Slashdot Mirror
Setting Up The Greenpeace Ship w/WiFi
An anonymous reader writes "If you're on any wifi related mailing lists, you've probably heard of Nigel Ballard of joejava.com, Minister of Propaganda for the Personal Telco Project in Portland Oregon.
The Greenpeace vessel Arctic Sunrise came into Portland and wanted some an alternative to Inmarsat for their Internet access.
Nigel set Greenpeace up with equipment and got VeriLAN to provide access."
Errr i mean, save the wifi!
So we can have live updates of the seals beatings in canada, thanks greenpeace.
if I was a boat captain, and they boarded my boat...I'd shoot their asses
I thought that greenpeace was against the use of fossil fuels(ship) and plastics(computers)?
Is this a case where it is OK for them to have it, just wrong when the 'lesser' people have it?
Now we will know what Greeenpeace saves when it is saved.
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
These are the same folks that like to release (um, set free) non-native mink into the natural environment causing devestation of the local animal population, right?
Greenpeace may cause some good, but I think they are terribly misguided at other things. I predict we'll hear a new phrase coming out of the Bush administration (if they survive the election): Eco-terrorists. Storming ships, and other acts (some of which are destructive) don't seem to be acceptable tactics to me.
Posted anonymously since my karma is more important than the air I breath. (or not)
Minister of Propaganda? Thats an interesting title.
The Greenpeace ship the Arctic Sunrise will be visiting Portland, Oregon on the 4th and 5th of July as part of our national campaign for an immediate moratorium on commercial logging and road construction on America's public lands.
Seems like setting up internet service just for two days seems silly. And given the coverage map they have a small window of mobility if they want it.
Seriously, who cares? Mark me troll (I know it will happen) but I could give a crap that some ship came into port and somebody gave them free internet while in town, then wired up their ship. Is the fact that this is a Greenpeace ship make it newsworthy? What if it was "Joe's Boat Inc"? Would we be reading about it?
Seriously, WiFi on ships is not new, and there were not very many technical details. Just a bunch of pics of a boat and some Greenpeace artwork. I know it is the 4th, but can't we find some better stories to post?!
I mark the "story" post Stupid -1.
Greenpeace has a bad history of brushes with or outright supporting ecoterrorism. Why does this make the front page when other articles with similiar projects have been done elsewhere?
/Environmentalist sick of ecoterrorists and extemists making the environmental movement look bad.
Their are many other upright environmental organizations that have worldwide work in very challenging locales, so why approve a greenpeace story?
Many of these conditions are very challenging environments that could be teach someone a great deal. Why choose a group that rightly shouln't be called a charity in the first place.
Why doesn't Greanpeace practive what it preaches?
I thought that greenpeace was against the use of fossil fuels(ship) and plastics(computers)?
Is this a case where it is OK for them to have it, just wrong when the 'lesser' people have it?
Why do we care about this? Should we start posting about all the technological upgrades had by any fringe group? what's next neo-nazis roll their own linux distro? Seriously what is up with this?
Greenpeace only takes care of greenpeace, these guys are living la vida loca traveling around the world under the false prentence they are doing something for the humanity/earth, all false, things haven't improved with greenpeace arond, oil companies continue earth pollution and waste is contaminating sources of fresh water too.
The same goes for amnesty international, the same guys who defended the assesination of venezuelan citizens under the hands of the so called venezuelan opposition, by not showing the highly acclaimed documentary "the revolution won't be televised" get your masks off and stop living form others contributions, give them to the poor and help them to stop being poor only then you won't have any justification to exists.
Already posted his moronic drivel, and now is trying again after being modded down.
It is important to note that there is not one organization called "Greenpeace". It is a loose collaboration of groups using a common name. Some of these groups tend to be more radical than others.
For instance, Greenpeace France, is for killing all Americans. They say this because they are tired of the stupid "france surrenders" jokes and because Americans are fat and stupid.
Meanwhile, other Greenpeace groups, such as Greenpeace Canada, have a more radical agenda -- supporting the sustainable use of forest resources. Truely insane!
Greenpeace drones were all over the place in Ottawa Ontario this weekend, begging for donations.
I told them I prefer donating to bodypainted naked PETA women, cuz at least they put on a good show.
I don't care about how their internet access was setup, but I am glad geeks would be interested in helping them.
GreenPeace are terrorists? Someone once associated with GreenPeace may have bombed an empty building once (that's not terrorism), but Americans continue to drive around SUVs which, because of capitalism, do not get the MPG that they could and refuse to even try and meet the standards for cars. They also emit three times the global warming pollutants that regular cars too -- and as Union of Conserned Scientists have proven, they do not have to be polluting at this level. New technology exists; Republicans refuse to implement any standards for SUVs because it conflicts with oil profits, and that is the basis of U$ foreign policy.
Second, more people die from environmental degredation than do from terrorism (a threat that hardly exists).
Obviouslys a lot of Windows using Republicans have logged onto the forum to spam because of the threat of independent throught and anti-bush material.
Idiot, he seems to be anti-hippy to me. Can't you even troll properly?
"Is this a case where it is OK for them to have it, just wrong when the 'lesser' people have it?"
Please, it's not about feeling superior to anybody. Haven't you ever been passionate about your ideas, especially when you believe that the future of Earth is at stake?
"I thought that greenpeace was against the use of fossil fuels(ship) and plastics(computers)?"
Certainly, they want to reduce that, but before you can change the world, you need to live in it. You need to be pragmatic. They aren't carelessly generating excess waste for a trivial gain in profits. They just need travel, information, and other tools.
WiFi is destroying our wild forest! Please think of the trees!
+3 Troll seems about where the parent post belongs...
Greenpeace isn't exactly an organization that makes sense. They oppose the use of technology that's bad for the environment, but then they turn around and use technology when it suits them. Still they have their backers and it's quite a vocal group.
I'm a little surprised Slashdot would bother posting this article... it's flamebait from the start.
Yes terrorists.
I met Greenpeace folks in Portland that were proud to 'know' people who disabled brakes on logging trucks to scare/injure/kill the drivers.
I met Greenpeace folks who told me what they do is not breaking the law because, "We're right and the government is wrong, so the law shouldn't apply to us."
Greenpeace, on their site, has a story about "peaceful protestors" who are being denied (according to Greenpeace) the right to protest peacefully because they are being charged with trumped up charges. Never mind that they broke in to an energy plant (coal), climed a smokestack, and affixed a banner to it. Seems to me they broke several laws there . . . oh, my bad -- laws don't apply to them.
I hope the pub from this WiFi helps others to go to their website (as I did upon reading it) so they can see how Greenpeace really is. Some may agree, some may reach my conclusion -- that they are terrorists . . . But that's the beauty of the web . . . and a little thing called free speech.
-[joke removed for your safety]-
Somebody set us up the wi-fi!
I mean, wi-fi on a boat is no big thing if the boat isn't moving. Effectively, it's just wi-fi on a house with ocean view, isn't it?
So please, somebody: Post a link to affordable wireless technologies that will actually help people on the fringes of the Internet. I'm writing from a South Pacific island where we have the dubious privilege of paying USD 200/month for dial-up access. Affordable wireless over distance is something we dream about so fervently we often have to clean the sheets in the morning.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Profit?
Profit is what greenpeace is about, all the high up people at greenpeace make a rather nice living, paid for by donations.
I am so sick and tired of reading post with the N-word in them. The first three were worded as if a fourteen year old had written them.
The uneducated high school dropouts who are likely southern Republicans have invaded the forums once again. They are the only ones crude enough to use the language and ill concepts of thought that have plagued Slashdot tonight. (Becoming more and more common)
Maybe someone should cross post into their Christian-racist forums about a need for environmentalism and human understanding.
Mod this down, again! Blanket statements get people nowhere.
because then the Arctic Sunrise will turn into the Arctic Surprise.
/ Rainbow Warrior, where are you now?
We'll see how long it takes the French to blow this one up, I suppose. :)
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
As A smokesman of PETA I must detest this use of cruel "WiFi" equipment transversing open seas! The signals put out interfer with our precious dolphins and other marine wildlife!
Besides the point, Josi my pet Dolphin Friend ran away!
Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
Goodbye already!
This is a tech success story! Putting aside my personal feelings one way or the other about Greenpeace, I was impressed that this guy was able to put this together so quickly!
My biggest problem with this article is it didn't contain enough tech!!
I'd also have been more impressed if the folks that got this setup had done this for one of their local schools.
Nice to have a happy post here!
Be well,
Tojosan
Troll, I'll bite. I don't understand what capitalism has to do with people driving around inefficient cars. Under communist and socialist rules, there is no reason to improve environmental standards because governmental bureaucracies (historically speaking) are largely unconcerned with investing the money for large environmental improvements. Under capitalism, if the consumer demands it, the company wishes to supply it.
I am so sick and tired of reading post with the N-word in them. The first three were worded as if a fourteen year old had written them.
You have to remember that in the south, Republicans rely on the racist vote in order to win, and hence, still allow racism, ignorance, and idiocy to continue you after year. As long as they are a national party, racism will continue.
