The Emergency Internet Bunkers

Mars by mfh · 2011-03-12 05:00 · Score: 2

We should ship humanity's data to Mars for safe-keeping and just in case Mars was ever destroyed, we could backup in a randomly attuned dimension.

--
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.

Re:Mars by mevets · 2011-03-12 06:13 · Score: 1

Yes, but only in the sense of "a ship on the beach is a lighthouse to the sea."
-----
Q: So the problem is fat cats infatuated with expensive, unnecessary products?
A: Exactly. Only now it's cropping up in Asia, too.
Re:Mars by davester666 · 2011-03-12 06:33 · Score: 1

Just broadcast your data, suitably encrypted and duplicated, into space in one direction [not towards any of the planets or solar systems in our area].
Then, if you REALLY REALLY want that data, you just need to invent and FTL drive, then travel to a point just in front of that data beam and retrieve your data.

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Re:Mars by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 09:21 · Score: 0

Total Remix
Re:Mars by stonewallred · 2011-03-12 15:03 · Score: 1

As long as Blizzard keeps at least one WoW server in there, I'll be happy.
That way while the zombies are feasting on the rest of humanities' brains, I can finally level up some toons.
Re:Mars by rdebath · 2011-03-12 20:16 · Score: 1

Naa, "Delay line memory" is far too open to interference.
I would suggest using Iron crystals; a small one would be a thousand miles across. They take a little while to manufacture but once they've cooled off they make a very stable storage medium. Just be sure to remove the outer layers of slag, especially any organic residue that may be infecting it.
One of these will give you a few zettabytes of storage. BTW: You can put a lot more in if you reduce the ECC requirements but we're talking long term storage here. In addition for long term storage you'll need several of these to account for losses to stellar incidents and they should really be moved into intergalactic space.
Re:Mars by Artifakt · 2011-03-13 03:20 · Score: 1

You could embed or suspend these crystals on a vast platter design, and then just mark any that had organic contaminants as bad sectors in your organising system and ignore them.

--
Who is John Cabal?

Retarded by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 05:01 · Score: 0

Yay, there are servers... but no people

Re:Retarded by nurb432 · 2011-03-12 05:31 · Score: 1

..or at the least no way to get to them since your ISP is toast.
How about they worry about protecting something that is actually important to survival, like our food and water supply instead?

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Re:Retarded by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 05:45 · Score: 0

The people in power have enough of that protected for their needs. Any more would be a waste.
Re:Retarded by WrongSizeGlass · 2011-03-12 05:54 · Score: 1

Yay, there are servers... but no people
No people? Then who's going to buy all the "apocalypse clearance sale" stuff on my client's websites??

Where are the emergency routers and cables? by John+Hasler · 2011-03-12 05:02 · Score: 1

n/t

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.

Re:Where are the emergency routers and cables? by game+kid · 2011-03-12 08:23 · Score: 1

Right over there near the emergency Triple Play packages and emergency transfer caps.
--oh, that thing in front? That's the emergency packet shaper that EmergencyAdServer(TM) gave us.

--
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Re:Where are the emergency routers and cables? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 21:45 · Score: 0

From the bunker, your whippersnapping reporter reports. It has been a tedious night in a wasteland surrounded base while the techs are looking for a solution to the latest cabling problem. During the yesterday afternoon, a bright flash was once again providing light and warmth to the nuclear winter, the season of this decade and to the displeasure of the occupants, the internet ceased working.
The greatest technological minds fast enough to get into this shelter before the steel doors closed started working and pondering. They did try the legendary "unplugging the cable" manoeuvre which is the solution provided by the God through his Holy Cartoon for the problem of disappearing Internet. They know, as the Holy Cartoon says, that some of the remaining Internet could be found from the California but the nuclear wasteland with the possible mutant colonies here and there might pose too much of an obstacle.
A courageous tactical reconnaissance team dispatched to the southward direction from the bunker with hope of discovering the reason for the disappearing Internet. Early this morning the team returned and here we have the team leader for you for a snapping interview. Sir, what did you find from the southward direction?.. What kind religious colony?..They wanted a change? A redemption?.. How did they get into an army weapons research facility?.. I see.. So they wanted to redeem themselves? With a Redeemer?.. And the cables where destroyed in the following explosion? I see.. Thank you, Sir. So there you have it. Reported still living from one of the few remaining bases still sort of having the Internet by your very own whippersnapping reporter.
Re:Where are the emergency routers and cables? by azalin · 2011-03-13 01:13 · Score: 1

Well at least that should free up some IP addresses.

