Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2016 July 13

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 13

Windows 9x

Theoretically if Microsoft had continued to develop and invest in the DOS-based Win9x line instead of switching to NT, could they have produced a 64-bit OS running on-top of DOS that took full advantage of modern hardware capabilities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.185.7.252 (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason that DOS couldn't be altered and compiled to take advantage of a 64-bit CPU. Keep in mind that jumping to 64-bits isn't always an advantage in every single possible application. So, playing an old DOS game in 64-bit DOS won't make it better. 209.149.113.4 (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, this entails a sort of Sorites paradox.... When does a sufficiently-modified DOS system cease to be DOS anymore? If you add all the code, piece by piece, to make DOS behave like a modern system... haven't you ended up replacing it with the modern software?

A lot of features you take for granted today were absolutely missing from DOS. For example, the DOS operating system provided very little in the way of memory management, and essentially zero memory protection. Could you use a modern Intel CPU architecture in real mode and still call it "64 bit"?

DOS did not provide multiprocessing. There was no thread model, and there was no process model; these software abstractions simply did not exist and were not provided as a system service; obviously, there was no multi-CPU support either. Application software either ran serially, or used hardware interrupts, or used an application-provided threading model.

DOS never provided support for the internet protocol. The entirety of computer network application software that we now know and love - things like web browsers, for example - would require application-provided network abstractions and hardware device drivers.

You can read about DOS in our articles; and if you are technically adept, you can study FreeDOS and DOSBox, or download their source code, to see what DOS programming looks like in the 21st century.

Don't be fooled by superficial appearances: although many new systems provide a command line interface, modern systems are very dissimilar from DOS. DOS did very little, compared to modern system software; consequently, many DOS application programmers had to write lots of difficult, non-portable software to make their application features work. You should not fall into the trap of conflating all text-mode systems with DOS. For example, you can run a terminal or shell in most operating systems, but that's not DOS. If you really dislike colorful graphics, you can boot modern Microsoft software - or linux or OS X, for that matter - to a text-only-mode command-line terminal... but these modern operating systems still do things much differently than DOS.

Nimur (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. You go on and on about the limitations of DOS, such as lack of network support, memory management, web browsers, protected mode, etc but ignore the fact that versions of Windows built upon DOS such as Windows 95, 98, and ME provided all of those things. Since the question was about a hypothetical modern version of Windows built on DOS, I do not see how limitations of vanilla DOS that were overcome years ago in previous versions of DOS-based Windows are at all relevant to this question. 89.185.7.252 (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it will help if you clarify exactly what you think DOS is. Have you read our article section on its system design? Nimur (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are still going on about DOS. I asked about Windows9x which uses DOS as a boot loader but is obviously not DOS itself. I don't need to explain to you what DOS is since I didn't ask about DOS, I asked about Windows9x. Maybe reading the article will help you? You're acting as though I asked if DOS itself could be turned into a 64-bit OS with a GUI (which obviously it could) and then debating with yourself about whether such a system should still be defined as "DOS", but that wasn't what I asked at all. It's quite clear that my question is about Windows9x, not DOS. The title of this section is even "Windows9x". So quite why you are so determined to derail my question into a debate on DOS is a mystery to me. 92.46.125.19 (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Instead of the paradox you mentioned, how about the ship of Theseus paradox, which deals with replacement of components rather than removal ? StuRat (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of comparison, Linux (and yes, I am specifically talking about the Linux kernel here) originally ran only on Intel 386 systems. Finnish keyboard settings were actually hardcoded into the initial release! The Linux kernel of today has basically no code from the original 1991 kernel. So the answer is yes, Microsoft could have decided to retrofit DOS bit by bit into a modern operating system. They decided not to because they felt the Windows NT architecture was more elegant and extensible (Dave Cutler, who previously worked on the venerable VMS, was lead designer), and switching to it would eliminate the technical debt of the Windows 9x line, as well as the redundancy of maintaining two separate operating system product lines. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

What happens exactly when you clone your SIM card

If you clone your SIM card and use both the new and old card at the same time, how will the phone company react? How will they discover it? Is there a central server with a list of all numbers and where they are? What if one card accesses the network through roaming? Llaanngg (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they do keep a database, See Network switching subsystem#Home location register (HLR), International mobile subscriber identity, and Mobility management. There are special clone SIMs that disables the first SIM when switched on, but as far as I know the carrier has to turn on support for such devices.

