Login with username and password (forgot your password?)

Also, is there anybody clever around who knows if there's some big differences between zooming digitally, and the physical-world stuff that happens when you do it through optics?

Don't know that I qualify as clever  . but I do know a bit about optics.  In the simplest terms, digital zoom basically increases the pixel count [of a specified, smaller area] so that you can kinda, sorta zoom in -focus - on an area of the image - but you are still seeing the same image, just an enhanced area at the same pixel depth.  Optical zoom actually alters the view, so that you now see a magnified version of a much smaller image area.  The digital zoom tries to accomplish what binoculars, telescopes, and macro lenses have been doing for ages.  But it cannot increase what is called depth of field.  Regardless the amount of digital zoom, you still have only the pixel capability of the CCD in your particular device.  Optical zoom provides a true magnification of the given area - it is not pixel-dependent.
(This could probably have been put more clearly, but I've been lagering  .)

My ex-boss had the condition.  She had a particular prescription just for computer work.  Might investigate that avenue.  (I also had a particular pair of glasses (extreme myopia in my case) for computer work.)  Cost is not particularly great, but it needs an eye professional's judgement as to whether it would be efficacious.  Lenses are a good overall solution, especially if you're likely to view different screens, but if your friend's condition is sufficiently advanced, it might not work.  I wish her well, whatever the resolution.

Folk,

Did a quick search here, but nothing seemed relevant.  My sailing instructor friend is trying to embed a Google Calendar (GC) app on his Web site.  Problem is that when I try see it, the colours he used to highlight different classes are not the same as he used on the original calendar.  I have no experience with GC at all - never had need for it.  A Google (naturally  ) search brings up way too many links - pages and pages.  So, anybody here familiar with this problem/project?

Oh, the reason for the color-coding is that all of a particular type of class is shown in a particular colour - makes viewing multiple months in order to pick out a schedule much easier.  So it needs to be consistent and predictable.

"subsidized wireless phone" is the key here.

That's not exactly the way it is phrased  .  That may be your key, as 'twould be mine own.  But.  If you unlock - with the concomitant if you get caught, of course - you are liable for fine, imprisonment, or both - the old geezer didn't include any fine print escapism.  The subsidized bit is so easy to beat it ain't even funny.

Friend of mine went to Verizon with an unlocked phone he'd bought on the Web.  They gave him a service contract - and locked his phone into the bargain:  no lock, no service.  Oh, yeah ... his contract (he discovered later) was ~twenty (20) percent higher than the norm.   I dunno, maybe he just looked like an easy mark - actually, he is  - but that's what happened.  So, now, even though he bought an unlocked phone, if he unlocks it from Verizon, he's guilty by the Librarian's fiat.  Ya can't win, ya can't draw even.  Popular opinion overturn?  Mebbe ... 

Maybe so, but it's still illegal for me to separate my phone from the carrier whence I purchased it.  It's not just phones obtained after 2013-01-25.  The act of unlocking has become illegal - by fiat   .  Mind you, I've no intention of unlocking my phone, never had such, but it seems damned impertinent at the very least for someone not even in the legal chain to tell me I cannot  !

[not]

  I think I've found the reason for my machines sluggishness during start-up.    Avast, Malwarebytes, SuperAnti-Spyware, SpyBot S&D, PickPic and PNotes all load with Windows.    That's okay... I use or need most of these daily... so I'll just live with the slow starts.      For me, anyway, it's easier to click on a pre-loaded tray icon... than it is to track it down in the Start Menu.

As I was reminded recently - here on DC, as a matter of fact - you can stagger the start times of those programs.  The sluggishness is, usually, due to everything trying to start at once.  If you offset the start times - say by a minute each - your perceived startup will be much speedier.  Or, you could get a software like Chameleon Task Manager - not the Malwarebytes launcher - to make staggering startup times a bit easier.  Either way, you can start using your system much sooner, even though stuff is still loading.  Changed my usage from starting ~ten (10) minutes after boot to start using ~three (3) minutes after boot.  Amazing how much you can get done in a mere seven (7) minutes  .

Note:  if you go the staggered startup route, play with it a bit ... changing the start order can significantly affect total startup time.

dotTech has presented an interesting video on Win8.  Having just installed it on a non-touch system, I can pretty much agree.

