Horses are expensive to maintain, and have a rough daily limit of about 30 miles. In comparison, a human walking at 3 mph can go the same distance in only 10 hours.
That's not comparable. The horse could do that forever (for example, see this US cavalry manual which stipulates cavalry can go 35 miles a day, six days a week indefinitely - page 152) while the person would not be able to maintain that sort of pace for more than a few hours to a day unless they were in really good shape.
In comparison, typical indefinite marching rates for an army were about 10 miles a day (both for roman legionaires and US soldiers).
It's very comparable. A human can keep up a 3mph walk forever as well. A 3mph pace is not hard for a human at all and without a pack 30 miles a day would not be an issue for a human. 35 miles per day, six days a week indefinitely would not be a problem for the average person either. I don't think a march with camp setup, etc... is comparable to what the original poster was talking about. I think you underestimate what a human is capable of. When I was in college we went on a hike to the bottom of the grand canyon for a week. None of us were in great shape, did any training, or probably near as fit as a peasant who worked all day in the field every day yet we averaged about 20-25 miles a day for a week with heavy packs on rough terrain and making camp each night. We obviously could have done alot more with a light pack. And again, we were not in shape, didn't train, and most had never even been backpacking before. For endurance running a human is every bit as good as a single horse. The pony express used multiple horses because horses are faster over short distances but over multiple days a human is actually faster. A good runner can do alot more than 35 miles per day. This guy averaged over 50 miles a day for 40 days: http://www.outsideonline.com/blog/outdoor-adventure/the-human-express-interview-with-karl-meltzer.html Here is one of many articles that states that humans can outrun every animal on the planet: http://discovermagazine.com/2006/may/tramps-like-us
> > In fact, given that routing tables grow exponentially, is it even theoretically possible for a full peer-to-peer Internet scale mesh to work? >
If current routing tables can't scale then maybe a different type of routing table or a different solution entirely is needed. For instance if every router was location aware and knew it's geographic location and the geographic location of the place it was trying to reach it could send the encrypted packet in the general direction with the knowledge that each node would get it one step physically closer to it's destination. Large hops is still a problem but large hops is really only a problem with stuff that needs to be close to real-time. For email this isn't really much of a problem as even a 5-10 minute delay or longer isn't really a big deal.
I agree that doing it yourself is pointless but not hopeless. The internet has lost it's goal of routing around failures. We should try to move to a decentralized internet. The simplest and easiest way to do this is with sharing wifi routers. Most people in a city can see multiple wifi routers. If the routers all talked to each other and shared bandwidth then you have dozens of paths to the internet. This could even be expanded to cars. While driving on the highway there is typically a string of cars stretching from your car all the way back to your house. If each of these cars had a router in it you could just hop from car to car all the way back to your house or all the way across the nation on any major highway. We need to work on decentralized grid routers to completely remove the internet from any one entity's control.
I keep asking myself how they will prevent them from shooting the wrong person and then I'm reminded of the movie "Screamers" and realize that this problem has already been solved with "tags". And we think leftover mines are bad. Wait till the next major war and 10,000 war robots get dropped over enemy lines that shoot anything that moves.
> > so a male dying is less of a blow to the population >
Not only is a male dying less of a blow to the population but on average it will probably be the weaker males that are dying on the hunt and/or not getting the girl which helps to accelerate the selection process.
Risk can be minimized if you're willing to take sacrifices instead (which could be argued is a form of risk). Many people I know (including myself) started their own business by working part-time at a minimum wage job to keep from starving. This is obviously harder if you have a mortgage, kids, etc... but many times even with children if you lower your standard of living a little and find a flexible part-time job then you can eliminate most of the risk in exchange for some temporary sacrifices and if it doesn't work out the only thing you are out is a little bit of time. There are other ways as well for instance find 10 friends who are willing to give you a stipend so you don't have to work the first few months, are able to help cover your startup costs, etc. A sole provider quiting their job cold-turkey with a mortgage, car payment, etc.. is taking on a huge amount of risk but if you move into a small apartment, pay off you car, and distribute the risk among several friends then the risk becomes much more managable. When I started my business I used a combination of investment from friends, part-time jobs, volunteer labor, and even friends pitching in to give me a small paycheck which means that no one person had a significant amount of risk and because we were successful everyone eventually ended up getting their free labor and investments paid back but if we wouldn't have been successful noone was ever really out more than they could lose.
