Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cloudflare Terminates Service To Sci-Hub Domain Names (torrentfreak.com)

Posted by msmash on from the roadblocks dept.

While Sci-Hub is praised by thousands of researchers and academics around the world, copyright holders are doing everything in their power to wipe the site from the web. From a report: Last weekend another problem appeared for Sci-Hub. This time American Chemical Society (ACS) went after CDN provider Cloudflare, which informed the site that a court order requires the company to disconnect several domain names. "Cloudflare has received the attached court order, Case 1:17-cv-OO726-LMB-JFA," the company writes. "Cloudflare will terminate your service for the following domains sci-hub.la, sci-hub.tv, and sci-hub.tw by disabling our authoritative DNS in 24 hours." According to Sci-Hub's operator, losing access to Cloudflare is not "critical," but it may "cause a short pause in website operation."

91 comments

  1. Re:Dow is Down 1300 by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    So the crypto-currencies crash was only a precursor to the stock market crash?

    Somebody's messing up with all the markets. I advise everyone to take their World of Warcraft gold out of their guild banks right now.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  2. Re:Dow is Down 1300 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's talking about Obama, dumbass. Didn't you know that it's still Obama's economy?

  3. Cloudflare can't keep it's story straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just two months ago we were told that the Cloudflare CEO "is working to cultivate a social consensus that infrastructure providers like Cloudflare should not be in the censorship business". So, which one is it? Does Cloudflare censor sites or doesn't it?

    1. Re:Cloudflare can't keep it's story straight by halivar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This isn't about getting into the censorship business. It's about obeying a court order. They do not have the option of demurring.

    2. Re:Cloudflare can't keep it's story straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you'd bothered to read the summary, no, they don't censor sites voluntarily. They do however comply with court orders, as they'd go to jail if they didn't.

    3. Re:Cloudflare can't keep it's story straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ... as they'd go to jail if they didn't.

      Technically, companies can't go to jail, but they could experience fines and other actions that would put them out of business.

    4. Re:Cloudflare can't keep it's story straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Kind of missing the point, it shouldn't even BE possible. A _US_ court does not have carte Blanche over the world. I realize that is a hard thing for Americans to understand.

      This is just the beginning for Cloudflare's demise. They became a target during the US elections for backing some of the very sites SJW's find repulsive. As the US starts to ramp up their war^Welection machine again, expect more fallout.

      They aren't region blocking, but outright banning.

    5. Re:Cloudflare can't keep it's story straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The company can't, but those in charge certainly can. I can understand you how may not believe this since it almost never happens, but the DoJ can in fact bring criminal charges against the employees of a company. I believe it's currently happening to a senior engineer at VW US over the whole dieselgate scandal. He's looking at actual real honest to god jail time over it.

    6. Re:Cloudflare can't keep it's story straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like europeans can't understand why countries want out of the EU.

    7. Re:Cloudflare can't keep it's story straight by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      A _US_ court does not have carte Blanche over the world. I realize that is a hard thing for Americans to understand.

      I think you don't understand. If someone points a loaded gun at your head and you're convinced they're really going to pull the trigger unless you obey them, then it doesn't matter if you think the gun wielder should be able to do that. He's doing it.

      US courts have absolute power over anyone and everyone that they're able to coerce. If cloudflare is vulnerable to US attack, then that's the problem they have. If they weren't vulnerable, then we'd be reading about how they told the court to go fuck itself.

      If you have a website that you want to shield from court interference, then you should be looking into the next generation of tech. Maybe sci-hub needs an eepsite or .onion domain.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    8. Re:Cloudflare can't keep it's story straight by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      A _US_ court does not have carte Blanche over the world. I realize that is a hard thing for Americans to understand.

      But they do have legal jurisdiction over a U.S. company like Cloudflare. I realize that is a hard thing for the oblivious to understand.

    9. Re:Cloudflare can't keep it's story straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe sci-hub needs an eepsite or .onion domain.

      I do believe they have one. Or at least sci-hub announced back in October that they had one.

      scihub22266oqcxt.onion

      (Be aware I don't use Tor so have not tried it, nor can try it now to verify)

      That said, they are reachable directly without using DNS

      80.82.77.84 and 80.82.77.83 (:443)

    10. Re:Cloudflare can't keep it's story straight by JeffElkins · · Score: 1

      >>If you'd bothered to read the summary, no, they don't censor sites voluntarily.

      Sure they do. Google Daily Stormer.

