What Does The Internet Look Like?

scubacuda writes "What does the Internet have to do with the network of sexual partners? More than you think, according to this Economist article on Albert-Laslo Barabasi's attempt to 'present a general framework for improving the accuracy of Internet models' by treating the net 'as though it were a natural phenomenom.' Dr. Barabasi's findings that the Internet is 'scale free' has a lot of interesting implications: resistance to human failures, as well as vulnerability to malicious attacks. Dr. Barabasi's goal is to create models that are 'statistically indistinguishable from the real Internet. When and if that is achieved, the models should have predictive, as well as descriptive, power.' (BBC and News Factor had stories on his work earlier)"

Comments

Uh huh

[Myriad]

What does the Internet have to do with the network of sexual partners?...present a general framework for improving the accuracy of Internet models' by treating the net 'as though it were a natural phenomenom.'

Uh huh.. I think we all know just what kind of 'Internet models' he's referring to! *wink wink* *nudge nudge*

I wonder which site, err section of the net, was his favorite?

bad research

[Raiford]

"That observation may have implications beyond the virtual world. Research has shown that the network of human sexual partners seems to be scale-free, too. In other words, some people have all the luck, while others have none."

This person calls himself a scientist. It's not luck. He obviously overlooks the power of a good pick-up line

Re:bad research

[Ralph Wiggam]

I've talked to a lot of girls about this, and 9 times out of 10 pick up lines work against you. Girls can smell a canned line like a fart in a car. Even if its not a huge cliche, girls know that you've used the same line on 5 girls in the same bar. That makes them not feel special. If a girl doesn't feel special, then it's no time for love, Dr. Jones. The best thing to do is sit down next to a girl who is just about done with her drink. Say hi, tell her your name, and spend the next minute making sure there isn't something obviously horribly wrong with her. Then order a drink for yourself (chug whatever you had and ditch it before walking over...the little extra liquid courage can't hurt) and order another of whatever she's drinking for her. If you feel the need to use a "line", make it original and make it funny. If all else fails, try "I love those shoes". She has to have cool shoes on and she's going to think you're gay for a minute, but girls love it when guys notice thier shoes, become most of them are just staring at their boobs. Once you start talking to her, ask open ended questions and LISTEN to what she says. And always be polite. Ok, that's all I've got. Use this advice at your own risk, my geeky brethren. Good luck.

-B

Topology of the internet

[grumpygrodyguy]

Hopefully it's starting to look at lot more like this.

Re:Topology of the internet

[Em Emalb]

That's not the internet, that's Pacman on LSD.

Get it right dude.

Better links ...

[jetlag11235]

The linked article is very weak. His homepage is here:
nd.edu/~alb/

The specific article is here:

nd.edu/~networks/PDF/NatureImmunol%202002.pdf

Hopefully Notre Dame can handle the traffic.

-- jetlag --

Huh?

[Flakeloaf]

Amd what, exactly, is a phenomenom? If peogle can't be brothered to spell-check their posts, I cam't be botnered to read thek.

Sexual Partners? On Slashdot?

[Jouster]

Wow, now it makes sense:

1. Geeks use Internet, which is like sex.
2. Geeks don't get sex, because they play on the Internet all day.
3. 
   
   And I thought it was because I was ugly....
   
   Jouster

well, it looks like this:

[Em Emalb]

[PC]
|
["The Internet"]
|
|
[porn]

See? It's simple. Why the need to do this? The people that get it, get it. Those that don't, probably don't need to, and you sure don't want to try to explain it to them.

Re:well, it looks like this:

[garcia]

too complicated.

Here it is simplified:

[PC] -> [porn]

It's a direct connection for most of us.

