3 ms·

Fun story, but the numbers don't add up for me: Wouldn't the signal have to do a full round trip within the timeout of 3 ms, meaning it could not go beyond 580

Fun story, but the numbers don't add up for me: Wouldn't the signal have to do a full round trip within the timeout of 3 ms, meaning it could not go beyond 580 / 2 = 290 miles? Additionally, the connection from A to B is usually not a straight line, and at that time fiber lines were much less widespread. All these factors combines make it unlikely that even 200 miles could be reached...

mulmen 6y ago
The FAQ [1] addresses both of these questions. See numbers 8 and 15, respectively. [1]: https://www.ibiblio.org/harris/500milemail-faq.html https://www.ibiblio.org/harris/500milemail-faq.html
- blauditore 6y ago
  Thanks for that link. > Well, to start with, it can't be three milliseconds, because that would only be for the outgoing packet to arrive at its destination. You have to get a response, too, before the timeout will be aborted. Shouldn't it be six milliseconds? > Of course. This is one of the details I skipped in the story. It seemed irrelevant, and boring, so I left it out. I don't understand, so it was in fact 6 ms?
coffeemaniac 6y ago
This is addressed in the FAQ[1]. > That three millisecond time doesn't make sense as the timeout for a connect() call. > Yes, I know. And it wasn't the timeout, actually. In the story, I make it sound like it took all of ten minutes from being made aware of the 500-mile email limit and determining a 3 ms light-speed issue. In fact, this took several hours, and quite a bit of detective work. The point is, eventually I came up with that figure, ran units, and gagged on my latte. (I'm fairly certain it was a different latte from the one I started with.) So what, in particular, is your question about the 3 ms figure? [1] https://www.ibiblio.org/harris/500milemail-faq.html https://www.ibiblio.org/harris/500milemail-faq.html
YesThatTom2 6y ago
I remember chatting with Trey about this as it happened in real time. I love that every time this link gets posted to HN someone says it looks like a hoax.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  I love that every time someone says something is a hoax a person who was there shows up to correct the record :)
  - YesThatTom2 6y ago
    I wanna see that happen for The Loch Ness monster!
- blauditore 6y ago
  I never claimed it was a hoax, I just didn't agree with the math, that's all. No reason to get upset.

mulmen 6y ago

The FAQ [1] addresses both of these questions. See numbers 8 and 15, respectively. [1]: https://www.ibiblio.org/harris/500milemail-faq.html https://www.ibiblio.org/harris/500milemail-faq.html

blauditore 6y ago
Thanks for that link. > Well, to start with, it can't be three milliseconds, because that would only be for the outgoing packet to arrive at its destination. You have to get a response, too, before the timeout will be aborted. Shouldn't it be six milliseconds? > Of course. This is one of the details I skipped in the story. It seemed irrelevant, and boring, so I left it out. I don't understand, so it was in fact 6 ms?

coffeemaniac 6y ago

This is addressed in the FAQ[1]. > That three millisecond time doesn't make sense as the timeout for a connect() call. > Yes, I know. And it wasn't the timeout, actually. In the story, I make it sound like it took all of ten minutes from being made aware of the 500-mile email limit and determining a 3 ms light-speed issue. In fact, this took several hours, and quite a bit of detective work. The point is, eventually I came up with that figure, ran units, and gagged on my latte. (I'm fairly certain it was a different latte from the one I started with.) So what, in particular, is your question about the 3 ms figure? [1] https://www.ibiblio.org/harris/500milemail-faq.html https://www.ibiblio.org/harris/500milemail-faq.html

YesThatTom2 6y ago

I remember chatting with Trey about this as it happened in real time. I love that every time this link gets posted to HN someone says it looks like a hoax.

saagarjha 6y ago
I love that every time someone says something is a hoax a person who was there shows up to correct the record :)
- YesThatTom2 6y ago
  I wanna see that happen for The Loch Ness monster!
blauditore 6y ago
I never claimed it was a hoax, I just didn't agree with the math, that's all. No reason to get upset.