Slashdot Mirror
Exxon's Brute Squad Hacks the Yes Men
tom_evil notes a story up on Infoshop.org about a parody site and the lack of a sense of humor in a large multinational. "One day after the Yes Men made a joke announcement of ExxonMobil's plans to turn billions of climate-change victims into a brand-new fuel called Vivoleum, the Yes Men's upstream internet service provider shut down Vivoleum.com and cut off the Yes Men's email service, in reaction to a complaint whose source they will not identify. 'Since parody is protected under US law, Exxon must think that people seeing the site will think Vivoleum's a real Exxon product, not just a parody,' said Yes Man Mike Bonanno. Exxon's policies do already contribute to 150,000 climate-change related deaths each year,' added Yes Man Andy Bichlbaum. 'So maybe it really is credible. What a resource!'"
This is another example of how corporations and not people are the important ones in USA.
Not to mention that their ISP couldn't cut their pipe fast enough after Exxon complained. No due process here, just cut it off.... Only in America....
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
Not that anyone gives a damn, but is there any proof that Exxon actually was responsible?
Remember folks, its not censorship when big business does it!
(Sarcasm-impaired mods: This post is a parody, much like the Yes Men's Vivoleum)
~Rebecca
Nice trollish headline. It's hardly a hack, rather a cease-and-desist from an 800 lb gorilla. In other words, not news for nerds.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Apparently you they are starting a program where you can bring grandma into a recycling plant and exchange her for fuel. It's called Blue Hair to Green Fuel. They are hoping to show their carbon neutral environmental side.
Uh, usually I wouldn't note problems in the summary, but a missing quote mark at the start of the second last sentence makes it seem like Slashdot is the one claiming (as fact) that Exxon causes 150,000 deaths per year, and could easily be grounds for a libel suit. If an editor reads this comment, they may want to fix that.
IANAL, though, so I could be wrong.
Now I thought this had potential as a nutritional supplement. Buried just like the ceramic engine....s -selling-solar.html
--
Rent solar power at 2005 electric rates: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
If so, then we need to get Charlton Heston to yell how Vivoleum Green is People!
"This is another example of how corporations and not people are the important ones in USA. "
So how does me as an individual calling the DMCA on you affect your argument?
The isp killed the site, not Exxon, they just filed a complaint.
I can imagine that Exxon's logo's are protected by trademark etc, but I think they still can be used for parody.
However, I guess the initial site looked like a real Exxon site, and it wasn't apparent that it was a parody, looks like a legitimate reason for Exxon to complain.
Still what "threats" did they make, I so no copy of an email or letter.
After the Yes men removed the logo's and made it clear it was a parody, the ISP still blocked it.
Has Exxon contacted the Yes men directly? Or vice versa, the article mentions nothing.
Also if you are worried about the 150.000 deaths, don't use oil, except it's used in everything, even lubricant for windmills...
Oh, fuck all the politics. These guys are funny! I mean, from giving a presentation to a food service industry convenstion about McDonald's making their new hamburgers from the shit of their customers' to this... Come on! It's FUNNY!!!
how about, that even IF climate change is man made (that's a big IF) there is NO CREDIBLE way to link someone dieing in a storm to exxon. The storm could have happened without climate change, the person could have not walked into that torrent of water, there's no way to trace emissions to a specific company as the cause for a storm or any kind of weather.
It just shows the absurd claims global warming cult members will make in order to feel self righteous.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Remember corporations have human rights too. ExxonMobile has an inherent free speech right to distort debate http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/your-opinion-c ould-be-paid-for-by.html and threaten others with law suits to intimidate them.
s -selling-solar.html
It is their right to have no sense of humor, especially if the joke is at their expense. Please be more sympathetic.
--
Det solar power are save money too: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
I think you are right, but when I looked in google cache it was already gone.
See, here is the problem: yes it is censorship, no it is not a violation of U.S. law nor the First Ammendment (as far as I can tell from the article). People often cannot separate the two, including the Yes Men.
