×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Silk Road Founder Indicted In New York

Soulskill posted about 3 months ago | from the turns-out-they-have-laws-there-too dept.

Crime 94

An anonymous reader sends this report from Wired: "Federal authorities today announced a Grand Jury indictment against Ross Ulbricht, the alleged founder and owner of the underground drug emporium Silk Road. The indictment (PDF), in New York, includes one count for narcotics conspiracy, one count of running a criminal enterprise, one count of conspiracy to commit computer hacking and one count of money laundering, according to the indictment. It's the second indictment for the the 29-year-old, who was arrested last October in San Francisco. Ulbricht was previously charged in New York at the time of his arrest, but authorities had until December to obtain an indictment against him based on new evidence seized. They sought an extension of that time and announced the indictment today. Ulbricht had been previously indicted in Maryland on charges of conspiring to have a former administrator of Silk Road murdered in exchange for $80,000."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

94 comments

Another retarded libertarian (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46156835)

goes to jail. Nothing to see here.

Re:Another retarded libertarian (0)

nurb432 (527695) | about 3 months ago | (#46156907)

No, he was a criminal. He tried to arrange a murder. It has nothing to do with politics.

( ok i guess technically hes just accused, but if hes convicted then yes, hes a criminal )

entrapment (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46157085)

No, he was a criminal. He tried to arrange a murder. It has nothing to do with politics.

I heard that in the news too. What makes me extra suspicious is why I didn't see that charge in this article summary. If he really was guilty of that, to the point of being convictable, why didn't he get indicted with that? My money is on the concept of 'entrapment'.

In fact, if he can show that the the US govt allowed him to operate his organization well beyond the point that they were able to prosecute him for a felony, I'd call the mass majority of his 'crimes' as the fruit of entrapment.

When the police believe you have committed a crime that they could prosecute, and instead of arresting you and prosecuting you for it, let you escalate the crime, and perhaps even actively encourage further escalation, the whole thing is just a massive 'trap'. As in enTRAPment.

Re:entrapment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46157203)

In addition, GP said it has nothing to do with politics. If however, he was a dolt who could have been convicted for a far lesser crime years earlier, it does seem like politics that the authorities allowed and implicitly encouraged the growth of the enterprise. It is pure cyberwar-fear-mongering politics to nurture a criminal enterprise until the point it is really scary to the public (murder for hire), instead of just nipping the thing in the bud before it becomes a political fear-point. I see an entirely plausible aspect that this was a long term political stunt to bolster the authoritarian desire to get the public to fear those genius cyber masterminds. Create enough criminal enterprises like that, via the use of selective enforcement of 4th ammendment violating surveillance, and you can end up getting the public to fear the threat enough to normalize that level of privacy invading surveillance. It could well have been pure political cyber-fear-mongering politics. They chose to let the situation escalate.

Re:entrapment (5, Insightful)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 3 months ago | (#46157589)

The timeline does not support your theory. By the time the feds got involved, Silk Road was already a very popular marketplace. They got access to the servers, and watched the site operate for about 4 months. That's very standard in drug ring cases. It would be stupid to arrest everyone involved the moment you know about it. The goal is to collect a mountain of evidence so that they can charge people with a bunch of crimes and make rock solid cases in court.

Re:entrapment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46160457)

The timeline does not support your theory. By the time the feds got involved, Silk Road was already a very popular marketplace. They got access to the servers, and watched the site operate for about 4 months. That's very standard in drug ring cases.

You know what else is apparently standard these days? Parallel Construction. You seem pretty sure of your timeline. If I were the defendent, I'd have my counsel ask many questions about that timeline.

Malice and incompetence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46157969)

you're giving the knuckleheads at the FBI way too much credit. I'd say it's more likely they didn't even realize it was a thing until a short while before they caught him. You're also giving the knucklehead charged way too much credit. He was dumb enough to get caught when viable, well documented methods of ensuring privacy and anonymity online should have been used. If pedophiles can trade pics online without getting caught, and terrorists can communicate securely online, then acting as an anonymous drug trade mediator should be possible as well. There was a defcon talk about the mistakes this guy made. I don't have it offhand but if some kind anon would be willing to link it, it's a very informative video.

