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

Save the Wales!

[Anonymous Coward]

Errr i mean, save the wifi!

Re:Save the Wales!

[Anonymous Coward]

and Free Scotland!

Re:Save the Wales!

[Throtex]

Collect the whole set!

- England
- Scotland
- Northern Ireland

Re:Save the Wales!

[plaa]

Save the whales.
Feed the hungry.
Free the mallocs.

Re:Save the Wales!

[DataCannibal]

you forgot: the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, and possibly Rockall as well, (although the Irish may have something to say about that) if you're after a full set :-)

Re:Save the Wales!

[Halfbaked Plan]

Visualize whirled peas.

Re:Save the Wales!

[BeCre8iv]

Not to mention The rock of Gibraltar, Diego Garcia and Australia.

good

[Anonymous Coward]

So we can have live updates of the seals beatings in canada, thanks greenpeace.

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]

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.

Re:Funny.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Uh oh, the left commie moderators are on to you!"

Yeah, uh, liberal media, terrorists, and all that. Ditto.

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.

[Lord Kano]

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

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.

[DAldredge]

Funny, that sounds just like the Current GOP. Face it, politicians, as a general rule, have no principles, save fot the acquisition of power.

Re:Funny.

[TheSpoom]

IMHO, if I were a member of Greenpeace, and I was heading into ice-laden Antarctic waters, I wouldn't want to be in a wooden vessel.

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.

[nwbvt]

Don't apply logic to what those people do. As a general rule, they aren't that smart.

Re:Funny.

[DAldredge]

HINT: Open a history book and look at how they used to power ships.

HINT TWO: It has something to do with wind.

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.

[onyxruby]

I couldn't agree more. Only recently have some in the environmental movement started waking up and realizing that their opposition to all things nuclear had an anti-military basis and not an environmental basis. I predict this issue will divide the environmental movement and eventually splinter it away from the whole anti-war movement. Nuclear energy is the cleanest energy we have, yet it's greatest impediment is the environmental movement.

Re:Funny.

[Lord Kano]

What a bizarre turn your search for hypocrisy takes. Oh my god, he had an affair with a woman who was much younger than him. Therefore, he wants to send them all back to the kitchen. How do you justify this enormous leap of logic? Connect the dots for me.

I wasn't talking about Monica. I was talking about Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broaderick.

Their mandate is protecting the ocean. How are they supposed to get to the middle of the ocean without a big-ass boat? What a weird argument you are trying to make.

They have a "mandate" to protect the ocean? From whom? What authority does Greenpeace have? If someone is dumping toxic waste in international waters, clubbing baby seals, or killing the dolphins that get caught in their nets does Greenpeace have the right to do anything about it?

I'll even condone your SUV.

I neither need nor want you to condone my choice of vehicles.

If you regularly need to transport large groups of people through inhospitable terrain, then you're perfectly justified owning an SUV.

I neither need nor want you to understand/agree with my choice of vahicles.

LK

Re:Funny.

[DAldredge]

So?

Sometimes one has to make sacrifices to accomplish ones goals.

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.

[loraksus]

[allegedly the French government]
umm. . . the French defense minister kind of came out and admitted it was a sanctioned operation.
Perhaps you should at least make an effort to try to look informed.

Re:Funny.

[earthianonice]

I thought that greenpeace was against the use of fossil fuels(ship) and plastics(computers)?

I'm an greenpeace activist for several years now and indeed we use things like fossil fuel and plastics but it's always kept in mind that these are polluting substances so they are used as less as possible and we try to recycle as much as possible off it. It's only used when really necessary and where we can we use alternatives (sailing with "Rainbow warrior") but this is not yet possible for arctic research (practically and financially). Also if you can point us to non-polluting computers, contact us because we'de rather have them but don't expect us to learn everything from heard. Nobody can be totally non-polutting because governments don't give us the chance yet to be like that but it's important as long as this lasts that we don't exagerate with it.

Re:Funny.

[DAldredge]

IOW, it is OK for you to use these tools because you think it's for a good reason, but when others uses these same tools, they are on a quest to rid the Earth of life.

That doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense.

Re:Funny.

[loraksus]

Wooden sailing ships had a stellar safety record too!
Oh wait. Let me check t3h Intarweb.
Nope.
They didn't. In fact it was quite dismal.
There are a couple reasons why people were press ganged into serving aboard them.

Re:Funny.

[DAldredge]

Yes, and airplanes like that damn old boat, release LOTS of pollution into the air.

IOW, generating pollution is OK if they are doing it, and wrong if other do.

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.

[DAldredge]

IOW, it's OK to use fossil fuels if it helps you, but others are just trying to fuck up the Earth if they use them?

Let me guess, you are a big believer in everyone is equal, just some are more equal than others?

Re:Funny.

[bm_luethke]

"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."

So sayeth many of the pro-Iraq war people also. At least they are trying to remove despotic dictators from the world. So what if Haliburton profits, millions are freed now, since we can deal with some hypocracy (in fact, as you claim, one can not get away from it) that shouldn't matter, right?.

Re:Funny.

[Fadarm]

And this is why you suck at reading comprehension. If they were so into alternative sources of energy, then why would they be using decades old diesel engines on board their ship? There's plenty of alternatives available to them, they just choose to ignore them. Jacques Cousteau's Alcyone, for example, is a hybrid wind power/diesel powered ship. How come these enviro-freaks haven't thought of that? How come these enviro-freaks still use decades old diesel technology? It's because they're hypocrits, with an elitist attitude. Good enough for them, but not for everyone else. But hey, it's ok for them to use it, I mean, they have the right attitude! Not to mention, they're the largest domestic terrorist organization in the US. But that's neither here nor there.

Re:Funny.

[dafoomie]

I'm not a fan of Greenpeace, but don't you think that a wooden sailing ship would be just a -little- impractical? Even in people with the most extreme point of view, there comes a point where practicality will prevail.

But, however, at least one of their ships, the Rainbow Warrior II, is a dual sailing/motor ship.

And because of their previous experience in having their ships sunk by foreign governments, I don't blame them for not investing too heavily in a single ship.

Info on their ships here

Re:Funny.

[ConsumedByTV]

Thanks for playing but it's you that's wrong.

By the way, you're wrong!

For the lazy:
[...]
The French Government tried to deny their involvement and a major cover-up ensued. By September the French defence minister Charles Hernu had resigned and France paid New Zealand $7m compensation.

Five years later the UN criticised French failure to uphold the sentences of their convicted agents
[...]

Re:Funny.

[bm_luethke]

"Make an affordable alternative, and people will buy."

Better yet, have every person in the US (and other industrialised countries that have the space) drive SUV's. The faster we use up our oil the faster we will be forced to go to alternative fuels. You can make lower polluting SUV's that still use a lot of gas.

While that may actually sound counterintuitive, think about it for a moment. As long as oil is readily available and cheap there is going to be little push to go to something else. There is no incentive to spend billions to develope a true alternative fuel as there is no reason to buy one (well, other than pollution but history has shown most do not care until money is involved). Plus it is more environmentally sound to give it all in one quick go instead of dragging it out (especially given that our need raises slower than our increased ability to remove oil from the ground leading to an extended amount of time to spew pollution). Less pollution in the long run.

I guarentee you that if our oil supplies dwindel to the point of oil becoming near unaffordable that alternative fuels will be made quickly.

Re:Funny.

[Fadarm]

Want to attack? Ok, let's go. Let me put it this way. I live in a coastal city in Alaska. There's logging here, there used to be a pulp mill here. They've had the audacity to come here, not once, but twice. I can find pictures if you'd like. The second time, they were here last summer, and they had a nice open house. I went to it, simply because I was curious. I personally dislike Greenpeace, because I believe they're going about things the wrong way. Their hearts are in the right place, but their heads aren't screwed on too tight. I, too, have been on this boat. I too, went on a tour where their captain showed us around.

When we got to the engines, he made it a point to tell us that the engines use less fuel, and make fewer emmisions than most diesel engines of that size. I then asked him how he could even condone the use of diesel engines if their whole mission was to eliminate all but the most nessesary uses of fossil fuels. I anticipated his reply which was that this use was considered nessesary by them. I then told him that there are many alternatives he could use that would even further reduce their use of fossil fuels on this boat. I used the Alcyone as an example. Because of it's sails (well, more like vertical airfoils) it uses 1/3 less fuel than it would without them. He said to me, and this is nearly verbatim, because the hypocrisy absolutely stunned me, it was burned into my memory, "Our mission is so important, we don't have the funds or the time to retrofit our ships with mechanisms such as that." Basically, he was saying, as I said above, "We're more important than you, so you should quit using so much fossil fuel. But we'll use it all up if that's what's nessesary to complete our mission."

So screw you. I don't comment unless I know what I'm talking about, and I heard this straight from the horses mouth. But hey, go do something useful like hug a tree, because you can't see the hypocrisy of this organization that you defend. In other words, to quote an unwise man, "Don't assume so much, you look like a jack ass."

Re:Funny.

[littleRedFriend]

You take my karma, but you can not take my opinion. To whomever modded parent post as flamebait, grow up!

Re:Funny.

[LordLucless]

Wooden sailing vessels...can be built from all natural materials.

Um...if by "all natural materials" you mean "wood". When you build a sailing vessel out of stone, you see, it isn't wooden. It also sinks, generally. You could try pumice.

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.

[WoodenRobot]

Or they could harvest seaweed - the Welsh make bread from seaweed, for example.

What you're referring to is Laverbread, and it isn't really bread - it's more like a dark green disgusting mulch. There's nothing funnier than seeing someone come to a Welsh market and coming across the hideous stuff when they thought they'd be getting something nice that looks like loaf... Ugh! Laverbread!

Re:Funny.

[loraksus]

Just curious, what fuel do you think is the most commonly used in ships?
Oh, Cousteau's Alcyone is half the size and probably cost a lot less, not that it matters to you, but whatever.

Re:Funny.

[isorox]

Protesting groups will always find something to moan about, because if the world follwed their advice then they'd be out of a job. First we have fossil fuels, protesters moan, we invent nuclear, protesters moan, we build wind farms, protesters moan, we build tidal power stations, protesters moan. What makes you think they wont complain about solar or fusion?

