Slashdot Effect on 2004 Christmas Lights Webcam and Hoax Revealed
Shortcut to the table below ... but some of my
comments are pretty interesting since it turns out that if you want to know
if a story is coming your way from sites such as Slashdot, Fark, or even the
Wall Street Journal, it's possible to do so without much effort.
I once again put out my christmas lights in 2004 which seem to be fairly popular as numerous sites have
picked up on.
I actually think I might stand a chance against the Slashdot horde
this time as I have converted to using mod_perl on the web server and
have improved/optimized the Analog interfaces - see
what's new for Christmas/2004
- Update: /. kicked my a** when the article first hit and
I had to disable the webcam for about 90 minutes, but it was up after that!
BTW, a /. reader recommended setting KeepAlive=no and this appears
to make a BIG difference for me - the web server held up just fine to
higher sustained load a few days later from the AP story that went
National ... so thank you Slashdot! ;-)
For those that don't know, Slashdot is the incredibly popular
"News for Nerds" site and can bring a thundering herd of
surfers to your site, all in a very short amount of time.
I've written about the slashdot effect
before - I did writeups for
Christmas 2002 & 2003
and Halloween 2004 ... but this can
generically apply to other sites that generate a lotta traffic which can
result in a DDoS - Distributed Denial of Service.
The Web Server (a 2.4 GHz Xeon with a GByte of RAM running pretty standard
Linux with the Apache web server)
copious logging data and one can use the raw data to "track" traffic from
sites that link to you based on what is called the referrer (which spammers
sometimes spoof for referrer log spamming) - I actually use
this to do a customized body alert="message" from certain sites, so some folks
were amazed I "knew" about it so soon! ;-)
It's actually quite easy to see when these sites posted about the Christmas
stuff because there is a very noticeable uptick in traffic - all times are
Mountain Standard Time (GMT-7) and the numbers below are definately
LOW because some browsers block the referrer. In date/time order, we have:
- MajorGeeks.Com is a web site
that probably doesn't need much explanation! ;-) They put it on their
main page under "Off Base Postings" at 2017 on Wednesday, December 1st, 2004
and there was also some discussion in their Forums. It rolled off a day or
two later, but they periodically put it back up. Doesn't generate
flash traffic, but it is a pretty decent steady stream, plus I appreciated
having my site recognized by the MajorGeeks guys ... as did my wife who
got quite the chuckle out of it and said it was quite fitting for me! ;-)
- USA TODAY listed it as one of their "Hot Sites" in their
Web Guide. This was posted at 0806 on Thursday, December 2nd, 2004 and they
provided a direct link with an explanation - they liked my
"Hulkariffic Halloween Decorations" - their term - love it!.
It appears this "rolled off" of the main "Hot Sites" page and into the
December 2nd archives just before noon the next day. There is no opportunity
for web surfers to comment on the posting that I'm aware of. I never heard if
it made the Print Edition, but that would be hard to track (since no
referrer), although I
assume it would generate a TON of traffic - note that
The Hulk enjoys reading USA Today under Christmas Lights! ;-)
- WeirdLinks.Com is a
blog/news like site that probably doesn't need much explanation.
Looks like they post a story or so a day, so it slowly moves down the page.
They linked to my site at 0855 on Friday, December 3rd, 2004
with the comment:
"Turn This Guy's Christmas Lights on and Off - Alek wants you to mess around with his Christmas lights from your computer. The image is of Alek's gaudy housey." HEY, "guady" is your opinion - I think they are ... well,
maybe just a little bit guady! ;-)
- Honorable mention goes to Kim Komando which picked it her Kool Site on
Saturday, December 4th, 2004 and notified her (claimed) 3.5 million Email
subscribers and 8 million radio listeners. While there was no where close
to that amount of traffic surge, she did send a noticeable uptick.
The self-proclaimed America's Digital Goddess was
when the hoax broke and thinks it would have been easier to do for real;
so we'll see what Kim's Christmas Lights look like in 2005! ;-)
- GorrilaMask.Net is a blog-like
page (with links to mature content) that mentioned on their front page that
"Control this guy's Christmas lights from your computer"
along with a handful of other links. This was posted at 1333 on
Monday, December 6th, 2004 and appears to be generating a stream of traffic.
There is some sort of forum at MindLessBullSh*t.Com, but I didn't browse
around there to see if things were discussed, although there was traffic
from the main page there.