      --
      Why is all the good stuff already modded 5, when I have mod points?
    11. Re:Cloudflare can't keep it's story straight by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Just tried the .onion address, it's not working.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    12. Re:Cloudflare can't keep it's story straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You and Cajun Hell can continue to read whatever you wish, never said they didn't though. My point was in part that the Internet as it exists is one of entirely too much centralized authority. It is somewhat amusing had Cloudflare been a common carrier, would that have changed this.

      If you fail to understand that I can't help you.

      --Anon

    13. Re: Cloudflare can't keep it's story straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fool of you think net neutrality would have prevented this. The law is a whore - the party with the most money always wins.

    14. Re:Cloudflare can't keep it's story straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real problem is that Cloundflare is based in a country that doesn't recognize freedom of speech.

    15. Re:Cloudflare can't keep it's story straight by Pyramid · · Score: 1

      Access from the IP address is working fine.

      --
      ~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
    16. Re:Cloudflare can't keep it's story straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems more like a corruption case, USA do extort countries to push their owner's will.

  4. How long before the (deniable) DDOS attack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    p2p should be useful for such a site...

  5. Re:Dow is Down 1300 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama was ending the Bush Recession at this point in his presidency, and kicked off a monumental increase in jobs and the stock market.

    Trump is crashing the Obama economy into a recession with breathtaking speed and incompetence.

  6. Not setting a precedent? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Back when Cloufare nuked The Daily Stormer the CEO said it was important it didn't set a precedent

    https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...

    And in an internal company e-mail obtained by Gizmodo, Prince acknowledged that the decision was exactly as arbitrary as it seemed.

    "My rationale for making this decision was simple: the people behind the Daily Stormer are assholes and I'd had enough," Prince wrote. "Let me be clear: this was an arbitrary decision."

    Prince wrote that he "woke up this morning in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the Internet. It was a decision I could make because I'm the CEO of a major Internet infrastructure company."

    In the same e-mail, Prince argued that it is "dangerous" for that kind of power to be concentrated in any one person's hands.

    "It's important that what we did today not set a precedent," Prince added. "The right answer is for us to be consistently content neutral."

    In a company blog post that appeared later on Wednesday, Prince argued that the Internet needed a better system for determining which content should be taken down-one that gives publishers a right to due process and doesn't put power over those decisions in the hands of a few CEOs like Prince.

    But, of course, the decision is likely to set a precedent even if Prince hopes it's a one-time occurrence. Cloudflare has helped to establish an industry-wide norm that some content is too offensive to be hosted by any mainstream technology company. In the future, the public will suspect that if an infrastructure provides service to a site, it's because they don't actually find it objectionable. This may not be a genie Cloudflare can stuff back into the bottle.

    And now Cloudfare have let the genie out of the bottle it seems like any site can be nuked, either because the CEO wakes up deciding to do it or due to a court order.

    So much for the Internet 'interpreting censorship as damage and routing around it'.

    Andrew Anglin is an asshole but he's also a kind of canary in the coalmine because assholes are the first ones to see their sites disappear when censorship starts. Unfortunately they're unlikely to be the last.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    1. Re:Not setting a precedent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, these two incidents are definitely related and no, you're not an idiot who didn't read the article, particularly the bits about the "court order".

    2. Re:Not setting a precedent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... or due to a court order.

      The only choice against a court order is to comply, or go out of business (see Lavabit). In a few cases (Apple in China) you can spin off a sub-company to agree to national regulations about data access without giving out the data from the rest of your customers in other countries, but that is not viable in all cases.

    3. Re:Not setting a precedent? by Mal-2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How exactly is Cloudflare supposed to respond to a court order other than by obeying it? Precedent is irrelevant, this is PMITA prison time we're talking about if they don't comply. Expecting them to do otherwise would be exceptionally foolish.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    4. Re:Not setting a precedent? by lordlod · · Score: 3, Informative

      And now Cloudfare have let the genie out of the bottle it seems like any site can be nuked, either because the CEO wakes up deciding to do it or due to a court order.

      Somebody got out of the wrong side of bed this morning and is walking around in delusion land.

      Of course Cloudfare, like every other substantial company complies with court orders, always has.

      Last year Cloudfare received 153 court orders world wide and complied with the vast majority of them. We know this because they documented it in their biannual transparency report https://www.cloudflare.com/tra...

      What ever your view on the actions around The Daily Stormer it is a completely independent issue to Cloudfare complying with lawfully issued court orders.

