I for one would like to thank the fbi for doing so much to promote the darknet market places.
with site operators taking home $400,000 a month and counting. it's going to become a highly competitive market for darknet market places if they keep up this level of attention.
Which is why I didn't end up buying one. Went round to a friends to see if it was worth getting. "Lets fire up multiplayer then" - "We can't, you have to pay extra for that".
Then Battlefield 4 came out on the PS3 (it was advertised as PS4 "exclusive") which settled the argument. (BF4 is still a crashy pile of shite btw, but only FPS other than BF3 with realistic helicopters afaik)
Next title I play regularily will be back on the PC, which I haven't really done since the counter strike days.
Certainly gone that way. Such a shame, the PS3 & Other OS got me off pc gaming and onto the console.
PS4 gets me off the console and back into PC gaming. (luckily I didn't buy a PS4 before finding out online play was now pay monthly. So knew not to bother)
If it has access to the wider internet other than through tor, the IP address of the host network.
A lot of those taken down seem to be on VPS hosts, which provide virtually zero opsec for the actual server being identified. Since you don't need to get the IP address of the server, just the name of the VPS service provider (e.g. from a 404 page)
However, upon further examination, no one could quite figure out where all supposedly seized hidden services were. After all, the biggest Dark Net markets are still in operation. The biggest child pornography sites are still running. In fact, the seized websites represent less than a third of Dark Net commerce.
Update Nov. 8, 8:31am: Far from the original number of 414 seized hidden services and lower even than the number 50 provided to the New York Times, the FBI told Forbes that it had seized 27 actual sites but 414.onion addresses that all go to the same sites.
___
Seems pretty obvious that it was 27 websites all hit by the shellshock bug to give up their real IP.
->but now I will pay AGAIN for the same traffic though my Netflix subscription fees. THAT I don't like..
Pretty sure all the non netflix customers are quite happy with it though.
And if you don't like the price of netflix, it's not exactly like there aren't a hundred thousand other ways to get the same content without paying a cent more than you pay for access to the internet.
That sounds like a fundamental misuderstanding of what's happening. you have your bandwidth, it's netfllix and the other big bandwidth hogs which haven't bought the bandwidth from them. And because they aren't paying for the bandwidth they are using everyone else has a congested network outside of their ISP.
He does, we both have to pay line rental. I pay for the call.
But that's a bad analogy here. There are four parties. Me, My brother, netflix/big bandwidth consuming companies, and the other people using netflix/big bandwidth consuming companies.
and me and my bother are getting a choppy line because big bandwidth consuming companies are using our telepone to provide servies to other people. With the net neutrality argument being me and my brother should pay more for our line rental so other people can use our phone line.
I'm not sure I agree this is that bad a thing. Surely the congested routers will now improve because they are not being congested by shitty Netflix traffic?
Why should everyone else have to pay for Netflix to deliver their services?
Surely the analogy is a lot like a coal company driving their coal through New York and instead paying to have a train line built straight to the port.
melted polar ice caps and generally warmer climate should do them just fine then.
But on a more serious note. Yes. Quite Some areas will benefit greatly from global warming (hey, we may get a whole new continent to exploit once the ice is gone) Some will be hit quite hard.
But we have legs, and cars and planes. so it's not like moving from one to the is really gonna be that much of a big deal.
For all the flawed science banded around in the climate change debate, the biggest flaw is none of it is actually revalent to anyones actual lives. People are more likely to get excited about quantum pictures of cats than they are about the shoreline hundreds of miles from them getting a little deeper - for example, something most shorelines do daily..
Most climate "debate" can be summed up by a tabloid headline "scientists shocked that ice melts in summer, but now they all agree it does".
Slashdot Mirror
I for one would like to thank the fbi for doing so much to promote the darknet market places.
with site operators taking home $400,000 a month and counting. it's going to become a highly competitive market for darknet market places if they keep up this level of attention.
I hope it does.
it's fuxing nonsense that you can generate electricity cheaper via microgeneration than you can buy it from the grid.
but what they mean is the grid providers face loosing billions out of the extra normal profits they make price gouging grid customers.
Not just back up.
But no longer blocked by the Great firewall of (not so) Great Britain.
although the site is 500 server errorring a lot due to the overwealming amount of traffic this generated.
Funny as F'
citation needed
PS+ is a subscription service
And
https://support.us.playstation...
Which is why I didn't end up buying one.
Went round to a friends to see if it was worth getting. "Lets fire up multiplayer then" - "We can't, you have to pay extra for that".
