Hunters Shot Down Google Fiber

aesoteric writes "Google has revealed that aerial fiber links to its data center in Oregon were 'regularly' shot down by hunters, forcing the company to put its cables underground. Hunters were reportedly trying to hit insulators on electricity distribution poles, which also hosted aerially-deployed fiber connected to Google's $600 million data center in The Dalles. 'I have yet to see them actually hit the insulator, but they regularly shoot down the fiber,' Google's network engineering manager Vijay Gill told a conference in Australia. 'Every November when hunting season starts invariably we know that the fiber will be shot down, so much so that we are now building an underground path [for it].'"

Comments

Re:Immature?

[thephydes]

Yep. Give a moron a gun - or anything else for that matter - and you can expect him/her to not use it properly.

Re:so what?

[smallfries]

Ah, so an internet company should consider fuckwit withs guns as part of its normal operating procedure, eh? Are you from Oregon perhaps?

Or if you are no, but you are so disturbed by Google that you can't even read a story like this without ranting what bad guys they are then do the obvious thing: fuck off to the opt-out village.

Immature and Gun Happy

[Anonymous Coward]

Hunters were reportedly trying to hit insulators on electricity distribution poles...

It's why non-Americans think the U.S. gun culture is so obviously insane. I remember talking to one person here on Slashdot who recommended that I read the Turner Diaries (which is often sold at gun shows to gun enthusiasts) in order to understand the gun culture in America. The funny thing is he thought the Turner Diaries was a NORMAL and intellectually stimulating thing to read, just like the Bible.

For the rest of us (non-Americans), we think a love of guns and a feeling of necessity to own fire-arms by U.S. citizens is as fucked up as it is in the Middle East for ordinary citizens to own automatic military assault rifles. It's one thing to be Libertarian about gun ownership, and quite another to be fanatical about gun ideology and just plain Gun Happy, as most Americans seem to be.

Re:Immature and Gun Happy

[couchslug]

The Turner Diaries etc don't define US gun culture, which is quite diverse.

This guy is no closet Klansman waiting for the Apocalypse:

http://catb.org/esr/guns/

Nor is she:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/4/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment

"For the rest of us (non-Americans), we think a love of guns and a feeling of necessity to own fire-arms by U.S. citizens is as fucked up as it is in the Middle East for ordinary citizens to own automatic military assault rifles. "

Lots of us think your utter submission to your governments, preference for the safety of lawbreakers over personal self-defense, and general sheeple tendencies aren't admirable either. You've traded freedom for (the perception of) security as is your right, but that only works in certain situations and assumes benign government.

The Middle Eastern populace clearly needs them for self-defense, and even the Coalition forces in Iraq allow one per household. If you cannot use force to protect yourself you have no _effective_ right to self-defense.

While those of you who are totally comfortable with your government controlling your lives and who live in areas without violent demographic/sectarian/criminal conflict may not care for firearms, they do go a long way to ensure sovereignty over ones own space.

Americans killed their way to freedom in the Revolution, killed those who supported slavery until they surrendered at Appomattox, and if the government gets bad enough will vote with the bullet again. We tolerate quite a bit of corporate abuse, as do the rest of you, but woe betide the government that goes too far. Mao was right, political power does flow from the barrel of a gun, and the requirement to kill opponents who won't respond to reason means that the tools to do that are worth keeping.

Both self and wife have used firearms in self-defense without firing them. We live in a rural area where the cops can't do more than react (clean up the mess), so relying on the kindness of others isn't a good idea. If you don't have a gun, anyone physicallly superior to you can do what they will.

Re:Immature and Gun Happy

[Scutter]

I don't even know a single person with a carrying permit.

this shit actually scares people.

Seems you've answered your own question. I'm willing to bet that you know lots of people with both guns AND carry permits, but they're well aware of your irrational fear of inanimate objects so they just don't tell you.

