Computing desk
< February 9	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 11 >

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.

February 10[edit]

AMD Athlon XP 2100[edit]

Is this CPU a 32 bit or a 64 bit processor? Warren —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.155.224.155 (talk • contribs).

It is a 32 bit processor. I have two of them in this machine.... —EncMstr 01:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Export[edit]

I was trying to put together an MS Excel file that contained worldwide coastal cities broken down by continent, country, and then city. I wanted it to be worldwide and I was happy to find wikipedia has a category called "Coastal cities". My question is what is the best way to transfer that list of worldwide coastal cities on wikipedia to MS Excel? Is there something to export the wikipedia database?

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.211.147.138 (talk • contribs).

Look at Special:Export for an XML import. Or maybe just copy and paste to a text file, format it up a bit and paste that into Excel.... —EncMstr 01:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excel software[edit]

Do you know of any Excel software, besides Google Docs for a web site so that multiple users can edit the Excel sheet at the same time? 68.193.147.179 01:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for free on-line spreadsheets, Google gives lots of results [1], but I don't know which (if any) of these allow multiple users to edit the sheet simultaneously (this seems like quite an advanced feature - wouldn't it need cell-by-cell locking?). Cheers, Davidprior 02:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know a way to put the spreadsheet right onto a domain (ex:www.domain.com)?

iTunes[edit]

My iTunes will not import songs that do not come off a music cd. It'll go through the motions, but then the songs just aren't there. I have WinXP and iTunes 7.0.2.16. Would uninstalling and reinstalling iTunes fix the problem, or is there something else I can try? 71.220.127.97 01:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble w/ the Sims[edit]

Problem: When I try to play the Sims: Makin' Magic, no music plays except for when it shows the company logos, and I can't enter into lots, the program quits when i try. Attempts: Unable to find reinstall, i just installed the whole thing a second time, while foolishly not deleting the old versions. I'm going to keep working on it. Any suggestions? Thanks ahead of time. Oh, and i'm using a mac.-an anon

Do sign your posts with ~~~~. With the given information, I would suggest removing all traces of the game, then doing a clean reinstallation. Splintercellguy 04:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That worked. Thanks!63.231.243.111 16:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WMP 11 distortion[edit]

When I play an online embedded video in Windows MP 11, the proportions are distorted (too wide,) and I can't install WMP 10. I tried reinstalling 11, but no change. Scienceman123 talk 02:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this happening for all videos or only from a certain site? Droud 04:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple, for instance the wmv files on [www.retrojunk.com] Scienceman123 talk 03:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a different media player might work. If not, it's probably a problem with the videos themselves. Curtmack of the Asylum 19:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monitor screen refresh rate[edit]

Well i finally have vista on my desktop and for some unknown reason i can not get the monitor refresh rate back to 100 hertz which i use the most so my computer does not have those flicker issues. are there any ways to fix it up. The options to change the hertz are not availible. It says only that i can use the hardware default.--Biggie 02:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First thing to ensure is that you have the latest drivers for your video card. If this doesn't work then, there's one small registry edit that might. Make a new DWORD registry key at HKLM\Software\Microsoft\DirectDraw\ForceRefreshRate (with regedit), and set it to the decimal value of your desired refresh rate. If you choose something your monitor doesn't support, you might have to boot into safemode to revert it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice--Biggie 03:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

info about computers[edit]

i am a computer dummy ! who or where can i go for answers to basic questions about setting up and /or learning this devil machine ? Dumm 03:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC) signed Dumm[reply]

See if any of your local colleges, senior centers, or learning annexes have 'intro to computers' type of classes. Having a real person to show you the way is always better than reading some book. (at least in my experience). --72.202.150.92 03:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask at your local library. Libraries sometimes help directly, but if not will normally be able to point you to somebody else who can help. Searching the internet for "(program name) tutorial" may also help. --h2g2bob 04:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your PC uses Microsoft Windows, you could try wikibooks:Basic Computing Using Windows - for a single-page, printable version see [2]. Might also be worth looking at wikibooks:Computers for Beginners. Cheers, Davidprior 13:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can I make sure my computer is free from Keyloggers?[edit]