Part of Greenpeace's credibility problem is it's just plain impossible to figure out who they are and who they aren't sometimes. That is, they don't do a good job of screaming "That's not us!" when somebody committs a crime in their name.
There's a legit political group somewhere in the core... but with so many radical fringes operating under the same name, it's hard to take that group seriously.
Putting aside the policial luggage Greenpeace carries with it... just why is this story on Slashdot?
It's really nothing more than your typical distant-WiFi setup, with a few repeaters to cover hard-to-reach parts of the metal ship. Nothing really groundbreaking to report...
It's nice to know that greenpeace will have all the internet they want while most of us will have to go to micky d's to get wifi with our fries and fatass's.
The uneducated southern Republican fools have come to cross post and to spread their racist ideology. What's a matter didn't have a klan meeting tonight. Please post somewhere else in the future and take your "god" with you. I don't think we really want or need "him" hear.
Apparently other ideologies have uneducated followers, too.
I suppose this ship is "human-powered" so it won't emit any toxic gas. and electricity will be generated with hand-cranked generator... right?
Troll, I'll bite.
You seem to be interested on trolls, yet you do not provide your own e-mail address or form of contact in your post -- nor do you stay within the subject title. Furthermore, if you are opposed to trolling, talk about your fellow Republicans who are spamming the discussion with southern racist material.
I don't understand what capitalism has to do with people driving around inefficient cars. Under communist and socialist rules, there is no reason to improve environmental standards because governmental bureaucracies (historically speaking) are largely unconcerned with investing the money for large environmental improvements. Under capitalism, if the consumer demands it, the company wishes to supply it.
You don't see what capitalism has to do with MPG standards?
Unfortunately your economic analysis have been proven wrong. People want more fuel efficient SUVs, and if they could vote to perhaps force a company to use the best technology available (perhaps at the expense of CEO profits) they would do it. Unfortunately, under capitalism, you have to go with whatever the industry leaders suggest is marketable.
As for socialism or communism, you should look into the theories before you comment on them.
Neither have anything to do with 'totalitarian governments', under both, people who contribute more to the public good receive more in return. Neither revolve around profits (or even money), so there would be no incentive for them to hide new forms of technology as there is under capitalism-- they would receive the same goods for their work either way.
Capitalism proposes that CEOs who are millionaires and billionaires be protected with the government. So it seems that only that system is totalitarian.
Concentrate more on promoting than on demoting. The real goal here is to find the juicy good stuff and let others read it. Do not promote personal agendas. Do not let your opinions factor in. Try to be impartial about this. Simply disagreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it down. Likewise, agreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it up. The goal here is to share ideas. To sift through the haystack and find needles. And to keep the children who like to spam Slashdot in check.
Answered by: CmdrTaco
Last Modified: 6/19/00
That's easily the biggest pedal-powered ship I've ever seen.
Seriously, that thing runs on fossil fuel, doesn't it? I'm guessing a really big diesel, since it's one of the most efficient engines possible. Still, I'd be more impressed if Greenpeace could get their message across with a nice triple-masted sailing ship.
But the fossil fuels give them a lot more options, allows them to carry more cargo, and basically is more convenient, even if they don't always need the extra power.
Funny how that works, eh?
The ELF have already been labelled ecoterrorists. They aren't really, they don't hurt humans, they only destroy property. Greenpeace are basically a liberal group with a corporate structure, not really any threat to the status quo.
That's me standing at the bottom of the tower that leads to the crows nest, and yes I did climb it, the wireless CAT5e cable runs all the way up to the top for maximum range.
I love that wireless Cat5e! It's almost as good as wireless Cat6!
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
Yes, but the one key weakness in this ideology (or, for example, Marx) is that it presupposes that people are generally good. Is this your thesis?
Why does politics have to be involved? The story is not about Greenpeace's alleged acts of violence, its about WiFi on their boat. Why must we inject politics into a story that is about technology?
This is a cost effective solution.
Synopsis: Purchase an antenna suitable for your purposes and attach it into a suitably configured Linux box. The link gives you a step by step.
The Arctic Sunrise is the same ship y'all use to ram other vessels on the high seas, is it not? Like this? Quite non-violent.
And friends of terrorists are still friends of terrorists and I cannot support those people either.
Sort of like Bush and Co. and all their buddies in Saudi Arabia who fund terrorism?
Yes, but humanity is like all cesspools: it's the really big chunks that rise to the top.
Whatever.
s id =12092422&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi= 6
How about a bit more INFORMATION on that reference you gave? Hmmmm?
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?new
Those "trumped up charges" are for (from the article) "damage or attempted damage of an energy facility".
The put a poster on a smokestack.
Pay PARTICULAR attention to the FACTS in that case.
#1. "On the state level, each was charged with felony counts of burglary, criminal trespass and riot and misdemeanor counts of reckless endangerment, disorderly conduct and failure to disperse upon official orders. Each also faces a summary citation for criminal mischief. All were arraigned and released on minimal bond."
Got that? On the state level, they were charged and released on minimal bond. That means the STATE does NOT think they're a threat.
#2. The FEDERAL charges seem to be coming from The Homeland Security Act.
Anyway, why isn't a nice, law-abiding citizen such as yourself going to the police with the names of the people who told you they knew people who bragged about cutting brake lines?
Hmmmmmm?
After all, you know someone who has claimed to have information about a very illegal activity and you have done......... nothing?
"Some may agree, some may reach my conclusion -- that they are terrorists . . . But that's the beauty of the web . . . and a little thing called free speech."
And you are protecting those terrorists by not going to the FBI with the information you have...
But you don't like terrorists?
Whatever.
Alas, that applies to an awful lot of "charities."
Let's set up the Greenpeace ship with a seive-shaped hull.
Please give me examples where Greenpeace has killed civilians in order to further their own agenda.
So, they put WiFi on a ship... When they're out at sea they still have no access, and when they park their boat at whatever place they decide they're going to protest next, hopefully someone will just have a big antenna pointing out into the middle of the ocean to give them access?? Seems far fetched and stupid to me.
Besides all of my dislike of greenpeace this just seems pointless (like most of what greenpeace does). Why doesn't greenpeace use all their man hours of volunteer work to try to create technology that supports their movement?
Heck, they could sell that boat (I bet they'd fetch at least 10-15 million for it), take that cash and buy a bunch of solar panels, take their volunteers, buy some land in the desert somewhere, and build a solar generation plant... Then wow they've got renewable revenue, proving their point, and making money to support more renewable power generation elsewhere... But wait that would be capitalist and thats bad (to them..) so they'll just continue with their eco-terror tactics and hope someone starts taking them seriously.
The US Navy introduced new WiFi seeking torpedo's. The torpedos will also be equiped with hemp-sensing technology to assist in correct target assignment.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Loggers then don't count as civilians?
I am cowboy neil's bitch! +1
This article is really as intresting as we know that greenpeace and apple make changes in our perceptions of the world!!!!!111!shift-1 If it was about greenpeace and wi-fi network designed to blased imini ipods pirate radio then we'd know that how cool it would be to talk about stupid shit....
FYI: THE founder of greenpeace considers greenpeace a bunch of wackos...
so called "Preservation" places reclaiming the earth of animals with no moral obligation to humanity...E.g. man is enemy, womyn is queen of armpit hair and folk lesbian rock, mother earth needs her clit simulated, while we sing cum-by-yea and eat plecentas...
"Conservation" places importantance of protecting "Earth" as well as co-existance of humanity...
FUCK greenpeace... Try helping Audobon, WoW and the Arbor foundation...
Fuck off and goodnight...
Speaking of terrorists, I met a Bush supporter who was proud of Dubya's links to Saudi royalty, and was all for bombing New York because "those big city folk need to be put in their place". And boy was he adamant! He kept going on and on about how there was a left wing conspiracy by the liberally biased media that was "keeping Whitey down" (his words, not mine). Just after I got sick of listening to him talk about how he and some local Republican staffers were going to go out and "killa couple mo' towelheads, niggers and spics for kicks", I left and called the police, but they arrived too late to do anything about it as they had left.
Unfortunately, under capitalism, you have to go with whatever the industry leaders suggest is marketable.
That's not Capitalism, that's a monopoly market - one of Capitalism's "Market Failures". Further, the SUV market is far from a monopoly. And the reason SUVs are not fuel-efficient is because they have big engines and lots of power. And big powerful engines along big powerful machines are what appeal to Americans in general. So that is why these products are "marketable". You want to make SUVs more fuel efficient? Raise gas prices to double the current level. Apart from the civil disorder it would cause, I can see people shifting to fuel-efficient cars in a split second. THAT is Capitalism. Voting with your dollar.
people who contribute more to the public good receive more in return
Please pull your head out of the sand, and while you're at it, let's have a definition of "Public Good". What's good for the public? Please do let us know, oh wise one. By your logic, since Stalin was leader of Russia, he must have done a LOT for the public good. Oh, wait - what's that? Stalin wasn't a True communist? I see. Well, until the world can produce a true communist, communism and socialism are truly the work of the Devil. Please state even ONE communist or socialist country which is rich, which feeds all of its people, and keeps them all "Happy". Or are all communist countries poor becuase of some Capitalist plot to prevent reaching their full potential?
