Computing desk
< July 29	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 31 >

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.

July 30

Convert function

How do I find how to use the WP convert function to express a quantity in different units? Example {{convert inches|mm}}. I've exhausted all the search tools, including WP search, looking for "convert" but can't find anything even close. Santamoly (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you trying to do? Template:Convert has instuctions for inches - e.g.,

{{convert|15|in|mm}} for 15 inches (380 mm)
{{convert|380|mm|in}} for 380 millimetres (15 in)

If that helps. ^Avic _ennasis @ 02:30, 28 Tamuz 5771 / 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to find the function to show someone how to do it, but I couldn't find it (I didn't know that it's called a "template"). Searching for "convert" was getting me nowhere. Be that as it may, the template "| fuel_capacity = 15 litres (4.0 US gallons)" also gets me nowhere. I can't get it to display a result on the page we're editing. Santamoly (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you get rid of the "convert", and put in something simple like "fuel_capacity = HI MOM", you'll see that that doesn't show up either. Your problem has nothing to do with Template:Convert, and everything to do with Template:Infobox automobile, which has no fuel_capacity parameter. From the history, it looks like fuel_capacity used to be there, but was removed a year ago. 67.162.90.113 (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent feedback. Thanks. I'd never have found this otherwise. Santamoly (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Site not appearing in google search

i have created a free website in weebly, but my site is not appearing in google search. please advice why is it happening? --U9m0 (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google has a FAQ page that explains this in great detail. At the end of the day, you the website-owner need to understand one critical fact: Google is not obligated to index you. Any search-query, search-result, or page-rank that you are given by Google is at Google's discretion. They may choose to use an algorithm, or any other criteria at all, to decide when and whether your page shows up in search results. Nimur (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When did you create the website? Even if Google would want to index it, it takes time for their webcrawler to locate it. If nothing links to it, they may not be able to locate it at all. Looie496 (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malware cold calling

Has anybody in the UK had a phonecall from a number with the are code 02032 claiming to be a company which has surveyed computers in the area and found the user has downloaded malware? Is it genuine or is it, as I suspect, a rous to get personal details? TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How would they know what you've downloaded? Sounds like a scam. Even if it isn't there's no harm in reporting them to your telecomms provider. Whenever I get a cold call I always ask them who they wish to speak to. If they don't know my name I just hang up.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They actually asked for me by name and asked me to confirm my address. They got it right, which made me wonder, but then as I'm in the phone book it wouldn't be difficult to get those details. I started to smell a rat when they told me about the malware thing. I thought much the same as you, and put down the phone. The guy then had the nerve to call me back and ask if I'd hung up on him. Can't believe some people. Reporting them sounds like a sensible idea to me. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported it to Consumer Direct, which apparently passes on information to the Office of Fair Trading and Trading Standards. Unfortunately I don't know the company's name because the individual I spoke to spoke heavily accented English, and it was obviously not his first language, but I've given them as many details as I can, including their telephone number. Cheers again and thanks for your help and advice. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a scam: Received phone call saying I had malware (impersonating Microsoft) Unilynx (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they know your name and 'phone number, how do they know how that's related to your computer. It's a well known scam. --Phil Holmes (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guessed it was a scam, but just wanted to make doubly sure. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know someone who received a call like this in NZ and asked the caller how they knew it was him e.g. what the IP was that was alleged infected with malware and possibly other questions. The caller seemed to get angry and eventually hung up. Nil Einne (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Instant Search etc = Evil

Is there any way to turn off the extremely irritating Google Instant Search without using cookies? I call it Instant Search, but apparantly there are several bad things that are very similar: Instant Search, Autocomplete, Query Predictions, Google Suggest, and perhaps others.

It keeps trying to guess - always wrongly - the word I am typing from the first few letters. Whatever it is I want to turn it off as it is extremely irritating.

I need to turn it off without using cookies, as several of my security programs delete all of them.

I use Firefox. I have tried the two different URLs that are supposed to turn off Instant Search, but neither of them work for me. I have tried two different Firefox add-ons, but neither completely cure this problem.

