Slashdot Mirror


Lego Ends Shell Partnership Under Greenpeace Pressure

jones_supa writes Since 1960s, we have been seeing the oil company Shell logo being featured in some Lego sets, and Legos being distributed at petrol stations in 26 countries. This marketing partnership is coming to an end, after coming under sustained pressure from Greenpeace. The environmental campaign, protesting about the oil giant's plans to drill in the Arctic, came with a YouTube video that depicted pristine Arctic, built from 120 kg of Lego, being covered in oil. CEO of Lego, Jørgen Vig Knudstorp, wants to leave the dispute between Greenpeace and Shell, and the toy company is getting out of the way.

64 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. Pixie Dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because Legos are made out of pixie dust, not oil.

    1. Re:Pixie Dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wait till someone tells GreenPeace that their boat needs oil to run.

    2. Re:Pixie Dust by camperdave · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wait till someone tells GreenPeace that their boat needs oil to run.

      Well, they can run it on whale oil instead.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:Pixie Dust by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because Legos are made out of pixie dust, not oil.

      Thanks for your insight AC. Because anyone opposed to drilling for oil in the artic of course, must be opposed to use of all oil products, produced anywhere in the world for any reason.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    4. Re:Pixie Dust by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Informative

      You joke, but their newest ship actually has sails!

      From Wikipedia:

      The ship is also designed to be one of the "greenest" ships afloat, and to showcase this quality, it runs primarily using wind power, with a 55 m mast system which carries 1255 sq meters of sail and is backed up by a "state-of-the-art hybrid". On board the ship can store up to 59 cubic meters of greywater and blackwater, avoiding the need for disposal at sea. All materials, from the paintwork to the insulation, have been chosen with a view to sustainability, and each component has been supplied with transparent ethical sourcing.

      (It still uses diesel engines for maneuvering in port, of course -- I'm honestly surprised they don't run the engine on biodiesel. Maybe it's a logistical issue?)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:Pixie Dust by ihtoit · · Score: 3, Informative

      any idea how much yield acreage is involved in producing just one gallon of biodiesel?

      Here's a clue: soybeans yield 127 gallons per yield acre, but that's not what's used because soybeans grow too slowly. Oilseed yields about a quarter the amount of raw oil (pre refinement) but it grows five times faster. If you stop looking at it there, oilseed looks like a good deal. BUT, then you come to refining it into biodiesel where your net yield drops to about 8% of what you'd get with soy.

      127 gallons is about ten tanks in a small family car. How many eleven gallon tanks are rolling about in the United States? Several tens of MILLIONS? A total conversion to biodiesel would require every square foot of land area on the planet given over for oilseed production.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    6. Re:Pixie Dust by voss · · Score: 2

      Maybe greenpeace has enough good sense not to target one of the most popular toys in the world
      when there are much easier polluter targets like shell

    7. Re:Pixie Dust by Urkki · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Because Legos are made out of pixie dust, not oil.

      While production of oil has its own huge environmental problems, at least Lego bricks themselves are very stable, so they are good for storing carbon and keeping it off the atmosphere and oceans. And if they were made from, say, metal instead of plastic, the environmental impact of production wouldn't be any less, I bet.

    8. Re:Pixie Dust by dave420 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Lego are actively researching alternative materials from which to make their blocks, so your criticism is merely illustrating your lack of knowledge of the subject, and not a well-thought-out attack on Lego.

    9. Re:Pixie Dust by jandersen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People shouldn't let their prejudices against Greenpeace, 'tree-huggers', 'hippies', climate change or whatever blind them to the fact that:

      1. Big, polluting corporations need to be challenged. The oil-industry is not really your friend, and I doubt the changes we have seen in pollution levels since the 50es would have happened without somebody putting serious pressure on them.

      2. Whether you like Greenpeace or not, their example shows us that it is possible for ordinary people to make a difference, if they are able to work together. Is that not something worth knowing?

