Slashdot Mirror
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].'"
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.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
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.
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.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
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?
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
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.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
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.
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.
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.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.