Slashdot Mirror


A Fiber-Optic Cable To Inner Space

tetraconz writes "The University of Washington has been working on a vast 3000km undersea network to research the ocean floor off the West Coast. From the executive summary: (PDF) "The goal of NEPTUNE is to establish a coherent system of high-speed, submarine communication-control links using fiber-optic cables to connect remote, interactive experimental sites with land-based research laboratories and classrooms." This is an important project to explore the last unknown region of the Earth: the ocean. Check out the project homepage."

93 comments

  1. 3000k's under the keys? by Op7imus_Prim3 · · Score: 1

    just doesn't have the same ring to it.

    1. Re:3000k's under the keys? by LarsWestergren · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yarr, we demand nautical measurment units! For instance, yonder cable be not 3000 kilometers, it be 13667 cable lengths. Give or take a catfish whisker.

      --

      Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

    2. Re:3000k's under the keys? by c4ffeine · · Score: 1, Funny

      No, no, no, it be 1337 millipicolightyears and 3.75 frenchmen, plus the 17th integral of e^x^2 over [2,17i] , multiplied by the score of this post. Sheesh, isn't it easy? Get your units right!

      --
      "73% of quotes on the Internet are made up" -Ben Franklin
    3. Re:3000k's under the keys? by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      That's going to cause a problem if you get modded down to zero ;p

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    4. Re:3000k's under the keys? by AndroSyn · · Score: 1

      Are we talking US or British cable lengths? Though if you want nautical measurements, that'll be about 1620 knots

    5. Re:3000k's under the keys? by Sage+Gaspar · · Score: 1

      Yarr, don't get your cables tied up in knots, that gets messy.

  2. Security, security by jabbadabbadoo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fine. And for security we have Blowfish.

  3. Nemo? by davejenkins · · Score: 4, Funny

    That seems like a lot of money just to find one little clown fish...

  4. WTF does this have to do with "Inner Space"? by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

    Last I checked, you couldn't do drugs with fiber optic. It's too hard to inhale.

    --
    It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    1. Re:WTF does this have to do with "Inner Space"? by psiphre · · Score: 1

      Nothing, considering that "Inner space" is 'that which is outside of the earth's atmosphere but inside the asteroid belt'.

      compare and contrast the oft-referred to "outer space", which is everything outside the asteroid belt.

    2. Re:WTF does this have to do with "Inner Space"? by ZerroDefex · · Score: 1

      That's the inner solar system compared to the outer solar system. I've always heard inner space as a reference to inside the human body, but maybe that was just that movie. Damn, and I thought this thread was going to be about cyborgs because of that.

  5. It's about time by distro+stu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This project is absolutely fantastic. We're finally beginning to systematically explore the ocean and the ocean floor. The implications here for technology, environmental studies, education, and research in all sorts of different arenas is staggering. I can't wait to see some of the results once this is up and running. Jacques Cousteau wouldve loved this.

    1. Re:It's about time by LarsWestergren · · Score: 4, Informative

      This project is absolutely fantastic. We're finally beginning to systematically explore the ocean and the ocean floor. The implications here for technology, environmental studies, education, and research in all sorts of different arenas is staggering.

      Agreed. It used to be said we knew more about outer space than the oceans, but finally this is starting to change. If you want to learn more, a good place to start is the amazing BBC documentary
      Blue Planet. It contains some of the most beautiful images I have ever seen.

      --

      Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

    2. Re:It's about time by Davak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Jacques Cousteau wouldve loved this.

      Really? I always thought of Cousteau as someone who loved to be underwater making discoveries. I don't picture him as somebody sitting behind a computer screen doing work.

      Thinking of him that way makes him less of a hero... and, err, too much like me.

      Davak

    3. Re:It's about time by appleLaserWriter · · Score: 1

      Really? I always thought of Cousteau as someone who loved to be underwater making discoveries. I don't picture him as somebody sitting behind a computer screen doing work.

      I bet Stephen Hawking loves this!

