I have used (although I did not install it) a 600 meter cable run. I would recommend fiber over that distance, and I believe that I mentioned this in the original post.
That cable, however, was not protected by conduit (although it was burried) and required replacement. I hired a contractor to bury fiber in conduit. As far as I know, it's still there [I don't work at the mine any longer]. I've never laid my own conduit.
Permit acquisition is left as an exercise for the reader. There are lots of things that you "can't just do" without a permit. Like build a deck. Or a shed. Or a spare bedroom in the basement. Somehow, it doesn't stop it from happening...
Fortunately, however, other posts have filled in the blanks about using a 'mouse' and 'pull boxes' to effectively draw the cable after the conduit cement has cured.
I agree that digging this ditch 'the old fashioned way' would take a large amount of time.
If it were me, I'd probably bring in a contractor to do it.
If you do consider this route, get local utilities to locate underground services for you - so that you don't accidentally dig up power/water. You shouldn't - we're talking a foot and a half, but...
Supplies: Hoe (one per helper) 500 meters of heavy duty conduit 500 meters of cable (recommend that you lay fiber at the same time)
Solution 1: 1a: Dig a long trench from the cable termination point down the dirt road to your father's house 1b: Dig a long trench from "the closest neighbour with cable internet" down the dirt road to your father's hose
Ensure that the trench is at least 18 inches deep, roughly 8 inches wide
2. Lay 500 meters of heavy duty conduit. Ensure that you are threading your cable through the conduit all the way along. Attempting to thread the cable AFTER the counduit has been completed may prove to be problematic.
3a: Call the cable company to connect the cable to the cable termination point. Begin paying monthly subscription to cable internet provider. 3b: If you've chosen to run the connection to your neighbhour's home, ensure that you don't piss him/her off. They are now your cable internet provider.
Canadia and Washington D.C. are filled with unscrupulous bad people who want to take my guns, childrens, and beer from me Your guns? Sure, we'll take those. Your children? Yeah, what the heck - they're small so we'll take those too. But your beer? Not even at gunpoint...
From sig:
"God is dead" - Nietzsche, 1882 "Nietzsche is dead" - God, 1900 I certainly hope that this isn't rewritten to state: "SCO is dead" - Novell, 2007 "Novell is dead" - SCO, 2008
This is a patent repost of the parent.
Re:Applause is in order (Score:2, Informative) by gstoddart (321705) on Thursday March 20, @10:32AM (#22807760) Homepage
Mod this down, Very NSFW. Indeed, this is the third posting I've seen today (second from this poster) which looks like a yahoo.com and ends up being members.on.nimp.org (REALLY NSWF, don't go there) which will randomly show some of the nastier web imagery.
Nasty stuff.
Cheers Gentlemen, start your modding (hopefully the parent up, rather than this one up or down)...
Sure wish that you hadn't replied anonymously - I do appreciate your response. On one hand it's humourous, and on the other, it's validity cannot be overlooked.
Allow me to address each of your concerns in turn. 1. Users of email will not put up with it Most users of e-mail don't care what happens between send and receive. Like the postal service, once they drop their envelope into the slot, they expect magic to happen after it leaves their hands and arrives at their intended destination. They are vociferous when their message isn't delivered, or if they receive too many messages that are "off-colour".
2. Huge existing software investment in SMTP I don't easily discount the existing investment in smtp. I do, however, believe that the next step is to quit building barriers and start looking for alternate solutions in ernest. Adding a protocol for mail handling would require adding a layer that doesn't currently exist between mail servers.
3. Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes This is, indeed, a barrier. If the new mechanism requires authentication, you will be able to easily locate and address these boxes. This isn't an ideal approach, but the other option of "not providing a patch for these hosts" isn't realistic.
4. Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches I admit that I don't fully understand the implication of this comment - are you referring to the cost of funding a certification service?
5. (x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical I freely admit that this idea was reasonably easy to come up with. What I don't understand is why there isn't more emphasis on change, and why there is so much entropy associated with it?
