Anti-Whaling Group Using Drones To Find Whalers

FatLittleMonkey writes "Anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd is using aerial drones to find and track factory ships used by Japanese whalers. The group claims the tactic shortened the Japanese whaling season last year by a month, saving 200 whales, and this year they've spotted the factory ship even earlier."

Comments

Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[sethstorm]

For the country that usually is known for its robots, that sure seems to be an embarrassment.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[InterestingFella]

Disappointment? Things work both ways. But since the whalers are in international waters, they should just shoot down those drones. It's not like the anti-whalers have tons of cash to spend on them.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[luther349]

you would think so. but i think the Japanese have more fun harassing them back tomorrow on whale wars the Japanese use there own uav to spy on sea shepherd lol. and it will be made out to be some super evil tactic.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[mrchaotica]

Tactically, a UAV wouldn't do the whalers much (if any) good as long as Sea Shepherd has one too. Sea Shepherd's entire goal is to find and then tailgate the factory ship; once they've done that then it doesn't matter if the whalers know where they are.

Now, if the whalers shot down Sea Shepherd's UAV (before it found the factory ship) then they could use their own to track Sea Shepherd and keep the factory ship away from their position, without "wasting" a harpoon ship like they've been doing.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[sg_oneill]

Actually much of the whaling has been happening illegally in australian waters, and believe me, firearms would absolutely be the last straw in our governments very thin patience with these poachers.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[luther349]

yea i was just making fun of there whole cat and mouse game. maybe the Japanese need to sink another one of there boats.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[zill]

This "shoot the drone" down idea has been mentioned twice in this thread already, but how feasible is it really? Can anyone familiar with maritime law comment on it?

Pragmatically speaking you'll need automatic weapons to take down a drone on the high seas, and those NFA firearms aren't cheap. Not to mention you'll need to sail out of US, intercept the drones, and then sail back to the US again.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Issarlk]

And if the drone is high in the sky then just guns won't make it, you'd need some missile. Would whale fishing cover the costs of firing perhaps several guided missiles on each trip ?

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually much of the whaling has been happening illegally in australian waters, and believe me, firearms would absolutely be the last straw in our governments very thin patience with these poachers.

Mod Parent up.
Public Opinion has in the region is around 90-10 against the Whalers, especially after the Sea Shepherd Stunt.
The Australian Navy has been requested to intervene on both sides in the last few years. Refused to take sides at this point.

General feeling is the Activists could prob take it a few steps further iwthout getting into trouble whereas the Japanese have pushed to the limits already.

Sonic weapons on both sides will be the next escalation step. However as this article is about communication and intelligence is vital.
If they know where the mother ship is they know how far out the whaling ships can reach and therefore act to drive the whales out of the way.

The danger comes where they know the Whaling ship has spotted a whale and is actively hunting it.

They will attempt to get in the line of sight of the harpoon, acid/gumsplash the harpoon mechanism, anything to stop the shot.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[speaker4thedead]

Well... In that case, lets all hope they decide to resort to firearms.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[TFAFalcon]

Don't the anti-whalers have the right to fly drones around in international waters?

If the whalers start shooting them, what is to stop the anti-whalers from sinking the whaling ships?

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Discopete]

I'd be willing to bet that the minute the Japanese whaling fleet took a missile shot at the drone, the Australian navy would be all over them. The Japanese don't need that kind of bad PR at this point in time.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Richard_at_work]

The waters they are fishing in are waters claimed by Australia but not recognised by Japan - Australia claim control over most of the southern ocean, well outside of the normal economic zone limits, and thus Japan has a valid reason to not recognise Australian control. Japan also doesn't recognise the economic area Australia claim off the coast of Antarctica, so once again the claim is in dispute.

It's hardly as black and white as you put it - and I support the abolition of whaling.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Runaway1956]

Won't swear to it, but I'm pretty sure that our guns could reach higher than a drone could fly. Of course, those were navy main deck guns, and whalers don't have anything as big, or as powerful available to them.

What whalers MIGHT get hold of, are some missiles. Shoulder launched SAM missiles, if they can acquire a lock on the drone. Drones are rather stealthy, lacking a lot of the heat, radio, and/or magnetism associated with older and/or ancient aircraft. So - you rely on sight? Fly-by-wire?

But, when you get down to it, I think the Iranians have the best idea. Just use some radio equipment to jam communications, the GPS spoof it into landing on the water, recover the blasted thing yourself, and the Greenies are out one drone.

All that said - I do wish the Japanese would quit hunting whales. It's not like they are going to starve without them. Back in the day when there were tens of thousands of any given species, and mankind only captured a few dozen whales per year, things were cool. Today, the population is just to damned low, and we've become to damned efficient. Extinction threatens, and that just sucks.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Runaway1956]

Sinking a ship would put all mariners up in arms, no matter their nationality, politics, religion, or anything at all. There are some things you just don't do, unless you're ready to declare open war. Do the whaler-chasers have a nation ready to back them up with a real navy? I don't think so . . .

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[skegg]

Oh come now, no ships would ever be sunk because of a feud between a nation state and environmentalists.

Err, scrap that.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[jimbolauski]

Most ships would not be allowed in claimed waters if they had weapons. Its part of the strange rules that govern sailing vessels and make them prime targets for pirates.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[burni2]

Ok, you do this next time you spot a predator drone in international waters, I bet 30s later your boat has a big hole in it.

And for being up front against such an unlawfull interaction like shooting something down. The drone is in international skies not waters as long as the drone does not attack or else shooting it down is prohibited.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

That doesn't really matter. Drones have the extremely desirable property of having a tiny signature in pretty much any field.

Tiny radar signature
Tiny heat signature
Tiny visual signature
Tiny audible signature ...

These things ... well they are tiny. Finding them is ridiculously difficult, even for advanced military hardware.

Due to earth's athmosphere (ie. the wind generating small lensing effects) the smallest object you can find from 100km distance is about 15x15 cm. That's the theoretical limit. Let's say you can get military hardware half as good as that, well then you can find a 1m x 10cm drone from about 400 km distance. Since drones fly at a stupid altitude (we're talking 50 meters or maybe less), finding them from sea level is not possible at all, so basically they'd need a plane in the air less than 400 km from the drone. And this is assuming they don't make it really hard (paint the bottom to look like a cloud, paint the top to look like the sea, use a light nonconductive material for wings and don't let the engine's heat leak into the structure itself. Or better yet : use an engine that's too powerfull, run it at really low settings, so it doesn't get hot in the first place. Not hard, especially in tiny planes).

(that's also the problem for terrorism using these things. Even over US soil, assuming the autopilot is not stupid (and the RC doesn't give it away), doesn't fly over bases and the like, the US military needs to have a spyplane will be very invasive privacy-wise. But once a few muslims figure this out ... the discussion is basically over, and the choice is between the military being able to see the pattern on your swimshorts in your own backyard live, or random explosions in cities).

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[msobkow]

Isn't there an international standard of a 200 mile influence from a nation's shores, subject to negotiation of overlapping districts?

Regardless, the Japanese claims of "scientific research" seem like a flimsy excuse for the slaughter. Whales are intelligent, emotional creatures like dolphins. They communicate over vast distances. Just because they're not human doesn't mean we should be slaughtering them any more than we should primates.

They're too far up the evolutionary chain to be treated as common food animals.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Richard_at_work]

The 200 mile limit is the exclusive economic zone I referred to in my post, and if you look at Australias, it's nowhere near as big as you think it us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone#Australia

200 miles isn't all that much in real terms.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[John Pfeiffer]

You obviously haven't seen these little pricks. They're spoiled rich kids playing pirate. I seriously doubt they'll feel the loss of a couple cheap UAVs.

After all, they didn't seem to care much when they lost their uber stealth boat thing, after RAMMING A WHALING VESSEL with it and claiming the whaling vessel rammed THEM.

These people piss me the hell off. I couldn't care less about whaling one way or the other, but whenever I hear about these assholes in the news, it makes me think "Plate me up some whale meat! YEAHHH!"

Kind of like the reaction I have to anything PETA does. "Sea kittens? Sounds tasty! WHAT NOW, BITCHES?"

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whales are intelligent, emotional creatures like dolphins.

So are sheep and cattle. You gonna tell me I can't eat them too Peta?

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Anonymous Coward]

But the Japs are hunting Minke whales and there's hundreds of thousands of them out there. More would die of natural causes each year than what the Japs take.

Sea Shepherd are really just a pirate/terrorist organisation and I wish our government would enact its anti-terror laws against them and their supporters, or better still send the Navy down there to blow those fascist environazis out of the water.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Type44Q]

and mankind only captured a few dozen whales per year, things were cool

And when, exactly, was this?

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Anonymous Coward]

Australia is the only country that recognises its claim.

Until we're prepared to send our Navy down there to enforce our claim, it's open season baby.

I have no problem with the Japs whaling for non-endangered whales like the Minke's that dominate their catch.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Anonymous Coward]

[...] Whales are intelligent, emotional creatures like dolphins.

You lost me here, all animal are intelligent and emotional. If you are a PETA idiot against meat, just disclose it in the first paragraph so i can ignore you. I support the end of whaling because the species is endangered. As soon as the stock is up, i want to taste that meat.

They're too far up the evolutionary chain to be treated as common food animals.

So are cows and pigs. Again, if you are a PETA idiot you should disclose it.

You are only showing all ignorant you are. There is no low life dumb animal that deserve to be eaten while the 'higher' animal that you anthropomorphise should be preserved. All animals are beautiful and intelligent, and all of them are resources to be use by each others. This is how nature work. Life eat life.

As human, we have the wisdom to preserve resource. Whale should be preserved, not because your sensitivity see them as a cute cartoony person but because it could be lost forever.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[beltsbear]

While sea sheppards were definitely harassing the whaling vessel with Ady Gil, it is hard to watch the footage and not see it as that the Ady Gil was rammed by the whalers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brw6JN0lQXY&feature=related

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Rich0]

I think AAA is typically effective only to about 10k feet. Then again, a drone doesn't move that fast and probably won't evade fire, so it could be effective much higher. As you say we're talking about military-grade AAA here and usually it is only effective with lots of gun and/or very good radar guidance, and the guns are very large. Back in WW2 you'd probably have 1000 guns firing at 200 planes and maybe 20 of them would get shot down in a 15 minute encounter (though no doubt it made the attackers less effective all the same). Oh, and I doubt they sell proximity fused artillery shells on amazon.

I'd say a missile is probably the only reliable way of downing a drone. I imagine you'd need to use radar - IR might work once you're close. Manually guiding a missile only works on video games - you probably couldn't even see the thing until you're 200 feet away moving at mach 10. SAMs aren't cheap, and fire control radar is even less so.

Jamming communications is likely the only practical solution if the Japanese Navy isn't willing to send an Arleigh Burke out (as if they want the US Congress debating banning military sales to Japan). This is likely to be much more effective against a Greenpeace drone as they probably don't use satellite communication. If they do, another option (that won't make you many friends) is jamming the satellite, or convincing the operator to cut them off. I doubt commercial satellites are equipped to handle decent jamming.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[abuelos84]

You sound wise and reflective.
Please, tell us more.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[mysidia]

And if the drone is high in the sky then just guns won't make it, you'd need some missile. Would whale fishing cover the costs of firing perhaps several guided missiles on each trip ?

Not a guided missile. A harpoon with an EMP payload on it.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[mysidia]

These things ... well they are tiny. Finding them is ridiculously difficult, even for advanced military hardware.

Hard to find by looking at the sky; easy to find by searching for a radio signal, since they require one continuously to send their video feed, possibly easy to jam and confuse.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[YrWrstNtmr]

Won't swear to it, but I'm pretty sure that our guns could reach higher than a drone could fly.

Predators and Reapers fly at around 25k feet. Don't think your gun is going to get there accurately, if at all.

What whalers MIGHT get hold of, are some missiles. Shoulder launched SAM missiles, if they can acquire a lock on the drone.

So lets assume a smaller drone, not a Predator. Something the size of your car, at 10k feet. The typical shoulder fired SAM, Strela SA-7. Passive infrared, and with a ceiling of 2.3km (7,500 feet), you're not going to be hitting a little drone anytime soon. Especially since you don't even know its there.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[morari]

You are only showing all ignorant you are. There is no low life dumb animal that deserve to be eaten while the 'higher' animal that you anthropomorphise should be preserved. All animals are beautiful and intelligent, and all of them are resources to be use by each others. This is how nature work. Life eat life.

Isn't it time we have an open season on humans, then? They're grossly overpopulated and have become little more than ecological pests. Killing them in mass would free up a whole host of resources, while simultaneously helping solve world hunger.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually much of the whaling has been happening illegally in australian waters, and believe me, firearms would absolutely be the last straw in our governments very thin patience with these poachers.

So are the Oz folks willing to keep the activists under control as well? If they're not, then they're not doing their goddamned job. I'm no fan of poachers, but this vigilante mentality that it's somehow okay for the Sea Shepherd nutters to run amok when they're doing something politically correct yet illegal is a crock of crap.

Ripped from Wikipedia:

According to its mission statement, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society "uses innovative direct-action tactics to investigate, document, and take action when necessary to expose and confront illegal activities on the high seas". Those actions have included scuttling and disabling commercial whaling vessels at harbor, ramming other vessels, throwing glass bottles of butyric acid on the decks of vessels at sea, boarding of whaling vessels while at sea, and seizure and destruction of drift nets at sea. As of 2009, Paul Watson has said that the organization has sunk ten whaling ships while also destroying millions of dollars worth of equipment. Their practice of attacking and sinking other ships has led to reports of injuries to other sailors as well as the Sea Shepherd crew, including concussions and complications from chemical attacks.

--snip-

Ramming? Really? I'm no fan of the poachers, but I will say that it wouldn't be a stretch to get a hold of some surplus RPGs and explain it to a couple of Sea Shepherd vessels. Would I stand down to the Australian Navy or whatever their coast guard is called? Sure. Some independent ban of loons ramming my ship? Not likely. These fuckers are no different than the ELF or ALF.

Leave the policing of bad guys to nation-states and their organizations... otherwise don't cry when the poachers get annoyed and start to escalate. With two major wars winding down there are going to be plenty of surplus mercs on the market willing to do bad things to people.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[IceNinjaNine]

And for being up front against such an unlawfull interaction like shooting something down. The drone is in international skies not waters as long as the drone does not attack or else shooting it down is prohibited.

We're talking whatever piece of amateur kit Sea Shepherd can mustard, not a Predator owned by a nation state.

FTA:
"Jeff Hansen from Sea Shepherd says now that the ship's position is known, the next step is to move in."

You do know these people have been known to attack whaling ships and sink whaling ships, right? Is that legal?

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[dgatwood]

And if the drone is high in the sky then just guns won't make it, you'd need some missile.

Besides, the drone has to be able to reach escape velocity so that it can monitor the whalers on the moon. No missile can possibly catch that....

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Runaway1956]

I would say almost all of time before the United States was founded. Could be I exaggerate, some. But, come on - before there were those huge old clipper ships and the like, ships were small things. Ever been aboard a ship? Look at the size of the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria. Had they been put to use as whaling ships, a single whale would have filled all the holds. The Mayflower was larger, maybe a half dozen whales. HMS Victory is considerably larger - had it been put to use as a whaling ship, they might have taken 10 or 15 whales in a single voyage.

Killing a whale, 300 or more years ago was a major undertaking. Once we started building those factory ships, the hardest part of killing a whale was just finding it. And, a single ship could process a hundred or more whales before returning to port.

Think my numbers are off by a lot? I'll be happy to read any citations you might find on the subject. But, no matter what numbers we might find, we'll just come back to the fact that in olden days, iron men in wooden ships went out to take a modest number of whales from the sea. Today, men go out in huge iron factory ships to process entire pods of whales.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Type44Q]

Your numbers are probably as valid as any other but you said "mankind," not "the English-speaking world." With all the various whaling cultures around the world (Norse, Finns, Russkies, Innuit, etc), I would guess that "a few dozen whales per year" is off by one or even two orders of magnitude...

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen brother. Stories about assholes like these (and PETA as you mention) make me want to start a sort of Blackwater anti-anti-whaling security force and hire out to the Japanese for free.

It's very clear in the video beltsbear posted below, that the Shonan Maru did not change course to ram the Ady Gil. In fact to me it looks as if the Ady Gil drifted right into the path of the whaling vessel intentionally. One of the anti-whalers in the video even tries to claim the Ady Gil was in full reverse... clearly not the case by watching the video with your own two eyes.

Seriously though, are the Japanese hiring security for these whalers? Interested and inquiring minds would like to know!

