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].'"
I work for a large utility holding company. Every new years and 4th of July we have transformers shot out across our system. They make pretty "sparks and arcs" while they die. Another stupid people trick is throwing chains across 2 live high voltage lines. Invariably, at least one person per year forgets to let go of the chain before it makes contact. Stupid people are everywhere. Darwin takes care of some...
--I like turtles...
Where I live you can't have guns, but people still find ways to be fucktards. Popular passtimes are throwing pavement tiles from overpasses, cutting or shorting cables and stealing bikes, street signs and street lanterns. No, I don't know what they use the street lanterns for.
When I used to work in the wireless Internet world, I had an associate who had much the same problem with idiots shooting at his antennas. After he had been forced to change antennas on several occasions, I told to him that the simple way to fix the problem was to mount a bullseye somewhere else on his towers and give these lunatics something different to aim at. The last time I talked to him his antennas were bullet hole free but he did have to replace a few of the targets due to them taking some serious damage. Come on, Google, put some creative thought into solving these problems..
This is Slashdot and I'm prefectly comfortable with having a discussion, but there is a lot of blind hatred that came out in this thread against gun owners that was being modded very high and was really rather vitriolic.
I'm sorry if my post came across as something more than was intended.
With regard to firearms, I've been encouraged many times to never let on to the fact that I own any, or where I keep them. They are a high value target for thieves. As a result, unless I'm very familiar with the person, I don't bring up my ownership of firearms. (Not worried about Slashdot, the people I'm worried about wouldn't know this username)
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Some good points.
The OP's line of "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." si crying out for analysis, too. I don't see how owning a gun and being a core part of the American rightwing (i.e. a cog in the military-industrial complex) marks you out as being free from the government's influence, either.
I know people in the Twin Cities carry concealed quite often--enough that the hospital I sometimes go to work has a "no guns allowed in building" sign and a locker where you can check-in your weapon is full.
Wisconsin is open carry (no concealed carry) and recently there's been some activity with people doing everyday things (pick up garbage, going out to dinner) while openly carrying. Police--especially the police-state type of police--of course freak out until after they arrest someone and realize it is within their right to openly carry.
Then the police are hit with a lawsuit (I believe that's what's going to happen in a recent Madison, WI case)
The pendulum of a government-sponsored police state has swung too far for people in my region to feel comfortable. The gun-rights advocates are pushing it back in their own way. When Obama was elected, you could not easily find ammunition to buy. It was being scooped up as fast as it could be delivered to sporting stores. It was not because a bunch a crazy citizens thought a black-man president was going to take away their weapons, it was because the message of $400 spent on 1000 bullets is heard much more clearly than any angry saying on a bumper sticker.
Is it just me or does it seem as if "fucktards" are the only people buying guns in the US?
No, they are the ones getting all the headlines but the reality is that the typical gun owner tends to be a very responsible, level-headed, person. It's like how most people can enjoy an occasional beer or glass of wine without causing any commotion but alcohol still has a bad reputation because some idiot overdoes it and then drives and kills a bunch of people.
I've been around guns my entire life and have many friends who had the same kind of upbringing. At no point have I EVER seen a legal gun owner brandish his weapon or use it in some sort of unsafe or idiotic manner. In fact most hunters and gun owners that I know are extremely responsible, civically-minded, kind-hearted people - MUCH more so than the average public.
On the other hand illegal gun owners tend to be unsavory and uncaring about the damage they do with their weapons. They are the ones likely to shoot the gun in the air on New Year's Eve, shoot out signs and lights, brandish it at any provocation, keep it unsafely around minors, etc. Any illegal gun ownership or usage should be harshly punished.
Sapere aude!
I so agree.
The worst incursion I have had on myself or my living area stemmed from a misunderstanding of epic proportions, was at my home, and went so far as to get to fisticuffs until sanity was restored. Bruises were sustained, egos were bruised and stuff had to be discussed (and I even declined to press charges even when it was within my right to do so. No harm, no foul).
Notice that nobody got shot dead.
