Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Better: Become an AI god and then blow up the Aquinas Hub. And then kill Bob Page again and again forever.

[Jackrabbit]

And then what you do, right, is you release a sequel to a fickle community and get verbally castigated every time you raise your head.

[Virex]

Easiest way to shut down at least nearly the whole 'net is to take down the top-level servers of the major ISP's. Pretty much all traffic is routed through these. Take one out and you lock off a small state. Take a lot of them off and even those who aren't connecting to the ones that got taken down run into a lot of package loss as more and more data is squeezed through a small number of servers.

[Heron TSG]

You could just chop all the undersea cables, but you'd need a submarine with a saw on the front.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Simmura McCrea]

You could just chop all the undersea cables, but you'd need a submarine with a saw on the front.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Which would be pretty damn cool, you have to admit.

[ECrownofFire]

You could just chop all the undersea cables, but you'd need a submarine with a saw on the front.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

That would require a huge amount of submarines if you wanted to get that done in a reasonable amount of time.

[Euld]

You could do a decent job with three.  One each for the atlantic, pacific, and indian oceans.  You wouldn't get them all, but you might get just enough.

[PTTG??]

There really should be 42 of these "Key" guys.

The List:

Paul Kane (Great Britain)
Dan Kaminsky (United States)
Jiankang Yao (China)
Moussa Guebre (Burkina Faso)
Bevil Wooding (Trinidad and Tobago)
Ondrej Sury (Czech Republic)
Norm Ritchie (Canada)

What? Where's Al Gore?

Anyway, apparently they need five of them to start, so before you can destroy the internet, you first need ot kill three of these guys. Probably go with Norm, Paul, and Dan. The other guys would be easier, but they'd need to travel more, so if one operation fails, you have these guys on the road, where they're vulnerable.

[ECrownofFire]

You could do a decent job with three.  One each for the atlantic, pacific, and indian oceans.  You wouldn't get them all, but you might get just enough.

You'd need at least three just to get the eastern pacific. Do you realize how massive the ocean is? You'd probably be able to get away with just one for the Caribbean or something, but not the entire Atlantic. Probably around two for the Indian Ocean as well.

[qwertyuiopas]

Easiest way to shut down at least nearly the whole 'net is to take down the top-level servers of the major ISP's. Pretty much all traffic is routed through these. Take one out and you lock off a small state. Take a lot of them off and even those who aren't connecting to the ones that got taken down run into a lot of package loss as more and more data is squeezed through a small number of servers.

That just makes me think that IPV6 is just as doomed as 4 is now.

What if addresses were an arbitrarily long series of these, depicting a tree of servers, starting at a positive or negative offset, relating to how many layers from the local root node(the planet or equivalent) to start from, then each number in the series selects one server that is within the previous one's area. With virtual servers within one computer, you can replace ports with an arbitrarily large subdividable tree(give one node to a program, and it can further split it into as many as it needs), and with an optional anonymity protocol(A negative port on the server is forwarded to your computer further down the tree), with a way to set up the packet routing equivalent of a mailing list, LAN games could be "L"AN games. If it was resembling a tree, routing would be very easy (traverse the tree up until the first node in common, then decend to the destination) without requiring any data to be stored about any level of routing beyond one above and one below, and with a theoretically infinite capacity for subdevision, such a protocol will outlast any more limited implementation, as programs would no longer need updating or replacement once IPV6 runs out of addresses.

[smigenboger]

Clearly the cut-off switch is to EMP North America and Japan, thus ruining the internets.

[ECrownofFire]

Easiest way to shut down at least nearly the whole 'net is to take down the top-level servers of the major ISP's. Pretty much all traffic is routed through these. Take one out and you lock off a small state. Take a lot of them off and even those who aren't connecting to the ones that got taken down run into a lot of package loss as more and more data is squeezed through a small number of servers.

That just makes me think that IPV6 is just as doomed as 4 is now.

What if addresses were an arbitrarily long series of these, depicting a tree of servers, starting at a positive or negative offset, relating to how many layers from the local root node(the planet or equivalent) to start from, then each number in the series selects one server that is within the previous one's area. With virtual servers within one computer, you can replace ports with an arbitrarily large subdividable tree(give one node to a program, and it can further split it into as many as it needs), and with an optional anonymity protocol(A negative port on the server is forwarded to your computer further down the tree), with a way to set up the packet routing equivalent of a mailing list, LAN games could be "L"AN games. If it was resembling a tree, routing would be very easy (traverse the tree up until the first node in common, then decend to the destination) without requiring any data to be stored about any level of routing beyond one above and one below, and with a theoretically infinite capacity for subdevision, such a protocol will outlast any more limited implementation, as programs would no longer need updating or replacement once IPV6 runs out of addresses.

IPv6 is not going to run out of addresses. It supports up to 2¹²⁸ addresses. Do you realize how massive that is? To put that into context, if you multiply that number by about .4 trillion, you get the approximate number of atoms on the entire planet Earth. Okay, not the best example, but it's a massive number. Especially in comparison to the comparative measly ~4 billion IPv4 gives us.

[quinnr]

If my internet was shut off by some guy in a base, it had better be for a damn good reason.

Also, why don't they just store this key digitally somewhere?

[ToonyMan]

Also, why don't they just store this key digitally somewhere?

I don't think that would work well at all.

[Muz]

I want that key. The person who controls the key controls the world. And once I get that key, the first thing I do is brag to the Internet about it and tell them to worship me.