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Anonymous Coward]

You also need to remember that the "law of the sea" is that smaller, more agile vessels give way to larger ones. So if you are driving a speedboat on a course that will intersect with that of a ship you better well not complain when you collide because you didn't take evasive action.

But then it seems that Sea Shepherd aren't really one for acting lawfully.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[swillden]

While sea sheppards were definitely harassing the whaling vessel with Ady Gil, it is hard to watch the footage and not see it as that the Ady Gil was rammed by the whalers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brw6JN0lQXY&feature=related

I just watched the videos and it's not clear to me one way or another.

It is clear that the Ady Gil was under power, though moving slowly, while the whaler was moving at a good clip. It's also clear that the whaler wasn't at all upset about having collided with the Ady Gil. I don't see any evidence that either boat made any attempt to change course or speed.

I think it was a game of chicken. Either side could have blinked, but neither did. The captain of the Ady Gil thought the whaler would blink, in order to avoid an incident. The captain of the whaler thought the Ady Gil would blink, because it was obvious that a collision between the 13-ton composite-hulled Ady Gil and the 628-ton steel-hulled Shonan Maru 2 would destroy the trimaran and do nothing to the whaler. I also suspect that both hoped for a collision: the Ady Gil in order to create an incident, and the Shonan Maru 2 in order to crush a pest.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, slashdot? random capitalization guy gets modded +5 insightful?

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Golddess]

Not to mention you'll need to sail out of US, intercept the drones, and then sail back to the US again.

Ah yes, the good old 51st state known as Japan. :P

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, slashdot? random capitalization guy gets modded +5 insightful?

There's nothing random about the capitalization that guy used. Once for an acronym, twice for emphasis/raising voice, twice for shouting.

Why are you wasting time on slashdot anyhow? Shouldn't you be tracking the whaling fleet or sucking Paul's dick or something?

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[TooMuchToDo]

Let the arms race begin. Shoot down the UAVs? It can't be that expensive to buy supercavitation torpedoes off of the Russian military. Best of luck to the Japanese whaling ship avoiding something traveling that fast (300-400 km/h).

http://www.articlesextra.com/supercavitation-torpedoes.htm

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

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[TooMuchToDo]

I think it was a game of chicken. Either side could have blinked, but neither did. The captain of the Ady Gil thought the whaler would blink, in order to avoid an incident. The captain of the whaler thought the Ady Gil would blink, because it was obvious that a collision between the 13-ton composite-hulled Ady Gil and the 628-ton steel-hulled Shonan Maru 2 would destroy the trimaran and do nothing to the whaler. I also suspect that both hoped for a collision: the Ady Gil in order to create an incident, and the Shonan Maru 2 in order to crush a pest.

Hopefully, the anti-whalers come with something much bigger next time. Aren't single-hulled supertankers going cheap on the ship market?

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the most monstrous aspect of animal rights activists. They seriously equate their own species to other species in their utterly warped, sociopathic minds.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[CrimsonAvenger]

While sea sheppards were definitely harassing the whaling vessel with Ady Gil, it is hard to watch the footage and not see it as that the Ady Gil was rammed by the whalers.

Anyone ever explain Rules of the Road for ships to you?

Hint: LEAST maneuverable vessel has Right of Way. More manueverable vessel is responsible for getting the hell out of the way.

Hence, high-powered speedboat is required to make way for the clumsy whaler.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Anonymous Coward]

we do that it call war. it has being going on for the last 5,000 year nonstop it just the scale of the killing that changes for time to time. but what i think your looking for is a plague not a war take less resources and is just as good at kill people off. turn out when we humans go all "open season" on each other we consume more natural resource then less you know that hole do anything to survive thing but don't let me stop you for being wrong you look like your having fun with it.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Goaway]

You really want whaling to continue that much?

Here's the thing: Japan keeps whaling, because whalers are popular. Whalers are popular because they are standing up to outside pressure, and standing up to bullies, and nobody likes a bully. Sea Shepherd are bullies, and they keep whaling in the news, building more and more support for whaling in Japan.

It doesn't matter one bit what people outside of Japan think about whaling, because they have no say in whether or not whaling in Japan should continue or not. The only people whose opinion matters is that of Japanese politicians, and Japanese voters. And whaling would likely be forgotten and dying out if Sea Shepherd didn't keep it in the news, and keep building support for it.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[rubycodez]

those are not australia's waters. australia's grandiose claims are not accepted by the international community. there is no poaching, just hunting in international waters.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Anonymous Coward]

don't shoot them jam. if Iran can bring down one of are military drone Japan should have no problem bring down a civilian one and it would be great to see the faces of those hippies when the toy plane goes splash in the water

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[spire3661]

GPS spoofing only works if you arent aware of it or ignore it in your designs. There are a million ways to mitigate that. We wont be losing any future designs to that particular tactic anymore unless the mission envelope require compromises in design.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[demonlapin]

Any nation's navy. Acts of piracy (real piracy!) may be punished by any state. They are punishable by life in prison in the US. Don't know about other countries' law.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Bucky24]

But the drone is looking for THEM, so wouldn't it get a lot closer, at least at some point, in order to find them? What's the radar range on drones?

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Bucky24]

Well also bear in mind that a lot of those cultures didn't go whaling all year long. They had to deal with weather conditions and a vastly decreased range as well (since if they planned to fill their cargo hold with whale they couldn't carry many provisions).

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[YrWrstNtmr]

Think my numbers are off by a lot? I'll be happy to read any citations you might find on the subject. But, no matter what numbers we might find, we'll just come back to the fact that in olden days, iron men in wooden ships went out to take a modest number of whales from the sea. Today, men go out in huge iron factory ships to process entire pods of whales.

By 1500 most of the desirable whales in the Bay of Biscay were gone. The large sailing ships ventured further and further away – as far as Newfoundland.
However, by the early 1600 and 1700s commercial merchant ship owners realized the profits of the whaling trade and a shift began toward large scale whaling by companies.
1500-1800, Europeans (Dutch, English, Basques, etc) were actively fishing the Atlantic, and not just single ships, but fleets of a couple dozen or more.

We have been doing this for a long, long time.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Bucky24]

I'm sure PETA would tell you just that. Personally I think the fact that whales are intelligent is a moot point. AFAIK they're endangered, which is enough reason to stop hunting them. And you'd think the whaling industry would figure this out too. If they kill all the whales then they're out of a job.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mate, you should read the international regulations for preventing collisions at sea some time.. no vessel ever has any right of way, there are only listed responsibilities.. One party, termed the stand on vessel has the responsibility to maintain course, so as to not confuse the other party and the other, the give way vessel has the responsibility to give way so as to not hit the first. Additionally, both are responsible to avoid collisions at all times.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually much of the whaling has been happening illegally in australian waters

FUD much? Japan doesn't recognize Australia's claim on those waters, nor a similar claim near Antarctic waters.

Let's be clear: there is an international dispute (between Australia and Japan) over those waters. As such, saying that the Japanese whaling of non-endangered is illegal, is quite disingenuous.

Obviously the tard-mods are out today since you are modded +5 Informative while this post will remain at 0 and most likely go unnoticed.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[coolsnowmen]

They don't require this necessarily. Make a decent enough AI that will fly to the place to take pictures, then fly back, and you don't need to communicate with it at all. At a little bit of image recognition and only have it take pictures of things that don't look like ${Background} then it can stay out their for a while search and return back to upload when it's micro sd card is full.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[0100010001010011]

That implies they one had here boats.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[0100010001010011]

Why not just tell it to land? The Iranians got it to work. If this is a UAV confuse the hell out of it. If remote controlled just cut off the signal.

I'm sure flooding the RF spectrum is a bit better looked upon than firing stuff into the air.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Myopic]

Congratulations, you might just get a Slashdot Achievement for a comment modded "+5, Troll".

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Runaway1956]

Wow - I was off by two hundred years? Thanks for the links - I have my mind on a FreeNAS install, and probably never would have looked!

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[John Pfeiffer]

Really guys, REALLY? Modded up to +4 Insightful, and then all the way down to -1 Flamebait?

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[msobkow]

Anyone who's ever dealt with sheep, cattle, pigs, and other livestock on a farm knows damn well they're not intelligent, aware, emotional creatures like the higher life forms I mentioned. Don't be an idiot.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[msobkow]

Pretty Emotional Tits and Ass. Ever notice that PETA protests are always held by half naked young women?

Where are the grandmothers? The aunts and uncles? The people who might have a little experience in life and with animals? Are there any PETA farmers?

PETA amuses me. And most of them are cute.

Yep, I'm a hetero male. I look, I drool, and I'm not ashamed of it.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[swillden]

So, your assertion is that people buy whale products not because they like them but to protest the actions of Sea Shepherd?

I'll freely admit that I know nothing about this, but based on my experience of human nature that seems... very unlikely.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[gtall]

Really? Ever own a cat. They have brains the size of a walnut yet each has their own personality. Mine would pout if they wanted to be close and I pushed them away. They'd play tricks on me. They knew when I didn't feel well, their behavior changed.

It used to be that people owning slaves in the South thought of them as farm animals as well, devoid of intelligent thought. If you have it drilled into you that other creatures are nothing more than automatons, then you will treat them like that regardless.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[mysidia]

I suppose the whaler's solution then would be camouflage to make the ship look smaller from above; to disguise the ship as something other than a whale boat, or to mod the whale boats into partially or fully submersible craft; so they could hunt whale, take the carcass on board for processing, and then submerge to prevent overhead drones from locating them.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[marxzed]

whalers are not popular in Japan... maybe around their towns .. yeh I'll admit that, these whaling fletes bring in huge amounts of political porkbarreling , but every time I've been there the overwelming majority of Japanese people I've spoken to in Tokyo and Osaka were totally unaware that Japan even engaged in whaling and most of those that did thought it was being carried out in Japanese waters.
in fact of the dozens and dozens of Japanese people I spoke to at several Fuji Rock festivals I've attended I found not one single person supported the Japanese whaling industry - not one single one.
in fact most people I spoke to, when given the very basic facts that they were hunting around a thousand whales each year under the banner of scientific research and that much of the whale meat was then being sold for human consumption, were at best apathetic and for the most part shocked and against the idea.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Sri Ramkrishna]

Don't worry, what people don't understand is that by killing species, we will eventually kill the critical link of interdependence for our own survival (eg bees) and we will not be able to survive. Nature WILL find a way to achieve the balance. In a history than spans millions of years, we are nothing but a blip. Nature will endure. The only reason we are saving species and protecting is to keep our species viable. Otherwise, our flaws will create the right mix to destroy us.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[TFAFalcon]

Sinking is not piracy. You have to try stealing something.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Xest]

There's more too it than that too though, as part of Australia's claim to those waters, as with the British in it's claimed South Atlantic ocean territory those nations take on the responsibility of responding to distress calls and general policing of those waters too.

Should that territory become a hotbed of pirate activity, or should a bunch of Japanese ships find themselves in trouble in those waters, you can be rest assured Japan would suddenly find itself begging Australia to help, which would be a tad hypocritical if not recognising their claim.

Besides, the whole thing is academic anyway, Japan can't even afford to continue the hunt with it's failed economy for much longer. Sea Sheperd is just helping up the cost for Japan condemning their hunt to abandonment even earlier.

Really, it's not even profitable now as is, it's only the fact that the Japanese are so shit scared of admitting on the public stage that yes, actually, perhaps they were wrong about whaling, that they continue it anyway. Whether true or not, I hear even many Japanese people are getting a bit fed up of their government pouring money down the drain on a loss making whaling fleet when the economy there is so fucked. You'd have to be pretty stupid to want to subsidise something so pointless when there are much larger priorities the country could be spending money on.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Xest]

They're not Japan's either. I don't ever recall there being international agreement that international territory is fair game and the first one to loot it dry of some specific resource so no other nation can enjoy it gets first dibs.

At least Australia's claim has the backing of a number of countries and was signed into international treaty in 1933. In contrast Japan's commercial hunting of whales flies in the face of established international law, and runs against the vast majority of international opinion. Australia's claim may be weak, but Japan's actions are outright illegal as they are carrying out a commercial hunt when they only have research whaling rights and there is much documented proof of this. The problem is, who is going to dare bring the world's 3rd biggest economy to trial?

FWIW, even Norway recognises Australia's claim, and Norway is the most pro-whaling nation on earth, arguably more so than even Japan.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you're about as intelligent as those sheep and cattle referred to above.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Anonymous Coward]

Their strategy is to get behind the mother ship and stay there. If they manage this, the whalers cannot transfer whales from the harpoon ships and the hunt is effectively shut down, so don't expect any attacks on the harpoon ships as they are way faster and more manuverable than the activists' ships.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Grishnakh]

I've been around plenty of livestock. Pigs are known to be quite intelligent for their size (comparable to dogs and such), and while sheep and cattle aren't the sharpest tools in the shed, they certainly are aware and emotional, though a bit slow, just like horses.

Just because these animals aren't as intelligent as chimpanzees or dolphins doesn't mean they don't have any intelligence at all, nor does it mean they don't have emotions.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[tftp]

Sinking is not piracy. You have to try stealing something.

Sinking an unmanned ship is same as a theft of it where the thief destroys the loot. Any hostile act by Sea Shepherds should be treated as piracy; similarly, an attack on Sea Shepherds' drones would be also piracy (unless drones directly endanger someone) for the same reasons.

Drones themselves are not a concern. However once Sea Shepherd vigilantes show up to be judge, jury and the executioner they create a problem. I don't see much harm from limited harvest of non-endangered species. If there is harm, use UN to tell Japan to stop doing that. However no band of merry men may be allowed to go around, set their own laws and hurt people. If Sea Shepherds want to do something good they are welcome to Somalia coastal waters, there are plenty of evildoers and real people (unarmed sailors) that need protection. But no, SS doesn't believe that saving humans from pirates is a worthy goal. Instead they choose to protect sea cows from sea hunters. There are at least half a million Minke whales in Southern waters, and Japan catches about 2,000 of them, which is 0.4%.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Grishnakh]

What a stupid argument. They're in international waters, so there ARE no police and no laws. No laws and no police = "vigilantism" is impossible. So if they want to attack whaling vessels, I don't see the problem with it.

If the poachers get RPGs, there's nothing to stop the Sea Shepherd people from also getting RPGs or worse. Of course, if some real shooting starts going on, the Australian Navy might decide to get involved, and apparently the Japanese don't want to risk that. Not only could the Australian Navy sink these stupid whaling boats, they could easily sink Japan's entire Navy.

When nation-states don't bother to police the bad guys, someone has to do it. I don't see the SS guys "crying" either. They seem to be rather well-funded these days in fact.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Grishnakh]

Public Opinion has in the region is around 90-10 against the Whalers

What's interesting is that most of that 10% is here on Slashdot.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Goaway]

No, politicians support the whaling program because it makes them look good to their voters, who support the whalers.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be willing to bet that the JMSDF would wipe the floor with Australia. Hell, they wouldn't even need to bother calling us to do it.

Protip: We over here in the states like Japan a hell of a lot more than we like Australia. Japan has given us Pokemon and tentacle porn. You guys have given us Paul Hogan and Foster's. Be careful of who you're 'all over'.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[TFAFalcon]

If the Sea Shepherds had the firepower needed to do something about the Somali pirates then this whole discussion would have been resolved years ago. One way or the other.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[dcw3]

Public Opinion has in the region is around 90-10 against the Whalers, especially after the Sea Shepherd Stunt.

Oh, you mean the part where they deliberately put the accelerated (as can be clearly seen in the videos) into the path of an oncoming ship? I'm not a fan of whaling, but if you're that stupid, you deserve what you get.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[tftp]

If the Sea Shepherds had the firepower needed to do something about the Somali pirates then this whole discussion would have been resolved years ago. One way or the other.

So why don't they have it? Blackwater had weapons, other private protection agencies ("private armies") have weapons, AQ has them...

A pair of snipers with M82A1 on a gyrostabilized platform aboard a ship can do a lot of damage to a dozen guys with AK-47s on a tiny boat. The sway of the pirate boat will not allow the pirates to shoot with any accuracy, and a sniper only needs a couple of inches of an opening in the armor plate. That, of course, doesn't preclude use of more advanced ship to ship weapons...