I'm assuming you're a troll but if not, I would love to know where you're from. My kids have tons of books, every house I go to has a huge bookshelf. We have dozens of coffeeshops that are always full of people reading books. My kids bring home new books each week from school. What makes you think american parents don't have books and don't give books to their children. Yes, kids watch TV more today but there are still tons more books than there were when I was a kid.
> > . In addition, things are otherwise more stable wrt compensation/benefits/employment. >
I disagree with this part. Yes, your income is more stable week to week but so what? You shouldn't be living paycheck to paycheck anyways. Someone who is self employed actually has more stable compensation in alot of cases especially if they have multiple clients as they can't show up to work one day and have their income instantly drop to zero because of factors outside of their control. And I know multiple people who are employed yet decline employer benefits and keep their own insurance just because it is more stable to have third party insurance than to have your insurance change everytime you switch jobs. So yes, compensation/benefits/employment are more stable as long as you stay with the same company for a long period of time but that's becoming rarer and rarer.
It also takes luck, and risk. Starting a business can be the path to great fortune - or to bankruptcy.
Yes, certain ventures take luck and risk, but many do not. It's easier than most people realize to create new wealth. For instance if you grow tomatoes in your backyard, you can almost certainly sell them, eat them, etc... Your per hour rate might not be great but there is really no risk. Likewise if you buy a junk car/bike/house and fix it up then there is very little risk as you can usually always sell it for what you paid for it but if you spend the time fixing it up chances are you can sell it for alot more.
Where do you live? In the US you certainly CAN start a business. My dad and several of his siblings, my mom's dad, and a host of other people I personally know started with NOTHING and are now successful business owners. Yes, it takes time and sometimes the ability to save but starting a business is not hard. I get annoyed when the media talks about companies or the government needing to create jobs. If you go out and create a job for yourself not only will your livelyhood not be dependent on the whims on your employer but you'll probably be happier too. I have dozens of friends and relatives that work for themself and would never go back to working for someone else.
Oh, it's completely voluntary. You voluntarily give us your biometrics or you don't get your welfare check. Noone is forcing them to do it, just saying they don't get any food if they don't. In that same way, the income tax is also voluntary. You are only forced to file and pay taxes if you make about a certain amount.
> > In real life we pay for cops via taxes. Part of their job is to offer advice and even survey your home for ways that criminals might break in. It's part of the service. >
Where are you located? I've never heard of public cops giving home inspections. I've had ADT,etc... give advice (i.e. try to sell me stuff) and I've even had landscapers give advice (again, try to sell me on work), but I've never heard of public cops giving home audits. The only home audits I've heard of in the USA are energy audits which are sometimes free to some people if they are low income or live in certain areas. The only advice I've even seen from cops, etc... are signs or announcements that state things like "lock your car doors, don't leave valuables in plain sight" Other than possibly getting off-the-cuff recommendations AFTER a break-in occurs where have you heard of cops doing surveys and giving advice on how to prevent breakins.
I should have specified "cellphone" instead of "device". I realize many other devices exist for years but at least in the US, we are artificially forced into a 2 year upgrade cycle so I would be very surprised if you find very many phones in corporate america that are older than 2 years.
Or something, yes. I work in IT and support includes the phones (smart and dumb). I have never, ever seen someone break a microUSB connector. These are people that drop phones in coffee and in the toilet, who leave them on top of vehicles and who run them over with their cars. They are one of the more durable connectors I have ever seen, especially for their size. The fact that you manage to break multiples of them speaks way more about your own ineptitude than it does the plug design.
If I had to guess, working in IT, you probably only support devices for 1-2 years max so it's not surprising that you've never seen one fail. In my experience, if you don't accidently damage the phone, the first thing to go out from normal wear and tear is the micro usb port. Also, In my experience, it does ironically seem like "planned obsolescence" as the microusb usually fails about the 3 year mark shortly after my contract is up and it's time to pony up more money for a new phone.