  6. bandwidth... by idsCypher · · Score: 2, Funny

    this means that some fish have more bandwidth that me.... damn

    1. Re:bandwidth... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Unfortunately, for them, it's like that Twilight Zone episode with Burgess Meridith. For, you see, fish can't type. Let alone type with one hand while "manipulating hardware" with the other.

  7. Leave the ocean alone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The ocean is one of the few places in the world we humans haven't terrorised yet. I'd hate to see it go down the tube (so to speak) for corporate interests.

    If humans learnt to leave things alone, the world would be a better place.

    1. Re:Leave the ocean alone? by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oooooh we've terrorized the ocean good.. Whaling industry, fishing industry, oil spills, sewage wastes from the main land running from our rivers and streams. Yes there's plenty of things we've done to hurt the ocean environment w/out even going there.

      I wouldn't be suprised if there was radioactive waste at the bottom of the sea somewhere. And this is off the top of my head w/out even looking.

      Ever hear of E-waste? The electronics other nations get because they're outdated and only valuable for the minerals in their parts? Imagine all the polution thats been reported from it getting in to the water supply over there. Now realize that their water flows to the ocean eventually. More terrorization of the worlds oceans. All this probebly isn't even the tip of the ice berg so to speak.

      --
      ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
    2. Re:Leave the ocean alone? by cpghost · · Score: 1

      > Ever hear of E-waste?

      Sure, it's called leak current and it means that electrons escape circuits and start littering the environment. Good that fiber optics cable don't carry electrons. Now, photon-waste would be possible, if some terrorists or barracudas cut through the fiber cables... Uh oh!

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    3. Re:Leave the ocean alone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm... I guess global-warming doesn't count in your book of eco-terrorism. The oceans will avenge!

    4. Re:Leave the ocean alone? by Jonathan+Platt · · Score: 1

      Dont forget Mr Chirac's nuclear tests... Damb French... Wounder if we have any new breeds of fish arround there now.

      --


      VENI, VIDI, VICI, DIXI
    5. Re:Leave the ocean alone? by alexdewaal · · Score: 1

      What's the problem?
      Humans will get themselves extinct, then nature can take its course. Then the sun will fry the earth. And finally the universe will collapse or die a cold death. So much the better.

    6. Re:Leave the ocean alone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy smokes! You need booze!

  8. obligatory stingray reference by maharg · · Score: 2, Funny

    I believe the implementation will bear a superficial resemblance to this

    --

    $ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
    @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
    1. Re:obligatory stingray reference by Zenjive · · Score: 0

      Filmed in Supermarionation!!!!!!

      --


      A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with. - Tennessee Williams
  9. Sensible? by pubjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This looks like an awfully expensive project.

    Although I love technology, I always prefer to take a sceptical view when considering it's application. I often ask my clients, "if you didn't have a computer/network/whatever, how would you do this?" I find computer technology often blurs people's clarity of thinking, and if you say "how would you do this without a computer?" they see more clearly exactly what the issues are.

    It may be that this is a very sensible project. However, it may also be that the cost of setting up this network might be better deployed focusing on the actual experiments themselves. My own view is that when it comes to the biological sciences, there's nothing quite like physically being there, so I'd prefer to see money spent on making dive trips easier/safer/less expensive.

    Having said all of that, often this type of big project actually has multiple objectives. I can see lots of military uses for a big undersea network.

    1. Re:Sensible? by Davak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is why we have the internet: Networked, remote controllable/accessable research.

      This project provides multiple layers of input and output--all that can be controlled remotely. This is a science experiment/environment that can be explored and shared by multiple groups of people from anywhere in the world.

      Even the radio telescopes are not this advanced; however, it's a similar idea. Groups of sensor inputs that can be fed to groups of people elsewhere.

      Will it be expensive? Yes.
      However, the amount of data that will be received with minimal impact to the environment will be staggering. Once the system is down and reaches a steady state, it can be repeatly used to gain information--without having to interrupt that system again and again.

      Bravo to the Neptune project... this is the way research should be done.

    2. Re:Sensible? by pubjames · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is why we have the internet: Networked, remote controllable/accessable research.