Re:Immature and Gun Happy

[10Ghz]

Lots of us think your utter submission to your governments

So, owning guns is about "not being submissive to the government"? So, do gun-owners in USA refuse to pay taxes, break the law and otherwise disregard laws and regulations that are mandated and enforced by the government? Or do you follow them just like everyone else does? So, how exactly are those "Euro-hippies" and what have you "submissive" to their governments, while those American gun-owners are not?

preference for the safety of lawbreakers over personal self-defense, and general sheeple tendencies aren't admirable either.

How does gun-ownership turn person from a "sheeple" in to "non-sheeple"?

You've traded freedom for (the perception of) security as is your right, but that only works in certain situations and assumes benign government.

So, the argument is that in case of oppressive government, you can use your shotguns and what have you in defending freedom?

If you cannot use force to protect yourself you have no _effective_ right to self-defense.

If I slap you in the face, do you have to right to shoot my head off?

While those of you who are totally comfortable with your government controlling your lives

Could you explain how people who do not own guns are being "controlled by the government", while gun-owners are not? How about some tangible examples?

and who live in areas without violent demographic/sectarian/criminal conflict may not care for firearms, they do go a long way to ensure sovereignty over ones own space.

Maybe widespread availability of guns is one reason why your personal space is so threatened?

Mao was right, political power does flow from the barrel of a gun, and the requirement to kill opponents who won't respond to reason means that the tools to do that are worth keeping.

And what if the ones without guns are the ones being reasonable, while the ones with guns are being unreasonable? Couldn't those guns be used to prop up an oppressive regime, just as well they might be used to bring one down? How many US presidents or other high-ranking politicians have been assassinated, or faced an assassination-attempt?

Both self and wife have used firearms in self-defense without firing them.

Strange, I have never had the need for anything of the sort. But I'm just an Euro-hippie, so what do I know. It must be like living in the jungle in USA?

We live in a rural area where the cops can't do more than react (clean up the mess), so relying on the kindness of others isn't a good idea. If you don't have a gun, anyone physicallly superior to you can do what they will.

I lived in rural areas as well, and I never felt threatened by anyone. Yet I'm the one who is to be pitied, where you are the bastion of freedom to be envied? Even though you need to arm yourself to the teeth in order to be (or feel) safe?

Re:Immature and Gun Happy

[IndustrialComplex]

gimme a country in anarchy where the populace don't have easy access to guns than the most politically stable country in the world (which the US is *not*) where they do.

And this was modded as insightful? If Slashdot had a terminally naive moderation this post would certainly deserve it.

If you want to rant about the United States, rant about the United states, no one is going to stop you from doing so (Not even the US). But framing this as a discussion about firearms is disingenuous. Don't pretend that you care about firearms when what you really want to do is bash on the United States.

Re:Immature and Gun Happy

[Pojut]

Everyone seems to forget that there's this huge group of people who own firearms because they enjoy shooting.

We are some of those people. We have our firearms for home defense (we live in an apartment), and for going to the range. We both enjoy firing and talking about guns, but gun culture isn't something that interests us...we go to the range by ourselves, don't go to gun shows, and don't support the NRA.

If we've had a bad week though, off we go to the range to blow off some steam. It works wonders.

Re:Immature and Gun Happy

[Xest]

"Lots of us think your utter submission to your governments, preference for the safety of lawbreakers over personal self-defense, and general sheeple tendencies aren't admirable either. You've traded freedom for (the perception of) security as is your right, but that only works in certain situations and assumes benign government."

Yet people in Europe don't feel oppressed, and have high levels of personal happiness (as well as other factors like health) whilst generally having better levels of literacy and numeracy. Most importantly, European "preference for the safety of lawbreakers over personal self-defense" seems to allow us to have vastly lower crime rates than in the US, particularly much lower gun crime rates, and certainly vastly fewer accidental injuries and deaths from firearms.

