Russia Hit With Widespread Internet Outage Across Country (bloomberg.com) 76
Russia is facing a widespread internet outage that's affected users across the country, with access to websites on the local .ru domain down. From a report: The issue was linked to a technical problem with the .ru domain's global Domain Name System Security Extensions, or DNSSEC, which is used to secure data exchanged in internet protocol networks, Russia's Digital Ministry said in a statement on Telegram Tuesday. Websites including the most popular local search engine Yandex.ru, ecommerce leaders Ozon.ru and Wildberries.ru, and apps of the country's biggest banks -- Sberbank PJSC and VTB Group -- were all affected, state-run Ria reported, citing Downradar, a traffic monitoring service.
in soviet russia we domain you! (Score:2)
in soviet russia we domain you!
Re:in soviet russia we domain you! (Score:4, Interesting)
But not the kay, ar, a, i, n, and e, and will lose that you eventually. :-p
Re: (Score:2)
I guess their pride kept them for blaming it on Ukraine hackers which in the end could be involved in this.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess their pride kept them for blaming it on Ukraine hackers which in the end could be involved in this.
As much as I support Ukraine... Never ascribe to malice what can easily be explained by stupidity. Routing errors have been known to shut down the internet in advanced, western economies where people (are supposed to) know what they're doing. Boris, who wasn't smart enough to get a job in western Europe has no chance.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
If I lived in Russia (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd blow my brains out. What a shithole.
Re: (Score:3)
Just thinking of Edward Snowden.
Re: (Score:1)
Stop that!
Zip up, wash your hands, and don't do that here again.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm probably one of very few people who agree with both sides on him simultaneously. Put him on trial, have it be an open trial. At first I was all in favor of him, but ironically, it was after the Snowden movie where I began to question it. Speak of that movie, Oliver Stone is probably jacking off to pictures of Putin half naked on a horse right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Like this ?
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/... [bbci.co.uk]
Re:If I lived in Russia (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with Russia is that they only downloaded the trial version of democracy and it looks like they're in the process of uninstalling it.
Re:If I lived in Russia (Score:5, Insightful)
US has the production version (if a 250 year old version with only a few patches applied), but a large portion of the population has decided that democracy is "woke" and is actively trying to delete it.
Re:If I lived in Russia (Score:4, Interesting)
In the US version of democracy a well-placed 26% of the vote can win against 74% of the vote, due to using two rounds of first-past-the-post voting to throw out 49% of the vote, twice. Depending on where you live, you could more strongly support your political position by having never existed than by voting. If you have trouble believing or understanding this, look up the 3/5ths Compromise once you understand that you'll understand what I'm saying.
Also this is a far larger effect than the fact we also gave a boost to smaller states, which is a much smaller effect than a double round of first-past-the-post and doesn't give you anti-representatives.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, the problems with the 250-year-old version go far deeper. IMO one of the biggest ones is that (due to the electoral college) a state has the exact same power to affect the federal government regardless of how many people vote. This means that states have a very strong incentive to deny people the ability to vote and to make it harder to vote, at least for those people who will not vote the way those lawmakers want. I strongly support a patch to make voting a right that can only be taken away in extre
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is representatives are assigned not to you but to your state. And your state doesn't mind telling those representatives to go against your wishes, since your state's electors and senators represent your state, and your district's house rep represents your district -- none of these are supposed to represent you, and they don't. And even though there is population-based assignment of electors and representatives, those are assigned regardless of if the state has them go against the wishes of the v
Re:If I lived in Russia (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is representatives are assigned not to you but to your state.
"A republic madam, if you can keep it." This isn't new to anybody (except possibly you.) But this is inaccurate. In practice, no states actually do it that way. In the very beginning, some states did, like New York. In New York you voted for your state legislature, and they decided who to send to Washington. Now all states create representative districts and you as an individual vote for the representative of your district and the two senators of your entire state.