    5. Re:Not setting a precedent? by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      And now Cloudfare have let the genie out of the bottle it seems like any site can be nuked, either because the CEO wakes up deciding to do it or due to a court order.

      So much for the Internet 'interpreting censorship as damage and routing around it'.

      Sorry to burst yet another bubble, but internet is working as intended. There is absolutely nothing preventing you or me, or anyone else from using the website's IP address should they put it forth. DNS is but a simple service provided by ISPs, it's not necessary for proper network functionality.

      They can revoke the DNS from sci-hub all they want, it's not going to prevent the site from running, assuming it can find a host. As with anything on the net, if you don't like how someone else is operating something, set something up yourself to fill the gap you perceive. There is nothing preventing any third party from erecting their own DNS servers.

      Sure this is a form of censorship, but what many people fail to realize, is it's not really effective if the content provider is determined to keep their stuff accessable. And I think we've all learned, the more you try to suppress anything on the internet, the more mirrors of the same content will appear.

    6. Re:Not setting a precedent? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      There is nothing preventing any third party from erecting their own DNS servers.

      The hierarchical structure of the DNS is what stops them. You can set up all the DNS servers you want, but unless the root servers acknowledge them as authoritative for your TLD, and then the server for your TLD recognizes your server as authoritative for your next level down, you accomplish nothing.

      For example, "dig +trace sci-hub.tv mx" response with string of lookups, paraphrased:

      1. Hello a.root-servers.net, tell me about "tv". "Ask ac1.nstld.com." Thanks.

      2. Hello ac1.nstld.com, tell me about "sci-hub.tv". "Ask alec.ns.cloudflare.com." Thanks.

      3. Hello alec.ns.cloudflare.com, tell me the mx for "sci-hub.tv". Umm, please? Hello? Hello? <crickets>

      Yes, you can run your own DNS server and try to get people to set you as their DNS service, but that's not trivial. You can maybe capture a bit of the traffic by convincing one of the large public servers (8.8.8.8, e.g.) to point to your server as authoritative for sci-hub.tv specifically, but how easy is that?

    7. Re:Not setting a precedent? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      How exactly is Cloudflare supposed to respond to a court order other than by obeying it?

      Well, if they had a moral objection to it, they could have shuttered their doors a la Lavabit, effectively giving the court a big middle finger.

      That is to say, a moral objection that superseded the board and shareholder's love of money. Apparently, tis not the case.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    8. Re:Not setting a precedent? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      They can revoke the DNS from sci-hub all they want, it's not going to prevent the site from running, assuming it can find a host.

      "Pulling up the streets and sidewalk in front of your house doesn't prevent people from accessing it, because the building is still physically there"

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    9. Re:Not setting a precedent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      By simply refusing to play ball. The government can then absolutely raid them and shut them down, along with over half the fucking internet. It's as absurd an idea as closing down all the major banks to address the rampant fraud and waste we discovered during the downturn: not gonna happen. The reality is that Cloudflare has significant clout they could have brought to bear in this instance, and they chose to roll over.

      And that's 100% due to them having to answer to shareholders, and the CEO being a self-admitted asshole who arbitrarily decides when it's time to kick sites off the internet. Neither of these things should be true of such a company, but they are. That's why the internet is fucked.

    10. Re:Not setting a precedent? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Sure this is a form of censorship, but what many people fail to realize, is it's not really effective if the content provider is determined to keep their stuff accessable.

      1) Censorship doesn't work when People are free (Liberty). People will find a way.
      2) Censorship can backfire, making it more widely known (known as Streisand Effect) than before.

      The whole thing started with 1(paywall = censorship of sorts), and now has progressed to 2.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    11. Re:Not setting a precedent? by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Which would still block those sites, as well as half the rest of the internet. The nuclear option isn't always the only option. Whether or not CF cares enough to fight this order (and I mean why would they? Sci-hub really is breaking copyright laws. You can argue whether those copyright laws are good or bad for society and if you're really motivated maybe even try to get them changed.. but you can't argue that they exist.)

      Basically, CF has absolutely no grounds to ignore this order. Its not like Sci-hub is constitutionally protected as would be the case if they were say ordered by the president to block the New York Times or something.

    12. Re: Not setting a precedent? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Maybe we need to do something with courts. Or laws. Or lawmakers. Or people who pay lawmakers to make laws. Or courts that allow people to pay lawmakers to make laws.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    13. Re:Not setting a precedent? by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      Which would still block those sites, as well as half the rest of the internet.