      Except that isn't the reality, is it? The vast majority of computers attached to the internet actually have a person sitting at them. Those that don't (servers etc) still are within easy access of people - I doubt anyone who maintains a web server would like it stuck at the bottom of the ocean and unaccessible when the hard disc drive decides to start playing up.

      This is exactly the point I am trying to make - think practical! Is data from the ocean in real time actually much more useful that non-realtime data? i.e. if I have a data-collection experiment attached to a buoy and leave it there for three months then collect it, is that data actually much less useful that data collected in real time? I doubt it. And yet look at the cost implications of collecting the real time data.

      Will it be expensive? Yes.
      However, the amount of data that will be received with minimal impact to the environment will be staggering.


      Two random things that come to mind - the NASA "space pen" and the Russians pencil (yes I know about Snopes blah blah) and - "never underestimate the bandwidth of a pick-up truck travelling cross-country with a trunk full of magnetic tapes". Applies to a boat too.

    3. Re:Sensible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      World's Best Telescope (including those that orbit it) You can even see stars in the southern hemisphere without going there. Doh!

      Oh, and not only is diving, expensive, difficult, relatively less than safe. It's also slow. It wastes a lot of time and resources. One of the reasons we know so little, is because of how long it takes to get there. Jennycam for hydrothermal vents or the grey goo wastelands would likely reveal much.

    4. Re:Sensible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jennycam for hydrothermal vents or the grey goo wastelands would likely reveal much.

      Like hundreds of hours of pictures of cloudy water and grey goo? Useful!

    5. Re:Sensible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you like to know why? Or just wallow in ignorance? The choice *is* up to you....

    6. Re:Sensible? by pubjames · · Score: 1

      You said:

      Oh, and not only is diving, expensive, difficult, relatively less than safe. It's also slow. It wastes a lot of time and resources.

      Original poster said:

      I'd prefer to see money spent on making dive trips easier/safer/less expensive.

      So, the original poster is saying the problems with diving should be addressed.

    7. Re:Sensible? by Davak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is data from the ocean in real time actually much more useful that non-realtime data?

      Yes. The article even mentions events such as underwater volcanoesn. Others could include the migration of plant/animal species and manipulation of data gathering devices such as cameras.

      If you are watching fish mate, you would like your camera to follow the action... for example. (I guess this is different that watching checkmate, cause then you would be a total geek just watching chess. (g))

      Anyway... we don't drop cameras out of planes into the jungle to "gather data." We GO into the jungle, experience it, and attempt to understand it. This is not as easily done on the ocean floor... so this is the next best thing.

    8. Re:Sensible? by Davak · · Score: 1

      I doubt anyone who maintains a web server would like it stuck at the bottom of the ocean and unaccessible when the hard disc drive decides to start playing up.

      Sorry, I missed this point.

      I doubt they will have servers stuck at the bottom of the ocean floor. The servers will be sitting high and dry in people-friendly areas. Why would the servers need to be anywhere near the ocean floor?

      Hell, I know here at work we try to keep the servers even away from people as much as possible. The servers do not need to be near the action. Feed the data onto dry land where the servers will live.

    9. Re:Sensible? by pphrdza · · Score: 2, Informative
      I'm reminded of a technique developed in the 60's/70's for gathering cells from lungs, without surgery, to determine if there was cancer (live cells were "scraped" using a tiny brush). The patients didn't have to go through the expense and inherent dangers of surgery to get an accurate diagnosis. But the pathology labs had never actually seen live lung cancer cells before, and initially didn't recognize them as cancerous.

      How much will be found in "real time" that will change how we think about and approach the subjects of oceans, and remote research? Maybe it is expensive, but maybe it's less expensive and less dangerous than the alternatives (like the analogy above).

    10. Re:Sensible? by Davak · · Score: 1

      Cell cultures?
      Lungs?

      As a pulmonary doc and as a researcher, this analogy is hitting close to home. Bravo.

      To add more support for your point, even today data obtained using cell culture must be duplicated by other methods before we use it for human use. Cell cultures are very, very valuable tools for research and allow us to test many questions very quickly; however, cell cultures and the actual human body itself are two very different things.