SSCS is harassing unarmed fishermen and in the end is hurting anti-whaling sentiments. That's because when people need to choose between saving a handful of whales vs. supporting a group of fanatical, homicidal psycho killers (aka SSCS :-) about 99% of the population gladly sacrifices the whales to get rid of the psychos. SSCS created a wrong wedge issue - SSCS is on the losing side by definition; nobody likes pirates, regardless of their motivation. SSCS is just a notch apart from acknowledged terrorists like The Red Brigades. You can say that both were working toward a noble goal, however they understood it. SSCS doesn't intentionally target people yet, though throwing bottles with acid toward people is not very friendly in my book. But if things continue as they are, shots will be eventually fired - and that will be the end of SSCS. No single activist group can wage a war against a powerful country and expect to win that war. SSCS members are still alive only because Japan hasn't used, so far, its right for self-defense - and that includes sending Navy ships along with whalers.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[demonlapin]

The UN Convention on the Law of the Seas disagrees. Try Article 101:

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:
(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

I seriously doubt these drones have anything more than a camera onboard.

As to how far such a camera can see. Well if it's large ships you're looking for, the limiting factor (in good weather) is going to be the curvature of the earth. Since the ship itself will register on camera from huge distances.

http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/ShipSailingOverTheHorizon/
(btw you should add the ceiling of the drone to the height of the ship)

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

There's a few ways to communicate with drones that don't set off alarm signals. You'd be amazed how good cell reception is at 50-100 meters altitude for example. Much better than ground level. Of course that doesn't help you on the ocean.

Alternatively, you can use these things as kamikazes : only give away your position when there is no more hope of a useful reaction by the other side : radiosilence until you've found a ship ... Easy enough.

Or just fly by GPS entirely. GPS reception is an entirely passive process, so it doesn't allow for tracking receivers easily. If you add a circuit to cut the actual antenna into pieces (electrically) when not in use, it's entirely impossible.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[coredog64]

Fishing in the Western Central Pacific is highly governed. The WCPFC, which is a treaty organization that includes Japan*, regulates what can and cannot be done in this part of the Pacific.

AFAIK, the WCPFC does limit whaling (and catch of other mammals).

*Japan is nice enough to send a lot of money to WCPFC

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who's ever dealt with sheep, cattle, pigs, and other livestock on a farm knows damn well they're not intelligent, aware, emotional creatures like the higher life forms I mentioned. Don't be an idiot.

Pigs are wicked fucking smart. They exhibit problem solving skills; they can identify a goal, create a strategy for reaching it, recruit help from other pigs, and execute a coordinated effort to obtain the goal. They are smarter than any other farm animal and in fact more intelligent than dogs, cats, whales, and some primates. And they taste fucking delicious.

Sheep are indeed dumb as all fuck. Domestic cows are almost as stupid, mostly because we've bred all the brains out of them.

None of that has anything to do with why we do or do not eat them.
We eat them because we can domesticate them, not because of how smart or dumb they are. Some cultures look down on us for eating Cows the same way we look down on Asian cultures for eating Dogs, or the Hippies look down on those who eat Whale.
Notice those "eco-warriors" aren't crying about the Inuit ("eskimos" to the uneducated) hunting various protected species, because they are "One with the Earth, Maaaaan". These wack-jobs are every bit as much against you and I eating Mutton and Steak as they are against the Nipponese eating Whale, they just know they can't get any public support so we only hear them whining about the large factory operations.

If we let them have their way, we'd all be living on a diet of grass and twigs, provided we didn't displace any ants or rodents in the process.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Anonymous Coward]

The waters they are fishing in are waters claimed by Australia but not recognised by Japan - Australia claim control over most of the southern ocean, well outside of the normal economic zone limits, and thus Japan has a valid reason to not recognise Australian control. Japan also doesn't recognise the economic area Australia claim off the coast of Antarctica, so once again the claim is in dispute.

It's hardly as black and white as you put it - and I support the abolition of whaling.

It is immaterial the location of the whaling, the simple fact is that the Japanese are whaling commercially not for scientific purposes, and that is illegal full stop.

Even the japanese recognise that fact which is why they carry on the lie that the whaling is for scientific puropses.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Maritz]

Depending on what happens over the next hundred years or so, I could easily imagine us leaving behind sturdier, more robust antecedents.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Anonymous Coward]

Australia claims a vast part of Antarctica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Antarctic_Territory) and the surrounding waters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Antarctic_territorial_waters). Australia has absolutely no right to this claim, and the rest of the world rejects it.

No action is happening illegally in Australian waters because it is *not* Australian waters.

The way Australia has been going around with its environment (cf. coal mining) does not give confidence that it would be a good steward of Antarctica.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[wraithr]

Oh really...It's kind of hard to ram just about anything when you have no fuel...Just watch the goddam video footage all hands were OUT ON THE BOAT. Guess they jammed that whaler by telepathic control huh?

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Anonymous Coward]

The person who captained the Any Gil at the time admitted that he was under instruction to sink the ship for PR.

Bethune disassociated himself from Sea Shepherd by posting an open letter on his Facebook page on 4 October 2010, condemning the organisation and its leader Paul Watson as "dishonest" and "morally bankrupt". According to his letter, he was directed by Paul Watson to sink the Ady Gil deliberately for PR purposes after the collision with the Japanese whaling ship. He insists that the senior members of Sea Shepherd regularly lie and conspire over the serious matters, detailing many cases in his letter.

The correct word for this is eco-terrorism. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Bethune#Disassociation_from_Sea_Shepherd

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[d3ac0n]

Just a comment on your last paragraph;

As another poster noted, the Japanese are hunting Minke whales, of which there is a large and stable population. The most reliable numbers we have put their population in the multiple thousands. Literally more die of natural causes each year than the Japanese take. It's not like they are hunting down Blues or Humpbacks.

Also, that vaunted efficiency also means that less of the whale is wasted. The Japanese are well known for making use of almost all of the whale, much like the Inuit. The only difference is that the Japanese are even more efficient with much less waste, thus they need to hunt fewer whales than they would if they were using more traditional processing techniques.

The point being that the entire battle here is little more than an ideological one. The Minke whale doesn't need any additional protection from anyone, very little of the whale is going to waste and the Sea shepherd people are out risking their lives and the lives of the fishermen on what amounts to little more than a "Gaian" religious war. It's stupid and pointless.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Capt James McCarthy]

"Just because these animals aren't as intelligent as chimpanzees or dolphins doesn't mean they don't have any intelligence at all, nor does it mean they don't have emotions."

It also doesn't mean that their meat tastes good. Eat or be eaten. Adapt or die. That's the rule. Humans just have the wits to keep adapting to move the species forward.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Squeeonline]

It would make for more interesting television.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[nevermore94]

No, I think he means where the Ady Gil was drifting along with the crew laying about on the upper deck because they were out of fuel and the Japanese harpoon ship deliberately headed straight for them and sliced their lightweight carbon fiber hull in half.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[msobkow]

Sorry, Dude, but I've got no respect for PETA.

They're just a bunch of kids trying to use sex to sell their viewpoint. How can you take a movement that announced plans to do softcore porn on their planned .xxx website within weeks of .xxx becoming available?

Do you seriously suggest that they're acting in a way that deserves respect of women? My attitude gives them what they want -- attentive stares.

I treat ladies with respect, but the PETA protestors are not "ladies" -- they're shameless tramps who can't get attention except by flashing their titties.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[dcw3]

Out of fuel? Funny that their engine is clearly running. A large ship doesn't turn easily, the Ady was a fast maneuverable boat, and this was clearly a stunt to garner support.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically the evolutionary chain was formed by "survival of the fittest" not "let's not eat the animals that are less evolved than us, yet more evolved than the others"

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Sardaukar86]

don't shoot them jam.

That's gonna be a problem. See, we're fresh out of marmelade and jam's about all we have left to shoot!

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[MBGMorden]

Nature will endure. The only reason we are saving species and protecting is to keep our species viable. Otherwise, our flaws will create the right mix to destroy us.

Absolutely - but mankind is PART of nature, not separate from it. Not only that, we are the most awesome force of nature that this planet has ever seen. We achieve our own balance, and can do so at a rate previously unheard of in the natural world.

At this point I truly believe that we've reached an evolutionary pinnacle so great that as long as this planet remains habitable for ANY complex species - mankind will be among them. Heck given enough time even the viability of Earth itself will not be a limitation for us.

Re:Looks like drones aren't just for governments.

[Anonymous Coward]

There appears to be a continuing argument as to where the Japanese Whaling southern "research"is taking place. The reality is that it is mostly occuring the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) reagion (technically international waters). The aim of this convention is to conserve marine life of the Southern Ocean however this does not exclude harvesting carried out in a rational manner. Japan, as a CCAMLR member, is not technically in breach but can their research be seen as a means of conservation for Southern Oceans marine life. There are many other CCAMLR member nations directly disregarding this convention, e.g. Spanish companies illigally fishing for the Patagonian Toothfish where these companies are being heavily subsidised by the Spanish Government. Sadly SSCS is more interested in high profile cowboy activities and are willing to use conflict to gain publicity; is Watson more interested in his image rather that the wellbeing of maritime creatures?

As for the drone, this drone has very limited utility and is no more than a scare tactic, quote Chris McNair (who trained the SSCS team to use the Osprey drone "... the gist of it is a scare tactic" (Tuesday 27 Dec 2011). A concern is that SSCS have not considered other aircraft that may be operating in the area (Lombok Strait for example does have other aircraft operations); operation of drone pose a significant air traffice management challenge. SSCS need to look at all the risks.

So people really have this much time and money?

[antifoidulus]

I don't get the opposition to hunting non-endangered whales. The whales being hunted(mostly minke whales), are nowhere near endangered, so why is there just so much opposition to the whaling? Do these people really have nothing better to do with their time and money than harassing fishing boats? Maybe they should just get into Magic the Gathering instead, eats time and money like nothing else....

Also have these people actually tried whale meat? It's delicious.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[InterestingFella]

Anti-whalers, PETA and for example those who oppose nuclear power aren't usually known to be all that wise. For example with the latter group they don't get that nuclear power is actually good for them because it's the least polluting energy source there is. But they cannot comprehend that and probably want us to have no energy at all. Same goes for anti-whalers and PETA. They just think killing animals is somehow bad, and don't look into matters past that.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[mrchaotica]

This group was founded by a guy who got kicked out of Greenpeace for being too extreme. Logic has nothing to do with their decisions.

That said, possible justifications might include the argument that the whales are too intelligent to ethically kill, or the argument that the law only allows killing whales for scientific research but the Japanese are instead killing them for food/profit (despite the word "research" written on the sides of their ships).

Also have these people actually tried whale meat? It's delicious.

I'd be very surprised if they aren't all vegans.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[axx]

I'm trying to figure out if you're trolling, or just have never considered the ethics of hunting and killing other sentient species for pleasure.

You may not realise this, but whaling is actually against international regulations. Sea Shepherd simply enforce the ban in International waters, given no one else does. They also protect and defend many other marine species.

It's called conservation.

Overfishing and fucked up fishing practices are incredibly common place, it's good we have some people trying to prevent it.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[bky1701]

"the least polluting energy we have is solar wind and hydro"

If you ignore how the actual plants are produced. Hint: solar isn't very clean to build on the scale it has to be to work. Hydro is likely the most dangerous and destroys environments. Wind is extremely expensive and makes large tracts of land unusable. And finally, none of them are actually answers. Solar and wind are not reliable enough and never will be with out level of technology, and that is unlikely to change soon. Hydro can only be built in some places and usually is not for the aforementioned reasons. Nuclear is the safest, cleanest, and cheapest option we have. We need to stop listening to fearmongers and figure out how to make it work right. Coal and oil are power until that happens. Solar and wind are pipedreams.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[muon-catalyzed]

actually tried whale meat? It's delicious.

Woohoo, we have a whale eater in the discussion, and since whales are delicious, it is OK to kill them, right? (just following your logic)

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get the opposition to hunting non-endangered whales. The whales being hunted(mostly minke whales), are nowhere near endangered, so why is there just so much opposition to the whaling? Do these people really have nothing better to do with their time and money than harassing fishing boats? Maybe they should just get into Magic the Gathering instead, eats time and money like nothing else....

Also have these people actually tried whale meat? It's delicious.

Because the Japanese have proven time and time again they don't just go after the 'non-endangered' species.
How many times do people have to be shown the truth?

Most of last years catch of whale meat ROTTED at the Institue behind this sham.

At this point they are killing whales out of tradition and the small minority that eat the meat still.

And do you really think harpooning and electrocuting the largest mammals on earth whose brain power and emotional states are generally compared to say YOU , don't you think thats a little...off?

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[axx]

I believe Watson left Greenpeace because they were softening up. Different interpretations?

The Japanese have massive factory ships dedicated to cutting up and conditioning whales, and according to Wikipedia: “The efficiency of these ships and the predation they carried out on whales contributed greatly to the animal's precipitous decline.”
These are, supposedly, research vessels. You have to appreciate the hypocrisy.

Also, Sea Shepherd vessels *are* vegan, to the best of my knowledge.

And SSCS also have a PGP key to send them encrypted email, c'mon, /. should approve of them.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[cheekyjohnson]

so why is there just so much opposition to the whaling?

I don't know. Difference of opinions?

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wholeheartedly agree that you first have to "figure out how to make nuclear work right". Until now the nuclear industry has given us nothing but an nuclear disaster every 10 years, nuclear weapons and lots of waste no-one has a reliable storage for until it is completely save again. Worst is that there are nuclear technologies which are safe and produce much less and faster-decaying waste, but because they did not produce so much weapon-grade Plutonium, they were neglected.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[unity100]

whaling is illegal in majority of countries which actually could engage in whaling. case in point below.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7188674.stm

that means, the majority of the countries which have a stake in this, are against whaling. but, japan, engages in whaling on its own accord.

then lets reflect on this - where does the 'individual freedom' stop ? see, majority of the countries in the world find something unethical and ban something, like slavery. and then is it ok if i broke accord and go against majority, and engage in slaving within my own country or international waters/zones - based on my own 'freedom' ?

it is a simple case of individual freedom's limits. there is no unlimited individual freedom, and there cant be unlimited individual freedom. you cant just go shit in your neighbor's backyard, or your neighbor cant just shit on the streets in common space. there are all encompassing rules that everyone needs to obey for society to EXIST (note how i didnt say 'work', but, even to exist), and these rules are determined by the overall level of ethics and morals understanding of the entire society. (planet in this case).

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[luther349]

we have the biggest hydro dam in the word able to run most of the usa on its own. its just they never expanded it on that scale but it does run a large chunk of it. and that's just 1. i got 2 250 watt panels and a couple dc battery's plus a 600 watt turbine mounted on a fucking camper and it pulls plenty of power. enough to run pretty much everything. the problem is not with alt energy being pratcal because it is very much so its removing the power hungry devices from your life. that 3 video card computer drawing 1500 watts just isn't needed. even the most powerful laptops draw under 150 watts. and netbooks 35. with 450 amp hrs on my 2 batters i can run even the gaming laptop all night long and still have power. and if theirs wind not even drain the battery's. and most cases if theirs no sun there is wind. its just a matter of using low power devices. led lighting etc.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[cheekyjohnson]

And do you really think harpooning and electrocuting the largest mammals on earth whose brain power and emotional states are generally compared to say YOU , don't you think thats a little...off?

I don't see why their brain power is all that important. Less intelligent animals don't matter, then?

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Ardeaem]

"I don't get the opposition to hunting non-endangered humans. The people I'd like to hunt (mostly developmentally-disabled people), are nowhere near endangered, so why is there just so much opposition to the people hunting? Do these anti-human hunting people really have nothing better to do with their time and money than harassing human-hunting parties? Maybe they should just get into Magic the Gathering instead, eats time and money like nothing else...."

Seriously, if you think the amount of a particular species is the only thing relevant to the ethics of killing it, you aren't thinking about ethics very hard. The fact that your post was modded up is baffling. We can disagree on whether whales are intelligent enough to make killing them unethical (I think the evidence shows they probably are, and it is better to err on the side of not killing intelligent animals unnecessarily).

And then you belittle Sea Shepherd for acting in a principled manner and putting their lives and money on the line to fight something that a strong argument can be made (whether you agree with it or not) is like murder. While you might like playing Magic, at least they're out there fighting for something that has the potential to make the world a better place not just for future people, but other intelligent species as well.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why responsible cannibals stick to people with low IQs.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[TFAFalcon]

Don't the Japanese have problems getting rid of all the meat they harvest? From what I've read there isn't much of a market for it, so they have to give it away to schools which can force their pupils to eat it.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[InterestingFella]

And do you really think harpooning and electrocuting the largest mammals on earth whose brain power and emotional states are generally compared to say YOU , don't you think thats a little...off?

Are you saying killing is ok as long as the target is dumber than you? Does this also expand to other humans?

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[AlanS2002]

Nuclear is the safest, cleanest, and cheapest option we have. We need to stop listening to fearmongers and figure out how to make it work right.