Re:entrapment (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46157417)

If he really was guilty of that, to the point of being convictable, why didn't he get indicted with that?

He was indicted with that. RTFIndictment, it's on the page 5.

Also, your concept of entrapment is just a tad above "undercover cops can't lie if you ask them whether they are cops, or it's entrapment!".

PS: "they knew Silkroad's activities" != "they knew DPR's identity".

Re:entrapment (2)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 3 months ago | (#46157521)

In order to show entrapment you have to make a judge or jury believe that if the government had not been involved, that the crime would not have occurred. There's no way this guy can make that case.

Re:entrapment (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46157561)

if the government hadn't been involved in the prohibition of drugs, there would have been no market force making his path here a profitable one.

Re:entrapment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46158745)

If it wasn't illegal, it wouldn't be a crime?

Re:entrapment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46158891)

Dude, Ralph Fucking Wiggam just called you an idiot. Think about that. Ralph Wiggam is your intellectual superior.

Re:entrapment (1)

tsqr (808554) | about 3 months ago | (#46163935)

Actually, to show entrapment you have to make a judge or jury believe that the government induced the individual to commit the crime. Creating the opportunity to commit the crime isn't enough. Providing aid (as in, providing bomb-making materials) isn't enough.

Not entrapment:
Perp: I want to kill that guy.
Cop: Want to borrow my knife?
Perp: Hey, thanks, man.

Entrapment:
Perp: I hate that guy.
Cop: Me, too. I'll give you $1000 to kill him.
Perp: I dunno. Seems kind of extreme.
Cop: Come on. I'll give you $2000 to kill him.
Perp: Oh, all right. I could use the money.

Re: entrapment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46157753)

I do not think that word means What you think it means

Re:entrapment (1)

Goaway (82658) | about 3 months ago | (#46160815)

What makes me extra suspicious is why I didn't see that charge in this article summary.

It's... It's in the article summary.

I mean, it's right there. In the summary.

Literally.

Re:entrapment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46162345)

Basically when anyone on the internet claims it is entrapment, they have no clue what they are talking about. Your post is the textbook example of that.

You should try reading more and spewing BS less.

Re:Another retarded libertarian (1, Interesting)

PRMan (959735) | about 3 months ago | (#46157091)

He was already long on his way to going to jail when he arranged the hits on people. The feds had been watching him for almost a year already gathering evidence.

Re:Another retarded libertarian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46157877)

Then the question is why did the feds entrap him in a murder scheme? What this shows is that the FBI is simply so accustomed to fabricating crimes and charges that it now seems to be SOP for any high profile target. Before you even try to get him for the crimes that were actually committed, make sure you have several layers of bait to get him on something else if he bites.

Or, we can safely assume as it appears that they did not have sufficient evidence to get him for Silk Road until after they got him for the murder conspiracy and just so happened to seize evidence that came in handy for the drug stuff.

Is either explanation really better than the other? This is the new FBI. The rest of the country now gets to experience what it's like to be under the jurisdiction of LAPD. How much longer until outright fabrication of evidence and testimony becomes routine, if not already?

Re:Another retarded libertarian (1)

slick7 (1703596) | about 3 months ago | (#46157725)

No, he was a criminal. He tried to arrange a murder. It has nothing to do with politics.

Kennedy was murdered, but that had nothing to do with politics?

( ok i guess technically hes just accused, but if hes convicted then yes, hes a criminal )

In a civil court,he's innocent until proven guilty. In a federal/ Admiralty court, he's guilty until proven innocent. This is a crime of corporations.

Re:Another retarded libertarian (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 3 months ago | (#46158289)

I don't know what country you're talking about, but in the US one is innocent until proven guilty in Federal court just the same as in State or local courts.

