Howto: Block Amazon and any site using Amazon Web Services
bigboy.us
bigboy.us
He found it quite humorous, warned them of the consequences, got everything in writing(including his warnings), and executed his orders.
The base commander was not amused and the blocks were removed in about 12 hours. Unfortunately, the responsible party never suffered more than egg on their face for the stupidity.
They tried to shift blame to my buddy, but he had dotted his i's and crossed his t's. He did get a nice one-on-one with the Base Commander, where he was able to lay everything out.
The attempt is also incomplete. I suspect this would miss ranges advertised through AWS's BYOIP (https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/ec2-byoi...) option. It would definitely miss ranges advertised through companies' own datacenters and serviced in the backend by AWS.
For users wanting to thwart pervasive CDNs from receiving packets every time they visit almost any site on the web, it's matters less if a service they visit is using an amazon resource on the back end; as long as all services aren't using the same database backend, this puts e.g. AWS back in the position of only having a little of your consumer/browsing information instead of nearly all of it.
Yes I'm talking about the Amish. But even in Amish society, there is politics and people who do Bad Things. Fortunately there are plenty of uninhabited mountaintops left that one can go and live on to maintain a clean conscience. But if we do that, then aren't we turning our backs on the world by not helping it? So now we'd need to come back to civilization and live amongst the unwashed masses once more.
There's no way to live a perfectly good and blameless life.
It's not like any legitimate company could keep their IP address ranges private (other than by using seemingly unrelated shell companies) :)
On the broader topic, what's wrong with people spending money on things they want? We live in a free country. If you have money, and want to buy junk with it, more power to you. It's your money. Do whatever you want with it. As far as vices are concerned, I would rather someone derived satisfaction from binge shopping than the alternatives (gambling, alcoholism, drugs, etc. etc.), since those have far more deleterious effects on society.
> in solidarity with striking workers in several fulfillment centers in Spain
It depends on what they're buying. Many people would consider unethical the buying of children or child pornography, for instance. Bans on ivory, whaling, and trading in endangered species have gained ground in recent years.
Some arguments for what's wrong with those are that the former exploit people who are unable to defend themselves or even realize they're being exploited, while the latter cost the lives of sentient creatures and reduce biodiversity by causing extinctions. Now, whether you find any of those arguments persuasive depends on your own values. Some people see nothing wrong with exploitation or species extinction. It's really difficult to argue against them. Either you share certain fundamental values with the rest of us or you don't.
Philosophers study such ethical issues in nauseating detail, but I've yet to see how any of their arguments would be persuasive to someone who doesn't already share their core values.
Good luck blocking AWS - and whatever percentage of the internet running on it.
> Disclaimer: I’m own about $500K in my portfolio in Amazon.
It’s hilarious and sad that my post caused you enough grief to dig up content from my post history as if that makes any of my points less valid.
How is it unfair?
The unfairness is that the bar for participation is being significantly lowered to the point where it risks the social safety nets for everyone. It's unfair to both native citizens and naturalized ones.
Make no mistake, I'm also against completely open borders without deportation, for a variety of reasons. "Fuck you, got mine" is not one of those reasons.
Germany's refugee crisis is a good example of the pros and cons.
how do you propose that the "delicate" infrastructure of the US can handle a clean doubling of population over the course of 1 year?
Not at all viable when you consider the cost of requisite social services to support such an initiative, which is one of the myriad reasons why no country has ever considered the option.
Putting people in concentration camps and letting them die there (ICE) should not be legal. This does not even touch on whether deportations should be.
Your implication that they must stop patrolling the border lest they become literally Hitler, is patently absurd and an affront to people who suffered through the Holocaust.
Also I'm talking about deportations (and the associated camps, whatever you want to call them) is a separate issue from border control, in my opinion.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the spirit of this site to heart when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
If one takes a moral stand, must one then take every moral stand? I avoid using Google products because I think they're an unethical company, but arguably Apple is too. Am I obligated to just not use a smartphone?
I've met people who would argue "yes." Not sure that I agree with them, though.
Just because you can't save the world doesn't mean you can't start somewhere.
What weird mental gymnastics are you trying to pull here? You know someone who hates Amazon and invests in Walmart/BP? So what? That doesn't mean there isn't a legitimate reason to hate Amazon.
"ugh, another one of the daily anti-violent crimes posts. Rape is evil and should be boycotted - usually coming from people who jaywalk and overcook their steaks."
Also, Just because someone does not have in demand skills does not mean that they should be subjected to poor treatment.