Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2016 March 15

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.

March 15

openSDE reference IP address not detected

Respected contributors, I am a primary care pediatrician with 31 years experience living in vellore South India. I am interested in preventing hospital visits which in turn requires several pieces of information. Unfortunately they are not structured and this month I came across a article http://old.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/6/29Structured data entry for narrative data in a broad specialty: patient history and physical examination in pediatrics Sacha E Bleeker12, Gerarda Derksen-Lubsen3, Astrid M van Ginneken2, Johan van der Lei2 and Henriëtte A Moll1* In that their first reference http://www-fgg.eur.nl/mi/OpenSDE I get a 404 error I need that website for the following reasons Patient history is described by 20 main concepts and physical examination by 11. In total, the thesaurus consists of about 1800 items, used in 8648 nodes in the tree with a maximum depth of 9 levels. Patient history contained 6312 nodes, and physical examination 2336. User-defined entry forms can be composed according to individual needs, without affecting the underlying data representation. The content of the tree can be adjusted easily and sharing records among different disciplines is possible. Data that are relevant in more than one context can be accessed from multiple branches of the tree without duplication or ambiguity of data entry via "shortcuts". The related article http://www.ijmijournal.com/article/S1386-5056(05)00044-4/abstract OpenSDE: A strategy for expressive and flexible structured data entry I am facing the same problem Can you suggest a way I could go into www-fgg.eur.nl/mi/opensde This can help trained paramedics to fill the form and pave the way for telemedicine which is an urgent need for my country thanks in advance yours faithfully arulalan Preventhospitalvisit (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC) <ref>http://www-fgg.eur.nl/mi/OpenSDE, http://www.ijmijournal.com/article/S1386-5056(05)00044-4/abstract OpenSDE: A strategy for expressive and flexible structured data entry , http://old.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/6/29 Structured data entry for narrative data in a broad specialty: patient history and physical examination in pediatrics</ref> Preventhospitalvisit (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

That page was made by Marcel de Wilde, Department of Medical Informatics, Erasmus MC, The Netherlands back in 2004. If he still works there then his email address is m.dewilde@erasmusmc.nl and if not then you can ask the hospital for his new emailaddress, they can be reached at info@erasmusmc.nl, or you can ask someone who co-authored a research article about OpenSDE with him: a.c.venema@erasmusmc.nl. You can see what OpenSDE is here (you can download the entire technical specifications here, click on "OpenSDE_2005_Documents.zip"). The Quixotic Potato (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Software sought

Can someone help me please? -- Apostle (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Voice Analysis Software

Please specify what kind of analysis you would like. There are many fake lie detector thingies that claim to be Voice Stress Analyzers, and they are usually pseudo-scientific bullocks. But maybe you mean something else, e.g. spectral analysis. There is a lot of software that can play MP3's and display a spectrogram (e.g. foobar2000). The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's a nice list of mostly free software that can be used for voice/speech analysis [1]. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Lie Detecting Software

