Computing desk
< May 8	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 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.

May 9

Wav to ogg command line converter

Let me generalize my earlier question. Can anyone recommend a Windows program that will convert .wav audio files to .ogg audio files from the command line? I can't get VLC to do so (as seen above). Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SoX can do this. —Korath (Talk) 05:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, at least, OGG's project site used to have command line windows compiled converters. Lame can do the same I think in a *nix environment and it's probably been compiled in windows too. Shadowjams (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try oggenc2 from here. -- BenRG (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up using SoX. Thank you! Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chur

What is your scouse that Chur, Switzerland dates back to 3500-3900 BC? Thank you for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.5.129 (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That statement in the Chur article indeed does not have an inline citation, so, because you asked, I added a "citation needed" tag to the statement. In the future, you should add such questions to the "discussion" page of the article in question. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you Tobyc75 for adding the inline citation! Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing processors

There's an old Dell Dimension 5150 that both my bro-in-law and I want. He wants it for this which says that the software requires an Intel Core 2 Duo. This Dell documentation says that the 5150 has an Intel Pentium 4. Am I right in thinking that the Pentium 4 won't meet the requirements that my bro-in-law wants it for? Dismas|^(talk) 03:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct; any Pentium 4 is slower than any Core 2 Duo. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Unfortunately for me, after all that, I was told that my father-in-law changed everything in the system including the motherboard... Why nobody told me this in the first place is anyone's guess! Arg!! Dismas|^(talk) 14:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emails

I am using Thunderbird for the first time but it sends an error report: Sending of message failed. The message could not be sent using SMTP server smtp.gmail.com for an unknown reason. Please verify that your SMTP server settings are correct and try again, or contact your network administrator. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 09:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Details are here. In particular, you have step 20's information set wrongly. Make sure that the TLS button is checked, and that the port is set to 587. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 09:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced programs for recognizing songs/compositions

Hello.
I was always wondering about one thing - how to recognize MP3 with its sound and to auto-tag MP3s. So I did some research and found some programs that can handle with that problem.
Here they are:
1. MusicBrainz Picard ([1])
2. Jaikoz ([2])
3. TuneUp ([3]).
Those programs use two different databases (first and second one - MusicBrainz's database, third one - Gracenote's). As I checked it up it seemed that Gracenote's database is much bigger (according to its site ([4]) it has over 100 millions tracks with an audio fingerprints for over 28 millions tracks) than MusicBrainz (about 9,5 million).
So I have checked up some of my music files if those programs can identify them. It seems all those applications can identify well-known songs but there are some minor and major problems if songs aren't so famous (e.g. Japanese songs and different performances of a classical pieces). I thought it could be better if in these cases the whole tracks should be analysed (with Gracenote's MusicID or MusicBrainz's MusicIP). Because acoustic fingerprinting uses only short fragments of compositions (it cuts down the time that's needed to identify a song).
Another thing - MB's database is created by all users. Its quality of auto-tagging depends from how tags have been filled by users (and you know - you can never know how precisely it has been done).
So, here are my questions:
1. Is there any program that analysis whole tracks instead of small fragments?
2. Do you know how is database of Gracenote created (exactly - who and how often add new tracks)? If they have some contacts with music industries and from those industries they receive tracks with filled ID3 or something like that?
It seems to me it would be perfect if in a program would be an option to check whole track or only its fragment and if a database has been professionally created (if it could be done with a collaboration of releasers - it sounds amazing for me).
Thanks in advance for your help!Yuugari (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble accessing website

I'm having trouble accessing zshare.net. Every time I try, firefox returns the error "Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at zshare.net" etc. However, I know the site is up and operational because I've checked via proxy. So the problem must be with my computer or my ISP. I've restarted my computer, restarted my router, flushed the dns cache, tried used OpenDNS, and I still can't access zshare.net. Is there anything else I can try? 82.44.55.254 (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Apparently zshare.net is resolving to 127.0.0.1 (localhost), and I can access zshare if I use their ip instead of their domain, so this must be a problem with my computer. What has happened here? How do I fix it? 82.44.55.254 (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's being mapped to 127.0.0.1 in your hosts file? There's a table in the article that tells you where to find the file, depending on what OS you use. I'm at a loss for why it would be in the hosts file in the first place, but it fits the symptoms, at least. Paul (Stansifer) 11:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the host file, and there's nothing there except the example text "This is a sample HOSTS file used by Microsoft TCP/IP for Windows." and some stuff about how to use it 82.44.55.254 (talk) 11:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try running diagnostic on the router; most will have the ability to do a ping or traceroute. If it goes properly from the router... it's your computer. If not, it's your router or upstream. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the zshare.net IP for reference: 213.171.195.53 . Try running the command 'nslookup zdshare.net' and maybe dump the results here (assuming Windows, but I believe nslookup works on mac as well.)--rocketrye12^{talk/contribs} 15:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works on Linux as well. I got this:

Server: 62.179.1.63

Address: 62.179.1.63#53

Non-authoritative answer:

53.195.171.213.in-addr.arpa

name = server213-171-195-53.livedns.org.uk.

