Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2015 March 19

= March 19 =

Audio Incompetent
How do I know what is the best option for audio? I tried to learn online whether or not 256kbit M4a is better than 256kbit AAC? Does anyone know any helpful visual guides to file extension vs file extension and cross bit rate comparing? Which one of these out of this list is the best audio: 128kbit aac, 128kbit m4a, 160kbit ogg, 192kbit aac, 192kbit m4a, 256kbit aac, 256kbit m4a, 48kbit ogg, 64kbit mp3, 64kbit ogg?
 * Things are more complicated than you're assuming. Generally, the higher the bitrate, the higher the quality. However, there are other factors that you didn't mention. One is the sampling rate; another is the quality of the encoder. I think most people won't notice a difference when the bitrate is 192kps or higher. If your listening environment is noisy, you can use a lower bitrate because you most likely can't hear the difference anyway. If you want to save music for archival purposes, you'll want loseless coding. --173.49.16.112 (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, AAC and .m4a are not separating audio coding methods. AAC is the audio coding format. .m4a is a file extension for AAC coded audio in an MP4 container. --173.49.16.112 (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Facebook Group administrator problem
I have a friend who used to be an administrator of a Facebook group, but he accidentally made himself not the administrator of the group and unfortunately, he didn't leave anybody the administrator in that group. They are all members. How can he fix this problem: how can he become the administrator of the group again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.154 (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

What does law enforcement target, when they want to put a site down?
When a site gets closed by the courts (for infringing copyrights, for example), how does it get close? Do they force the DNS server to block the conversion between IP and domain name? Do they go after the physical servers? Do they hack the servers to mess with it? Do they track down the owner and force him to turn it off the air? 02:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senteni (talk • contribs)