"Since parody is protected under US law"
You see, they are in a business relationship with the hosting company. The hosting company can break that relationship for pretty much whatever reason they see fit, including parody -- might not be smart but those are the facts. If the Yes Men put this out using their own resources, etc. and were sued for it, that's where US law would protect them. However, since they are in a business relationship with someone else, you really can't claim protection. Does that mean it's a smart idea / good idea for the hosting company to do this? No. But it's not a violation of someone's rights. That's the truth.
First, we don't actually know that Exxon complained to the ISP, because the ISP did the takedown "in reaction to a complaint whose source they will not identify." You can argue that it's likely to be Exxon, but the fact is nobody knows.
Second, filing a complaint with an ISP is not the sort of action one implied by "Brute Squad".
Third, there was no hacking involved.
You know, the only way to improve this headline would have been to name a group other than the Yes Men as the ones who were cut off.
i dont like the yes men either. i tend to agree with their positions, but i feel like they ultimately hurt their cause because they wind up looking like idiots and don't change any minds but just serve as entertainment for the most die hard of leftists.
nevertheless, their internet connection was turned off because exxon didnt like what they were saying. it's kind of disconcerting. had this been any group conservative, liberal or otherwise it is troubling that they can be wiped off the face of the internet.
that's why it's news for nerds and why you're flamebait.
just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!
If you need to shout it's funny, it probably isn't so much.
I'd certainly call it funny if they produced the parody and uploaded it, but they didn't. They tricked someone into fronting the expenses for their stage and audience and did "performance art".
Not funny when it costs someone else's money. More like parasitism.
The Darfur conflict is largely fueled by desertification brought on partly by climate change. Here are some 2005 estimates: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A124 85-2005Apr23.html. Things have not gotten any better since then, but the deaths
have become harder to count.
s -selling-solar.html
Their are deaths that can be even more directly tied to warming: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/04/doom.html as well. You should look into things a little more closely I think.
--
Get affordable solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
On the other side of the argument there are persons who believe corporations should have no rights at all. These people believe that they can say the Microsoft sponsors the mass killing of anyone who disagrees with them. This is ok a the accusation is so extreme that no one would believe, so it is clearly satire. The problem, of course, is where to draw the line. Is it ok to say that MS regularly sanctions threats of any medium ranking figure who threatens their monopoly? Where does satire end and stock manipulation begin?
Ultimately, I think we get into the nature of satire, and the death of the art form. Traditional satire abstracts some tyranical figure that is simply to dangerous to attack directly, and cleverly illustrates the tyranny and negative impact of the figure. Or satire highlights some social policy, and then proposes a ridiculous solution to it. Satire is useless when launched at figures that can be attacked directly or when is simply attributes characteristics that the figure probably does not possess.
It saddens me that meaningless verbal attack is put forth as satire. In this case the article could have proposed that ExxonMobile convert the people into a product. Such a modest proposal would not be original, but at least would be an attempt at satire, rather than just the ranting of thugs. Or they could have attributed the action to Butthole Petrol Incompentated(BPI), or EXpat Oil Nation MOBlized , or whatever. Just make it interesting satire, not school house insults.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Yeah, I was pretty surprised about the UK attempts, I thought that if we fought the terrorists in Iraq, they'd stay there and be obedient targets like Bush said, I never thought that there would be terrorism again outside of Iraq.
It sounds like you're pretty stupid, then.
In fact, having witnessed the breathless chops licking surounding the Petroleum Council report http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/trimming.html, I can say for sure that this was parody. No one would have taken this for the real thing if they were not completely stupified by anticipation. That report is going to say that we are going to boost our oil use by 30% by 2030. Amazing hornswagle, but there are many many people wishing to be duped by it.s -selling-solar.html
--
Break free of fossil fuels: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Of course, it would be horribly ironic if they came forward and claimed they did it as retaliation against their ISP.
Take away that energy, and people start starving.
Oh, wait, lowering the number of humans on the Earth is a good thing, right?
I sure wish the stupid humans-are-evil eco-freaks who couldn't live outside of the shelter of a high-consumption society (hell, who am I kidding - they can't live outside the shelter of their parents...) would have to suffer the consequences of their dumbass ideas - wholesale starvation and death.
And those of us who don't think of humanity as a plague on the Earth get to watch.
