Computing desk
< November 30	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 2 >

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.

December 1

Table width

Hi, a simple HTML question. Is there a parameter that modifies "cell padding/spacing" on width only? On List of compositions by Sergei Rachmaninoff I wish to have about 4px horizontal space between cells, but I don't want this huge space vertically. ALTON .ıl 00:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, I don't think so. What you'd probably do is do it via CSS and modify the padding-left and padding-right of each cell itself, but without the ability to modify the CSS for the whole page you'd probably have to modify the style attribute of each cell, which would be a real pain. Maybe someone can think of a better way. --24.147.86.187 01:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can apply styles to the table as a whole, if that's what you mean. But anyhow I don't think I'll need it. Thanks for your help. ALTON .ıl 01:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I meant. You can't apply styles to specifically all the cells in the table (not the table as a whole—they are different things, the difference between applying a style to the TABLE element and to the TD elements) individually without being able to edit the page's base CSS or create your own classes, which you won't be able to do for Wikipedia articles. --24.147.86.187 17:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

synchronize firefox bookmarks

I would like to be able to synchronize bookmarks across multiple computers. I tried to do this a while ago using a Google product, but found that I really didn't care for everything else that was installed along side the bookmark synchronizing. I have seen a plug-in called Foxmarks that looks good but I don't care for the vagueness of its privacy policy. Is there an easy way to do this on my own? I'm thinking that the browser could download the xml file when it starts, then upload and overwrite when it closes. Thanks Man It's So Loud In Here 01:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Booksmarks is a simple HTML file (bookmarks.html). Assuming you have some web hosting somewhere you could write a wrapper script around Firefox that does a put/get as you describe. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do I accomplish this? I don't want you to write the script for me, I just know nothing about this. Do I need to use a scripting language (I hear a lot of people talk about perl) or is it just the language used by the command prompt. Thanks. Man It's So Loud In Here 16:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Trail

why cant I run the computer game The Oregon Trail on my windows vista computer? Any ideas on how to make it so I can run it?

Our The Oregon Trail (computer game) indicates that it was written for DOS in 1992. For stuff that old DOSBox may be the best option. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the original Oregon Trail game you want to play (rather than one of the sequels), you might want to try getting the Apple II version, and running it on an emulator. I've got a copy that runs just find under Windows XP on AppleWin. Obviously, I can't tell you where to download a copy of the game itself, but it isn't difficult to find. --Noodhoog 03:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Port 666

If I use Whats Running 2.2 to display running IP Processes, I note an ongoing attempt to connect local IP 127.0.0.1 to Remote IP 127.0.0.1 using local port 666. The attempt tries to connect to remote port 1, and when this fails attempts to connect to remote port 2, then 3, then 4, and so on - it continues ad infinitum into the 1000's. I know that 127.0.0.1 refers to my own machine, so can somebody please advise what is going on here ? I am fairly sure that it isn't malware due to the fact that I use a good updated Internet Security package, not to mention that malware would be attempting to connect to a remote computer ??? Google indicates that port 666 is used by games such as Doom, however I do not have such game installed on my system. If this is an innocuous thing that I can ignore what about resource utilisation - is this process slowing down my system in anyway and how do I stop it ? Thank you ! --Dr snoobab 04:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doom uses 666 as port for incoming connections. The port used for an outgoing connection is usually assigned automatically by the operating system at random from the pool of available ports and bears no significance. You have a process on your system that perfoms a full portscan. Perhaps it *is* your security package, that regularly performs this scan to check for installed backdoors? You can see which process initiates the scan using for example http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/Networking/TcpView.mspx.

