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].'"

81 of 1,141 comments (clear)

  1. Eat what you kill? by tacarat · · Score: 5, Funny

    For our amusement, let's hope they killed somebody's 2g1c download.

    --
    "Common sense will be the death of us all"
  2. Unexpected by Joebert · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would have expected to hear about something like this in Kentucky, Tennessee, or another southern state, but Oregon? I can't even think of anything Oregon's known for.

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    1. Re:Unexpected by stephanruby · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's too late for that, now that the humans have guns, let's give some guns to the insulators so that they can at least fight back.

    2. Re:Unexpected by cptdondo · · Score: 4, Informative

      I moved to Oregon from South Carolina... Arguably two of the most "redneck" states out there, except may be Idaho. What most city slickers don't realize about Oregon is that a lot of it is nature. With animals. Real animals. That will eat you.

      The project I manage now is sandwiched between urban core and a rock quarry. Before the excavators moved in, we had a pack of coyotes hunting the area (and they'll be back as soon as we're done). When I hike, I regularly come across bear and cougar tracks and cougar kills. There are at least 3 cougars that share one of the urban parks with thousands of visitors. It's not unusual for trails to be posted with cougar sightings.

      (For those of you who don't know, a cougar is a large cat, also known as a mountain lion.)

      Many rural governments advise new residents to purchase a firearm to protect their property from assorted flesh-eating critters.

      We also have a house in Europe, in the Czech Republic, which also has a long tradition of sport shooting and hunting. The wildlife is nowhere near as wild or abundant there.

      So.... Yes there is a gun culture here in Oregon. The vast majority of gun owners here are responsible. Most of us responsible types stay away from the areas where the signs are shot up and people shoot at beer cans. There is a small minority of idiots. How's that different from any other population?

      The only problem is that these idiots have guns. Darwin takes care of a few every year.

  3. Guns and chains... by Muckluck · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...
    1. Re:Guns and chains... by Zoxed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > 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 :-(

    2. Re:Guns and chains... by nanoakron · · Score: 4, Informative

      Agreed!

      High voltage discharges create intense UV radiation - and because your retina doesn't detect UV it doesn't trigger your blink reflex.

      So you'll end up with corneal burning and irritation if you're lucky, cataracts or permanent blindspots if not.

      So these idiots intentionally reproducing these things to see the pretty colours deserve all they get. Unfortunate pylon workers, welders and high voltage researchers do not.

      -Nano.

  4. Re:Why? by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First off, I'm guessing they're thinking about all the shitty beer they just drank.

    Actually, that answers the second question too.

  5. Re:Immature? by thephydes · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  6. Googletroopers by snookerhog · · Score: 4, Funny
    Google should send a squad of googletroopers to shoot their fucking still.

    that'll learn em

    1. Re:Googletroopers by Vectormatic · · Score: 5, Funny

      i'm not sure brightly colored camo-suits will work...

      anyway, googletroopers, expect them to have home-brew equipment which might seem slightly crude, but is actually miles ahead of modern day military hardware, very intuitive to operate... like a railgun (point-click-kill)

      (and i just thought of something, if apple ever amassed an army of iTroopers, the black/white color scheme of stormtroopers certainly fits well doesnt it? kind of gives you a whole new perspective on steve's black turtleneck)

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    2. Re:Googletroopers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      So Microsoft are the Borg, Apple are the Evil Empire and Google are... Mighty Morphin Power Rangers?

  7. Re:so what? by smallfries · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  8. Hunters and responsibility by stimpleton · · Score: 3, Informative

    On the list of preaching, soap box standing zealots, I have found hunters to be the most vocal. Responsibility, conservation, and a given right to engage said pass-time is delivered in fire-brand like sermons.

    From my observations, though, for every 1 responsible hunter there seem to be 10 irresponsible.

    15 years ago, I did a stint as a volunteer park warden for 6 months. I noted the following:
    - Bringing shot deer down to the nearest clearing, often walking tracks, partially butchering the animal and leaving the rest to rot on the track.
    - Pot shots and damage to any and all infrastructure.
    - "Boredom Kills" - usually birds shot with high powered rifles.
    - Hunting dogs left to roam, sometimes till a following weekend, when the hunter would come back.
    - Creepy comments to day hikers such as "I saw you long ago from across the valley, i saw you in my scope".