6. (x) Blacklists suck 7. (x) Whitelists suck I agree with both of these. However, a central location that works for everyone would not be as bad as dozens of home-grown black/white lists.
8. (x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? There's no reason for you to trust anything of mine - your role is merely to get a [hopefully freely available] certificate and add the protocol [and any accompanying patches related to activating it]. When you are comfortable with [the next big thing], disable smtp and wait for the complaints to roll in.
9. (x) I don't want the government reading my email I can't help you with this one. It's possible that the government is already reading your mail. How would this system be any different? Granted, it's close to impossible to remain anonymous in this system, but I would expect to that there will always be a sever somewhere that would offer you that option if you want it.
It's sort of ironic, in that new technology is often embraced rapidly. We clamour to support the next big thing - to remain up to date. And yet, we are reticent to discard older techologies, for fear of alienating friends, family, clients and coworkers.
If Google or Microsoft or [insert favourite large company here] created central cert server[s] that a new mail protocol could authenticate through, we might be able to leave the current batch of spambots in the dust.
The new mail protocol would need to do all of the smtp things, plus it would need to be authenticated via a certification server. ISP's would authenticate to the central cert server[s], independent / home users would authenticate their e-mail servers to the ISP cert server - and all is good. If you identify spam, you send an e-mail to the central authentication server, and the originating ISP cert server is notified to block/shutdown the spam originator or risk being marked as a spammer and having *all* trafic blocked.
I know, easier said than done, but food for thought just the same. I have read some musings about similar things of late, but nothing that would be as generic and ubiquitous as this.
The example was meant to show how foolish it is to make spraying someone with water a crime. And yes, I do think that smoking next to a non-smoker is "more criminal" than spraying someone with water.
Interestingly enough, people who smoke next to you on the street are *not* assaulting you. Apparently it's ok for a stranger to give you lung cancer, as long as they don't get you wet.
Sadly, I'm not "in touch" with the present day curriculum for "computer science". Back in my day [get off my lawn!], problem solving accounted for the lion's share [40-50% if I recall correctly] of our mark. The fact that one of the tools being used for said problem solving was BASIC was truly ancillary.
I would think that as long as you can teach kids how to attack simple [and then complex] problems - finding patterns, breaking things down, simplifying - that you would find solace in that single accomplishment. It's a life skill that is often learned too late or only in a rudimentary fashion.
I applaud your efforts, and wish you continued success.
Whoah down - we're talking about high school, not trade school, right?
Now it's a while back now, but from what I can recall, computer science in high school has more to do with the history of computing, some introductory programming, basic debugging and problem solving, and some introduction to the flashy cutting edge stuff via presentations from industry. It is an introduction to the idea of computer programming, not a replacement for the education that a trade school, techincal college or university can provide.
Without the "primer" courses that high-schools offer, many gifted problem solvers never venture into computer science, as they don't see how their special talents might translate without that initial frame of reference.
I've flipped through the article and the little pictures. It would seem that the authors are trying to put an "It Came From The Deep" feeling against technology [and materials] that they don't currently see a market for or appreciate the market force behind. It's not unusual for people to fear things that they don't understand.
It is, however, unusual for a Tech publication to attempt to use fearmongering as a tool to bring attention to technology that their writers don't fully understand.
I can only hope that this piece was not meant to reflect that attitude of all of the writers over at cnet - it's certainly not flattering.
Most home theatres have a common issue. Rats nest of cables for the various components. RCA/HDCP/HDMI/Optical/etc. to connect a myriad of components - XBoxn, Wii, Playstationn, receiver, amplifier, DVR, speakers x7, television, htpc, remote control. If you could increase the cost of each of these devices by $10 to eliminate the requirement for cables... you could simplify the installation procedures and improve the "ease of use" factor. Take it out of the box, and press the "join my GiFi network" button. The new DVR shows up on your receiver as device 5 "Stanasonic DVR SNxxxx". The new centre channel speaker shows up as device 23 "Blose Centre Channel speaker SNxxxx". The projector shows up as device 1 "Blite-On Projector SNxxxx". It would be interesting to see if devices that don't require the complete bandwidth available would use less power - ie: speakers wouldn't utilize that bandwidth....