      Cell cultures would be similar to a stimulated salt water environment at a research lab or zoo. It may contain many of the parts of the real thing and may help test research ideas... however, it is not the real thing.

      The underwater project in question is one step closer to getting to experiment and study the "real thing."

    11. Re:Sensible? by craw · · Score: 1

      Check out what NOAA is doing.

      The key thing is to monitor when things go active on the Juan de Fuca Ridge; this is a mid-ocean ridge spreading center. These spreading centers are a component of plate tectonics. It would also be nice to study the precursors to the advent of volcanic and tectonic (e.g., faulting) events.

      Ironically (considering your comment about military applications), NOAA-PMEL first started monitoring the JDF Ridge using data from the US military's SOSUS arrays. SOSUS is the Navy's underwater acoustic monitoring system.

    12. Re:Sensible? by Obfuscant · · Score: 2, Informative
      However, it may also be that the cost of setting up this network might be better deployed focusing on the actual experiments themselves.


      They have been focusing on the experiments for years. The new part of this project is NOT the measurements, it is the connectivity and being able to get large volumes of data back.


      It costs a great deal of money to send out ships to tow side-scan sonars and temperature/salinity sensors. It costs a great deal of money to put out current sensors. This means that sampling is done very sparsely, if ever. And the instruments have to be designed to fit their data in limited space.


      A wide-bandwidth real-time data stream allows not only more data to be collected, but for data sampling methods to be changed to observe transient phenomena. While we have some understanding of the long-term activities under the water, most of the fun (and change) comes from the transient stuff.


      And I'll point out that while the web page comes from U-dub, there are an awful lot of academic and corporate institutions involved in Neptune, so saying that "University of Washington" is doing this is a little insulting.

    13. Re:Sensible? by Obfuscant · · Score: 2, Insightful
      So, the original poster is saying the problems with diving should be addressed.

      Little of deep-sea oceanography is done with divers. They are too expensive and too fragile.

      Most of the measurements of the deep-sea are done with cable controlled submersible vehicles, instruments towed behind boats on long cables, or submerged buoys.

      Submerged buoys are dropped from boats which leave them in place for six months to a year. They come back and send an acoustic signal that is supposed to trigger a release and the data is supposed to float back to the surface. IF the release hasn't failed, if the boat is in the right place, if they can find it when it pops up, etc. NEPTUNE removes this problem because the data doesn't have to pop back to the surface, it is already on shore.

      And yes, real-time is important. If you want to study something you've seen in the current-style buoy data, you have to design a new instrument, have money left in your ship-ops budget to hire time on a boat, drop that instrument, and then hope it comes back alive -- in six to twelve months. NEPTUNE is a major improvement in this process.

    14. Re:Sensible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uuuhh...pick-ups don't have trunks...do they?

    15. Re:Sensible? by ZerroDefex · · Score: 1

      "Damn, the hard disk died. Dmitri, get your scuba gear on!"

    16. Re:Sensible? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > If you are watching fish mate [...]

      > you would be a total geek just watching chess

      Yes, of course, because watching fish "fuck" is a much more normal activity than chess. ;)

    17. Re:Sensible? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > pick-ups don't have trunks

      No, they do not. How observant of you. :)

    18. Re:Sensible? by TaoJones · · Score: 1
      If you are watching fish mate, you would like your camera to follow the action... for example.

      Yes, imagine the vast potential for undersea porn! I can't wait until I can download "Chicks Who Dig Blowfish" from some Japanese icthoporn site...
      --
      "Fear is the rootkit of democracy.." Blarkon
  10. a fiberless full sensory connection to inner peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    could happen. the big drawback, if there is any, is that access to the newclear power plan is untethered by physical gadgets, & is also free. that .confuses many, as they bulleave they must pay into some felonious execrables' hostage taking scams, to attain some level of 'comfort'.

    consult with/trust in yOUR creator... get ready to see the light.

  11. Big Problem - Security by Davak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You think security is troublesome on your own systems... imagine being in control of security on this project.

