×

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!

Google Mistook Jackson Searches For Net Attack

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the did-say-sorry-about-the-old-woman dept.

Google 256

Slatterz writes "Web giant Google has admitted it thought the sudden spike in searches for Michael Jackson on Thursday was a massive, coordinated internet attack, leading it to post an error page on Google News. The company's director of product management, RJ Pittman, explained that search volume began to increase around 2pm PDT on Thursday and 'skyrocketed' by 3pm, finally stabilising at around 8pm. According to Pittman, last week also saw one of the largest mobile search spikes ever seen, with 5 of the top 20 searches about Jackson. Google wasn't the only site caught out by the extraordinary events. The Los Angeles Times web site also crashed soon after it broke the news of Jackson's death."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

256 comments

I wonder (4, Insightful)

whereizben (702407) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508213)

If any other news "event" has ever caused there to be such a massive amount of searching - it worries me that it is a celebrity causing this and that people aren't this into any "real" news that actually impacts them.

Re:I wonder (4, Insightful)

AmigaHeretic (991368) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508257)

I don't think it's necessarily that people aren't into "real" news, I think this is one of those things that impacted a lot of people around the entire world all at the same time. As we get more and more of our news off the Internet this will become more common.

There's not a lot of news that effects everyone in the world all at once. Probably as soon as North Korea launches a nuke against someone the same thing will happen.

Re:I wonder (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28508403)

[quote]Probably as soon as North Korea launches a nuke against someone the same thing will happen.[/quote]
The frightening thing is, I'm not so sure it will.

Re:I wonder (0, Offtopic)

Valtor (34080) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508553)

Probably as soon as North Korea launches a nuke against someone the same thing will happen.

The frightening thing is, I'm not so sure it will.

This is indeed frightening and probably true.

Re:I wonder (0, Flamebait)

basil64 (1061038) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508661)

I think you are correct, it would have a much less public appeal. Remember the masses are, by definition, idiots. I fear that a nuclear attack would have a similar mass interest as a US senate vote on farm subsidies (unless a really major celebrity was, in fact, caught in the nuclear conflagration...)

Re:I wonder (4, Insightful)

Thansal (999464) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508853)

Sorry, but as much as I love hating humanity, I am SURE that a nuke would bring the internet to it's knees (ignoring any possible actual interruption from the nuke itself). Some one pointed out the effect that 9/11 had on the news web pages, I am fairly sure that even more people will actually care (aka, be scared silly) if a nuke finally does fly. I don't care if it is 2 countries that 'we' don't care about, we have the 'fact' drilled into our heads that the only think to come of nukes is MAD.

Re:I wonder (0, Troll)

basil64 (1061038) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508921)

Point taken. I was exaggerating to make a point; many internet users are in fact teens and tweens (who have no concept of what MAD even means), and given the apalling knowledge by the lumpenproletariat, and students, of geopolitics, geography, and anything outside the realm of TMZ coverage, I have a suspicion that there would in fact be less interest...though I hope the point is never put to the test...

Re:I wonder (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28509163)

Hey I'm a student and I resent that!

I'm regularly watching for news of nukes flying so I know when I can start looting and lock myself in waiting for the zombie attack!

Re:I wonder (4, Insightful)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508633)

There's not a lot of news that effects everyone in the world all at once. Probably as soon as North Korea launches a nuke against someone the same thing will happen.

You're probably right. On Sept. 11, 2001, the news sites all ground to a halt as everyone tried to find out what was going on.

Re:I wonder (1, Insightful)

HisMother (413313) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508775)

> I don't think it's necessarily that people aren't into "real" news, I think this is one of those things that impacted a lot of people around the entire world all at the same time. I understand what you're saying, but the thing is, it really didn't actually "impact" hardly anybody. The guy could sing and dance, and now he's dead. Turn the page, y'all. There are hella more important things to search for.

Re:I wonder (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28509039)

Yep. Music doesn't impact anybody. Who needs culture, anyway?

