Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Internet2 Taken Out by Stray Cigarette

Posted by samzenpus on from the only-you-can-stop-internet-fires dept.

AlHunt writes "A fire started by a homeless man knocked out service between Boston and New York on the experimental Internet2 network Tuesday night. Authorities say the fire, which also disrupted service on the Red Line subway, started around 8:20 p.m. when a homeless man tossed a lit cigarette. The cigarette landed on a mattress, which ignited and led to a two-alarm fire."

21 of 315 comments (clear)

  1. If a cigerrette can by Splezunk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    take out the internet... what hope do we stand against nukes?

    1. Re:If a cigerrette can by iabervon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is what happens because the internet is designed to deal with nukes. If a nuke took out the Longfellow Bridge, Internet2 users in Boston wouldn't be complaining about their network connection to NYC, or doing much of anything else. The internet is only designed to route around damage at larger-than-blast-radius scales, and the affected area was actually quite small by those standards.

    2. Re:If a cigerrette can by lakeland · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not sure you're right. Well, you are right about it being designed against nuclear attack, but I don't remember anything in DARPA being specific to smaller than nuclear?

      Everything is based around: "oops, that route is down, lets try another". That sure doesn't sound scale specific to me.
      I would hazard a guess that either: a) Internet2 isn't designed along the same goals or b) cost cutting has lead to a structure far more similar to a tree than a graph and nowadays a well targetted bomb could take out most of the internet.

  2. so the fire starter didn't have a home? by c_jonescc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry, but isn't a little absurd, and likely judgmental, to mention TWICE in the abstract that the fire was started by a homeless person?

    If the cig was tossed from a car window would we be hearing repeatedly about how a Toyota driver started this all?

    --
    Getting diabetes AND salmonella would be a bad weekend.
  3. Re:An LSU student's take by peragrin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No they run them through storm drains. your phone, cable, and electrical company's do it all the time. At least for the larger trunk lines of the drains.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  4. Geek priorities... by AndersOSU · · Score: 5, Insightful

    INTERNET DOWN! THE experimental INTERNET that nobody uses WENT DOWN, in a fire that killed three people and did millions of damager to property.

  5. G0d@|\/|N smokers! by ukemike · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know cigarette smokers somehow think that flicking their butts isn't littering. It pisses me off to no end. HEY SMOKERS, YEH YOU! Put them out and then throw those butts in the trash, pathetic litterbugs. It's bad enough we have to smell your stink, we shouldn't have to look at your trash strewn all over the place.

    Hopefully not too many smokers have mod points today...

    --
    -- QED
    1. Re:G0d@|\/|N smokers! by Nimey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Explain to me why you goddamn smokers can't just put your butts in your car's ashtray[1] or carry around a little cup of water or *something* that shows you're capable of not being utterly selfish about your butts. Then we'll get on the subject of why smokers congregate around doors that non-smokers need to use.

      [1] If you're worried about burning paper, you can get little trash bags for paper & such that hang from your control stalks -- the ones for windshield wipers and so on. You can spend a little more to get a permanent vinyl one.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    2. Re:G0d@|\/|N smokers! by EMH_Mark3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you're saying that since some people leave bottles of beer everywhere, you should be able to leave cigarette butts everywhere too? Nice.

      --
      Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me
    3. Re:G0d@|\/|N smokers! by ivan256 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In other news, two wrongs now make a right?

      If a cop saw you toss a beer bottle out the window, not only would you be hit with a littering fine, but you'd probably be subjected to all sorts of other unpleasantries to find out if you had just consumed said beer while you were driving. Toss your butt out this window where somebody else has to clean it up (open your door and look at the curb at any intersection) and you should get off scott free?

      Sorry, but there should be a $500 fine and 8 hours of community service if you're caught throwing a cigarette butt out the window, even if there is no fire risk. It should be a moving violation if you do it on the highway where your lit butt can hit another vehicle. Either that or we should build some stockades... I'm not saying other roadside litterers shouldn't be treated similarly, but smokers shouldn't get special treatment.

    4. Re:G0d@|\/|N smokers! by elrous0 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Then we'll get on the subject of why smokers congregate around doors that non-smokers need to use.

      Probably because self-righteous pricks like you have forced them outside and that's the only place they have left to go. If you had just let them smoke in their offices, or in a designated break room, odds are you would never even have to smell it.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    5. Re:G0d@|\/|N smokers! by Afrosheen · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Cigarettes rarely, if ever, start fires in the wild. Lightning strikes and dry conditions are way more responsible than a cigarette being tossed out a window. I'm not defending irresponsible forest smokers, as anyone should properly dispose of anything burning by putting it out first, but nothing is more annoying than anti-smoker whiners.

