Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2008 June 30

= June 30 =

The coolest computer ever?
What is worlds most rad computer? Or to put it more ecyclopedian, what is the worlds most advanced computer that I can purchase for personal use? NO HOLDS BARRED!. This thing should help me with my grocery list, compute pi to a million trillion places, and give me advice on anything I want, then help me symbolically plunge into the evil netherworld of quantam black holes. Someone needs to find out what's in there!THE WORLD&#39;S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The coolest computer is any one that uses liquid nitrogen.
 * The (earliest) most rad computer is probably the Cray-1, which has a circular (i.e. 2π rad) base.
 * The most recent calculation of pi is only to 1.24 trillion places; no computer as yet reached to 1018 places.
 * There are many software programs available for a wide of computer which will maintain your grocery list or offer "advice" on various topics.
 * You will have to visit the Large Hadron Collider to work with quantum black holes.
 * Seriously, though: the best computer you can buy would be something you built yourself by buying all the top-end parts.
 * - SigmaEpsilon → Σ Ε 02:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * All of the tasks you've suggested are software—most based on things that can't yet be accomplished no matter the hardware behind it (computing pi is the one thing that would be easy for it to do). In terms of raw power, the cheapest and easiest thing you could do would be to buy a LOT of off-the-shelf computers and then wire them for parallel processing, etc. That's basically how Google processes petabytes of data a day—lots of little (super cheap, easily replaceable) computers working in tandem. It's a lot more cost efficient than the sort of "national lab" approach, where you try to make one huge monster computer. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "No holds barred?" Okay, I recommend the QX9650, with this motherboard, 4GB DDR3, two of these video cards, this 28" monitor, this 1TB SATA drive for storage, this 74GB Raptor drive for gaming, and this 1600 Watt PSU. You can get all this for only $4,569.91 (I'm not sure if shipping is included). You'll also need to get a case, keyboard, mouse, speakers, some cables, and possibly a TV tuner and/or wireless card. Useight (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's it? How about Intel Skulltrail with TWO C2E QX9775 with 8 gigs of FB-DIMM and 2 30"Apple Cinema Displays? :p --antilivedT 05:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Couldn't find the Skulltrail at tigerdirect, that's why. Useight (talk) 06:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would bet a cookie on this one: BOXX APEXX 8 Rilak (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That computer does indeed seem quite "rad." Proficient (talk) 09:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * y'know you can actually buy these NEC_SX_architecture http://www.nec.de/hpc/hpc-home/index.html though maybe having to program it yourself in FORTRAN may take an edge of the 'rad-ness' what do you think?87.102.86.73 (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, you're going to want at least two monitors. APL (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just get all the things recommended on the box for the video game Crysis.  Rgoodermote Not an admin  21:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Visually speaking, I think the Connection Machine wins the prize. 64K LEDs, how can you go wrong? Plus, Danny Hillis, one of the designers, is one cool dude as well.

Atlant (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This case with one side HD rack, BluRay/DVD burners, couple of floppy drives in the center. (I look for ways to make use of that "B" drive.) Fill the HD rack and the internal bays with these. One of these mounted internally- that thing would be nothing but swap partitions and virtual memory swap files.Some Athlon-64 motherboard with four memory slots (yes, that's all the more picky I am about that). Four of these for 64 GB of RAM. Probably nVidia graphics, but I'd like to have as much as possible in expansion cards rather than on the motherboard (e.g. sound card, graphics card, modem, network controller), so that I can replace it piece-by-piece if something craps out. Voice/fax modem so I can use it as a telephone. Maybe use this for monitor and keyboard; mount it below the CPU inside one of these and drop the whole damn thing on top of my desk. I'd try to track down a few different OSes for multiple boot partitions; XP, Linux, and some kind of LBA-enabled DOS (DR DOS 8 even though I'd need an illegal download). If only money was no option. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for reference, those items Jeremy listed, along with a Skulltrail motherboard, two of these CPUs, and four of these video cards, would put you at just about $20,000. The RAM alone was over $7,000. Useight (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I knew it was something like that. If a computer is going to cost as much as a car, it had better be worth it! JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