- Ernie's House of WhoopAss is blog-like page (with links to mature content) from (surprise!) Ernie and
in an article posted at 1520 (and 01 seconds!) on Tuesday, December 7th, 2004
"See The Hulk and other cool sh*t on Komar's controllable Christmas webcam!"
There are "pay-for" forums, so I don't know if there
was discussion about this at his site. Ernie posts a new story about
once a day (or every other day) ... so this slowly gets pushed down to the
bottom. While the traffic isn't as "flashy" as Slashdot or FARK, he must have
one heck of a readership because web surfers just keep coming from his site
to the Christmas Webcam - and this wasn't even a "boobies" link! ;-)
As can be seen from the stats, traffic just keeps coming,
so Ernie has some serious staying power!
- The Inquirer is a
Britsh based news/review/etc. site. Wil Harris wrote a funny halloween
"Lights chap is one pumpkin short of a party" and he sub-titled the Christmas one
"Bonkers house gets even bonkier."
It hit the web at 0312 (and 23 seconds!) on Decemember 11th, 2004
which would be mid-morning in Jolly ol' England. They post 5-10 stories/day,
so this slowly moves down the page and gets less interest. Their forum
requires a login and I didn't look there, so I don't know if it was discussed.
- Heise Online is a German News/Review site (similar in style (and apparently readership!) as Slashdot) that posted an article about LED lights
(here's an English translation)
at 1032 (and 36 seconds!) on Saturday, December 11th, 2004.
Ironically, the article was mostly about LED's, with the webcam link buried near
the end, which makes me wonder what the traffic would have been like if the
article had specifically called on the Christmas Lights Webcam.
Similiar to the Inquirer, new stories are periodically posted, so this
moves downward. Comments are allowed, but mostly seemed to be about
the LED's. While this data is not presented/included below, another
German site Stern.De has sent over 4,000 surfers my way starting
at 0939 on Wednesday, December 15th, 2004.
is the "News for Nerds" sites that has short articles with links for more info.
Their front page article was titled "Alek's Christmas Lights Webcam is Back"
and had multiple links to various URL's. I suspect that many /. readers
simply click on every link listed, so the inbound referral count is probably
quite a bit higher than if a single link had been listed ... however, the
data below is low because I had to restart the web server several time in
an attempt to tune things for the traffic - i.e. so far, Slashdot is the
only site to bring komar.org to its knees ... but it was
never rebooted! ;-) Slashdot posted at
1749 (and 3 seconds!) on Sunday, December 12th, 2004.
Slashdot posts a dozen or so stories to the main page, so this
story slowly scrolled down. There was 150+ comments in the article (still
being commented upon) including a couple from me. Note that "controversial"
postings may generate more comments so this suggests that /. traffic can
certainly be higher for those sites. I also had a
I thought Heise generated a fair amount of traffic, but as the
numbers clearly show below, Slashdot is still the king of a DDoS ...
although Fark isn't that far behind as noted below!
- AP/Associated Press/Traditional Media
The local paper did a story on my Christmas lights/webcam which got sent out nationally! This one is kinda hard to track
since (as typical of the traditional press), there aren't links in the
article itself, but a sidebar with a point to my home page. So for lack of
better methods, I'm going to pick a starting time when the first hit came
in from news.yahoo.com at 1715 on Tuesday, December 14th, 2004 and simply
count the numbers of hits on my main page from ALL sites ... since this story
was replicated on dozens (maybe hundreds?) of various media sites ...
although some of those sites were a bit more savvy and added a proper link to
the webcam In addition, people came in through the search engines - a
HUGE surge in searches for "Alek Komarnitsky" As expected, this is not quite
as "flashy" (such as Slashdot), but builds as a surging tidal wave over time!
I also show below the inbound traffic ONLY from news.yahoo.com.
- Aunty Spam's Net Patrol wrote a funny story about the Christmas Lights that hit at
0503 on Monday, December 13th, 2004 and generated a steady stream of
traffic - always listen to your Aunty! ;-) They also joined the
"Put Alek on National TV campaign" with a post the afternoon of Monday, December 20th.
is a local Denver TV Station. They did a story on the Christmas Lights
for the 10:00 News on Tuesday, December 14th, 2004. At the end of the
show, the anchor commented that if they put a link to my site at www.9news.com,
that it would probably crash my server. Not even close (but bring it
on baby! ;-) ... but I'll give 'em credit in that they have an
decent readership as seen by the numbers below. And they did generate
a bit of flash traffic (my guess is timed when the story runs) since while
it first was deep-linked on their
web site at the above URL at 1818, they put it in their "extra" section (and
probably mentioned on the air) at 2217, so the data below is shown from there.