• To my knowledge, there is no such thing as useful "lie detection software". You can probably find some snake oil. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• This does not exist. There is no reliable lie detecting software available. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't pontificate to soon. For the present, I don't think the OP will find anything useful which is available for purchase. There is some 'talk' that insurance companies are already using software for detecting fraudulent claims but this stuff is not available for the Hoi polloi . Computers can now listen to the tone, timber, hesitation and pauses of ones voice, and when combined with syntax analysis, can revile surprising (and very often wrong) insights. It is rumoured that the National Security Agency uses software that has been developed and proven (?) by GCHQ in the UK. GCHQ ( or the 1st signals regiment as they were known ) broke the unbreakable Enigma code during the 2nd world war which seemed like magic back then. Their resources today are such, that they (have to word this very carefully) 'may' have the software you seek -which would seem like magic today to most Microsoft IT guys. But don't count on them letting you have any of this technology.--Aspro (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course big clothing companies (I am not gonna name the brands) hire other companies that crawl websites like eBay to detect fraudulent advertisements that offer fake products, and in a way they are "detecting lies". And insurance companies probably have a list of stuff to check for to protect themselves against fraudulent claims, and it very possible that they have automated some of it. But I am certain that the tools used by the NSA are not magical. And software that reliably detects lies in speech, based on tone and timber of the voice would be magical. They don't need alien technology to do what they do. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's a research monograph titled Automatic Detection of Verbal Deception, published last year [2]. Here's [3] another nice paper on using machine learning to detect lies in a standardized corpus of deceitful speech. There has been tons of research into this field since at least the 1960s, and continuing through today. Of course they don't have a 100% accurate 100% automatic discriminator, but there are research projects that absolutely can correctly separate lies from truths in some cases, and these automated methods are almost always better than humans, if not perfect. Things like support vector machines may seem to have some magic in them due to their ability to detect deceit [4], but I assure you they are quite mundane :) Additionally, OP may be interested in "reality monitoring" and "criteria-based content analysis", which are both systematic (and effective) ways for humans to score the truthfulness of statements [5], and there have been some attempts to automate those scores too [6]. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You can use Random.org to correctly separate lies from truths in some cases, but that doesn't make it a reliable lie detector. A lie detector that isn't very reliable isn't very useful. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Why jump on the caveat? I only meant to specify that these schemes are not perfect. Did you read any of my references? The fact is that the peer-reviewed research I linked to above describes systems that do far better than humans at detecting deceit. These are real, useful products, though they are not all on the shelf and ready to be used by the public. Sure, they can in principle be improved further, but don't pretend they don't exist or that they are randomly guessing. Here [7] is a lit review of deceit detection written in 2015. It summarizes some of the original and recent work, and gives a picture of the current state of the art. See especially fig. 2.1, and also check out the best score there:

“ Using this approach, we achieve a performance gain of 23.8% relative to chance, in contrast with human performance on a similar task, which averages substantially below chance. ”

[8] So we do have automatic detection of deception that is significantly more reliable and accurate than human detection -- no magic (Clarkeian or metaphysical) required. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Because caveats are very very important, often far more important than the surrounding text. In some (weird) countries lie detectors are used in court (even though they are pseudoscientific BS). Humans are not very good at detecting deceit. Even if computers would be slightly better than humans (in some cases) then it would still be kinda pointless to use one if it is less reliable (or slightly more reliable) than random guesswork. It would save a lot of work and time if I could simply ask a suspect (in a courtroom) if he has killed the victim, and release him if he says no and the computer indicates that he is telling the truth. The sources you posted seem to support my claim that there is "no reliable lie detecting software available". The Quixotic Potato (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You make a bold pronouncement without any support or work, then use my research and refs to say they support your claim. Nice. I agree these products are not good currently enough for court room use. But they are real, and they are far more reliable than humans, and they are reliable enough for some applications. This is not a request for definition of "reliable", this is a request for lie-detecting software, which I have supplied despite your claims of nonexistence. I, the IEEE, and many other respectable academic publishers disagree that this is pseudoscience. I disagree that 24% is "slight" in any sense of the word. But it doesn't really matter what you or I disagree on, so I'll stop now ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think its very bold to state that there is no reliable lie detecting software available. A performance gain of 23.8% relative to chance may be significantly better than the average human, but a reliable lie detector would consistently score 100%. I wouldn't like to convict a suspect based on the judgement of a machine that has a best score that isn't even close to 90%. I mean reliable in the sense of being able to rely on something. In, for example, a courtroom I cannot rely on a machine that (once in a while) sends an innocent person to jail, even though it would save me a lot of time. And of course the machines do not actually detect lies. Maybe they detect changes in your voice, or the conductivity of your skin, or something else (which may or may not be indicative of a lie) but they do not actually detect lies. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems simple enough: Use facial recognition software, and, if they are recognized as being a politician, conclude that they are lying. :-) StuRat (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@ User:The_Quixotic_Potato: “But I am certain that the tools used by the NSA are not magical.” By magic I was referring to Clarke's third law “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