comparing my laptop with other devices
Why is my laptop louder than my refrigerator if the latter has to cool much more things? Why is my laptop at start-up slower than my television, if I only want to watch a movie? (same thing for CD-player). Mr.K. (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your refrigerator has a huge radiating surface to dump that heat - most of the back of the case (and with natural airflow through the radiating element). If you were willing to have a laptop with a five pound four square foot liquid-cooled radiator, then you could get by with a tiny pump and it'd be as quiet, if not more so. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your laptop boots more slowly than your DVD player because it's a general purpose device, and it's setting itself up to do a whole bunch of things. The DVD player, which knows a priori what one task it's going to be doing only has to set itself up to do one thing (and it's optimised to do just that). If someone cared enough, they could take the minimum frame-drawing, graphics-device setup, and DVD playing software and wedge it into a custom coreboot - with that your laptop could play DVDs as soon after boot as a DVD player. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure a minimalist software booter would be possible (at least, it would still suffer the latency of booting an operating system from disk), given that almost all laptops must boot from (slow) harddrives. A standalone DVD device was architected with the intent to boot from ROM, and so it has access to a large enough ROM or other memory device to hold its necessary software.  Your laptop may not be capable of storing anything more than a very elementary bootstrapper and require a (slower) secondary storage device such as a USB key, CD drive, or hard disk.  Writing such a booter could be faster than booting Windows Vista (for example), but I doubt it would have the "immediately on" functionality of the DVD player.  15:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed this article says Splashtop does have a DVD player; make a custom Splashtop install that autostarts the DVD player function and you'll be competitive, or beat, an off the shelf DVD player. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference between these two Sony Bravia TV's?
Sony 40 in. Class LCD Full HD (1080p) Television, BRAVIA® - KDL-40S4100 or Sony 40 in. Class LCD Integrated HDTV / Sony Bravia -KDL-40S3000

I don't play any video games and I don't watch much sports but I will have an HD cable box. Which is better for me? What is the difference anyway? --Anthonygiroux (talk) 13:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * quite a difference


 * KDL-40S4100
 * resolution 1920x1080
 * possibly doesn't have a digital tuner DVB (may have something else? also depends on what country you are in whether or not this matters)
 * KDL-40S3000
 * resolution 1368x768
 * does have digital tuner, DVB-T type

(source amazon.com)

The DVB-T tuner on the KDL-40S3000 suggests it is intended for the UK/Euro market.., the other seems to be intended for the US market..87.102.86.73 (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC) What country are you in?

Not suprisingly the one with the lower resolution is almost half the price.

Both are HD capable - personally I'd avoid the cheaper one - you should be able to get a better resolution/model for the price it's at...87.102.86.73 (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

'''If possible, please explain this in layman's terms. I am at a lost here on what this means. thanks!''' --Anthonygiroux (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)  Also, I live in the United States of America - --Anthonygiroux (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You'll probably want to start by reading our article about high-definition television. Essentially, there are several different picture quality levels that are each still entitled to call themselves "HD". One TV you're looking at is at the (current) top picture quality level ("1080P") while the other TV is at a lower quality level (~"720P"). At this point in time, 1080P (the top level) is getting to be inexpensive enough that for most people, it's probably the best choice to ensure you'll be satisfied with your new TV for at least a few years.


 * Atlant (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That article might be a bit confusing (it was).. try |this link for a hi-def 101 - it explains the difference between 720p and 1080p and the other types quite well.87.102.86.73 (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree, buy a TV that has a resolution of greater than 1000 eg 1920x1080 is great, but 1366x768 is not so great - in years to come when broadcasts etc are truly high definition you'd be losing out on picture quality with the 1366x768 set.
 * In general you can usually easily check this - eg on amazon press the 'show technical specifications', or 'show more details' button - and look for the 'resolution figure. Other websites (including the manufacturers) also always have these details, though you'll again have to find and press the 'specifications' button.


 * Also don't buy a TV imported from uk or europe - as they will almost certainly have the wrong sort of digital receiver for the US. And feel free to post any others you find if you are unsure, it's no problem to get them checked out here.87.102.86.73 (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also the prices are still dropping - so if you can hold out you'll get a better set in 6months than you got today for the same money.87.102.86.73 (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (PS don't be suprised at the contradiction when the guy in the shop tells you that the 720p (768) set he's trying to sell you is excellent quality - they'll tell you anything to shift their stock...)
 * You should be able to get a 40" 1080p set for under $900 easily, from a 'good' manufacturer eg samsung/toshiba etc, but the sony sets for some reason are much more expensive.. 87.102.86.73 (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just FYI: Sony sells at a variety of (at least three) differing price points. The models with "XBR" in the model number are the premier sets.


