Beta
×

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!

Weighing the Internet

CowboyNeal posted more than 9 years ago | from the damn-liars-and-statisticians dept.

The Internet 144

the-dark-kangaroo writes "Jason Striegel has taken Physics to a new dimension by 'Weighing the Internet.' Well, actually calculating the total number of users online in one day. The conclusion that was reached was that there are ~519 million users per day online. Also, 'From what we calculated, it would appear that roughly 41 percent of internet users did not log in that day.'"

cancel ×

144 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

what? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13069022)

seriously.

what?

Re:what? (5, Interesting)

fr1kk (810571) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069211)

See, when I read "weight of the internet" I thought it was talking about Physical Weight. It'd be sweeter if you took all the bandwidth data divided it by the speed of light (or whatever), and came up with the weight of the individual electrons of data at any given moment. Now THAT would be "taking Physics to a new dimension"!

Re:what? (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069386)

Or you could measure theentropy [wikipedia.org] and apply E = MC^2 to get a mass.

Cabling (1, Troll)

PhYrE2k2 (806396) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069493)

I'd rather know what all that cable weighs... Big under-sea links, broadband cable to each home, telephone cable, servers and equipment... mmm... so much speed.

-M

this sounds like another one of those studies (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069529)

you know, the one out of three that is complete nonsense.

I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13069026)

what percentage Cowboy Neal accounts for...

Re:I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13069137)

84%

And everyone of them found out... (4, Funny)

NotBorg (829820) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069031)

that their penis could be HUGE!

CRACKHEAD MODERATOR ALERT (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13069118)

Idiot moderator. He's joking about spam. It may not be funny to all minds, but it's certainly not a troll.

Re:And everyone of them found out... (1)

rob_squared (821479) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069750)

...that their penis could be HUGE... ...even the girls. *cringes*

hmmm... (5, Funny)

xor.pt (882444) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069042)

It's probably overweight too.

Re:hmmm... (3, Funny)

Joey Patterson (547891) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069182)

Overweight? The Internet is obese and Steve Ballmer is the online equivalent of Richard Simmons.

Re:hmmm... (1)

zaxios (776027) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069184)

Please, it just has big bones. (And needs them to carry all that fat...)

Just kidding, kidding!!!

Does that count... (3, Funny)

SamAdam3d (818241) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069045)

If i am on two computers at the same time? Isn't everyone? No?

Re:Does that count... (1)

CypherXero (798440) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069139)

What about Network Address Translation (NAT)? You can have a LAN in your house with like 20 computers connected to a broadband router, and if you're using NAT, to the outside world, your LAN is only 1 collective node/IP address on the internet.

Re:Does that count... (1, Offtopic)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069320)

Kind of like a Tardis. It's bigger on the inside than on the outside. Of course, the Internet is a ways off from Dimensional Transcendentalism.

Re:Does that count... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13069515)

you're an IT major?

WHAT A FAGGOT

Re:Does that count... (1)

sdpuppy (898535) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069329)

If you try that, you'll get into trouble with Heisenberg.

Unless you have infinite energy (and who does nowadays?)

I'm certain of that!

Technique (5, Funny)

Azadre (632442) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069049)

What algorithim did they use? The one involving magic?

Re:Technique (2, Insightful)

TrappedByMyself (861094) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069061)

Yeah, I'm thinking this is one of those false studies we've been hearing about lately.

Re:Technique (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13069108)

No.

The one in which they pull spurious numbers out of their collective asses.

Weight: (5, Funny)

wot.narg (829093) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069053)

The awswer is 42 (metric gigatons total).

Breakdown of Internet Weight:

10 gigatons of Flames.
20 gigatons of Spam.
10 gigatons of e-dicks.
2 gigatons of information.

Re:Weight: (1)

jrl87 (669651) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069318)

I think you have too much information. Let's add another category:

News/Reports - looks like information, but it really isn't.

That should bring information to a more logical 45 kilos.

Re:Weight: (1)

wot.narg (829093) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069762)

I think I need to at a couple more catagories.

FUD - 4 Gigatons
False info - 10 Gigatons
Slashdot Garbage - 1 Gigaton

Re:Weight: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13069585)

Now if we only knew the question. Guess we're going to need a bigger supercomputer.