 * In the United States, they shut down the servers. They do not go after DNS. A while back, a senator wanted to go in front of Congress and suggest that law enforcement be allowed to ask for a warrant to block DNS. He wasn't allowed to speak to Congress because too many people around the world threw a major fit. Even Wikipedia was blacked out for a day because nobody in Congress should be allowed to discuss if there are times when DNS should be blocked. So, law enforcement is limited to taking servers and/or shutting down the connection directly to the servers. If the servers are not in the United States, there is little that they can do. That is why Pirate Bay could blatantly break copyright law without punishment. 209.149.114.176 (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In at least a few cases, the United States Justice Department has directly worked with DNS service providers (not just the server hosts). For example, here is a list of search results from DoJ: domain name seizure, including press releases and court orders issued in the last several years.  Here is a press release from FBI pertaining to seizure of twenty four certain domain-names related to the Coreflood malware.  There are many more examples.
 * Generally speaking, Federal courts don't care very much if people on the internet are throwing a major fit: courts have legal authority to take action; throwing fits on the internet does not have any legal effect.  Seizure of servers and seizure of domain-names are legal, provided that appropriate procedures are followed.
 * To the OP: there is no better way to inform the answer to your question than to read a few of these court documents and press-releases. You can get a pretty good sense of what goes on: first, a law enforcement agency (like FBI) conducts investigation; next, they seek approval from a court with appropriate jurisdiction; and finally, they serve papers, make arrests, and take technical measures to enforce a specific court order.  If authorized, that may mean entering a building to take posession of equipment; it may mean sending legal documents to internet service providers who must comply with specific actions or face other legal consequences.  Almost all of these court orders provide additional information on the investigations and procedures.
 * Nimur (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a slight difference there. When you seize a domain name, you have the authority to tell the DNS services where to point the domain name. That works fine if the domain name is registered to a United States-based registrar, because it is a U.S. law governing a U.S. business. Now, what if the FBI or DoJ wanted to take over a domain name registered in China? They can't. They don't have authority. But, what if they could get a court order to tell all U.S.-based DNS servers to redirect that domain to one of their servers? They can't. That is the main point to the law I referenced that was suggested, but never proposed. So, the full answer is that they can go after the servers and the domain name. So far, I haven't seen an example of redirecting DNS without taking over the domain name. 209.149.114.176 (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a moment ago, I provided a link to a counter-example: . FBI seized domain names, including several where the registrar and the DNS provider were outside the United States - Canada, Singapore, and the United Kingdom.  A court order was issued anyway, and DNS services and internet providers inside the United States had legal obligation to comply.  I believe you are mistaken about this supposed limitation on authority.  Which United States law exists to preclude a Federal court from seizing a domain-name whose registrar is based outside the United States?  (On the contrary, here is a specific law that is regularly cited by courts that does grant this authority to execute a federal court order to the United States Marshalls: 28 U.S.C. §566).
 * As an analogy, imagine if such a law precluded seizure of a vehicle simply because its license-plates were registered in another nation. Criminals could freely commit crimes and hide in their cars, which would (hypothetically) not be subject to American law as a consequence of their foreign registration!  This is not how it works in practice.  Traffic, including internet traffic, in the United States is subject to American law; and though there are all kinds of technical details, there is immense legal precedent to demonstrate that American law enforcment has the technical capability and willingness to enforce the rules.
 * I think you're conceptually stumbling over this important detail: the FBI does not need to seize a domain registered to a Singaporean registrar at servers in Singapore. It can simply seize the domain at the DNS servers providing name-resolution-service at most major American internet service providers.
 * Nimur (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * More reading on this topic, from Harvard Law School's Domain Name Case Law module: additional books on the topic of personal jurisdiction - that set of people upon whom an American court may exercise its authority. Excerpts: Personal Jurisdiction And The Internet, which leads us to the Wikipedia article: long arm jurisdiction, that portion of American law pertaining to jurisdiction over foreigners.  MacClary's book cites the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution as a primary source of this legal precedent: in other words, this is not only legal and constitutional, but its authority is derived directly from the Constitution.   Nimur (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I feel that this is a rather pointless semantic argument. The "counter-example" you linked is a court order where a domain name is being taken by the government. They are demanding that the DNS for the domain name they now own be set to the DNS server that they want to use. I am referring to a real-world example: the Pirate Bay. The owners have already been found guilty multiple times in multiple countries (and until recently, were not in jail). The servers have been shut down, but then moved to countries that were outside the jurisdiction of countries that wanted to shut the site down. The U.S. tried to take over the domain name. It was moved to a registrar that wouldn't hand over the domain name. So, the U.S. had a new idea: redirect all DNS resolution for the domain. That is where SOPA came from. It did not become a law. So, I am merely trying to point out that when taking the servers, shutting down the IP, and taking the domain name fails, the option that is left is to redirect DNS. That didn't make it into law. 209.149.114.176 (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hosting my own server
How is it possible to do that? I have a 3TB external HDD used over wi-fi. I am just wondering if it would be possible to put my own websites and forums on there. I know it's not much of a storage space, but it's a start. Rather than putting stuff on Facebook, I think this would be better. How could I do this, if possible at all? KägeTorä - (影虎) ( もしもし！ ) 05:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It certainly seems possible to me. You may not need anything near that much space, depending on what the server would host.  If you mean it to be a repository to user videos, then that might not be enough.  If you only intend to have text files there, let's say OCR'd versions of Project Gutenberg books, then you could store quite a few in that space.