 * Atlant (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm more than happy with my 37" 720p set, and it's of excellent quality. Until the day more than 10% of my programming is available in 1080p, or a standard is really set, I'm not letting anyone tell me that my 720p set sucks. I can very well argue that you shouldn't listen to the guys tell you how great the 1080p is when almost all "HD" broadcasts are in 1080i and 720p. Have you seen most of NBC in HD? Yuck. (Also, it helps to know that I plan on buying another television when the standards are set and using the 37" 720p in the bedroom for stuff like watching Conan O'Brien, and let's face it, do you want a 50" 1080p to see his face? =P ) --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント  (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Another reason you want 1080p (aside from "future-proofing") is that modern LCD TVs also make excellent computer monitors, and you'll really enjoy a 1080 row x 1920 column screen a lot more than that smaller 720p screen. Seriously, if you have the money to spend, 1080p is a good investment.


 * Atlant (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Cryptographic dealing
I'd like to have a secure card deck for a network game. By "secure" I mean that no player can predict what card anyone will draw, nor determine the values of previously drawn cards, and yet that at least one other player can refute any false move made by any player. By "false move" I most simply mean the display (as, say, into a trick) of a card that the player does not possess; however, it could be extended to a private display of one card to one other player (as in Clue) &mdash; where that one player must be able to detect a cheat &mdash; or to not following suit in Hearts. Additionally, the ideal deck would support being divided into multiple piles of unknowns, as for the widow in Rook.

I suppose it would be sufficient in most cases to be able to detect the misdeed a posteriori, but it's crucial that the cheating player be identified rather than simply knowing that "two players claimed to have the three of clubs, and no one claimed to have the four of spades". A simple shared random number generator (a la Diffie-Hellman) is sufficient for a deck whose only operation is to turn over a card and make it public (as in War), and a digital signature can be used to prove that the bid winner in Rook isn't changing what is in the widow, but I have no good ideas about how to share the information about the distribution of cards (which is just an permutation) in a way that mimics real playing cards. Any ideas, or standard tricks? --Tardis (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would architect my system with a centralized "dealer" server, who knows all information about all players' hands. This server doesn't participate in the game (it's entirely automatic, anyway, not a human player).  Now each player's state must be maintained centrally, and the server can flag anyone who makes a move which violates their actual hand.  At the same time, a permission system can be set up so that other players cannot access the total state of the dealt cards - only what they are allowed to see.  Nimur (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are willing to relinquish control of the server, there is no reason it couldn't be run simultaneously on one of the players' computers. This would enable "LAN games" and is more stand-alone than requiring that all players connect to your system.  However, you would need to take some steps to ensure that the player can neither tamper with the server, nor access its internal state - this could be done by encryption of all communications to it.  Nimur (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, this has not yet addressed the "no player can predict what card will be drawn" bit. For this, you should read Pseudo-random number article; it is very informative.  Your card-dealing algorithm (or equivalently, your deck shuffling algorithm) can be based on a large number of existing random number algorithms, sufficiently unpredictable for your purposes.  Nimur (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The danger is that counterfeit software would connect to such a LAN game. If ultimate control is in the hands of the server, a cheating server could be created. APL (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) It would be a very interesting problem to do this without a trusted server. Just brainstorming : Before each hand some public keys could be exchanged. The player whose turn it is to shuffle could publicly pass out encrypted 'cards' that could only be decrypted with private keys that won't become public until after the hand is over. Then all players could verify that players only played cards that were assigned to them.  But how could you verify that the shuffling player hasn't 'fixed' the shuffle? Or peaked at the values before they were encrypted? APL (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose the shuffling seed could be based on a hash of some random data secretly communicated by the non-shuffling players to the shuffling player, that would prevent any non-shuffling player from knowing the key and prevent the shuffling player from simply making it up. But how to stop the server from simply running the shuffling algorithm on a second set of unencrypted cards known to have the same starting configuration as the encrypted ones? APL (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. The simplest architecture is to use a trusted central server.  The drawback is, of course, centralization and scalability.  Nimur (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that the central server doesn't actually have to do any shuffling: it can just ask each player to supply a permutation and apply them in sequence. All the central server has to do is deal the cards so that no two players will end up with the same card.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have neglected to mention that the whole point is to not have to trust any of the computers involved (although I'm not (yet) interested in combatting collusion); implementing this system with a trusted third party is obviously trivial. Trusting a dealer with the entire order of the cards (and thus the contents of everyone's hands/decks/whatever at all times, unless cards may be legitimately transferred in secret) is right out; we could just as easily designate one player's computer to run the centralized server as a parallel process. Requiring that the shuffling be done with the results of a collectively-produced random number (being careful to have the dealer start by publishing a hash of some additional randomness to be mixed in after the exchange, so that no one else knows the final shuffle seed but he simultaneously cannot alter it) is a neat trick: it prevents stacking the deck, but it doesn't remove the need to trust the dealer not to cheat in the resulting fairly-dealt game. (Moreover, if the initial movement of cards from the deck can be in any way affected by play, the dealer can still stack the deck "after the fact" by playing to get cards he knows will benefit him.) --Tardis (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a potential partial solution, but it's far from elegant or ideal.
 * Players generate a number of key pairs, one for each card they wish to be dealt.
 * Players secretly give their public keys to the Key-Master.
 * The Key-Master shuffles the keys and gives them secretly to the Shuffler sans identification.
 * The Shuffler shuffles a deck according to an agreed upon seed and encrypts the cards, one-each, with the public keys.
 * The entire list of encrypted cards is published to all players.
 * Players decrypt whichever cards they can decrypt and add them to their hand.
 * The hand is played as normal.
 * At the end of the hand all keys are published and the shuffle is verified by all players against the seed.


