway) I'd likely go with the D-Link Wireless Bridge, basically connects devices wirelessly, save for a short Ethernet cable from the console/system and the bridge, and tricks the connected hardware into thinking its connected to a 'wired' LAN Meaning I can use it for ANY networking task that works with a wired connection, both mac and PC, and make it wireless, plus one can take the Ethernet out of the wireless bridge, and connect it to a router or switch, meaning now, I have a wireless device that I can hook a collection of wired devices to, and not just one per wireless bridge.

Proprietary hardware frustrates the hell out of me.

Anyway, think I have said most of that before, but I forget, and haven't the time to check as I'm about to run out the door in a few minutes hehe! But thats another story hehe!

Bumping this thread. Forum registration is no longer admin moderated; I've added a hack that has stopped the flow of automated registrations.