 * The main inconvenience is likely to be the need to keep the server online 24/7 (perhaps with occasional maintenance windows).  You may not be able to use that PC for anything else, either, if, like mine, it needs a reboot after every few hours of use. StuRat (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The easiest way is to get yourself a copy of Apache HTTP Server, available for most common platforms. Configuration doesn't require a great deal of technical knowledge.  People can then access your server if they know the IP address.  If you want to have an actual URL (www.kagetora.com has been taken, I'm afraid, but there are plenty available), you'll need to buy it from a domain registrar, and set it up on a DNS server, both of which are easy and inexpensive.  Ideally, you'll want a connection with a fixed IP address - if you have a dynamic IP address, you'll need to change the DNS details when your IP address changes.  But that's all that's involved, really.  Tevildo (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For a low-traffic web site you don't really need a high-performance web server like Apache. There are lots of simpler web servers. Python, for example, will serve static files out of the box: py -m http.server 8000 serves the files under the current directory on port 8000. If you want dynamic pages you can subclass http.server.SimpleHTTPRequestHandler and implement whatever logic you want. -- BenRG (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are doing this at home, your ADSL/Cable modem will normally be a NATing firewall. You will need to go into the modem's configuration and enable port forwarding of incoming TCP port 80 to port 80 on the server. UPnP can do this for you, but I doubt many web servers will use UPnP. LongHairedFop (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hosting your own server is rather simple. 1) Get a server that works. I use Linux, so it just works. I don't have to spend my days endlessly clicking on menus. 2) Get a domain name. That is hard because everything has been taken. You will be stuck using something like kgtra123a.com. Another problem: You won't need all the crap that the domain name companies want to sell you. You click "register domain" once and then you click "hell no!" about 50 times as they try to sell you everything imaginable. Do you want a $75 back scratchier with that domain? 3) Get a dynamic DNS service that keeps the domain name pointed at your IP address. Your IP address changes whenever your ISP feels like changing it. The dynamic DNS service will change the IP address assigned to your domain name as necessary. 4) Finally, it is time to open shop. Go into your router (you have one, don't you?) and open up port 80 to your web server. Now, you are hosting your own website. 209.149.114.176 (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Windows has command-line admin tools. You don't have to click any menus if you don't want to. -- BenRG (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You should probably check that the terms and conditions of your ISP contract don't forbid this: for example my ISP BT Internet says (para 19): "You must not use the service for any commercial or business purpose whatsoever unless we have given you permission to do so. If we find that you are using the service in [sic] for business or commercial purposes we reserve the right to limit or terminate the service immediately." (Hmm, I wonder if that includes connecting to my work email, or otherwise working from home..) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Our OP doesn't mention business or commercial - plenty of people have websites related to their personal interests or whatever. SteveBaker (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but (a) other ISPs may have different T&Cs, so he should check his; and (b) "business or commercial" is open to a lot of interpretation, hence my musing as to whether connecting to my employer's network while working from home, or even reading my work email, could technically fall foul of this clause. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Many home Internet plans explicitly disallow servers; see for example . -- BenRG (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * PS: one technical problem is that access to your server is limited by your upload bandwidth, which in a domestic ADSL connection will be considerably less than your download bandwidth. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I used to run a website from my home - so I have some experience with this. My thoughts:
 * I agree that running Linux makes setting up a web server much easier. I certainly wouldn't want to do this on a Windows PC or a Mac or anything like that.
 * I disagree that choosing and buying a domain name is either difficult or expensive. It may take several tries with different variations on the name I want, but generally, I can find a reasonable name in the $10 to $20 per year range...especially if I'm happy to go with ".org" or ".net" rather than ".com".  Don't expect to get a name that is a single English word - that's gonna cost a fortune.  Your own name might be cheap - or it might cost a fortune, depending on how common your name is.  I registered a whole family of names for our home business; RenaissanceMiniatures.com, RenaissanceInnovations.com, RenaissanceToys.com and RenaissanceGames.com - all of those were cheap and easy.  But something simple like "games.com" or "innovations.com" will either be taken or cost a million dollars to register.  Just to test the claim that this is difficult - I just tried to register a non-obvious name at http://godaddy.com - it costs $25 for three years and the only add-on services they offered were turned off by default.  After I typed in the name, it took four mouse clicks to get to the point where I'd be entering credit card details.  That said, my own service provider offered to get me "RenaissanceComputers.com" for $19.99 but GoDaddy wanted $1,889!  You might think to 'shop around' but there is an ikky problem with some domain registration services...when you ask about a domain, then decide not to accept there offer, they'll sometimes register the name themselves and everywhere else you go to get it will then show it as "taken".  So you may not be able to shop around.  Pick a service you trust - and stick with them.
 * Dynamic DNS can be a pain to set up. Getting a 'static IP address' is by far the best option.  However, ISP's generally require that you switch to a business service to get that - and it's generally not cheap.
 * I agree that your "upload" speed (which is your visitors' "download" speed) is likely to be poor. However, if you only get a handful of visitors per hour, and if you don't have a lot of large images or videos on your site - then that's probably manageable.  Running a forum with just a few dozen members - for example - isn't likely to be a big issue.
 * I agree that some ISP's specifically forbid you from doing this. It's easy for them to detect that it's happening - so beware!
 * These days, I use a web service provider - (I use Dreamhost.com) - it costs me less than $10 per month and I get ssh/scp/ftp access into my account and 1Tbyte of disk space, so the whole experience isn't a whole lot different than running a server out of my house. They allow an unlimited number of domains to be registered and they have a hassle-free domain registration service.  They also have things like email servers and MySQL servers that would be a pain to maintain at home - and a whole slew of server-side services like forums and MediaWiki instances can be installed with a single mouse click. SteveBaker (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Why is it easier to set up a web server on Linux? If you use a LAMP stack on Linux, you use a WAMP stack on Windows. It's the same software.
 * For serving small amounts of data to a small number of people, nearlyfreespeech.net is exceptionally inexpensive. But it's not economical if you really want to serve 1 TB or 3 TB of data, since they charge $1 per GiB per month for data at rest. -- BenRG (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ”If you use a LAMP stack on Linux, you use a WAMP stack on Windows”... “It's the same software”... explain both comments please ! “Why is it easier to set up a web server on Linux?” Ask that on a separate post as this is not within the scope of the OP's question.--Aspro (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If a specific claim was made by a respondent which wasn't supported by any sources or explaination, it's well within the scope of the question to challenge or ask for some support for this claim. Nil Einne (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the OP is in the UK where electricity costs more than in say the US. Therefore I would go for something like a Synology DiskStation DS215j which has a low wattage ARM processor, meaning you can leave it running 24/7 at so little cost that the financial outlay will be recouped. It is also Linux based -so no problems there and you can easily up the storage as needs grow. Upload speeds should not really be a problem for non commercial use (and if you don't show  adverts it is hard for BT et. al.  to claim otherwise). As SteveBaker points out. Hosting it else where can be easier these days  but a home server can be useful (especially if you have a lots of data and photos and one has the added reassurance that if one misses a hosting fee due to illness or whatever you don't lose all your data). Hosting sites offer some storage for free but when one has TB's it is cheaper to store it oneself. Try both  options out and decide for yourself. --Aspro (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all of your answers. I actually already have my own domain name, as I run a business. However, connecting a laptop to my external HDD is not possible, as I don't have the space (it's in a completely different room from my office), as the HDD needs to be physically connected to the router in order for me to be able to access it via wi-fi, so it is basically next to someone else's computer. I have a dropbox account with 50GB of storage, and a Mediafire account, but both of these are just for storing files/folders. I do have a website, but I would like to migrate that to my own network, purely just to know how to do it, to be honest. It's not actually necessary. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 06:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Operator overloading in Java?
It is often noted that operator overloading is not supported in Java. "There is no operator overloading in Java! The operator + is only defined for strings, you will never see it with other objects, only primitives.". But learning the ropes of Java (version 7, update 71, using Eclipse), I've accidentally noticed that

