But in some frameworks that do this, you can actually intercept the data before that processing occurs, and perform pre-validation yourself if you wanted to. This is at least possible in ASP.NET (through creation of custom handlers) and I believe Java.
Well, for a start, the server platform does not necessarily have any awareness of what the application running on it has already sent - basically it has no idea that a "file upload form" has been requested because it is essentially content-agnostic. It doesn't care what gets sent to and from it, that's the application's job. And besides, the server has to actually receive the content before it can ascertain that the maximum post size has been reached - unless it forcibly aborts the upload but then it has no way to inform the client what went wrong.
If by "contemplate" you mean "write", then yes you have it. GoDaddy actually worked with the government to write SOPA. Hell, they're even exempt from it.
Unlikely. But there will be scowling at business meetings considering Google's publicly claimed core operations (search, but we all know advertising is their core operation).
That's not true - a DNS lookup against the root gTLD servers says the domain is served by ns.oneworldhosting.com, which returns a query refusal for dumpgodaddy.com. It doesn't resolve to anything.
Technically as well, it isn't censorable from the US, because all the US could do would be to blacklist a whole country at the root servers level.
The root servers are geographically diverse and anycasted. Tampering with one would only affect the clients which are in range of that server. And only after a 2 day wait time (the TTL expiry on the ccTLD glue records). And even then only if the downstream clients ever actually contact the root servers (many violate the RFC by caching the results of the TLD queries for muuuuuuuch longer than permitted).
Canada has that goofy law where you pay taxes on blank media... which goes directly to the recording industry. Government mandated payments to a business because the business forces away customers.
The counterpoint is that it's legal to pirate music as long as the music is put on those particular disks. So there is actually a benefit to it. And considering the capacity of one of those disks, I'd bet the recording industry gets a lot less from you buying one of those disks and loading it up than you buying the tracks individually.
No. You can get Comodo, GeoTrust, or Norton. You can get discounts by going through cheapssls.com (which is also Namecheap, just an even cheaper sub-brand).
It may not be, but for the private organisation (university, company, whatever) it certainly is - hence they would not allow their faculty or employees to accept grants.
That's not strictly true - an online payment by credit card costs them 2% of whatever the transaction amount is. This isn't to defend the action or anything, as you say it costs them money to handle a physical payment too - either both payment methods should have a fee or neither.
Our local satellite carrier did that. Moved ESPN into their sports package then reduced basic by $3 (while ramping up sports by $7 - hmm, interesting balancing act there).
Stop right there... text messages do not cost the carrier nothing. The carrier needs to maintain SMSC infrastructure, carrier interconnect agreements, billing infrastructure, and no doubt government enforced interception infrastructure. None of these things costs $0.00 to maintain, so claiming that it costs the carrier nothing is flat out bullshit. One could (quite rightly) argue that the cost of text messages is way too high, but there's always bundles that reduce the cost of messages down to the less than a cent level so even that is a bit shaky.
No, because the ID requirement is regardless of the form of payment. They would only be violating their merchant agreement if after carding you to buy they then asked for ID when you presented a credit card.
However, it's perfectly legitimate to charge a "convenience fee". The way a convenience fee works is that Visa/MasterCard/Amex charge the discount fee (usually about 2%) to the cardholder, instead of the merchant. The fee shows up separately on the statement, and it means the merchant gets 100% of what they intended to charge you. Really scummy if you ask me, and only really used by governments and phone companies (the two stingiest classes of business on the planet).
Slashdot Mirror
But in some frameworks that do this, you can actually intercept the data before that processing occurs, and perform pre-validation yourself if you wanted to. This is at least possible in ASP.NET (through creation of custom handlers) and I believe Java.
That's not marketing friendly, that'd imply the regular response isn't rapid...
According to MS11-100 (the advisory) they changed the Framework, not ASP.NET.