I should change my name to Troll-Biter....
My Favourite Meme
Unfortunately your economic analysis have been proven wrong. People want more fuel efficient SUVs, and if they could vote to perhaps force a company to use the best technology available (perhaps at the expense of CEO profits) they would do it. Unfortunately, under capitalism, you have to go with whatever the industry leaders suggest is marketable.
No, people say they want more fuel efficient SUVs -- and in truth they would happily purchase them all other factors being equal -- but price and comfort are more important when they vote with their pocketbook.
Want to increase efficiency and cut down on pollution? Figure out the cost to the environment for each gallon of fuel, and increase the tax by that amount. If companies and individuals are taxed according to the true cost of the pollution they pump into the water and the air, then when it becomes more economical to reduce such pollution they will do so voluntarily and with less chance of cheating.
Dubya: Slashdot isn't for you. Trust me on that one, buddy. :^)
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
I guess we'll find out if it's just sonar that bothers the dolphins.
Not to defend Greenpeace (I don't particularly like them), but the first article there made me chuckle a bit. Japan is one of the few countries operating a whaling business "legally" under the guise of the "research" quoted above. I'm sure that their findings are cutting-edge, nobel-prize worthy and the like, but they take a very small "sample" of the whale, then return the carcass to the mainland where it ends up in restaurants. I don't know why the Japanese government even puts up the pretense. They just like the taste of whale meat (it is pretty good...) Because the rest of the world criticizes this habit, the whaler^H^H^H^H^H^Hresearchers get really defensive about their bus^H^H^Hresearch, and issue statements like the one above, reminding the world of how benevolent they are.
...thinking this only gets accepted to slashdot because it contains the word Greenpeace? Wifi was set up on a DOCKED SHIP... in Portland... BIG DEAL!
I'm guessing - just guessing mind you - that if this guy had wifi'd the Exxon Mediterranean, we wouldn't be seeing it on slashdot.
3cx.org - A truly bad website.
http://web-mcb.agr.ehime-u.ac.jp/gmo1/english/2k20 918-01e.htm
The Columbian (Vancouver, WA.)
September 15, 2002
By Dennis Avery
Have environmental activists adopted the ethics of the Ku Klux Klan?
In Africa, environmental groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have lobbied the governments of drought-stricken countries not to distribute American corn donated as food aid to their millions of starving people because it might contain genetically modified kernels.
No matter that most of their American members have been eating such foodstuffs for the past decade with no ill effects. The membership of Greenpeace and Friends say starving Africans should forgo it so Western greens can make an obscure political point. The president of Zambia says the activists told him the corn is "poison." This is the same pest-resistant corn approved for safety by three different U.S. government agencies and eaten daily since 1995 by millions of Americans in such forms as corn flakes, corn flour and, through livestock feed, hamburgers and ice cream. Biotech foods have undergone more testing than any foods in history, with no danger found.
But in Zambia, 17,000 tons of U.S. corn is locked in warehouses, while desperate women and children grub for roots and eat tree bark. A blind old man cries out for something, anything to eat.
An observer in Johannesburg writes, "The message of death from Greenpeace was clear: 'You darkies must go hungry, poison your soils, and poison your biodiversity until we, the wise white Bwanas from Europe, decide that GM crops are acceptable.' The sickening, condescending, callous, racist arrogance of Greenpeace!"
At the "Earth Summit Plus 10" in Johannesburg, three policemen were wounded by angry activists. The protesters weren't angry about the wild creatures being killed and eaten by starving people whose farming systems are too primitive to provide food security. The activists were declaring their solidarity with Palestinian suicide bombers.
In the Netherlands, a candidate for prime minister was murdered last year by an animal-rights activist apparently angry over fur farming and confinement hog production.
Animal-rights fanatics beat a medical research executive with a baseball bat and burned the apartment of a financial firm's president. The men attacked had committed the "crime" of aiding the search for medicines to cure diseases in the most effective way we know: testing new medicines on a few laboratory animals.
In August, the Earth Liberation Front torched a U.S. Forest Service research laboratory in Pennsylvania. The lab was researching sustainable forestry. The group said it was protesting "proposed timber sales, oil drilling and greed-driven manipulation of nature."
Worse, the ELF communique claiming responsibility for the fire declared that segments of this global revolutionary movement are no longer limiting their revolutionary potential by adhering to a flawed, inconsistent "nonviolent" ideology: "Where necessary, we will no longer hesitate to pick up the gun to implement justice."
Elevated priorities
Of course, we all owe a debt to the environmental movement. They called our attention to the environmental dangers years before we might have elevated eco-priorities without their urging.
The very success of the environmental movement may have made it inevitable that some eco-zealots would overestimate their virtue and power.
Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth are zealots who believe they are pursuing a noble cause and that their way is the only way.
We must remember that those sentiments are held by the remnants of both the KKK and the primitive fanatics who attacked us last September.
OT, but between this thread and the Fahrenheiht 9/11 thread, I've really been able to fill out my friends and foes list.
Thanks, editors!
http://www.icfa.net/?a=Press%20Releases&item=1 57
Environmental Terrorist Actions Reprehensible, ICFA Says
December 28, 1998
For Immediate Release
Contact: Dick Gutting, Executive Secretariat (703) 524-8880
Arlington, VA - The International Coalition of Fisheries Associations (ICFA) today strongly condemned Greenpeace terrorists for sabotaging the Japanese whaling ships Nisshin Maru and Kyo Maru in Noumea Port in New Caledonia.
"Acts of violence at sea endanger fishermen and others who depend on the oceans for their livelihood," said Richard E. Gutting Jr., Executive Secretariat for ICFA. "Rather than resorting to piracy and vandalism, Greenpeace should act within the framework of international law and seek peaceful solutions through the International Whaling Commission. To endanger the lives of fishermen through reckless sabotage is reprehensible and should be condemned.
"Many environmental groups are able to make their case without resorting to eco-terrorism. Violence is a needless and counterproductive strategy which serves only to discredit those who resort to it." Gutting concluded.
> It is our duty to protect animals from extinction
What?!? most of the species that have ever existed have gone extinct. When a species gains some new advantage they preasure all the other populations and some can not adapt. That is nature.
While we are on the subject let's deal with another fallacy. Deer, have adapted to having their population controled by predators. If you want deer not to be killed then you are not pro nature, you are anti-nature. The natural order calls for deer to die as prey.
A bit OT, but Greenpeace's extremism seems to push away the majority of people. There will always be 20% who truly believe your message, 20% who will never believe your message, and then 60% who can be swayed either way.
When you tell people everything they do is "evil" you alienate them. Mothers who want to protect their children from car accidents by driving SUVs... evil, nerds using their computers which suck huge amounts of power and use dangerous chemicals to manufacture... evil, nuclear powered space vehicles... evil.
By the time I finished talking to a Greenpeace person in college, I was so pissed off I wanted to make my car run on whale oil, and run over baby seals for fun.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview. cfm/oid/131
Greenpeace is the largest environmental organization in the world, with an international membership of over 5 million and offices in over 20 countries. Forbes magazine once described it as "a skillfully managed business" with full command of "the tools of direct mail and image manipulation -- and tactics that would bring instant condemnation if practiced by a for-profit corporation." But Greenpeace has escaped public censure by hiding behind the mask of its "non-profit" status and its U.S. tax exemption.
Greenpeace was originally the brainchild of the radical "Don't Make a Wave Committee," a group of American draft-dodgers who fled to Vancouver in 1969 and, supported by money from anti-war Quaker organizations, got into the business of forcibly blocking American nuclear tests. Over the years the group has loudly made its feelings known on a variety of issues (nuclear testing, whaling, and global warming, for instance), and its Amsterdam-based activist moguls pull the strings on what is estimated to be a $360 million global empire.
Here in the United States, however, Greenpeace is a relatively modest activist group, spending about $10 million per year. And the lion's share of that budget in recent years has gone to outrageous attempts to smear agricultural biotech products and place doubts about the safety of genetically improved foods in the minds of American consumers.
It was Greenpeace campaign director Charles Margulis who is credited with coining the term "FrankenFood." It was Greenpeace activists who conspired with other tax-exempt groups (like Friends of the Earth and the Organic Consumers Association) to "expose" the supposed dangers of StarLink corn. Among Greenpeace's recent innovations has been the creation of a "citizen's labeling brigade" -- basically a group of hooligans who take the law into their own hands by forcibly adding home-made, propaganda-laden "warning labels" (some complete with skull-and-crossbones artwork) to consumer food products on grocery store shelves. And it was Greenpeace that intentionally inflated the urban legend that biotech corn would place the monarch butterfly population in harm's way. When your local news carries footage of protesters railing against genetically improved foods, look hard for the slogan-shouting troublemakers wearing monarch butterfly costumes. That's Greenpeace's handiwork.
Greenpeace USA has also been raising a stink about the growth of the biotech fisheries industry. A handful of innovative businesses have learned how to genetically improve certain salmon species to make them grow faster, and Greenpeace will have none of it. The group is doing all it can to frighten consumers of this new product, and working behind the scenes to have it banned before it can even reach to marketplace.