I live in Sweden, in the worst neighborhood within a few hundred kilometer radius. I know that somebody got beaten up with a bat a few months ago in the neighborhood (reportedly a drug debt, happened after he let the drug dealers he owed money to into his apartment).
Hunting weapons are widely owned in Sweden, and there's a large army base in the town. But people don't keep loaded 9mm pistols or semi-automatics in the glove box. This is a possible influencing factor why a misunderstanding did not get elevated to homicide. Neither party had a weapon which pierces human bodies easily with a feather light pull on the trigger at a time when fear and tempers flared high.
Most excellent.
A shooting is a national headline in a country which has 31 guns per 100 residents (Sweden). USA does have 90 guns per 100 residents (according to wikipedia) but 31 is not a low number. Why is gun crime not just 1/3 of what it is in the USA?
Different rules and different mentality?
Or are the other 60 guns per 100 persons mostly handguns and sprayfire weapons specialized for killing people and no good for hunting?
As a WW2 history buff I say to thee respectfully the history of WWII contradicts EVERY POINT you've made.
"At which point did WWII partisans ever become a threat the third reich"?
When they were killing soldiers left and right, blowing up transport and supplies, generally holding up whole divisions that could have been at the front?
"They were, at no point, capable of even attempting to attack any significant groups of German soldiers".
Really, read a book or two. There where literally thousands of attacks on significant German forces, in Russia, in the Balkan, in France.
"And the groups collaborating with the Nazi's dwarfed, in almost all of Europe, the resistance".
And the group that did nothing whatsoever dwarfed all the combined Nazi's AND the resistance.
Your point?
As for Roman and other Fascist tactics in population decimation, complete control and massive retaliations against any and all resistance;
That works so well that these Empires still thrive and survive, and are seen as admirable examples we should look up to.
Idiot.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Well, it generally is uneconomical to hunt for food. Hunting normally takes too much time. Likewise it was exactly the commercial hunting for food which nearly wiped out most North American animals about a century ago, before the recreational hunters were able to get the conservation laws passed. The first, and most enduring conservation movement is that of sport hunters. Modern lobbying organizations like Ducks Unlimited, are some of the largest voices protecting habitat and environment. Hunters have a direct interest in protecting the biodiversity and strength of habitats, as both are integral to continuing the sport. Hunting (like fishing) license fees are there to support the wilderness.
The justification for hunting is population control as part of a overall environmental management strategy. Since large predators are generally dangerous (and therefore suppressed by humans), hunting fills in this gap in the predator-prey relationship, limiting prey populations. If this did not happen, prey populations would grow to an unsustainable point, resulting in destruction of habitat and eventual mass starvation. Hunting is used as a management tool. Additionally, hunting seasons are normally in the fall with the idea that culled animals would have likely starved over the winter anyways.
As a hiker, mountain biker, cross country skier, and occasional hunter, I notice that hunting puts you in a different relation with your surroundings. When you hike (or ski, or bike), you can easily pass through the country, paying only attention to the path in front of you, and be wrapped up in your own world of concerns and worries. When you are hunting, you must pay attention to the entire world around you and be in-tune with it, otherwise you will be unsuccessful. It is different relation between man and nature than any other activity.
And yes, there are idiots who go hunting. This is like most endeavors which are accessible to the populace as a whole. Most of the time, when wrapped up in our professional lives, we do not realize that half the population (by definition) has an IQ of less than 100. That being said, the grandparent is guilty of the basic statistical problem of selection bias. Of course he would only notice the hunters who are unsafe or otherwise anti-social: those who act properly are generally no different than hikers and he would have no reason to remember them. Having been a part of many community shooting-range cleanups, I can attest that most firearms sportsmen act in a responsible manner. Unfortunately the few that don't can have a large impact.
The parent poster is from the UK, and as I understand it, hunting there was restricted to members of the upper class. Overall being anti-hunting is part of their broad culture war against the upper class. While I sympathize with his populist viewpoint, in the US it is the reverse. Because hunting is more accessible to rural people, but still relatively accessible to everyone, anti-hunting initiatives are spearheaded by the upper classes against the populist sport.
Miles