|
Hi,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I will be sharing the same with my team and will take a call.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi everyone,
I am working on a browser-based document scanning application for IE it is fine as we can do scanning through ActiveX or Add-ons etc but when it comes to modern browsers like latest chrome, firefox and edge it is very hard to call any .exe or other is related functions from client-side .. What is the option to invoke scanner from modern browsers and do necessary file I/o on client end... Please don't mention proprietary software I prefer to work with open-source solutions.. regard
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's possible to do but you cannot do it using only javscript in the browser. Code running in the browser has no access to anything on the client. No access to the file system, display, scanners, ... nothing. All it can do external to the browser is talk to web servers. But, there is no restriction on where that web server has to be running.
You have to write a service application to be installed on the client. This service has two sides to it, the first being an interface to the scanner, doing all of the work of controlling the scanner and managing the resulting files on the client machine.
The other side of the service is a web server, exposing a controlling interface that can be used from the javascript code in your web page. This interface would be a WebAPI or similar. The functions you expose would have to be everything the javascript code is going to need to control the scanner, through the service.
|
|
|
|
|
Working on .Net Core MVC web application hosted in Azure App Service with WAF (Web Application Firewall) enabled. WAF rules are blocking the File upload functionality. When the rules are turned OFF, application works fine. Does anyone know how this can be fixed?
Regards,
John
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any error logged whenever upload is failing?
"Five fruits and vegetables a day? What a joke!
Personally, after the third watermelon, I'm full."
|
|
|
|
|
It depends entirely on the rule set that you're using. It's possible that you've got a content-type on the upload that ModSec doesn't like, or that you're using something other than POST to send a file and it doesn't like that, or even that it's tuned to completely disallow uploads.
The logs ModSec is generating will tell you which rule is getting triggers, and should help you figure out how to resolve the issue.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
- Hanlon's Razor
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I'm able to add commands to the Windows Explorer throu the registry. However, how do I set one on the commands as default?
I'm noticed that Open is always there but Open is not Always what I want to be the default.
Jan
|
|
|
|
|
I'm working on an embedded communication protocol where bytes will be transmitted. In my packets, I can only allocate 7 bits for integrity check. If I just sum up the bytes module 256 and then throw out the MSb, then I suspect errors in the first bit in each byte would not be detected. Can someone please recommend a computationally inexpensive method that is a little more robust? It needs to be computationally inexpensive because it could potentially run on small, slow microcontrollers.
|
|
|
|
|
You could XOR the nibbles of each byte together and use aggregate those values as your checksum. It's not perfect, multiple errors in a byte could lead to collisions, but it's better than the alternative and should still be speedy.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
- Hanlon's Razor
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I added a submenu to the Windows explorer for directorys. Unfortunately not all the items are visible.
Is there a way to show more items than 16 incl all subitems?
I was working with ExtendedSubCommandsKey.
I really mean menutems and not fileitems.
jan
Sorry if this is not the right place to ask this. The program is writen in vb.net but the question is stricly Windows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I found that to but I was hoping that now with Windows 10 there is a way to enlarge that number.
|
|
|
|
|
I have two datasets A & B.
A=>{10,12,24,14,35}
B=>{11,12,23,15,24}
to compare the similarity between the two datasets, let's say we employ two methodologies.
MEAN & STANDARD Deviation.
Difference between MEAN(A) & MEAN(B) is X % (Percentage)
Difference between STDEV(A) & STDEV(B) is Y % (Percentage)
Now to say a final, overall difference between the two datasets, can I say X% + Y%?
I'm sure it's wrong. 
What's the best way to indicate the overall difference observed when we have two results expressing it in different percentages?
|
|
|
|
|
Nand32 wrote: Difference between MEAN(A) & MEAN(B) is X % (Percentage)
Difference between STDEV(A) & STDEV(B) is Y % (Percentage)
Now to say a final, overall difference between the two datasets, can I say X% + Y%?
I'm bad at math, but both are ways to measure "differences".
Two ways of determining differences between strings is by looking at length, and the first character. I can't simply add the two to get a "better difference".
Decide whether the length, or the first character is more telling of the "difference" you seek. FWIW, there's more ways even than those two to quantify how they differ; there's weighted moving averages and more of that arcane stuff.
Give it some time and someone who is good at maths will ask you what type of difference you seek.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: weighted moving averages
I was just thinking about it. I guess this is good enough. thanks 
Will watch out for an expert opinion though. 
|
|
|
|
|
You have two types of measurements. Adding the 2 "different" types of percentages is meaningless relative to considering the percentages individually. In theory, they could cancel each other out, and you're left with "zero", even though they are "different".
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
|
Composition of percentages would involve multiplication rather than addition. But it wouldn't make any more sense, imho. Two series could have same mean but different standard deviations. In this case the multiplication would yield zero, which wouldn't tell much about current situation, and could even be misleading by tricking one into thinking that both series are equal/equivalent.
"Five fruits and vegetables a day? What a joke!
Personally, after the third watermelon, I'm full."
|
|
|
|
|
How about averaging the two difference? Or even better with weighted-average to have more control over which part of the composition matters more to us.
|
|
|
|
|
I am not aware of a way to combine those two distinct measurements into something really meaningful. Just test your assumptions with some result sets, and see whether you can make valuable observations with them. Beware of edge cases, especially those where zero is involved.
"Five fruits and vegetables a day? What a joke!
Personally, after the third watermelon, I'm full."
|
|
|
|
|
Hi everyone,
I am working on a browser-based document scanning application for IE it is fine as we can do scanning through ActiveX or Add-ons etc but when it comes to modern browsers like latest chrome, firefox and edge it is very hard to call any .exe or other is related functions from client-side .. What is the option to invoke scanner from modern browsers and do necessary file I/o on client end... Please don't mention proprietary software I prefer to work with open-source solutions.. regard
|
|
|
|
|
Since there's probably a human required to "load the scanner", having the browser control the action doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Every scan usually involves creating a file, which is what you should be interested in.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
Kami Dehlvi wrote: it is very hard to call any .exe or other is related functions from client-side .
Deliberately so, as it prevents ther browser from performing actions that it should not be allowed to do.
|
|
|
|
|
If your intending for a user to go to a third-party website and the site somehow controls a scanner they may or may not have, then that's a deadend. That goes against everything a browser is supposed to do.
Your site should direct them to upload the scanned file, but the actual generation is in the users hands...obviously your site could provide guiding instructions.
If your creating a scanner client and just want to use HTML for the interface, that's doable.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