Re:well, it looks like this:

[jukal]

> too complicated.
> Here it is simplified:
> [PC] -> [porn]

Evolution tends simplify things until they cannot be simplified: { [porn] }

2 Books about networks

[tyrani]

First, "Where Wizards Stay up Late: The Origins of the Internet" gives you a great history lesson on the internet from pre ARPA to the present.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0387 08214X/qid=1033932106/sr=1-9/ref=sr_1_9/104-182014 6-7795912?v=glance

Next, "Network models in population biology" talks about how networks form in nature.
http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/item.asp?Catalog=Boo ks&Section=Books&Cat=&Lang=en&Item=978068483267&ms cssid=P4HKP76V6GCX8PR0DCK0FETJ22CQAAC9&WSID=1510D0 DFF8E2AF7C45148DDDD366042124C41706

It's interesting to read the above articles keeping these books in mind because of the clear picture we can gain from nature.

So this means that . . .

[IndependentVik]

If the Internet is like a network of sexual partners, then a slashdotting must be like the most unmerciful gangbang ever.

Barabasi was interviewed on Radio 4

[wackybrit]

I recorded a bit of it. Enjoy. It's about 200k mp3.

http://www.boog.co.uk/media/barabasiinterview.mp3

Networks and models

[pieterh]

This research is very interesting because it applies to much more than the Internet. Many natural systems have the same type of topology, i.e. self-similar scale-free organisation. There is a whole science of self-organising critical systems (try googling for ZIPF'S LAW).

What interests me is how such models apply to human networks. The article mentions sexual relationships, and implies that effort in combating AIDS should be targetted at key individuals, not randomly throughout the population. This draws a parallel with the Internet, which is (the article says) resistant to random failure but vulnerable to targetted attacks.

Consider the implications for other kinds of human networks if this theory is true. E.g. to fight crime, it does not pay to incarcerate minor felons. One has to take out the most important 'hubs', being the bosses.

This may seem obvious, but I find it ironic that we are using knowledge taken from modeling one of our creations (the Internet) to understand ourselves.

Re:Networks and models

[Saeger]

E.g. to fight crime, it does not pay to incarcerate minor felons. One has to take out the most important 'hubs', being the bosses.

Sure, it makes sense to go after the higher-ups in a hierarchy, but there isn't much point in doing that when those hubs get replaced in notime flat.

Take a drug kingpin down and there'll be more to take his place very soon after... just as there's millions of potential gnutella supernodes (superhubs) to replace the ones that dropoff (no, I'm not comparing drug dealers to p2p).

--

Re:Networks and models

[rodentia]

. . . but I find it ironic that we are using knowledge taken from modeling one of our creations (the Internet) to understand ourselves.

Ironic? Isn't rather the most natural thing in the world? A terrific and largely unexamined consequence of the technical revolutions of the last century is the distortion and exaggeration of the commonly accepted, but false, dichotomy between synthetic and natural systems. The concept is a legacy of Aristotelian categories and its undertow makes itself felt throughout Western philosophy.

What are we if not natural?

scale-free, wtf?

[jukal]

Studies using random graphs had shown that changing the software on more and more machines had a cumulative effect. That is not true in a scale-free setting. There, most software changes make no difference to the rate at which a virus spreads (although they obviously protect the machines in question). However, treating a relatively small number of hubs in a scale-free system can stamp viruses out completely.

What phenomena did this columnist exactly try to explain? I quess there must be some sense in this. But it does not ehmm.. really open to me. Does he want to stay that the spreading of viruses could be stopped by fixing the aortas (of the net)... or something else.

Simple

[Snork Asaurus]

What does the Internet have to do with the network of sexual partners?

Both are good ways to spread a virus.

The backbone of sex

[Jhan]

So, could anyone give me a few examples of the people who are the backbones of sex? I'd sure like to bone them right back, since they obviously handle a large percentage of all sex in the world.

Even if they won't be boned by me, maybe they could carry my requests to distant parts of the world to someone who might?

Re:The backbone of sex

[Matthaeus]

So, is it coincidence that one of the major routers on the 'net is named MAE WEST? Or did somebody come up with this a long time ago and leave the inside joke for others to get years later? Sounds like an Andy Kauffman job to me...

Re:The backbone of sex

[ces]

I don't have any links, but I remember this coming up on nanog about 1996 or so. Somone who worked for MFS at the time the MAE were named claimed the names MAE-EAST and MAE-WEST were intentional puns.

indeed

[Trepidity]

"Hey baby, you know research has shown that the network of human sexual partners seems to be scale-free."

