Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2014 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 9

credit card format

I had a traditional credit card (recently expired), with a magnetic stripe on the back and raised numbers across the front in "landscape mode". Most retail merchants have electronic terminals that read the mag stripe, but a few low-volume sellers use the old-fashioned machines that take an imprint of the embossed numbers with carbon/carbonless paper. The card just expired and the replacement card I got in the mail has the numbers in "portrait mode" and there is apparently a transponder chip in the card (I guess NFC). Does anyone know:

• (1) Can the NFC chip be detected or read from a distance by bad guys? I could get an RFID sleeve, but the sleeve itself would presumably show up on metal detectors etc. So I'd prefer a traditional piece of plastic that doesn't register at all.
• (2) Have these cards replaced the older style cards?
• (3) Do many merchants actually have NFC readers in their payment terminals? I don't remember ever seeing one.
• (4) What happens if I want to use the card with a merchant who has an old fashioned imprint machine? Have those been phased out? Last time I encountered one was about a year ago, but it was at a shop that I do like to buy stuff now and then.
• (5) Is it likely that I can get the card issuer to send me a traditional card if I don't like the new one?

Thanks. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It would probably help if you told us where in the world you are. Here in the US, I've never seen a card without raised numbers and with the numbers printed in portrait layout, so I'm guessing you're not in the US. Dismas|^(talk) 01:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I am in the US and was surprised to get a card with this format. I notice the NFC article has a "security aspects" section though it's not very thorough. The portrait mode numbers on the card are raised, but only slightly: it's probably impossible to get a usable imprint from them with an old fashioned machine. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I also got a credit card without raised numbers, last month, in the US. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I've numbered your questions for convenience. (1) Yes, see RFID skimming for ways to avoid it. (2) From the credit card article: "the trend is toward RFIDs based systems inside cards,..." (3) These are on the increase in the UK; presumably in the USA too. (4) Dunno. Suspect they have been phased out over there. (5) It depends on the card issuer. Some UK banks will send a "traditional" card to their customers, if they apply in writing.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

(4) I presume they write the number in by hand. That's how it used to be done.--Phil Holmes (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Having the card number embossed on the card is part of the credit card standard. I suggest you ask your card provider to verify that your card has the same account features as your expired card and ask them to clarify the procedure if you use the old fashioned retailer. The new card might contain 2 chips, a visible EMV chip (which looks like this) and is used with a chip reader, and a NFC chip which is buried inside the card and is used for contactless payment. If your card supplier is "upgrading" your card to one with a bunch of new features you will never use, while simultaneously locking you out of using your card in other places that use the old carbonless technology, you can ask for a downgrade. However, remember that credit card companies like to make a profit and one way to do that is to encourage you to spend using your card in new and wonderful way you might not have thought of. Astronaut (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Antivirus software in nuclear plants

So I'm in the middle of downloading AVG Free antivirus, and I'm quite confused by part of the license agreement: You agree that the Software is not designed or licensed for use in hazardous environments, including without limitation operation of nuclear facilities... Why would a nuclear facility be relevant here? Can radiation cause some unique sort of harm to computers? Or are they basically inserting something into the EULA that they figure that nobody will read? I'm trying and failing to imagine how the nuclear plant's conditions would have any effect on the software, even with Homer at the controls. Nyttend (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the point is that it doesn't promise to stop Stuxnet; or, conversely, that it's not certainly without bugs, and (slim though the chance is) they don't want to be responsible for the next Chernobyl. —Tamfang (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

At least in the United States, anything related to nuclear reactors is subject to a lot of extra regulation - that is, the body of laws and rules overseen by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Because the EULA is a legal document, they want to make clear that the software does not - from a legal-ese point of view - attempt to comply with those types of regulations. You'll find the same line in a lot of EULAs - not just AVG Antivirus. For example, iTunes' EULA expressly forbids you from using the music-playing software in the design or test of nuclear, chemical, or biological warfare, missiles, and contains other uncommon restrictions (most likely to imply that the software is not consistent with strict requirements related to ITAR); this is a line-item few people read, but I have on a few occassions actually wondered if I am totally in compliance with the agreement. Nimur (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"You also agree that you will not use these products for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, missiles, or chemical or biological weapons."[1] On close inspection, I spot a possibly extraneous comma in the iTunes EULA between "nuclear" and "missile" ... that sort of typo seems unlikely in a legal document published by a major corporation. There are, actually, a lot of comma-clauses, perhaps ungrammatical ones, even, in that sentence. I presume the Legal Department, in their infallible wisdom, decided to leave some room for interpretation. Nimur (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Antivirus software can potentially cause malfunctions in legitimate programs (e.g. by quarantining necessary files), so it's best avoided where a program malfunction will be extremely severe (such as where that program is controlling a high risk system). Instead, the control systems should be isolated from any sources of viruses as much as possible (e.g. no internet access, careful vetting of any media to be connected to the machines). Semi-relevant XKCD MChesterMC (talk) 11:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

.com .net domains registered in world

Hi

how i can know the total number of .com or .net domain names in world. if i write .me in the search bar, it show the article on .me domain names, and it also shows the total number of .me domain names in the world. Same i want to know about the .com or .net domain names

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.235.156 (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on .com reports that, by 2011, approximately 100 million domains were registered. The .net article doesn't give numbers, but this article suggests 14.9 million .net domains, and this site appears to give daily updates, but I'm don't know enough to say whether it is a reliable source. --Kateshortforbob _talk 18:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Trendnet's not giving my the full internet

For the last few nights and early mornings, my wireless router has been displaying weird problems: A few websites work fine most for the time, some websites work after I reload after the browser displays the "server can't be found" error, but many websites simply don't work. Meanwhile the wired connection has no problem. I've tried rebooting my laptop and restarting the router and all that kind of stuff, but the problem doesn't seem to be the laptop as my phone also has the problem on wifi.

