Computing desk
< November 17	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 19 >

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.

November 18

Firefox not viewing images

I'm using Firefox 3.0.4, though I've stumbled upon this before. Sometimes when I try to "view image" from a webpage, FF tries to open my graphics program to view it rather than simply showing it in-line. Anyone else get that? Here's one I just found. Try viewing the picture of the ships spilling over the edge. Or the others on the page. What's going on here? I can save the image if I want... Is the page protected somehow? Matt Deres (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images uploaded via Blogger are served with the header "Content-Disposition: attachment". This header doesn't cause problems when the image is part of a webpage, but when you open the image address in a new window, it triggers your browser to bring up a download box (or start the default program you previously selected). --Bavi H (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does it with my Firefox 2.0.something as well. I got a box asking what Firefox should do with the image, from which I chose "Open with", then Other... from the dropdown box, then browsed to my Firefox and clicked Open. It opened a local copy of the image in a new tab.

So if you want to view the image in Firefox and you get the same box, that should fix it. If you don't get the box (your graphics program opens immediately when you try to "view image"), you'll have to change Firefox's setting for what it does with JPGs. You do this in Firefox 2 by going to Tools - Options - Content - File Types, clicking Manage, clicking the entry for JPG in the list and clicking Change Action. You can then choose to "Open them with this application:" and browse to your Firefox. Firefox 3 may have put this in a different place... I'll put an update on here when I can get to a computer with FF3. AJHW (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Unfortunately, AJHW's fix did not seem to work. When I chose FF as the application, I got the error message, "C:\DOCUME~1\Matt\LOCALS~1\Temp\flat-earth-society-1.jpg could not be opened, because an unknown error occurred. Try saving to disk first and then opening the file." Strange, eh? Matt Deres (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might have found a bug there! I had a look at Bugzilla (Mozilla's bug-reporting system) and found three similar bugs (nos. 331544, 193868 and 434638). Incidentally, doing the above works OK on my FF3.0.4 - so it can't be universal. It seems to be rather long-lasting, though - 193868 has been around since 2003. Sorry I can't be more help! AJHW (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool, actually; if I have to, I can always save the file and view it. Thanks very much for the help! Matt Deres (talk) 00:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do I install VLC

I want to install VLC on a server running Debian. It turns out I don't know what to do. Perhaps going starting here would be the easiest way: http://www.videolan.org/vlc/ So I click on Debian GNU/Linux. Obviously I don't have much experience with this stuff, and can't understand how to install it from here. It says: For a normal install, do:

  # apt-get update
  # apt-get install vlc libdvdcss2

But what? How does it get VLC out of nowhere? Also, I'm not in the sudoers file. Apt-get doesn't seem to work also for permissions reasons. Thanks! Mac Davis (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to install stuff as root. So you need to either switch to root first with "su"; or run commands with "sudo" if you are a sudoer (which you should be if you are the user created during the install). It gets VLC from the Ubuntu software repositories. --71.106.183.17 (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

71.106 obviously meant that it gets VLC from the Debian software repositories. --NorwegianBlue^talk 21:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

apt-get fetches software from an online repository [1] (which you can update using apt-get update). You have to run your commands using sudo - e.g. sudo apt-get install vlc libdvdcss2. If you're not a sudoer, you can just download the source code and compile it. --wj32 ^t/c 05:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can check where apt-get fetches the installation files from by looking at the file /etc/apt/sources.list. I believe it's possible to make it use CD's or DVD's instead of downloading from the web, although I've never tried that, except for the initial installation. As others have stated, you need to be root to install programs using apt (or its gui cousin, Synaptic). If you don't have root access, your options are either (1) to convince someone who has, that you really need the program, and they'll install it for you, or (2) to compile it yourself, as Wj32 suggested. --NorwegianBlue^talk 21:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Build your own PC' - Help please

My cousin in his infinite wisdom is building his own pc. As the family computer-guru (no experience of building a PC mind) i've been drafted in to provide support. I advised him to go to Dell or wherever and buy a customised pc but never mind...Anyhoo can someone please provide a list of the main components you would need to get to build your own (internal stuff, not monitor/keyboard etc). So far I figured you would need...Motherboard, processor, RAM, video-card, sound-card, graphics card, power supply, fan, Hard-drive, optical drives, network card.