60+ years hasn't been long enough to "figure out how to make it work right"?

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Having had it as steak, burger and shish kebab, I respectfully disagree - it retains a side-taste sort of like cod liver oil that I wasn't very fond of. It's supposedly possible to reduce or hide it, but I remain sceptical.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[reve_etrange]

Less intelligent animals don't matter, then?

Not as much, anyway.

For example, the bar is lower for medical research performed on rats and mice than dogs, chimpanzees and gorillas. Most people feel more sympathy towards animals that can be taught to communicate via sign language (such as gorillas) or other means than rodents that barely remember mazes./p?

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Discopete]

The Japanese are not "Whaling", they are conducting "Research" which apparently involves stockpiling whale meat for consumption. The Japanese whaling fleet has repeatedly violated international treaties and at least one off-limits whale sanctuary. The largest power in the area is Australia and they refuse to enforce the international treaties that apply to the sanctuary, hence Sea Shepard has to step in and enforce the law.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[AlanS2002]

I don't get the opposition to hunting non-endangered whales. The whales being hunted(mostly minke whales), are nowhere near endangered, so why is there just so much opposition to the whaling?

So, lets just hunt them until they are endangered and then move on to the next species?

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[FrozenFood]

I think he means 60+ years to build another 10,000 nuclear plants

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Discopete]

Paul Watson was asked to leave Greenpeace because when GP was attempting to get charitable status with the US IRS, the IRS told them "No property damage". Later that week, Watson disarmed a harp seal hunter who was clubbing a seal to death and tossed the club into the ocean. That is considered property damage and the board asked him to resign.

A few years later, one of the other founders of GP decided that they had become too soft, left and joined Sea Shepherd.

I believe everyone on board SS's ships are vegetarian, if not Vegan.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since that guy was talking about our current technology, you may be right. But technology is always advancing, so solar, hydro, and wind power may become viable in the future.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Solar panels contain sand (silicon), aluminum, and glass with a few copper wires. There isn't anything toxic about them unless you get your 'facts' from Fox News.

And yes, solar and wind could work for 50-60% of our power needs if we got behind the technology and wanted to use it.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm trying to figure out if you're trolling, or just have never considered the ethics of hunting and killing other sentient species for pleasure.

I don't think they're doing it for fun.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[SuricouRaven]

There are plenty of nuclear waste disposal options that are cheap, reliable and safe. They are just politically problematic.

The easiest would be to just put it in boxes and throw it down the Mariana Trench. There is no possibility of anyone getting it back, and if it ever comes back up naturally it'll be long after safe decay. The problem is political: Throwing nuclear waste in the ocean violates international law, and for some reason no politician wants to start the process of changing that.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Paradise Pete]

But technology is always advancing, so solar, hydro, and wind power may become viable in the future.

What other things are possible?

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Anonymous Coward]

So far it's been only one disaster every 25 years, not every 10.
And the nuclear industry did give us something: lots of electricity. LOTS. If it weren't for nuclear energy, we would not be able to have computers in every home. And every office would have only 1 (10 for big corproations), not the 100s they currently have in many places. We would also have to give up on a lot of hospital equipment. And the industry would have to give up on a lot of machines that produce the goods we buy (cars, iPods, TVs, kitchen hardware, etc) and we would go back to technology from the 50s.

Nuclear disasters suck but overall nuclear still saves much more lives, not to mention improve the comfort of our lives. Also, the technology is really safe (except for that Chernobyl incident - the reactor had flaws, but we improved so much since then). The problem behind disasters like Fukushima is people. People in charge don't go for maximum security in order to save money. The public also votes to cut funds to nuclear energy, thinking this will stop nuclear power, but in reality it just forces already existing nuclear plants to give up on security measures. It all comes down to people, and this is a problem we can solve if we really want to. On the other hand, if we gave up on nuclear power, we would not be able to run all the technology we have and need, no matter how much we want it to run without electricity.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> And do you really think harpooning and electrocuting the largest mammals on earth whose brain power and emotional states are generally compared to say YOU , don't you think thats a little...off?

> I don't see why their brain power is all that important. Less intelligent animals don't matter, then?

Stop trolling, I'm in doubt you're doing the "false dilemma" or the "straw man" logical fallacies...

This is not to establish what matters or not; to a vegan all animal life matters, while in some cultures traditions determinate what is fit to eat and what's not..

The point is we constantly evolve a better comprehension of Nature; the same way we expect someone to free the slaves once he understands they're human beings just like the rest of us, the same way we expect a cannibal to stop eating humans once he stops to think that they are the same like him, we hope someone starts ceasing to eat intelligent animals one he perceives them as such.

Because intelligent animals would be like us -- that's what we are.

If we can manage to go further and just eat synthesized lab meat, I'm all for it, but killing (not just eating) intelligent life is a huge no-no in my Ethics book. I just imagine others are like me, if not already then after thinking a little... I also expect not to be eaten, if I encounter an intelligent alien...

Actually, I'm quite surprised that people question why not killing intelligent animals; I'd like to know what criteria they use to spare a life... maybe the animal must be cute enough to be unfit for being devoured?

Of course, it's a different question if a species, intelligent or not, is endangered -- and specifically, if it's endangered by us!.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Solar panels absorb sun rays that would normally heat the ground. If we used solar panels on a large scale, we would drastically change the environment.
Same with wind power: the power of the wind is absorbed by the blades of the wind towers, thus the wind gets weaker after it goes through a large field of wind towers. Wind is important to the environment as it helps plants reproduce and spread their seeds further away. It's also important to birds, who use it a lot to make flying easier, especially when traveling long distances.

At least nuclear waste is 95% recycled (and we find new ways to recycle the remaining 5% every year) and nuclear plants are very safe when properly funded.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Cyberax]

"I don't get the opposition to hunting non-endangered whales. The whales being hunted(mostly minke whales), are nowhere near endangered"

Yet.

And not only mink whales are being hunted.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[tenco]

Here in southern Germany you still have to test mushrooms and wild boar for radioactivity because of the Chernobyl accident 1986. It's mostly due to Cs137 which has a half life of ~ 30 years. I remember having to stay indoors for days as a child (i was 5 at that time) because of that accident. The linear distance to Chernobyl is about 1400 km.

I would call that very much polluting.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[fredan]

solar isn't very clean to build on the scale it has to be to work.

Coal and oil are power until that happens.

so this is less dirtier than making solarpanels.

you sir, are a troll.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Runaway1956]

There's a narrow line between "endangered" and "not endangered". The seas have grown barren, compared to 300 years ago. With five years of sea duty behind me, I can state that whale sightings are rare, dolphins are only somewhat less rare.

It's a bit tough to find tales of life at sea 300 or more years ago, that don't include a lot of superstitious nonsense, but it seems to have been common for ships to be constantly trailed by dolphins, and whales were common sights. With each passing decade, there are fewer and fewer.

The only two explanations for that, that make any sense, are over hunting, and pollution.

We really need to allow the ocean, and the populations found in the ocean to recover. Why wait until any given species is actually "endangered" before trying to conserve resources?

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Solar panels contain sand (silicon), aluminum, and glass with a few copper wires. There isn't anything toxic about them unless you get your 'facts' from Fox News.

Riiight. In fact my recycle bin of glass bottles and aluminum cans starts spontaneously arcing in the sunlight, it's so magically easy.

Solar panels use toxic materials as part of the panel and in the fabrication process. Oh, and they require significant amounts of power to fabricate.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[gl4ss]

well, the reasoning is that they (the animals) can understand the plight they're in in they got more brain power.
basically that's the same reason why it's not ok to make dogs starve but it is ok to make flies that eat rotten dog meat starve.

that said, the "research" performed by japanese whalers is ridiculous - like researching the best way to do whaling. eh. as a food source whales aren't sustainable.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Notably, one of the big issues I have with animal protection activists is that they tend to blur the line between humans and animals.

Humans are our own species. Animals are OTHER species. There is no fine line. We may all be animals, but we are different species then any other animal. And I would personally butcher a hundred whales if it meant I could save one human life. I would harm as many just to avoid harm coming to another human.

And that's the difference between people like myself and people like those from Sea Shepard. We value human lives much higher then they do, and at the same time we value lives of other species much lower then they do.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[cheekyjohnson]

Stop trolling, I'm in doubt you're doing the "false dilemma" or the "straw man" logical fallacies...

I wasn't trolling, and I wasn't stating anything. I don't know how that was a false dilemma.

I was asking if less intelligent animals mattered. That's why it was in the form of a question. I wanted to know if the one I replied to believed that less intelligent animals are objectively less important.

I also expect not to be eaten, if I encounter an intelligent alien...

Perhaps they will find us so unintelligent and inefficient that they will kill us without hesitation.

I'd like to know what criteria they use to spare a life

Their own beliefs.

In any case, I was just saying that I see no magical reason that "intelligent" animals are more important than unintelligent animals outside of person beliefs.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Holammer]

If anyone actually wonders, it tastes like beef with a heavy hint of liver. Nothing you eat for the taste imho.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[cheekyjohnson]

well, the reasoning is that they (the animals) can understand the plight they're in in they got more brain power.

I don't see how that matters objectively. Looks like it's just their opinion that we shouldn't kill intelligent animals.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[cheekyjohnson]

Not as much, anyway.

In your (or other people's) opinion, anyway.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Anonymous Coward]

The japanese only kill whales that gamble their life savings away. So they're not so intelligent.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[tyldis]

The whole whaling debate is fueled by black and white arguments.
Truth is, that the nations involved in whaling only allow hunting on selected species that have sustainable stock. Sea Shepherd has lost most of it's credibility ages ago, and their mode of operation is threatening and destroying lives.

I'll set fire to all my karma and throw in some kind words on the subject of seal hunting as well ;)
Fortunately there aren't many PETA-people around in Norway, they tend to freeze to death.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most animals who can physically hunt and digest humans do not have any opposition to hunting humans, endangered or not.

On the other hand if you're referring to hunting your own species, we have a problem. While many animal and other species are known to actively practice cannibalism, humans rarely do in cases other then those borne out of extreme competition for food sources.

Allow me to clarify another point. It is completely ethical to kill a member another species. Every single life form on this planet agrees on this including yourself, as your very existence kills millions of small organisms directly, and far more indirectly as you compete for resources with everyone from bacteria to various insects like roaches to big predators like wolves and bears. We start getting into disagreements only when killing involves someone directly beneficial to you or a member of your own species and even then, it's often normal. Just because you're massively delusional about this fact due to not having to see how nature works first hand because of our technological progress, doesn't mean that it's not true.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Anonymous Coward]

What? I simply stated that technology may advance in the future so as to make these technologies far more useful and viable.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[impaledsunset]

Comparing anti-whalers to nuclear power opponents is disingenuous. The opponents of nuclear power are crying against the dangers and pollution it can cause, ignoring the fact that compared to other energy sources it's relatively safe and clean. Their campaign is self-contradictory.

The anti-whalers are against the killing of these and other species, because they consider this an immoral act the seriousness of which trumps the matters past that. Even if you don't agree with them, you can't say it's not wise. And they do have a point. Whales are species with recognized cognitive abilities. You know what's NOT wise? Hunting them. Do you also realise that whaling is banned by many countries, and part of what the Sea Shepherds are doing is enforcing laws that nobody else is?

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[unity100]

Also have these people actually tried whale meat? It's delicious.

is it. and what if some from african countries say 'have these people actually tried human meat ? its delicious' and continue to break off from the world consensus banning cannibalism, and re-institute cannibalism in their country because it has been practiced for thousands of years as a part of various local religions ?

no - its the same proposition, same kind of argument, exactly like the idiotic expression you used to .... maybe attempt to make a point.

self-centered, short-horizon fucktards like you make this world a mess.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[impaledsunset]

Your argument ignores this amazing thing called "progress". Calling solar and wind "pipe dreams" is extremely short-sighted.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[PopeRatzo]

Anti-whalers, PETA and for example those who oppose nuclear power aren't usually known to be all that wise.

I guess you didn't see today's report regarding Fukushima.

No nukes until we take the profit out of it. If there's a company involved, and a dollar to be made, it will never be safe.

They just think killing animals is somehow bad, and don't look into matters past that.

It's only "bad" when done for sport. Killing for fun is bad. There is no matter "past that".

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[S3D]

The problem is that whales could be semi-sentient, on the level of small human children or somewhere not far from great apes. Killing whales not for survival but for luxury food create dangerous precedent. As the the brain-computer interfaces progress appearance of super-intelligent cyborgs is becoming if not likely, but at least not impossible. We don't want to give them precedent of killing less intelligent for fun.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Anonymous Coward]

You may not realise this, but whaling is actually against international regulations. Sea Shepherd simply enforce the ban in International waters, given no one else does. They also protect and defend many other marine species.

It's called conservation.

You may not realise this, but there are exceptions for cultural reasons and scientific research amongst the signatories of the anti-whaling treaty. Sea Shepherd simply engage in publicity-seeking stunts to further the finances of Paul Watson and his associates under the guise conservation.

They're nothing more than vigilantes.

Funny how we never hear a peep from Sea Shepherd about the Norwegian whalers or other small ethnic groups that use "traditional" methods that take much longer to kill whales than an explosive harpoon to the head.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Ardeaem]

Most animals who can physically hunt and digest humans do not have any opposition to hunting humans, endangered or not.

Most animals also don't have a problem with rape. Your point is?

On the other hand if you're referring to hunting your own species, we have a problem. While many animal and other species are known to actively practice cannibalism, humans rarely do in cases other then those borne out of extreme competition for food sources.

Oh, right, an appeal to nature. Ugh. Is that the best you can do?

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[axx]

I don't see how hunting whales in a whale sanctuary is part of a sustainable fishing strategy.

Also, could you elaborate on how “their mode of operation is () destroying lives”?

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Anonymous Coward]

as a food source whales aren't sustainable.

Yes they are. Or are we all mistaken in seeing that whale numbers have been on the increase for years?

Perhaps you need to check up on the definition of "sustainable".

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[axx]

I fail to see how anything in your comment is related or answers my previous comment.
Also, I think your grossly exaggerating, but maybe you're simply not used to the concept of “civil society” and activism.

Lastly, saying SSCS are cowards is amusing, given they engage in direct action and walk the talk, contrary to many environmentalist NGOs.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[tyldis]

Their form of action is to sink ships, sometimes with people and sometimes without people. I find that hard to condone either way.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those idiots are against seal hunting in Canada, but if we dont hunt the seals, they will breed like mad , overfish, and then starve to death. Same thing as with deer hunting, we have to play the part of the natural predator.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[DMiax]

Fully agreed. The biggest threat to whales was to be used to polish shoes, not to be eaten. Those species that did not pass the point of no return should be growing in numbers by now, regardless of current whaling.

Besides, these assholes (that do not dislike causing physical harm to people, to the point of causing permanent injuries) manage to unite and polarise the public opinion in Japan in support of whaling, where normal people usually does not care the least.

They are despicable and people giving them money are supporting criminals. Remember that even Greenpeace calls them terrorists and hides information about whalers' locations to Sea Shepherd.

Finally, whale meat is terrible, no one likes it and in Japan it mostly ends up in pet food. If no one made a fuss about it, whaling would be gone in a couple of decades. Like this it becomes a token battle for the far right and a question of national pride.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[retroworks]

So when every other whale species is hunted to endangered status, and they focus on the remaining species not endangered, we shouldn't care until it too is endangered? The mechnanization and scaling of the wildlife hunting industry, from buffalo to gorillas, has too poor a track record not to have watchdogs in international waters. They may not be perfect but life without them would be less diverse.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[__aaqvdr516]

So the only thing everyone has to do is change all their habits and re-buy things they already have in order to save power? Got it. You've definitely converted me, now you only have 6.999999999 billion to go.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[axx]

As far as I can tell, Sea Shepherd's sinking of ships has never resulted in injuries, and never happened with people on them. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested.

I find it very hard to condone harming sentient beings to defend ideas, but the destruction of property doesn't seem like an unbearable tactic.
Most social movements have involved some degree of sabotaging, and not to call a sympathy card here, but the French Résistance resorted to sabotage extensively.
I agree that ends don't justify means, but these means (non harming destruction of property) can be justified by a/ the greater good (loosely defined, and always highly subjective and arguable) and b/ enforcing international laws (by breaking others, which is where it gets interesting).

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[tyldis]

They have tried to sink boats with fishermen aboard, but I will not neglect the fact that on one occasion one can argue who ran into who.
For a boat captain to lose his boat which e has invested his life in, it is not a trivial matter. At least in Norway we are not talking big business, just plain fishermen.