Then Battlefield 4 came out on the PS3 (it was advertised as PS4 "exclusive") which settled the argument. (BF4 is still a crashy pile of shite btw, but only FPS other than BF3 with realistic helicopters afaik)
Next title I play regularily will be back on the PC, which I haven't really done since the counter strike days.
Certainly gone that way. Such a shame, the PS3 & Other OS got me off pc gaming and onto the console.
PS4 gets me off the console and back into PC gaming. (luckily I didn't buy a PS4 before finding out online play was now pay monthly. So knew not to bother)
Well well. This explains a lot.
http://cryptome.org/2014/07/ns...
Seems a lot of this functionality is deployed via tor.
If it has access to the wider internet other than through tor, the IP address of the host network.
A lot of those taken down seem to be on VPS hosts, which provide virtually zero opsec for the actual server being identified. Since you don't need to get the IP address of the server, just the name of the VPS service provider (e.g. from a 404 page)
Well, yeah, because:
http://www.dailydot.com/politi...
___
Seems pretty obvious that it was 27 websites all hit by the shellshock bug to give up their real IP.
More likely they were all running on webservers with standard internet access.
Pretty straight forward to get a webserver or other service to identify itself if the machine it is on can resolve a standard url.
plain jane simple post shellshock bug.
agree with that.
hidden service operators should be running a separate "last mile" service.
Something like sticking it on a I2P network with no internet access and routing out through tor on another section of the network.
Absolutely nothing can go wrong.
I'll be reporting pretty much all the BBC content on a regular basis.
Make it wireless and do the processing offsite.
Doh!.
So if he's paying for his service, and my phone provider isn't getting paid.
Then who's stealing his money?
->but now I will pay AGAIN for the same traffic though my Netflix subscription fees. THAT I don't like..
Pretty sure all the non netflix customers are quite happy with it though.
And if you don't like the price of netflix, it's not exactly like there aren't a hundred thousand other ways to get the same content without paying a cent more than you pay for access to the internet.
How about a toll road that charges for both directions.
Can't see that ever catching on either.
That sounds like a fundamental misuderstanding of what's happening.
you have your bandwidth, it's netfllix and the other big bandwidth hogs which haven't bought the bandwidth from them.
And because they aren't paying for the bandwidth they are using everyone else has a congested network outside of their ISP.
How so?
What part of this is remotely like that.
Who's netflix? me or my brother?
He does, we both have to pay line rental. I pay for the call.
But that's a bad analogy here. There are four parties.
Me, My brother, netflix/big bandwidth consuming companies, and the other people using netflix/big bandwidth consuming companies.
and me and my bother are getting a choppy line because big bandwidth consuming companies are using our telepone to provide servies to other people. With the net neutrality argument being me and my brother should pay more for our line rental so other people can use our phone line.
I'm not sure I agree this is that bad a thing.
Surely the congested routers will now improve because they are not being congested by shitty Netflix traffic?
Why should everyone else have to pay for Netflix to deliver their services?
Surely the analogy is a lot like a coal company driving their coal through New York and instead paying to have a train line built straight to the port.
Why are people arguing this is a bad thing?
I guess that means you don't get out of the city much.
The planet most definitely is not "heavily populated".
Yeah, they also need heat and humidity.
melted polar ice caps and generally warmer climate should do them just fine then.
But on a more serious note. Yes. Quite
Some areas will benefit greatly from global warming (hey, we may get a whole new continent to exploit once the ice is gone)
Some will be hit quite hard.
But we have legs, and cars and planes. so it's not like moving from one to the is really gonna be that much of a big deal.
For all the flawed science banded around in the climate change debate, the biggest flaw is none of it is actually revalent to anyones actual lives. People are more likely to get excited about quantum pictures of cats than they are about the shoreline hundreds of miles from them getting a little deeper - for example, something most shorelines do daily..
Most climate "debate" can be summed up by a tabloid headline "scientists shocked that ice melts in summer, but now they all agree it does".
I think it's a fairly basic point.
Crops get most of their carbon matter from CO2.
more CO2=> more carbon matter => more crops.
less CO2 => less carbon matter => less crops => ice age.
Good analogy.
Except. Imho
global cooling is the car accident
And global warming is a trip to Barbados.
Why do so many of you think an ice age would be a good thing?
Slashdot is news for nerds.
Nerds don't care about global warming. They'll just turn the air conditioning up. If/when it ever happens.
I've had a lovely warm summer. I'm hoping for more long hot summers in the future.