March 5

I edit some text files using PlainText on my iPod touch and my iPad. They are synced through Dropbox, which then syncs with my computer. I use subversion to keep track of these files and to do this I copy over the files from /Users/User/Dropbox/Plaintext/[SpecificFiles] to the working directory after clearing out the visible files. Now I have added folders to these files and this procedure has become annoying. You know how each directory of an SVN working copy has its own .svn/ folder? I want to migrate the information in each .svn/ folder into the .svn/ folder in the root of the working directory. How do I do this? --Melab±1 ☎ 04:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thing you might try is updating to the latest version of subversion. It uses one .svn file for the whole tree instead of one per directory, so that might make your task easier. RudolfRed (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How will I update the current working directory then? --Melab±1 ☎ 20:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I use Mac OS X. Is there a way that I can update to the latest SVN without compiling and building? It's all a hassle. --Melab±1 ☎ 20:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recently downloaded a song from a file sharin program called Soulseek. When I clicked to play the audio file, a pop up appeared that said, “The file you are attempting to play has an extension (.mp3) that does not match the file format….” After I pressed ok, another pop up appeared and it said, “Windows Media Player cannot play the file. The Player might not support the file type or might not support the codec that was used to compress the file.” The audio file is an mp3 according to the properties. It is 8.9 MB in size. The name of the file is displayed. However, the length of the audio file (I do know that it is 3:54 long), the bit-rate, and all the other properties are not displayed for some reason. I’ve been researching the Internet to see what I could do to make it play. I went to a website where I read someone mentioning K-Lite Codec Pack, so I downloaded its full version and its updates just to try, but nothing worked, nor did I completly understand how to use it, but I tried everything there possible though, so I uninstalled it. I also tried uploading the audio file to 4shared to see if it would play there, but it could not play there. However, for some reason, 4shared mistakenly read it as just a 32 kbps, forty-something minute long song. So, my question is, with all this in mind, what do I need to do to play the audio file? By the way, I was able to contact the person, who is apparently a DJ because it is included in his username, yesterday on Soulseek by searching for the file again and then clicking the option of “Send this user a message,” and he replied back in Portuguese though saying that he has no problems playing the file. I don’t speak Portuguese. However, I was able to understand what he said because I speak Spanish fluently, which is similar to Portuguese. I added the extra info that he replied back to me in Portuguese if his location sheds light or not on the problem. Willminator (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My go-to program for looking at audio files is the freeware foobar2000 (while the name might not inspire confidence, the program is nevertheless great.) For checking file types in general (e.g. in case the file is really a zip archive of the mp3) there is file (command). Googling for file command for windows finds Windows versions. Please be mindful of viruses if you install one of those, only download from trustworthy sites. 88.112.59.31 (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This morning I did some research and I tried downloading a special media player that supposedly plays everything called, VLC Media Player, but when I tried to play it there it said that it doesn't support some weird extension that I don't remember and that there was nothing I could do about it. Then, I downloaded GPSpot and it wasn't able to read the song's audio codec. I downloaded Foobar2000 like you told me and it was unable to play the audio file I've been trying to play, but it did work for my other songs. 88.112.59.31, or anyone here, would you mind if I ask you, if it is permissible, if I can send to you the audio file so that you can be able find out what the codec is, if it is fixable, or if there is nothing one can do? The person I got the song from at Soulseek, like I said previously, told me that he didn't know what I was talking about because he can play it. Willminator (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about getting a look at the start of the file in a hex editor and comparing the first few bytes to those listed in List of file signatures or on this site. It might indicate what the file actually is. Astronaut (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I downloaded Freware Hex Editor XVB2 and the hex editor said, 00 00 00 00 00 00 00.... I opened another song, and there were pairs of numbers. I don't know how that guy is able to play the song and he was confused when I contacted him saying that the song didn't work. I guess I'll have to move on, but I'll try to contact him again and I'll tell him that I've tried everything I could to play the song. Willminator (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is the movement of the mouse is measured? Is it by micky? Thank you.175.157.248.35 (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Start by reading

