Computing desk
< September 5	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 7 >

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 6

Turing

I wanna learn the basics of programing on turing. Can anyone recommend a good starting online tutorial or help. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.52.228 (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Turing machine. There is no tutorial for programming one because, in general, they do not really exist. Models are built from time to time just for fun. Under normal circumstances, they are theoretical devices used in fields such as discrete mathematics and automata theory. -- kainaw™ 02:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The questioner may have been talking about Turing (programming language) — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 02:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, my question is about the "Turing (programming language)". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.133.237 (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Turing article has pointers to a variety of tutorials. This one says it's for people with no prior programming experience. --Sean 13:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

iPod and itunes

should I play songs bought from itunes in my iPod or can I play any mp3 file in my computer in iPod? What is the case in other company players like Zune and creative and samsung mp3 player? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.141.253 (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can add any mp3 on your computer to your iTunes library, which will add it to your iPod when you sync. You don't have to buy music from the iTunes store at all if you don't want to. Other players won't be able to play songs bought from the iTunes store (except maybe iTunes Plus files, if the player supports AAC), but they'll be able to play mp3s from your computer. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 11:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can however generally convert files into a compatible format; not always easy if DRM is involved as Matt said. --jjron 08:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Windows Live Messenger or live.com is working for me

I haven't been able to log into Windows Live Messenger all day and now I'm not able to even go to live.com. Can someone who's not me go there to see whether they have some sort of problems with their server or something (although that seems unlikely) so that I can be sure the problem is on my end. Thanks! --Oskar 13:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My live messenger has been logging out sporadically this past week too, I assume they're having some problems. Capuchin 14:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Malaysia and I have no problem accessing either. Though the Internet Traffic Monitor says that traffic around the world is relatively slow at the moment. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you are from Sweden and having Telia as your ISP this IDG article] may interest you. You just have to wait until the ISPs fix this problem. Jeltz talk 14:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is also likely that users of other Swedish ISPs and maybe even ISPs in other countries that peer with Telia may experience the same problems. For example Com Hem is affected too. Jeltz talk 14:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's it! I can't access any microsoft website (I'm using Com Hem, which uses Telia's network) although I haven't had any problems with other sites (wikipedia obviously works). I guess I'll turn on TOR or something in the meantime. --Oskar 14:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it works now! Cool. --Oskar 15:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Hat Linux update

I'm running red hat linux on my computer. I see an icon on my task bar in the form of a red exclamation mark. When I click it, the OS starts to update. Then I get an error saying my system is not entitled. How do I make my system entitled? Should I pay for my updates? Is there any other easy way for me to update my system? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.136.62 (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beats me! --69.150.163.1 21:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC) User:Kushal_one[reply]

Why you would pay for anything in the first place I have no idea. Details? Splintercellguy 22:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely your entitlement has expired. You will not be able to use the Redhat services to upgrade or install packages until you pay for an entitlement. If you are unwilling to pay for software updates, you could always switch to using CentOS, which will give you nearly the same packages, but you're not paying for service or support entitlements. -- JSBillings 13:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How did type I error in hypothesis testing come be known as "false positive"?

The Wikipedia article on type I error, as well as numerous Google search results, refers to type I errors as "false positives". This appears to run counter the common-sense interpretation of the latter. How did "false positive" come to be equated with type I error? --64.236.170.228 19:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently your notion of common sense clashes with mine. —Tamfang 20:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Because, well, you think you've got a positive result, but it's, um, false. I'm not sure how that goes against common sense. Are you sure you haven't misread what the article is trying to say? The definition given is not the easiest one to follow by far, but at least the example given would seem fairly reasonable:

For example, a test saying a woman is pregnant when she is actually not pregnant is an example of a false positive.

Or do you in fact find that somehow counterintuitive? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this clarification: the "positive" comes from the fact that the obtained answer is a "positive" one, e.g., "the test says she is pregnant". The "false" is because the answer is wrong. Perhaps looking at its opposite will help: the test saying a woman (who is indeed pregnant) is not pregnant is known as a false negative. Hope this helps. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Basic menu Click() event

I am trying to write a calculator program in Visual Basic and I would like to have a main menu like those that are common in Windows programs (File, Edit, View, etc.) Anyway, I can't figure out how to handle the MenuItem_Click() event and I can't get a subroutine to handle a click on any item in any of the menus. I tried to figure it out using the help files that came with Visual Studio 2005 (my development software) and the files in the MSDN database, but I keep banging my head against a wall.

Does anyone either know how to program this event, or have some sample source code (maybe from projects of your own.) that demonstrate how to handle the Click() event on a MenuItem? A sample in any programming language would be appreciated.