    10. Re:Pixie Dust by stiggle · · Score: 4, Informative

      Generally its the delivery crew who use the sails to get the boat to where the rich guy wants to sail from. Often the crew are given a budget, for all expenses including fuel, and so anything they save on that means they have more spending money for more vital supplies like beer, beer and more beer :-)

      These crews move the yachts around the world as "the rich guy" wants spring in the Caribbean, summer in the Med, fall/autumn in the Indian Ocean, winter around Australia. So you move the yacht to meet the guy and his family/friends for the holiday onboard at specific times.

      You use the diesel engine when you're likely to miss the departure/arrival dates.
      Its a fun life but badly paid, but you get to spend your time on a luxury yacht.

    11. Re:Pixie Dust by flyneye · · Score: 2

      Nah, just tow them out in a rowboat. The Russians will pick them up when G.P. starts flingin poo at them.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    12. Re:Pixie Dust by flyneye · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I suspect some other motive. I mean, really, who could give a shit what Greenpeace thinks? They're a fucking joke!
      I think something went sour between Legos and Shell, so Legos is just blaming Peengrease for benefit of the press.
      Greenpeace never did anything of any real consequence except add comedy to news programs.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    13. Re:Pixie Dust by carnivore302 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but not the way greenpeace does it. They have been going at it like a bunch of terrorists and the end result is that for many people (definitely including myself) any organisation targeted by greenpeace is getting more, not less, sympathy.

      --
      Please login to access my lawn
    14. Re:Pixie Dust by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Greenpeace isn't about helping the environment but making them feel good.
      They go after high profile target, not high impact. So they get on the news and people say see how good they are.
       

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    15. Re:Pixie Dust by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Greenpeace is like any other religion. Guilt with different holidays.
      One could form another organization that pollutes 10% less than Greenpeace and then start protesting Greenpeace.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    16. Re:Pixie Dust by houghi · · Score: 2

      Greenpeace. The company that is against everything but gives nio real alternatives.
      They were heavily against atomic energy in Germany. That worked out well, right?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    17. Re:Pixie Dust by jandersen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Aww, how sweet - my original post got modded down as 'Troll'! - simply for suggesting that people should be reasonable and level headed, and not let the fact that an unpopular organization like Greenpeace is mentioned, confuse their judgement.

      So, to your questions:

      1: Yes, I drive - why not? I am not the one claiming that everything done by oil companies is by definition "EVIL!!!!" - I just say, they are not our friends, even if they try to sell that image to us. They have resisted any movement towards producing more efficient car engines, sustainbale energy etc - in fact, anything that might affect their bottom -line. It is the logical thing for them to; they only exist to generate profit for their shareholders. Popular pressure has been among the things that have persuaded them to modify their actions. If you had read and understood what I wrote originally, you would have realised that I don't say we must all stop driving cars. But it makes very good sense to me at least, that we should try to get away from our dependency on fossil fuels as soon as possible. I am willing to give up some of my luxuries to get there.

      2: Extraordinary people are just ordinary people who made a decision to no longer just following the beaten path and simply do as they are told. It isn't easy, of course - if it were, then it wouldn't be extraordinary. But everybody can do it, it just requires courage. Not the idiotic 'courage' to drink yourself legless and play chicken across a busy motorway, but the real courage to open up your mind and risk having to confront your own dishonesty, and probably having to leave behind all the old fallacies that you used to believe in. As an American you ought to be in a better position to understand this than us tired, old Europeans; it's only been a century and a bit since your nation was established by ordinary people, who had no other choice than becoming extraordinary.

      No, ordinary DO make a difference, if they dare to stand up against those in power, for what they really believe in.

    18. Re:Pixie Dust by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Well, yeah, actually. It's working out really well for Germany, and they are only 1/3rd the way through the transition.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. They backed Greenpeace, actually. by McFortner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How can they be "getting out of the way"? There are only two choices, a) stick with Shell and snub Greenpeace, or b) dump Shell and please Greenpeace. There is no middle ground where they can please both.