    15 years later and hunters will still defend their pass time with the fervor of a rabid PETA campaigner, or Muslim cleric. Saving the world you know. Thinning pests, and over population of grazing animals...

    --

    In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
    1. Re:Hunters and responsibility by Duncan+J+Murray · · Score: 5, Informative

      All the above sentiments.

      When fox-hunting was banned in the UK, there was a pretty huge outcry from the hunting community, with modest support from locals/country folk etc, and ambivalence from most of the rest of us. However, it quickly became apparent that the only real / main reason to keep hunting going was to continue the 'tradition' and to keep a few people employed. I think at this point public opinion swung in support of the government, and I think most of us haven't looked back since.

      I'm all for hunting for food, but hunting for sport just seems gratuitous and disrespectful to nature.

      Duncan.

    2. Re:Hunters and responsibility by LandDolphin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's their excuse, not motive.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    3. Re:Hunters and responsibility by Alarindris · · Score: 5, Informative

      15 years later and hunters will still defend their pass time with the fervor of a rabid PETA campaigner, or Muslim cleric. Saving the world you know. Thinning pests, and over population of grazing animals...

      Hi there, hunter here from Wisconsin. Do you know that there are more deer in Wisconsin than before it was settled? It's true. And do you know why? There are no more wolves. The deer have no natural predators any more. Every year deer cost millions of dollars in crop damage and insurance claims. Almost 27000 deer/car collisions a year.* $28 million in crop damage.** They also destroy forests by eating new growth faster than it can recover. Yes they are cute and many people are afraid of guns due to ignorance and inexperience, but don't let that stop you from actually getting the facts.

      And trust me, all the shitheads that want to go around poaching and shooting road signs and transformers piss off every decent hunter out there that has to defend themselves against stories like these. It's not the guns or the hunting that's the problem, it's STUPID PEOPLE.

      * http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/wildlife/HUNT/DEER/CKDFY10.pdf
      ** http://learningstore.uwex.edu/assets/pdfs/G3083.pdf

    4. Re:Hunters and responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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

  9. Re:Fucktards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  10. Re:Immature? by CarpetShark · · Score: 5, Funny

    The combination of guns and immature pranks doesn't sound too good to me.

    To be fair, there's no way Steve could have thrown a chair that high.

  11. Re:Pretty common. by Sulphur · · Score: 4, Funny

    During his Beretta days Robert Blake was on the Johnny Carson show.

    He told a story of walking in Northern Europe during WWII. They saw some insulators.

    "It was wartime. We had guns on us. When we got back to camp, we were told that the Germans had cut the communication lines."

  12. Immature and Gun Happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's why non-Americans think the U.S. gun culture is so obviously insane.

      As a European, I don't have a problem with American gun culture at all. Can't fire across the Atlantic, so nobody except Americans get hurt.

      On the serious side, though: The way the US government is trending I think it's a really good idea to have a large number of weapons in the populace.

    2. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by couchslug · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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."
    3. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by jargon82 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm an american, and outside law enforcement officers, I've seen perhaps 3 or 4 guns in private possession in my life. I suppose they must be out there somewhere, and I've sure heard stories that make me shake my head, but I think those stories get a little overblown with regards to how many of us own or carry a gun.

    4. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by Eunuchswear · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh, come on.

      Americans can be irritating, but wanting them to go down in a blaze of self inflicted gunshot wounds is mean.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    5. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by Scutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    6. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by 10Ghz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    7. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by drewhk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is a vicious circle:

      If a lot of households have weapons, it means that the criminals are more likely to carry a weapon. If the criminals are likely to carry weapons, it means that even more households will acquire a gun, too. Stalemate.

      How do you start disarmament?

    8. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    9. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by Pojut · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by vlm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've seen perhaps 3 or 4 guns in private possession in my life.

      As kindly as I can say this, maybe they think you're a burglary risk? Or your friends/coworkers live in a generally high crime area like the coasts?