Re:Another retarded libertarian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46165959)

That is a complete myth these days. Why do people still keep believing it?

Re:Another retarded libertarian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46158071)

No, he was a criminal. He tried to arrange a murder. It has nothing to do with politics.

This is funny, given your .sig.

Re:Another retarded libertarian (1)

ultranova (717540) | about 3 months ago | (#46163239)

No, he was a criminal. He tried to arrange a murder. It has nothing to do with politics.

---- Booth was a patriot ---- If you dont agree with me, dont bother replying as i dont care what you have to say ----

My irony sense is tingling.

Re:Another retarded libertarian (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46156917)

that'll teach him no to make money distributing drugs with out paying taxes or campaign funding, big pharma paid big money for that right

Re:Another retarded libertarian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46157005)

He used the money he made to arrange a murder. How is that at all defensible?

Re:Another retarded libertarian (3, Insightful)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 3 months ago | (#46157105)

If you start with "The fascist US government is afraid of the bitcoin revolution" and work backwards from there- anything is defensible.

Re:Another retarded libertarian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46157335)

So you're voting the insanity defense, good idea.

Re:Another retarded libertarian (1)

pantaril (1624521) | about 3 months ago | (#46160861)

He used the money he made to arrange a murder. How is that at all defensible?

Easily. Someone extorted him and users of his site even if he caused no harm to anyone. Government refused to help him. If he ignored the threat, he and his users would end up in jail. Under those circumestances, killing the extorter is perfectly sensible defense. The main problem is of course the fact that selling drugs is illegal.

Re:Another retarded libertarian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46165307)

If he ignored the threat, he and his users would end up in jail. Under those circumestances, killing the extorter is perfectly sensible defense. The main problem is of course the fact that selling drugs is illegal.

Yes, it is as sensible as killing the older sister of the 14-year-old you're fucking because the sister threatens to call the cops.

Re:Another retarded libertarian (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 3 months ago | (#46157029)

No.

He's another of the generation, no matter how successful, trying to keep in touch with his inner gangster.

Murder for hire. Dumbest smart person this quarter.

Re: Another retarded libertarian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46157519)

Insightful? Are you fucking kidding me? Yeah, you druggie fucking retards, heroin is the same as insulin and blood pressure medication.

fuck new slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46157749)

Heroin is even better, since it's a useful base for making other opiates.
In fact, other non-heroin based opiates are even more addictive, yet those are superscribed to people all the time.

Re: Another retarded libertarian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46158317)

Yeah, you druggie fucking retards, heroin is the same as insulin and blood pressure medication

Yeah, you fucking retarded apologist, Ritalin is the same as amphetamines.

Whatever. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46156857)

This is up to the attorneys now.

I'm just a programmer with a bunch of advanced degrees in engineering and I know shit about the law.

Legal reasoning is beyond 1+1=2. I wish it were that easy but it requires subtleties that aren't taught in engineering school.

Indict, convict and execute the Slashdot beta. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46157001)

The Slashdot beta has been indicted due to its extreme shittiness. The community here has convicted it of indeed being truly shitty. All that's left to do now is for those running Slashdot to clue in, and to put to death the stinking turd that we've come to know as the Slashdot beta project.

Let's face it, it's a failed software project. It's technologically inferior in every sense. The users who've been subjected to it generally hate it with a passion. It's a worse site than the existing one, which itself is worse than the one that preceded it. So the Slashdot beta isn't just bad, it's exceptionally horrible.

Failed software projects happen. When they happen, like we've had happen here with the Slashdot beta, the only sensible response is to kill the project completely. The earlier they're killed, the better. It's less wasteful that way.

If the beta goes live, I'm quite certain that it will destroy Slashdot as we know it today. It'll be a Digg v4-style mega-failure all over again. As history has shown, a web site remake as truly rancid as the Slashdot beta site is can and will drive away nearly all of the existing users.