That's basically what I did for my family. I got the book and am teaching my kids (both boys and girls) how to camp, make fires, archery, etc. as I realized that you're right that girls are "unwanted" and "unwelcome" and it's very hard to tell my daughter that she isn't allow to participate and it's easier for me and takes less time to teach my kids together than to have my boys learn at boy scouts and still have to find the time to teach my girl on my own.
This is primarily done because of single parents and working parents where the younger siblings are there anyway. My point is that not only are girls already there and are generally allowed to watch and/or participate but that it would make it easier on the parents of multiple kids, would help promote the "positive family values" they are suppose to stand for, etc.... It doesn't make sense any more sense to have a group a single gender as it does to have an occupation as a single gender. Yes, more boys are going to want to join scouts and football and more girls are going to want to join gymnastics and ballet but you shouldn't disallow a kid from joining just because they happen to like an activity that has traditionally been for the other gender.
As an additional note, in our local group she is allowed to attend all the meetings with her brothers and do all the activities, she's just not allowed to earn any merit badges, etc... so girls are still present at every meeting and activity they just don't have the same rights as the boys.
I know plenty of girls that would rather join boy scouts than girl scouts. Would it really change anything if it was "family scouts" instead? They advertise it as "family camp" but it's not really. My daughter would love to join boy scouts. She enjoys the same type of activities as her brothers as do many girls I know.
Even ignoring sexual orientation both organizations are openly sexist. Neither allows someone of the opposite sex to join. Why shouldn't a girl who likes to camp be allowed to join Boy Scouts or a boy be allowed to join Girl Scouts. The both should drop gender from their names and create programs and policies that allow boys and girls with similiar interests to both join.
Let's store the next 30 years worth of excess carbon dioxide in huge underground chambers so that instead of gradual climate change that the environment can adjust to and compensate for we instead have a massive catastrophic climate change when one of those chambers springs a leak.
I agree that it's impossible to not be reliant on other people for some services but that doesn't mean self-sufficiency is a bad goal. You could easily get to the point where you could go months or even years without help from the outside world for day to day activities. I also don't think it's a crazy goal. I actually think the opposite is true. The opposite of self-sufficiency is dependency. When someone loses their job, house, etc... and then has to wait for the government to rescue them, companies to create a job for them, etc... Obviously you can't plan for everything but having the right to own land also gives you the right to own a means of production so that you are more in control of your own life and have the ability to buffer the outside world. We've been building houses, saving for retirement, etc... for thousands of years to protect ourself from the elements that are outside of our control. Yes, you can go too far but it only makes sense to try to minimize single points of failures and buffer yourself from events that are outside of your control.
From looking over the specs, my guess is that the new customer is pushing the data to them and it is slowing down the office line while people are there working so they want to be able to allow their new customer to push it somewhere else and then they can download it at night when their office isn't using the bandwidth for day to day operations. Some possibly better solutions in decending order: 1) switch new customer from pushing to allowing you to pull from them. i.e. ask them to cache it somewhere. 2) install a caching server onsite at the customer's site. this is obviously harder to actively maintain. 3) find a colocation/cloud service that charges for only storage and not bandwidth 4) find a colocation/cloud service that gives discount for late night transfers 5) find a colocation/cloud service that bills at 95th percentile then make sure your transfer is slow and steady.
If it's graphical then include a screenshot or better yet an online demo. When I'm searching for a project the number one thing I'm looking for is whether it will fill my current need. The number two thing is whether it is more than just an alpha project. An online demo answers all this and more. I really don't care if something is somewhat complex to install AFTER I decide that it's worth using but I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to find dependencies, etc... for software that might not even be what I want or need.
I agree with this post that bandwidth is limited but monthly caps are too simplistic. 95th percential is slightly better but penalizes you for bursting. A hybrid solution where there is a monthly quota for peak times and no quota for off-peak times like the cell phone companies did for a while might be the best solution to both allow fair access to the network but also reward high bandwidth users for scheduling their high bandwidth usage during non peak hours.
Slashdot Mirror
Horses are expensive to maintain, and have a rough daily limit of about 30 miles. In comparison, a human walking at 3 mph can go the same distance in only 10 hours.