      Only criminals or the extremely poor have cheap guns. Guns are generally a very long term capital expense, unlike virtually all other hobbies discussed on Slashdot. Realize that my grandfathers .45 has had a vaguely constant value for a couple decades, unlike say, used PC video cards. That leads to "trading up" and "collecting" behavior, and after a couple decades and/or generations of inheritance, ending up with a gun safe worth as much as a car. Sure, you could sell and get the cash, but if you went hunting with grandpa for 20 great seasons, after he dies and you inherit his rifle you're not going to sell either yours or his, way too many good memories about growing up, etc.

      Someone whom would discuss their collection of decent condition rare engraved inlaid over-under duck hunting shotguns with anyone they meet is about as intelligent as someone whom would discuss their extremely heavy gold coin collection with anyone they meet...

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    11. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by HungryHobo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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."

      And in that time the US government has taken far more power and individual rights have been eroded not expanded.
      American citizens had their guns long before 9/11.
      Which doesn't fall too neatly in line with your belief that it's the right to own guns and a weak government that's the problem but rather the opposite.

    12. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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?

    13. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by cheater512 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You'd think so, but the US Military has bigger guns and bigger idiots, so revolt could never occur.

    14. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by Vintermann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      your utter submission to your governments

      Here's the core of the issue, I think. See, we feel that the government by and large submits to us. We can maybe not trust them as much as a well-trained dog, but enough not to try to engage in an arms race with them.

      But I can actually understand that Americans don't trust their government. It seems to be somewhere between a cat and a hyena when it comes to trustability.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    15. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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
    16. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by RMH101 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    17. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by ptbarnett · · Score: 5, Informative

      Then why do only 3% of Americans own guns?

      Once again, the moderators are on crack -- giving +1 to something that can be proved wrong with a simple Google search:

      Two in Five Americans Live in Gun-Owning Households

    18. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
    19. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by sortius_nod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    20. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by glueball · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    21. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by boxwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    22. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Internment camp is simply another name for a concentration camp. A concentration camp is anywhere political prisoners are held in large numbers without trial. Gitmo fits the definition since it was specifically NOT designated a POW camp so as to avoid the Geneva convention. Having said that, I agree that US "internment camps" do not rise to anything like the level of inhumanity found in Nazi concentration camps.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    23. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Informative

      >>>Concentration camps were where they sent the Jews

      Also the japanese-descended Americans during World War 2. Or have you forgotten how FDR unconstitutionally imprisoned Americans in concentration camps? He took their liberty, their property, their homes, their wealth, and imprisoned them without trial for almost four years. FDR makes Bush look like a nice guy in comparison. FDR was an ass that mistreated millions of American citizens.

      But you've forgotten that. You've forgotten we had concentration camps right here on our own soil.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    24. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    25. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by bickle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    26. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    27. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by Xest · · Score: 4, Informative

      Most people on Slashdot are technically competent enough to Google things for themselves. As you're apparently incapable of using Google though, enjoy:

      Happiness:
      http://www.happyplanetindex.org/explore/global/index.html
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Planet_Index

      Crime:
      (rapes) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
      (murders) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
      (firearms murder and accidental) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
      (burglaries) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita

      Health:
      (life expectancy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
      (cancer deaths) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_dea_fro_can-health-death-from-cancer
      (obesity) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

      As you can see, there are some stats where the US is equal to or above a handful of European nations, but in pretty much every case the US falls below the European average, and in some cases, is below that of all European nations.

    28. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by nutshell42 · · Score: 4, Funny
      I'm proud how patriotic citizens like you prevented our Kenyan in chief from proclaiming the People's Republic of America and turning this proud nation into a SOCIALISM.

      I mean, hey, the stimulus act contained $300bn in tax breaks but when Obama does it, it must be SOCIALISM.

      And that infrastructure spending Republican congressmen and business associations wanted? Now Obama is in favor of it, so it must be SOCIALISM.

      And extending tax breaks a Republican president and Republican congress scheduled to expire for anyone but the richest 2% that never had lower taxes anyway since they came up with the income tax. SOCIALISM.

      I'm sure if you just keep watching Glen Beck and buy ammo and gold capitalism can yet prevail.

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    29. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by nogginthenog · · Score: 4, Informative

      You have no idea what you are talking about

      People in the UK have never carried guns and the ban has affected almost nobody. I've lived in London for 36 years and I have NEVER seen a gun, other than carried by the (rare) armed police, or military.

