Oh. Now I get it. Your brand of linguistic pedantry doesn't even accept the RFC, even while trying to use their numbering scheme. You're over-simplifying 4xx a bit if you say it's just "user error."
2xx is used when the client's request was successfully received, understood, and accepted.. In the case of a missing page, only the first two of the three are satisfied. You can't accept a request and successfully respond if the content is not there. Success is defined by the retrieval of the content, not the state of the transport.
4xx means the clientmay have erred (which is true in the sense that what they want isn't possible and they could possibly have known that in advance). Which is an acceptable assumption. Otherwise most of 4xx is entirely useless.
Citation needed (not that I want something with such bad gas mileage). They demoed Android Auto in a 2015 Mustang at CES. They did not sell one to the public like this yet. Android Auto support is coming to several 2016 models, supposedly, but in a firmware update to be released at a TBA time.
Only if it could be proven that they weren't stolen beforehand. Or if he deleted the files in good faith but there was an unintended backup copy compromised. Incremental backups are hard to remove individual files from - and you could argue that destroying entire file backups is an unreasonable demand.
They've been promising Android Auto on Sync 3 vehicles since early 2015. As a matter of fact, I wanted to buy a Ford vehicle if they would just roll out Android Auto (and/or include Sync 3 on all new sync-equipped 2016 vehicles).
Sync 1 & 2 deserve to be dead. But Sync 3 is based on QNX instead of Windows Embedded and in a test run it handled everything I threw at it - FLAC, AAC, MP3. But what I'd really rather have is Android Auto.
I gave up on waiting and bought a Hyundai Sonata. What they lack built-in is made up for with Android Auto's interface.
The first several levels, yes. Then it jumps the shark with overly complex levels (nearly impossible) way too early in the game. The gameplay, physics, and graphics are all great. It's just not a fun game because of the inconsistent difficulty level.
Not if the URL used to be valid but no longer exists (Hey, just like 451). Technically, 410 is more correct, but 404 is what's used in common practice.
This isn't going to do anything for a National Security Letter or anything along those lines. Returning 451 might be subtle but it definitely won't get you out of trouble if it's discovered - so it's in no way a true canary. The only safe canary is something where inaction reveals that something was compromised. This is for when you're allowed to tell the visitor exactly why. And it also standardizes reporting in such a way that automated tools connecting to the content can make an intelligent decision on how to handle the error.
So maybe when Google indexes the 451 error page, they can keep the keywords cached so that the URL is still returned for the same searches. As it is, when Google gets a DMCA takedown for a search result linking to infringing content, they display an error message. If something like 451 is standardized, they could report takedowns/censorships in search results where they themselves weren't involved in the removal of the content.
Google generally supports the reporting of censorship - even their own web search results include links to chillingeffects.org when a search result is removed due to a DMCA request. It's likely that they would increase the rank of web sites being transparent about censorship.
Shutting the offending content down normally returns 404. You can still display the same 404-style error page but with a 451 HTTP header, or you can provide details on the removal of the content. It doesn't really matter as the content of the page is not really specified by the RFC.
Most people may want it completely removed without a trace.
When you say "most people" I don't know if you mean the offended party under the DMCA or the content poster or the web site whose page was infringing. There is no action available under the DMCA to require it to appear as if the page never existed - just to remove the actual offending content. Depends on if it's a site acting within its safe harbor provision or if it's a site that posted the content itself.
Right now, Youtube doesn't even give a 404. They give a HTTP 200 response when showing the "This video is unavailable" page. Because they want to acknowledge that the content was there and that it had been a valid link at one time.
If you get a DMCA takedown notice for something you have the rights to, but not the money to defend yourself, you might return a 451 instead of a 404 when it's removed/hidden.
A much more appropriate response would have been to verify that the customer was running a bittorrent with what looked like BMG content, and then gently remind them that their contract (almost certainly) prohibits operating servers using Cox residential internet service.
You say that simply seeding a torrent = running a server. Even though seeding if an automatic part of downloading. And that this is at a scale worthy of having service disconnected. A complete disconnect from what you're saying now.
Did you not think of the fact that plenty of people have non-commercial reasons for sharing "content" on a small scale? I run my personal web site on port 80 on my home Internet connection. I'm not running a business. I do run it through Cloudflare as a proxy, but that really doesn't give me much at my scale.
