Slashdot Mirror


ELF Knocks Down AM Towers To Save Earth, Intercoms

ScentCone writes "The ELF (Earth Liberation Front) has claimed responsibility for destroying the primary AM towers used by radio station KRKO in Washington state. From their statement: 'AM radio waves cause adverse health effects including a higher rate of cancer, harm to wildlife, and that the signals have been interfering with home phone and intercom lines.' The poor intercom performance must have been the last straw."

616 comments

  1. Citation Needed by slifox · · Score: 5, Informative

    AM radio causes cancer?

    I'm from Jamaica, the show-me island. So show me you're blowing it out your fanny!
    (obligatory Futurama reference)

    I wonder if any of these ELF people understand physics... Radio behaves according to the inverse square law; in effect, your cellphone exposes you to much more power than all the cell towers around you, simply due to it being much closer. Similarly, any local transmitter you have (e.g. microwave ovens, CRTs, wifi APs, high-speed digital circuitry, etc) will expose you to more power than those far-away broadcast towers. Unless the AM radio tower is in your backyard, you are probably not in tremendous danger...

    ...well maybe your home intercom *is* in danger... won't someone please think of the intercoms?!?

    1. Re:Citation Needed by slifox · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not to mention that at 1700KHz (the upper end of AM medium wave radio), the ideal quarter-wavelength antenna is around 144 feet long.

      Ignoring the fact that we aren't very good conductors... at 5-6 feet tall, I doubt the human body can effectively absorb a lot of this relatively very-long-wavelength radiation.

      Does anyone have actual data or methods to predict this kind of effect on human bodies?

    2. Re:Citation Needed by blincoln · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ignoring the fact that we aren't very good conductors... at 5-6 feet tall, I doubt the human body can effectively absorb a lot of this relatively very-long-wavelength radiation.

      In addition to all of that, there's a reason EM radiation of longer wavelengths is called "non-ionizing". Hint: it's because it's incapable of ionizing anything.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    3. Re:Citation Needed by digitig · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not to mention -- how on earth does the method of modulation make a difference?

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    4. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      NIMBYs on steroids.

    5. Re:Citation Needed by afxgrin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Heh guess I'll have a tough time selling them on the idea of Satellite based Solar Power?

    6. Re:Citation Needed by skirtsteak_asshat · · Score: 0

      There have been many studies linking and many disproving a link between EM radiation and cancer. Even at extremely high levels, most people don't get cancer. In fact, one theory posits that exposure to low-level radiation at early stages can boost the immune system. No one can say either way for certain, because this is all scientific heresy until someone credible crunches the numbers and they are significant. This is happening all the time as science constantly evolving, but at this time 'most' don't recognize this link. Anyone who does is likely a crackpot... reads popular science, orders blueprints, that sort of thing. Now, devil's advocate, imagine the potential ramifications if some credible scientific study came out rigorously pointing to a link between even high-level EM radiation and a carcinogenic effect... The lawsuits would block out the sun. Pandemonium. Economies would fail, and people would starve. Seriously. The world economy could not afford to take that gut-check at this time. It would destroy us. So then, it would be in the best interest of the 'powers that be' to deny, discredit, obfuscate, and in any way DISPROVE a link between EM radiation and cancer. Well-heeled corporations can afford LOTS of 'science'. With as much as they've invested in cell phones, radio, radar systems... imagine asking them to turn it off? Yeah. Suddenly the link is a possibility again. Let's crunch those numbers one more time.

    7. Re:Citation Needed by anotheregomaniac · · Score: 5, Informative

      General information can be found in this FAQ: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html and in particular in FCC bulletin 56 page 15: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/documents/bulletins/#56

      The maximum permissible exposure to the general public from a radiator must be lower than the prescribed limits outside of the fence line. Lower frequencies, like AM radio, have a much higher permissible power than the frequencies used in cell phones or WiFi because the biological effect is less.

      They fact that they mention interference to intercoms would lead one to think one of those involved may live nearby or near another antenna.

    8. Re:Citation Needed by jpmorgan · · Score: 5, Funny

      Electrical engineering makes mother earth cry!

    9. Re:Citation Needed by slifox · · Score: 1

      While that situation may be possible, I'd bet that there are enough university researchers studying this area who would not be silenced by whomever stands to lose profits. The whole point of tenure is so that professors are immune or at least buffered from the effects of current politics (e.g. the desires of the "well-heeled corporations" you mention).

      Besides, we wouldn't just get rid of all radio communications. Instead, there would be a huge drive to find and implement non-harmful radio techniques. That would require a lot of research, a lot of investment in new infrastructure, etc... Imagine replacing every radio transmitter and receiver with a more complicated version... You're telling me *that* isn't profitable? Wherever someone is making profit, there will be others waiting to steal that profit-making opportunity for themselves (i.e. .... capitalism).

    10. Re:Citation Needed by siloko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You guys are missing the point - when vandals want to vandalise they will, if they are middle class they will try and justify it under some 'flavour of the month' banner, such as the Earth Liberation Front. Whose earth? They ain't liberating MY earth because the one I live on has no relation to one where radio waves cause cancer . . . maybe I'm just hung up on evidence!

    11. Re:Citation Needed by skirtsteak_asshat · · Score: 0

      BTW, In no way am I endorsing knocking down AM radio towers in a bid to save the earth. I mean, really?

    12. Re:Citation Needed by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      if they are middle class they will try and justify it under some 'flavour of the month' banner

      Wait... are you saying that if they aren't middle class they'll justify it differently or not at all? What does class have to do with any of this?

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    13. Re:Citation Needed by Green+Monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wonder if any of these ELF people understand physics

      Oh, there's no need to wonder. The answer is: No, they don't.

      --

      Green Monkey

    14. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We better start walling off the earth because the heavens put out radio waves / xrays / light...

    15. Re:Citation Needed by Erinnys+Tisiphone · · Score: 1

      I envision either a bunch of drunken teens or a disgruntled homeowner who was trying to explain interference on a cordless phone. Actually, I see alcohol involved either way. And an environmental cause is a great way to cover oneself, both from identification, and from charges if they're arrested. They start getting charged with vandalism, they play the pity card in the media and get free legal representation from an environmental rights group.

    16. Re:Citation Needed by glebovitz · · Score: 0

      well ... even in the hey day of tobacco popularity, scientific evidence against smoking was fairly high and the relationship between smoking and cancer was supported by lots of evidence. The industry money was able to convince individuals otherwise, mostly because nicotine is so addictive that people were willing to accept any evidence to the contrary.

      The same may be true for EM radiation. We would expect to see evidence to support the supposition independent of who was troubled by the facts.The lack of any supporting evidence between EM and cancer probably squashing any conspiracy theories.

    17. Re:Citation Needed by camg188 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Voice of America Bethany Station operated in Mason, OH for 50 years, right among a pretty large population (Mason is a suburb of Cincinnati). At it's peak the facility had three transmitters broadcasting with 250 kW, three broadcasting with 175 kW, and two transmitting with 50 kW. Plus it's right next to a 50 kW commercial antenna that's operated over 50 years. Any links to cancer should be readily evident among the surrounding population. (I did a quick web search, but could find nothing about cancer stats for the area)

    18. Re:Citation Needed by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Different classes will justify crime differently:

      The poor - "Its the man keeping me down" and "I just get mixed up with the wrong crowd" are both popular.

      The middle class - will usually invent some sort of obscure social justice or environmentalist excuse like the one we see here. Generally very little actual thought goes into developing this excuse; and its all over some snake oil that was sold to them by someone else with a grander agenda. In rare cases its an actual problem in that what they say is happening actually is and there are some known negative consequences. In these instances they are just opposed to whatever it is, and don't have any sort of alternative solution; unless involves depopulation on a massive scale and most of use learning to be content with tree bark and wild berries for dinner.

      The rich - most of the time won't have any excuse of their own per say but will pay an attorney to invent some exotic legal excuse the rest of use can't really understand even when we try. Most of the time the only thing legal about said excuse is the linguistic style its presented in; still it will be excepted more often than not because few others are really interested and still fewer have the resources or wherewithal to argue the matter.

      The political - will find away to blame successful noncriminal members of the middle class. They will go with social justice tack as well but it will be slightly more reasoned than the middle class criminal's excuse. Generally not only will the excuse succeed in getting them off the hook for their crime but will also enable them to pass some sort of self serving public policy.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    19. Re:Citation Needed by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Informative

      there's a reason EM radiation of longer wavelengths is called "non-ionizing". Hint: it's because it's incapable of ionizing anything.

      The fact that radiation is not ionizing anything does not imply that it has no effect on living tissue. It could induce microcurrents in some tissues, or cause certain molecules to resonate in a way which affected important chemical reactions.

      Which is not to say that AM radio does have any effect, only that "it's not ionizing!" is not a refutation.

      Biological systems are complex; if something as relatively simple as a computer can be effected by EM radiation, it's not completely batty to speculate that biological systems might be also. There are a few studies -- such as this one -- that have suggested effects on cerebral blood flow or on sleep patterns, but the data remains spotty at best.

      I repeat, I'm not claiming that such effects exist, nor am I defending this vandalism. (Calling it "terrorism" is, of course, ridiculous.) But claiming that EM radiation can't have any health effects because it's not ionizing is bad science.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    20. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they don't. Elves live in trees!

    21. Re:Citation Needed by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Unfortunately, radio waves are non-habit forming.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    22. Re:Citation Needed by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I want to drive to Seattle and set fire to the ELF's office, plus any other ELF offices I pass along the way, because I think they need to be taught a lesson that losing millions of dollars of property HURTS. Eye-for-an-eye, "walk in your victim's shoes", and all that stuff.

      So which category am I in?

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    23. Re:Citation Needed by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Life in America has gotten so easy that most people will grasp at straws so they can be outraged about something. You know... To keep them busy and feel like they are actually doing something important... And to um... Keep themselves out of trouble.

      I think these people can do more good other then trying to destroy them and pointless protesting (having done work in Albany, Up in the towers 20th floor where all the big decision makers are located, You can have a huge protest of thousands of people and people up there will have no idea what it is about. Heck they could probably do more good by doing things like say organizing a towns recycling policy and get more people to participate. Help setup a socal network where you can increase car pooling by finding people who go to like locations and work similar hours.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    24. Re:Citation Needed by seizurebattlerobot · · Score: 1

      There is some evidence pointing toward an increased risk of Leukemia for children living near A.M. radio transmitters, but because of the commercial implications, the research is controversial.

      Here's the abstract from a South Korean study on the issue from PubMed. Wired did a piece on it in 2004, also.

    25. Re:Citation Needed by cyofee · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Parent isn't flamebait, mod him up.

    26. Re:Citation Needed by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Intercoms are Class B (C?) devices anyway. That means they are required to accept interference from other sources like Radio or TV, and they are required to shutdown if they interfere with radio, television, or other licensed service.

      In other words, if the AM was interfering with your intercom - tough luck. Same applies to other devices like FM-transmitting Ipods, or wireless internet-capable TV Band devices. That's the price you pay for using that type of unlicensed device.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    27. Re:Citation Needed by peragrin · · Score: 1

      I don't know they understand gravity pretty well.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    28. Re:Citation Needed by clarkkent09 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't need lots of science to test a specific case like the one in question: "does living near an AM tower increase your risk of cancer?" All you need is some reliable data on cancer rates for people who live near one versus those who live far away from one.

      I think any such link would be easy to spot unless the effect is so miniscule that it doesn't show up without a very large sample, in which case all kinds of other questions come up: how does it compare to having a cell phone, or really any kind of radio transmitter, or even your neighbor having one... and shouldn't all those things be banned first before we start blowing up radio towers.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    29. Re:Citation Needed by himself · · Score: 1

      >
      > ...in effect, your cellphone exposes you to much more power than all the cell towers ...
      >
            Quiet, or they'll come down there and knock over your cell phone next!

    30. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yep. I think this is a universal phenomenon around the world. Poor people readily admit their crimes, but blame them on the circumstances of leading a life in poverty. Middle class people tend to blame it on "violations" by "society" or perhaps more specifically by something like capitalism or socialism, depending on where they hail from politically. Working class people's excuses are a mix of the poor man's excuse and the middle class man's excuse. Upper class people tend to argue that they didn't know that what they did was, technically, illegal. They never fail to point out that what they did seemed to them to be perfectly ethical, when one considers all the circumstances, and that the laws need to be changed.

    31. Re:Citation Needed by N1EY · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes. Did you know that the FCC requires a check on tissue exposure? There is a Maximum Permissable Exposure regulation. There are charts based on studies. It is a serious issue, which is hugely distorted by ELF. The other thing is that the emission of carbon dioxide might not effect global warming in the huge direct corelation, which ELF and others purport. On the radio front there has been huge intake of disappointment due to low solar activity. There has been talk of a new Maraunder Minimum. With decreasing solar activity we might actually have the Earth heated less by the sun. Some have speculated that a Maruander Minimum and the corresponding overall decrease in solar activity could drop the average temperature by 1 degree. The body does absorb RF. The new "cooking" method to eradicate cancer which has been shown on 60 Minutes used HF. Is there a potent danger from the radio station? No. ELF is whacked. These guys talk about scientific models as the basis for destruction of property and physical violence towards human beings. The scientific models are incomplete and very imprecise. It is not rational to murder people over such models. The results of global warming might be better for everyone, too. I know that I am looking forward to beach front property when the coast floods. ;)

    32. Re:Citation Needed by commodore64_love · · Score: 0, Troll

      Uh... he didn't claim EM isn't harmful. He claimed that *AM* radiation which is 1/8th miles long will have any effect on a tiny human being.

      >>>(Calling it "terrorism" is, of course, ridiculous.)

      Democrat-biased CNN calls it terrorism. Look at the end of their link: www.edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/04/washington.towers.terrorism

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    33. Re:Citation Needed by commodore64_love · · Score: 0, Troll

      >>>Imagine replacing every radio transmitter and receiver with a more complicated version... You're telling me *that* isn't profitable?

      Well already have that:
      - HD Radio in U.S.
      - DAB or DRM in E.U.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    34. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Different classes will justify crime differently:

      The poor - "Its the man keeping me down" and "I just get mixed up with the wrong crowd" are both popular.

      The middle class - will usually invent some sort of obscure social justice or environmentalist excuse like the one we see here. Generally very little actual thought goes into developing this excuse; and its all over some snake oil that was sold to them by someone else with a grander agenda. In rare cases its an actual problem in that what they say is happening actually is and there are some known negative consequences. In these instances they are just opposed to whatever it is, and don't have any sort of alternative solution; unless involves depopulation on a massive scale and most of use learning to be content with tree bark and wild berries for dinner.

      The rich - most of the time won't have any excuse of their own per say but will pay an attorney to invent some exotic legal excuse the rest of use can't really understand even when we try. Most of the time the only thing legal about said excuse is the linguistic style its presented in; still it will be excepted more often than not because few others are really interested and still fewer have the resources or wherewithal to argue the matter.

      The political - will find away to blame successful noncriminal members of the middle class. They will go with social justice tack as well but it will be slightly more reasoned than the middle class criminal's excuse. Generally not only will the excuse succeed in getting them off the hook for their crime but will also enable them to pass some sort of self serving public policy.

      What the fuck are you even talking about? Crime in general or just the broad category of people who knock over AM radio towers? This might be insightful if any of it was tied to anything concrete or theoretical in anyway. If you're just talking about "crime" this makes no sense. If you're talking about this particular incident, this makes no sense. If you're talking about something else altogether, it's a non sequitur. Which nonsense is it?

    35. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All your posts are very interesting...but your problem is that you are using their (ELF) statement as if it were true...It is pretty obvious it was taken down because it is a FOX sports talk station. FOX and ELF don't get along too well. http://www.northsound1380.com/

    36. Re:Citation Needed by shentino · · Score: 1

      Calling it terrorism makes a hell of a lot more sense than a lot of half assed accusations they usually make these days.

    37. Re:Citation Needed by grantek · · Score: 1

      In addition to all of that, there's a reason EM radiation of longer wavelengths is called "non-ionizing". Hint: it's because it's incapable of ionizing anything.

      Don't worry, the damaged AM radio towers are being replaced by modern microwave dishes. The intercoms are saved!!

    38. Re:Citation Needed by ThurstonMoore · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Democrat-biased CNN calls it terrorism.

      That still doesn't make it terrorism.

    39. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they're farking idiots. Every single act of vandalism they've committed shows they don't have a bloody clue about nature, animals, ecosystems, or their own ass.

    40. Re:Citation Needed by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I don't see to many big companies Pressing to keep A.M. going. I think there will be more pressure to go with FM Digital and Satellite. Sometimes research takes a wile to come with good results. And sometimes it is not what you expect and there is no conspiracy it is just someones theory didn't pan out.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    41. Re:Citation Needed by mikael · · Score: 1
      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    42. Re:Citation Needed by commodore64_love · · Score: 0, Troll

      And what would the ELF have to do to make their actions qualify "terrorism"? Kill people? Knock-over the Seattle World Trade Center?

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    43. Re:Citation Needed by SvetBeard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      At the Cincinnati History Museum, I overheard one of the docents and an older man discussing this station (or its 500kW predecessor). They said people in the area could hear the station on cots, screen doors, and most anything sufficiently large and conductive.

    44. Re:Citation Needed by SkyDude · · Score: 2, Funny

      Unfortunately, the ELF doesn't have an office. It's a spaceship they live on, because they clearly are not from this planet.

      --
      == First cross river, then insult alligator.
    45. Re:Citation Needed by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      Most of the effect on human tissue is heating and in the microwave range. Put it this way, the 70cm is about 27 inches and the wavelength gets smaller as frequency goes up. That's a wavelength smaller than a human and can induce heating. But you'd need a hell of a lot of power.

      U.S. AM radio stretches 535kHz to 1700kHz. 144 feet as mentioned above is huge and you have to keep in mind that RF power falls off as the square of the distance. So ten miles out the RF power of 50,000W is down to about 500W if I recall correctly.

      And if the ELF folks were smart, they'd take Fox News off the air.

    46. Re:Citation Needed by dafing · · Score: 1
      Im from New Zealand, where "fanny" means something different :) In Australia and NZ, "fanny" means basically the C word for a female body part. Hearing The Simpsons etc use it, its pretty odd! "it has a star fish on the fanny" I always wait for that line, and every time its played, its shocking, more shocking than anything South Park can do with "you damn jew, take that you red head, oh no he farted..."

      I dont expect Aus and NZ tv to edit out "The F Word" ha! Although it would be funny, and maybe would go viral, our clips having a blanked out word.

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    47. Re:Citation Needed by ThurstonMoore · · Score: 0, Troll

      I don't know about that have you ever met a Diddohead, they seem to be under the influence of something bad. BTW does the fact that spellcheck suggested that Diddohead may have been dickhead spelled incorrectly mean anything?

    48. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Calling it "terrorism" is, of course, ridiculous" - you're dead wrong. This is classic terrorist act. Violence intended to force consequences on a perceived opponent without regard to damage to innocents and civil society, and to instill fear. Pretty obvious that was the purpose, therefore it is terrorism.

      From Wikipedia:

      Limited Political Terrorism â" Genuine political terrorism is characterized by a revolutionary approach; limited political terrorism refers to âoeacts of terrorism which are committed for ideological or political motives but which are not part of a concerted campaign to capture control of the State.

    49. Re:Citation Needed by ximenes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They would have to perform an act with the express intent of causing terror and fear in the general populace, also typically involving idealogical goals (check) and targeting civilians with violence (not check).

      I don't think that knocking down a single AM radio tower qualifies, although it is certainly vandalism, destruction of property and other things.

      I mean, if I destroyed everyone's wifi devices in my building with a hammer, I'm crazy and have destroyed property in a criminal manner. But am I a terrorist?

    50. Re:Citation Needed by Jesus_666 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bizarro Earth Liberation Front am very concerned about Earth. Knocking down random radio towers am very important and am not just for fun. Me serious!

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    51. Re:Citation Needed by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You said it yourself. People who deliberately go out of their way not to hurt anyone should not be lumped in with people who crash planes into skyscrapers. They're both criminals, but the latter is in an entirely different league of Evil.

      As for the ELF: Come on, guys, if you're going to break the law and destroy stuff, at least base your actions on science, not pseudoscience. I might sympathize somewhat if you all blew up something that was causing *actual* environmental degradation. All you did was annoy AM radio listeners.

      --
      Get out, or I'll have vice-president Agnew's headless body throw you out!"
    52. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So which category am I in?

      The one that likes to talk big but in fact is a huge coward?

    53. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well how does it make you feel. And there's a condition on that - do you have a spirit?
      If u can accept faith in a non-show me kind of way and accept that maybe a higher power had to have created all this i,e. unless something can come from nothing - then it will effect you. You will be hurt by these devices. You will feel it. We thrive in the uper energy banwidths up to ultraviolet but not as far as gamma. The lower infra red are heavy energies and bring evil..

    54. Re:Citation Needed by nbauman · · Score: 1

      You don't need lots of science to test a specific case like the one in question: "does living near an AM tower increase your risk of cancer?" All you need is some reliable data on cancer rates for people who live near one versus those who live far away from one.

      Actually you do need a lot of science. You can't assume that the people who are living near the AM tower have the same risks of cancer as the people who are living farther away. Correcting for all the risk factors is damn hard.

      For example, take power lines. I used to help a guy work on his hot rods, rebuilding the engine and stuff. Really nice guy, pretty smart, and his Olds really took off, but he was kind of a lower-income working-class guy. His mom's house had power lines in the back. Now comfortable middle-class people with lots of money don't usually live in houses with power lines in the back yard. Poor people are different in lots of ways. They eat different foods. They smoke more cigarettes. They drink more (or at least cheaper) booze. They have less access to health care. If you find that people living next to power lines have more cancer, is it the power lines, or is it the cigarettes? Or is it the asbestos he was inhaling in the place he worked?

      You can find studies that show power lines, or radio transmitters, or whatever are associated with all kids of things. But it seems to be (although it isn't certain) that it's because they didn't correct for other factors.

      how does it compare to having a cell phone, or really any kind of radio transmitter, or even your neighbor having one... and shouldn't all those things be banned first before we start blowing up radio towers.

      Now you're getting there. IEEE Spectrum once did a big article on the hazards of EMF, and the engineers who actually went to peoples' houses with meters reported that the strongest exposure to EMF came from hair dryers, electric shavers and kitchen blenders. So let's ban those things and then blow up radio towers.

    55. Re:Citation Needed by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I modded him "Flamebait" because there's no "Ignorant of basic EM physics" option.

    56. Re:Citation Needed by nbauman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most of the effect on human tissue is heating and in the microwave range.

      Yeah, people make calculations assuming that the only effect could be thermal, in which case you're right.

      But there could be another mechanism, even one we don't know about yet.

      I don't believe low-level electromagnetic radiation is dangerous, but there are studies that show cells grown in culture exposed to low-level radiation had more mutations than unexposed cells. (I forget the details, but I read about it in IEEE Spectrum. )

      Cell reproduction is pretty complicated. How do you exclude the possibility that EMF may cause a mutation by an unknown mechanism? My first thought would be to duplicate the experiment and hope it turns out differently. But suppose you can duplicate it?

      After all, low-level magnetic fields have biological effects -- birds navigate by them.

      I don't think it's true. But I can't exclude it.

    57. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same in Britain as well. Though I'd keep my mouth shut about it, as it's amusing to hear Americans talk about "fanny packs" and the like. :-) Mike Myers already gave the game away about what "shag" meant, so we won't be seeing any more stuff like this. :'-(

    58. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AM radio causes cancer?

      Just hold up everyone, you're jumping on the physics argument too fast. To the extreme liberal movement, the cancer related to AM radio waves is also known under another name: Conservative AM talk radio shows! If AM talk radio was the domain of the liberal extremist tinfoil movements (as opposed to the conservative ones) do you really think they'd be pulling stunts like this? Not me...

    59. Re:Citation Needed by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Of course these morons don't understand physics. Just from their statements we know they belong in a mental asylum. Seriously these people are a danger to all of society, what next, are they going to pull down an Air Traffic Control system?

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    60. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is a review of studies. To be honest, I did not have the patience to read the whole thing, so I skipped to p.73

      http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5155&page=73

    61. Re:Citation Needed by dangitman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      (Calling it "terrorism" is, of course, ridiculous.)

      Why? It's clearly terrorism. And I say that as an environmentalist, but one with no sympathy for the ELF's beliefs or tactics. Their actions fit the definition perfectly.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    62. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It could induce microcurrents in some tissues[...]"

      Oh no, it will gently wiggle my sodium ions back and forth! The horror.

      "[...]or cause certain molecules to resonate in a way which affected important chemical reactions."

      What? There are various vibrational modes that can be excited, but this just normal, plain Jane heating. I have a circulatory system and sweat glands; they can remove many watts of heat from my body if necessary to maintain a constant core temperature. Don't disable the safety switch on a microwave and stick your head in and don't stand in front of high power radar, you'll be fine.

    63. Re:Citation Needed by soundguy · · Score: 1

      Attacking communications infrastructure licensed and regulated by the federal government most certainly DOES make it domestic terrorism.

      --
      Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
    64. Re:Citation Needed by skroz · · Score: 1

      Don't forget WLW, which operated at half a megawatt for quite some time (and even applied for a license to operate at a megawatt at one point.)

      I used to pick up WLW on my home answering machine at a distance of about ten miles from the transmitter. Stupid faulty ground...

      --
      -- Minds are like parachutes... they work best when open.
    65. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same category as me - Vindictive Bastard.

    66. Re:Citation Needed by couchslug · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Life in America has gotten so easy that most people will grasp at straws so they can be outraged about something. You know... To keep them busy and feel like they are actually doing something important... "

      Nonsense!
      I'd reply at more length but I've a Town Hall meeting to picket. We must stop Obamessianic Socialism!

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    67. Re:Citation Needed by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Also an intercom doesn't need to be wireless and switching to another frequency is allot less effort than knocking a tower over.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    68. Re:Citation Needed by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      If you did it because you thought radio waves were doing to hurt you than you should be locked up as a danger to the public. These are more than just vandals, I expect these morons will be destroying Air Traffic Control and other vital equipment in no time.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    69. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The category your are in at that point is one unmentioned.
      That would be overzealous.
      Equating deaths with tangible object destruction is pretty overzealous.
      "oh man, you hurt my car, I'm gonna kill you!"
      "oh man, you punched me, I'm gonna stap you!"
      "oh man, you knocked down AM radio structures, I'm gonna burn your building down and kill the people in it!"

      Go back to Maryland where you belong, you baltimoron.

    70. Re:Citation Needed by morari · · Score: 2, Informative

      ELF does not have an office because they work as isolated individuals or covert cells. Really, anyone could [i]claim[/i] to be affiliated with ELF and technically be correct. Their ideology is clearly stated in some of the works released by more established members, and the actual actions presented here seem to be in line with them. The reasons why these actions were carried out seem to be fairly shortsighted however, and not of the same ethical caliber of spiking trees and freeing test animals.

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    71. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought a lot of eco-terrorists were rich bored college students.

    72. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Old Testament.

    73. Re:Citation Needed by russotto · · Score: 1

      Why? It's clearly terrorism. And I say that as an environmentalist, but one with no sympathy for the ELF's beliefs or tactics. Their actions fit the definition perfectly.

      It's just vandalism. Perhaps politically motivated, but not terrorism.

    74. Re:Citation Needed by OneAhead · · Score: 1

      Let me fix that for you: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

    75. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're in the category of all-talk-no-action, otherwise known as"full of it". This is not a criminal type, but still, a type found with the highest concentration in the middle class.

      Unless you're actually directly financially involved in the towers that were toppled, in which case, you're just middle class vigilante. Whether or not it is criminal will depend on what you do.

    76. Re:Citation Needed by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Vandalism is damaging something for the sake of it, it's a hedonistic act. But this act involved spray-painting threatening messages addressed to the owner of the tower. I don't see how that doesn't cross the line into terrorism.

      Just what is your definition of terrorism, anyway?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    77. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.cracked.com/article_17578_5-things-they-say-give-you-cancer-why-theyre-wrong.html

    78. Re:Citation Needed by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Erm, huh? I'm confused. Near as I can tell from the Wikipedia article, the medium wave AM range is what my car radio picks up, but I'm fairly certain that my car's antenna is not 144 feet long. Did I misunderstand something?

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    79. Re:Citation Needed by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I want to drive to Seattle and set fire to the ELF's office, plus any other ELF offices I pass along the way

      I'm not sure why, but I really don't think ELF has an office.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    80. Re:Citation Needed by ckedge · · Score: 1

      Religious base for your actions? That's definitely Snake Oil.

      And this definitely applies to you:

      > In these instances they are just opposed to whatever it is, and don't have any sort of alternative solution ..and I mean you have no alternative solution other than to destroying those that are doing what you are opposing.

      You're clearly middle class.

    81. Re:Citation Needed by jcr · · Score: 1

      the strongest exposure to EMF came from hair dryers, electric shavers and kitchen blenders

      Speaking only for myself of course, I'm willing to accept the risk that comes with having electric motors in my vicinity. I like having a refrigerator, a computer printer, a camera with auto-focus, a disk drive, and a vacuum cleaner.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    82. Re:Citation Needed by voidphoenix · · Score: 2, Interesting
      From Wikipedia:

      At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.

      And further down, under Key Criteria:

      ..."the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence"...Property destruction that does not endanger life is not usually considered a violent crime...

      and

      It is commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its intentional and specific selection of civilians as direct targets. Specifically, the criminal intent is shown when babies, children, mothers and the elderly are murdered, or injured and put in harm's way. Much of the time, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings" that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorists possess.

      Note that in this case, the AM towers and their owners wouldn't be "civilians," since they aren't merely symbols, like the WTC, but because the ELF nutcases consider them actual threats. I don't agree with their pseudo-science, but to call this "terrorism" dilutes and confuses the term, and pretty soon we'll be calling file-sharing "terrorism" too.

    83. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're correct, when you get down to ultraviolet and microwave radiation; it can induce vibration or current in biological structures. But, now that we have things like quantum mechanics, we can say -exactly- what will be affected. If we say that a certain frequency can resonate with a certain molecule, it's up to the biologists to say whether or not this is harmful. So far, all the evidence points to no EM radiation we commonly are exposed to being harmful. (Obviously, if you were exposed to stuff over a few eV, you'll feel it. They call it a 'sunburn.')

    84. Re:Citation Needed by vaporland · · Score: 2, Funny

      The FBI would love to hear from you if you ever even find the ELF's office - they've been looking for a while now...

      --
      Ask Me About... The 80's!
    85. Re:Citation Needed by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 2, Funny

      I want to drive to Seattle and set fire to the ELF's office

      Careful: the last guy who tried to burn down an ELF office was Sauron, and look where it got him...

