pktgen

18 ms·

121.
by pktgen 12y ago
The tax issue can be worked around to some extent by using an IRA. Lending Club will also open trust accounts so it should be possible to open one in the name of a solo 401(k) (only an option if you're self-employed). I'm going to
122.
by pktgen 12y ago
Technically, I believe one is only supposed to invest up to 10% of their net worth in Lending Club, and must meet some other financial suitability standards: https://www.lendingclub.com/info/state-financial-suitability.
123.
by pktgen 12y ago
I believe once they IPO, they can accept lenders in all states (currently they only accept lenders in certain states).
124.
by pktgen 12y ago
Telcos have been charging for that forever. Most of your normal "landline replacement" VoIP providers do not. I suppose it was only a natural progression though for Comcast to charge for it, since that's kind of their MO.
125.
by pktgen 12y ago
I agree, but MBAs are idiots and don't see this. The MBAs will try to save a few pennies on customer service but fail to realize investing a little in one area can save more in other areas. (Which is why seeing an MBA on someone's
126.
by pktgen 12y ago
I came here to write exactly this, but after logging in, saw your comment. Comcast and AT&T are exactly the kind of companies who aren't going to invest a dime in any kind of customer convenience features besides an automated bill
127.
by pktgen 12y ago
Or 911, since this is also DUI in progress.
128.
by pktgen 12y ago
I love this. I'll refer back to my post from several months ago about the poor performance of the Linux network stack ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7286584 ). > 1. Data Plane Development Kit, which lets you s
129.
by pktgen 12y ago
Glad you posted that, as I'm interested in seeing this discussion continued (re. my admittedly late post in that thread).
130.
by pktgen 12y ago
I agree with you BTW, in your position I'd do the same thing. Pretty much impossible to get caught with this unless you admit it to a border/immigration agent.
131.
by pktgen 12y ago
> When Alex Pineda’s bosses decided their employees could work wherever they wanted, the web developer didn’t park his laptop at home or at the neighbourhood coffee shop. He left for Paris. > “If it doesn’t really matter where I am,”
132.
by pktgen 12y ago
> Verizon just wants to double dip and get more money, as a business with commitments to shareholders this is a reasonable argument, as a person that can reason it is very ignorant. Fuck the cunts with their "commitment to sharehold
133.
by pktgen 12y ago
(Sorry I'm just responding to all this now, 15 hours later) > Malware and sites advertising so-called "booter" services are different discussions. There's an important distinction here. You refer to "sites advert
134.
by pktgen 12y ago
Thanks, I'm also interested in having a chat with you about it, so I'll take you up on that offer in a bit. :)
135.
by pktgen 12y ago
My own comments about your company are based on what I described in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7880514 . Would you care to respond to my statements in that post?
136.
by pktgen 12y ago
Have fun filing lawsuits and sending out subpoenas when you're just trying to host a game server as a hobby and not making money off it. Cross-jurisdictional issues will also make this very difficult, even if you know who the attacker
137.
by pktgen 12y ago
> Should CloudFlare play for judge and ban people that do not violate their terms? Because I'm sure they boot people that perform illegal activities on their network or otherwise harm their network from within, but I can see why the
138.
by pktgen 12y ago
Sure. I made a post a few weeks ago at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7880514 . There's other relevant posts in the same thread as well, but that's probably the best overview.
139.
by pktgen 12y ago
FWIW, in my experience, No-IP is very, very responsive and helpful to abuse complaints. Though that is the extent of my experience with them, I've never thought them to be actively harboring malicious activity (unlike, say, CloudFlare)
140.
by pktgen 12y ago
You aren't getting it. The issue isn't that CloudFlare doesn't proactively seek out such sites. The issue is that when they are advised a site using their service is a DDoS service, and provided proof of that, _they don'
141.
by pktgen 12y ago
More customers allows them to negotiate better pricing with TV networks, but I guarantee none of the savings from this will be passed on to customers.
142.
by pktgen 12y ago
> I think we agree, that any defensible policy would lie somewhere between "ignore all accusations of booting" and "credulously believe all accusations of booting". I agree with this. > Re-reading your comment, I&#
143.
by pktgen 12y ago
I don't think it contradicts that. CloudFlare is indeed knowingly providing cover to them. The fact that they'll give you an abuse email to the actual host doesn't change them continuing to provide service to such sites, even
144.
by pktgen 12y ago
This comment by michaelt provides some background: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7878053 . In more detail: - These DDoS-for-hire services being referred to are called "booters," "stressers," or sim
145.
by pktgen 12y ago
Perhaps a poor metaphor in your opinion. I don't believe, nor did I claim, CloudFlare themselves is carrying out DDoS attacks. What they _are_ doing is making it way easier for others to do it. So, perhaps more to your liking would be
146.
by pktgen 12y ago
An accusation should not be sufficient, obviously. Why can't CloudFlare take abuse complaints, verify and take action based on that? In fact, this is precisely what they've done in the past, though they'd only provide the hos
147.
by pktgen 12y ago
I don't think anyone has a problem with offering defense services. The problem lies in that CloudFlare is helping to create the problem. It would be analogous to your bodyguard constantly hiring hitmen to make attempts at your life.
148.
by pktgen 12y ago
The DDoS-for-hire being discussed here are called booters. Access to them can be bought for a few dollars (~$10), and then one is able to log into the site and click a button to attack someone for a few minutes (the exact time depending on
149.
by pktgen 12y ago
IMO, CloudFlare meets this definition. For many DDoS victims, the problem would not exist without CloudFlare's help. Many cases like this are not some big bad guy with their own sizable botnet, they're just some kid using a booter
150.
by pktgen 12y ago
Large Minecraft servers generally need sizable DDoS protection, so $1k is possible.

More ›