Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Copper (Score 1) 59

As someone who just had FTTP (yep, to the premises) installed in their rural home, the way they did it was thus:

- They went to the local cabinet (which is already fibre-backed to the local exchange many km's away), strung a fibre out of it.
- They got up the telegraph pole in my streets, strung a new fibre off it.
- They used the old copper line that's been there since the 60's to slide the new fibre reel down.
- They put a second hook on my eaves, and hooked the fibre from there, and then wired the fibre direct into my house.
- They didn't remove a damn thing.

Took about 20 minutes, judging by the CCTV.

It would take about the same time just to pull down the copper from my house safely (the above did not require closing or working in the road, for instance), then isolating that from the dozens of others in the road on the pole, then removing that all the way back to the cabinet. Which I know goes underground because when I first moved in a few years ago, the BT guy had to remove that cable from, basically, a huge puddle which was cutting my DSL speed from 75Mbps to 20Mbps (DSL is amazing, though, that it still worked!).

Until everything's fibre, you can't remove those old lines, it's just not practical. And then are you really going to mobilise a bunch of people to remove a small run of copper from every street?

I once did some maths and the IT at the school I work in has something like tens of thousands of km+ of copper wiring that's unused. One room can have 30+ runs of nearly-100m. That's 3km for one room, from where a building was previously wired to have an IT suite, but then changed purpose, etc. We could, in theory, take that pure-copper cable out and recycle it. That one school likely has more copper in it than my entire village.

The fact is that it's just not worth the effort. There are huge thick bundles of it, and while it wouldn't take that long to pull it all out (much easier than putting it in because you can largely just cut and pull the entire bundle), it's not worth doing so in terms of the cost of the raw copper. We know that because honestly much of the time, rather than re-use the old copper runs which we know to be Cat5e, we just run a new Cat6a run alongside them if we do need to wire something. And Cat5e has far more metal in it than old telephone line.

I cut something like 200 cables this summer alone. And I mean I cut the last 2 metres of them because they were in my way in the cabinets. The actual RUN of cable is still in the walls and going all over the building, 50, 60, 70m runs all over the place.

I bet that a single office or school demolition recovers more copper (and steel and other stuff) than an entire village of old telephone lines, and while it may be a factor on the demolition companies finances, it's not a huge one. Scrap metal, which you have to de-sheath, transport, etc. isn't as valuable as people make out. It's why nobody arranges a regular scrap-metal collection at my local council to come and just grab anything of value that they could. No. They do that for paper. They don't do it for metal unless you arrange it with them. There's not much money in it. The only people making money are the guys lobbing some bits of lead, steel and alumium on the back of their van until they have enough to get a couple-of-hundred-quid free personal backhander as part of their work when it's all been moved at the expense of their company's fuel expense account.

Comment As designed (Score 1) 182

Function did its job, exactly as designed.

Whether it's legal to use or not is dependent on jurisdiction and circumstances (and still hasn't been established!), but the function existing and allowing a user to use it is no bad thing.

Think a mugger demanding you access your bank accounts. Oh, no, look, the phone's stopped working...

Comment BKL (Score 1) 30

It's like a miniature version of the "big kernel lock" thing that took years to resolve.

Sure there were some blocking issues causing performance setbacks for it in certain locations but it was orders of magnitude more difficult to slice it out and replace things with smaller locks, and it still didn't have MASSIVE increases in performance or any user-visible way at all.

It's just code maintenance.

Comment Re:Well Duh! (Score 1) 103

My biggest beef with the whole self-driving thing is that we should NOT have started with cars.

Why not a self-driving cart that takes you around the store? Or a self-driving golf buggy? Or a self-driving airport passenger carrier to get you to your gate? Or even those little "trains" that some shopping centres have for the kids which are just wheeled vehicles?

THAT'S where we should have begun. A limited controlled environment, low-speeds, little impact, useful, even a pay-for service (do you want to walk to your gate, or get on a little cart that'll drive you there for $1?), and iron out all the myriad problems with driving in close proximity to pedestrians, etc. in a safe and controlled environment.

The fact that those things AREN'T mature technologies tells me that self-driving car people have NO INTEREST in our safety. None whatsoever. If they did, they would have started small and built up.

Hell, even a self-driving bus makes far more sense, even if it goes slower. They often already have their own dedicated lanes!

What they did is exactly what you describe in your last sentence. Think about the quickest way to profitability and screw the testing, research, consequences, even the laws in some cases.

Slashdot Top Deals

"There are some good people in it, but the orchestra as a whole is equivalent to a gang bent on destruction." -- John Cage, composer

Working...