Re:I wonder (5, Insightful)

basil64 (1061038) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508315)

Keep in mind that every day, month and year that passes increases the ubiquitousness of web enabled devices and services (i.e. twitter, etc.) geometrically. And sad but true, celebrity foibles and deaths are and always have been more fascinating to the masses than any 'real' news.

Re:I wonder (4, Interesting)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508871)

That's because "real news" happens in Nowheresville on the other side of the world. Celebrity life affects them, because if Angelina and Brad break up who's going to act in their movies? Once real news is happening in home turf (see: 9/11), people tend to be even more reactive than they are to celebrity stuff. Even stuff like a single 8-year-old girl getting kidnapped (here in Toronto it's happened twice now at least, [Cecilia Zhang and Tori Stafford if you're interested]) gets people more riled up than a random bunch of 50-100 civilians dying in Iraq.

Re:I wonder (4, Insightful)

sayfawa (1099071) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508473)

Well, right after the sept 11th attacks, the internets was pretty useless. I had access to a T3 at the time, and no news sites took less than a minute to reload. OTOH, when MJ died, I don't remember having trouble with any of my usual sources. Maybe Google had a problem, but neither thestar.com or the BBC did.

So maybe instead of a bad reflection on humanity, this is just a bad reflection on the current stability of the intertubes, Google in particular.

Re:I wonder (0)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508501)

Yes, because a Toronto newspaper website and the BBC are <i>definitely</i> going to get hit hard when an American pop star dies in LA...

Re:I wonder (5, Insightful)

cetialphav (246516) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508731)

So maybe instead of a bad reflection on humanity, this is just a bad reflection on the current stability of the intertubes, Google in particular.

It actually seems to be a good reflection of the current stability of the internet. After all, it worked fine for you and most other people. Sites have gotten much better at handling heavy traffic so it is harder to bring them down. In Google's case, it wasn't so much the amount of traffic as it was misinterpreting what that traffic meant. They thought it was an attack and started playing defence instead of serving it. Once they realized the problem, they could easily handle the volume.

Re:I wonder (4, Insightful)

sayfawa (1099071) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508823)

Good point. Maybe the whole gist of this thread should be "nothing to see here, move along".

Re:I wonder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28509091)

Srsly. Don't expect "humanity" to be any more mindful than any single human. It sucks but you just can't avoid it..

Re:I wonder (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28508727)

If all you self-important mofos stop whining about why people care about Jacko's death, you can actually spend more of your obviously superior intellect and time doing whatever super important stuff you're whining about. Douchebags.

Re:I wonder (5, Informative)

agilen (410830) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508751)

When I was a freshman in college, an EE professor put a chart up on the projector. It was a fairly consistent chart with one giant spike right in the middle. He explained this was demand on the US power grid over a period of several months, and asked the class what they thought caused the giant spike...most big world events of the 90s were thrown out by the students....and they were all wrong.

The spike that put all the country's power plants at full capacity was the announcement of the OJ Simpson verdict.

Re:I wonder (4, Insightful)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508875)

If any other news "event" has ever caused there to be such a massive amount of searching - it worries me that it is a celebrity causing this and that people aren't this into any "real" news that actually impacts them.

It isn't necessarily the "impact" factor but the fact that no one expected it. It was a sudden death. He was 50 years old. This is similar to the death of Heath Ledger. When someone young dies people are going to be shocked and wonder what happened. This is also one of the reasons for an autopsy. Old people who die usually don't have an autopsy done on their bodies unless something is out of whack. Someone dying young is one of those "out of whack" things. It is a curiousity thing just like staring at a car wreck and death is something anyone can relate to.

Re:I wonder (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508931)

The thing about MJ wasn't really that he died but rather the fact that he just randomly died. He was arguably one of the most popular musicians with the general crowd to die since Elvis. Many people got texts, twitter updates, Facebook updates and wondered what exactly was going on. While no one thought MJ was in amazing health, he didn't have cancer or a long illness so many assumed it was a prank so they Googled it to get the info from a reliable source.