    You are doing 6 months of observation waiting for an undersea volcano to erupt... and the day it does, some undergrad hacker gets into the system and decides to write out I LOVE BETTY with a mini robot sub on the ocean floor.

    I am kidding,,, but this is a system that most likely multiple groups of scientists will be able to access. Keeping that type of open system secure will be difficult... especially if they are using the internet to accept data and send commands.

    Davak

  12. New project director named by Chatmag · · Score: 0

    Sponge AlGore Square Pants has been named the new project director.

    --
    Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
  13. Strange priorities by infestedsenses · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I find it interesting that we first choose to go to the moon, and then discover the oceans of or own planet.
    I'm sure there is still much in store for us to learn from our own planet, and I feel we've neglected that for too long.

    1. Re:Strange priorities by pvt_medic · · Score: 1

      This is an important project to explore the last unknown region of the Earth: the ocean.

      But isnt the last fronteir the mind?

      --
      30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
      Score:5, Troll
    2. Re:Strange priorities by Jonathan+Platt · · Score: 1

      We are also yet to explore the earths core. I remember reading about some plan to send a probe down there... I guess the thought of space and the prospect of inteligent alian life forms is more appealing. But then you never we know, we might find other intelligent life forms some where here on earth. Also I think it might actually require more technology to explore the depths of our sea than space. Under water objects are exposed to emense pressure.

      --


      VENI, VIDI, VICI, DIXI
    3. Re:Strange priorities by annisette · · Score: 1

      Man has always looked up and down (and for you jokers "around and around")I believe space has its advanages, the vaccuum of space is(for sake of argument) constant so once is is "delt" with there is just increasing speed, decreasing speed, floating around, avoiding a few micrometors, and trying to not go nuts on long voyages. It is expensive. The ocean is closer but constantly increasing water pressure (while decending) held back deep exploration for centuries. If you are searching the ocean botton and tethered to the surface weather is a big handicap. Compared to space ships getting to the moon in three days(gathering data the whole way) a submersable would have a very tough time to get across the ocean in the same time so dealing with the water density determins a lot(how fast oceans are explored by a manned vessel). Space exploration gained a lot of tech. from WW II, submarines did not change much, could go a little faster and deeper but still a tin can. Just some thoughts.

      --
      I eat my grapes at room temperature, cuz the cold ones hurt my teeth
  14. I smell a Rat! by bacon-kidney-pie · · Score: 1

    Hmmm, I think they just want better mobile phone reception inside their mini subs.

  15. [OT] Re:obligatory stingray reference by maharg · · Score: 0

    Nope. 19998, Huh ?

    --

    $ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
    @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
  16. Re:Non-sensical! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The role of science, especially "pure" science, isn't to be obvious, or redily appearent. That is called a "business plan."

    Science is about proof buy induction. From the small, obvious truths to the more general, nebulous, and occasionaly inscrutible laws that dispassionately, and unfailingly govern our world.

    When we know the general truths, the rules of the game so to speak, we can then deduce other truths and apply them.

    But without those general truths, that you so flipantly dismiss, we're essentially groping in the dark. Dispite what The Matrix might lead one to believe, intuition does not trump reason.

  17. Depends on the Implementation... by chewtoy-11 · · Score: 1

    This sounds like a fascinating project, however, the implementation will ultimately determine how well the money was spent. Granted, network cable under the sea will probably be very durable, but what about the equipment itself? If they're spending tons of money on fiber-optic cable to install under the ocean, and then attaching an EZ-Fun Cam (Crap Edition) to the other ends of said cables, where were the priorities?

    Maybe they're in cahoots with X-10, and the new pop-under-sea advertisement!

    chewtoy11

    --
    C. Griffin
    "Can I keep his head for a souvenir?" --Max from Sam 'N Max Freelance Police
  18. And I still can't get DSL!? by dphoenix · · Score: 1, Funny

    Alright, I guess I have new ammunition for Qwest the next time I call them. They're still telling I'm too far to get DSL!

    Now I can't even say that my dialup is "slower than a turtle!" argh!