Hell, eco-freaks were so fucking short-sighted they've pretty much killed the nuclear power industry, so we're all stuck dealing with green-house gas generating and acid-rain causing coal and oil power plants. How many hundreds of millions of people have to suffer from malaria because of complete overreaction to the effects of DDT, a cheap and effective means of mosquito control.
So why the hell should we listen to those same twits now?
Those stories are sufficiently covered in other Media. If you want to read about those stories you can go there. Not all news stories need be covered in all types of media.
How about Vivoleum(TM)?
--
Turning sunlight(TM) into a product: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
"Here, here! You don't see individuals wielding power to squelch opinions they don't agree with in other countries!"
Scientology.
One day after the Yes Men made a joke announcement of ExxonMobil's plans to turn billions of climate-change victims (hypothetical, unlikely premise, original research) into a brand-new fuel called Vivoleum, the Yes Men's upstream internet service provider shut down Vivoleum.com and cut off the Yes Men's email service, in reaction to a complaint whose source they will not identify. 'Since parody is protected under US law, Exxon must think that people seeing the site will think Vivoleum's a real Exxon product, not just a parody,' said Yes Man Mike Bonanno (conjecture). Exxon's policies do already contribute to 150,000 climate-change related deaths each year,' (highly suspect claim, no evidence given to support) added Yes Man Andy Bichlbaum. 'So maybe it really is credible. What a resource!'
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Get this guy: "Exxon=no tech connection". I guess he's using solar power to run his WebTV. He must be so hi-tech he's running his Amigo on Brylcreem.
You are welcome on my lawn.
See, that's the funny part.
You are welcome on my lawn.
In this on topic post (I'm still editing, but rushed to publish) I'm calling ExxonMobil devotees of Hecate, the queen of ghosts: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/06/necromancers.h tml. Will google be sent a take down notice? Let's wait and see.
That's purely conjecture at this point.
"Broadview did restore both IPs on Wednesday, after the Vivoleum.com
website was completely disabled and all mention of Exxon was removed
from TheYesMen.org."
1. Wait about three weeks.
2. The terrorists used low tech non-functioning methods, and were noticeably inept. More of "your government at work" sort of stuff.
no no no you miss understand. By helping to bring them the freedom to fracture into many different warring groups, we are ensuring the future happiness and prosperity of the people of Iraq . The children growing up there will hold us dear in their hearts and never forget what we haqve done for them. I'm sure they will show their appreciation when they grow up.
...but because it violated numerous Exxon patents and trade secrets.
AC, meet sarcastic AC.
Yeah /. is especially fond of anything to do with evil MegaCorps or internet censorship, but don't fret. The "MI5 threat level Critical" is nice and high up on the Firehose. For whatever reason it didn't get submitted until 6:30, so the surf at work crowd has missed it until tomorrow. Perhaps there is little to say except, "Wow, that sucks. Glad the two didn't explode." Nothing to debate or solve.
The War on Terrorism is a bumpersticker, not because of a lack of very real terrorists, but because the war being fought is only going to generate more terrorists, and many of the Homeland Security measures are doing more damage than the terrorists.
We are all just people.
Just wait... Someone will point out that if the bombing plots had just used an iPhone then it would have been 10X easier to actually complete their plan...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
informative
Firstly, if the ISP received a DMCA section 512 take down notice for the content, they should give the customer the full details of that notice.
Secondly, if they didn't receive a section 512 take down notice, they should have asked for one (thats assuming that the ISP was told to take the content down for copyright reasons, if it was for other reasons, there are other procedures to be followed)
Yeah. After three weeks you'll be asking why every single article is about them. And why all the articles are the same.
Exxon Proposes Burning Humanity for Fuel if Climate Calamity Hits
~ awaiting spiritual enlightenment ~
That's exactly how civil rights were won in the 50's and 60's. A few, rare people had these "Whites Only" signs on their doors, and then once the media made others aware of that, no one patronized those stores. After that, those establishments took down those signs because they realized that no one would eat at a restaurant that served "whites only". If it worked then, surely it would still work today!
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
This story is staged. The Yes Men concealed their pro-actions behind made up re-actions. The server relocation to Europe had long been planned and now they orchestrated this brilliant setup. Broadview Networks even let them out of their contracts early for free! Slashdot, you let the Yes Men play you like an instrument - you are owned!