Of course protesters complain about other protesters. Local people complain about trucks passing through their village, we build a bypass. Then rent-a-protest move in andcomplain about the great swathes of land being taken up. (Even Motorway interchanges and Junctions are mostly fields)

Re:Funny.

[DataCannibal]

Insightful ? Fuck off this is just strawman argumentation with a healthy helping of lying !

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

Re:Funny.

[Dashing Leech]

You seem to be taking some liberties with the use of "accept". Nobody is saying that something shouldn't be done to reduce the damage caused by the examples given, but it is (by definition) accepted that they do happen as a consequence of our choices as a society.

I don't accept a few thousand people dying in the WTC as the cost of accepting freedom.

So, are you saying you'd prefer to live in a police state such that everyone is under 24 hour surveillance and you need state permission to leave your home? That is, as long as such a state could guarantee that people won't get bombed. This is basically what you said in the context of "accept" that the previous poster used.

Likewise, if we wanted to do away with automobile deaths, we could simply make driving, selling, or manufacturing automobiles illegal. If we wanted to do away with deaths from pollution, we could shut down our power supplies and industries.

The point is that we, as a society, accept that that there will be consequences for our choices that may involve many deaths. The question is whether the benefits are worth the risk. Is freedom worth the risk of some reduction in security? Is mobility worth the risk of automobile accidents? Clearly, Western society has answered yes to these questions and with good reason. However, every effort is being made to minimize the harm without minimizing the benefits.

Iraq is a different question. The above "harms" are results of an unintended consequence from risks we accept from our choices, and such harms are random and unpredictable. If we decided that Joe Smith was specifically going to die if we chose to use automobiles, we wouldn't drive automobiles. It is the risk that we accept, not specific instances.

The "harms" from mis-treating prisoners are quite intentional and specific. Same with invading Iraq in the first place. It's also not clear what, if any, benefit comes from them.

Re:Funny.

[CGP314]

It is interesting to note that one of the founders of greenpeace has turned against them.


-Colin

Re:Funny.

[Sethb]

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?

Re:Funny.

[ybmug]

> How clean is nuclear waste?

Yup, it's pretty nasty stuff.

> Where do you put the waste?

Deep in a mountain somewhere where nobody would go anyway.

> Isn't it true that "cleaner" energy in this case, really means that the problem of who it's dirty for is so far down the road that you couldn't care less?

Right, because spewing out waste gasses from burning coal, oil, etc is being very considerate of future generations. And I'm quite sure future generations will want to live deep in some cave.

> What happens when a real terrorist, you know those same people that blew up the WTC on 9/11, blows up your "clean" nuclear waste?

Again, put it deep in some mountain with the military guarding it.

> Nuclear energy isn't clean at all and if you think that's the cleanest, what do you think of solar, wind and hydroelectric? Perhaps natural gas?

How many toxic biproducts are generated when you make an (electric) solar panel? What do you do with all the old batteries that are used to store the generated electricity?

How much energy is used to create wind turbines and how many energy and resources go into maintaining wind turbines?

What type of ecological impact does hydroelectric energy have?

How much natural gas is available? Is it enough to supply eletrical demands?

> How about being self sustainable?

That is a good point.

Re:Funny.

[Halfbaked Plan]

Greenpeace wouldn't be able to get all those rich contributors 'on board' if they didn't speak their lingo.

Re:Funny.

[Halfbaked Plan]

Exactly.

If you were a rich Greenpeace contributor, you'd probably want to make the trip on daddy's yacht.

Re:Funny.

[TheSpoom]

Agreed...?

Re:Funny.

[duncanfoo]

People were press ganged into serving on ships of war, not the merchant navy. Foo

Re:Funny.

[sketerpot]

Oh boo-fucking-hoo. If you're in Greenpeace, you should base all such decisions on what sounds environmentally friendly and upon "information" you just made up. For example, if fusion power becomes a viable reality, should we use it? Yes, we should. But according to Greenpeace, it's nuclear (so it doesn't sound environmentally friendly), and it allegedly has all the problems of fission (a "fact" pulled out of someone's ass; it can't melt down even with the most braindead design and handling, it produces very little waste, it doesn't need Uranium, etc.). Conclusion: let's put photovoltaic panels on our roofs, build windmills that give off a pretty erratic stream of electricity (which will need to be supplemented with conventional power plants, which due to the efforts of people like Greenpeace members will probably be fossil-fuel-belchers rather than the much cleaner nuclear fission plants), and disrupt wetland wildlife habitats with hydroelectric power. And I'm pretty sure flywheels come in here somewhere as well.

Go for the impractical thing that sounds environmentally friendly. Go for the wooden sailboat.

Re:Funny.

[flyneye]

They waste much time and expense.
for instance:As farmers began poisoning prairie dogs (whose holes proliferate in pastureground and break cattles legs,a death sentence for a cow.Not to mention nearly every colony carries rabies)Greenpeace intervened with court orders to stop while they rescued and moved the prairie dogs.
So loads of soapy water was pumped into the holes to flush the prairie dogs(extinguishing any snakes and owls that also share the holes)hundreds of ungrateful prairie dogs were spared,biting only a few saviors.They were taken to a nearby game preserve and loosed where coyotes feasted on the overgrown rats because they hadnt established new holes for protection.
Lets hear it for greenpeace!well meaning, inept morons,winging it rather than taking the big picture of consequences in.I find this is a recurrent and popular theme with liberal activists.They would give everything,including your land,livelyhood and money to save the inconsequential.Perhaps Neitches "beyond good and evil" should be required reading before membership in these farsicle clubs.

Re:Funny.

[flyneye]

LOL,No reason they couldnt use inflatable raft and shish-kebob skewers and eat dirt for minerals either.

Re:Funny.

[turgid]

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.

I disagree. They're opposition to certain things and their opinions are very often based on the misinterpretation of facts, and sometimes on plain superstition. Often, what they go about "doing" achives nothing other than to whip up public fear and hysteria over minor matters, put themselves and others directly in danger (e.g. inflatable boat intercepting container ships or scaling the containment building at Sizewell B nuclear power station), spreading propaganda and misinformation which is then believed as scientific fact by the gullable and naieve, and generally getting in the way of people who actually know what they're doing and usually doing good.

Their members are often confrontational and belligerent when you disagree with them and become irrational and aggressive. When I was young and impressionable, I though that the likes of Greenpeace were maybe doing good, and I admired them. When I grew up and learned a bit more about the world in general, I see them very differently. They are a political pressure group no different to any other. They are made up mainly of "alternative culture" people, often very young (under 25), with a grudge against mainstream society, unwilling or unable to rationally and impartially consider facts and unable to comprehend let alone to use the scientific method.

Very often, Greenpeace's loud and alarming "scientific" claims are later found to be nonsense when investigated by an impartial third party. Unfortunately, the news media favour sensationalism, so we don't get to hear much about it.

Re:Funny.

[sketerpot]

Reusing old computers is about as environmentally friendly as you can get, and cheaper too.

Re:Funny.

[Peyna]

Wow, you get your information from Penn & Teller? It's simply not possible to feed the world without using new technology

The problem isn't a lack of food, it's politics. Enough food exists, but it doesn't get to where it needs to be. (Heck, we pay farmers NOT to grow crops).

Re:Funny.

[Lord Kano]

None of these incidents were proved.

I notice that you did not say that he didn't do it. That speaks volumes.

Anyway, what does his private life have to do with the public stands he takes on issues that matter to women?

His public stand on women's issues, specifically that he signed the Violence Against Women Act, is that made it legal to investigate his private life.

They have as much right to ram a whaling ship as the whaling ship does to poach whales.

Which is none. But when you damage someone's property there is a victim. One that has a right to legal recourse.

It's not just me, though. There is a mountain of empirical data showing why SUVs are bad.

My SUV gets better gas mileage and has lower emissions than the passenger car that I replaced when I bought it.

Even so, I don't need your approval.

LK

Re:Funny.

[ryanmfw]

spreading propaganda and misinformation which is then believed as scientific fact by the gullable and naieve, and generally getting in the way of people who actually know what they're doing and usually doing good.

So, they're like the left Bush Administration? ;-)

Re:Funny.

[DAldredge]

Please point out where I lied.

Re:Funny.

[petsounds]

The problem isn't the food. The problem is lack of population control. There are already more people than the earth can sustain. The faster we produce more babies, the faster the non-renewable energy sources we have on earth are depleted, and the faster we poison ourselves with our own pollution (especially since pop. growth is the largest in developing countries, who also have the lowest pollution standards).

Unfortunately, a lot of this comes down to cultural issues. Many "developing" nations have cultural views about birth control which are entirely outdated -- i.e. they don't want to use birth control at all. China had the right idea, but I'm not sure if any other countries have the cohones to follow their lead. Most seem to still be in the 20th century, short-sighted mindset that resources and expansion is unlimited.

Re:Funny.

[loraksus]

People were press ganged into serving on ships of war, not the merchant navy. Foo

You have a point here right?

Re:Funny.

[spike hay]

Also lots of the protests at sea are in international waters where they have every right to be, these type of actions really the only way they have of getting the message across and are perfectly legal.

Boarding ships in international waters is considered piracy. The activists can legally be shot.

Re:Funny.

[Hognoxious]

Well yes he does have a point, actually. He replied to your post about wooden ships having bad safety records and how this necessitated the use of press-gangs. That's probably because, as he said, they were warships, which tend to be dangerous places to be due to enemy warships chucking large lumps of iron in their general direction. That was how you conducted war in ships at that time.

Re:Funny.

[Hognoxious]

being in the middle only means you're half right

What if one extreme says 2 + 2 = 3 and the other says it's 5?

Re:Funny.

[Hognoxious]

I notice that you did not say that he didn't do it. That speaks volumes.

The only thing it says to me is that he's neither Bill Clinton nor the alleged victim. After all, they're the only ones that know for sure.

So, for the record, please state that he did do it. And be sure to include your real name and address, for the benefit of his attorneys.

Re:Funny.

[loraksus]

And wooden merchant ships were perfectly safe? eh?

Re:Funny.

