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

What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

nrk.no

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–264 of 264 posts

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#261

Post by immibis »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #249
immibis wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been some Oceanic anti-speeding ads that had the same effect on people, apparently. There's one where time freezes right before a collision and the person at fault apologizes for the little boy he's about to murder. There's one where the driver is talking to the ghost of his friend who died in a car crash. There's one where the grim reaper spins a roulette wheel every time a driver makes a mistake at an in…

> There's one where the grim reaper spins a roulette wheel every time a driver makes a mistake at an intersection. In my imagination, this one would end with the roulette wheel stopping on 0, but the result of 0 not being depicted.

The wheel is labeled things like "near miss" and "death".

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#262

Post by asoneth »

0xedd wrote: post #143
mschuster91 wrote: post #33

Let's assume that these incidents actually were accidents, there's still a bigger question open: why is trawler fishing still allowed? Imagine it's not a fiber cable that ends up being crushed by a trawl door... but all the other marine life: Fish can swim away (or not, being the point of getting fished), but plants, corals, bugs? Trawler fishing is devastating for the local ecology, we just don't see the damage - to…

Cool. Will you pay the cost difference afterwards? I kinda don't like the taste of bugs.

> Will you pay the cost difference afterwards?

Are you asking if I would be willing to pay more money for goods that don't irreversibly destroy ocean ecosystems and that aren't made with slave labor?

I struggle to imagine the kind of person who would say no to such a question. Someone with no money in a country with no safety net on the verge of starvation? Someone with no moral comapass?

> I kinda don't like the taste of bugs.

I don't understand what bugs have to do with ocean trawling. Is this an unusual way of referring to lobster?

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#263

Post by SideQuark »

immibis wrote: post #260
SideQuark wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just gave you a paper showing that is not the case. I even provided the quote. There is no inherent limit from physics, only from engineering. History provides ample evidence were a given medium had it's "Shannon Limit" broken via new signaling methods over the same medium. The terms you used, "bandwidth" and "noise" are technological, not physical. "Bandwidth" increases each time we invent better methods to pack a…

Bandwidth does not increase based on packing methods. Bandwidth refers to analog signal bandwidth, something we can measure - not data rate. MIMO gets around the Shannon limit by creating more channels, like putting more fibers in a bundle.

MIMO added no "new fibers". - it's more throughout with no change in medium, a consequence of photons not cross interacting. Electrons cross interact, and end up with different physical properties. You're proving my point: the physics has major impact in practice. Shannon says zero about this, since his is a simple, outdated model.

Bandwidth is defined by the signal type. A signal is defined via the technology and model of communication. Change the tech or model, and you get different Shannon limits.

Take some time and read and understand the papers I gave you. Your claims are contradicted by each of those papers (and hundreds more).

How can you honestly ignore all those well cited papers that state exactly what I said? Post some evidence countering those papers or there's no more point replying to your opinions.

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#264

Post by moi2388 »

IndySun wrote: post #257
moi2388 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He said that less than 10% of smokers HAVE lung issues, not “eventually get” lung issues. Big, big difference.

Thanks for your input. You're rephrasing what I do say, but with capital letters. Not sure what your point is.

No, you said “go on to get issues”, I said “have issues”.

That is a difference.

Removed capitalisation because I’m against capital punishment. /s

Post reply on HN