It's very important to stop terrorism.
Anyone filling their car with gasoline is a potential criminal and should expect to be arrested.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
The reason the ambulance was in the neighbourhood was because a woman at a club had over-imbibed and lost consciousness.
Conclusion: The unnamed woman saved countless lives by getting drunk and passing out!
But somehow, I don't see that angle being covered by mainstream media. I really want to see an interview of this woman to hear how she feels about this. No doubt how she feels at the moment is hung over, but that's not what I mean, rather how she feels about her role in the discovery.Perhaps the ISP does not want to be subjected to this kind of analysis: http://www.chillingeffects.org/protest/notice.cgi? NoticeID=500?s -selling-solar.html
--
Convenient Solar Power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
...because you're killing baby seals and giving babies malaria.
Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
Corporate Personhood is even a newer concept than limited liability in the history of ideas.
Anyways, you seem to be completely missing the point.
Those who advocate revocability of corporate charters want an effective punishment process that will destroy the company, which has nothing to do with _personal_ liability. It has everything to do with the liability of the _corporation_.
Pardon me if that's not obvious, but I hope this response clears up any confusion you or anybody else may have.
...to go in the car pool lane.
I'm really not seeing how a small change in global temperature is causing these deaths. Even if you grant that the temperature increase exists and is caused by CO2, and that it's our CO2 that is causing the problem, how do we make the jump to 150 000 deaths? Has the temperature change there been more drastic than it has been here? Last figure I read was 0.6C was the change globally over the past 100 years. It's like saying that changing my light bulbs to compact fluorescent is the equivalent of taking 250 000 cars off the road. Oh wait...
Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
Very true, but what all the commenters are missing so far is that while Exxon wanted this shut down because they didn't like it, that's almost certainly not how they got it shut down. They didn't call the ISP and say "We're offended, shut it down." I'll bet they said "Our trademarks are being violated, shut it down."
I know many Slashdotters don't like copyrights and trademarks, but that's the law, and any company's brand is a valuable asset they are legally obligated to protect. (If they don't protect it, they could lose it, which could mean the corporate officers can get sued by the shareholders.) Using a company's logo without their permission is more or less the corporate equivalent of identity theft, and saying "it's just satire" is not a defense that's going to work.
Example: back in the '70s there was a famous series of magazine ads for Volkswagen Beetles, one of which was based on the fact that it floats. In '73 the National Lampoon did a dead-on parody ad in their Encyclopedia of Humor, headlined "If Ted Kennedy drove a Volkswagen, he'd be President today." But due to a production error, they used the real VW logo. Oops! They got sued and had to remove that piece from future reprintings.
From what I can tell, the Yes Men made something that looked exactly like the Exxon site. To be safe, they should have made it about the "Ezzon corporation" or something like that. With a parody of the logo, they're in the clear. (Maybe: IANAL.) Granted, that might not have been as funny, but if they had done it that way I'll bet they wouldn't be having ISP troubles.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
oligarchy counts, but I like to be a bit more specific.
These are my favourite type of terrorists: incompetent ones.
Whoever spoke to your ISP has committed an actionable offence - and they both owe you for making your reputation on slashdot.
e
IANAL and therefore do not deserve to be shot, but here is the wikipedia entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interferenc
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
The problem is that -- somehow -- the corps have ended up with more and better rights than ordinary humans.
/. fantasy miracle medical cure) sooner or later going to die, so eternal copyright doesn't really mean squat to us. But to a corp?
Let's see, Kill Thousands By Chemical Poisoning in Bhopal, get a fine. A slap on the wrist. An ordinary human would have been made to suffer the most severe punishment legally available in the country having jursidiction -- death, or life imprisonment. A corp? Wrist-slap!
Let's see: Crash a loaded oil tanker into the coastline, fuck up hundreds of kilometres of the coast and sea-life, and what do you get? Wrist-slapping accompanies by Finger Wagging, and get told to do some token cleanup. Won't help the ecology of that coastline for the next couple of decades, but hey! its a corp that did it.
Let's see: Get copyright extended to forever. Who benefits? I mean, an ordinary human is (barring
See the basic difference is that we ordinary people can be locked up, physically threatened with Nasty Stuff that we fear, and ultimately we die. None of this applies to corps.