    1. Re:And I still can't get DSL!? by Tin+Foil+Hat · · Score: 1

      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a turtle with...

      aw crap. nevermind.

      --
      No matter how many of my rights are taken away, somehow I still don't feel safe. -Frigid Monkey
  19. Re:Kazaa by tambo · · Score: 3, Funny

    3000km of fiber is gonna give those deep-sea researchers some awful CounterStrike lag. - David Stein

    --
    Computer over. Virus = very yes.
  20. there is nuclear waste down there... by tjstork · · Score: 1


    Off the wheel, we have several sunken nuclear submarines, perhaps a dozen or so thermonuclear warheads and maybe even a hundred regular nukes.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:there is nuclear waste down there... by appleLaserWriter · · Score: 1

      Off the wheel, we have several sunken nuclear submarines, perhaps a dozen or so thermonuclear warheads and maybe even a hundred regular nukes.

      Don't tell the script kiddies.

  21. *yawn* by DarkProphet · · Score: 1

    Okay I understand the importance and value of deep-sea exploration, but how about fiber to my curb first?

    --
    What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
  22. Google is your friend by Tired_Blood · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't be suprised if there was radioactive waste at the bottom of the sea somewhere. And this is off the top of my head w/out even looking.

    Here you go.

    I also remember reading something about a US bomber crashing in the ocean which prompted other nations to ban the flying of nuclear armed planes over their land. Ahhh, found this through google too. A very interesting read.

    And these are just the accidents. There's also the intentional stuff (testing) to also take into account.

    --
    This is not my sig.
  23. Not Strange Priorities by Mad+Man · · Score: 1
    was Re: Strange Priorities

    I find it interesting that we first choose to go to the moon, and then discover the oceans of or own planet.

    Lieutenant Don Walsh (US Navy) and Swiss scientist Jacques Piccard descended to the bottom of Challenger Deep in the bathyscape Trieste back in 1960.

    This is 9 years before Apollo 11.
  24. Re:Kazaa by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

    Even at 0.5c, 3000 km / (0.5 * 300e6 m/s) = 20 ms one way. At 0.75c, you're looking at +- 27ms round trip. Not too shabby for a 6000km trip!

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  25. Canadian Involvement - UVic by vee-dub.net · · Score: 1

    The University of Victoria is heading the Canadian half of this project. More information can be found at the Neptune Canada site.

  26. Re:IP Theft and The Linux Community by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ha, two in a row. you jackass.

  27. Re:Kazaa by dildatron · · Score: 1

    Not really. The "time of flight" latency of a fiber cable is ~0.0065s per meter.

    0.0065s / meter * 6,000,000m (3000km * 2 round trip) = 39,000s.

    There are 1,000,000 s in one second. There are 1000 s in a millisecond. A round trip ping time would be around 39milliseconds.

    Give or take a few milliseconds for the adapters, etc. It still beats anything else.

    --


    If you had nuts on your chin, would they be chin nuts?
  28. Error in Neptune Canada URL by psgalbraith · · Score: 1

    Make that Neptune Canada.

  29. Underwater Research Stations by ManoMarks · · Score: 1

    It's important to be able to access high-bandwith pron while in your underwater base. Unless you're Troy McClure, in which case all you have to do is look out the window.

    --

    That's gotta fit into your schema somewhere

  30. Another non standard site by Boxcarwilli · · Score: 1

    Great, one more UW website for me to worry about that doesnt adhere to any usability or visual standards.............

    1. Re:Another non standard site by Doobian+Coedifier · · Score: 1

      The main web pages, run by Computing & Communications certainly do follow set standards. However, the site from the article is hosted on the Department of Oceanograpy's own server, and they are free to do as they see fit. Surely you agree that web standards are not one-size-fits-all. But hey, I see that your website hasn't been updated in 18 months, so maybe web design isn't so hot these days anyway.

  31. MODERATION ABUSE! by Zenjive · · Score: 1

    Overrated? When there was no rating in the first place?

    --


    A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with. - Tennessee Williams