Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Apps Suffering Partial Outage

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the eternal-recurrence dept.

Google 150

First time accepted submitter Landy DeField writes "Tried accessing your Gmail today? You may be faced with 'Temporary Error (500)' error message. Tried to get more detailed information by clicking on the 'Show Detailed Technical Info' link which loads a single line... 'Numeric Code: 5.' Clicked on the App status dashboard link. All were green except for the Admin Control Panel / API. Took a glance 2 minutes ago and now, Google mail and Google Drive are orange and Admin Control Panel / API is red. Look forward to the actual ...'Detailed Technical Info' on what is going on." The apps dashboard confirms that there is a partial outage of many Google Apps. The Next Web ran a quick article about this, and in the process discovered there was an outage on the same date last year.

cancel ×

150 comments

Fools! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43472133)

That's because Medusa is on the prowl. You don't want to fool with Medusa.

Yearly thing (3, Funny)

Quakeulf (2650167) | about a year ago | (#43472143)

It's like the start of a new tradition! Yay! :3

Re:Yearly thing (1)

WizardFusion (989563) | about a year ago | (#43472419)

We'll have to see if the reason for this failure is the same as last years.

Re:Yearly thing (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43472551)

As they teach you in HCI class, consistency is key for an ideal user experience. So this is just another small change by Google to improve usability.

Google's faget tradition (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43473897)

Google are fucken faget cant do nothing right. Its just email and these dum fagets fuck it up, cant be that hard.

Fucken dumb fagets ruined my morning email core respondents tradition.

Oh well (1)

Reality Man (2890429) | about a year ago | (#43472153)

I use it a lot to share design info. But there should a way to work offline while the "cloud" sorts itself out. Of course, synchronizing after is going to be a nightmare. Eh, better just let it be inaccessible for a while.

Re:Oh well (2)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about a year ago | (#43472393)

It's been said before and again. You shouldn't rely on the cloud as your sole point of data access.

It's fine for backup and collaboration, but otherwise... I'm always a fan of in-house.

Re:Oh well (3, Insightful)

cdrudge (68377) | about a year ago | (#43472505)

Because in-house servers NEVER go down.

The only difference between in house and cloud-based email in this case is who the fingers get pointed at when the fecal matter hits the air conveyance device.

Re:Oh well (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year ago | (#43472575)

That's not the only difference.

Re:Oh well (2)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year ago | (#43472669)

Right. Because the boss is sure to say: "You chose to use the cloud, and now it's down, but don't worry ... it's not your fault"

Re:Oh well (2)

RatherBeAnonymous (1812866) | about a year ago | (#43472767)

It's better, arguably, to have the servers in house because at least you can be seen working feverishly to fix the problems rather than just sitting on your hands telling your boss to be patient.

Behold the tautology! (2)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year ago | (#43472869)

It is better to be competent, than incompetent. It is better to have the servers in house if you are competent. Of course, if you are competent, then you already have the servers in house ;-)

Re:Behold the tautology! (1)

bobstreo (1320787) | about a year ago | (#43473231)

It is better to be competent, than incompetent. It is better to have the servers in house if you are competent. Of course, if you are competent, then you already have the servers in house ;-)

To become very very competent, outsource, then insource the same services every few years.
Usually the outsourcing will move you to a cloud based service.

Re:Oh well (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#43472881)

This is easily solved by keeping an old tower around, prefereably with lots of fans and blinky lights. When something is down, you drag an impressive amount of gear and supplies around it (Mountain Dews, Cheetos, beer, etc.) and look busy until Google figures it out.

They'll never know. If they ask, you are working on the Google 'preprocessor' or something like that.

Re:Oh well (2, Interesting)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#43472911)

Oh, and this is why Slashdot needs to keep this sparse UI - from a distance it looks like every other debugger / testing program. Close up it's incoherent garbage which is exactly what a debugging / testing program would look like to a layman.

Re:Oh well (1)

jimicus (737525) | about a year ago | (#43474535)

Actually... yes.

You'd be amazed how often glitches such as "router at the hotel the boss is staying at is not working properly" becomes "bloody useless IT department, should have outsourced the lot to somewhere with cheaper labour years ago, at least that way I'd be paying for what I'm getting" when the boss can't get at internally-hosted email while on the road.

