December 6

I was wondering if it's possible to have desktop icons on the desktop? I know you can drag the icons from the Applications folder but is there another way to have them in both places? Knowing me, I'll delete the icon from the desktop and accidentally delete programs... --139.184.222.105 (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh would "Make alias" do it? --139.184.222.105 (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that's what it's for. Algebraist 00:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although what you really want to do is use the dock for the applications that you use most frequently. You can right-click (ctrl-click) on any running program to add it to the dock or just drag the application icon to the dock. Donald Hosek (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe maybe not. Dock's one paradigm; icons on the desktop is another. They should do whichever they prefer. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I got an email the other day from a ".cp". At first I thought it might be a country code, but I haven't been able to find it on any domain lists. Googling was mostly ineffective as it appears to be ignoring the ., or that is communicating some kind of command I'm unaware of. Is anyone familiar with .cp, and if so, what is it? Natalie (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It doesn't exist. Furthermore, according to ISO 3166-3, the list of former country codes, it never existed. It's either a typo (for .co, Colombia, maybe) or just a lousy forgery. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 05:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have gmail - is there an easy way I can see the actual top-level domain? Natalie (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of what? Where it came from? There's no way you can tell- it could have gone through a dozen servers from its original source. --ffroth 18:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's still the chain of "Received:" headers, and at least some of them won't have been forged. Gmail's GUI changes from browser to browser, but at least on Safari, you can view the headers by clicking on "more options", then "show original". --Carnildo (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How secure would it be to use the md5 checksum of a file as a password (assuming that the file is reasonably unique and only possessed by the password's owner, and also assuming that an attacker may know that the password is an md5 checksum (but nothing about what sort of file the checksum was generated from))? 69.123.113.89 (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See MD5#Vulnerability. For most purposes it would be secure, if you're really paranoid use SHA-1 with salt or even SHA-512 with salt. --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not really a good idea, at least if you plan on keeping the file around. If an attacker can access your computer and knows that you MD5'd a file there, they can recover the password just by hashing every file, which wouldn't take very long. (If they can't access your computer, and the file is not something common (like Wikipedia's logo image or something), the hash is effectively a random string of 128 bits.) See book cipher, one-time pad, and CSPRNG for more on this sort of approach. --Tardis (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/8923/openkw9.png

Why does the Open With function pop out when I try opening C:/?

AlmostCrimes (talk) 07:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You probably don't have any software that can handle PNG files installed - I'm not sure if Internet Explorer does or not but Firefox (a different web browser) can open them so if you don't have anything suitable installed, try Firefox, it's free and IMHO better than IE. If you DO have soe software than can deal with PNG files installed, double-click it in the Open With box and make sure the 'Always open using this application' box is ticked, then you won't see the prompt again. GaryReggae (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He's getting the Open With prompt when he tries to open C: in Explorer, not when he tries to open that PNG file. Sorry OP, I don't know why it's happening — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 12:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks nasty. Some kind of shell extension not working. Reinstall xp and select "repair". --ffroth 18:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open Control Panel > Folder Options > File Types and scroll down to the file type "Drive": It should say "N/A", along with Folder, etc, etc. If it's not there, hit "New", "Advanced >>", then scroll down to "Drive" and select it and hit enter. Alternately, hit "Browse..." in that box that comes up and go to C:\WINDOWS\explorer.exe and select that (Since Windows Explorer (Not IE) is what drives should open with anyway). 68.39.174.238 (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've had a similar problem where drives or folders would open the Search Companion. The fix for that problem is described here. You might consider carefully investigating the registry to see if it's the same thing with your problem. --Bavi H (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/890/problemeh0.png re: 68.39.174.238, if I understand your directions properly then it's already not associated with any file type?

Bavi, when I did as your link said and changed the registry entry for Default in the appropriate root folder (Drive) the problem still persisted. Thanks for the help everyone, but I'm still stuck at a dead end. I can still access C:/, just that I have to use explore by right-clicking the start button instead of My Computer, which I'd vastly prefer.

AlmostCrimes (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Try the drive association fix from Windows® XP File Association Fixes --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still doesn't work. Not vitally important, but it's annoying as hell. AlmostCrimes (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is what I was referring to, but it seems like it already is associated correctly. What happens if you tell Windows to open C:\ with Windows Explorer? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I browse -> C:\WINDOWS\explorer.exe on the Open With box then yes, my C:\ opens up fine. Subsequently the Open With still persists, though, and Windows Explorer isn't on the drop down list. AlmostCrimes (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To preserve my privacy, I am using two IDs in a web forum. Can the administrator of that forum find me or identify me someway that the two IDs belong to same person? 2) When I register in that forum, they send a email to verify that it is my email address. If I click on that link, will my name given to my email provider be visible to administrator? Or will my name be visible only if I reply to that mail sent by administrator? Eventhough I register through two email address for two different forum accounts, in both my email accounts, I have given same first and last name.