Shenanigans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13069064)

I call shenanigans

Troll (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13069071)

I am cornholio, I need pee pee for my bung-hole!

Re:Troll (0, Offtopic)

Deekin_Scalesinger (755062) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069177)

Um...that's TP man, TP for my bunghole. Wow, what a way to shame a memory...

Hmm (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13069074)

Only fat people are allowed on the internet.

How else do we account for the weight of Slashdot?

Continues on... (5, Funny)

XFilesFMDS1013 (830724) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069080)

Jason Striegel continued by saying that "we didn't count anyone from Slashdot, because, lets face it, sitting in front of your computer all day eating Doritos tends to skew the results".

Re:Continues on... (1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069304)

At least get the facts straight. It ain't Doritos

It's hi-cholesterol pepperoni pizza + meatball. Followed by Jolt and microwave twinkies.

Interesting (1)

mfloy (899187) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069083)

So 519 million users, each getting 10 spam messages a day....6 billion spam at the very least. 519 million users, and 519 billion pornographic web sites

Re:Interesting (1)

datadriven (699893) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069516)

I WISH I only got 10 spam/day

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13069556)

SERIOUSLY!
I average 60 /day

Re:Interesting (1)

FosterKanig (645454) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069641)

You should aim lower.

He Ain't Heavy, He's My User (3, Funny)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069098)

Accelerating electrons through wires makes them weigh more. And pushing photons through fibers makes them weigh more. I wonder how much extra weight the Internet accounts for? If we're going to count the users as the Internet's weight, we should also be asking "how pasty is the Internet?"

Re:He Ain't Heavy, He's My User (1)

shadowbearer (554144) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069326)

and when will it become a singularity from "mass" accumulation? ;)

pasty singularity, yum

SB

Still Logging In? The System Isn't Finished. (4, Insightful)

istartedi (132515) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069109)

The Internet and the computer won't really be finished until the "booting up and logging in" are replaced with "turning it on and instantly getting what you want". We had nearly instant boots with 8-bit micros and ROMs. We gave 'em up for the flexibility of putting the OS on the hard disk. There was no need to log in when the thing wasn't networked. Alas, security concerns gave rise to the login; but we don't log in to our telephones, we just dial. There is no way to bring down the whole phone network just by dialing the wrong number or saying the wrong thing into it. So there is hope that one day the whole "boot up and login" hack that we're using can be eliminated. Then this whole "computer and the internet" project will be done. Of course, it was a government project wasn't it? Maybe that'w why it's taking so long to finish.

2600 Hz (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13069173)

That was the "operator" login for telephones.

Re:2600 Hz (1)

jpmkm (160526) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069470)

something like that...

Re:Still Logging In? The System Isn't Finished. (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069218)

I think thirty seconds is a fine boot time.

With landline phones, the "computer" is always-on, that is, the switch at the CO.

If one just wanted to do email or UNIX command line stuff, then it would be trivial, assuming you are using a terminal and the computer at the other end is always on. Even then, the terminals of the old days still took maybe thirty seconds to warm up.

I would say maybe you could do sleep mode? My computers wake up in a second or two, quicker than any of my monitors can start showing an image. Another thing I've done is had my computer turn on by schedule, it's pretty easy to set up.

Re:Still Logging In? The System Isn't Finished. (2, Informative)

photon317 (208409) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069282)

Linux is already capable of booting extremely fast, but it's the distro guys that are lagging on making it happen. Basically, a large part of the boot time is starting a bunch of services sequentially. However, if you have proper service dependency information (like LSB-based distros should all have, and Gentoo has for sure), instead of just boot order numbers (/etc/rc2.d/SNNsomeservice), you can parallelize a lot of the boot process. Add to that the fact that except for kernel upgrades, you don't really need to reboot linux anyways, and 2.6 has integrated software suspend to HDD, and you can boot even faster by just suspending to disk instead of shutting down.

