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."

Comments

Funny.

[DAldredge]

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?

Re:Funny.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, waste and extravagance are subjective measures.

For instance, in 1997 Greenpeace circumnavigated James Ross Island in the Antarctic to highlight the problems caused by global warming (the island was previously attached to the mainland by a portion of the Ross Ice Shelf).

The vessel they used was the Actic Sunrise:
Gross tonnage: 949 tonnes
Length O.A: 49.62 m
Breadth: 11.50 m
Maximum Draught: 5.30 m
Maximum Speed: 13 Knots

This makes a your local radio station's publicity mongering H2 look like a matchbox car. But no, it was necessary. A satellite image of a big stretch of blue where none exited before just doesn't compare to the publicity generated by joyriding all the way to Antarctica in a 150 ft private yacht.

Hypocrites.

Re:Funny.

[onyxruby]

Wooden sailing vessels. They are wonderful sources of plying the seas and can be built from all natural materials. They even operate under this thing called wind power. Completely environmentally friendly. Capable of traversing the oceans and the globe itself. Only pollution is from the occupants of the ship. Used for thousands of years to go everywhere you can think of up to an including the first voyages to the Antartica.

They were not sailing a wooden vessel. Nor were they sailing a vessel with a hybrid sail / mechanical propulsion system. Instead they were using a decades old ship that has grossly ineffeceint engines. That ship does not have newer much more environmentally friendly engines, and greenpeace is more than capable of affording them, taking in millions of dollars a year. Greenpeace is chock full of hypocrites, like the ones on the ship.

Alternate energy sources, like windpower, are readily available, the just wont use them.

Re:Funny.

[Peyna]

So is their only option to completely remove themselves from society in order to prove their point? Everyone would just ignore them. It is necessary for organizations such as theirs to accept some amount of hypocrisy in order to exist at all.

It's sort of like how vegans can live with eating food which comes from fields which when harvested result in the deaths of thousands of rodents. It would be nearly impossible to exist without contributing to animal suffering in some form, but they what they can to reduce such suffering.

At least they are doing *something*, which is a lot better than sitting at home in front of your computer complaining about minor hypocricies in the grand scheme of things of which they are are trying to acheive.

Re:Funny.

[cfuse]

Alternate energy sources, like windpower, are readily available, the just wont use them.

If they really cared about the environment, they'd go nuclear. Whingeing greenies need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Re:Funny.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is necessary for an organization such as mine to use the resources available to me in a manner that maximizes my personal happiness.

Therefore, I drive an H2 to the grocery store 2 blocks away.

Or perhaps I just commute to work on light rail.

I'm sure that you'll assume the former, since you've already assumed that people who complain about Greenpeace do nothing other than "[sit] at home in front of [a] computer complaining about minor hypocricies," but it serves to illustrate that constant, irritating principle: the ends do not justify the means.

Greenpeace routinely ignores that little nicety. Tresspass, sabotage, vandalism... a laundry list of "we had to do it to get the world to pay attention to us" actions that are somehow justified by Greenpeace's causes.

Yet Greenpeace wasn't too pleased when somebody [allegedly the French government] ignored those little niceties to dispose of the Rainbow Warrior.

Hypocrites.

Re:Funny.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps they don't have a mandate to go do these things... But they feel they have a duty and an obligation, and frankly I'm glad for that.

Re:Funny.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sort of like how vegans can live with eating food which comes from fields which when harvested result in the deaths of thousands of rodents
Well I accept a few thousand people dying from toxic chemicals so I can enjoy things like TV, driving around, and computer games. Just like we accept people dying from car crashes so we can get around town faster.
Is climbing to the top of a smokestack really going to convince people to look into alternative fuels? Its not like we don't know its polluting, its not like we don't know our SUV gets crappy gas mileage. Make an affordable alternative, and people will buy. I have a solar powered water heater because it saves me money on my gas bill.
The message gets lost in the method. People just write those who climbed the tower off as looneys.

Re:Funny.

[sql*kitten]

So is their only option to completely remove themselves from society in order to prove their point? Everyone would just ignore them. It is necessary for organizations such as theirs to accept some amount of hypocrisy in order to exist at all.