With each cry of "wolf," Greenpeace seems to up the ante while ignoring the real-world consequences of its rhetoric. The group has warned that genetic crop engineering would cause new and horrible food allergies (it hasn't), and that biotech corn would endanger monarch butterflies (whose numbers have increased substantially since the introduction of biotech corn). And completely forgotten by the "Frankenfood" protesters is the tremendous potential for biotech foods to solve many of the Third World's famine-related problems. Tanzania's Dr. Michael Mbwille (of the non-profit Food Security Network) said it best. "Greenpeace," he wrote, "prints and circulates these lies faster than the Code Red virus infected the world's computers. If we were to apply Greenpeace's scientifically illiterate standards [for soybeans] universally, there would be nothing left on our tables."
Maybe someone should cross post into their Christian-racist forums about a need for environmentalism and human understanding.
What would be the point. You think if we told Osama Bin Laden about not murdering innocent lives he would've listened with a sympathetic ear? These people's minds have been made up, and they've been raised in an environment that does not encourage independent thinking. I'll stick to tackling them on Slashdot meself. I've earned me a nice Karma Bonus just crafting out semi-thoughtful replies to their crap.
My Favourite Meme
...not the ELF
tarunthegreat2 wrote:
That's not Capitalism, that's a monopoly market - one of Capitalism's "Market Failures"
A feature of capitalism is to put things to the market that you think will do well, regardless of the social uses of the product, its effect upon communal life, personal safety, or human well-being and the natural environment. Capitalists, in their more candid moments, admit that they have no concern for freedom (hence why they function in China), justice, the poor, the environment, or anything else.
tarunthegreat2 wrote:
Further, the SUV market is far from a monopoly.
Yeah, of course not. Only three companies is no where near a monopolization of the market.
Seriously though, the reason why capitalists refuse to change SUVs is because of profits. That's a simple fact. The reason they are not changed is because they do not see it as "profitable", in fact, it may cut into CEO profits.
I love how capitalists suggest that if the better technology is made available it automatically means a rise in prices.
If a CEO insists on making profits at current levels after enforcement of more costly technology to be required for SUVs, I suggest enforcing a wage limit for them.
tarunthegreat2 wrote:
And big powerful engines along big powerful machines are what appeal to Americans in general. So that is why these products are "marketable".
Actually, that does not appeal to the people who do not drive the SUVs in the first place and are having their air polluted.
Put it to a real vote:
Option A. Cleaner SUVs at current prices.
Option B. SUVs at current prices that pollute the environment.
It would be obvious which vote would win -- no wonder capitalists hate democracy with such a passion.
tarunthegreat2 wrote:
You want to make SUVs more fuel efficient? Raise gas prices to double the current level. Apart from the civil disorder it would cause, I can see people shifting to fuel-efficient cars in a split second. THAT is Capitalism. Voting with your dollar.
I want to make SUVs more efficient and I want the government to force the car companies to follow the same standards.
"Voting with your dollars" is another capitalist myth. It tries to imply that people have some sort of freedom in capitalism. First of all, in this perversion of democracy, not everybody is allowed to 'vote,' those who might be buying an SUV 10 years from now, or those who do not want one at all, do not have any say in how SUVs are developed 10 years from now, as long as the comapnies make some profit; the car companies may think that they are making enough profit without even considering the people who do not want their air polluted or a hole in the ozone.
Second, it's silly to think that the oil companies would ever raise prices just to force people to buy more fuel efficient cars -- then the people who produce the oil would lose profits.
The problem in all scenarios is capitalism.
tarunthegreat2 wrote:
Please pull your head out of the sand, and while you're at it, let's have a definition of "Public Good". What's good for the public? Please do let us know, oh wise one. By your logic, since Stalin was leader of Russia, he must have done a LOT for the public good. Oh, wait - what's that? Stalin wasn't a True communist? I see. Well, until the world can produce a true communist, communism and socialism are truly the work of the Devil. Please state even ONE communist or socialist country which is rich, which feeds all of its people, and keeps them all "Happy". Or are all communist countries poor becuase of some Capitalist plot to prevent reaching their full potential?
1. The public good basically means inventions. So for example, if a worker is a computer scientist, and he contributed to the public good, he would receive more in return. "From each according to ability, to each according to ne
even though it has been proven that more guns is equal to more crime (while regulations on them reduces crimes).
I call bullshit. Cite your sources.
That's a pretty broad brush you are using.
Please.
Carry on.
Tell us how you can't support the US Military because they fired on civilians at Kent State.
Or how you can't support the NRA because one of their members blew up a building full of people.
Or how you can't support the police because there are bad cops out there.
Wait.
Oh.
Yeah.
None of those make any fucking sense.
Please don't make people who fundamentally agree with you look stupid. We'd appreciate it.
PS. I don't know about you, but I personally don't view Greenpeace as being terrorists. Hippies certainly, eccentric definitely, misguided probably, but I'd be a lot more worried about the ELF than Greenpeace, and even they just burn shit down / blow shit up.
I'm getting a bit tired of people labeling those who do not agree with their political ideology / whatever as terrorists. Don't weaken the word. Suicide bombers are terrorists, hippies who put signs on smokestacks and hang off bridges really can't compare with that.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
...Greenpeace set up us the WiFi?
You want to make SUVs more fuel efficient? Raise gas prices to double the current level. Apart from the civil disorder it would cause, I can see people shifting to fuel-efficient cars in a split second. THAT is Capitalism. Voting with your dollar.
That is NOT capitalism. That is consumers reacting to a price. The same thing happens in communist economies, or any other economy for that matter. Taxing a product to discourage its consumption is hardly "capitalist." A true free market approach would allow the supply and demand for oil to set the price. But that approach doesn't take environmental and other side-effects into account, so some people have decided some centralized planning is necessary. Since this planning doesn't involve the transfer of the means of production from private hands to the state, we can consider it "regulated" capitalism. But government intervention in the market is hardly a capitalist mechanism. It's an acknowledgement that capitalist mechanisms sometimes need to be tweaked to do more good for more people.
Capitalism means capital--the means of producing other goods--is in private hands. It isn't "voting with your dollars." There is no such thing as voting with your dollars. "Voting" makes it sound democratic, but there is nothing democratic about someone with a lot of money taking away your rights because you have less money. Just because Americans "vote with their dollars" to keep children in Burma making shirts for pennies an hour doesn't mean that is where the discussion should end. How the hell should I know under what conditions my shirt was made? I thought I was just buying a shirt! I didn't vote to oppress anybody! Sometimes a well-organized effort to steer dollars to or away from a certain product has an effect. But it's impossible to get this information about every product we consume. Purchasing isn't voting. We need to vote with our votes, not our dollars. Our dollars simply aren't enough, most of the time, particularly when so many of them are owned by so few. Voting with your dollars isn't capitalism, it's plutocracy.
Please state even ONE communist or socialist country which is rich, which feeds all of its people, and keeps them all "Happy".
Norway. The state controls the oil industry and has used the proceeds to fund a generous welfare state and invest in industries to keep the country afloat when the oil runs out. They seem pretty happy with that state of affairs; certainly no less happy than some places where the oil is in private hands. Ask a single mom in Texas, with no health insurance or vacation, if she'd trade places with a person of similar social rank in Norway. I don't think she'd have a problem with it.
Paul Waton, one of the founders of Greenpeace had this to say about the organization:
There's both positive and negative about it. The positive part of Greenpeace is that it is able to reach a lot of people and therefore stands as a symbol of an environmental movement. And just its name sometimes can sway a lot of opinions. The negative part is that it has become a multinational ecocorporation. One year it brought in $94 million in donations. That's way up there as far as organizations and businesses are concerned. The problem is that it has become so bureaucratic that they can't make a decision.
They find themselves often in a bind on issues because when it conflicts with natural or cultural considerations, the people in that regional area won't support it and so their hands are tied and they can't do anything. And the organization has become a bureaucratic boondoggle. It's also so heavily involved with internal politicking and infighting over positions, people's vested interest in their jobs, etc. When we set up Sea Shepherd, I took to heart what David Brower said, which is that any organization after ten years is useless, it's become too bureaucratic, and so one must get out of it. He was forced out of Friends of the Earth and subsequently founded Earth Island Institute.
How about some webcams to give back the wealth?
First of all, you wrongly attribute a comment to me.
A feature of capitalism is to put things to the market that you think will do well, regardless of the social uses of the product, its effect upon communal life, personal safety, or human well-being and the natural environment
Absolutely. And that is why there is a need for some government to keep Capitalism's baser instincs in check
Only three companies... Only three companies produce SUVs??? I bed your pardon? Ok so there's Ford, GM, Daimler Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Suzuki, BMW, Volkswagen...er... which 3 are you referring to? Is there some new definition os SUV I'm missing?
Actually, that does not appeal to the people who do not drive the SUVs in the first place and are having their air polluted
Umm, I thought we're trying to get people to stop buying them. If these people aren't buying them anyway, they're not the ones the car companies are catering to anyway
those who might be buying an SUV 10 years from now, or those who do not want one at all, do not have any say in how SUVs are developed 10 years from now, as long as the comapnies make some profit
Yes, you are correct, they don't have a say. But what they can do is go back to their dealers in droves and make a request. Or fill out a feedback form. Also, please explain how this situation would be amended if it was a communist country? Would we just appeal to our local KGB agent to give more fuel-efficient SUVs, and would he just bend over backwards to help us out because we are all so 'enlightened'?
