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.

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.

[Peyna]

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

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

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

Re:Funny.

[cfuse]

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

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

Re:Funny.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

Or perhaps I just commute to work on light rail.

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

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

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

Hypocrites.

Re:Funny.

[sql*kitten]

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

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

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

Re:Funny.

[DataCannibal]

Funny ? Dickhead more like.

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

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

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

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?

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

But really, who cares

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, who cares? Mark me troll (I know it will happen) but I could give a crap that some ship came into port and somebody gave them free internet while in town, then wired up their ship. Is the fact that this is a Greenpeace ship make it newsworthy? What if it was "Joe's Boat Inc"? Would we be reading about it?

Seriously, WiFi on ships is not new, and there were not very many technical details. Just a bunch of pics of a boat and some Greenpeace artwork. I know it is the 4th, but can't we find some better stories to post?!

I mark the "story" post Stupid -1.

Ecoterrorism

[onyxruby]

Greenpeace has a bad history of brushes with or outright supporting ecoterrorism. Why does this make the front page when other articles with similiar projects have been done elsewhere?

Their are many other upright environmental organizations that have worldwide work in very challenging locales, so why approve a greenpeace story?

Many of these conditions are very challenging environments that could be teach someone a great deal. Why choose a group that rightly shouln't be called a charity in the first place. /Environmentalist sick of ecoterrorists and extemists making the environmental movement look bad.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[KjetilK]

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

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

Re:Ecoterrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

That makes you a terrorist.

Re:Ecoterrorism

[illumin8]

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

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

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

Your logic is flawed. QED

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: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.

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.

Oh?

[Erwos]

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

-Erwos

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!

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

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

Greenpeace extremism leads to backlash

[servognome]

A bit OT, but Greenpeace's extremism seems to push away the majority of people. There will always be 20% who truly believe your message, 20% who will never believe your message, and then 60% who can be swayed either way.
When you tell people everything they do is "evil" you alienate them. Mothers who want to protect their children from car accidents by driving SUVs... evil, nerds using their computers which suck huge amounts of power and use dangerous chemicals to manufacture... evil, nuclear powered space vehicles... evil.
By the time I finished talking to a Greenpeace person in college, I was so pissed off I wanted to make my car run on whale oil, and run over baby seals for fun.

Re:TROLL. Mod down and read...

[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...

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.

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: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.