[e2e] Speaking of congestion control...

[Cannara]

Ok, you made me blow my token Michael!  See what happens when inadequate
buffering is provided...
-----
 The U.S.S. Constitution (Old Ironsides), as a combat vessel, carried
 48,600 gallons of fresh water for her crew of 475 officers and men. 
 This was sufficient for six months of sustained operations at sea.  
 She carried no evaporators (fresh water distillers).

 According to her log: "On July 27, 1798, USS Constitution sailed from
 Boston with a full complement of 475 officers and men, 48,600 gallons 
 of fresh water, 7,400 cannon shot, 11,600 pounds of black powder and
 79,400 gallons of rum."

 Her mission: "To destroy and harass English shipping." [apologies, Brits]

 Making Jamaica on 6 October, she took on 826 pounds of flour and 68,300
 gallons of rum.

 Then she headed for the Azores, arriving there 12 November.  She
 provisioned with 550 pounds of beef and 64,300 gallons of Portuguese 
 wine.  On 18 November, she set sail for England.

 In the ensuing days she defeated five British men-of-war and captured 
 and scuttled 12 English merchantmen, salvaging only the rum aboard 
 each [really sorry now, Brits :].

 By 26 January, her powder and shot were exhausted.  Nevertheless, and
 though unarmed, she made a night raid up the Firth of Clyde in Scotland.
 Her landing party captured a whiskey distillery and transferred 40,000
 gallons of single malt Scotch aboard by dawn [Scots, apologies too].

 Then she headed home.  The Constitution arrived in Boston on 20 February
 1799 (~7 months at sea), with no cannon shot, no food, no powder, no rum,
 no wine, no whiskey and 38,600 gallons of stagnant water.
-----
If only the water buffer had been available.  But the real network question is
-- what was each sailor's estimated alcoholic throughput?

Alex

Michael Welzl wrote:
> 
> he he ...and I was just about to ask whether it would be okay
> to send one more message for each response I get, until I
> reach a certain threshold   :)
> 
> Anyway, I don't think that this kind of restriction is
> such a good idea, given the amount of spam and meta-spam
> we had on this list not too long ago - sure, it's a lot
> of traffic these days, but we should be glad it finally
> relates to end2end-interest and not spam (even though I
> believe I've seen this type of cc. discussions before -
> especially the ECN vs. SQ things... perhaps a FAQ would
> be a good idea  :)  ).