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    86. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about burning labs, a ski resort, condos and houses. Does that qualify?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Liberation_Front#Notable_attacks:_1998-2009

    87. Re:Citation Needed by Jared555 · · Score: 1

      I would be more concerned about FM personally. Since you can affect a radio (almost full signal to no signal) by standing 10-15ft away from the antenna and moving 1ft. (It happened to me and I tried it a couple times)

      I have a feeling I was standing in line with the antenna tower but considering the distance you wouldn't normally think it would make that much of a difference.

    88. Re:Citation Needed by Jared555 · · Score: 1

      Ignoring the fact that we aren't very good conductors... at 5-6 feet tall, I doubt the human body can effectively absorb a lot of this relatively very-long-wavelength radiation.

      I just noticed this otherwise I would have put it in my other reply.... Not very good conductors? Someone remind me again what percentage of water the human body is? It actually can make a massive difference in signals at the right frequencies. If I remember correctly the human body can potentially act as part of the antenna.

      No, I am not saying it causes cancer, just noting the inaccuracy there.

    89. Re:Citation Needed by hardburn · · Score: 1

      Cell reproduction is pretty complicated. How do you exclude the possibility that EMF may cause a mutation by an unknown mechanism?

      I dunno. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

      Science doesn't work on absolutes like that. Given the weight of evidence, it is very likely EMF does not cause cancer. I can't exclude that it does, but I can't exclude the fact that I might get hit by a meteorite, either. In both cases, it's rational to go on without believing it.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    90. Re:Citation Needed by dangitman · · Score: 2, Informative

      Firstly, you use Wikipedia as a source? Moreover, your own link contains verbiage which would classify this as terrorism, only you didn't put it in bold:

      Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.

      How is knocking over a massive antenna not disregarding "the safety of non-combatants"? Further:

      Much of the time, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings" that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorists possess. What about these towers is not a symbol that ties into the specific world-view of the attacker(s)? They aren't attacking it because it is an actual threat (despite the BS about radio waves and cancer), they are doing it because it is a symbol of "the man."

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    91. Re:Citation Needed by tylernt · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly certain that my car's antenna is not 144 feet long. Did I misunderstand something?

      There are a few ideal antenna lengths for a given frequency. Since you car antenna is short, it just means it is not an ideal antenna: it works, but not as well as a 144ft one.

      Also, most AM receivers have a coil of fine wire inside them to electrically lengthen the antenna. It's not as good as the same amount of wire stretched out in a line, but it still helps.

      --
      DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
    92. Re:Citation Needed by tcgroat · · Score: 1

      Does anyone have actual data or methods to predict this kind of effect on human bodies?

      Yes [long pdf]. The FCC cites the specific IEEE and NCRP studies they used to set RF exposure limits. You are correct about the wavelength effect reducing human RF absorption at AM broadcast frequencies, an effect shown in the frequency-dependent FCC exposure limits (page 17 of the pdf file).

    93. Re:Citation Needed by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      Ignoring the fact that we aren't very good conductors... at 5-6 feet tall, I doubt the human body can effectively absorb a lot of this relatively very-long-wavelength radiation.

      Other things might be interesting if we were good conductors. There is a 200 volt difference between our head and feet.

    94. Re:Citation Needed by haruharaharu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But there could be another mechanism, even one we don't know about yet.

      That's not how science works. First you determine that there is some sort of effect, then go looking for a mechanism. Go find an effect and we'll look for the reason why.

      How do you exclude the possibility that EMF may cause a mutation by an unknown mechanism?

      It's not ionizing, so that's pretty simple. Cells are fairly resilient - a small amount of heat isn't that big a deal.

      --
      Reboot macht Frei.
    95. Re:Citation Needed by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
      I want to drive to Seattle and set fire to the ELF's office, plus any other ELF offices I pass along the way, because I think they need to be taught a lesson that losing millions of dollars of property HURTS. Eye-for-an-eye, "walk in your victim's shoes", and all that stuff.

      So which category am I in?

      Fascist.

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    96. Re:Citation Needed by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Interference to intercoms makes me think they didn't read the FCC rules that say unlicensed use of frequencies has no expectation to remain free of interference from licensed uses.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    97. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not terrorism? I think you are not considering their collective work to-date. I suggest you review:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Earth_Liberation_Front_actions

    98. Re:Citation Needed by beguyld · · Score: 0, Troll

      I'm encouraged that there are a few here like you which can understand that science is not a fundamentalist religion; or at least shouldn't be...

      We can't be certain what might affect biological systems at this point. Simple models of heating might very well be mostly right, but not complete. That has happened a LOT over the years in a number of fields. Newtonian physics works well enough for a most things, but some things require quantum physics to model correctly.

      I also would expect that any effects would likely be in things like cell division, as that depends on _information_ and radio signals are informational (non-random). Even at small values, they might be different enough from random background noise in the natural world that our systems don't know how to filter it out properly.

      Though it also seems clear that our own cell phones are much more likely to causes trouble than AM radio transmission, unless perhaps you live very close to a very powerful tower. (and some people do)

      As was discussed recently here, some people do physically feel the effect of cell phones on their body. I'm one of those people, so I'm certain there is an effect. Exactly what that effect is, I don't know, other than it makes me nauseous if I hold it next to my head for more than a minute or so. I just use a Bluetooth headset and don't have any problems, as long as I don't put the cell phone itself next to my head.

      But if I get that strong a reaction with a cell phone next to my head, how I do know what the effect of it being in my pocket is? Could it affect cell division? I don't know, and not a whole lot of people are motivated to find out.

      There is a huge industry based on it, with lots of lobbyists, and all of us love the convenience, so we will try to ignore it as long as we can. Just human nature....

    99. Re:Citation Needed by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts

      And that's the end. Since property destruction isn't "violent" it doesn't matter that you can highlight something after it.

      How is knocking over a massive antenna not disregarding "the safety of non-combatants"?

      Because none were hurt and there was no intention to hurt anyone? Or was that a trick question?

    100. Re:Citation Needed by deniable · · Score: 1

      I wonder if any of these ELF people understand physics...

      I'd say there's an extremely low frequency of understanding in the ELF people. I wonder why they're hitting AM and not the systems used to talk to subs. What was that called again?

    101. Re:Citation Needed by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      I live about a mile and a half from an AM tower and at times the station comes in loud and clear on anything with a long wire and an amplifier. The health claims may be bunk but the interference claims are not.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    102. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      switching to another frequency is allot less effort

      The phrase you were looking for is "a lot", not "allot". Or, better: "switching to another frequency is much less effort".

      Now, that wasn't so difficult, was it?

    103. Re:Citation Needed by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Since property destruction isn't "violent" it doesn't matter that you can highlight something after it.

      What? Since when was property destruction not violent?

      Let's try a thought experiment. What if somebody blew up 10 buildings in Manhattan, but was very careful to make sure that nobody was in them at the time (they do it on the weekend, or after pulling the fire alarm). They then paint "bring back Arrested Development, you bastards" on the rubble.

      Is that simply vandalism, or is it something more?

      Because none were hurt and there was no intention to hurt anyone? Or was that a trick question?

      So, what if someone was hurt? That changes the entire basis of this act? And how do you know there was no intention to hurt somebody? There was a personal threat written on the site.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    104. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are white people in Jamaica? You seem too smart for a nigger.

    105. Re:Citation Needed by m_frankie_h · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You know, the word ``fascist'' has a specific meaning. Using it to describe anyone you don't like is stupid (and _not_ fascist).

    106. Re:Citation Needed by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      What? Since when was property destruction not violent?

      Since violent is used to mean violence against people. "Violence" in the strict and most general definition could cover nearly every action. Hell, I'm violently typing, since the actions to hit keys are sudden and abrupt. As such, "violence" is most commonly used now to only refer to people against people. Hence why I included it in quotes, because I would expect someone to object to the usage.

      Is that simply vandalism, or is it something more?

      It may or may not be something more. However, it would still remain non-violent.

      So, what if someone was hurt? That changes the entire basis of this act?

      No. But the intent does.

      And how do you know there was no intention to hurt somebody?

      Because they didn't hurt anyone. Do you honestly think that, with the description of the act, they were intending to hurt someone at that time? Or are you just playing devils advocate to play word games and say the opposite of what you actually think? Because it's absurd to think that they were going somewhere without people at a time when people would be unlikely to be there to strike and run and somehow think that they were intending to hurt someone at that time when they planned it for when people weren't there.

    107. Re:Citation Needed by Locomorto · · Score: 1
      --
      Stopping Content Restriction Annulment and Protection means not calling it DRM.
    108. Re:Citation Needed by Frekja · · Score: 1

      Um. ELF doesn't have offices - which is sort of the point.

    109. Re:Citation Needed by ElAurian · · Score: 1

      That's Maunder.

    110. Re:Citation Needed by ElAurian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Birds have little magnets in their heads, they use the MAGNETIC field of the Earth to navigate, not the ELECTROMAGNETIC field, except when they use their eyes.

      Oh, and we haven't just CALCULATED that the only effect is thermal; we've SHOWN it, in many scientific experiments.

    111. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol sad but true...

    112. Re:Citation Needed by thogard · · Score: 1

      AM transmitters still use vacuum tubes for the last transmission stage. They tend to be kept in a vault like device since they tend to make a huge mess when they go bad. When you short out their output with the wrong impedance, they can become very high power amps powering what effectively is a spark gap transmitter which will transmit on lots of frequencies that the AM station won't ever normally transmit on. Depending on the tuning of the crashing tower and the state of charge of the power caps, the idiot driving the heavy machinery might have been looking directly at an equivalent of a 5 million watt microwave for a fraction of a second at a distance of 10 feet or so.

    113. Re:Citation Needed by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      as a dedicated greenie, let me just say this sort of shit is an embarassment to the cause.

      Where the fuck did they get this idea from?

      I smell something a bit whiffy about all this.

      AM radios causing cancer? Citations please!

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    114. Re:Citation Needed by Fizzl · · Score: 1

      Use overrated

    115. Re:Citation Needed by REALMAN · · Score: 0, Troll

      They could care less about home phones and intercoms. These types of groups are heavily infiltrated or sometimes even run by federal agents.

      The feds wanted those towers down for some reason.

      --
      - A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
    116. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BUSH'S FAULT!!!

    117. Re:Citation Needed by dangitman · · Score: 1

      As such, "violence" is most commonly used now to only refer to people against people.

      Except, of course, for the fact that it isn't. Violence is routinely used to refer to all kinds of violence. And nowhere in the definition of terrorism, does it specify violence against people.

      It may or may not be something more. However, it would still remain non-violent.

      Blowing up 10 building in Manhattan is not a violent act? You've got to be fucking shitting me.

      Because they didn't hurt anyone. Do you honestly think that, with the description of the act, they were intending to hurt someone at that time? Or are you just playing devils advocate to play word games and say the opposite of what you actually think?

      They were clearly intending to hurt the owner of the antenna, based on the spray-painted slogan.

      They could have easily killed somebody with this action. Do you think somebody who is performing such an act in the middle of the night is going to search the area and make sure that not a single person happens to be in the area? Of course not - they would try to do it as quickly as possible to escape detection. This is an inherently risky behavior, with the very real possibility of harming or killing someone.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    118. Re:Citation Needed by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I want to drive to Seattle and set fire to the ELF's office, plus any other ELF offices I pass along the way, because I think they need to be taught a lesson that losing millions of dollars of property HURTS. Eye-for-an-eye, "walk in your victim's shoes", and all that stuff.

      So which category am I in?

      Middle class: "They did it, so they deserve to have it done to them. It's justice."

      That's assuming you actually act on your desire, of course, since you aren't a criminal until you have.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    119. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is terrorism as it is an attack on private property- not military- from a group that is made up of cells that have burned hundreds of acres of development, spiked trees to kill loggers, firebombed dealerships. To not call attacks against civilians terrorism is irresponsible.

    120. Re:Citation Needed by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If you did it because you thought radio waves were doing to hurt you than you should be locked up as a danger to the public.

      Not understanding physics doesn't make you a danger to the public. It might make you an uneducated moron, but that's not something you should be locked up for.

      These are more than just vandals, I expect these morons will be destroying Air Traffic Control and other vital equipment in no time.

      Do you have any kind of evidence or reason to expect this, or are you simply slandering? "His dog shat on my lawn today, so I expect he'll try to kill me tomorrow!"

      Atheism, an alternative to wishful thinking!

      More importantly, fanatical atheists are an even greater source of lulz than fanatical theists. The latter can always seek sanctuary from blind faith, while the former will engage in amazing contortions of logic to defend the idea that their assertions are based on logic and they are "rational".

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    121. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ELF claimed responibility. They are using fear to get their message across to civilians. This is not an issue about a tower but a terrorist network that has attacked dozens of sites creating fear in the towns that have been attacked. After the fire bombings of a dealership snipers were put on rooftops to protect employees and customers - and the US elected republicans.

    122. Re:Citation Needed by St.Creed · · Score: 2, Funny

      So which category am I in?

      I don't know, but while we're determining that, please stop by the Al-Qaeda and Mafia offices. They could really use a lit torch too.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    123. Re:Citation Needed by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Blowing up 10 building in Manhattan is not a violent act? You've got to be fucking shitting me.

      Blowing up 10 empty buildings is not a violent act. The proper term for destruction of property is vandalism.

      They could have easily killed somebody with this action. Do you think somebody who is performing such an act in the middle of the night is going to search the area and make sure that not a single person happens to be in the area? Of course not - they would try to do it as quickly as possible to escape detection. This is an inherently risky behavior, with the very real possibility of harming or killing someone.

      Driving a car is inherently risky behavior with the very real possibility of harming or killing someone, so does that make me a terrorist for having a driver's licence?

      There was no intent to hurt anyone, nor was anyone actually hurt. Furthermore, this whole thing was likely not meant to strike terror into anyone's heart. Therefore, it's not terrorism.

      I'm starting to suspect that you're a troll.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    124. Re:Citation Needed by hardburn · · Score: 1

      As was discussed recently here, some people do physically feel the effect of cell phones on their body. I'm one of those people, so I'm certain there is an effect. Exactly what that effect is, I don't know, other than it makes me nauseous if I hold it next to my head for more than a minute or so. I just use a Bluetooth headset and don't have any problems, as long as I don't put the cell phone itself next to my head.

      I realize your pain is real. However, the human brain is very susceptible to the placebo effect, or there may be other effects. Whatever is actually happening, we can be sure that electrosensitivty is not actually caused by EM fields. There have been too many studies showing no link.

      Frankly, whatever is causing this pain, it isn't EM. It may well be something else casually linked to cellphones (just to throw something out there, perhaps pinched nerves due to a complicated set of body mechanics caused by holding the cellphone a certain way), but the mystery isn't going to be solved by continuing to perpetuate the idea of it being radio transmissions.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    125. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're in the category of people who think a secret outfit has offices to burn. This is the only one I could find on Google:
      http://elfofficealliance.blogspot.com/

      Okay, this. http://www.elfpressoffice.org/ But you'll notice they don't offer an address. The "office" is probably a laptop at a Starbucks.

    126. Re:Citation Needed by Gonzoman · · Score: 1

      The AM radio in my car does not have a quarter wave dipole, yet it seems to receive AM signals just fine. Impedance matching is important for transmitters, not so much for receivers.

    127. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, I thought I just replied. Well, once again...

      You're in the category of people who think a secretive organization like ELF has offices to burn. I googled and this is about all I found:

      The Elf Office Alliance

      Okay, this: The North American ELF Press Office but it's probably just a laptop in a Starbucks.

    128. Re:Citation Needed by famebait · · Score: 1

      How about burning labs, a ski resort, condos and houses. Does that qualify?

      Only if a central goal or effect is to incite terror in the adversary or its sympathisers.

      If the operation is more suited to destroy the capacity for something they wish to prevent (even with casualties, in fact) the correct term is "sabotage".

      "Terrorism" is a spescific term with a specific meaning, delineated by the intent and type of effect of a tactic . It is not a general measure of how "bad" something is. Plenty of things that are not terrorism will get people hurt.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    129. Re:Citation Needed by famebait · · Score: 1

      Attacking communications infrastructure licensed and regulated by the federal government most certainly DOES make it domestic terrorism.

      No it does not. Get thee to a dictionary.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    130. Re:Citation Needed by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 1

      Really, anyone could [i]claim[/i] to be affiliated with ELF and technically be correct.

      They're like Al-Quaeda that way, except we don't seem to have a lot of interest in blowing them up. Therefore, I propose we have a Predator take out PETA's headquarters instead since they like to pay for ELF members' legal defense. It's like how we blow stuff up in the Mideast because it's "providing support for terrorists."

      Insert obligatory cheap shot at the Bush administration here.

    131. Re:Citation Needed by BZ · · Score: 1

      How is this not of the same ethical caliber of spiking trees? You mean this isn't as likely to kill people as spiking trees is? If so, possibly true.

      Spiking trees is about as despicable as anything I've seen people do recently. About the moral equivalent of disabling the brakes on someone's SUV because you think they should be driving a car that gets better gas mileage.

    132. Re:Citation Needed by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      You had me at "take out PETA's headquarters".

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    133. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Life in America has gotten so easy that most people will grasp at straws so they can be outraged about something."
      Naw, shit is all fucked up. They just don't know the real causes.

    134. Re:Citation Needed by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      If you did it because you thought radio waves were doing to hurt you than you should be locked up as a danger to the public.

      Not understanding physics doesn't make you a danger to the public. It might make you an uneducated moron, but that's not something you should be locked up for.

      I think you missed the first five words of his sentence. He wasn't saying that not understanding physics makes you a danger, in and of itself, but when that ignorance/disconnect-with-reality motivates you to criminal action society needs to be protected from you, more so than just because of the crime - but because of the future danger you represent due to an incapacity for remorse. He seems to be making the basic distinction between being a vandal, and being a clinically-insane vandal.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    135. Re:Citation Needed by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Blowing up 10 empty buildings is not a violent act. The proper term for destruction of property is vandalism.

      Blowing up 10 buildings with the intent to cause fear is terrorism.

      Furthermore, this whole thing was likely not meant to strike terror into anyone's heart. Therefore, it's not terrorism.

      What? This act was specifically meant to strike terror. What the hell do you think the spray-painted message was for?

      If not that, then what do you think the reason for knocking down the antennas was?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    136. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eye-for-an-eye, "walk in your victim's shoes", and all that stuff.

      There is a reference to a law, some compassion and some vagueness. Clearly, you fit in the categories of the compassionate conservative and the middle class offender.

    137. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      by knocking down a single am tower they are saying others are fair game. do you think it was just this one tower that was causing cancer and not every single other radio tower in this country? if they are trying to send the message that they wont stand for these radio towers causing cancer and will destroy them with hope of taking a few towers out and making the business of owning and operating these towers high enough that maybe a few wont be built or even a few would be mothballed then yes they are terrorists.

    138. Re:Citation Needed by nbauman · · Score: 1

      It's not ionizing, so that's pretty simple.

      It's not ionizing. It's not heat. How do you exclude every other possibility?

      Cells are fairly resilient - a small amount of heat isn't that big a deal.

      Yes but there are an awful lot of them, and every time they duplicate they make an average of about 8 usually inconsequential errors. The DNA repair mechanisms are in a constant struggle to keep up with the errors. All it takes is 1 cell with 2 or 3 of the wrong mutations and you've got cancer.

      Mind you I don't believe that EMF or radio towers cause cancer. I'm swimming in EMF, and I haven't seen anything that would make me worry about it.

      But there are some odd blinded controlled studies that found EMF would affect mammalian cells growing in culture, at levels too low to be heat effects and comparable to the levels that power lines emit.

      I'm arguing that we can't yet exclude the possibility that EMFs are causing those effects. Of course it might be because the sleep-deprived lab assistant screwed up the cell culture or something (stranger things have happened). It might not be repeatable.

      I saw it cited in the IEEE Spectrum article on EMF several years ago. I don't know if anyone tried to replicate it. If other people tried to repeat it and it didn't work, then I'll agree with you that there's no effect.

      But if they can repeatedly show an effect in cell culture at EMF levels too low for thermal effect, then the effect of that radiation is an open question, with a mechanism that apparently exists but can't be identified.

    139. Re:Citation Needed by daveime · · Score: 1

      And how do you know there was no intention to hurt somebody?
      Because they didn't hurt anyone

      What kind of warped logic is that ? So attempted murder doesn't count, because they didn't actually murder anyone ? And armed robbery can be forgiven if they didn't actually manage to steal any money ?

      Get a grip, ffs.

    140. Re:Citation Needed by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Not understanding physics doesn't make you a danger to the public. It might make you an uneducated moron, but that's not something you should be locked up for.

      When someone acts out of stupidity, yes it is something they should be locked up for.

      Do you have any kind of evidence or reason to expect this, or are you simply slandering? "His dog shat on my lawn today, so I expect he'll try to kill me tomorrow!"

      Yes read the article, that is my evidence. These people have proven themselves capable and willing to destroy radio towers through their own stupidity. What is the difference between a VHF AM radio tower and the one they just knocked over. To these morons nothing, to thousands of aircraft, critical communications.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    141. Re:Citation Needed by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      As far as we can tell, they did exactly what they set out to do, and nobody was hurt. If you manage to successfully commit armed robery and don't end up stealing anything, then you have me on that logic. Otherwise, you need to figure out your logic. They did what they wanted and no one was hurt. That means they weren't trying to hurt anyone.

      No, I can't prove an absence. You can't prove I didn't intend to kill Jimmy Hoffa when I ate breakfast. But the cereal got eaten and Hoffa is nowhere to be found, so we could assume that I didn't intend to kill him over breakfast.

    142. Re:Citation Needed by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the first five words of his sentence.

      No, I got them, I simply disagree with his conclusions.

      He wasn't saying that not understanding physics makes you a danger, in and of itself, but when that ignorance/disconnect-with-reality motivates you to criminal action society needs to be protected from you, more so than just because of the crime - but because of the future danger you represent due to an incapacity for remorse.

      I don't think that it's the hypothethical danger of radio transmitters that motivates these people to destroy such transmitters. I find it more likely that these people were looking for a cause to fight for, and simply picked "radio causes cancer" as an excuse. In other words, if they understood physics, they'd simply pick another target.

      He seems to be making the basic distinction between being a vandal, and being a clinically-insane vandal.

      Ignorance and insanity aren't even remotely related. If these people were claiming that a squirrel told them to destroy the towers, they would be insane; that they destroyed the towers due to a misunderstanding over the physics of electromagnetic waves makes them merely stupid.

      Mind you, I'd say they probably are dangerous and need to be arrested; but it's because they destroyed the towers, rather than because their reason to do so was misguided.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    143. Re:Citation Needed by amilo100 · · Score: 1

      You are completely right that ALF lives in a spaceship and are not from this planet. He also likes cats.

      Although I am not quite clear on why he would do this.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALF_(TV_series)

    144. Re:Citation Needed by beguyld · · Score: 1

      How kindly patronizing of you...

      My education is in electronics and I've deeply studied the human body for 30 years. I also understand scientific process quite well, thank you.

      I've done many experiments to explore this over the last 10 years. Imagine an experiment where your head is within a foot of a device and you get nearly immediate pressure and nausea. Move the head away from the device and the effect lessens, and eventually disappears past a certain distance. Repeat variations of this experiment hundreds of times over ten years. Immediate effect from the stimulus. No stimulus, no effect. Stimulus is observed to lose effect with distance, quite quickly in fact.

      That is precisely what I am talking about. My own direct experience, carefully investigated.

      Many of the studies quoted in the link you supplied are difficult to get to actually read, so I can't comment on them. But I can comment on my direct experience over a very long period.

      My electronics background certainly helped to understand the likely square-distance effect, and experimenting with headsets. True to theory, BlueTooth headsets are fine (though wired headsets were found to be nearly as bad as having the phone itself next to my head)

      Also, I've noticed the same problem being very close to some operating microwave ovens and wireless routers. Both of those were surprises. I just noticed the same familiar feeling and started looking for a reason, and later made the connection.

      Move a couple more feet away from the oven and or the router and problem solved. It is related to power, and it is not exactly the same level of sensitivity every day. (though it is always present; and varying sensitivity is to be expected)

      I realize whatever it happening does not fit the current theories, but we can't just change the experimental data...

      I couldn't help notice a reference in the link you supplied to a test for whether a cell phone was in a bag or not. Please...

      There is a huge difference between an idle phone in a bag and talking on one with it sitting right next to your head. The power difference due to the continuous active transmission when speaking into the phone and the square-distance law is HUGE (orders of magnitude). That's just one example of a biased experiment.

      I realize that the subjects might have made wild claims the experimenters were trying to verify, but I would not make those claims. The effect I notice is clearly related to transmission power, and below a certain threshold is not consciously noticeable.

      I'm okay with a cell phone in my hand while I use a BlueTooth headset, or even with the phone a couple feet from my head. But not much closer. Same with some wireless routers.

      Again, I'm talking about my particular experience, which I've carefully investigated over more than 10 years. I'm not making wild claims in general. Though given my experience, I do think there is something to be investigated more carefully. I feel like a canary in a coal mine...

      I do also have similar symptoms on anything that spins, or at high altitude. The biological effect is quite similar, though I don't know exactly how or why it happens. I have of course separated these effects out and carefully observed them to all be independently able to cause this effect.

      The history of science is littered with evidence being ignored, and the studies showing nothing more than the bias of the researchers. You don't have to try very hard to find examples.

      The bias has little to do with real science and everything to do with human beings and their genetic bias toward getting approval from their own group. And being willing to attack those considered outside the group. For reference, see editor wars, OS wars, etc. here in Slashdot...

      Again, I'm not making any wild claims of absolute truth, but I know my own body, I know electronics and EM fields, and that _something_ is happening.

      What that should do is create curiosity about another subtle effect not yet well understood. But any time there is a huge industry built around something, I get very suspicious about bias. Not that industry lobbyists ever have any power in this country...

    145. Re:Citation Needed by ubrgeek · · Score: 1

      Are you nuts? Can you imagine the toxic fumes all those hippies will give off when they're on fire?? ;)

      --
      Bark less. Wag more.
    146. Re:Citation Needed by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the poor steak I rubberized in my microwave a few days ago.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    147. Re:Citation Needed by beguyld · · Score: 1

      Whatever is actually happening, we can be sure that electrosensitivty is not actually caused by EM fields. There have been too many studies showing no link.

      As I mentioned in my other reply, there are large industry forces which need to be considered when evaluating these studies. You'll also often find that the U.S. studies are all favorable to an industry, and only foreign studies disagree.

      For another view, which clearly shows what a researcher is up against whose research results threatens an existing large industry, see this:
      http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march05/wakeupcall01.html

      Note that he is an expert in DNA and DNA damage was clearly shown from exposure to an actual cell phone.

      The aura of science is often used to make people believe exactly what the PTB want them to believe. Remember doctors on cigarette commercials, telling how great they were, while the tobacco companies were very well aware of the dangers? Careful who you believe, and check if they would lose their funding or even their career if they dared report anything which might cost a large corporation money (and or course some politician their campaign funding).

      Real life is much messier than we want to believe...

    148. Re:Citation Needed by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      The trouble is there are so many things which affect cancer rates that unless something happens which drives them sky high (e.g. chernobyl) any man-made environmental factors are lost in the noise.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    149. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Overrated is pointless because it doesn't show up as a moderation, just a decrease in the comment score. As such, it does nothing but undo the last positive moderation, and is usually undone itself by the next dumbass with mod points.

    150. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course you are in the category of shadow/black government agency that is trying to suppress the movement which protects our planet. Do you not love your planet? Do you not want to liberate the earth? Sounds to me like you are a greedy/shadowy/miss-directed person/agent of the government.

      Either you are for the earth, or you are against it, and we all live on earth, therefore you are a terrorist of the earth.

      We need an ELFLF (Earth Liberation Force Liberating Force) honestly. I prefer Alfalfa (Against Liberating Fronts And Library Fire Anarchists?), more catchy, someone just needs to come up with a better acronym.

    151. Re:Citation Needed by ildon · · Score: 1

      Your (lack of) spelling and grammar angers and confuse me.

    152. Re:Citation Needed by haruharaharu · · Score: 1

      Well, we have some anomalous results in cell cultures, but we would need some sort of increase in bad things traceable to EMF before I'll care. Sure, it's worth looking at, but some people give it way more attention than it deserves.

      --
      Reboot macht Frei.
    153. Re:Citation Needed by daveime · · Score: 1

      They did what they wanted and no one was hurt. That means they weren't trying to hurt anyone.

      No, that's the problem ... you cannot infer any intention on their part because of something that didn't happen ... it was perhaps just lucky that no one was in the vicinity when they brought the towers down.

      Or perhaps you are suggesting that they cordoned off the area with yello and black stripy ELF tape and big signs warning "Do not enter, environmental terrorism in progress" kind of thing ?

    154. Re:Citation Needed by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      I don't agree with their pseudo-science, but to call this "terrorism" dilutes and confuses the term, and pretty soon we'll be calling file-sharing "terrorism" too.

      Well, amusingly the RIAA beat you to it pal.
      Here is a snippet of this amusement:

      Moreover, three of the documented cases provide clear evidence that terrorist groups have used the proceeds of film piracy to finance their activities. While caution must be exercised in drawing broad conclusions from limited evidence, further investigation is a timely imperative. These cases, combined with established evidence for the broader category of counterfeiting-terrorism connections, are highly suggestive that intellectual-property theft â" a low-risk, high-profit enterprise â" is attractive not only to organized crime, but also to terrorists, particularly opportunistic members of local terrorist cells.

      Oh, they will at least never stop bringing a grin to my face. God bless em for trying though!

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    155. Re:Citation Needed by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Ignoring the fact that we aren't very good conductors... at 5-6 feet tall, I doubt the human body can effectively absorb a lot of this relatively very-long-wavelength radiation.

      In addition to all of that, there's a reason EM radiation of longer wavelengths is called "non-ionizing". Hint: it's because it's incapable of ionizing anything.

      You still would not want to stick a finger or limb into the transmitter's tank coil. A ham power level transmitter tank coil makes a fine hot dog cooker in the AM band.

    156. Re:Citation Needed by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
      Yes, and taking the law into your own hands and burning down the office of an organisation you don't happen to like IS FASCIST.

      Kristallnacht ring a bell?

      We live in a nation of laws. If they have broken the laws, then it is incumbent to the justice system to take care of it. That's why we have one.

      RS

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    157. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to drive to Seattle and set fire to the ELF's office, plus any other ELF offices I pass along the way, because I think they need to be taught a lesson that losing millions of dollars of property HURTS. Eye-for-an-eye, "walk in your victim's shoes", and all that stuff.

      So which category am I in?

