Computing desk
< February 7	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 9 >

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.

February 8

mozilla firefox

hi can anyone please tell me if mozilla firefox has firewall and anti virus with it as people are say diffent things cannot get a straight answer thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggy*123 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not. It's a web browser, not an all-purpose internet security suite. Algebraist 03:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does have a very basic virus scanner for downloads, but it's hardly adequate. Firefox is the safest browser while actually viewing webpages, and it blocks known attack pages, but I'd suggest getting something like AVG, if you're looking for anti-virus/malware/spyware software. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 03:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an anti-virus program, consult this PC World article first. AVG tends to rank near the bottom of comparisons, but I guess low cost and word of mouth have made it popular. I use BitDefender Free Edition. That's free and has good detection rates.--K;;m5m k;;m5m (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article *is* a couple of years old, so I'm not sure how accurate it would be today... also, it didn't seem to take into account the way some scanners (like McAfee) hog system resources. I could barely even play solitaire with it on my (three-year-old) computer when it was scanning! --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 03:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. I usually disable all the real-time junk and just scan manually from time to time. McAfee is especially bad. I read that BitDefender and Norton scan faster than it. I also read an article from Consumer Reports published in September, 2007 that ranked AVG and Avast at the bottom. You really get what you pay for when it comes to anti-virus and anti-spyware programs.--K;;m5m k;;m5m (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do? But just a little earlier you yourself praised BitDefender Free Edition (for which you pay nothing), and I've seen Symantec utilities (which don't cost nothing, but which admittedly could have been misinstalled) make computers run painfully slowly. Morenoodles (talk) 05:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never used Symantec Utilities, but the key usually is disabling all of the programs that start automatically after you install an anti-virus program. It usually doesn't matter what anti-virus suite you use, because they usually add five or so services that start when the computer starts. I've noticed it with McAfee, Norton, Trend Micro, and BitDefender. You disable them inside services.msc and msconfig and then start them when you need to run a scan. The only good anti-virus program that hasn't done this to me is Kaspersky, which I liked very much. I guess BitDefender free edition is an exception to the rule I stated, but 99.9% of the free anti-virus programs I've encountered were either ineffective (e.g., AVG) or viruses themselves.--K;;m5m k;;m5m (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Yes, once in my life I got infected with malware and immediately I was advised by Windows [not!] to install such-and-such a piece of "antivirus software". Since there are limits to my stupidity, I responded by hitting Alt-F4 a lot of times. Morenoodles (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did Firefox include a virus scanner? It can use another virus scanner, but it doesn't include one! --wj32 ^t/c 08:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on... OK, ignore me. You're right, I'm thinking of a certain very handy extension. Sometimes I wish the extensions would just be included with Firefox... FF does block some attack pages (emphasis on some), though. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 20:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

white text-ifying...

The Memphis Tigers Wikia is having some problems. Sometimes, all the text (but not links) will randomly turn white. I haven't edited Monaco.css and Common.css, and no one else has either, but it still turns white. Then, a couple hours/minutes later, it'll (just as randomly) turn back to gray (the color that it's supposed to be). Clearing the server cache doesn't help. Clearing your browser cache doesn't help. Restarting your comp doesn't help. Can anyone solve this puzzle? Yes, I've confirmed that it's not just me seeing it, it's everyone. flaming lawyer 03:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, when I said "I haven't edited Monaco.css and Common.css, and no one else has either [...]," I meant that it wasn't caused by anyone actually editing those pages to make the text white. flaming lawyer 03:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I don't know (looks fine when I look at it), but you might consider using something like the Firefox Web Developer Toolbar to diagnose the problem (it'll let you instantly view whatever styles are affecting any given element, which could help you pinpoint the problem when it happens). Off the cuff, it sounds like a stylesheet is not loading correctly/completely or something like Javascript is trying to dynamically play with a stylesheet declaration and failing. The fact that both the CSS and the Javascript trigger multiple errors in Firefox is not a great sign, off the bat. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Eh, I still have cache issues, but the white text is gone. flaming lawyer 22:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Limewire Alternative?