Here is the code I tried; it's supposed to change the size of the items in the form:

 Public Sub getMenu()
    Dim MenuStrip1 As New MainMenu()        
    Dim mnuView As New MenuItem()       
    Dim mnuView_large As New MenuItem()
    Dim mnuView_small As New MenuItem()     
    mnuView_small.Text = "Small Buttons"
    mnuView_large.Text = "Large Buttons"
    mnuView.MenuItem.Add(mnuView_small)
    mnuView.MenuItems.Add(mnuView_large)
    MenuStrip1.MenuItems.Add(mnuView)
    AddHandler mnuView_small.Click, AddressOf Me.mnuView_small_Click        
    Me.Menu = MenuStrip
 End Sub
 Private Sub Form_Load(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles MyBase.Load
    Call getMenu()
 End Sub
 Private Sub mnuView_large_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles mnuView_large.Click
    If Me.FontHeight = 8 Then
        mnuView_large.Checked = True
        mnuView_small.Checked = False
        Me.FontHeight = 12
    Else
        Exit Sub
    End If
 End Sub
 Private Sub mnuView_small_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles mnuView_small.Click
    If Me.FontHeight = 12 Then
        mnuView_small.Checked = True
        mnuView_large.Checked = False
        Me.FontHeight = 8
    Else
        Exit Sub
    End If
 End Sub

Again, any and all advice will be greatly appreciated. 69.205.180.123 20:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and look at one of my old projects in VB.NET and see if I can figure it out. In the meantime I see a probable typo in your code:

    mnuView.MenuItem.Add(mnuView_small)
    mnuView.MenuItems.Add(mnuView_large)
    MenuStrip1.MenuItems.Add(mnuView)

Not that you have added to MenuItem the first time, and MenuItems the second and third. Not sure which is right, but they ought to be the same... --24.147.86.187 22:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibiting image downloads

Is there a simple way to show images on a web page but keep people from saving them to their hard drives? Basically, I'm setting up a small photography web site for my wife and she'd like to keep people from taking her photos. They're not high res or anything but still doesn't like the idea of them just being right clicked and saved en masse. Dismas|^(talk) 20:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a word, no. If they can see it, they can save it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(after EC) You can put up roadblocks, but there really is no effective way. I think IE lets you mark an image as downloadable, but Firefox just laughs at that setting. And a person can just do a screen print anyway. --LarryMac | Talk 20:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some image hosting places do a referrer thing, so that only their site can put it up (that is, only transmit the correct image if the referrer in the HTTP header is some specified server). I'm not sure if that will work to stop the right-click, Save Image As function, but it might. You can fool those if you're tricky, and as LarryMac said, nothing can stop a screen-grab --Oskar 20:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just tried that in firefox and it doesn't work. Sorry, you'll have to live with the pain. --Oskar 21:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could add a watermark or something similar, as a deterrent. --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 21:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding upon my earlier answer, what you want is essentially Digital Rights Management. That article should do a reasonable job of explaining why it doesn't work very well, not even when you're a major movie studio with astronomical amounts of money to throw at it. There are ways in which you could make saving the images more difficult, possibly enough that most people would not bother. Unfortunately, creating such obstacles tends to be rather difficult in itself, and they also tend to easily interfere with legitimate viewing. Ultimately, the fact is that there's very little difference between viewing and downloading, so it's hard to stop one but not the other. And a determined person will always be able to work around any protection schemes, if only via the analog hole. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put a watermark on the bottom that links back to the website and has her name on it. Then if anyone does re-use them they'll be advertising for you. Don't worry so much about a few people causally saving photos to their desktop. Professional photo services (CORBIS, Getty Images) can't stop that from happening and they have a lot more to lose from it. --24.147.86.187 22:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can at least put a statement on the page where you show the pictures about the copyright, and also inlcude the copyright in the images them selves. This will discourage a few. On the way to make it difficult to save, you could break the image into 16 little tiles and then assemble it on the screen in the html. But there is way to stop it completely! Graeme Bartlett 23:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could separate the image into 16x16 grids and have 256 little blocks so you can't save them as easily, but that still doesn't fare well with the screen captures and website retrievers. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the response before have let the perfect be the enemy of the close enough for jazz. I was tasked with something similar for a photography site dinesfavorites.com. You can view source on the page to see what was done, but the short answer is that I overlaid each of the pictures with a transparent gif scaled large enough to cover the photo. It won't prevent someone from doing a view source to get the picture url, but it keeps the casual user from stealing the picture. As an aside, I was pointed at onemodelplace.com as a site which had some protections for images. When I tried to see what was there, though, I kept getting model pages with nude photos, much to my embarrassment (looking at the site recently, they've done a big redesign on how photos are presented... in any event, I ended up using a different method than the onemodelplace technique since what I did do didn't require a lot of heavyweight javascript). Donald Hosek 00:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Dines's photographs are lovely, but the protection is pathetic. If they were larger images, I would now have some beautiful nature for my desktop in less than 30 seconds. Nor was a "view source" required. The bottom line remains: if you can see it you can save it. Use a little common sense; to display the image on your monitor, your computer must have the image data in its memory.

