For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with gamma rays

Re:For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with... by detaro on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @02:58PM (#18497122)

I think the article gives good reasons to believe they are not typos, why do you think otherwise?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with... by amichal on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @03:04PM (#18497181)

While i like the sibling comment's network errors answer better then mine I didn't see any reasoning other then a unfounded statement[1] in the article or on a quick skim for "typo" in the referenced whitepaper:

[1] "These requests were not typos or other manually entered URLs"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with... by bgirard on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @03:46PM (#18497547)

Here's a better quote: "There are many frequently resolved domains that few people type or know."

There's a lot more details in the article.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with... by eli on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @03:58PM (#18497639)

"All of these requests used only four domains in the HTTP Host header, as shown in Table 4. Three out of four domains contain more than one bit error, ruling out a simple mistype of fbbdn.net for fbcdn.net. "

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:For a brief period, the Windows kernel tried to deal with... by seandougall on Tuesday November 20, 2018 @05:26PM (#18498419)

Not to mention, the number of people typing "fbcdn.net" into a browser has to be vanishingly small to begin with.

[ Parent | on HN ]