There are lots of examples. The Blackbird – moved so fast on radar that they were considered to be obviously extraterrestrial, because a terrestrial aircraft’s skin would fail above 2.2 Mach - so said experts ( but the CIA had set up Front organization in order to purchase enough titanium from the Soviet Union to built them, and a special fuel was developed to power them). Another example: TNT is a pretty powerful explosive, but which civilian in 1940's could grasp that just some 30 lb. of a metal can destroy a whole city? Another example: Sound does not travel though a vacuum but orbiting satellites can detect the sound from not only nuclear detonations but meteors – but the military are very wary of making this info available to the rest of the scientific community. So there is a lot going on that most do not know about. Those that need to know, know and those that don't -don't know. For the average certified microsoft sys admin, he would view the capabilities of these cutting edge algorithms as magic. Thats the point that Penn & Teller keep reminding people. Magic is not metaphysical. Just as the Nazi's in the second world war thought that only magic could brake their Enigma encryption – and 'magic' did just that. --Aspro (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a propaganda story, very similar to that space pen-story. Do you have a reliable source that claims that Soviets (or someone else) truly believed that a Blackbird was extraterrestrial? I am not a big fan of the Soviet Union (because I have a brain), but they probably weren't the backwards savages portrayed in their enemies propaganda. There were probably quite a few civilians in the 1940's that could grasp that a small bomb could destroy a large city; it is not a very difficult concept (although they would be surprised by the size of the bomb and the size of the city). The 1940s isn't very long ago, and people back then weren't stupid (or, you know, not all of them). Do you have a reliable source that claims that nazis (or someone else) believed that the Enigma encryption could only be broken by magic? The incident with the U-559 happened in 1942... The sentence about satellites detecting nuclear detonations and the military not making this info available is, to put it simply, silly. There are no "algorithms" that can be used to reliably detect lies. I do not believe in conspiracy theories, sorry. A related article is truth serum. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I'm now going to bow out of this if some editors want to rewrite history. Even other members of NATO couldn’t work out these rapidly moving radar blips caused by Blackbird (although a member of NATO the US did not tell them). It is accepted now and for many years, that when foreign government experts could not explain the reports, that the possibility of ET had to be considered (cognitive dissonance and all that implies), (bit like the FBI & NSA thinking that Backdoors are OK – another example of cognitive dissonance leading to the wrong conclusion), (COI disclaimer: I'm on the side of the security forces but not when they pontificate upon stuff that they don't understand) CIA: UFO Sightings in 50s, 60s Were of Spy Planes. Further, I would say over 99.9% civilians could not contemplate Little Boy because even Germany's nuclear bomb physicist on interrogation by the US could not believe the size. Don’t know how U-559 got into this. Maybe a confusion by a American film called U-571 (film) which was cinematographic fiction – like most films. The vessel concerned had a machine with the extra wheel (which was known about already). The code books obtained provided a short-cut to the German Naval codes and saves may hours of human effort in braking more naval codes, because they had more keys at their disposal, with which to create 'magic'. One could call it 'Ultra Magic' if you forgive the pun!--Aspro (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that claims that Soviets (or someone else) truly believed that a Blackbird was extraterrestrial? That would be cool. Its a big leap from: "this blip on the radar is moving faster than any plane I am aware of can" to "this blip on the radar is moving faster than any plane I am aware of can, therefore it must obviously be extraterrestrial". See German submarine U-559 for an event that happened in real life. The article says: "She sank five ships but is perhaps best remembered for an incident during her sinking in the Mediterranean Sea in 1942, in which British sailors seized cryptographic material from U-559. This material was extremely valuable in breaking the U-boat Enigma cipher.". It is also explained in the article about the movie you linked to btw. It says: "The Allies captured Enigma-related codebooks and machines about 15 times during the Second World War. All but two of these actions were by British forces.". I think they were very much aware of the risk of cryptographic material and equipment in the "wrong" hands, which isn't very magical, that is why the crew was ordered to destroy everything (but they failed to do it). The article says: "The German crew hurriedly scrambled overboard without destroying their codebooks or Enigma machine and, crucially, having failed to open sea-water vents to properly scuttle the U-boat." The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Then, why oh why? Did the allied forces sit on this information and twiddle their thumbs instead of handing it over to Britain who could have done something with it and so prevent many American shipping losses as well. As Alan Turing reported on his trip to the US It astonished me to find that they would make these elaborate calculations before they had really grasped the main principles of the thing. You could be the first to see burglars braking into your neighbours house. But if you leave it to neighbour to come back home and discovers his place ransacked because you did not call the police, instead hoping you could apprehend the villains yourself - – would one still expect the credit for being first to see the crime – whilst failing? Same with the Enigma intelligence, and yet the US prides itself on