Computing desk
< December 21	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 23 >

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 22

Playstation emulation glitch

My copy of "The Misadventures of Tron Bonne" freezes whenever I get past the blue Reaverbot in the intro stage. The freeze is just the emulator's screen goes black. (Also, I ripped it to an IMG file to play it on the computer if the format makes any difference.) 71.220.220.198 (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What emulator are you using? SN0WKITT3N 11:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both ePSXe and pSX. They both had the same failure. 71.220.223.101 (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emulators do this all the time because they are not exactly like the real console. There is no fix other than getting a real PlayStation or hoping the developer of the emulator addresses the problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Webcam/digital camera

I have a few questions: 1) Can webcams be bought for cheap, and how can I acquire a decent one for cheap? I'm tech savvy enough to know how to do things, so I don't need extra gadgets where I could accomplish something in software anyway. 2) Do digital cameras usually have webcams attached? And are the prices significantly higher? Thanks all. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung is my favourite brand, I personally use an S730 which I find to be particularly good both value and quality wise (some of my pictures, for reference on how good it actually is, are here), and most medium quality or above cameras will not have webcam functionality. — neuro^(talk) 12:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both Logitech and Microsoft (and probably a bunch of others) have WebCam's that you can pick up for $25 new - or less on eBay. "Decent" is a relative term. Webcams (by definition) are intended to send video over the web - as such you don't need (and don't generally get) super high resolution. The $25 web cams produce reasonable images at poor resolution (640x480 maybe). Higher end digital cameras are not generally designed to 'stream' video. They capture it into memory locally. You might find a digital camera that can do it - but it's far from normal - and they'll generally cost you much more because they have to be built to consume very little battery power (a webcam can take as much as it needs), to produce super-high resolution (most digital cameras can do at least 3 megapixels - a webcam is typically only called upon to do half a megapixel), to store that in flash memory, to have a viewfinder and LCD viewer...a bunch of things that a basic webcam doesn't need and doesn't have. SteveBaker (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions on a specific webcam then? I'm willing to purchase over net or at Walmart/Target. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually when you talk about webcam, there's 2 different meanings, firstly something that will upload images regularly to a webpage every few seconds, and secondly something that can be used for video chat. Most digital cameras will support the former (my old Fuji FinePix could and I think most Canons can though I've not tried mine). However, streaming video for video chat is different, and they will not do that. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digital camera 'hack'..........

I read somewhere that there was a 'hack' for those disposable camcorders. I`d like to know if there`s a somewhat related 'hack' for a digital camera. I have a "Concord Duo LCD" 1.3 megapixel camera and I`d like to be able to 'lock' the 'shutter' open to take long exposures, astrographs, through my telescope. If someone knows about such a hack, please let me know. I`d be very appreciative. Thank you ahead of time. Dave64.230.233.197 (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.ogg files

Hi, I have a MacBook with OSX Leopard and I cannot play .ogg audio files. Whenever I click a link to a .ogg file on a Wikipedia page (or elsewhere) the browser asks me what program I want to use to play the file but I do not seem to have a program installed that can play the file. Also, shouldn't the file be able to play from within my browser? Cheers, Joe^Talk_Work 05:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can either download and install Xiph.Org's QuickTime Components, or you can install VLC. --wj32 ^t/c 05:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wj32. I installed the QT components and I already had VLC (but didn't know I could use it with .oggs) so now I have programs I can open .oggs with. But is there any way I can get them to open within my browser (i.e. Firefox)? Cheers, Joe^Talk_Work 04:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For now until Firefox 3.1 is released (supports .ogg natively without a need of other applications/plugins), do what I'm forced to do and download each .ogg file. Now I don't understand when you say that VLC can't open .ogg... of course it can! What version of VLC are you using? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.11.222 (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, 99, I meant that I already have VLC installed but only now (after Wj32's answer above) realise that I can use it to open .ogg files. But that is very good news about Firefox 3.1 having native support for .ogg files, I hadn't heard about that feature! Joe^Talk_Work 12:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PSP EMULATOR

IS there any psp emulator available for pc.Actually I don't like playing through remotes and want to play GOW on my pc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.16.64.198 (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potemkin (emulator). SN0WKITT3N 11:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that such emulators are still in early development, and still isn't capable of playing most, if not all PSP titles. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XNA ignorace

220.225.242.194 (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)harshagg Why XNA is ignored while it is good it works on xbox 360 even and using 2D texture file is also easy in that while in opengl even creating a small car will take much of coding.MY friend is studying on opengl basics and I XNA and he could make a 3D car and I had made 2D track game(not long trak though) or it is a way that handling 3D in openGL is easy than XNA[reply]

Hi! I'm a professional computer games programmer - I've been doing 3D graphics for close to 30 years. XNA is crap.