[LWATCDR]

The problem I have with Greenpeace is that they try and hide there political agenda. I mean yes save the whales is a great cover but that is not what they are really about. If it was they would not be in the USA at all. The US with the exception of a few native amaerican tribes does not whale!
Japan, Iceland, and Norway do whale. So go at it. I want to see Greenpeace go nuts in those countries. Iceland is even pretty small and they import everything but fish and Alumninum.
Go nuts. Get the world to boycot them until they stop killing whales.
Will not happen.

I lost all respect for Greenpeace when I saw them protest an SSBN going out to sea. I had never heard of them protesting Russian or Chinese SSBNs got to sea. As to minor hypocrisy that is the most dangerous kind. The world would be a lot better place if we never heard anyone ever say "This is wrong but I can do it because I have a point to prove".

Re:Funny.

[Andrew-Greenpeace]

Profile on the man can be found here. And you might want to also read some of the more obvious lies he's told in the past.

Re:Funny.

[McSnarf]

Germany is on the list of these countries. People actually get tax breaks etc. for having children. Population control ? Who would pay for old-age pensions ? (Millons of immigrants, who'd love to, if we'd let them...)

So the hoi polloi breeds an army of will-be-unemployeds...

Re:Funny.

[DataCannibal]

where you said that greenpeace were against the ues of fossil fules and plastics

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

[cheekyboy]

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.

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

[BJH]

Er... I believe a "couple of thousand grand" is normally called a "couple of million".

Re:Interesting ideology

[PeterPumpkin]

Point taken, I stand corrected ;)

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

[shepd]

>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.

Re:Interesting ideology

[Usquebaugh]

Never blackmail people for more than the cost of killing you.

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

[Citizen of Earth]

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.

The medium is the message. They have become nihilists, except they lack the true purity of spirit because they seem to think they are something better.

Re:Interesting ideology

[DAldredge]

What is so bad about Nuclear energy?

Re:Interesting ideology

[ChipMonk]

I'd like, just for once, for an Eco-Terrorist to think with their mind, rather than their heart.

Thinking? Who said anything about thinking?

Greenpeace's tactics are the same as anti-Semitism, the Crusades, and James Carville. The only way to get along with their practitioners/followers, is to avoid rational thought as much as possible.

Re:Interesting ideology

[Bishop]

I don't have to tar the reputation of Greenpeace. They have done it to themselves.

Why can't an environmentalist like nuclear energy and genetically engineered foods? Both have advantages and risks. In some cases the advantages outweigh the risks.

Re:Interesting ideology

[nwbvt]

Eco-terrorism isn't a new phrase, even today the FBI takes it seriously. Groups like ALF and ELF are especially bad. A couple of weeks ago there was even a of terror alert set because the FBI suspecting ELF of planning a string of attacks (it started after they set a fire to a lumberyard to protest that their forklifts pollute too much. By that logic, what ELF property should I burn down to protest that their fires pollute too much?). They don't get too much attention because they don't target human beings (although there was a scary quote from a big shot in PETA that basically said terror attacks that did target humans would be acceptable), though that doesn't mean they aren't dangerous. When they burn down a drug research company, think of all the people who will die because drug research was set back a few years. And its only a matter of time before some innocent security guard gets trapped in one of those fires.

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...

Re:Interesting ideology

[realdpk]

"Id like to see your wife get pregnant living next to a coal power plant or pulp factory with relaxed polution laws."

I got news for you. That's not how women get pregnant.

Re:Interesting ideology

[identity0]

Take that anecdote - then replace "galley" with "USA", "vegetarian" with "christian", and "vegan" with "fundamentalist".

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.

Ph33r.

Re:Interesting ideology

[Andrew-Greenpeace]

Nope, Greenpeace does not do animal rights issues. Among other things, Greenpeace works to protect endangered species and habitat, but that's different. And, speaking as someone who has worked on Greenpeace ships, and paid an unwelcome visit to a few others (carrying destructively/illegally logged wood, for example) I know first hand that Greenpeace activists are extremely safety consious. We might take a few risks for ourselves when we have to, but NEVER put anyone else's safety at risk. Property damage is also against the Greenpeace ethic. Finally, Greenpeace activists are accountable to the law and take responsibility for their actions. (Although I will admit we have pretty good lawyers.)

Re:Interesting ideology

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange. I've been on all their ships, and quite recently as well, plenty of meat there!

Re:Interesting ideology

[ConsumedByTV]

You know, you make right wingers like myself look like less of a troll than you.

You should knock it off if you want to actually discredit these stupid hippies.

Re:Interesting ideology

[AftanGustur]

Why can't an environmentalist like nuclear energy and genetically engineered foods? Both have advantages and risks. In some cases the advantages outweigh the risks.

I think that's over simplyfied and the whole discussion has been taken over by radicals.

Personally I don't think that there are any (or much) dangers eating genetically modified foods, but I want to know what I'm eating, so if I buy genetically modified corn I want that to be marked clearly on the product.

Another reason for why I want it marked, is that I think the dangers for the environment have not been sufficiantly researched, and I want to vote "no" with my wallet to genetically altered food products.

Re:Interesting ideology

[mikael]

What is so bad about Nuclear energy?

The main objection is that the waste products (fuel rods) remain radioactive for thousands of years and need constant observation. It usually proves to be very difficult to find a suitable location for such storage facilities. And if such a location is found, then there is much public opposition to the transportation of such materials by road or rail, due to the fear of contamination by an accident.

There is also objection to the environment due to the effect that the water used during power generation is slightly more radioactive than it was before it went in. Activists claim that the ocean currents/tides were not been studied thoroughly enough and that the radiation is gradually building up.

There is also the suspicion that the facilities are not properly maintained, and that "hot particles" of Plutonium/Uranium frequently leak out into the environment due to rusting equipment. Not helped by places such as Windscale.

There is also the issue that the water required for power generation ends up being several more degrees warmer that it was before, and disrupts ecosystems.

And there is also the fear of a plane crash or something similar onto a reactor.

Personally, I wouldn't object to nuclear energy if they put the reactor somewhere sensible like several miles underground in a disused mine. Then there wouldn't be any need transportation above ground. And they wouldn't have to worry about plane crashes, or leaks of "hot particles".

Re:Interesting ideology

[dave420]

I remember when a bunch of "environmentalists" released all those mink from that fur farm. They were running around the countryside killing everything they came across. They decimated lots of species around.

Environmentalism is great, but you have to respect everyone else. You can't let your ideology get the better of you (goes for FOSS people too ;)). Killing things is not the best way to promote not killing things.

Re:Interesting ideology

[AxelBoldt]

The message is lost, not because the message isn't important, but because the methods used to convey the message overshadow the message itself.

Do you know the message of Greenpeace? Yes you do. Why? Because of their effective actions which keep them in the news.

Re:Interesting ideology

[jarran]

Greenpeace are absolutely NOT the same people that release mink. Greenpeace are primarily a environmental organisation. They occasionally lean towards some "animal rights" type campaigns (dolphins, whales, seals) but they certainly don't go round irresponsibly releasing non-native animals.

Greenpeace may cause some good, but I think they are terribly misguided at other things.

Well, considering you don't seem to have a clue what Greenpeace do, I don't think your in any position to claim that they are "misguided".

Re:Interesting ideology

[AxelBoldt]

Eco-terrorists should take a page from Ghandi's book.

You really like the term "eco-terrorist", don't you? Just say it a couple more times, if it makes you feel better. It doesn't help your argument though.

Greenpeace actually did take a page from Gandhi's book. They regularly employ the tactic of small breaches of the law in order to point to big injustices. Exactly like Gandhi's Salt March. It's called civil disobedience.

Re:Interesting ideology

[Bishop]

Another problem with nuclear power is that uranium mining is very dirty. Huge mounds of midly radioactive waste slag is produced. It is almost a given that some of the waste will make it into the ground water. Elliot Lake is a good example of this.

Nuclear is preferable over coal and oil fired electricity. Fossil fuel power produces insane ammounts of toxic waste. The newer "clean" power plants turn airborn polution into solid toxic waste. A state of the art coal fired plant uses lime to remove airborn polution. For every tonne it removes from the air, 6 tonnes of solid toxic waste are produced. While not radioactive, it is still a huge pile of junk that is going to sit around for a very long time.

Nuclear power, and fossil power are the two cheaper forms of electricity, and can be used any where. Unlike hydro electric, solar, or wind which have specific requirements.

Re:Interesting ideology

[sketerpot]

Personally, I wouldn't object to nuclear energy if they put the reactor somewhere sensible like several miles underground in a disused mine. Then there wouldn't be any need transportation above ground. And they wouldn't have to worry about plane crashes, or leaks of "hot particles".

Some places do that. Other places have the reactor above ground in a heavy concrete containment structure (and that's on top of the reactor's concrete casing). And they do make sure that nuclear plants meet certain regulations for maximum radiation emissions. They pale into insignificance when you consider the amount of background radiation.

Don't worry about hot particles. Worry about the alternative to nuclear power: belching out poisonous fumes at random, and in some cases (like coal plants) putting several times as much radiation into the atmosphere as nuclear plants.

Unfortunately, the people opposing the adoption of nuclear power have forced us to get our power from very dirty polluting CO2-and-often-radiation-belching acid-rain-causing coal and oil plants.

Re:Interesting ideology

[Cecil]

Likewise, History will look back upon the conflict in Iraq as what happens now, and in the future. Will it actually become a successful democracy? If so, the war will look like a great thing 20 years from now.

The ends do not justify the means. Not now, not in 20 years. Falsely accusing a country of various crimes in order to invade and then rebuild them in your own image is abhorrent.

It may well be that Iraq is better off with a democracy and free-market economy, but aside from the Iraqis themselves, it's not anyone's right to make such a decision. It doesn't matter how you slice it, the world's most powerful military superpower unilaterally invading and occupying a soverign nation outside the scope of major international agreements is an extremely dangerous precedent, it drastically increases instability in the region, and it goes against everything the USA claims to stand for.

Re:Interesting ideology

[ConsumedByTV]

My sarcasm stands corrected!

Re:Interesting ideology

[shepd]

>It's called civil disobedience.

Ghandi didn't get charged as a pirate.

Ghandi didn't take over helpless ships in the ocean.

Eco-Terrorism makes me sick. You absolutely DON'T squat on someone's property if you want my sympathy.

>It doesn't help your argument though.