      Even British police don't carry guns. There's a reason for that.

    30. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by arikol · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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?

    31. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We both enjoy firing and talking about guns, but gun culture isn't something that interests us...

      While a lot of modern "gun culture" in the US is juvenile and mixed in with some of the more idiotic ideas floating around our society, both the olde time hunting culture and the marksmanship cultures share some very valuable cultural traits. Most importantly, a strict, almost ritualistic adherence to firearm safety rules, even when they don't understand the purpose behind them. It's a trait that seems to be slowly going away which is sad. Too often I hear people joke about pointing guns at others and knowing they aren't loaded and such, all of which misses the point. The idea of conditioning yourself with safe behaviors through repetition, so that you behave safely when you don't have time to think clearly is, frankly, beyond a lot of people. It's too bad more people don't have a grouchy grandfather or strict sergeant enforcing said conditioning and making sure they pass it on.

    32. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by MRe_nl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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"
    33. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by Cornelius+the+Great · · Score: 3, Informative

      I support this point of view, although I think guns are worthless in close combat. What are you going to do, kick, stepback, pull a ninja-block, draw gun, fire right into the side of the temple? You won't reach the gun; the guy'll block (and then break) your arm unless you whip out some Budo or Pentjak Silat or something on his ass. Guns only work when they're pointed at someone; we need martial arts training.

      You sound like you've either swallowed your sensei's bullshit, or watched too many martial arts films. I have had three years of Taekwondo and one year of Jujitsu training and even I'll argue that a firearm is useful in close quarters. Most gun encounters occur within 15 feet, which is about a second away from physical contact with the bad guy. Even 0-5 feet, the gun is invaluable, and can stop an adversary or at least allow you to escape. And if your adversary has a gun, the only thing to give you a fighting chance is another gun.

      Real fighting is not like the movies. In real life, a 125 lb black belt can easily be overpowered by a 250 lb guy with very little combat training. Sorry, but there's little that technique and training can do to overcome an attacker twice your size and strength (unless they're terribly bad fighters), especially if they're armed. A gun is the best equalizer in those cases.

      --
      Sigs are for losers
    34. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      So you need armed populace in order to have functional government? Um, OK.

      As do we all. Some have not yet realized this. Gandhi understood it, though: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." This is from his Autobiography. Are we on the same page yet?

      Similarly, people are the victims of violent crime and government oppression every day.

      Sure. But that doesn't mean that I feel the need to carry guns with me.

      Logical fallacy: Attacking a straw man. I don't carry my guns with me unless I'm taking them somewhere I'm going to fire them.

      Hell, I have never been in a situation where I have to defend my person or my property through use of force. Does that mean that I'm "missing out" on something?

      It means you're lucky.

      And, FWIW, I have never faced any "oppression" from the government.

      Are you seriously telling me that you don't want to do anything your government doesn't want you to do, which you regard as reasonable? You're boring.

      So, is USA such a shithole that you need guns to protect yourself from your neighbours and from the government? Because if I believed the gun-owners, that is the reality over there. And five seconds later they have said that, they start telling what a great place USA is. Huh?

      Wait, you're a Finn? By the end of 2006 there were more than 1.6 million licensed firearms.[1] Averaged among Finland's population of 5.3 million it comes to 30.5 per 100 people. Another study puts the number of firearms per capita as high as 0.55 [2] further hilarity from the same source: To obtain a firearms license, an individual must declare a valid reason to own a gun. Acceptable reasons include hunting, sports or hobby shooting, profession related, show or promotion or exhibition, collection or museum, souvenir, and signalling. It is worth noticing that self- or home defence are not considered valid reasons. So it's okay with your government if you shoot shit for fun, but not to defend yourself? Finns have fourth most firearms in the world per capita (right after United States, Yemen, Switzerland) totalling 1.8 million registered privately owned firearms and 100,000-200,000 unregistered firearms.[2] Gun related homicides are rare, comprising 14% of the total number of homicides,[3] which is comparatively low. You have a shitload of guns, just less than us! You're fucking full of shit! You have no idea what your government would be like if your populace was not armed, because it is. Why don't you come back and try again when you have a point? Do you really need all those guns in your country? It must be some kind of shithole!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    35. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The USSR did it by posting people from one end of the country at another.
      Besides, there are plenty of examples in the last hundred years from Douglas McArthur preparing for riots to Kent State University in 1970 where US troops were prepared to use lethal force on US soil against US citizens. It's against pretty well everything the US armed forces are supposed to stand for but how much exactly has Rumsfeld in his attempt to "break the culture" and events since damaged the US armed forces?