      You say that like it's a bad thing, or that it would last forever. It would certainly put a lot of pressure on the court and judge issuing such an order. Freedom is not free, there are costs and sacrifices that must be made to both win and keep freedom, far beyond the mere monetary in nature..

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    14. Re: Not setting a precedent? by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      "if you're really motivated maybe even try to get them changed"

      Pardon me brother, can you spare a couple hundred million dollars? I need to "lobby" some congressmen to change a badlaw.

    15. Re: Not setting a precedent? by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Or all of these things. But what do they have to do with how Cloudflare is supposed to respond right now?

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    16. Re:Not setting a precedent? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lavabit shutting down denied the government any further access to user's emails and stopped them having to run a known insecure service. Shutting down Cloudflare would do nothing to negatively effect the court of ACS and nothing to prevent Cloudflare having to violate user's privacy.

      The two situations are really quite different.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    17. Re: Not setting a precedent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you have some social justice event to be attending? The Soros check didn't bounce.

    18. Re:Not setting a precedent? by Gaxx · · Score: 1

      So much for the Internet 'interpreting censorship as damage and routing around it'..

      If you read the article you will see that is just what has happened in this case. Cloudflare are pulling the plug and the owners of the site have said it will cause minimal disruption. I would say that probably qualifies...

      This actually suggests a possible advantage to using a service like Cloudfare. It won't have been cost and effort free to obtain that court order and it turns out to be largely useless in actually causing any substantial disruption for the sites in question. Now ACS will need to go back to the drawing board and work out how to actually disrupt the sites or give up. Either way, the court order did them little practical good so far.

      --
      -- Gaxx
    19. Re:Not setting a precedent? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      What happened to the Daily Stormer shows you can knock a site off the internet if you're persistent enough :

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The Stormer is up now, but will probably get kicked off .name in a few days

      https://dailystormer.name/

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    20. Re:Not setting a precedent? by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      but how easy is that?

      Hey, I never said anything about it being easy. Sure, you're going to have to convince others to use your DNS servers to get resolutions on so-called banned or blocked domains. But it's possible.

    21. Re:Not setting a precedent? by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      They can revoke the DNS from sci-hub all they want, it's not going to prevent the site from running, assuming it can find a host.

      "Pulling up the streets and sidewalk in front of your house doesn't prevent people from accessing it, because the building is still physically there"

      Bad analogy. It's more like taking away your address so the postman skips your house. Road and sidewalks are untouched. Others can visit your house, assuming they can find it.

    22. Re:Not setting a precedent? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      This: essentially breaking 'the internet' for millions of people simultaneously might actually cause those with the power to make change to take notice.

      Sometimes you've got to set the forest on fire.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    23. Re:Not setting a precedent? by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Lavabit will always be the exception that proves the rule (along with penet.fi). If Cloudflare shut down, they'd be replaced by someone who is willing to play ball, because their services are much more integral to the way the Web works today. Standing up to National Security Letters is one thing, but expecting a company -- ANY company -- to refuse court orders from countries that actually have jurisdiction is simply not a reasonable stance unless they have positioned themselves in advance to be unable to comply. Even then, they have to be the size of Apple or Microsoft, and be willing to spend a fuckton of money, in order not to be seized outright.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    24. Re:Not setting a precedent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of other choices against a court order. Lawyers have plenty of methods to stall or challenge such orders. Cloudflare didn't even attempt to challenge the court order, they just rolled over.

    25. Re:Not setting a precedent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good analogy!

  7. Re:Dow is Down 1300 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come come, everyone knows the previous presidents policies last into the next presidents term for a period which is exactly equal to whatever is convenient for the person complaining about/congratulating the current/previous president.

  8. Wikipedia as DNS by eis2718bob · · Score: 4, Funny

    So now Wikipedia is my backup DNS. (IP addresses at the bottom of the info box).

    1. Re:Wikipedia as DNS by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 3, Funny

      So now Wikipedia is my backup DNS. (IP addresses at the bottom of the info box).

      Be careful! You'll attract the HOSTS file guy.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    2. Re:Wikipedia as DNS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you say APK three times does he appear?

    3. Re:Wikipedia as DNS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you say APK three times does he appear?

      You say "SYN" three times to make him appear, but don't worry, if you say "FIN" he'll go away after a little while.

    4. Re:Wikipedia as DNS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's at the anti-Semitism end of his cycle, anyway.