This doesn't seem to happen anything like as often when the email is outsourced.

Meaning that even if you are regularly providing five-9's - hell, even if you can prove it - nobody believes you.

Re:Oh well (4, Informative)

RatherBeAnonymous (1812866) | about a year ago | (#43472925)

We switched to Google Apps a few years ago. In that time I've seen maybe a dozen full or partial outages. Some were not Google's fault. Internet routing or DNS problems were responsible some of the time. One instance was when a drunk driver hit a telephone pole about a quarter of a mile away and severed our fiber connection. When it is down, I still end up spending half the day dealing with the outage. But In a decade of running our email in house, I had just one outage. We did have a few instances of where our Internet connection was down so outside email did not flow, but at least internal communications worked.

Re:Oh well (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about a year ago | (#43474399)

We switched to Google Apps a few years ago. In that time I've seen maybe a dozen full or partial outages. Some were not Google's fault. Internet routing or DNS problems were responsible some of the time. One instance was when a drunk driver hit a telephone pole about a quarter of a mile away and severed our fiber connection. When it is down, I still end up spending half the day dealing with the outage. But In a decade of running our email in house, I had just one outage. We did have a few instances of where our Internet connection was down so outside email did not flow, but at least internal communications worked.

Ok. So if you are running you Google for Business correctly you should still have access to local copies of important documents and critical email accounts should all be going through a local non web based client that downloads emails locally.
So how many times in the decade of running you local email did you have issues that made things the same as if Google was down and you were doing things correctly?
What I see there is you saying ...
Sometimes when Google was down it was stuff that would have effected us even with our own servers.
Sometimes it was not.
Sometimes when I ran my own servers I got affected.
OMG Google sucks.

Re:Oh well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43474517)

No, its because its under your control. Like any business google will only fix/improve things if not doing so will lose them money. Meanwhile an in-house system can be made redundant or have a fail-over backup system - even if it costs more money (A choice that google never gives you).

Besides.. it amazes me that people actually trust an advertising company.. basically a parasitic type of businesses whose sole purpose is to spam shit into my eyes and ears in order to trick me to buy some shit I dont need.

Re:Oh well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43473353)

You shouldn't rely on anything as your sole point of data access.

Points at Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43472165)

Hideki!

Re:Points at Google (1)

hendrikboom (1001110) | about a year ago | (#43472997)

This is still funny!

Re:Points at Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43473649)

This is still funny!

Not so much. It might have been, a decade ago.

Re:Points at Google (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year ago | (#43473845)

... someone just discovered Chobits it seems.

gmail outage effecting 0.007% of users (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43472171)

4/17/13 9:09 AM
We are continuing to investigate this issue. We will provide an update by 4/17/13 9:55 AM detailing when we expect to resolve the problem.
This issue is affecting less than 0.007% of the Google Mail user base. The affected users are unable to access Google Mail.

Re:gmail outage effecting 0.007% of users (4, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#43472265)

So, only James Bond is affected?

Re:gmail outage effecting 0.007% of users (5, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#43472333)

He has a license to kill -9

Re:gmail outage effecting 0.007% of users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43472331)

I can access Gmail over the web interface or IMAP, but POP is having issues on 2 of my accounts.

Re:gmail outage effecting 0.007% of users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43472589)

In my case I got login failed errors and had to change the POP3 authentication setup to use the full email address as User Name rather than just the name portion. After that it has been fine.

Re:gmail outage effecting 0.007% of users (2)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about a year ago | (#43473275)

One day you'll realize your level of unluckiness when Google announces a 0.0000001% outage, and... that's you!

Re:gmail outage effecting 0.007% of users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43474007)

3 of 4 of my Google Apps customers were affected briefly. Regional maybe?

Re:gmail outage effecting 0.007% of users (1)

aaarrrgggh (9205) | about a year ago | (#43474317)

Four different accounts impacted in California between my wife and myself. Calendars also impacted. Service restored around 8AM pacific.