What sort of alternatives are there out there from Limewire? I've used Limewire a few times (by "a few", I mean three), but I've heard it's not exactly the safest thing out there. Why is it unsafe, and what safer alternatives are there? --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 03:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the LimeWire article. One danger is that, according to that article, 30% of the shared files out there contain malware. Using a different client would not change this risk. Tempshill (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative would be FrostWire, although, as that guy pointed out, this doesn't change the risk of malware. flaming lawyer 04:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you download illegal programs willy-nilly, you run two risks. The first is that you'll get sued, which is a small but not non-existent possibility. The second is that the program you download will have a virus. Which is a much larger possibility.

Not that I endorse software piracy, but you're better off with systems like torrents that require multiple people to be constantly hosting it and have advanced commenting features, so that if something has a virus you'll probably have some indication way in advance. But that doesn't help you with the illegality problem. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal doesn't mean unsafe. Legal doesn't mean safe. I don't even agree that you can say more "illegal" programs are unsafe than "legal" programs - aren't viruses illegal anyway? --wj32 ^t/c 08:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to make the safety distinction based solely on the legal status. I'm just trying to explain it in a clear way so that someone who is not computer savvy understands the issues. But it must be admitted that you're going to find more viruses trolling in illegal programs than in legal ones (in legal ones, you're likely to find other sorts of malware—specifically spyware and things of that nature—but not so much viruses). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about me not being computer-savvy, trust me, I just don't know much about file-sharing programs. That being said, what do you mean by "legal" vs. "illegal"? The actual programs are neither legal nor illegal, it's the files you're downloading that can be legal/illegal. (unless I'm missing something here) I suppose I should clarify a bit more, now that I've read everything people have said here... is there an option like Limewire (not torrents) that scans files for malware/etc. when you download it? Or is there a particular anti-virus/whatever program I could get that is particularly useful in that regard? --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 19:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree that torrents are much safer than that Gnutella crap. Search for anything in Gnutella and you'll get BS results like "Windows 7 Crack shaking orgasm". --wj32 ^t/c 08:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming P2P program is being used for legal purposes, I've found Bearshare to have more content than limewire. I also concur that bittorrents tend to be more reliable for specific downloads. — Ched (talk) 08:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I've never downloaded a virus from eMule. A little common sense goes a long way Nil Einne (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excel and negative exponential functions

Hi, I'm trying to fit a regression line to data exhibiting a negative exponential pattern (specifically temperature of a cold object versus time, equilibriating to room temperature), but Excel keeps insisting on a positive exponential function! Are there any workarounds? 199.111.183.148 (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, x^(-y) = ¹/_(x^y), so try that in Excel and see if it works. If you want to list the specific formula you're using, we can be more specific in our answers. StuRat (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could subtract the temperatures from room temperature. Ctourneur (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XP desktop icons

I have Windows XP SP 2 and the text field under the desktop icons are for some reason not transparent and have blue rectangles behind the text... I've seen XP desktops with transparent text backgrounds, so what do I need to do to make it transparent? 71.219.55.205 (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Control Panel + Display + Appearance tab + Advanced button + Icon is where you would go to change the background color for the icon text. The background color box is set to transparent and grayed out to prevent any change, for me, but perhaps it's not for you. StuRat (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I've used this, but I believe that what controls that option is something in the "Performance" dialog, which is a tab accessed from the "Advanced" button on the "Settings" tab of the Display dialog. --Tardis (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OPENGL

Hi Steve I wa't to know that can game in opengl programming can be made using 3D image file only and if yes how —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.45.212 (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO - I can't understand what he's asking, but he sure does know who to ask :) flaming lawyer 05:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, if I'm right in thinking that you want to make a game entirely from a 3D model... --wj32 ^t/c 08:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OpenGL is a library of computer programming functions. Think of it as an add-on to a computer programming language like C++ or Java. To use it you will need to already know how to use a computer programming language.

