Computing desk
< November 28	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 30 >

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

November 29

What type of port would have a number like PPA04-07?

And how would you find this port number?

Perhaps Philippine Ports Authority. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Odd domain name practice

A couple years ago, the owners of http://pineconeinn.com screwed up and didn't renew the domain name. Oh, that would be me. What I've never been able to figure out is what the hell the new owner, Whois Watchdog, does with their 11,000 or so domain names (other than perhaps punish people whose spam filter misfiled the renewal notice.) Anyone have a clue? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They run ads on it, hoping people trying to find your old site will see it, and probably hope you'll try to buy it back from them. --Mr.98 (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except (a) there never have been any ads on the page; (b) none of the links leave the page; (c) I happily would have bought the domain back from them but they appear to have a history of refusing to respond to any such requests. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I click on the links on the page, they lead to "sponsored" listings. That looks like ads plus perhaps PageRank gaming to me. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Maybe one of my ad-blocking or other hygienic add-ons is preventing those from opening for me. Makes sense. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have had similar situations (of non-response to my buy proposal, not the hijacking of any site i previously owned)..... this is extremely annoying and I'm surprised that ICANN or some other governing body does not have some law against this. When someone with a legitimate business to run cant get a decent TLD because arseholes register all the good domain names and don't respond, this seems very unjust.... and against the philosophy of the internet as a place for freedom of information sharing and publicity etc.

137.81.118.126 (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to be a case of hijacking. The domain has expired and had become available to any new client. The new owner has probably monetized it at the beginning, as visitors still went there looking for the legit Pine Cone Inn. Anyway, it seems that your new domain name will have to be www.pinecone-inn.com or something like that. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine there are several possibilities for why they appear to have no interest in selling it back. It may be that the 'history of refusing' actually means they refuse any requests of the sort you (or those you've read about) are likely to make. Perhaps they only consider offers 5k or even 6k figures or whatever, or talk to someone likely to be able to pay that amount. Since it's not always easy to predict what will one day become hot property, they may prefer to hold on to domains they consider decent prospects rather then sell them off for lower amounts. They may also wish to reduce the risk of cybersquatter action against them by only dealing with a few cases so people can't point to a history of them doing that. (The fact that they don't seem to be doing anything with their domains may ~~point to that~~count against them in a cybersquatting case, but may be it ~~doesn't~~won't.) It may also be they have a few future possible plans to have some sort of business but haven't finalised them yet. Nil Einne (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be a one-man enterprise, it's easy to get overworked managing 10T+ domains. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, linking to the domain will only make them think it's worth asking more for. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the problem that asking for money for a domain name has been taken as evidence a person is squatting on the domain name and so domains have been taken away without recompense. That means the squatter is better off ignoring such requests and making money exploiting the name Dmcq (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I imagine that could become tricky if they bought it knowing you wanted it and sought your purchase out. If they merely ask for more when you approach them, it may well be of no matter at all. The cost of hanging onto a domain in the event that someone, anyone, in the future, will pay any range of price for it, is not particularly high. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

synchronization block vs synchronization method in java

Hi! i am trying to understand difference between synchronization block and synchronization method in java.
I searched in google.but i could not get satisfactory and detailed explanation.
can you tell me the difference between them ?
I hope you provide detailed explanation.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phanihup (talk • contribs) 13:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I covered this pretty thoroughly in my earlier reply to you. Beyond that, you'd be wise to consult the java synchronization tutorials you've previously been referred to. Briefly, as I said before, a synchronized method is the same as a block where the synchronization locus is explicitly defined as this. So the following two methods are essentially the same:

public class sync {
    public synchronized void foo(){
            // stuff
    }

    public void foo2(){
	synchronized(this){
            // stuff
    	}
    }
}

-- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Phanihup's read thread is severely starved for CPU cycles. Whatever we reply, it's just not getting through. 217.251.159.249 (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - epic comeback.

And avoid unsigned variables while you're at it. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 18:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]