Oh, it sure does. Google can show you how popular the term is. When the entire world starts saying it (it's almost there now) then Greenpeace will be Eco-Terrorists, no matter how hard they try to deny it.

Re:Interesting ideology

[Zenzilla]

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.

I'd still like to some evidence that links the Taliban with the twin towers. From what I understood the US went after them because they were nice to people they thought were resposible for the attacks.

Re:Interesting ideology

[shepd]

>From what I understood the US went after them because they were nice to people they thought were resposible for the attacks.

Now that's odd, considering Palestinian militants first claimed responsibility for the attacks. The US has often been accused of taking sides, but this is the first time I've heard them being associated with taking sides with Palestinian militants, rather than Isrealis.

Re:Interesting ideology

[AxelBoldt]

You absolutely DON'T squat on someone's property if you want my sympathy.

They don't want your sympathy, they want to get on the news. And they're good at it, that's why they get my money.

Re:Interesting ideology

[ConsumedByTV]

No, these are not the same people that release non-native mink into the natural environment.

Greenpeace doesn't do that type of activity.

Re:Interesting ideology

[ConsumedByTV]

You must have entirely missed that banner hang on the coal plant on the east coast, eh?

Re:Interesting ideology

[spike hay]

If breeder reactors were not banned by Carter, we could produce the vast majority of our reactor fuel in the reactors themselves and reduce uranium mining to virtually nil.

In regular reactors, U-235 is used for fuel. This isotope comprises on .7% of the uranium found in nature. Reactor fuel is uranium refined to several percent U-235.

Since breeder reactors use this otherwise useless U-235 as a precurser to plutonium, you have to mine much less, and high level waste is reduced.

Re:Interesting ideology

[Hognoxious]

Depends. Are those metric grand or imperial?

Re:Interesting ideology

[HuguesT]

It's not *quite* as simple as that. First of all fast breeder type reactors that can produce plutonium suitable for use in reactors need more cooling than normal reactors. This usually means primary cooling is done with liquid sodium which comes with a lot of problems and special needs.

Then the product of fission must be reprocessed to separate the Plutonium from the rest. This is not completely trivial and usually involves processing in a different location to where the breeder is located. This means transport of highly radioactive material, which no one likes.

All in all it turns out that the economical promises of breeder reactors are actually hard to fullfill. In France (where 80% of the electricity production comes from nuclear plants) they had a breeder program too (called SuperPhoenix), and they've shut it down as well, after safety and economical concerns became overwhelming.

You are correct in saying that breeders can be used to transmute high-level, long half-life wastes, in particular to get rid of Neptunium 237, but even this requires special infrastructure not found anywhere in the West as far as I know.

Also there is the proliferation issue.

Re:Interesting ideology

[Andrew-Greenpeace]

Speaking as a US citizen, I have to point out that civil-disobedience is a valuable part of my history. The women's suffrage movement and the civil rights movement are two good examples of movements that likely would not have succeeded without using civil-disobedience.

Peaceful civil-disobedience is about as far from terrorism (which by definition uses violence or the threat of violence) as you can get.

If you aren't familiar with the concept of civil-disobedience, you can find lots of good stuff through google - like this essay.

Re:Interesting ideology

[ttfkam]

In IFR/AFR reactor models, you don't need to separate out the plutonium. In fact, all the actinides can be separated from the elements lower on the periodic table fairly easily. It's only when you are striving for plutonium purity that those gross inefficiencies comes into play. In addition, IFR/AFR designs include the reprocessing facilities on-site. No outside transport necessary.

Yes sodium requires special handling and processes. Guess what? So does nuclear material. Guess what? So does any large-scale power production.

As for high-level, long halflife wastes, guess what long halflife means? Lower decay rate. Know one of the reasons why weapons-grade plutonium with the long halflife is so special? Because it decays slow enough enough that people can handle it without dying.

Point of comparison between weapons-grade plutonium and...oh I don't know...arsenic. Halflifes: Pu-239 has 14,000 years while As is infinite. Arsenic is harder to clean up. Arsenic is deadly in many delivery methods while Pu-239 is only really dangerous if inhaled since alpha particle decay can be stopped by a piece of paper. So why don't we try to stop all arsenic production? Why don't we push to halt its use in all capacities? Oh well. I guess Ralph Nader was wrong when he affirmed (pulled out of his ass?) that Plutonium "is the most toxic substance known to man."

Oh yeah...proliferation. How many nuclear countries are there now? How many are really going to be held back because the US isn't using fast reactors? I can see Somalia saying it now: "Well since the US is using breeder reactors for their power generation now, we should start a nuclear weapons program." Please.

News flash: No country (NO COUNTRY!) has ever used spent nuclear fuel as a basis for a nuclear weapons program. In over fifty years in a dozen nuclear countries, no one has seen fit to do it. Doesn't that speak volumes? Bottom line: it's easier to make a bomb from mined uranium ore than it is to make one with spent fuel.

Re:Interesting ideology

[ttfkam]

...putting several times as much radiation into the atmosphere as nuclear plants.

While true, it's worth noting that both levels are far below toxic levels for radioactivity.

And coal plants don't belch out poisonous fumes at random. They do have scrubbers that catch 99% of the particals. I'm not saying they're clean. Far from it. But let's keep things rational here. (I know I get heated about this. Just trying to do my part to keep the debate open even though I strongly agree with you.)

Re:Interesting ideology

[ttfkam]

You mean This guy? Hmmm... He supports nuclear because of all of the stable, mass power production methods out there, it produces the least amount of air, water, and PCB pollution without requiring land area equivalent to Connecticut and Delaware (like solar). He supports renewable resources and working with the logging industry to plant enough trees to replace the ones lost. He acknowledges that with over six billion people on the planet, there's an argument for the higher yields from genetically modified crops.

Personally I prefer organic foods and I don't eat much red meat (much less meat overall in fact than I used to), but he has an argument. This also isn't to say that I like companies like Monsanto.

But an industry shill? C'mon. Someone disagreeing with you doesn't automatically make you an industry shill. Oh wait. This is Greepeace we're talking about. I guess it does. *sigh*

Re:Interesting ideology

[shepd]

>They don't want your sympathy, they want to get on the news. And they're good at it, that's why they get my money.

If that's all it takes to get your money, President Bush must be a millionaire!

Re:Interesting ideology

[shepd]

>If you aren't familiar with the concept of civil-disobedience, you can find lots of good stuff through google - like this essay.

Oh, I'm thoroughly familiar with the concept. Heck, I read Thoreau's Waladen. We had entire English classes covering this topic (they were especially exciting, since the teacher was a strong NDP booster [Left wing government in Canada] and I am generally neo-Conservative).

We came to observe that civil disobedience requires that if you are punished for your transgressions, you take it with dignity, and a complete willingness to face any consequences of your actions, no matter how severe, and, most importantly, that you absolutely don't complain. Thoreau appeared quite salient on these points.

Ghandi knew this. That's why he won.

Now, Greenpeace doesn't do this. They break the rules. They play dead when police officers arrest them. They shout insults and threats while being arrested. They need to read the rest of Walden. Then they might have success. A plan half implemented is no plan at all.

Re:Interesting ideology

[Andrew-Greenpeace]

But, as you just said, they get arrested and face the legal consequences for their actions. Granted, the consequences are usually no more then a night or two in jail and maybe some community service - although sometimes a fair bit more.

The activists also don't shout insults and threats because they accept being arrested as part of the process. Instead, they shout things like, "Stop destructive logging!"

And they don't complain about the legal consequences of their actions - although it is legitimate to say so if you are being unjustly persecuted, and they will do that.

Now, I wouldn't put Greenpeace activists in the same league as Gandhi. Gandhi was the man. But I do think Greenpeace's civil-disobedience is in the same tradition, and certainly a legitimate tactic.

Re:Interesting ideology

[sketerpot]

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. I only mentioned coal plants' radiation because people get so irrationally worried by nuclear plants.

And coal plants don't belch out poisonous fumes at random. They do have scrubbers that catch 99% of the particals.

Yes they do, but those aren't anywhere near clean. You see smoke coming out of coal plants, and it's still smoke. The smoke that does escape does get belched out at random. This is especially worrisome in countries with looser pollution standards, since scrubbers presumably cost money and money is often less abundant than we'd like. And the particles caught by the scrubbers do have to go somewhere, but for some reason you don't hear the hysteria that nuclear waste gets. Me, I'm not hysterical about either one, but I know which I prefer.

Re:Interesting ideology

[ttfkam]

I still wouldn't call it random.

Actually, the larger, heavier particles get scrubbed. The smallest particles -- incidentally the most dangerous to health -- are the ones that get past the scrubbers and into the outside air.

Hmm!

[PeterPumpkin]

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.

Re:Hmm!

[Jonathan]

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.

Re:Hmm!

[PeterPumpkin]

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

Re:Hmm!

[novakreo]

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.

Re:Hmm!

[PeterPumpkin]

From the article:

They have Inmarsat for data communications, but it is very expensive and only runs at 56Kbps. They want to know if I can hook them up with free Wi-Fi for their stay in Portland as well as outfitting the vessel for Wi-Fi so they can use the technology as the ship moves around the globe. How could I say no?

• RTFA. It's not just for two days, it's for whenever they're in an area with WiFi available.

Well the setup still doesn't take care of other places they're going as far as a access provider.

I guess life on a gigantic boat with only 56k satellite internet access on a regular basis sucks :D Heh I wish I had a boat period.

Re:Hmm!

[cujo_1111]

A slut by any other name is still slutty :)

Re:Hmm!

[g00set]

"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."

As a former sailor, two days can be a lifetime to someone who spends months at sea. The ship is now equipped to receive access now anywhere where wi-fi is available, which makes this more than a one time thing.

As far as mobility goes, the ship is moored!

Being able to have this type of access while in port from your bunk is a huge quality of life bonus for these folks whether they are ported in Oregon or anywhere else wi-fi is available.

Re:Hmm!

[mcpkaaos]

Minister of Propaganda? Thats an interesting title.

It's Portland, that is completely normal. I grew up there. Everyone is just so darned ecclectic: we would come up with crazy titles like Miss Vampyrothsss the Wicked, talking about how Sisters of Mercy really spoke to us, while sitting around the darkest table we could wrestle away from some piss ant 14 year-olds at Quest. But only on a Thursday.

