Slashdot Mirror


Peru Indignant After Greenpeace Damages Ancient Nazca Site

HughPickens.com writes The NYT reports that Peruvian authorities say Greenpeace activists have damaged the fragile, and restricted, landscape near the Nazca lines, ancient man-made designs etched in the Peruvian desert when they placed a large sign that promoted renewable energy near a set of lines that form the shape of a giant hummingbird. The sign was meant to draw the attention of world leaders, reporters and others who were in Lima, the Peruvian capital, for a United Nations summit meeting aimed at reaching an agreement to address climate change. Greenpeace issued a statement apologizing for the stunt at the archaeological site and its international executive director, Kumi Naidoo, flew to Lima to apologize for scarring one of Peru's most treasured national symbols. "We are not ready to accept apologies from anybody," says Luis Jaime Castillo, the vice minister for cultural heritage. "Let them apologize after they repair the damage." "But repair may not be possible. The desert around the lines is made up of white sand capped by a darker rocky layer. By walking through the desert the interlopers disturbed the upper layer, exposing the lighter sand below. Visits to the site are closely supervised — ministers and presidents have to seek special permission and special footwear to tread on the fragile ground where the 1,500 year old lines are cut. "A bad step, a heavy step, what it does is that it marks the ground forever," says Castillo. "There is no known technique to restore it the way it was." Castillo says that the group walked in single file through the desert, meaning that they made a deep track in the ground then they spread out in the area where they laid the letters, making many more marks over a wide area. "The hummingbird was in a pristine area, untouched,". Castillo added. "Perhaps it was the best figure."

311 of 465 comments (clear)

  1. Ecology vs archeology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Looks like them favoring will do anything to make their issue known ... everything, including ruining thousands-year-old world heritage site

    1. Re:Ecology vs archeology by Caesar+Tjalbo · · Score: 1

      Those were millenials too. It's not just a western problem.

      --
      "I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
    2. Re:Ecology vs archeology by unixisc · · Score: 2

      Looks like them favoring will do anything to make their issue known ... everything, including ruining thousands-year-old world heritage site

      Am glad that Luis Jaime Castillo rejected their apology, and demanded that they repair the damage. High time someone told these environmental wacko assholes where to fuck off!!!

    3. Re:Ecology vs archeology by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Don't be silly, motor racing hasn't existed that long.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Ecology vs archeology by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Sounds altogether like a gross and extreme right wing exaggeration. Somehow I think it highly unlikely that people and animals avoided walking at that location for thousands of years as well as off course full exposure to weathering, wind and rain, which will obviously return the surface to uniform finish in short order. As for Luis Jaime Castillo, what is the difference between a grave robber and some archaeologists, apparently the number of years between when their targets are buried and when they are dug up, so a bit of don't throw stones if you live in glass house. As for green peace still far preferable to the corporations doing the real damage and I am sure that site is more at far more risk from acid rain and climate change than from a handful of people walking around it. Sounds very much like a purposeful media distortion to attack green peace with no sense of balance to the normal exposure the site receives from weather et al.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    5. Re:Ecology vs archeology by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      You know in a few seconds you could have found several sources -- some decades old, so untainted by this issue or modern "right-wing exaggeration" -- that would have told you that the area is a near-lifeless desert with effectively no precipitation and practically no wind erosion.

      even thinking about it for a second before posting would have made the poster realize that this sentence is just absurd:

      "somehow I think it highly unlikely that people and animals avoided walking at that location for thousands of years as well as off course full exposure to weathering, wind and rain, which will obviously return the surface to uniform finish in short order."

      but yet the images at the site nonetheless has existed for thousands of years.

    6. Re:Ecology vs archeology by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Basically yes, what do you not understand is that eventually they will fade away or via probability destroyed as a result of a storm extreme or geologic event. Even the people who originally made and used it had to walk all around the place, so never 'pristine' but right wing media could not resist the chance to grossly exaggerate and bash green peace. So a mistake but not 'OH MY GOD' the total destruction of a pristine thing that would otherwise last 'forever'. All this was really about was bashing green peace.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  2. Cage fight! by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Funny

    We need a PETA vs Greenpeace death-by-irony cage fight.

    "It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds." -Doc Holliday

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:Cage fight! by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whoever loses.
      We win.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Cage fight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That should be an Epic Rap Battle first. Don't want them to die off before we get in some laughs to offset how horrible they are.

    3. Re:Cage fight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      And a barbecue afterwards? Long pig, slow roasted, by People for Eating Tasty Animals?