Instead, try using the images as teasers and free advertising. If someone likes the image and looks at it again and again with a name and a Web address, eventually they or someone looking over their shoulder may come to buy. Artists want their work to be seen, and they want to make a living; tempting images with ad text can help do both. The aesthetic challenge is how to overlay the ad text without violating the integrity of the image. --KSmrq^T 21:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I never claimed to have strong protection (personally I think that the pictures are way over-priced and would never buy them... in fact, that particular site was put up because nobody was' buying them!). Just something good enough to keep a casual thief from taking pictures off the site. If it's viewable, it can be downloaded. This provides a relatively low cost way to keep the pictures from being taken from a casual thief. Donald Hosek 00:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just visited your site, casually clicked the "disable CSS" button, and saved the image to my hard drive. No big deal. --Carnildo 21:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As said above, you want DRM. This is wrong, and thankfully it's quite impossible. You want the user's computer to process the image but only in a way that you find acceptable.. unfortunately for you it's their computer and they have control over it. If you're not already discouraged by all these people who know what they're talking about telling you it's technically impossible, consider it on moral grounds. --⁪froth^t 03:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that visitors can only view an image after they have downloaded it (thinking the two are separate is a common mistake). In msWindows, they would be placed under 'temporary internet files', which I have on occasion used as workaround to save 'downloadprotected' images. DirkvdM 09:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting windows licence from installed windows

I (well, family members who won't run anything but) have two Windows XP Home machines. One install has been corrupted and needs to be reinstalled. But I don't know which license is installed on which machine. The serial number shown in the "system" control panel applet of the surviving machine doesn't bear any resemblance to an XP license. Is there a way to dig a license out of a windows install (even a digit or two will be enough to let me figure out which to use). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Jellybean Keyfinder? Splintercellguy 22:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USB Flash drive giving me flack

I just bought a Sandisk U3 Cruzer Micro USB 2GB flash drive. It came with all sorts of U3 software nonsense on it that not only I didn't want, but I couldn't even use anyway (I run a Mac). After poking around I found a U3 removal utility (http://www.u3.com/uninstall/), and ran it from Parallels (a Windows XP virtualizer). Well, it ran for awhile, then locked up, then crashed. Great. Now I can't use the drive for anything — the Mac OS X Disk Utility thinks it has no partitions and is not writable. In Windows it thinks it has zero drive space free and zero drive spaced used.

I have nothing on the disk, I want to wipe it and reformat it as a single partition. What's the easiest way to do this at this point? I'm immensely irritated with this U3 nonsense (it mounts a fake CD drive when you put it in and then launches all sorts of software—not exactly what one expects from a blank USB drive, and it makes it incompatible with some of the hardware I need to use it with at that) and that it is taking so much time to just wipe this thing.

Disk Utility (OS X) doesn't seem to be able to do it; I tried using the old FORMAT from the DOS command prompt but it gives me "Error in IOCTL call" as a message in response. Blah. The drive mounts, and I can view its driver properties just fine, but I can't wipe it. Arrggg. --24.147.86.187 22:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK... nevermind! In removing it and putting in back in a few times it now let me erase and re-partition it in Disk Utility. Phew. WTF. I love it when hardware developers decide to "make things easy" for you by adding junk you never asked for. Just what I wanted, a USB drive pre-loaded with SKYPE and other things that I could have obtained if I had really wanted them! Hey, loading up an OS with extra, unwanted junk worked so well for Windows, why not apply the model everywhere!! --24.147.86.187 22:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psst, blame the software developers. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psst, the software developers probably have little to do with it. Blame the product managers, the marketers, the sales department, and all the higher-ups who instigated and approved it. David 10:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that U3 may not be for everyone but I use a U3 flashdrive and find it incredibly useful. The apps on it are more stable than most portable programs I use and, despite the odd problem I encounter on the school network I use it on, the U3 apps are very handy. I understand why you might be frustrated by it but U3's not all bad

Mix Lord 12:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the sort of thing I think should be an option to install, not an option to remove. They shouldn't assume I want such a thing, or want it to set up an unwritable partition that pops up every time it is installed, and doesn't even work on my system anyway. Additionally I find it irritating when removable media comes pre-loaded with software — the point is supposed to be that it is blank media, not that it has 20 MB of stuff already on it that is set to auto-launch on insertion. It is a bad approach. If you want to make a useful, "killer app", do so, get the word out, put advertising all over the package; but don't install it automatically. --24.147.86.187 14:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also had a sandisk cruzer, and the attitude was just palpable in the software that the developers wanted to give you every possible opportunity to uninstall U3 and the only reason it was preinstalled was because their bosses told them. IIRC one of the auto-execced U3 apps that popped up when I put it in for the first time was actually a U3-signed version of the U3 uninstall utility! --⁪froth^t 03:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which Java ORM?

What's the best of the open-source Java ORM libraries out there (I've seen this list already). How do they compare in terms of stability, adoption, power and ease of use? Or perhaps, most importantly, which would be most helpful on my resume? Donald Hosek 23:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Word 2007 with 2003

Is there anyway I can open a Word 2007 document in the .XML format if I only have Word 2003? Could I open it with IE or Firefox and then just copy and paste the content into Word 2003? Thanks. Acceptable 23:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try this — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 00:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have information about Macs and opening Office 2007 .docx files in Macbook with MS Office 2004? --16:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushal one (talk • contribs)

There's an opener on the Microsoft website.

Atlant 22:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]