Additionally my (primative) understanding is that you will need to know the motherboards spec to be able to source the right processor/ram etc. so that it is compatible with the motherboard.

Beyond this anybody able to provide a compelling argument in favour of NOT building one. He is building it to use as his school-work computer, just needs to be able to do a bit of MS Office, basic photoshop/illustrator, general web-browsing. I believe 100% he could just buy a DELL (or whatever) for about £400 and get a more than capable machine but hey ho... 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like you I'm my family's computer-guru also with no experience of building my own. I am though, familiar with the insides of the family's various PC and building my own would not be a problem - I believe it's actually quite a simple task needing only a couple of screwdrivers and a few spare hours. However, the reason I buy a customised PC from the likes of Dell, is the warranty service. When it goes wrong I simply pick up the phone and get them to send replacement parts under warranty complete with a trained engineer to fit them for me. My PC is back in action the next day and I have someone to chase if its still faulty. If I had built my own, I would be worrying if I would be accused of incompetance during the install, going back-and-forth to the local computer parts supplier, and finding the time to fix it myself. Astronaut (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Less expensive to build one yourself, and if he has time and wants to try, he might as well go ahead with it. It could be argued that buying a pre-built computer is more convenient, or as Astronaut said, the warranty might give you some peace of mind; of course, if you buy separate parts, they all come with warranties as well (just need to keep track of them all). · AndonicO ^Engage. 12:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your list of parts looks pretty complete. Don't forget you'll also need a case. (Some things may be rolled into the motherboard, however. ie: motherboards often have reasonably decent built-in audio nowadays. The built-in video may also be acceptable if you're not planning on playing the latest and greatest games.) Don't forget that you'll also need an operating system. If you're planning on running Windows I think they charge you a couple hundred bucks for that disk.

Make sure you get COMPATIBLE parts. You can't just pick out any CPU you like and any motherboard you like. You've got to get a motherboard that's designed to work with that CPU. A common trick is to try to look up what components a current Dell or Alienware machine is using, and then just buy those parts. Even so, you might want to have your parts list looked by someone who knows what they're doing before you purchase them.

On the bright side, once you've got the parts actually building the computer is very easy. It looks impressive to be up to your elbows in computer guts, but really it's hard to screw up. Everything is keyed to only fit one way.

All that said, for a ~$500 cheap computer, the savings will probably be minimal. APL (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I build myself a custom computer every year and donate my previous year's computer to a local middle-school student. So, I've been through this many times. I have found that there is an order to follow to be able to do it easily. First, purchase the motherboard. This will determine the rest of the computer. Pay attention to what comes on the board. Many boards have on-board audio, networking, USB ports, and sometimes on-board video. If you need something and it isn't on the board (ie: networking), you will need to get a card for it. Once you have a motherboard, get the following: cpu w/fan, memory. Now, you've spent a good chunk of change and you can estimate how much you want to spend on video capabilities and harddrive space. Your video card will decide what power supply you need. A standard card doesn't need anything special. One of those high-end super 3D graphics cards will force to you buy a 500W or more power supply. Make sure it works with your motherboard. Then, get a drive (or two). The motherboard will decide if you need IDE, SATA, or whatever. With a monitor, keyboard, and mouse, you can technically plug this all together and see what you've got. It is better to put it in a case first. Do you want a single CD drive or two? Do you want USB ports all over the front of the case? Make those decisions and you'll have a case, cd drive, and any other accessories you like. Now, you can put it all together, install an operating system, and see what you've got. It should be complete, but you never know. You may have overlooked something like audio. In the end, I spend about $400/year purchasing a brand new computer. I don't use Windows, so I never have to buy an operating system (which probably costs more than my computer). -- kainaw ™ 15:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies everyone, proving very useful. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I know this reply is a bit late but...) I found a couple of wikibooks that might help:

Cheers, davidprior (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

another late entry: go to a site like tiger direct or some of the competitors; you can get anything from individual components, to motherboards with processors preinstalled, to "barebones" machines with the board/processor/case/power supply assembled and the rest left to you; combos like drive plus board, for instance, which go together well; advice, etc. etc. one thing about rolling your own is the ability to get as generic as possible which makes upgrading a breeze, so you don't end up like me with a whole spare bedroom full of obsolete IBM, Dell, Compaq etc. machines which have reached the limits of their upgradability and are not standard/generic enough to accept a major transplant of whatever is holding them back.Gzuckier (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

laptop slowdown

Okay, I don't know what the fuck happened to my laptop, but it's pissing me off. Everything is running ungodly slow today. Can't play Spore since the stars you click on to play won't load, and the 'pedia and creators are lagging like molasses, even on all low settings, which is my default. You can click on the invisible planets, but have to do a shitload of pixel searching. Once going into the game, it is literally unplayably slow. Can play Dawn of War, but it lags horribly.

Cutscenes in everything lag like crap, when they were fine yesterday. The internet is sloooooooow and every time I boot up Firefox or go to certain pages, it says 'A script on this page may have stopped responding. You can stop the script or continue to see if it will complete.'

I took about 300MB of shit off my hard drive and relocated it to my external HDD and defragged everything but it hasn't helped. My music even skips when I'm playing it. Even fucking Keybored lags.

Also notable: -I play all my games on the same external hard drive I moved all this shit to. -My laptop is about 3 years old. -The only thing I downloaded yesterday was about 200MB of classical music.

Thanks in advance.Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 11:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try defragmenting your hard drive. Was the language really necessary, though? · AndonicO ^Engage. 12:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OP did note they had 'defragged' the drive (their language is a bit dubious but each to their own). Have you gone onto something like trend-microscan (free online virus scanning) to check there isn't something infecting your laptop? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also check your anti-virus software. For some ungodly reason, both Norton and McAfee feel that the best time to use up 99% of system resources to scan every file on the harddrive is when the user is actively using the computer. It must be impossible to do when the user is not using the computer. Every time my wife complains that her laptop isn't responding, I walk over, right-click on the McAfee scan icon, cancel file scan, and the problem is magically fixed. -- kainaw ™ 14:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With that kind of language, this person deserves some other kind of help.

You may have a virus, or at least adware/malware. Try running antivirus scans and AdAware and Spybot. Don't attempt to use the computer during such scans. Also look for any unrecognized processes running under the Task Manager, and kill them off to see if the problem is solved, even temporarily, which will help to locate the problem. Also check to see if the paging space is set to some bizarre value. If all else fails, you can wipe the drive and reinstall the operating system and any apps/games you want. Do a backup first, though, in case you need to restore something later. StuRat (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open Windows Task Manager (Ctrl+Shift+Esc) and use the Processes tab to see which process is using the most CPU time. --wj32 ^t/c 22:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Search around for how to fix your hard drive going into PIO mode :) cheers .froth. (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for being a bit nasty but I was really frustrated and I esentially just copy-pasted from 4chan. Anyway, I found out what the problem was, it turns out helpsvc.exe was using an ungodly amount of resources, so I installed Service Pack 3 which fixed it. Pretty sure that's what it was. Sorry for being an idiot. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 01:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blog with access control

Hi, is there any free blog hosting service which allows me to password-protect my blog? I would like a simple interface with only a password so I can distribute this to friends and family. Wordpress and Blogspot both have access restriction features, but they require you to make a "dummy" user and distribute its login information, which I believe is a bigger obstacle for people to log in. Thanks! Jørgen (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Livejournal lets you restrict your blogs to specific people, I believe. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, when I want to restrict it without requiring all my friends to register at Google, Wordpress, Livejournal or something like that. Ideally I would like something similar to .htaccess with a password, but I don't want to go through the work of setting up a site myself. Anyone? Jørgen (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Limewire