Communism does not work or trade in values of money
I see, so we'd all be living in a utopian, Star-Trek like world...
The public good basically means inventions
I see. The SUV is an invention. The Gun is an Invention. Electricity is an Invention.
pick up a book -- and read it. Perhaps one on economics, but also, on political science theory, too.
Ah yes, pick up a book. I'd rather walk outside on the street and take a look around. I've spent a good part of my life living in a socialist country, and a capitlaist country, and the facts are in my face, but clearly not in yours. Communism and Socialism breed poverty, and suppress independent thinking, and more, but I am too tired to type it all out. You are clearly living in your own delusional world, and I wish you the best. It's been fun talking to you, it allows one to see how deluded some people can acutally be, and why the state of the world is the way it is right now.
My Favourite Meme
I am superior.
My distinction is that I think so.
I want what you have.
I kill you. I take what I want.
I am superior. You are the inferior race, and I am justified in all I do because of my superiority.
Is this an agreeable situation? If it is, congratulations- you are logically consistent. If it is not, why not?
Seriously! Tell me what is wrong with it!
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
There has to be a way to trace this guy back and beat the info out of him. Lives may be at stake.
Slashdot can't hide you, you fucking terrorist! Uncle Sam's gonna fuck you up. On the 4th of July, no less. Commie.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
I find it funny and sad that what is good for the goose doesn't seem to be good for the gander anymore.
You can read that however you like, I'm going to bed.
Have a patriotic evening.
Don't kid yourself Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about!
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
Our debate is not about oil in private hands. It's about capitalism vs communism. And Norway is pretty far from Communist or socialist. Link to Norway's Economy
From the link:The Norwegian economy is a prosperous bastion of welfare capitalism, featuring a combination of free market activity and government intervention.
Welfare Capitalism does *not* equal either Communism or Socialism. Fact is that no country can actually achieve true communism or socialism, because it is simply a hypothetical (and extremely stupid) idea. But the ones did try and go a purely communist/socialist route got fucked. India, China, Russia, Cuba, North Korea, Former Iron Curtain countries. Of course, your argument will be that these countries are in poor shape because there is something inherently wrong with their cultures...
My Favourite Meme
But he aided terrorists.
to paraphrase, some are more superior than others....
there/they're/their
This NRA you speek of, are they murderers? Is the NRA (obviously a corporation) capable of commiting murder? Does the NRA impress on the minds of everyone to use their "gun" or "rifle" un such a way that promotes lawlessness?
If you answered YES to any of these, then you are speaking of an other NRA, not the National Rifle Association that I am aware.
Proverbs 6:
"16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."
Just as the NRA conflicts with corporations that violate current laws, the GreanPeace conflicts with corporations that violate laws were not a party unto. The bigger question asks itself, who is more honerable: a corporation that is advocating the root remedy against dishonerable judges trying to subvert law or a corporation willing to ignore law to persecute dishonest corporations assuming property ownership and inquisition over animals.
To my current information, the NRA still is the only organization to uphold the Bill Of Rights without condition and holding the only remedy to treason as being inherent with the pretense and actual occurence of the second amendment to the federated republics' constitutions. Greenpeace, as you referenced, is more concerned with the rights of animals than it seems the rights of man-kind. It all depends on who you believe needs more help in this day and age: man or animal? I think man-kind needs help, because they're the ones trying to be distinguished from the animal kingdom. My examples:
(1) I had a pet mouse give birth to babies. In less than 24 hours, she had eaten all three baby mice.
(2) In the insect world, wasps capture spiders and paralyze them; drag them into a freshly-made adobe lair, rip off all 8 arms/legs, and stockpile them. Then, a larval wasp "maggot" is layed with the alive yet paralyzed spiders and the maggot eats them while they are concious!
(3) Dolphins have been monitored and studied in the wild to brutal detail; groups of male dolphins have been observed to brutally gang-rape sexual intercourse from a small female dolphin and the so-called "scientists" would not intervene against such act.
(4) Hermit crabs are known to steal eachother's houses; the larger hermit crabs are known to grapple and rip a smaller hermit crab from its shell, then savagely dis-embowel and eat the unprotected hermit crab's exposed organs: the smaller hermit crab endures the slaughter alive and concious.
(5) All monkies and gorillas, regardless of age or role, are observed to sexual rape their offspring.
Man-kind has accomplished similar or identical feats, but I have yet to see animal-kind attempt to amend themselves. The NRA keeps its composure as well as GreanPeace, but the members of both groups are the ones that stray and give both organizations a bad view. What I especially dislike in both organizations is they don't give eachother regards for their idealogical messages when in fact they have not reason to disagree.
If they were both gods above men, which would demand your worship: NRA or GreanPeace?
Looks like NS Savannah is available.
It's cheap, at 1$ per year. Yes, really.
It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
... remember that Dan Randall (the Babylon 5 news reporter) was very truthful... he just strung the facts together in an unethically truthful way just like Mike Moore
* Note - it is not immediately known whether Mike Moore has an evil twin brother, evil younger brother, evil older brother, and/or sister named "Skippy" MooreI believe Juanita
I remember reading in the newspaper, about 2 years ago, how this fabled patriot for animals "GreanPeace" was throwing wild ferrets or minks into the wild and they would attack Chickens of farmers. The farmers were devestated, not necessarily described as how many chickens had been killed in their flock but by how these savage rodent minks or ferrets would go about killing the Chickens in such a nasty way. Nothing like learning how animals kill animals to shut me up for the morning. Ouch, when I saw the pictures of a chicken dis-membered and that fiesty rodent pointing its incisors at the camera for the picture!
From the link:The Norwegian economy is a prosperous bastion of welfare capitalism, featuring a combination of free market activity and government intervention.
Most 20th-century socialists, such as those in the Labor parties of Europe, actually advocated "mixed" economies, with key sectors (oil, railroads, telecommunications, health care) owned by the state and other industries in private hands. Hardly any advocated the abolition of all private property. Not in the US and Western Europe, anyway. In the '80s, economist Milton Friedman pointed out that nearly all the planks of the (1920s?) platform of the Socialist party of the US had been achieved. He pointed this out as if it were a bad thing, but personally, I think we're better off for having Social Security and unemployment insurance.
There's a difference between "socialism" as defined by Marx and the form that was later defined by political leaders who called themselves socialists. I bring this to your attention because some people act as if the only form socialism ever took was in Stalin's Russia and Pol Pot's Cambodia. It's not so.
GreanPeace trys to govern people by the use of force and intimidation. If fear was a factor, then they would be known within the bounds of old-English as "terrorists" and that is one definitive element GreanPeace realistically lacks that prevents Dictator George W. Bush from declaring.
GreanPeace is a lost cause. When they were first started, they advocated non-violence; but currently they are a mixed band of good-hearted people and ruffians that have such a distorted and often disorganized message that their constituency is unfathomabley non-existent. If the United States of America is a union between the several states, then GreanPeace is a union between good people and bad people and ugly people that have verry little benefit of being united given that the more wicked of the two classes benefit from the strawman effect provided in their domain.
Now they can go war-sailing!
Er, I mean... peace-sailing.
The other forms of "Socialism" occur in economies which have the Free Market as their base. After spending a good 150 years being rabdily capitalist, most of those economies can now afford to provide welfare to their citizens. But it still doesn't change the fact that they have a free-market base. Plus welfare, and social security and government regluation are all part of Capitalism too. Adam Smith never spoke against that, nor, as you say, did Milton Friedman. However, the countries advocating pure Socialism would not allow anything from the Free-Market to penetrate their economies. China is more of a Totalitarian-Capitalist state now. Some parts of its economy are now more free than Democratic, yet stupidly-Socialist India. Obviously the majority of economies in the world today are mixed. But you will find that it is the ones which lean towards the free-market which are doing much better than the ones which aren't. The success stories of capitalist countries are numerous. If you like, I'll redefine that to mean Mixed economies, with a significant amount of free-market activity.
My Favourite Meme
Everyone would just ignore them ...so what is everyone doing NOW?
"Nobody writes jokes in base 13." - Douglas Adams
But commercial Wi-Fi support would let them also use it whenever they can see a commercial hotspot, for a fee that's not at all that excessive compared to 56kbps Inmarsat - typically $5-10/day.
I'm surprised that most large ports don't already have arrangements for that sort of thing...
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
its called linuKKKs
Suchetha
learn from yesterday, plan for tomorrow, party tonight
or one out of three ain't bad
Obviously the majority of economies in the world today are mixed.
Right. So how come a country has to be doctrinaire Marxist before I can call it socialist? You don't require that the form of capitalism practiced in a given country be "pure," before you call it capitalist. Seems I'm being held to a higher standard.