      Although long pig, like goat, raccoon, bears, and other omnivores is pretty gamey. High urea content. And some of the less dietitically sane members are a little on the lean side, so they'd need a good marinade. And you *know* a lot of PETA's "go vegetarian, lose weight" members are, themselves packing a whole winter's weight of fine bacon in their well well loaded trunk.

    4. Re:Cage fight! by camperdave · · Score: 2

      PETA in a cage. Now that would be ironic.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    5. Re:Cage fight! by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 2

      We need a PETA vs Greenpeace death-by-irony cage fight.

      ...and as soon as they are inside the cage we need to blow it up. Then maybe actual, reasonable environmentalists can make some headway. Extremists are of no use to anyone, even if they claim to be on your side.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    6. Re:Cage fight! by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Same thing could be accomplished with an Epic Rant Battle.

  3. The Paradigm by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Greenpeace seems to have the notion that the more obnoxious and arrogant you are, the more you can get people to agree with you.

    Turning off people who might otherwise agree with them. Instead, they just generate hatred.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:The Paradigm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It seems to work. I suspect there is an x% of the population that responds positively to that sort of thing and it is purposely targeted for membership and fundraising in order to build up enough strength to push their agenda on the rest of the population.

      Check out ISIS' "work". The more aberrations they cause, the more a certain cast of society supports them. The need to act out is greater than the cause for the members of all these groups (Greenpeace, ISIS, PETA, Femen, etc etc), and our society and legal framework is not adapted to deal with them.

    2. Re:The Paradigm by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nah, it was a genuine mistake. They've already laid down a new set of big yellow letters saying "We are truly sorry for disturbing your national heritage site. Greepeace."

    3. Re:The Paradigm by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2

      No, I heard they spray painted that on the pyramid at Giza.

      --
      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. Re:The Paradigm by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nah, it was a genuine mistake. They've already laid down a new set of big yellow letters saying "We are truly sorry for disturbing your national heritage site. Greepeace."

      Unacceptable.Completely unacceptable. At the very least, at a bare minimum, they should have had the intelligence to know that anything they would do at a world heritage site, especially one that is as well known - and it's frailty as well documented as the Nacza plain, you simply Do Not Do That!

      The problem with Greenpeace and other such organizations is they become stupid. They are so beholden to their cause, that nothing can get in their way. They apologized, but in their heart, they don't give a flying fig about anything but their cause. SMart about one thing, stupid about the rest of the universe.

      No group in their right mind would ever do such a thing. It would be like say - Pepsi going up and re-arranging the stones on part of the plain in the shape of their logo. People in their right mind would have squashed the idea as soon as it came out of the idiot's mouth that thought up this ill advised plan. But they don't, because as zealots, they have given their cause priority over everything else, and nothing else matters. It is the same sort of mentality that gets people to fly into skyscrapers in the name of their religion.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    5. Re:The Paradigm by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      The problem with Greenpeace and other such organizations is they become stupid.

      Become stupid ?

      They have always been giant trolls, sucking in people with appeals to emotion rather than reason.

    6. Re:The Paradigm by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      It works for a time. Then, finally you generate enough hatred and antipathy that a backlash is generated that more than wipes out any gains. Most people take a long time to get agitated enough to take action but once they do you find that it wasn't a wise choice to piss them off.

    7. Re:The Paradigm by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      The problem with Greenpeace and other such organizations is they become stupid.

      Become stupid ?

      They have always been giant trolls, sucking in people with appeals to emotion rather than reason.

      Yeah, become stupid. It's the sort of thing where otherwise intelligent people buy into trollish behavior, having convinced themselves that they can do evil in pursuit of a goal that might not be evil. Evul iz evil, no matter how you wrap it.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    8. Re:The Paradigm by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Unacceptable.Completely unacceptable. At the very least, at a bare minimum, they should have had the intelligence to know that anything they would do at a world heritage site, especially one that is as well known - and it's frailty as well documented as the Nacza plain, you simply Do Not Do That!

      I'd be more upset if they were letting people study the plain. They lack the resources to do it themselves even if they wanted to. As it is, it's just a big version of one of those sand pictures in a frame at the mall, to me. Sooner or later it will get wiped out by some kind of cataclysm and we won't be able to study it as meaningfully.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:The Paradigm by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      Mod up 1000. The real question is why does what appears to be around 20% of the population live in a state of being so easily duped by praying on emotions? It's clearly some kind of genetic thing, as they exist in every generation. Reading comments on the Internet they are all out there for everyone to see, and then tend to rally together saying "You're so right" to each other. And then there is the 1% that control the 20%, who are pure evil themselves, taking advantage of people that way. They are always the ones who scream loudest about the "injustice" that needs to be righted, when they, themselves are a walking injustice of unbridled greed, avarice, and a deep seated hatred of their fellow man....

