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].'"
Odd, it seems the post above was moderated "Offtopic" rather than "Disagree". Or are we assuming that all acts of civil disobedience against any Precious are mindless vandalism rather than a statement of independence?
Ah, so an internet company should consider fuckwit withs guns as part of its normal operating procedure, eh?
Ah, so a citizen trying to live freely should consider a global information aggregator as a harmless and healthy part of society, eh?
do the obvious thing: fuck off to the opt-out village.
Is cowardly retreat your option when confronting all problems? Did you emigrate the first time you disagreed with your government's policy on some issue?
If you think Google fiber = electricity, then you truly are a fucking moron.
If you think that it is acts of petty vandalism which have a deciding influence on your electricity bill, rather than the whims of a few very powerful energy companies, then I'm not sure how you even managed to crawl out of the slime and onto your computer chair.
. In fact even the dumb hicks who did it would probably "argue"
When you are using your prejudices to hypothesise randomly on the motivations of urban gangs, do you use terms like "stupid niggers"?
It takes a real armchair nutjob like you to claim that they were in the right against some evil global multinational.
So are you saying that they are in the wrong because Google it is not evil, or they are in the wrong because it is bad (immoral? ineffective?) to use guerrilla tactics against a powerful enemy?
Why "hunters" need guns?
Agreed. Just like being a butcher, jailer or actor in Uwe Boll films, Hunting should be a job you hate and simply do it because someone has to (debatable on the latter) or are ordered to. Because taking pride and joy in any of these makes you a bad person by definition.
Is it just me or does it seem as if "fucktards" are the only people buying guns in the US? I'm American and I don't own a gun and don't know anyone that does but then I'm also on /. so you can imagine the company I keep. I still think the right to have a gun is a good idea but it does seem like only the wrong people ever bother to actually buy one.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
The day you have to shoot at your own government, it's all over anyway. Speaking as a Brit, the US is far closer to that sort of problem than most other countries - 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. The US are not as superior as they wish to pretend and actually your problem is a *weak* government that doesn't want to recognise the true cost of oil, the results of war and political destabilisation in other countries at its own behest, did not want to largely recognise terrorism existed before 9/11 (and now won't shut up about it and uses it as an excuse to kill 10 times the number in other countries - we'd been telling you for YEARS that you were breeding trouble because of the things you were funding, and because of our experience with IRA terrorism and similar and you didn't want to know), or ask its citizens to put their guns to one side.
No country's perfect but the US is getting further and further down the list as the years tick by. Hell, Guantanamo Bay is/was nothing but a concentration camp - government sanctioned, isolation/imprisonment of particular sections of society, movement of those elements outside of any country they've ever lived in, par-for-the-course torture and humiliation, denial of a fair trial, many people there totally innocent and STILL you won't recognise their basic rights. Up until a few years before 9/11 you could have lectured the rest of the world on how to run a country. Now you're far more the problem than the solution.
Vandalism.
Murder.
Vandalism.
Vandalism.
1 of these words is different from all the others. I suggest you learn quickly.
I can't even think of anything Oregon's known for.
Neo-Nazism. Not making this up. Oregon is like the rainy, racist version of California with more free gun laws. Not that there's not PLENTY of racists in California, you get very far off a major highway and you start running into them in droves. Lots of them moved to Oregon when the population was lower and have been keeping their numbers up successfully ever since. The gun laws probably had a lot to do with it. Amusingly I'm anti-racism and I find Oregon appealing for many of the same reasons.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
A moose is better off dead than neutered. While it might be somewhat happier not to be frequently driven insane by horniness, it is still an eating machine with no reason to live, contributing only to the disease and starvation of the population.
Shut up and move to North Korea. Seriously.
Presence of guns doesn't make the US into Somalia -- Lack of guns doesn't make Britain into North Korea. But since you think in such simple minded terms then complete the cycle - move to North Korea.
A quote from one of the greatest statesman in history, not to mention prime minister of Britain, is in order. "Democracy is a lousy way to run a country - but it's the best we've come up with." - Winston Churchill.
I see shooting in many ways to be like archery. It's not something I'd consider using for defense, but the peace and satisfaction it gives me is healthy.
So, just to be clear, if I draw a bead on you with my bigass compound bow, you're not going to put a bullet in me? Because I assure you that if I'm holding my bow and you your pistol, and you point it at me, you're going to sprout some plastic-feathered carbon fiber in short order unless you perforate me first.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
I didn't realize criminal violence was such a big problem in the US suburbs.
Gun owners are about 7 times more likely to shoot themselves (usually on purpose) than to shoot a criminal [Texas survey of gunshot wounds for which I can't find the reference right now]. So, I figure gun owners must have some personal security issues different from security-of-space, and if they're slowly taking themselves out of the gene pool, it's no skin off my teeth.
The UK has effectively banned gun ownership, and yet has a higher murder rate than the US. Criminals now see the UK populace as unarmed sheep to be preyed upon at will.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Let's just state the plain, obvious, unpopular truth :
Why do you think Vietnam/Iraq became such nightmares?
Simple : because America refused to do what was necessary. Refused to do what the enemy did. America is always attacking half-assed. America was literally attacking to free Iraq. Because America is fighting an enemy that doesn't respect any rules, uses civilians as cannon fodder and shields, massacres entire cities on mere suspicions, rapes children (just like a certain religion commands) and worse. And America fights them with pink gloves.
If America attacked truly to get at the oil, and wanted to destroy any attempted guerilla force, they could easily simply do what everyone has done before America : 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). Anyone gives the slightest hint to not follow the invader's ideology, you do the same. Anyone publicly so much as thinks about fantasizing about throwing a shoe at an American cell phone, you do the same.
No guerilla force will survive for a week under those conditions. And before you say "that's just terribly bad", quite frankly this would still be within the "human rights treaty" (unless the enemy forces play by the rules, civilians are fair game. Any civilian is only protected as long as he can keep both fighting forces away from himself and his house. That means that armies are supposed to declare war, tell eachother where they'll fight, fight at that location, and everyone else surrenders to whomever wins, WITHOUT resistance. Any deviation from that plan allows both sides to kill any civilians).
That's not how warfare has actually happened, not in the middle east, not anywhere else. Killing anyone who blinked is how Napoleon did it, that's how Ataturk did it (in fact he was a *LOT* worse), that's how the Saudi's did it (they were also a lot worse, if not quite as bad as Ataturk), that's how Saddam did it, and let's not talk about our friends, the Iranians. What hitler did to jews, Iranians did to their *own* children (and worse).
If America loses to guerilla warfare, in Iraq or Afghanistan it will be because stupidity and attempting to push "freedom" where it just won't go.
"And no, the hunters are not shooting at the fibre or insulators, but at the pheasant, grouse and other flying game creatures that routinely alight on the overhead cables (usually power lines) that carry the fibre."
And those hunters and their families are going to starve to death if they don't get that particular little bird that happens to be in a Bad Place to Shoot.
So you are saying that Saddam never had the WMDs that he used to kill thousands of people...
Just the ones we sold to him.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
Troll is correct.
Looking at this idiot's posting history, he is the stereotypical republican - loves guns, jesus and has no fucking clue what goes on outside his beloved USA.
If you're not certain of your field of fire, you don't squeeze. Period.
You've never played Quake it seems :-)
:wq!