At work, I routinely access my personal email account. How can I make sure there isn't a key logging program running in the background? I am running the latest public version of Mac OS X. --72.202.150.92 03:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's nearly impossible to be "sure" that there are no keylogging facilities on a a given machine. The keylogger could always be built into hardware or, in software in some part of the OS that is inaccesible to the user. The best you could do would be to run spyware scanners that can detect the most commonly used keyloggers. Diletante 18:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check and make sure the keyboard plugs directly into the computer and not into a little shunt/adapter at the backpanel. That's the most common hardware location (Assuming you're not up against a really well heeled Mallory). 68.39.174.238 23:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To see just how tough it is to be absolutely sure, check out Van Eck phreaking. You'll just have to take the usual computer hygeine precautions (don't run programs from sketchy-looking entities, etc.), and take comfort in the fact that presumably, like the rest of us, not many people are interested in your personal emails. --TotoBaggins 04:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are concerned that your employer is watching, then a keylogger is the least of your worries. First, if it's against policy at your company, then don't do it: get the policy changed or find another job. Next, unless you are using dial-up, then there is at least a minimal corporate LAN and perhaps an extensive corporate LAN. Your data can be intercepted anywhere along that LAN unless you are using a secure connection of some sort. If you are using a secure connection, your employer can still determine what outside site you are connected to and how much data and how often you use it, even if the data itself is unreadable. -Arch dude 16:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet History Statistics[edit]

Is there a program/extension, perhaps for Firefox, that provides statistics on what websites one browses? --Proficient 08:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean other than the history function? Just type Ctrl-H. If you don't like it grouped by day, click on the button at top right of the sidebar. Oh,... I see what you mean: it doesn't show dates and counts like Netscape Navigator, Mozilla and SeaMonkey do. If you use the Adblock extension in any of these browsers, filter rule entries show hit counts, which is close.... —EncMstr 08:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be cool though if it broke it down in a bunch of graphs like some of the old edit counters did. [Mαc Δαvιs] X (How's my driving?) ❖ 14:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly be possible to make a firefox extension of this - try asking on MozillaZine. The history is stored in a file called history.dat on your computer, so if you know some scripting language like perl you could do some analysis yourself. --h2g2bob 03:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Program to convert existing video files to an iPod compatible format[edit]

Are there any effective programs (for MAC) that can easily convert an existing video file to a format that can be seen on the newer iPods. I searched around for far to long and ended up buying a program online that didn't bloody work - after about a week and a half of battling, I managed to get a refund for it. Anyway, I'm looking for something preferably free and easy to use. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think VLC media player supports conversion as well as playback. It's available for the Mac as well. http://wiki.videolan.org/IPod --Kjoonlee 20:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roxio Popcorn is by Roxio, and therefore great. Quicktime, iMovie, and Garageband are able to export to iPod movie. If it takes Quicktime Pro, import it into iMovie and export from there. Quicktime Pro, I do however recommend. Seven bucks if I remember, or you can input a serial from <DMCAOMG> [Mαc Δαvιs] X (How's my driving?) ❖ 22:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually got QuickTime Pro - I just haven't been able to get it to import a bloody thing. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[3], [4]. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had the Handbrake program (the first link by CC above) for a few weeks, and it seriously kicks ass. Anyone looking for an elegant, easy to use program to get your DVDs to your iPod should download this ASAP. As far as what I was looking for (conversion), I'll give iSquint a try. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't actually tried iSquint. A better one yet might be VLC. Try [5] (skip down to "Convert MPEG2 to MPEG4"; works with most any video format, not just MPEG2) or [6]. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried out iSquint and it works like magic, seriously. Just drag and drop and convert away. Beautiful. And it converted a full length motion picture (Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning, Creative Commons license, of course) in less than a half hour, flawlessly. Amazing program. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation software[edit]

How do translation functions(such as on search engines) on the internet work? D Cowen