    --
    Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
    1. Re:They backed Greenpeace, actually. by camperdave · · Score: 5, Funny

      False dichotomy. They could snub both. Dump the Shell pieces and release a whaling set.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:They backed Greenpeace, actually. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They didn't pick Greenpeace. They picked removing a hate campaign against them.

      I find both the campaign and the result rather disturbing. They state they are against arctic oil and targets Shell. However while Shell is kind of unharmed from this (in the big picture), Lego might have taken a serious blow to sales and they have nothing to say about oil drillings at all. Legally Lego can sue Greenpeace for lost profits, but surely that would cause even more bad publicity.

      Don't get me wrong. I do care about the environment a lot. However this campaign does absolutely nothing for the environment whatsoever. All it does is hurting one of the few toy makers, who insist on using non-toxic plastic. Lego did make this contract with Shell in the first place to ensure stable delivery of high quality non-toxic plastic. Lego wouldn't have had this problem if they just bought the cheapest (and toxic) plastic off the marked like most toy makers.

      Also I wonder why Greenpeace cares so much about oil rigs, which might be build in the future and not about those which have been north of Alaska for years.

    3. Re:They backed Greenpeace, actually. by kolbe · · Score: 2

      They did that once already in the UK back in 1997... Still washing up to this day

      http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...

  3. THIS JUST IN by confused+one · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This just in: LEGO are made from refined petroleum products. OMFG NO. The horror.

    1. Re:THIS JUST IN by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they want people to stop doing something, they should demonstrate that you can still get other things done without doing the thing they want people to stop doing.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:THIS JUST IN by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Gees, I just thought it was a problem when you burned it or used it disposable products that collect in the environment. So no apparently oil used in long lasting kept through generations Lego is the problem. I heard it was especially bad as carpet mines, I never knew you and your moderators had thought, carbon chain products could be dangerous even when you 'DID NOT FUCKING BURN IT'.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    3. Re:THIS JUST IN by Euler · · Score: 2

      Yes, exactly. The most successful way to convince people is leading by example. Ghandi's success wasn't from conscripting insurgents, he didn't lobby the British Parliament in hopes of winning politically or through the legal system. i.e. he didn't force his way or ask for permission. He simply demonstrated a method of resistance that people could follow and lived it every day at great sacrifice.

      I give a lot of respect to people who try simple living, reducing carbon footprint, installing solar, etc. At least they are experimenting, innovating, and sacrificing creature comforts to show what is possible. They will discover what works and what doesn't. I have no patience for the self-righteous who can throw money at telling us we are wrong to assuage their guilt, stop by Starbucks driving a Lexus SUV on their way home to a 3000 sq. foot home. Al Gore can chide us all he wants, I'm not going to listen unless he actually gives up his carbon footprint rather than buying offsets.

      I'm all for reducing environmental impact and saving animals, but we need to find ways to do it that everyone can afford.

    4. Re:THIS JUST IN by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 5, Funny

      I have no idea what you just said, but I will defend unto death your right to mangle sentences that way.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  4. Another corporation falls... by MatthiasF · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...to religious bullying.

    1. Re:Another corporation falls... by stepho-wrs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Religious? When did Greenpeace become religious?

    2. Re: Another corporation falls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When you operate on dogma instead of well reasoned logical positions, what distinction exists between one cult and another?

    3. Re:Another corporation falls... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Mid '80s, when all of the scientists left?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  5. Sooooo... by jpellino · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Tesla Supercharger stations from now on?

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  6. Re:WTF is Legos? by anchovy_chekov · · Score: 4, Informative
    No.. it's "Lego bricks". Lego is the company, Lego bricks are the product. Lego themselves tried to clarify the situation, with a notice on their website (since removed):

    Please always refer to our products as “LEGO bricks or toys” and not “LEGOS.” By doing so, you will be helping to protect and preserve a brand of which we are very proud, and that stands for quality the world over”

  7. Re:WTF is Legos? by Smonson78 · · Score: 2

    I came here to say the same thing. It's surprising how angry it makes me to hear idiots fart all over this simple grammatical concept. I want to just let it go... but I can't.

