yeah, let's all stop buying .ly domains and go on driving a Hummer to work, mission accomplished.
no, you should neither buy .ly nor drive a Hummer.
real hackers have a perspective about the world things, I hope.
(Full disclosure: Jeep owner. It's a diesel)
.ly domains do not work the same way. If you don't pay X$/yr for that domain, it's highly unlikely that someone else will buy it for the same price, since you probably tailored the domain to your business--so you are directly funding the regime with that money in a way oil is not.
edit: okay good, the parent was at 1 karma when I posted this and I was annoyed.
I am not sure I agree with it. It seems against the notion that multiple people are working on your business idea at a given time. If bit.ly decided to not buy this domain, do you think it is unlikely someone else would not buy it by now regardless of existence of url shortener?
Maybe I missed your point and am completely off.
EDIT: Hm, my bad, I didn't bother to look it up, just assumed it's like all other top level domains.
I give Gaddafi two weeks....
I'm not sure betting on WMD attacks is smart. It would be terrible if people were investing with inside information.
"They're funding their program through WMDPool.com! Trace the IP address!"
If this continues to spread it could end up being the biggest change in geopolitics since the fall of the Iron Curtain.
I personally found it very inspiring to see that so many countries in northern Africa and the Middle East have had protests against their governments. Besides Tunisia, I honestly was ignorant of anything else that was going on over there until Egypt got all the attention it did here in the states, of which I am assuming is because they are such close allies/associates to the US.
My question is : how did these countries end up with so many young people from a (relatively) small older population? Did everyone have 10 children? Did all the old people die (or leave)?
I'm genuinely curious about this one.
But the habit in this countries of having more than 5 children hasn't changed yet? Probably it takes a generation for families to adapt to the fact that you don't longe need to have several children to make sure that some of them survive to adulthood.
Take a look at this TED presentation for some amazing facts.
Those countries with a longer time as an Industrial nation have lower birth rates..USA, UK, etc..
Sounds like they're loving their new "democracy" :-/
9/11 didn't change any borders. It didn't change the set of US allies and enemies, neither did it cause a change of government in US. It only caused a protracted but still relatively small war in Afghanistan. Its government fell but this change didn't spread to other countries. One could argue that 9/11 was a factor in the growth of radical Islamism (cf. speeches by Islamic leaders all over Europe, incidents in Netherlands, etc) but apart from the London bombings we didn't have any major incident linked to 9/11.
My understanding is that he did order the military to attack the protesters, and they refused. At that point, his focus probably shifted to just getting out alive.
And with as much fiat currency credits as he could.
When fleeing despots flee, they take the original monetary unit with them. Universally accepted, not subject to government induced devaluations and virtually untraceable : Gold.
I had to use a Google cache article because when I click the original CNN link it goes to a new updated article.
"We have no freedom here," she said. "I speak to all the world, to America, to Mr. Obama: Please help us. We (did) nothing. We want to live a good life."
Not that I support an interventionist policy, but this was shared to refute your point.
However, there are varying degrees of asking for help. The American revolutionaries were sending formal representatives to France to plead their case. As far as I know, there is one person pleading for help being quoted by a reporter. That's a bit different.
So long Gadhafi.
Disclaimer: I don't use twitter, but I don't know of any other real time source of info.
There IS internet, but he is cutting power of sporadically.
Reports of his son Saif being shot, and Gaddafis fleeing to Venezuela.
Several Libyan ambassadors already resigned.
Various military units defected, and sided with the public against the hired mercenaries.
But, no, a good chunk of Tripoli is online. Benghazi is devastated but victorious.
FWIW, Gaddafi is on his way out :-) Few more days (maybe hours!)
This thought puts the proposed US Internet Shutoff switch in a new light for me.
I'm glad, this is exactly the light I saw it in in the beginning. A 'shutoff' for any form of communication is always a form of supreme oppression.
Being able to silence peoples objections just means they're going to stop shouting and tweeting, and start bashing the message into your skull until you get the point that they don't like you.
"Early Monday" Libyan time means within last 4 hours; your comment was posted 4 hours ago, so either I screwed up time zones, or the address was pre-recorded, or the reports of his being shot are inaccurate.
edit: According to this liveblog the address started around 1:00 AM Libyan time, or 23:00 UTC/GMT:
The son is OK but ambassadors have resigned.
But then I wouldn't expect a north-african dictator really understanding the consequences. They are much more likely to see it in a pure military sense - the enemy are communicating using the internet. Let's close the internet.
Unencrypted Google searches went to near zero for several hours twice recently. The rest of the time they've been getting through, but a bit less than usual. The graph for Gmail is similar.
YouTube is a different story. It looks like YouTube in Libya got blocked about three days ago, yet there's still a little bit of YouTube traffic getting through.
Then they ignore you...
Then they shut down your internet...
Then you win?
At best, it's an admission of defeat.
At worst, it's an admission that you're repressive and you don't care who knows it.
I have a friend who has worked in Libya and has nothing nice to say about it. He told me that the airport is still littered with the wrecks of planes from Reagans' bombing in the 1980's. Whether they are still there as a reminder of the 'imperial west' or because the Libyans are too lazy to clean them up is not known. Having seen the amount of litter in pictures of Libya, it's harder still to say for sure.
