Re: US hunters shoot down Google fibre

[Reese]

At 09:19 21 09 10, Christopher Morrow wrote:

> this was presented at the nanog in ... SF I think as well:
> <http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog49/abstracts.php?pt=MTU5NSZuYW5vZzQ5&nm=nanog49>
>
> not really news...
>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org> wrote:
> >
> > 
> <http://www.itnews.com.au/News/232831,us-hunters-shoot-down-google-fibre.aspx>
I don't want to start an off-topic subthread but I have to call
bullshit on this so-called "news" story. So it is my intent that
this be my first, last, and only post on this topic.

Was it addressed at NANOG (in SF?) that many rifles and amateur
shooters both, are capable of sub-MOA accuracy at short distances?
By short, I mean ~50 yards or less.

Or that a hunter with even modest self-training, who was aiming at
an insulator with a properly sighted-in rifle at short range, has
a significantly greater probability of hitting the insulator being
aimed at than of hitting the supported wire? That wasn't addressed
in the buttwipe propaganda from down under. Need I remind anyone of
the Dunblane and Port Arthur incidents and the subsequent gun control
crackdowns in each of those countries. I wouldn't expect any crown-
influenced news agency to give issues involving our Second Amendment
a fair shake. Just like I don't expect logic or sanity from the Brady
Campaign on the 2A issue. Nor should anyone else. The story smacks of
deliberately painting hunters as irresponsible ruffians and worse.

What sort of repair rates do the power or other companies running
wire across that expanse contend with? Given the remoteness, the
identity of the affected client (Google) and the apparent absence of
additional information, corporate sabotage seems just-as or even-more
probable than random irresponsible hunters. To be fair, some shooters
are irresponsible, but deliberate sabotage cannot be ruled out with
only the information currently available.

Reese