      A different one, I think they call that one 'clinically insane' :)

    158. Re:Citation Needed by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Yes, and taking the law into your own hands and burning down the office of an organisation you don't happen to like IS FASCIST.
      Kristallnacht ring a bell?

      Your logic is that because the nazis did it, then it's fascist?

      Is building an affordable automobile fascist?
      Is being a vegetarian fascist?
      How about breathing?

      It would appear that you're wrong.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    159. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ignorant, revenge/hate filled, lets keep the cycle of continued aggression American category.

    160. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plenty of people would be interested if you can detect cell phone radiation in a double-blind test. You could look up who did some of the to-date unsuccessful tests and try to contact them.

    161. Re:Citation Needed by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      P.S.

      I like the story you have linked in your sig: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html [gnu.org] - "Later on, Dan would learn there was a time when anyone could go to the library and read journal articles, and even books, without having to pay. There were independent scholars who read thousands of pages without government library grants. But in the 1990s, both commercial and nonprofit journal publishers had begun charging fees for access. By 2047, libraries offering free public access to scholarly literature were a dim memory."

      "There were ways, of course, to get around the SPA and Central Licensing. They were themselves illegal. Dan had had a classmate in software, Frank Martucci, who had obtained an illicit debugging tool, and used it to skip over the copyright monitor code when reading books. But he had told too many friends about it, and one of them turned him in to the SPA for a reward (students deep in debt were easily tempted into betrayal). In 2047, Frank was in prison, not for pirate reading, but for possessing a debugger."

      That's exactly where we're headed.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    162. Re:Citation Needed by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Equating deaths with tangible object destruction is pretty overzealous.

      STRAWMAN ARGUMENT> I never said anything about killing any ELF members - only destroying their property the same way they destroyed that private family's radio tower.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    163. Re:Citation Needed by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

      False. 99.9% of the world is moral and upstanding people who respect their neighbors, and therefore would never do anything worthy of blinding. Only that small 0.1% of criminals would be blinded.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    164. Re:Citation Needed by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Fascist.

      A person that believe in a "third way" between socialism and capitalism, such that government runs private corporations like GM or Amtrak or Microsoft? AKA "corporatism". (ponder) Nope that's definitely not me.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    165. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All three of them, including Hilda in Peoria.

    166. Re:Citation Needed by Kashgarinn · · Score: 1

      And sadly, people who know nothing about science don't know what you just said, and thus will make the lazy jump in logic and think that you're claiming that the original act of ELF was a just action (citing Mr. Slippery on slashdot: "Biological systems are complex; if something as relatively simple as a computer can be effected (sic) by EM radiation, it's not completely batty to speculate that biological systems might be also.").

      They don't get that you're arguing semantics on how you phrase the claim, which is a selfish act of little people to think themselves with superior intellect, while normal people will look at what you wrote and think you're debunking the original science and siding along with the ELF idiots.

      So congratulations, you're an enemy of science through your petty character faults.

    167. Re:Citation Needed by beguyld · · Score: 1

      Troll? For relating personal experiments and the experience of others here in another thread?

      A lot TALK about science here, but often it's more like the OS and editor religious wars. People all over the world want to believe that their group has the corner on The Truth, and anything that threatens what they think they already know is automatically evil and must be silenced before any "dangerous ideas" infect the general population. Don't want anyone thinking for themselves...

      I posted a link further down to a university researcher who was an expert in DNA and showed clear DNA damage. Motorola didn't like that... This story was published by a university alumni group.

      No trolls here, move along...

    168. Re:Citation Needed by cffrost · · Score: 1

      You're terrified of ELF?

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    169. Re:Citation Needed by beguyld · · Score: 1

      Plenty of people would be interested if you can detect cell phone radiation in a double-blind test. You could look up who did some of the to-date unsuccessful tests and try to contact them.

      It's been done already. In one of the studies someone accurately did that 9 out of 9 times. Most others were not much more than chance (though there were other anomolies). The overall conclusion of the study was not affected by this person even though it was virtually impossible to be pure chance. And who actually reads TFA?

      Did that cause the researcher to do more experiments? No. Research is seriously biased by corporate funding and politics driven by lobbyists.

      Not a "conspiracy," just that money talks and always has. Most scientists are not willing to give up their career. They have families to feed and want to have some chance to continue to do what they enjoy, and maybe get a change to make a real difference someday. They have to pick their battles.

      Look what happened to the doctor who insisted that doctors should wash their hands after handling cadavers, before delivering babies. He was attacked and ignored, and it was decades before the reality was accepted. Why?

      From Wikepedia: "Specifically, Semmelweis' claims were thought to lack scientific basis, since he could offer no acceptable explanation for his findings. Such a scientific explanation was made possible only some decades later when the germ theory of disease was developed by Louis Pasteur, Joseph Lister, and others."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

      The findings were ignored because it wasn't _already_ understood how it could happen.

      How many times has THAT happened in the history of science? All pioneers get arrows in the back...

      Again, the issue is not science per se. It's who is funding and controlling what gets released. This even fools those who understand science because they are fed flawed data, and twisted conclusions from research studies.

      And many people here won't like that, because they cling to the belief that anything published as "Science" must be TRUTH. Not in our current society, where corporations overwhelmingly pay for the research. Politics reign in the upper levels of universities too.

    170. Re:Citation Needed by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      The optimal size antenna is that size. Your car antenna isn't optimal, so it captures very little. The human body - even less.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    171. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So which category am I in?

      THE AWESOME ONE.

    172. Re:Citation Needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note also that the 50 kW commercial station also had an experimental license for 500 kW transmission during evenings, which was used for a number of years.

  2. Stop this now. by jack2000 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm tired of these treehuging illiterate morons. The government should go after them with guns...

    1. Re:Stop this now. by jack2000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because they hide behind this agenda of "defending nature" when everything they do is politically and financially motivated. Green peace, peta, these "elf" too.. Green peace are BigOil's puppets, don't even get me started on peta...

    2. Re:Stop this now. by JWSmythe · · Score: 3, Interesting

          No, no, no. No need to group the treehuggers, the illiterate, nor the morons in with ELF. ELF is a bunch of lunatics who strive to be the most notable domestic terrorists. They'll usually burn cars, buildings (every good environmentalist likes a good bon fire, right?), and I guess knock over radio antennas now.

          Since it's decentralized in nature, any nut can say they're ELF. Well, just like any nut can say they're Al-Qaeda. You'd have to be a nut to say you're aligned with either one though. Well, I guess you'd have to be a nut to go around burning things just because you felt they did you wrong.

        Speaking of which, I feel a cigarette has done me wrong, so I'm going to burn one rather than reading any more about Nutjubs Inc. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    3. Re:Stop this now. by tres · · Score: 2, Insightful

      don't know what's more funny, this comment, or the fact that it was moderated "Insightful."

      It's truly surprising how self-destructive these people are... do they really expect that they will gain support for actions like this? Their movement, and their cause will only suffer for stupidity like this.

      --
      Notes From Under *nix: blas.phemo.us
    4. Re:Stop this now. by jpmorgan · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they should just let private individuals do it for them. ELF season!

    5. Re:Stop this now. by Koim-Do · · Score: 1

      Well, would you please get started on PETA if I asked nicely?
      and a free bait too: I've been a vegan for the last 7 years (mostly for ethical and environmental reasons), however I have no ties to peta (since I live in israel, and peta don't have a local charter here) and my views regarding most of their campaigns are mostly "Tactical Error" (stupid copyrighting, pandering to wrong audience

      That said, their basic arguments regarding animal exploitation being mostly unnecessary and wasteful seem to be sound (i.e. supported by 3rd-party sources, unlike the GreenPeace objection to any nukular technology. so, what's your beef with PETA?

    6. Re:Stop this now. by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps it has to do with the fact that PETA kills animals. Not a handful of animals. Thousands.

      Perhaps it also has to do with calling feeding kids meat child abuse.

      Maybe it could be with this not so tactful ad.

      Or maybe he's offended by PETA's ads that make mothers out to be murderers.

      Then PETA goes on to say that dad's a psychopathic killer.

      --
      SSC
    7. Re:Stop this now. by Koim-Do · · Score: 1

      All of those ads are certainly repugnant and display the complete lack of thinking about campaign effectiveness (possibly due to the lack of communication with "outsiders"). the holocaust campaign is notorious for that (and is based on some large factual errors).

      Most saddening to me, is that none of those ads feature a single fact regarding animal abuse of any kind. that's quite contrary to the way our campaigns work here.

      Is there a shared pool of north-american nutjubs where greenpeace, peta, and co. recruit activists? if so it could explain much of what you just posted.

    8. Re:Stop this now. by jabelli · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes. They're called "college campuses."

    9. Re:Stop this now. by dafing · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Im a NZ Vegan, dont like PETA, dont have any affiliation to them. I dont agree with their message that "well, if you want to still eat animal products, just buy ones that were only beaten 19 times a day instead of 20". I'll try and do a pathetic attempt to explain some of these campaigns.

      RE PETA kills animals, yes, that gets a lot of coverage online now, people use that as a reason to be NOT vegan, its just a "oh yeah, so one animal welfare group does this so they are all bad!" type reply. Heres a suggestion, go to your local animal shelter, or vet, see if they "put animals to sleep". If they do, cripes, you better make a huge deal out of it! Make banners to boycott their business!

      Death sucks, but so do no kill shelters, where animals can basically just be kept alive in the worst conditions, until they naturally die. Personally, I couldnt handle working with animals in either condition, I have respect for people who can do everything they can to help animals live, and regretfully, put them out of their misery.

      "feeding kids meat is child abuse", yeah, I dont really see where thats going, I dont like how they often equate meat eating to being obese , as if the only way to be thin is to not eat animal products. However, I know that PETA is an american org, and so they are aiming that way because of the amount of americans who are overweight.

      RE Holocaust, PETA is not alone in comparing the 10 billion animals killed for food in the US to the people that were killed horrifically by the Nazis etc. I know this is offensive to people and personally I try not to use it, I understand people get upset when you compare dead people to dead animals, they dont see their lives as equal. "they are just dumb animals compared to my Great Grandfather".
      "As often as Herman had witnessed the slaughter of animals and fish, he always had the same thought: In their behavior toward creatures, all men were Nazis. The smugness with which man could do with other species as he pleased exemplified the most extreme racist theories, the principle that might is right." - Isaac Bashevis Singer (On Enemies, A Love Story)"
      There are also some Jewish vegetarians/vegans who compare the holocaust to animal agriculture.

      RE mothers chopping up animals, fathers killing fish, I know its over the top, but the point sticks doesnt it? Whatever it is about "daddy kills fish! better keep him away from kitty and puppy in case he wants to kill them too!".

      Im not defending PETA, but these ads are really not so difficult to understand? Is it that you ultimately think animals are worthless, and that comparing a death of a human to the death of an animal is repugnant?

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    10. Re:Stop this now. by bendodge · · Score: 5, Informative

      In 2006 PETA found new homes for a grand total of 12 animals on a $31m budget. The rest were killed.
      Source: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=288&issue=021

      --
      The government can't save you.
    11. Re:Stop this now. by dafing · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Again, I dont endorse PETA! I fundementally dont agree with them about animal use being able to be made "humane". In NZ, there was a recent case of a man killing his dog and cooking it to be eaten, the SPCA (sort of like an animal shelter, one of the worlds most well known animal welfare groups) was upset that they man could not be charged because the dog was killed "humanely" by a bonk on the head! Hitting something on the head before you cut its throat is designated "humane". Incredible.

      I do find it very odd, to say the least!, that PETA has so many animals put down. However, I am not an American, PETA dont run animals shelters where I live. If I believe in pet ownership and wanted a pet, I guess I would prefer to have one from an animal shelter. Do you have pets? Did you get them from a shelter? Are they "rescues"? If American people dont take animals from American animal shelters, then what is meant to happen to them? Animals cannot be put into suspended hibernation, not yet! They basically will end up being "put down".

      Also, a source from the NRA? Yeah, as if thats going to be a bias free source! When I think of the NRA, I sure think of Animal Rights :P Not that I have anything against NRA members, many people are probably members, including Michael Moore!

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    12. Re:Stop this now. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Speaking of which, I feel a cigarette has done me wrong, so I'm going to burn one rather than reading any more about Nutjubs Inc. :)

      Yeah, tha fuckin' cigarette is trying to give you cancer, man! Burn that mother fucker!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    13. Re:Stop this now. by dangitman · · Score: 1

      so, what's your beef with PETA?

      There is no beef with PETA! That's the whole problem.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    14. Re:Stop this now. by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      PETA literally argues that any use of animals, at all, is the equivalent of slavery.

      PETA believe in 'animal rights', not some water-down version of that where they have the right not to be beaten, but they have the right not even to be 'used' by humanity at all. That is why they kill animals in their 'animal shelters', to keep people from 'using' them.

      That is why they are fucking wackjobs. They are standing there arguing you have enslaved your dog, and you should let it go 'free'. Which means not feeding it and kicking it out, and then, I guess, shooting it when it goes feral or something.

      There are plenty of sane organizations fighting various abuses of animals. PETA is not one of those groups. PETA is not fighting horrible slaughterhouses, they are fighting seeing eye dogs.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    15. Re:Stop this now. by dafing · · Score: 1

      I havnt seen the PETA campaign against seeing eye dogs, but I have seen campaigns where they will say that "KFC torture chickens", because (their suppliers) kill them one way, and ask them to kill them another way. So, one way of killing is "torture" and the other ways is "acceptable"? This is not animal rights. This is welfare.

      I dont agree with any animal use, be it a canary down a mine or a seeing eye dog. Harsh yes, but I expect technology to give people actual artificial eyes to see. When that time comes, I dont expect anyone to remain sight impaired yet with a dog. Im being consistant with my position now.

      I wasnt expecting to make friends commenting on an article like this :) Just as long as we all agree, blowing up property is vandalism. I dont defend ELF or ALF at all. They give all vegans (assuming they are vegan) a bad reputation.

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    16. Re:Stop this now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, cuz the NRA is clearly not out to push its own agenda. There are three kinds of lies, one of this is statistics, and that's what the NRA is playing with there.

      See, the thing about the numbers? They aren't actually quantified. You don't know how many of the animals were adoptable. How many were brought in with injuries. How many were brought in with illnesses that would make it illegal for them to be adopted. How many were breeds that couldn't legally be adopted, but had to be put to death due to local regulations.

      They just come up with a number, and expect us to swallow their conclusions.

      Pardon me for finding that load of bullshit unappealing.

    17. Re:Stop this now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it that you ultimately think...that comparing a death of a human to the death of an animal is repugnant?

      Yes. Yes I do.

      I love cats, but I would kill every last one on Earth to save a single human life.

    18. Re:Stop this now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do find it very odd, to say the least!, that PETA has so many animals put down.

      And it's even odder, if true, that PETA employees would pick up animals and just kill and dump them, without even taking them back to PETA's shelter. And if the NRA's claims are not true, then why hasn't PETA sued them for libel and slander? (PETA would gladly sue NRA; they are enemies.)

      Check out the PDF with records; PETA used to place more animals than it does these days. In 1998, 258 animals were adopted or transferred and 635 were killed; and they noted that 58 of the killed animals were badly burned birds from some sort of accident. In 2007, 93 animals were adopted or transferred and 2369 were killed . Even PETA can do better than PETA does these days.

      http://www.petakillsanimals.com/downloads/PetaKillsAnimals.pdf

      Also, a source from the NRA? Yeah, as if thats going to be a bias free source! When I think of the NRA, I sure think of Animal Rights

      The NRA wants hunting to continue to be legal. Hunting kills an animal quickly with a bullet; this seems a less cruel fate than being torn by wolf teeth, or starving to death in the winter. It's more cruel than leaving the animal alone, of course, but as a person who eats meat and doesn't want to stop, I don't feel it is my place to condemn hunting.

      How many deer starve in the winter? "...MOST of the fawns die EVERY winter."

      The NRA also wants people to continue to be able to own dogs (including hunting dogs). PETA considers this slavery, no joke, and PETA would love to abolish all forms of pet ownership.

      If American people dont take animals from American animal shelters, then what is meant to happen to them?

      First, American people do take animals from shelters. For example, my wife and I have a pet cat that we got from a shelter. (She was really nervous for weeks when we first got her; she has settled down and is peaceful and happy in our home.)

      There are so many animals that many do get put down. There are also "no-kill" shelters that will hold animals for as long as it takes, until they find someone who will take the animal. The shelter from which we got our cat is a no-kill shelter; they won't even kill the cats with feline AIDS, they try to keep them going. On the one hand, I think they are a little crazy (if they killed the cats with feline AIDS, they would have more room to take on doomed cats from other shelters that do not have a no-kill policy). On the other hand, I have to respect them for having rock-solid principles; when they say they are "no-kill", they really mean it.

      There are also individuals who "foster" animals in their homes. Rather than permanently adopting the animals, they hold some animals for a while, to try to help the no-kill shelters save as many animals as possible.

      PETA could transfer some animals to no-kill shelters or foster homes, if they can't find anyone to adopt the animals. But I have to agree that with PETA's huge budget, they ought to be able to kill fewer animals and place more in homes.

    19. Re:Stop this now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do find it very odd, to say the least!, that PETA has so many animals put down. However, I am not an American, PETA dont run animals shelters where I live. If I believe in pet ownership and wanted a pet, I guess I would prefer to have one from an animal shelter. Do you have pets? Did you get them from a shelter? Are they "rescues"? If American people dont take animals from American animal shelters, then what is meant to happen to them? Animals cannot be put into suspended hibernation, not yet! They basically will end up being "put down".

      Well, you may find it odd that PETA has so many animals put down, but my local animal shelter put down over 12,000 animals last year. How much of an area does PETA serve versus my county? I don't know. Don't even know how their budgets stack up.

      But it should tell you, there are lots of animals being killed. So let's face it, that NRA article? Slanted and biased, and not to be relied upon.

      And no, PETA is not going to sue the NRA for Slander, because that'd just be a pointless legal exercise, as the NRA would just claim they were relying upon what they were told or some other bullshit excuse they can use to put forth their own lies and agenda. Hell, it might even be partially true. But you know what? No organization or cause is able to escape the possibility of fuggheads being involved. Just look at Michael Moore's commentary about the NRA. If we really wanted to, I'm sure we could drag out a few NRA members who act like the home-schooled kid with the AK-47 from the start of Mean Girls.

      My advice? Ignore the distortion. If you want to criticize the PETA animal shelter in Hampton Roads...get knowledge for yourself. If that's too much of an effort, fair enough...go to your local animal shelter. They will be GLAD to see a volunteer. And yes, it will break your heart, but animals die, and sometimes it's best to put them out instead of letting them suffer.

    20. Re:Stop this now. by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, PETA runs ads saying 'X is unacceptable', and run ads about the most horrific animal abuse.

      That does not mean they consider other uses 'acceptable'. PETA is an inherently dishonest organization.

      I point out their webpage explicitly says, and I quote 'People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), with more than 2.0 million members and supporters, is the largest animal rights organization in the world.'.

      And just in case that's not clear, here's their FAQ: 'What do you mean by âanimal rightsâ(TM)?

      People who support animal rights believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose and that animals deserve consideration of their best interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or endangered and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful and even if everyone dislikes him or her). For more information on why animals should have rights, click here.

      They are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose

      Right there. Black and white. PETA's own web page. http://www.peta.org/about/faq.asp

      PETA believes it is immoral to use any animals, whatsoever, in any manner at all. Not just abuse of them, heck, not even eating them. Read what they actually say about pets: http://www.peta.org/about/faq-comp.asp

      And you'll notice they don't actually answer the real question 'Do you believe it is ethical to own pets at all?'.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    21. Re:Stop this now. by dafing · · Score: 1

      sorry to make you go to so much trouble and effort :)

      I kinda know a bit about PETA, as animal rights is one of my interests :)

      PETA talks a lot of crap about "rights". Fact is, they are regarded as a "welfare" group, as they dont just say "hey idiot, go vegan" like real Animal Rights groups do. PETA will work WITH the big companies like KFC etc if they do things their way. Animal Rights groups dont do that kind of crap.

      PETA gives out awards, and puts their stickers on meat thats "humanely" treated. Animal Rights groups shouldnt do that kind of BS.

      PETA is not considered a Rights group by the REAL Animal Rights movement.

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    22. Re:Stop this now. by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I hadn't realized I was talking to an animal right person.

      I was speaking from the POV of sane people, who think that PETA is strictly an animal welfare group. People who see their work as an attempt to stop animal abuse do not realize they are, in fact, attempting to stop all animal 'use' period, even use that the vast majority of people regard as reasonable.

      Like eating meat painless slaughtered, which, despite what you think, PETA does not actually approve of. They do not, under any circustances, give out any seal of approval on any meat all, despite what you appear to think.(1) They, however, would get nowhere in picketing KFCs for serving chicken, whereas they can get the public on their side for picketing for torturing chickens. (Please note I have no objection to making KFC stop that. I'm all in favor of ending animal abuse. Animals should not suffer needlessly.)

      Because PETA is dishonest about their goals, something like 75% of all support of them is, in essence, due to trickery of people that, had they known PETA's actual goals, would give their support instead to the local humane society or something.

      And sometimes this difference between their assumed goals and their actual goals produces rather large difference between what people expect PETA to do, and what it actually does, like the 'only kill animal shelter' (By analogy with a 'no kill shelter') it ran, where it essentially killed all animals it collected. This is a horrible concept if you're against animal abuse, but if you regard pets as slaves, well, dogs and cats living in slavery can probably never been made free, their will has been broken and if they were set free they'd just starve to death as they don't know how to hunt, so the best and most moral thing to do is to kill them.

      PETA, of course, won't actually admit out loud to holding this position, but it's pretty easy to figure out based on their behavior of killing every pet that comes into their shelters, and reading between the lines on their web site.

      1) I have no idea how actual animal right people regard PETA, nor, really, do I care. Probably you guys think they're a sellout, but for all I know you think they're Martians sent here to enslave ferrets or something. Because I cannot possibly figure out how you think.

      It is a novelty to see this from the other side, from people who actually admit they're in the animal right's movement, and thus, having bought PETA's thin facade, think they are sellouts or something. It's sorta funny. PETA's gotten so good at hiding what they are that you guys are believing it.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    23. Re:Stop this now. by dafing · · Score: 1

      You dont have to be a jerk to people you dont agree with.

      Theres no great shame in being in the Animal Rights movement, in case you havnt noticed, "animal rights" people are often parading about naked, or in cages. Its not like its some shameful thing we hide away!

      Anywho, Gary Francione is probably the best person to point to as being Animal Rights compared to PETA and their Welfare movement.
      Here Francione mentions being suprised to be on the same side as PETA, if you want to see his videos on welfare vs rights, then feel free to watch.
      http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/a-note-about-differences-with-peta

      "PETA may have started as a worthwhile organization, but it has become an end in itself and exploited nonhumans are merely âoepropsâ in an endless series of self-promotions that have turned PETA into a multi-million dollar organization that has abandoned any claim to be abolitionist in any serious sense. PETA is hindering, and not helping, the cause of animal rights. But then, if PETAâ(TM)s giving an award to âoevisionaryâ slaughterhouse designer and animal exploiter Temple Grandin, or PETAâ(TM)s position that animal rights means dead animals, did not cause you to come to the conclusion that PETA has gone so far astray as to have lost the path entirely, then perhaps a full frontal striptease performed by a woman extolling the virtues of animal welfare juxtaposed with scenes of animal exploitation and ending with Dr. Martin Luther King will not bother you either."

      One of PETAs awards to people who "lessen the suffering" or whatever of animals, thats whats called Animal Welfare.

      http://www.peta.org/feat/proggy/2004/winners.html

      On the same page as Temple Grandin, slaughterhouse designer, Whole Foods "Whole Foods has consistently done more for animal welfare than any retailer in the industry, requiring that its producers adhere to strict standards. Recently, Whole Foods launched the Animal Compassion Foundation. John Mackey, the chair, CEO, and cofounder of Whole Foods Market, observed, "By creating the Foundation, Whole Foods Market is pioneering an entirely new way for people to relate to farm animalsâ"with the animals' welfare becoming the most important goal."

      Hey, heres a hint, if what the animal feels is most important, they wouldnt be chopping it up and selling its body! See, thats the welfare thing "people are going to eat animals, so we might as well ask them politely but firmly not to beat them so hard before they die".

      I have better things to do than be insulted by you, so unless you have any genuine questions, consider this my last post.

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
  3. Idiots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What a bunch of fucking idiots.

    1. Re:Idiots. by digitig · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh, I do hope not -- I hate to think that they might reproduce :-(

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    2. Re:Idiots. by earthloop · · Score: 5, Funny

      Unlikely. The AM broadcasts saw to that.

    3. Re:Idiots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, this is the start of all the right-wing conservative extremist terrorism our government has been warning us about. Next we can expect our gun-totting religious nut jobs to crawl out of their rural spawning grounds and start slashing tires of SUVs to fight global warming. I wish these republican ignorants would just stick to splashing blood on people wearing fur accessories.

    4. Re:Idiots. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      You wonder if those ELF terrorists realize that an AM radio tower on a higher-powered station (more than 10 kW transmitting power) have a lot of electricity flowing through them, even on the guide wires. They're going to be in for a VERY unpleasant and deadly surprise if they tried to bring down such a tower.

    5. Re:Idiots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      here is a video statement from their leader:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV9gRFv5Kgc

  4. REALLY? by DurendalMac · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh my God, these ELF guys are dumber than a box of hammers. Put their brains in a matchbox and they'll rattle around like a bunch of bbs in a boxcar. Where the hell is the science that shows an AM tower a mile away from your home is giving you cancer? Or hell, a hundred meters from your home? These retards will believe whatever junk science validates their owned warped view and they never fucking question it, defending it to the death. Fuck 'em. Lock these idiots up.

    1. Re:REALLY? by cusco · · Score: 4, Interesting
      We set up access control and video monitoring not long ago for an antenna farm on top of Cougar Mountain, near Seattle. At that one facility there are seven major towers and probably at least a dozen smaller ones. A single major tower can support half a dozen 50,000-400,000 watt radio stations, one or two 400,000-550,000 watt television stations, cell phone antennas, police and other governmental radios, and some private short wave antennas. There are at least twenty houses within a half mile, which have been there since the '60s and '70s. This is only one of half a dozen similar facilities ringing the Seattle metro area.

      Why is it that none of the "radio waves are going to kill us all" crowd seems to have done a single epidemiological study of people living in this intense, continual, long-term bath of radiation? Instead pretty much all I see are collections of anecdotal accounts with no controls. "They put a cell tower next door last week and today I have cancer" is not what I would consider a definitive study.

      Epidemiological studies are not that expensive in the US, once consent forms have been gathered it comes down to statistical analysis of already-computerized data. It's more of a job for insurance analysts, who are actually very well equipped for this sort of task.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    2. Re:REALLY? by Nethead · · Score: 1

      What gets me is that these were AM broadcast towers. The first thing I learned working stations around central Washington was to NEVER touch the live tower. Just a look at the transmitter meters will tell you why. Even a Podunk (Yakima) station shows 5KV @ 1A (=5,000W) at the final plate. How did the machine operator keep from frying?

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    3. Re:REALLY? by afxgrin · · Score: 1

      I take it all those values are ERP values and not the actual radiated values?

    4. Re:REALLY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TBH, I couldn't give a rats about their intentions and motivations... but anyone putting the talkback radio shock jock f---wits on AM radio out of their jobs is perfectly fine with me :)

    5. Re:REALLY? by dtmos · · Score: 1

      He/They likely took out one of the guy anchors with the machine, and let the resulting imbalance of forces from the other guys pull the tower down. (The guys are insulated from the tower itself.)

    6. Re:REALLY? by oldhack · · Score: 1

      You're asking crazies why they are acting crazy.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    7. Re:REALLY? by Nethead · · Score: 1

      er, EFFECTIVE Radiated Power? The power coming out of the antenna. Transmitter power - feed line loss + antenna gain = ERP

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    8. Re:REALLY? by Nethead · · Score: 1

      In one report the excavator was tangled in one of the fallen towers. I'm tempted to drive my the site today to take a look.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    9. Re:REALLY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I was talking to a box of hammers the other day, and they're tired of being compared to the ELF guys.

    10. Re:REALLY? by TNTSoggy · · Score: 1

      http://www.kirotv.com/news/20723839/detail.html this happened near where I live and the community has been fighting about these towers for years because the locals don't want them. It could very easily be an angry local who knew ELF would happily take the blame.

    11. Re:REALLY? by labnet · · Score: 0

      You are being a bit harsh. Yes, they should be performing double blind scientific studies with rats or cows, and I very much doubt there would be measurable effects. BUT
      There is annecdotal evidence from brain surgeons that nearfield UHF (from cell phones) is causing an alarming increase in brain cancer. The effect is not thermal. Cells are polar and it seems radio waves can damage cells in non thermal ways.
      Rife found this out. In fact he found the RF resonant point of many cells, and claims he was able to 'selective destroy' certain cells such as cancer cells.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD-dVXIcVng
      He was way ahead of his time, heterdyning two UV light sources to produce vis light, but to still have a wavelength small enough to image living cells.

      --
      46137
    12. Re:REALLY? by dtmos · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I sit corrected. After looking at news photos of the event, it seems the towers were free-standing (i.e., they had no guys), and were series-fed, meaning that the towers were insulated from ground by insulators placed in each tower leg. While there would have been a brief light show when the excavator first touched the tower above the insulators, the operator was in no serious danger of electrocution as long as he stayed at the controls, since the machine itself would have carried the transmitted current to ground. It's likely that the transmitter's self-protection circuitry would have detected the short circuit at its output very quickly, and shut the transmitter down (before it could be electrically damaged). After that, unless a restart of the transmitter were attempted (either manually, remotely from the studio, or automatically, by a timer), the operator was probably in much greater danger of being killed by falling steel than by anything electrical.

    13. Re:REALLY? by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Using an excavator to solve a problem really does sound like the east county way. I'm guessing it's some out-of-work construction dude with a NIMBY complex. Ya don't just jump in an excavator and use it without having at least a few hours to get to know it. Something tells me that a ELFer wouldn't be the type of person that would get to know how to use an "earth mover."

      Every time I saw one of the no-towers yard signs I had a deep sadness for the state of my county fall on me.

      It's really Ye-Haw county there, and I'm no city boy either. Hell, I live on the rez!

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    14. Re:REALLY? by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You actually made a very, very good point. Insurance companies know the addresses and medical histories of millions of americans. These are most definitely NOT charity organizations, either- we've all heard stories about coverage being dropped for pre-existing conditions or people being denied important procedures. I know from personal experience how difficult it is to squeeze money out of them. So we have a large body of evidence showing that the agencies will do anything for a buck (or to save a buck).