Old news (2, Interesting)

game kid (805301) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508221)

It's Sunday; the death occurred on Thursday and Google blogged on the "attack" problem on Friday [blogspot.com] .

Re:Old news (2, Insightful)

Kugrian (886993) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508347)

Non-news for most of the world. Every major broadcaster had this a few days ago. What is the point of having it here?

Re:Old news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28508413)

It's Sunday; the death occurred on Thursday and Google blogged on the "attack" problem on Friday [blogspot.com] .

And finally, Slashdot links to an article that won't be posted until tomorrow. From TFA

Google mistook MJ searches for net attack
by Phil Muncaster on Jun 29, 2009

P.S. I already know about the International Date Line, you don't need to spoil the joke by explaining it... oops I just did.

They didn't read Google News? (5, Funny)

bignetbuy (1105123) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508227)

This is all so confusing!

If Google had read Google News, they would have known about MJs death. But Google didn't and thought they were being attacked...which led them to shutdown their news site...which would have told them about MJ.

What if this had happened in Soviet Russia?

Re:They didn't read Google News? (5, Funny)

game kid (805301) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508251)

Michael Jackson would've attacked YOU with "google news" queries!

Re:They didn't read Google News? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508749)

Michael Jackson would've attacked YOU with "google news" queries!

I'm decades past MJ being interested, but still disturbed by the thought of him googling me.

Re:They didn't read Google News? (1)

Auxis (1341693) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508275)

It could have been an automatically triggered error page. The article didn't state whether or not that was the case.

Re:They didn't read Google News? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28508343)

What if this had happened in Soviet Russia?

In Soviet Russia, Google searches you.

Re:They didn't read Google News? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28508717)

In Soviet Russia, news finds you.

It was actually the work of... (5, Funny)

BrunoBigfoot (996441) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508259)

a smooth criminal.

Re:It was actually the work of... (4, Funny)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508293)

Clearly the boogie is to blame.

Re:It was actually the work of... (-1, Redundant)

BrunoBigfoot (996441) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508307)

No, they were hit by... they were struck by a smooth criminal.

Re:It was actually the work of... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28508513)

I was going to ask if you'd seen that joke was already used in the grandparent and then I noticed the usernames involved. Oh, what the hell:

Did you see that joke was already made by the GP?

This is slashdot, after all. The editors accidentally put up dupes, so I expect some users do too.

Internet attack occurred before his death (0)

devleopard (317515) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508325)

The coverage Mr. Jackson received in recent years, given his inability to produce anymore quality music, was the true attack on the Internet.

Some websites went down... not Google (5, Insightful)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508333)

I've seen it reported many places that Google was one of the websites that was overwhelmed by traffic resulting from Jackson's death. The fact that this is not true, and that the traffic merely activated Google's self defense mechanisms, is rather enlightening - it reveals just how much more serious Google is. However, we should hope that Google's self defense mechanisms stay this benign, else we may be in trouble when McCartney finally kicks the bucket.

Re:Some websites went down... not Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28508381)

By that logic you should count "503 Service unavailable" as merely a self-defense mechanism, and those other websites weren't overwhelmed either.

Re:Some websites went down... not Google (5, Informative)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508465)

Google gave users a CAPTCHA to let them proceed, and for somebody not searching for Michael Jackson news, the site worked normally. That's very different from a complete outage that affects even the non-sheeple users, or even the reduction in features that services like Twitter used to handle the load.

Why McCartney? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28508489)

He doesn't seem to be as big as Michael Jackson. A major death would actually be Obama.

Re:Why McCartney? (0)

denzacar (181829) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508813)

You haven't been around on this planet for very long, have you?

Although... The parent does seem to miss the point.
It is not that Michael Jackson died. It is that he died suddenly and unexpectedly.
McCartney does have that extra weird bonus of being the only Beatle who came back from the dead, [wikipedia.org] but still - his death would be kinda expected nowadays.

