Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2012 January 17

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.

January 17

Is machine translation really a CS topic or a linguistics one?

Hi all, is machine translation really a topic in Computer Science, or is it more a specialist field of linguistics, or a combination of both? In other words, are the people who are really called "researchers" (rather than workers) in the field from any particular specialty, or do they come from a range of disciplines? Thanks in advance, IBE (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It has more to do with Computer Science. But different kinds of research fields mix and blend, and there are no longer clear distinctions. Everything has to do with CS nowadays; and CS has to do with everything. Linguistics says: "Although linguistics is the scientific study of language, a number of other intellectual disciplines are relevant to language and intersect with it..... Linguistics additionally draws on and informs work from such diverse fields as acoustics, anthropology, biology, computer science, human anatomy, informatics, neuroscience, philosophy, psychology, sociology, and speech-language pathology." Von Restorff (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the general comments above, it's worth noting that different approaches probably fall under different disciplines more squarely. "Example based" machine translation is very CS — it's about taking statistical correlations between existing texts (e.g. UN documents) and drawing inferences from those that can be applied in the future. "Rule-based" is a very linguistic approach — find the way natural language "works", and then just translate that into (fairly rudimentary) computer code. My assumption — not being super well versed in this — is that most of the major projects these days (like Google Translate) are of the Hybrid approach, and probably fit well within both disciplines. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear (from a linguist's point of view) - Google Translate is _not_ a translation tool, it compares the frequency of occurrence of words in texts and attempts to substitute those in one language with those in another. I would infer there can't be that many liguists employed with this project. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That's like saying that Deep Blue wasn't a chess computer because it didn't think like a human chess player.

I suspect that there are a bunch of linguists working on Google translate. Especially since their current system works a lot better that previous grammar-based attempts at machine translation, it's difficult to believe that sort of improvement could be achieved without the assistance of skilled linguists. APL (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My question is whether Google Translate is purely Example Based or whether it has Rule Based aspects to it. It looks a bit too clever to me to just be Example Based, which is why I guessed it was probably Hybrid, but I'm just guessing. Google does employ some linguists, though I don't know how many. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Both. With crowdsourcing. But don't ask for refs. Von Restorff (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Machine translation is a branch of computational linguistics, which combines computer science and linguistics into one subject. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I need help with a TV remote!!!

I'm working with relatives on fixing a TV remote. Their Channel button won't work. The remote is a Synergy V RT-U64CP / RT-U64CD.

They have an LG TV, and can see the names of the shows on other channels as they click it, but they can't see the pictures from the other channels. Do you know how to fix this, and how to make the channel button work? We've tried reprogramming...Please help. DCItalk 00:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is the manual for the RT-U64CP. Try the TV codes 023 053 068 073 090 107 108 233 360 and 361. Universal remotes are quite cheap nowadays. Von Restorff (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Some follow-up questions:

1) Is this broadcast TV, cable, or from other source ?

2) Did you try hitting the channel buttons right on the TV, to see if it's a bigger problem than just the remote ? StuRat (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In my (and my family's) experience, TV remotes don't last more than two or three years. The contacts of the most frquently used buttons seem to wear out. It's a nuisance, but the simplest solution is just to buy a new one.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My B&O remote is built like a tank and has worked for the past 10 years.--85.211.142.228 (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Opening download.

Have Downloaded Santos vs Barcelona World Club Soccer Final 2011 on to my hardrive (Windows 7 Inspiron). Guided thereon to a variety of expensive software to open it!! Can anyone advise if there is any other way I can open it, other than purchasing expensive software with doubtful credentials. Hamish 84. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamish84 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Do not purchase that software, it is a scam. I have sent you an email with detailed explanation how to download this soccer match for free. Von Restorff (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible for a Photoshop tool's effect to "wrap around" an image?

Hello,

Is there any way to have the effect of a tool in Photoshop wrap around an image as if the image were continuous? For example, if the brush tool is in use and positioned such that half of the brush area is outside the right edge of the image, is it possible to have the brush's area of effect "wrap around" to the other side of the image? (In this hypothetical situation, using this "wrapped around" brush would result in altered pixels on both the right and left sides of the image.) Overall, the image would behave as if its opposite edges (and corners) were connected (sort of like an active version of the offset filter).

If this isn't possible in Photoshop, are there any other image editing programs that do incorporate this functionality?