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
  4. Oh No by rossdee · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Aliens will never find out where to land now

    1. Re:Oh No by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Funny

      I was hoping the aliens would swoop in and carry off the Greenpeacers. No group more richly deserves an anal probing.

  5. Despicable Greenpeace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Greenpeace has been, for quite some time now, nothing but a group lobbying for its self-interest, no matter its impact on the rest of us. I.e. they have become as despicable as the oil industry.

    1. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by Oligonicella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The trashing of the Gulf was an accident and a mistake. This was a malicious ignoring of Peruvian law to access a sacred site to further their own egos. There was no mistake involved here.

    2. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To be fair, the BP disaster wasn't an accident, it was the result of negligence - they ignored well-established safety protocols in the name of (marginally) bigger profits.

      So really, both acts were malicious.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by vakuona · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't know what your definition of malicious is, but I really doubt that BP intended to do harm. Heck, if they knew it would definitely cause harm, then they would be rather stupid, because it is quite obvious they would be forced to pay rather substantial remedies.

    4. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by Jawnn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Greenpeace has been, for quite some time now, nothing but a group lobbying for its self-interest...

      Really? What interest is that? Please be specific. You really need to stop parroting Fox news talking points and thinking for yourself. While this stunt is nothing, if not stupid, Greenpeace's stated mission can hardly be described as "self interest".

    5. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No their primary goal was to save money, they didn't care what harm was done, pretty much the definition of negligence. Willful negligence is malicious.

      Businesses get away with negligence and willful maliciousness all the time, usually because the penalties they pay make it profitable to do so. If the fines were actually set at 3x what they actually benefited in terms of $$$ and then had to make restitution for the damage that was done (and face civil private suits on top of that) then this type of thing wouldn't be so common. Right now they pay some minor slap on the wrist that is 1/x what they made, so the behavior continues.

    6. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by Smallpond · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Greenpeace has been, for quite some time now, nothing but a group lobbying for its self-interest...

      Really? What interest is that? Please be specific. You really need to stop parroting Fox news talking points and thinking for yourself. While this stunt is nothing, if not stupid, Greenpeace's stated mission can hardly be described as "self interest".

      Were they planting trees on the Nazca plains? No? Were they advertising themselves? Yes!

    7. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Greenpeace didn't intend to do harm either.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by vakuona · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Then they must be retards. Anyone with more than a few brain cells knows not to go about defacing areas of historic importance.

      They intended to deface the site. They did it very deliberately. It was malicious.

    9. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

      If you believe they're trying to save the earth, perhaps you should speak with an ex-founder of theirs.

    10. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "The trashing of the Gulf was an accident and a mistake"

      Bullshit. It was caused by incompetence and greed. Make no mistake about it.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    11. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by Khyber · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "While this stunt is nothing, if not stupid"

      The destruction of an important cultural, ecological, and archaeological site is nothing but a stunt, eh?

      What fucked up world do you come from?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    12. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by kruach+aum · · Score: 2

      So BP is as despicable as Greenpeace, who irreversibly defiled an ancient monument and world heritage site, because they made a mistake? That sounds like a very reasonable assessment.

    13. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by moondo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they really had no self-interest, as you seem to suggest, then the sign they left in the Nazca site would have just read "Time for change-The future is renewable" without mentioning "Greenpeace" in huge letters. You can't be so naive as to think that Greenpeace simply advocates issues of climate change, anti-oil, deforestation, etc. Their brand thrives on those issues and it's what defines them. Just look at their track record of getting people's attention with publicity stunts... How is that not self-promotion? In marketing terms they are brilliant.

      The sad thing about this recent stunt is that Greenpeace is getting a lot of publicity out of it. Their so-called apology to the Peruvian people was a joke. Here's a direct quote from their official apology: "We fully understand that this looks bad... we came across as careless and crass." Looks bad? We "came across as"? They are apologizing that they stained their own image. They are sorry that the world now sees them negatively. In other words, they are expressing that they are sorry for themselves.... How far up one's own ass must one's head be for them to write something like that in an apology to the people of a nation? It should have read "We have no words to express the shame we feel for having acted the way we did." But that would be too humble.

      If they are really sorry to Peru they would take part of their operating budget for the next few years to pay for all reparations and maintenance costs of the Nazca site.

    14. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      And it cost BP a tremendous amount of money. Not just fines and penalties but lost revenues from oil that leaked into the gulf. I'm pretty certain they would much prefer that oil had gone into tankers.

    15. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      Greenpeace is just another example of what happens when an organization adopts the policy that "the end justifies the means."