From afar they look like a great big hairy Bear, but close-up they're just a huge nest of cockroaches.
They have to be taken down. Brought down to a level close to where they were when the concept got going back in the 17th Century or so; a level where they are severely restricted in how long they exist and what they are allowed to do. For the sake of our own humanity, in the face of our own mortality, in recognition of our unique individuality, they have to be taken down.
New mod option wanted: -1 DrunkenRambling
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's obvious - the anthromorphisised "Market" will decide!
:-)
Away from the pesky control of the evil commie big government forces, the freedom loving patriot being that is the Free Market will decide what is right. Don't panic, the Market will decide. You're just seeing it in action. If Exxon wasn't to stomp on small comedy companies, well then the shareholders would rise up and change the direction of the company. They haven't, so clearly The People Have Spoken!
I'm sure they will show their appreciation when they grow up. Be afraid! You've killed some of their parents, or other siblings. They'll have great hate towards you, and there's little you can do. Your propagnada will do no good. And even if they don't have any personal reason to hate you, they'll see their country being constantly looted for oil. Millions, billions of dollars going to the pockets of big oil companies, and them
I am a Brit, but I fail to see why news of the terror attacks is 'news for nerds'. It is important but it is covered on many sites elsewhere which cover the news from around the world. There is nothing particularly 'technical' about these attacks. They have not resulted in a single death and there appear to be as many casualties among those perpetrating the crimes as those they were attacking (One of each at the latest count. One attacker badly burned and in a critical condition, and 1 innocent bystander treated for a leg injury). So, in terms of 'stuff that matters' they are also probably not particularly exciting to discuss in this forum. I am not saying that the attacks are not significant, nor am I suggesting that they should not be discussed in full, but simply not relevant here.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
At the end of July, Thing.net will terminate its contract with Broadview and move its operations to Germany, where internet
expression currently benefits from a friendlier legal climate than in the US,
I think these people are in for a rude awakening. AFAIK, Germany doesn't even have a parody exemption, and mere mention of a corporate trademark on your web site can make you subject to large fines.
If you want to get this kind of message out, don't introduce a single point of failure (web hosting). Instead, make it funny, put it in the form of a press release, make it easy to cut-and-paste, and people will be mailing it around widely. Bonus points if you can get various news wires to pick it up. If you need pictures, make them free of any trademarks, potential copyright issues, or other obstacles and you can host them on Flickr.
The story sounds a lot like Jonathan's Swift's "A Modest Proposal" with contemporary players. Don't give it up, find somewhere else or some other media to distribute it; after all, we're still reading Swift and loving it centuries later.
let us know that so we will warn our clients not to hire boxes from there out of stupidity.
Read radical news here
Their own resources? You mean get hosting further uplink? You mean buy backbone? Because unless you have protection somewhere, someone can always pull your plug.
...the ISP dumps YOU!
Well, not all of them do. Some of us know how they're cultivated in our National Parks. And morally, they're just ick. So here's one environmentalist against drugs.
Massachusetts et al. v EPA:
..."
"Based on respected scientific opinion that a well-documented rise in global temperatures and attendant climatological and environmental changes have resulted from a significant increase in the atmospheric concentration of "greenhouse gases"
Apparently our conservative, let's overturn Roe vs. Wade and Brown vs.Board of Education, actually thinks climate change is real. But then they read their science briefs.
(I'll agree that pinning numbers of deaths to it is all going to be in how you bother to count. But I'm really surprised you aren't modded as flamebait.)
SUVs and light trucks in the U.S. (by which I mean, not 18-wheelers and such) do not contribute the majority of CO2 emissions in the world. The fetish for SUVs and gigantic pickups is mostly a U.S. phenomenon. But the U.S. contributes roughly 25% of the world's CO2 emissions (IIRC), passenger cars and trucks contribute maybe 20% of that, and SUVs and giant pickups contribute some even smaller fraction than that.
Getting rid of those kinds of vehicles would help, but it's ridiculous to attribute all putative climate change deaths to them, when they can be responsible for no more than a few percent of total emissions at best. And that's not even taking into account that they are a relatively recent phenomenon, and most of the manmade CO2 now in the atmosphere was put there before SUVs became popular. A small fraction of recent emissions is an even smaller fraction of total atmospheric concentration.
