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."
They are against waste and extravagance. They aren't against technology or using energy.
They are against using fossil fuels to the point where it can cause environmental impact, that's why they support alternative energy sources.
Minister of Propaganda? Thats an interesting title.
Technically, *any* spread of information favorable to a cause is propaganda. Most corporations for example, have propaganda divisions, but just call them "Public Relations". The idea that propaganda must be false is a misconception.
Seems like setting up internet service just for two days seems silly.
RTFA. It's not just for two days, it's for whenever they're in an area with WiFi available.
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
Greenpeace labeled "eco-terrorists"
Friday, 14 December 2001, 6:03 pm
Press Release: The Institute Of Cetacean Research
MEDIA RELEASE
December 13, 2001.
Greenpeace labeled "eco-terrorists"
Dr. Seiji Ohsumi, Director General of the Institute of Cetacean Research in Tokyo today referred to Greenpeace as an "eco-terrorist organization" and issued a public statement following the sighting of the Greenpeace vessel Arctic Sunrise in the Antarctic where Japanese vessels are conducting the 15th year of their whale research program.
Dr. Ohsumi said:
"Two years ago, the Greenpeace vessel Arctic Sunrise went to the Antarctic and attempted to disrupt our research. At that time, the Greenpeace vessel caused a collision with our research ship. Greenpeace activities caused damage to property and included theft of personal property and trespassing.
This was a malicious and reckless threat to the lives and safety of the vessel's crew and scientists. It was also a serious violation of maritime navigation laws. Japan views the Greenpeace protest against our scientifically valid and perfectly legal research program as eco-terrorism and as a publicity stunt designed to misinform the public and increase the support and financial wealth of its organisation.
Today, our research vessel has sent a message to the Arctic Sunrise and Greenpeace warning them that any attempt to bring their vessel or persons into close proximity to our research vessels poses a serious safety risk. We also call on the public and all nations involved in maritime activities including those that also sustainably utilize the ocean's resources based on scientific findings to condemn any unlawful activity by Greenpeace.
Japan's research program poses no threat to Antarctic whale stocks. Greenpeace's criticism of the program is based on emotional reasons, ignores both science and international law and is a rejection of the basic principle that resources should be managed on a scientific basis.
Japan has been very open about its research on Antarctic minke whales in the Southern Ocean - not only with the International Whaling Commission's Scientific Committee, but also the general public around the world. By continually misrepresenting the science, organizations such as Greenpeace do nothing towards educating and informing the public of the true worth of Japan's Antarctic minke whale research.
Japan began its whale research program after members of the IWC said that scientific information was insufficient to properly manage the sustainable utilization of whale resources. Since then, Japan's research program has received strong support from the IWC's Scientific Committee.
The IWC Scientific Committee has acknowledged that the research has "made a major contribution to understanding of certain biological parameters" and that "the information produced has set the stage for answering many questions about long-term population changes regarding minke whales in the Antarctic."
This research is particularly important since the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling requires that the IWC's regulations be based on scientific findings.
Our program continues to make major contributions to understanding the biology of whales in the Antarctic. It involves non-lethal research, including sighting surveys and biopsy sampling, as well as a small take of whales for research that cannot be effectively done by non-lethal means.
This includes examination of earplugs for age determination studies, reproductive organs for examination of maturation, reproductive cycles and reproductive rates, stomachs for analysis of food consumption and blubber thickness as a measure of condition. The number of minke whales taken (440) is the smallest number required to obtain statistically valid results. This take in no way threatens the population, which was estimated by the Scientific Committe
WHen you "protest" by sabotaging trees so that loggers will be killed when they try to cut.
We don't do that. Greenpeace has never, ever done that.
Back up your facts.
WHen you intentionaly impede international shipping so that your "voice" will be heard, and in the doing cause a menace to navigation.
Example?
Do you mean to tell me that a very small rubber raft is stopping shipping? No, it's not.
THat's terrorism. Your right to speak your mind ends where my right to not be endangered by it begins.
Sure, can you cite an example where Greenpeace actually endangered someone? Because I am pretty sure that you're going to come back and try to sell me something, but it won't be the truth.
Greenpeace never puts someone in danger. Not loggers, not sailors.
When we did our logging campaign in Oregon last month, I had a chance to talk with the loggers that were being stopped from logging. What did they say when asked how they felt about the protests?
They said: "These people mean us no harm, it's Greenpeace, not ELF."
That's important, the people being protested didn't even have harsh words for us.
We don't do the things we say we do.