  8. Fuck Greenpeace by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 5, Insightful

    they are as bad as PETA. Lego are children's toys, leave your goddamn petty politics out of them.

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    1. Re:Fuck Greenpeace by Harlequin80 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This. 100 times this.

      If you have a bone to pick with an organisation target that organisation. Going for non related entities because they make a softer target is wrong. The end does not justify the means. Where I work we have had death threats directed at us because some of our clients are in the mining and oil & gas space. There is nothing that can justify that type of action.

    2. Re:Fuck Greenpeace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      > Going for non related entities because they make a softer target is wrong.

      You appear to be laboring under the false belief that a company that has a promotional relationship with another company is 'non-related.' Shell is an oil company, they were paying lego to run a promotional campaign for them. That's about as related as they could get without pumping the oil themselves.

    3. Re:Fuck Greenpeace by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2

      No I absolutely see them as non related. A related organisation, you could argue, would be Schlumberger who do the drilling for Shell on a number of their projects. Or Sinopec which they have a joint venture with in the Arrow CSG fields. If Shell runs an ad campaign in a news paper does that make the news paper a related organisation?

      Seriously how are you modded Informative? I assume that every advertising company is a related entity then? Google must be hell in bed with all those big nasty companies then.

      Is Slashdot related to Microsoft because I get Mircosoft ads here? No.

      Is Greenpeace related to the Oil & Gas companies that manufacture the fuels for their vehicles related? No.

    4. Re:Fuck Greenpeace by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am no greenpeace fan, but a corporation putting a logo on a child's toy in order to influence their future purchasing decisions though brain washing, is kind of asking for whatever the fuck they get, don't you think?

      --
      -
    5. Re:Fuck Greenpeace by radtea · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you have a bone to pick with an organisation target that organisation. Going for non related entities because they make a softer target is wrong. The end does not justify the means. Where I work we have had death threats directed at us because some of our clients are in the mining and oil & gas space. There is nothing that can justify that type of action.

      Greenpeace and other anti-science groups like the Republican Party all take this stone-age "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and "the friend of my enemy is my enemy" approach to human relations.

      Roy Baumeister, in this truly excellent book Evil discusses idealism as a cause of evil, and Greenpeace are a pretty good representation of the logic he describes: if you believe yourself to be purely and ideally good, then anyone opposing you and anyone who helps them in any way must be purely evil. And what lies, threats and violence aren't justified in the name of fighting pure evil?

      Baumeister uses actual cases (and lots of them) to show how false-to-fact this kind of thinking always is, and how much moral thinking is actually about delusions of evil rather than evil as it is done. Anyone even mildly interested in making the world actually better, rather than just feeling good about themselves while helping to make things worse, would do well to read this book. It does more for the study of good and evil than three thousand years of fact-free philosophical imaginings.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    6. Re:Fuck Greenpeace by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Fuck Greenpeace they are as bad as PETA. Lego are children's toys, leave your goddamn petty politics out of them.

      Fuck Lego they are as bad as Shell. Lego are children's toys, leave your goddamn brainwashing advertising out of them.

      Now more SRSLY, I own a crapload of Lego. I don't think Fuck Lego. (Ow!) But I do think that putting Shell advertising on Lego blocks is a form of brainwashing, just like back when gas stations used to give away toy cars festooned with logo stickers. Get the kids identifying with the brand, programmed to worship the logo, before they're even vaguely capable of understanding the ramifications. If Lego had told Greenpeace to fuck off, then I would say "Fuck Lego" because that would be bullshit. Children don't need to be advertised to by world-raping corporations on their creative toys.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Fuck Greenpeace by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Greenpeace and other anti-science groups

      Greenpeace is not at all anti-science. They are more than willing to use it in order to point out just how badly we are fucking ourselves. Are you actually this ignorant, or are you simply attempting to impugn their character in order to attack them, as part of a strategy of legitimizing your shit behavior?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. Next steps by arielCo · · Score: 4, Insightful
    • * No little plastic cows, because global warming.
    • * No jet airplanes, because they pollute so much.
    • * Nothing related to Japan, because whaling.
    • * No circus sets because poor animals.