Can you understand what I mean to say? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.115.105 (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, admins can tell the two ID's belong to the same person, by matching up the IP's between the two, and no, they probably won't get your name just from sending you the confirmation email, nor clicking the link. However, unless the admin knows that you're in some way suspicious or something they won't be bothered to match IP's and things, especially in large forums. --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What you are referring to is a sockpuppet acccount. You may have honest reasons for using one - so don't assume that I'm implying you are trying to use two accounts for deception. It is often possible for users (non-admins) to detect sockpuppet accounts. It is common for a person to use one account to say something and then quickly use the other to back up what they've said. After repeating this many times, users recognize that the two accounts work together. Then, if they use the same language - especially the same typos - it is more obvious. Worse, users get confused and sign their messages with the wrong account's name. So, if you really want to ensure the users don't recognize you are using two accounts you need to keep them separate. As for your name, if you haven't given it to the website in some other means, they don't have it. Clicking on a link in an email doesn't send any information about you that the administrators didn't already have (and put in the link). -- kainaw™ 16:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• As an ex-forum moderator, multiple accounts would often flag up within a close IP range, and by using forum software AND conventional web IP tracers can confirm this. Even from wide ranging IPs, I could normally tell the same person using alt accounts. Moderators Intuition ;) 86.154.89.103 (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm trying to figure out the algorithm to implement Unicode Normalization Form C, but I'm confused when it comes to how the omposition stage id supposed to works: on this the standard says:

"If C is not blocked from the last starter L and it can be primary combined with L, then replace L by the composite L-C and remove C"

.. but if I "replace L with L-C, then remove C", then (to my puny ind, at least :-) I;ve would be just addeing, then immeduatey rnoving "C", which put me exactly back where I started.

Am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RussPott (talk • contribs) 10:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Try searching for "Unicode Normalization Form C" on Google Code Search. --Sean 15:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just checked my website's log (I have a temporary log to see who's browsing my page) and found an entry from MSN crawler, with the hostname (PHP's $_SERVER["REMOTE_HOST"]) ending with .phx.gbl. Since .gbl isn't a valid TLD, I'm wondering why/how Microsoft does this. --grawity ^{talk / PGP} 12:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have seen nothing official as to why Microsoft is using the phx.gbl domain. I've seen claims that it isn't Microsoft at all. There is a theory that it is a botnet run through MSN Messenger. As for how, Microsoft is powerful enough to create any TLD they like. It may be a Windows thing. Whenever I try to lookup a phx.gbl domain on my computer (Linux), I get "No match for domain". Microsoft can easily hardcode Windows such that gbl domains to use their personal DNS database. -- kainaw™ 16:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The direct lookup doesn't work, but the reverse (nslookup <IP>) does. Also, it is MSN, because the UA starts with "msnbot". --grawity ^{talk / PGP} 16:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"powerful enough to create any TLD they like" may be true, but not without some kind of public record. The simple truth is that reverse DNS is easily forgeable. Sign up for a "business" account with some ISP, ask for a few static IP addresses and have the reverse DNS authority delegated to your own nameserver. Then put in whatever PTR records you want. You can say that your IP address's name is this.phx.gbl or that.wikipedia.org or the-other.microsoft.com. (You might get sued, but that's another topic.)

These deceptions are easily detectable though. Back to the web server log - the server gets a connection from somewhere, let's say 69.246.218.176. It does a reverse DNS lookup and finds that the name is "c-69-246-218-176.hsd1.in.comcast.net" (an unimaginative name which completely misses the point of having hostnames in the first place, which is that they're supposed to be simpler than the numbers they map to, but that's a rant for another time). Does this mean the source of the connection is actually located at comcast? No, it just means the person who controls the reverse DNS of that IP address has put the name "c-69-246-218-176.hsd1.in.comcast.net" in as the answer to the query. If we want to know for sure, we have to do a regular ("forward") lookup on the name and see if we get back the address we started with. And we do, in this case. Now that the reverse and forward lookups have been compared successfully, it's possible to say with a high degree of confidence that the connection actually came from Comcast.