Thunderbid attachment problems

We are using Thunderbird at work. It was running through a Linksys Broadband 4 port hub and is now running through a Netgear PVS318v3 Broadband ProSafe VPN Firewall 8 port hub/switch. Something is causing a problem with attachments larger than 500-600 kB. It appears to be working but then says that it's unable to send. If we disconnect the router and run directly then any size attachment will be sent. The problem is that there are only two of us who can disconnect/reconnect the router properly and as of Monday the entire airport (not just our two computers) will be running through the router. I tried using Opera on my USB key and that had no problems, so we may have to change clients but if anyone can suggest a solution we could continue using Thunderbird. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps lower the MTU on the router. --131.215.166.209 23:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that helped a bit. We can now send 700 kB files but still nothing larger. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah problem solved. A combination of reducing the MTU and upping the timeout settings on Thunderbird solved it. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is nice to hear that ... --Kushal^t 17:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can I import bookmarks to Firefox from Navigator 9.0.0.1 ?

Yet another Firefox question -- and I'm not just wanting to import bookmarks but my proxy server info, passwords, auto-form fill stuff, all that stuff that I have spent forever accumulating.

On Firefox the dropdown menu only offers to import things from Safari. (I am on Mac OSX 10.4.11)

I went here: Import Bookmarks but it doesn't have Navigator unless Navigator is now called AOL (since according to the Wiki AOL bought Netscape out).

Just hating on the new Facebook fascism and I have always passionately hated AOL. I used to have Mozilla Chimera which I loved, and Opera for awhile but for some reason Firefox never retained my information in boxes like comments or email (or this box that I am typing in *right now* when I would go forwards or backwards in the browser history and that got frustrating. So, if you know how to solve that problem that would help too.

Nota bene: I am STOOPID when it comes to computers -- as stupid as this girl is about Hungary.

Merci d'avance. Saudade7 15:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try going to (Whatever menu "File" is on System 10) > Import... and see what they listed there? It should autodetect and work with Navigator since that's (for it) fairly easy. 68.39.174.238 04:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alas the only thing that shows up there is Safari. I downloaded some kind of file that was supposed to help ferry the information across but it didn't seem to so anything. Thanks for helping (again). By the way,68.39.174.238, on your page as far as registering an IP, I voted for you to do anything you like in the "It's none of my business" column. Your reluctance makes me imagine that you are actually a famous academic or spy or something. Saudade7 05:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something like Wikipedia that you can download onto your computer...

While I'm at it...

I am writing my dissertation and I think it would be really helpful if I had something exactly like Wikipedia that was just mine on my personal computer, that I could create pages on and hyperlink from one thing to another and store images and bibliographic info on etc. Of course I cannot just use the real Wiki because nothing I would store there would be perfectly formatted or written or seem "notable" enough to the public.

I tried Filemaker Pro 8.5 which was a piece of crap. I like the Wiki because it is so minimalistic and uncluttered visually...and it WORKS! I'm on Mac OS X 10.4.11. I'm sure if I was a programmy type of person this would be easy to make, but I am an art historian, alas. Also, would it take up a lot of space on my hard drive? I would be willing to pay for something like this (but I am not wealthy). Maybe someone could write it and package it like those people used to package Linux - even though it was open source some people needed someone else to do it for them. I am sure the Wiki code is open source, no? Or is this already available somewhere? Thanks in advance. Saudade7 16:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki, the software behind Wikipedia, needs to be installed on a server with some other applications. TWiki for Windows Personal can be run from your PC quite readily or it can be installed to a memory stick.[1] --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Wiki on a stik using MediaWiki, but I have never tried it. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now, being an art historian doesn't mean you can't be a programmer!! There's nothing more silly than technophobia in the humanities. In any case, yes—FileMaker Pro is pretty much a piece of crap. (I've never met a FileMaker Pro database that I didn't hate and think could have been better done in some other software for probably half the effort and twice the payoff.)