Well, to be honest, in most cases they don't. At least not well. TERdON 16:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They begin with a word-by-word translation. Then, they go through grammar improvement rules. This is OK for European languages, but fails miserably when a single word can become multiple words in the other language. For example, "ta" in Mandarin means "he" or "she" or "it". So, if you are translating "ta bu pang" to English, what should "ta" be? You need to know something outside of the words/grammar in the sentence. The current translation programs cannot do it. Some are nice enough to translate it to "[He/She/It] is not fat". --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern translation software is based on sentence structure and hinting (such as using "he" as a pronoun when the nearest noun is masculine, or believed to be) as well as word translation tables. This allows them to reorder the sentence structure, as required between English and Spanish for example. Still, as above, any language which would require comprehension to translate is entirely unsuitable for computers. Droud 03:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

product of regex's[edit]

Assume you have two regex's, such as a(ba)*b and a*ba(b)* (those are: a followed by some number of repeating "ba" and ending in a b, then some number of a's followed by ba and ending with some number of b's). Is there a general step-by-step rule for combinging the regex statements? For example, if the first as regex A and the second was regex B, what is the step-by-step rule for producing "A and B" and "A or B"? I have no problem writing small regex statements and this would be a great tool for turning a handful of small ones into a large complicated one. --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regexps don't really support boolean logicals like that. You can start alternate branches with the pipe character ( | ), but to accomplish the "AND" functionality you're probably best off using boolean logicals in whatever programming language you prefer or reworking your regexp to more specific. The two regexps you gave will indeed match some of the same strings, you really just need to figure out exactly what you're looking for and write the regex to accomodate that. -- mattb @ 2007-02-10T19:13Z

I think that you can even possibly try and create a nondeterministic FA from this, and then try and convert it back to a deterministic FA by subset construction. Either that, or write out the finite automata and then try to unify them by hand.

That is how I do it now. It is rather straightforward to create a FA for each one, join them, and then create a regex from them. However, I figured some brainchild must have simplified the process at some point and I just never heard about it. --Kainaw ^(talk) 23:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a standardized process: make a NFA, then use subset construction.

Encryption in Apple's Mail App[edit]

Hi. I am trying to get encryption to work in my Mac OS X Tiger mail app. I created a key (public and private) for myself in the keychain utility. The help document says that a lock should appear when sending and viewing encrypted messages, but non show up. Could someone give me a tutorial on how to set up encrypted mail for me ad my friends? We all use Tiger. I would prefer that the setup does not use keys from outside vendors, that we should be able to create our own. Thank you very much!--Ryan 17:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Macworld had a good article, Signed, Sealed, & Deliver in the November issue, and here's another article from the same issue on it[7]. [Mαc Δαvιs] X (How's my driving?) ❖ 22:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, but that requires downloading a key from Thawte. I'm pretty sure its possible to make my own key, and if it is, i would like to use it. Thanks again!--75.0.67.112 03:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy arrays in C[edit]

Hi!

Please do tell me what's wrong here 'cause I AM going crazy! It is written in C. If I would set it to "= 1" at REFERENCE 1, then the program would get stuck right there. This holds true even if I would set it to "= 0". But if I would set it to "= -1" then the program would crash. However, it would NOT crash If I would remove the line at REFERENCE 2.

What makes it even more interesting? If I would move the decleration of semiCryptoCharValues to AFTER the decleration of realWheelLengths, it would run smoothly, no matter what.

What's going on here!?

Big thanks in advance, even if you just read it! PureRumble 21:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

NEW EDIT: By the way, I'm using Cygwin on windows XP home edition, compiler gcc. I have Pentium 4 Hyperthreading, 3Ghz, 512 MB RAM (can't swear it is DDR, probably SDR).