It was just a reprint of the AP article and included a link to my home page
instead of the Christmas Webcam. I did suggest to the Web Producer that they
include a link to the webcam since then I could (based on the referrer) show
a picture of their reporter
stepping on my lights with her high heels ... but they declined! ;-)
- I got an Email that "Norway's largest paper" ran the story
and just for grins, I took the top-3 .no domains and analyzed that traffic.
Inbounds started at 1336 on Wednesday, December 15th from
Sol.No at 1503 on the same day, and then
StartSiden.No showed up at 0519 on Friday, December 17th. Combined data from
all three sites is presented below.
- The Seattle PI (my old hometown) put the story up at 1401 on Wednesday,
Decemeber 15th, 2004. They were a little more savvy that most of the media
outlets in that they added a link to the
Christmas Webcam rather than just
my main page ... so I give 'em bonus points for that!
is some sort of Hungary news (?) website. I have no idea what is being said
in the brief article about my Christmas Lights, but it must be a fairly
popular web site as can be seen in the numbers below which started up at
0901 on Saturday, December 18th, 2004.
is some sort of Finland news (?) website. Again, I have no idea what is being
said in the brief article about my Christmas Lights, but it must be a fairly
popular web site as can be seen in the numbers below which started up at
1209 on Sunday, December 19th, 2004
- David Pogue from the NYTimes wrote a little writeup in his technology blog -
(registration required link) that described how my site has become
a "mini-lesson in surviving a Slashdotting" ... but since this didn't run
on the front page of the NY Times, I was able to handle the load from
the article! ;-)
- The Canada.Com Web Junkie wrote a short little blurb that popped up at 2218 on Wednesday,
December 22nd, 2004. Not a whole lotta traffic, but I like our
neighbors to the North (did several Canadian radio interviews), so I
thought I'd toss 'em in here.
- UserFriendly.Org picked
the Christmas Webcam as their LOTD (Link of the Day) at Thursday,
December 24th, 2004. This is the home of the
ever-funny JD and his comic strip ... has quite the readership ... and
highly recommended for a daily visit. As implied, the links stays up
for a day, and then rolls into the archives, so most of the traffic is
in the first 24 hours
Needless to say, once the story broke that the
christmas lights webcam was a hoax there was
quite a bit of interest. I knew this was coming (but didn't know
exactly when) and had moved aside the images/videos to other servers ...
so it's a little hard to compare
traffic numbers, but it appears to have been a bit less that the media
wave two weeks earlier. My guess is that earlier, many people were more
compelled to come actually look at the site, whereas now, they simply
read the story at various media outlets and didn't go from there ...
but my impression is that this story was MUCH more well read as it was
not only main page of all the major web sites, but was actually the
#1 or #2 most popular story on CNN.Com and WSJ.Com (based on their
click-thru data) during the day. While I knew some of the stories would
hammer me personally, I was disappointed at some of the
inaccuracies in many of the press reports
but hey, this is the press! ;-) Fortunately, the Email response has
been overwhelmingly positive.
- ABC-7 Denver Channel started generating traffic at 1419 on Monday, December 27th, 2004. This is kinda interesting, because the article is time-stamped as
posted at 1402 (and subsequently updated).
Being the nice guy that I am, I had said something was up beforehand which
was a mistake. In their haste to get the story up, they made some errors and
read more about this here.
One thing cool is they ran an online poll asking if viewers were
"mad to find out that the Christmas lights were faked" ... and the
percentages were fairly constant over days of voting and thousands of votes -
over 84% of people said "No, because it's funny" whereas less than
16% said "Yes, because he duped me" ... not too shabby considering
the article was fairly negative against me.
- The Wall Street Journal article went live at 1425 on Monday, December 27th, 2004 based on inbound traffic, although it's dated 1423.