The means are not justified in my view.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[TubeSteak]

The opponents of nuclear power are crying against the dangers and pollution it can cause, ignoring the fact that compared to other energy sources it's relatively safe and clean.

Nuclear is safe and clean as long as you ignore the risk of an accident.
We can pretend that the operators won't cut corners and regulators won't ignore violations, but that isn't realistic.
I can sell you some really cheap land in Japan if you ever want to live on the end result of "relatively safe and clean."

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Fozzyuw]

Do these people really have nothing better to do with their time and money than harassing fishing boats?

Obligatory South Park: Whale Whores. tl;dr: Whales and Dolphins bombed Hiroshima. There's proof, but it was forged.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[morari]

Wind is extremely expensive and makes large tracts of land unusable.

Your suburbs and cities have already made large tracts of land unusable.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[owlnation]

This group was founded by a guy who got kicked out of Greenpeace for being too extreme.

Nice try at spin. Sure, he left/was-kicked-out at an early point in Greenpeace's history where there was disagreement about the direction of the organization.

Some people wanted to take non-violent direct action, some people wanted it to be more campaigning. Watson continued with the non-violent direct action, whereas the remainder of Greenpeace accrued significant wealth, and did very little with that money to save the whales, or indeed, anything else.

Most of the original directors of Greenpeace retired as millionaires. And even today they raise millions, but do very little with that money other than have an handful of volunteers chain themselves to something each year -- and even that is just to generate more publicity to raise more money: which they don't spend on anything related to their mission.

Watson is far from perfect. However, in the world of NGO's who simply generate FUD to raise money perpetuate their own existence, at least he is actually doing something. Unlike Greenpeace, who simply give people the illusion that they are doing something, while cashing their checks.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[daem0n1x]

" Wind (...) makes large tracts of land unusable.

I'd like to know how 60 metre tall wind turbines on top of mountains can do that. But hey, it's your dream, run it as you like.

And finally, none of them are actually answers. Solar and wind are not reliable enough and never will be with out level of technology, and that is unlikely to change soon. Hydro can only be built in some places and usually is not for the aforementioned reasons. Nuclear is the safest, cleanest, and cheapest option we have. We need to stop listening to fearmongers and figure out how to make it work right. Coal and oil are power until that happens. Solar and wind are pipedreams.

What a fucking naysayer. What happened to the bold Americans that conquered the West? Hiding under your bed crying and shitting your pants?

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[VMaN]

"..was clubbing a seal to death"

As opposed to clubbing it for fun, or?...

Paul Watson is a lying media whore who will say or do anything because he thinks his goal (funding for his projects) justifies it, and GP knew it would harm their ultimate goal (protecting animals).

That little "he loved animals TOO much to be in Greenpeace, who btw are CONTROLLED BY TEH IRS, so he had to personally help a baby seal" sounds as realistic as Kim Jong Il's birth history retcon.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[axx]

I agree that attacking small fishermen is not the nicest thing. And I'd much rather there were programmes to help fishermen transition to different jobs, like transforming poachers into foresters generally yields great results (such as in central Africa).
That being said, you could use the same argument for fishermen overfishing tuna in the Mediterranean and driving it to extinction. One by one they are just “small fishermen trying to make a living”, on a larger scale (and what with the commercial interests fuelling them), they are a direct menace to the survival of a species. (One can argue about how species live and disappear, but that's another question altogether, and as a general rule, conservation and not fucking with ecosystems is a good rule).

Now, if the boats your refer too are whalers, they have got to be of a large size, and it's unlikely that they are just small fishermen enterprises.

Justification of means is, anyway, always a complex thing. If you consider the harm being done to be far worse than the casual bystander, the means you will find justified will also be more extreme.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[flightmaker]

Japanese whalers are also of a species that is nowhere near endangered. So, why not just shoot them and hang them out to feed snow leopards, or any other carnivorous species which IS endangered because of US?

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

So they are both self-righteous assholes and cowards in my book.

Consider them self-righteous assholes all you want, but calling them (or the Occupiers, for that matter) "cowards" is patently absurd. I suspect you have no conception of what real courage looks like, but feel all tough and brave because you slapped a "Support our Troops" sticker on your SUV.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[tyldis]

You do not need a big enormous boat to do whaling, that is a common misconception. More often than not, you drag the whale back to shore while it
Also, responsible whaling is possible. Yes, in the early years there were over fishing on some species, but sustainable hunting was never an issue until modern times - for any kind of hunting and fishing.
I'm no expert on whaling, especially not when it comes to non-Norwegian whalers, but the Norwegian side I know quite well. And if anyone claims this is not sustainable, they need a dictionary. Of course, I cannot speak for the Japanese side of things, but I have an impression that they are not too far away from this reality either even though the industry is bigger.
Also, tuna fishing has only one thing in common with whaling: Sea Shepherd. It is not a part of the whaling discussion and there is nothing else linking these cases.

Eating that delicious piece of whale steak that has been grilled just a few seconds on each side, with a hint of salt and pepper, is something I do with a clean conscience.

And to me, Sea Shepherd has lost most of it's credibility equal to Greenpeace, but I assume they need to be picky about their cases in order to secure funding. Picking the great big battles that matter will annoy too many of the people they need in order to have funds for their work. I find them irrelevant when it comes to contributing to a sustainable use of our resources.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[assertation]

I wish I could mod this post up.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[TooMuchToDo]

Right, because their 13 ton composite ship is going to sink a 660 ton steel whaling ship.

It's simply luck that more extremist folks haven't gotten on bored with straight out sinking of Japanese ships with weapons easily obtainable on the black market.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans are not endangered mammal species either and I hear the meat tastes like... chicken.

Maybe you should go read Fox news instead of slashdot...

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[currently_awake]

60+ years of "no nukes in my neighbourhood!" means we're using 60 year old tech. Hard to get things right if you can't fix your mistakes.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Anonymous Coward]

More insults without arguments from unity100. Could you consider growing up please? The adults would prefer it if you wouldn't be needlessly aggressive/hostile and would at least play as a nice child if you can't be mature enough to argue properly.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rape is yet another tactic at getting your genes passed. So is cheating, courting, take care of another and so on. Act of courtship is species-dependent. You are again antromorphizing other species. This is a common problem with many people who have been city-dwellers in their youth and got a very distorted picture of how life works.

Also, you may wish to actually read the contents of your link. Only this time, engage your brain rather then mindlessly spewing dogma. It works against your argument in this particular case.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Bucky24]

that 3 video card computer drawing 1500 watts just isn't needed

How else am I going to play Crysis on max graphics? (Seriously, who uses three graphics cards?)

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[ninetyninebottles]

Solar panels absorb sun rays that would normally heat the ground. If we used solar panels on a large scale, we would drastically change the environment.

You know the energy does not disappear right? It is converted into electricity which powers heaters and appliances that in turn give off heat. Large scale electrical could change some regional climate, but it is unlikely to have much effect on a large scale, especially given the amounts we need/use and can capture in an area.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[BlueParrot]

Do you also realise that whaling is banned by many countries

Every country except Norway and Japan...

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget to add in all the transformers/lines/poles and everything else you'll need to transfer it to where you need it. Oh, and I hope your city is built in those same mountains, else you're going to lose a lot of that electricity. The problem with any centralized power source, is it has to be near the people.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[daem0n1x]

What the fuck are you talking about?

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[khallow]

I don't get the opposition to hunting non-endangered whales.

What if those whalers were hunting you instead? My take on this is that whales are intelligent enough, perhaps even more intelligent than humans, I might add, that it is akin to murder to hunt them. My objection is not a "meat is murder" blanket objection, but one based on intelligence of the animal in question.

We don't like it when people eat other people. And it obviously is not because that sort of practice can spread parasites. Should similar consideration apply to animals that have the potential to do many of the intellectual activities we consider the domain of humans? I think it should.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[0100010001010011]

What do you think coal plants are throwing up every second of every minute of every day? Rainbows?

Nuclear power accidents are to Coal Plants as Airplane crashes are to car crashes. If an airplane crashes oh no, terrible, 200 people dead at once even though there are at least that many people that die every day in car crashes just one at a time. Nuclear accidents do a whole lot of damage at once but very infrequently.

Statistically speaking I'd say Nuke is safer just like Airplanes are safer.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Myopic]

I just want to be clear about what you are saying.

Is the land near any of hundreds of thousands of dirty, radioactive coal power plants? Or is it near one of the three (ever! worldwide!) nuclear power plants which have ever leaked as much radiation as the average alternative coal plant?

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[unity100]

answer. dont run to escapism.

is it. and what if some from african countries say 'have these people actually tried human meat ? its delicious' and continue to break off from the world consensus banning cannibalism, and re-institute cannibalism in their country because it has been practiced for thousands of years as a part of various local religions ?

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[DesScorp]

I don't get the opposition to hunting non-endangered whales. The whales being hunted(mostly minke whales), are nowhere near endangered, so why is there just so much opposition to the whaling?

Because the Save-The-Whales crowd won the PR war a long time ago. Whales are animals, nothing more. But groups like Greenpeace (very smartly, I might add) have fudged that fact with fluff about whales being nearly as smart as humans, having their own language, etc, when there's really no evidence of the sort. Some animals are smarter than others, but in the end, they're just animals. Either there here for our use or they aren't. If a species of whale isn't endangered, then there's no more moral qualms about killing it than that cow you're enjoying between two buns and and some cheese.

I think instead of dancing around the whole "Scientific Whaling" farce, the Japanese and Swedes and Norwegians should just tell the world "Look, they taste good and their hides are useful and they're just animals. We're going to keep hunting and eating and using them. If you don't like that, go pound sand".

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because their 13 ton composite ship is going to sink a 660 ton steel whaling ship.

It's simply luck that more extremist folks haven't gotten on bored with straight out sinking of Japanese ships with weapons easily obtainable on the black market.

Right, it's also simply luck that Japanese ships have never decided to seriously retaliate and sink SS ships. Actually, no, it's their conscientiousness. Would love to see SS try to pick on less friendly target, like Russian whaling ships.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[luther349]

it was a bit of sarcasm but 2 are pretty much needed if you like to wast your time with 3d displays.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[luther349]

no i didn't do it overnight. when when it came time replace my desktop i bought a gaming laptop. a g73. the problem right now why i say laptop they do not make low power desktops somehow they can get my laptop to pull 150 watts and have the same preference as a desktop but try to build a desktop with the same specks and you will be pulling at least 500 plus the display. i converted my camper into a solar wind farm with extra money i would save. when we all jumped to hdtvs rather then buy a 50 inch tv i bought a 19 inch. i was spending 300$ a month just to power my house so it wasent even bought going green i just did the math now some months the bills just the service fee now like 10$. the panels = out to 4 months of power bills same for the turbine and the battery's where 200$ a piece. now the only thing i will need to do is replace the battery's in 5+ years. point is whiten the first year i made my money back.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is entirely false. Speaking as someone who has lived in Japan for the past 21 years, there is demand for whale. They do not "force" kids to eat whale in schools.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Sqr(twg)]

Maybe you don't understand the word "relative" ?

Including accidents, nuclear power has caused about 0.04 deaths per TWh. This is relatively safe compared to 161 deaths per TWh from coal and 1.4 deaths per TWh from hydropower. (source)

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[flimflammer]

Are you against all meat eating, or just whale? We already kill a lot of things that are delicious today with little moral outrage, and frankly not all whale species are endangered.

Not that I'm putting my support in with whaling.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Dracophile]

You've see how whales are slaughtered, right?

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[jamesh]

There are plenty of nuclear waste disposal options that are cheap, reliable and safe. They are just politically problematic.

The easiest would be to just put it in boxes and throw it down the Mariana Trench. There is no possibility of anyone getting it back, and if it ever comes back up naturally it'll be long after safe decay.

I heard there's also hope that it will slide under the top plate into the core. I can't think of a safer way of getting rid of it except maybe shooting it into the sun... and then only if we don't get the Russian's to do it :)

The problem is political: Throwing nuclear waste in the ocean violates international law, and for some reason no politician wants to start the process of changing that.

"Good morning senators and congressmen. Our pre-sitting movie today is Godzilla. Then we'll get right onto voting on the 'throw the nuclear waste into the ocean' bill"

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuclear is safe and clean as long as you ignore the risk of an accident.

When life gives you risks, you make riskonade.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[tftp]

There's a narrow line between "endangered" and "not endangered".

If you look at Wikipedia you will see that the "narrow line" that you are talking about is actually quite wide. Perhaps the scientists who invented the classification were not all idiots?

Minke Whales are a LEAST CONCERN species, on par with rats.

It's a bit tough to find tales of life at sea 300 or more years ago, that don't include a lot of superstitious nonsense, but it seems to have been common for ships to be constantly trailed by dolphins, and whales were common sights. With each passing decade, there are fewer and fewer.

There are all kinds of causes that could explain such observations. For example, dolphins are afraid of propeller-driven ships because they know what the spinning screw can do to them. Or as another example, modern ships are taller and have fewer people on the deck to idly watch the sea and write about that in their diaries. But, of course, contamination of water is also a factor, and overfishing, and other human-caused effects.

It would be wrong to attribute decline of dolphin population to hunting them because they are not intentionally hunted (except by natives of a few islands including Japan.) I would say pollution of the sea and shortage of fish is a larger factor.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[reve_etrange]

I guess, but I doubt that even animal rights extremists would be able to choose to save the mouse over the baby (human or gorilla), when Dr. Evil is dangling them both over the cliff edge.

Would you? Or is the choice made somewhere else than the part that has opinions?

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[cheekyjohnson]

Would you?

Depends on which one I liked more. If it was my pet mouse versus a baby that I did not know, I would probably pick the mouse.

Or is the choice made somewhere else than the part that has opinions?

Where else could it possibly be made?

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need a huge boat to hunt a small whale, and certainly in the range where small fishermen enterprises operate. We are not talking rowing boats (although traditionally these whales where hunted from such boats,) but smaller fishing crafts with a crew of 3 to 8 people.

The Minke Whale is not an endangered species by any serious classification. However, that does not mean there should be allowed for unlimited hunting, as that would probably push it into endangered status fast.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[shadov]

Care to back up those statements with evidence? I don't know Paul Watson personally, but I don't think he would do the stuff he does for decade after decade and be as successful as he has been if he was in it just for shit n' giggles and money.

I sort of agree with the media whore part though. Apart from their direct action anti poaching operations, SSCS is also trying to raise awareness and affect public opinion (and yes, get donations to fund their campaigns). An NGO with a political agenda needs to be in the media. Media wants juicy stories (sex, violence, scalndals, etc.). That's a difficult equation for the NGO to crack. Paul has stated openly that he is going to give media what it wants in order to advance his agenda. Personally I think SSCS has done quite well in providing interesting stories and getting their message out without being too attention whorish or silly.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[dcw3]

Why? Southern Germany was nowhere near any of the fallout path from Chernobyl.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Uberbah]

Maybe you don't understand that it takes tens of thousands of years for mass radiation poisoning to pass, as well as spent fuel rods. We could see an entire global warming (brought on by coal plants) and ice age cycle pass and still have to deal with nuclear waste from the first nuclear power plants. Maybe you don't understand that arguing against nuclear power doesn't mean arguing for more coal or poorly built dams. Maybe you're under the delusion that nuclear power isn't the most expensive power source ever invented when you factor in the cost of containment. For tens of thousands of years.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[bky1701]

We know how to do it right technically. Politically, there is work to be done.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[dcw3]

and part of what the Sea Shepherds are doing is enforcing laws that nobody else is?

Unless they've been authorized to enforce those laws, then they're nothing but vigilantes.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[bky1701]

You have to? Or you do because [irrational excuse]?

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[bky1701]

No, it isn't. We've been working on those two for several decades now and have made very little progress. I don't think we should keep waiting and relying on oil and coal until those may, eventually, become practical. We need a real solution that works now.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Uberbah]

Just to be clear - do you mean a source of radiation that ends when a coal plant shuts down, or a source of radiation that people will be dealing with a thousand years from now? A source of radiation that can impact an entire region, and who's waste needs to be managed for thousands of years?

And, just to be clear, why do nuclear fanboys point fingers at coal in lame attempts at misdirection? And, more importantly, why the clear dishonesty in comparing coal's pollution to nuclear without ever mentioning the fact that there are 14 times as many coal plants as nuclear in the U.S. alone?

Just to be clear.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[dcw3]

Sea Shepherd simply enforce the ban in International waters

I find it very hard to condone harming sentient beings to defend ideas, but the destruction of property doesn't seem like an unbearable tactic.