Minister of Propagana? Man, you got off easy.

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.

Re:But really, who cares

[pedantic bore]

Not me...

There might be something interesting about wi-fi on a boat (all that steel might make things complicated) but from what's written in the article, it was about as complicated as setting up wifi in any other context. C'mon, editors.

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

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Enviromental movement? Movement in the sense of 'bowel movement', I take it.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

I agree 100%. These people are terrorists, plain and simple. What's next, a story on ELF using wireless networking as they firebomb the homes of people the consider "too rich"?

Re:Ecoterrorism

[ConsumedByTV]

Hi.

I work for Greenpeace.

I was wondering if you care to support your outlandish claims that we support ecoterrorism?

Greenpeace has a history of Non-Violent Direct Actions for more than 30 years.

We do not and will not tolerate ecoterrorism.

Granted I am not speaking for Greenpeace, I am speaking as a member of it who just so happens to be an active reader of Slashdot.

You might not agree with protesting, but it's hardly any type of terrorism.

Now onto what you asked, why did this make the front page? It's quite obvious that this made the front page because of the people involved and the challenges that those people overcame.

Greenpeace is a very upright environmental organization.

We have many worthwhile causes.

I don't know of many other organizations that stand up for the thousands killed in Bophal, or the illegal logging in the Amazon, but Greenpeace does.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[DAldredge]

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

Re:Ecoterrorism

[ConsumedByTV]

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.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[sybert]

Greenpeace are worse than terrorists.

Greenpeace has been at the head of banning DDT use worldwide.
Careful indoor use of DDT can save hundreds of thousands of lives each year in Africa. Many countries still ban DDT because of Greenpeace, and millions of lives have been lost because of them.
They oppose GM designed to grow in bad conditions in poor countries and could save millions of lives from starvation while raising the standard of living.
Millions of people respiratory diseases from burning fuel indoors that can be
prevented by electricity generation that environmentalists oppose.

Charles Wurster of the EDF said in 1972 about banning DDT:

"So what? People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them and this is as good a way as any."

Radical environmentalism is simply anti-humanity. The terrorists could not even dream of causing as much human death as Greenpeace.

Oregon is the state where Al-Qaida tried to set up a

terrorist training camp.

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

[Dachannien]

Perhaps it's the government that payed Greenpeace for it's crime? Gee, I wonder!?

I'll take "Ways Not to Enhance Your Credibility" for $200, Alex.

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

[DAldredge]

Then what would you call what they did?

Re:Ecoterrorism

[Doppler00]

We have many worthwhile causes.

Which includes cripplying large portions of the U.S. economy?

moratorium on commercial logging and road construction

I've lived in logging communities. I know first hand what the environmental movement has done to cripple a legitimate part of our economy. Guess what? After logging companies cut down trees they plant new ones. Trees grow back (amazing!). They do not create wastelands of stumps countrary to popular belief.

We are working internationally to stop nuclear power

Great, and raise the price of electricity because of ignorance of a proven technology.

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

[shepd]

>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

Re:Ecoterrorism

[plopez]

boy, this topic is really bringing out the trolls.

In my opinion the real ecco-terrorists are the corporate interests which are destroying the planet for short-term profits. The list of crimes commited or tacitly supported by these organizations is huge and include supporting death squads in Nigeria and S. America, use of slavery, aparthied, price fixing, lying to investors, illegal clear cutting of forests, poisoning water and air suppplies etc.

And these acts impact human beings, who die when they are poisoned by toxic wastse or have their livlihood destroyed when the enviroment they have relied upon for centuries are destroyed. The corporates go in, leave a mess and let someone else clean it up.

Remember one thing: without a healthy environment, we are all dead.
(ok, I'm done ranting).

Re:Ecoterrorism

[mcpkaaos]

We do not and will not tolerate ecoterrorism.

Granted I am not speaking for Greenpeace.

Anyone else have a hard time getting back up off the floor after that?

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

[Andrew-Greenpeace]

I was on board the Greenpeace ship in question at the time. They rammed us, not the other way around (actually more of a sideswipe). Luckily, we had a video camera rolling. The videotape clearly showed the much larger whaling factory ship at fault. Lloyds (the periodical of note on this subject) listed them as at fault. Fact is that some people throw the word "terrorist" around like they would "Nazi". If you want you can read my account of the incident, written and posted from the ship at the time. You might also be amused to read about our response.

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

[DAldredge]

Plz us sml wrds, lrg wrds scr mi.

thx mch!

Re:Ecoterrorism

[Andrew-Greenpeace]

Now, now, she's a good boat. Solid built, and I think "well aged" is a much kinder phrasing. And none of us want the environment polluted, but we all buy computers (which it takes a massive amount of pollution to build), use electricity (mostly not from renewable sources), and own cars (or boats). Because we need to get things done. I could live in a mountain hut and spend my time on organic gardening, but that wouldn't get much done. And chasing whalers (log shipments, or nuclear waste cargo ships, etc.) doesn't work too well with a sailboat (plus, it's hard to figure out where to put the helicopter). p.s. Nothing against the mountain dwelling vegetable eaters out there. Good on you. To be honest I might join you if I was better at gardening.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[zerblat]

Regardless of whether those "facts" are true or not, exactly how is that terrorism? Where is the terror?

Re:Ecoterrorism

[DAldredge]

Yes, we all do that. But most of the people who use those things don't want the rest of the world to stop using them.

Greenpeace does.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[Andrew-Greenpeace]

There, I think, is the misunderstanding. Greenpeace is not against technology (computers, electricity, etc.). But global warming is a reality, unsustainable logging in ancient forests is a reality, the fact that we are fishing the beyond the ocean's capacity is a reality. We're going to have to deal with this stuff sooner or later. We need to do things the smart way (such as recycled paper, targeted fishing, more renewable energy and conservation). And I'll admit that we will probably have to curtail some things (ex. stop fishing in some areas for a while to let the stocks recover). But personally I think human cleverness can solve the problems human cleverness created.

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

[DataCannibal]

Nope, don't see any facts there. Just opinions by some whaling company guy who hates greepeace.

Cherching! Next please!

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

[conJunk]

gracias amigo... i'm glad someone said this (because it needs to be said).... and someone with cred (e.g. you) is better than someone with an agenda (e.g. me)... only trouble is.. this *is* slashdot, and it's always pointless to argue with the under-informed over-educated

thanks again

Re:Ecoterrorism

[earthforce_1]

I knew somebody who was once a former member. They quit when they felt it was becoming more obsessed with fundraising than trying to stay relevent. In order to try and stay relevent, (nobody has done any nuclear testing lately) they try to drum up false, unsubstantiated fears over technology such as GM foods.

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

Re:Ecoterrorism

[herraukuli2061]

Seems like Slashdot readers confuse Greenpeace with groups like Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front. Greenpeace = Non-violent direct action such as harassing whaling ships with boats Earth Liberation Front = Damaging property by nailing trees etc. Animal Liberation Front = Damaging property and the ecology by releasing minks into nature etc. So no way can you call Greenpeace an ecoterrorist organization, though ELF/ALF could indeed be called ecoterrorists. ELF/ALF have a history of arson and such actions i believe. Though it's a real insult to real terrorists like Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush to call groups like ELF/ALF terrorists...

Re:Ecoterrorism

[xeno-cat]

"That makes you a terrorist."

No, it does not. It makes you a trespasser and liable to be charged with unlawful entry, breaking and entering if locks were forced, etc. Terrorist is just the flavour de jour of Goodwins Law.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[Halfbaked Plan]

You're right that it is more complex than just cutting out the entire diversity of plant and animal life in an area and replacing it with a truckload of a single species of seedlings.

However, nature is damned pervasive at replacing what has been removed. Probably over a 500 year period, not immediately.

And a part of the problem some people have is that the 'green' culture grew up out of the dominant western culture, which had already 'gotten theirs' by plowing over huge swaths of land. Then they amble on over to places where the 'lesser people' are trying to scratch out a living, and preach at them.

I've planted and am nurturing over 65 young hardwood trees at this time and hope to put in that many more again in the next year or so. When I drive by a little patch of the kind of dense, diverse forest that all of this region of the country used to be covered with, I feel sad that it's almost all cornfield now. However, I can't change history.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[turgid]

I work for Greenpeace. I was wondering if you care to support your outlandish claims that we support ecoterrorism?

I was wondering if the evil radiation from the wifi transmitters disrupts the good vibes and cosmic chakra energies of the lay-lines?

Re:Ecoterrorism

[JonKatzIsAnIdiot]

Um - if I was on a ship, in the Antarctic, and another ship hit us, I'd be scared.
But maybe it's just me ...

Re:Ecoterrorism

[turgid]

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

No, you are a prize fool, though. It's funny how the "environmentalists" oppose the cleanest, safest way of generating electricity on an industrial scale. It's also funny how they believe as fact what they see on a comedy television programme. You put yourself and others at risk, you broke the law, you completely misunderstand the costs and benefits of nuclear power, you made yourself look like an idiot and so on...

If you people weren't likely to cause someone to get hurt some day, I'd be asking you for an encore, because you're the funniest thing since the Flat Earth Society, Creationism, and that chap who calls himself King Arthur Pendragon, calls his sword Excalibur and plays at being a Druid.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[DAldredge]

Then perhaps greenpeace needs to rething the way it does things, but you act like a bunch of spoiled rich kids living on other peoples money.

I mean, what has greenpeace DONE that really matters in the past 3 years?

Re:Ecoterrorism

[ConsumedByTV]

That's so funny!

Buhahahaha!

I am glad that people have such a good sense of humor!

Sounds like something i would joke about on my way into work :-)

Re:Ecoterrorism

[Slack3r78]

That may be, but it still doesn't make what they did ok. They were still trying to impose their views on another group of people by means of intimidation, which fits the classic definition of terrorism quite well.

As for your 2nd quip, the same could be said for Greenpeace themselves, but I'm not getting into that at the moment.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[shepd]

>Your logic is flawed. QED

I was wondering if someone might mention that.

Well, in that case, we now have some options.

A) Greenpeace has become an organization so radically different than what it's founders thought it was that it now shuns them. That loses Greenpeace piles of respect, right there.

or

B) Greenpeace's founders have radically changed and no longer represent Greenpeace.