Your complaint about excessive air conditioning is more on point. Most of our CO2 emissions come from fossil fuel burning power plants (mostly coal plants, don't blame oil for everything). One of the easiest ways to reduce emissions is to reduce electricity consumption.
Not for food, but for fuel and water, *IF* the whole world would ahve a first world standard of living and particulary all sort of fuel consumption the US have. If you do not believe me compare per-head US consumption, with the whole world production, the multiply by 6 billion. Sorry. 6.7 Nillion now. And for some stuff (like crude) the production is growing slowlier (or even going down) quicker than human grwoth so it ain't going to be better.
Now if you take the average 3rd world consumption and make it stay constant per head, then I agree with you this is scare mongering. But such an hypothese seems to be completly belied by the fact that two of the most populated country on earth are making stride toward MROE consumption, not less. But feel free not to be concerned. I bet you live in a first world country.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Anyone driving a car running on gasoline is an eco-terrorist.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
The speed of the takedown has more to do with the power of lawyers than the power of corporations. If the ISP wants to take advantage of the "CYA" safe harbor afforded them by the DMCA and other similar laws, they have to comply with takedown notices without delay.
If the notice came from a credible lawyer for an individual, it would still have to be honored.
Yeah, because things like this NEVER happen in China or any other countless places; the people have ALL the power over there.
Before you design for reuse, make sure to design it for use.
From the article: "Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and his colleagues question whether polar bear populations really are declining and if sea ice, on which the animals hunt, will actually disappear as quickly as climate models predict" Climate change sceptics criticise polar bear science
~ awaiting spiritual enlightenment ~
I'm sorry, but your whole statement is absurd. First off, Exxon Mobil represents about 300,000 people that work for them, and MILLIONS of people who own there stock. Thus, the rights of those millions of people trumped the rights of a handful of digital hooligans, and Democracy worked, again.
Besides, what do you mean, only in America? Those people would be dead if they were in China. And, anywhere in the middle east, their families probably would have been stoned to death too.
Look, here's my picture of Mohammed:
O O
.
----
Try that in some other part of the world.
This is my sig.
Good point-you can buy all Exxon products from more responsible companies. If Exxon realizes its actions are bad publicity (and more importantly can hurt profits), it might change policies.
Yes, yes you could stop buying things like gas altogether, but that's not always feasable. Someone who invested in a hybrid car still must buy some gas. Might as well send the profits to someone willing to spend some of it in a socially useful instead of destructive way.
Some rankings from a quick search, I have no idea of the quality of the site.
http://www.betterworldhandbook.com/gasoline.html
btw, in Collapse Jared Diamond contrasted environmental policies of some oil companies. Anyone remember which they were? I don't have the book handy as a reference.
ps Paranoia:
My internet connection went down twice as soon as I tried to post the comment above. I would like to change my opinion to buying Exxon's products to support their important anti-parody activities and compliment them for promoting discussion of the world-wide, cross-cultural conspicary of climate scientists thwarting the principles of the scientific method to promote global warming propoganda.
The millions of us who own Exxon stock applaud the actions of the company and its performance.
This is my sig.
The idea of turning people into fuel isn't that far-fetched at all. It was only last week that Syntroleum Corp and Tyson Foods announced a multi-million dollar deal to build a plant to turn animal fats into biodiesel ( CNN , WSJ). There were not specific about the source of the "animal fats"...