Well, for a start, the server platform does not necessarily have any awareness of what the application running on it has already sent - basically it has no idea that a "file upload form" has been requested because it is essentially content-agnostic. It doesn't care what gets sent to and from it, that's the application's job. And besides, the server has to actually receive the content before it can ascertain that the maximum post size has been reached - unless it forcibly aborts the upload but then it has no way to inform the client what went wrong.
Essentially, your idea cannot work. At all.
If by "contemplate" you mean "write", then yes you have it. GoDaddy actually worked with the government to write SOPA. Hell, they're even exempt from it.
Unlikely. But there will be scowling at business meetings considering Google's publicly claimed core operations (search, but we all know advertising is their core operation).
That's not true - a DNS lookup against the root gTLD servers says the domain is served by ns.oneworldhosting.com, which returns a query refusal for dumpgodaddy.com. It doesn't resolve to anything.
Technically as well, it isn't censorable from the US, because all the US could do would be to blacklist a whole country at the root servers level.
The root servers are geographically diverse and anycasted. Tampering with one would only affect the clients which are in range of that server. And only after a 2 day wait time (the TTL expiry on the ccTLD glue records). And even then only if the downstream clients ever actually contact the root servers (many violate the RFC by caching the results of the TLD queries for muuuuuuuch longer than permitted).
Canada has that goofy law where you pay taxes on blank media... which goes directly to the recording industry. Government mandated payments to a business because the business forces away customers.
The counterpoint is that it's legal to pirate music as long as the music is put on those particular disks. So there is actually a benefit to it. And considering the capacity of one of those disks, I'd bet the recording industry gets a lot less from you buying one of those disks and loading it up than you buying the tracks individually.
I also hear that apparently GoDaddy gets to be one of the registrars of choice for where the government puts seized sites. Sounds like free money.
They also use GeoTrust and Norton. Hardly "small names". The only big name they don't offer is Thawte.
eNom? Really? If anything, I'd support Gandi who I'm told also oppose SOPA but who gives a shit because I actually like their service.
No. You can get Comodo, GeoTrust, or Norton. You can get discounts by going through cheapssls.com (which is also Namecheap, just an even cheaper sub-brand).
Not actually his twitter. But a pretty funny satire account nonetheless.
It may not be, but for the private organisation (university, company, whatever) it certainly is - hence they would not allow their faculty or employees to accept grants.
If by "dubious", you mean "it won't", then yes.
Samoa doesn't have a 31st month, so they wont be skipping that. Or they already are. Hmm.
That's unless the bitches got an exclusive agency arrangement, and the venue won't sell to you. TicketMaster is evil.
That's not strictly true - an online payment by credit card costs them 2% of whatever the transaction amount is. This isn't to defend the action or anything, as you say it costs them money to handle a physical payment too - either both payment methods should have a fee or neither.
Our local satellite carrier did that. Moved ESPN into their sports package then reduced basic by $3 (while ramping up sports by $7 - hmm, interesting balancing act there).
Stop right there... text messages do not cost the carrier nothing. The carrier needs to maintain SMSC infrastructure, carrier interconnect agreements, billing infrastructure, and no doubt government enforced interception infrastructure. None of these things costs $0.00 to maintain, so claiming that it costs the carrier nothing is flat out bullshit. One could (quite rightly) argue that the cost of text messages is way too high, but there's always bundles that reduce the cost of messages down to the less than a cent level so even that is a bit shaky.
You mean your utilities don't give you a 10% discount for paying before the due date? Wow, that is crap!
No, because the ID requirement is regardless of the form of payment. They would only be violating their merchant agreement if after carding you to buy they then asked for ID when you presented a credit card.
However, it's perfectly legitimate to charge a "convenience fee". The way a convenience fee works is that Visa/MasterCard/Amex charge the discount fee (usually about 2%) to the cardholder, instead of the merchant. The fee shows up separately on the statement, and it means the merchant gets 100% of what they intended to charge you. Really scummy if you ask me, and only really used by governments and phone companies (the two stingiest classes of business on the planet).
Oh, the patents that Motorola and Samsung use as a weapon against Apple you mean?