      Now- an organization with the power, knowledge, money, and motivation to deny coverage to people living near broadcast antennae *should already be doing that*.

      But they're not. And I have worked for an insurance agency (United Healthcare/uniprise)- EM radiation is simply not a concern. Hell, the facility I worked at was within line-of-sight of our city's antenna farm- I can't find exact specs, but the farm includes basically ALL TV, radio, etc. for the entire city. I can pick up some radio stations from those antennae a good 100 miles away (FM).

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    15. Re:REALLY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insurance, eh?

      Do not most insurance policies exclude claims for "War" and "Civil Insurrection"?

      That might suggest that insurance for acts by ELF, especially since, from what I've read on the incidents, the government had declared the event to be "Terrorism".

    16. Re:REALLY? by afxgrin · · Score: 1

      Gain doesn't necessarily mean power.

      From wikipedia:

      "For example, an FM radio station which advertises that it has 100,000 watts of power actually has 100,000 watts ERP, and probably not an actual 100,000-watt transmitter. The TPO of such a station typically may be 10,000 to 20,000 watts, with a gain factor of 5 to 10 (5Ã-- to 10Ã--). In most antenna designs, gain is realized primarily by concentrating power toward the horizon and suppressing it at upward and downward angles. The distribution of power versus elevation angle is known as the vertical pattern. When an antenna is also directional horizontally, gain and ERP will vary with azimuth. The maximum ERP is usually quoted."

    17. Re:REALLY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my God, these ELF guys are dumber than a box of hammers. Put their brains in a matchbox and they'll rattle around like a bunch of bbs in a boxcar. Where the hell is the science that shows an AM tower a mile away from your home is giving you cancer? Or hell, a hundred meters from your home? These retards will believe whatever junk science validates their owned warped view and they never fucking question it, defending it to the death. Fuck 'em. Lock these idiots up.

      ELF is so decentralized, though, that there's a good chance the vast majority of people who consider themselves 'members' of ELF don't even agree with this particularly stupid action. It's likely most Slashdotters would disagree with all or most ELF actions, but I think this one probably is getting the facepalm even with radical environmentalist, primitivist, green anarchist, etc. circles.

    18. Re:REALLY? by Reaperducer · · Score: 3, Informative

      We set up access control and video monitoring not long ago for an antenna farm on top of Cougar Mountain, near Seattle. At that one facility there are seven major towers and probably at least a dozen smaller ones. A single major tower can support half a dozen 50,000-400,000 watt radio stations

      You are obviously not a radio engineer, or you'd know that the maximum power a radio station is allowed in the United States is 100,000 watts, not 400,000 watts.

      Further, since you're talking about a transmitter on a tower, the actual output is likely closer to 4,000 watts for 100,000 watts of EFFECTIVE radiated power, which is not the same thing as ACTUAL radiated power. It's all about height. That's part of the reason why satellite radio can cover the entire country with just 3,000 watt transmitters -- they're in space.

      Also, the days of the 5,000,000-watt TV stations are over. The maximum power for station on channels 2-13 is now 10,000 watts I think. On UHF I believe it's around 60,000 watts unless the station gets STA from the FCC. I could be wrong about those numbers, though.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    19. Re:REALLY? by SeaDuck79 · · Score: 1

      Zealots don't care about science, or facts, or anything that stands in the way of their beliefs.

      That our current administration is sympathetic to their cause, if not their tactics, is what's frightening.

    20. Re:REALLY? by Nethead · · Score: 1

      This I know. I've built FM broadcast sites.

      73 de w7com

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    21. Re:REALLY? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is annecdotal evidence from brain surgeons that nearfield UHF (from cell phones) is causing an alarming increase in brain cancer.

      How about a less anecdotal statement:

      From 1990 to 2002, the overall age-adjusted incidence rates for brain cancer decreased slightly ; from 7.0 cases to 6.4 cases for every 100,000 persons in the United States. The mortality rate from 1990 to 2002 also decreased slightly; from 4.9 deaths to 4.5 for every 100,000 persons in the United States

      (emphasis mine) . Link here

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    22. Re:REALLY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that none of the "radio waves are going to kill us all" crowd seems to have done a single epidemiological study of people living in this intense, continual, long-term bath of radiation? Instead pretty much all I see are collections of anecdotal accounts with no controls. "They put a cell tower next door last week and today I have cancer" is not what I would consider a definitive study.

      Becaue they are a bunch of liberal tinfoil hat freaks, and are probably just pissed off at the Conservative tinfoil hat freaks that call in to the late-night AM talk radio shows.

      Seriously, I think this is probably the root of their angst about the AM transmitters.

    23. Re:REALLY? by afxgrin · · Score: 1

      Yeah I should probably get my amateur license. I'm sure the guy down the street with the fairly large antenna mast, and 12 foot wide yagi isn't all too appreciative of my microwave oven experiments. Especially now that I'm about to start without the eccosorb pads.

    24. Re:REALLY? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Why is it that none of the "radio waves are going to kill us all" crowd seems to have done a single epidemiological study of people living in this intense, continual, long-term bath of radiation? Instead pretty much all I see are collections of anecdotal accounts with no controls. "They put a cell tower next door last week and today I have cancer" is not what I would consider a definitive study.

      Why don't you sponsor such a study first? You appear to be the only one who even cares if there is harm or not. In my view, the people claiming there is harm have an obligation to show there is harm, not the people developing the technology. That's how it works in law.

    25. Re:REALLY? by Larryish · · Score: 1

      True dat.

      Went to the dentist recently to have one wisdom tooth and one molar pulled. The wisdom tooth was giving me trouble and the molar had an old filling from a Navy dentist in the early 90's. They gassed me, gave IV anesthesia, and pulled both teeth. I woke up in the waiting room with my wife and went home.

      We have Blue Cross 80% coverage and pay our premiums on time, every time. Now the dentist is fighting with the insurance company over trying to collect for the anesthesia.

      Apparently the insurance company believes that pulling teeth does not require anesthetic.

      Or rather, they pretend to believe it.

    26. Re:REALLY? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, cellphone use had skyrocketed. Maybe their radiation prevents brain cancer?? Sounds just as good, anecdotally ;)

      Actually, there could be something to that, if some incipient tumours are sensitive to it. I don't suppose it's ever really been looked at, tho.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    27. Re:REALLY? by Dishmopo · · Score: 1

      > It's all about height. Except that the FCC doesn't take height into the ERP calculation. ERP = Power + Antenna Gain as the FCC sees it. Their regulations list that a station must lower its ERP when radiating at a higher height above average terrain. I'd also LOVE to see a comercial radio/TV outlet that uses 4,000 watts to get 100,000 watts ERP. That's quite a fantastic gain figure, especially considering most commercial antennas are circularly polarized for greater signal penetration. Look up the antenna models from FCC queries, and you'll find the best omnidirectional ones offer a 6dbi gain -- enough to turn 4,000 watts into about 16,000 watts. As a third point, DTV stations routinely run at 500,000 watts ERP in many urban areas of the US. Suddenly, the 400,000 watt figure is more plausible.

  5. Intercoms? by DaRat · · Score: 1

    People still have working intercoms in homes? I thought that those went out in the 70's to early 80's.

    1. Re:Intercoms? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      People still have working intercoms in homes? I thought that those went out in the 70's to early 80's.

      Well, if the technology does the job and it's in your house, what would you do - rip it out? Houses last a long time...

      Besides, a lot of people mentally lock into technology that was current when they were young, and never advance their thinking past that point. Case in point: The reasonably new (built in 1998) electrical engineering building on our campus. Our faculty - electrical engineers, mind you - bought into spending lots of money on an ISDN teleconferencing system, even though that was obviously on its way out even back then.

      Heck, my wife's 2003 car has a combo tape/CD player (that was the default stereo with that model).

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Intercoms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably the ones for the front gate

    3. Re:Intercoms? by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      This is not an argument - it will be obvious we agree that "outdated" tech is still useful :)

      Especially in 2003 (less so today), a tape deck in your car still made sense - and I don't even mean just to people who had a large cassette collection. Want to hook up your brand new iPod (first available in 2001) to your car? You can buy an expensive radio transmitter device which is a pain in the ass to use and is unreliable, or you can pay $5 at wal-mart for a tape adapter.

      Now car stereos mostly will have an auxiliary input, but only in the past couple of years is that standard.

      My car is a '98 and has a 6-CD changer and a tape deck. Both of those are outdated by current standards, but I'm glad I have them both. I can buy a CD (I don't buy mp3s - I like having a physical product) at the record store and listen to it on the way home, then when I rip it to mp3 later I can hook up my mp3 player (which is not an iPod, so I'm glad my car doesn't have a proprietary ipod connector as some do...) and still play it in my car without futzing about with a radio transmitter thing.

    4. Re:Intercoms? by Locklin · · Score: 1

      Well, they don't like radio waves, so they probably don't have cordless phones (which seem to have replaced intercoms).

      Applicable: http://en.tiraecol.net/modules/comic/comic.php?content_id=279

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    5. Re:Intercoms? by Guido+von+Guido · · Score: 1

      People still have working intercoms in homes? I thought that those went out in the 70's to early 80's.

      Yes, but sometimes they're still useful. I'm in a three-floor townhouse and I'm thinking of putting one at the door. It's a pain in the ass to run down two flights of stairs to get the door.

    6. Re:Intercoms? by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

      My house has one but it doesn't work. It just hums. I opened it up to find out what was wrong and it's chock full of vacuum tubes. So I gave up on it. As I redo rooms, I remove the panels and cover them up. But no one likes a hole in their wall, so some still remain for now.

      --
      http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  6. Tagging by Wog · · Score: 1

    "Domestic Terrorism: It's funny. Laugh."

    1. Re:Tagging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it actually is pretty funny.

    2. Re:Tagging by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 1

      Terrorism? So you're scared of ELF? Really?

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    3. Re:Tagging by FlyByPC · · Score: 1

      Terrorism? So you're scared of ELF? Really?

      You mean you're not?

      --
      Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
    4. Re:Tagging by guyminuslife · · Score: 1

      If you RTFA, you would know that ELF refers to itself as an "international" organization. There must be a couple of Canadians in there or something.

      This must mean that this was, in fact, an act of international terrorism, and we must INVADE CANADA for harboring the terrorists.

      (Don't worry, Canadians, we'll use high-tech smartbombs that will only kill the bad guys, we promise.)

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    5. Re:Tagging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is PETA still funding ELF?

    6. Re:Tagging by commodore64_love · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I hear Canada has lots of oil.

      We'll just take that to help pay for our war expenses, like we did in Iraq. Heck, let's just turn all of western Canada into States 51,52,53,54,and 55. From what I hear many of them would be happy to join the U.S. since the Ottawa government ignores them.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  7. And, appearently they induce criminal behavior by davidwr · · Score: 1

    After all, if it weren't for these towers and their evil mind-infiltrating radio waves, these people would've never knocked them down in the first place!

    Vandalism of what amounts to a public resource for political ends is either civil disobedience or domestic terrorism. If it's the latter, they deserve prison time. If it's the former, they should demand to go to jail and wear their prison garb as a badge of honor. As long as the individuals who did this stay in hiding they are nothing but cowards.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:And, appearently they induce criminal behavior by jamstar7 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Vandalism of what amounts to a public resource for political ends is either civil disobedience or domestic terrorism. If it's the latter, they deserve prison time. If it's the former, they should demand to go to jail and wear their prison garb as a badge of honor. As long as the individuals who did this stay in hiding they are nothing but cowards.

      Ah, but if the 'leaders' of these 'ecowarriors' go to jail, who will lead the 'troops'? You send the 'troops' to jail, but keep the 'leaders' free to inspire more and more violent actions in the name of ELF, etc.

      ELF, btw, is 'descended' from an outfit called Earth First!, who include people like convicted arsonist Rod Coronado as sterling examples of the 'best' that they offer. No wonder PETA likes nutjobs like him, they make PETA look 'moderate'.

      I was talking with an ecofreak once who told me that the 'carrying capacity' of Earth for humans is on the order of 500 million tops. So, with about 7 billion people on the planet at the moment, seems 13 of 14 need to die & join the compost heap. I'd asked the ecofreak if he was volunteering to be one of the first into the compost heap. He told me 'Of course not, they need me to show them the way'. Seems I hear similar things from any of the econutters out there; they're the only ones who can save us from ourselves as long as we do what they say.

      I say, compost 'em first.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  8. Unnecessarily destructive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They should have just wrapped the towers in tin foil.

    1. Re:Unnecessarily destructive by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      But then the birds can't spot them properly, get confused, fly into them, and die horribly, see?

    2. Re:Unnecessarily destructive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a problem after the tower melts. Unless the birds are hummingbirds, think the red-hot slag is a nice red flower, and roast themselves trying to sip the nectar.

    3. Re:Unnecessarily destructive by cpscotti · · Score: 1

      Edukators... anyone...? Also, one could query insurance companies for diferences in life insurance prices for people living in these areas. I bet they KNOW what they're doing! =]

    4. Re:Unnecessarily destructive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can't wrap the towers with tin foil because they sold us aluminum foil instead, and aluminum foil is a heavy metal, like lead!

  9. No by copponex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First, damage to property is not violence. The proper response is to seize the assets of anyone connected with the plot, and prosecute the case as a crime.

    Second, no one should condone irrational behavior like this. But before you go after the environmentalists with guns, you should probably consider that in the grand scheme of things, the loss of AM towers are the tiniest problems facing the nation right now.

    If you want to repeat history, by all means, crack down on the ELF and send them all to prison and beat up anyone in the group. Throw the PATRIOT act in their faces. Within no time at all you will have given their movement the publicity and recruiting tools to really cause problems. And erode public support as more and more people are locked up by guilt from association. Or you can arrest the criminals who participated in the act, force the dissolution of the rest of the group unless they officially renounce property damage as a method of protest, and actually take care of the problem.

    1. Re:No by benjamindees · · Score: 1, Insightful

      First, damage to property is not violence.

      By that logic, one can argue that slavery is also not violence.

      If someone were to somehow destroy all of the farm machinery in the world and a million people died of starvation as a result, would you argue that that is not violence?

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    2. Re:No by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Violence is violence. It doesn't have to be against a person to be violence. Unless you think they carefully disassembled these towers, you're wrong that this isn't violence. And when they burnt down buildings at Vail, that was violence too.

      Yes, I want to lock these people up. It has nothing to do with whether the US has other problems right now. And making up a freerolling strawman argument to condemn what others want to do isn't helpful either.

      --
      http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    3. Re:No by JordanL · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First, damage to property is not violence.

      That's an awfully interesting position to take. Nuclear weapons are meant to destroy vast swaths of property, but no one calls them non-violent. Similarly, the primary purpose of destroying an AM radio tower is non-violent, but the corrollary effects can very easily be violent, (such as the destruction of part of the emergency broadcast system). That's not a "what if" scenario... the EBS is used for many things and does save lives.

      And that's completely avoiding the idea that "violence" is merely destructive agression. If you walk into a Macy's and start destroying displays with a baseball bat, how many people do you think will describe you as violent? My guess is somewhere close to 100 out of 100.

      But before you go after the environmentalists with guns, you should probably consider that in the grand scheme of things, the loss of AM towers are the tiniest problems facing the nation right now.

      Going after them with the army is obviously an overreaction, but you shouldn't marginalize the ELF. They fit every definition of "terrorist".

    4. Re:No by MrMista_B · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, if I burned down your house, that wouldn't be an act of violence?

      When in war, bombs are dropped on cities, that isn't violent?

      When someone with a knife stabs the wall beside your head, that isn't violent either?

      You've got a screwy sense of what is and isn't violent.

    5. Re:No by antibryce · · Score: 1

      I've heard this "property damage isn't violence" argument before and it's just as ridiculous now as it was the first time I heard it.

      Tonight I'm going to take a baseball bat to my neighbor's car and smash in all the windows. He blasts his car stereo at insane volumes late at night so this is my form of protest. That's not violence? It may not be as bad as taking the bat to my neighbor, but it's still violence.

    6. Re:No by timeOday · · Score: 0
      Sorry, no. Property crimes are not inherently violent crimes.

      As for "they should be thrown in jail," obviously. Everybody thinks that. And if the can be caught, they will be, and they will be thrown in jail. So take it easy.

    7. Re:No by Brian_Ellenberger · · Score: 1

      First, damage to property is not violence.

      Huh? Definition from from Merriam-Webster: " intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force ". So if the Air Force drops a bomb on your house, that isn't violence? And knocking over a tower IS a dangerous activity that could unintentionally hurt people. I'm sure that proper OSHA procedures were not followed, for example.

      And the loss of tower IS a big deal, because so much of our modern technology infrastructure depends on towers. Throwing these people in jail isn't going to "recruit new members". It is going to teach a bunch of out of touch left wing radicals that there are consequences to their actions.

    8. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A violent act does not have to be directed at a human/animal body. I call bullshit!!

    9. Re:No by westlake · · Score: 1

      in the grand scheme of things, the loss of AM towers are the tiniest problems facing the nation right now.

      It depends on where you live:

      Hurricane season runs from the beginning of June to the end of November. The past several years have seen an overall increase in the quantity and intensity of hurricanes in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Caribbean Sea, and the Gulf of Mexico. In 2005, there were 28 named storms of which 15 became hurricanes. This proved to be the most active hurricane season in recorded history, causing billions of dollars in damage and resulting in thousands of fatalities. Hurricane Season - Know Before You Go

      It depends on your profession:

      WILL AM 580 Agricultural Broadcasting

      Trucking Radio

    10. Re:No by dr2chase · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Give it up. Nuclear weapons may be "intended" to destroy property, but they directly and indirectly kill scads of people. ELF didn't "intend" to kill anyone by knocking out the EBS system (a side-effect of knocking out the radio tower), so you aren't even doing an apples-to-apples (intent-to-intent) comparison here, never mind that the number of expected deaths from a temporary EBS knockout is tiny, never mind that your description of the "intent" of nuclear weapons is ludicrous.

      There are legal distinctions here, and though ELF may have broken a batch of laws, I don't think that they've committed any official "crimes of violence", meaning battery, torture, rape, or murder.

      ELF does not fit the "kills people" definition of terrorist, so they do not fit "every definition" of terrorist.

    11. Re:No by sumnerp · · Score: 1

      Sorry, no. Property crimes are not inherently violent crimes..

      No, but blowing things up is inherently violent.

    12. Re:No by mikael_j · · Score: 0

      For your first paragraph, well, that's just stupid. In order for that statement to be true you'd have to start out with the assumption that certain individuals or groups of people are in fact not people but property and since I feel somewhat safe to assume that very few people on /. or society in general feel that way then there's really no reason to say anything further.

      As for destroying all the world's farm equipment, that would not be violence, unless the motivation was to cause starvation, but even then it is not violence in the more literal sense (punch to the face, bullet in the chest and so on) but rather more like violence by proxy.

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    13. Re:No by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First: I'll just say that these sorts just make me wish to be hanging around with a sniper rifle. Our way of life, our technological civilization is based on massive amounts of infrastructure investments. I get irked at people destroying that in the name of the environment - at least one developer swapped out his building materials with less green ones deliberately after an EFL faction burned part of his development down.

      Burning a SUV doesn't do anything but cause the car company to use even more resources to build another one. Same with home building.

      First, damage to property is not violence. The proper response is to seize the assets of anyone connected with the plot, and prosecute the case as a crime.

      Sure it's violence. Which would cost you more of your life - a day in the hospital, even a week, or $100k of damage?

      Insurance isn't a true response either - it's just spreading the pain/cost around. Everybody's premiums go up because of shit like this.

      If you want to repeat history, by all means, crack down on the ELF and send them all to prison and beat up anyone in the group. Throw the PATRIOT act in their faces. Within no time at all you will have given their movement the publicity and recruiting tools to really cause problems. And erode public support as more and more people are locked up by guilt from association.

      Or the stupid teens will be spending too much time behind bars to get into trouble? The older members will be exposed as the domestic terrorists they are?

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    14. Re:No by JordanL · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Holy Christ, if I knew you were going to respond like that I would have just kept my mouth shut.

      I'm not going to debate the relative morality of the ELF with you. The fact that you want to says more about you than I ever could.

    15. Re:No by benjamindees · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As for destroying all the world's farm equipment, that would not be violence

      Interesting philosophy you have there.

      In order for that statement to be true you'd have to start out with the assumption that certain individuals or groups of people are in fact not people but property

      There's no reason to assume that. Slavery is coerced work for the benefit of others. It's certainly possible to have slavery without violence as you define it. And since you don't believe theft or destruction of property constitute violence, there's no reason to distinguish between theft of property and theft of labor, as all property is the result of labor.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    16. Re:No by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1

      The ELF is on the terrorist group list for a reason, they've done stuff that's maimed and killed people. They are a real bunch of assholes hated by pretty much every other non-affiliated environmental group.

    17. Re:No by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      the loss of AM towers are the tiniest problems facing the nation right now.

      Yes, but this kind of garbage is symptomatic of the larger bout of anti-intellectualism that's afflicting our society. People at all points on the political spectrum are making decisions based not on rational analysis, but by feelings and "common sense", which opens them up to mendacious, harmful demagoguery. Honestly, I don't see any way to reverse the collective stupidity that's overtaking us. It's like fighting the wind.

      As a society, we're doomed.

    18. Re:No by Nethead · · Score: 1

      I'd still call it economic violence. The station owner lives down the street from me so maybe I'm biased.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    19. Re:No by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Property crimes are not inherently violent crimes.

      Do you actually understand this statement well enough to expand upon the distinction between violent and non-violent property crimes, or are you just parroting something you have heard?

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    20. Re:No by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      First, damage to property is not violence.

      According to you and who else? Any (legitimate) source of the common definition doesn't restrict the definition to living things vs. living things and even has the sense that includes nonliving things vs. nonliving things. e.g. The tornado violently tore the roof from the house.

      You might further whatever your cause is by not making things up for your own convenience.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    21. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, but blowing something up isn't a "violent crime" which has a precise definition in the US to be simple assault, aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and homicide.

      Assuming no one was injured in this destruction of property then it wasn't a "violent crime"

      Of course normal English usage of the term "violent crime" doesn't always match the definition used in crime statistics.

      In other words you're all talking past each other.

    22. Re:No by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      Damage to property is violence, remember 9/11?

      Blowing up an AM Radio Tower is terrorism even if nobody is killed.

      For example if I take a sledge hammer and swing it so it smashes and breaks your TV set so it does not work, would you call that non-violence then? Nope didn't think so, it is violence.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    23. Re:No by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      First, damage to property is not violence.

      According to Webster's New Encyclopedic Dictionary, one of the meanings of "violence" is "the use of physical force in a way that harms a person or a person's property" (the other listed meanings are not applicable in this case). So unless you want to argue that damage to property doesn't harm it, you're clearly wrong.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    24. Re:No by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      If you want to repeat history, by all means, crack down on the ELF and send them all to prison and beat up anyone in the group.

      Then is 40 years or so, the protege of one of their leaders will be elected President of the U.S. just like happened with the Weathermen from the 1960's.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    25. Re:No by Mascot · · Score: 1

      He didn't say it was a violent crime, that may have a different definition, he said it was violence.

      And, according to the definition of the word, unless they took great care in rendering these towers silent in a non-destructive fashion, it is most definitely violence.

    26. Re:No by seizurebattlerobot · · Score: 1

      Yes, but this kind of garbage is symptomatic of the larger bout of anti-intellectualism that's afflicting our society.

      That's a silly thing to say considering the number of scientific studies that have shown an increased risk of childhood Leukemia for kids living near AM transmitters. After a little reading, the issue is not as clear cut as you seem to think it is.

    27. Re:No by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. We've been using AM radio for over a century with no ill effects. Show me one study in a reputable peer-reviewed journal that supports your position and I might start to consider your ideas something other than rotting bullshit. Until then, go cavort with the Raellians and the homeopathy hawkers.

    28. Re:No by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      I notice you have no arguments with my facts or logic. :-)

      Didn't say that they were moral, smart, admirable, or anything better than vandals with delusions of grandeur. But they're a different category of "terrorist" than the kind that kills and/or threatens people with harm, and I think that's an important distinction.

    29. Re:No by shiftless · · Score: 1

      But before you go after the environmentalists with guns, you should probably consider that in the grand scheme of things, the loss of AM towers are the tiniest problems facing the nation right now.

      I bet it's a pretty big problem for the people who just lost a multi-million dollar tower.

    30. Re:No by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      The ELF is on the terrorist group list for a reason, they've done stuff that's maimed and killed people. They are a real bunch of assholes hated by pretty much every other non-affiliated environmental group.

      Actually, ELF has never maimed or killed anyone. I totally agree that ELF are a bunch of assholes, but I'm not about to accuse them of doing something that they have never done. Do you have any information to support this position, or is this just an assumption?

      --

      -Turkey

    31. Re:No by seizurebattlerobot · · Score: 1

      Here are two studies I found with 2 minutes of Google. One is South Korean and the other is Italian.

      Considering how easily I found these, I think your arrogant tone is unwarranted.

    32. Re:No by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      First, terrorism is not defined by killing people. Terrorism is about creating fear, insecurity and doubt in people. Hezbollah doesn't fire rockets into Israel to kill, if they do kill people its a bonus, Hezbollah fires rockets into Israel to put fear in the hearts of the Israelis living there, which weakens the State of Israel. ELF burning homes, car dealerships and knocking down radio masts is terrorizing people by making them fear.

      What ELF did here in Washington was a violent crime, your definition of "crimes of violence" don't cover what many states consider to be a violent crime.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime

    33. Re:No by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1
      Just because you can Google something, doesn't mean that your point is valid. If you go through the literature, you find articles that support your thesis and articles that don't. Consensus studies (which can certainly be biased, but I'll put a bit more weight on them compared to a single poster on the Internet) seems to say that if there is an association, it's pretty small.

      In June of 1998, a special review panel convened by the NIEHS reviewed EMF health studies. A majority of the panel found "limited evidence that residential exposure to extremely low frequency magnetic fields may increase the risk of childhood leukemia." A majority also found limited evidence that workplace exposure to EMFs may cause chronic lymphocytic leukemia in adults.

      According to NIEHS, "the probability that EMF exposure is truly a health hazard is currently small. The weak epidemiological associations and lack of any laboratory support for these associations provide only marginal scientific support that exposure to this agent is causing any degree of harm." The NIEHS did conclude, however, in its 1999 Report to Congress, that extremely-low-frequency EMF exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that exposure may pose a leukemia hazard; the associations reported for childhood leukemia and adult chronic lymphocytic leukemia cannot be dismissed easily as random or negative findings.

      The available research in no way justifies the ELF. Not that they care.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    34. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd argue that you should take the rifle to the developer, or maybe burn down his house after barricading the exits. He's attacking everyone who is or ever will be alive out of spite for some property damage--if there's anything that should rightly be labeled "unforgivable", that might be it.

    35. Re:No by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand. After the ELF has knocked down an AM tower the government should move in with guns and shoot the tower. Offering no explanations. And then they should immediately leave without saying a word. A couple incidents like that and the ELF will be too scared of the clearly insane government agents to do anything at all for a while.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    36. Re:No by mog007 · · Score: 1

      The EBS is used for many things and saves lives? I've honestly never heard it used for anything but tests. Please elaborate on this point.

    37. Re:No by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Hahaha. That is some serious hyperbole. Building more resilient houses that will last longer and stand up to destructive forces means he is spitefully "attacking everyone who is or ever will be alive".

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    38. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First: I'll just say that these sorts just make me wish to be hanging around with a sniper rifle.

      Let's see -- the correct response to property damage is murder.

      Fuck, I wish everyone were as sane as you are.

      Dizzy motherfuck!

      P.S. Great captcha -- humane

    39. Re:No by seizurebattlerobot · · Score: 1

      And what exactly was my point? Let me quote myself:

      After a little reading, the issue is not as clear cut as you seem to think it is.

      Original poster seems to think ELF's claims are patently impossible, there exists conflicting and ongoing research on the issue, therefore issue is not 100% clear cut. QED.

    40. Re:No by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I don't normally respond to AC's, but I'll respond to you.

      The homes he built first would have stayed up, on average, longer than their replacements. They had all sorts of energy efficient/nature friendly buildings - not extreme, but the little things.

      After the arsons he built bog standard minimum-standard houses.

      While giving the news the figures that the ecological damage from the fires would exceed the damages from the difference between the originals and their replacements.

      Pissed most of the more reasonable greenies more on the ELF than him.

      Gotta love the people who jumped to assuming that I really want to murder those people.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  10. Morons! by Null+Nihils · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The electromagnetic spectrum is not a hard concept to grasp. Radio waves are about the most harmless radiation there is. They have a lower frequency than microwaves, infrared, or fucking ordinary visible light. Are they going to blow up the sun next?

    Yet another group of ignorant children playing dangerous games in the adult world. Sigh.

    1. Re:Morons! by Ardaen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is easy for us on Slashdot to see how stupid this is. But you are talking about a country where a large portion of the population prides themselves in being ignorant and rejecting good science for 'alternative theories'.

    2. Re:Morons! by digitig · · Score: 2, Funny

      Are they going to blow up the sun next?

      Nature is ahead of them on that. Fortunately for us, it takes quite a while for something that size to blow.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    3. Re:Morons! by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      There's people out there who will sign petitions to ban dihydrogen monoxide and swear up and down that windmills cause cancer.

      Science is hard.

    4. Re:Morons! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Are they going to blow up the sun next?

      They will, but it will take them 5 billion years to complete.
           

    5. Re:Morons! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please..... Don't give them any ideas.

    6. Re:Morons! by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 1

      But radio waves are radiation! And everone knows that radiation is dangerous stuff!

    7. Re:Morons! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Mind you that these ELF guys (or rather girls, I've seen such groups) are not really environmentalists or whatever you might call people who like to protect nature.
      They are from the same set of loonies that believe in "energy crystals and magnets" and "singing bowl meridian therapy with expressive bongo dancing" or that sitting in a steel frame "dodecahedron will heal you, because it contains the golden ration and the infinite number phi" (I'm not even making this shit up!)

      As black hat hackers / crackers and Internet child harassers give us computer experts a bad image, those idiots give people who care about nature a bad image.

      At its core, we all care for our planet. It makes sense. So fuck these idiots! I hope they end up being harassed by those child molesters and vice versa. :P

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    8. Re:Morons! by gad_zuki! · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      >It is easy for us on Slashdot to see how stupid this is.

      Look, there's a lot of stupidity on slashdot too, like how everyone wants to completely dismantle the government and heaven forbid you mention UFOs or 9/11, because the nutters will come out of the woodwork.