Also see:

• https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/64294/how-does-a-sim-card-prevent-cloning
• Radio fingerprinting (warning: poor quality article; needs to be expanded and references added)

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Spy potential of Pokemon Go

I've been seeing a wave of newsvertisements for Pokemon Go that is unrivalled since, well, Facebook Live's snuff video PR campaign, including inducing players to jump a fence to find a dead body,[1] and it's left me thinking about how useful this app may or may not be to spy agencies, police, or even ordinary private dicks.

• Who is in charge of placing the Pokemon monsters or other targets? Is there a straightforward way for a third party to set up an attractive feature on some property they want inspected?

• How do players find the targets they are looking for? Is there a general 'directory' that leads them to the land they are supposed to reconnoiter?

• Is the game known to upload the video the phone is taking in order to put the cartoon figure on the screen, or is that done locally?

• Does the game have a way of collecting data about things in the area, e.g. other cell-phones, Wi-Fi identifying numbers, etc.?

• If a player trespasses in order to happen across evidence, is there any possible legal argument that he is a "police agent" if it could be shown that police put the target on his map, or does his personal decision to trespass to play the game put an end to any attempt to claim a warrantless search?

• I've read about players being lured to police stations to hunt Pokemon, with cops complaining about it; is there any way to lure a particular player to a police station without luring all of them, say if that particular one had outstanding warrants?

• Are players being lured near crack houses and other highly hazardous features that someone might want to have periodic video surveillance of? I didn't see this one but it seems like an understandable "accident" to have happen.

Wnt (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: there's a discussion of this here and better here; some users are skeptical that there is video uploading going on based on the reported bandwidth. However, apparently the app actually has the user take a picture, which is a more limited amount of data. The privacy policy is here and doesn't specifically say video is uploaded; it's wording is pretty much the longwinded way of saying "absolutely none" used in any privacy policy online. One user said that "Pokemon GO is owned by Niantic, Inc, which was formed by Keyhole, Inc, which was funded by the CIA's venture capital arm In-Q-Tel". Checking this out, the second part is true (see Keyhole, Inc); the first part omits that Keyhole was first acquired by Google, putting its cofounder in charge of Google Maps (gee, never would have guessed...) before eventually the department was spun off as Niantic. [2] I don't know how much this really means though, since I don't actually know nowadays that it is possible in a capitalist economy for a company to be created without the CIA effectively in charge of it. Also, none of this really answers the practical questions, just reinforces the underlying suspicion. Wnt (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• OK... So, you are at the reference desk, made to ask factual questions, not to promote tinfoilhattery. While "is there a large-scale conspiracy that released Pokemon Go to improve their spying" is somewhat factual, it is unreasonable to expect Wikipedia editors to give an appropriate answer (although Occam's razor likely applies).

Did the CIA/Mossad/whatever fund the development/release of PG to improve their sensors? Probably not. Does the CIA/Mossad/whatever try to interfere with the players' connections to snoop on their private data? Probably.

Does the CIA/Mossad/whatever pay/coerce the Pokemon Go Head of Spawning Operations (or hacked the servers that handle that task) in order to push some people to some places for some reasons? Unlikely. It is not cost-efficient for the rabble, and getting a tracker (GPS data exchanged between the PG servers and the player's device can be more easily intercepted than spoofed) on a mafia boss or international terrorist is so valuable that you do not want to lose it if they feel there is something weird with the spawns.

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I prefer the conspiracy theory at The TRUTH About Black Helicopters! ... :)   --Guy Macon (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

FWIW I found another article [3] saying that the game manufacturers had inexplicably gotten millions of users to sign over access to their Google accounts, and to accept that the program would have access to their stored documents, before deciding that was just an accident and they didn't really need access to the information. I remember in the 1990s that some people would say I believed "conspiracy theories" about the government tapping all our communications, but I wouldn't have expected anyone to continue to try to hold that kind of line nowadays. Wnt (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