The defining characteristic of socialism in the West is state ownership of key industries. Many countries are socialist by that standard, although some privatization has taken place in the past 20 years. In Norway, the state once owned all of the petroleum industry and now owns about 70 percent of it. Income taxes are steeply graduated. Most public utilities are state owned. Telecommunications is state owned. Health care is run by the state. Housing is built by the state. TV and radio are government administered. If Norway isn't socialist, then the word has no meaning. It's certainly much more socialist than the United States. And yet, their society doesn't seem to be on the verge of collapse. Contrast Norway's state-owned oil industry, and all the good it does for the people there, with the privatized "capitalist" oil industry in Russia, where a few corrupt robber barons grabbed everything and shipped the money off to Swiss bank accounts.
what a surprise? as for robbIE's fauxking pateNTdead PostBlock corepirate nazi puppet censorship devise, it's still broken, also.
s ys tems.html?pagewanted=2
The Web sites of Senator John Kerry and the Democratic National Committee run mainly on the technology of the computing counterculture: open-source software that is distributed free, and improved and debugged by far-flung networks of programmers.
In the other corner, the Web sites of President Bush and the Republican National Committee run on software supplied by the corporate embodiment of big business - Microsoft.
The two sides are defined largely by their approach to intellectual property. Fans of open-source computing regard its software as a model for the future of business, saying that its underlying principle of collaboration will eventually be used in pharmaceuticals, entertainment and other industries whose products are tightly protected by patents or copyrights.
Many of them propose rewriting intellectual property laws worldwide to limit their scope and duration. The open-source path, they insist, should accelerate the pace of innovation and promote long-term economic growth. Theirs is an argument of efficiency, but also of a reshuffling of corporate wealth.
Microsoft and other American companies, by contrast, have long argued that intellectual property is responsible for any edge the United States has in an increasingly competitive global economy. Craig Mundie, chief technical officer and a senior strategist at Microsoft, observed, "Whether copyrights, patents or trade secrets, it was this foundation in law that made it possible for companies to raise capital, take risks, focus on the long term and create sustainable business models."
The dispute can take on a political flavor at times. David Brunton, who is a founder of Plus Three, a technology and marketing consulting company that has done much of the work on the Democratic and Kerry Web sites, regards open-source software as a technological expression of his political beliefs. Mr. Brunton, 28, a Harvard graduate, describes himself as a "very left-leaning Democrat." He met his wife, Lina, through politics; she is a staff member at the Democratic National Committee.
His company's client list includes state Democratic parties in Ohio and Missouri, and union groups including the United Federation of Teachers and the parent A.F.L.-C.I.O. "The ethic of open source has pervaded progressive organizations," Mr. Brunton said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/05/technology/05
You can call it flaimbait but what Gojira has said here is true. means => ends not ends => means I personally would consider any help to such an organisation the same as aiding the PLO, IRA, Hezbollah, ELN or any of many other organisations
Even when its a freak right is right. (Gojira has me listed as a foe)
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
This is seriously ridiculous.
You are comparing people who board boats, and do blockades to people who use bombs and guns to murder others?
Completely Ridiculous.
A mate of mine set up CalMac (state funded ferry company working around Scotland, and particularly on the West Coast) wireless networking so that the ferry could exchange data like it was on the LAN when it was in port....and this was about 6 years ago... why is WiFi on a boat noteworthy?
Still - its nice all the same. And Greenpeace are mostly well intentioned.
Clear skies
Torc
The subject line is enough
Terrorism Light(TM).
Not exactly. The norwegian governemnt owned 53,15 % of the largest norwegian TelCo as of the 1st of June 2004. And there are other telecommunications companies.
And, just to mention something on topic, Norway is commonly referred to as a social-democracy.
I must say - I am completely surprised by the level of vitriol against greenpeace, as I am by the stark irrationonality of the accusations against them in this "discussion".
Now, I dont know much about them, but I know that they neither commit or condone tree-spiking, or putting people other than themselves in harms way.
I also know that Paul Watson's greenpeace was a very different animal, and that is why he is no longer a member of it.
It betrays weak thinking, poor research, or simple bad faith to caste greenpeace in a poor light simply because of the actions or thinking of Watson, or any other former member.
Note well - Im not defending greenpeace.
I dont know enough about them
Just enough to know that all the bile coming out in this discussion is pointless and irrational.
Crys of "terrorist" are absolutely absurd.
And, besides, it makes me think...
Amongst ye accusers, how many of you have given up a significant portion of your life, a few days even, in order to commit to an action that you felt was for a greater good?
Even if you eventually felt that you were misguided?
Can anyone here who has been amongst the most vociferous critics of gp make a personal claim that they, themselves have made a worthwhile sacrifice in order to feel that they had really contributed to humanity?
Some members of gp put their bodies and their lives on the line.
What do you do?
get a life.
I hate people who say that your voice shouldnt be heard just because you arent a halo wearing angel.
So greenpeace use computers. They use them to spread a pro-environmental message that points out the inefficiency of SUVs, how we are dependent on a finite fuel, how we are basically wrecking the envionemnt our kids will have to live in.
Meanwhile, you download pr0n and argue about the latest linux release on your computer. What a waste.
Something makes me think you should get your own house in order before you start criticising other peoples motives. When was the last time you did something to make the world a better place?
Sure, except the ones who take the risk are not the ones who get the advantages. In the case of GMO's, the risks are uninsurable; the benefits are basically higher yields.
The European Union throws away heavily subsidized crops every year and dumps the rest on the world market, to price out producers from poor countries. What the hell do we need higher yields for?
European consumers are almost unanimous in the rejection of GMO's (mostly because of health/allergy concerns), yet the EU was forced by WTO to accept these products in. The customer is king? Thankfully, at least these products will have to be clearly marked. But the burden to carefully check all labels remains on the customer.
Come on, this is basic. If by using a polluting technology causing damage of X Greenpeace can result in a reduction of another polluting 'thing' by an amount Y, then if the reduction in Y is > the increase in X, they have had a net benefit. A friend of mine was always feeling guilty about sometimes driving to places to give talks about environmental issues (it wasnt feasible to take public transport in some cases). I told him that as long as the effect his talk had caused people to reduce their 'impact' by more than the impact he had by using his car he was doing the 'Right Thing'(tm)! Why do some people use such silly and easily refutable arguments to make excuses for their own lack of action?
Am I the only one who read the headline and thought:
Sombebody set up us the Greenpeace ship!
[1] Near where I live is a theatre/concert hall. Many yeara ago there was due to be a music concert fron the local RAF station. A short while before the concert an IRA bomb was found on the site. The obvious target was the RAF band. The thing is that the bomb would also have destroyed the hall killing all inside (RAF & civilians) but also would have flattened many of the nearby houses, killing and maiming those living there.
[2] My cousin was shot by the IRA, the reason, he was in the way of the person they wanted to shoot at.
Greenpeace have got their work cut out if they want to sink that low
Like for example slashdotters?
They'll get close with a captured Greenpeace zodiac andupload a virus so the mother ship will be defenseless and they can set off a nuclear bomb... Oh wait! that's the plot of Independence Day. Never mind.
....
In A.D. 2004
WAR was beginning.
Greenpeace Captain: What happen ?
Zodiac Boat Mechanic: Somebody set up us the bomb.
LAN Operator: We get signal.
Greenpeace Captain: What !
LAN Operator: Main screen turn on.
Greenpeace Captain: It's You !!
The French: How are you gentlemen !!
The French: All your base are belong to us.
The French: You are on the way to destruction.
Greenpeace Captain: What you say !!
The French: You have no chance to survive make your time.
The French: HA HA HA HA
Greenpeace Captain: Take off every 'zig' !!
Greenpeace Captain: You know what you doing.
Greenpeace Captain: Move 'zig'.
Greenpeace Captain: For green justice.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Maybe wi-fi will help keep the activists from accidentally crashing their boats into the whales they purportedly show up to protect.
Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
I think some public spirited nation should donate a nice limpet mine to their hull like the French did in Guiana. Sink 'em at anchor. Perfect thing for the human hating Greenie bastards.
They love the ocean so much, they should swim in it.
Flame on, watermellons.
That screed was inspired by meeting and talking with members of various advocacy groups. Few have the slightest idea of why their group's goals and tenets are in existance. Their real reason for joining is social, i.e. to fill a vacancy in their lives. And it's sooooo kOoL to be helping a worthy cause.
For more information on Greenpeace, check out Penn and Teller's Documentary on Environmental Hysteria and find out why the PRESIDENT and FOUNDER of Greenpeace decided to jump off the "Greenpeace" bandwagon.
m peg
(s01e13) - Environmental Hysteria
Here Penn & Teller explore the truth behind fears about global warming, air quality, water quality, acid rain, species extinction, and take a look at Greenpeace's activities.
http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=eh
http://www.team5150.com/~andrew/ptbs/ptbs-s01e13.
When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.
"I didn't say I did nothing."
/.?
/.
Neither did you say you did go to the FBI.
"Seems to me the FBI wouldn't want me to tell you if I, in theory, did go to them."
Why would they care? You would have given the names of the people you knew who knew the people who did that. The FBI would be talking to the names you gave them.
"I also didn't say I knew these people -- I don't."
So, someone you don't know comes up to you and tells you that he knows someone in Greenpeace who cut a brakeline and is proud of it......