      That said, its unfair to judge slashdot by a minority of vocal nuts and the moderators that support them, the same way its unfair to judge the majority of Americans by focusing on a minority of nuts. Every survey shows the US to be a science loving country, with about 15% who dont care for it. Ignoring hot button issues like global warming and evolution, we're not bad on a global scale, especially compared to homeopathy/traditional loving countries like Germany, China, and Russia. If people werent being brainwashed over evolution by conservative media outlets, their churches, etc it would be much better.

      Not to mention pollsters dont understand alternative medicine, and I suspect many loudmouth US critics dont either. For instance, I take a multivitamin (I have a poor diet) and fish oil daily and occasional kava kava if I have insomnia. There are no shortage of studies to support these things, yet many polls would group me in with people who do homeopathy or visit a psychic.

      I guess its easy to just complain about the US as being the worst thing ever and it sure gets you mod points here, but in reality you're the irrational one. Youre making unsupported generalizations about a very wide and general topic. Id like to see how a plurality of Americans pride themselves on science ignorance and dismiss the scientific method because such evidence doesnt exist. I guess you cant keep pointing to evolution or global warming, but those are still highly politicized and largly more media issues than anything else. A general dismissal of science? Not really.

    9. Re:Morons! by tecnico.hitos · · Score: 1

      Are they going to blow up the sun next?

      For the sake of Mother Earth!

      --
      The good, the evil and the vacuum tubes.
    10. Re:Morons! by tecnico.hitos · · Score: 1

      It is easy for us on Slashdot to see how stupid this is. But you are talking about a country where a large portion of the population prides themselves in being ignorant and rejecting good science for 'alternative theories'.

      I think you should use "or", meaning the logic XOR. Those are not the same things.

      I would also like to add that some of our "good science" were an "alternative theory" in the past.

      --
      The good, the evil and the vacuum tubes.
    11. Re:Morons! by tlassanske · · Score: 1

      Playing Devil's Advocate, I'd like to remind you that ordinary visible light IS dangerous... if you are exposed to it at too high an intensity, you can receive horrible (sun)burns. If it is concentrated (through mirrors or lenses), you could even be vaporized. At normal levels, radio waves should be safe as well. At very high levels (feet from the transmitter, perhaps), I suppose they could be harmful (part of the reason they are high up and there are fences around the base to keep people out). My only experience with living close to a high-powered (FM) tower is that the signal overrode much of the FM spectrum, causing that one station to tune-in between all other stations and override some of the weaker ones. Annoying, but not enough to cause me to take down the tower.

    12. Re:Morons! by Ambvai · · Score: 1

      In their defense, the sun is already in the process of blowing up and probably will continue to be for quite a while!

    13. Re:Morons! by FirstTimeCaller · · Score: 1

      Are they going to blow up the sun next?

      "If you have the solarbonite, you have nothing!"

      --
      Wanted: witty unique signature. Must be willing to relocate.
    14. Re:Morons! by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Look, there's a lot of stupidity on slashdot too, like how everyone wants to completely dismantle the government and heaven forbid you mention UFOs or 9/11, because the nutters will come out of the woodwork.

      Difference is, when the nutters come out on Slashdot, at least they're borderline entertaining and good for a laugh, they don't hurt anybody or anything by their actions.

      And for the life of me, I can't remember ever seeing anything about UFOs on Slashdot, & I've been here a few years before finally breaking down & signing up.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    15. Re:Morons! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Techies and nerds are generally more intelligent, more logical, and more grounded in science than the population at large. I'm convinced this is why most of us are libertarian-leaning.

      It's hilarious to see leftists accuse others of fascism without realizing the history of their own party and ideas. The American Left today is a fascist party, full of corporatists and syndicalists.

      And worse, the Left has proven itself virtually immune to evidence of any kind. Only the party line matters to these idiots.

    16. Re:Morons! by Khith · · Score: 1

      I've seen people at a retail store who were afraid of the security scanners at the entrances (which use radio waves). More specifically, they would buy pet fish and HOLD THEM OVER the scanner when they walked through, because the CASHIERS had told them to, otherwise the fish would die. Of course, the people got home, and their fish died a few days later from illness\improper setup\random causes, but they would insist that it was the security scanner that had fried their fish. Trying to educate them about how the scanners work and how safe radio waves are was an exercise in futility.

    17. Re:Morons! by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Windmills do cause cancer.

      Assuming you're using them to grind coal into dust, that is.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    18. Re:Morons! by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

      "Annoying, but not enough to cause me to take down the tower."

      I take it this was before the likes of the Jonas Brothers and Miley Cyrus were played on the FM stations then?

      --
      blah blah blah
    19. Re:Morons! by miro+f · · Score: 1

      actually sunburn is caused by ultraviolet light, not visible light.

      --
      being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
    20. Re:Morons! by RsG · · Score: 1

      It is easy for us on Slashdot to see how stupid this is. But you are talking about a country where a large portion of the population prides themselves in being ignorant and rejecting good science for 'alternative theories'.

      I think you should use "or", meaning the logic XOR. Those are not the same things.

      I would also like to add that some of our "good science" were an "alternative theory" in the past.

      I read 'alternative theories' (his quotes) to mean pseudoscience.

      In which case, no, very little of our 'good science' ever was. I could cherry pick one or two examples that support your point (plate tectonics is the biggie), but the vast, vast majority of the hard sciences are additive, not alternative. Scientific theories from a hundred years ago or more are still accepted; we've merely added newer, deeper theories that expand them. See the relationship between classical physics and quantum mechanics for a good example of this - basic principals like thermodynamics and the laws of motion are theories that date back to the dawn of modern science, yet are still applicable today.

      You never, ever get the brand spanking new theory that invalidates the old. Not in any field of established science (you do get that happening quite a bit in emergent fields, which EM physics is most assuredly not). The brand spanking new theory is generally just the next layer of regression - the next level down from the existing theory. "Okay we understand matter is made of atoms, now what are they made of?" - that sort of thinking.

      Pseudoscientific theories have died out time and again, and new ones take their place. From perpetual motion to Lamarckism, fabrications unsupported by reality have been cast aside, and forgotten by most (people really ought to pay more attention to history, often as it gets repeated). The point is; the 'alternative science' of today does not become the 'good science' of tomorrow.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    21. Re:Morons! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup that's how Obama got elected: "alternative theories" of hope and change.

      Bye bye America, you're not taking us down with you. Thanks for all the peace.

    22. Re:Morons! by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Except that's not the windmill causing that, it's the coal dust.

      Although I probably should've gone with 'wind farm' which is what I meant, it just didn't pop into mind at the time.

    23. Re:Morons! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "It is easy for us on Slashdot to see how stupid this is. But you are talking about a country where a large portion of the population prides themselves in being ignorant and rejecting good science for 'alternative theories'."

      But, but that's only RIGHT-wingers who do that! My crystals told me so,

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    24. Re:Morons! by skeeto · · Score: 1

      And unicorns! Don't forget that most Americans believe in unicorns.

  11. Re:REALLY? [interference] by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But they are right about the interference issue. I live a little more than a mile away from AM towers, and they cause all kinds of goofy stuff. Anything with speakers or headphones is an AM radio here. I had to buy new equipment to get rid of the interference via trial and error with my wallet. I used to dismiss the Brady Bunch episode where Jan's braces picked up a radio station. But now it seems plausible.

    However, I assure you I have no plans to bomb it. Although, I'd like give them a 20-foot finger.
           

  12. Poor ELF people by Bromskloss · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can't you hear how they are crying out "No, his antenna is too small. It will never carry low enough frequencies. Die, you small antenna!"?

    --
    Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
    1. Re:Poor ELF people by Bromskloss · · Score: 1

      No, his antenna is too small.

      I think you meant to write "this antenna", not "his antenna". In fact, I know you did. Be more careful next time, so that your posts don't seem to allude to things they weren't intended to.

      --
      Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
  13. Can't you see?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    It's because of the AM radio! If it were destroyed, we'd all have working intercoms again!

  14. This is why we need science education by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Say it with me:

    "This is why we need science education"
    "This is why we need science education"
    "This is why we need science education"

    1. Re:This is why we need science education by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Please! No! My head hurts! I think it's going to ASPLODE!"

      Breaking news from 99Chan: There seems to be a pandemic of asploding heads this school year. Pagans and deists are attempting to correlate the pandemic with recently enacted legislation which requires high school graduates to understand basic physics. Some radical groups are saying "If man were meant to have science, he would be born with it!"

      That's News Live at Five - updates at 11:00!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    2. Re:This is why we need science education by f16c · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No. We have science education. The bar is set way too low for high school graduates. Physics was an option when I went to high school. I took the class and understood more when I effectively took the same course over in college just like Chemistry and a few others. Now when people graduate from high school they know what they want and not what they should. Science education is not a problem. Science education of a higher order of general knowledge should be mandatory.

      --
      bob@Osprey:~>
    3. Re:This is why we need science education by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      No, this is why we need critical thinking. People don't learn how to separate fact from BS. Because of this, we have people who will believe something with no fact and insist that it is fact. Look at North Korea, that is where the US will be heading if people think they can believe anything they read in textbooks, the internet, what random people say when they use "big words". Some of the most fun I had in high school is telling people total lies but using words that they didn't understand so they believed me.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    4. Re:This is why we need science education by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      "Development"
      "Development"
      "Development"

      "Development!"
      "Development!"
      "Development!"

      "DEVELOPMENT!"
      "DEVELOPMENT!"
      "DEVELOPMENT!"

      "Fuck! Yeah!"
      *throws a school book with a image of a chair on it*
      "Sorry, I got a bit excited there..."

      -- Beef Stallmer

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    5. Re:This is why we need science education by schmiddy · · Score: 1

      His name is Robert Paulson.

      His name is Robert Paulson.

      His name is Robert Paulson.

      --
      http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
    6. Re:This is why we need science education by Reziac · · Score: 1

      In my high school (a 3 year school in Montana), it was. You needed at least one basic course and one advanced course to graduate. In Junior High (grades 7-8-9, what most places now call middle school) it was required all 3 years. Math was also required in H.S. up through at least one advanced class. History was required through the 11th grade and English through 12th.

      Starting in the 10th grade you could opt which field of science to study (the basic paths were physics, chemistry, and biology) but you couldn't entirely opt out.

      So no, I don't wonder why people educated under that system are less likely to believe in "magic".

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  15. Any relationship to SPEW? by Steve1952 · · Score: 1

    Any relationship between ELF and SPEW (Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare)?

  16. Why? by DesScorp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why the "treehugging" qualifier?

    Because these people don't want to "save" the planet for man... they place the planet above man. They view this not as our home, but view people as inferior, a parasite on their world. We call them treehuggers because these people are essentially a pagan earth cult. They're a Gaia-worshipping Luddite movement.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're lumping a lot of adjectives and terms together, seemingly indiscriminately. I agree that some of the 'treehugger' types sacrifice human potential solely to take actions they (probably falsely) believe will benefit the Earth as a whole, but do be careful with your descriptions! Not all of us Earth-lovers feel the need to spread biological self-hate ;)

      Man is a powerful, intelligent animal. With great power comes great responsibility, as they say, and sometimes the need for self-sacrifice, but it *is* silly to violently oppose technology without understanding its effects. A species that truly respects the Earth and wishes to care after the many forms of life on it is not going to weaken itself; a good caretaker is not weak.

      [posting anon bc this might be considered OT or flamebait by some mods, sadly -- just wanted to open the floor for discussion! -pax-]

    2. Re:Why? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      above man.

      I think you're wrong. While their espoused cause places the planet above man, I think people in groups like ELF are largely mentally ill - sociopaths to one degree or another. In truth, it's inflicting violence that turns them on, and that's why they do it. The environmental spew they issue is just a thin excuse; they'd torture kittens if they couldn't get their fix any other way.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And apparently you're just as willfully ignorant and irrational as you accuse them of being. Hint: Nearly all of what you just said is certifiably paranoid nonsense.

    4. Re:Why? by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Well... actually, it's not a stupid political position of itself. I happen to agree that the planet as a whole is way more important than human endeavour, simply because if we happen to fuck it up we as a species are completely screwed. On that basis, I think it's worth sacrificing one, ten, a million people, if it saves the ecosystem from irreversible destruction (thus saving the rest of us with it).

      The problem is that many people who agree that humanity is less important than the environment misinterpret that as "Humanity is not important at all" and then feel free to act wantonly. It's a logical failing of stupid people, but it's not the overarching philosophy itself that is stupid.

      What is required is a fair dose of pragmatism. It's much easier and more effective to get one person, ten people, a million people, to change their ways or work with you than it is to destroy them. Likewise, you must pick your battles. Saving one whale at all costs will not dramatically help the world - use some of that effort to raise awareness so that the community demands the saving of all whales.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    5. Re:Why? by JoshNorton · · Score: 1

      Hey, don't lump us pagan-earth-culties in with those jackasses.

      --
      "Stupid! Stupid stupid stupid stupid! I touched the hot wire right there - I'm an idiot!"
    6. Re:Why? by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      That's PETA's job, to torture animals that they say are being tortured.

    7. Re:Why? by GMThomas · · Score: 0

      We are an inferior species who have taken advantage of the Earth, hurt it, and not even cared.

      However, I don't condone such destructive actions. Eventually we will destroy ourselves, or nature will destroy us, or some terrible event will help us realize how powerless we really are. For now, push towards less energy consumption, less animal cruelty, less deforestation, but stupid things like blowing AM towers is pointless and hurts the pro-Earth cause.

      --
      You are now manually breathing.
    8. Re:Why? by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      Actually the place:

      #1 The Earth
      #2 The Animals
      #3 The Plants

      Above human beings. They are nature worshipers but more environmentalists are anyway. They'd rather see the human race go extinct than harm the Earth or animals or plants. But they are not a religion, but a brain washing cult and terrorist movement.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    9. Re:Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Well... actually, it's not a stupid political position of itself. I happen to agree that the planet as a whole is way more important than human endeavour, simply because if we happen to fuck it up we as a species are completely screwed. On that basis, I think it's worth sacrificing one, ten, a million people, if it saves the ecosystem from irreversible destruction (thus saving the rest of us with it).

      That's not placing the planet above humanity. Placing the planet above humanity is when survival of humanity itself (or at least survival as a conscious species, and not just herd animals) is deemed unimportant so long as the planet remains "undefiled". And it is certainly a fairly popular viewpoint among the extreme Greens.

    10. Re:Why? by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The very notion that eliminating humanity will preserve the planet undefiled is a tautology in of itself. Humans are part of nature - tool-using omnivores. Anybody who's telling you it was ever different has either drunk too much koolaid, or else not enough.

      I've got plenty of tolerance for extreme greens, extreme vegans and extreme whatevers, so long as they don't bother me with it.

      It seems, though, the problem is the extremism, not the underlying stance. Afterall, who cares if they believe the desert snail is more important than humanity, so long as they aren't trying to violently enforce that agenda? People don't hate the ELF because want to save the planet - they hate them because they're violent dipshits.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    11. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      On that basis, I think it's worth sacrificing one, ten, a million people, if it saves the ecosystem from irreversible destruction (thus saving the rest of us with it).
      I see you are willing to sacrifice others, but not yourself, for your beliefs. How was this marked Insightful?

    12. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And it is certainly a fairly popular viewpoint among the extreme Greens."

      Oh, give me a break. If they really believed that they'd commit suicide and rid the world of themselves in order to help the cause.

      Most people who want to preserve the Earth have that sentiment because they realize humans need Earthly resources, especially in industrialized societies, and we will need them for the foreseeable future for our survival and growth. If we can't figure out how to get what we need sustainably, humanity will either be living in caves again or extinct, depending upon how badly we screw it up. There are innumerable people around the world who struggle to get enough food and water, and a significant part of the problem is the mess that we make of our environment in the process of living and enjoying our lives. Too much of a good thing can cause problems for everybody.

      For most people is it pure human self-interest that drives their desire to preserve the Earth for today's and future generations. It's one of the most basic rules of survival: you don't burn your house for firewood, or if you must, you should switch to a different strategy as soon as possible, because your days will be numbered if you don't. If we had another Earth, perhaps we could be more casual about maintaining this one. You can't have humanity at all without a functioning Earth, and it will be that way for a long time.

    13. Re:Why? by vrai · · Score: 1

      We are an inferior species who have taken advantage of the Earth, hurt it, and not even cared.

      Inferior compared to what? We are the paragon of animals, the only one that's broken out of purely evolution driven behaviour and the only one capable of reasoning, planning and communicating beyond the most primitive of levels. That we expend resources maintaining species in existence that are of no use to us is an example of how special we are; no other species in the universe as we know it would do such a thing or even possess the ability to consider such an action.

      The Earth is a lump on inanimate matter: it cannot be hurt or taken advantage of. It is not concious, it does not feel and it's only of any value because we need it to survive. I'm in favour of protecting the environment insofar as it's for the benefit of mankind. If any other species stands in the way of our survival we should not hesitate to treat it in the same way as the smallpox virus: isolate, study and destroy.

    14. Re:Why? by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 1
      I don't recall saying I wasn't prepared to be one of them? Nope... don't think I said that at all.

      The real question is 'would it help'? Odds are, no - the rest of my post explains this.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    15. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well... actually, it's not a stupid political position of itself. I happen to agree that the planet as a whole is way more important than human endeavour, simply because if we happen to fuck it up we as a species are completely screwed. On that basis, I think it's worth sacrificing one, ten, a million people, if it saves the ecosystem from irreversible destruction (thus saving the rest of us with it).

      So, what's stopping you from leading the way?

      Or did you just arrogate to yourself to decide that YOU don't have to be one of the ones sacrificed?

    16. Re:Why? by dafing · · Score: 1

      ? You really think that PETA is just about to torture animals? I certainly have picked up a lot of PETA hate in recent years. Im not a fan, Im an abolitionist vegan, and dont agree with any animal use, but geez guys, dont go spouting off BS about PETA. There are many reasons to criticise PETA, dont just say "they torture animals!" (even if thats what PETA say about Mcdonalds etc! You can be more clever than that)

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    17. Re:Why? by Locklin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've got news for you, we could light off every nuke and explosive device ever made, and the "Earth" would be back to normal in a geological blink-of-an-eye. There have been mass extinctions before, much worse than we could accomplish, and the ecosystem recovers quickly. A few million years from now you would have some bipedal-squid geologist studying a 0.5cm layer of radioactive soil in the ground and wondering where it came from. That would be the only record of our brief foray on this planet.

      Now, if you want to save environmental resources for your children and grandchildren, or protect choral reefs to they can experience them, then, yes: worry about "irreversible damage." In geological time scales, nothing we can do is irreversible. Heck - we can't even properly sterilize medical equipment -were not going to be able to beat 96% of all marine species.

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    18. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The quality of your writing and argument is sufficiently pathetic that if I were tyrannical dictator of the universe, I'd exile you on the same barren, inaccessible outpost planet as the ELF and PETA morons. You'd be good company for each other.

    19. Re:Why? by soundguy · · Score: 1

      We are an inferior species who have taken advantage of the Earth, hurt it, and not even cared.

      I don't know what kind of chump-change, self-deprecating species YOU belong to, but homo sapiens is the most adaptable, most powerful species to ever inhabit this planet. Humans are at the top of the food chain; the apha predator with the intelligence and technology to create, destroy, and transform entire habitats. If you don't have any respect for yourself, go eat a shotgun barrel and remove yourself from that which you despise.

      Here's something to remember - a self-loathing traitor to his own kind is welcomed by no one except those who would use him for their own purposes.

      --
      Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
    20. Re:Why? by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 1
      The fourteenth word in the bold text there, "if", is what's known as a conditional. Conditionals are sometimes true, sometimes not. You might interpret "if" to mean "Were it the case". Now, 'were it the case' that killing myself, or anyone else for that matter, would save the planet, I'd be the first to volunteer.

      I don't advocate the killing of people, including myself because it wouldn't actually save any from irreversible ecological destruction. Reality is it would make hardly any difference and there are much better ways for me, and others, to help out. As the ELF people have discovered, violence doesn't really help the cause.

      Jesus, did anyone actually read the second half of my post?

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    21. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why, it's quite discriminately put.

      Nobody's arguing that preserving earth is important. Ask anyone on the street.

      But practically everyone is against domestic terrorism.

      To support their tactics and excert any political influence PETA and ALF use emotional retoric to hide their ludicrous ideology so that masses can follow.

      Thus be an Earth lover like practically everyone else, but condoning their tactics is not being an Earth lover, but humanity hater.

    22. Re:Why? by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

      Will you please not reproduce?

    23. Re:Why? by F34nor · · Score: 1

      But these people burn SUVs to prevent air pollution. I am sure a car fire creates more CO2 and toxic smoke than operating even a tractor trailer for its entire life span. If your form of protest is an egregious violation of your own principals you are a hypocrite and and idiot. So you cannot condone their tactics if you love the earth.

      Also as to the "humanity hater" issue you are DEEPLY missing the point of environmentalism. Simple experiment; 1. place a bacteria in a test tube of sugar water. 2. The bacteria divides ever minute. 3. At 60 minutes the test tube is completely full of bacteria; the resources and the room to grow are exhausted and all the bacteria die. Note: at 59 minutes the test tube is 1/2 full, 58 min. 1/4 full, and etc. If the bacteria fill the container they ALL DIE. We are increasing our population at a geometric rate, even if we limited our rate of growth to 1.6% in 600 years their will be 1 person per square meter on the Earth. THAT IS BAD.

      Environmentalism is about making human lives BETTER, and ensuring the continuity of the species.

      Read: http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/transcripts/645
      Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

  17. Misunderstood Extraterrestials by MarkRose · · Score: 0

    Looks like Alf got tired of eating cats!

    --
    Be relentless!
    1. Re:Misunderstood Extraterrestials by afxgrin · · Score: 1

      Pussy eating aliens - who would've thought!?

    2. Re:Misunderstood Extraterrestials by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      That's a brilliant idea for a porno!!

      --
      Be relentless!
  18. "Almost"? by DesScorp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Y'know, I can almost respect them for torching SUVs "

    If you can almost respect them for destroying someone else's property, then you're almost as much as asshole as they are.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:"Almost"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That only makes the SUV owners the bigger assholes for helping destroy the environment

    2. Re:"Almost"? by sznupi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not saying that I support the position of OP, but...well, if you paint it in "destroying property" categories, SUVs also fit nicely, with their pointless (with most owners) waste of resources and greater danger on the road...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    3. Re:"Almost"? by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      I buy an SUV though. It is -mine- that is I can do whatever the heck I want with it. If I want to destroy it, I can go ahead. If I feel like smashing my old hard drives into little tiny bits, I can do that. However, the SUVs weren't ELF's, neither were the AM towers. Then there is the fact of destroying them, lets see here, if they were to drive normally they would use some gas and then be recycled. When they are torched they create pollutants, then all the paperwork cuts down on trees, require more people to travel, etc. ELF does nothing but terrorism and vandalism with a thin guise of "protecting the earth".

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    4. Re:"Almost"? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Ahh, but that's painting the whole issue in legal ownership terms, not in property destruction terms (which isn't strictly the same thing)

      PS. Just to make it clear - again, I don't support position of OP/burning SUVs (actually burning them didn't enter my point at all; just that their mere existence is also a pointless "destruction of property" in most cases), my post was just about small technicality/nitpick.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    5. Re:"Almost"? by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1

      Hey if you are going to start green-lighting destroying things that are a "pointless waste of resources" by all means let me start my list, I should warn you though that at least the first 1000 items are all going to be human beings.

      I drive my vehicle because it suits my needs, without it I'm out of work, some ass wants to burn it is ASKING for a bullet in the face. Am I allowed to burn people's TVs because all they watch is Jerry Springer and "reality" shows?

    6. Re:"Almost"? by pla · · Score: 1, Troll

      I buy an SUV though. It is -mine- that is I can do whatever the heck I want with it.

      True.

      I can't stop you from buying an SUV, thereby endangering my life (not to mention your own - The gloss of "safety" attributed to SUVs doesn't even exist for the occupants) every time you get on the road. You can choose to waste your money to put twice as many greenhouse gasses per mile into the air as the average passenger vehicle. You have the "right" to back over your own kids because SUVs have dangerously poor rear and side blind spots.

      But y'know, somehow, I just can't seem to feel all that bad when someone throws a molotov through the window of your penile compensation at 2am.

      But hey, just my opinion. You have every right to do whatever the heck you want with it, and I look like the asshole here.

    7. Re:"Almost"? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      "Two wrongs don't make a right" doesn't make in any way "one wrong" acceptable.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    8. Re:"Almost"? by Improv · · Score: 1

      And if you buy land, you can pour toxins into it so long as your destruction stays local or your neighbours don't mind?

      Society depends on people being reasonable - wasting resources on a shitty car that takes an inordinate amount of nonrenewable resources to keep it going is a lousy use of those resources. SUVs should be banned.

      We have one habitable planet, and we only have so many resources to spend on each person. The "I've earned the right to be an asshole" way of living needs to be stopped.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    9. Re:"Almost"? by xZoomerZx · · Score: 1

      Hey if you are going to start green-lighting destroying things that are a "pointless waste of resources" by all means let me start my list, I should warn you though that at least the first 1000 items are all going to be human beings. I drive my vehicle because it suits my needs, without it I'm out of work, some ass wants to burn it is ASKING for a bullet in the face. Am I allowed to burn people's TVs because all they watch is Jerry Springer and "reality" shows?

      Word! TV in general and JS & 'reality TV' in particular, makes the brains dribble out of the ears. Part of the problem is the 'S' in SUV, I dont have a SUV, I have an UV - Utility Vehicle. And yes I have a class B license too, I can drive trucks a lot bigger that 'Burb. If you condone the use of 'fire' the noun, I condone the use of 'fire' the verb.

      --
      Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
    10. Re:"Almost"? by secretplans · · Score: 1

      December 16, 1773

    11. Re:"Almost"? by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Idiot. All cars should be banned. Privately owned transportation has no place in the resource-constrained 21st Century.

      If you can't ride a bicycle to work or walk, move somewhere where you can.

      Same thing with groceries. If you eat so much that it takes a car to carry it to your home, you eat too much.

      On the road to sustainability, there are going to be lots of small casulities. If you are consuming more than you are producing, you are going to be one of them.

      If we insist on operating the planet as a closed system without obtaining resources from elsewhere, then "sustainability" really does mean that all there is to use is what is in front of you. Food is going to be come scarce and transporting food over long distances will be impractical. If you aren't living near a farm - close enough to bicycle over to get some food - you better think about moving. The days of shipping an orange 2000 miles to someone are just about over.

      And you better think about what you are producing. Is it food for your family, or is it CO2 and pollution? One gets you life in the new world, the other death in the old one.

      Of course some folks might look up at the sky and see infinite resources there for the taking. Except as a culture we seem to have decided to stay planet-bound and just try to ignore the cornucopia that is out there. Too bad, really. We might have had a chance. Now it is just a race to the bottom seeing how few resources we can consume.

    12. Re:"Almost"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right - let's let people destroy as much of the environment as they can afford to destroy. Better yet, sit on your ass and make fun of people who actually care enough about something not to hide behind a keyboard.

      You tend more toward assholery.

    13. Re:"Almost"? by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>>SUVs..... their mere existence is also a pointless "destruction of property" in most cases

      False.

      The person who owns the mine which holds the metal (or rubber or petroleum) sells that property to the carmaker who reshapes it into a vehicle which is then sold to a private citizen. At no point has property been destroyed, but instead transferred, some labor mixed-in with the property, and then transferred again.

      If you're trying to say that SUVs emit harmful pollutants, well that's true, but so too does the car you drive. So before you go set fire to someone else's SUV, you should first set fire to your own car. Demonstrate through sacrifice what you truly believe.

      And last-but-certainly not least, as "dirty" as an SUV may be, it's minimum LEV qualification means it's emitting about 1/10000th as much as a pre-regulation 1970 van. Even the catalyst-equipped 80s cars were rather dirty. One of today's 2009 SUVs is cleaner than my 1987 Dodge sedan. So while you may look at your SUV neighbor and think "irresponsible" you should be congratulating him for buying a newer, cleaner vehicle rather than driving an old clunker.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    14. Re:"Almost"? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      "Two wrongs don't make a right" is a false statement. We routinely commit a second wrong when we deprive criminals of their liberty, or force a vandal to open his wallet and hand-over money to cover damages caused - it's called justice.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    15. Re:"Almost"? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Again, you're talking solely in the terms of legal ownership. "Property" term is IMHO much broader, and includes also the kinds of it that aren't protected in the same way/at all. Things that require recognition by whole community, that are collectively owned, and so on...

      Like natural resources/environmental impact; SUVs waste them needlessly in most cases (I don't say that they're pointless in all cases).

      And luckily there aren't many SUVs where I live; people who get such ridiculousness as Hummer H2 as their main car (there is one such in my city) get rightfully laughed at (but not those with ex-military Humvee, or my buddy with Jeep Wrangler...which are actually used sensibly, even if mostly for ~recreation)

      Also, read my first post - I wasn't agreeing about burning in the slightest. It's a waste. But...just like most of SUVs themselves.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    16. Re:"Almost"? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Doesn't change much in how this now false statement relates to "solitary" wrong.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    17. Re:"Almost"? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      "If you can't ride a bicycle to work or walk, move somewhere where you can." So how are goods suposed to get into the super dense urban areas where you can bike or walk to work? Or is the state going to own all the transport systems to get those goods into the cities?

      How about the farmers with the miles of fields? They going to have to bike to work? Private ownership of tractors and harvesters allowed?

      We've been hearing that scarcity bit since the late 60s, and its never come true, and in our lifetimes, in the Industrialized and Industrializing world, its not going to happen.

    18. Re:"Almost"? by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      If you think that shooting someone for damaging property is a reasonable response then you can be safely dismissed as a nutjob. If your vehicle is truly essential for work then you should have it fully insured anyway, as there are lots of ways it could be lost, so your claim that destroying it would put you out of work is untrue. So it would boil down to shooting someone because they annoyed you, which is the action of a psychopath, not a reasonable human being.

    19. Re:"Almost"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah hell. There's a jerk near a local high school that drives around in a hummer cutting people off illegally double parking in handicapped spots and honking at everyone. I would be glad to see that vehicle get torched.

    20. Re:"Almost"? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      The Boston Tea Party was a protest against the theft of American property via taxation and dictated monopoly rents by the British.

      Furthermore, from the Wikipedia article:

      In the colonies, Benjamin Franklin stated that the destroyed tea must be repaid, all 90,000 pounds. Robert Murray, a New York merchant went to Lord North with three other merchants and offered to pay for the losses, but the offer was turned down.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    21. Re:"Almost"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Y'know, I can almost respect them for torching SUVs "

      If you can almost respect them for destroying someone else's property, then you're almost as much as asshole as they are.

      Yeah, those poor defenseless banks really need someone to stand up for them and defend their property on their behalf.

