Approximately 40% of all Skype users that were online crashed, taking down around 30% of all supernodes. Clients that continued to be up and running, and clients that restarted the application had their network searches directed to the supernodes still running, leading to an overload of those. Since Skype has in place a protection when a supernode is overloaded, so it would not consume too much of a client’s system’s resources, the supernodes started to shutdown automatically one after another, leading to a generalized failure of the network.
So a failure of only 30% of supernodes brought the system down. They should have had a lot more redundancy in their network than they did.
The outage was NOT due to some fluke. It was due to an inherently inadequate network.
I am in extremely strong agreement with your criticisms of google's search page. In fact, I did not previously have NoScript installed on my computer. I do now, specifically to get google to work properly--I was getting so irritated using google with js.
Clinton was asked, under oath, if he had a sexual relationship with Lewinsky. Clinton did not immediately answer the question, but instead asked what was meant by a "sexual relationship". He was told that a sexual relationship was a relationship where they had sexual intercourse. Clinton then said that he did not have a sexual relationship with Lewinsky.
Clinton and Lewinsky had oral sex, but they did not have sexual intercourse. Clinton was slippery, but he does not seem to have lied.
Governments do not seem to mind that these measures do nothing. A recent example in the UK concerns the power of the police to search anyone on suspicion of terrorism. Last year, the police searched over 100,000 people that way. Those searches did not lead to any convictions or even charges. In fact, they didn't even lead to any ARRESTS for terrorism-related offenses.
Because most of the people being searched were Arab Muslims, the searches aggravated those people and thus might have increased the chance that they would assist in a future terrorist attack.
Your first point seems to be an adhominem argument. I will not dignify it by saying more about it.
Regarding your last point, peer review is not intended to catch fraud; for some discussion, see e.g. here. The criminal justice system is for people who have committed criminal acts: committing fraud with taxpayers' money, as Mann has been alleged to have done, is such an act.
The Washington Post seem to be suggesting that the Attorney General does not understand the law. That is false, of course.
In a grant application, Michael Mann cited some of is his prior research papers that, it is alleged, Mann knew were bogus. In other words, Mann committed fraud in a grant application. That is a crime, as it obviously should be.
For details, read the Attorney General's letter to UVA.
The Attorney General's investigation is pursuant to the work of Michael Mann on the "hockey stick" graph (of temperatures over the last millennium). For a detailed presentation of the evidence that the work was probably bogus, see the book Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montford. There is more than enough evidence to justify investigation of Mann's work. And the attempt by Mann's colleagues to cover up for one of their own is shameful.
I am the story's submitter. My original submission included a link to the mathematician's web page about this; the page has many more details. There have also been other news stories, e.g. at the BBC.
The UK Freedom of Information Act has exemptions for data that has not yet been used in publications, vexatious requests, etc.
The story that you are claiming is far from accurate. Here is a quote from Keenan at Watts Up With That.
In 2007, I published a peer-reviewed paper alleging that some important research relied upon by the IPCC (for the treatment of urbanization effects) was fraudulent. The e-mails show that Tom Wigley, one of the most highly-cited climatologists and an extreme warming advocate, thought my paper was "valid". They also show that Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit, tried to get the journal editor to not publish my paper.
After my paper was published, the State University of New York, where the research was conducted, carried out an investigation. During the investigation, I was not interviewed: contrary to the university's policies, federal regulations, and natural justice. I was allowed to comment on the report of the investigation, before the report's release, but I was not allowed to see the report: truly Kafkaesque.
The report apparently concluded that there was no fraud. The leaked files contain the defense against my allegation. The defense is obviously and strongly contradicted by the documentary record. It is no surprise, then, that the university still refuses to release the report. More details on all this, including source documents are, here.
If you read the links, it is clear that the data upon which Wang's research was based did not exist. Why do you criticize Keenan for exposing that?
So the Slashdot summary links to an article in the Huffington Post. And the HuffPo article links to an article in Wired. And the Wired article links to the actual story in the Boston Globe.
Genius idea: have the Slashdot summary link to the actual story. YES!!!
You weren't "refused for sex". You were not asking for sex. You were asking for sex+entanglement (emotional). They did not want to make that commitment. If you really wanted just sex, and you made that plain (and you did not put performance pressure on them--something that scares most guys), then you would have very likely gotten it.
Ask the Royal Navy how the[y] like Exocet missiles after the Falklands war...
You appear to be misinformed. The Exocet missiles took out a British ship. Thatcher then called up Mitterrand and asked for the electronic "keys" to disable the Exocets. Mitterrand at first refused. Thatcher replied that Britain was going to win the war, and without the keys, the only way would be to go nuclear. Mitterrand had a choice: give Britain the keys or have Britain use nuclear weapons....
That is why the Exocets never took out another British ship.
Ritalin is scary stuff. There are no good-quality long-term studies on the effects of Ritalin. And there is some evidence that ritalin is carcinogenic and can cause permanent changes in the brain. There is a partial summary of potential problems with ritalin here (mostly as it is used to treat ADHD).
For instance, a [university] researcher with a Middle Eastern name, researching anthrax or nuclear energy, might find himself denied entry to the United States....
It could be worse than that. He might be allowed to enter, and then be detained on the basis of Google-supplied information. Especially if he was not a Canadian citizen.
One of the things that makes Fischer so special is that he was bigger than chess. I.e. people who had never played chess, and had little interest in doing so, would still be interested in Fischer. He really did promote chess that much.