My recommendation, since you have OS X, is to install PHP and then install MySQL and then you can install MediaWiki into your "Sites" folder and run it off of your local server (which you can enable by going to System Preferences > Sharing > enable Personal Web Sharing). You'd access it in a browser just like you do Wikipedia on the web, except the address will be something like "http://127.0.0.1/~yourosxusername/MediaWiki/" or whatever. Installing these things on OS X is pretty easy to do, in part because you already will have Apache running in the background (though you don't know it) and OS X makes integrating these sorts of things pretty straightforward. It won't take up much space on your harddrive other than all of the stuff you put into it. --24.147.86.187 17:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And just to add to this, for the sake of clarifying the techie jargon—MediaWiki is a program written in the language PHP that runs wikis (the same program used by Wikipedia). PHP is a language which requires an interpreter (another type of program) which needs to run off of your Apache server, which is most likely already installed by default on OS X. Apache is a web server that takes in requests from browsers and spits out web pages in response. MySQL is a database program that MediaWiki uses (via PHP) to store its information. The links I've put up above should take you to the installations that will both work best for your system as well as be easy to install (they all have little installing scripts if I recall). So it looks like a lot to work with but give it a shot; you can't go too wrong and if you hit a snag let us know. --24.147.86.187 17:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had good luck with Oddmuse and MoinMoin wiki software. Oddmuse has very similar syntax to Wikipedia, but MoinMoin isn't very different, and has a "desktop" version or package that is meant for a single user. Neither one provides quite as much eye candy as MediaWiki. The Photon 18:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try WikidPad (http://www.jhorman.org/wikidPad/).. I haven't personally used it, but it looks pretty nice, and is open source. It's basically a notepad-meets-wiki type of thing. There's also ZuluPad Free Edition (http://www.gersic.com/zulupad/), which is Windows only.--Monorail Cat 21:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

=:¦:-·:*'""*:·.-:¦:-·*MeRcI BeAuCoUp*·-:¦:-·:*""'*:·-:¦:==:¦:-·:*'""*:·.-:¦:-·*MeRcI BeAuCoUp*·-:¦:-·:*""'*:·-:¦:=

Wow! Thanks — Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - , 24.147.86.187, The Photon, and Monorail Cat, (I hope I got everybody...hard to see all those embeddy things),

I didn't even know I had Apache (?!?) so I will try that suggestion first. To 24.147.86.187 , thanks for the vote of confidence, but it took my boyfriend (ex) like 7 years to finally teach me the difference between RAM and ROM! Granted he used lots of perplexing metaphors like something about secretaries and the Endoplasmic reticulum... I *am* actually really good at math and symbolic logic, but I just don't think I could ever learn to write code!

It would be great if I could get one of these suggestions to work. I am afraid that first I am going to have to burn some things onto DVDs and save them into my external hard drive because I only have 3 gigs left on my laptop and must free-up some space -- once that's done I will try out these suggestions and let you know how they worked. I have entirely too much music!

Thanks again. (I was going to check back in 4 days as per the banner caveat) but you guys are so faaasssttt! Saudade7 00:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the fact that you've already got a million answers, you could use a program like wget and spider the whole site, downloading it to a server/your computer. YДмΔќʃʀï^→Г_C← 12-3-2007 • 02:14:17

If you couldn't understand the difference between RAM and ROM - it CERTAINLY wasn't your fault - it was your teacher. "RAM is computer memory that you can both read from and write to. ROM is memory that you can read from but cannot write to." ...that's it - how could that possibly be difficult? It certainly doesn't require analogies! If you can do math - you can certainly learn to program...and you SHOULD learn because computers are a part of our lives and people who can program them are able to get VASTLY more out them than people who can't. Buy a copy of "Java for Dummies" or "Java in 24 hours" (it means 24 one hour lessons - not one day!) or one of those books that are less than an inch thick. Download and install Eclipse and you'll be writing programs within a few days. It's like poetry though - anyone can learn to write it - but it'll take you 20 years to get good at it...but that's par for the course.

SteveBaker 22:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does PS3 memory slot support SDHC?