Haven't tried Security Monitor Pro just yet.  Been working with IP Camera Viewer.  Of the three (3) cams, two (2) of 'em set up just fine, as long as they were cabled.  Third cam did not, apparently (no mfg or model).  But when I tried its IP in a browser (Firefox) it works just fine.  However, that, too, is cabled.  So now the project becomes dependent upon finding guidelines for wi-fi setup.  Well, the IP Camera Viewer process, anyway.  Still others to try.

Just a point of information regarding Win8.  I installed Win8 Pro Upgrade on one of the laptops yesterday - about six (6) hours, but a significant part of that time was uninstalling a few files that were incompatible with Win8.  And a significant part of that time was finding a way to remove DisplayLink drivers - a real PITA.  Anyway, the point is that Win8 Pro is fully installed, works just fine.

But.

When I try to activate the cabled cam in IE10, it wants an OCX file.  Win8 won't let it load - it just cycles back and forth between notification that the installation is blocked and a UAC  permission block.  It's locked into an endless loop - well, at least seventeen (17) cycles that I counted  .  However the cam loads fine in Firefox on Win8.

Oh, it just doesn't load in IE9 on Win7 Ultimate, offers no option whatsoever.  W/O knowing the OCX name ahead of time, there's no simple way to counter this.  Had to kill IE9 with Task Manager, but can't find it yet in Win8.

Every other browser I've tried, on both OSes has worked just fine for the wired cam.

Well, that's progress as of 2013.01.19.

- no 30 -

Even the name of the application is missing? That can't be good, for your system (more than  WinPatrol actually)

Now, I know the program name can be either extracted from the application or from the system.

Incorrect.  Depending on how it's starting, those can be obfuscated.  It's one of the ways that malicious programs keep themselves out of the running objects table and out of task manager.

Well, yes and no.  A developer can create such obfuscation, but why bother when there's no rationale for it?  While it's entirely possible I'm loading four (4) malware elements, I'm a bit doubtful.

I do know that one (1) of the startup dialogs was for MyInfo - because I took it out of autostart.  Every time I start it manually, I get that same dialog.  I don't think its name is concealed, since the firewall recognized it immediately.  Yeah, I know, the firewall could be using a different algorithm, and there have been references to MyInfo being not well coded, but still ...

I think the inability to provide information about programs isn't related to WinPatrol PLUS, but the program in question.  The information provided is an opt-in sort of thing from the developer; they have to provide that information.  There's some information that can be retrieved from your system, but a lot of it comes from the application in question.

Wel-l-l-l ... yes, but ...

WinPatrol Plus, every time I restart my system, provides me with ~five (5) dialogs telling me that some unnamed program is trying to start, with two (2) buttons to either permit or deny that particular unnamed application.  Now, I know the program name can be either extracted from the application or from the system.  But, still, every restart, there are those same dialogs.  And I can't even [reliably] isolate them by a process of elimination  .  Not that it matters, 'cause WinPatrol provide no way for me to show those elements as safe.  I'm close on to ditching it:  if it cannot/will not tell me what software is trying to run, what else is it missing?  Reliability has become questionable.

To reiterate: Friends don't 'friend' friends on Facebook.

Synopsis:  Friends don't Facebook  .

I think it may be instructive to remember that the generation previous to our own held much the same opinion about us. 

Yep, they did  .  But this is more about what the next generation think of themselves, not what we think of 'em  .

these people think that they are "The Shit".

Well, it all truth they are ... just, perhaps, not the way they'd have us thimk  .

I have tried them all.  The best is Security Monitor Pro.  It is reasonably priced and has the best interface and usability of any of the mid level security software - http://www.deskshare.com/...urveillance-software.aspx

I'll take a look, but ~$90 (US) is a bit steep for my purposes.

What if the students deemed as deluded narcissists are being judged by the deluded narcissists of the previous generation which is why it's only reporting it as a 30% increase?

Or, being judged by folk who dislike/hate [perceived] narcissists?

I'm always a bit - often a large bit - suspicious of such studies, since I seldom know the true qualifications of those who make/made the study.

Are you taking into account the cost of money, since you spent all $20 up front instead of over a couple decades for the foil? Just think of all the interest that amortized $20 could have earned.

This is an awful lot of discussion over something pretty inconsequential  .  Actually, insofar as monetary values, I've saved money, according to inflation estimates.