And from THAT you feel compelled to post on
"I met them in Portland, where I do not reside, and spoke to them long enough to understand that they were proud of some very peculiar things, and that the core of their fervor was Greenpeace."
Whereas _I_ would disregard something a stranger told me because I wasn't born yesterday and have developed a degree of cynicism towards what strangers say.
As you may have noted in this exchange.
But you seem to be trying to imply that you DID go to the FBI with that "information".
Let me guess, you're 13 and you're trying to impress people on
"The issue here is that these people broke in to an energy plant, climbed the smoke stack, and put a giant banner on it."
Yes they did. That is "breaking and entering". That is NOT a Federal crime.
"Sounds pretty illegal to me."
It is, but it is NOT a Federal crime.
"If the state is too stupid to see these people as a threat, then the Feds should step in."
Why are they a "threat" now? Did their banner injure anyone? Kill anyone? No.
If a cop gives you a warning about speeding, should the Feds step in?
"In the end it all boils down to this: A Greenpeace ship was given WiFi equipment, and set up with access."
No, that is what the ARTICLE is about.
YOU posted about how YOU knew people who knew people who claimed to have cut brakelines.
You stepped off topic with that post and now this thread is about YOUR claims.
i didn't see one racist comment or ideology in that post.. but its always easier to name call then make a decent point isn't it?
What ever happened to conserving BANDWIDTH? :)
>That's a pretty broad brush you are using.
>Please.
>Carry on.
>Tell us how you can't support the US Military because they fired >on civilians at Kent State.
>Or how you can't support the NRA because one of their members >blew up a building full of people.
>Or how you can't support the police because there are bad >cops out there.
If you are talking about the deer comment, then you are using bogus counter examples. my statement was of the form if [for all x such that not x holds] then not y also holds. Your counter examples are of the form if [ there exists x, such that not x holds] then not y also holds. There is a huge difference between the two.
The general point is that far too many environmental activists, have gone past wanting more responsible stewardship
of our environment to wanting an unrealistic eden where the lion lays down with the lamb and both are tame, cute, and live forever. That sort of sentimentality is not pro-nature.
It's more like Greenpeace right, EVERYBODY else wrong! Government, scientists, business, unions, miners, farmers, fishermen, loggers, furriers.
So let's see Greenpeace run for office. Then they'd have to offer solutions we could all get a good look at first before voting for them...
> Terrorism as defined as killing civilians in order to influence government policies. Greenpeace does not do that.
So spiking trees, sabotaging trucks, running a RIB infront of a big ship causing it to ground...those are not acts of terror?
> However, the NRA has had members that have gone on "rampages" in the south in order to make a statement against the unlawful federal government.
really? I live in the south...Hell, I'm a member of the NRA... Where are these "rampages" you speak of? Did I miss the memo from HQ saying "go shoot someone who oposes us"? Not Hardly. It would seem to me that you are a treehugger trying to move the spotlight off of greenpeace.
> The NRA has members who have bombed buildings in the US.
This is turning into FUD. Perhaps you meant to say Greenpeace or ELF instead of NRA?
> The NRA suggests that gun use increase even though it has been proven that more guns is equal to more crime (while regulations on them reduces crimes).
So if the fact of having a gun causes a crime, then the fact of having a pencil causes misspelled words? Has it occured that the gun doesn't do the killing? It takes the will of a human to pull the trigger the excite the round, guns don't do that on thier own.
> If we go by the logic republicans are using, the NRA is worse, since their members are more extreme and target civilians.
again, I must have missed the memo to be extreme. Every member I know is far from extreme. I know lunatics with guns that are NOT members of the NRA that are hella extreme.
> (I can't count how many NRA members were happy that McVeigh targeted an Oklahoma city federal building after Clinton banned assault rifles.)
Nor can I. Know why? because NO member was happy that US citizens died. NO member was happy that some crazyass went and bombed innocents.
The NRA is one of a few organizations that are fighting to keep the second amendment alive. It's liberals and treehuggers that are trying to make it go away. I may not always agree with thier advertizing campaigns; but on the whole, I support what the NRA is doing to keep the freedoms that our forefathers gave us.
(wait, I feel a rant comming on...)
I think that to curb crime, the US needs to bring back PUBLIC EXECUTIONS. Every Wednesday night at 7pm, air them on EVERY network (ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX/UPN/WB/etc). Don't make a game show out of it, just show the hard, gruesome facts. Bring back hangings in the middle of town. If people can SEE what will happen to them if they fsck up hardcore, then perhaps they will think twice about doing it.
Gun control cannot do what Public Executions can.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
You want to make SUVs more fuel efficient? Raise gas prices to double the current level. Apart from the civil disorder it would cause, I can see people shifting to fuel-efficient cars in a split second. THAT is Capitalism. Voting with your dollar.
That's not capitalism, that's "central planning" / "managed economy" / "government meddling". When the price of oil goes up on its own, due to scarcity, and that prompts people to use more fuel-efficient vehicles, that will be capitalism at work. (And it does work, and has worked before - why do you think Honda/Toyota/Nissan have such a large portion of the US auto market?)
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
& stop confusing animal rightists with enviromentalists.
Greenpeace is for the all out culling of feralised domestic animals,
Either you, some stupid journo, or silly animal rights people are confusing animal rights with enviromentalism. Sure they can overlap, but they definitly don't in regards domestic species.
Greenpeace actually supports the culling of feralised domestic animals
Terrorism is the use of violence or the threatened use of violence for political reasons.
Niether vandalism against inorganic objects or stealing qualifies as violence in itself. Although some forms of vandalism can be construed as threatening violence against someone, mostly it doesn't.
None of the vandalism committed by Greenpeace could be construed to have occured in a way to be seen as threatening violence if they don't get their way.
BTW (FWIR) all Greenpeace did was stick their vessel between the whaler & their target, meaning the whalers caused the collision by chosing to take the cause they did.
As a norwegian, it stuns me that Greenpeace is willing to provide false information about whales and whaling in order to raise money.
Greenpeace's strategy is to find the animals that we humans like the most and\or the animals that we find cute (like baby seals). Then they want to draw the public's attention by demonstrating or by some kind of action. (attention = money)
Back to whales: I'm no expert, but there are many different species of whales. It's like there are many different kinds of fish. Further, some kinds of whales are endangered, as some kinds of fish are.
But the whales that norwegians or japaneese hunt are not endangered! We do not hunt endangered whales because that would wipe out the whole population, and what good would that do? You think were're idiots or something?
As far as I can remember, we hunt the minke whale, which have a big population that can bear some hunting.
My conclusion is that whale hunting is not wrong. As is not general fishing. What's wrong is hunting animals that you may entirely wipe out. Generalising about whales is like generalising about fish. It's plain wrong!
(And if you'd like to tell me that whales are smart, don't even go there!)
how we are dependent on a finite fuel
Are you perchance aware of any infinite fuels?
Oil is left over from the carcasses of dead algae.
Uranium is left over from the carcasses of dead stars.
Hydrogen is left over from the afterbirth of the Universe.
They're all fossil fuels.
Oh, yeah, it's so plentiful we'll never run out. Like we haven't heard that before.
Greenpeace ships each have their own LAN with a Linux server. Many of the tech community within Greenpeace has been lobbying for more use of Linux, but it's hard going explaining to environmental activists the importance of open source. As it seems it is hard going explaining environmentalism or even activism in general to a lot of the tech world. I think in the near future you will see more Linux on Greenpeace ships.
I will reply with this: believe what you want.
Ranting will not convince others:)
-[joke removed for your safety]-
For the record, Greenpeace has never spiked trees or sabotaged a truck (unless you count trucks they own).
As for the putting small boats in front of big ships - I've been one of the people in the small boat, and you don't do anything that would put someone else's ship at risk. They always have plenty of room to stop, and/or somewhere to turn. Safety is always kept foremost in mind.
In reality, it is fairly common for peaceful environmental activists to be threatened and physically assaulted.
When some thing has a very long halflife, that means its decay rate is much slower. "Lower decay rate" usually equates to "less dangerous." This is a simplification of course -- different isotopes will have different decay properties and may be any combination of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation -- but good enough to counter the FUD that somehow this stuff will kill you if you come within a mile of it for the next ten thousand years.
As for the "waste," current designs only allow for about 2% of the potential energy to be used. Enrichment could entend the life of this spent fuel dramatically as well as reduce the amount of real waste, but legislation and "proliferation" worries stopped all such activities for power generation in the US back in the late 70s. I put "proliferation" in quotes because unlike in the late 70s, fundamental nuclear "secrets" aren't really secrets anymore. Except for a few nations on UN watch lists, countries that want nuclear materials can get nuclear materials.
This is of course coupled with the fact that even though enrichment methods have been developed that do not generate high concentrations of weapons-grade plutonium -- basically too "hot" for common usage and much more likely to produce a fizzle bomb rather than a fission bomb -- these advances have been conveniently ignored by anti-"nuke" organizations. (I'll skip the extended commentary about how many such organizations can't tell the difference between the power and the weapons industries.)