I think it's long past time that you ought to have your representative, elector, and senator
You're asking (without realizing it) to get rid of the senate entirely. If you want to have electors based on a district, petition your state to do that. The constitution allows for it. But to be completely honest, you're putting way too much emphasis on POTUS when the vast majority of what he does has little to no impact on you. You know who has the most impact on your day-to-day? People like your mayor, your city council, your police chief, and your state legislators.
We shouldn't run a nation on a system meant for a federation.
For a country as large and diverse as the US, a federation is the only structure that makes any real sense. A federation allows enough sovereignty for each state that they can have flexibility in a way that makes sense to the needs and wants of those who reside within it, while simultaneously providing enough organization that the state remains in unison both in foreign trade and against foreign adversaries. Alternative to that you have a confederation, which didn't work well (remember, that came BEFORE the constitution and was the biggest reason why we moved to a federation) or you have an empire where there basically aren't any sovereign governments within, they're just administrative provinces answering to just one supreme government, which is basically where you just have one set of laws with only small variations not much different from one city to the next, only across the entire country. I personally can't see that working without many states wanting to outright secede. You know some of the things I like about my home state of Arizona over here in California? Among other things, I'm allowed to carry utility knives longer than 2 inches without having to keep it on a belt holster or keeping it strapped to my arm or some ridiculous shit like that. I can just keep it in my pocket. I'm allowed to own lockpicks, a 3 ounce can of pepper spray, an AR-15, and other things that are apparently too dangerous for Californians. While I don't really use cannabis, just knowing that I can have if I want in Arizona for any god damn reason I choose is nice, where in Texas it's generally illegal. Getting the entire country to do all of this is borderline fucking impossible.
What would you have it look like, if not a federation?
Re: (Score:2)
IMO one of the biggest ones is that (due to the electoral college) a state has the exact same power to affect the federal government regardless of how many people vote.
There's more than one person in the federal government dude...
Re: (Score:3)
Weird... why are you assuming this doesn't apply to other parts of the federal government? My reading of the constitution is that states get the same number of representatives no matter if they allow all adult citizens to vote for them, or only white male landowners. They get the same number of senators no matter if all registered voters can vote for those senators, or only those with proper ID (gun permits without photos are allowed, while student IDs with photos are disallowed, because freedom and secur
Re: If I lived in Russia (Score:2)
Weird... why are you assuming this doesn't apply to other parts of the federal government?
What did you think the electoral college is for? It's not the Senate.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have trouble believing or understanding this, look up the 3/5ths Compromise once you understand that you'll understand what I'm saying.
You're way out of date dude. The 3/5ths compromise has been null and void for 155 years. If you have trouble believing or understanding this, look up section 2 of the 14th amendment. Once you understand that you'll understand what I'm saying.
Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Sure, if literally the only person you're voting for is POTUS. Though that is a pretty dumb idea since he has by far the least impact on your day-to-day life compared to your local politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have trouble believing or understanding this, look up the 3/5ths Compromise once you understand that you'll understand what I'm saying.
You're way out of date dude. The 3/5ths compromise has been null and void for 155 years. If you have trouble believing or understanding this, look up section 2 of the 14th amendment. Once you understand that you'll understand what I'm saying.
Of course it has. And if you know why the slave states wanted more representation "on behalf of" their slaves, you ought to know that this hasn't changed other than now it is the 49% who may have anti-representation (in their state, or district).
Re: If I lived in Russia (Score:2)
How so?
Re: (Score:2)
If Dem voters in Texas had never existed, how many electors would Texas have, and would the Dem presidential candidate have gotten more, or less, electoral votes?
Re: (Score:2)
Just so we're clear, you're complaining about a decision that was made for a single office in the federal government that has very little to virtually no impact on your day-to-day life, rather this office has much more to do with the day-to-day operations of what your state does only at its highest levels. Just to give you an idea, the president can't create any laws in your state, or even veto them. He doesn't even have pardoning powers for criminal convictions in your state. Even though he's the commander
Re: (Score:2)
My complaint is that people have anti-representatives. Such that your existence is used to create a vote against you -- exactly like the slaves didn't want the slave states to get more representatives.