    36. Re:Immature and Gun Happy by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Informative

      >>>You have no idea what you are talking about

      You're right.

      Which is why I provided a link to an article (which you did not read so I'll quote SOME of it for you). "On a June evening two years ago, Dan Rather made many stiff British upper lips quiver by reporting that England had a crime problem and that, apart from murder, 'theirs is worse than ours.' ..... In the two years since Dan Rather was so roundly rebuked, violence in England has gotten markedly worse. Over the course of a few days in the summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of north London. And on New Year's Day this year a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone. London police are now looking to New York City police for advice."

      "None of this was supposed to happen in the country whose stringent gun laws and 1997 ban on handguns have been hailed as the "gold standard" of gun control. ..... The results -- the toughest firearm restrictions of any democracy -- are credited by the world's gun control advocates with producing a low rate of violent crime. ..... In reality, the English approach has not re-duced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them."

      "In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent. ..... Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners....."

      Yeah I know.
      I'll be modded troll.
      People hate to face Facts - it makes their brains hurt (cognitive dissonance).

      "In 1969 police were informed "it should never be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person." These changes were made without public knowledge or debate. Their enforcement has consumed hundreds of thousands of police hours. Finally, in 1997 handguns were banned. Proposed exemptions for handicapped shooters and the British Olympic team were rejected."

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  13. An experiment in Social Engineering. by KenDiPietro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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..

    1. Re:An experiment in Social Engineering. by jollyreaper · · Score: 3, Funny

      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..

      Have the targets shoot back. If the hunters want to man up about their sport, fucking man up.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    2. Re:An experiment in Social Engineering. by kent_eh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That assumes the idiots are adequate-to-good shots.
      A few of the towers my company owns get shot up each year. The damage is almost always to the antenna cables running up the tower within 10 feet above or below the tower lights. Occasionally they actually hit the light in the process, but not always.
      And once every couple of years some douche shoots the hell out of the equipment shack. The record is 157 bullet holes in one 10x20 building.

      We have a policy that there must be a vehicle parked visibly on-site if someone is working in the shack. Never drop off someone, then take the truck to another site.

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
  14. Re:Pretty common. by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 3, Informative

    You think that's bad? In Germany, manhole covers and guard rails are vanishing...but the best one was when they stole 40 tons of rails...yes, the ones where trains run on.

    On a sidenote, there are quiet a few stories about that over at the Darwin Awards.

  15. Re:so what? by smallfries · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  16. Re:Pretty common. by A1rmanCha1rman · · Score: 5, Informative

    I worked for a ISP that had a POP in the sticks. It's feed would regularly be shot by some stupid hick. There was also only one telco field tech for the area, and it would take him forever to respond and even longer to resolve the issue. The city has its own issues. Once a very large section of copper was stolen from the telco taking out an untold number of consumers.

    If you work for telcos that have thousands of miles of fibre traversing farmland, you'll quickly come to appreciate (especially in the hunting season) that shotgun damage is a fact of life.

    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.

    --
    I get up, I get down...
  17. Re:Fucktards by Khyber · · Score: 5, Informative

    I do, they're likely HID lights and thus are suitable for indoor horticulture.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  18. Re:Explain to me again please, by EmagGeek · · Score: 5, Funny

    You can't simply chase down a deer and scream liberal rhetoric at it until it kills itself, now can you?

  19. They're called *VANDALS* not hunters by mcheu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:They're called *VANDALS* not hunters by mikael_j · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    2. Re:They're called *VANDALS* not hunters by mcheu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:They're called *VANDALS* not hunters by ferd_farkle · · Score: 5, Informative

      They're idiots who shouldn't be allowed off a supervised range with a gun. Shooting at a highly elevated target with no (likely) backstop but the sky is the height of firearms irresponsibility.