As a comparison, among American sports players, there were only three in the 20th century that were bigger than their sport: Babe Ruth, Mohammad Ali, and Michael Jordan. (People would go to see each of them, even if they had little interest in the sport.) As a different example, Wayne Gretzky was easily the best hockey player of the century, but he was not bigger than hockey.
Fischer is up there with Ruth, Ali, and Jordon. Quite an achievement.
Slashdot Mirror
So a failure of only 30% of supernodes brought the system down. They should have had a lot more redundancy in their network than they did. The outage was NOT due to some fluke. It was due to an inherently inadequate network.
I am in extremely strong agreement with your criticisms of google's search page. In fact, I did not previously have NoScript installed on my computer. I do now, specifically to get google to work properly--I was getting so irritated using google with js.
This should be mod'ed up!
Are you sure that Clinton lied under oath?
Clinton was asked, under oath, if he had a sexual relationship with Lewinsky. Clinton did not immediately answer the question, but instead asked what was meant by a "sexual relationship". He was told that a sexual relationship was a relationship where they had sexual intercourse. Clinton then said that he did not have a sexual relationship with Lewinsky.
Clinton and Lewinsky had oral sex, but they did not have sexual intercourse. Clinton was slippery, but he does not seem to have lied.
Governments do not seem to mind that these measures do nothing. A recent example in the UK concerns the power of the police to search anyone on suspicion of terrorism. Last year, the police searched over 100,000 people that way. Those searches did not lead to any convictions or even charges. In fact, they didn't even lead to any ARRESTS for terrorism-related offenses.
Because most of the people being searched were Arab Muslims, the searches aggravated those people and thus might have increased the chance that they would assist in a future terrorist attack.
Full story in The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/28/terrorism-police-stop-search-arrests
Governments are obviously using the security theater for something other than real security.
Here is a direct link to the actual story in the Cleveland Plain Dealer: "Kent State tape indicates altercation and pistol fire preceded National Guard shootings (audio)"
--it should have been in TFS.
Your first point seems to be an adhominem argument. I will not dignify it by saying more about it.
Regarding your last point, peer review is not intended to catch fraud; for some discussion, see e.g. here. The criminal justice system is for people who have committed criminal acts: committing fraud with taxpayers' money, as Mann has been alleged to have done, is such an act.
The Washington Post seem to be suggesting that the Attorney General does not understand the law. That is false, of course.
In a grant application, Michael Mann cited some of is his prior research papers that, it is alleged, Mann knew were bogus. In other words, Mann committed fraud in a grant application. That is a crime, as it obviously should be.
For details, read the Attorney General's letter to UVA.
The Attorney General's investigation is pursuant to the work of Michael Mann on the "hockey stick" graph (of temperatures over the last millennium). For a detailed presentation of the evidence that the work was probably bogus, see the book Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montford. There is more than enough evidence to justify investigation of Mann's work. And the attempt by Mann's colleagues to cover up for one of their own is shameful.
For those who are unfamiliar with the name, Richard Lipton is one of the top researchers in theoretical computer science.
The Guardian is having a debate on Climategate this Wednesday. Leading protagonists from the two sides of the debate are on the panel. Details are at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/30/guardian-debate-climate-science-emails
I am the story's submitter. My original submission included a link to the mathematician's web page about this; the page has many more details. There have also been other news stories, e.g. at the BBC.
The UK Freedom of Information Act has exemptions for data that has not yet been used in publications, vexatious requests, etc.
Lubos Motl (string theorist, formerly at Harvard), has recently blogged about this: http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/gravity-as-holographic-entropic-force.html. His conclusion is "I remain undecided".
If you read the links, it is clear that the data upon which Wang's research was based did not exist. Why do you criticize Keenan for exposing that?
So the Slashdot summary links to an article in the Huffington Post. And the HuffPo article links to an article in Wired. And the Wired article links to the actual story in the Boston Globe.
Genius idea: have the Slashdot summary link to the actual story. YES!!!
Mod parent up, please!
You weren't "refused for sex". You were not asking for sex. You were asking for sex+entanglement (emotional). They did not want to make that commitment. If you really wanted just sex, and you made that plain (and you did not put performance pressure on them--something that scares most guys), then you would have very likely gotten it.
Google Translate gives a better translation than Babelfish:
http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.minbzk.nl%2Factueel%2F112441%2Fnieuw&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=nl&tl=en
That is why the Exocets never took out another British ship.
Ritalin is scary stuff. There are no good-quality long-term studies on the effects of Ritalin. And there is some evidence that ritalin is carcinogenic and can cause permanent changes in the brain. There is a partial summary of potential problems with ritalin here (mostly as it is used to treat ADHD).
Oops, it looks like I was confusing Wikileaks with Liveleaks. Sorry about that.
The increase in interest on Wikileaks is largely due to hosting the anti-Islam film Fitna . The film was moved to Google Video—
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=3369102968312745410
—after Islamists told Wikileaks that they would be killed for hosting the film.
One of the things that makes Fischer so special is that he was bigger than chess. I.e. people who had never played chess, and had little interest in doing so, would still be interested in Fischer. He really did promote chess that much.
As a comparison, among American sports players, there were only three in the 20th century that were bigger than their sport: Babe Ruth, Mohammad Ali, and Michael Jordan. (People would go to see each of them, even if they had little interest in the sport.) As a different example, Wayne Gretzky was easily the best hockey player of the century, but he was not bigger than hockey. Fischer is up there with Ruth, Ali, and Jordon. Quite an achievement.