Re:Still Logging In? The System Isn't Finished. (1)

istartedi (132515) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069539)

you don't really need to reboot linux anyways

It grates on me a bit whenever I hear that. Too many *NIX people are locked in to the "rackspace" mentality where shutting down is only done for maintenance. Most of us work with desktops, and although power consumption during hibernate or standby modes is not nearly as bad as just letting it sit there, it's still a hack and not a truly fast boot. I'll grant though, that it's a time-honored hack:

When I was a kid TV tubes took a long time to warm up. Solution? Many TVs were never totally off as long as they were plugged in. The filament on the picture tube, and perhaps a few other tubes, was always kept warm. The only way for those sets to really be off was to unplug them. Then, the set took forever to warm up. It seems that the newer tubes have actually overcome this problem, because I've noticed that tubes now have a warm-up period again, but it's a very fast warm-up. Of course tubes are really on their way out (finally!) but the bottom line is that putting "vampire devices" on the power grid is not the final answer.

Many of us treat our boxes like TVs--we power cycle the every day. When I shut something off, I want it to be all the way off. Then the project is done.

Re:Still Logging In? The System Isn't Finished. (1)

unitron (5733) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069656)

Keeping the tube filaments partially heated was as much for extending tube life as it was to speed up turn on time.

Re:Still Logging In? The System Isn't Finished. (1)

Caine (784) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069797)

However, if you have proper service dependency information (like LSB-based distros should all have, and Gentoo has for sure), instead of just boot order numbers (/etc/rc2.d/SNNsomeservice), you can parallelize a lot of the boot process.

Please explain to me how you speed up the boot process by parallelizing something on a one cpu - one system disk machine.

Re:Still Logging In? The System Isn't Finished. (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069848)

Please explain to me how you speed up the boot process by parallelizing something on a one cpu - one system disk machine.

What do you think the CPU is doing while a single task is waiting on the hard disk?

Re:Still Logging In? The System Isn't Finished. (1)

St. Arbirix (218306) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069533)

Dude, I think what you're describing would have to be a government project. The internet is just kinda wild and untamed (part of its charm, there's actually danger here when most real-world danger is made up on TV or with falsified evidence), but once it's been tamed, as most non-technical governments seem to want to do, then you'll be required to have what you're talking about.

I think internet should be more like space. If you're going to step out into no atmosphere don't blame the maintainers when you get hit by debris and your suit depressurizes. If you don't meet the safety standards to get on (and I'm also referring to anything that gets you 0wn3d in less than 20 minutes) don't get pissed at the internet, get pissed at your suit maker.

How petty and anarcho-libertarian of me though. A guy can dream...

Linux Bios (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069566)

You can get instant-on systems based around linux... though "instant" actually means a few seconds in tedious reality, they can boot as fast as you can get through the bios check. It's linux bios [linuxbios.org] , and if you're willing to get compatible hardware, it can be quite cool.

And yes, there are consumer applications [proteinos.com] in the wild.

Re:Still Logging In? The System Isn't Finished. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13069647)

Remind me to hire you next time I have a design project to do.

Slashdot effect (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13069116)

So, when does his server reach critical mass due to slashdotters?

Re:Slashdot effect (1)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069147)

> So, when does his server reach critical mass due to slashdotters?

There's a goatse joke in there somewhere, folks.

(Preferably behind the event horizon. You really don't want to see the naked singularity.)

Latest News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13069497)

So, when does his server reach critical mass due to slashdotters?

"A small nuclear explosion occured today in Silicon Valley. It was thought to either be terrorist or a Slashdot server reaching critical mass."

Super size the net (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13069120)

Does the internet weigh more in the US?

Re:Super size the net (1)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069161)

I would like an extra order of fries with my Internet please :)

Re:Super size the net (2, Funny)

HermanAB (661181) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069431)

The internet is bigger in Texas.

Re:Super size the net (0, Troll)

Vacant Mind (449927) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069532)

Of course.. we got all the TLD servers!

I asked "google answers" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13069143)

Here's what came back:

Researchers are ready to answer your question for as little as $2.50 -- usually within 24 hours. Your satisfaction is completely guaranteed.