Use OpenGL (or, if you are absolutely, utterly certain that you never want to run on anything other than Windows or XBox - you might consider Direct3D). The 'ease' of XNA is a false lure - it's easy to do the easiest things - but when the going gets the slightest bit difficult, XNA becomes useless. If you start down the XNA path, you'll soon wish you hadn't - and then it'll be too late. Plus it doesn't work on Linux, Mac, iPhone, AndroidPhone, Nintendo DS, Wii, Playstation...OpenGL works on every platform that can do 3D graphics. SteveBaker (talk) 15:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting rid of backdoor.tidserv

I have a virus on my computer called backdoor.tidserv. I need to know how to remove it. It makes some sites, such as Google, act strangely. I can't remove it with the anti-virus software because it shows up as "left alone". And I can't use System Restore because nothing happens when I click the "next" button on the third step. Is it safe to remove it manually by going to the directory it is in, right-clicking it, and choosing "delete"? If not, are there any free anti-virus programs that will remove this virus? Not those that require registration. Just the free ones. 60.230.124.64 (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Mepis, Debian, SuSE, etc. Each of them free, none of them requiring registration, all of them ensuring that you'll never again suffer from this kind of crap. -- Hoary (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to switch operating system. All I'm interested in is getting rid of this treacherous virus. 60.230.124.64 (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore Hoary, there are plenty of viruses for *nix, and his answer doesn't even address the question. I'm going to write up some instructions now, which AV are you using? :) — neuro^(talk) 12:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Symantec. 60.230.124.64 (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Then this should help. — neuro^(talk) 13:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)~~ Turns out 'done' != 'solved'. — neuro^(talk) 13:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yeah it annoys me too when someone suggests changing your whole OS and migrating your stuff just to fix some minor Windows problem.

this link tells you a bit about your virus. It seems Norton Anti Virus can get rid of it for you and I suspect that other Anti Virus software can remove it as well (perhaps your Anti Virus has ben compromised in some way). If you don't want to splash AUS$60 or more, you can try a manual removal. The word "TDSS" seems to be an important clue. Search your system for all files with "TDSS" in the filename, and search the registry for "TDSS". Delete the obvious candidates and move/rename the less obvious ones (remembering their old name/location). Reboot your PC. You might have to go round this process several times to be sure you have got all of it. One last thing: messing with the registry and system files carries a high risk of breaking Windows so bad that you need to reinstall everything. Make sure you back up anything you cannot afford to lose (ie. documents, photos, emails, etc.) before you start. Astronaut (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well no there aren't "plenty of viruses for *nix", but I do agree that Hoary's comment was a bit pointless. Anyway, go ahead and delete the virus' file. If you can. You see, while the virus is running, Windows locks the file so you can't delete it. You'll have to terminate the process first. If Windows Task Manager can't terminate the process, try IceSword or gmer or something else. You can also try booting from a GNU/Linux LiveCD with NTFS support or a Windows Live CD (see BartPE) and delete it from there.

The first thing you'll have to do is locate the virus' file. This can be done using Process Explorer (google it). If the virus is some sort of DLL, then it's going to be much harder. If it's a rootkit, use IceSword or gmer. --wj32 ^t/c 21:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not that simple. This does have a rootkit component (thanks for the link, Astronaut). You'll first have to use IceSword's registry editor to delete HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\TDSServ, HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\SafeBoot\Minimal\TDSServ.sys, HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\SafeBoot\Minimal\TDSServ.sys and HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\TDSS. Then use IceSword to move any files that start with TDSS in C:\Windows\system32 to a backup directory. --wj32 ^t/c 21:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that this virus can stop you from getting anti-virus programs. I don't know if this has happened to my computer, but what if it does? What can I do then? 60.230.124.64 (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop worrying about what might happen if you "get an anti-virus" program. Search Google for IceSword and download it. Run it, and follow the instructions I just gave you. Sorry, but... your computer will not blow up if the rootkit you have prevents you from running an anti-virus program! --wj32 ^t/c 00:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hunt down and kill any running processes and services that start with "TDSS". Process Explorer is good for that, and/or a rootkit killer such as IceSword if a rootkit is involved (though if you're running Vista you might have difficulty finding a rootkit killer that works). The big problem though is thinking you've got rid of it all, only to find it comes back afer a reboot. In my experience, it is possible to have multiple copies of the same virus or many different virus infections all hidden by the same rootkit. Getting them all is a long job.