Would it matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 05:02 · Score: 0

If the doomsday clock every does hit midnight, it really won't matter if the internet exist or not.

Re:Would it matter? by mikael_j · 2011-03-12 05:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

You're assuming no one will be left alive and have a will to rebuild.
It is very likely that even a large-scale nuclear war will leave hundreds of millions alive which would imply there might still be enough remnants of various organizations left to pick up the pieces. In fact, if your company, non-profit organization or random government agency came out of a nuclear war slightly less destroyed than the competition, wouldn't you want to be able to hit the ground running? Fetch your important data, get your organization up and running like before? Or would you just throw your hands in the air and decide to whither away and die a slow agonizing death from starvation because obviously nuclear war means even the survivors are 100% sure the be screwed?
I'd rather try surviving, seems I'm not the only one.
(Not to mention that a lot of these datacenters are also very useful for more limited disaster scenarios).

--
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Re:Would it matter? by the+linux+geek · 2011-03-12 05:25 · Score: 1

More like billions. Back-of-the-envelope math suggests that any conflict between either the US and Russia, the US and Mainland China, or Mainland China and Russia would probably not kill more than a few hundred million from the direct effects of the bomb. There's other problems, namely that Ukraine and the central US provide a large portion of the world's food supply, but there would still be plenty of people and a relatively intact civilization.

Let's try to get out of the 1960's FUD.
Re:Would it matter? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 05:27 · Score: 0

Except...the economy is going to be ruined, and you act as if IT jobs/companies are just going to magically arise from the ashes? I don't think the internet (or the IT sector) is going to be able to just pick up where it left off, even after a limited nuclear war.
For starters, depending on which countries/regions were hit...you're looking at literally losing Silicon Valley, or pretty much your entire market.
Re:Would it matter? by the+linux+geek · 2011-03-12 05:28 · Score: 1

The will be a need for infrastructure to rebuilt, and some percentage of IT/CS job seekers will presumably be killed in the conflict. That means demand for skilled computer workers will increase.
Re:Would it matter? by tomhudson · 2011-03-12 05:42 · Score: 1

So what? Most of the essential data is already duplicated on individual users' computers around the world.
People would still be able to do both ad-hoc networks, wireless meshes, and sneakernet, and many locations would still have enough infrastructure left to provide lots of hosting for survivors.
.
Re:Would it matter? by click2005 · 2011-03-12 05:48 · Score: 1

The demand for engineers will rise. People who can assemble and repair simple (relatively) electronics and get power, heating, filtration and essentials working will be important.

--
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.

Uh, what? by ChinggisK · 2011-03-12 05:05 · Score: 5, Informative

FTA:

In 1949, the Soviets tested their first atomic bomb, and they pushed the clock to 23:57. A year later, the US did the same – so the clock ticked on to 23:58.

Uh, I thought the US tested their first atomic bomb in 1945?

Re:Uh, what? by $RANDOMLUSER · 2011-03-12 05:13 · Score: 1

I was just going to post the same. I'm not going to bother to continue reading any article that can't get such a forehead-whappingly obvious "everybody knows" fact straight.

--
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Re:Uh, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 05:13 · Score: 4, Informative

A simple wikipedia lookup of the doomsday clock:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock
shows how inaccurate that statement is. It wasn't a year later. It was 4 years later. And it wasn't the US testing an atomic bomb, it was the US and the Soviets testing thermonuclear devices.
When an article begins with such obvious errors I have little inclination to continue reading.
Re:Uh, what? by david.a.judge · 2011-03-12 08:13 · Score: 1

FTA:

In 1949, the Soviets tested their first atomic bomb, and they pushed the clock to 23:57. A year later, the US did the same – so the clock ticked on to 23:58.
Uh, I thought the US tested their first atomic bomb in 1945?
When you RTFA, try READING it: "Since 1947, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has used the face of this fictional clock to plot our race towards destruction. In 1949, the Soviets tested their first atomic bomb, and they pushed the clock to 23:57. Four years later, the US and Soviets both tested thermonuclear weapons and so the clock ticked on to 23:58." Hint: the keyword is "thermonuclear", *NOT* "atomic".
Re:Uh, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 08:21 · Score: 0

FTA:

In 1949, the Soviets tested their first atomic bomb, and they pushed the clock to 23:57. A year later, the US did the same – so the clock ticked on to 23:58.
Uh, I thought the US tested their first atomic bomb in 1945?
When you RTFA, try READING it:
"Since 1947, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has used the face of this fictional clock to plot our race towards destruction. In 1949, the Soviets tested their first atomic bomb, and they pushed the clock to 23:57. Four years later, the US and Soviets both tested thermonuclear weapons and so the clock ticked on to 23:58."
Hint: the keyword is "thermonuclear", *NOT* "atomic".
You may want to read on in the article to the bottom, the first comments spotted the error, and the author corrected it.
Re:Uh, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 12:37 · Score: 0

So you're going to quit reading wikipedia articles forever because this one wikipedia article was bad? ;)
Re:Uh, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 17:53 · Score: 0

Aren't they referring to the thermonuclear or fusion bomb or the whatever-ya-call-it-mother-load of bombs from the 50s?
Re:Uh, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 23:44 · Score: 0

Over exited yank.... The initial setting of the Doomsday Clock was set in 1947, this was two years after the US tested theirs. It never said this was the FIRST testing a year later by the US, it was the "Soviets tested their first atomic bomb, and they pushed the clock to 23:57. A year later, the US did the same", meaning a year later the US tested another bomb......
Re:Uh, what? by ChinggisK · 2011-03-13 04:27 · Score: 1

That could possibly be what he meant, except even then that's still incorrect. As pointed out above by another reply to my post, The Doomsday Clock was pushed to 23:57 when the Soviets tested their first atomic bomb in 1949, and was not changed again until four years later (1953), when the Soviets and US both tested thermonuclear weapons. The article claimed that it was changed the following year (1950).

Regardless, the editor of the article has since admitted the mistake and corrected it (see the comments in TFA).
Re:Uh, what? by ChinggisK · 2011-03-13 04:29 · Score: 1

They fixed the article now so that it references thermonuclear bombs and has the correct dates. The original article specifically said atomic bombs, and even if they meant thermonuclear, the dates were still wrong.

And... by msauve · 2011-03-12 05:09 · Score: 1

they'll link them together with AX.25 or packet radio, at 300 bps.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law

misses the forest from the trees by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 05:11 · Score: 0

Who cares about data centers if there's no one left to use the internet? Or, to be precise, the survivors are more worried about
basic survival issues and generating electricity for the mundane purpose of survival rather than for their computers and laptops. Of course that's assuming EMP doesn't fry a bunch of civilian electronics.

Can we have one? by countertrolling · 2011-03-12 05:13 · Score: 1

To protect us from the government and the entertainment industry?

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone

Time by cyphercell · 2011-03-12 05:15 · Score: 1

This service will require an accurate measure of time, I think they should each have one of these.

http://longnow.org/clock/

I didn't read the article, but more than three nodes would suffice, along with other measurements of time.

--
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism

Isn't this bad? by peragrin · 2011-03-12 05:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

if the data centers are in secured bunkers, then skynet will have safe havens to hide in when it launches the judgement day.

We should post the locations of these bunkers so we can make sure they are sabotaged so Skynet won't have any place to hide.

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.

The internet already *is* breaking by h00manist · 2011-03-12 05:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

Indeed, a more realistic and urgent problem to plan for is the current one - DOS, censorship, monitoring and espionage use by various parties for various reasons. Arab countries, China, ACTA, etc come to mind.

--
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/

Not really nuclear war proof by mickwd · 2011-03-12 05:19 · Score: 2

The reason places like this are now used for data centres is probably because they were originally built to survive the force of a fission bomb, but not a hydrogen bomb.