You want to scare the shit out of Google?
Shoot Madonna with a rocket launcher in the middle of the street in broad daylight.

Re:Some websites went down... not Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28508523)

In case Google adopts some sort of Dr Strangelove style Doomsday device?

Good for google. (5, Insightful)

moogied (1175879) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508335)

As much as everyone might think this is a big boo-boo by google, I say its a great job done by automated software. All systems should protect themselves from massive peaks in internet traffic in order to provide a base-line service. Twitter even pulled selected services off to keep up a minimum working level. The fact that it classified it as a "net attack" is a matter of terminology, not importance.

Re:Good for google. (1, Insightful)

Kittenman (971447) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508437)

Bit of a cock-up that they couldn't handle the death of a celebrity with their server capacity though. Everyone dies. The British Queen. Madonna. Obama's dog. The capacity should be there to handle a predictable event without flashing the red light.

Re:Good for google. (2, Insightful)

d4nowar (941785) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508527)

They never said they couldn't handle the capacity, only that the sudden and massive increase in traffic activated their 'defenses'.

Very big difference there.

Re:Good for google. (1, Informative)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508541)

So, you're a fucking retard, huh?

Google News had no capacity or throughput issues. It thought that it was a distributed denial of service attack and forced users searching for Michael Jackson to enter a captcha. I know, I saw it.

Re:Good for google. (2, Insightful)

cetialphav (246516) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508789)

As much as everyone might think this is a big boo-boo by google, I say its a great job done by automated software.

It is this kind of thing that always makes me suspicious of automated defences. These things usually generate a model of what is normal and interpret things that fall outside of normal as an attack. The problem is that sometimes the abnormal pattern that is seen is actually normal. It is completely predictable that a well known, controversial pop icon would generate a huge increase in traffic when he unexpectedly dies (he was planning a comeback concert tour). I'm not sure how an automated defence can have the contextual information necessary to make this kind of distinction between attacks and "normal" burstiness like this.

I agree that Google's software did its job, but I wouldn't call it great. Great is when they can stop attacks and not get a Slashdot article about how they screwed up when a major news event happens.

Welcome to Last Week (4, Funny)

basementman (1475159) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508341)

Welcome to last week Slashdot, I was really hoping for you guys to drum up a connection between Billy Mays and technology news. Maybe a scientific study on the effectiveness of oxi clean, or the possibility of a law limiting television volume.

Re:Welcome to Last Week (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28508443)

They were the same age. Anyone else suspect that they were actually the same person?

Re:Welcome to Last Week (1)

cetialphav (246516) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508839)

Obviously, this is a huge conspiracy. I mean, Billy May, Farrah Fawcet, and Michael Jackson? It can't possibly be a coincidence. And this comes at a time when Ron Paul is trying to get Congress to audit the Federal Reserve. Clearly, these deaths are intended to distract the media and voters before Ron Paul gets too close to the truth.

Hmmm. If someone made a movie with this plot, I'd pay to go see it. Hopefully, I don't get knocked off for discovering the conspiracy because that is usually what happens in the movies.

Shrug (4, Insightful)

Quothz (683368) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508359)

No big deal. Google'd be stupid not to have a procedure to deal with a real attack. The only real consequence of a false positive is that they lost a little revenue, and they got to test their response in exchange. They sorted it out in less than half an hour. Probably they'll try to improve their detection systems as a result, I guess. I can't get excited about one search topic being blocked for half an hour as a result of heavy inquiry unless that topic is "directions to the nearest bomb shelter".

Twitter is fragile (5, Insightful)

JonasH (183422) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508407)

Twitter's infamous 'Fail Whale' was also called into action as servers at the micro-blogging site crashed as 66,000 Tweets were made within a 60-minute period.

That's it? That's all it takes to bring Twitter to its knees? A measily 18 tweets per second? Do they manually transcribe the messages after having read that an air gap was the most effective security you could get? Or is the article plain wrong.