But IMAP lets you unsubscribe from folders. So as long as you're only subscribed to "All Mail" you get everything once.
It's not so much that GMail implements IMAP wrong, it's just that their concept of labels doesn't work the same as folders. One email can have two labels while only existing as a single instance with Gmail. It's not a bad idea, but it makes a mess out of IMAP. It wouldn't be something I'd hate to see in a future revision of IMAP (or if existing IMAP clients were smart enough to deduplicate for Gmail and not download more than once).
It's called a sting operation. Not sure how ethical/legal it is, since they're not law enforcement, but it's not entrapment because the Cox user would have shared the file with any connecting IP and not just RC. And sting operations by corporations haven't been challenged on that basis (of not being law enforcement).
The Internet is NOT just "content providers" and "consumers". That's like saying that telephone systems are only for placing calls (consumers) and receiving calls (businesses). Since you completely fail to understand that, I don't have much to say.
deliberately running bittorrent feeds of BMG licensed content, not a newb who plugs his PC in and doesn't know better
For an inexperienced user, if you download from a BitTorrent feed, you are seeding a BitTorrent feed. That's just how BitTorrent works. And if your router is in it's default configuration, a lot of BitTorrent clients will open a port using UPnP.
All personal services that won't consume much, and operating at a different level than someone trying to run a public file or data server on that residential line.
That doesn't change the fact that it's a "server." Especially since even basic personal devices tend to offer HTTP interfaces. It doesn't matter what you're trying to do - the cable company can call it a server if they choose to.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh. Now I get it. Your brand of linguistic pedantry doesn't even accept the RFC, even while trying to use their numbering scheme. You're over-simplifying 4xx a bit if you say it's just "user error."
2xx is used when the client's request was successfully received, understood, and accepted.. In the case of a missing page, only the first two of the three are satisfied. You can't accept a request and successfully respond if the content is not there. Success is defined by the retrieval of the content, not the state of the transport.
4xx means the clientmay have erred (which is true in the sense that what they want isn't possible and they could possibly have known that in advance). Which is an acceptable assumption. Otherwise most of 4xx is entirely useless.
Deleting backups containing all previous versions of files of reasonable? That's potentially a lot of history to throw away.
Citation needed (not that I want something with such bad gas mileage). They demoed Android Auto in a 2015 Mustang at CES. They did not sell one to the public like this yet. Android Auto support is coming to several 2016 models, supposedly, but in a firmware update to be released at a TBA time.
In whose favor?
You'd have to hit the steering wheel pretty hard with your head to detonate that embedded shotgun cartridge.
Go track those people down and throw them in jail.
And use the same software to calculate their sentencing?
The relationship is either over or it's not. You can't have it both ways.
Only if it could be proven that they weren't stolen beforehand. Or if he deleted the files in good faith but there was an unintended backup copy compromised. Incremental backups are hard to remove individual files from - and you could argue that destroying entire file backups is an unreasonable demand.
They've been promising Android Auto on Sync 3 vehicles since early 2015. As a matter of fact, I wanted to buy a Ford vehicle if they would just roll out Android Auto (and/or include Sync 3 on all new sync-equipped 2016 vehicles).
Sync 1 & 2 deserve to be dead. But Sync 3 is based on QNX instead of Windows Embedded and in a test run it handled everything I threw at it - FLAC, AAC, MP3. But what I'd really rather have is Android Auto.
I gave up on waiting and bought a Hyundai Sonata. What they lack built-in is made up for with Android Auto's interface.
The first several levels, yes. Then it jumps the shark with overly complex levels (nearly impossible) way too early in the game. The gameplay, physics, and graphics are all great. It's just not a fun game because of the inconsistent difficulty level.
So how come when I download a Super Mario Brothers rom it's 3.7megs zipped and not 32kb?
Because you downloaded Super Mario World instead of Super Mario Brothers. No, wait. That's 4 MegaBITS (half a meg).
Not if the URL used to be valid but no longer exists (Hey, just like 451). Technically, 410 is more correct, but 404 is what's used in common practice.
This isn't going to do anything for a National Security Letter or anything along those lines. Returning 451 might be subtle but it definitely won't get you out of trouble if it's discovered - so it's in no way a true canary. The only safe canary is something where inaction reveals that something was compromised. This is for when you're allowed to tell the visitor exactly why. And it also standardizes reporting in such a way that automated tools connecting to the content can make an intelligent decision on how to handle the error.