    I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

    --
    This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    1. Re:Next steps by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 3, Funny

      Gosh, I guess we should just sit around and bang rocks together and grunt...until someone from the rock protection lobby sends a cease and desist letter for banging rocks. Or until the chimpanzees claim infringement on their "entertainment systems" patents.

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    2. Re:Next steps by plover · · Score: 2

      Gosh, I guess we should just sit around and bang rocks together and grunt...until someone from the rock protection lobby sends a cease and desist letter for banging rocks.

      Perhaps if we banged the rocks together after carefully placing the lawyers' heads between said rocks? Kuh! Kuh! Kuh!

      --
      John
    3. Re:Next steps by PseudoCoder · · Score: 2

      Bingo. De-industrialization has been the goal of the Marxist movement since it became a movement. If you read Marx you'll see that he essentially advocates for an egalitarian agrarian society, because it is the only logical conclusion to the idea of ensuring equal distribution of the means of production. Once Dude A (by way of technological advance) has a better way of producing something than Dude B, you can no longer ensure "equality". In the Communist Manifesto he even laments the discovery of America because it created economic opportunities. How "progressive".

      That's why the Eco movement are increasingly Marxist in ideology. I've heard them referred to as the watermelon movement; green on the outside, red on the inside.

      --
      "Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
  10. Re:As a former Shell RDC shareowner by Immerman · · Score: 2

    >Focus on the grasping giant first. The others are entrenched.

    Fixed that for you. Even if we stopped all increases in fossil fuel consumption we'd still have a major problem on our hands, but it's a lot easier to convince the new guy that he shouldn't make the same mistakes we have than it is to alter the existing status quo.

    Of course where China and other developing nations are concerned there's also the non-insubstantial problem that we're essentially telling them "We got rich burning cheap fuel and screwing up the world, and we're not going to slow down, but don't YOU do the same thing or we'll all be super-screwed." I mean sure China has recently taken the crown as the worlds largest consumer of fossil fuels, but they also have by far the largest population, and their per-capita fuel consumption puts them WAY down the list.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  11. Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    greenpeace isn't all good either they're often misguided and destructive.

    having shell logos on lego gas stations hardly seems that evil, if you are building a lego town you need a lego gas station, might as well be someones gas station

  12. Greedy charlatans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Greenpeace has strayed so far from their roots. They are nothing but a bunch of greedy charlatans now.

  13. Re:That worked so well with Intel and Gamasutra by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    Yes, pulling a marketing relationship with a group clearly is the best way to stay out of an argument

    The advantage of withdrawing support is that only zealots care either way. There are relatively few zealots to get offended, and because most people can understand what it means to try to avoid an argument.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  14. President Business agrees by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just means Octan has an energy monopoly for all those LEGO cars, trucks and planes now

  15. Re:ESSO by physicsprof · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's simply not true. Esso is an Exxon-Mobil brand. See http://corporate.exxonmobil.co... Shell refers to Royal Dutch Shell, an entirely different company...