There's absolutely no reason Greenpeace couldn't use wooden, sail-powered ships (Hello? They were good enough for CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS!) with solar panels or small wind turbines on board for their electrical needs (such as radio comms). Chinese admiral Cheng Ho even grew food on the decks of his ships, so they would have a ready supply of lentils (or whatever they eat). Or they could harvest seaweed - the Welsh make bread from seaweed, for example. Or even catching fish, for those who're so inclined.

That Greenpeace prefers to use a more-or-less modern ship, and that they are unconcerned about the ecological impact of that ship, shows them up for what they are, publicity-seeking egomaniacs.

Re:Funny.

[DataCannibal]

Funny ? Dickhead more like.

Have you seen the cost of an ocean going saling vessel? It's not for nothing the only people like Larry Ellison can afford them.

Decades old ships are cheap, when you're running on organisation that is *not* funded by multinational corporations you have to make do with what you can afford and what you can get.

THen again, it's so much easier to point to purported hypocrisy on teh opart of green peace than to answer the questions that they raise

Interesting ideology

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

Re:Interesting ideology

[PeterPumpkin]

And storming a ship is worse than pouring tonnes of lead/mercury crap and deadly stuff down rivers and the air?

Lets assume for a moment that lead and mercury comes from ships (it doesn't). It is a proportional question to ask "And storming your house is worse than you pouring picoliters of lead/mercury crap and deadly stuff down your well and your living room air?"

Well in any case, no. The best thing to do is inform authorities about any illegal polluting. Or if you are an asshat like me, take pictures and blackmail them for a couple thousand grand ;)

Re:Interesting ideology

[Bishop]

On the radio there was an interview with one of the founders of Greenpeace. He was pushed out of the organization because he wasn't radical enough. Greenpeace was originally a group of environmentalists opposed to nuclear weapons. It was not the environmental activist group it has become. This founder told the story of how the ship's galley (kitchen) was subverted. First it was taken over by the vegatarians, then it was taken over by the vegans. This forshadowed what happened to Greenpeace itself.

Greenpeace is typical of too many activist groups. It has been taken over by a bunch of stupid angry people. The angry people might be in the minority, but their actions control the group. As a result the group's message is lost. The message is lost, not because the message isn't important, but because the methods used to convey the message overshadow the message itself.

Re:Interesting ideology

[superdude72]

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?

Not that I'm aware of. Do you have a documented instance of this? Here's an article on a mink farm raid. It says that no one claimed responsibility. I've seen such acts attributed to groups "like" Greenpeace, PETA, and the ALF. But Greenpeace is "like" these groups in the same way that terrorist groups in Iraq were "like" al Qaida. That is: They're totally different. The association exists only in the statements of someone who finds it advantageous to tar all their opposition with the same brush.

This isn't Greenpeace's M.O. They're out to save the whales, not the minks. They have snuck onto mink farms to film the minks being (illegally) fed whale meat. They were there because of the whale meat, though, not the minks. (Not that they're fans of the fur industry; it's just not their mandate the way opposition to whaling is.)

To be fair to the ecoterrorists, it seems more likely that their objective was to economically damage the farming operation, not some hippy-dippy fantasy about happy minks roaming freely in their non-native habitat. I agree, though, that it would be more environmentally responsible to kill the minks rather than set them free. But that's another reason why it's not Greenpeace's M.O. Greenpeace is an environmental group; the people who did this were most likely animal rights' activists.

Re:Interesting ideology

[Anonymous Coward]

And your little story is typical of many anti-environmentalist ones. First present "as fact" a couple of funny sounding anecdotes by people who are "on the inside" and then proceed to use those to tar the reputation of an entire group of people.

The guy you are talking about is Patrick Moore and he now works (for a LOT of money) for the lumber industry, and uses his "Greenpeace founder" credentials to shill for nuclear energy and genetically engineered foods. He has made a great little chunk of change on his much vaunted "change of heart" with respect to Greenpeace and gets a lot of mileage with his stories about how corrupt Greenpeace is, especially when he is talking to people in the Wise Use and anti-environmentalist movements who have been gunning for Greenpeace for decandes now.

Re:Interesting ideology

[Anonymous Coward]

re: Nuclear energy and genetically modified food..
Not in their mindset. They have just enough education to understand the words, but not enough to understand the technology and evaluate the risk/benefit. They come away thinking the risk far outweighs any benefits. They also think riding a horse is safer than riding in an airplane...

But really, who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Ecoterrorism

[onyxruby]

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?