And you must have a very low opinion of the intelligence of Slashdot viewers if you thought anyone would take what I wrote seriously. I almost added a final sentence stating that this was only intended as satire, but I decided that such a sentence would insult the intelligence of Slashdot. Do you seriously believe that anyone could think this was how civil rights were won?!?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Also, I trust (and sincerely hope) that my post was marked insightful because my satire exposed how ridiculous the argument was that I responded to. Obviously, the free market does not cure all that ails us.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Well, there is a law (or razor or something) about how it's impossible to distinguish parody of the Right with actual writing from the Right, but I did feel that this was a bit over the top even for that! No offense taken.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Perhaps you're not familiar with certain regions of the country. In a many regions of the country (I grew up near some), if it were legal to put a "Whites Only" sign up, it would still improve business. Media attention to it would help business even more. Don Imus got fired because he was on a national show with national advertisers. Furthermore, in this arena public perception has definitely trailed the law. If the law hadn't changed do you think that public perception would have? If so, under what basis?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I'm a parent and I appreciate labels. I appreciate Wal-Mart not carrying the AO stuff. I actually prefer to take my kids to someplace that won't expose them to the depravity we reserve for adults. I like to be able to pick up a movie or game I know nothing about, and don't want to preview, and be able to tell by the labels whether I can let my kids watch it. I watch stuff with them but I don't preview everything every time, it would be silly to have to. More than likely they wouldn't get to see half of the stuff they enjoy if they had to wait on me to preview it.
This labeling and companies refusing to carry something I find offensive is what some call censorship. With that in mind, I say that censorship is good. It makes my life better and the lives of my children better. Some may say that they shouldn't get to watch anything and others will say that I'm doing them harm by shielding them from the "real" world, but the fact is that it makes it possible for me to live my life and raise my children the way I want to. This is how I define "better."
There is a difference to me between the government authorizing or requiring labeling and the government fining or jailing people for journalism. I don't even believe the government should outlaw books. I do believe that anything you can do to help people cope with all the information we're bombarded with every day is a good thing. Sometimes that means that your favorite stuff isn't convenient for you to get. I'd say I'm sorry, but I'm really not. That is what it means to live in a society. You have to deal with what it considers normal and reasonable. I expect some will still whine, but fortunately I don't have to listen either. :)
Good thing I'm AC on this. Actually AC due to not wanting to blow mod points, but I could toast my karma with this otherwise.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I wouldn't think that the oil companies had much of a sense of humor either.
... )
They're just dying to get at that oil, and so are about 100 Americans per week.
The sooner they get behind a renewable (non food,) resource, the sooner we can get our body bags, uh, I mean our boys, home.
Converting corn is a stupid way to make oil.
We EAT corn.
We DON'T eat a lot of biomass that can be converted into oil equivalent substance.
But right now, we're stuck with idiots who are looking at corn anyway. (Why? So they can fail?
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Not everybody can build tidal or hydroelectric. You have to have specific natural formation for that. Uranium ? Let me laugh. With the paranoia going around on nuclear weapon (justified paranoia or not), do you really think the US and most 1st world nation would let so much quantity of uranium being used all over the world by country either openly foe or at least to in friendly term ? Scratch uranium. That leaves you solar and hydrothermal. And even then there will be a need of progress (solar) before this would be used all over the world. Especially since solar AFAIK is intermitent. But this is even the BOTTOM of the worry. Energy is one primary resource but in itself it is useless without the other resource : ore (copper, iron, aluminium etc....etc...) and those are not only in limited quantity but you do not have alternative. The bottom line is that if those 6 billion people were living like the 0.7 first worlder, there is not enough of all resource for everybody. Metal, Crude, Energy, (maybe even drinking Water), etc... Once you realize how much the first world consume, and how quick some part of the 3rd world are trying to catch, you realize what is scary in such a growth.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
People were beaten and killed to ensure that race would not be a factor in providing public accomodations.
The folks who found for civil rights had more actual physical courage than 99% of the posters on Slashdot ever will.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
Apologists have a long, scandalous history of referencing scandals from history to downplay present scandals engendered by apologists that will make history for being scandalous. Then again, this is not a new development.
-Riskable
"Those who choose proprietary software will pay for their decision!"
Here's a better one.
Exxon grosses $360bn per year.
Their (world-wide record) profits are $36bn per year.
What retard thinks that oil companies make only 10% profit? A lemonade stand does better than that.
Exxon only has 80000 employees. 36bn/80000 =\ $450K per employee.
I suggest you, Mr. A.C., show me a 2-person lemonade stand keeping $1 Million per year as PROFITS (remember PROFIT, not GROSS).
That's your cue to whine "but that won't hurt them!" (wipe the eightbucks latte off your lip first).
So, I don't care. What the hell are YOU doing, sucker? At least I've got my pride, eh?