However, there's a mostly non-monetary benefit.  I'm an old cripple, so the less often I have to bend down to the base of the oven the better - for me.  For normal healthy bodies, there's still a lot less bending/strain.  Not all benefits are monetary in nature, nor is financial return necessarily a significant factor.  You might consider the Feng Shui of ovens  as well as the mental stress reduction of knowing you have bought a product that will lessen your overall effort(s).  There's more, but I'm outa here on this one  .

changed at ~6 month intervals

For you, that's good.  My replacement schedule was something like two (2) weeks  .  mouser's gadget is much more cost effective for me.  Different usages affect utility & efficiencies  .

Yes, but with recycling the 8-cent solution just keeps coming back 

Yeah  -  and out of my pocket every time  !

Been using such a [different than mouser's] liner for a couple of decades (I bake a lot).  Much cheaper than one (1) or two (2) rolls of foil every year  .

Tinman, why are you trying to ruin a perfectly good, high-tech, possibly toxic, $20 gadget with an 8 cent just-as-good solution?  Are you trying to make me look foolish?

Actually, that 8-cent solution will cost more, considering the longevity of the $20 gadget  .  (Well, depending upon how much you use the oven  .)

[luckily]

Good work, Wraith!

Also, wow, TopStyle is still alive? It's been ages since I saw that program the first time (and back then, it was a wonderful thing - luckily I haven't had to do much CSS since). Also leads to "wow, are anybody still using CSS?" - less and all :-)

Not much of a fan of less (prolly 'cause I just don't know enough about it  ), but been using TopStyle since approximately forever.  TopStyle 5 likes CSS3 and HTML5, as well as JS/PHP/SQL/ASP.  Just downloaded v.5.0.0.87, in fact, tonight.  All in all, TopStyle is a kick-ass piece of software for my usages.

As if I wasn't paranoid enough already....

Paranoia strikes thee ... everybody look what's goin' 'round  .

Not to worry - unless you walk into my garage  ... assuming I get something to work  .

Folk,

Back ~1998-2000 I had software that made a Web cam a surveillance device, capable of being activated by movement, recording so long as there was movement.  Also had a Panasonic [cabled] remote pan/tilt/zoom camera.  Both were useful, but both were cabled.  This was on Win2K, maybe WinXP.

Two (2) or three (3) years ago, while still on XP, I bought three (3) IP cameras.  After assigning them IP addresses, via cable, they worked just fine in wireless mode.  All three (3) came with software - different version for each camera, although they were all from the same vendor.  They worked just fine, had pan/tilt/zoom/IR capability.  But I had to use the software that came with each camera to access that camera.  (Recording capability and motion detection sucked, at least to my mind.)  Then I changed routers.  Cameras no longer worked - new router didn't recognize their IP addresses.

Back with the original cameras mentioned.  There was, at that time, a software that would handle multiple cameras, up to sixteen (16) I think.  Don't recall it, and it prolly wouldn't work with Win7 anyway.  However, I've seen searched reference to similar software recently - too much of it  !

So much for background, now comes the question  .  Rather than spend six (6) months diddling with various softwares that claim to function, I thought I'd ask here first.  Are any of you using such software  ?  Can you recommend such software  ?  Or am I gonna diddle for six (6) months  ?

There is a request at dotTech for suggestions for screen capture utilities to be reviewed.  Thought it might be of interest here, as well.

You're giving me gear-lust... must... resist...

Hee, hee ... what are you gonna do when my Lenovo Yoga gets here and I start bragging about that  ?

No comments on the various formulations & guides - some old tech is still valid  , just a cautionary observation/experience.

When I worked at Hughes Aircraft in Tucson, AZ (USA), we had a lot of DC-powered test stations.  One night a tech was called in to work on a test station.  Unfortunately, his testing had to be done on a hot station, i.e., with the power on.  (It didn't have to be done hot, but the difference was several hours as opposed to a few minutes.)  He got across 400 volts DC.  It literally threw him halfway across the room - perhaps I should say his muscle spasm when he got across the contacts threw him halfway across the room.  I helped to recover him, get him on a gurney the shop nurse brought.  Significant, if not major, burns on this hands and arms,  and a partially dislocated shoulder from jumping away while trying to hold on.

Up until that time, in my ignorance and supposed invulnerability, I was wont to work on 120V AC circuits hot - home wiring and the lot - comfortable in my presumed immunity.  I don't do that any more.  (I've also gotten burned fingers working with 9V lantern batteries, but that's a different matter.)

Anytime you're working with current, you can be in harm's way, even though the amount of current seems minuscule.