Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Protecting undersea internet cables is a tech nightmare

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–138 of 138 posts

Re: Protecting undersea internet cables is a tech nightmare

#131

Post by samatman »

ajross wrote: post #81
samatman wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The topic was the telegraph network, which did not have that property.

Uh... no? The topic is "undersea internet cables", it's right there at the top of the page. It's true this subthread became a digression about telegraphs, and I thought it was important to bring things back to the actual subject being discussed, as it doesn't share the property that made telegraph sabotage a notable idea.

Everyone in the thread up to the point where you commented was talking about telegraph cables. I believe you when you indicate that you thought you had changed the subject back to something else, but you gave no indication that this had happened whatsoever.

The comment you're replying to:

> Because it takes 1 person, in an isolated spot to ruin a whole chunk of a network.

Is, in fact, about the telegraph network. Thus your objection to it is bootless, because it isn't true about the telegraph network, which is the topic of that comment. The fact that it's true of other things doesn't really matter, because most wrong statements might be correct if made about some other topic.

Re: Protecting undersea internet cables is a tech nightmare

#132

Post by ajross »

samatman wrote: post #131
ajross wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh... no? The topic is "undersea internet cables", it's right there at the top of the page. It's true this subthread became a digression about telegraphs, and I thought it was important to bring things back to the actual subject being discussed, as it doesn't share the property that made telegraph sabotage a notable idea.

Everyone in the thread up to the point where you commented was talking about telegraph cables. I believe you when you indicate that you thought you had changed the subject back to something else, but you gave no indication that this had happened whatsoever. The comment you're replying to: > Because it takes 1 person, in an isolated spot to ruin a whole chunk of a network. Is, in fact, about the telegraph network. Thu…

Good grief. I can only repeat: the discussion about telegraph sabotage was a senseless digression, unrelated to the subject at hand. And I think pointing that out for the people who might not understand the distinction is important. I'm sorry if you think that's "bootless", but in the real world hijacking discussions for unrelated minutiae is considered bad form. Go post an article about telegraph sabotage. The real internet is very robust.

Re: Protecting undersea internet cables is a tech nightmare

#133

Post by kortilla »

aguaviva wrote: post #88
keybored wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia is both a puny country with a GDP the size of Italy and a country that could invade all its neighboring countries if given the tiniest chance.[1] Both of these things are said here in the West. [1] Of course GDP in terms of international purchasing power isn’t the be-all-end-all for supplying your own military domestically. But people say the part about GDP as if Russia is nothing.

Both of these things are said here in the West. Except they're not. No one says Russia is a "puny country", or that it could "invade all its neighboring countries" (which would have to include, for example, China). You're definitely making some weird exaggerations here.

Economically Russia is irrelevant (a.k.a puny). The only damage to the global economy from the war and sanctions was energy pricing pain in Europe.

If the same thing happens with China it’s going to be significant economic pain for the entire world for years due to its prominence as a manufacturing and electronics hub.

Re: Protecting undersea internet cables is a tech nightmare

#135

Post by vasco »

ajross wrote: post #132
samatman wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone in the thread up to the point where you commented was talking about telegraph cables. I believe you when you indicate that you thought you had changed the subject back to something else, but you gave no indication that this had happened whatsoever. The comment you're replying to: > Because it takes 1 person, in an isolated spot to ruin a whole chunk of a network. Is, in fact, about the telegraph network. Thu…

Good grief. I can only repeat: the discussion about telegraph sabotage was a senseless digression, unrelated to the subject at hand. And I think pointing that out for the people who might not understand the distinction is important. I'm sorry if you think that's "bootless", but in the real world hijacking discussions for unrelated minutiae is considered bad form. Go post an article about telegraph sabotage. The real…

In the real world it's bad form because audio has 1-2 max "tracks" you can focus on and so people need to focus or lose time as they wait to get back on track.

Here is different, if you don't think a subthread is interesting instead of telling people they are talking about the wrong thing, just scroll down. You can skip it entirely.

Re: Protecting undersea internet cables is a tech nightmare

#136

Post by aguaviva »

kortilla wrote: post #133
aguaviva wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both of these things are said here in the West. Except they're not. No one says Russia is a "puny country", or that it could "invade all its neighboring countries" (which would have to include, for example, China). You're definitely making some weird exaggerations here.

Economically Russia is irrelevant (a.k.a puny). The only damage to the global economy from the war and sanctions was energy pricing pain in Europe. If the same thing happens with China it’s going to be significant economic pain for the entire world for years due to its prominence as a manufacturing and electronics hub.

Economically Russia is irrelevant (a.k.a puny).

So any country at or below Russia's GDP ranking (11th worldwide) is "irrelevant" and "puny".

Is that what you're saying?

Re: Protecting undersea internet cables is a tech nightmare

#137

Post by [deleted] »

vasco wrote: post #135
ajross wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good grief. I can only repeat: the discussion about telegraph sabotage was a senseless digression, unrelated to the subject at hand. And I think pointing that out for the people who might not understand the distinction is important. I'm sorry if you think that's "bootless", but in the real world hijacking discussions for unrelated minutiae is considered bad form. Go post an article about telegraph sabotage. The real…

In the real world it's bad form because audio has 1-2 max "tracks" you can focus on and so people need to focus or lose time as they wait to get back on track. Here is different, if you don't think a subthread is interesting instead of telling people they are talking about the wrong thing, just scroll down. You can skip it entirely.

[deleted]

Re: Protecting undersea internet cables is a tech nightmare

#138

Post by kouru225 »

ronsor wrote: post #18
kouru225 wrote: post #14

I remember reading that the early telegram adopters were really surprised that no one destroyed the lines just for fun. They all thought it was a doomed technology cause the masses would sabotage it. TBH we’ve been pretty lucky for the last 2 centuries.

Why was it so surprising? Society as a whole is only functional because most people are uninterested in causing mayhem for no reason.

I think the big thing that separates cables and all the other technology is just how in-your-face power cables and telegram lines are/were. You’re stringing them across people’s windows sometimes, blocking their views at worst and making aesthetic changes to the neighborhood at best. The fact that no one sabotaged these things en masse is a miracle IMO, especially considering how many people had nothing to lose back then.
Post reply on HN