Wow. I don't have words right now.
Last edited by Julius Seeker on Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-Insert Inspiring Quote-
What would happen to the Internet if there was a true worldwide phenomenon where, say, half a billion people decide to go on at the same time? I know this story refers to certain sites only but can the main servers handle that kind of traffic should it come up?Replay wrote:<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/06/26/mich ... >Michael's death almost breaks the Internet</a>
Sorry, routersKupek wrote:The only "main servers" of the internet are the DNS servers for the top level domains (.com, .net, .org, etc). DNS is setup so that any individual domain resolution request is unlikely to go all the way to the top level servers. (DNS means Domain Name System, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System , and it does the mapping of "google.com" to the the actual IP address of the server you want to connect with.)
Other than that, there are no "main servers."
There are backbone links, but TCP/IP and BGP were designed not to be single-threaded, and every backbone has a ton of backup links connected to different routers. Nothing is really single-threaded on the Internet, except for the web servers, and only sometimes. (Your typical major site like CNN has a farm of web servers running something like F5 to robin-round the traffic.)Zeus wrote:Sorry, routersKupek wrote:Other than that, there are no "main servers."
By the way, Zeus, I would like to point out that while I don't know the numbers, I would almost be willing to bet that this is exactly what happened. 500 million people worldwide is not an unreasonable number to assume for MJ's death and would not surprise me in the least. A fat round billion would not surprise me in the least. The biggest TV audience worldwide was 2.5 billion for the funeral of Princess Diana. Less people have net-capable computers than televisions, but it's catching up fast, and this is definitely a news story capable of rivaling that worldwide.Zeus wrote:What would happen to the Internet if there was a true worldwide phenomenon where, say, half a billion people decide to go on at the same time? I know this story refers to certain sites only but can the main servers handle that kind of traffic should it come up?Replay wrote:<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/06/26/mich ... >Michael's death almost breaks the Internet</a>
I can't believe that HALF of the world's population even knows Princess Diana.Replay wrote:The biggest TV audience worldwide was 2.5 billion for the funeral of Princess Diana.
Don't underestimate how many stupid people worship this fucker. There were billions of people at his memorial.Imakeholesinu wrote:Funny thing, I saw this in the hotel room last night in Nebraska. The news media was all up in arms defending their 24/7 circus surrounding his death. "If people didn't want to watch then why did 93% of cable viewers watch the shows?"
Simple, because you fucks won't report anything else.
Apparently there are less sheeple than I thought. If you look at the poll on CNN's site, 60% of people are trying to avoid coverage of the ceremony. Maybe it is just the media that are the sheep.SineSwiper wrote:Don't underestimate how many stupid people worship this fucker. There were billions of people at his memorial.Imakeholesinu wrote:Funny thing, I saw this in the hotel room last night in Nebraska. The news media was all up in arms defending their 24/7 circus surrounding his death. "If people didn't want to watch then why did 93% of cable viewers watch the shows?"
Simple, because you fucks won't report anything else.
He was lucky, just like everybody else. And he fucked little boys. Doesn't mean we should worship him. Neither should the media.Good Seek Hunting wrote:There's nothing wrong with celebrating the life of one of the most significant forces in music history (along with many other things; such as increasing the comfort zone and breaking down barriers between people of different colour, and donating HUGE amounts to charity). Celebrating anything dosn't make people sheep, regardless.
Just luck huh? Which is essentially saying that anyone could have done it if they were in the right place at the right time.SineSwiper wrote:He was lucky, just like everybody else. And he fucked little boys. Doesn't mean we should worship him. Neither should the media.Good Seek Hunting wrote:There's nothing wrong with celebrating the life of one of the most significant forces in music history (along with many other things; such as increasing the comfort zone and breaking down barriers between people of different colour, and donating HUGE amounts to charity). Celebrating anything dosn't make people sheep, regardless.
Sine, are you trying to tell me his success was based on luck? You have got to be kidding me. I ain't no huge Jackson fan but the man was a legend for a reason and arguably one of the best performers in history. He basically changed live concerts from being people on stage singing to actually performances which you see in nearly all big acts now. If I'm not mistaken, he was also one of the first widely-accepted black celebrities too. You can dislike his music, image, whatever, but you can not sit there and deny his talent and impact he made.SineSwiper wrote:He was lucky, just like everybody else. And he fucked little boys. Doesn't mean we should worship him. Neither should the media.Good Seek Hunting wrote:There's nothing wrong with celebrating the life of one of the most significant forces in music history (along with many other things; such as increasing the comfort zone and breaking down barriers between people of different colour, and donating HUGE amounts to charity). Celebrating anything dosn't make people sheep, regardless.
Falsely accused twice? Seriously? And OJ was innocent? Seriously? Sure, I don't have any evidence of OJ murdering Nicole Smith, but the guy gets locked up with the maximum sentence for a small robbery, and nobody questions why.Good Seek Hunting wrote:He didn't "fuck little boys," he was falsely accused of it. The tabloids ran with the story, and who was it that was accusing people of being sheep now? =P
Let's see, people celebrating the life of a legend, or people blindly following the tabloids; which ones are the sheep?SineSwiper wrote:Falsely accused twice? Seriously? And OJ was innocent? Seriously? Sure, I don't have any evidence of OJ murdering Nicole Smith, but the guy gets locked up with the maximum sentence for a small robbery, and nobody questions whyGood Seek Hunting wrote:He didn't "fuck little boys," he was falsely accused of it. The tabloids ran with the story, and who was it that was accusing people of being sheep now? =P
Michael was accused twice with almost no evidence to back up either claim. Of course it's Michael Jackson and he's weird so he's an easy target. The prosecution in both cases had almost no evidence. They just had the claims of the children and the parents trying to collect $$$.SineSwiper wrote:Falsely accused twice? Seriously? And OJ was innocent? Seriously? Sure, I don't have any evidence of OJ murdering Nicole Smith, but the guy gets locked up with the maximum sentence for a small robbery, and nobody questions why.Good Seek Hunting wrote:He didn't "fuck little boys," he was falsely accused of it. The tabloids ran with the story, and who was it that was accusing people of being sheep now? =P
As far as his talent on stage, gee, I guess I get to thank him for all of these boy bands and their stupid dance routines. Thanks, MJ!