The router's old but for the occasional problem it's been fantastic. I use channel 11. 1 neighbor's interferes. Others don't really overlap. Imagine Reason (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Table of contents with section linking in HTML

Hi everyone,

Here is an easy question for those fluent in HTML. But because I have elementary knowledge of HTML and no skills in Java and very limited CSS, I would prefer a pure html-code solution.

On a webpage, I would like to insert a table of contents after the lede text, which contains only headings (no subheadings) and links to each of the sections. A style format like the wikipedia version is good, and a [back to top] link underneath each section head aligned to the right is preferable. I have tried three different methods so far:

1. The nested ordered list format. This appears as very small text when inserted directly into the website, and it does not link or detect the headings found below the list. I want a clickable table of contents that works in as many browser formats and is as simple as possible.
2. Wikipedia style section linking. Should I try to combine it with method 1 above or will it work as a standalone in HTML?
3. Simply anchoring and linking plaintext ToC with a_href and #section tags with ID labels below. This seemed to be of limited functionality.

Can someone post some code that would enable the simplest, most compatible way to link a readable sized ToC near the top of the page with a code for each section (each heading already has three span tags and is included within a table format in order to provide sections and nested images) that I could fit around the title of each section heading? Please also include the code for linking #top. This is a volunteer based website, so source attributions for code should probably not be an issue, as long as functionality remains intact.

PS - I'm actually quite an experienced editor at Wikipedia, but my capacity in wiki text far surpasses my intellect in html, especially considering wiki ToCs are auto generated.

--OP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.168.122.214 (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand completely; are you looking for anything more complex than <a href="#section1">Section 1</a> in the TOC and <h2 id="section1">Section 1</h2> <span style="float:right;">[<a href="#top">Back to top</a>]</span> in the body? (You would have to give wherever the "top" of you page the id of "top".) ~HueSatLum 01:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Replacing a wireless mouse

So, I have a wireless mouse and keyboard, and the mouse has started skipping back when I scroll up or down the page. I've tried replacing the batteries as the need to recharge them was becoming more frequent, blowing dust from it, checking the performance, etc, but without success, so need to get another one. But how easy are they to replace? Would I need a new dongle for a new mouse? Would that require me to buy a new keyboard as well? Would there be any problems with installing a USB mouse instead? I'm using Windows 7, and tried an old USB mouse from a previous system, which appeared to fix the scrolling issue, but was slow when moving the cursor. Some advice would be much appreciated. Thanks 86.135.227.1 (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Before you replace it I suggest you try cleaning the mouse mat. If you're not using a mat, try doing so. Also try taking out the dongle and plugging it in again. You might also want to clean the lens with a cotton bud. They are easy to replace, and the new one will come with a replacement dongle. As long as the keyboard is working there is no need to replace that as well. It presumably has a separate dongle.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, they seem to both be controlled from the same dongle as neither would work when I unplugged it. Sadly, I'm still getting the scrolling problem after trying all of the above, so I think a new one's definitely on the cards. 86.135.227.1 (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

What brand is your keyboard / mouse combo? Most "cheaper" wireless mice / keyboards use an 2.4GHz RF dongle which are typically at least vendor specific, if not device specific. More expensive mice / keyboards tend to be Bluetooth, in which case any device 'should' generally work with any bluetooth dongle, except apple mice and keyboards which are designed not to work with Windows. I think your safest bet, apart from just using a USB wired mouse, is to replace your mouse with a similar mouse from the same vendor, there's a good chance it will work with your existing dongle, even if it comes with its own one. In any case if you google the specific models, you might be able to find if they are compatible before buying it. Vespine (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again. The make is Cherry, which I'd not heard of at the time I bought it. I got the system from a place that build their own PCs, and that was the make they used. Looking on the web I notice Cherry keyboard/mouse combies and individual Cherry mice (mouses?) for sale, so could take a chance. Will definitely get an up to date USB though, and have it as back up if I can find a compatible wireless. 86.135.227.1 (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

1) It might just have reduced range. Does it behave when closer ?

2) Equipment which does multiple things at once, like your keyboard/mouse combo, is not a good idea due to precisely the problem you encountered. That is, when any one part breaks, then you often have to replace everything.

3) I don't like wireless mice or keyboards, because of all the new potential problems they entail, like range limits, dead batteries, and, in the case of the mouse, it's now easy to lose, without a cord to track it down. A cord isn't that much of an inconvenience for me to be willing to put up with all that, instead. StuRat (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I personally use wired peripherals too, having said that, I believe Cherry is a reputable brand and I don't doubt there are many happy customers using cherry wireless keyboards and mice, you can certainly still buy a replacement and they aren't all that expensive, quick search shows them available for $20-$30, if that's they way you want to go. Vespine (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Keyboards and mice are easily available, your local PC World or even larger supermarkets should carry a reasonable selection of both wired and wireless models (~£5 wired, ~£20 wireless). The same goes for online retailers such as Amazon. However, I really doubt you will be able to find a wireless (2.4 GHz) mouse for sale without the dongle. Astronaut (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been back for a couple of days. I did try it at close range (on top of the tower, in fact, so it was about six inches away), but it was still misbehaving. Went to PC World this morning and bought a wired mouse from Microsoft, which I fitted about an hour ago, and seems to be performing well. Think I'll stick with that one. Thanks again for all the advice. 81.151.48.85 (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, and I'll mark this Q resolved for you. StuRat (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Resolved