Re:indeed

[schussat]

You're suggesting that does does not really matter?

-schussat

Fallacy

[tr0tsky]

If he's serious, it's a pretty major logical blunder. Properties shared by two things (e.g., that the internet and some metaphor/model for the internet) do *NOT* imply the identity of those things, and certainly shouldn't be used as a justification for taking some particular action toward one thing or the other.

This is the same logic employed by tyrants and dictators (and bad scientists).

Re:Fallacy

[joib]

The concept of universality has been an important concept in statistical physics for at least a few decades now.

And yes, scale-free networks are also a hot topic in statistical physics today. The point is, scale-free networks are characterized by common properties, just as universality classes are. So if you come to the conclusion that both the internet and human sexual networks are both scale-free, then e.g. attacks on certain types of nodes will have the same kind of effect.

I see no fallacy here.

Re:Fallacy

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Properties shared by two things (e.g., that the internet and some metaphor/model for the internet) do *NOT* imply the identity of those things,

While you have to be aware, always, of the limits of your model, and while you must never lose sight of the fact that it is only a model(*), it's ridiculous to say that you can never derive prescriptive action from studying a model. It's done every day. Recent example: Our weather models sayd Hurrican Iggy is going to have a landfall at such-and-such a time and near this point. People living near the point get ready, by battening down or evacuating or whatever. Or are you saying you'd ignore the evacuation order because it's "only a model" of how the atmosphere reacts?
(*) Insert obligatory "Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail" line here.

What the internet does look like?

[__past__]

Well, it's mostly white with green with black text, also some parts of it have a grey background. Around it is a black border which on top contains a light-blue ad from Microsoft Small Business Solutions. Oh, and if you've been nice, it contains that neat moderation boxes.

www.fastseduction.com

[xtal]

Yes, it'll work for you, too. You'd be amazed what dressing well, maintaining some personal grooming, a big smile (think someone mailed you a new TiBook smile), and an enthusiastic "hi" will get you.

Steve

Yeah, but what about...

[smittyoneeach]

Until 1999, the standard way of modelling the Internet was to use randomly generated graphs, in which routers were represented by points and the links between them by lines. But it turns out that such random graphs are a poor approximation because they miss two important features. The first is that links in the net are "preferentially attached": a router that has many links to it is likely to attract still more links; one that does not, will not. The second is that the Internet has more clusters of connected points than random graphs do. These two properties give the Internet a topology that is scale-free--in other words, small bits of it, when suitably magnified, resemble the whole.

You know that Net traffic doubles every three months, so you're confident that this will work, for all Half the world's poulation still hasn't made a phone call?

Re:Yeah, but what about...

[pangloss]

Half the world's poulation still hasn't made a phone call

The current issue of Wired refutes this statistic.

Re:Yeah, but what about...

[smittyoneeach]

Both of those links were to bogus factoids. IP traffic doubling every tree months was part of MCI/WorldCom's Irrational ExEbbersance Program, by which we are all currently Bernied, don't you know?

By process of elimination...

[Guppy06]

"from the and-what-does-it-taste-like dept."

It tastes like grape-aid.

Re:network of sexual partners?

[equiraptor]

1. Have great idea.
2. Start company.
3. ??????
4. Profit!
5. Network of sexual partners!!!!!!!

Waste of a story.

[grub]

I could summarize the net in one sentence:

"You are in a maze of twisty tunnels, all alike"


There, the internet.

What about this

[Adam9]

Peacock Maps makes some good maps such as this one. I first found out about it at ThinkGeek and later bought two for one at home and ine my dorm. Too bad they don't have a 2002 poster yet.

scale-free?

[commodoresloat]

my sexual partner better be free of scales!

All these Funny posts, and still missing one...

[Cutriss]

So...erm...how many of these hosts have their interfaces set to "Promiscuous"?

From the /. homepage, an answer

[SuperKendall]

What does the internet look like?

"High-Speed Data Transfer Over ... Mud"

Re:The secret is out

[ces]

That does look a bit like a network map.