On the flip-side I really hope Libya becomes an open-access free and secular state in my lifetime. There is some really cool architectural/historical things in Libya that is effectively off-limits to anyone but the most intrepid and determined traveller. Just imagine the ability to take a trip through the mediterranean middle east without having constant border issues, government minders, etc etc. I suppose it's a somewhat selfish view, but I bet a few of the locals wouldn't mind a more organised tourist trade.
Unbelievable how much tyranny, fraud and corruption goes unpunished around the world.
I would presume that Libya has outsourced the DNS root servers and administration outside their country. Does anyone know who administers .ly from a practical standpoint? Is there a risk of them becoming unavailable if the regime falls (or as a tactic used against their own citizens)?
(2nd video box on the page)
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2237053 : Libya blocks Facebook, ...
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2237424 <- Dead
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2237787 : What happens to bit.ly?
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2238267 <- Dead
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2238272 : Libya disconnect
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2238274 : Death toll mounts
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2238407 : Libya shuts down internet
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2238664 : What happens to bit.ly?
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2238768 : Libya blocking internet access
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2239405 : No, it won't kill bit.ly
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2240056 : Internet restored
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2242320 <- Dead
[Even though individual tyrants usually seem unable to conceive that this will apply to them]
Traceroutes (or pings) halting at a certain point does not a dead route necessarily make. Traceroute operates by setting the TTL (Time to Live) field of a packet to 1 and forwarding it along.
In principle, routers that reach a value of 0 when they decrement the TTL drop the packet and send a backward ICMP TTL-exceeded-in-transit notification to the sender, which is how the address of the router is discovered. Then traceroute sends out another datagram, increases the TTL by 1, and so on until the desired endpoint is reached or a maximum TTL value is exceeded (to avoid getting the datagram into routing loops).
In practice, some networks - especially at the edge, outside the core infrastructure of large backbone haulers - block outgoing ICMP TTL-exceeded-in-transit messages, and sometimes all ICMP, including ICMP echo reply, administratively prohibited, and port unreachable messages. These are all diagnostically useful, but can also be used to profile an endpoint or map the interior of a network. I would especially expect a government like Libya's to make a policy of blocking such revealing messages at all border routers associated with national-level Internet egress points.
There is a constant and lively debate in the BGP and inter-domain networking community about the relative benefit of ICMP messages for troubleshooting and normal operations (after all, there was a reason the protocol was created) vs. the perceived security liabilities of having unrestricted two-way ICMP interactions with the rest of the Internet.
So, it's not clear what it means for traceroutes through the Telecom Italia AS to "fail," nor does this necessarily indicate that Libya has gone dark. It would be more convincing if all BGP announcements associated with Libyan blocks were withdrawn, although that would only happen if every one of their blocks was a provider-independent, RIR (regional Internet registry, RIPE in Libya's case)-issued block, not a delegated part of a foreign provider's larger aggregate announcement, so even then, who knows.
For what it's worth, I am unable to reach the same conclusion as the article, at least at this moment. Here is the latest list of allocations to Libya from http://countries.nerd.dk:
sasha@octavia:~$ egrep 'ly$' zz.countries.nerd.dk.rbldnsd
show ip bgp 184.108.40.206/18
P.S. Why does everyone who says "if you have a .ly domain, you are supporting the Gaddafi regime!" assume that the .ly TLD is managed directly by Libya?  Many smaller, less Internet-involved (if not wholly Internet-unconnected) countries outsource management and use of their TLD to foreign companies in exchange for licensing fees.
EDIT: It does appear that '.ly' is managed from inside Libya now, but if so, that's a relatively recent development. There was a UK company that managed the 'ly' zone for quite some time.
Now the primary nameserver seems to be dns1.lttnet.net, associated with Libyan Telecom and Technology, and whose IP is 220.127.116.11 and indeed part of one of the Libyan allocations above (18.104.22.168/19).
If it's stability you're concerned about, then look who else is involved as a backup other than lttnet.net:
sasha@octavia:~$ host -t SOA ly
ly has SOA record dns.lttnet.net. khaleds.lttnet.net. 201102220 3600 900 2419200 600
sasha@octavia:~$ host -t NS ly
ly name server dns1.lttnet.net.
ly name server ns-ly.ripe.net.
ly name server dns.lttnet.net.
ly name server phloem.uoregon.edu.
ly name server auth02.ns.uu.net.
 Most of these are /27s and smaller that are part of larger aggregates. I can't quite put my finger on why such small subnets are listed, given that the smallest announcement allowed in the global BGP table is a class C (/24). I would guess this list was compiled from the more granular delegation data found in WHOIS records, not a full BGP view.
 Also, you only started caring about this now?
If this is the case, and someone is paying for a .ly domain, then their payments go to Libya in the form of licensing fees, thus supporting the regime.
More importantly, Mr. Muammar has been in power since the 1969 coup. Now we are supposed to start caring about his trafficking in adverb suffixes?
And why not care now? Which is worse - to care too late, or to not care at all?