    22. Re:"Almost"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DesScorp said- "I'm so fucking righteous!"

  19. White House response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since President Obama has found something to do for the whole of the Weather Underground, I bet our President is eager to find key czar positions for members of the Earth Liberation Front in his administration.

  20. In related news by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    Elrond and Legolas entered in the Most Wanted Fugitives FBI list.

    1. Re:In related news by cusco · · Score: 1

      Four or five years ago the FBI wanted to classify ELF and ALF (the Animal Liberation Front, not the TV alien) as terrorist groups active in the Untied States. This would have pretty much eliminated their funding sources, which is what their leadership is mostly interested in, and put most of the rank and file in jail. Fortunately they included Greenpeace (which hardly has any operations in the US) in the list for some reason, and their idea got squashed.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  21. And to put the towers back up... by scourfish · · Score: 4, Funny

    we are going to need to burn some oil and release more CO2 into the air as we transport workers and materials in the rebuilding effort. I'm glad the ELF thought this through.

    1. Re:And to put the towers back up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention they borrowed a nice diesel powered CAT excavator to do the deed. You'd think real tree huggers would do it with granola powered hacksaws or big wrenches... Oh.. those hacksaw blades were made in a foundry??? I wonder how many moles, mice and anthills they crushed under the treads of that thing when they did it? Of all the stuff they could've hit... SUV dealers, ski lodges, gas stations, etc, they go for a radio tower? Almost sounds like a "hey a couple of guys got drunk, borrowed a CAT and knocked over some towers, let's claim it to get attention!"

    2. Re:And to put the towers back up... by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      we are going to need to burn some oil and release more CO2 into the air as we transport workers and materials in the rebuilding effort. I'm glad the ELF thought this through.

      I know you're joking, but this is absolutely true. I wouldn't be at all surprised if, in the grand scheme of things, a small child in a third-world country somewhere eventually dies due to lack of food or heat or water because resources were diverted to support the rebuilding of these towers.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  22. Enslaving the Honey Bees by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    These are the same nutters who think we are enslaving the honey bees. No kidding. http://www.vegetus.org/honey/honey.htm

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  23. It's about censorship by LenE · · Score: 1

    These ELF people may not be bright, but I assure you that they know that AM radio will not give you cancer. They took out the antennae because they did not like what was being broadcast from them, and because they could.

    In one of their typical "look at me" extreme vandalism moves, they get to silence some major critics pre-emptively, and still get lots of attention.

    -- Len

    1. Re:It's about censorship by Nethead · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, those ELF folks just HATE Washington State University football! The station broadcasts a sports radio format and covers many of the local high school games. Unless the ELF has a dog in the Everett vs. Monroe football game, your comment makes no sense.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    2. Re:It's about censorship by LenE · · Score: 1

      Corrected I stand. Were there any signs at the site telling who owned or operated the towers, or what format they were broadcasting? All of the towers I've seen have been rather non-descript as to what signals they were carrying.

      -- Len

    3. Re:It's about censorship by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      I find it hard to sympathise with them when I can't even read the official statement on their front page because it's in MS OOXML format.

    4. Re:It's about censorship by Nethead · · Score: 1

      It was VERY well known in the county exactly whose site it was. The permitting process went on for over 8 years and was very hotly contested.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    5. Re:It's about censorship by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      Mind you, they may want to think twice about taking down a tower transmitting more than 10 kW of power on the AM spectrum. A lot of electricity flows through these towers (including the guide wires!), and the ELF terrorists will find out in a most unpleasant and deadly way trying to bring down a higher-powered radio can do....

  24. Props to you, honourable citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The poor intercom performance must have been the last straw."

    This sarcasm is relevant to my interests!

  25. Doubt it was ELF by Nethead · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Disclaimers: I live a few houses down from the station owner, so I've followed this for a while. I was a broadcast engineer in a past life (even did some contracting at a former iteration of this station.)

    Here is the story from the local paper: http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20090905/NEWS01/709059909&news01ad=1 (good set of pictures)

    From the Seattle Times version: "Andy Skotdal, general manager of the family-owned sports-radio station, isn't convinced ELF is responsible, even though the group's North American press office in Washington, D.C., issued a news release and posted an item on its national Web site Friday saying it was.

    He suspects disgruntled locals who have long opposed the siting of the towers on 40 acres of farmland may have taken matters into their own hands after losing a key ruling in King County Superior Court a few weeks ago.

    "My suspicion is, it's somebody local," Skotdal, whose family has owned the station for 20 years, said by phone Friday as he watched dozens of sheriff's detectives and FBI agents comb the property for evidence. "It could be somebody painting ELF on a banner to throw off suspicion."

    In the same story, the FBI sees a few things that point to ELF but they are only a day into the investigation. I'd lay away from making a call right now on who is responsible.

    Either way, stealing a excavator, driving it through a muddy field and pulling down two towers has to leave a good amount of evidence. I'm also thinking that the guy wires must have been cut too, just to keep from kill the machine operator on the first tower.

    --
    -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    1. Re:Doubt it was ELF by sdturf · · Score: 1

      I would not care who actually did it since if an official spokeperson of an organization claimed responsibility I would know to whom to send the bill (or the lawsuit) to replace it.

    2. Re:Doubt it was ELF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, this is the first successful act of terrorism on American soil since 9/11. The funny thing is that it's not by al-Qaida. These guys are not even Saudis or even Arabs to begin with, so it's safe to assume they're not al-Qaida. They're probably not even bloody Muslims...

      This is for what America has surrendered it's right: in order to be better prepared for a bunch of middle class assholes with too much time to spare. (It is basically the same story and the same sort of motive, whether or it's the ELF of the local NIMBY squad.)

    3. Re:Doubt it was ELF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean....other than the Anthrax attacks not even a month later?

    4. Re:Doubt it was ELF by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Well, it could be some combo of the two. There are definitely crazy people around here who have been opposing these radio towers for a LONG time. (I live less than 20 miles from where the towers were knocked down.) Drive down Highway 9 between Snohomish and Woodinville, and you've seen these crazy people's crazy signs.

      I'm guessing that the the crazies opposing the antennas might have gone to ELF after they lost their hearing, and arranged an alliance with that group, in order to get them to claim responsibility. The real question is which group the actual guy driving the actual piece of construction equipment that downed the antennas was with... I'd wager that person was a local.]

      It's also possible that ELF has people nearby who were available to do the act itself, but in either case, I'm certain that one of the crazy locals along Highway 9 planned and arranged this. Why else would ELF even slightly care about this?

    5. Re:Doubt it was ELF by DavidTC · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is no 'ELF' and there's no way to arrange an alliance with them.

      I wish slashdot would explain what 'ELF' is a little better when posting articles about it. They are a front. Something that exists solely so that people can attribute their actions to it. That is what 'front' means.

      Usually, the fact a group is a front is a secret, but when it's in the name of the group, it means the organization doesn't officially exist, hence anyone can claim to be working for it. Groups spring up that claim they're part of it, because they share the same goals, and they attribute their actions to it, which keep them from having to expose themselves and state their goals. They can use the other, nonexistent group as a 'front'.

      And there's a press office in DC that is not ELF, but the 'ELF press office', which will just simply repeat whatever message you send it. You don't have to actually work for 'ELF' to get them to repeat your message, because there is no actual 'ELF' to work for. (And they, quite deliberately, are operated with no knowledge of people actually doing the things, so have no way to confirm this stuff.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    6. Re:Doubt it was ELF by khallow · · Score: 1

      I wish slashdot would explain what 'ELF' is a little better when posting articles about it. They are a front. Something that exists solely so that people can attribute their actions to it. That is what 'front' means.

      ELF is just a label. And "front" has many other meanings like the front of a war. As far as I know, you are correct, but you have to deduce the nature of ELF from its actions not from its name. Too many names are euphemisms or just something catchy (like ELF. come to think of it). And there's no reason that the nature and organism of ELF couldn't change radically in the future. Having "front" in the name doesn't mean it'll continue as it is.

    7. Re:Doubt it was ELF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even before I got to your post, I was thinking that someone else was probably responsible due to how stupid the reasoning was for the destruction of the tower. Who would destroy a tower for reasons that don't make sense then so openly say "i did it! i did it!"? That would not help their cause since it would only make them look stupid and prevent anyone else from joining their cause (I would think) or from helping them establish any future credibility by destroying current credibility. Of course, I was thinking that some competitor may have been at fault or something like that (the FM people did it!) but the info you posted makes much more sense, of course. :)

      Thanks for sharing.

    8. Re:Doubt it was ELF by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there are a lot of different meanings of 'Front', but, regardless of whether you can figure it out from their name, the point is, there really isn't a 'ELF' that actually does anything. It's just a group that people ascribe their actions to.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    9. Re:Doubt it was ELF by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Well, in that case I just ate a sandwich In The Name Of ELF. Therefore, ELF are a bunch of sandwich-eaters.

      Let it be known.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  26. Nobody likes ELF. Not even their "allies." by Valdrax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you want to repeat history, by all means, crack down on the ELF and send them all to prison and beat up anyone in the group. Throw the PATRIOT act in their faces. Within no time at all you will have given their movement the publicity and recruiting tools to really cause problems. Within no time at all you will have given their movement the publicity and recruiting tools to really cause problems. And erode public support as more and more people are locked up by guilt from association.

    I agree with all of your post except this point. Unlike many Islamic terrorist groups, the ELF rarely if ever takes any sort of positive action "back home" to draw in sympathy (e.g. Hamas and Hezbollah run charity hospitals). Additionally, those organizations have an enemy that is widely reviled by their neighbors and considered a threat to their lives and way of life (i.e. Israel and the US). Sympathy for terrorism only happens when normal people feel there's some sort justification for the terrorists' actions.

    ELF, in contrast, strikes out seemingly randomly at many targets that are not nearly the worst offenders, like the radio station here or by burning an entire car dealership for selling SUVs. Worse for them, the rest of the green movement is generally filled with people who respect principles of nonviolence and wouldn't support such against against even the worst offenders. That's why next to no one has any sympathy for ELF; they're practically green anarchists. I'm about as tree-hugging as you can get, but absolutely NO environmentalist that I know has ANY sympathy for these losers.

    Personally, I'd be happy if they were all locked up so that those of us who aren't violent radicals wouldn't have to have them used against us by people on the other side of the debate.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  27. Re:How strange by phantomfive · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Yeah, it's not surprising though, a lot of people want to use government to force the world to be the way they want it. Environmentalists want to keep the earth as unchanged as possible, even if it means no water for farmers (big problem right now in California). Even if it means chopping 40% off the GDP in order to reduce carbon dioxide output. Or burning houses and SUVs.

    Religious people want to make sure no one has sex in weird ways. Poor college students want to be able to download songs for free, even though a dollar a song isn't really all that much. Corporations want to get as much as possible from you, and hippies want to destroy the corporations. The guy who lives next door to me thinks fighting should be legal. I kind of understand, since he is a big guy that would work to his advantage. For us smaller people, suing is a more attractive option.

    If I didn't offend anyone in this post, please let me know and I'll do a follow up. The point is, it's not really about cancer, ELF won't be happy until the world is the way they want it to be, which is essentially people-less. And it's hard to say how the world SHOULD be, and throughout a lot of history, we've solved that problem by having kings who fight and kill those who disagree with their vision of the world. The strongest man wins.

    In our more civilized age, we now use democracy, essentially rule by the majority, which is only better because it is somewhat less violent. And if enough people think freaky sex is bad for society, well it will be outlawed. Sorry for you if you want to do it. If most people think churches should start paying taxes, then that's going to happen too. It's how our society works, and it's only good in that it's better than the alternatives.

    --
    Qxe4
  28. We need to go out on a elf-hunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What we need is a elf hunt. Make it be your typical extermination hunt, such as we had on the Olympic peninsula a few years ago to get rid of the feral hogs that were tearing up the native vegetation. No tagging required, no bag or possession limit, no restrictions on the weapon used (so we can get the bow hunters, the black powder guys and gals, the handguners, maybe even a flamethrower or two).

    I wonder what kind of mount would be good for an elf? Typical head on wall, or perhaps a rug?

    1. Re:We need to go out on a elf-hunt by jabelli · · Score: 1

      Lots and lots of copies of the Necronomicon!

  29. Next: The Sun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forget AM towers, have these people ever though about the sun?

    - The sun increases the risk for cancer much more that AM radio towers do.
    - The sun causes sunburn.
    - The sun also increases the risk for forest fires.
    - The sun will destroy the earth! Including intercoms!

    The sun would attract more publicity than a tower.

    Maybe they'll close Santa's workshop to get more elves working on the sun.

    1. Re:Next: The Sun! by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      You forgot: The sun is the main cause of global warming. Take the sun away, and there will be no global warming at all, no matter how much CO2 you put into the atmosphere.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  30. Just to be on the safe side by Punk+CPA · · Score: 3, Funny

    Maybe AM radio causes cancer, maybe it doesn't. Why take a chance? From now on, I'm only going to listen to FM.

    1. Re:Just to be on the safe side by tunapez · · Score: 1

      From now on, I'm only going to listen to FM.

      For God's sake, man! Don't do it!!!!

        Even ALF knows it's gotta be digital to be safe. Put your tinfoil hat back on and go get Hi-.

      --
      Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
    2. Re:Just to be on the safe side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe AM radio causes cancer, maybe it doesn't.

      I say we take off and nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

  31. HAH by NumenMaster · · Score: 1

    What a bunch of fuckups. lol AM towers, now that's random. What's next windmills? Um, they impede the free movement of air and adversely affect trees and avian flight. Yeah that's it. /pant

    --
    Where's my sock? There it is...
    1. Re:HAH by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      What a bunch of fuckups. lol AM towers, now that's random. What's next windmills? Um, they impede the free movement of air and adversely affect trees and avian flight. Yeah that's it. /pant

      Please put your pants back on. Just... please do it, okay?

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  32. One question: by damburger · · Score: 1

    If its specifically AM radio, how does the cell detect the modulation and know to become cancerous? Thats one damn smart tumour.

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  33. No Predator Drone Left Behind by TrebleJunkie · · Score: 1

    We should totally start using armed Predator drones on these fuckers. The ELF, not AM radio towers.

    --

    Ed R.Zahurak

    You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.

  34. Re:REALLY? [interference] by Erinnys+Tisiphone · · Score: 1

    But they are right about the interference issue. I live a little more than a mile away from AM towers, and they cause all kinds of goofy stuff. Anything with speakers or headphones is an AM radio here.

    But you, being a sensible human being, realized that the solution was to buy shielded cables and electronics, not to trash a radio tower that serves your entire area. Yes, in our digital age, interference is irritating, but radio transmission and EMI is absolutely integral to our lifestyle.

  35. ELF and direct action responsibility by Improv · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Number one rule for direct action:

    Have your facts straight. If you target the wrong people, or if your science is bad, you're sacrificing credibility and making people angry for no good reason.

    --
    For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    1. Re:ELF and direct action responsibility by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      To be perfectly honest, ELF is simply a terrorist group using environmentalism as an excuse.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:ELF and direct action responsibility by belmolis · · Score: 1

      True, but at least this kind of terrorist goes after radio towers rather than people. I wonder if we could persuade Islamic terrorists to follow their lead?

    3. Re:ELF and direct action responsibility by Improv · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Bullshit.
      "Terrorist" groups do not do what they do just for laughs. They have a reason.

      I've participated in various direct action groups, years ago - they're full of devoted, caring people. Not all of them are as clued as they should be, but they're not people who just like blowing things up.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    4. Re:ELF and direct action responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. "Terrorist" groups do not do what they do just for laughs. They have a reason. I've participated in various direct action groups, years ago - they're full of devoted, caring people. Not all of them are as clued as they should be, but they're not people who just like blowing things up.

      That sounds fair. I have a bottle of a nice chanti which is my reason for wanting your liver. I care deeply about good food, therefore I ask that you send me your liver packed in ice. I may not be clued up, but I'm not someone who is willing to settle for pedestrian fast food. Thank you for your co-operation.

  36. Re:How strange by dtmancom · · Score: 1

    You can almost respect them for destroying someone elses car? Then you just barely have morals.

  37. Re:REALLY? [interference] by Nimey · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ferrite cores. If you put them on the wires picking up the signal, it's supposed to stop the pickup.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  38. Yeah, there are some weirdos out there by WD · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just go ahead and check out these instructions on how to make "Holy Hand Grenades" and "Tower Busters". Granted, this is less destructive than knocking down towers, but the ignorance involved is just about as scary.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccS70UQE0fE

    1. Re:Yeah, there are some weirdos out there by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      I always thought the Holy Hand Grenade worked like this!

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Yeah, there are some weirdos out there by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wish I hadn't watched that. Some things get under my skin and ruin my whole day...

      I just love how the guy is using these crystals to protect himself from cell towers- By using *acetone* and poly casting resin (The activator for this stuff is terrible; read the MSDS for this product http://www.evercoat.com/productDetail.aspx?pID=23 ).

      This fake science is just as offensive as racism, nationalism, homophobia, or any other irrational philosophy that ignores or even spits on the accumulated empirical evidence or rational scientific study. And no, there aren't two equal but opposing viewpoints regarding EM. There's right and wrong. Fact and fiction.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    3. Re:Yeah, there are some weirdos out there by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny

      And no, there aren't two equal but opposing viewpoints regarding EM. There's right and wrong. Fact and fiction.

      Oh, that's just your viewpoint, which is equally valid as my viewpoint, which is that right and wrong are subjective and decided largely by volume of ranting and by a sense of fairness, such that even my made up bullshit gets to be right for a day every once in a while.

      And on that day, AM radio towers will cure cancer. I demand an equal amount of airtime for my view as for you and ELF on the non-AM media channels.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:Yeah, there are some weirdos out there by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 4, Funny

      You know it occurred to me just now that these people with their orgone or whatevers, you know the things with the quartz crystals... They claim that somehow the crystals absorb the EM waves or something; I honestly don't really know the entire spiel.

      What do you think would happen if we told them that radio waves are generated using a quartz crystal oscillator? Head explosion? Rending of clothes and gnashing of teeth?

      Sadly, it would probably go something like this little conversation I had with my vegan friend:

      "It's terrible to kill and eat animals. It's not natural."
      "So, should we kill all the wolves and tigers and ferrets? They kill and eat animals."
      "That's different because they're natural."
      "What are humans, then? Aliens?"
      "We have self awareness, so we have the duty to be kind to animals."
      "So if animals aren't self-aware, wouldn't that mean that they don't have souls or feel pain?"
      "..."
      "If wolves became self-aware and stopped eating meat, they'd become sick and maybe die. They have evolved to be carnivores."
      "Yeah but humans haven't, we have molars."
      "We also have incisors."
      "That's for berries."
      [facepalm, walk away]

      She has a degree in teaching, btw.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    5. Re:Yeah, there are some weirdos out there by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

      People, take a look at this! This is serious stuff! Thus guy knows what he is doing....giving us all fits of spastic laughter!

      Some excerpts from the comments on that video:

      From the guy demonstrating how to make orgonite, chastising someone who called him a quack:
      "
      Please educate yourself before spreading misinformation
      "

      and this:
      "
      All you nay sayers - to eachï his own - but NIKOLA TESLA WAS RIDICULED AS WELL - and he's no quack - the TESLA car hit the roads this summer.
      "

      and this:
      "
      tower busters won't work unless they contain Iron clippings. Iron forms the core of our planet, creatingï a magnetic field, so the tower busters need to contain iron to enable to channeling of the Earth's magnetism!
      "

      this one makes me think about going to the NM desert with a metal detector
      "
      Goldï leaf (24 carat) is also available on ebay and is relatively inexpensive and in combination with Copper or Aluminum it will enhance the energy of a personal orgone generator.
      "

      in the i-beg-to-differ category:
      "
      507qnz, Generally orgonite is very foolproof...
      "
      indeed.

      and finally, in the new-age-whacko-smackdown category:
      "
      carbednotch:
      if you use aluminum, aï toxic metal, it will make bad energy

      lifeenergysolutions:
      not trueï - from much experience.
      carbednotch:

      yes trueï - according to the orgone handbook.
      "

      --
      blah blah blah
    6. Re:Yeah, there are some weirdos out there by badzilla · · Score: 1

      I believe in science and the scientific method. He's actually tried it - you haven't. If you don't like the guy's experimental results why not duplicate his experiment and prove him wrong instead of dismissing him as crazy?

      It's not enough either to say his claims are so obviously outside of rationality that testing is unnecessary; think for example of the ridicule that was heaped on Edward Jenner when he discovered the cowpox cure for smallpox.

      --
      "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
    7. Re:Yeah, there are some weirdos out there by FlyingHuck · · Score: 1

      Those who can't, teach.

    8. Re:Yeah, there are some weirdos out there by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      What do you think would happen if we told them that radio waves are generated using a quartz crystal oscillator? Head explosion? Rending of clothes and gnashing of teeth?

      See, you're thinking at once too deeply, and not deeply (retarded) enough. Bad crystals like in radios create evil radiation, good crystals like the ones they're hawking protect you from it.

      "It's terrible to kill and eat animals. It's not natural."
      "If wolves became self-aware and stopped eating meat, they'd become sick and maybe die. They have evolved to be carnivores."
      "Yeah but humans haven't, we have molars."
      "We also have incisors."
      "That's for berries."

      LOL, berries. Berries. Yeah, "it's not natural" is hilarious bullcrap. On the other hand, unlike wolves we can live in quite good health on vegetable matter alone, and in the modern world this is often a viable choice. And choices are what ethics are all about. Even arguing about "natural" kinda misses the point.

      I'll be sure to ponder that on my way to pick up my Meat Eaters pizza. I'll probably have forgotten by the time I'm wolfing it down though.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    9. Re:Yeah, there are some weirdos out there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll bite (pun intended).

      How about a bit of pre-historical perspective? Why did us proto-human eat meat? How did we get it in the first place? We don't have claws or fangs to rip apart ribcages, we don't have strong legs to run and catch prey, we don't have sharp teeth (oh, shiny incisors, yay!) to bounce to the neck of a gazelle.

      We were scavengers. We'd take what the lion left. Meat of old or sick animals. We would then get sick and diseased ourselves, because we are not lions. But we thrived at eating meat, for two reasons: a) it had a higher energy to work ratio (energy gained from the food vs work provided to get the food) ; b) for psychological reasons, eating meat was for us getting higher up in the food chain (from forest frugivores to plains carnivores).

      Now that we are not in prehistoric times anymore, maybe a) is not that important (if you want to get meat or vegetables, just go to the marketplace, same energy spent to get your food...), and b) is plain silly -- we're already at the top, and we know it very well!

      So, all right it was "natural" for us to go towards meat in the evolutionary process, but nowadays it should be as "natural" to go back to more reasonable foods... Since it is not necessary for us to eat meat.

      You might want to read a bit about the agro-business and why meat is really a problem for humanity nowadays, instead of having sterile debates with your vegan friends, which should argue better than they seem to do.

    10. Re:Yeah, there are some weirdos out there by identity0 · · Score: 1

      "So if animals aren't self-aware, wouldn't that mean that they don't have souls or feel pain?"

      I can't speak on the issue of 'souls', but animals do actually feel pain. Neither training or animal experiments with conditioning would be possible if animals were not able to feel pain or pleasure, and have enough faculties to remember what behavior led to that.

      I think you are following the ideas of Descartes, who thought that rationality and self-awareness were a prerequisite to other mental faculties. Modern science does not really follow that line of thought. See Pavlov and other research into animal behavior.

      I am still disappointed that a teacher could not point that out, however :P

  39. Re:How strange by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Y'know, I can almost respect them for torching SUVs - If the government won't tell people "No, you may not drive a vehicle that presents a significant danger* to everyone else on the road, without special training for the appropriate license class", then perhaps fear of having their car burn down one night kept at least a few people driving more realistic vehicles.

    So lemme get this straight. You almost respect them for:
    - extreme vandalism,
    - severely inconveniencing people who rely on their vehicles, which also inconveniences the people who rely on them,
    - causing a metric fuckton of air pollution all in one go,
    - risking catching something else or someone on fire,
    - destroying an SUV that will likely be replaced with ANOTHER SUV, thus INCREASING the demand for them,

    because you think the LICENSE BUREAU isn't doing a good job? Would you respect them more or less if you thought they were burning SUVs because the patent office isn't doing a good job?

  40. ELF by Dwedit · · Score: 5, Funny

    I always knew that GCC produced gigantic ELF files, but big enough to knock over an AM tower? This is just ridiculous.

    1. Re:ELF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, when i read ELF in the rss headline i thought they were talking about unix executables.

  41. I think they did it by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 0

    because AM Radio is "Talk Radio" done mostly by Conservative Talk Radio stations.

    Buh-Bye Rush Limbaugh, your AM radio towers are toast man.

    No more Sports radio broadcasts either.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:I think they did it by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 3, Informative

      KRKO only broadcast local sports, no political programming whatsoever. I feel compelled to add: "you gigantic idiot."

      You could have spent 5 seconds looking that up, you know. It's not like the radio station's format is classified. Hey look, they even have a website: http://www.krko.com/

    2. Re:I think they did it by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

      Look at Orion Blastar's post history. You, my friend, have just been trolled. This Orion Blastar guy probably makes Orgonite.

      --
      blah blah blah
  42. Birds of a feather by westlake · · Score: 1

    the group's North American press office in Washington, D.C., issued a news release and posted an item on its national Web site Friday saying it was.

    When an eco-terrorist organization claims responsibility for another eco-terrorist act, people are going to take them at their word.

    1. Re:Birds of a feather by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When an eco-terrorist organization claims responsibility for another eco-terrorist act, people are going to take them at their word.

      Except when they're just claiming responsibility for someone else's act for publicity. The article linked by Nethead above seems to suggest that at least one source thinks that's likely.

      From what I read here I don't think it sounds fair to put it in the "eco-terrorist" bucket and assume that's what motivates the perpetrator. It sounds like some of the locals didn't like the tower for aesthetic reasons or something along those lines.

    2. Re:Birds of a feather by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      The 'press office' is not the organization. The organization does not, in fact, actually exist.

      ELF is just a bunch of people calling themselves 'ELF' all over the place.

      The press office just republishes anonymous messages it gets in press release form to journalists (and law enforcement) that have asked for it. Any idiot can send anything there and get them to dutifully repeat it.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  43. WTF is ELF by PIBM · · Score: 1

    While the full name is spelled out in the summary, I just decided to check on google if there was any info on them. Well, even the Endangered Language Fund is listed before anything related to them when searching for ELF. Just get rid of them already!

  44. A point from the other side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes without a doubt these guys are morons and give environmentalist bad names. I always find odd the term "Tree-hugger". As if loving nature is a bad thing. Personally I find cities stressful and would prefer being in a forest. I recently moved out to the country. Ironically because of fewer people on my lines I have amazing internet service, super fast transfer speeds. The point is there seems to be this attitude that since we have science we don't need nature. It's an irrational position given the fact just keeping a few astronauts alive long enough to get to Mars and back is stretching our technology to it's limits. Keeping billions of people alive without nature is unimaginable. We have to drop this adversarial approach to nature. A recent study of fish in streams found that a 100% had measurable levels of mercury and 25% had unsafe levels and shouldn't be eaten. Safe levels? If you keep up to date you'll know that they no longer consider any level of mercury as safe. Knocking down radio towers is pointless. The technology isn't a 100% safe but it only affects things at close range. Personally I wouldn't want a repeater on the side of my house but across the street isn't a problem. You get more radiation from your outlets in the house and those may be dangerous but I doubt any of these whackos live without electricity. I think they'd find they'd do far more good for the environment riding a bike or buying a car that got 10 mpg more than their current car. It's like with the last oil crisis I always said we can't drill our way out of the problem, conservation would drop prices faster than drilling ever could. What dropped prices in the end was people and industry cutting back. Knocking down towers won't change anything but small changes can have massive affects on resources. Obama got blasted for recommending tire inflation. He pointed out that properly inflated tires would contribute more than the Alaskan preserve they wanted to drill on and that would take 5 to 10 years to see any oil and tires can be done today. It was an excellent point that a small thing could buy us a year or two of oil. Up gas milage to 50 mpg and eventually 100 mpg, it can be done, and we might last out the century on oil which would buy a lot of time transitioning to a more long term solution. These jackasses are after press and nothing more. Sadly the press is thrilled to give them all the time they want so long as they do things asinine enough.

  45. Re:How strange by Ironchew · · Score: 1, Interesting

    C'mon, analog radio will follow analog TV within the next few years, with or without an FCC mandate (market forces alone will do the trick, no doubt at all).

    I sure hope not. One of the last broadcast media that I can actually build a receiver to listen to? If we have to buy a computer from BIG_IC_MANUFACTURER_X just to listen to a radio broadcast, it will almost certainly be non-serviceable and we'll just throw it away and get a new one when it stops working. Too bad for your "market forces" that people still depend on emergency broadcasts on analog radio. Why force people to be consumers by forcing them to use non-serviceable crap?

  46. Radical 'left' vs radical 'right' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny, how radical left parties just always seem to be considered more harmful then radical 'right' parties. Like the 'Animal Liberation Front' is somehow considered worse than the SS. Weird.

  47. Damn ELF by dark_requiem · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'd never associate with the Earth Liberation Front. Now the Liberation Front of Earth, that's what it's all about. Not like those bastards in the Frontier for Earthern Liberation.

    1. Re:Damn ELF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The People's Front of Earth! Splitters!
      The only people we hate more than the AM Radio Station operators are the fucking Judean People's Front.

      ( Wolf's nipple chips, get them while 'em hot, they're lovely. )

    2. Re:Damn ELF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Splitter!

    3. Re:Damn ELF by Coolhand2120 · · Score: 1

      FEL are a bunch of counter-revolutionary hacks. You can't seriously surround yourself with those loons! On the other hand, the People's Front for Earth Liberation, now that's a movement!

    4. Re:Damn ELF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Splitters.

    5. Re:Damn ELF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Splitters!

    6. Re:Damn ELF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd never associate with the Earth Liberation Front. Now the Liberation Front of Earth, that's what it's all about. Not like those bastards in the Frontier for Earthern Liberation.

      Splitters!

    7. Re:Damn ELF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SPLITTER!

  48. Re:How strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Analog radio following analog TV? That's pretty dubious... Raise your hand if you bought an HD radio tuner. Hell, raise your hand if you even know anyone who owns an HD radio tuner (no, the one that came standard in the expensive car does not count).

    Nothing about HD radio makes a lick of sense. It sounds worse than traditional FM, it's a commercially-licensed medium on public airwaves, and the receivers are a hundred times more expensive than normal. With the rising popularity of mobile data plans on cellular phones, there's even less of a draw. The average consumer has zero reason to buy a digital radio tuner. It's a farce.