If you're not interested in learning a computer programming language, you might consider making a mod of an existing game. Many games like Halflife 2 come with an editor you could use to make your own levels, or even your own games. APL (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I want to use image file for stationery objects so it as to make it easy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.45.88 (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle and Rollback

I have just recently downloaded the firefox browser and enabled twinkle on my preferences. I now notice that when I look at diffs there appears to be the choice of using rollback, yet I see that according to Wikipedia:Rollback feature permission is needed to enable this feature. I havn't actualy used the rollback and may in fact be unable to do so despite appearances. My feeling is I would be unable to use it but would appreciate it if someone could answer this puzzle for me. Titch Tucker (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak mater of factually, but it seems that TW uses a script that simply reverts to the previous version (perhaps restores is a more accurate description). I notice that when you do get rollback, it adds another rollback link though. When I first saw it (after installing Twinkle, I just went to a sandbox sub-page within my user space and tried it - it seemed to work, and I just went on from there. I think (but am not sure) that the difference is that when you use the "real" rollback, that the change isn't kept in page history. This is all my own original research, so take it with a grain of salt though. — Ched (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Twinkle gives you the rollback option, but there might be diferences, like Ched said. To use Twinkle, you don't need to be authorized to use rollback. I use it all the time, and can't use regular rollback. To use Huggle, you need to be allowed to use regular rollback. For future reference, questions like this should be asked at the help desk, or at the Twinkle talk page. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 14:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses guys. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange device arrived with new TV

File:Strange lcd thingy.jpg

Here it is...

This strange item - a grey box with a single LED, and a headphone-like jack on the other end - arrived packaged with the cables etc. for a new Sony flatscreen TV. The picture is fairly hi-res... Does anyone know what it is? :-O Thanks! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 12:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought would be either an external ambient light sensor or an infrared reciever extension. Does it not tell you in the manual? Is there any indication on any likely sockets on the back of the television? A full model number of the tv could possibly help track it down. Nanonic (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A receiver extension sounds like a likely option. For a TV installed in a public place like a bar, they have occasional problems when people bring in universal remotes and mess around with the bar's TVs for a joke. I've heard of TVs adapted for public use that don't have the front IR sensor, but only receive commands from an IR extension, the receiver element of which is positioned somewhere private, such as behind the bar. 87.113.74.22 (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

definatly for the remote controll i taken apart loads of romots and it looks just like that a clear led —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above possibilities (ambient light sensor, IR receiver), it could be a IR (remote control) transmitter allowing your TV to control an external device (a "cable box", for instance). Such a setup allows users to "hide" the controlled box resulting in a "clean" install, reduces the number of remotes required (while still maintaining access to any TV-specific functionality on the TV remote), and may allow the TV to do fancy things like an "alarm clock" set for a specific source channel. I would be very surprised if the function of this device wasn't described in the TV documentation or in a TV setup menu on the set itself. – 74 19:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For additional help please post the model number and brand of your tv.– Elliott 01:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter...I don't get it!

I have tried it out and I don't understand its use...

Is it like an RSS feed?

Also I cannot read the comments left for any famous people I follow, so they seem to be replying to messages I cannot see......(if I could read the comments left it would be more interesting)

Am I doing something wrong or is it not kind my thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.129.12 (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but it seems to be popular with the younger users. More of a social networking thing than RSS I think, I guess it's the way they tell the world they are happy, bored, or going on vacation. — Ched (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can only see the comments posted by the people you 'follow'. So if you only follow the famous people you'll only see there replies, not the questions that were posted to them. I follow a group of around 200 people, 20-30 of which are famous. If I see an interesting or intriguing answer posted by someone, it only takes a few clicks through to the questioner to see what the original question was. If you are already following the questioner you will see the question anyway. And with regard to 'popular with younger users'? I'm 36. That's pretty old.121.215.185.153 (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there were any (or many) "famous" people using Twitter when I started, so I mostly follow friends and people I know from work (I work in a very techy job). I briefly followed Robert Llewellyn and Jonathan Ross, but swiftly unfollowed due to the vast amount they produce and the tiny proportion of it that is interesting to me. The only "famous" person I follow is Stephen Fry, and that because I genuinely appreciate what he has to say, not out of some bizarre celebrity fetish. I find it a little unfortunate that, due to the way it's been "surfaced" by well-known users, for many people Twitter appears only as some kind of celebrity vehicle. But then again, one of the beauties of the platform is that, dear Stephen apart, the celeb-followers' circles and mine need never intersect. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to remove all "search term highlighting"?