The best guide is to be familar with what your PC loads at boot time and then check up on any changes. Anything that starts at boot time should be checked out (googling file names is one simple method - eg. googling "TDSServ.sys" gets 9,000+ hits mostly about malware). Astronaut (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used this program ComboFix a while back to get rid of some spyware/virus on a friend's computer after all other antispyware programs failed and I think the files it got rid of did start with TDSS... So maybe give it a shot. Cheers, --71.141.107.171 (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled. I read above:

Astronaut: it annoys me too when someone suggests changing your whole OS and migrating your stuff just to fix some minor Windows problem [...] messing with the registry and system files carries a high risk of breaking Windows so bad that you need to reinstall everything
Wj32: there aren't "plenty of viruses for *nix", but I do agree that Hoary's comment was a bit pointless

Its point was that installing GNU/Linux is about as simple as the procedure suggested above, that it avoids the risk of the recurrence of something similar, and that it's free and doesn't require registration. Of course you'd copy your work files off the computer first; if this "backdoor.tidserv" malware prevents this, then you could do it after booting off some portable, CD-based alternative to the damaged Windows installation. -- Hoary (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly (well, it amazes me anyway) some people actually WANT to run Windows. Advising them to switch to Linux - while fundamentally sound advice - isn't helping them solve their immediate problem - and is therefore likely to be rejected, typically with some degree of hostility. So it's probably best not to suggest it until they are in a better mood! But there can be no doubt whatever that in practical terms, Linux is safe from viruses. neuro says there are 'nix virii - which it technically true - but nobody ever suffers from them - so this is at best a misleading statement. I've been using Linux since almost day #1 (I downloaded it from Linus himself soon after it was first announced) - I don't take any precautions whatever against virus attacks - I visit dubious websites, I download stuff with impunity, open attachments from complete strangers, I don't have a virus checker or even a hardware firewall and I leave my computers (many of them) turned on 24/7 on open Internet connections and sometimes, even wireless routers without encryption. All sorts of things that would be rapidly fatal to a Windows user. But in 17 years of intensely reckless Linux/Internet use - I've not had a single virus, malware, rootkit or other inconvenience of any kind - and neither has any of my friends or colleagues who use Linux. So - you shouldn't make the switch because you have one specific problem - but in terms of general freedom from grief over the long term, it's a strong reason to change. SteveBaker (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve's right. I'm not going to tell you to switch from Windows to Linux if you're not ready to, but you should understand that the virus problem under Windows is one of the sad prices you must pay for choosing (or being forced) to use Windows. Bill & Co. have taught you that viruses are inevitable, are the sole fault of the nasty virus writers, and are a fact of life that must be forborne, like STD's and bad weather. But all three of those points are quite false. A properly-designed operating system is immune from malware (and it's inherently immune; it doesn't require add-on security products to make it so.) The virus plague under Windows is only partially the fault of the nasty virus writers -- it is also very directly the fault of Microsoft, for actively enabling the possibility of viruses by adding lots of ill-advised features to Windows over the years, and by never taking security seriously until it was much too late. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use Ubuntu myself, but telling Windows users to switch to GNU/Linux isn't going to be accepted by them - they are Windows users after all. --wj32 ^t/c 22:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just let me ask a question about this virus. The only bad things I know it does are 1) change the behaviour of search sites such as Google and 2) may stop you from getting anti-virus programs so you can delete it. Are there any other symptoms? 60.230.124.64 (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that when you have one virus, it isn't long before other malware arrives. The link I provided above, says this virus opens a backdoor into your PC. Such a backdoor enables other malware to be installed without your consent or knowledge, including more viruses, keyloggers and for example linking your PC to a bot-net which will spam many millions of other PC users round the world. Under the burden of all this malware, you PC will eventually slow to a crawl as it expends more and more resources servicing the needs of the malware. Personal information such as bank account details, PIN numbers etc. could be stolen enabling theives to empty your bank account (and if you believe the more paranoid "security experts", use that money to finance people trafficking, terrorism, drugs, etc.) Clean up your PC before it gets any worse. Astronaut (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caches