Grawity's web server apparently skips the verification and just logs whatever the reverse lookup says. That's not good. Unverified reverse DNS in your log is worse than no reverse DNS at all, so I'd say if you can't find an option to make it do the verification step, disable the reverse DNS lookups completely. Let it log IP addresses, and you can look up the names later. And then you'll know which IP address is giving you the bogus reverse DNS replies, which is the first step to finding out who's behind them. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 20:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not my server, it's Apache on rootshell.be. --grawity ^{talk / PGP} 16:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One more tip, since REMOTE_HOST was mentioned: the corresponding variable which would contain the IP address is REMOTE_ADDR. If you can log both of them, it won't matter so much that the hostname is unverified. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 20:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I use $_SERVER["REMOTE_HOST"], ["REMOTE_ADDR"] and ["HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR"]. --grawity ^{talk / PGP} 16:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I was working with a large number of folders in My Documents. Windows Explorer (I work with xp x64) was getting slower and slower and there was a folder in the Bin that would wouldn't be completely deleted (it wouldn't empty the bin). The explorer crashed and was accessing the memory like crazy. I left it so for half an hour with no changes so I finally stoped the explorer process through the Task Manager and restarted. Now the My documents have disapeared (luckily they are still on C:). What happened and what can I do to have my documents back on the desktop as it used to be (I think). Do you think there might have been damage done? Thank you. 80.200.149.148 (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're missing the My Documents shortcut on the desktop, you could try restoring it by right-clicking anywhere on the desktop and selecting Properties. Go to the Desktop tab, and click Customise Desktop and make sure that the My Documents checkbox is ticked. --Kateshortforbob 23:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a Linux utility to convert Amiga IFF ILBM files to a more contemporary graphics format? PNG would be preferred, but GIF is OK too. BMP is a last resource but best avoided. JPG is right out because it's lossy. JIP | Talk 19:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know you specified Linux, but if you don't find a Linux utility, you might try IrfanView under Windows. My copy lists IFF ILBM as a file type it can work with, and it can save in dozens of formats. I don't have any such files available though, so I can't check on how well it works. --LarryMac | Talk 19:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

netpbm has an ilbmtoppm. (And in case you're not familiar with netpbm, ppm is its intermediate format for color pictures. You'll then use ppmtogif or pnmtopng) --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 20:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Turns out I already have this netpbm thingy. I will have to try it out. Thanks. JIP | Talk 07:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(moved from Humanities desk)

1.which procedure would you use to open a folder in the Folders window and display its contents?

2.to copy a selected file from one folder to another ,you could use what method.

bonnie tola —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.40.71 (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm assuming you use Windows. Open up Microsoft Explorer and navigate to your folder. That answers question 1. As for question 2, repeat the aforementioned, click on a file, choose "Copy", navigate to the target folder, and choose Paste. Or you could do it faster by opening a Command Prompt window and typing "copy \path_to_file\filename \destination_path". In the unlikely event you use a non-Redmond system, open up a terminal and subsitute "cp" for "copy" and real slashes for those idiotic backslashes. JIP | Talk 20:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the basic nature of the question, I feel that JIP should have told you that you "navigate" by double-clicking on folders with the pointer (that little thing the mouse moves around on the screen). There are some operating systems that let you do this with a single-click instead of a double-click. I do find it rather interesting that a person could locate and post a question on Wikipedia without having any idea how to open a folder. Of course, the big blue "e" doesn't require you to open a folder. -- kainaw™ 20:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to ^[1], the U.S. Census Bureau's Factfinder website allows the user to search places by FIPS codes. However, I can't find such a place on the website. Can someone find somewhere on the website that I can search by FIPS? Nyttend (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps the U.S Census Bureau's FIPS lookup does what you need. Certes (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have any idea how I find out what the "thing" is that was changed so I can change it on my own Mediawiki powered wikis? I've run myself ragged on Mediawiki and obviously not searched for the right thing.

Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a default now for IP addresses, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-11-19/Technology_report, MediaWiki:Signature and MediaWiki:Signature-anon if you've updated to the latest version with those strings. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have received a file which is supposedly an archive of images (the images are vintage 1997 or so), which has an extension .albm ... searching the web suggests that this is an HP proprietary file format used with the HP Photosmart devices and possibly others. I have not found a convertor I can use to unravel it though... supposedly File Juicer (http://echoone.com/filejuicer/) can, but that's for Macs and I am on a Wintel platform... some sites suggest Konvertor (http://www.konvertor.net/indexe.html) but that URL seems dead. Any ideas? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 23:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Google finds any number of places that allow you to download the trial version of Konvertor (I found http://www.logipole.com/download_konv_us.htm, although I've no idea if it's a trustworthy site). If that fails: as a wild stab, copy the file and change the copy's file extension to .ZIP - a remarkable number of "custom" archive file formats are really just zip in disguise. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I should have mentioned that I tried the .zip trick (it's an oldie but a goodie) and that didn't work. I will try searching for Konvertor harder instead of just relying on what someone else said the link was :) ++Lar: t/c 00:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If all else fails, search the .ALBM for the strings JFIF and GIF: maybe the format is as simple as a concatenation of existing file formats, with a little proprietary directory on the front. If that's true, it's not rocket science for someone to code up a splitter that pulls out each JPEG or whatever. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it's not compressed, data recovery software such as PhotoRec might do the trick — just tell it that the file is a disk image of a failed disk. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Try file (Unix). --122.57.210.186 (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Konvertor link works for me; the lsit of supported formats shows it will read .ALBM files. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I got a copy of it and it can see into the archive, there are pictures in there all right, but it blows up trying to get the pictures beyond thumbnail. So I need to hack more. :) ++Lar: t/c 16:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]