Step 1 - Enter your Question. Tips for great results.

hackaday (0, Offtopic)

a3217055 (768293) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069145)

This was on hackaday already, you can check it out at http://www.hackaday.com/ [hackaday.com] Sorry slashdot, ain't the news site that it used to be. Maybe tomorrow will be better

blame the regular story submitters... (1)

weighn (578357) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069451)

They were either too busy playing with their Transformers or spell/gramma checkers as this stroy flew by...

Re:hackaday (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13069655)

Yes, and I check hackaday every day, along with every other internet news site in existance...

There is a reason Slashdot exists.

(And why the hell doesn't hackaday have capital letters? Is this one of those stylish/"hip" things? It's bloody obnoxious)

Re:hackaday (1)

name773 (696972) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069818)

nah, it's just easier :) (i do the same thing usually)

Weighing the internet? (3, Insightful)

Kaorimoch (858523) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069146)

Perhaps a better term would be "Counting the people on the internet"? That weighing stuff is for things with, well, MASS.

Woah, not even close (4, Informative)

kyndig (579355) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069150)

This is so horribly full of conjectures, uncontrolled data resources, and just pure speculation. The figures are based off Alexa Toolbar users, and one website visitor ratio. The author uses these as the base of forumlating a simple division/multiplication approach to postulating the gross users of the internet.

Suggestion for more accurate collection of information. Talk to ICANN or that nifty website senderbase.org [senderbase.org] that has a broader view on traffic flow across the internet.

What does "online" mean? (4, Insightful)

erice (13380) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069158)

The trouble with these kinds of measurements is not that it is hard to get the data. The trouble is that it is hard to get data that makes any sense and even harder to define what sort of sense it is supposed to make.

This isn't the 80's. People don't connect to the Internet in discrete blocks every few days. They are connected 24x7 either at home, work, even on their phones. Who is to say that somone who doesn't visit some popular website isn't online? Who is to say that a particular visit to a web site is even represents a person?

Re:What does "online" mean? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069342)

Most likely that visit is from Google's spider, anyway.

Re:What does "online" mean? (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069530)

Bah.. just count the number of unique IPs querying google. If you're 'online' you're going to use a search engine at some point and so very many people use google. Not sure what to do about IP spoofing, but whatever there is that differentiates the different sub-addresses should be able to differentiate different users as well.

Re:What does "online" mean? (1)

Felinoid (16872) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069624)

My sister uses dial up.
I turn my computer off before I go to bed.
My mothers cell phone logs out when she isn't using it.

In the United States cell phones can't stay connected to the cell network 24/7. (Plus all the times we turn our phones off for eather politeness, policy or law)

I remember people in the UK complaing about having to use the BT dial up "pay by the bandwith" style service. (Don't know if this is still the case as I don't live there)

In some parts of the world Internet access means going to a community center and logging on from there.

Those of us who have regulare Internet access also tend to use services like AIM, Gnutella and others that maintain a regulare connection with a host.

Besides if someone is mesuring over the day a person with 24/7 internet access checks his e-mail at least once.

However if he's just mesuring web traffic then he's going to lose all the people who are just picking up e-mail, using telnet, using gnutella, playing multiplayer games or just visting websites they don't happen to be monitoring.

Slashdot effect to combat global warming? (2, Funny)

michaeldot (751590) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069164)

Here's an idea: as there are clearly an enormous number of people accessible via the internet, if we could all be coordinated to use our weight by jumping up and down at a notified time, we may be able influence the rotational orbit of the Earth.

We could have time zone +0 GMT start jumping at one part of the day, then time zone +12 GMT do it twelve hours later.

The cumulative effect might be enough to push the Earth into a longer orbit, thus moving us further away from the sun and cooling the planet.

(Of course, it's not solely proximity to the sun that determines global temperature, and Newton's Third Law + the weight of the planet vs the weight of humans might have something to say about whether jumping would actually work, but don't let that spoil some silly science!)

Re:Slashdot effect to combat global warming? (4, Funny)

Aerion (705544) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069188)

Damn! Foiled again by conservation of momentum!

Re:Slashdot effect to combat global warming? (2, Funny)

wasted time (891410) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069240)

and for those who may think the parent is nuts: http://www.worldjumpday.org/ [worldjumpday.org] Flash site warning embarassed that I have that link bookmarked...