  49. ELF is evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ELF is evil, I said it since 1995! We should switch to COFF at once!

    1. Re:ELF is evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      COFF is not evil? COFF (and its variants) continue to be used on some Unix-like systems and on Microsoft Windows (!)..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COFF

    2. Re:ELF is evil by Ant+P. · · Score: 2, Funny

      With all due respect, Fuck COFF.

  50. It was "The Shack" by lalena · · Score: 1

    I think it was sponsored by "The Shack" trying to sell more HD radios. Only analog AM was taken out.

  51. In other news... hundred's die b/c... by thesandbender · · Score: 1

    They weren't warned of tornadoes... forest fires... etc. I'm certain these things cause more deaths than AM radio. Seriously... what were these jackholes thinking?

  52. What words mean by Mike_EE_U_of_I · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This all started out by someone saying that knocking down the radio tower was not violence, and now you are saying that knocking down the tower is not an official crime of violence.

        If one looks at what is defined as a crime of violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime, you are correct.

        However, the OP is quite wrong. The word "violence" in and of itself most certainly covers this act (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/violence).

    1. Re:What words mean by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      From the someone saying:

      First, damage to property is not violence. The proper response is to seize the assets of anyone connected with the plot, and prosecute the case as a crime.

      Looks like we are discussing the law here (seize, prosecute), not some dictionary definitions. I responded in that context. I also find it somewhat offensive that people here so easily and glibly conflate "violence" against property and violence against people, and inflate every antisocial act into "terrorism". No, not. Get your facts straight, get your logic straight, and check your hyperbole against the (lack of) dead bodies.

  53. Re:REALLY? [interference] by evanbd · · Score: 4, Informative

    Also, watch out for ground loops. If you plug your computer into your power strip, and then plug an amplifier into the analog audio out connector, and then plug your amp into the outlet, you've created a loop antenna in the ground system (there's a loop running from power strip to computer to amp to power strip, because the audio out cable has 2 single-ended signal lines plus a ground line). Getting rid of such loops can be hard (cutting the ground line in the audio cable doesn't entirely solve the problem and has its own issues, for example), but being aware of them and minimizing the area that they enclose can help dramatically.

    I saw an example where the problem was exactly as above, and until they moved the power cables around to shrink the loop the local AM station always played on the speakers.

  54. Re:How strange by tinkerghost · · Score: 1

    Environmentalists want to keep the earth as unchanged as possible, even if it means no water for farmers (big problem right now in California)

    Just as a point of fact, there is a rather significant water shortage in the entire western third of the US. There is already at least one major body of water in the SW which has been converted from part of the aquifer to a source of alkaline dust which plagues LA. If you think you can tap enough water from anywhere to supply California farmers you don't know anything about water conservation.

    There is a difference between being an environmentalist and being an eco-terroist. Attempting to manage a limited resource by balancing both the needs of the human population in the area as well at the environmental needs isn't about being a nutjob, it's about trying to avoid another dustbowl.

    I have done environmental impact statements. I have studied water and land management. The one thing I have always found is that if anything I say stands in the way of someone making money, it's wrong and based on crackpot science. If it helps clear a hurdle, it's sacred gospel. The farmers in CA will scream until they get as much water as they want, and then they will scream when the brush and forest fires are even worse.

  55. Re:REALLY? [interference] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Ferrite cores. If you put them on the wires picking up the signal...

    Even if I can find that mammal, how do I get it to stay still?
       

  56. Down with Elves! by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 2, Funny

    I always knew there was something I didn't like about elves. Go dwarves! :)

    1. Re:Down with Elves! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      a.out's are much more trustworthy. they're older, actually; that might have something to do with it.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:Down with Elves! by Doug52392 · · Score: 1

      No, that'd be someone to lazy to use the -o switch.

    3. Re:Down with Elves! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never trust an elf!!

  57. and their press office isn't in jail? by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    so if they claimed credit why can't we put them all under the jail? At least the office staff claiming credit.

    Really, if they want credit then give them responsibility too.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:and their press office isn't in jail? by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      The press office is deliberately set up as a separate entity. They don't know ELF terrorists, they don't know about attacks before they happen, all they do is accept anonymous communiques from ELFs and broadcast them, which isn't illegal. And it probably can't be made illegal without infringing the first amendment about a hundred different ways.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    2. Re:and their press office isn't in jail? by dafing · · Score: 1

      LOL. "ELF" and "ALF" (how do you pronounce them differently?) are just names taken on by "guerilla" style violent groups. Anyone can say they are "ELF". They dont have any sort of offices etc :P

      Im an abolitionist vegan, against all use of animals. Abolitionist vegans only use creative vegan education though, things like stalls or pamphlets. All I've ever done to "get in peoples faces" was to leave a few pamphlets for people who wanted them at a local library. I even asked permission before leaving them there. Not all Vegans are insane terrorists :)

      --
      --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
  58. Re:REALLY? [interference] by Nethead · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Funny that, I've worked in radio stations where the audio board was 6 feet away from the transmitter. We didn't have the AM signal bleeding into the audio, or the phone system, or anything. You must not have you equipment setup right. See the post in this thread about ground-loops.

    Have you tried calling the station for help? Most will gladly let you talk to the engineer to figure out a solution.

    --
    -- I have a private email server in my basement.
  59. A possibly related event on the East Coast by dtmos · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A tower outside of Allentown, PA was deliberately felled the same night. As it was a guyed tower, the vandals cut the guys to bring it down.

  60. Re:REALLY? [interference] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my loony brother removed all those you insensitive clod!

  61. Re:Nobody likes ELF. Not even their "allies." by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, my thinking exactly. You'd almost think they are employed by the oil industry or something in order to turn the public opinion against the green movement. Surely they are not so dumb as to not realize that the only real effect of their actions is to harm the causes that they claim to believe in.

    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
  62. Re:REALLY? [interference] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand. Wouldn't this cause any situation with:

    1) Two devices both receiving grounded wall power.
    2) Devices are connected by a signal cable with ground line

    to cause ground loops? Doesn't that make it entirely impossible to do anything about, unless you want no way to connect your components at all?

  63. Re:How strange by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    It's not about 'not having enough water.' California is not like the midwest, or Texas, where water is removed from the ground; in California, the reservoirs are replenished every year with water from the mountains, and when that goes onto fields, it actually replenishes the water table.

    The issue right now is that a lot of water from the reservoirs is being dumped into the ocean instead of onto fields in an effort to protect the delta smelt. Now, you may think the delta smelt is worth saving, or you may not, but either way you're not going to get a dust bowl in Central California. Nor does it have anything to do with forest fires. You may have done environmental impact statements, but you clearly don't understand the current water issues in California.

    --
    Qxe4
  64. ELF is a terrorist organization by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    They should be prosecuted, sued, shot, sent to the Russian Front, drawn & quartered, horse-whipped, shunned, starved, hanged, keelhauled, AND then put in prison.

    Yeah, that should about cover it.

  65. wow by davidwr · · Score: 3, Informative

    First off, "carrying capacity" estimates are all over the map. True, 0.5B may be the "low impact" carrying capacity, but even that's not a zero-impact - according to something I saw on TV, we have archaeological evidence that pre-Columbian Americans ruined fisheries and caused other localized environmental damage.

    Second off, even if we were beyond capacity, the answer lies in encouraging low birth rates without resorting to China-esque techniques, more responsible stewardship of the natural resources we have, advances in science to feed more people with less environmental impact, and in the very long term, space exploration and colonization.

    Mother Nature will also put in some degree of population control: As we have a few mega-disasters every century, each one will kill hundreds of thousands rather than the tens of thousands or thousands it would kill if we only had 0.5B spread roughly evenly around the habitable parts of the planet.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:wow by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      the answer lies in ... advances in science to feed more people with less environmental impact

      Especially given that world food production is growing exponentially faster than world population. (Google for "food production per capita". It rises if food is growing faster than population and falls when the opposite is true.)

  66. Why ELF did this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a FOX station...nuff said...

  67. Re:Nobody likes ELF. Not even their "allies." by n0dna · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm really not trolling here, but PETA has been funding ELF for years.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/general/columns/story?columnist=guest_columnist&page=g_col_PETA_ELF_NYPost has a reprinted article from the NY Post.

    I don't see many stories that are very recent, outside of what seem like blogs and bash-fests, but since PETA has denied ties all along, it doesn't make much difference to me whether they claim to have stopped or not.

  68. non-ionizing means no chemical reactions. by Rick+Bentley · · Score: 0

    It could induce microcurrents in some tissues, or cause certain molecules to resonate in a way which affected important chemical reactions.

    That would also be known as "an increase in temperature", and you'd have to be standing damn close to the tower to get warmed up by it -- esp. by RF radiation.

    If the radiation is non-ionizing then it does not induce any chemical reactions, nothing changes (except maybe something gets a little warmer). If you don't understand this last sentence then please go take a chemistry class and come back.

    --
    My favorite quote doesn't fit into 120 characters. Now no one will like me.
    1. Re:non-ionizing means no chemical reactions. by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That would also be known as "an increase in temperature"

      If inducing a current merely causes "an increase in temperature", please explain how radio communication works...

      At the broadest perspective, sure, any energy input is "an increase in temperature". When you set up your crystal radio to receive AM transmissions, yes indeedy, the thing does warm up a bit as it absorbs EM radiation. (Even though some if it is turned into mechanical energy in the earpiece, it's not 100% efficient.) But describing the operation of the radio as "an increase in temperature" is misleading, to put it kindly.

      Can non-ionizing EM radiation have an effect on biological systems? You are, quite literally, looking at the answer.

      Can EM radiation in the radio range at low intensity have an effect on biological systems? I dunno. Consider the hot and cold spots that arise as you microwave your burrito. Could very mild but uneven heating have an effect?

      If the radiation is non-ionizing then it does not induce any chemical reactions, nothing changes (except maybe something gets a little warmer).

      If something "gets a little warmer", chemical reactions are affected. If you don't understand this last sentence then please go take a chemistry class and come back.

      The scientific way of answering the question "does EM radiation effect biological systems" is to observe biological systems that have been exposed to various sorts of EM radiation and see if there are any effects. Saying "our models don't allow for such effects, therefore they cannot exist" is faith-based reasoning, not science.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    2. Re:non-ionizing means no chemical reactions. by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can non-ionizing EM radiation have an effect on biological systems? You are, quite literally, looking at the answer.

      Excellent example - you beat me to it :) In case the OP is a bit slow (likely!): a photon in the visible light spectrum is non-ionizing, yet it is able to excite photoreceptor cells in the retina by causing a molecule (appropriately named retinal) to isomerize, which catalyzes a whole chain of chemical reactions.

      For that matter... if you really wanted to rub it in you could have even pointed out that heat receptors do roughly the same thing, so "an increase in temperature" directly causes chemical reactions in your skin!

      Why is it always the people with the fewest facts who are the most arrogant, and start throwing around insults first? ;)

      Of course, that being said, I'm sure we all agree that the ELF is a bunch of wackos, and your body absorbs thousands of times more radiation standing outside for a few minutes than it ever would from an AM antenna. We better be careful, their next terrorist act may be to destroy the sun!

    3. Re:non-ionizing means no chemical reactions. by Rick+Bentley · · Score: 1

      Show me how the receiving antenna changes at all. It doesn't, it is still a metal stick after working as antenna.

      Looking at this screen isn't giving me cancer. I'd need UV or higher frequency, ionizing, radiation for that.

      The scientific way of answering the question "does (low frequency) EM radiation effect biological systems (enough to give cancer)" is to apply the principals of science already known and to see if there is anyway within the model that it could happen. It can't. You can then go ahead and do a study anyway, to see if there is anything new to learn. Been done. There isn't, in this case, anything new to learn.

      Non-ionizing radiation doesn't cause cancer, there is no reason to suspect it would. Saying "just because we can't prove it doesn't" is just like faith saying "we can't prove there isn't a God", and isn't science.

      --
      My favorite quote doesn't fit into 120 characters. Now no one will like me.
    4. Re:non-ionizing means no chemical reactions. by Rick+Bentley · · Score: 1

      Why is it always the people with the fewest facts who are the most arrogant, and start throwing around insults first? ;)

      No, seriously, take a chem class. :-P

      --
      My favorite quote doesn't fit into 120 characters. Now no one will like me.
    5. Re:non-ionizing means no chemical reactions. by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your entire post could be summed up as "I understand a little about radio and microwaves and its effects on animals and humans, and assume nobody else has ever studied this completely new phenomenon".

      The truth is people HAVE studied radio and microwaves and its effects on animals/humans for many many years. They've also studied the 50/60 HZ radiation produced by power lines. The conclusions are that it's not harmful. Speculating about what it COULD do and coming up with pet theories about just how it MIGHT harm someone is not science, it's nonsense.

      Your own ignorance is not other peoples ignorance. People like yourself who are willfully ignorant and who sit around speculating about how the unobserved harmful effect just MIGHT work are the reason I see stupid marketing on floor heating product about how their amazing technology cancels the EM radiation. Next I'll see marketing on bricks about how their amazing brick technology cancels all the virtual particles created in the empty space within atoms in the bricks. This makes it so the bricks don't gain mass over time.

      --
      AccountKiller
    6. Re:non-ionizing means no chemical reactions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Saying "our models don't allow for such effects, therefore they cannot exist" is faith-based reasoning, not science.
      Not necessarily*, there is such a thing as prior plausibility. For example, homoeopathy is incompatible with physics as we know it, therefore its prior plausibility is zero. Which incidentally makes it a very useful research tool, as studying studies that show slight effects in favour of homoeopathy can potentially lead to the discovery of common errors in the way people think.
      *It depends among other things on how well supported the models are and whether you're using them outside of their originally tested parameter ranges or not.

    7. Re:non-ionizing means no chemical reactions. by haruharaharu · · Score: 1

      If something "gets a little warmer", chemical reactions are affected.

      Humans function quite well, even when they 'get a little warmer'

      The scientific way of answering the question "does EM radiation effect biological systems" is to observe biological systems that have been exposed to various sorts of EM radiation and see if there are any effects. Saying "our models don't allow for such effects, therefore they cannot exist" is faith-based reasoning, not science.

      Nobody's saying that. They're saying that the guys who think their cell phone causes cancer are whackjobs and that the only observable effect is 'get warmer', which ain't shit.If you're concerned about radiation and how it affects you, go do a study. Good luck controlling for the ambient noise and the big ball of fusion in the sky pumping out ionizing radiation. In the meantime, since you haven't made any claims that can really be tested, our models don't cover such effects, there is no proposed mechanism and not much energy in the first place, I won't lose sleep.

      --
      Reboot macht Frei.
    8. Re:non-ionizing means no chemical reactions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck controlling for the ambient noise and the big ball of fusion in the sky pumping out ionizing radiation.

      The Earth has a thing called an atmosphere, plus a magnetic field.

      If solar radiation was lethal we wouldn't be here to have this discussion.

    9. Re:non-ionizing means no chemical reactions. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      How will that help with a physics problem?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:non-ionizing means no chemical reactions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find drawing links between a low frequency and high frequency radiation amusing and somewhat short sighted. Yes EM radiation does effect biological systems but it has to be in certain frequency ranges. These things are actually tested which is why we have licences to operate a device above a certain power limitation because it can be dangerous to organic life and also cause intereference with other systems.

    11. Re:non-ionizing means no chemical reactions. by ajlisows · · Score: 1

      Ok, let me start by saying that I think these people are actually quacks and AM Radio, according to all studies, does not put us at any greater risk for cancer. If you plan on going to do extreme things like destroy radio towers one would think that you would do some homework on the issue, first.

      That said, looking at the rate of death from certain types of cancer could lead to some people seeking (or making up) answers. Lung Cancer has gone from 20 deaths per 100,000 people in the United States to about 80 per 100,000 today. That is a pretty sharp increase. I am pretty sure that the main cause, smoking tobacco has declined since that time. As the US moves away from manufacturing jobs the liklihood that your work environment is causing lung cancer drops as workplaces are "safer". That means you have to attack something in the general environment, which leaves you a lot of different factors. Chemicals in the air from power plants, cars, and whatever else seems like the first place to look but if you drive a car like many of these people probably do it would be hypocritical to scream about pollution. If you do not look into it much, various types of "Radiation" floating through the air at an increasing rate has to be a very easy thing to point a finger at.

    12. Re:non-ionizing means no chemical reactions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's evidence that low-frequency EM can adversely affect the sleep cycle (suppressing dim-light melatonin onset as I recall). I haven't looked at the issue in awhile but I wouldn't be surprised if there were additional effects. I'll grant you these are likely to be subtle, and/or affect only a small number of people who have the bad luck to be physiologically susceptible. But that's not quite the same as saying the scientific consensus is unanimous that low-frequency EM is harmless.

    13. Re:non-ionizing means no chemical reactions. by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      Lung Cancer has gone from 20 deaths per 100,000 people in the United States to about 80 per 100,000 today.

      You don't cite what year the 20 per 100,000 rate is from. I will tell you that Lung cancer takes 20 years to develop, so a high rate of smoking in the past (like we had in the 40s-60s) will lead to higher cancer rates 20 years down the road.

      (oh, and you might want to note that Lung cancer rates are generally going DOWN since 1991, not up)

      Here's a link to some sited statistics with years and scientific evidence behind it:
      http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/statistics/trends.htm

      So there's really no reason to look to exotic causes of lung cancer. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that there's more pollution now than there was 30 or 40 years ago, or where this new "Radiation" that somehow is floating through the air in supposed greater quantities is.

      --
      AccountKiller
    14. Re:non-ionizing means no chemical reactions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looking at this screen isn't giving me cancer. I'd need UV or higher frequency, ionizing, radiation for that.

      No, looking at the screen isn't giving you cancer (which nobody was talking about, but hey, got to change the topic when wrong), but it certainly IS making a whole shitload of chemical reactions happen, which you claimed isn't possible.

      Same goes for photosynthesis, and countless of other examples. Non-ionizing radiation can, and does cause chemical reactions and affects biological systems in ways other than just warming them up.

    15. Re:non-ionizing means no chemical reactions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything in our system revolves around the sun, yet no one seems bothered by this fact - until now, that is.

      Fact: Earth has been in shackles since its conception.
      Fact: The sun kills thousands of people every year.
      Fact: Much like emperors of the past, the sun is planning on taking the Earth with it when it dies!

      Wake up! It is time to liberate the Earth - Join the ELF today!

  69. Re:How strange by commodore64_love · · Score: 0

    >>>we now use democracy, essentially rule by the majority, which is only better because it is somewhat less violent. And if enough people think freaky sex is bad for society, well it will be outlawed.
    >>>

    That is incorrect thinking.

    The proper thing is to ask, "Does freak sex involuntarily harm other human beings?" If the answer is "no" then there's no justification to outlaw it. Thomas Jefferson used that argument to promote freedom of religion, saying that it did not matter if his neighbor worshiped one god or many gods - his neighbors' actions do not harm my property, my body, nor my rights. The same reasoning can be applied to "freaky sex" where it doesn't matter if my neighbor has one partner or many partners - what he does won't harm me.

    Democracy == tyranny of the majority. I prefer a government that protects the minority's or the individual's rights, even if the majority thinks "those people" are weird.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  70. Re:How strange by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

    When California was surveyed by the U.S. in the 1800s, it was labeled a "desert" (along with virtually everything else west of the rockies). and they estimated it could only sustain one family every 10,000 acres. Now California has a density of about 1 family every 10 acres, and people wonder why it's running dry of water. (duh)

    It's called overpopulation folks.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  71. ELF spews carbon again by istartedi · · Score: 1

    This isn't quite as bad as them burning things, which are just going to be rebuilt anyway; but it's still going to use quite a bit of energy when the tower is repaired.

    I'm not a "true believer" in the A part of AGW. I'm just using "spews carbon" here as a shorthand for things that are bad for the environment. Something tells me ELF doesn't run out and purchase offsets everytime they "do an action".

    So. For the good of the planet, ELF must be stopped!

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:ELF spews carbon again by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Cam you burn things in Seattle?

  72. Re:How strange by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    So you fall into the category of people who think freaky sex is ok, or at least not harmful to society. There are other people who believe that freaky sex IS harmful to society, though I don't particularly care to repeat their arguments here.

    --
    Qxe4
  73. Great idea by bgspence · · Score: 1

    I just cut down a couple of trees that were messing up my satellite TV reception.

    Thanks for the tip.

  74. Normally i would support ELF by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    But come on, this is just silly.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  75. Isn't ELF some kind of oil company? by KindredBrujah · · Score: 1

    I could swear that ELF is (or used to be) some kinda oil company.

    Now that would add a twist, wouldn't it? Oil located in the middle of a town, but there's a damnable radio mast right where the drill needs to be. "I know boss, why don't we destroy it, say that 'ELF' did it and let everyone assume it's those other chumps."

    Alternatively, if could just be a very arrogant Elf, who always writes his name in full caps. I'd love to see an elf taking down a radio mast, that would be awesome. A christmas-style elf, rather than a Tolkien-style one, naturally. No-one wants to see Orlando Bloom firing arrows at things any more than we already have.

    On a side note, since this seems to crop up quite regularly... Hamas are not terrorists. No more than the US, UK, Australian, Spanish, Chinese, Pakistani (etc') Governments are.
    Simply being the elected officials in a Nation whose own legitimacy is dictated by another Nation doesn't automatically make them terrorists because they fight a war against said Nation.
    Although, in an effort to be reasonable, I did a little digging and apparently the US Government disagrees with me and officially considers Hamas to, in fact, be terrorists. So I suppose it is reasonable for those of you who wish to believe so to follow your Government's policy on that.
    But hey, I've apparently put the US Government on the same level as Hamas anyway, so frankly I don't really care what they consider Hamas to be; I know what I consider.

    Hmm, by the way, before I get trolled, I should mention, I'm only comparing the two Governments in terms of the legitimacy of war declarations, it's a fair shout that the US Government does rather a lot more for its people domestically.

  76. Re:How strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    causing a metric fuckton of air pollution all in one go,

    Ya, no doubt. Do these geniuses factor in the toxins and carcinogens released by burning a motor vehicle? I bet its a hell of a lot more than what would be released in the normal operational life of that vehicle. This is about as effective to their cause as it would be to light a cat on fire to protest animal cruelty. Buncha tools.

  77. Ironically by earthforce_1 · · Score: 1

    I wonder if anybody has calculated how much carbon was dumped into the atmosphere when they burned down that car dealership?

    --
    My rights don't need management.
  78. Let's Pretend!!??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It could induce microcurrents in some tissues, or cause certain molecules to resonate in a way which affected important chemical reactions. "

    If we start speculating, it could be doing literally everything and anything. If you're going that route, I suppose you should say something trendy which includes words like "micro-currents" and "resonance". But you're basically MSU (Making Sh*t Up).

    1. Re:Let's Pretend!!??? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Not at all. It's completely possible to induce an electrical current in anything conductive. The fact that this person's terminology was bizarrely trendy and nontechnical doesn't mean it is impossible. Implausible, perhaps, given the wavelengths in question....

      The more serious problem with AM and FM radio is that some transmitters have massive low frequency leakage that doesn't get filtered out adequately before or after amplification, resulting in massive electromagnetic interference in low frequencies (tens of Hz) that can and do affect the human body and pretty much everything else nearby---interference that has been associated with a number of serious health problems, including cancer. This is more a matter of the transmitter being an ancient piece of crap than a problem with broadcasting in general, however. Ironically, the frequencies in question share an acronym with the organization that tore down this tower (ELF = extremely low frequency).

      I'm not saying that these people are right for doing what they do, of course. The right thing to do if you detect such ELF leakage is to contact the FCC and get the station fined daily until they fix the problem or shut down.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:Let's Pretend!!??? by Mozk · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Ironically, the frequencies in question share an acronym with the organization that tore down this tower (ELF = extremely low frequency).

      I hate people that complain about modern usage of the word irony, but that's completely not ironic by any definition of the word—it's just coincidental.

      --
      No existe.
    3. Re:Let's Pretend!!??? by emilper · · Score: 1

      ... massive electromagnetic interference in low frequencies (tens of Hz) that can and do affect the human body and pretty much everything else nearby---interference that has been associated with a number of serious health problems, including cancer ...

      how is this different from EM waves emitted by normal electrical lines (also in the tens of Hz), or by a plain car alternator, or a very green wind-turbine-powered generator?

    4. Re:Let's Pretend!!??? by Dravik · · Score: 1

      Do you have a reference for ELF(frequencies, not the group) damage to people?

      --
      The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
    5. Re:Let's Pretend!!??? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Intensity.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    6. Re:Let's Pretend!!??? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      There are dozens of contradictory studies out there. One will show correlation, the next one won't, and some even suggest possible causation of the release of radon, a known cancer-causing agent. Here are a couple:

      http://www.midtod.com/9603/voltage.phtml
      http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7460-large-study-links-power-lines-to-childhood-cancer.html

      It's too early to say that there's a causal relationship between power lines and cancer, but it's disingenuous to suggest that there's no possibility ELF has an effect on the human body.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    7. Re:Let's Pretend!!??? by emilper · · Score: 1

      well, car alternator 3 feet in front of me vs. large antenna 2000 feet away ... mumble-pi-mumble-square root ... oh, I'll worry about the alternator.

  79. Re:How strange by tinkerghost · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's not about 'not having enough water.' California is not like the midwest, or Texas, where water is removed from the ground; in California, the reservoirs are replenished every year with water from the mountains, and when that goes onto fields, it actually replenishes the water table.

    I suggest you examine you reservoirs before you make that statement. Most of the ones in California are running around 60% full and dropping. As to your second point about replenishing the water table, it doesn't. Most irrigation techniques involve spraying the crops as opposed to root irrigation. Doing so involves approximately 8% evaporation. Following that, farms target irrigation volumes and timing to maximize penetration at the root level and minimize any further penetration. In short, they explicitly try not to replenish the water table.(Nebraska's water management recommendation - they're similar for every farming application with minor variations for indigenous soils & climate.)

    The issue right now is that a lot of water from the reservoirs is being dumped into the ocean instead of onto fields in an effort to protect the delta smelt.

    [sigh] What exactly will happen to the delta if the smelt die off? The general hint is that nothing lives in a vacuum. The smelt are relatively insensitive to salination changes. However the vast majority of the life in a delta are not. If you overdrain the open water sources - lakes, streams, etc - the delta is going to turn into a salt swamp. I'm absolutely certain that you'll appreciate living in the area then because areas undergoing swampification smell so nice. Oh, don't forget to add in the malaria issue due to the large pockets of standing water.

    but either way you're not going to get a dust bowl in Central California.

    The people of Owen's Lake would disagree with you.

    Nor does it have anything to do with forest fires.

    That you would state this indicates you have no understanding of the roles the natural aquifer plays in underbrush management.

    In short, just because the water is there and free flowing, it doesn't mean that it's not already serving a purpose.

  80. A lot of smart people by AnAdventurer · · Score: 1
    Pointing out the flaws in ELF's thinking?

    Why, they just want to break stuff then add a cause later. I was asked to help build a bomb and blow something up by a faction or chapter of these morons.

    I said "no, and if you every contact me again or do what you are asking me to do, my next call will be to the FBI and I will turn your ass in" Or something to that effect, that was 15 years ago, I haven't heard from them again and the "thing or place" is still there untouched.

    --
    6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
  81. Re:Nobody likes ELF. Not even their "allies." by dafing · · Score: 1

    You do realise that "ELF" are not really connected in any way? Any Vegetarian/Vegan" who wants to blow things up can do so, and spray paint some BS about "ELF was here!". I've looked through websites by people representing this "ELF" before, but for me, non violent creative vegan education is infinitely better. I practise Abolitionist Veganism.

    --
    --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
  82. Left wing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd just like to point out the submitter was wrong, these are damn-left-wing-nutjobs.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

  83. Re:REALLY? [interference] by Coolhand2120 · · Score: 1

    And that's why you should always use XLR. XLR is low resistance and balanced (so the floor does not move around and cause AC hum), they can even deliver 78v power along two of the lines on demand to mics that require phantom power. All quality mics and amps are XLR. But most importantly XLR has very good SNR to kill that RF you're talking about. Some buzzing is from RF true, but mostly it is from the ground being on a different level on the different pieces of equipment you're using. If it was just RF you could solve that with a little a-foil. However the AC hum from dissimilar grounds is a little more difficult to get away from. If you must use two pieces of equipment and plug them into each other make sure you're using the same circuit, different circuits will for sure give you a different ground level. Also, if you're recording what is coming out of your amp, consider recording the amp by micing the amp, most pros use this method as they want to capture the unique sound of the amp and room as well as the little diddle on the 6 string, and you get rid of your little AC hum problem. (If you got the XLR mic, mic pre and blah blah blah)

  84. Re:Gitmo by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1

    I meant that as a joke, but "Troll" is close, right?

    --
    My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
  85. By your logic, ANYTHING is dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By your logic, ANYTHING is dangerous since we can't prove that something is not dangerous.

  86. Re:REALLY? [interference] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So really, the ELF guys/gals just need to invest in those magnetic pain relief bracelets then. That, and iron ball cuffs.

  87. Ban Construction Equipment!! by bigpat · · Score: 1

    Clearly this was a diversion by the unskilled laborers unions in order to get a ban on construction equipment.

  88. Was not the ELF by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

    The "press office" in DC is bogus.

    From the ELF Wiki entry "The Earth Liberation Front has no formal leadership, hierarchy, membership or official spokesperson and is entirely decentralized; instead consisting of individuals or cells who choose the term as a banner to use."

    If the "press office" in DC is claiming credit for something that happened in Washington state then it should not be taken without a bag of salt.

    Read up on the ELF before you start flaming all of them.

    Also keep in mind the fact that by the definition the FBI uses to define "domestic terrorism" the "Founding Fathers" of the USA would all be terrorists. At its base this was an act of common vandalism, a state issue, but because credit has been conveniently claimed by a "Domestic Terrorist" group the FBI can come in and dig into anything they say is connected with it and then report back to congress and the press claiming that they need more power to run surveillance operations on US citizens.

    And yes, I know I sound like I'm wearing a tin foil hat but sometimes the "nut jobs" see things others miss. And for the recored I'm wearing fire proof armor because I know I'm going to get flamed big time.

    1. Re:Was not the ELF by Nethead · · Score: 1

      The FBI is looking into it because it is a FCC licensed broadcast station.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    2. Re:Was not the ELF by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

      I considered that but couldn't find any reference clearly stating that the FBI investigated anything for the FCC. If you can cite a source that contradicts my belief that the FBI does not handle the FCC investigations please post it so I will not make the mistake again in the future.

      The point that the ELF "press office" in DC is a sham still stands though, so does the one about the "Founding Fathers" of the USA and the probable use of this to further the erosion of civil rights.