Your quotes are from different posts, but I hope you can see the contradiction. Sea Shepherd has zero enforcement authority. And, the fact that they do sabotage puts them into a poor position to argue that they're just there to do good.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Uberbah]

Why do nuclear fanboys try to pass the blame on to coal? Why do you try to compare the polution levels between the two without ever mentioning that nuclear waste will be around for thousands of years or the disparity in the number of power plants? 1436 coal vs 104 nuclear in the U.S.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Uberbah]

Because you're still using the same car and computer you bought in 1975, and living in a tent since new home and apartment construction ceased in the same year?

Or, maybe the parent should just skip idiots when looking for converts to common sense.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[dcw3]

hence Sea Shepard has to step in and enforce the law.

You've just duplicated the definition of vigilantism. They have no authority to enforce anything, and are thus nothing more than illegals themselves.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[0100010001010011]

Why will it be around for thousands of years? If it's still radioactive. USE IT AS FUEL.

Not using it for a fuel is a stupid law enacted by the people that were scared of nuclear powers.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[reve_etrange]

Depends on which one I liked more. If it was my pet mouse versus a baby that I did not know, I would probably pick the mouse.

I find that difficult to believe.

Where else could it possibly be made?

Say you are crossing the street, and a car swerves around the corner, threatening to hit you. Do you dive out of the way because it's your opinion or because of ingrained flight-or-fight responses beyond conscious control? Surely not everything you do is the product of conscious consideration leading to a formed opinion.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Myopic]

Just to be clear - do you mean a source of radiation that ends when a coal plant shuts down, or a source of radiation that people will be dealing with a thousand years from now?

I mean the second kind, the kind that lasts a thousand years, like this one.

And, just to be clear, why do nuclear fanboys point fingers at coal in lame attempts at misdirection?

Because it's the other mature, available, well-understood widely deployed energy source, obviously. Because it's the alternative.

Anyway, yeah Fukushima was a crazy disaster. It's going to be enormously expensive to fix. To me, though, that still doesn't add up to the enormous expense of the alternative to nuclear, which is coal.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Sqr(twg)]

Yes, nuclear waste has a half-life of tens of thousands of years (in some cases). Heavy metals released from burning fossil fuels have a half life of forever, and they will kill more people by orders of magnitude (statistically speaking, and assuming that the rate of nuclear accidents stays at current levels).

Of course I understand that you are not arguing for more coal. You are anti-nuclear, so there's a 99 % probability you are arguing for solar and wind in the daytime and magic by night and when there's no wind. I'd be all for that too, if someone could just make a working magic power plant.

You're wrong about the cost of containment. (It is quite low.) The argument goes "Nuclear is the most expensive power source when you factor in the cost of insurance." Currently, operators of a nuclear plant only has to pay a few billions in the event of a disaster, which is way too little.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[shadov]

"Sea Shepherd campaigns are guided by the United Nations World Charter for Nature. Sections 21-24 of the Charter provides authority to individuals to act on behalf of and enforce international conservation laws."

-- http://www.seashepherd.org/who-we-are/laws-and-charters.html

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[tenco]

Just a quick search away:

http://www.yourdiscovery.com/battle_of_chernobyl/consequences/index.shtml

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[tenco]

http://www.oecd-nea.org/html/rp/chernobyl/chernobyl-figure6.pdf

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[tenco]

See comment http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2590622&cid=38501538 ff.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[RichiH]

> The easiest would be to just put it in boxes and throw it down the Mariana Trench.

No risk of an accident at sea; storms never happen. Aiming is trivial, as well.

> There is no possibility of anyone getting it back,

Correct. No one ever went down there. Especially not robots.

> and if it ever comes back up naturally it'll be long after safe decay.

Again, correct. The only natural way for it to come up is by the boxes growing feet and walking to shore. No other way. And no contamination of whatever is down there, either.

> The problem is political: Throwing nuclear waste in the ocean violates international law, and for some reason no politician wants to start the process of changing that.

Pity.

I just have one question: Are you being sarcastic and why did people mod you insightful instead of funny?

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[tenco]

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/08/02/1446211/radioactive-boar-on-the-rise-in-germany

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[SuricouRaven]

> No risk of an accident at sea; storms never happen. Aiming is trivial, as well.

No more of a problem than in any other ship - various navy ships have been using nuclear reactors onboard for years. Just a matter of putting the waste in very durable containers, which it already is. As for aiming... yes, it is trivial. The Mariana Trench is very big, and GPS quite precise.

> Correct. No one ever went down there. Especially not robots.

Three times in total - it is difficult, it is expensive, and that is just to get there. Aiming to get the waste down is trivial, but searching for a few small containers in the vast expanse of sea floor would be an exercise in futility.

> And no contamination of whatever is down there, either.

Not much down there. Just lots and lots of water, and very little life. Water that takes a very long time to circulate to the surface.

It's a perfect disposal site. Deposit-only, no withdrawals. Cheap. The only place that might get contaminated is a vast expanse of uninhabited nothing.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[RichiH]

> As for aiming... yes, it is trivial. The Mariana Trench is very big, and GPS quite precise.

No.

> > > There is no possibility of anyone getting it back,
> > Correct. No one ever went down there. Especially not robots.
> Three times in total

Whatever.

> Not much down there. Just lots and lots of water, and very little life.

You don't know that. Touching down stirred up loads of silt so people couldn't see anything.

> Water that takes a very long time to circulate to the surface.

That is true.

> It's a perfect disposal site. Deposit-only, no withdrawals. Cheap. The only place that might get contaminated is a vast expanse of uninhabited nothing.

Based on our current knowledge and even then it's not even close to an undisputed fact.
As we have vast amounts of experience dealing with time frames that are several times longer than even the farthest reaches recorded history, this one is a no-brainer.

What is your take on faster-than-light travel and endless energy? We could use some help there, as well.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[cheekyjohnson]

I find that difficult to believe.

Too bad for you, then. I would likely save the one that I like the most. I know it's difficult to believe, but different people have different preferences (and this isn't a life or death scenario for yourself).

Say you are crossing the street, and a car swerves around the corner, threatening to hit you. Do you dive out of the way because it's your opinion or because of ingrained flight-or-fight responses beyond conscious control?

Probably instinct or something such as that. But not everything I do is based solely on that.

In your scenario, my life isn't in danger. I can choose which one I would like to save. I feel no emotion towards people that I don't know and do not care if they die.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel no emotion towards people that I don't know and do not care if they die.

That's actually quite unnatural. You could be a sociopath or psychopath, or have some other personality disorder. Empathy, even towards people you don't know, is a default tendency in humans and obviously helps society to function more smoothly.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[cheekyjohnson]

That's actually quite unnatural.

I don't care. Being "unnatural" (whatever that means) is irrelevant to me.

is a default tendency in humans and obviously helps society to function more smoothly.

Not necessarily. Laws and logic can accomplish that. Just because you don't feel empathy for others (in my case, it's just people that I don't know) doesn't mean that you'll go out and murder people or believe that such a thing should be allowed. If you recognize that a certain action (or allowing certain actions) hurts society, then it's pretty easy to avoid doing it.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Maritz]

Their own beliefs.

In any case, I was just saying that I see no magical reason that "intelligent" animals are more important than unintelligent animals outside of person beliefs.

I'd tentatively submit that the vast majority of people do see this 'magical' reason, whether it be rational or not. Some tendencies and motivations arise emotionally and are just part of the human condition. The reluctance to conduct experiments on certain animals is an example of this. So yeah you're probably right there isn't a magical reason independent of people's beliefs, but in my experience it's a belief shared by the vast majority of people.

In my experience it seems that if we perceive agency in an external entity, we become extremely reluctant to eat it. We even have separate visual processing for agents compared with non-agents. Agency is obviously very important in human thinking, and if we perceive agency from an intelligent animal most of us (certain disorders notwithstanding) will elect not to eat it given the option.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[cheekyjohnson]

I'd tentatively submit that the vast majority of people do see this 'magical' reason

So would I. But that doesn't mean that I agree with them, and that doesn't mean that there actually is an objectively correct reason.

and if we perceive agency from an intelligent animal most of us (certain disorders notwithstanding) will elect not to eat it given the option.

There are still people who eat and kill supposedly intelligent animals. If someone has a "disorder," to me, that merely implies that they are different.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[dcw3]

I stand corrected...I'd lived there for six years, and never seen weather come from the east.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Sarius64]

Just to be clear - do you mean a source of radiation that ends when a coal plant shuts down, or a source of radiation that people will be dealing with a thousand years from now?

I mean the second kind, the kind that lasts a thousand years, like this one.

And, just to be clear, why do nuclear fanboys point fingers at coal in lame attempts at misdirection?

Because it's the other mature, available, well-understood widely deployed energy source, obviously. Because it's the alternative.

Anyway, yeah Fukushima was a crazy disaster. It's going to be enormously expensive to fix. To me, though, that still doesn't add up to the enormous expense of the alternative to nuclear, which is coal.

Fukushima, again, represents the failure of management -- not engineering. When a company request something be engineered for a specific purpose they generally get what they ask for and then some. Fukushima is EXACTLY what happens when technology is forced to produce far beyond and outside the scope it was designed.

The fact that anyone would compare pollution from coal to any form of modern nuclear plant just shows your ignorance. Nuclear fanboys point to coal because it is a shit solution that continues to cause cancer and birth defects throughout the entire world. A group of small thorium reactors could power the needs of America both cleaner and cheaper than any of the current solutions, especially the bullshit solar and wind farms. What's really holding them back isn't whackos, it's the city-based energy monopolies that want us to keep dying from coal pollution in order to finance their 800% profit margins.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Sarius64]

No, really it doesn't. We have these NEW technologies that take that waste and use it as fuel. Eventually the waste is reduced to inert materials through that process.

Maybe you should stop kissing Fonda's and Kerry's ignorant asses and educate yourself.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[xtal]

..nuclear "waste" from one reaction often just requires reproccessing to be fuel for another process. This point is often lost along the way.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Myopic]

I'm not pointing to coal because it's a shit solution, I'm pointing to it because it is the alternative to nuclear. I'm also pointing to it because it is a bigger radioactive threat than nuclear, and comes along with all the traditional pollution too.

Your original comment was this: Nuclear is safe and clean as long as you ignore the risk of an accident. The thing is, nuclear is safe EVEN IF you account for the risk of an accident. Even with all the nuclear accidents in history (I know of the three which were big enough to be global news), it is safer than the alternative (coal) by several orders of magnitude. Even better, we can now today build nuclear reactors which, "they say", are a couple orders of magnitude safer still. Nuclear is the best solution, until we build solar arrays in space and bean the electricity down to the planet.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Uberbah]

Speaking of education, did you bother to read your own article....dumbass?

What if we could build a nuclear reactor that offered no possibility of a meltdown, generated its power inexpensively, created no weapons-grade by-products, and burnt up existing high-level waste as well as old nuclear weapon stockpiles? And what if the waste produced by such a reactor was radioactive for a mere few hundred years rather than tens of thousands?

A thorium reactor is different. And, on paper at least, this radical new technology could be the key to unlocking a new generation of clean and safe nuclear power. It could prove the circuit-breaker to the two most intractable problems of the 21st century: our insatiable thirst for energy, and the warming of the world's climate.

That's a whole lot of "coulds" and "what ifs" and "on papers" - just like the coal fanboys that are always talking about cold fusion, I mean "Clean Coal".

It's all the same shit, from the same breed of deniers defending big problems with big promises of developments that are coming "real soon now, we promise".

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[SuricouRaven]

Only the spent fuel. A lot of the waste is intermediate level junk. Contaminated suits, used coolant water, pipe, linings from decommissioned buildings, broken machine parts. Things that have become radioactive enough to be dangerous, but not so radioactive as to become weaponiseable. Standard procedure is to throw it in a warehouse, post guards and try not to worry.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Uberbah]

You're wrong about the cost of containment. (It is quite low.)

On some planet where you don't have maintenance and monitoring costs? Even if you build the perfect storage facility underneath a mountain, you're still going to have to maintain and monitor it - for hundreds to thousands of years. Interesting that the nuclear power fans are always so Concerned about the number of people killed by dams that weren't maintained, yet spent fuel rods will just stay safe until the 4th Great and Bountiful Human Empire in the distant future.

Magically.

You are anti-nuclear, so there's a 99 % probability you are arguing for solar and wind in the daytime and magic by night and when there's no wind.

On some planet where wind ceases at night? Okay, maybe - and that's still not answering the question why nuke fans so frequently reach for the coal straw man. But to get to your point, the greatest energy use occurs on.....

Hot.
Sunny.
Days.

This really isn't that difficult - attempts to minimize the problems of nuclear power while maximizing the problems of alternatives aside. Government policies gave us cheap coal-fueled power and suburban sprawl - they can also give us renewable energy as a primary (not sole) power source and mass transit. High speed rail to replace most air travel and freight trucks. Building codes to maximize the use of sunlight while minimizing heating and cooling costs.

You know, stuff we've already had available for decades, for the most part. Too bad it's been pushed aside by monied interests invested in the status quo (sprawl, coal, nuclear).

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Uberbah]

Still not answering why the first response is to pretend that nuclear opponents defend coal - i.e. attack a straw man.

Why will it be around for thousands of years? If it's still radioactive. USE IT AS FUEL.

Uh huh. Except the articles cited like the one another nuke fanboy posted yesterday - are filled with "coulds" and "what ifs" and "on papers". Just like how the coal fanboys are always floating the promise of "Clean Coal" as the solution for all of coal's current problems.

Vaporware.

But even if some of your vaporware pays off in the end, you still have to spend massive amounts of money to replace existing coal and nuclear facilities while still facing most of the problems with nuclear power. We're talking trillions to invest here - trillions that could just as easily be spent on renewable sources of energy and energy conservation instead, and avoid the problems of nuclear power altogether.

But that wouldn't make the pedants happy.....

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Sqr(twg)]

On some planet where wind ceases at night?

Yes. We're living on one of those. Winds (at wind-tower altitude) are caused by the sun heating the planet. Google "diurnal wind pattern".

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[reve_etrange]

The (probably specious) claims you make about yourself are reminiscent of "situational sociopathy," ascribed for example to mob bosses who love their families but kill and torture others. There is fortunately a very low prevalence in the human population.

The recourse to "laws" and "logic" is an interesting one to make, considering that by your own statements you would establish nepotist laws. And, of course, there were no laws (or enforcement agencies) and at best very limited logic, when humanity evolved a strong predisposition to altruism.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[cheekyjohnson]

considering that by your own statements

Which statements? I'm in no position to establish laws. And, as long as I didn't have supreme power over everything, I recognize that it's in my interests to not allow such abuses of power.

And I actually doubt many people wouldn't save the thing that they like best. My mother, for example, would probably save her dog over some random person that she doesn't know.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[reve_etrange]

You said that you would always favor someone you know personally over someone you don't, but also that laws exist to prevent that favoritism from impacting society at large (in some extraordinarily unlikely situation where it can do that). It seemed like equality in laws is contingent on someone unlike you having penned them. I don't disagree that there could be reasons for making egalitarian laws anyway, which you say you have.

My mother, for example, would probably save her dog over some random person that she doesn't know

I wont second guess your claims about your own mother, but an overwhelming majority of people, especially women, would save an endangered infant over a pet, no matter how beloved. There are many situations in which a decision favoring the life of an animal over a person's would also be criminally negligent. The law actually does hold a person's life to be more valuable than an animal's, and the motivation for doing so seems a mixture of species-ism and the empathy of sentience for sentience.

That's the whole point of this discussion: it is wrong to kill whales for food, because scientific work has determined many species of cetaceans are indeed sentient. There can be no doubt that this position rests on the (seemingly) common experience of the empathy of sentience for sentience. On this view, with the backing of international law and the domestic laws of most democratic nations, the obstacles to completely eliminating the hunting of sentient species are due more to the refusal of people to accept science (by believing whales are sentient), than to the belief that murdering other forms of sentience is A-OK .

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[cheekyjohnson]

You said that you would always favor someone you know personally over someone you don't

You presented "what if" scenario where I had to choose between the life of two beings. That is quite different than making laws, I think.

but an overwhelming majority of people, especially women, would save an endangered infant over a pet, no matter how beloved.

Really? How do you know that? I'm not saying that it isn't true, but I wouldn't expect that.

There are many situations in which a decision favoring the life of an animal over a person's would also be criminally negligent.

I think that's ridiculous. If you had to choose between the two, the accident (or whatever it was) wasn't your fault, and you actually tried to save one of them, I don't see why that would be.

I can definitely state that I'm against such laws.

it is wrong to kill whales for food

But I don't believe in objective rights or wrongs. Some (probably most) people might think it's wrong, though. I was just saying that I don't believe that there is some sort of magical moral fairy (or something) that has determined that it is absolutely wrong to kill whales and other such 'intelligent' animals.