Thanks,

Hiram J. Hackenbacker (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You can achieve that effect by drawing a mask around the center of the image. Then, you could set up a large brush and brush over the whole image. Because the center of the image is masked (i.e., protected), your changes would only apply to the left and right sides.—Best Dog Ever (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A mask wouldn't make the tool "wrap around", though; with a brush diameter substantially smaller than the image it would still be necessary to use the brush tool twice, once on the right side and once on the left, and there's no way of ensuring that the results would line up if the image were tiled (or if the offset filter was applied afterwards), particularly if brush strokes were used. The basic use case I'm considering is adding details (e.g., brush strokes, colour changes, etc.) to an image that's intended to be tiled. Hiram J. Hackenbacker (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Photoshop doesn't do this. I've done weird things for tiled images, like making a 3x3 version of the image and then splice the pieces back together. It's not pretty. I'm sure there are dedicated programs to making tiles (since that's rather common in a number of graphics contexts), but I'm afraid I don't know what they are. Asking specifically for a tiling program, though, is probably a better bet than trying to figure out how to make Photoshop do this. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

One solution might be to copy the affected edges of an image into a new image, put them up against each other, make the edits, and then copy them back into place. It's probably a bit of a pain, though. Paul (Stansifer) 16:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Another solution is to simply create a new transparent layer. Use the brush on it. Then cut it as desired and move the left piece to the right border of the bottom layer and vice versa for the other piece. It wouldn't do for tools like dodge etc. though, but you can always use the brush tool on the new layer and use layer fx instead.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You can divide the brush tip into two by opening the brushes palette and clicking on Brush Tip Shape, then moving the Spacing slider to the right. You can also define your own brush by going to Edit → Define Brush Preset.

But, the short answer to your question is no, and thankfully so. I for one am glad that Photoshop does not wrap anything that is too large to fit on the right over to the left because it would overlap my work.—Best Dog Ever (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously no one wants this to be the regular way it operates. But if you do have to tile something — which I've had to do a number of times, when making backgrounds for web pages — it's a huge pain as it currently stands. I wish it had some sort of plugin or something that would make creating tiles easier. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

As it stands, it seems that using the offset filter twice (once to move the image such that the edge in question is in the middle and once to move it back after making alterations to the image) is probably the most efficient solution when it comes to encompassing both brush and non-brush tools (like dodge, burn, etc.). Mr.98, it's interesting that you'd mention making a 3 x 3 grid, as I considered doing that (I think it'd be an excellent way to present a "wrapping mode" in an image-editing program regardless). At any rate, I'll look into image editing programs aimed specifically at making tiling images; hopefully something suitable already exists. Hiram J. Hackenbacker (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"multiple networks" on a Windows 7 home network

One of the Windows 7 computers on my home network is having some network problems. Under control panel/network and sharing center, at the top it shows "multiple networks" between it and the internet. Below that it shows two networks, both "home network", both joined to HomeGroup. The first one says "local area connection", the second says "Hamachi" (what ever that is I assume that is Hamachi (software)). The first has internet access but the second one doesn't. The first says 1Gbps (it has a 1GB card, etc) whereas the second says 100Mbps. I think the problem may be caused by the second network being there, but I can't figure out a way to remove it without deleting the first one too. (There is an XP computer on the network that has a 100Mbps card, this computer can access it. There is a W7 computer with a 1Gbps card, but this computer can't access it.)

Could having the two networks cause a problem, and how to remove it? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If you do not experience a problem there probably is no problem. Ask the users of your LAN if they have installed Hamachi (e.g. kids use it to play network games). You could try uninstalling Hamachi, but I do not think it is necessary and if both computers have internet access it is probably wise to ignore the extra network connection. Von Restorff (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I am having a problem, but I don't know the cause. The problem is that the other Win7 desktop can't be accessed by the other computers on the network. It shows up under \\computername, but they can't access it. I've spent many hours working on this and I've done everything I can think of. I noticed this tonight and I thought it might be the problem. My daughter plays games on the internet, but not over our home network. The other computer shows "network" but this one shows "network 2" and "network 7" - I thought that might be the problem. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hamachi is disabled in MSCONFIG but I see that it is from LogMeIn. I have used that to let tech support connect to my computer. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I uninstalled LogMeIn and network 7 went away, but I still have the problem. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it is very unlikely Hamachi caused the problem, but it may be the solution. If you spent many hours on this I am going to assume you tried all the basic stuff with permissions and firewalls and testing with and without passwords. You may want to use Hamachi to create a connection between the computers, that should be a simple and quick solution. I understand this sounds a bit weird, but it is probably a solution without actually solving the problem.