And as far as the French, they were charged and payed Greenpeace for KILLING our photographer after SINKING our ship. Who is the criminal there?
Perhaps it's the government that payed Greenpeace for it's crime? Gee, I wonder!?
You don't know what you're talking about.
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
Umm...no... :-p
According to International Maritime Law, nobody other than the authorities of the State whose waters you are in are allowed to forcibly board your ship. And even they require some legal run around. When you are out in the deep (i.e. out of any country's territorial waters), then nobody is allowed to board your ship forcibly. That is considered an act of piracy. That being said, IANAL.
>I was wondering if you care to support your outlandish claims that we support ecoterrorism?
Oh, please, don't make it so easy!
Tree spiking murders innocent workers.
A quote from Mr. Paul Watson (as a Greenpeace member, I'm certian you know of him, as he is a principal founder of your organization)
"I was the person who first thought up the tactic of tree-spiking and as such I feel obligated to defend this child of my imagination." (Link)
Care to make me find more examples?
>We do not and will not tolerate ecoterrorism.
That's why the principal founders of your organization devise murderous tactics, right?
It doesn't sound like a sane organization when it's founded by people like Paul Watson.
>Greenpeace is a very upright environmental organization.
Excellent. Tell me what happened to your boats in British Columbia on July 3, 1997. Find me a link to the info on the greenpeace website, if you're so upright.
Of course, we won't find one, because on that day the people of Victoria, BC fought back and blockaded YOUR boats.
>We have many worthwhile causes.
Many? Care to name 3 that aren't runing people's lives?
>You might not agree with protesting, but it's hardly any type of terrorism.
Hey, I agree with protesting. But protesting doesn't include blockades and property invasion. That crosses the line of protesting (which is marches in the streets, passing leaflets, general education of the public) and becomes sets of criminal acts, even in countries with the most liberal of free speech laws, such as the US. Criminals don't deserve to benefit from their work.
>or the illegal logging in the Amazon
Which you defend through such extreme violations of the law you become pirates yourselves, charged under laws intended for true pirates (such as yourselves -- it's shameful to take over other people's private property like that -- all the more reason the world will have to continue to arm itself against radicals such as yourselves). For some reason it's wrong to pirate logs, but just fine to pirate ships.
You can't be serious.
>I don't know of many other organizations that stand up for the thousands killed in Bophal
You have to go back 2 decades to find something decent Greenpeace did?
That's sad. But, sadder still, is the proof that your protesting really was worth nothing:
"Meanwhile, very little of the money from the settlement reached with Union Carbide went to the survivors, and people in the area feel betrayed not only by Union Carbide (and chairman Warren Anderson,) but also by their own politicians. On the anniversary of the tragedy, effigies of Anderson and politicians are burnt."
At least the US Government managed to squeeze some money out for them. I wonder, how much did Greenpeace give?
Now, for my final point, care to respond to this?
"IT'S OFFICIAL: GREENPEACE SERVES NO PUBLIC PURPOSE"
Revenue Canada, the tax-collecting arm of the government, has refused to recognize the new Greenpeace Environmental Foundation as a charity, saying its activities have "no public benefit" and that lobbying to shut down industries could send people "into poverty."
"But according to court records made public in June by John Duncan, the Reform MP from British Columbia, the federal charities division found the group's activities "have not complied with the law" on charitable organizations."
"The recent Greenpeace campaigns against PVC plasticisers and
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
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
Strange. I've been on all their ships, and quite recently as well, plenty of meat there!
Greenpeace is made up by a bunch of hypocrites, who are at best completely uninformed, and at worse, racists bent on genocide. If you ever get a chance, watch the episode of Penn & Teller's "Bullshit!" where they talk about genetically modified food. It's simply not possible to feed the world without using new technology. If Norman Barlaug, winner of the Nobel Prize, hadn't created some GM wheat, a BILLION people would have died in Asia from starvation, but that doesn't seem to bother Greenpeace. They lobbied Zambia not to accept food donations from the U.S. due to the prescence of GM (which you and I eat everyday), and instead left the people of the country to starve. So, let's say that Greenpeace gets its way, and all GM food is banned, world-wide. That means that millions, if not billions of people are going to starve to death. How many of those people who starve are going to be snotty white kids from suburbia, who like to dress in tie-dye and rant about the whales? None. How many are going to be in impoversished third world nations in Africa and Asia? The world's population grows by 80 million people each year. Where does the food come from to feed them?
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. --Robert A. Heinlein