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. /Environmentalist sick of ecoterrorists and extemists making the environmental movement look bad.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[RedWizzard]

Dr. Seiji Ohsumi, Director General of the Institute of Cetacean Research in Tokyo today referred to Greenpeace as an "eco-terrorist organization"

Consider the source. The DG of a "research" institute that is really just a whaling company operating via a legal loophole. Not exactly an impartial judgement.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[Dachannien]

It doesn't matter whether some guy thinks they're terrorists or not - let facts speak for themself:

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.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

HAY GUYS! I learnt a new word: "Terrorism". It's what we call crimes when they're committed so as to oppose our ideological agenda.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[jabberjaw]

A quick google brought this to my attention. I do believe that the boarding of another vessel without the consent of the captain/crew is considered an act of piracy.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[RedWizzard]

It doesn't matter whether some guy thinks they're terrorists or not - let facts speak for themself:

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.

The alleged facts, as reported by the aggrieved party, a group ideologically opposed to Greenpeace who misrepresent what they do in order to evade the worldwide moratorium on whaling. Hardly impartial, as I said.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[Slack3r78]

So you're saying if you were aboard a research vessel in the antarctic and there were people ramming your ship, in an attempt to intimidate you into leaving, there's no element of terror there? I honestly do believe that the term "terrorist" has been thrown around far too much since 9/11, but the actions described here, if accurate, definitely fall into what I would term terrorism.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[DAldredge]

It's a shame they didn't sink your boat. I am saying this because it is a BAD, EVIL, OLD diesel boat that puts of lots of EVIL, BAD, SMELLY polution.

After all, one would not want the environment polluted...

Re:Ecoterrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

Placing persons (in an inflatable boat) in the way of a vessel lawfully on course on the open seas in an attempt to dare them into harming you is like standing in the middle of a freeway and daring the police into not hitting you with their patrol cars. You are idiots and the fact that you are endandering yourself and those on your small boat is criminal endangerment back on land and that simple fact that the maritime rights of way are violated means that they should run you over, excep that you are trading on them having more conscience that you do. If that's not irony, I don't know what is.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[KjetilK]

A quote from Mr. Paul Watson [nationalcenter.org] (as a Greenpeace member, I'm certian you know of him, as he is a principal founder of your organization)

Paul Watson is a good example of an eco-terrorist, but to be fair, he left Greenpeace a long time ago. Whether he was expelled or just felt unwanted is an open matter, but Greenpeace is far more moderate than him.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I a terrorist because I was part of a peacefull protest where we broke into a nuclear power station dressed as homer simpson?

Yes. See if you can follow me: When an unauthorized and untrained person (or group of persons) breaks into a nuclear facility they are putting that entire facility at risk -- regardless of how bening they think their action is, they are introducing non-standard operating conditions which is always dangerous when people are involved.

That makes you a terrorist.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[illumin8]

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)

From the article you linked to:
He was reportedly ousted from Greenpeace in the late 1970s for violating the organization's principle of "non-violent" action.

Clearly, you can't condemn an organization for the radical actions of one of it's members, who was kicked out of the organization because of those actions. If that was the case the NRA would have been called a terrorist organization decades ago. How many wackos and gun-nuts that went on killing sprees have been members of the NRA? Should we start calling the NRA a terrorist organization now?

Your logic is flawed. QED

Greenpeace is great

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Greenpeace is great

[WormholeFiend]

Someone once associated with GreenPeace may have bombed an empty building once (that's not terrorism)

What do you call it then, vandalism? And that is better?

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.

I'm not a Rep or a Dem, but they arent spamming, they are trolling. And I'll defend their right to freedom of speech as much as I'll defend yours. Mod points: use em if you got em.

Re:Greenpeace?

[galonso]

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.

Just don't let the French sneak aboard...

[Anonymous Coward]

because then the Arctic Sunrise will turn into the Arctic Surprise.

/ Rainbow Warrior, where are you now?

Greepeace - good/bad not relevant to the story

[Tojosan]

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

Re:Hmm!

[PeterPumpkin]

Still, the negative connotation is there. I'd rather be called a "flirt" than a "off-duty sexual predator."

Really?

[DAldredge]

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

mmm....Kujira

[terrymaster69]

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.

Greenpeace extremism leads to backlash

[servognome]

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.

Re:TROLL. Mod down and read...

[superdude72]

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.

Why the venom?

[lovecult]

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?