I hope it doesn't come to that. Instead, I wish that the Slashdot crew would come to their senses, publicly admit that the beta site was a failure, cancel the project, throw away the code, and at least learn a lesson or two from the many mistakes of the beta. The sooner the better!

Re:Whatever. (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about 3 months ago | (#46158019)

Legal reasoning is beyond 1+1=2. I wish it were that easy but it requires subtleties that aren't taught in engineering school.

And the most subtle of all these subtleties is that in the end, the Law is less of a system of rules and more of a pantomime in service to the governing classes. It no longer matters what the Silk Road founder did or did not do. The Law will find a way to satisfy the powers he has offended.

Re:Whatever. (2)

Legal.Troll (2002574) | about 3 months ago | (#46158737)

What sort of prosaic nonsense is this? The guy set out to get rich by making an illegal and illicit black market, did so, tried to have a bunch of people killed using ill gotten gains as a lure, etc., and you sit and preach in foreboding tones, as if to imply he is somehow not the bad guy, or not A bad guy, or not a guy who did things we should be concerned about? He's just a sucker shoved into some media role by unseen string pullers? Your conspiracy theory is a bit heady, no?

Re:Whatever. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46160201)

You don't need a conspiracy theory when all of the information you've been fed about him explicitly comes from government agents.

Re:Whatever. (1)

ultranova (717540) | about 3 months ago | (#46162401)

What sort of prosaic nonsense is this? The guy set out to get rich by making an illegal and illicit black market, did so, tried to have a bunch of people killed using ill gotten gains as a lure, etc., and you sit and preach in foreboding tones, as if to imply he is somehow not the bad guy, or not A bad guy, or not a guy who did things we should be concerned about?

Did Dread Pirate Roberts send a pusher to your neighborhood? No. Did he try to force drugs on someone who was not interested in them? No. Did he try to get someone killed? Possibly, but if he was, it was someone trying to blackmail him. So what did he do? Set up a black market in an out-of-way location where those interested in drugs could buy and sell them without bothering anyone else. No bystanders were harmed or in fact affected in any way, unless you count eating into the profits of traditional drug gangs "harm".

So is Dread Pirate Roberts a bad guy? Maybe, but only if accept the proposition "( Powers That Be have a greater right than you to determine what you may do to your body and mind and denying them makes you a bad person rather than simply mistaken ) or that you are never allowed to use lethal force in self-defence".

Your conspiracy theory is a bit heady, no?

There is no "conspiracy theory" here. The Silk Road affair was a power struggle between DPR and PTB, and DPR lost. What happens now is that the victor destroys the luser. This may or may not be just, depending on your viewpoint, but for the PTB it's about maintaining their power.

Of course, this might end up being a rather pyrrhic victory for the PTB. Silk Road "normalized" drug trade from dealing with violent thugs to a comfortable online experience. With its downfall there are now a dozen replacements competing with safety features, user experience, stock, payment methods etc in the best free market fashion. As a result a stereotypical drug deal is turning from "deal with a dealer" into making a regular postal order after reading user reviews, harm mitigation guides, legal risk minimization guides, etc. And as a result of that, the stereotypical drug user is turning from a junkie giving blowjobs in an alley for the next shot into someone who has a home, a computer, Internet connection, can set up and deal with Tor, can acquire Bitcoins... in other words, a normal functional person.

DPR is as good as dead, but so is old-style drug trade and with it almost certainly the War on Drugs. The question remains how many people will be victimized by it befire PTB give it up.

Re:Whatever. (1)

Legal.Troll (2002574) | about 3 months ago | (#46164661)

I've got to say I regard you as a tinfoil-hatter; your comments border on the nonsensical, especially the part where you justify six murder attempts by glibly assuming that the victims must have all tried to (evilly!) blackmail the guy who set up this crime network. And your breathless account of how the Silk Road model promises to take violent crime out of the illicit drug trade is just absurd.