    6. Re:G0d@|\/|N smokers! by jswigart · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Only if 'their offices' or the break room were located in a different building. Smokers stink to high hell. Walking through their clouds coming in the building is bad, but simply being in the vicinity of one when they come back in is not much different.

    7. Re:G0d@|\/|N smokers! by Eccles · · Score: 5, Insightful

      f you had just let them smoke in their offices

      I'm old enough to have worked with smokers who could smoke in their offices. My girlfriend at the time could tell the days I'd gone into the smokers' offices, even for a brief visit, and would demand that I shower before I'd get any action.

      Sorry, but having a smoking section in a building is like having a peeing section in a pool.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    8. Re:G0d@|\/|N smokers! by StarvingSE · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cigarettes rarely, if ever, start fires in the wild. Lightning strikes and dry conditions are way more responsible than a cigarette being tossed out a window.

      ORLY?


      As an aside, I don't dislike smokers, I just dislike discourteous smokers. And yes, I consider anyone who smokes inside a public place discourteous. I enjoy going to places like the bar, bowling alleys, and small diners. However, I am always subjected to breathing in the filth that comes our of cigarette smoke. Now, I have extra medical expenses because of a severe allergic reaction to cigarette smoke due to my constant exposure to it (I live in MI, one of the heavier smoking states). I think I have a right to be an "anti-smoker whiner" and will continue to be one until laws are passed that ban smoking in public places.

      --
      I got nothin'
    9. Re:G0d@|\/|N smokers! by Emperor+Cezar · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't like Gay people. They make me feel uncomfortable. That's why I can't go out to bars here. No matter how hard I try, I can't get the city council to ban homosexuality in public. God forbid I try to go to a non-gay bar. That would just be too much of a hassle. I mean, I have my morals and all, but I can't be bothered, it's an inconvenience.

    10. Re:G0d@|\/|N smokers! by StarvingSE · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The dumb analogy strikes again! Homosexuals don't cause me health problems. They also don't pollute the air with chemicals (well, unless they're homosexual smokers).

      And your comment about going to a "non-gay" bar would seem to suggest that you're telling me to go to a non-smoking bar. If you can give me the name of even one bar in the metro detroit area that is non-smoking, I'll buy you a pack of smokes.

      --
      I got nothin'
    11. Re:G0d@|\/|N smokers! by Emperor+Cezar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "If you can give me the name of even one bar in the metro detroit area that is non-smoking, I'll buy you a pack of smokes."

      Karra's Bro's. Tavern
      225 Jos. Campau, Detroit, Michigan; Tel. 313.259.2767
      A non-smoking sports bar, with a rooftop patio, in the heart of downtown with sports on TV, electronic trivia and games.

      "Both Miller's Bar and Redcoat Tavern do have non-smoking sections, and you can be very express with them and tell them "*Very* non-smoking, please." which is usually understood and accomodated, but you may have to wait longer for your table."

    12. Re:G0d@|\/|N smokers! by jacksonj04 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Smoking places second-hand smoke into the environment. I go for a drink somewhere with smokers (Only one or two), I come home smelling of cigarette smoke. I go for a drink somewhere with homosexuals (Only one or two), I do not come home gay.

      I dislike people who pollute my local environment. This includes people who thing playing dance music on their phone at full volume is the height of cool and those who otherwise do things which irritate me if I'm not really paying attention. Smoking falls into this category, and I fail to see how things like 'noise pollution' can be covered by laws yet 'smoking pollution' can't.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    13. Re:G0d@|\/|N smokers! by Stamen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most people are selfish pricks. Smokers, prove this fact more than most. I could care less if they smoke, but the general attitude that when they throw trash on the ground, it's perfectly fine just gets me. Do what you want, but don't think I'm not going to do what I want to you.

      I'm generally libertarian leaning, and don't like interfering with anyone else's business, and I like to stand up for those whose business is interfered with. However, most smokers complete lack of respect for anyone makes me just ignore the injustices inflicted on them. I've only so much time on my soapbox to stand up for peoples rights, I'll use that time for some other group, thank you.

  6. Re:reliability? by alienmole · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But after having said all that: it still seems fair to ask why core infrastructure isn't better protected against ordinary accidents, much less sabotage.
    No, it isn't fair. The Internet2 is an experimental network, and I'd certainly vote against spending money on sabotage-proofing it at this point.

    It was not comforting to learn that the explosion of a single tanker could bring down one of the approaches to the Golden Gate Bridge.
    Life has infinite risks. It's impossible to guard against all of them. The cost of explosion-proofing all approaches to the Golden Gate Bridge to the necessary degree cannot be justified by the amortized cost of such an event. Not that hysterical voters might not approve such a thing anyway...