At some point a backup system is a nice-to-have, but generally Google has given us the quality of service we would have needed to pay about $30k to keep the information in-house and achieve equal reliability. It has also saved us from a few issues in the office where we would have lost connectivity. Instead, we paid $0.

The $30k is not that bad, but the responsibility of doing a better job with the data than Google could have necessitated a full-time IT person which would have killed the economics. It does make me question the value of their paid service though...

Its Back Up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43472175)

It just came back up for me like a few seconds ago.

But outages don't happen in the interclouds (1)

CimmerianX (2478270) | about a year ago | (#43472177)

I'm sure many companies who switched their productivity to Google apps are panicking... and wondering ...

Re:But outages don't happen in the interclouds (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year ago | (#43472489)

exactly how many are "many", when it's less than 1%?

Re:But outages don't happen in the interclouds (1)

jkflying (2190798) | about a year ago | (#43472511)

Less than 1% of 1%.

Re:But outages don't happen in the interclouds (5, Insightful)

DrEldarion (114072) | about a year ago | (#43472745)

They're probably thinking "wow, this response is much faster and the downtime much shorter than when we ran our own services".

Nobody has ever sold cloud services with a guarantee of 100% uptime. It is, however, almost certain to be better than the vast majority of companies' homegrown solutions.

Re:But outages don't happen in the interclouds (1)

joebok (457904) | about a year ago | (#43473055)

I'm sure no cloud contract has a 100% uptime guarantee, but it is "sold" as the perfect solution all the time.

I try to remind people that the cloud is not filled with magic beans. Sometimes it is just what is needed, sometimes it isn't; it depends!

Re:But outages don't happen in the interclouds (1)

coldfarnorth (799174) | about a year ago | (#43473463)

Hey, that's what I was thinking this morning!

I've got better things to do than baby servers along, so it sure is nice to have this be someone else's problem. Things were fixed in less than 30 minutes for us. Maybe 6 people at our company (roughly 60 people) even noticed that there was a problem.

And I got 30 minutes without anyone pestering me by email. Glorious.

Can't you guys read? (4, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#43472185)

They sent an email explaining the cause of the... oh wait.

Re:Can't you guys read? (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year ago | (#43472687)

So what would be wrong with that? An email notice that it is down would be absurd, but an email explaining the cause makes perfect sense, since they will have it working again at some point if it isn't already.

Re:Can't you guys read? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43473021)

If you can't access the service that provides your e-mail, how will you access the e-mail that describes why you can't access your service that provides your e-mail?

Re:Can't you guys read? (0)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year ago | (#43473375)

You might want to take a remedial reading comprehension course.

Re:Can't you guys read? (1)

war4peace (1628283) | about a year ago | (#43473033)

If... your e-mail doesn't work... how would you read the... um, said e-mail?
I tell you, there's MAGIC at work!

But I give you that: it DOES make some sense, because if your web-based e-mail isn't working, maybe the back-end works; maybe you can read e-mails on your mobile device; maybe POP push works, or IMAP, or whatever.

Re:Can't you guys read? (0)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year ago | (#43473351)

"If... your e-mail doesn't work... how would you read the... um, said e-mail? I tell you, there's MAGIC at work!"

Slow down and think. You would read the email explaining why the system was down. Perhaps an example will help you realize that I don't need you to "give" me anything:

Dear Customer,

As you may be aware our email system was down, but since you are reading this now, it clearly is working again. We experienced a temporary outage of the web interface, because some incompetent douchebag screwed up again this year. We apologize for hiring him, and his parents apologize for having conceived him.

Sincerely,

Eric Schmidt

Re:Can't you guys read? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43473733)

Slow down and think.

Here's someone who's trying way too hard to explain away his lack of a sense of humor. Meanwhile, we're pointing and laughing, and laughing, and laughing.

Oh, boy.

Re:Can't you guys read? (0)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a year ago | (#43473821)

True humor has an element of truth in it. Since there was no element of truth in it, the humor is non-existent. It is only funny if you mistakenly see an element of truth where there is none.

Re:Can't you guys read? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43473669)

To: user@somewhere.com
From: google@hotmail.com .....