    3. Re:Was not the ELF by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Danm, now I'm going to have to look up something I've known for 35 years. How dare you challenge my beliefs! ;)

      I think that it stems from the station being part of the EAS (http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/services/eas/) and that being part of the Homeland Security infrastructure. Much the same that if you bomb a telco, gas line, or railroad facility the feds will be on it. It's considered part of the national infrastructure.

      Let me get some coffee in me and I'll try to find links (or be proven wrong.)

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
  89. Re:REALLY? [interference] by Nimey · · Score: 1

    Great, but isn't most stuff that uses XLR connectors professional-grade? That means spending a good bit more on speakers and stereo.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  90. Re:REALLY? [interference] by Nimey · · Score: 2, Funny

    Also magnetic cock rings.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  91. Re:REALLY? [interference] by zzatz · · Score: 3, Informative

    The size of the loop makes a difference. Consider two devices connected by a shielded signal cable. If they are plugged into the same power outlet, the loop is no larger than the length of the power cords and the signal cable. The safety grounds come together at the outlet. There should be no significant current flowing in the power cord safety grounds.

    Now plug the two devices into different outlets. The outlet safety grounds might not come together any closer than the electrical panel. In theory, safety grounds only carry current during a malfunction. In practice, there are induced currents and leakage. One outlet's ground may carry leakage from a furnace blower motor, and the other does not. Cable TV coax is should be tied to the electrical panel ground where the coax enters the house. This means that the coax shield forms another large ground loop when connected to any single-ended device with a safety ground, for example audio equipment.

    Devices powered from different outlets should not be connected by single-ended signal cables. Professional audio uses balanced connections, and the shield is usually only connected at the input side. You can put a ground isolation balun in the cable TV coax where it connects to your TV. If all of your home entertainment devices are plugged into the same outlet, and you isolate the cable TV ground, you should not have hum. Keep the cable short, and you shouldn't have RF problems. Speaker cables are long enough to act as antennas, so if you live near a transmitter, you may want to put ferrite cores on the cables near the amplifier.

  92. They lie because they're in retail sales... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...dumbass...

    HTH

  93. Earth Liberation Front ? by smoker2 · · Score: 0

    Fuck off !

    We're the Liberation Front of Earth !

  94. Tinfoil hats by kheldan · · Score: 1

    At AM broadcast frequencies a tinfoil hat would work wonders; they must be out of tinfoil, somebody just ship them a free Costco-sized roll of the stuff, pat them on their pointy little heads, and send them off to their prison cell.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  95. This isn't right by michaelleung · · Score: 0

    I've lived near one of these towers for a while now and my head hasn't exploded on me... yet.

  96. RICO by bmo · · Score: 1

    So when is some federal prosecutor going to jail this guy for RICO? Eh?

    "When all legal channels of opposition have been exhausted, concerned citizens have to take action into their own hands to protect life and the planet," Jason Crawford, a spokesman for the group, said in a news release.

    If you're "in charge" of an organization that does these kinds of things, then you should be in jail.

    Jason Crawford is just another mobster.

    --
    BMO

  97. Faraday Cage anyone? by hot+soldering+iron · · Score: 1

    A few (too many) years ago, a friend was doing quite a bit of rf design work at home, but the radio station antenna a quarter mile away was injecting a hell of a signal into his if blocks. The solution? He remodeled his work room by tearing out the old plaster walls, re-insulating, updating the wiring, and stapling aluminum screen over the studs in the walls and ceiling before installing the gypsum board back over it. He tied the screen to a ground rod in salted soil to create a Faraday cage for the entire room. He used to laugh, saying that whenever he sells the house, the new owners will wonder why their cell phones and radios won't work in that room.

    --
    When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
  98. Error in summary. by SEWilco · · Score: 1

    That should be: "The ELF (Earth Liberation Front) has claimed irresponsibility ..."

    1. Re:Error in summary. by DoctorPhil · · Score: 1

      Also, they're left-wing nutjobs, not right-wing nutjobs.

  99. And so what's next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Sun causes more proven cancer from radiation than any other device known to man. Nuke the Sun!

  100. Revolutionary Crackpot Army by OneAhead · · Score: 1

    Gotta love the US of A. Some countries have infrastructure damaged by their own citizens that are communist militants, or islamic militants, or ethnic separatists...
    Here, the Revolutionary Crackpot Army destroys nearly-obsolete means of communication. That's just surreal! And then people don't understand why I think that America has gone a tiny bit out of touch with reality.

    Also, the claims that AM waves are harmful is, what, 80 years old? This has been debunked before these Revolutionary Crackpots were even born. Plus AM is at the lowest-energy end of the radio spectrum; if there's anything to worry about at all, it would be the microwave radiation that drives cell phone communications. I really wonder whether the people who toppled that tower own any cell phones, and what their opinion is on financially sponsoring corporations that dot the landscape with powerful microwave sources.

    Lucky that I don't believe people cell phone towers expose people to harmful radiation levels because I'm living right next to onargggggglllll#@$%)^*&

  101. Ha! You thought we were peace loving beatniks by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 1

    We the people of Washington State militantly demand the highest quality intercom performance in the world! No matter who gets in our way

  102. Re:Nobody likes ELF. Not even their "allies." by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes, and anyone with a bit of sense doesn't fucking support PETA either! They're worse than the damn ELF!

    'ELF' at least limits their harm to property, whereas PETA constantly harms animals, and them reaching their goal in life would end up with cows dying all over the place and people having to shoot feral cats and dogs.

    And, perhaps more to the point, 'ELF' does not actually exist. There is no organization named 'ELF' that goes around doing things. There is a 'press office' that supposedly reprints messages from them, but there is no actual 'them', there is just a bunch of people doing whatever they want.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  103. Demand a Tuition Refund! by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2, Funny

    I thought a lot of eco-terrorists were rich bored college students.

    If that applies to this lot then they should demand a refund on their tuition because they clearly aren't well educated!

    1. Re:Demand a Tuition Refund! by Gabrill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tongue in cheek, I know, but giving them knowledge of Arts and Sciences is not the same as teaching them judgment. I mean look at most James Bond villians!

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    2. Re:Demand a Tuition Refund! by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      ...I mean look at most James Bond villians!

      Tongue in cheek, I know, but you do realize that you just referenced absurdly implausible fictional characters to make your point, don't you?

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    3. Re:Demand a Tuition Refund! by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      They could be accused of poor judgement only if there is a real danger from AM transmissions. The fact that there is no such danger means that they are guilty of gross ignorance, not lack of judgment.

  104. It would have been more amusing... by zkiwi34 · · Score: 1

    If they had blown up a nuclear reactor, or stolen a nuclear submarine. But no, they had to show their power in vandalizing an AM tower. What next? FM! That and they probably tootled off to microwave a late night snack after their efforts.

  105. Re:REALLY? [interference] by Coolhand2120 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    XLR isn't about the stereo or the speakers, it's all about recording the sound. Once you have the sound on your computer/amp/mixer whatever when you output it to the speakers it's a simple 2 conductor operation (banana plug, bare wire,1/4" cable etc.) To get started with XLR you need:
    1. Mic that uses XLR connector, a really good mic is the SURE 57. (about $100)
    2. Mic preamp. Almost all preamps use XLR, some mixers have preamps built into them. (another $50 at least)
    3. Something to record on. I'm guessing you're using a computer.

    There are specialized sound cards made just for recording, they start pretty cheap ($100 e.g.: emu), but you won't get an XLR input on a sound card for less than $200, if you're happy using your mic preamp and going into the balanced 1/4" a $100 card you can still get a very good recording, but really you should have XLR inputs on the card itself so it's "XLR" ([sic]eXtremly Low Resistance) all the way to the card. And then there's the software. I like Sonar. Some people like cubebase, even others like fruity loops and if you have a mac there is the ubiquitous pro tools. Really you're looking at spending about $300 for the whole setup, and then you can finally get rid of that stupid hum. Don't forget, if you have an electric guitar/bass that you will need to shield the pickups using some a-foil around the wires pots and any crossovers etc. that may be contain electrical pathways. Also, make sure you've attached your bridge to the ground wire so it grounds on your fingers.
    Here are some low cost pro sound cards:
    http://www.emu.com/
    http://www.m-audio.com/index.php?ID=recording&do=products.family

  106. Ironic by The+Wooden+Badger · · Score: 1

    Let's turn it over to Ferris at the Irony Desk. Ferris.

    Thanks, Cameron. The ELF activists have just taken down a radio tower in the name of the environment. Now the broadcast company will replace the tower. Undoubtedly they will utilize construction and transportation methods that the ELF won't like. Their efforts to protect the environment will only act as the catalyst for more harm to be done to the environment that would not have happened if they left the tower alone. Back to you, Cameron.

    --
    Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
  107. I read the subjject line ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... and wondered what we've gone and done to piss of the elves so badly.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  108. Re:REALLY? [interference] by izomiac · · Score: 1

    Ah! So that's what was happening... On my last laptop I could hear something at the very limits of my hearing at times. For a while I thought I was just going crazy, until I recognized a radio commercial. The paranoid in me wanted to start claiming that the government was letting advertisers use their brain control radio waves, but I decided that since my laptop had crummy EM isolation (to the point that it'd shock me if my hands were damp) it was probably just picking up AM radio somehow. I'm a bit glad to know for sure that my first two hypothesis are unlikely. The exact equipment in question was a Sony Vaio PCG-GRT360ZG with some ER-6i canalphones.

  109. Re:REALLY? [interference] by evanbd · · Score: 1

    We aren't talking about a professional recording setup that had a little bit of hum or AM pickup. We're talking about basic amplified computer speakers and a normal computer. XLR gear is expensive; I doubt there exists a set of inexpensive amplified speakers with an XLR input, or an inexpensive sound card with an XLR output (which wouldn't even fit in the standard PCI slot opening), let alone an inexpensive motherboard with onboard audio with XLR output.

    We're talking about a level of interference that meant it was annoying to use the speakers at all, not one that was merely slightly degrading high end audio quality. We're also talking about a college student who had no budget to spend on the problem, and wouldn't have been interested in high end audio gear even if he did. Nicer speakers, perhaps, but not recording studio gear. So, I diagnosed a ground loop as a possible explanation, told him to carefully rearrange his cables, and he did. The problem went from highly annoying to just barely perceptible. Sometimes the right solution to offer someone isn't the one that has them throw out all their gear and buy expensive stuff that they really don't need.

    Personally, I go for the in between solution. I'm of the opinion that the inside of a computer case, with its myriad switching supplies that aren't designed for their audio performance, is a horrible place to work with analog audio signals, whether they leave the case by minijack or XLR. I have a sound card with optical digital outputs, and an amp with optical inputs. No ground loop, no stupid problems from putting sensitive analog stuff where it shouldn't be, and vastly cheaper than serious recording gear I don't need or care to pay for.

  110. Re:Nobody likes ELF. Not even their "allies." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they're practically green anarchists.

    As an anarchist, I demand that you retract the slanderous attack you just made by associating anarchy with the ELF.

  111. Spiking trees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "targeting civilians with violence (not check)."
    One of ELF's favourtie tactics is driving metal spikes into trees so that when a logger tries to cut the tree down the chain on the chain saw breaks and injures the logger.

    Burning AM towers alone may not people, but ELF has injured plenty of civilians in the past.

    1. Re:Spiking trees by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      One of ELF's favourtie tactics is driving metal spikes into trees so that when a logger tries to cut the tree down the chain on the chain saw breaks and injures the logger.

      Burning AM towers alone may not people, but ELF has injured plenty of civilians in the past.

      Sorry, but... [Citation Needed].

      From Wikipedia:

      Tree spiking is a form of sabotage which involves hammering a metal rod or other material (commonly ceramic) into a tree trunk in order to discourage logging. A metal saw blade hitting an embedded spike could break or shatter, making it uneconomic to fell those trees. Tree spiking is condemned by opponents as eco-terrorism as they claim it is potentially dangerous to loggers or mill-workers, although only one injury resulting from tree spiking has been recorded, occurring in a sawmill with poor safety practices.

      From SourceWatch:

      In advocating for the legitimacy of of tree spiking, Foreman claimed - naively, some might argue - that injury to workers was unlikely because of the safety measures in place to protect workers in large timber mills. Because of the "remote" risk of injury to chainsaw operators associated with spiking the base of trees, Foreman recommended against using this particular form of spiking.
      Nonetheless, tree spiking was seized upon by the logging industry as evidence of a violent agenda behind radical environmentalism. In 1987, when an employee of logging company Louisiana-Pacific was seriously injured by a bandsaw blade which shattered when it struck a 60 penny nail, company president Harry Merlo dubbed the incident "terrorism in the name of environmental goals". While Earth First! was condemned by state officials and the media, it later emerged that the chief suspect, against whom no charges were laid, was a 50 year old "survivalist" with no connection to Earth First!

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:Spiking trees by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      LMAO. So, wait, someone who was doing the tree spiking, and recommended against certain forms of it due to the risk of injury, is your source for countering this? Since you're using Wikipedia semantics, allow me to throw one back at you: NPOV (that's Neutral Point Of View)...

    3. Re:Spiking trees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A good friend of mine's dad is an Anglican priest. I was talking to him once and eventually conversation turned to his parish, and one of the members used to work at a lumber mill. The blade used at one stage of the tree trunk --> board is basically a giant bandsaw running at extremely high speed. It hit a spike in a tree trunk, the blade snapped, and you can imagine high speed blade, under high tension, sharp, plus snap == bad. It hit the parishioner, and nearly cut him in half. A little bit of muscle and intestine were the only things connecting his torso to his pelvis. He actually lived, though without his legs and with the colostomy from hell.

      The law isn't going to recognize what spiking trees actually is: attempted murder. So to see that justice is at least partially done to the spiker, hopefully any law enforcement in logging country will bag and drag them to the nearest logging camp, and tell the loggers they'll be back in an hour or two to take what's left of the spiker to jail.

    4. Re:Spiking trees by Rei · · Score: 1

      Here's an excellent article on one of the more famous tree-spiking injuries. And remember while reading this that it's written by an environmentalist who *opposes* the practice of tree spiking. Some excerpts:

      -----------

      L-P has never been known to spend too much time maintaining equipment or worrying about worker safety. But in the weeks preceding the tree spiking incident, conditions had gotten worse than usual. The bandsaw blade was wobbling when it ran, and cracks had begun to appear in it. But when George and other workers complained, Edwards shined them on, saying the new blades were not in yet, and they would have to ma1ke do. "That blade was getting so bad," said George, "That I almost didn't go to work that day." ...

      The next thing he knew, George was lying on the floor covered with his own blood. "I knew I was dying. And all I could think about was Dick Edwards, and all the shit he gave me when I complained about the saw. I tried to get up, but they pushed me back down. I tried to beckon to Edwards so he would come close enough for me to get my hands around his throat in a death grip. If I had to die, I wanted to take that bastard with me." ...

      LP didn't call the press right away, but when they did they had a field day. "Tree Spiking Terrorism," screamed the headline in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat. And even though there was no evidence that Earth First! was involved, the Eureka Times-Standard proclaimed, Earth First! Blamed for Worker's Injuries." Mendocino County Sheriff Shea put out a widely quoted press release that was almost gleeful in its condemnation.

      "This heinous and vicious criminal act is a felony offense, punishable by imprisonment in State Prison for up to three years," he wrote, "Still undetermined in the investigation is the motive of the suspect or suspects, to deter logging operations or inflict great bodily injury and death upon lumber processing personnel," Even Louisiana-Pacific President Harry Merlo got into the fray, blaming "terrorism in the name of environmental goals" for George's injury.

      Meanwhile, George and Laurie Alexander had a different take on the incident. "I'm against tree spiking," George told the press from his hospital bed. "But I don't like clearcutting either." Laurie also tried to include L-P in the list of culprits. "I hate L-P," she told me. "I like trees." But the press wouldn't print a word Laurie said, and George's comments about mill safety and clearcutting were mentioned in only one news article, by Eric Brazil of the San Francisco Examiner. ...

      No matter what you think of LP's forest practices, this much should be clear: George Alexander is not the enemy. He has no say over his bosses' policies, either in or out of the mill. I have heard Earth First!ers say that doesn't matter, he shouldn't be working at an LP mill. Well, I shouldn't be driving a car either, but that doesn't make it okay to put a bomb in it.

      After George refused to go on tour denouncing us, he was forced to return to work at L-P before his injuries even healed. His and Laurie's baby was about to be born, he needed money, and there were not many jobs where he and his family live. George got worker's compensation for the time he was off work, but LP didn't offer him a cent for the trauma and hardship he suffered. They made a big public show of putting up a $20,000-dollar reward for the information leading to the conviction of the spiker, but George Alexander had to file a lawsuit against Louisiana Pacific to get anything at all. And while the company was crying crocodile tears over his injuries in public, in private they were fighting him tooth and nail over his damage claim. He ended up with just $9,000 and an involuntary transfer to night shift. "They used my name all over the country," George told me. "Then they laid me off when the mill closed down."

      -----------

      My view: Perhaps if the sawmills didn't give

      --
      Get out, or I'll have vice-president Agnew's headless body throw you out!"
  112. Carcinogens by tmosley · · Score: 1

    I wonder how many furry little animals got cancer from the toxins emitted in the form of smoke?

    Facepalm.

  113. Re:REALLY? [interference] by evanbd · · Score: 1

    Headphones probably didn't create a ground loop; there isn't exactly a loop to be found in the wiring. However, that's far from the only way for AM radios to be picked up. Various forms of input nonlinearities will rectify AM and let it sneak into the output. The solution is likely the ferrite cores mentioned by the GP post.

  114. It's September 6th, not April 1st by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please tell me this is some sort of April fools joke...?

  115. ELF is pretty bad. by teamsleep · · Score: 1

    ELF hasn't committed any criminal acts that have been noteworthy as of late. Not that any of them were any good, although the entire car lot destruction of cars and setting them ablaze is pretty cool.

    But an AM tower destruction? Do people listen to AM other than church sycophants and crazies or to hear traffic directions/problems. Seems kind of irrelevant other than the waste of money it will cost to bring those towers back up. ELF is just an obnoxious bunch of cowards, radio signals really don't cause that much problems for anyone. Besides those who actually are at the station, but it couldn't hurt that many people. And really, home phones and intercoms? hahahaha, that's a lame excuse.

    -=Right after the AM tower fell=-

    ELF member #1: Uh, so what's our reason for downing this tower anyway?

    ELF member #2: Radio waves cause cancer. Oh and it harms animals. Definitely animals.

    ELF member #1: Sounds good, what else though? We need something to close our argument.

    ELF member #3: It disrupts home phones and.. and... intercoms! Intercoms are really important!

    ELF member #1: Perfect! I'm writing this to all news stations. Hopefully it gets noticed by a Slashdotter.

    That's definitely how it ended. That's how those idiots figured out what to say reasons were for taking down an AM tower, fucking retards.

  116. It must be FEL by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

    ... after all they "FEL'ed" the tower didn't they?

  117. Maybe they are not wrong, after all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The method they used to stop KRKO emission has been very questionable (to be politically correct), however there is some sound evidence of the fact that radio frequency can be harmful to health. It is well known that ham radio activities increase the risk for leukemia. So having a trasmitting antenna in the backyard seems to be no good.
     

    1. Re:Maybe they are not wrong, after all by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 1

      ARRL also gave some notice about possible health risks related to ham radio activities. It seems that risks associated with strong RF fields should not be underestimated, indeed.

  118. Re:REALLY? [interference] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to dismiss the Brady Bunch episode where Jan's braces picked up a radio station. But now it seems plausible.

    Entirely so. It has to do with small gaps acting as rectifiers.

    An old ham radio operator friend of mine was working a ham in Japan one day from his truck which was parked at Fort Point in San Francisco. When he finished, a woman walked over to his truck and asked if he'd been speaking to someone in Japan. He admitted it was so. She told him that she had heard only his side of the conversation in her fillings, but gathered that the other person was in Japan from the content of that one side.

  119. They cut the guys, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks like the feminists will claim that one.

  120. Please, stop using that racist word. by Kaenneth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Vandals did more than just sack cities you know. When someone steals something, do you still say they 'gyped' you?, when someone is unwilling to spend freely, do you call them a jew? Still make polish jokes implying they are stupid?

    1. Re:Please, stop using that racist word. by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      Your comparison between a word that has existed independent of its proper-noun root for over 200 years, and using a racial stereotype to insult someone is absurd. See the distinction (if one exists in your mind) between racial and racist for further perspective.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
  121. Re:How strange by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

    Y'know, I can almost respect them for torching SUVs

    Yep, standard issue American hysteria.

    Hey guys, look at my new Ford Explorer, it's awsum. "Breaking news, SUVs are destroying the climate". OMG, we're all gonna die! Quick, let's torch all SUVs and hang their owners high!! It's the only way we can survive! OMGOMGOMG!!!

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  122. Ok Re:This is why we need science education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This is why we need truly nonpolitical academic institutions"
    "This is why we need truly nonpolitical academic institutions"
    "This is why we need truly nonpolitical academic institutions"

  123. Exposure...? by dcsutliffe · · Score: 1

    If anything, be it the FBI, ELF, the tower's neighboring annoyed humans, reading these comments one thing is clear, "exposure" to opinions, facts and possibilities. However, cancer causing chemicals that we ingest, bath in and wear are far more hazardous to life forms and the environment. It is just not exciting media material. Who wants to join a group that takes action against Johnson & Johnson by writing âoeCancerâ with a red sharpie shampoo bottles in shops? Too much effort and no cool undercover operation. Thanks FBI and ELF for distracting us from these more real threats that we willingly expose ourselves to in the name of progress.

  124. Let's go after the ELF by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Their rants have personally caused me hair loss, so I feel the need to destroy their property to send a message to the world.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  125. Part of the "Obama Nation", LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forgive this "Old Fart" (63 years old in October),

    I've been in 'radio/electronics' since I was 12 years old, 50+ years. As carbon-based enities, we ALL emit "energy"....protons, neutrons,electrons. So, what's the deal? Is ELF going to come "chop me up", because my body emits energy? These nut-case,
    Obama "terrorist" need to be locked up in a very deep, dark, dank, wet hole and never allowed to see daylight until the World
    ends. I'll bet they're some of Van Jones group..."Commie Terrorist For A Better World".

    Electric lines in your house, as well as high-tension power lines all produce a magnetic field, all sorts of radios from VLF to SHF
    frequencies emit radio (magnetic) waves. I'm an Amateur (Ham) radio operator, I have been for several decades. I use Morse
    Code on 160 meters (1800 to 2000 kHz) or (1.8 to 2.0 MHz) and run a power level of 1,500 watts. My radio and amplifier are
    within 3 feet of me. Yet, I don't have "cancer", I don't "glow-in-the-dark" and I don't have any unusual body parts.

    ELF's members are so full of *hit, they're eyes ought to be "brown", LOL!

    1. Re:Part of the "Obama Nation", LOL! by hax4bux · · Score: 1

      Obama has nothing to do w/this.

      Next time you say "nut case" - have a look in the mirror.

      You are an example why old pharts are mocked and why amateur radio is considered the province of out of touch geezers far out of touch w/current technology.

      BTW, I've also been licensed since I was 12 and held my extra since 1982, along w/commercial phone and telegraph.

      But I know the difference between ELF and the POTUS.

  126. tards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    these guys are tards, they tried to blow up the forestry building on Michigan Technological University's campus about 10 or 11 years ago. They filled 55 gallon drums with gasoline and put detonators on them to blow up a building that trains environmental officers and forestry management officers I don't see what kind of tard logic comes up with this idea to save the wilderness.

  127. Re:REALLY? [interference] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I use to live next door to a radio station. I would pick up their signal whenever I turned on my computer's speakers.

  128. OTOH by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    They did rid the region of one more crappy, mind-numbing AM station
    (fart-joke morning guys, "your 24/7 traffic copter" and possibly even C&W music),
    so there is something to be said for that.

    Just saying...

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  129. Spiking is intended to PREVENT the trees being cut by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

    , so, accordingly, an important step in the process is to NOTIFY the timber company and the media as soon as the spikes are in place. This is pretty clearly spelled out in "Ecodefense" and other literature of the radical environmental movement. The idea is to keep the trees standing, not to exact some kind of revenge against the loggers or sawmill operators.

    If the loggers cut the trees after they have been warned about spikes, any injuries are their responsibility, not the spiker's.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  130. Re:Nobody likes ELF. Not even their "allies." by Da+Fokka · · Score: 1

    Any Vegetarian/Vegan" who wants to blow things up can do so, and spray paint some BS about "ELF was here!

    Replace 'Vegetarian/Vegan' by 'Muslim extremist' and 'ELF' by 'Al Qaeda' and it's still true.

  131. Re:Spiking is intended to PREVENT the trees being by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the loggers cut the trees after they have been warned about spikes, any injuries are their responsibility, not the spiker's.
    I can't tell if you are being sarcastic, or have a seriously fucked up sense of morality and responsibility.

  132. The freaks are those who disrespect eco-systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read "The word for world is forest" by Ursula K. LeGuin

  133. Humanity is a subset of life on Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And since we have so much power to change it and destroy it,
    it is incumbent on us to learn enough about it to know why it would be
    wise to conserve eco-systems in all their bio-diversity.

    I am surprised how many ignoramuses there are on this topic
    on this forum.

    I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. We are all constantly
    bombarded with industrial-commercial status quo propaganda
    encouraging consumerism and telling you everything is great,
    as long as you are driving a big enough truck.

    Here's a news flash:
    You are living on first nations land for which no just compensation
    was given.
    You deny this for your own psychological protection.
    Your culture is destroying many of the eco-systems of Earth.
    You deny this for your own psychological protection.

  134. It's not just food production by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Food distribution is a big factor, as are agricultural pollution and the side-effects of changing the use of land from non-cropland to cropland or from one type of crop or crop rotation to another.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  135. What I learned today. by w3woody · · Score: 1

    If I oppose something, then I can knock it down with a bulldozer and I'm doing some sort of "societal good."

    I also learned elsewhere that it is acceptable to pay someone under the table to commit acts of violence that I can attribute to my opponents.

    And I learned elsewhere that sabotage, especially sabotage which threatens the lives of workers--like nails in a tree, for example--is a completely acceptable form of protest. Especially if someone gets hurt.

    And ultimately I learned that the ends does not justify the means, unless I really really support the ends. Thus getting a gun to defend myself and my property is bad, unless I'm a tree hugger or support President Obama's policies on health care.

    This whole "pursuit of the truth" and "loyal opposition" thing is so overrated.

    1. Re:What I learned today. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that the only people at risk of being hurt by tree spikes
      are the greedy, uncaring or ignorant m**f**rs earning money for their
      big speedboats with "Everrude" engines and their steroidally pumped up trucks with
      the two obnoxious ATVs on the back, and other sexually
      compensatory toys, who cut down forests in massive clearcuts that
      are laying waste to rich and wonderful eco-systems. You do
      know I presume that they have already rid most of the world of wild forests
      and are doing their best to rid the rest of it of them.

      I'm not saying spiking is a wise tactic, but it sure doesn't kill innocents.

  136. Re:REALLY? [interference] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Maybe the control rooms had special shielding?

  137. Re:REALLY? [interference] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    She told him that she had heard only his side of the conversation in her fillings

    She better be careful, the RIAA is gonna tax her mouth.

  138. Re:Spiking is intended to PREVENT the trees being by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So are you suggesting that if a logging company is warned that trees are spiked, and knowingly sends a crew in to cut them down anyway, that they aren't responsible for their workers getting injured?

  139. Re:Spiking is intended to PREVENT the trees being by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

    If the loggers cut the trees after they have been warned about spikes, any injuries are their responsibility, not the spiker's.

    If you lock your doors after I announce my intention to enter your home and take your TV, the damage to your door is your responsibility, not mine.

    --
    "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
  140. Re:Spiking is intended to PREVENT the trees being by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you lock your doors after I announce my intention to enter your home and take your TV, the damage to your door is your responsibility, not mine.

    Bad analogy.

    In your scenario, the illegal action (burglary) doesn't take place until after the warning is given. The call is apparently being made in an effort to facilitate the crime (leave the door open or we will have to break in).

    In the case of tree spiking, the action has already taken place when the call is made. The purpose of the call is to prevent any injuries from occurring, and ensure that the trees are left standing (the reason for placing the spikes in the first place).

  141. Sports provides a useful lesson here... by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    If you hit back, the ref will penalize the second guy, not the one who started it.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  142. right wing radicals dept? by FlyingHuck · · Score: 1

    Since when the hell did we right wingers get confused with the Earth Liberation Front? We are far too busy torturing Muslims, driving SUVs, dodging the tax code, executing a vast conspiracy, shooting assault weapons, and eating red meat to clarify that the Earth Liberation Front is a band of commie tree huggers. Now that I have made this clarification, allow me to go back to eating my rare tenderloin steak and washing it down with a bottle of scotch worth more than your house.

  143. Re:How strange by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

    Y'know, I can almost respect them for torching SUVs - If the government won't tell people "No, you may not drive a vehicle that presents a significant danger* to everyone else on the road, without special training for the appropriate license class", then perhaps fear of having their car burn down one night kept at least a few people driving more realistic vehicles.

    Please think more carefully.

    You condone ideological crime? Because the government fails you, it is fair to fix the situation by yourself?

    One thing that you should think is, how are you sure you are right? You are basically forcing your opinion on others.

    This type of thinking, in a far greater scale, leads to the current situation of Africa - a humanitarian disaster largely caused by marxist guerrillas, radical islamic guerrillas and other people who take matters on their hands because the government fails them.

    By the way, I too dislike SUVs and I ride a bicycle.

  144. Re:Spiking is intended to PREVENT the trees being by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

    >>>an important step in the process is to NOTIFY the timber company

    By that logic Bin Laden is not a terrorist because he NOTIFIED us that we should leave the Arabian Peninsula alone, or else. In fact he notified us before he bombed the NYC trade center's basement. He notified us before he destroyed the OKC federal building (suspected but not proven), and before the USS Cole bombing. It's not his fault we did not listen. /end sarcasm

    What the ELF is doing with tree-spiking sounds dangerous to people, even if they do notify the companies. If I'm 100 feet in the area and suddenly my saw hits a spike and the chain snaps, if I don't get hurt it will be pure luck. I will blame the ELF.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  145. mod parent up by catbertscousin · · Score: 1

    We have a responsibility to take care of the earth and that includes animals, but if we put animal life above human life, who's going to take care of things?

    --
    No good deed goes unpunished. - Avon, Blake's 7
  146. That guy is SUCH A HERO!!! by Bip+Bippadotta · · Score: 1

    I think that nut who knocked the tower down deserves a lot of respect. He truly is a hero.

    He risked his life to knock the tower down. He may die of cancer now. At least he did the entirety of society some good.