Re: (Score:2)
POTUS is winner take all, no matter what you do. You'd have a more valid argument if you said that because your guy isn't in office, now your taxes are working against you. "Anti-representation" will always be a thing in a republic, all that has to happen is that somebody who represents you gets elected when you didn't vote for them. It's not just the president, it's your senators and your district's representative as well. You're effectively making an argument for direct democracy, which contrary to what s
Re: (Score:2)
I've only been talking about senators, electors, and house representatives. Nothing about POTUS. And there is no need for electors and house representatives to be assigned as anti-representatives, when they could be assigned as representatives, and no that won't make it a direct democracy. All you have to do is either never assign them as anti-representatives, or allow people who feel anti-represented by the person they voted for to denounce them to cancel a portion of their vote (so people are non-represen
Re: If I lived in Russia (Score:2)
I've only been talking about senators, electors, and house representatives. Nothing about POTUS.
/Facepalm
Seriously? Do you even know what the electors do? And you still don't seem to realize this, but you're basically calling for a complete elimination of the senate AND the electoral college.
And there is no need for electors and house representatives to be assigned as anti-representatives, when they could be assigned as representatives, and no that won't make it a direct democracy. All you have to do is either never assign them as anti-representatives, or allow people who feel anti-represented by the person they voted for to denounce them to cancel a portion of their vote (so people are non-represented instead of anti-represented).
You're going to have to clarify this. Cancel it how? And how are you supposed to exactly how much of it to "cancel"? And cancel it with what? What if you happen to agree with a "yes" vote of the guy you didn't vote for when they're ratifying a new law? Say the TCPA for example, which had broad bipartisan support.
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose Hitler gets elected as your House Representative, with 51 votes for but 49 votes for someone else. Then my suggestion is that you and anyone who thinks Hitler is a poor choice to represent you can denounce him, so that Hitler can't vote on your behalf. So if 40 denounce him, then he only represents the other 51+9, or 60/100, so should only get 60% of a vote. And of course you get zero representation. Or another way to do it could be that those 40 could be subtracted from the total support, so he'd o
Re: (Score:2)
US has the production version (if a 250 year old version with only a few patches applied), but a large portion of the population has decided that democracy is "woke" and is actively trying to delete it.
What you're saying is Democracy 2.09.11.56.1b is incompatible with Woke 1.7, Insurrection 5.4 and Fascism v3?
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't seen any major conflicts between Democracy and Woke (no matter which definition of Woke people use this week), but Democracy does not support Insurrection at all. You can, however, deploy an instance of Insurrection to attempt a manual downgrade/migration of Democracy to Fascism (see Jan 6).
Re: (Score:2)
It's still one-man one-vote in Russia. Trouble is that man is Putin.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with Russia is that they only downloaded the trial version of democracy and it looks like they're in the process of uninstalling it.
I'd say it's more like some sketchy pirated version of democracy, which came with an extra helping of malware.
Re: (Score:2)
They never had democracy, ever. Full feudalism by the tsars, then communism, then fascism.
Attempts to install democracy were aborted before even really starting: the eponymous soviets -- democratic workers' councils -- were removed in early days of the revolution, and Yeltsin was a close shave but still fell short of any proper democracy. Thus, people there don't believe in elections as they have never seen a non-rigged one.
And Putin is not subtle here: official results above 100%, or a massive win for Un
Re: (Score:2)
They never had democracy, ever. Full feudalism by the tsars, then communism, then fascism.
Not exactly. Gorbachev gave them democracy on a silver platter. Unlike most, they didn't even have to fight for it. In return, the Russian people hated him for it. They had it for two years-ish until Yeltsin dissolved the parliament in the October coup.
Re: (Score:2)
what you just said can be said of the US, too.
the R's in our country are the equiv of the russians. they love the russian method of control and authority. the R's are trying to STOP funding of ukraine, so there's all the proof you need.
who gets there first? if the orange idiot wins, somehow, the US and much of the world loses. russia will win and a whole lot of negative things will befall the world as a result.