In the mean time... (2)

El Lobo (994537) | about a year ago | (#43472223)

In the mean time...I'm working in my desktop machine, saving to my own disk (with automatic backup to my server AND my machine at work) and getting my mail into my own server not depending one ounce on any cloud services. Life is good.

Re:In the mean time... (3, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#43472353)

Sounds like you have a comparatively high number of potential points of failure compared to the cloud services.

Re:In the mean time... (2)

neminem (561346) | about a year ago | (#43472467)

Yeah, but the difference is, if something breaks, you can fix it. (Unless the something is your internet connection, I suppose. But then, if your internet connection died, you wouldn't really be able to use services in the cloud, either.)

Re:In the mean time... (5, Insightful)

bufke (2029164) | about a year ago | (#43472493)

This is the real benefit with Google Apps. When Google Apps is down...I don't have to do anything! Life is good.

Re:In the mean time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43474601)

I work at a university that uses Google Apps - so I'm on there every second of every day. I literally count the outages they've had on one and so far none have lasted more than five minutes.

Re:In the mean time... (3, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | about a year ago | (#43472711)

Yeah, but the difference is, if something breaks, you can fix it.

It might make one feel like they're taking a more "active" role in the problem, but you're likely to spend as much time fixing your homegrown solution as Google is fixing Gmail. With the cloud solution when something goes wrong though SOMEONE ELSE fixes it.

Besides - Gmail actually has an "offline" mode available for Chrome users. For those really that worried about downtime they can use that.

Re:In the mean time... (5, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about a year ago | (#43472751)

Yeah, but the difference is, if something breaks, you can fix it.

Alternatively, if something breaks in Google's servers, it gets immediate attention by people who know a hell of a lot more than I do about maintaining a server. And things are multiply redundant, making something breaking comparatively unlikely.

Re:In the mean time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43472889)

Yeah, but the difference is, if something breaks, you can fix it.

Alternatively, if something breaks in Google's servers, it gets immediate attention by people who know a hell of a lot more than I do about maintaining a server. And things are multiply redundant, making something breaking comparatively unlikely.

If what you say is true then all these cloudy things should be having a far better track record than they actually do. Obviously they don't know as much about multiply redundant systems and maintenance as much as you think they do because here we are with an outage. And all they can say is "oh, it doesn't matter, only some fraction of a percent are impacted, carry on".

Re:In the mean time... (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about a year ago | (#43473015)

.007% is down for one day.

what percentage of in house email users do you think are having trouble today?

Re:In the mean time... (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | about a year ago | (#43473583)

If i am part of this 0.007%, then the reality check says that for me it is 100%

Re:In the mean time... (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about a year ago | (#43473675)

Yes, you ate correct, for this year you may only have 3 9s of uptime, but ll of these partial downs we hear about are small percentages, It's not like every year everyone loses a half day or so, most people haven't suffered through and outage at all since the inception of apps for.business. a small percentage have had only 3 9s of uptime for a year, and totally up otherwise.

the story told is very high reliability, not omg, its down every year.

Re:In the mean time... (2)

coldfarnorth (799174) | about a year ago | (#43473681)

Google apps is sold with a 99.9% uptime guarantee - that works out to a maximum of 526 minutes downtime per year.

In the last three years that we've been using Google apps, I've never had more than one hour of cumulative downtime in a calendar year. I also haven't spent a single second configuring or monitoring email servers, backing up email data, or with an executive breathing down my neck while I work on a server problem.

I'm pretty happy about that track record.

Re:In the mean time... (1)

someones (2687911) | about a year ago | (#43472899)

my servers at home are more stable and reachable that google ;)

Its like the 3rd time in 2 years google fails.

Re:In the mean time... (2)

AvitarX (172628) | about a year ago | (#43473041)

It's .007% of their users, and last time it was a different small percentage. If you assume all of google is down when 1 in 10000 users are, it sounds bad. The reality of it is that It's not.

Re:In the mean time... (1)

rev0lt (1950662) | about a year ago | (#43473045)

Let me rephrase that:

Yeah, but the difference is, if something breaks, you need to stop whatever your doing to fix it.

It is not always an advantage... and I do prefer to work with my own resources than to rely on 3rd party "service" providers, but there are a lot of cases when choosing a provider is the sane approach.