But in my opinion, they shouldn't be hunting whales.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not the OP, I'm just the one who's informing you that insults and childishness just detract from your arguments. No one should dignify you with a response until you learn to debate like a grown-up - it doesn't matter what your or their position is, if you can't argue without resorting to petty insults no one will take you seriously.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[reve_etrange]

Can't I say that something is wrong, on the basis of a strong emotion that nearly everyone I have ever known or whose work I have read seems to share, without proclaiming that there is a privileged reference frame?

Do you believe that unendangered, nonsentient animals should also not be hunted?

Also, it's really too bad that we don't have statistics on the common attitudes thing.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[cheekyjohnson]

Can't I say that something is wrong

You could, but unless you state that as an opinion, I'll probably ask you for evidence of absolute morals.

Do you believe that unendangered, nonsentient animals should also not be hunted?

Depends on the animal.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[reve_etrange]

OK, I guess I'm the opposite. Unless someone specifically states something as fact, I assume it's an opinion. People just state opinions much more frequently than fact (in my opinion).

What animals warrant such consideration from you?

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[cheekyjohnson]

What animals warrant such consideration from you?

Seemingly intelligent ones. Ones that I like. And if someone doesn't need to kill something to live, I don't think it should be done (as in, I don't care for killing for fun).

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[unity100]

let me see - people are allowed to be total jerks, assholes, self-centered pricks and talk entirely against the morals and ethics of our time. sometimes, even the very principles that create our own modern society. that is all fine and ok, and noone goes to argue that such people do not deserve a response.

but ....

when someone talks smack or slang or insults someone else, it becomes a problem ......i see a contradiction there. one would say that calling someone an idiot would be a much less noticeable offense compared to believing and advocating scrapping of modern ideals and morals. but for some reason, here you are, telling me otherwise.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Why do nuclear fanboys try to pass the blame on to coal?

Because that's the only realistic alternative when one considers the scale needed. The only other technology that can realistically produce that amount of power cheaply and efficiently is hydro, and that's of course limited by geography and not available to everyone. So when e.g. Germany decides to shut down their nuclear power plants that means they'll be burning that much more coal instead. (It's even the nasty, peaty, brown stuff they have that's even worse.)

Why do you try to compare the polution levels between the two without ever mentioning that nuclear waste will be around for thousands of years or the disparity in the number of power plants? 1436 coal vs 104 nuclear in the U.S.

Why would number of plants be a useful measure? You get approx 1/5 of your electricity from nuclear and 1/2 from coal. Why would having fewer plants produce a larger proportion affect safety, security etc? But by all means, more smaller nuclear plants is something that should be looked into.

In either case, both "clean coal" and fourth gen. nuclear are pretty much a done deal. There are no major technical obstacles. It wouldn't be hard to do either, but the economic incentive is not there. Burning the nuclear "waste" (something we should do to not make plutonium mines in the future) is not a problem and has been demonstrated on smaller scales. However, it cost more than just using approx 1% of the energy value that we use today. We need regulation to solve that one.

It's not that nuclear is problem free, or ideal or anything even remotely like that. But it's one of the few realistic options available. Sure, we'd all like a magic unicorn farting rainbows, but barring that, nuclear/hydro/coal are the only large scale, economical options available. Of these three, I prefer hydro and nuclear from an environmental standpoint, with nuclear first, hydro second and coal a distant, distant third.

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

But to get to your point, the greatest energy use occurs on..... Hot. Sunny. Days.

Not here (Sweden). Cold days in the middle of the winter trumps summer by a long shot. Solar you can forget (Sun barely rises), and the coldest days are without wind (clear skies).

So does that mean we get to keep our nuclear plants? And you don't?

Re:So people really have this much time and money?

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

That's a whole lot of "coulds" and "what ifs" and "on papers"

Well, we were running a thorium cycle reactor for several years already in the sixties, so we left the "paper" stage some time ago.

Summary got whale count wrong

[million_monkeys]

They didn't save 200 whales, that's how many were actually caught, which was only about a fifth of the whaler's quota.

From TFA (emphasis added):

"This is a very effective tactic that we did last year, it was so effective that the whalers went home over a month early and called it quits and we saved 858 whales out of a possible 1,035.

These guys are like pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

The crew of the Sea Shepherd have steered themselves into collision courses with other vessels, attempted to board other boats and thrown acid onto the decks of other ships.

Those guys are pirates that endanger the lives of fishermen who are just doing their jobs.

I'm concerned about what they will end up using the drones for.

Re:These guys are like pirates

[Issarlk]

By fishermen you mean scientists, right ?

Re:These guys are like pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean that collision in this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p6fXA0flmA&feature=relmfu

where are 4 seconds in the ship is coming straight at the camera before making a hard turn to startboard TOWARDS the sea shepart ship.

Look I agree that they are mainly crackpots but in that case it is pretty bloody obvious that the Japanese ship went for them.

Re:These guys are like pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

"who are just doing their jobs", hahahahaaaaaaaa.
sure, everybody's just doing their jooooob, lol.

the fact is that everything human race touches crumbles to dust, we're just very successful in fucking everything up.
some may laugh about PETA, even me, but still better than nothing - well, although I don't think they will make any difference in the end.
if we don't get those whales by fishing then we'll do by throwing radioactivity to the sea, or millions of plastic bags. I swear we'll find something :P

Re:These guys are like pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

I am hunting and slaughter ACs for scientific reasons.
Sorry, but it's just my job. So don't be against it and rest your head on this fine cosy block of wood while I'll get my axe.

"It's just my job" is the absolutely worst of possible excuses there is. It downgrades you to an animal blindly following daily routine. You have a neocortex to think independently. Try to use it.

I love Japan. But whale hunting is just plain stupid. Even the japanese people do not eat whale meat. The average consumption was 15g (gramm) in an entire year!
It's just stubbornness. Nothing else.

Re:These guys are like pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

The crew of the Sea Shepherd have steered themselves into collision courses with other vessels, attempted to board other boats and thrown acid onto the decks of other ships.

Those guys are pirates that endanger the lives of fishermen who are just doing their jobs.

I'm concerned about what they will end up using the drones for.

Please go Youtube the Sea Shepherd Collision. No flaming just curious if you think they engineered that collision after watching it?
They aren't the most rational of guys for sure.
But deliberately colliding something with something that much bigger than you in the open ocean would be suicidal.

Re:These guys are like pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure he does. Just like the ones in Enola Gay.

Re:These guys are like pirates

[axx]

Said this way, this is mostly FUD.

SSCS have never been convicted in court, to the best of my knowledge.
Even though they have sunk a good number of ships, including some of the Norwegian fleet a while back.

They have thrown rancid butter acid on illegal shipping vessels' decks as stink bombs. We're not talking fluoridicric acid here.
Look out for the “they threw acid at us” spin, the Japanese whaling industry is in an public image war with Sea Shepherd.

“Just doing their jobs” is probably the best bit though.

Re:These guys are like pirates

[AlanS2002]

Those guys ... endanger the lives of fishermen who are just doing their jobs.

If I recall correctly, the "just doing my job" bit didn't fly too well at Nuremberg.

Re:These guys are like pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

Just doing their jobs? That's what Adolf Eichmann said at Nuremberg too.

Re:These guys are like pirates

[Yoda222]

Why do the police imprison hitman who are just doing their job ?

Re:These guys are like pirates

[andydread]

Scientist my ass. They are fishermen. There is no research going on. The Japanese believe that eating whale meat will give you a big dick. This is enshrined into Japanese folklore. Apparently the Japanese have always had a problem with penis size. Killing these animals over stupid superstition then lying that you are killing them for research is pathetically slimy.

Re:These guys are like pirates

[schn]

whales do have really big dicks though

Re:These guys are like pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck you.

signed,
an actual scientist

Re:These guys are like pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

There is footage shot from the whaling ship directed back, showing trail of the ship. It shows very clearly that ship is on constant turning course away from the SS ship. You can search for it on youtube, it should be along the other footage about the accident.

Re:These guys are like pirates

[anagama]

They've tossed butteric acid, which is produced in the Swedish fermented fish dish called Surstromming.

Oooooooh -- how evil! /sarcasm

When opened, the contents release a strong and sometimes overwhelming odor, which explains why the dish is often eaten outdoors. A Japanese study has shown that the smell of a newly opened can of surstrÃmming is the most putrid smell of food in the world, beating similar fermented fish dishes such as the Korean Hongeohoe or Japanese Kusaya.

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

Re:These guys are like pirates

[Bucky24]

Get a sense of humor, then come back, k? GP is joking.

Re:These guys are like pirates

[Mashiki]

Considering PETA murders more animals than it saves, I'll laugh at you for your stupidity. Not to mention your inane statements. Besides, anyone who's ever looked at them already knows that they believe animals have more value than a person, and believe that inflicting harm on people through terrorism is perfectly fine.

Re:These guys are like pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

Just doing their job.

Re:These guys are like pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe eating whale will make my stomach full. Same as cow and sheep.

Re:These guys are like pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

By "acid" you mean butyric acid, of course. Not harmful in the sense you are thinking, but very, very noxious smelling.

Re:These guys are like pirates

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it didn't work too well in Tel Aviv, either for Eichmann.

In other news salmon and tuna are running out

[tp1024]

As well as lots of other species. No fuss about those.

Why is it that those guys still act like it's 1968? We have different problems these days!

Re:In other news salmon and tuna are running out

[puppybeard]

There is fuss about both of those, perhaps you aren't aware of it.
http://www.nasco.int/ for Salmon

http://www.tunaresearch.org/ for Tuna

And you forgot cod: http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/press-releases/greenpeace-ship-sails-to-save-north-sea-cod

And to be fair to them, while I don't see myself joining their fight, at least they have the balls to stand up for something, sure there are problems in the world, but most people don't bother addressing those problems either. Apathy, not whale conservationists, is our biggest enemy.

Re:In other news salmon and tuna are running out

[axx]

In other news, Sea Shepherd are a conservation group, they defend all marine species, including Tuna (for which they have been doing a major Mediterranean campaign). You should check the width of their action before pointing out “boo, there are other fish species endangered, so you get no points for protecting one and not all of them!”.

Interesting that while TFA is about clever use of technology in a space where it's not obvious, most slashdotters seem more interested in bashing the group of people using this technology for not following their (very traditional and anthropocentric) view of life. Nice.

Re:In other news salmon and tuna are running out

[AlanS2002]

As well as lots of other species. No fuss about those.

So if I'm not taking action about every single issue on the planet, I'm automatically discredited?

Re:In other news salmon and tuna are running out

[SuricouRaven]

People only care about cute species. Even Sea Kittens are not that cute.

Re:In other news salmon and tuna are running out

[Anonymous Coward]

while i am against hunting intelligent species like dolphins and whales, salmon is NOT really that "valuable", even less since we can actually grow it, it seems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaculture_of_salmon and it is both tasty and HEALTHY food, if it was financially viable (since at that level we would have to stop hunting wild salmon and grow it instead) i would try to replace pig meat (very unhealthy, especially for heart) with salmon meat as much as possible

Re:In other news salmon and tuna are running out

[tp1024]

Sea Shepherd is not a conservation group, it's a group of terrorists attacking people on sea. Means are not justified by the ends.

Re:In other news salmon and tuna are running out

[axx]

Right, and GNU/Linux is a communist operating system.
FUD.

Re:In other news salmon and tuna are running out

[TooMuchToDo]

Means are not justified by the ends.

Depends on the cause. If it's your life in the balance, I highly doubt you're going to care with regards to the means.

Re:In other news salmon and tuna are running out

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you care to elaborate on this with any sources (other than japanese whalers)?

Re:In other news salmon and tuna are running out

[shadov]

Sea Shepherd is not classified as a terrorist organization by any country in the world. They have also never in their history attacked or harmed people, only property.

Re:In other news salmon and tuna are running out

[Rogerborg]

Point of order: nobody, ever, has felt "terror" at the approach of the weedy nasally vegan carbon units infesting the Steve Irwin, or whatever bandwagon jumping name they've crayoned on it this week.

What do you spend your time doing?

[thegoldenear]

There's a lot of people on the planet, and so a lot of time being spent by them, why does the small amount of time these people spend grate on you that much? What do you spend your time doing?

Re:What do you spend your time doing?

[antifoidulus]

If they weren't doing illegal shit and bothering other people then I wouldn't care. I can turn around and ask you the exact same question, why does the small amount of time Japan spends whaling bother them so much?

Re:What do you spend your time doing?

[thegoldenear]

It's not the _time_ being wasted that they're bothered about, it's the whales being wasted that bothers them.
Your point, that I was addressing, was "Do these people really have nothing better to do with their time".

Re:What do you spend your time doing?

[TooMuchToDo]

Enforcing international law is illegal shit now? Trying to stop the hunting of an intelligent species is "bothering other people"? Oh Japan, how they deserve a proper fucking for their stance on some issues.

Terrorist with drones now?

[Anonymous Coward]

These terrorists should not be allowed to use drones. Not terrorists you say? They ruin the lives of fishermen by sinking their ships!

Re:Terrorist with drones now?

[Issarlk]

Fishermen you say? So why are they hunting whales?
Whales are not fish.

Re:Terrorist with drones now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's better to ruin the lives of endangered species by terrorists.^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H...fishermen. These terrorists.^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H...fishermen should not be allowed to use ships.

Re:Terrorist with drones now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they are the chicken of the sea.

Re:Terrorist with drones now?

[JustOK]

they're fish-ish

Re:Terrorist with drones now?

[andydread]

I don't normally reply to Anonymous Cowards however you are a fucking moron.

Re:Terrorist with drones now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't normally reply to Anonymous Cowards however you are a fucking moron.

If this is the best you can do at putting trolls in their place I suggest you step down and let someone else try.

Re:Terrorist with drones now?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a valid point. To argue otherwise would be to argue absurdity.

Re:Terrorist with drones now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then they are fish-ishermen.

illegal shit ?

[unity100]

http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2590622&cid=38493048

and

[unity100]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110513075522AAgInY0

Re:and

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, the best answer contains a never-before-seen attempt to spell the two words a and lot as one word.

Swarm drones

[arcite]

In the near future they could use a swarm of drones to both deflect the whalers boats and to scare away the whales themselves. With a large enough supply of drones, the hunting could be made virtually impossible (or at least increasingly economically unviable). This is very good news for the whales.

Anti-Drone Systems: Japanese-Iranian Joint Venture

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Company name: Jairan. Project code name: Rodan!

This will definitely be a growth area in military industry in the next few years, as all smaller countries scramble to rid themselves of those meddling spy drones. Look for them at the next air warfare exhibition.

But what could they be . . . ? Anti-GPS radio beams . . . ? Laser pointers to blind the pilots back at the command base . . . ?

C'mom, ./er's . . . put on your imagination caps, and tell us your ideas! This anti-whaling skirmish is just the start of bigger battles to come.

Not their first use of awesome tech

[thegarbz]

Sea Shepard are not new to fancy high tech gear. Sure last year they may have been firing bow and arrows at the Japanese whaling fleet, but they were doing it from one hell of an awesome boat.

At least it was one hell of an awesome boat until the idiots managed to get it sunk / sink it (depending on who you ask) in a collision with a whaling boat.

The whalers are going to be running scared.

[Khith]

Here's a picture of the drone!

Re:The whalers are going to be running scared.

[AbRASiON]

Damn that thing really is a bird of prey isn't it?!

Re:The whalers are going to be running scared.

[dkleinsc]

What has happened to /. ? I had to scroll way past a lot of serious and informed comments to get a Star Trek IV reference.

Fear

[gd2shoe]

60+ years hasn't been long enough to "figure out how to make it work right"?

No. Not in our current climate of fear. It's a political third rail. Investors don't give nuclear a second thought. Scientists and engineers have limited funding. Many of our best minds avoid the field altogether as a dead end career. Who wants to be working in nuclear? The future is elsewhere.

(personal position: nuclear power could certainly be safe, but I've yet to find an organization I'd trust to not cut corners on something so expensive and dangerous. I've also yet to find a regulatory agency with better attention to detail than your average grade schooler.)

I used to be ...

[AlanS2002]

I used to be an anti-whaling activist, but then I took an arrow in the knee.

Re:I used to be ...

[qxcv]

I used to be a whale, but then I took a harpoon to the face.

Re:Anti-Drone Systems: Japanese-Iranian Joint Vent

[SuricouRaven]

Micro-missiles would be politically difficult - can't just let civilians play around with those without a lot of regulation. Some sort of ECM system would be doable. Find the downlink frequency, directional antenna and tracking system locked on to the uplink. Disrupt the control connection. Drones aren't so dumb they'll crash, but the autopilot will kick in, turning the drone around and sending it back from whence it came.