Thus making them not safe as "nuclear" shelters. Which is probably why they were sold off in the first place. The fact that there isn't really all that much they are suitable for, except for something like a data centre, which can then be *marketed* as being "nuclear-war-proof".

Re:Not really nuclear war proof by mikael_j · 2011-03-12 05:25 · Score: 1

I think a lot of these places are quite safe from being in the general vicinity of a nuclear attack, they're just not safe if targeted directly with a high-yield hydrogen bomb, a "city killer" if you will. So the militaries and governments of the world aren't interested in these facilities for their original purposes (command and control and such things) since they are likely to be directly targeted in the event of a nuclear exchange. A private datacenter OTOH is unlikely to be directly targeted and can thus afford to be slightly less well protected to remain practically "nuke proof".

--
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Re:Not really nuclear war proof by khallow · 2011-03-12 05:28 · Score: 1

The fact that there isn't really all that much they are suitable for, except for something like a data centre, which can then be *marketed* as being "nuclear-war-proof".
And it would be, unless someone directly targets the data center with a nuke. And if they do, they just wasted a nuke.
Re:Not really nuclear war proof by mickwd · 2011-03-12 05:34 · Score: 4, Funny

Not if they took out twitter.
Re:Not really nuclear war proof by fridaynightsmoke · 2011-03-12 06:18 · Score: 1

The fact that there isn't really all that much they are suitable for, except for something like a data centre, which can then be *marketed* as being "nuclear-war-proof".
And it would be, unless someone directly targets the data center with a nuke. And if they do, they just wasted a nuke.
Unless the RIAA get access to nuclear weapons, of course....

--
This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
Re:Not really nuclear war proof by jalefkowit · 2011-03-12 09:03 · Score: 1

We can only pray that Ashton Kutcher has not developed a second-strike capability...

--
Read my blog.

Doomsday can't match the hype by khallow · 2011-03-12 05:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

I see a lot of nonsensical doomsday posts out there. Even if we have the full blown thing with everyone cutting loose with all the nukes they have and a couple of bad years due to fallout and nuclear winter, there's still be a lot of survivors, including the very countries that were involved in the nuclear war. It makes sense to talk about data surviving such things, because humanity and some sort of society would survive.

Second, one doesn't need to have a full blown nuclear war in order for this data to be valuable. Maybe a widespread computer worm wipes out a lot of companys' data and backups. Maybe someone EMPed North America. There are a number of scenarios far short of the end of humanity where most electronics could end up being useless or destroyed.

Re:Doomsday can't match the hype by Kjella · 2011-03-12 05:34 · Score: 1

Maybe someone EMPed North America.
Even a full nuclear strike wouldn't produce enough EMP to do that, it'd probably be easier to get an asteroid out of orbit and do a dino-killer than to produce a continent-wide EMP blast.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Doomsday can't match the hype by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 06:04 · Score: 0

You need to research EMP effects more fully before you make a statement like that that makes it obvious you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Re:Doomsday can't match the hype by khallow · 2011-03-12 06:08 · Score: 2

Even a full nuclear strike wouldn't produce enough EMP to do that, it'd probably be easier to get an asteroid out of orbit and do a dino-killer than to produce a continent-wide EMP blast.
A large nuke several hundred kilometers up would do the trick.
Re:Doomsday can't match the hype by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 06:35 · Score: 0

Fear mongering to the contrary, producing a destructive EMP effect thousands of miles away is non-trivial. Few things escape the inverse-square law. How big a bomb would you need, exactly? Do the math, I'll wait.
This is one of those things used to overstate the effects of a single nuclear event. Just deal with reality as it is, not what you've seen on TV.
Re:Doomsday can't match the hype by peragrin · 2011-03-12 08:27 · Score: 1

No it wouldn't the EMP of nuclear warheads isn't much greater than the blast area.

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Re:Doomsday can't match the hype by khallow · 2011-03-12 08:50 · Score: 3, Informative

No it wouldn't the EMP of nuclear warheads isn't much greater than the blast area.
That is incorrect. The US conducted a large high altitude detonation, Starfish Prime a 1.4 megaton blast which caused notable electrical problems 1500 km away in Hawaii.

