241–250 of 325 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same stock is listed in more than one place, and also e.g. stock movements in NY affect stocks in London. There are undersea cables built for this purpose: https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a...
What a waste of human ingenuity. And I thought ad-tech was bad enough
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm struggling to imagine a network path that could induce a 1-2 second delay from one side of the world to the other. Even at just 50% of c-in-vacuum that's only a tenth of a second.
There's a lot of active gear introducing delays between those ends. Pinging www.govt.nz, which is about 17000km from me and as close to the antipode as I can find in a quick search, pings at around 300 to 400ms, so only at about 15 to 20% of c.
This is amazing. I know there will be latency issues, but for majority of web browsing, videos, etc, it shouldn't matter. We are entering the era of spacenet and the future looks bright. Imagine having devices as small as phones or set-top boxes that can directly access internet using satellites. It would lead to a revolution in many industries.
Could you expand on which industries will be improved? My normal life is covered entirely by 4G, with 5G now appearing. I guess you mean things like internet on planes, shipping internet, off-shore rigs? But what things can't they do at the moment because of prohibitorily slow/costly satellite internet?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But are all villages in France like that? I doubt it. Even in Norway there are thousands of people without access to sufficiently fast broadband, and some 80k DSL customers who apparently will never get fiber at all. The proposed solution for the latter is to use 4G/5G, which comes with its own issues of course. I'd say even in well developed countries, Starlink is a nice option to have. As I understand it, the 42Mbp…
Eventually everyone is going to get connected, yes. I mean someone in Norway also had to draw a powerline to these people, to use electricity. Why not draw a fiber link, too? It's just part of infrastructure. I'm not saying that Starlink isn't useful. I'm just really wondering what the implications for astronomy are going to be, whether we will always see these things at dusk. Now it's Starlink, but what if 3 or 4 co…
Their limited lifespan is what makes me much less pessimistic than I would be. They have relatively high maintenance costs which means that if utilization is low, it won't make sense to keep replacing them.
So I guess companies will now fill the entire global sky with thousands of sats just to make up for the fact that the US government ignores rural houses when it comes to digital infrastructure? I'm sorry but how is 42Mbps worth spamming the entire nightsky with to the point that it prevent astronomers from obtaining useful data? Not even 10Mbps upload? My inlaws live in a village in France that has 70 people total. I…
On the flip side, why should the majority of us in denser areas in the US subsidize people who want to live in exurbs/rural areas? If you want to live in a place like that, be prepared to pay the cost for the infrastructure. We already pay enough subsidies for roads, water, power, etc in rural/exurban areas.
In fact, your argument basically boils down to "Why should X pay for Y?" So why should astronomers pay for Starlink?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In all your anti-american rambling, you are ignoring that SpaceX isn't the only company doing this. > Other operators include the London-based OneWeb, which has launched 74 of what it hopes will be a gigantic fleet of 48,000 satellites
Oneweb is bankrupt. It may be half-rescued by the British govt as an attempt to build its own GPS system since they got kicked out of Galileo due to Brexit, but it is unlikely to be a player anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the flip side, why should the majority of us in denser areas in the US subsidize people who want to live in exurbs/rural areas? If you want to live in a place like that, be prepared to pay the cost for the infrastructure. We already pay enough subsidies for roads, water, power, etc in rural/exurban areas.
Boldly asserting that we already pay "enough" subsidizing other utilities is lazy. Why are "road, water, power, etc" subsidies fine but internet subsidies not? They all fall within the same category: essential services that would be low-return/high-risk if provided by private entities. In fact, your argument basically boils down to "Why should X pay for Y?" So why should astronomers pay for Starlink?
I should add that I live in the midwest (Cincinnati) so I directly see a lot of rural/exurban areas people are talking about here. There are just miles and miles and miles of suburbs out in the middle of nowhere because people here are obsessed with the idea of them. The amount of money that gets dumped in to those areas while people complain up a storm when the urban areas try to build out their own infrastructure is insane.
I can't tell you how many coworkers I have had that drive 45mins+ just so they can live in some suburb far away from everything. If they want to do that, fine, but don't beg for internet, roads, etc to be paid for at the cost of sucking resources away from people living in urban areas.
So I guess companies will now fill the entire global sky with thousands of sats just to make up for the fact that the US government ignores rural houses when it comes to digital infrastructure? I'm sorry but how is 42Mbps worth spamming the entire nightsky with to the point that it prevent astronomers from obtaining useful data? Not even 10Mbps upload? My inlaws live in a village in France that has 70 people total. I…
I am sorry but how it is the role of government to provide everyone with internet? The American government "refuses" because there is no Constitutional Authority for which it could use to provide such a service, and that is a good thing People seem to think government should just provide everything to everyone, the government should be very limited in size and scope, and providing internet is WELL outside what a limi…
In an alternate reality, it’s easy to see how this could be interpreted broadly as meaning the government has an impetus to provide for communications infrastructure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the flip side, why should the majority of us in denser areas in the US subsidize people who want to live in exurbs/rural areas? If you want to live in a place like that, be prepared to pay the cost for the infrastructure. We already pay enough subsidies for roads, water, power, etc in rural/exurban areas.
I'm healthy but I pay for those who are not. I grew up fine but I pay for those with special needs. I have a job during Covid but I pay for those who don't. I guess in Europe we call this 'society'.
Kind of telling that North America immigrants were largely people escaping European utopian society. I guess different people have different values?