Is Limewire a PITA or is it just me? I look for 'Whiplash' by James, and I end up with 'Whiplash James shaking orgasm' or some such, so I change the word 'James' to 'Tim Booth' (the lead singer of James) and I get 'Whiplash Tim Booth shaking orgasm'. Totally annoying.--ChokinBako (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that happens with everything. I quit Limewire a long time ago. Torrents are so much better. Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 01:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh... I don't know what a "PITA" is, nor have I ever experienced any problems like that when using Limewire. Limewire doesn't do that - or, I should say, it doesn't do it on its own. You might've downloaded some form of adware/malware that was included in something you got from Limewire, and the ad/malware is doing it. Or you could have gotten the ad/malware from some other source. But watch out, because with most software like that, that's not the only thing it'll do; it might include a keylogger, comp-crasher, etc. I suggest running AVG, Norton AntiVirus or similar. flaming lawyer^cnever for get 01:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"PITA" = Pain in the ass. With P2P systems like Gnutella (which LimeWire uses), clients are free to "insert" whatever files they want to share into the network. For example, if you conduct a search for "Windows Vista", the request will be sent to many different computers, some of which may be malicious and return search results like "Windows Vista shaking orgasm". A search for "Winamp Pro" may return "Winamp Pro shaking orgasm". These two "files" will probably be the same if you try to download them, and both will probably be viruses. Unsuspecting users may download these and run them, leading to more malicious computers spreading these kinds of search results. --wj32 ^t/c 05:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the same thing; no matter what you type into the search feature, from "cats" to "sj@@e2jsds", there is always the same result - whatever you typed appended by "sexy girl has shaking orgasm during sex". Interestingly this does not happen on FrostWire. Chemical Weathering (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

decidability

What's that theorem that says that you can't design an algorithm that's always able to decide whether a statement is true in a (sufficiently powerful) formal system? .froth. (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of undecidability theorems. Are you talking about Gödel's incompleteness theorems? Algebraist 23:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Godel's theory is the mathematical proof that there are theorems that you can neither prove nor disprove. The algorithm problem is a part of the 'halting problem'. That (basically) says that you can't come up with an algorithm that'll tell you whether any given computer program (well, any Turing machine) will halt or whether it'll loop forever. So if I make the statement "This program runs forever" - you can't write an algorithm to prove whether that's a true statement or not. SteveBaker (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found it; it's called Church's Theorem. No article on wikipedia for it, but there is Entscheidungsproblem. One of these days I'm going to compile a list of the most interesting metamathematics articles.. .froth. (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How might I prevent websites from...

...resizing my browser window without my permission, or opening up new windows without all the usual, expected toolbars at the top? I'm using Firefox 3.04. Heh, I used to know how to do this... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you want tools/options/content/advanced button opposite 'enable javascript'. Algebraist 00:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that looks like it. Thanks! --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, by doing so, you have effectively thrown the baby out with the bath water. Turning of all javascript when all you really want to do is disable a couple specific functions (basically you don't want it to create any new windows or to resize the existing window—only two out of a million functions!) is a little silly. Might as well stab out an eye so it doesn't see anything you don't want! Don't be surprised if many of the sites you frequent don't seem to work like they used to... --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about turning off javascript? Algebraist 00:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one's turning off any javascript - FF3 (maybe 2?) can disable certain aspects of it, but it's not turning it off by any means. flaming lawyer^cnever for get 00:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I haven't disabled javascript. Just clicked off a couple of checkboxes to prevent sites using javascript to do things that annoy me... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many many people browse the internet without Javascript. Much more secure, and you can use old browsers without worrying about vulnerabilities. .froth. (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]