The relatively small magnitude of the Starfish Prime EMP in Hawaii (about 5600 volts/metre) and the relatively small amount of damage done (for example, only 1 to 3 percent of streetlights extinguished)[10] led some scientists to believe, in the early days of EMP research, that the problem might not be as significant as was later realized. Newer calculations[9] showed that if the Starfish Prime warhead had been detonated over the northern continental United States, the magnitude of the EMP would have been much larger (22 to 30 kilovolts/metre) because of the greater strength of the Earth's magnetic field over the United States, as well as the different orientation of the Earth's magnetic field at high latitudes. These new calculations, combined with the accelerating reliance on EMP-sensitive microelectronics, heightened awareness that the EMP threat could be a very significant problem.
Re:Doomsday can't match the hype by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 10:39 · Score: 0

> Even if we have the full blown thing with everyone cutting loose with all the nukes they have and a couple of bad years due to fallout and nuclear winter, there's still be a lot of survivors, including the very countries that were involved in the nuclear war.
Huh? This isn't the 1950s, khallow. The "full blown thing" involves ten thousand megaton-level bombs. The northern hemisphere wouldn't have many survivors after even the first few days, let alone long term. Long term survivors are going to be residents of southern hemisphere regions that don't get nuked - parts of Africa, South America, some islands. A powered down data center in the US midwest isn't going to be any use to them for centuries.
Re:Doomsday can't match the hype by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-03-12 13:28 · Score: 1

The majority of US weapons from 1980 to the present are sub-megaton range, small and accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W80_(nuclear_warhead)
It ranges from 5 to 150 kiloton yield, depending on application.
W87 - an ICBM warhead is a 300-500 kt yield device
W88 is 100 to 475 kt
W78 is 335-350 kt
W76 is 100 kt
B61 goes from sub kt to 340 kt and the US has about 1200
B83 is the highest yield nuclear weapon the US deploys, its variable yield from sub kt to 1.2 MT, the US has 650
Re:Doomsday can't match the hype by khallow · 2011-03-12 13:52 · Score: 1

Huh? This isn't the 1950s, khallow. The "full blown thing" involves ten thousand megaton-level bombs. The northern hemisphere wouldn't have many survivors after even the first few days, let alone long term. Long term survivors are going to be residents of southern hemisphere regions that don't get nuked - parts of Africa, South America, some islands. A powered down data center in the US midwest isn't going to be any use to them for centuries.
The situation you describe held during the 70s when nuclear arsenals were at peak size. It doesn't hold now. Wyatt Earp, who also replied to your post, describes pretty well the current state of the big nuclear arsenals. It's also worth noting that the US and the USSR even after a full blown nuclear exchange in the 70s would continue to be nuclear powers, even if they didn't have any survivors with rank higher than a submarine's captain.

Sure, it's pretty strained to think that there's going to be much that a post-war server could have on it of immediate interest to survivors. But within a few decades, I see the new society having the usual needs for computation power, data management, etc.

Yes, Minister by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 05:24 · Score: 1

Sir Humphrey: There has to be somewhere to carry on government, even if everything else stops.
Hacker: Why?
Sir Humphrey: Well, government doesn't stop just because the whole country's been destroyed! I mean, annihilation’s bad enough without anarchy to make things even worse!
Hacker: You mean you'd have a lot of rebellious cinders.

When I feel the need to be motivated into activism, I just think of nuclear bunkers. The bastards whose power-mongering has caused the attack will be the first to retreat to the safety they've reserved for themselves. If one's been decommissioned, it just means they've built an even nicer one closer to where they've causing trouble.

I had an old schoolfriend - moderately bright but completely sociopathic - who now works at the MoD. I thought he was better than that, but when he told me in casual passing about his little underground retreat, I walked out of the room and have not spoken to him since. Then I was yong, and I've since learnt to temper my reactions. But my feeling remains the same.

Re:Yes, Minister by JockTroll · 2011-03-12 07:51 · Score: 1

You just walked out of the room? That's all? I'm disappointed. I expected you to beat him up savagely, to snap his bones like dried wood, to slice open his face with a letter opener and gouge out his eyes with your thumbs, and then to urinate into the bloody, empty eyesockets. I hoped for a good tale of good ol' ultraviolence. How you cracked his zoobies, how the krovvy ploshed all around from the burst cables as you razrezzed him through the shiyah with your nozh. How you dunged on his litso. You owe me an appy polly loggy, eunuch jelly.