Re:Slashdot effect to combat global warming? (1)

Aerion (705544) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069246)

and for those who may think the parent is nuts: http://www.worldjumpday.org/ [worldjumpday.org]

Linking to the site doesn't change the fact that your parent poster is nuts.

what the hell (5, Insightful)

hobotron (891379) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069198)


Horrible Horrible "study".

"So we can figure out the number of people who view hackaday by dividing 72,500 by 1.4, which gives us roughly 51,800 daily viewers."

Wrong. Bad sample population, low sample size with ONE DAY, NO inclusion of error propagation across statistical barriers. When you multiply estimates, you multiply error as well.

"With this knowlege, you can easily estimate the traffic to other sites. If we go by the 471 million estimate, Slashdot gets a whopping 380,000 daily readers."

Pretty sure I F5 more than that.

"Alexa... Alexa... Alexa...etc."

I dont know about you but Alexa is bordering on adware with this. Call me paranoid, I dont care.

Also not everyone (like me) would sign up and run a dumb banner like this on their browser, so your sample excluedes pretty much everyone that got hit with the smarts bat growing up.

Perhaps im missing some gross humorous overtone, but mod article -1 Statistical Chicanery

Re:what the hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13069381)

so true, who the hell uses alexa anyways?

isnt that spyware? oh that's why I don't have it!

Don't bother, TA doesn't tell us... (1, Interesting)

Sensible Clod (771142) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069223)

the answer to the really important question:

how many Libraries of Congress does it weigh?

horribly ? (4, Funny)

William Robinson (875390) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069239)

and am horribly attracted to women everywhere,

'Horribly' is not accepted as standard word in scientific research publications. The description must be quantitative like 'and am 91% time attracted to women at 45% of the places'. A graph of level of attraction vs cup size would be great!!

Re:horribly ? (2, Informative)

image77 (304432) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069499)

Attraction vs. waist size would be more representative

Interesting Conclusions (2, Informative)

chrisp9446 (853767) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069269)

Wait a second...didn't we conclude yesterday that 1/3 of all studies are bunk? Well, at least these guys did admit their data wasn't statistically valid ;).

Re:Interesting Conclusions (1)

stoph ct (899877) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069494)

I was thinking the same thing [slashdot.org] , darn you. Too bad the government doesn't include "access to internets" on the census yet.

oh, I thought they were weighing internet users (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13069270)

slashdot users especially are greasy fat fucks

I'm one of them! (1)

spoonsman (853553) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069274)

I using the internet. Is anyone else here using the internet too? I'm so unique.

Physics? (1)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069287)

What does this have to do with Physics? Sure, weight is a physical phenomenon. Does that mean that buying a half a pound of ham from the deli is taking "Physics to a new dimension"?

How about "Abusing statistics in an unconscionable manner."? That seems more apt.

-Peter

Re:Physics? (1)

Jack Porter (310054) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069375)

RTFA:
In 1798 Henry Cavendish, known for his scientific brilliance and terrible fear of women, developed a system for calculating the gravitational constant (G) by measuring the gravitational attraction between two small spheres. In essence, he was able to "weigh the earth" by comparing the relationship between two known objects.

He used the term "Weighing the Internet" because he used an analogous techniqe by comparing the number of actual visitors to a website to the number recorded for the same website by Alexa, to make an estimate of the total number of real visitors to the entire internet represented by the total visitors sampled by Alexa.

The validity of this is of course another matter...

Re:Physics? (1)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069599)

I disagree. Cavendish (apparently) derived a constant from the interaction of small objects. Given that this is a constant it naturally generalized to all massive objects.

This guy, as I said, (ab)used statistics to show . . . whatever the fuck.

Is that clearer? Cavendish didn't use statistics.

-Peter

"Log in?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13069295)

Uh, I'm on DSL and I'm here 24/7, and behind my NAT there are 4 computers getting random use. How do I count in this?

Re:"Log in?" (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069355)

Now we know where the error in their estimates came from. You're the one.

How heavy? (1)

Rexel99 (613029) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069334)

What portion were overwight?