has the output, as desired, while

adds the Ascii value of the space (32) to the number, thus returning the answer -.
 * 1) Why?
 * 2) This is an operator overload of the + sign, isn't it? Java interpretes it differently, depending on the context?! --KnightMove (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not an operator overload. It is a Widening Primitive Type Conversion.  A char is widened to an int. Specifically, this is a Binary Numeric Promotion.
 * This is, in fact, the default interpretation for the + symbol when it is part of an Additive + Operator for numeric types.
 * Nimur (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * (ec)The language has effectively two meanings for the 2-arity  operator.  The language specification says "If the type of either operand of a + operator is String, then the operation is string concatenation.  Otherwise, the type of each of the operands of the + operator must be a type that is convertible (§5.1.8) to a primitive numeric type".  This is a special case, wired directly into the language (not the VM or the library; the compiler emits   calls). There's no user defined operator overloading. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 16:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, + is overloaded. Overloading that is baked into the language spec is still overloading. The statement "There is no operator overloading in Java" is wrong. -- BenRG (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable, Versatile, free Duplicate File Finder?
My SSD currently has every file I have downloaded since 2005, and is getting full, now that I have transferred most of my DVD collection onto it. I googled duplicate file deleter, but have no idea which blogs to trust. Can anyone point me to a free program that will find not only identical, but similar files? Can I assume downloading any such program will be safe in the download process itself through CNET? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * List of duplicate file finders looks like a good place to start. All of the programs in the table are open source. Of those, only ssdeep seems to look for merely similar as opposed to identical files. It looks legit to me. I advise against downloading anything from CNET Download.com. -- BenRG (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, really, I though CNET was the good place? Can you be more specific in why not to use them or suggest an alternative?  I am adept at avoiding unwanted add ons, I always do the custom install.  What I am afraid of is malware from the downloading site.  Thanks, . Oh, also, the SSDeep site doesn't say it works for Windows 7. some of this stuff like whether it has or works with GUI is gibberish to me. μηδείς (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See Download.com. They include - not exactly malicious, but certianly useless and unwanted software in their installation packages.  They are "considered harmful". Tevildo (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It runs on Windows 7, but (after downloading it and running it on Windows 7) I'm not sure it's going to be very helpful to you. Maybe this list of programs will be more useful than Wikipedia's. -- BenRG (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * For anything open source, I always prefer Sourceforge or Github download links to those from CNET, Download.com SemanticMantis (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I downloaded ssdeep from the recommended non cnet site and the installation failed (it was a 16 bit version) and I got itibiti's Kcntr maddeningware as well, which it took me half an hour to uninstall. I then installed Duplicate Cleaner from cnet, and had no problems and I cleared 11G of hard drive space.  The only remaining issue is that duplicate cleaner won't remove duplicate applications unless you purchase the premium edition.  Can anyone suggest a free program for that purpose?  Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Domain names not in use
I have a particular domain name that i really want to use. This domain has been parked for many years and i have sent emails to the owner with no reply. The domain has since been on a go-daddy auction and sold for over $500. This domain is STILL PARKED, but this time no contact info, and i apparently have to go through some process if i want to buy the domain.