Re:Whatever. (1)

ultranova (717540) | about 3 months ago | (#46168043)

I've got to say I regard you as a tinfoil-hatter;

You do that.

your comments border on the nonsensical, especially the part where you justify six murder attempts by glibly assuming that the victims must have all tried to (evilly!) blackmail the guy who set up this crime network.

That's what newspaper [wired.com] says, actually. And I'm not "justifying" anything, just pointing out that this particular criminal enterprise doesn't seem to have resulted in any harm to anyone who didn't actively participate.

Ulbricht doesn't seem to be a nice person, but he also was not exactly a mafioso setting up territory. In your words, he's "not a guy who did things we should be concerned about" because, frankly, I care absolutely nothing if people get high, as long as they don't bother me about it. And like I said, the crazy junkie looking for the next hit couldn't use Silk Road.

And your breathless account of how the Silk Road model promises to take violent crime out of the illicit drug trade is just absurd.

Yet you fail to refute any part of it. You specifically fail to refute the assertion that removing thugs fighting over street corners and replacing them with postal orders lessens violence.

"Outdated business models" is code for "I don't like paying for things, but want them anyway"

No, it's code for "your attempts to make money are futile, since the assumptions they're based on have been made obsolete by technological innovations or changing social or economic conditions".

Re:Whatever. (1)

Gryle (933382) | about 3 months ago | (#46162543)

Blah blah blah the Man's out to keep me down. It's amazing how easily we can justify inaction if we invent a conspiracy to oppress us.

Of Course (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46156877)

One count of doing something illegal, six more counts of doing things we made illegal just to catch people when we didn't find enough evidence.

first they came for the.... (0)

turkeydance (1266624) | about 3 months ago | (#46156897)

.....fill in the blank with you....eventually.

Re:first they came for the.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46156957)

First they came for the murderers, but I didn't murder, so I didn't care.

Then they came for the attempted murderers, but I have never attempted murder, so I didn't care.

Then they came for the planned murderers, but I have never planned a murder.

 

A website (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46156997)

Precedent exists that the website host is not responsible for the posts on that site.

Yes this website does rude, even counter-cultural (see 60's) things. No matter.

This is "gotcha". Hence why we need a 90% smaller government.

JJ

Re:A website (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46157089)

Except he was specifically running the site to facilitate illegal drug sales. He was also taking a cut of the sales. That goes far beyond your absurd bullshit.

Re:A website (4, Insightful)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 3 months ago | (#46157197)

If you run a Nickleback fan forum, and someone posts child porn, you are not responsible for that.

If you create a web site expressly for anonymous selling, and you're well aware of people selling drugs on it, and taking a cut of those profits, then you are a conspirator to that crime.

Re:A website (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46158177)

I'm pretty sure running a Nickleback fan forum is the more serious of the two charges here so your example is moot.

Re:A website (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46158293)

If you create a web site expressly for anonymous selling, and you're well aware of people selling drugs on it, and taking a cut of those profits, then you are a conspirator to that crime.

Awesome! Current legal precedent in the US legal system is to charge that person 5 hours of profits and let them keep doing it. Seems legit to me

Re:A website (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46163279)

... let them keep doing it.

No. Criminal corporations are allowed to continue, since they can't be put in jail or legally executed. They also have the 'too big to' fail/jail excuse. Criminal persons are robbed and jailed.

Re:A website (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 3 months ago | (#46163505)

Are you talking about HSBC? It was 5 weeks of profits, not 5 hours. At least get your basic facts right.

And HSBC was *not* a conspirator to money laundering. They did not follow the oversight regulations and allowed other people to launder money.

Re:A website (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46158311)

If you build a road, and people use it to distribute illegal drugs and you know it, and you collect tolls on the road use, they you are also a conspirator to that crime. Jail those who collect the tolls on the New Jersey Turnpike!

[OT] beta.slashdot.org (4, Insightful)

Any Web Loco (555458) | about 3 months ago | (#46157007)

Seriously /. - fuck you! If I go to slashdot.org you redirect me to beta.slashdot.org. If I go to classic.slashdot.org, you redirect me to beta.slashdot.org. If I log in, you redirect me to beta.slashdot.org.