So maybe when Google indexes the 451 error page, they can keep the keywords cached so that the URL is still returned for the same searches. As it is, when Google gets a DMCA takedown for a search result linking to infringing content, they display an error message. If something like 451 is standardized, they could report takedowns/censorships in search results where they themselves weren't involved in the removal of the content.
Google generally supports the reporting of censorship - even their own web search results include links to chillingeffects.org when a search result is removed due to a DMCA request. It's likely that they would increase the rank of web sites being transparent about censorship.
Shutting the offending content down normally returns 404. You can still display the same 404-style error page but with a 451 HTTP header, or you can provide details on the removal of the content. It doesn't really matter as the content of the page is not really specified by the RFC.
Most people may want it completely removed without a trace.
When you say "most people" I don't know if you mean the offended party under the DMCA or the content poster or the web site whose page was infringing. There is no action available under the DMCA to require it to appear as if the page never existed - just to remove the actual offending content. Depends on if it's a site acting within its safe harbor provision or if it's a site that posted the content itself.
Right now, Youtube doesn't even give a 404. They give a HTTP 200 response when showing the "This video is unavailable" page. Because they want to acknowledge that the content was there and that it had been a valid link at one time.
Or to put it in a more entertaining way, it's only legal when you're attempting to overthrow the very document that makes it legal.
Compare to 404. It's not found - the user did go to an invalid address. It's just that 451 is a little more specific on why it's not found.
If you get a DMCA takedown notice for something you have the rights to, but not the money to defend yourself, you might return a 451 instead of a 404 when it's removed/hidden.
Did you forget your original point?
A much more appropriate response would have been to verify that the customer was running a bittorrent with what looked like BMG content, and then gently remind them that their contract (almost certainly) prohibits operating servers using Cox residential internet service.
You say that simply seeding a torrent = running a server. Even though seeding if an automatic part of downloading. And that this is at a scale worthy of having service disconnected. A complete disconnect from what you're saying now.
Did you not think of the fact that plenty of people have non-commercial reasons for sharing "content" on a small scale? I run my personal web site on port 80 on my home Internet connection. I'm not running a business. I do run it through Cloudflare as a proxy, but that really doesn't give me much at my scale.
But IMAP lets you unsubscribe from folders. So as long as you're only subscribed to "All Mail" you get everything once.
It's not so much that GMail implements IMAP wrong, it's just that their concept of labels doesn't work the same as folders. One email can have two labels while only existing as a single instance with Gmail. It's not a bad idea, but it makes a mess out of IMAP. It wouldn't be something I'd hate to see in a future revision of IMAP (or if existing IMAP clients were smart enough to deduplicate for Gmail and not download more than once).
Yes you did with your narrowly defined definition of server:
I'm talking specifically about residential cable internet service. If you want to be a content provider, do it by paying the costs of the bandwidth
Downloading a torrent, while not always legal since it involves seeding, does not make you a "content provider."
It's called a sting operation. Not sure how ethical/legal it is, since they're not law enforcement, but it's not entrapment because the Cox user would have shared the file with any connecting IP and not just RC. And sting operations by corporations haven't been challenged on that basis (of not being law enforcement).
The Internet is NOT just "content providers" and "consumers". That's like saying that telephone systems are only for placing calls (consumers) and receiving calls (businesses). Since you completely fail to understand that, I don't have much to say.
deliberately running bittorrent feeds of BMG licensed content, not a newb who plugs his PC in and doesn't know better
For an inexperienced user, if you download from a BitTorrent feed, you are seeding a BitTorrent feed. That's just how BitTorrent works. And if your router is in it's default configuration, a lot of BitTorrent clients will open a port using UPnP.
All personal services that won't consume much, and operating at a different level than someone trying to run a public file or data server on that residential line.
That doesn't change the fact that it's a "server." Especially since even basic personal devices tend to offer HTTP interfaces. It doesn't matter what you're trying to do - the cable company can call it a server if they choose to.
Full text search is what I'm referring to. Rarely do I ever have subject or sender memorized.
GTK and all simply does not blend well with Windows Native UI
Neither does Outlook's.