  16. Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"? by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For me, Greenpeace lost all credibility in the 1980's when one by one the founding scientist left in disgust, the last one left in the early 90's when Greenpeace were using a mountain of pseudo-science to attack the use of chlorine in drinking water (arguably the most effective public health measure of the 20th century). Basically the leadership was taken over by political types and they lost their scientific roots. However I am grateful for the fact they put an end to nuking pacific islands in my neighbourhood, and wish them the best of luck in their efforts to kill the coal industry before it kills us.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  17. Re:WTF is Legos? by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

    say you play with legos, like the rest of us do

    Must be an American thing, here in Oz your average John-o and Steve-o play with their leg-o, great for keeping them occupied while dad nicks down to the bottle-o.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  18. Re:ESSO by ihtoit · · Score: 2

    my bad

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  19. Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What gets me is their opposition to GMO crops. I actually work in the field of crop improvement, and the stuff Greenpeace says and does put them right up there with anti-vaxxers in my opinion. They will protest biofortified or insect resistant crops in developing countries (just look at the Bt brinjal on Golden Rice controversies, both non-corporate by the way), then pat themselves in the back when the research gets blocked/destroyed, meanwhile farmers go back to spraying shitloads of pesticides and clearing more land to make up for the lost yields and children suffer malnutrition. They're just a bunch of scientifically illiterate book burning thugs using environmentalism to cover their naturalistic superstitions.

  20. Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't forget Brent Spar: when they occupied the platform and took some measurements, it turned out Shell was actually right, so they fudged the numbers rather than admit their mistake. Greenpeace is not about the environment any more, even though many of its individual members and employees may still be. This often happens to such organisations: at some point it's no longer about the founders' goals, but about membership, money, and influence. Greenpeace is no exception: today they are a marketing firm with themselves as sole customer.

    I am sure they will offer up some excuse about Shell greenwashing its image, or brainwashing our kids about the blessings of fossil fuels, but the stark truth is that this does nothing for the environment. This announcement comes in time for GP to further their real goals: they have been out of the news for a bit and they needed a win and some publicity. Well played.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  21. Re:WTF is Legos? by goulo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Sure, just like there are not 2 Fords in the parking lot, but 2 Ford automobiles, and not 3 Pepsis on the table, but 3 Pepsi drinks, and not 4 Dells in the marketing department, but 4 Dell computers.

    Speakers, not corporate lawyers, determine language use, even if corporations wish it were otherwise.

  22. Fuck Greenpeace by goulo · · Score: 2
    Setting aside the question of whether Greenpeace's tactics are right or wrong, there shouldn't be Shell logos in Lego blocks.

    Lego are children's toys, leave your goddamn advertisements and product placements out of them.

  23. Re:Time to target those who contribute to Greenpea by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Perhaps it is time to show the top donors... well how about all their donor

    People give money to Greenpeace because they know "all about them".

    and then companies can start to decide if they want to employee people like that.

    Not too big on freedom of speech, eh?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  24. Re:WTF is Legos? by goulo · · Score: 2

    Sure, I know why companies want to control the use of language. But in the end, speakers, not corporate lawyers, determine language use. And most speakers don't really feel a strong obligation to protect the trademark of some multimillion dollar company. There aren't usually outraged comments when someone says kleenex or xerox or google or any of zillions of other trademarks "inappropriately", so why the outrage about using "lego" to refer to the brick instead of the company that makes the brick? It seems oddly inconsistent.

  25. Re:ESSO by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

    Esso was around in the North East until '72-'73. My father worked at one on the PA turnpike during the summers when he was in college in the early 1960's. When Standard Oil was broken up in the early 1900's many of the companies had rights to the Esso name within their own state. Some didn't object to others using the name within their state as well.

    I think the southern states had to re-brand in the mid to late 1960's to Enco

    I remember the Mobil Pegasus well. I think it was pretty cool at any age. But that was the 1970's for you. We thought airbrushing naked women riding dragons on cars, and especially vans, was cool then too.

    The Exxon tiger was around back then also.

  26. Re:So, will they now be promoting "Greenpeace"? by escetic7659 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Greenpeace does not oppose GMO crops. Greenpeace has concerns about the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops and calls for more precautionary research and monitoring of GMO's before widespread adoption. It might be helpful to search out their position papers on these things. A quick google gave me this, for example: http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-u...