Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2011 June 13

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.

June 13

can't access blogger

Any other site is OK but none on blogspot. I tried Firefox, Chrome and IE but with the same result. I might have tampered with some Internet settings but what could be that which affects blogger alone?--Dondrodger (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Check your HOSTS file and run a MalwareBytes scan. Also, TDSSKiller... --71.252.212.231 (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Checked hosts file which looks OK with only one line.

127.0.0.1       localhost

Scanned using Kaspersky's TDSSKiller2.5.4.0 but no infection. The problem is unsolved. --Dondrodger (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that I can go to www.blogger.com and sign in and also view blogger profile pages. I can't view my own blog pages even when the link is clicked from the dashboard. The blogger pages I can access are all are www pages while the blog postings themselves are without the www. What could be the reason? --Dondrodger (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Bit frame selection in differential Manchester encoding

I stumped the science desk with this question since June 9 so I'm reposing it here:

Is the first "transition" of a differential Manchester encoding signal the first time it deviates from its initial level or the first time it returns to that initial level? Or are signals from both possibilities generally tracked and chosen from after a sufficient number of samples to discern between have been observed? Can some kind of bit parity, start or stop bits make that easy? 76.254.22.47 (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

anti-spyware software for Macs

Hello. I'd like to run an anti-spyware scan on my MacBook Pro. Is there any software available that would allow me to do this? The only stuff I could find are for PCs.

On a related note, how vulnerable to attacks are Macs compared to PCs? I've heard that Macs tend to be more resilient; is that still true today? Ragettho (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Macs still are and always have been much, much, Much more secure than Windows machines. It is incorrect to use the term PC to refer exclusively to Windows computers. Modern Macs are, by the technical definition, PCs. A good anti-spyware program for Mac (which will also scan for viruses, trojans, and other sorts of malware) is MacScan. --Nat682 (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Nat682 does not have a lot of time clocked in on his Macintosh time card, I see, based on his claim that they have "always" been much, much, much more secure. I remember well the days of the nVIR and Scores viruses, which spread super easily and well in 1988-89. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

VirusBarrier seems to be at the top of many lists as well. I’d imagine ClamAV would find something (note --detect-pua param).
There’s plenty to suggest that Mac OS is quite vulnerable to direct "attacks", but there’s also a lot less badware out there for it; there’s massively more badware out there for Windows, at least partly because it’s installed on so many more desktops. I’d say the Unix system design and base of Mac OS is superior, though, and that Apple does presently care more about how its software performs and behaves than Microsoft. Whether this all means it’s worth paying twice as much for the system is moot. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I heard a good analogy a while ago that sums up what you're saying. Macs are like an unlocked cottage in the country; not much crime happens, but it's easier to break into. Windows is like a heavily-fortified apartment in the ghetto, more difficult to get into, but more people are trying to. Overall, Windows gets far more break-ins. (Of course it's exaggerated, but it's to make a point) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KyuubiSeal (talk • contribs) 15:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say one is an unlocked cottage in the country and the other is an ordinary locked house in the city (still easy to break into, even by pedestrians), but otherwise. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

cron.daily in Ubuntu

I'm asking this question because, well, I'm dumb. At one point I set up my Ubuntu Server 10.10 box with a cron task that runs every day. It is executing correctly. Trouble is, I can't remember how I did it; I did not document my actions; and when I run crontab -l either as a user or with sudo prefixed, I'm told "no crontab for username". I can see that in /etc/cron.daily I've got a shell script sitting there with a filename I must have created. Is it possible to just create a shell script in /etc/cron.daily and it'll run daily, with no need to do anything else? (If so, then I'm going to say that's what I did.) Or is it necessary to configure something else in order to run such things? Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

http://webchat.freenode.net/?nick=cronAllNight=##ubuntu ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The scripts in /etc/cron.daily are being run by your /etc/crontab which is distinct from the user crontabs that the crontab command knows about. 67.162.90.113 (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)