That's not comparable. The horse could do that forever (for example, see this US cavalry manual which stipulates cavalry can go 35 miles a day, six days a week indefinitely - page 152) while the person would not be able to maintain that sort of pace for more than a few hours to a day unless they were in really good shape.
In comparison, typical indefinite marching rates for an army were about 10 miles a day (both for roman legionaires and US soldiers).
It's very comparable. A human can keep up a 3mph walk forever as well. A 3mph pace is not hard for a human at all and without
a pack 30 miles a day would not be an issue for a human. 35 miles per day, six days a week indefinitely would not be a problem for
the average person either. I don't think a march with camp setup, etc... is comparable to what the original poster was talking about.
I think you underestimate what a human is capable of. When I was in college we went on a hike to the bottom of the grand canyon
for a week. None of us were in great shape, did any training, or probably near as fit as a peasant who worked all day in the field
every day yet we averaged about 20-25 miles a day for a week with heavy packs on rough terrain and making camp each night.
We obviously could have done alot more with a light pack. And again, we were not in shape, didn't train, and most had never even
been backpacking before. For endurance running a human is every bit as good as a single horse. The pony express used multiple
horses because horses are faster over short distances but over multiple days a human is actually faster. A good runner can do alot
more than 35 miles per day. This guy averaged over 50 miles a day for 40 days:
http://www.outsideonline.com/blog/outdoor-adventure/the-human-express-interview-with-karl-meltzer.html
Here is one of many articles that states that humans can outrun every animal on the planet:
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/may/tramps-like-us
>
> In fact, given that routing tables grow exponentially, is it even theoretically possible for a full peer-to-peer Internet scale mesh to work?
>
If current routing tables can't scale then maybe a different type of routing table or a different solution entirely is needed.
For instance if every router was location aware and knew it's geographic location and the geographic location of the place it was
trying to reach it could send the encrypted packet in the general direction with the knowledge that each node would get it
one step physically closer to it's destination. Large hops is still a problem but large hops is really only a problem with stuff
that needs to be close to real-time. For email this isn't really much of a problem as even a 5-10 minute delay or longer isn't
really a big deal.
I agree that doing it yourself is pointless but not hopeless. The internet has lost it's goal
of routing around failures. We should try to move to a decentralized internet. The simplest
and easiest way to do this is with sharing wifi routers. Most people in a city can see
multiple wifi routers. If the routers all talked to each other and shared bandwidth then you
have dozens of paths to the internet. This could even be expanded to cars. While
driving on the highway there is typically a string of cars stretching from your car all the way
back to your house. If each of these cars had a router in it you could just hop from car to
car all the way back to your house or all the way across the nation on any major highway.
We need to work on decentralized grid routers to completely remove the internet from any
one entity's control.
I keep asking myself how they will prevent them from shooting the wrong person
and then I'm reminded of the movie "Screamers" and realize that this problem has
already been solved with "tags". And we think leftover mines are bad. Wait till
the next major war and 10,000 war robots get dropped over enemy lines that shoot
anything that moves.
>
> so a male dying is less of a blow to the population
>
Not only is a male dying less of a blow to the population but on average it will probably be
the weaker males that are dying on the hunt and/or not getting the girl which helps to
accelerate the selection process.
Risk can be minimized if you're willing to take sacrifices instead (which could be argued is a form of risk).
Many people I know (including myself) started their own business by working part-time at a minimum wage
job to keep from starving. This is obviously harder if you have a mortgage, kids, etc... but many times even
with children if you lower your standard of living a little and find a flexible part-time job then you can
eliminate most of the risk in exchange for some temporary sacrifices and if it doesn't work out the only
thing you are out is a little bit of time. There are other ways as well for instance find 10 friends who are willing
to give you a stipend so you don't have to work the first few months, are able to help cover your startup costs,
etc. A sole provider quiting their job cold-turkey with a mortgage, car payment, etc.. is taking on a huge
amount of risk but if you move into a small apartment, pay off you car, and distribute the risk among several
friends then the risk becomes much more managable. When I started my business I used a combination of
investment from friends, part-time jobs, volunteer labor, and even friends pitching in to give me a small paycheck
which means that no one person had a significant amount of risk and because we were successful everyone
eventually ended up getting their free labor and investments paid back but if we wouldn't have been successful
noone was ever really out more than they could lose.