 * There are some serious problems here, though. A big one is that un-dealt cards are completely unhandled. Also important is that the Key-Master not be able to predict the Shuffler's shuffles and vice-versa. Also if the Key-Master and the Shuffler were working together they'd be in a position to know everyone's cards.
 * Unless I've made an error somewhere, this at least shows that the problem can be solved if we assume that the players don't collude. Probably there's a much more elegant solution. APL (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the dealer would recognize his own public keys, and so would be able to choose his own hand despite not being able to determine anyone else's. --Tardis (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea, the shuffling method would have to be something that could be verified at the end of the hand to have been fair. Possibly with the trick described earlier of all players jointly forming a random seed? In any case I'm not happy with this scheme (perhaps you are) because even if it works, it doesn't seem extensible to handle games where not all cards are dealt to players before play starts. (It may work for Clue, but would not be useful for draw poker.)Now that you've got me interested I'm surprised that I can't find any theory on this problem. I would have thought it would be the sort of problem that great tomes of research papers would be written about.  APL (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, my scheme wouldn't even work for Clue. Bah. Somebody would know which cards remain undealt. Either the Shuffler, because there were three cards that were not assigned keys, or the Key Master because it generated three nonsense keys for the undealt cards and could later remember those nonsense keys. Oh well. APL (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My objection was accurate but irrelevant, as you pointed out: I already allowed shenanigans to only be detectable at the end of the hand, and the dealer's noncompliance with the prescribed shuffle would be detected. (Apparently (looking at your link) the need for post hoc shenanigans detection has been avoided anyway, which is good since a dealer could just refuse to publish the shuffle and leave people wondering.)  I thought, also, about dealing to a dummy player who would represent the Case File (or the widow, or...), but I couldn't see how to avoid the problem of the Key Master providing his own keys for the supposedly unknowable pile; the Shuffler certainly can't identify the Key Master's keys, nor can he be allowed to know which of the keys are actually garbage.  --Tardis (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Here we go! Theory:Mental poker Practice:libTMCG. APL (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! WHAAOE strikes again; perhaps I should have tried looking myself.  --Tardis (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Acrobat logs
Hi wikimates,

does any of you know if Acrobat Readers can write readable log files?