Interestingly enough, there were three inbounds from the same URL with
parameters at the end 11 minutes BEFORE that time - those IP addresses
resolve to sb2insgproxy3.dowjones.com, 130.muh43.nycm.n54ny31ur.dsl.att.net,
and 184.108.40.206 which doesn't resolve, but appears to belong to an ISP
named SAVVIS outa New York. I.e. some folks (my guess is internal
to the WSJ) were looking at the story early before it went public;
probably link checking and catogorization based on what those
parameters looked like to me.
I wonder if the the WSJ knows information is bleeding out?
BTW, it looks like most
of the WSJ traffic comes from various proxies at dowjones.com, so if you
want to know if the WSJ is looking at your web pages, this is certainly
a way ... and they may want to consider some sort of anonymous proxy
or off-site ISP to "cloak" the poking around that they do so webmasters
don't see 'em in their web servers logs. Ditto for organizations such
as McGraw Hill, New York Times, and others.
BTW, I could say a little bit more, but I like the WSJ (have subscribed
for over 20 years), so I don't want to give too many clues how people can
tell if a story is coming their way! ;-)
I again hit the main page of Slashdot which posted the story at 1618 on
Monday, December 27th, 2004. The "good news" (from a non-flash traffic
point of view) is the article link was to the
ABC-7 story - recall they were the ones who took me up in the helicopter ... which was probably the "bad news" for me since their
article was especially negative toward me, plus it said the Wall Street Journal
uncovered it when in fact I approached the WSJ. While there was a lotta
"atta-boys, good job Alek" comments, there were also a number of
negative comments, so I wonder if it would have been different if they
had gone to my hoax page rather than ABC-7's. One poster said it all
when he provided a link to my site and said:
"Read what Alex himself has to say about the hoax.
Pretty interesting to hear it from the man himself instead a news agency ticked off at him for fooling them."
Regardless, this reduced the flash traffic on my server since it wasn't
in the story itself, but linked throughout the story ... so these numbers
aren't as high as before. My guess is this never showed up early in
the subscriber-only "mysterious future" since there was no real increase
in inbound slashdot traffic before 1618 - but at 1618 and 38 seconds,
there was a very noticeable increase in traffic from the OLD slashdot article,
so people were double clicking to get to the site.
- FARK posted at 1822 and pounded the site with a direct link. Fark can be
a bit risque, but they kept it pretty clean, and the commentary
was pretty funny - I chimed in a few times. Fark's claim to fame is stories
with headlines that the media would love to write, but would be too
politically incorrect to do so - very funny.
My favorite comment was by bornyesterday who wrote
"Hulkster will forever be a revered name in Fark" ;-)
One interesting thing is that this Fark posting had a single link to my
web site and generated 33,732 referrals in 24 hours from 30,962 unique
IP addresses. For comparison purposes, the December 12th Slashdot posting,
before the hoax,
which had multiple links to various places on my web site generated 90,607
referrals in 24 hours from 55,168 unique IP addresses (unfortunately, the
December 27th posting didn't link to my hoax page, so no data available there).
So Fark isn't that far away from Slashdot in terms of
generating traffic! Take that with a grain of salt - Slashdot's posting was
on a Sunday, whereas Fark's was on a Tuesday (although later in the day
and also between Xmas and New Years) ... and hard to say what the readership
feels is more "interesting" ... but Fark has a lotta eyeballs looking at it.
For comparison purposes, take a look at the
Halloween/2004 traffic analysis where Fark
traffic was less than a quarter of that from Slashdot.
- Colleen Slevin's AP correction showed up on
Yahoo News at 2057 on Monday,
December 27th, 2004. She was quite annoyed about the whole thing
when we talked, and while she emphasized some negative stuff, I'm surprised
she didn't slant it more, although she got some "good" insinuations in there.
One major gaff was the quote from
Paul McLellan who said I was "unethical" - the next morning,
Paul posted a correction
that explained "my words were miscontrued to mean something entirely different"
but it appears he did not push Colleen for a correction to her
correction - now that would been funny!
- FOXNews had an article starting at 2328 on Monday, December 27th, 2004. I noticed the next
day it was on their front page, but I don't know when that happened ... but
inbound traffic was around one/second in some of the morning hours - this is
a well read news site.
- USA Today writes a correction that comes out at 0218 on Tuesday,
December 28th, 2004. The USA Today folks are not only up late, they have
a good sense of humor - funny writeup.
