Computing desk
< January 21	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 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.

January 22

Microsoft Outlook 2003

Recently when I try to send an email to a group I get an error message eg "An internal support function returned an error". I can send emails to individuals but not to a group. Any help would be appreciated.220.238.174.40 (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the group just another email address? Does it make any difference whether you send email to a person or to a group? I think the problem is somewhere else. Kushal^t 00:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I have found that I have an Address Book with no names in it but all are in the "Contacts" list. I have found the file for the Address Book it is user.wab but I am not game to try to "import" it into Outlook in case I lose it all.220.238.81.154 (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRM software

Can anyone recommend some good DRM software for protecting PDF files, preferably free?--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting them from what? --Sean 14:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best you can get is Adobe's own PDF creating software's DRM capabilities and even that can be circumvented within seconds if you know how to do it (I routinely remove passwords from DRMed PDFs using ColorSync Utility, a program bundled with OS X that has rudimentary PDF reading and re-saving ability but, oops!, Apple forgot to make recognize DRM flags). DRM (technical means) is not a good way to enforce copyright. Threat of lawsuit (social, economic means) is a better way. PDF's DRM capabilities are just little flags inside the files that have to be honored by the reading programs themselves -- if a program doesn't honor it, either by accident or choice, then all your efforts at trying to restrict people using the data have gone to waste. In my experience the DRM is nothing but frustrating — why shouldn't I be able to copy something if I want to quote from it? Why shouldn't I be able to print something so I don't have to just view it on the screen? Why shouldn't I be able to save something to look at later? I mean, that's pretty much the range of what you are talking about here. If you are worried about someone totally plagiarizing your work or mass producing it, you can't stop them from doing that, not with any technical means. If I had real motivation to do it (which, as a scholar who maintains large stores of notes and quotes and dislikes all forms of DRM, I occasionally have), at the very least I could just re-type the whole thing or take screenshots of it, as I usually do with things like Google Books or Amazon's "Search This Book" (there are even ways to grab their page views, but since the resolution is no better than a screenshot I usually just opt with those as it is easier). Anyway, long story short: consider your motivations for DRMing, consider alternative approaches to get to them. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I explain the wastefulness of DRMs to the doctors that want to use them here with this analogy: A DRM on a file is like putting a patients printed records in a briefcase, locking it, and taping the key to the side of the briefcase with a note that says "Do not use this key unless you are allowed to do so." The only people who cannot open the briefcase are those who don't know to look for the key. -- kainaw ™ 14:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? How many M.D.s ask about DRM on the RD? --f f r o t h 02:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here = there. 210.138.109.72 (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most doctors are not MDs, they are PhDs. But, you did correctly assume that I meant MD. You incorrectly assumed that "here" meant the reference desk. It actually means Medical University of South Carolina. -- kainaw ™ 14:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you explain that DRM is actually largely effective because most people can't find the key, and in fact it's criminal to use the key.. making it sound like anyone can just walk by and open it isn't exactly true. I wouldn't use that metaphor, or even try to make a computing-ethics argument.. just practically tell them that encrypting the file isn't as secure as controlling access to the file in the first place.. if you have the file locked in the hospital's record room or on an access-restricted share on the network, it is essentially perfectly secure (or at least it's not their fault if it's compromised), and people who have access to it don't have to wrestle with the inconvenience of DRM. Also in a practical sense it's easier to manage access controls.. if you forget (or accidentally leak) your password, access can be changed at one point instead of re-encrypting each file. It's just smarter from a technical standpoint, and also more secure. The thing DRM is good for is letting everyone use information, but only in certain ways. But with medical records, anyone who can see the information at all should be able to do what they want with it (the patient, the doctor, the nurse who's currently assigned in the appointments/checkin tracker to be examining you) .. it's not a matter of managing digital rights, only access. All of those people should be able to make copies of the records or copy and paste from them or whatever.. if you're worried about malicious changes, just keep a copy of each modified version on the server like a wiki --f f r o t h 21:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRM is not effective as a security measure though. Doctors hear or read about the buzzword DRM and decide that they come to me and say "I have a spreadsheet full of patient data that I want to email to someone else. How do I DRM it so nobody else can read it?" They are using "DRM" as a synonym for "encrypt". These are the same doctors that use "CPU" as a synonym for "computer" and "window" as a synonym for "monitor". I have to use extremely generalized but easily understood metaphors to get them to understand what it is they are saying. Just today, I as asked, "How do I get an MP3 player for my Ipod?" Again, I have to explain what an mp3 player is so he understands what it is he just asked. -- kainaw ™ 01:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? That's exactly what I'm saying- that DRM isn't a security measure, so all it does it get in the way of work without actually protecting anything. --f f r o t h 01:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Network related activities

I want to know that

1- Network related activities list 2- Network related activities categorization/grouping

Network = computer network. Activities = Whom user perform on internet and intranet (LAN & WAN). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleyali (talk • contribs) 15:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I'm not sure I understand what it is you are asking about. I don't see a question there. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe (s)he is talking about protocols when they mean 'activites' - like FTP, WWW, GOPHER? They're here. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean all activities that user perform on the LAN or WAN like: e-mail, chat, file sharing, printing, internet usage etc. Can any buddy categorize/grouping these types of activities or manage complete list.

No. The list is open-ended (though not infinite). It would take so much time to figure out every possible thing that a person could do through a network connection that it would take an entire lifetime (and more). As for categorizing them - it depends completely on what type of categories you want. You could categorize them by popularity, by the year they started, by the order I use them when I turn on my computer... All in all, you are asking too vague a question about an enormously huge topic. -- kainaw ™ 17:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checking unreplied emails in GMail

In GMail, can one create a search string using the advanced boolean operators to display sent emails that have not been replied to?

--Jcmaco (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

searching label:inbox inside your sent items will show you what people DID reply to. -label:inbox doesn't work though ಠ_ಠ --f f r o t h 02:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's only valid if you don't archive your messages. --Jcmaco (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1clickDVD verses Any DVD

…I recently downloaded an upgrade for 1clickDVD, now Any DVD doesnt work,box pops up saying the dvd is encrypted. Why? (e-mail removed for your pleasure) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.67.183 (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just removed the e-mail address. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem connecting wirelessly to router

I am running Windows 98 version 2 and getting a message "Unable to communicate with AP. Please check encryption and IRQ". What does that mean? MrsBucket (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should check the manual that came with your wireless AP/router and NIC card. Besure they are both using the same encryption and same password. If you are using older equipment (you probably are since you are running Win 98), you need to know that not all equipment support all the encryption standard. Try disabling encrytion all together and re-enable encrytion only after you get everything to work.

Please do not attemp this part unless you know what you are doing*

You can get to IRQ settings by accessing the BIOS. Try holding down "Delete" or "F1" or "ESC" key while you turn on the power. You should pick an IRQ that's not being used by another device. Auto config works pretty well if you have a newer mobo.

NYCDA (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LaTeX, Sections and New Pages

Hello,

Is there anyway to get LaTeX to start each \section on a new page, rather than one after another?

Thank you,

--Grey1618 (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about manually using \newpage? Just guessing after a quick glance at LaTeX/Page_Layout. —Noah 05:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]