Seriously confused here.

Re:Twitter is fragile (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28508507)

Thats what happens when your site is based on Ruby...

Re:Twitter is fragile (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28508647)

Ruby on rails, which is like MJ on drugs - i.e. DEAD.

Re:Twitter is fragile (1)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508745)

That's it? That's all it takes to bring Twitter to its knees? A measily 18 tweets per second? Do they manually transcribe the messages after having read that an air gap was the most effective security you could get? Or is the article plain wrong.

What do you think :)? For the record, when the MJ news was at its peak, the volume was more like 1000+ tweets per second on Michael Jackson alone, so I have no idea how the article got those numbers.

Database indexing is slow (1)

forand (530402) | more than 4 years ago | (#28509113)

First, twitter didn't fail; twitter removed trending topics from the sidebar. You could still search but it was not giving you trends. I strongly suspect that this is because of the load on their database server trying to load in the new entires while serving data. While you may consider trending topics to be the end all be all of twitter it should at least be noted that it is a relatively new feature and twitter does have a tendency for very slow development.

Am I the only one (0, Troll)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508423)

who had only ever heard of this guy in the context of pedophilia and absurd paranoid claims?

Re:Am I the only one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28508535)

unless your from the tribe in the amazon rain forrest, yep your pretty close to being the only one

Re:Am I the only one (5, Insightful)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508551)

Michael Jackson was a fairly formative musical influence to a lot of modern music. The importance of "Thriller" can't really be overestimated.

Re:Am I the only one (3, Interesting)

owlnation (858981) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508697)

"The importance of "Thriller" can't really be overestimated."

I think current events prove it can be. Or at least overhyped. He was a talented guy, but he was a musician. He's not Einstein. His contribution to society is really not that significant.

In 10 years he'll fade, just as Lennon and Elvis have too.

I like music as much as anyone, but it's important to put it into perspective. It's important always to remember it a commercial product and owned by one of the most unethical industries on Earth. All commercial music is overhyped. Most musicians are overrated. You may like them, I may like them, but most of them are only good at what they do and are far from masters of their instruments. Most music does not stand the test of time.

Jackson's music will last longer than most of his peers. But he isn't Wyld Stallions, he won't be creating world peace and new harmony. It's just music.

It's truly astonishing that (considering his legal history too) he has created this much hype in death. So much so that, even /. is cashing in on it.

It makes me realize that there's something fundamentally wrong with how things are valued, and how page views and impressions are the currency of the net. Waves of hype like this are not truly as valuable as people seem to think they are.

Re:Am I the only one (3, Interesting)

SL Baur (19540) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508771)

Michael Jackson was a fairly formative musical influence to a lot of modern music.

Maybe that's why I pretty much stopped listening to American music in the early 1990s.

I thought he was a crazy, drugged-out pederast. My wife was in tears.

I'm not particularly dismayed by the reaction of some here - to each his own. I *am* dismayed that Farrah Fawcett, who died on the same day, never got any mention here.

I find it fascinating that with all his debt issues, he was surrounded by Nation of Islam financial advisors, the same as Kareem (who ended his Hall Of Fame basketball career broke).

Now, get off my lawn and take that "King of Pop" trash with you.

Re:Am I the only one (2, Informative)

glwtta (532858) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508829)

Michael Jackson was a fairly formative musical influence to a lot of modern music. The importance of "Thriller" can't really be overestimated.

Well, I suppose that depends on how you estimate the importance of modern music, doesn't it?

Re:Am I the only one (3, Insightful)

merreborn (853723) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508933)

Well, I suppose that depends on how you estimate the importance of modern music, doesn't it?

Regardless of your personal opinion of the artistic merits of Jackson's work, there's no denying he had a massive effect on American pop culture, and tens of millions of Americans.