--
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
Re:Yes, Minister by RockDoctor · 2011-03-13 01:44 · Score: 1

The bastards whose power-mongering has caused the attack will be the first to retreat to the safety they've reserved for themselves.
I've long applied the same sort of logic to the question of where to put high-grade radioactive waste. The engineering problems of managing the waste can be managed, IF and ONLY IF the politicians have incentive to continue paying an appropriate amount of attention to the problem. The only way that could possibly work is if the high-level "dump" is sited under the Palace of Westminster, so that the politicians are the very first people to die of radiation poisoning if they let it leak.

I had an old schoolfriend - moderately bright but completely sociopathic - who now works at the MoD.
Lucky you - you can choose your friends, and you can choose to dump them. One of my stupid bastard close relatives has gone and signed up and is soon due off to fight Bush's War on the Afghanistan front. And even if he comes back in instalments and carrying twenty Taliban scalps, I still won't be able to get away from the fact that the stupid bastard is a relative.

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"

Are there DNS root servers in those bunkers? by presidenteloco · 2011-03-12 05:24 · Score: 1

If not how would one recreate the dns? Is it harder with dnssec?

--

Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?

Perhaps not surprisingly by arcite · 2011-03-12 05:24 · Score: 2

an entire decommissioned iron mine in an undisclosed location in northern Canada is devoted to MILF porn.

Re:Perhaps not surprisingly by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 05:59 · Score: 0

is 'iron mine' your code word for your bedroom?

a nuke will take out the data lines / power and on by Joe+The+Dragon · 2011-03-12 05:24 · Score: 1

a nuke will take out the data lines / power and on site fuel will run out.

earth quakes can crunch under ground data centers and cut under ground data lines as well braking on site power systems.

The japan earthquake knocked out the on site back power at the nuke plant.

Nuclear Proof Perhaps... by Haedrian · 2011-03-12 05:33 · Score: 1

But is it lawyer proof?

Re:Nuclear Proof Perhaps... by tomhudson · 2011-03-12 05:47 · Score: 1

But is it lawyer proof?
No. Everyone knows the three species most likely to survive an all-out nuclear exchange are cockroaches, rats, and a few humans. Lawyers are covered by the first 2. You and I, on the other hand, get to draw for the short straw.

When Sysadmins Ruled the Earth by Dynamoo · 2011-03-12 05:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

When Sysadmins Ruled the Earth.

--
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com

Re:When Sysadmins Ruled the Earth by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 06:55 · Score: 0

Thank you for that. Though perhaps I shouldn't have read it while sick . but perhaps the crying didn't have anything to do with that.

The Internet Will Be Fine by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 05:58 · Score: 0

The internet will flourish in a post apocalypse world. In no small part, due to the newly available spectrum.

1&1 by Compaqt · 2011-03-12 06:21 · Score: 1

The article mentions 1&1.

It's a popular host, but that often means bad service.

Anybody have any experience with those guys?

--
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog

Re:1&1 by FuzzyHead · 2011-03-12 07:47 · Score: 1

I use them for 2 websites, one personal and one business. Customer service over the email was good, but never had any reason to call them. So far I've been pleased, but I've had no problems to resolve.

The P0rn will be safe by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 06:32 · Score: 0

The first thing I thought of after reading the summary was Strategic Porn Reserve.

Then I thought, well we should have one of these bunkers off planet in case of a serious disaster.

Of course the obvious problem is that you wouldn't be able to get to the bunker without restoring communications or spaceflight. Fortunately restoring access to the porn would motivate the geeks to re-establish the technology quickly after the disaster.

Skynet by The+Grim+Reefer2 · 2011-03-12 07:07 · Score: 1

So Skynet really was in the bunker all along.

Hopefully Mostly Misinfo by oakwine · 2011-03-12 07:15 · Score: 1

If not, targeting information please? Let's make sure the enemy knows what to hit with the thermonukes. Most likely this is a now obsolete system still useful mostly as a distraction or a secondary source of recovery.