The average home office would benefit from the same technology. Anything that will fit comfortably within a 900 sq ft or smaller room - printer, spouse's computer, kid's computer, scanner, mouse, keyboard.
Perhaps there would be a seperate market for "secure GiFi" - that would involve buying or creating a 256bit encryption key on a small USB token - that would need to be attached to any new devices that you wish to join your SGiFi network.
At the end of the day, for $10 per device, there's a lot of simplicity to be gained here.
...and people grow more data hungry (and they always grow more data hungry) Nah, people are fine as long as you remember these simple rules: - Keep them away from bright light - Don't get any water on them - Never, never ever feed them data after midnight
I am an independant contractor - a UNIX analyst. In most cases, I'm brought into a company for a specific project. I can tell you a few "rules of thumb" that are consistant when walking into a new organization - be it oil & gas, telecommunications, online banking, mining, or media. 1. Poorly implemented infrastructure is costly to the business. #If it takes 15 days to create a UNIX account, there's something wrong... 2. Poorly documented infrastructure can be costly to the business. #If it takes 3 days to figure out how to add a UNIX account, and each account is created differently, there's something wrong. 3. Decision makers are unlikely to replace a poorly understood system. #If you can't explain why a host is running, and there are no documents to explain it, you won't get a new one - no matter how badly you may need it!
Fortunately, poorly understood infrastructure can be decoded in the course of building better documentation. Taking the time to understand the system and then publishing your findings will make resolving the same or similar issues easier in the future. This is most obvious at 3am, when you are awakened because you are the only person that touched "that box" in the past 7 years...
Organic change is a big issue, but if the documentation is reviewed periodically [likely by your new hires or temporary contractors when learning the role], this can be resolved in small pieces as you go. Poor or non-existant documentation will likely result in a slow return to service in the event of a problem.
Solution - at implementation time: Take the time to document what it is Take the time to document how it works Take the time to document how to maintain it
Solution - at problem identification time: Take the time to document the problem Take the time to document what it *should* look like Take the time to document how you fixed it After you've resolved the problem, take the time to document what it is, how it works and how to maintain it.
Next steps? You can then take steps to move repeatable tasks to junior staff (like password resets, account creation, etc.) - have them follow the documentation to ensure that standards and conventions are followed, as well as ensuring that the documentation works. Empower these people to get their feet wet in the administrative arena, and promote those that show the most interest/promise. Then, use the time that you were wasting performing re-discovery to investigate ways to improve the environment, investigate ways of using new and interesting technology to resolve legacy problems, or even to spend more time on slashdot!
How can you say that a hardware problem is more obvious if the first step is to reboot the box? Bad memory modules will plague your user for weeks - at inopportune times. Problems with power supplies can often hide unchecked and "resolved" with periodic computer reboots. This can lead to more costly problems with your system. If you have problems with specific applications, you should at least take the time to document it. This way, when other users suffer the same problems, you have more fuel to add to your discussions with your software vendors. Without taking the time to look at the problem, you only serve to add multiple 2 minute interruptions to your life and 15 minute interruptions in the life of your user.
With the growing unwillingness of management to pay for adequate staffing for almost any job I don't disagree with this statement. But there are more effective ways to deal with this issue than to abandon providing the very service that you are in place to provide. You need to prove that not immediately sending a technician to a desktop to resolve computer issues results in an a tangible cost to the business. In order to do that, you need to document each time that a user calls that results in a "reboot" request. You will need to track how long it takes for the user to reboot and test, and you will need to do this for several weeks - without fail. Then, you need to take the results to your manager/director/CIO. Remaining silent will not lead to better service levels for your clients, and will only serve to perpetuate your departments reputation as not being able to provide full service when the customer demands it.