being on the British side all along?! Come- on get real. The US lead allied capture of Enigma aided sweet FA to code braking. They may had the resources to build bombs that could decipher the four wheeled enigma's , yet even then, were stand offish about Alan Turing’s 'hunches' about short cuts. The US tax taxpayer was financing a war that was costings millions of dollars per hour. They should be rightfully livid, that more dollars and lives were lost, due in part this misfeasance. And it is the loss of those extra needless lives that leaves me angry. That is why, I am careful not to criticise the current union between the NSA and GCHQ even thought the politicians have gone bonkers over their impossible desire for unsecured encryption. Without secure encryption we would have the modern net today with the benefits of online banking and shopping etc. --Aspro (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You wrote: "The Blackbird – moved so fast on radar that they were considered to be obviously extraterrestrial". Twice I asked for a reliable source that claims that Soviets (or someone else) truly believed that a Blackbird was extraterrestrial. You wrote: "Just as the Nazi's in the second world war thought that only magic could brake their Enigma encryption". I asked for a reliable source that claims that nazis (or someone else) believed that the Enigma encryption could only be broken by magic. I haven't seen any reliable sources to back up those claims. The article contains the text: "The Allies captured Enigma-related codebooks and machines about 15 times during the Second World War. All but two of these actions were by British forces.". And they didn't sit on the information and twiddle their thumbs, they used the information. The article says: "This material was extremely valuable in breaking the U-boat Enigma cipher." Here is the context for that Alan Turing quote: "In the Navy Department I got an an impression of a certain lack of sense of proportion, due I think to insufficient practical work. I will give an example. One of their men had been doing some rather elaborate calculations about stops on the click machine. He showed me these calculations and then asked me what was the justification for our practice of neglecting all stops in which there was no click. I gave him an explanation of the kind that he evidently wanted, and also told him that it was a case of the general principle that if you get confirmations in making inferences from a hypothesis then that hypothesis becomes more probable. It astonished me to find that they would make these elaborate calculations before they had really grasped the main principles of the thing.". Are you referring to this? If you want to be angry about the loss of lives during WW2 then its probably best to ignore what I would like to euphemistically call the imperfections in the Allied strategy, and look at the other side of that conflict. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with over looking imperfections in the Allied strategy, especially as it so easy to nitpick with the benefit of hind-sight. What I’m pointing out, is just as a combat unit strengths lays in every individuals ability to be part of a team to achieve a common goal and objective – Some (not all) allied generals should not have put their pride and lust for glory before the overall objective. If they where truly worthy of command they should at least have acknowledge that humanity in war hangs on a very thin thread. They should have behaved as if they were part of a larger team – that failure in moral standards cost more lives on all sides, including innocent civilians that got court up in the middle. I would not say that these events are unforgivable, because like you and me they where human. However, why should we forget their failings and not mention it? Why? It was not just the Nazi, Japanese etc. that sent their troops off to die needlessly – we did as well. By acknowledge that, we may mitigate history repeating itself. War is more horrid that your worst nightmares. George Patton (he with the ivory-handled revolvers) understood this, and accepted a role where he would receive little or no adulation for setting up the Ghost Army. But he must have realized, he was one of the few generals that could carry off this subterfuge in order to shorten the war. Thats the way a general really show courage. What otherside is there to look at which has grater gravitas.--Aspro (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

CCleaner

There are two buttons available on the CCleaner, Uninstaller and Delete Entry. What does the delete button do? -- Apostle (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Deleting an entry makes the program unable to be uninstalled. Use only if the uninstaller fails unsolvable. The program or app does not cleanup. Some vendors support an extra cleanup tool which removes all files and registry entries of the vendors software. An example is Avira Antivir. The Avira Registry Cleaner removes all settings Avira Installers have added the to windows registry. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 21:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The list of programs you see is stored in the Windows registry. If you are curious, press ⊞ Win + R, the Run screen will show up, type "regedit" and press ↵ Enter. In the registry editor window, on the left hand side, browse to: HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall\CCleaner (maybe you have a different Windows version)

The delete button simply deletes the information from that list in the Windows registry. The files and the other registry keys created by the software remain on your computer (and if you reinstall it they may be overwritten). The delete button is used in cases where it is impossible to run the uninstaller (e.g. it crashes).

The "uninstaller"-button attempts to uninstall the software via the conventional way, by running the uninstaller, which is the same as uninstalling software via the control panel. In regedit you can see the instruction, it is called: "UninstallString". The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)