- Wil Harris
from the Inquirer writes a followup to his previous article that
hits at 0336 on Wednesday, December 29th, 2004. He's not too happy
about the whole thing.
- David Pogue from the NYTimes did a follow up post at 0615 on Thursday,
December 30th, 2004. Here is the
registration required link and he expressed his displeasure
with the hoax - ironically, his bio says magic has been a hobby of his since
his childhood - isn't that a hoax? While I disagree with what he wrote -
read more in my media updates - I
do agree that the media is "so embarrassed to have fallen for the hoax"
that I suspect this colored his writing.
Number of inbounds per site after being posted
*1: As noted above, AP data is all hits to main page from ALL sites, so methodology is different and not directly comparable (so not much sense in showing week/month data) ... but still kinda interesting.
|Site - Time Posted
||Site - Time Posted
|MajorGeeks - 1/2017
||MajorGeeks - 1/2017
|USA Today - 2/0806
||USA Today - 2/0806
|WeirdLinks - 3/0855
||WeirdLinks - 3/0855
|Gorilla - 6/1333
||Gorilla - 6/1333
|Ernie - 7/1520
||Ernie - 7/1520
|Inquirer - 11/0312
||Inquirer - 11/0312
|Heise - 11/1032
||Heise - 11/1032
|Slashdot - 12/1749
||Slashdot - 12/1749
|Aunty - 13/0503
||Aunty - 13/0503
|Yahoo - 14/1715
||Yahoo - 14/1715
|AP*1 - 14/1715
||AP*1 - 14/1715
|9News - 14/2217
||9News - 14/2217
|Norway - 15/1336
||Norway - 15/1336
|SeattlePI - 15/1401
||SeattlePI - 15/1401
|Index.HU - 18/0901
||Index.HU - 18/0901
|MBnet.FI - 19/1209
||MBnet.FI - 19/1209
|NY Times - 20/0943
||NY Times - 20/0943
|Canada.Com - 22/2218
||Canada.Com - 22/2218
|UserFriendly - 24/0100
||UserFriendly - 24/0100
|ABC7 - 27/1419
||ABC7 - 27/1419
|WSJ - 27/1425
||WSJ - 27/1425
|Secondary /. - 27/1618
||Secondary /. - 27/1618
|FARK - 27/1822
||FARK - 27/1822
|Yahoo - 27/2057
||Yahoo - 27/2057
|FOX - 27/2328
||FOX - 27/2328
|USA Today - 28/0218
||USA Today - 28/0218
|Inquirer - 29/0336
||Inquirer - 29/0336
|NY Times - 30/0615
||NY Times - 30/0615
|Site - Time Posted
||Site - Time Posted
Some General "Slashdot Effect" Commentary
While numerous folks have written about the Slashdot Effect, this was a little
different in that not only was it a test of "digital" stuff like the
web server, ISP bandwidth, Perl/CGI code, but also "analog" stuff as the
code has interfaces to various sensors and the webcam itself, plus you are
turning a lotta lights ON & OFF - it certainly provided one heck of a
light show for the neighbors! ;-)
It should be noted that the "digital" stuff has extensive logging (as did the
the webcam daemon)
but "analog" stuff does not. So I don't "know" if something goes wrong (for instance,
sometimes the images
just come back "bad")
and you have to infer problems/breakdowns due to heavy load indirectly.
Plus real-world analog stuff just isn't that fast, nor as "reliable", so I had
coded things intentionally with a 1-second throttle with the hope that the
analog side would not get overloaded - as of 12/8, I haven't popped a
circuit breaker yet, but I
did have one inline light fuse pop and take out 6 strands of 900 lights (yea, I know, only connect 3 strands togather) ... but hey, when you have 17,000 lights, it probably wasn't even noticed! ;-)
The webcam page is about 20 KBytes of HTML/CSS and the webcam image
varies between 10-20 KBytes ... so from a bandwidth point of view, it's
a pretty lightweight page - hey, I designed it so even dial-up'ers can use it!
