Computing desk
< September 8	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 10 >

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.

September 9[edit]

Business Web Design[edit]

When I hear "business web design" I think of two things: Online market and content management system. I've seen "business web design" as a course listing as multiple universities and read their descriptions. They just reword the title as something like "Professional web design for a business environment." Is it the opinion of the good editors here that online market and content management system covers the topic of business web design? 209.149.113.4 (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the header for the purpose of this forum. We do not honor requests for opinions. If you have references (links to sources of information) we can provide for you, please request that. --Jayron 32 15:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While "opinions" are not for the RD, it seems a reasonable request... but rather for Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can I hack a pocket camera?[edit]

I have a pocket camera whose settings are set automatically. Although it does a good job, sometimes I'd like to set things like exposure time or diaphragm by hand.

Is there a way of starting a different OS on it? It has an sd-card slot and it is a Sony Cybershot. --Llaanngg (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide us with the manufacture name and the model of your camera? Ruslik_Zero 20:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of task is going to be "nearly impossible" unless you have a few advantages:

Do you have detailed knowledge of the hardware, including schematics and blueprints and datasheets?
Do you have expertise in programming other small microcomputers?

If you don't have both of those, it's a near certainty that you won't be able to "hack" the unknown design of a retail-market consumer camera. Perhaps you should consider buying a camera that is specifically designed for programmability?

Here are details of the "Frankencamera", a research project aimed to help users modify the behavior of the Nokia N900 device. Bear in mind that the original team who "hacked" that device (rather, wrote custom software for it) had significant funding (money!!) and support (engineering man-hours!!) from important partners in industry, academia, and the Department of Defense.

One of the best ways to "hack" a camera is to do the following:

Excel in formal academic training, specifically in the areas of physics, mathematics, electronics engineering, and computer science
Seek admission to a research team or research program who have experience working with these sophisticated modern devices
Spend a lot of hours learning how current cameras work, before trying to modify them to do something new.

These devices are incredibly complicated. A recent public statement by Apple's chief of marketing, Phil Schiller, estimated that the vector-processing supercomputer inside an iPhone camera uses 100 billion operations each 25 milliseconds - that's a lot of computation, and if you think you want to hack it, it's worth your time to test your mettle first on a simpler problem!

Nimur (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that changing the firmware can be quite complicated. But as an alternative there is a CHDK (Canon Hack Development Kit) which is a substitute firmware that allows users to customize their cameras. There could also be something like this for my Sony. There are certainly some projects who aspire to produce this, but the ones I found were in their infancy. Or even better, there could exists a kind of live OS that would run in any camera, like a live Cd runs a computer. Although I am afraid that the cameras are way too different from each other, and do not implement a unifying standard. Llaanngg (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bit off topic, about hacking.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

A bit off-topic, I would like to make a few comments on the use of the word, "hacking."

Don't get me wrong - I love model trains as much as the next guy, and I even flew across an ocean just to visit the world's most sophisticated instance... but don't confuse the superficial trappings of "hacker culture" with actual technical skill. Real "makers" spend years learning. "Wannabe" hackers believe in "innate skill" and overnight success - these people have been totally fooled by fictional ideas put forward in Hollywood films. Even the manual for the Canon "Hacker" Developer Kit warns you about this problem: the myth of the CHDK software is an easy-to-use camera tool, while the reality of using that software is, as they phrase it, a lot of hours spent staring at broken, buggy software. This is fun for some people!

There is a reason that "real hackers" like model trains. Something in their brain makes watching a toy choo-choo drive in endless circles absolutely enjoyable. This is the exact same part of the brain that is stimulated by staring at software code for hours - repetitive, subtle, immensely technical, and very little is actually happening visibly. The "magic" is all in your imagination, and in your brain's ability to abstract into all the details. Most people can't do that.

A few people on Wikipedia have personally written to me asking for advice on "hacking" - I sometimes write a lengthy reply when the prospective "hacker" manages to pique my interest in some way. If you read what I've said in the past, I consider "hackery" to be the sign of sloppy workmanship. Hacking is something you should be embarrassed about when you must do it - it is never something to be proud of. I prefer to think of the etymology in the sense of the pejorative - "hack" - low quality, sloppy, rushed work.

I spend a great deal of time programming software for cameras. Unfortunately, more time than I would like must be spent chasing down other people and holding them accountable for their low-quality, sloppy, rushed work. These people are hackers, of a sort, and their career prospects are sometimes cut short, after I unleash my wrath upon them and hold them accountable for the software-quality that they produce. If you work with me and my cameras, do not "hack": you won't last long. I do not hold such "hackers" in high regard.

Sometimes, people use the word "hack" to mean reverse-engineering, and especially to mean malicious reverse-engineering. I spend an unfortunate amount of time acting preventatively to keep those hackers at bay. Most of the time I succeed. Sometimes, they get the slip on me, and when I fail to prevent their effort, it (occasionally) makes the news. Let it be known - I do not hold that type of hacker in high regard, either.

Surprisingly few people take the time to "hack" in the proper sense of the word - producing the kind of detailed, careful technical work that people like me aspire toward. This type of "hacker" is more likely to spend their days meticulously grooming their toy train set, than trying to backdoor somebody else's - because it's about detail and perfection and technical excellence, and these are all skills that are far more important than busting up somebody else's work with a debugger.

So: if you're an up-and-coming software programmer, that's great! Learn everything you can about your computer, and electronics, and math theory, but spend some time building your own toys before you really try to take somebody else's toy apart. This is a mindset that will make you better at building cameras, if that's what you want to do.

Nimur (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there alternative firmware or reengineerable firmware upgrade avail. Does the CPU have a diagnoes or debug port? Did somebody this before? Yes? It can save huge amount of time, but know anything You do can make the camera become less useful. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 10:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google sign-in[edit]

Using 'Edge' browser in Windows 10. When I sign in to Google, with "Remember me" switched off, then open a different website in a new tab, then close the Google tab, then reopen google.com, I am still signed in to Google. However, when I close the whole browser and restart, then go back to google.com, I am signed out. How does Google distinguish these cases? How does it know whether I shut down the whole browser or just its own tabs? (Please note that I am not asking for advice about which browser to use, nor seeking advice to switch to a different browser or operating system. Thanks.) 81.152.193.175 (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you sign in to something in your browser, the site you're signing in to sets a session cookie. Your browser then sends this cookie along whenever it talks to that site. This is how the site identifies you. Google doesn't actually "know" whether you closed a tab or whatever. It just sees whatever cookies your browser sends it. Browsers are generally configured by default to keep cookies around until they expire. This expiration time is set by the site, and can be far in the future. Cookies can also be set to expire at the end of a browser session. This is what happens if you don't select the "Remember me" option. Your Google session cookie stays around until you close the browser. Closing a tab doesn't do anything because the browser authors didn't program it that way. (What actually happens under the hood is the cookie isn't written to disk, unlike "permanent" cookies. It's just stored in the browser's memory. When the browser process terminates, the cookie disappears along with everything else in the process memory.) In some browsers you can modify this behavior by installing browser extensions. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your very helpful reply. 109.146.248.82 (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]