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."
And storming a ship is worse than pouring tonnes of lead/mercury crap and deadly stuff down rivers and the air?
Id like to see your wife get pregnant living next to a coal power plant or pulp factory with relaxed polution laws.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Is this a case where it is OK for them to have it, just wrong when the 'lesser' people have it.
You've hit on an interesting point. Generally speaking, those shouting the praises of clean environment and conservation are doing so standing on top of their gigantic SUV (or in this case, their gigantic boat armed with wifi technology).
This is why I pretty much ignore Greenpeace, and their hypocritical elitist claptrap.
Profit?
Profit is what greenpeace is about, all the high up people at greenpeace make a rather nice living, paid for by donations.
I'll take the hit here, feel free to mod me down because this is going to be REALLY off-topic.
You see, people on the far left have no principles, save for the acquisition of power.
It's wrong to oppress women, unless you're Bill Clinton. If you're opposed to "abortion rights" you just want to subjugate women, but there's nothing wrong with Ted Turner saying that abortion should be legal because "I ilke to have sex". It's wrong for us to drive SUVs but Greenpeace can pollute the ocean in their big ass boat.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Let's set up the Greenpeace ship with a seive-shaped hull.
>And storming a ship is worse than pouring tonnes of lead/mercury crap and deadly stuff down rivers and the air?
That type of fallacy has been used to justify many long, bloody, and, in hindsight, absolutely wrongheaded actions.
Modern history examples: By Canadians putting Japanese in concentration camps, Americans supporting the vietnam war, and the Taliban blowing up the twin towers, amongst many others others.
Presently debateable issues such as the present US war against Iraq will likely turn out to be, in, say, 20 years hindsight, extremely foolish too.
Eco-terrorists should take a page from Ghandi's book.
>Id like to see your wife get pregnant living next to a coal power plant or pulp factory with relaxed polution laws.
I'd like to see you lose your job because greenpeace has deemed it bad for the environment while you're trying to feed and clothe that kid. Works both ways, huh?
Anyways, I'd like, just for once, for an Eco-Terrorist to think with their mind, rather than their heart. You'd be surprised how much farther you can get when people don't hate your guts. Odd how the Greenpeace webpages are cleansed of incidents like that. I wonder how many times the locals have shown their displeasure with Greenpeace, and Greenpeace, a supposedly trustworthy organization, has just covered them up?
Plenty.
BTW: Watch the last episode of season 1, Penn and Teller's Bullshit! You might learn something about these nuts. Like the fact they, overall, want to ban water. Yup, most greenies are too dumb to know about DHMO (I believe that most Grade 8 classes beat 'em). Don't believe me?
I'm sure you can find a copy somewhere to verify it. Ask your library.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
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.
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
Greenpeace are a bunch of misguided people. They advertise with save the wale, save the environment, and those things. Then if you donate money they use it to protest (violently) against vital medical and agricultural research.
/. who share (at least some of) my opinion. That means there's still hope.
They would rather see half of the third world population die of hunger than allow research into transgenic crops.
They mislead the general population, always playing on cheap sentiments, never ever through the rational, sensible way.
I would label greenpeace as eco-religion, with a small group of fanatic eco-terrorists at the core. I actively discourage anyone from donating money to this group. I can only hope these people will become reasonable one day, since there are obviously important things that deserve the attention of environmentalists.
Glad to see that there are more people on
IANAL, but imagine a beowulf cluster of in Soviet Russia all your belong are base to us welcoming the new SCO overlords.
Greenpeace activists are sometimes acquitted using the necessity defense. That is, individuals are not breaking the law if they are acting to prevent a greater harm. More often, the activists are convicted, but most of the laws broken are fairly minor (trespass or public disturbance or some such). But the moral underpinning of the necessity defense still holds. However, Greenpeace activists are also committed to non-violence. I've seen plenty put their own safety on the line, but they are very careful not to put another person at risk.