this section of our article. The "mickey" is a sort of a joke terminology; most technical mouse specifications usually use "count per inch" or "dot per inch" as the basic unit of mouse motion. For example, USB mouses follow the HID device class specification. The actual measurement of mouse motion varies; originally, a spinner wheel with a rotary encoder converted mouse motion into digital counts. Modern optical mouse systems use a complex optical sensor and onboard miroprocessor to track motion. Touch-screens and trackpads usually use capacitive sensors and software processing to track movements. Nimur (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The Win32 API, at least, officially uses mickeys ([1]). The name is obviously a joke, but there is a need for some term to describe the raw motion deltas reported by the mouse. -- BenRG (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to protect a certain folder in Windows 7 with a password, or at least make it hard to access to anyone but me? I'm using a computer with a single account on it, so this isn't a matter of administrator privileges. Interchangeable|talk to me 18:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you concerned about others accessing the folder via the Internet, or by logging directly onto your computer ? StuRat (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Others coming along and using my computer while I'm logged in; the computer can't access the Internet and I'm using another one right now (so downloads such as TrueCrypt below are out of the question). I want to make the folder such that if anyone tries to open it, they will receive an "enter password" prompt or something similar. Interchangeable|talk to me 21:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And do you want to allow them to use your computer, or is it OK to prevent that, as well ? If so, setting your computer to screen lock whenever you leave for a minute would do it. The problem with just protecting one folder is that if you open any of the files inside it, you will likely have temporary copies created elsewhere. StuRat (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still want to allow them to use the computer; I just want to protect that one folder. And what do you mean by that? Will other copies of the file automatically be distributed throughout the computer? Interchangeable|talk to me 21:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know other copies appear to be in other folders, but they might just be links back to the original. In this case, hopefully they would only be able to see the original file name, but not it's contents. StuRat (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TrueCrypt 82.45.62.107 (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This advice is for Windows XP, not Windows 7, but hopefully it still applies there:

1) Set up a "secure" user name that only you can use. You could just use the Admin user name for this, if you wish. Leave the general user name available to everyone else.

2) Log in under the secure account, right click on a folder, pick the "Sharing" tab, then check the "Make this folder private" box. The folder will have to be owned by the new user name to do this. You might want to just move the contents of the old, unsecure folder into this new folder.

3) Set the secure user name to screen lock when not in use, in case you walk away and somebody else walks up before you have a chance to log out. StuRat (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That works; thank you very much! Interchangeable|talk to me 00:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if I click Properties → General → Advanced there's an option to "Encrypt this Folder", but it's not clickable and I don't see any way to make it that way. Interchangeable|talk to me 01:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently folder encryption is available only on business/premium editions of some versions of Windows; perhaps you have a home edition. 88.112.59.31 (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could encrypt it.. like compress them and 7zip them... when they won't be available as you have to decompress the file you want to use.. but it's more secure... 190.60.93.218 (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I advise against using NTFS encryption in any case. It has its uses, but if you don't understand how it works you can easily have problems. For example, if the files are accessible to an account that has a weak password, or no password, or that is set to log in automatically, then they aren't secure even though they're shown as encrypted. If you ever reinstall Windows then any NTFS-encrypted files will probably be lost forever, even if they're on an external drive that wasn't plugged in when you did the reinstall. Truecrypt is better because its security model is simple: a volume is mounted or unmounted; to mount it you enter a volume-specific passphrase; when it's unmounted it's secure. -- BenRG (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Firefox, when I try to search Google, it will not search until I log in to my Google account. Works OK in Chrome & IE but not Firefox. Has anyone any idea what is wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurumaister (talk • contribs) 19:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems not. Can you help us out with a fuller description of what's wrong? When you say it 'will not search' - do you get an error message? If so, what? Or does your computer simply 'hang' or crash? Or maybe you are taken to a different website. All these things are possible problems, and each has its own solution. If we know more about the problem we might be able to find the answer. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, silly of me. Whenever I enter something into the search box and press search, I get the login dialog box for my google account and I can't get past it without logging in. Hope you can help me. Gurumaister (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be a problem as long as you have a Google account. Does this happen every time you try to search, or after you log in does the problem go away for the rest of the browsing session? Interchangeable|talk to me 19:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no it isn't a major problem but I don't want to have to log in just because I want to use Google. Once I'm logged in I can search as often as I like. But no one else I know is forced to sign in first - is there a setting I can change that will get rid of this nuisance? I am grateful for any suggestions. 82.71.20.194 (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That's a little weird. I've been unable to reproduce this, and I haven't really found anyone else on teh interwebz who seems to have the same problem. Can you tell me exactly (i.e. using copy/paste) which page you are searching from? That is, the page where you enter your search query before being forced to log in. That might be http://www.google.com or http://www.google.co.uk/ig?hl=en or something else. I'm not really sure what it'll prove, but it might be worth a try. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given three images, each 4096 pixels wide, I want to glue them side-by-side to create a single image 12288 pixels wide. What's a good way to do that with, say, GIMP? You'll understand that I don't want to rely on the accuracy of my mouse-dragging; and I plan to do this several times, so a script would be especially helpful. —Tamfang (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't exactly a script, but if you set the snap size high it will make this task much easier to do by hand. Shadowjams (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically you want to make a panorama. If you google for "panorama gimp" you'll get a number of relevant pages, including a video tutorial, but this script might be the most useful. Looie496 (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We also have a

comparison of photo stitching applications. Such programs can do more than simply placing the images side-by-side; they can "stitch" and blend images together, taking account of features that are common to each frame and providing a smooth blend and geometry corrections. I recommend Hugin as it is very feature-rich, but requires a good deal of technical knowledge. Nimur (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

If you just want to glue them together, ImageMagick can, of course, do it. Try convert +append in1.jpg in2.jpg in3.jpg out.jpg. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! —Tamfang (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]