  9. Dangers of storing your stuff in the Cloud .. by najajomo · · Score: 1

    Illustrating the dangers of storing your stuff in someone elses centralized cloud ..

    1. Re:Dangers of storing your stuff in the Cloud .. by Mal-2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And if you don't store it on someone else's hardware, then instead you're vulnerable to having your facilities seized, or your upstream provider pressured into cutting you off. The only hope is to do both, which apparently SciHub was.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  10. THIS is what Class War looks like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cant afford a university tutition but want to access publicly funded research? FUCK YOU. PAY US.

    What a cuntry!

    1. Re:THIS is what Class War looks like by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      Who can't afford University Tuition?

      Community colleges are affordable, and local. First two years are cheap rehash of High School. Work hard, Do well, and you .... earn scholarships and perhaps save up money to go to university. IF you are really poor, or minority, there are all sorts of other programs that help.

      "But its hard!!!!!!!"

      Yes, that is to weed out whiners and those that don't follow rules. College is as much about following a prescribed program as it is about education. N

      Rarely anything of value is easy. Often times it is hard difficult path that creates the value, because it is hard. Take the easy way, and you'll find so do a lot of people. It is that which is common that has less value.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:THIS is what Class War looks like by losfromla · · Score: 3, Informative

      Community college used to be cheap. It is still cheap if you have a nice engineering job but not if you have a McJob and are working for minimum wage. Here is California (yeah, The People's Republic of Kalifornia) community college costs $52/unit. Per unit! That means that a full load of classes will run you $600 per semester! Books, parking, bus passes, etc will cost about that again. So now it is $1,000 per semester. That is not cheap. It is fucking insane.
      Apply for scholarships while holding down a job or two and carrying a full load (or more) of classes is a luxury that some don't have time for. Because people want to sleep and eat and even rest at times. Not all humans are diabolical machines like Archangel Michael.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    3. Re:THIS is what Class War looks like by losfromla · · Score: 1

      $1,200

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    4. Re:THIS is what Class War looks like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apply for scholarships while holding down a job or two and carrying a full load (or more) of classes is a luxury that some don't have time for.

      People used to do it.
      Remember, these crazy tuition hikes didn't start until after all the government-guaranteed student loans.

    5. Re:THIS is what Class War looks like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is, who should have access to publicly funded research?

      If the US government pays for research, it belongs to the US and US citizens should have access. But should the Brits get access too? Or the Russians? Or the Brazilians?

      And if the UK government pays for research, should the US get access?

      While you may not like the fact that publishers charge a fee for access to the research this model makes it available to as many people as possible. Universities and colleges subscribe and now all of their faculty, researchers and students get access to research from around the world. To me thats better than just getting access to only the research funded in your own country.

      Maybe there could be a better way of sharing research, but Sci-Hub is NOT the answer. Sci-Hub operates by stealing the account credentials of people working and studying at universities and colleges, which they then use to gain access to research articles that the universities pay to access. This puts the university networks at risk, because now compromised accounts are out there and being used illegally, and this winds up costing universities more money. Why? Because publishers up their subscription fees because they're losing money due to theft. And the universities have to combat the compromising of accounts which costs money in personnel and equipment. So your publicly funded research is actually COSTING taxpayers more money due to Sci-Hub.

    6. Re:THIS is what Class War looks like by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Two semesters comes to $2000 a year. Most families can afford that. If you live at home with parents then it's not bad. The problem comes from those who don't live at at home, they have to also pay rent, get a minimum wage job, work less than full time because they're going to school, pay for transportation, etc. If you're the sole breadwinner then it's rough, but then so is everything at that point, including getting a car, holding down a job with only a high school education, and so on.

    7. Re:THIS is what Class War looks like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Community colleges are affordable, and local.

      Most community colleges I'm familiar with can't afford the outrageous fees charged for this research, or can only afford a tiny, tiny amount of it. Even if they could afford access to a large database, they would probably put that money towards projects that would get a lot more use, because their professors generally don't do a lot of research, and there are no graduate students who need to do research, either.

      Of course you're ignoring the fact that most of this is funded by the government and by default should be in the public domain (arguably even by law), and wanting access to research papers shouldn't require you sink time and energy you may not have into course work that will not benefit you just to be able to read that research, but I doubt you care about those tidbits.