As for transportation, let's have a look at France -- a country with over 70% of all of its power from nuclear. Nuclear material is transported on their roads on a fairly regular basis. This has been the case for years. France has also had to deal with terrorist attacks within its borders for a long time. That said, will someone please produce examples of nuclear material getting hijacked, co-opted, attacked, accidentally dropped, etc.? I'd really love to hear about it.
As for water being more radioactive after removal, umm... Source? Today's reactors (and those for at least the last..oh...thirty years) do not mix their reactor coolant water with the water used for the steam turbine. Now then, I'm not saying that the heat exchangers are 100% effective. What I am saying is that if the water were to give off even five mrems over background radiation per year -- about 250 mrems per year is common in the US with multiples of that every time you get on a plane -- I would be incredibly surprised.
The waters outside of Diablo Canyon for example are indeed warmer than the surrounding areas. They are not more radioactive though. And if you mean by "disrupting" that organisms that are usually found in the warmer, southern waters can be found, you'd be right. But rather than simply asserting that human influence is automatically a bad thing, please cite reasons why a particular case has resulted in harm rather than just very localized change. Hell, if we took Diablo Canyon offline, the organisms in the area would die out as the water cooled suddenly. Better?
As for the incendiary "'hot particles' of Plutonium/Uranium frequently leak out into the environment due to rusting equipment," I'm afraid I have to call bullshit. Is the nuclear industry perfect? Hell no! But this is totally uncalled for. Current regulations call for investigations when detected levels are at 10 mrems. Even if levels were at ten times allowed levels for a nuclear facility, and every employee on the premises were in on the conspiracy to cover it up, commonly accepted wisdom is that it would take 10 rems (10,000 millirems) to even enter danger levels for humans.
10 mrems still too much? Point of reference folks: you get body irradiated with about 20 mrems from the radioactive potassium isotopes in your own blood each and every year of your life. Everyone. Every year.
And plane crashes!?! The reactor is not in danger. Nuclear reactors in the western world are similar in construction (steel-reinforce
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
It was 134,000,000.00 USD. It's also very sad that you don't know how much money the org you work for brings in. Why don't you know?
=
But greenpeace doesn't want to solve problems, they want the money to keep coming in.
Greenbacks for Greenpeace
By Joel Mowbray
Townhall.com | November 21, 2003
After a year in which financial improprieties gobbled up headlines like never before, it would stand to reason that a brewing scandal involving a major international organization, millions of dollars, and alleged tax evasion would receive similar treatment. But if that major international organization is famed environmental group Greenpeace, the media goes mute.
Two months ago, nonprofit watchdog Public Interest Watch (PIW) filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service alleging that Greenpeace has engaged in massive transfers of money between its many subgroups in order to skirt U.S. tax laws. PIW simultaneously issued a companion report, called "Green Peace, Dirty Money: Tax Violations in the World of Non-Profits," which details how the environmental group transferred $24 million in tax-exempt contributions over a three-period to fund non-tax-exempt activities.
Much like Enron's dizzying array of shell organizations and dummy corporations, Greenpeace has a multitude of entities established throughout the world--all unified by Greenpeace International, which in 2000 had an operating budget of $134 million.
In the U.S., there are two primary groups: Greenpeace Inc. and Greenpeace Fund Inc. Neither has to pay U.S. taxes, but there is one key difference between them: donations to the latter entity are tax-deductible, whereas contributions to the former are not. In IRS-speak, this means that money given to Greenpeace Fund Inc., known as a 501(c)(3) organization (named for the corresponding provision in tax law), can reduce the amount one pays in taxes, whereas funds given to Greenpeace Inc, known as a 501(c)(4) entity, cannot.
Just as common sense would dictate, it is much harder to raise money for a 501(c)(4) group, because donors cannot deduct the contributions from their taxable income.
That's why the IRS has very strict rules about how tax-exempt donations to a 501(c)(3) entity can be used. 501(c)(3) groups are essentially limited to religious, charitable, or educational activities. Such groups can transfer funds to 501(c)(4) entities, but money from those grants are bound by the same restrictions 501(c)(3) organizations face on all their activities.
Here's where things get sticky with Greenpeace's green: almost all the tax-exempt money the environmental group raises, according to PIW, is transferred to its sister organization, a 501(c)(4) group that cannot itself solicit tax-exempt contributions. And it is the sister organization that does all those splashy--and typically illegal--media-driven stunts such as trespassing and destruction of property, activities which would seem to be neither charitable nor educational.
According to the 1999 tax returns for both Greenpeace Inc. and Greenpeace Fund Inc.--the most recent available--over $4 million changed hands between the groups. The 501(c)(3) Greenpeace Fund Inc.--which obviously had an easier time raising funds because its donors get tax write-offs--gave its 501(c)(4) Greenpeace Inc. sister organization $4.25 million, which constituted roughly 30 percent of the latter group's 1999 budget.
Based on the data Public Interest Watch collected from various Greenpeace tax and disclosure forms from 1998-2000, the 501(c)(3) arm, Greenpeace Fund Inc., transferred a total of $24 million to other Greenpeace subgroups that cannot solicit tax-exempt contributions.
PIW Chairman Mike Hardiman has a simple description of Greenpeace's accounting gimmicks: "It's a form of money laundering, plain and simple."
That $24 million diverted to non-tax-exempt purposes is of little interest to the media should be surprising. More surprising still, though, is that the media's interest did
It is great that they got WiFi. Maybe now they will respond to attempts to contact them. I have sent at least a dozen emails to Greenpeace over the last two years concerning highway paving contractors using diesel fuel to wash paving equipment on the side of the highway every day. I have been attempting to get over 50 gallons of diesel fuel removed from next to my drinking water well for over 4 years. The company has refused to cleanup this property or the other 24 such sites that we documented for just that one project. We had to have another well drilled to replace the well. Corrupt Georgia officils have rallied to protect the contractor. The federally funded highway construction contract required the equipment to be taken to an authroized facility each day to be cleaned and included this cost in the contract. Using diesel fuel to clean the equipment on the Right of Way was fraud of the United States but no one seems to care about this fraud or the pollution of the environment by hundreds of thousands of gallons of diesel fuel each year.
I have the impression that Greenpeace does fun projects and ignores the really important ones that really endanger people when it would not be fun to respond to them.
Which is more important, children endangered by diesel fuel in their drinking water or some whales which no one would miss if they went extinct, unless it made the nightly news.
If anyone out there is interested in helping with this problem, I would be extremely surprised, because it would not be politically correct to challenge corrupt state officials.
A challenge to Greenpeace, you got my emails, if you are really concerned about the environment and the dangers of pollution of the environment, contact me. My federal lawsuit is Peacock v. Douglas Asphalt Company, Inc. filed in Federal District Court in Atlanta, Georgia. My brother's state law suit resulted in the state court ruling that conspiracies to violate state and federal criminal statutes which are engaged in by state employees are discretionary, within the official job duties of the state officials and that they are not liable for any of the violations of state or federal law which they commited in covering up and protecting the contractor.
This bodes well for polluters who rely on corrupt officials to protect them. It, after it is upheld on appeal, will be a precident that will have far reaching impact on our efforts to fight to prevent pollution. It is a shame that Greenpeace doesn't consider this important enough to even respond.
I'm a techie that has done work for Greenpeace, and I don't see what all the bickering is all about. First of all, Greenpeace is not radical at all. They're a non-profit CORPORATION with college-educated non-hippies and a heirchical structure. In fact, many environmental groups look down on them for being too corporate and too mainstream. They have NEVER done tree-spiking, and they only their primary way of acting as a watchdog group is by bringing media attention to issues at large non-violently. They are not anti-capitalism. Do they break the law sometimes? Yes, but so did Rosa Parks (and for trespassing as well). Are they doing a lot to save our last remaining rainforests? Yes. Sometimes it takes policing the waters when others can't. They call people out when THEY are already doing something illegal. No one seems to complain when it's James Bond or Batman, and Greenpeace does so nonviolently. About their boats. First of all, most of them are VERY ecologically sound even though they are huge and fast (energy effcient, careful selection of paints and materials, etc.) but they need the size and speed in order to compete with the ships of illegal loggers, toxic dumpers, whalers, etc. About GM foods. People forget that companies like Monsanto developed products such as the "Terminator seed" which was supposed to be given as food aid, spread throughout poorer countries and wipe out other crops, and then become sterile after one genereration so those countries would become dependent on U.S. aid provided by Monsanto. It is no secret that they are very friendly to this administration. Also, people have gotten sick from eating GM foods that have been spliced with genes from animals they are allergic too. It is also nearly impossible to keep seeds from spreading in the wild (which has happened) and breeding with natural plants in unpredictable ways. The fact of the matter is, we simply rushed this tech out to the market and more research needs to be done and more precautions need to be taken with our food supply. Besides, in this county, Greenpeace are mostly pushing for labeling of GM foods. People forget that organizations like Greenpeace are working hard to maintain a BALANCE because this world is becoming more and more unhealthy and unliveable every day. Oh, so why did this make it into Slashdot? Because watchdog groups need tech to compete, and it would be nice if more people donated their time to help these groups out. Heck, no one complained when Wired magazine made organic foods their cover story.