I'm well aware of how the NYFD got started. Just because that solution worked, doesn't mean it's the only one that would. Remember, all of that happened before any serious attention was being paid to organized crime. Do you seriously think that a private fire company could get away with such things today?
While I don't take any issue with fire service being provided by governments, I do have to disagree with your reasoning as to why a private system can't work. I believe it would be a fairly simple matter to handle via insurance. Try to get a mortgage without having fire insurance (usually as part of a larger package), it can't be done. Insurance providers base these rates on, among other things, the likelihood that your house will burn to the ground. I you don't have fire service, your insurance rate will be astronomical. How you actually buy fire service may vary, in some cases it may be bundled with insurance, or maybe it will be paid for by the bank (in exchange for a slightly higher interest rate).
As for mandated anything being equivalent to a government program to provide the same service, it is not. Whenever a government provides a service, it becomes a monopoly in that area. A monopoly with the power to put you in jail if you refuse to pay for their service and to prevent you from offering a competing service.
first worldwide facility for naturists to earn substantial sums of money from work that incidentally provides them with the capability to work entirely without clothes
I guess, it depends on what you mean by "webserver." A proper definition would be the edge server that a user interacts with via http(s). In all but the most trivial applications, only a small portion of the work of providing the content that actually ends up on a webpage happens on such a machine.
Take for example Google. In order to serve you a search result first they have to crawl the web, parse the resulting data, index the parsed data, then replicate indexes and document caches to edge locations around the world. None of that involves a webserver (on Google's side). On the actual serving side, you can look at the last published (that I could find quickly) information on their search cluster architecture and make some guess at the number of servers a search might touch. They don't actually put a number to that, probably more because if varies by the actual hardware specs of the machines in a given cluster than for any perceived competitive reason, but I think a reasonable guess would be in the 50-100 range, only ONE of which would actually be a webserver.
BTW, all of the above is still based on the flawed assumption that the only thing companies do with servers is produce content for display via the web. Believe it or not there are plenty of ways to use big amounts of processing capacity that don't involve the web.
I'm glad I only have to give my name once. They always give me an odd look when I say I'm Fred Flintstone. Then the second time around as Clark Gable gets all the old ladies checking the books excited. Don't even get me started on the reaction when they hear Stewie Griffin...
You're correct, but I'm assuming that practical limitations would result in a craft that would tend to max out at ~0.75c. While the time dialation effect is certainly noticeable at that speed it's nothing like what you experience when you start to count the 9's (e.g. 0.9999c). I'd love to be proven wrong in my assumption some day and if there was a colony ship capable of >0.99c leaving tomorrow I'd jump at that chance to be on it.
1. nuclear weapons != nuclear power 2. While BSG spends lots of time building up the drama surrounding the possible, and actual, use of nukes, few are actually deployed by the humans.
It's kinda sad that Reality imposes a 1 LY/year limit. Any intelligent race would be lucky just to reach the next star cluster - forget about visiting other galaxies.
If a group of humans where willing and able to dedicate the time (decades of construction, centuries of travel) and money (hopefully <$1 trillion) to undertake a multi-generational ONE-WAY journey to the closest Earth-like planet we can find, I have no doubt that it could be done without FTL travel. Consider BSG, the only technology referenced (on the human side) that violated current scientific theory, allowing for standard bad-science in soft sci-fi, was the FTL drive. Sure they used a wonder fuel, as so much sci-fi does, but that's just a crutch the writers use to show a future (er... past) free from the bogeyman of nuclear power.
In practical terms that's not really meaningful. Considering the timescale involved, you're probably dealing with a margin of error of +/- 1 billion years. Then consider that the speed of evolution, in all its forms (i.e. planetary, geological, biological, societal, and technological), is influenced by an incalculable number of interrelated factors. So, in reality, being "one of the first" could mean that we're several billion years behind some and ahead of others.
...if Netflix wanted to start downloading all of the episodes to a Miniseries that I start watching while I sleep so that I can watch them in HD even with a slower connection... all the more power to them. In fact my two 2TB HDDs are mostly unused. If they want to download all of my recommended Netflix movies but dynamically delete them when I need more space.. again all the more power to them if it doesn't interfere with my normal browsing. There is a lot of time while I'm at work where my internet connection could be going full tilt caching my potential entertainment. In fact it doesn't even have to cache all of it--just enough so that there is no buffering.
That would all be great... on a desktop or media center computer. What I really don't get is how anyone, even Sony, could possibly think this is a good idea for mobile. By the time you get around to watching any of those cached videos, your battery will be dead (which may be the only thing that will save you from exceeding your bandwidth cap, if any, by several orders of magnitude).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm well aware of how the NYFD got started. Just because that solution worked, doesn't mean it's the only one that would. Remember, all of that happened before any serious attention was being paid to organized crime. Do you seriously think that a private fire company could get away with such things today?