Re:Am I the only one (2, Insightful)

glwtta (532858) | more than 4 years ago | (#28509071)

Of course, I'm not trying to deny that at all. I'm just saying that if it wasn't him, somebody else would've won the "superstardom" lottery, it's not like we'd end up with no music to listen to.

Re:Am I the only one (0, Troll)

tbird81 (946205) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508573)

I guess so. Did your parents lock you in a cave as a kid or something? Or do you have no friends?

Or are you just bullshitting? Your Asperger's must be pretty severe to not have heard of Michael Jackson.

Re:Am I the only one (2, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508831)

I guess so. Did your parents lock you in a cave as a kid or something?

He's a 7 digit, my friend. MJ hasn't made any new truly popular music for a long time, so GP has only seen the mutilated face, the pedophilia, and the baby-dangling.

Re:Am I the only one (1)

DanJ_UK (980165) | more than 4 years ago | (#28509109)

When the BBC announced it over in the UK, they kept playing the video on repeat of him holding the baby out the window on BBC news, I'd actually forgotten about that incident until it had been rammed into my brain again!

Well "PC AUTHORITY" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28508451)

Are you sure their servers "crashed" or perhaps they had just reached their maximum and did not respond to all requests? If they actually "crashed" I'd say that they were not configured properly.

Will people Google for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28508547)

Microsoft death too?

Re:Will people Google for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28508747)

won't happen anytime soon. you'll probably die well before microsoft will.

Jackson Brown does ROCK! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28508651)

Jackson Brown does ROCK!

Peer-to-peer protcols as a solution to demand (4, Interesting)

rob101 (809157) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508809)

If we take a step back and see what Sept. 11 did to CNN and now The Times website, we can see that the internet can suffer from its own major over-subscription of users to servers/services. Particularly in times of significant current events when almost every connencted user demands information from authoritative sources.

And I'm sure the audience here is no stranger to the Slashdot/Schumaker-Levey effect?

There needs to be a blend between the ability of peer to peer protocols (bittorrent?) to service and distribute massive amounts of content and HTTP. Such technology would permit the audience (or data sinks) to service itself in times of major crisis and permit the important information to reach people.

As far as "breaking the news"... (4, Informative)

I_am_Syrinx (461302) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508851)

"The Los Angeles Times web site also crashed soon after it broke the news of Jackson's death."

It was actually TMZ.com that "broke" the news, many minutes before anyone else. The other news sites waited until someone they considered "legitimate" reported it before accepting it as fact. I guess they were trying to avoid a "Dewey defeats Truman" moment...

that just like (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28508955)

that's like how many have mistaken jackson for being a man of talents beyond a few dance moves.

Dangerous Pattern (1, Flamebait)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 4 years ago | (#28508979)

All a foreign gov't has to do is to kill a few big-name celebrities via snipers or poison, and our infrastructure is crippled.

Re:Dangerous Pattern (1)

DanJ_UK (980165) | more than 4 years ago | (#28509073)

Google !== our infrastructure. Dealing with the whinging from all the pissed off teenagers + Stephen Fry would be a nuisance though if twitter were down even longer than it currently, regularly is.

Poor boys will have to find Priests now ... (0, Flamebait)

GISGEOLOGYGEEK (708023) | more than 4 years ago | (#28509019)

Now that Micheal's gone, I guess it's just Walmart that has little boy's pants half off.

cus.gus@hotmail.com

KABOOM! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28509059)

Now let's see if all the infomercials crash tonight due to the sudden death of Billy Mays.

Conspiracy (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28509097)

MJ didn't die from a heart attack, he had a stroke in the children's ward

I was away from all media this weekend (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#28509131)

I cannot even begin to describe how utterly nice it felt to know nothing more than he's dead and I don't have to be inundated with inane television coverage.

I do think his funeral is going to be a bigger circus than the pope and Reagan combined.

sheesh! (1, Troll)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 4 years ago | (#28509161)

i will be glad when michael jackson is buried and forgoten, i am tired of the damn media coverage of some dead popstar/pedophole
Load More 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...