Are there any laws at ICANN that prevent a domain from going unused if there is a need for such domain? I find it a waste if they are not going to put up a website and just let the domain rot, and would hope that i could have this looked at somehow. I own the .org version of the domain too, while it is the .com variant which is parked.

Many thanks in advance for any help! 216.173.144.188 (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no rule of any kind that states that you must make use of a registered domain. There is no rule of any kind that you must allow someone to contact you if they want to purchase a domain you have registered. Unless there is a trademark issue, there is nothing you can do. 209.149.114.176 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * See "Cybersquatting".—Wavelength (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * So, if I have interest in a domain name which is registered but not in use, I should start using it as a trademark and accuse them of cybersquatting after this? 23:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senteni (talk • contribs)
 * That's bordering on legal advice, I'm not sure anyone here will be able to explicitly tell you what to do. Vespine (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I have been in exactly the same situation. Unless the .com you want is your registered business name and you are making profit and hire a lawyer, I wouldn't bother, you'll waste a LOT of time. Vespine (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Keyboard woes "è"
Since a week or so, I've had issues typing the (circumflex/grave accent) letter "è" in computers programs. "`" and "e" is supposed to achieve this task. The keyboard is set to "Canadian French", and I don't remember ever, even slightly, changing it.


 * Notepad: doesn't work.
 * Google Chrome: doesn't work.
 * Microsoft Office (2010): works.
 * Windows Explorer: works.
 * Internet Explorer: works.

Even weirder issue: in some instances, such as the Windows "Run" Search Bar, and some 3rd party programs, pressing "`" instantaneously produces an unwanted "è" -- any help? Matt714 (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * So OK. A month, six weeks ago your  keyboard  did what you asked of it  - now it doesn't. Did you update the operating system during this time- ether manually or automatically? --Aspro (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Problem fixed by turning on Firewall. Weird.

Huèhuèhuè. Matt714 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense whatsoever. Vespine (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Not my firewall. My error. It's rather KeyScrambler Premium, and anti-keylogger software. Matt714 (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Area all domains in the form word.com already taken?
Can we still register any domain as a single English word and .com extension? sex.com, and the like are already taken since a long time, but I have the impression that all single words domains are gone.Senteni (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless you use a selective definition of English word, I would say this is unlikely. Particularly since there are new words all the time. (For many of these, it's likely taken long before anyone recognizes it as a word, but this still implies there's probably a few things which will be an English word in 2030 that isn't registered at this moment.) Consider for example that if I'm reading right, utopographer.com was only registered last year. But at least one source has considered that a word since 2013  and it was first used perhaps in 1927 . Meanwhile dotcomjelly, a word by 2020, is still not taken! Nil Einne (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, selfie.com was only registered on October 2010 . This was before it really took off in the media etc, but a while after it has started to be used. (selfy.com in 1999.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Shorter words are pretty well covered, but lumpily.com, sconcing.com, osculated.com, sophoclean.com, freudianism.com, lactoprotein.com, gallimaufries.com, pseudoliterary.com, overgeneralized.com, sphygmomanometry.com, sesquicentennials.com, demythologizations.com, overdiversification.com, incomprehensibleness.com, and antidisestablishmentarian.com all seem to be available right now, among many others. (List obtained from a set difference of this word list and a several-years-outdated list of registered .com domains.) -- BenRG (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to start a porn site, headmistresses.com is available. -- BenRG (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In Futurama, they claim that in 1,000 years there will only be two names left that you could use: Popplers and Zittzers. Of course, they then trademarked Popplers, leaving just one. 75.139.70.50 (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)