Authoritative answers can be found from:

...and nothing more after the colon. I can access it now, and got redirected to plunder.com. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "Wikipedia"

Why do many people use "Wikipedia" to refer simply to the English Wikipedia? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 11:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because its the biggest and most well known Wikipedia I imagine--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And because the people you know probably all are speaking English. I imagine if a Russian says, "go look it up on Wikipedia," he might be implying the Russian version. (One could also make an historical argument here—for a long time, even wikipedia.org just redirected you to en.wikipedia.org. But I don't think that's really what people are taking into consideration.) --Mr.98 (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brevity? For the same reason people say "The news" instead of specifying the channel, or saying they watched "Who Wants to Be A Millionaire" or "Sesame Street" without mentioning which nationalized version they watched? No point spelling out the obvious. APL (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a chain of grocery stores in the US Midwest called Jewel. They often partner with a chain of pharmacies called Osco. When I was a kid, a friend of mine used to refer to the Jewel near our house (literally within 10 minutes walking distance) as the "Jewel Osco". He said it was to differentiate between this Jewel and the one a couple of towns away which didn't have an Osco pharmacy. Even at 12 years old or whatever I was, it still sounded strange when he used both company names instead of simply truncating it to just "Jewel". The point is, why use more words than you have to when everyone will understand what you mean by just saying "Wikipedia"? Dismas|^(talk) 00:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

an example of Polymorphism in communication, potentially making the assumption - rightly or wrongly - that both parties have the same frame of reference.Cander0000 (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am still peeved that many of my colleagues use the word "wiki" (without further qualification) to refer to Wikipedia. This is especially problematic because we have a different, other, internal wiki for research use. Many people simply have a high tolerance for speaking ambiguously, with context and assumptions that are unstated. As far as I am concerned, every proper noun should be fully qualified. Nimur (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Mr. Nimur Smith of 223 Rottendam Plaza, Nob Hill, London, England, Europe, Earth. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you stop at earth? Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed like a nice place to visit... -- Coneslayer (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earth,Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Local Cluster, The Universe --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 01:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, you're missing my point! Wikipedia isn't paper: we can be fully qualified and concise, thanks to the magic of hypertext. A link to my user-page fully qualifies me as "that human or software entity who controls the user-account Nimur on the website with Uniform Resource Identifier http://en.wikipedia.org". Because of the way we designed the internet, that URI is globally-qualified; and my user-account is therefore unique and fully-qualified. I don't have to write out my whole biography or address in plain-text every time. Nimur (talk) 10:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

NMEA 0183 protocol

Those who know NMEA 0183 please see Talk:NMEA 0183#Suspicious example and verify the example described there, added to the article in the February 1, 2007 edit. --CiaPan (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perfect example of something that is beyond the role of an encyclopedia article. The article should direct you to the official standard, but it shouldn't really be duplicating or describing the official standard to that level of detail. Such content is prone to error, isn't really encyclopedic, and is difficult to verify. Nimur (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But official standard is not publicly available — one must pay to obtain it, and it is copyrighted (one is not allowed to redistribute it or quote in extenso), so 'directing to the official standard' is in fact directing for shopping... Anyway you confirm my suspection: despite being correct or not, the example is not appropriate here, and I'm going to remove it soon (if there are no replies for my request on the article talk page). --CiaPan (talk) 06:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate Search Software

I read somewhere about some software what could search for duplicate images what are the same but under different names.

does anyone know what this is called or where to find it

Soph ie 16:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TinEye? --Phil Holmes (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate File Finder .tkqj (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox acting funny; adware removal

Firefox has been acting strangely of late. Among other things, It will spontaneously open up tabs to a variety of commercial sites and redirect me to similar sites when I try to click on Google search results, instead of leading me to the links I clicked on.

I'm almost positive I have some sort of malware on my system, but I'm afraid to click on any search results for "malware removal" since who knows what those programs could be hosting. Can anyone recommend a good (preferably free) program or other steps to get Firefox to behave the way it should? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.15.205 (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware, it is pretty good and is safe. For more extensive probing, try the Viruses FAQ. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you havnt done so already, then you need to instal an antivirus program. There are several good free programs available. I use Avast!. You can also do additional scans with other antivirus software which does not run-all-the-time. I do extra scans from time to time with Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware, Superantispyware, or Spybot – Search & Destroy, as they do find different malware. However, only have one run-all-the-time antivirus installed. I suggest running Ccleaner before you do a scan as it cleans some of the garbage out and should result in a faster scan. I also like using Advanced SystemCare but it is not a complete antivirus program. Wikipedia seems to lack a simple list of free anti-malware programs. Other programs include Microsoft Security Essentials, and Ad-Aware which I do not like. 84.13.53.169 (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything you download from http://download.cnet.com/ , http://www.filehippo.com/ or http://www.softpedia.com/ is 100% safe because each hosted file is individually and manually checked for malware and stability. Each of those sites host wide range of free security applications and you can take your pick and download few (it is always good to scan with multiple programs cause none of them are perfect). Particular mention deserves HijackThis, a VERY powerful program but not newbie friendly, so don't use unless under detailed instructions because you can cause damage ( it is not malware, but if you don't know what you are doing it can be dangerous). And to expand on previous answer, good free antivirus programs are AVG Free, ClamAV and Avast. And you are right to take especial care with your search because there is malware that disguises itself as anti-malware programs as well as commercial programs that could do the cleanup, but you'd have to buy 'em.--Melmann^(talk) 15:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]