I freaking HATE beta.slashdot.org and I resent your pushing me into it! If I log in, and my preferences are set to classic, LET ME HAVE CLASSIC!

You're not alone. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46157077)

You're not alone. I see these anti-Slashdot-beta posts so often now. I really hope that the Slashdot brass are seeing them, too, and hopefully realizing how much just about everyone hates this beta site.

Everything about the beta site is contrary to what typical Slashdot users want and will put up with. It's like it has been specifically designed to alienate as many existing users here as it possibly could. Maybe that would make some business sense, were it not for the fact that it does absolutely nothing to attract any new users.

While it could be argued that Slashdot has been stagnating, if not declining, for several years now, the beta site going live (if it happens) will surely just accelerate that process, rather than stop or reverse it. There are many of us who will be driven away if the beta site goes live. It truly is that unusable.

I hope that those in charge at Slashdot are just giving it a two-month trial period. Maybe at the end of February they'll be able to admit that the beta project is an utter failure, and they'll put an end to it. That's really the only viable option. The beta site has no future, regardless of whether it's because it's sensibly killed off by Slashdot management, or whether it's because it goes live and drives away all of the existing users.

Re:You're not alone. (3, Interesting)

glavenoid (636808) | about 3 months ago | (#46157607)

It's like it has been specifically designed to alienate as many existing users here as it possibly could.

Unless the overlords at Dice are so unfathomably, unbelievably incompetent, this is the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn which poses another conundrum: without the users the slashdot.org domain has no value whatsoever. Rather than alienate the 15 years or so of slashdot users in an attempt to attract new users, Dice would have been much better off creating something new from scratch.

It's totally mind-boggling.

Re:You're not alone. (2)

glavenoid (636808) | about 3 months ago | (#46157653)

Oh yea, I forgot to mention: WTF is this shit about? [slashdot.org] Why so many "contributors" and what is their purpose for slashdot? Stumbling upon this reminds me of the Simpsons where Homer discovers a secret plot to move the Springfield Isotopes to Albuquerque and no-one would believe him.

I'm telling y'all, something nasty is about to happen to /.

Re:You're not alone. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46160941)

Oh yea, I forgot to mention: WTF is this shit about? [slashdot.org] Why so many "contributors" and what is their purpose for slashdot?

And where is that "Anonymous Coward" dude in that list? Just because someone uses a pseudonym doesn't mean they don't contribute value.

Re:You're not alone. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46158859)

The users are comedians anymore, the same users who [not you in particular] keep complaining of MS Window users who are afraid of the changes to the OS, or anything in life that possibly make your life better.

Then complain and are anti-beta-slashdot!!

I'm not sure what the problem is? The only complaint I have is how you need to constantly open an article to "read more".

Re:You're not alone. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 months ago | (#46161479)

Maybe they're just trying to help us find something else to do. They're concerned about our welfare, and think we spend too much time on slashdot.

If they force me into a shitty new interface, that problem will be solved. I won't come back. That is no doubt a feature to many :)

Re:[OT] beta.slashdot.org (2)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 3 months ago | (#46157535)

I dunno what you're doing wrong, I'm NEVER directed to the beta site.

Re:[OT] beta.slashdot.org (4, Informative)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 3 months ago | (#46158015)

You're only directed to the Beta site if you're not logged in.

One would think that a Slashdot visitor with a half million ID would be smart enough to figure that out.

 

Re:[OT] beta.slashdot.org (1)

Any Web Loco (555458) | about 3 months ago | (#46158553)

Maybe I'm doing it wrong. Use a nice clean fresh browser, no cookies, no history and log into Slashdot. From a clean start (ie not having logged in before, and with no cookies etc) I can't get to classic. Yeah I can add a URL trailer, but really, if my prefs say "Classic" I'm not sure whay, on log on, I don't automatically get that.

Re:[OT] beta.slashdot.org (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46159193)

Clearly you are an idiot.