Resolved

–

\sim

Lenoxus " * " 18:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article exactly describes my gripe regarding the phenomenon of "referrer search term highlighting". I'm using Firefox 3.0.6 on a Mac Mini with Mac OS 10.4.11, and my main search engine is Google Search. I'm trying to figure out whether there's any possible way to disable this "feature" on websites that do this with Google searches — through some sort of preference setting, Firefox extension, or whatever. Thanks in advance! $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 16:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your browser sends the URL of the page that referred you when you request another page, and these sites look at that URL, notice it's from Google and pick out the search terms (so if you click a result for 'foobar', http://www.google.com/search?q=foobar is sent to the server hosting the result). You can disable this behaviour completely by following these instructions. Note that some pages use this data for other reasons, such as blocking hotlinking of images, so you may occasionally notice some strange behaviour - on the whole, though, it shouldn't make any difference other than getting rid of search term highlighting. You can always re-enable it if it causes problems. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 17:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worked perfectly — thanks much!

\sim

Lenoxus " * " 18:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connection speed

For a good while now my connection speed seems to have slowed down to a crawl. I just recently changed to the firefox browser which seemed to speed things up only for it once again to slow down. My connection speed at the moment is 54.0Mbps with the signal strength being excellent. Is there something I'm doing wrong or do I just have to put up with it? Any advice would be appreciated. Titch Tucker (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I hope I've posted this to the correct page. Titch Tucker (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the signal strength mentioned refers to a wireless network, other devices in the same frequency block can cause interference and degradation in service. This typically includes cordless phones, other "wireless" tech, and electric motors. If you (or any close neighbors) are using such devices there aren't really any good solutions; you can try changing wireless channels, or upgrading (or downgrading) to a different frequency block, running a network cable, replacing the troublesome devices, or accepting that your signal will experience some interference. – 74 19:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely doubt your actual internet connection is 54.0Mbps, that's just the speed between the wireless router and your computer. You need to find out what speed your ISP is supposed to be providing, then check online at a site like [1]. If there is a significant difference between the two you should complain to the ISP that they are not providing the service you've payed for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned that switching browsers affected your speed for a while. This could mean that you might have spyware or maybe even some virus'. I would suggest that you remove all your cookies, browsing history, temporary files, and restart your computer, then i would suggest that you use an anti-spyware program and an anti-virus program to do a full scan(maybe before you go to bed?) if that fails try connecting to your router with a wire and see if that helps, if that does help then you have some interference. – Elliott 01:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all cookies, browsing history and temporary files and had no improvement. Your mention of anti-spyware and anti-virus programs got me thinking that perhaps I should look for a better program. Have done so and it seems to have done the trick. Thanks to everyone for their advice, it's much appreciated. Titch Tucker (talk) 07:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emerging computer technologies

Lately there has been many emerging computer technologies: chemical computers, molecular computing, quantum computers, DNA computers, etc. Which one of the technologies would have the most potential to replace silicon-based processors in laptops & PCs? --DocDeel516 ^discuss 22:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the short to mid term? None. I'm not familar with chemical computers, but quantum computing has severe problems when people try to scale it up beyond a couple dozen qbits, DNA computing is mostly a curiosity, and molecular computing doesn't have any methods for making chip-scale structures. In the long run, if silicon computing is replaced, I expect it to be with molecular computing. --Carnildo (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]