You 1nsensitive clod? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13069335)

Filed countAersuit, Baby take my just yet, but I'-m of progress.

That means AIM weighs ... 0.00000004% the Internet (1)

joelsanda (619660) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069370)

If users equates weight that means the maximum weight of a buddy list in AIM (which is 150) weighs 0.00000004% the Internet. (Atkins) Instant Messenger, anyone?

So, SEC to validate Nielsen/NetRatings reports? (1)

WarmNoodles (899413) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069371)

The numbers pumped through his equation seem to show inflated numbers or suspicion of inflated #'s.
Public reports of ratings and fraud have been mentioned in his blog, and we have LOTS and lots of cash related the Nielsen/NetRatings reports as the issue.

Sounds like the SEC FTC should start sniffing up Nielsen skirts.
SEC raids Nielsen next.

Bet the best buy stores around Nielsen's HQ will be out of shredders tonight.

yo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13069401)

half of comcast's traffic is drone related.
along with most of europe.

i can weigh the internet too. its a huge pile of shit.

"been there, done that..." (Stanislaw Lem) (1)

atrocious cowpat (850512) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069442)


...roughly 1978:

Professor A. ("Affidavit") Donda (the offspring of an unfortunate genetical experiment including 3 women and a microscope slide) invents "Svarnetics" (roughly: "Advanced Mumbo-Jumboistics") as a pretense to load the worlds biggest computer with as much data as possible to find out if information has physical weight. He succeeds; however at the moment information is actually so dense that it becomes matter/weighable it turns into an info-black-hole, swallowing all information so far accumulated by humankind. What's left are some issues of "Playboy" (remember: this was written in the late 70s).

In case you've never heard of Stanislaw Lem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislaw_Lem [wikipedia.org]

In his novels and short stories you will find tons of amazing stuff (bio-/cyber-jack-stories from the 50es, bizarre robot-love and one of the most disillusioned space-pilots ever ("Pirx"). Besides: Lem was the guy who wrote the novel "Solaris", decently turned into a movie by Andrei Tarkovsky and, more recently, but not quite as decently, by Steven Soderbergh.

Weight of electrons in use at any given time? (1)

BenJeremy (181303) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069443)

That would match the title of this article a bit better... anybody care to take a stabe at the number?

Assuming X number of electrons to store a bit, multiplied by the amount of traffic in a given day, multiplied by the weight of an electron.

In Stone, of course, because nothing beats an ancient, obscure weight system used by exactly ONE country on this planet.

Weight? (1)

Mechcozmo (871146) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069449)

My old CRT weighs about 35 lbs. Does that count? Because I switched to a LCD, did the Internet loose weight?

Log in? (2, Insightful)

Transcendent (204992) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069453)

How do I "log in" to the internet?

Same math with BBC News data gives 609M (1)

Jack Porter (310054) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069472)

According to Alexa [alexa.com] , BBC News [bbc.co.uk] has a daily reach of about 20,000 per million. After the London bombings last week, that shot up to about 32,000.

So a daily reach of 32,000 per million means that 0.032 of users visit the BBC News website.

Now according to this article [bbc.co.uk] , the BBC news website had a record 115 million page views last Thursday, so with 5.9 page views per user (from Alexa), that's 19.49 million users.

Dividing 19.49 by 0.032 gives 609M.

Of course, something is totally out of whack because that article also states that the number of page views was 5 times normal, but that isn't reflected in either the reach or page views per user reported by Alexa.

From TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13069481)

While talking about weighing the Internet it mentions Henry Cavendish, the person who first figured out the weight of the world. He did this by measuring the gravitational attraction between balls. It goes on to say:

"In other words, Cavendish needed some really large balls to weigh the earth. 350 pound balls, to be precise."

There has to be a joke about the Internet in there somewhere. Since this really isn't news, how 'bout a contest to find the best one?

Oblig. Cartman quote (3, Funny)

kihjin (866070) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069491)

Internet: "I'm not fat, I'm just sufficiently back-boned."

There are Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. (1)

image77 (304432) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069510)

This hits all three....

LOL TEH INTERNET IS FAT (1)

Nosf3ratu (702029) | more than 9 years ago | (#13069651)

n/t
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>