Slashdot Mirror
Setting Up The Greenpeace Ship w/WiFi
An anonymous reader writes "If you're on any wifi related mailing lists, you've probably heard of Nigel Ballard of joejava.com, Minister of Propaganda for the Personal Telco Project in Portland Oregon.
The Greenpeace vessel Arctic Sunrise came into Portland and wanted some an alternative to Inmarsat for their Internet access.
Nigel set Greenpeace up with equipment and got VeriLAN to provide access."
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)
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.
Seems like setting up internet service just for two days seems silly.
RTFA. It's not just for two days, it's for whenever they're in an area with WiFi available.
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
>I was wondering if you care to support your outlandish claims that we support ecoterrorism?
Oh, please, don't make it so easy!
Tree spiking murders innocent workers.
A quote from Mr. Paul Watson (as a Greenpeace member, I'm certian you know of him, as he is a principal founder of your organization)
"I was the person who first thought up the tactic of tree-spiking and as such I feel obligated to defend this child of my imagination." (Link)
Care to make me find more examples?
>We do not and will not tolerate ecoterrorism.
That's why the principal founders of your organization devise murderous tactics, right?
It doesn't sound like a sane organization when it's founded by people like Paul Watson.
>Greenpeace is a very upright environmental organization.
Excellent. Tell me what happened to your boats in British Columbia on July 3, 1997. Find me a link to the info on the greenpeace website, if you're so upright.
Of course, we won't find one, because on that day the people of Victoria, BC fought back and blockaded YOUR boats.
>We have many worthwhile causes.
Many? Care to name 3 that aren't runing people's lives?
>You might not agree with protesting, but it's hardly any type of terrorism.
Hey, I agree with protesting. But protesting doesn't include blockades and property invasion. That crosses the line of protesting (which is marches in the streets, passing leaflets, general education of the public) and becomes sets of criminal acts, even in countries with the most liberal of free speech laws, such as the US. Criminals don't deserve to benefit from their work.
>or the illegal logging in the Amazon
Which you defend through such extreme violations of the law you become pirates yourselves, charged under laws intended for true pirates (such as yourselves -- it's shameful to take over other people's private property like that -- all the more reason the world will have to continue to arm itself against radicals such as yourselves). For some reason it's wrong to pirate logs, but just fine to pirate ships.
You can't be serious.
>I don't know of many other organizations that stand up for the thousands killed in Bophal
You have to go back 2 decades to find something decent Greenpeace did?
That's sad. But, sadder still, is the proof that your protesting really was worth nothing:
"Meanwhile, very little of the money from the settlement reached with Union Carbide went to the survivors, and people in the area feel betrayed not only by Union Carbide (and chairman Warren Anderson,) but also by their own politicians. On the anniversary of the tragedy, effigies of Anderson and politicians are burnt."
At least the US Government managed to squeeze some money out for them. I wonder, how much did Greenpeace give?
Now, for my final point, care to respond to this?
"IT'S OFFICIAL: GREENPEACE SERVES NO PUBLIC PURPOSE"
Revenue Canada, the tax-collecting arm of the government, has refused to recognize the new Greenpeace Environmental Foundation as a charity, saying its activities have "no public benefit" and that lobbying to shut down industries could send people "into poverty."
"But according to court records made public in June by John Duncan, the Reform MP from British Columbia, the federal charities division found the group's activities "have not complied with the law" on charitable organizations."
"The recent Greenpeace campaigns against PVC plasticisers and
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
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.