      Just a few years back, some yahoo in Jersey let loose a few .30 cal rounds at a soaring turkey vulture. A couple miles away, a guy working on the roof of his suburban home took the round and died on the spot.

      If you're not certain of your field of fire, you don't squeeze. Period.

  20. Re:Immature? by Dan667 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ask cheney's hunting buddies.

  21. Widespread problem by saurongt · · Score: 3, Funny

    I work in electrical power transmission and distribution, and apparently shooting at insulators is a popular pastime. One of the bullet points in most specsheets for fiberglass insulators is the resistance to damage from gunfire.

  22. It's Google versus the Yahoos by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, what we're saying is that Google is being regularly shot down by yahoos?

    ...There's gotta be a witty quip to be made there somewhere...

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  23. Re:Fucktards by Graff · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  24. "Revolt could never occur" by maillemaker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >You'd think so, but the US Military has bigger guns and bigger idiots, so revolt could never occur.

    I submit to you that the United States has been engaged in an unsuccessful bid to put down rebellions in at least two countries for the last 9 years and has been unable to do so, despite massively superior military power. I think everyone pretty much sees how this will turn out - we will eventually withdraw, just as the Soviets did, without having changed much of anything.

    I also submit to you that this war is fought somewhere else and most US citizens just don't care. As one soldier put it, "The Marines are at war. America is at the mall." Also because of this, there is no damage to America's infrastructure. A rebellion at home would directly affect the citizens of this country and directly affect its infrastructure, causing massive economic fallout, massively eroding the tax base, thus hitting the government where it is most vulnerable - its wallet.

    When the two DC Snipers went on their rampage shooting people at gas stations, the economic impact was in the millions of dollars just from people afraid to go put gasoline in their cars. Imagine the impact of outright civil war.

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
  25. Re:Well... by uncledrax · · Score: 3, Informative

    They sure do. but at least you can send out untrained crews across the area and ID where your breaks are exactly, so the next available trained repair crew and come out and attend to it.. repairing utilities in a vault or in a trench isn't as easy.

    --
    ----- The internet has given everyone the ability to have their voice heard equally as loud.. even if they shouldn't be
  26. Re:Well... by ghjm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The reality is that there is always something to repair.

  27. Re:Hunting for food? We don't gather, either. by Eivind · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I personally find modern factory-farming to be a lot more hostile to animal-welfare than hunting a wild animal is. Yes, the farmed animal can be killed in a more controlled fashion, so the death will be swifter and involve less pain. But on the flipside, that farmed animal might have spent it's entire life on a letter-sized piece of wiremesh, and never once even seen the sun. What would you choose for yourself ? Life your entire life free, and then some day be shot from a distance. Or live your entire life in a prison, then one day be executed. I don't know your answer, but my guess would be, the overwhelming majority, would prefer living free. Offcourse some people are of the opinion we shouldn't be eating meat at all. I can respect that, though I don't agree. it's atleast internally consistent. But happily munching eggs from modern cage-hens, while complaining about hunting on animal-welfare grounds, seems rather strange to me.

  28. Guns aren't just a right-wing issue by Quila · · Score: 3, Informative

    Guns are supported by many on the left in American politics. We even have the Pink Pistols, a gay pro-gun group ("Armed gays don't get bashed"), and the NRA has endorsed many Democratic candidates based on their pro-gun stance.

  29. Re:Immature? by CasperIV · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  30. Re:Well... by Shatrat · · Score: 3, Informative
    You generally don't need untrained crews to find a break. You use an Optical Time-Domain Reflectometer to identify the location of the cut within a few hundred feet, and then you send out your splicing and underground/aerial crews.
    Upon arrival to a site the crew will either find an abandoned construction site or vehicle accident. Construction crews generally leave the site when they hit a cable because they know work is done for the day and their employer is about to have an unpleasant phone call from someone like me. The bill for a cut like this runs in the tens of thousands of dollars.

    If an obvious break isn't found, then you have to start looking for squirrel chews on aerial and rat chews in underground conduit. That's generally just a partial break so you can roll your fiber at the two nearest splice points onto good dark fibers, or at least fibers occupied by lower speed systems.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0