NATO bunkers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 07:18 · Score: 0

What are they like? Are they placed in a natural caves or in underground multiple-floor buildings? It seams like it only our dreams or fantasies. But if it's true, then good for us - humanity will survive with its' knowledge

does anyone remember hitler's only declared enemy by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 07:31 · Score: 0

it wasn't god (he 'sympathized' with 'christians'). no, not allah, couldn't care less. it was terrorists.

not likely by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 07:37 · Score: 0

Given that these bunkers are being used as data centers specifically, what chance is there that when the bombs start flying, nobody will be around the shut the doors? The fatal flaw to most bomb shelters is the door must be closed. Most of these bunkers are converted due to their lower cooling costs, as well as allowing the owner to advertise that 'your data is secure.'

over 6 million terrorists had to be killed by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 08:07 · Score: 0

nothing to do with yahweh at all. the 'math' is fuzzy. some say we use the most bogus (fake) 'math' available in the universe. geniuses? upstairs they are now referring to us (lovingly) as throwbacks, black hole builders, dicks with ears, stuff like that. there's no kidding about the intended dispostion of the genetically altered corepirate nazi mutants.

Who would be left? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 08:13 · Score: 0

So if the absolute worst happened and a doomsday scenario occurred, how many people would be left on the world that would understand how to reconnect the internet anyway?

Longevity of hardware by mlush · 2011-03-12 08:26 · Score: 1

OK, The balloon goes up civilization gets bombed back to the iron age (you can't bomb mankind back to the stone age, for a start there is lots of nicely refined iron sitting round waiting to be used). How long could you expect a well protected and environmentally controlled datacenter to survive in a usable condition.

Cyberbunker by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 08:29 · Score: 0

LOL, that place where they hosted a jerry rigged XTC lab which of course caught fire.

Crisis datacenters by Johnny+Mnemonic · 2011-03-12 08:38 · Score: 1

The computers in the datacenters may well survive. But the power necessary to run them and keep them cool, the technicians necessary to fix them, and the tubes necessary to provide external connectivity probably won't.

And even if they all do, the distributed clients of those datacenters would all need that stuff too--hosting a web page doesn't do a lot of good if there is no one able to connect to it because they don't have the power to turn their own computer on.

Nuclear hardening datacenters is pretty useless unless you can harden the entire lifecycle of data generation and transmission. It sure makes the PHBs feel important, though.

--

--
$tar -xvf .sig.tar

Uhmmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 08:56 · Score: 0

There may be datacenters all over the world that are still surviving, but they wouldn't have Internet, or power, for that matter.

Cosmic Cloud Backup by pgpalmer · 2011-03-12 08:57 · Score: 1

You just need to invent and FTL drive, then travel to a point just in front of that data beam and retrieve your data.

Brilliant!

Misleading Summary, Misleading Posts by cowboy76Spain · 2011-03-12 08:58 · Score: 1

I remember some other news about companies using bunkers; the usual reason is not protection against explosions but prices. If a bunker is no longer used in its primary functions, there is little else you can do with it (would you put shops in? offices? housing?). So, someone gets some state that already has tight security, backup electricity and refrigeration and, not surprisingly, he tries to use it as a datacenter.

If you have any doubt, look at the list of customer.... mainly hosting providers. If people were so afraid of "Emergency", the main customers would be government, banks, great industry groups.. but none of these appear.

--
Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.

Directly targeting just incase. by pigpilot · 2011-03-12 09:15 · Score: 1

I seem to remember in the last gulf war a lot of civilians were killed when they took shelter in an old command and control bunker that the Iraqi military had vacated because it was no longer considered safe.

Unfortunately for the civilians taking shelter the bunker was still on a targeting list, either in error or just to be sure that it hadn't reverted to military use.

I would think these bunkers are likely to remain on secondary targeting lists for the same reason, but then maybe just the fact that they are now key Internet facilities would promote them back onto the primary list anyway.

The Winner by Undead+Waffle · 2011-03-12 10:19 · Score: 1

Ah, so whoever wins the war wins the internet.