I'm not the enemy, I've been through this before. I've had to fight for every person on my staff (past tense, I consult now).
Slashdot Mirror
Reading along further reminded me... There WAS an extender along the line at the midpoint.
Sorta skews my note...
Sorry for the misdirection...
I have used (although I did not install it) a 600 meter cable run. I would recommend fiber over that distance, and I believe that I mentioned this in the original post.
That cable, however, was not protected by conduit (although it was burried) and required replacement. I hired a contractor to bury fiber in conduit. As far as I know, it's still there [I don't work at the mine any longer]. I've never laid my own conduit.
Permit acquisition is left as an exercise for the reader. There are lots of things that you "can't just do" without a permit. Like build a deck. Or a shed. Or a spare bedroom in the basement. Somehow, it doesn't stop it from happening...
Fortunately, however, other posts have filled in the blanks about using a 'mouse' and 'pull boxes' to effectively draw the cable after the conduit cement has cured.
I agree that digging this ditch 'the old fashioned way' would take a large amount of time.
If it were me, I'd probably bring in a contractor to do it.
If you do consider this route, get local utilities to locate underground services for you - so that you don't accidentally dig up power/water. You shouldn't - we're talking a foot and a half, but...
Oh yeah...
Don't forget to fill the trench after you've installed the conduit!
Failing to do so, may turn this solution into a bigger problem than simple "internet access"...
Supplies:
Hoe (one per helper)
500 meters of heavy duty conduit
500 meters of cable (recommend that you lay fiber at the same time)
Solution 1:
1a: Dig a long trench from the cable termination point down the dirt road to your father's house
1b: Dig a long trench from "the closest neighbour with cable internet" down the dirt road to your father's hose
Ensure that the trench is at least 18 inches deep, roughly 8 inches wide
2. Lay 500 meters of heavy duty conduit. Ensure that you are threading your cable through the conduit all the way along. Attempting to thread the cable AFTER the counduit has been completed may prove to be problematic.
3a: Call the cable company to connect the cable to the cable termination point. Begin paying monthly subscription to cable internet provider.
3b: If you've chosen to run the connection to your neighbhour's home, ensure that you don't piss him/her off. They are now your cable internet provider.
4. Profit $$$
Think maybe Moody's would like to finance my FT subscription?
Your children? Yeah, what the heck - they're small so we'll take those too.
But your beer? Not even at gunpoint...
I never did make it back there, but I appreciate your note just the same!
I can't believe that this was modded "informative".
More accurately, I can't believe that I clicked the link from work...
"Nietzsche is dead" - God, 1900 I certainly hope that this isn't rewritten to state:
"SCO is dead" - Novell, 2007
"Novell is dead" - SCO, 2008
But if the lawyers have their way...
- Avron
by gstoddart (321705) on Thursday March 20, @10:32AM (#22807760) Homepage Mod this down, Very NSFW. Indeed, this is the third posting I've seen today (second from this poster) which looks like a yahoo.com and ends up being members.on.nimp.org (REALLY NSWF, don't go there) which will randomly show some of the nastier web imagery.
Nasty stuff.
Cheers Gentlemen, start your modding (hopefully the parent up, rather than this one up or down)...
Sure wish that you hadn't replied anonymously - I do appreciate your response. On one hand it's humourous, and on the other, it's validity cannot be overlooked.
Allow me to address each of your concerns in turn.
1. Users of email will not put up with it
Most users of e-mail don't care what happens between send and receive. Like the postal service, once they drop their envelope into the slot, they expect magic to happen after it leaves their hands and arrives at their intended destination. They are vociferous when their message isn't delivered, or if they receive too many messages that are "off-colour".
2. Huge existing software investment in SMTP
I don't easily discount the existing investment in smtp. I do, however, believe that the next step is to quit building barriers and start looking for alternate solutions in ernest. Adding a protocol for mail handling would require adding a layer that doesn't currently exist between mail servers.
3. Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
This is, indeed, a barrier. If the new mechanism requires authentication, you will be able to easily locate and address these boxes. This isn't an ideal approach, but the other option of "not providing a patch for these hosts" isn't realistic.
4. Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
I admit that I don't fully understand the implication of this comment - are you referring to the cost of funding a certification service?
5. (x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
I freely admit that this idea was reasonably easy to come up with. What I don't understand is why there isn't more emphasis on change, and why there is so much entropy associated with it?
6. (x) Blacklists suck
7. (x) Whitelists suck
I agree with both of these. However, a central location that works for everyone would not be as bad as dozens of home-grown black/white lists.
8. (x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
There's no reason for you to trust anything of mine - your role is merely to get a [hopefully freely available] certificate and add the protocol [and any accompanying patches related to activating it]. When you are comfortable with [the next big thing], disable smtp and wait for the complaints to roll in.
9. (x) I don't want the government reading my email
I can't help you with this one. It's possible that the government is already reading your mail. How would this system be any different? Granted, it's close to impossible to remain anonymous in this system, but I would expect to that there will always be a sever somewhere that would offer you that option if you want it.
It's sort of ironic, in that new technology is often embraced rapidly. We clamour to support the next big thing - to remain up to date. And yet, we are reticent to discard older techologies, for fear of alienating friends, family, clients and coworkers.
If Google or Microsoft or [insert favourite large company here] created central cert server[s] that a new mail protocol could authenticate through, we might be able to leave the current batch of spambots in the dust.
The new mail protocol would need to do all of the smtp things, plus it would need to be authenticated via a certification server. ISP's would authenticate to the central cert server[s], independent / home users would authenticate their e-mail servers to the ISP cert server - and all is good. If you identify spam, you send an e-mail to the central authentication server, and the originating ISP cert server is notified to block/shutdown the spam originator or risk being marked as a spammer and having *all* trafic blocked.
I know, easier said than done, but food for thought just the same. I have read some musings about similar things of late, but nothing that would be as generic and ubiquitous as this.
Thoughts?
- Avron
The example was meant to show how foolish it is to make spraying someone with water a crime. And yes, I do think that smoking next to a non-smoker is "more criminal" than spraying someone with water.
Interestingly enough, people who smoke next to you on the street are *not* assaulting you. Apparently it's ok for a stranger to give you lung cancer, as long as they don't get you wet.
There's something wrong there, no?
Sadly, I'm not "in touch" with the present day curriculum for "computer science". Back in my day [get off my lawn!], problem solving accounted for the lion's share [40-50% if I recall correctly] of our mark. The fact that one of the tools being used for said problem solving was BASIC was truly ancillary.
I would think that as long as you can teach kids how to attack simple [and then complex] problems - finding patterns, breaking things down, simplifying - that you would find solace in that single accomplishment. It's a life skill that is often learned too late or only in a rudimentary fashion.
I applaud your efforts, and wish you continued success.
- Avron
Whoah down - we're talking about high school, not trade school, right?
Now it's a while back now, but from what I can recall, computer science in high school has more to do with the history of computing, some introductory programming, basic debugging and problem solving, and some introduction to the flashy cutting edge stuff via presentations from industry. It is an introduction to the idea of computer programming, not a replacement for the education that a trade school, techincal college or university can provide.
Without the "primer" courses that high-schools offer, many gifted problem solvers never venture into computer science, as they don't see how their special talents might translate without that initial frame of reference.
I've flipped through the article and the little pictures. It would seem that the authors are trying to put an "It Came From The Deep" feeling against technology [and materials] that they don't currently see a market for or appreciate the market force behind. It's not unusual for people to fear things that they don't understand.
It is, however, unusual for a Tech publication to attempt to use fearmongering as a tool to bring attention to technology that their writers don't fully understand.
I can only hope that this piece was not meant to reflect that attitude of all of the writers over at cnet - it's certainly not flattering.