Googleenhancer does thankfully allow you to return to Classic Google, which I much prefer to Instant Search, but then I loose image previews etc. By the way while it says in Googleenhancer that changing the number of results found to any number other then ten turns off Google Instant, I think this is a mistake and that what they should have said is that while Google Instant is on you can only get ten results returned. I wish Googleenchancer could be made to allow you to differentiate more between the google features you can turn on or off - not just "classic" or nothing.

OptimiseGoogle apparantly allows you to turn off Google Suggest, but it does not seem to work - I still get the irritating Instant Search.

Are there any other Firefox add-ons that can turn off Google Instant Search and similar annoyances? 92.29.124.70 (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See this post and your preference Smallman12q (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the first link which included something new: "Switch to Firefox and modify "general.useragent.extra.firefox" in about:config (which Chrome does not support) to say "I hate Google Instant". This disables Google Instant, as others have pointed out, but makes Google think I don't like Chrome..........It doesn't matter what you modify "general.useragent.extra.firefox" to, I use "No Instant on". If you want to undo it you right click on "general.useragent.extra.firefox" and select "Reset" and it will put the current version number of Firefox back in."

The second link does not work because it requires cookies (or "rats" as I prefer to call them). 92.29.124.70 (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the suggestion above about changing general.useragent.extra.firefox but firefox5 only allows you to change it from true to false and back, not alter what it says, and neither of them solve the problem. Is there some way I could change the text as suggested?

Some one else suggested using NoScript to defeat it, but although I have NoScript installed, I don't know how to do that. 92.29.124.70 (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I had similar frustrations, I found the same post above and used the solution mentioned in step C: I bookmarked http://www.google.com/?complete=0. It works even with cookies completely blocked. It lets you type in the box on the Google homepage without the autocomplete drop-down list of suggestions and without instantly going to the search results page. --Bavi H (talk)

More information: Google Instant is the feature where after you type a letter in the box on the Google homepage, it immediately takes you to search results, and keeps refreshing the results while you continue typing. I'm comfortable using cookies created by the Preferences page to disable Google Instant, but then the homepage uses autocomplete: a drop down box appears with guesses of the rest of the word or phrase I'm typing. There's no preference to disable that, but adding ?complete=0 at the end of the homepage address works. --Bavi H (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

alternatively, rather than 'defeating' google's features, there are other search engines available. Not using google is probably more effective, ableit infinitesimally, at conveying your dissatisfaction.Cander0000 (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for a plain search, try scroogle which scrapes google and is cookie free...Smallman12q (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the 'size' of a bit

is it possible to give a SIMPLE answer to how big is a bit? Is it 1 letter? say you have the letter T. is 1 bit the whole letter? or, is the top of the T 1 bit and the trunk another? or an h is the long vertical 1 bit and the horizontal curve another, while the short downstroke another? Is there a way to explain this to me so I know just what I'm being charged for on my laptop? howabout 1 playing tile in dominos? Thank you hottoddie13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hottoddie13 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A bit is nothing but a number that is either 0 or 1. It can also be represented as "yes or no", or "true or false". The letters T and h can't be represented in 1 bit, nowhere near so. The English 26-letter alphabet needs 5 bits to describe it, and even that only includes the letters' index numbers from 1 to 26. If you want to describe the graphical shape of the letters, you need hundreds of bits, if not even more. JIP | Talk 22:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To put it another way, a bit is something that can store one out of two possible values. What the values are depend on how the bit is used. For example, a single bit could be used to store yes or no, on or off, up or down, or so on depending on the way the bit is used.

If you use two bits, you can store one out of four possible values (2 × 2). Three bits gets you eight possible values (2 × 2 × 2). And so on.