I'm assuming you're a troll but if not, I would love to know where you're from.
My kids have tons of books, every house I go to has a huge bookshelf. We
have dozens of coffeeshops that are always full of people reading books.
My kids bring home new books each week from school. What makes you think
american parents don't have books and don't give books to their children. Yes,
kids watch TV more today but there are still tons more books than there were
when I was a kid.
>
> . In addition, things are otherwise more stable wrt compensation/benefits/employment.
>
I disagree with this part. Yes, your income is more stable week to week but so what? You shouldn't
be living paycheck to paycheck anyways. Someone who is self employed actually has more stable
compensation in alot of cases especially if they have multiple clients as they can't show up to work
one day and have their income instantly drop to zero because of factors outside of their control.
And I know multiple people who are employed yet decline employer benefits and keep their own
insurance just because it is more stable to have third party insurance than to have your insurance
change everytime you switch jobs. So yes, compensation/benefits/employment are more stable
as long as you stay with the same company for a long period of time but that's becoming rarer and
rarer.
It also takes luck, and risk. Starting a business can be the path to great fortune - or to bankruptcy.
Yes, certain ventures take luck and risk, but many do not. It's easier than most people
realize to create new wealth. For instance if you grow tomatoes in your backyard, you can almost
certainly sell them, eat them, etc... Your per hour rate might not be great but there is really no risk.
Likewise if you buy a junk car/bike/house and fix it up then there is very little risk as you can
usually always sell it for what you paid for it but if you spend the time fixing it up chances are you
can sell it for alot more.
>
> in most cases *you can't start a business*
>
Where do you live? In the US you certainly CAN start a business.
My dad and several of his siblings, my mom's dad, and a host of other people
I personally know started with NOTHING and are now successful business owners.
Yes, it takes time and sometimes the ability to save but starting a business is not
hard. I get annoyed when the media talks about companies or the government
needing to create jobs. If you go out and create a job for yourself not only will your
livelyhood not be dependent on the whims on your employer but you'll probably
be happier too. I have dozens of friends and relatives that work for themself and
would never go back to working for someone else.
Oh, it's completely voluntary. You voluntarily give us your biometrics or you don't get your welfare check.
Noone is forcing them to do it, just saying they don't get any food if they don't. In that same way, the
income tax is also voluntary. You are only forced to file and pay taxes if you make about a certain amount.
>
>Only ten more years, it'll also be in the public domain
>
Want to make a wager on this? So far the mouse has managed to extend its copyright
everytime it is about to expire.
>
> In real life we pay for cops via taxes. Part of their job is to offer advice and even survey your home for ways that criminals might break in. It's part of the service.
>
Where are you located? I've never heard of public cops giving home inspections. I've had ADT,etc... give advice (i.e. try to sell me stuff)
and I've even had landscapers give advice (again, try to sell me on work), but I've never heard of public cops giving home audits.
The only home audits I've heard of in the USA are energy audits which are sometimes free to some people if they are low income or live
in certain areas. The only advice I've even seen from cops, etc... are signs or announcements that state things like "lock your car doors,
don't leave valuables in plain sight" Other than possibly getting off-the-cuff recommendations AFTER a break-in occurs where have you
heard of cops doing surveys and giving advice on how to prevent breakins.
I should have specified "cellphone" instead of "device". I realize many other devices exist for years
but at least in the US, we are artificially forced into a 2 year upgrade cycle so I would be very
surprised if you find very many phones in corporate america that are older than 2 years.
Or something, yes. I work in IT and support includes the phones (smart and dumb). I have never, ever seen someone break a microUSB connector. These are people that drop phones in coffee and in the toilet, who leave them on top of vehicles and who run them over with their cars. They are one of the more durable connectors I have ever seen, especially for their size. The fact that you manage to break multiples of them speaks way more about your own ineptitude than it does the plug design.
If I had to guess, working in IT, you probably only support devices for 1-2 years max so it's not surprising that you've never seen one fail.
In my experience, if you don't accidently damage the phone, the first thing to go out from normal wear and tear is the micro usb port.
Also, In my experience, it does ironically seem like "planned obsolescence" as the microusb usually fails about the 3 year mark shortly
after my contract is up and it's time to pony up more money for a new phone.
