Slashdot Mirror
Google Traffic Takes Down Web Site
bazonkers writes "Searchenginelowdown.com reports that it appears that the Google logo yesterday (honoring Gaston Julia) linked to the Google image search results for the words 'julia fractal'. The resulting traffic generated from clicking on that 'featured logo' incapacitated the servers of the top-listed images, hosted at an Australian university. This more than inconvenienced the owners of that site, who had to move pages and ended up displaying this page instead."
No.
Because that would be the first step down the slipperly slope into a full blown portal with weather, news, horoscopes, blah, blah, blah.
Keep it clean and simple, or they will no longer be the number one
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
By phrasing the issue in a shape of a question rather than just complaining about it they really gained my respect and admiration.
Some people understand that the purpose of a university (or any educator really) is to provoke thought and to impart knowledge and information. But also to let the end user (usually a student) draw their own conclusions.
The way the page is phrased makes me think that the person behind it - even supposing I didn't know he works with fractals - is one cool guy and probably a really awesome professor.
Should we have a guilty conscience for bring down servers as wantonly as we do? I think not, as the Internet is open and free and who's going to stop us
The fact that somebody can stop you is not what makes something bad.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying bringing down servers is a horrible thing, I'm just saying your argument sucks.
Have you tried Linux yet?
I think not, as the Internet is open and free and who's going to stop us, but it's an interesting point they raise.
Technically speaking, there are a lot of immoral things that nobody is going to stop you from doing. If a kid hits their ball in your yard, you can just keep the gate locked and throw the ball in the trash. Doesn't mean it's right (unless they're doing it just to irritate you or something).
Some netizens don't like to admit the fact, but there is a certain level of responsibility that you need to have to partake in the Internet. Everyone is expected to do their fair share to keep things running, but a lot of people shirk that and just run rampant over everyone else. From networks bogged down by bandwidth hogs stealing movies and music to spammers to Slashdot, some people insist on just wantonly snatching everything they can grab and running for the hills.
Is anyone going to stop you? No, of course not. However, after awhile, you'll be left with nothing else to grab because nobody will see any value in providing anything for anyone else. Make it a hassle for people to give you stuff for free, and they just won't give it to you anymore.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
just how much money could Google make if they sold just a small ad on their home page
But then, would it still be Google?
You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.
When I worked summers up on Cape Cod Mass at a family-owned pizza shop, a couple times during the summer we'd have the /. pizza effect -- the local sea camps would call in an order for 200 pizzas, or a couple of tour busses would pull in the lot with 100 hungry riders.
Did they call in advance? Did they ask permission to swamp us? Did we redirect them out the door and decline their order? Of course not. Variability in demand is a part of business.
The same goes for the half-dozen toys that Time Magazine says are the hot Christmas items, which suddenly disappear from the shelves. Should shoppers be restricted from buying them in order to maintain a few on the shelves?
Suddenly popular websites have the same consequence to the consumer - unavailability of supply. People find alternatives, come back later, etc.
So am I missing something dramatically new here?