- Avron
Think of a [slightly] different market...
Most home theatres have a common issue. Rats nest of cables for the various components. RCA/HDCP/HDMI/Optical/etc. to connect a myriad of components - XBoxn, Wii, Playstationn, receiver, amplifier, DVR, speakers x7, television, htpc, remote control. If you could increase the cost of each of these devices by $10 to eliminate the requirement for cables... you could simplify the installation procedures and improve the "ease of use" factor. Take it out of the box, and press the "join my GiFi network" button. The new DVR shows up on your receiver as device 5 "Stanasonic DVR SNxxxx". The new centre channel speaker shows up as device 23 "Blose Centre Channel speaker SNxxxx". The projector shows up as device 1 "Blite-On Projector SNxxxx". It would be interesting to see if devices that don't require the complete bandwidth available would use less power - ie: speakers wouldn't utilize that bandwidth....
The average home office would benefit from the same technology. Anything that will fit comfortably within a 900 sq ft or smaller room - printer, spouse's computer, kid's computer, scanner, mouse, keyboard.
Perhaps there would be a seperate market for "secure GiFi" - that would involve buying or creating a 256bit encryption key on a small USB token - that would need to be attached to any new devices that you wish to join your SGiFi network.
At the end of the day, for $10 per device, there's a lot of simplicity to be gained here.
I could either mod you +1 funny, or reply and groan. I've chosen the reply and groan.
"groan"
No mods from me for this topic. Oh well!
Keep up the good work.
- Av
Did we finally find someone who choose the "Posthumously" option?
...and people grow more data hungry (and they always grow more data hungry) Nah, people are fine as long as you remember these simple rules:- Keep them away from bright light
- Don't get any water on them
- Never, never ever feed them data after midnight
Here's another way to look at this argument:
I am an independant contractor - a UNIX analyst. In most cases, I'm brought into a company for a specific project. I can tell you a few "rules of thumb" that are consistant when walking into a new organization - be it oil & gas, telecommunications, online banking, mining, or media.
1. Poorly implemented infrastructure is costly to the business. #If it takes 15 days to create a UNIX account, there's something wrong...
2. Poorly documented infrastructure can be costly to the business. #If it takes 3 days to figure out how to add a UNIX account, and each account is created differently, there's something wrong.
3. Decision makers are unlikely to replace a poorly understood system. #If you can't explain why a host is running, and there are no documents to explain it, you won't get a new one - no matter how badly you may need it!
Fortunately, poorly understood infrastructure can be decoded in the course of building better documentation. Taking the time to understand the system and then publishing your findings will make resolving the same or similar issues easier in the future. This is most obvious at 3am, when you are awakened because you are the only person that touched "that box" in the past 7 years...
Organic change is a big issue, but if the documentation is reviewed periodically [likely by your new hires or temporary contractors when learning the role], this can be resolved in small pieces as you go. Poor or non-existant documentation will likely result in a slow return to service in the event of a problem.
Solution - at implementation time:
Take the time to document what it is
Take the time to document how it works
Take the time to document how to maintain it
Solution - at problem identification time:
Take the time to document the problem
Take the time to document what it *should* look like
Take the time to document how you fixed it
After you've resolved the problem, take the time to document what it is, how it works and how to maintain it.
Next steps?
You can then take steps to move repeatable tasks to junior staff (like password resets, account creation, etc.) - have them follow the documentation to ensure that standards and conventions are followed, as well as ensuring that the documentation works. Empower these people to get their feet wet in the administrative arena, and promote those that show the most interest/promise. Then, use the time that you were wasting performing re-discovery to investigate ways to improve the environment, investigate ways of using new and interesting technology to resolve legacy problems, or even to spend more time on slashdot!
Just build the laptop case out of spandex - might learn more than you ever wanted to about it's anatomy, however...
I'm not the enemy, I've been through this before. I've had to fight for every person on my staff (past tense, I consult now).