TIA

--Ulisse0 (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Acrobat Reader cannot write. Are you asking about Acrobat Pro?  Regardless, I wouldn't use any Adobe software.  I produce PDF reports all the time.  I just finished a project where doctors select a lot of criteria for a report through a web interface and it produces a PDF report.  I programmed the report in PHP without having anything from Adobe installed on my server. -- k a i n a w &trade; 17:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think they're asking if Reader makes logs of what it does. I'm pretty sure it does not. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Revealing information after I die
Is there a way of revealing information after we die? I mean, all my passwords, credit card details, bank accounts, ... How can I set thing so they are revealed only after my death? Mr.K. (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Leave a document containing them with your lawyer? Algebraist 17:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't trust your lawyer (enough), use a secret sharing method to divide the information among a bunch of people or organizations (such as escrow agencies) that you trust enough that they hopefully won't all decide to reveal their share of the secret in advance. Or, more practically, encrypt it, publish the encrypted data and use secret sharing to divide the key; this keeps the shared data shorter and optionally allows you to amend or change the encrypted data even after sharing the key, assuming you keep a copy for yourself.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * How about family or friends you trust... ? SF007 (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought about an email that could be scheduled for delivery in 3 months. If the person receives it, he knows that something is wrong (Kidnapping, death, unfairly jailed, ...). Mr.K. (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Generally you leave such things with your lawyer. Anything else is haphazard. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Put it in a safety deposit box at a bank. Those are usually cleaned out after death, but while you're alive, the key will be in your hands. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Somewhat related is the idea of a dead man switch.  --LarryMac  | Talk  20:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is what I wanted. Thanks Larry. I'll try to find a program that does it. To the others: seriously, why would I have asked this question in the Computing Desk if I wanted an answer like yours? Mr.K. (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for giving you correct information. Go ahead, pay a company to release information after your death, and then hope that you don't outlive the company, or that the e-mail addresses you want them to be sent to don't go out of date, or a million other possible problems. Again, anything but a lawyer is going to be haphazard. They do this sort of thing regularly, it is built into their infrastructure. But go ahead and waste your time! Be my guest! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I had no idea why you chose the computing desk, so I just tried to give the best answer I could to your question as written. Next time, I'll remember to turn on my mind-reading before responding. Algebraist 22:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Faxing
Does anyone know of any free fax software out there. I have the fax modem, and I run 64-Bit Vista, which knocks out the one that is included in Office 2007. --Omnipotence407 (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Aside from the 64-bit part, which Vista? Ultimate and Business should have Windows Fax and Scan.  --LarryMac  | Talk  19:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Home Premium--Omnipotence407 (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

So in all of my googling, I cant find a single free fax program for 64-bit Vista Home Premium. Does anyone else have any other solutions? Omnipotence407 (talkcontribs) 12:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are free fax websites like http://faxzero.com/. I've used it and the fax went through.--Hello. I&#39;m new here, but I&#39;m sure I can help out. (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but are there any software solutions, that dont have limits?--omnipotence407 (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