Future title:

[Anonymous Coward]

Anti-Droning Group Using Whalers To Find Drones

Only to find them?

[ecotax]

Can't these things even carry a small torpedo, then?

Re:Only to find them?

[wvmarle]

Technically, yes, assuming the drone is big enough to carry the weight. However Sea Shepherd may be pretty aggressive, they will always try to prevent loss of life. That includes lives of whales, but also of people (their own, and the Japanese whalers).

Re:Anti-Drone Systems: Japanese-Iranian Joint Vent

[qxcv]

You needn't go so high-tech to take down tiny unmanned aircraft, have a look at the CIWS ("Close-in Weapon Systems") used by navies to protect from missiles and aircraft. Scattering a bunch of those around the countryside (or in this case, on board a whaling ship) would probably take care of those meddling spy drones. Here's a video of one in a training exercise.

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought all those millions of dollars of donations were going to the meal allowance of the captain ;)

Wonder how much man made green house gases these Drones are releasing into the atmosphere? Surely they're not powered on renewable whale oil?

I guess for a good 'cause' its well worth it.

Humans are not in danger of extinction

[mangu]

Is it OK to hunt humans then?

Re:Humans are not in danger of extinction

[burni2]

Well fine young canibals vote yes ;) on this.

Which are too endangered to be hunted ?

North korean citizens .. definitive red listed in washington ! .. and they have nukes,

Re:Humans are not in danger of extinction

[Anonymous Coward]

For satisfying these urges the society has created the law enforcement professions.

Kudos

[assertation]

Kudos to the Sea Shephard Society!

Re:Kudos

[RazorSharp]

Yeah! Terrorism is awesome when it's motivated by tree-hugging!

If I was a Japanese whaler Sea Shepherd wouldn't exist, their asses would be getting eaten by the fishes they love oh-so-much at the bottom of international waters.

I'm not necessarily a big fan of the fact that the Japanese partake in whaling, but I think they have more of a right to do that than Sea Shepherd does to terrorize the whalers. The whalers would be completely justified in protecting their property with deadly force.

If Japanese activists came over and did this sort of thing to American ships the U.S. Navy wouldn't think twice before torpedoing their asses.

Re:Kudos

[assertation]

When/if you have kids, they will have the Sea Shepherd society and not you to thank for whales still existing in the world.

Re:Kudos

[TooMuchToDo]

The Japanese are whaling in violation of international law; they have no right to do so.

You argue the whalers are justified in protecting their property with lethal force; I argue that anti-whalers are justified in using lethal force to enforce international whaling law.

Re:Kudos

[RazorSharp]

The difference between our arguments is that I claim that the Japanese have a moral right to kill the Sea Shepherd activists. It's pretty basic: if someone comes on my property and starts destroying things, I have the right to pull out my rifle and shoot them.

The moral justifications for vigilantism are dubious, at best. It doesn't matter if the Sea Shepherd activists are carrying out international law because 1) they are doing so without authorization, thus doing so illegally 2) it's not clear whether this 'international law' is truly international or deserving of respect. The Japanese certainly don't agree to it, are they not a nation? Furthermore, how come there are five countries who can ignore 'international law': Russia, U.S., China, U.K., and France; although not technically exempt, they cannot be punished for violating international law unless they decide to punish themselves (fat chance). Is the U.S. not currently partaking in torture? Does China not violate human rights? And Russia. . .PUTIN! Poisoning political opponents in former Soviet Bloc countries. . . What about the U.K.'s illegal espionage activities that have been exposed time and time again? I think you'd be hard pressed to morally justify a vigilante defending 'international law.'

Property rights, however, are the philosophical basis upon which almost all modern law, government, and economy is morally justified. Consult the writings of John Locke for a more thorough explanation.

Re:Kudos

[marxzed]

you have a right to pull out your rifle and shoot them?
errr maybe in your particular little (red)neck of the woods you do.... or are you just enforcing the law (with out authorisation)?

Re:Kudos

[dcw3]

I argue that anti-whalers are justified in using lethal force to enforce international whaling law.

And your argument would fail in any court in the world.

Re:Kudos

[TooMuchToDo]

Meh. International courts don't do anything about Syrian mass murder (due to protests) or the rape and torture of women and children in Africa. I'm supposed to be worried what they think *now*?

Re:Kudos

[dcw3]

Well, then I guess you'd be as "justified" as the anti-whalers in attempting to enforce that...please do.

Re:Kudos

[Maritz]

It's pretty basic: if someone comes on my property and starts destroying things, I have the right to pull out my rifle and shoot them.

In more civilised parts of the world you certainly don't have that right. It's more appropriate to only allow use of deadly force in self defence. To me it sounds more like you're glad to have a reason to kill, however tenuous.

TFS is wrong: over 800 whales saved last year...

[wvmarle]

According to the article linked in the summary, last year the Japanese fleet managed to kill less than 200 whales out of a quota of over 1,000. So their mission was pretty successful, and apparently this year they try to do even better.

On a personal note: I don't agree with whaling (it's not a much wanted food source, in contrast to other species of fish), but also don't agree with their often quite aggressive tactics. Yet they do get the headlines, and that may spark more people to think about conservation of our marine life, and with that a major food source.

The next question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who will break out an LRAD first?

Re:Anti-Drone Systems: Japanese-Iranian Joint Vent

[Rich0]

Yeah, read that page you linked: "The maximum effective range of 30-mm gun systems is about 4500 m; systems with lighter projectiles have even shorter range."

That range is of course mostly horizontal. If you shoot upwards that range is going to be MUCH lower due to that whole gravity thing. Drones could cruise at 10,000 feet and be well outside the range of this sort of system. You'd need more conventional AAA, and that requires lots of large shells, radar guidance, and even then it isn't terribly effective above 10k feet (though a drone is slow and unlikely to evade fire).

Ammo for something like a CIWS probably wouldn't be too hard to come by, but I'd have to think that proximity-fused artillery shells are a bit harder to find.

Oh, and those things burn through ammo like there is no tomorrow (which is a good description of the fate of the ship that needs to fire a CIWS) - they'd probably empty their magazine before the first rounds made it to the target at long range. They're designed to be a last-ditch defense against misses that are 100 meters out and moving at mach 5, not things that are loitering 10k feet away.

Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Ady Gil was sitting in the water with its engine off, the crew was hanging out bullshitting, and the Japanese vessel, originally on a course to pass some 500m to their aft, made a sharp starboard turn, attacked the Ady Gil with sonic and water cannon before ramming them, then made another sharp turn to port to continue on its original course. The whole incident is on video from multiple perspectives; no speculation is needed. Say what you will about Sea Shepherd beliefs or methods, the whaling vessel rammed the Ady Gil. From the footage, it is really hard not to think it was deliberate.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[BosstonesOwn]

Did you see the same video as the rest of us AC ? The engines were obviously on it was pushing water and you can can see its wake once it started getting closer.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[anagama]

The engines were on but the boat stopped. All that commotion is just exhaust bubbles.

Re:Are you fucking kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you? The second part shows the Japanese vessel turning hard into the smaller ship, with the smaller ship attempting to reverse just before the collision.

Re:Anti-Drone Systems: Japanese-Iranian Joint Vent

[mysidia]

Anti-GPS radio beams . . . ? Laser pointers to blind the pilots back at the command base . . . ?

How about large numbers of decoy vessels and whaling drone ships?

Instead of a few gigantic ships... many smaller whaling ships equipped with cameras and automated harpoon systems, that are harder for flying drones to detect than uberly massive factory ships.

Re:Anti-Drone Systems: Japanese-Iranian Joint Vent

[mysidia]

These are civilian fishing ships. CIWS systems are weapons of war, and not something civillian fisherman will want on their boat, or be allowed to carry when they go into port.

As a lifelong nutmegger...

[seandiggity]

...this innovative use of technology gives me hope. I haven't been able to find Whalers in Hartford for years.

Finally, a non-ironic use for drones...

[Paul Fernhout]

...defending the abundance of whales.
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html

You know an idea has percolated through a society when there are toys about it:
"SB94 DRONE * UNITED ALLIANCE * Die-Cast MATCHBOX Sky Busters Missions Series"
http://www.amazon.com/ALLIANCE-Die-Cast-MATCHBOX-Busters-Missions/dp/B005314CEG

I got one from "Sandy Claws" that I'm going to keep unopened as a collector's item, if we all survive the next twenty years of this level of unrecognized irony.

Re:Anti-Drone Systems: Japanese-Iranian Joint Vent

[TooMuchToDo]

THIS. As a merchant ship, there is no port you're going to be allowed entry to carrying a CIWS on your deck.

Arms restrictions

[currently_awake]

Civilian ships are legally prevented from having this level of firepower. That's why kids with AK's can capture oil tankers off Somalia. Also it's still destruction of private property and they could be sued. Also I'm really surprised that Greenpeace/environmentalists don't run fake whales to decoy the whalers and make them waste time. You could have it shoot off fireworks every harpoon hit.

Re:Arms restrictions

[onepoint]

Everything you said is correct WHEN you fly your registry flag's properly. I have been trying to think of a way to get around this issues safely but there is not. The biggest problem from my perspective is ... if the vessel fly's the jolly roger and not it's registry flag, will it be legal to fire upon it and capture it. I think the only case that can be applied is if a whaler has lashed the whale and the sea shepherd crew ( while flying the Jolly Roger ) cut's the whale loose and it sinks. if the crew members that did the act of 'loss' to the whaler, then they might be able to be prosecuted ( they would hope that they did not end up in Singapore, since they have the death penalty for pirates )

Maritime law has some amazing rules, when followed correctly you can do just about anything. and yes you can carry some rather large weapons, the problem is customs entry and passage treaty right's these parts are called 'laws of the sea' and are the international side of it ( some bodies of water do not welcome weapons of any sort, and I believe that's where the trawlers are at )

I have a limited maritime law knowledge but the rules of the sea's are rather old and well documented, warfare on the sea's is covered when 2 nations cargo vessels meet ( commerce raiding ).

Re:Anti-Drone Systems: Japanese-Iranian Joint Vent

[TooMuchToDo]

The whaling ships are gigantic to handle the whale carcass on the deck for processing. The solution would be to switch to supercavitation torpedoes for quickly delivering lethal force to the whaling ships, with no concern for their size.

Fuck whaling Track the Radiation

[Anonymous Coward]

A giant pile of radioactive shit is floating in the ocean, and all you can do is fly drones to fuck with whalers?
I'm starting to hope the State Department does start ww3 so we can just get this life bullshit over with.

I hope everybody dies a painful fucking death. You deserve it. Go Long Georgia Guidestones. Let's all die. Fuck everything, everybody.

Or Educate, and Get these Fascists out.
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/

52'nd

[currently_awake]

No, Canada has ownership of the term 51'st state. You'll need to use some other term to denote doing the bidding of the USA.

Yeah, right.

[wordsnyc]

That news item is strikingly short on details on the commercially-available drone capable of being launched from a ship and searching hundreds of square miles of open ocean.

I support Sea Shepherd, but I think y'all's been punked. This is guerrilla PR of great imagination, but no substance. I'd be thrilled if I were proven wrong, but at this point, pictures or it didn't happen.

Re:Yeah, right.

[AverageWindowsUser]

I'm going to operate my own fleet of drones and shoot at whales with them.

Re:Yeah, right.

[marxzed]

I've spoken to a few Sea Sherpard sailors and they use off the shelf drones similar to those used by some of the game fishing and sardine boats here, though I can't remember the name/brand it was, as described by them, a pusher prop twin spar design with a wing span almost 3 meters meters across, Sea Shepard sailors spend a LOT of their port time in my home town and it's hard not run in to them no matter what your opinion of them (here it's probably at least 30% solid support for them and an overwhelming majority (probably about 70%) support them in general principal and they do reasonable fund raising here (disclosure here I both support most of their actions and have given financial donations to them)).

Visual idiots always see what they want

[Anonymous Coward]

It is amazing how visual idiots always ignore the other factors involved in an image when they want to see what doesn't exist.

You know .... like that high pressure water stream coming out of the Japanese vessel and pointed in the EXACT SAME DIRECTION as the alleged wake from the dead engine.

Drones are cheap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Go by hobbyking.com and spec out parts.

There's a pic of the Sea Shepherd drone here - http://bit.ly/uo5KGd

It's just a little flying wing, with a wingspan around 6'. There are hundreds of thousands of people who could knock one out in a few days, for no more than a few hundred bucks each, but probably much less. The plane, power system and servos are almost free.

How much do you think Sea Shepherd spends fueling their fleet of ships? If the drone can save them a month of searching it's also saving them a fortune in fuel costs. If they don't have to operate a frickin' helicopter, it's saving them another fortune. Sea Shepherd can buy more drones than they'll ever need.

On top of MOUNTAINS????

[SuperKendall]

I'd like to know how 60 metre tall wind turbines on top of mountains can do that. But hey, it's your dream, run it as you like.

You may not have the stupidest post on Slashdot but honestly nothing else as idiotic as this statement occurs to me in recent memory.

In real life of course, to haul and construct a windmill atop a mountain of any form is insanity. Have you never seen the blades in person, being shipped on giant trucks? Never seen ANY windmill farms in person? Considered the cost (financial AND environmental) of cable runs up the mountain?

All windmill farms are built on generally flat land (or at most slightly rolling hills) that could easily be agricultural. Generally after the windmills come it they are not as you need a lot of access roads around the windmills and then there is the substantial pollution around them due to having to keep the windmills well lubricated.

Parts of California and the southernmost end of Hawaii stand witness to the utter stupidity of windmill farms, rusting relics from decades ago on land being used for nothing. What a shame we could not learn from history and avoid such a dumb mistake.

Re:On top of MOUNTAINS????

[Sarius64]

Parts of California and the southernmost end of Hawaii stand witness to the utter stupidity of windmill farms, rusting relics from decades ago on land being used for nothing. What a shame we could not learn from history and avoid such a dumb mistake.

Don't forgot the 400,000+ dead endangered birds hacked out of the air by the stupid giant fan blades.

http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/bird-death-prosecution.html#cr

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/bird-brained-hypocrisy-oil-companies-prosecuted-for-28-dead-waterfowl-while-wind-companies-get-away-with-offing-400000-every-year/

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/northeast/view/20111018windmills_stopped_at_night_after_bat_death/srvc=home%26position=recent

http://tribune-democrat.com/local/x345569257/Windmills-to-shut-at-night-following-demise-of-rare-bat

http://thegazette.com/2011/12/14/bird-advocates-seek-tougher-wind-turbine-rules/

Mea Culpa

[FatLittleMonkey]

I should have done a google search for an article with images. Here's one with a picture of the UAV and the low quality images they're using to track the Nisshin Maru.

details on the commercially-available drone capable of being launched from a ship

The UAV is small, catapult- or hand-launched (aka "throw'n'go".). Looks like a 2m or so wingspan. Possibly a SeaScan, which is a small civilian UAV intended for commercial fishing boats, but I'm just guessing based on the shape.

Re:TFS is wrong: over 800 whales saved last year..

[FatLittleMonkey]

You are correct, I was wrong. Thank you, sir.

"This is a very effective tactic that we did last year, it was so effective that the whalers went home over a month early and called it quits and we saved 858 whales out of a possible 1,035", Sea Shepherd's Jeff Hansen. (Although the Japanese claimed they only had a quota last season of 850, out of a limit of 945, so god knows where any of the numbers come from.)

Whalers with SAMs

[FirephoxRising]

If the Japanese whalers started launching SAMs (unlikely to hit high-flying drones anyway, the missiles were designed to hit planes, look how much trouble the so-called anti-missile missile Patriots had) the Australian Navy would quickly send a couple of guided missile frigates and/or destroyers down to follow them to ensure maritime safety. A big fat naval ship pumping out high powered RADAR and deliberately noisy radio traffic would be very easy to find for the anti-whaling vessels. I used to work with the ADF (Australian DEfence Force) and the proportions are more like 98% against the whalers than 90%. The navy boys are just waiting for an excuse to be all over the Japs.

Arm Those Drones

[glorybe]

If we could arm those drones to knock out whaling vessels without having them spill oil upon sinking it would be wonderful. Any guy that shoots at a whaling vessel will be not guilty if I'm on the jury.

Government backed slaughter

[Anonymous Coward]

Japan has spent $27M to protect these "scientists". Wow..$100,000 a whale just for the Jap coast guard officers

Why do people love the cult?

[modulator7]

to