Re:In the mean time... (1)

someones (2687911) | about a year ago | (#43472855)

so in the cloud there is no smtp? no imap? no http? ... do you expect things magically turn into cloud transfer protocol or what?

In the cloud you just have MORE potential points of failure: namely all that you have locally and all that run the cloud server, the loadbalancers, ... which is much more points of failure you can ever grasp.

The diffrence is, who gets blamed. But if your boss doesnt see you working while noone in the company gets any work done, dont expect to get a raise too soon.
On the other hand, if you are running all the things in a cloud you most likely dont deserve it anyway.

Re:In the mean time... (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about a year ago | (#43473693)

so in the cloud there is no smtp? no imap? no http? ... do you expect things magically turn into cloud transfer protocol or what?

You've pretty much summed up the understanding of every PHB who was ever sold on a cloud solution.

Re:In the mean time... (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year ago | (#43474203)

The difference is that a well designed cloud solution will have the necessary redundancy built in such that failure is less common and less catastrophic. The mere existence of loadbalancers (plural) shows that they are much better able to deal with a hardware failure than most in-house mail server solutions.

Re:In the mean time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43473225)

My desktop has been unstable recently. I had to work on a paper and I did not want to rely on the machine. I used google docs. It was down this morning. I wanted to shut my head in a car door.

Hit the paid accounts (2)

sandytaru (1158959) | about a year ago | (#43472275)

This took down one of our clients who pay for Google apps. So it's not just the freebie users who got affected on this, hence Google's rapid response.

Re:Hit the paid accounts (1)

hierophanta (1345511) | about a year ago | (#43472775)

yup same here - our organization of +50,000k users was affected. we pay for their suite and just switched over this year.

Re:Hit the paid accounts (1)

rnturn (11092) | about a year ago | (#43472955)

``our organization of +50,000k users was affected''

So who at your company gets dinged when 50,000 employees are sitting on the hands while Google fixes their problem? Surely some monetary value can be assigned to a loss of productivity this widespread. Or does management take advantage of Google's outage by calling impromptu staff meetings?

Re:Hit the paid accounts (1)

war4peace (1628283) | about a year ago | (#43473131)

If things were planned the right way, nobody should get dinged. Of course, things are rarely planned the right way.
But let's say they were.
Then there's a set of SLAs which tells the customer "we ensure 99.99% uptime. If we don't, then we deduct X dollars per minute from what we're billing you" or something like that. The customer has their expectations set and when there's an outage, it's accounted for. Furthermore, an SLA involves a theoretical loss of productivity (which is expected).

This "witch hunt" of pointing fingers when a cloud based solution is hit by an outage is retarded and helps nobody. If anything, this behavior will make everyone become a turtle who's running away from proposing any change in the "status quo". And I am personally convinced that lack of change and lack of innovation are huge contributors to driving a company down.

Re:Hit the paid accounts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43473239)

50,000 K users??? What kind of organization do you work for, the whole population of England???

Re:Hit the paid accounts (4, Informative)

dickens (31040) | about a year ago | (#43472975)

Confirmed here ... it was down for about an hour including the admin control panel.

One nice thing about multi-tennancy is problems get attention immediately.. they simply cannot be ignored.

Haha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43472309)

Clouds suck!

Hmm... (1)

havana9 (101033) | about a year ago | (#43472313)

4 it's an unkucky number in Japan. 17 it's also an ulucky number in Western countries. Coincidence? we at TV-Show-On-Whacky-Therories don't think so.

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43472343)

unkucky

ulucky

You can do it! Go on, try again, third time's a charm.

Re:Hmm... (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year ago | (#43472469)

unkucky

ulucky

You can do it! Go on, try again, third time's a charm.

Don't ... that's the first two lines of a summoning spell

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43472893)

Nikto ?

Re:Hmm... (1)

invid (163714) | about a year ago | (#43472369)

17?

Re:Hmm... (1)

DamonHD (794830) | about a year ago | (#43472417)

Turns out it's unlucky to be superstitious!

Rgds

Damon

Re:Hmm... (1)

Buchenskjoll (762354) | about a year ago | (#43472499)

Apparently 17 is considered unlucky in Italy, which didn't mean "Western countries" last time I looked.