What we call the Internet today.... by Shadowmist · 2011-03-12 10:39 · Score: 1

.. is really an accidental collateral result of that the purpose of the original project that spawned little miracles like TCP/IP... a self rerouting network that would preserve communication between key military centers in the event of outages caused by a bombardment, conventional or nuclear. These emregency bunkers have very little to do with the commercial/public Internet of today.

Re:What we call the Internet today.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-13 07:16 · Score: 0

The telephone network was designed to survive a nuclear attack the internet was designed to run on top of that so it was never specifically designed to survive a nuclear attack. Asshole lecturers never learned the difference like the guy I had who stated that it was designed to survive a nuclear attack but then he also said Apples were better and anything was easier on an Apple and when he was called upon to do something he said was easier he did not know how to do it. Academia - home to academics!

One print page... by antdude · 2011-03-12 12:39 · Score: 1

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/365875/the-emergency-internet-bunkers/print (will prompt to print though).

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).

Secure Servers? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 13:43 · Score: 0

So, I am honestly wondering, if you have a mission critical, people will die type of data center, and a random judge issues a grab the machine any everything else in the room search warrant for all disks, computers and so on... Is there anything they can do, other than roll over and let the local police grab the `servers'. Imagine a cloud data storage area network that has the `data' for the web server... and they grab it.

The internet was built to withstand nuclear war by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 14:06 · Score: 0

-Or so I once heard. Then I heard that this was a load of nonsense, so who knows what the truth is.

(not me, obviously)

Don't know about doomsday but earthquakes .etc.. by Jeeeb · 2011-03-12 19:29 · Score: 1

Should the Doomsday Clock ever strike midnight, we may well discover, finally, whether or not the internet really could survive a nuclear conflict.

I don't know about that but the internet has been awesome in surviving natural disasters. I'm in Japan and when the earthquake hit on Friday the phonelines where almost immediately locked up but thanks to mobile phone emails I was able to confirm the safety of friends near effected areas and thanks to the internet I was able to message my family in Australia. As of yesterday evening I still couldn't dial Japan->Aus but I could do a full video-call to my family over skype... Perhaps the most amusing thing in an otherwise dreadful situation was that I remembered reading a book by a communications "expert" in Japan a few years ago saying that email would go down before phonelines (can't remember what the reason given was) but at the time I thought it strange and it's rather amusing thinking about how red-faced that "expert" must be now.

It wouldn't be a good thing by johncandale · 2011-03-12 22:00 · Score: 1

I don't want global nuclear war, I like society, but if war did happen, one of it's very few benefits would be a shrinking of government overloads, a chance to rid us of waste and corruption, government on a scale people could understand. The internet would only be a hindrance to that. Would only help the worst parts of the government we no longer need. (military, the oval office technocrats, wackos with a agenda to press.

TFA says about the US site

it has two wells and a large enough water-storage facility to keep running water for a fortnight in the unlikely event they should both run dry.

lulz. First off, a fortnight is nothing if the whole nation is dying, second. What are those wells going to better serve, a possibility unpolluted water source for the local people, or some servers no one can access?

backup plan by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-12 22:41 · Score: 0

Put all the critical data on 3.5" floppies. Wrap in tin foil. Fill shoe boxes with them. Wrap as Christmas gifts and mail them to random people around the globe with a sticker on the front that says: "Fruitcake." This will insure that the packages are sent to the relatives of the random recipients, and in turn to relatives of theirs. Soon the pipeline will be full of such packages moving around the world, and some would surely survive the nuclear war we all fear...

Humanity's Last Act by anorlunda · 2011-03-13 01:30 · Score: 1

What a comfort. In case of an extinction level event, we can be assured that the final act of the last human survivor will be to check Slashdot for updates.

Re:Humanity's Last Act by coolmadsi · 2011-03-14 02:14 · Score: 1

What a comfort. In case of an extinction level event, we can be assured that the final act of the last human survivor will be to check Slashdot for updates.
They could get the first and last post at the same time!

most popular search; survivors, water, babys by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-13 04:01 · Score: 0

that's just this week

History by lupinstel · 2011-03-14 02:31 · Score: 1

Those who do not remember the Goatse are destined to repeat it.

--
Don't blame me, I voted for Cthulhu.

Slashdot Mirror

The Emergency Internet Bunkers

96 comments