While I don't take any issue with fire service being provided by governments, I do have to disagree with your reasoning as to why a private system can't work. I believe it would be a fairly simple matter to handle via insurance. Try to get a mortgage without having fire insurance (usually as part of a larger package), it can't be done. Insurance providers base these rates on, among other things, the likelihood that your house will burn to the ground. I you don't have fire service, your insurance rate will be astronomical. How you actually buy fire service may vary, in some cases it may be bundled with insurance, or maybe it will be paid for by the bank (in exchange for a slightly higher interest rate).
As for mandated anything being equivalent to a government program to provide the same service, it is not. Whenever a government provides a service, it becomes a monopoly in that area. A monopoly with the power to put you in jail if you refuse to pay for their service and to prevent you from offering a competing service.
Why not just buy Congress? It would solve many more problems and at a cheaper price.
Utility belt?
No, it's provided.
first worldwide facility for naturists to earn substantial sums of money from work that incidentally provides them with the capability to work entirely without clothes
Um... I can think of a few others. Just sayin'.
I guess, it depends on what you mean by "webserver." A proper definition would be the edge server that a user interacts with via http(s). In all but the most trivial applications, only a small portion of the work of providing the content that actually ends up on a webpage happens on such a machine.
Take for example Google. In order to serve you a search result first they have to crawl the web, parse the resulting data, index the parsed data, then replicate indexes and document caches to edge locations around the world. None of that involves a webserver (on Google's side). On the actual serving side, you can look at the last published (that I could find quickly) information on their search cluster architecture and make some guess at the number of servers a search might touch. They don't actually put a number to that, probably more because if varies by the actual hardware specs of the machines in a given cluster than for any perceived competitive reason, but I think a reasonable guess would be in the 50-100 range, only ONE of which would actually be a webserver.
BTW, all of the above is still based on the flawed assumption that the only thing companies do with servers is produce content for display via the web. Believe it or not there are plenty of ways to use big amounts of processing capacity that don't involve the web.
I'm being green by engaging in active population control, you insensitive clod.
Especially when the Israelis are trying to hack into your centrifuge controllers.
First contact test: FAIL
Retry period: 100 years
Hey you kids.
Hey, as long as they're here we should make them feel welcome.
Kids, today's dumbed-down-for-your-protection unit of measure is: "minivan in rush-hour traffic"
1 minivan in rush-hour traffic = 38 miles per hour
No, no... What's step 2, I don't know is step 3.
I'm glad I only have to give my name once. They always give me an odd look when I say I'm Fred Flintstone. Then the second time around as Clark Gable gets all the old ladies checking the books excited. Don't even get me started on the reaction when they hear Stewie Griffin...
I thought 4 was supposed to be Profit! Dammit!
You're correct, but I'm assuming that practical limitations would result in a craft that would tend to max out at ~0.75c. While the time dialation effect is certainly noticeable at that speed it's nothing like what you experience when you start to count the 9's (e.g. 0.9999c). I'd love to be proven wrong in my assumption some day and if there was a colony ship capable of >0.99c leaving tomorrow I'd jump at that chance to be on it.
1. nuclear weapons != nuclear power
2. While BSG spends lots of time building up the drama surrounding the possible, and actual, use of nukes, few are actually deployed by the humans.
It's kinda sad that Reality imposes a 1 LY/year limit. Any intelligent race would be lucky just to reach the next star cluster - forget about visiting other galaxies.
If a group of humans where willing and able to dedicate the time (decades of construction, centuries of travel) and money (hopefully <$1 trillion) to undertake a multi-generational ONE-WAY journey to the closest Earth-like planet we can find, I have no doubt that it could be done without FTL travel. Consider BSG, the only technology referenced (on the human side) that violated current scientific theory, allowing for standard bad-science in soft sci-fi, was the FTL drive. Sure they used a wonder fuel, as so much sci-fi does, but that's just a crutch the writers use to show a future (er... past) free from the bogeyman of nuclear power.
Virgin Birth 2.0
In practical terms that's not really meaningful. Considering the timescale involved, you're probably dealing with a margin of error of +/- 1 billion years. Then consider that the speed of evolution, in all its forms (i.e. planetary, geological, biological, societal, and technological), is influenced by an incalculable number of interrelated factors. So, in reality, being "one of the first" could mean that we're several billion years behind some and ahead of others.
I think we should pass on getting laid for the time being thanks.
And with that immortal phrase, Slashdot was born.
Yes, and I've got photographic evidence.
42
P.S. Congrats on finally figuring out the question.
...if Netflix wanted to start downloading all of the episodes to a Miniseries that I start watching while I sleep so that I can watch them in HD even with a slower connection... all the more power to them. In fact my two 2TB HDDs are mostly unused. If they want to download all of my recommended Netflix movies but dynamically delete them when I need more space.. again all the more power to them if it doesn't interfere with my normal browsing. There is a lot of time while I'm at work where my internet connection could be going full tilt caching my potential entertainment. In fact it doesn't even have to cache all of it--just enough so that there is no buffering.
That would all be great... on a desktop or media center computer. What I really don't get is how anyone, even Sony, could possibly think this is a good idea for mobile. By the time you get around to watching any of those cached videos, your battery will be dead (which may be the only thing that will save you from exceeding your bandwidth cap, if any, by several orders of magnitude).