"The Middle Eastern populace clearly needs them for self-defense, and even the Coalition forces in Iraq allow one per household. If you cannot use force to protect yourself you have no _effective_ right to self-defense."

Yes, and we've seen how well it works. I'm sure the 1000s of Iraqis that die each month are more than happy with the self-defence their AK-47 offered them. Worked really well when it was the other guy who pulled the trigger first, or blew him up on his way to the market with an IED or car bomb.

"While those of you who are totally comfortable with your government controlling your lives and who live in areas without violent demographic/sectarian/criminal conflict may not care for firearms, they do go a long way to ensure sovereignty over ones own space."

Which is why the US also has higher levels of robbery than most European countries that have heavy restrictions on firearm ownership? Yeah, great sovereignty over your own space there.

"Americans killed their way to freedom in the Revolution, killed those who supported slavery until they surrendered at Appomattox, and if the government gets bad enough will vote with the bullet again. We tolerate quite a bit of corporate abuse, as do the rest of you"

Yes, we can see how well it turned out too. A two party state where each party is extremely heavily influenced by corporations to an incredible degree, and where elections can be turned if your relative happens to work at a popular news channel in a key state. Still, if it makes you feel better to tell yourself everyone else suffers the same corporate abuse US citizens do then you do that. Meanwhile we'll enjoy our statutory 5+ weeks holiday, our guaranteed redundancy pay, our strong protections on working conditions, our free healthcare and so on, all whilst maintaining a bigger economy alongside those afformentioned higher levels of personal happiness, healthcare, etc. than the US to boot!

"Both self and wife have used firearms in self-defense without firing them."

Really? That's pretty unfortunate. Here in Europe I've never been in such a situation where I'd have have had to do that, nor do I know anyone who has. Sounds like gun ownership helps ensure your country is a really nice place to live in.

I actually like shooting, it's a fun sport, but it's just that, a sport. You've got to be pretty insecure, or living in a pretty unfriendly country to think that a firearm is something you need to carry around with you everywhere you go, or necessarily to even keep one in your house. You can throw around terms like freedom, security, self-defence and so on as much as you want, but it doesn't change the cold hard fact that the US isn't really excelling in any important metric as a result of it's gun culture. If you have freedom why do corporations in the US have so much control both politically and personally? If you have guns as a deterrent to criminals, why is crime so high? If you feel safe, free, and secure as a result of gun ownership why do Americans report so much lower levels of personal happiness?

Re:Immature and Gun Happy

[Dr Damage I]

You misunderstand what rights are. They are not things government must provide you with (clean water, justice, housing, food, hookers etc. etc. etc.), they are things government may not take from you (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness). Defining it in such a way that government gets to decide what rights you have and how you may exercise them as you just did is fundamentally incompatible with the freedom to make ones own choices and to order ones own life as one sees fit.

Re:Immature and Gun Happy

[sortius_nod]

Technically it's not a POW camp, seeing as a majority of the "detainees" weren't part of a military of any sort involved in a war with the US - a "war on terror" is meaningless, you can't send a formal declaration of war to "terror".

It's an internment camp, and by extension a concentration camp. Look up the definition of both internment camp and concentration camp. The OP did not mention "nazi concentration camp", just concentration camp.

So you are 100% wrong with your rejection of the term.

Re:Immature and Gun Happy

[boxwood]

If its a POW camp then you have to follow the Geneva convention, which the US is not doing. If they are criminals, they have to be granted a trial and convict beyond a reasonable doubt, which the US has not done. If you are holding them there because you consider them dangerous undesirables, then it is a concentration camp.

Re:Immature and Gun Happy

[bluefoxlucid]

The US military will split halfway between the government and the people in any such conflict. For one thing, the military's trained to never deploy against Americans; the disruption caused by illegal orders against tyrants and terrorists already causes breakdowns in chain of command, so you can imagine how well orders to "occupy" your own country and shoot at the people you've been told to "protect and serve" would work out. The armed forces would fragment; and the bigger the weapons we ordered out, the more would go against the government.