I was curious if anyone knew if the PS3's memory slots supported high capacity formats like SDHC? --72.202.150.92 19:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answer seems to be a "no". Please see Playstation_3#Differences. I don't have a PS3 so a more authoritative answer is welcome, though. Remember, WP:NOR does not apply to the reference desks, so feel free to add your own experiences ... --Kushal^t 17:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory search of the PS3 help on Sony with the keyword "SDHC" delivered no results. However, you can always use the previous format SC cards which are getting cheaper all the time. --Kushal^t 22:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But they can't hold a DVD's worth of data :) --24.249.108.133 (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3D Modeling Software Using Human or Humanlike Scanned Images

What is the easiest to use and most cost effective 3D Modeling Software that I can use scanned 2D images of existing human or humanlike figures with ? I would like to scan already existing figures to edit to my specifications. The software must also allow for very detailed work with facial features,clothing and weapons. Klstm 22:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd be really, really surprised if there was software that let you take a simple 2D image and make it into a 3D image as complicated as an articulated human form. Usually with this sort of thing you have to make the model itself (either from scratch or from a template) and then create the various textures for the model (face, clothing, whatever) and put them on surfaces of the model. Things like "weapons" would require making entirely new models and textures. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you want, or drastically underestimating how far 3D modeling technology has come, but it sounds really unlikely to me that you're going to be able to do this in a simple way. --24.147.86.187 22:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very common 3D modeling process is to take 2D images of an object (usually a top view, side view, and front view) into a 3D modeling program, then build a 3D object by using those images for reference. As almost any but the most basic 3D programs will let you do this, there are plenty of options for which software to use - what works best for you will depend on exactly how you want to go about modeling, the features you require in the software, and which operating system you are running. Since you mentioned 'cost effective' though, it doesn't get much more cost effective than free. Several commercial 3D programs are available for free with reduced functionality (for example Gmax or Maya Personal Learning Edition). There are also open source options such as Blender. Tutorials for laying out and modeling from 2D images in these, and many other programs, can be easily found via Google. --Monorail Cat 22:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, having read 24.147.86.187's reply, I may have misunderstood what the OP was asking. If you're looking for software to automatically convert a set of 2D photos to a 3D model, then your options are limited. There are various programs that can do this (to find some, try googling for 'photo to 3D model'), but it is by nature a rather inaccurate process, which generally results in relatively low quality models, or at least needs a lot of work to get looking good. I would still recommend the '3D modeling from blueprints' approach I outlined above - although it can take quite a bit of work, it is capable of producing extremely good, even photorealistic results. --Monorail Cat 22:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are tools to take some photos of an object and reconstruct the shape - but they don't work for shapes with complicated undercuts and such - like a human being for example. They also don't work for casually posed photos - if there is any chance whatever that the object moved between front and side (and top/bottom) shots then they'll produce bizarrely distorted shapes...and for a human, that effectively means you need to take the photos simultaneously. Furthermore, they depend on the lighting being done right - again, this requires a fairly professional setup.

The means you do this automatically is to use some kind of 3D scanner or to take thousands of photoe (eg with a video camera) and use some of the cutting edge software that can recover camera positions automatically. This is pretty exotic stuff - and you certainly don't get it with basic off-the-shelf software. There are packages such as (for example) "Make Human" (for Blender) that will generate a naked human form (sans 'naughty bits') using a bunch of sliders and check-boxes that you can play with interactively to make the generated character look basically like your photos. You still need to hand-model clothing, weapons or anything else. This is NOT by any means an automatic process - it takes actual human skill.

I actually built a 3D scanner from a video camera, a laser pointer and some Lego...but scaling it up to human-size is non-trivial. I documented it rather carefully on my website here: http://www.sjbaker.org/projects/scanner/ - but it still has problems with complicated shapes that a professional scanner doesn't have.

My job is in video games graphics - if there was a 'press a button' way to make this happen more cheaply and easily than modelling humans by hand - we'd be using it.

SteveBaker 00:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone apparently has built a tool that can automatically build a 3D model of a face from a still photograph. See [2]. --64.236.170.228 18:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - faces aren't too bad (especially if you cheat and ignore the hair as they are doing) - it's legs and arms that cause the problems. SteveBaker 21:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]