Can you tell us more about the bits you're being charged for on your laptop? We might be able to provide better examples for your situation. --Bavi H (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking about bytes (as in hard drive space), a byte is 8 bits. Each byte can express one of 256 different values. At its most simple level, those can be used to just write very simple text documents (you could think of each letter as being a byte in size). More likely though is that the bytes are symbolic in a binary way and are used to represent lots of different types of data. The amount of bytes necessary depends on the type of data it is. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are discussing the parts of the display of letters on your screen, you may be confusing "bit" with "pixel". A pixel is a tiny little spot on your screen that may be set to a color. It is not divisible. A pixel is entirely a single color at any point in time - such as red or yellow or tangerine. The top line of a T may be 1 pixel tall. It may be 2 pixels tall. It may be 100 pixels tall. That has to do with how many pixels tall the font is when it is being displayed. Further, there is no such thing as the size of a pixel. It may be 1/16" on your monitor and 1/24" on mine. People who try to transition from print media to web media often try to introduce the silly notion of "pixels per inch", but it doesn't work out well. A pixel is however big a pixel is on your monitor. Similarly, the physical size of a bit in your computer depends on the electronics. It could be the size of a subatomic particle (if you are a well-funded researcher doing quantum computing) or it could be a 1/4" LED on the front of your computer that turns on when your hard drive is accessed. -- kainaw ™ 02:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they did mean to ask about screen pixels, we should point our that the most common methods in use today assign either 24 bits or 32 bits to each pixel. This allows each pixel to have millions or billions of shades/colors. StuRat (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You also asked about a playing tile in dominoes. Assuming you are using a double 6 set, there are then 7 possible numbers on each side (0-6), so that gives us 49 possible values. Those could be represented with 6 bits, since 2^6 = 64 values, which is more than enough. If you use double 9 dominoes, there you have 100 possibles tiles, so need 7 bits, since 2^7 = 128. For double 12 dominoes, you have 169 tiles, and would need 8 bits, since 2^8 = 256. StuRat (talk) 07:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in a set of double-six dominoes, there is only one domino for each combination of numbers 0-6 and 0-6, order doesn't matter. (The 4-5 domino is the same as the 5-4 domino: There's only one domino with both 4 and 5.) Thus, there are 28 dominoes in a double-six set, and you could use 5 bits to index them. Higher domino sets work the same way. --Bavi H (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using the chart there, I get the following values:

Domino Set  Tiles  Bits Needed
==========  =====  ===========
Double-6      28   5-bit =  32
Double-9      55   6-bit =  64
Double-12     91   7-bit = 128
Double-15    136   8-bit = 256
Double-18    190   8-bit = 256

StuRat (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to infer that within the context of being charged for bits, the original poster is curious about what he gets in a "64-bit" computer rather than a "32-bit" computer; or wants to know the difference between 3 megabits per second charged by his Internet Service Provider as opposed to the less expensive 1.5 megabit per second speed. Original poster: If the former is the case, the differences are that a 32-bit PC can usually use only around 3GB or 3.5GB of RAM, and that a 64-bit PC is faster with some applications (like Adobe Photoshop or 3D rendering software). If the latter is your question, then the difference is the measurement of how many millions (megabits) or thousands (kilobits) of data per second can be sent over your ISP connection. Each bit is either a 1 or a 0. If you want to get a sense for what that means for the types of files you use every day, open up a window and look at the file size of your MP3 files (or whatever you use a lot). Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia C5-00 and e-mail

I just found out I can make my Nokia C5-00 read and send my e-mail just by typing my e-mail address and my IMAP password in the phone's e-mail configuration page. This is just great, but what if I want it to stop doing it? At the very least, a reason for doing so would be that the phone continuously checks for new messages, and if any arrive, sounds a loud beep, which can be distracting. It could also add to my packet data bill. There isn't any option in the e-mail application to turn e-mail accounts off. Should I try to deliberately misconfigure my e-mail address or my IMAP password? JIP | Talk 22:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The User Guide shows how to Disconnect the mailbox to "cancel the synchronisation between the device and the e-mail server, and to work with e-mail without a wireless connection". (See User Guide - E-mail or Nokia C5–00 User Guide, page 37.) Is that option available on your phone? --Bavi H (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. I have tried it, and it stops the synchronisation until I access the e-mail again, at which point it sometimes starts the synchronisation again without asking me. There is no way to delete or disable e-mail accounts, just to stop the synchronisation. The synchronisation doesn't delete messages from the server, so I can receive them just as well in Evolution on my Fedora 12 Linux system, which I use as my main e-mail recipient, the phone only as a secondary one, so the only problem I have is with the continuous checking, which leads to distractions and increased phone bills. JIP | Talk 23:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you put in wrong information, it'll surely still connect and try to establish an IMAP connection, fail, and still you'll incur packet data traffic. What happens if you just blank the name/password fields? Isn't blanking them Nokia's way of deconfiguring the email account? -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]