  #include <stdio.h>
  
  int main() {
     
     int firstIndex;
     int secondIndex;
     
     char* semiCryptoCharValues = malloc (1000*sizeof (char));
     
     char realWheelPrints[5][73] = {0};
     char realWheelLengths[5] = {0};
     
     firstIndex = 0;
     
     while (firstIndex < 2*5) {
        
        secondIndex = 0;
        
        while (secondIndex < 73) {
           
           realWheelPrints[firstIndex][secondIndex] = -1;//REFERENCE 1
           
           secondIndex++;
           
        }
        
        firstIndex++;
        
     }
     
     semiCryptoCharValues[0] = 5;//REFERENCE 2
     
  }

Your firstIndex is ranging from 0 to 9 (< 2*5), but it's only allocated up to 4 (char realWheelPrints[5][73]). You are scribbling over unrelated variables on the stack; see the buffer overflow article. --cesarb 21:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..... oh please don't you think I'm that stupid ;.( I have NO IDEA how I could miss that!!!!!! Thanks man! PureRumble 22:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's very common to miss mistakes in your own code. Your brain sees what you think you wrote, not what you actually wrote. One of the best ways to get unstuck when your code doesn't work is to try to explain it to someone else (even if that someone doesn't know about programming!), since having to explain it forces you to think about what the code means (and the person you are showing the code to often can spot the inconsistencies in your code). Other tricks are to go do something else (sometimes even getting up to get a cup of water is enough) and then look again at the problem, and to print the code (I use a2ps for that) and read it on paper.

On a completely unrelated note, I suggest you turn on warnings (-W -Wall); your code has at least three places where the compiler points you are doing something incorrectly. --cesarb 23:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One way to avoid this specific error is to #define the values for the array sizes. This makes it easy if you need to change them. Setting the arrays as = {0} will not set the whole array to zero, probably only the first element. You can use calloc to set memory to zero. You could also use for instead of while to make the code a little clearer. --h2g2bob 03:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, setting it to {0} (or {{0}} for the bidimensional array) does set the whole array to zero. Just look at the code gcc generates with optimization disabled (with optimization enabled, it notices the whole function does nothing useful but call malloc and elides almost all of it):

	leaq	-400(%rbp), %rdi
	movl	$365, %edx
	movl	$0, %esi
	call	memset
	movl	$0, -16(%rbp)
	movb	$0, -12(%rbp)

It's calling memset to zero the first array, and using direct moves to zero the second array. --cesarb 13:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And beyond what any one specific compiler does, the C standard says initializing aggregate types like that must zero any bits not mentioned: § 6.7.8.21 If there are fewer initializers in a brace-enclosed list than there are elements or members of an aggregate, or fewer characters in a string literal used to initialize an array of known size than there are elements in the array, the remainder of the aggregate shall be initialized implicitly the same as objects that have static storage duration. Christ I'm a nerd. :( --TotoBaggins 21:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand well and truly corrected --h2g2bob 00:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How Secure is Vista w/o additional defence?[edit]

Headline says it all. I just got my Vista ultimate installed, though my AV/FW won't install. Though since Vista got both "Defender" and "Windows Firewall" I feel a bit safe. Still, many people feel secure in XP w/o security. But since Vista is so new, there is not any great ways of hacking it? Or? Do I really need any more defence in the comming weeks? 213.64.150.116

You can't really defend yourself against exploits, except keep UAC turned on and make sure you know exactly what's happening when you press Yes. --⁪froth^T 22:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's Windows Update set to? You may be alright now, but if you fall a few security updates behind for a prolonged period of time, you could be in trouble. 68.39.174.238 23:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a firewall/antivirus if: you don't download executables from strange sources, you don't run ActiveX controls from strange sources, you have a router, and you keep on top of updates. Using a non-IE browser can also help. Anything else would have affected you whether or not you have AV/FW protection; i.e. brand new, unpatched browser exploits and the like. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most important thing (for any operating system) is: don't run untrusted code. Unfortunately, that's easier said than done, because in the past Windows has made it very, very easy to run untrusted code. Consequently, lots and lots of expectations have taken root that presume, for all sorts of "ordinary" and allegedly non-dangerous operations, that easy execution of nontrusted code is not only possible but routine. A website wants to let you install their nifty customized toolbar? Sure, no problem, just one click to install it. Some exotic new kind of dynamic webpage content wants you to install the plugin that will let your browser display it? Sure, no problem, just another click. An email message contains an attachment which you need to view? No problem at all, just click it, and whatever needs to happen will happen.