If you check Paul Watson's biography, he's not changed.

So, we need to go with option (A). That is that Greenpeace is no longer what Greenpeace stood for.

So what does it stand for now?

Re:Ecoterrorism

[illumin8]

So, we need to go with option (A). That is that Greenpeace is no longer what Greenpeace stood for.

AFAIK, Greenpeace has always stood for non-violent protest against people, organizations, and things that harm the environment. From their website:

We use research, lobbying, and quiet diplomacy to pursue our goals, as well as high-profile, non-violent conflict to raise the level and quality of public debate.

If you can point me to an instance in time when this has not been true, please do so, and back up your arguments with facts.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[Halfbaked Plan]

'Soylent-Corn is peeeepul!'

Re:Ecoterrorism

[York the Mysterious]

You're getting Greenpeace and ELF mixed up. Greenpeace goes around in the Rainbow Warrior and does fancy PR stunts and research type work. ELF blows up hummers and spikes trees. Having met quite a few Greenpeace, EarthFirst, and ELF members, the ELF people are the insane ones of the bunch.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[shepd]

>If you can point me to an instance in time when this has not been true, please do so, and back up your arguments with facts.

Well, I'll start with the easy stuff then, shall I?

>quiet diplomacy

This wasn't quiet at all. The catcalls, when I watched the video tape [Thanks for making it, Greenpeace!], were designed to incite violence (thanks Real TV!)... Which would violate another few principles, "to raise the level and quality of public debate." and "non-violent conflict".

Sooo, we're left with research and lobbying. I know another company that used those tactics!

Philip Morris.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[illumin8]

This wasn't quiet at all. The catcalls, when I watched the video tape [Thanks for making it, Greenpeace!], were designed to incite violence (thanks Real TV!)... Which would violate another few principles, "to raise the level and quality of public debate." and "non-violent conflict".

From reading the article, it seems that they attached a platform to the oil rig and sat there protesting. Seems non-violent enough to me. Where is this video that you speak of?

Re:Ecoterrorism

[shepd]

>Where is this video that you speak of?

It was on Real TV (well, that's what I remember -- I'm not perfect). I suppose you could ask them for the file tape. They don't seem to air Real TV anymore (which is sorta sad... it wasn't a great show, but it had its moments).

FWIW, Real TV was a cross between reality tv and docudrama, since it used reality tv style clips that were actual real life moments.

I really wish I could find a comprehensive page on that show so you could find the tapes, but unfortunately, people have shortened "Reality TV" to "Real TV", poisoning google's results. Google groups returns people discussing past events on the show, though (nothing much on Greenpeace, unfortuantely)...

Oh well. Perhaps if you ask Greenpeace for a copy of their video tapes of the incident?

Of course, Greenpeace's story speaks for itself as far as how "non-violent" the oil rig protests are...

"The Norwegian government owned oil company, Statoil is, according to Norwegian news agency NTB, considering a possible damages claims against Greenpeace of between 2 and 4 million Norwegian Krona ($US 300,000 and 600,000 USD)."

That's a lot of damage in just 3 days.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[Hognoxious]

Now over to the science desk - results just in from the Japanese whale research program. Figures indicate that they taste very nice, thank you.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[two_socks]

Greenpeace members have spiked trees. I lived with one of them, before he became a fucktard.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[Andrew-Greenpeace]

I have to point out that you've shifted your argument away from calling Greenpeace activists "ecoterrorists" to calling us "spoiled rich kids". I'll take that as progress.

And I do get paid to do my job. It's a job. I don't make tons, but I do like my job and I bet there are a lot of people who would love to have it. That's part of why I work hard and long hours - because I do think I owe these people something. Also because, in my opinion, the work I'm doing is important.

But I won't bother listing all the good things Greenpeace has done over the past three years. If you really want to know, you'll look it up on their website.

Who knows? If you like what you see, maybe you'll even chip in a few dollars, or become a cyberactivist.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[ConsumedByTV]

I just love how your comment is broken down into two basic components.

Greenpeace members have spiked trees.

You make this claim and have zero facts to go along with it, good job on that. You discredit yourself.

I lived with one of them, before he became a fucktard.

So what you're now saying is that you lived with a member of Greenpeace (which isn't the same as someone who works there) and you dislike him?

Well golly, I have no idea what your agenda is?
Bitter much?

A member of Greenpeace isn't the same as someone who works for Greenpeace. Anyone can join and support Greenpeace with money, it's a tax deduction in most countries, so many people do.

As far as the tree spiking, again: Greenpeace doesn't do that.

Your friend was a "fucktard" if he was the one that spiked trees and claimed to be from Greenpeace. We don't do that. Ever.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[ShawnDoc]

Greenpeace actually filmed themselves ramming a fishing (Whaling?) vessel at sea. They rammed it twice, knocking off the arm things that pull in the nets. They were actually bragging to the camera about damaging the other ship, and talking about how evil the sailors were on the ship they rammed because one of them pulled out a shotgun.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[DAldredge]

Greenpeace takes in about $145,000,000 per year in donations. WTF do you do with the money? And it doesn't sound like you are doing anything that matters, I mean WHAT HAVE YOU DONE? All you are doing is making people, who might agree with your views but not your methods, not like you or your views.

If, of the top of your head, you can not name three things GP has done then they most not have done very much.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[ConsumedByTV]

What are you talking about?

One of the guys who was *on that ship* is in this discussion!

He even commented above, the whaling ship rammed Greenpeace!

They have the fucking video tape to prove it.

Read his comment here.

Stop being such a tool, will you?

Re:Ecoterrorism

[ConsumedByTV]

Where do you get the figure $145,000,000?

I am interested mostly because like most of the other uninformed people here, you don't cite your sources. Sounds like bullshit FUD to me, back it up or look like a fool.

Also, re:
WTF do you do with the money? And it doesn't sound like you are doing anything that matters, I mean WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?

It sounds like the problem here is you and your lack of understanding.

On the one hand you seem to state that you don't think we do anything that matters and then you ask what we have done. Well hmm, if you don't know what we have done, how can you know the value of it?

All you are doing is making people, who might agree with your views but not your methods, not like you or your views.

That's pretty subjective don't you think?

I meet people on a daily basis that thank me for the work that Greenpeace does on a daily basis.

I meet people all over the planet when I donate my time to speak at conferences and they don't seem to be alienated.

I talk to lots of people on a daily basis and I have never had anyone tell me to my face that Greenpeace was worthless, bad or otherwise something that was a waste of time.

The only time that I have heard bad things, they have been from folks like you on the internet. You can't back up your facts and you just seem to be angry.

If, of the top of your head, you can not name three things GP has done then they most not have done very much.

Ah. Again we see the problem here. It's you.
You can't name something we have done and thus we are worthless?

No. I am sorry, play again.

Just because you can't name something of value doesn't mean that it lacks value, it means that you lack understanding.

You lack an education on Greenpeace, please visit our website greenpeace.org with an open mind.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[Just Some Guy]

Sometimes the law and what's right aren't the same. Sometime it takes a group like Greenpeace to give voice to the global commons and protect the endgangered species which aren't able to hire lawyers to protect them.

"Sometimes the law and what's right aren't the same. Sometime it takes a man like James Kopp to give voice to the global commons and protect the unborn children which aren't able to hire lawyers to protect them."

Is your statement still acceptable when coming from someone with a different point of view? If not, you may wish to reconsider.

Note: I don't support either statement. Both are indefensible.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[Andrew-Greenpeace]

You know if you click on the link I provided, you'll find out that it goes directly to a list of Greenpeace accomplishments... "But I won't bother listing all the good things Greenpeace has done over the past three years. If you really want to know, you'll look it up on their website."

Re:Ecoterrorism

[xeno-cat]

Loook, not to beat a dead thread here but it's breaking and entering, probably a federal offense and some other laws specificaly designed to protect sensitive areas. It is not terrorism. It would certainly have not been terrorism before 911.

Which Greenpeace?

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:MOD PARENT +1 HIPPIE COMMIE FAGGOT BASTARD

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Idiot, he seems to be anti-hippy to me. Can't you even troll properly?

Re:Parent is DUPE, mod down accordingly

[DAldredge]

Well, if people would respond and not mod me to hell, I would not have to repost.

It appears that people are unable to defend greenpeace so they are trying to hide posts that they do not like.

Re:Why doesn't Greanpeace practice what it preache

[LostCluster]

+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.

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.

Greenpeace:

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody set us up the wi-fi!

Re:Greenpeace:

[Anonymous Coward]

What you say! All your fossil fuel are belong to us! HA HA HA! For INFINITE Justice!

Not news, is it?

[grcumb]

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.

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?

Oh?

[Erwos]

We'll see how long it takes the French to blow this one up, I suppose. :)

-Erwos

Re:Oh?

[sql*kitten]

We'll see how long it takes the French to blow this one up,

In 2004, protest was beginning!

What happen?

Someone set us up the wireless network! Erm I mean bomb!!

Bonjour, m'sieur! All your ships are belong to moi!

An announcemnet from PETA!

[Eric(b0mb)Dennis]

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!

Re:An announcemnet from PETA!

[segfault7375]

...As A smokesman of PETA...

Don't you mean NORML?

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:Greepeace - good/bad not relevant to the story

[DAldredge]

It's a fucking Wi-Fi setup. It's nothing fancy, anyone can do it.

Re:Greepeace - good/bad not relevant to the story

[Andrew-Greenpeace]

I'm posting from Suva where I'm waiting for the Rainbow Warrior - so I don't have any more technical info then the story. But I can say that wifi will make life and work easier for the crew (whenever they can get it). Typically, Greenpeace ships run two sessions via INMARSAT a day - where email is transferred, weather maps are downloaded, etc. Cost is around $8 USD per minute, and connection time is usually about three minutes. So, there's not much opportunity for web surfing. When I get off ship or into port I usually go straight to an internet cafe to get my fix.

Re:Greepeace - good/bad not relevant to the story

[servognome]

If they had sharks with frickin' access points strapped to their head so they could get their pr0n everywhere in the ocean, THAT would be a tech success story.

Re:Greenpeace?

[LostCluster]

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.

Where's the tech?

[LostCluster]

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...

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

Re:Greenpeace == Criminals

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm...no...
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. :-p

From the linked article:

[AEton]

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!