GNU Hurd
I've added an image to the the article GNU Hurd, but don't know if it really is appropriate... what do you think? is the Live CD here : http://www.superunprivileged.org/hurd/live-cd/ a correct representation of the GNU HURD? I don't know for sure, and don't want to mislead readers... SF007 (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks all right to me. To be perfectly honest, the article isn't giving me enough context to figure out exactly how this operating system works. (e.g. Unix-like? Does it operate by handing off to a specified shell, e.g. Bash, like the Linux kernel? X-Window support?) In any event, it's a screenshot of the OS. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Hurd is an OS kernel, just like the Linux kernel. It does very little on its own, except provide a platform upon which a full operating system — complete with shells, window systems and other supporting software — can be built.  Typically, a Hurd-based operating system would use the same GNU software that is commonly used with Linux, probably the most notable example being Debian GNU/Hurd.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. I got that it was a kernel, but I didn't know what it had in the way shells for it. If no shells had been ported, not much to screenshot on it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Password help on Vista
I'm the only one who uses my Vista-equipped laptop, but I still ensure that a password is needed to log onto my user account. Until now, I've never really had any sensitive files on my computer; the worst that would happen if something were revealed was that I'd be in somewhat of trouble. Now, however, I have some much more sensitive files, and I'd like to protect them more. Is there some way to require a password to be typed to access a PDF, a Word document, or an entire folder? I'd like to be able to protect entire folders (quicker :-), but it wouldn't be that important — the file names are simply numbers, revealing nothing of the sensitive data. 71.182.134.18 (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think TrueCrypt (www.truecrypt.org) is the best choice... it can protect any kind of file, in fact, it can encrypt entire partitions. Very good software. SF007 (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Pardon, but I really don't understand the technical language used on the article or on the links that I looked at, and I'm a little confused after looking at the partitions article: is a folder a single partition, or is it only part of a partition? Using this program, could I somehow (without a ton of effort) cause a file and/or folder to be available only if a password is typed?  I was also wondering, is there a feature of this sort that comes with Vista?  Sorry to ask so many questions after a quick answer... 71.182.134.18 (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A partition acts as a separate hard drive, even though there is only one physical drive.--Omnipotence407 (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * See disk partitioning. Most Windows computers only have 1 partition on each hard drive, but you can add more if you want. And yes, if you used this program, you could cause a file/folder to be available only if a password is typed. Vista Ultimate comes with BitLocker Drive Encryption, but that only works for entire partitions. Indeterminate (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You should be aware of the huge difference between "encrypted" and "password protected." Encryption is much more secure than generic password protection, as the actual contents of the file are not able to be understood without the key.  Simpler password protection schemes (such as just a file lockout) may not actually encrypt the data.  Nimur (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I requested a CD on ShipIt and it was not approved
I requested a 64-bit Ubuntu 8.04 CD but I was denied. Two month ago, I request one Ubuntu 8.04 and one 8.04 Kubuntu CD. One month ago, I ordered a Ubuntu 8.04 Server CD and I was accepted. Now, I ordered a Ubuntu 64-bit CD and I not not approved. What should I do? Should I wait for the next release of Ubuntu? Jet (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You could just get it for $1.95 from OSDisc.com or another as-cheap-as-possible linux cd distribution site. Indeterminate (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Jet, could you tell us what country your shipping address is in? It is very strange that such a low volume request is being denied. Kushal (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm in the United States, and just only one CD; this is so strange, I'm going to contact the company. Jet (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Question
After downloading a program via BitTorrent, how do you then run(and thus use) that program?-- Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs ) 23:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You download files from BitTorrent. Assuming you downloaded a program, you will now either have an executable or a compressed archive on your harddrive.  Where on your harddrive?  How should we know.  We didn't download it and select where to save it.  You did.  So, go to the area on your harddrive where you selected to save the file and see what is there.  Does it end in ".exe"?  Just double-click to run it.  Does it end in ".zip"?  It is a zip compressed file.  Decompress it and see what is in it.  This basically comes down to understanding that downloading the file with BitTorrent has nothing to do with "running" the file.  You could have downloaded it via FTP, SFTP, HTTP, or even through email.  The means of downloading is not important.  It is merely important to recognize what kind of file you downloaded - which is usually determined by looking at the last part of the filename. -- k a <font color='#990066'>i <font color='#660099'>n <font color='#3300cc'>a <font color='#0000ff'>w &trade; 23:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * K thnx. Unfortunately I un-installed bittorrent and deleted the downloaded program because I couldn't run the stinking program. However the file ended in <tt>.mdf</tt>.:(-- Xp54321 (<font color="FF8C00">Hello! • <font color="FF8C00">Contribs ) 23:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note:I don't know if this is the cause but the torrent did not come from the bittorrent site. -- Xp54321 (<font color="FF8C00">Hello! • <font color="FF8C00">Contribs ) 23:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That depends on the program. Or, to answer somewhat differently, the same way you would run any other software. Presumably, there's an application to install the program in question. The file is likely to be compressed into an archive, such as a .zip file, so you'll need to uncompress it before you can run the installer. BitTorrent doesn't really pose any additional hurdles here; it's no different than downloading a piece of software directly from a website. If you're experiencing difficulties, chances are that the problem isn't with BitTorrent but with the specific program you downloaded. It doesn't really matter what site the program you downloaded comes from. BitTorrent doesn't care. (Of course, some files are better than others.)
 * The .mdf file is most likely a disk image in the Alcohol 120% format. This means that the file is a complete copy of a CD or DVD, and the operating system can mount it so that it deals with the file as if it was an actual CD or DVD that has been inserted into an optical drive. Programs -- such as installers -- can then be run from the mounted disc. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay so then how do I "mount" it?-- Xp54321 (<font color="FF8C00">Hello! • <font color="FF8C00">Contribs ) 00:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You'll probably need to install the Alcohol 120% program, or another similar program which can handle that disk image file format. Indeterminate (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks!!! In about 3 hours I'll come back with the results!:D-- Xp54321 (<font color="FF8C00">Hello! • <font color="FF8C00">Contribs ) 00:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm getting worried about Xp5! --<font color="#3EA99F">LarryMac <font color="#3EA99F"> | Talk  20:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Um..why?-- Xp54321 (<font color="FF8C00">Hello! • <font color="FF8C00">Contribs ) 20:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because you said you'd report back in three hours, but still hadn't twenty hours later. I think he was joking. APL (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)