That's basically what I did for my family. I got the book and am teaching my kids (both boys and girls)
how to camp, make fires, archery, etc. as I realized that you're right that girls are "unwanted" and
"unwelcome" and it's very hard to tell my daughter that she isn't allow to participate and it's easier for
me and takes less time to teach my kids together than to have my boys learn at boy scouts and still
have to find the time to teach my girl on my own.
This is primarily done because of single parents and working parents
where the younger siblings are there anyway. My point is that not only
are girls already there and are generally allowed to watch and/or
participate but that it would make it easier on the parents of multiple
kids, would help promote the "positive family values" they are suppose
to stand for, etc.... It doesn't make sense any more sense to have a
group a single gender as it does to have an occupation as a single
gender. Yes, more boys are going to want to join scouts and football
and more girls are going to want to join gymnastics and ballet but you
shouldn't disallow a kid from joining just because they happen to like
an activity that has traditionally been for the other gender.
As an additional note, in our local group she is allowed to attend
all the meetings with her brothers and do all the activities, she's
just not allowed to earn any merit badges, etc... so girls are still
present at every meeting and activity they just don't have the
same rights as the boys.
I know plenty of girls that would rather join boy scouts than girl scouts.
Would it really change anything if it was "family scouts" instead?
They advertise it as "family camp" but it's not really. My daughter would
love to join boy scouts. She enjoys the same type of activities as her
brothers as do many girls I know.
Even ignoring sexual orientation both organizations are openly sexist. Neither allows someone of the
opposite sex to join. Why shouldn't a girl who likes to camp be allowed to join Boy Scouts or a boy
be allowed to join Girl Scouts. The both should drop gender from their names and create programs
and policies that allow boys and girls with similiar interests to both join.
Let's store the next 30 years worth of excess carbon dioxide in huge underground chambers
so that instead of gradual climate change that the environment can adjust to and compensate
for we instead have a massive catastrophic climate change when one of those chambers
springs a leak.
I agree that it's impossible to not be reliant on other people for some services but that doesn't
mean self-sufficiency is a bad goal. You could easily get to the point where you could go
months or even years without help from the outside world for day to day activities.
I also don't think it's a crazy goal. I actually think the opposite is true. The opposite of
self-sufficiency is dependency. When someone loses their job, house, etc... and then has to
wait for the government to rescue them, companies to create a job for them, etc...
Obviously you can't plan for everything but having the right to own land also gives you the
right to own a means of production so that you are more in control of your own life and have
the ability to buffer the outside world. We've been building houses, saving for retirement, etc...
for thousands of years to protect ourself from the elements that are outside of our control.
Yes, you can go too far but it only makes sense to try to minimize single points of failures and
buffer yourself from events that are outside of your control.
From looking over the specs, my guess is that the new customer is pushing the data to them and
it is slowing down the office line while people are there working so they want to be able to allow
their new customer to push it somewhere else and then they can download it at night when their
office isn't using the bandwidth for day to day operations.
Some possibly better solutions in decending order:
1) switch new customer from pushing to allowing you to pull from them. i.e. ask them to cache it somewhere.
2) install a caching server onsite at the customer's site. this is obviously harder to actively maintain.
3) find a colocation/cloud service that charges for only storage and not bandwidth
4) find a colocation/cloud service that gives discount for late night transfers
5) find a colocation/cloud service that bills at 95th percentile then make sure your transfer is slow and steady.
If it's graphical then include a screenshot or better yet an online demo.
When I'm searching for a project the number one thing I'm looking for is
whether it will fill my current need. The number two thing is whether it
is more than just an alpha project. An online demo answers all this and
more. I really don't care if something is somewhat complex to install
AFTER I decide that it's worth using but I'm not going to spend a lot of
time trying to find dependencies, etc... for software that might not even
be what I want or need.
I agree with this post that bandwidth is limited but monthly caps are too simplistic.
95th percential is slightly better but penalizes you for bursting. A hybrid solution
where there is a monthly quota for peak times and no quota for off-peak times
like the cell phone companies did for a while might be the best solution to both
allow fair access to the network but also reward high bandwidth users for
scheduling their high bandwidth usage during non peak hours.