Cheap wireless solution

[oob]

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 old "I know people who know people who..."

[khasim]

Whatever.

How about a bit more INFORMATION on that reference you gave? Hmmmm?

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?news id =12092422&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi= 6

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.

Re:The old "I know people who know people who..."

[galonso]

Methinks you are misunderstanding. Re-read the post.

I didn't say I did nothing. Seems to me the FBI wouldn't want me to tell you if I, in theory, did go to them. I also didn't say I knew these people -- I don't. 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.

If I could 'torpedo' Greenpeace supporters who were breaking the law I would. I would gladly turn in protesters of any sort who broke the law, and gladly say, "I'm pleased you feel strongly enough to do something, even if I don't agree with you." to those who do not break the law. I smoothed over some difficulties for some Nader supporters recently, even though I'd sooner vote for the Olsen twins.

The issue here is that these people broke in to an energy plant, climbed the smoke stack, and put a giant banner on it. Sounds pretty illegal to me. If the state is too stupid to see these people as a threat, then the Feds should step in. If they had erected a giant pole to suspend their banner from outside the facility, I'd think they were just peaceful protesters, not criminals.

In the end it all boils down to this: A Greenpeace ship was given WiFi equipment, and set up with access. This is interesting in a technology sort of way, in that I had never thought about how the ship would have/maintain connectivity. This is also interesting enough to provoke pageviews on the Greenpeace website. Pageviews mean more people will go see what they are about, or in my case up to, and form/solidify their own opinions.

Free speech in action.

<disclaimer> No terrorists here helped by this post :P </disclaimer>

Re:Greenpeace is great

[schnikies79]

The hell it's not terrorism. I own a couple current empty pole barns, bomb them and i'll kick their ass.. -d

Re:Greenpeace is great

[Jeff DeMaagd]

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.

That's cute with the broad strokes of generalizations with loaded language. In my opinion, such a comment degrades the credibility of the rest of your post. If you want to make a sensible persuasion, labeling your opponents in such a manner defeats your efforts.

And in other news...

[EvilSS]

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.

Re:The NRA are terrorists.

[pavera]

Loggers then don't count as civilians?

Re:Greenpeace is great

[Citizen of Earth]

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?

It would only be vandalism if it wasn't backed by a political agenda to illegitimately change public policy. Vandalism is just mindless destruction.

Re:TROLL. Mod down and read...

[tarunthegreat2]

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....

Re:Thing is.....

[TheSpoom]

Dubya: Slashdot isn't for you. Trust me on that one, buddy. :^)

Dolphins

[koafc]

I guess we'll find out if it's just sonar that bothers the dolphins.

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.

Re:mmm....Kujira

[DAldredge]

It's funny, but no one reads the entire post or they don't want to address the possible illegal money transfers going on between the various greenpeace orgs.

Re:mmm....Kujira

[terrymaster69]

for those who might be interested in why Japanese like to eat whale, here's a decent read.

Am I the only one...

[kir]

...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.

Re:Am I the only one...

[nastro]

Maybe this will be important to nerds in the scale of damage a compressed water hose from a Russian logger ship will do to the hardware aboard a Greenpeace ship whose occupants are trying to board said freighter. You know, collateral damage, while trying to blast the crazies off their vessel in international waters? Just a guess. ;)

Re:Am I the only one...

[kir]

Hey! Thats a... umm... very interesting guess. One never knows though. You could be right!

Re:Am I the only one...

[BelugaParty]

I think it falls in the category: outside of the ordinary geek adventure. On a more subversive level, this geek and his free wireless ways are being linked to greenpeace - an organized group militantly fighting for mindshare in the world (maybe the editors are suggesting these tactics would be useful for the wireless/free software groups/geekyness in general)

Re:Earth Liberation Front

[mcpkaaos]

The ELF have already been labelled ecoterrorists. They aren't really, they don't hurt humans, they only destroy property.

Yeah, I don't see how anyone could make that mistake.

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:Greenpeace extremism leads to backlash

[smithmc]

you want to burn fossil fuels at an unsustainable rate?

I wasn't aware that there was a sustainable rate...

Re:Greenpeace extremism leads to backlash

[HuguesT]

There is a sustainable rate, but it's very low. Think of the rate at which current forests are being converted to crude oil.

Re:Greenpeace extremism leads to backlash

[smithmc]

There is a sustainable rate, but it's very low. Think of the rate at which current forests are being converted to crude oil.

Well, now, in light of the 6-plus-billion population of Earth, that's not really sustainable either, now, is it?

I say that what will happen in the long term is that, when market forces drive the price of gas in the US up over $3 or $4, we'll start to see hybrids and (cleaner thanks to stricter standards) diesel become popular, and then as it gets up toward $5, the alternative solutions (biodiesel, sugar cane-derived alcohol, hydrogen made with nuclear-derived electricity, etc.) will get more mindshare.

Re:Greenpeace extremism leads to backlash

[HuguesT]

My point is that the sustainable rate is only theoretical. Think of the situation where no one uses crude oil at all, if that were possible. Some of today's forests and plants will eventually be made into oil in the fullness of time (millions and millions of year). Divide the amount of oil produced by current forests and plants (including plancton) in N years (N being very large) by N and this is the quantity of oil that we can consume every year that is being perpetually renewed.

This is the renewable rate. It is very low, probably something in the thousands of litres per year, proably not a whole lot more.

As an exercise, this highlight how much faster we are expending resources than they are being produced, and that at some point in the future it simply will have to stop.

Re:Earth Liberation Front

[nwbvt]

"They aren't really, they don't hurt humans, they only destroy property."

Tell that to the dying kid whose cancer could have been cured had those morons not burned down the drug lab.

Re:I Second This - Southern Republicans

[tarunthegreat2]

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.

Re:Thing is.....

[loraksus]

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.

Re:TROLL. Mod down and read...

[tarunthegreat2]

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.

I am the superior life form.

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

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!

Obligatory Simpsons Quote

[servognome]

Don't kid yourself Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about!

Re:TROLL. Mod down and read...

[tarunthegreat2]

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...

Get your nuke ships here.

[SpinyManiac]

Looks like NS Savannah is available.
It's cheap, at 1$ per year. Yes, really.

How "Skippy" Moore Will Edit Your Comment

[rm3friskerFTN]

"Skippy" Moore* might emulate his older (younger?) brother Mike Moore by practicing deceitful editing of your comment in the future 'documentary' GreenWar:

" Hi. I work for Greenpeace. ... we support ecoterrorism ... Greenpeace has a history of ... Violent Direct Actions for more than 30 years. ... We do ... ecoterrorism. ... speaking for Greenpeace, ... who just so happens to be an active reader of Slashdot ... You might not agree with protesting, but it's ... [a] type of terrorism ... It's quite obvious that this made the front page because of the people involved and the challenges that those people overcame."

There is no immediately available record that Greenpeace ever took 'Direct Action' against violent dictatorships

If you are still a wee-bit confused about how Mike Moore editing works then you can check out the Babylon 5 episode "Illusion of Truth" which taught me that:

"truth" might not always be ethical truth "truth" might actually be a deceitful truth

... 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

From "Illusion of Truth" plot summary (spoiler warning)

From a second "Illusion of Truth" plot summary (spoiler warning)

From a third "Illusion of Truth" plot summary (spoiler warning)

And finally a fourth "Illusion of Truth" plot summary (minor spoiler warning)

* 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" Moore

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.

So this means...

[Max Threshold]

Now they can go war-sailing!

Er, I mean... peace-sailing.

Re:So this means...

[dave420]

No, you were right first time :-P

Re:Greenpeace == Criminals

[Fadarm]

Non-violence? Tell that to a buddy I work with. He used to be a logger in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. Greenpeace showed up once and told them to stop logging. They did stupid things like lock themselves to trees, and things like that. Non-violent so far. These loggers then took the bolt cutters to these chains. According to my friend, and I trust what he said, the greenies all lept up and pepper sprayed the loggers who were cutting the chains. What the loggers were doing wasn't illegal. What Greenpeace did was assault. Greenpeace is one of the most hypocritical organizations in the world. Besides, how logging is done now doesn't even effect the environment hardly. Selective cutting, and re-planting mean the forests stay forever. Also, what do you think greenies wipe their asses with? I'll give you a hint, it comes from a tree!

Re:TROLL. Mod down and read...

[tarunthegreat2]

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.

if they DIDNT act crazy, they'd be ignored?

[darth_zeth]

Everyone would just ignore them ...so what is everyone doing NOW?

Re:Greenpeace == Criminals

[Andrew-Greenpeace]

Sorry to say I don't think your facts are straight. Could be some hot heads only claiming they were Greenpeace. Could be they didn't even say they were with Greenpeace, and your friend just assumed it. Heck, could even be that the whole thing is made up. But if it did happen, then I hope the pepper sprayers were charged. And yeah, logging is all good and fine - so long as it's done right. Too often it's not. Globally the forests are disapearing, and it looks like Greenpeace USA (the real Greenpeace USA) thinks there is some room for improvement in Oregon. I like wiping with something plush and comfy as much as the next man, but there's no reason not to look for the recycled paper symbol when you're shopping.

Why not commercial hotspot Wi-fi too?

[billstewart]

Sure, it's great to use free Wi-Fi when it's available.
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...

neonazi linux distro just out...

[Suchetha]

its called linuKKKs

Suchetha

Re:TROLL. Mod down and read...

[superdude72]

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.

from the no-comment-on-the-politics-involved dep

[Hungus]

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)

Re:Greenpeace is great

[ghostprovidence]

i currently work for the Union of Conserned* Scientists, and i, for one am glad that you've put so much throught* into this.

In a special investigation entitled "efforts against Windows using Republicans" we've come up the following relation:
SUV/MPG = U$
So one can clearly see that to maximize U$, the SUV drivers must minimize MPG. That's why we're going to bomb the houses of SUV drivers--while they're empty (that's not terrorism)
*(sic)

AC, you are a fucking bleeding heart liberal

[lowell]

The subject line is enough

Re:Greenpeace == Criminals

[meringuoid]

Better yet, somebody should sink their boat.

Someone already did. And would you believe it was the French?

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?

Re:Why the venom?

[IamGarageGuy 2]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Re:Why the venom?