Re:Hmm... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#43472967)

Apparently 17 is considered unlucky in Italy, which didn't mean "Western countries" last time I looked.

Clint Eastwood [wikipedia.org] would likely disagree with that statement.

Re:Hmm... (2)

alexhs (877055) | about a year ago | (#43472423)

4 it's an unkucky number in Japan. 17 it's also an ulucky number in Western countries.

Amusingly, it is for the same reason.

In japanese, 4 is pronounced "shi" in the On reading, which is an homonym of "death".
In latin numerals 17 = XVII, which is an anagram of VIXI, which is latin for "I lived", implying "I'm dead".

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43472481)

I lived?

Dum vivimus, vivamus!

Re:Hmm... (2)

rwise2112 (648849) | about a year ago | (#43472471)

4 it's an unkucky number in Japan. 17 it's also an ulucky number in Western countries. Coincidence? we at TV-Show-On-Whacky-Therories don't think so.

According to the Wikipedia entry for 17:

Described at MIT as 'the least random number', according to hackers' lore.

In Italian culture, the number 17 is considered unlucky.

When viewed as the Roman numeral, XVII, it is then changed anagrammatically to VIXI, which in the Latin language it translates to "I have lived", the perfect implying "My life is over.

The fear of the number 17 is called 'heptadecaphobia' or 'heptakaidekaphobia'.

Re:Hmm... (1)

Pope (17780) | about a year ago | (#43472765)

Laffo at 17 being an unlucky number in Italy. You have to rearrange the damn letters first to even make the words that are supposed to be "bad."

Man, superstitions are the dumbest thing in so many ways. At least the "shi" thing has some sort of explanation that makes a bit of sense.

Re:Hmm... (2)

gman003 (1693318) | about a year ago | (#43472817)

Coincidence? we at TV-Show-On-Whacky-Therories don't think so.

Oh, you're with the History(tm) Channel?

Re:Hmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43473773)

I stay up late to watch "Ancient Aliens" WITHOUT my tinfoil hat.

Re:Hmm... (1)

TimMD909 (260285) | about a year ago | (#43472969)

Four is unlucky in Japan because it can be pronounced "shi". Seven is also unlucky because that can pronounced "shichi". Why is this bad? "Shi" is a homophone for "death". Hence, they "invented" alternate ways to pronounce both. For #4, it's "yon". For #7, it's "nana". Simple as that, the entire Japanese society was able to cheat death. (BTW, why does /. not allow me to add kanji to this post? I feel less otaku...)

Some Cert expired a year ago... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43472351)

Now we have a tradition? :-)

Started lastnight with youtube (1)

bobjr94 (1120555) | about a year ago | (#43472397)

Was unable to log into Youtube starting around 9pm Pacific. The log in prompt would just redirect in a loop and eventually reload the homepage with out ever giving any login dialog.

Re:Started lastnight with youtube (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43473259)

And nothing of value was lost.

No issues here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43472485)

Perhaps is just a local issue? I can access everything just fine from Germany.

What could possibly go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43472571)

I know, let's put all our mission critical apps out in the never on somebody else's servers. Sounds solid to me. Have you hugged your (local) backups lately?

google gmail down for you (1)

Jecinta Onyeka (2899967) | about a year ago | (#43472725)

google gmail is always having outdage on this day, may be they are doing upgrading or Htaccess [htaccessredirect301.com] problem

Was probably more than 0.007% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43472753)

My Gmail exchange wasn't working for about 10-15 mins earlier... kept saying invalid password on my phone.

tiniest open source violin (1)

ssam (2723487) | about a year ago | (#43473267)

The tiniest open-source violin plays for you. (or at least it would if you had a local copy of tiny_opensource_violin.flac)

57 apps updating. (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#43473777)

Sorry, this is my fault. I stupidly clicked "Update all apps" this morning.

Sorry.

NIA Superops (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43473807)

There must have been an XM overload.

Ingress.com

My alarm just went off.... (1)

cooperaaaron (897474) | about a year ago | (#43473887)

Just woke up, checked my Gmail account, got mail, rolling over to go back to sleep....
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...