Re:[OT] beta.slashdot.org (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46162813)

WRONG!

I am browsing WITHOUT LOGGING IN, see? I am getting the classic site.

However on some days, randomly, it sends me to the beta site and I can't get back to the classic site. Moreover, the beta site is completely useless with javascript disabled.

Re:[OT] beta.slashdot.org (1)

Steve Hamlin (29353) | about 3 months ago | (#46166837)

"You're only directed to the Beta site if you're not logged in."

Incorrect.

When logged in, on several occasions, including this afternoon, I have opened-in-new-tab a number of Slashdot articles, and about 1 out of 10 open in the beta site (and logged in at the beta URL, to boot). I can delete the 'beta.' in the URL, and get the classic site.

I guess I'm not smart enough also?

Re:[OT] beta.slashdot.org (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46158203)

What exactly is so hard about adding /?nobeta=1 to the url? These posts are seriously offtopic and do nothing but derail the conversation. If you aren't smart enough to figure out how to Slashdot, GTFO.

nobeta=1 does not always work. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46158381)

No, it's not hard to add. But it often doesn't work! I'll add it, and yet usually still remain stuck on the beta site.

Besides, it's naive to think that it'll remain available if the beta site does go live at some point. Not that it does much good now, mind you, given how fucking broken it apparently is!

Re:[OT] beta.slashdot.org (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46158549)

I second that!

Re:[OT] beta.slashdot.org (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46160125)

http://slashdot.org/?nobeta=1

Re:[OT] beta.slashdot.org (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46161181)

I used to have this problem as well. I cleared all Slashdot related cookies, and it went away.

I read Slashdot via the RSS feed, opening up articles that might have interesting comments. To have it auto-redirect to the beta site is equal to have it redirect to the classic site without comments, since comments are 100% unreadable in the beta site. Comments are, as everyone repeatedly points out, the only/b thing that gives value to Slashdot.

The beta site is poison for Slashdot.

Re:[OT] beta.slashdot.org (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46163225)

... I resent your pushing me into it!

Here, here. I see 2012 as the year of disappearing file repositories after the Kim DotCom case and 2013 as the year of dumbing-down websites. Major revamps on web sites look prettier with lots of white-space but remove functionality and detailed page data.

Hans Reiser's attorney? (4, Funny)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 3 months ago | (#46157009)

Maybe Hans Reiser can give him the name of his attorney.

Re:Hans Reiser's attorney? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46157185)

Sure, that would be smart, given Reiser is serving a 15 years-to-life sentence at Pleasant Valley State Prison in the scenic, dust-choked Central Valley in California.

Or, you could choose a far more successful defense attorney.

Re:Hans Reiser's attorney? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46158957)

Reiser's attorney seemed to be doing a fine job until Hans, against his attorney's most stringent warnings, decided to give a personal testimony which was so incriminating he should have concluded by asking for a mistrial.

Re:Hans Reiser's attorney? (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 3 months ago | (#46158087)

Maybe Hans Reiser can give him the name of his attorney.

There were MANY here who claimed Reiser was innocent, and many who saw his guilt were modded into oblivion. By original sub 100,000 ID became so heavily loaded with Bad Karma for pointing out Reiser's bullshit, I had to walk away from it.

But what do you know? Reiser plead guilty and led them to the body.

Next up, these idiots would post as Anon Cowards about how Nina Reiser had brought it on herself...

----

You folks do understand that beyond the discussion about the silly "War On Drugs", this guy Ulbricht tried to hire hit men to kill a few people?

 

Re:Hans Reiser's attorney? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46160271)

You folks do understand that beyond the discussion about the silly "War On Drugs", this guy Ulbricht tried to hire hit men to kill a few people?

Doesn't matter because the MAN is INFRINGING on MUH FREEDOMS!

Slashdotters love sticking up for those they perceive as an underdog, even when the "underdog" is demonstrably an utter scumbag.