[lovecult]

I'll see your quip, amd raise you a paraphrase.
First, from a peacenik who liberated a large country from an occupying power:

Whatever you do will have little consequence,
And it is extremely important to do it.

I'm afraid I don't know who said that "Evil is when good men do nothing".
But he might agree that the quickest way for all of us to get to hell might be via all of us doing nothing, because we can't decide on the right thing to do.

Of course, it is often safer to sit back and defend the morality of doing nothing with a quip.

Re:selfpeace

[DataCannibal]

That's a pretty serious accusation, that AI defended assasination. Are you willing to back it with something more sunstantial ?

Advantages and risks of GMOs

[AxelBoldt]

Why can't an environmentalist like nuclear energy and genetically engineered foods? Both have advantages and risks.

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.

Basic, basic, basic - come on

[optical-damage]

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?

Re:Greenpeace == Criminals

[Fishead]

How about the news articles in British Columbia about loggers finding spikes imbedded in trees where they were logging? When the loggers came by with metal detectors to find the spikes, the greenpeace terrorists switched to boring holes at a downward angle into the trunk of the tree, and dropping in a ceramic rod before glueing a piece of bark over the hole. The purpose of which is that when the logger's chainsaw comes in contact with the rod, it is thrown with extreme force in his general direction.

My father was a logger (Before his accident) and he always said that if he found someone in the top of a tree, he would cut that one down first.

Oh, and the forests aren't disappearing. If you get the chance to re-visit a site that has been re-planted 20 years ago, you will be amazed by the growth and abundance of life. If you ever get the chance to fly through the interior of British Columbia, you will also be amazed by the huge area covered by forest, and realize that as long as a respectable level of harvest is maintained, there will never be a shortage of forest.

Recycled paper is a crock. It takes more energy, and does more damage to the environment recycling a piece of paper into a lower grade product, then it takes to grow a tree, and make it into a new piece of paper.

Don't Tell The French ...

[Ranger]

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.

Re:Greenpeace == Criminals

[Anonymous Coward]

pepper sprays!!

thats disgusting. does anybody have any idea how many baby peppers are harvested to fit in one of those cans? Its just murder. plain and simple.

and dont get me started on baby oil.

Navigation

[vandelais]

Maybe wi-fi will help keep the activists from accidentally crashing their boats into the whales they purportedly show up to protect.

Re:Umm... Useless?

[wagemonkey]

They didn't like that when Shell wanted to sink the Brent Spar to make an artificial reef.

Eventually even Greenpeace admitted that sinking the thing would have been better for the environment than dismantling it. Of course they din't make anything like as much fuss saying they were wrong as they did opposing what was a carefully considered decision.

NB I don't think any company is inherently good, just if the costs are close etc it pays in PR to do the right thing, which for Shell in this case was screwed by GP.

Re:Whither Greenpeace

[Trailwalker]

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.

Re:Umm... Useless?

[Onami]

Greenpeace said no such thing about the Brent Spar. (Where do you get your information from?) There are hundreds of oil industry structures in the North Sea and North Atlantic similar to the Brent Spar and dumping them all into the ocean would be environmentally responsible.

You are not allow to dump your old car into a local lake - why should the oil industry be allowed to dump their crap into the seas and oceans?

Re:Umm... Useless?

[Onami]

I meant "dumping them all into the ocean would be environmentally environmentally irresponsible", of course.

More Information On GreenPeace

[ticklemeozmo]

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.

(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.m peg

Trans: "I can't tell u 'cause I'd have to kill u."

[khasim]

"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.

Re:that would be the ALF

[nwbvt]

ELF is a spinoff group of ALF. Regardless, ELF is guilty of some dangerous acts themselves. Fires don't just destroy buildings you know.

Re:The NRA are terrorists.

[zentex]

> 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.

Re:TROLL. Mod down and read...

[smithmc]

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?)

Don't be a fuckwit

[DABANSHEE]

& stop confusing animal rightists with enviromentalists.

Greenpeace is for the all out culling of feralised domestic animals,

Humbug

[DABANSHEE]

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

Learn some Eglish

[DABANSHEE]

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.

Re:Learn some Eglish

[sumdumass]

if they purposely ignore rule of navigating the sea just like rule of the road in the united states they to place thier vessel in front of the other causeing the colision, they can be charged with asult.

I have a friend that was trying to pass a slow moving tractor in a no passing zone and ended up with a head on colision with an oncomming vehicle. he was charged and prosecuted for vehicular asult, agravated asult, and attempted manslaughter. He got 5 years out of a possable 20 years for it. They claimed his aggressive driving was the reason for the charges. (BTW.. this was in ohio and the state did the pressecuting)

You can ignore laws or place other in danger because you want to prove a point. This is just wrong and I would think it classifies as terrorism. If it is good enough to charge someone that was just passing a slow tractor moving from one field to another, then it is good enough to charge someone trying to make a political statement and endangering others in the proccess.

Re:Greenpeace wrong on whales

[maggern]

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!)

Re:But does it Run Linux?

[Andrew-Greenpeace]

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.

Re:Trans: "I can't tell u 'cause I'd have to kill

[galonso]

I will reply with this: believe what you want.

Ranting will not convince others:)

Re:The NRA are terrorists.

[Andrew-Greenpeace]

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.

Let's tone it down a little, shall we?

[ttfkam]

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

Re:Let's tone it down a little, shall we?

[mikael]

As for water being more radioactive after removal, umm... Source?

Here's the link. A Google search for "sellafield, ireland" will bring up the various links.
Sellafield, UK

Re:Let's tone it down a little, shall we?

[ttfkam]

Ah yes. I had forgotten about Sellafield. Then again, I did qualify my statement.

"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."

Sellafield is going on fifty years old. It's a true first generation nuclear plant. Perhaps I am also too US-centric. There's no way the NRC would allow anything close to Sellafield. It was the NRC guidelines that I was using for reference.

My apologies.

Re:Greenpeace == Criminals

[Andrew-Greenpeace]

Those people had nothing to do with Greenpeace. Greenpeace activists have never spiked anything. I don't even personally know anyone who has ever done any tree spiking, but a google search turned up these guys, so maybe save your anger for them (although it looks like they stopped over a decade ago).

And if logged forests grow back so fast then why do we keep logging the ancient/old-growth forests out of existence (which is what Greenpeace really objects to)? Why not just re-log the already logged areas and leave the last few unlogged areas as they are?

As for recycling paper, everyone form the US government to paper products companies agree that recycling keeps paper out of landfills and incinerators, saves energy and reduces waste.

Re:Umm... Useless?

[eggsome]

Wow there is so much wrong with your post I don't know where to start.

So, they put WiFi on a ship... When they're out at sea they still have no access
Not true, Greenpeace has previously used wireless connections between aircraft and boats to send compressed video of "actions" down to the ship to be sent via their sattelite connection to media outlets.

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.
How many ports that they goto will they be in range of a WiFi accesspoint? I would say most - since they often stop at major cities.

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?
Greenpeace's mission statement defines them as an organisation focused on exposing global enviormental problems.
A technology company they aint. And anyway do you really think that a large number of people would continue to donate money to them if they stopped being such a visibly campaining organization?

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.
Solar power plants are not financially viable... Look it up.
Greenpeace does not use "eco-terror tactics" it ONLY uses non-violent direct action.

In conclusion - don't confuse Greenpeace with other eviro organisations.

I was wrong.

[DAldredge]

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

Re:I was wrong.

[ConsumedByTV]

It's not that know nothing about budgets or money, it's that I wanted to know where you got your "facts." As it turns out, you were spewing more stupid bullshit.

But I am glad that you finally cited your source.

Because you happened to cite them, you can now read this nice little piece about what you're citing.

If the IRS didn't want to go after someone like Greenpeace (when someone claims they had good reason to) and the people backing this research won't disclose who gives them money.... Where does this lead you?

The PIW is a front, plain and simple.

Hmmm.

Smear campaign?

Sorry dude, it's all legal and it's not even unethical.

You're grasping at straws at this point.

Re:I was wrong.

[DAldredge]

Greenpeace doesn't know what the word ethics means.

Re:I was wrong.

[ConsumedByTV]

Perhaps you feel that way, but a company isn't a person. It has a mission statement and it has agents to carry out that mission.

With that said, I have effectively and correctly shown your statements to be without merit.

You have and will always be wrong in regards to your attacks on Greenpeace. There is nothing to tie Greenpeace to violence, terrorism or illegal money handling.

Stop trying to make Greenpeace look bad because of a personal grudge.

And please do us all a favor and stop trolling.

Re:I was wrong.

[DAldredge]

I love the fact that you consider the FACT that greenpeace is a 134,000,000.00 USD/year org a troll.

Last time, WTF do they spend the money on?

Re:I was wrong.

[ConsumedByTV]

First of all, the budget you cite isn't why I called you a troll.

I called you a troll because you're shilling for front groups.

Second, why do you think I do their book keeping? Go look at the tax documents just like that front group claimed.

People who work for them get health insurance, like any other company that cares about it's workers. We have an IT staff, which I am a part of, we have computers, we pay rent. We have ships, which of course you knew because your RTFA, right?

We are just like other Non-Profits and other companies in that regard. Everyone has overhead and not everyone spends their entire budget.

I don't do their finances, so I can't entirely answer, only the book keepers could.

The important fact is that what they do is entirely legit. The other important fact is that when someone said it wasn't they were entirely wrong.

That group you keep citing is a front and you sir are a troll if you keep this up anymore as I have answered your questions.

I wonder, now that I have refuted your claims, do you have any basis for disliking Greenpeace or are you still going to dislike us anyway?

Re:I was wrong.

[DAldredge]

Every company I have worked for and/or invested I have know as much of their financials as I could. And most non-profits do not have the 'interesting' structure that greenpeace has, a structure that appears to be only there to work around what they law says can be done with tax deductable donations.

And what front companies am I shilling for? Please let me know so I can have them send me my checks.

As to why I dislike greenpeace? Well, the don't really do anything, they take money that could be better used by real envirnomental groups and use it for crap, and they don't practice what they preach (FF are bad, save for when we use them to power our boat).

And please have who every is doing the mail bombing stop. T

Thanks!

Okay. Seriously, this is silly.

[qwiki]

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.