Pre-Christmas/2004, the several thousand lines of Perl code (plus
Benchmark, CGI::Carp, Fcntl, IPfree, Socket, and Time::HiRes modules) had
to be slurped in each time since it ran as a CGI_EXEC. With mod_perl,
it does this once ... and some misc. ApacheBench testing showed the web
server is capable of 5 times as many connections under load. My code run
fairly quickly - it uses signals to communicate
with the "webcam daemon", so there's a sleep loop where it waits, but
that isn't CPU intensive. I also have a flag to disable real-time DNS
lookups and I may consider that under extremely heavy load, as those can
take some time. There's a memory leak in the webcam daemon, but since
this is throttled once/second, it takes most of the night to grow to
a GByte in process size, and I can just restart that.
Slashdot Effect Analysis - Misc. Interesting Tidbits/Ideas/Lessons Learned - SO FAR!
The 2004 optimization of the X10, Webcam, and other "analog" devices worked well.
In 2003, I had a 5-second throttle, but I looked closely at the various
operations/commands and multi-threaded it as much as possible.
One easy "trick" was that the weather data is actually from the previous
query (it doesn't change that fast), so I just grab that data and queue
up a re-request for the next person. If the webcam (this year's
non-disclosure model is much quicker) is overloaded when
handling someone else (signals are blocked during this time), I just
grab the previous picture and say sorry, charlie. Similar optimizations
were done for the other sensors, but again, these are all farmed off in
parrellel rather than doing sequentially. In order to cycle the lights
on & off faster than one/second, I'll have to use a different technology
than X10 since it is relatively slow. BTW, several folks have asked when
I'm going to stream video and I'll consider that when someone pays for
an OC-3 line to my house and my web server at the ISP! ;-)
Which is "stronger" - Slashdot or Fark?
Slashdot is pretty darn strong - but Fark generated comparable traffic.
Insights into the Slashdot subscription program.
While Slashdot is a "free" web site, you can pay for a subscription which
also allows you to see stories earlier - i.e. beat the crowd and see into
the "mysterious future" which I recommend - cheap, easy, ... and very useful
when they descend onto your site. The first referral was at 1729:39
(220.127.116.11) and there was a total of 63 inbound referrals (including me!)
from 43 unique IP's until it hit the publically viewable page at 1749:03 and the
thundering herd showed up! ;-) Ironically, the Slashdot
subscription FAQ says about 10-20 minutes early ... this was (basically)
exactly 20 minutes ... just like it was for Halloween/2004.
Insights into the Fark subscription program - Total Fark.
The TotalFark gang swung by a couple of times for a little over 500
referrals, and then pounded the site when it hit the main page.
How many FARK/Slashdot/Ernie/etc. readers are there?
The number of unique IP's was 70-80% of the numbers above (surprisingly
consistant) which is a ballpark figure for number of readers - yea, I know
there are proxy, DHCP, etc. issues. As mentioned, it's hard to say how popular
the Christmas webcam is for the referring web sites readers, so that
certainly influences the numbers.
For the coders out there - be sure to think about and handle race conditions - they DO happen!
If you have never dealt with race conditions, The Slashdot Effect
is certainly a good test of your code. A classic (but flawed)
approach to file locking is checking to see if a file exists, and if not,
creating it ... but that is not an atomic operation - i.e. it's two different
steps seperated by a small amount of time - read more in my
Christmas 2003 Slashdot Effect writeup.
mod_perl is also unforgiving (since your program basically runs as a
subroutine within an interupt loop) ... and I had a file lock that I
forgot to unlock - oooops!
BTW, I use Perl Cookbook Recipe 7.11 to handle file locking and incrementing
of a couple of counters - this works flawlessly ... except when Slashdot
showed up in Halloween and Christmas 2004 ... oh well! ;-)
Would it be possible to get "early notification" of an incoming Slashdot?
I don't log/track the referrer in real-time with the CGI Perl script,
but this would not be difficult to add ... and then it's simply a matter
of looking for the incoming "slashdot.org/" (main page) ... but as noted above,
this would only give me 20 minutes notice. For Fark, you would look for
incoming "totalfark.com" which would signal that it has been submitted,
but I don't think there's any early indicator of when it has been approved
except they all show up at once. Note that if I tracked this, it would be
fairly easy to get/display "rate" information - i.e. 1,528 /.'ers in the
last 10 minutes.
Want more info and/or have a suggestion/idea for me?
The Christmas FAQ has some
more info as does my responses when folks
Email Santa. And if
those don't answer your questions and/or if you have an idea (or just
want to send me an atta-boy), then
send me an Email.
Go back to the main slashdot effect analysis page.