I dont know why the R's decided to attach themselves to russia and hungary but they did and we
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They're far easier to deal with.
Putin is one tough cookie. Fortunately he's old. As soon as he croaks, thing get better.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why your brain's and not those of Putin's nearest lackey?
Re: (Score:3)
Why your brain's and not those of Putin's nearest lackey?
Don't waste valuable bullets on Putin's lackeys. Most of them are only one step away from falling out a window anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not Putin personally pushing people out the windows though, it's that Putin has convinced his lackeys that they have to do what he says or his other lackeys will push them out a window.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not Putin personally pushing people out the windows though, it's that Putin has convinced his lackeys that they have to do what he says or his other lackeys will push them out a window.
I said they are "falling" out of windows. I didn't suggest anything other than clumsiness. I really do not want to die of a polonium injection.
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't need to, they tend to send your brains, skull and entire body out windows on the regular, no effort on your part.
State Actor? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:State Actor? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:State Actor? (Score:5, Interesting)
https://dnsviz.net/d/ru/ZbjruA/dnssec/ [dnsviz.net]
https://dnsviz.net/d/ru/ZbkVXw/dnssec/ [dnsviz.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Shooting themselves in the foot is a simpler explanation.
Sigh. It's always DNS. (Score:3)
Just sayin'.
Re:Sigh. It's always DNS. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah - sometimes it's BGP.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Sigh. It's always DNS. (Score:4, Interesting)
Confirmed DNSSEC. From my logs:
Jan 30 16:13:16 bilbo named[465745]: view internals: validating J20C0QKDHUA3CUMNKST289FF06U2SQ91.ru/NSEC3: no valid signature found
Jan 30 16:13:16 bilbo named[465745]: view internals: validating ru/SOA: no valid signature found
Jan 30 16:13:16 bilbo named[465745]: view internals: validating 84QCJF10GR8BTAKFDKA92VK0T6MGR6BJ.ru/NSEC3: no valid signature found
Jan 30 16:13:16 bilbo named[465745]: no valid RRSIG resolving 'cctld.ru/DS/IN': 2001:678:18:0:194:190:124:17#53
Re: (Score:2)
What "Google's OAuth2 coup?"
Re:Sigh. It's always DNS. (Score:5, Informative)
Let me guess... (Score:5, Funny)
They forgot to renew the cert for .ru; then some bot grabbed it and parked it on GoDaddy.
Re: (Score:2)
What's really painful is that it's far from impossible.
Most of Russia's talent, in pretty much all areas, is gone now. Either fled or gone to the meat grinder. What's left is the duds that suck up to the geezer.
Re: (Score:2)
Dam those Ru.. North Koreans!
Re: (Score:2)
Makes me miss Rasputin. (Russia's greatest love machine, it was a shame how he carried on.)
Re: (Score:3)
Now, there was a cat who really was gone!
Awesome! We should block the all Russian CDNs (Score:3)
Gee... (Score:2)
Gee, that's a nice looking internet you got there. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the one Russian threat I'm in favor of: please, do isolate your networks from the rest of the world. Sooner the better.
Hating on Russia is the establishment narrative approved world view today. I was there long before Russia supposedly interfered with any elections and started troubling Ukraine. Back then Russia was a welcome foil to the US and thus could do no wrong. Back when Romney and McCain were the only significant leaders in the Western world that dared say anything bad about Russia, and
Thanks for telling us (Score:2)
Otherwise we might not even have noticed.
Seriously, people, would anyone miss Russia?
Re: (Score:3)
Otherwise we might not even have noticed.
Seriously, people, would anyone miss Russia?
I would miss those Moscow girls. They make me sing and shout.
I can fix that for them (Score:2)
Just send gift cards to PPH, c/o Slashdot.org.
Oh poor Russia, (Score:5, Funny)
...Crimea river.
Check TV broadcasts (Score:2)
Is Swan Lake on every channel?
Take note (Score:2)
We should all take note, and think about "when this happens here" .