If you really want to solve the problem: on Windows XP there are no homegroups, just workgroups. Try this or this. If you do not care too much about security and you want to simplify things set up an administrator account on both the Windows XP computer and the Windows 7 computer, both with the same username and password.Von Restorff (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I've tried a lot of stuff and this worked without a problem until a few days ago, when that computer locked up (the one that isn't accessible from the others). When it restarted, it said that it had a problem starting and went through a configuration. The only problem is the networking. After I worked on it many hours, I took it to a computer store. They said that an old antivirus program was causing the problem and they removed it (it wasn't supposed to be running but was). When I got it home late yesterday, I still had the problem. I called them and they suggested having all leave the homegroup and rejoin. I did that but it didn't help. I don't need any security on the wired part of the network. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, just to be sure, I assume that all computers are on 'WORKGROUP' or 'HOMEGROUP' or something similar. You need to make sure that all computers have the same workgroup name with the same case, to avoid confusion. Next. Are all the computers on the same network? Do you have more than one internet source, more than one router? Make sure all computers are on the same subnet. For example, one computer can be on 192.168.1.2 and the next computer could be on 192.168.100.2 and they may not be able to see each other. Are you able to provide the exact setup for your network? (i.e two desktops, one laptop, a wireless router, modem). I work in IT, and deal with alot of users with networking issues, but that's mainly domain related. Mrlittleirish 17:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I went through the process, except that I didn't see "customize your printer" on either computer. But the problem is the same. The other computer name shows up but clicking on it says "Windows cannot access \\computername". Trying to map the network drive has the same problem. Now, yesterday on the laptop I did get a message that there was another computer with the same IP address. I don't know how to check or fix that.

How do I check the "workgroup" name? They are all on the same network, one internet source, one router (wired plus wireless). How do I check the subnet?

One router, one cable modem, two Win7 desktops (wired), one XP desktop (wired), one Win7 laptop (wireless).

One thing I have thought about is simply putting a wireless network card in the computer the others can't access. How about that? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Good wikipedia mirror?

As you've almost certainly noted from the huge banner up at the top wikipedia won't be online tomorrow. I agree with the reasoning and whatnot (though I think it should have been given longer notice) but this is going to massively disrupt my classes work tomorrow. I am wondering if anyone can recommend a good up to date mirror we could use, preferably one with an easy web address. Thanks! 31.52.28.233 (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the perfect opportunity to explain the people affected by the blackout what SOPA is. Maybe you can use the Google cache or Archive.org. Von Restorff (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

We already know about SOPA and I don't think a whole day can be dedicated to a piece of legislation that isn't part of our country and something we basically can't do anything about. 31.52.28.233 (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a list here. Google cache is probably the best method AvrillirvA (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know about this list, but I don't know which ones are good. Is there no recommended backup mirror for the times when wikipedia has gone down unintentionally or something? Google cache often leaves out pictures and the intrasite search probably won't work. Also who's to say google won't cache the SOPA'd version of wikipedia? 31.52.28.233 (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Usually I use the secure server, that is the backup server I normally would recommend, but I guess that will be blacked out too. If the Google cache does not work, try archive.org (a bit slower). But the whole point of the blackout is the fact it will be a minor inconvenience. Von Restorff (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If I understand how the blackout will be implemented (full sized CSS banner), Google won't notice the difference with the normal situation. -- Luk^talk 17:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case, browsing with styles turned off (e.g. firefox: view->page_style->no style) will make everything readable fine. Wikipedia works very well with no style. 87.115.118.8 (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ad Block Plus FTW. Von Restorff (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I recommend you simply keep a local copy of Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/All as mentioned by AvrillirvA and look for something that works for you when needed. Incidentally, it occured to me anyone not keeping a local copy of the contrib history would potentially be violating the CC licence during the blackout even if they are otherwise compliant and link to our articles. Nil Einne (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

When does the blackout start

Does anyone know what time UTC we'll be going offline? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

At 05:00 UTC on Wednesday, January 18. Von Restorff (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. And thanks for the new section. I wasn't going to, as it was trivial, yet related to the above section. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

YVW. Just to be precise, we won't be going offline AFAIK. Von Restorff (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If you actually click the wonderful banner up there, it tells you. >.> Mrlittleirish 17:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Where does it says Wikipedia goes offline? Von Restorff (talk) 17:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I got a message at the top of my page last night EST saying that WP is going down 26 hours from then for 24 hours as a protest. So it is sometime tonight, EST. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It is midnight EST, which is 0500 GMT. [1] Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The blackout does not mean that Wikipedia goes offline AFAIK. Von Restorff (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

But the content won't be available. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Web developer toolbar => Disable => Javascript => All. Von Restorff (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

So, what does you suppose it's going to happen during the blackout? 88.9.214.30 (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I will get some more important stuff done! :-) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)