Re:Immature and Gun Happy

[bickle]

Actually, it *was* because there were a lot of people that thought they were going to lose access to ammo. There were numerous new reports at the time featuring interviews with shop owners and customers. It was quite eye opening at the time - I didn't realize that people were that nuts.

Re:Immature and Gun Happy

[Beezlebub33]

Let's just state the plain, obvious, unpopular truth :

Why do you think Vietnam/Iraq became such nightmares?

every time an invading soldier hurts his toe on a wooden splinter (or worse), you pick out 100 Iraqi's from whatever family is rumored to have something to do with the attack, and include their neighbors for good measure. You shoot them one by one in the town square, or alternatively slowly cut their throats (as the enemy does).

Did this work for the Soviets in Afghanistan? No, of course not. It didn't work for the Germans in France either. More importantly, it will never work unless you keep a large military force in the country forever. The United States does not want to keep a large military force in the country forever. It wants a stable, relatively free country, since that seems to work out best for everyone, the US included. Barring that, the US wants a stable, unfree but not threatening country.

Insurgencies don't work the way that you seem to think. You cannot kill your way out of them, since as you kill people, you make more insurgents. The improvements in Iraq came because we were more careful, not more indiscriminate, in who we killed, while attending to the social and cultural factors that could make the country more stable and non-threatening (cf. Petraeus). Afghanistan is even worse because it's not really a country so much as a collection of tribes and warlords and an arbitrary boundary.

Re:so what?

[smallfries]

Ah, so a citizen trying to live freely should consider a global information aggregator as a harmless and healthy part of society, eh?

Yes. Because unless they are some dumbass redneck there is no way to argue that shooting at their equipment is a good response. In fact even the dumb hicks who did it would probably "argue" that they were just pissing around because they were wasted. It takes a real armchair nutjob like you to claim that they were in the right against some evil global multinational.

They're called *VANDALS* not hunters

[mcheu]

The article says that HUNTERS regularly TRIED to hit the insulators. That's like those jackasses that shoot up stop signs for fun. It's called VANDALISM, not HUNTING.

I'm guessing the animal rights nuts and anti-gun people are thinking that hunters go in the woods, get bored, and start shooting at random objects to pass the time..

That makes absolutely no sense. Regardless of what game you're going after, if you make any noise at all, any game in the vicinity will take off. If you fire off a shot, you can pretty much pack it up and go home. You're not getting anything that day.

Re:They're called *VANDALS* not hunters

[mikael_j]

You didn't, for just a second, consider that maybe the hunters shooting at the insulators are hunters who are done for the day? and on their way back they decide to take a couple of shots at the insulators. I know it used to happen a lot here in northern Sweden, and unlike hunters in the US getting a hunting license here isn't just a matter of signing your name on a piece of paper, waiting a couple of weeks and then getting your brand new rifle.

Also, there are plenty of hunters who prefer target practice out in the woods to hanging out at a range, there are plenty of old sandpits around here where you can find cartridge cases strewn about from various hunters either getting some target practice in or simply trying out a new rifle.

Re:They're called *VANDALS* not hunters

[mcheu]

OK. I see your point, but I still think my original point is valid. If you're wrecking property that isn't yours, the charge is going to be destruction of public or private property, not poaching. That means you'd be a vandal, not a hunter.

Re:Guns and chains...

[Zoxed]

> Stupid people are everywhere. Darwin takes care of some...

It is unfortunate that to a large extent this only applies if they have not yet reproduced :-(

Re:Well...

[ghjm]

The reality is that there is always something to repair.

Re:Immature?

[CasperIV]

It doesn't matter if they were hunters, hippies, or investment bankers. It seems that we have simply let the idiot to normal ratio get far to imbalanced in society. We need to repeal seatbelt laws, take the warnings off plastic bags, and let Darwin lean out the population a bit.