    8. Re:THIS is what Class War looks like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      congratulations on your middle class idea that everybody has $2000 just sitting around to spend.

      the fucking stupid burns, be thankful you had it so fucking easy, but stop presuming every fucker else had the same advantages as you, it just makes you look like a douche (trump style)

    9. Re:THIS is what Class War looks like by barakn · · Score: 1

      Show me the community college with the massive library and a subscription to all the top journals.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    10. Re:THIS is what Class War looks like by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Most families can't afford that, not with rent going up (home ownership is at low levels compared to recent history). When I went to school it was $12 per unit, books were still expensive but closer to $60 each so $300 for 4 classes worth of books, sometimes more, sometimes less. Thus about $450 per semester. It was so cheap I'd take a PE class or two just because... why not.
      Community College used to be free in CA when education was seen as an investment in the future of the state rather than a wealth extraction method from the poor and working classes. CA needs to roll back to the way it used to be or we're going to continue on a downward spiral which benefits only the wealthy and obscenely wealthy.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    11. Re:THIS is what Class War looks like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While you may not like the fact that publishers charge a fee for access to the research this model makes it available to as many people as possible.

      How? It's not as if the money goes to the researchers. The publishers are leeches that add zero value.

    12. Re:THIS is what Class War looks like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The problem is, who should have access to publicly funded research?

      Science papers should be freely available to all. That's how it works.

  11. Re:Dow is Down 1300 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Penny Arcade's "Green is the New Purple" joke is looking less and less funny all of the time.

  12. Barbara Streisand (at least for me) by SmilingBoy · · Score: 2

    Well, I for one did not know Sci-Hub. I don't read a lot of paywalled scientific articles (when I do, the costs can be expensed to a client usually) but knowing that this is available could be tempting in the future occasionally... Not because of the money of course, but the convenience of access...

    1. Re:Barbara Streisand (at least for me) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not because of the money of course

      Well, IMO it isn't just about saving money but about not giving any more to the blood sucking journals. I've got institutional access to most things, but if I didn't, I'd rather burn the money and use Sci-Hub than purchase it from those who restrict & resell the knowledge my tax dollars already paid for.

    2. Re:Barbara Streisand (at least for me) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same for me, never knew of it but it looks very useful.
      Gun foot aim fire!

    3. Re:Barbara Streisand (at least for me) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even when it is possible to get articles the 'right' way, it's often not worth the hassle. Rather than trying to remember the department access, or who has the keys to the kingdom, or bothering the secretary, sci-hub is right there and 'voila', there is the paper.

      Of course, most of what I want nowadays is on arxiv.org, so its not as important to me, but still

  13. lets go back to E-mags in pdf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets go back to the 80s floppy magazines, but just have a single file downloaded offline website.

    Sure not exactly as instant click and view, but better, as its transfereable via sneaker nets.

  14. Whew! I was worried for a moment there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jasper: [whispers to Grampa] Are they talking about the bordello?
    Grampa: No! The burlesque house. So just keep your mouth shut.

  15. Re: Dow is Down 1300 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Luckily you transferred everything into BitConnect 6 months ago. SMART !

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61i2iDz7u04&feature=youtu.be

  16. Shit company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Cloudflare is so absurdly ubiquitous that they can and do routinely degrade service across the web to line their own pockets. PIA addresses have been blocked by Cloudflare, meaning users now have to exempt Cloudflare ranges and torpedo their privacy or simply give up on the 90% of sites out there that use it in some way. When asked about this, Cloudflare basically said "though cookies," and refused to unblock the endpoints.

    Fuck Cloudflare with a twelve-foot iron rod.

  17. The DJIA is NOT the best market indicator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a financial professional, I am constantly annoyed by the press reinforcing the faulty idea that the DJIA is bellwether for the market; it's not. The DJIA tracks an index of industrial-centric stocks. Large portions of the market are not included in the DJIA. The best index for tracking the overall market is the S&P.

    Having corrected that mistake, it then needs to be pointed out that the stock market is NOT the economy. The economy is NOT healthy; it's top-heavy with debt and artificially low rates of interest due to Federal Reserve manipulation. Save and prepare; the coming currency crisis is going to get ugly.

  18. LOL is correct! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL is correct!

    Team creimer is shielded from market changes thanks to its silver coins stack!

    Team creimer might even go to gold coins stack once YouTube revenue stream starts to pay off!

  19. Re:Dow is Down 1300 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump is not different in this regard. Like Obama, he also likes to ignore the dismal labour participation rate.

  20. TOR LINK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/
    It seems down though probably because of abnormal load from this CF issue.

    They also have a telegram bot: @scihubot

    Their twitter always has alternate URL's: https://twitter.com/Sci_Hub