Re:Hans Reiser's attorney? (1)

ultranova (717540) | about 3 months ago | (#46163065)

There were MANY here who claimed Reiser was innocent, and many who saw his guilt were modded into oblivion.

As well as they should been, along with those who claimed innocence. No one "saw" anything, except perhaps in a crystal ball; people were making wild guesses based on incomplete second-hand information, and then attributing calling a proverbial coin toss correctly on their 3l1t3 sk1llz rather than luck.

Occam's Razor applies to explaining one's own successes and failures too, not just external events.

You folks do understand that beyond the discussion about the silly "War On Drugs", this guy Ulbricht tried to hire hit men to kill a few people?

Yes, and by all accounts the intended victims were trying to blackmail Ulbricht. Which shifts the discussion from "is murder acceptable" into the rather more murky waters of "when, if ever, is using lethal force in self-defence acceptable"?

This whole thing promises to be far more interesting than the Reiser trial, precisely because the facts are pretty well-known but the moral implications far less clear.

Just like the CEO's (1)

future assassin (639396) | about 3 months ago | (#46157311)

one count for narcotics conspiracy, one count of running a criminal enterprise, one count of conspiracy to commit computer hacking and one count of money laundering,

Conspiracy to commit computer hacking? (2)

Forrest.Dix (2882871) | about 3 months ago | (#46157363)

Seriously? Conspiracy to commit computer hacking? When did hacking become illegal?

Re:Conspiracy to commit computer hacking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46165453)

When it became a synonym for fucking with systems you don't own.

DPR, arrogant & dumb (1)

Nehmo (757404) | about 3 months ago | (#46157677)

Ross Ulbricht is arrogant, inexperienced and dumb, and he doesn't have a sufficiently strong moral foundation to operate a large anti-establishment enterprise. When arrested, he was using the Glen Park public library (in his home city of San Francisco, CA USA) WiFi viewing a Silk Road admin page he had titled "mastermind". This event shows his attitude toward himself and his level of caution. He was caught because he slipped-up on identity security, [coindesk.com] realized it, yet took no precautions, like leaving the country.
I'll provide personal story that gives some insight into my own attitude toward being cautious while at the screen: Of the last three times I was busted, once (for traffic warrant) occurred as I was biking away from the courthouse, but the other two times prior (one traffic and the other, I kid you not, for littering) I was sitting in front of the computer at home.

No big surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46157963)

A drug-dealing, murderous pothead who made money from exploiting people. Hope they put him away for life.

Next up - gov. contract! (4, Insightful)

Rob_Bryerton (606093) | about 3 months ago | (#46158091)

From the summary:

...includes one count for narcotics conspiracy, one count of running a criminal enterprise, one count of conspiracy to commit computer hacking and one count of money laundering,...

So, from that little snippet, it seems our man is qualified to work at the following government agencies:
CIA
FBI
NSA

Or, he could just run for congress. Scratch that, it seems he'd be under-qualified.

Bullshit (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46158357)

Them saying they were only investigating for that little amount of time is just plausible deniability for knowing about it and letting it escalate to what it became. Silk Road was around for YEARS. I remember people who even weren't computer savvy talking about it and using it. The only reason anything was done, was from all the complaints being made so now they need to uphold the good guy image. There's far worst nodes on the tor network.. child rape, animal torture / fighting rings, hit men for hire, snuff videos.. a lot of which is ran by cartels and other criminal organizations(Eastern Europe). This guy was an easy target to glorify themselves with. Don't get me wrong though, he deserved what he got.. but don't buy into their bullshit, it's just a show and a way for them to make a reasoning for all the data hoarding and bad NSA publicity.

Most charges seem like bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46161681)

That does not mean that there are no substantial charges to make.

The book to throw at him should be heavy enough without having to soak it in crap you could basically charge everybody with.

Not the founder (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46162909)

Ross Ulbricht is not the founder of Silk Road. He is not the first Dread Pirate Roberts.

Begun they have... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46178641)

The Beta Wars....
Even in the past !
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...