I was logging in to an MMORPG when a glitch occured,the login button didnt work and the moderator asked me to "clear my cache",I don't understand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.31.100 (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To give you the best answer, we need to know what game you're having trouble with. The process for deleting the cache for a browser-based game will be different than deleting the cache folder of a game with its own client. Laenir (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost definitely browser based. In FX, Tools > Clear Private Data > Tick 'Cache', 'Clear Private Data Now'. — neuro^(talk) 16:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in IE, Tools > Internet Options > Delete... > Delete Files... & Delete Cookies... --wj32 ^t/c 21:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skpjack & the Clipper Chip

See Skipjack and Clipper chip for more info
If Skipjack was classified then how could companies use it to encrypt data? It seems paradoxical to me. Plus, is the weakness in that a key is included for each chip or that there's a weakness in the algorithm? Because, if the government were to use the unique cryptographic key on each chip to decrypt the message couldn't they just use the backdoor that was planted in it? --Melab±1 ☎ 16:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"If Skipjack was classified then how could companies use it to encrypt data" They couldn't, but it isn't. I don't really comprehend the rest of your question, sorry! — neuro^(talk) 16:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classified doesnt mean "government only." If a company were given access to classified information (which many of them often are, see Lockheed Martin), then using it wouldnt be a problem. Livewireo (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how it was intended to work:

The Skipjack cipher was indeed classified. This wasn't (they said) security through obscurity, but rather just to prevent the design secrets of how the NSA's theory-of-cipher-construction worked (and thus aid the growing civvy-street crypto community to design better ciphers).
Government contractors (e.g. VLSI Inc.) would make hardware encryption chips (that's the clipper chip) which embodied the Skipjack algorithm, the key exchange protocol, keystorage, and rest of the cryptosystem (modes and stuff, signing)
Computer manufacturers (IBM, Sun, Dell, etc.) would buy these chips from VLSI and would put them on their board. They'd probably also have a standard API for accessing the chip.
When you set up your new computer, you'd input (or have it generate) your keys - but you didn't get to pick all of the key. Instead the key was split, with a portion of it (my memory says 22 bits out of 80, but I'm not sure) injected in the VLSI factory (a different fragment for each individual chip). This (the Law-enforcement access field) was kept in the government's key escrow - even you, as the owner of the chip, couldn't recover it.
You'd pick the remaining bits, and the chip would use the elision of your key and the LEAF for encryption and decryption. Skipjack is a pretty good algorithm - contrary to people's fears at the time, NSA hadn't deliberately released a broken system. The system is secure as long as the government's escrow isn't compromised (you'd hope they'd look after that). Each chip was tamper resistant (which means it'd blow its little brains out if someone tried to get into it), and even if they succeeded (an expensive process) they'd only recover your specific key and the specific LEAF for that chip (no, the NSA weren't dumb enough to use the same LEAF for everyone).
If the US government wanted to read your encrypted traffic, they'd identify your chip (I think from the exchange of unique chip serial number as part of the key exchange), and then apply to the relevant authority for the appropriate LEAF. That leaves them with 22 (say) bits known out of 80, so they'd have to brute force the rest - but they're the NSA, so they've got plenty of capacity to do that, and knowing the LEAF makes it a very tractable task.
All in all the system was (if you trust the government) secure (there's no weak key, no trapdoor in the cryptosystem, and no backdoor in the chip). You're relying on the US government not to cock up and leak the LEAFs; say what you like about the NSA, they're not dumb enough to leave a USB stick with all the country's LEAFs on the train.

It's really a very nice system implemented well; the only problem with it was political (that they proposed to make it the only strong crypto that anyone could use). The same principles (secure central escrow, unique local key in tamper-resistent module) are used (and were before Clipper) by the banking industry (and you can bet in military systems too) - the need for a large organisation to be able to recover stuff encrypted by a key stored in a now lost device make some kind of escrow inevitable for them. In addition the British government's Rambutan system (which works much as described above, although still classified and I've no idea if it has a LEAF equivalent) is (supposedly) in use handling non-secret stuff British government departments (the tax office, the health service, etc.). -- AgentOfDoom (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The british thing is Rambutan (cryptography). -- AgentOfDoom (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AgentOfDoom is right on the money. And IIRC, 22 bits out of 80 is correct. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DDR2 memory