U.S. intelligence agencies and their partners already have access to anything they want at Google through PRISM. Why would they need to create a secret spy app and try to get people to voluntarily install it to obtain access that they already have? Also, why would they stop after being asked about it? Why not just say they need the access because reasons? --71.110.8.102 (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, as I said above, lesser actors like ordinary police or private individuals might want the data. But it's true that this news, however interesting, strays from my initial thoughts about the program being useful to put cameras and specific individuals where you want them, which goes well beyond mere spying. Wnt (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

For the Google account access, Hanlon's razor likely applies. MChesterMC (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Link Sought

Pokemon Go for PC and .apk for Smartphone is sought please. Regards. -- Apostle (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Pokemon Go for PC doesn't exist, but this article tells you how it can be done using an Android emulator. It was the first result when I googled "Pokemon Go for PC". I don't use them myself, but I assume the .apk file can be obtained from the usual app sources. Rojomoke (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Downloading .apk from third party sources is probably a bad idea, since (1) such third-party may have added any code they like (that you will not like) to it, (2) the standard process of updates is broken, and other potential issues. PG is available for download through the usual sources if you are in the area of deployment. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• It's possible to play Pokemon Go on the PC using an emulator and GPS spoofing, but that's against the terms of service of the game and will likely get your account banned. As for a download for smartphones, Ars Technica has a decent guide. As Tigraan said, third-party sites may maliciously modify the APK, so download at your own risk. clpo13_(talk) 16:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The big problem with third-party sites is the attitude that they MIGHT add malicious content to the code. There is a very minuscule chance that there might be some malicious content. Out of a billion files, you might find one that has malicious code. That is completely false. The reality is that third-party sources usually host malicious code. The often host malicious code. You should expect malicious code. Even well-known sources like CNet have been known to add malware to the code (mainly adware/tracking code in CNet's case). So, this comment will be followed up with complaints that unless someone specifically exposes malware for a specific file, we should all assume that malware doesn't exist and download all the crap we find on the Internet. Please think it through. Why would someone pay money to host "Free" files and pay money for bandwidth so you can download them? It isn't because they are nice people. 209.149.113.4 (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Noted, and thanks all. -- Apostle (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Updates

Apparently it's not that hard to use the game to lure people: [4] Wnt (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tigraan, Guy Macon, and MChesterMC: To follow up, see The Intercept, which points out that the app comes from same exact people responsible for Google running around spying on private network traffic in the course of tagging and placing Wi-Fi hotspots to identify which home routers are where on a nationwide scale with Street View. (And just try to buy a router at the local computer store that doesn't 'incidentally' create a trackable wi-fi signature as a bonus feature, the better to locate each user) They cite a patent that says

"The game objective can be directly linked with a data collection activity. An exemplary game objective directly linked with data collection activity can include a task that involves acquiring information about the real world and providing this information as a condition for completion of the game objective."

and a paper cited in that patent that says

"To our opinion, the real challenge lies in motivating the user to provide the data constantly, even after the exciting appeal of technological innovation at the beginning wears off. The data acquisition process should be entertaining for a possible contributor to engage him in the long run. We convince that entertainment and fun are an important design aspect of such data collecting services."

The app does in fact require users to have their camera and GPS data continually available, required full access (for no legitimate reason) to Google accounts and their data, and is the subject of protest by EPIC. According to a letter by Al Franken, it also asserts the power to prevent a phone from sleeping and to access the contacts on the device.

Hanlon's Razor simply does not apply to the Dismaler Science. In an unfree and unfair society, the purpose of technology is to provide power to the wealthy and powerful at the expense of others, and never is this more true than in modern computer development. Even on the most high-minded project like Wikipedia, the inbuilt mores of computer administration lead to the stratification and silencing of users in favor of an elite; but when computer companies exist to sell data and the only people buying are spies and corporate predators, it is damn near certain that any competent engineer will be acting out of malice, not incompetence. Wnt (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, this entire thread (including the older material) should be WP:BOLDLY moved back to the reference desk for further discussion, which I would be happy to participate in. (Leave a short note here explaining what you did.) I think that continuing a discussion on an archived page is Bad Thing because it fragments the discussion and breaks our watchlisting system. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't really see the point of posting for a whole new round of answers at this point. Sometimes I update archived questions with new data that comes in (e.g.); it's really just to have a better archive section. Wnt (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)