Windows has (rather belatedly) begun inserting various "are you sure" prompts, in an attempt to protect you against untoward consequences from untrusted code (and other content) which you didn't mean to trust. As Froth mentioned above, Vista includes a new subsystem called UAC, and from what I hear, UAC ought to protect you from most malware. Theoretically, Vista ought to be quite secure, right out of the box, as long as UAC is turned on.

Unfortunately, from what I hear, UAC is flawed. Not that it doesn't work, but in that it asks you for confirmation about all sorts of stuff. Consequently, it is very likely that you (or any Vista user) are either going to (a) become annoyed by UAC and turn it off, or (b) become reflexively adjusted to automatically clicking "OK" every time a UAC dialog pops up, without necessarily reading and thinking carefully about every one.

In the past, Windows security depended on every user assessing the safety of every email attachment and every webpage link, and deciding not to click on the dangerous ones, and never making a mistake, because just one wrong click could lead to total pwnage. Tomorrow, it sounds like Windows security is going to depend on every user reading and thinking about the implications of every UAC dialog that pops up, and declining to accept the dangerous ones, and never making a mistake, because just one wrong click could lead to total pwnage. The implications here are left as an exercise for the reader.

External links:

Windows expert Scot Finnie admits that he'll be turning UAC off
Apple's irreverent take on the issue (video, .mov]

—Steve Summit (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's because it doesn't have that weird timer that sudo has on GNU/Linux. You know... how you don't have to type your password twice in 5 minutes. Of course, I'm just guessing. --wj32 ^{talk | contribs} 21:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem with UAC is not that it pops up too often, but that it doesn't give you the information you need to make a meaningful decision. --Carnildo 23:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

outlook[edit]

Is there a way to import all of your messages into outlook 2003 even messages that you already imported into outlook

http programming[edit]

Is there anyway of learning how to do basic http programming, without having to pay a thing? Asics talk 22:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HTTP meaning learning the protocol? As far as I know, the specifications are open/RFC nature. As to what language, there are probably multitudes of free examples that can be used. 68.39.174.238 23:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HTTP is not a programming language. I assume you are referring to HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. There are at least a thousand free tutorials for each on the internet. --Kainaw ^(talk) 23:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you want a program like Apache web server? The technical specifications for HTTP are created by the World Wide Web Consortium, and are here. --h2g2bob 03:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did mean html, that's why I didn't know how to find it, because I was searching for the wrong thing! Thanks again. Asics talk 13:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract images generation[edit]

Hi,
Maybe this question would be better suited on the Misc section, but I'll try here anyway. Does anyone know of the software/techniques which is used to make images like this: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]? Or even a tutorial that could help me start on something like it... Thanks, --Fir0002 01:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try Apophysis, it's one of the best programs for this sort of thing (fractal flames) out there. — Kieff | Talk 02:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Gimp has a lot of extensions for creating random backgrounds and such. --Kainaw ^(talk) 23:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're mathematically inclined, POV-Ray can easily be used to make geometric abstracts. --Carnildo 23:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, haven't had time to test them out but will try soon... --Fir0002 08:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

open proxy[edit]

When i was looking at www.ninjaproxy.net or a site it was linked to I pressed feed and got the open proxy(im not using it now i managed to get off of it and return to my orignal ip) But do i have to pay for the open proxy? sience thay dident say anything about it and dont have a forum whare i could ask them im asking it here on wikipedia?--Crocadog 03:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which website is it? I doubt you will have to pay for the open proxy, unless you gave away personal details. It is almost impossible to track someone on the internet, because the internet provider wouldn't disclose the information without a good reason. --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 04:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i dident give away any personal detales so i wont have to pay for it.--Crocadog 14:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was something you had to pay for, that fact should have been made explicit, and you would have had to agree to it. I can't imagine any company would allow it without securing payment (eg you giving credit card details or something) first, so I wouldn't worry . _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 15:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]