If I place DDR2 1066 memory sticks into slots on motherboard that supports maximum DDR2 800(OC), will it work there? MB: [1] Or my only option is to buy DD2 800 and lower? Failed Google search, and DDR2 SDRAM article did not answered this question. Vitall (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The DDR2 1066 will work in any DDR2 slot. They are backwards compatible within the DDR2 series. Your 1066 should work in the 800 slot, but only at the performance of DDR2 800. Freedomlinux (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrading Laptop Graphics Card

Hey guys, I guess this question has been asked a lot of times, but any help would be appreciated. I have a 64 mb nvidia dedicated graphics card on my hp laptop. I find it to be too slow for games and i just wanted to upgrade it to a 256 mb or a 128 mb dedicated graphics card. Is this possible in any possible way on a laptop or should I just consider buying a new laptop? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.65.57 (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible, but laptops aren't normally made to be user-serviceable, which means you'd have to pay someone to do it for you. Why use a laptop for games ? I suggest you get a less expensive regular PC for that, and keep the laptop for those occasions when you need a computer away from home. You can play some less graphics-intensive games on it on those occasions. Then, when the need arises in the future, you can upgrade the regular PC. StuRat (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laptops aren't standardized, so good luck finding something that fits. As for paying someone to do it, I have been in the freelance IT business working with various firms for years, and nobody has ever mentioned that they have a skill like that to me. Hm. — neuro^(talk) 00:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest returning it to the supplier for an upgrade. Tinkering around inside laptops requires specific skills and it would be safest at the supplier. Sure, you might find someone that claims to be a laptop technician, but if he breaks it, then sure you can sue, but do you want all that hassle? Gaming laptops are currently way overpriced, where you can get similar power for one-third the price in a desktop. So the route people generally go is - build a desktop gaming machine and buy a cheap laptop that can run internet and office applications - unless of course money is no objective. Sandman30s (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's highly unlikely that this is possible. When you buy a laptop you should realise that what you get on the day you buy it is what it'll have on the day you sell it. You can MAYBE upgrade RAM and PROBABLY upgrade the hard drive - but often, not even that. Changing things like CPU, audio and graphics is rarely (if ever) possible - and if one small part fails - the whole thing is likely to be junk. I'm seeing this question coming up more and more and the reason is that the 'laptop boom' of a couple of years ago is starting to show up as a bunch of aging laptops that people are ready to upgrade. Deskside computers are not as trendy - but they are the only way to go for upgradeabilty. I've had the same deskside box for 15 years now - yet it's a completely modern, fast, machine with great graphics. I've changed every single part of it at one time or another (either to repair or to upgrade it) - probably the only part that's original is the power cord (and probably not even that!) - but at no time in all those years have I thrown it all out and bought a new one. Laptops are 'all or nothing' things. They are an environmental nightmare because you tend to be tossing out a perfectly good screen/keyboard/CD-drive/battery/power-supply when all you really needed was a new graphics chip - but that's life. SteveBaker (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if your laptop uses MXM GPUs, it's normally easy to replace them - provided you get a MXM card fitting in the socket =). If you have once in your life assembled a computer, you should get it done in an hour. CPU exchange depends on the laptop, but should normally be doable in half an hour (and five minutes if you own a Compal FL90 series). HardDisk (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Auto forwarding past and future mail

Hey, I'd like to know if there are any free forwarding services out there that is able to forward email from my current inbox (Juno Online Services) to my GMail account. It has to be able to copy the messages from my Juno inbox and folders to GMail (with original headers), and it would greatly help if it supports incoming mail as well, but that's only second in priority. Does anyone know of any software or free service that can achieve this? Much appreciated, Vic93 (t/c) 22:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might be of assistance. — neuro^(talk) 00:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try just copying over IMAP in your mail client from one account to the other. --71.141.107.171 (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd thought of doing that before, but unfortunately I don't think Juno supports IMAP and I don't use a mail client—it's pretty much all webmail. Vic93 (t/c) 18:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image search

Is there a tool online for which I can find an image if I have it on my hard drive (i.e., no keywords)? I imagine it would process by EXIF/metadata/checksums or something like that. I've had people send me awesome images, but I can't locate them online. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try TinEye — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 23:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tineye won't help here, read more carefully. He/she is talking about searching images on the harddrive not the internet. Same reason why you cant open this link: [file:///C:\Users\WetBundy\PornPics\BOOBIES.png] :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.11.222 (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Tineye is exactly what I wanted, thank you ("... can't locate them online"). I didn't think anyone would find anything; thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]