    16. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We are talking about one of the most active groups opposing lifesaving Golden Rice out there. Who knows how many people have to die every year because Greenpeace decided to move into the market of selling fear to inflate their careers as professional activists. People often compare Greenpeace to Peta; I'd compare them to Andrew Wakefield and his ilk. I'd say the comparison between Greenpeace and BP is more than fair. The Greenpeace higher ups know what they're doing, they have to, and at least BP isn't intentionally killing people to advance their petty, worthless, leech-like careers.

    17. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by quantaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The trashing of the Gulf was an accident and a mistake. This was a malicious ignoring of Peruvian law to access a sacred site to further their own egos. There was no mistake involved here.

      Accessing the sacred site and co-opting it for their message was not a mistake.

      Damaging the sacred site was a mistake.

      I'm not saying they don't deserve criticism. Feeling so entitled that you try to hijack someone else's cultural heritage for your own cause is offensive. Being so careless that you cause permanent damage while doing so is extremely offensive.

      But I don't think they ever imagined that they'd damage the site.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    18. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The red cross also advertises. Does that mean that they are only self-interested, exclusively acting on behalf of themselves and no-one else?

    19. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Memberships and influence. Greenpeace have repeatedly shown to put those before their stated goals, before simple integrity and truth, and before their own volunteers. Greenpeace's real mission is Greenpeace.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    20. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I would argue against the incompetence - they made very competent decisions that prioritized profits over all other concerns - and the slap on the wrist they received as punishment is proof that they made the "competent" decision.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    21. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by Immerman · · Score: 1

      > "We have no words to express the shame we feel for having acted the way we did."

      Ooh, I think several politicians are going to love that apology, seeing how as even "none" iimplies a non-negative quantity.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    22. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't know what your definition of malicious is, but I really doubt that BP intended to do harm. Heck, if they knew it would definitely cause harm, then they would be rather stupid, because it is quite obvious they would be forced to pay rather substantial remedies.

      You seem to think "malicious" and "criminally liable" are the same thing.

      Suppose I have a revolver and a couple of live rounds and some movie prop blanks. I drop the ammo and they get mixed up. I just toss it all in a bin and say we'll sort it out later. Later that day, it's time for the gunshot scene to be filmed and we are running out of light. It will cost me another $5k to come back tomorrow and shoot again.

      If I decide to just load the gun and shoot you anyway, hoping for the best, to avoid the extra costs of doing it safely, at what point is it a "malicious" act if I point the revolver at you and pull the trigger? What if I only have 1 live round and 1 blank? Is that malicious? What if there were a hundred blanks and only 1 live round. There's hardly any risk to you or your kids on the set at that point. Why bother going through EVERY bullet just in case? A doctor can probably fix you up anyway, even if something does go wrong. That's why there is an EMT on set. Following the safety rules gets expensive and cuts into profit and personal bonuses. I'm not maliciously trying to kill you, I just think the risk (to me) is low enough and the cost (to me) high enough that it's worth skirting the whole "don't shoot actors with real bullets" safety rules (for you).

      What if there are a thousand real bullets and only 1 prop bullet? Should I have to sort all of them just to find the safe one? The qualitative risk is the same, I've merely inverse the quantitative risk for you/your kid/the unknowing actor.

      Let me put it another way. Just because you are "optimistic" about what will happen doesn't mean you get to risk the lives and health of others who, however cynical, disagree with your optimism. If you want to ignore laws for their protection, they may feel free to violate laws which protect you - say those against fire-bombing your home while you sleep after blocking your door.

    23. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 2

      Why is that? Please edify me as to how I am a sucker because I think Greenpeace is more responsible in their actions than BP? I notice that you had to make an ad hominem comment, rather than actually saying what was inaccurate about my comment? Also, whoever moderated my comment down, why not join the discussion and tell us what I said that was so offensive to you?

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    24. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the BP disaster wasn't an accident, it was the result of negligence - they ignored well-established safety protocols in the name of (marginally) bigger profits.

      So really, both acts were malicious.

      Accidents often occur due to negligence. "Malicious" implies willful intent, "negligence" doesn't. BP's actions were not malicious.

      But hey, you got a +5 out of it.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    25. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by Smallpond · · Score: 1

      The red cross also advertises. Does that mean that they are only self-interested, exclusively acting on behalf of themselves and no-one else?

      It would if they carved their name in your chest when you donated blood.

    26. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The trashing of the Gulf was an accident and a mistake.

      We know a percentage of such wells will fail, but we keep making them anyway, without any good reason to believe that things will be different now. That's malice.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Damnit Khyber, we are opposed to forcible child rape, same sex of otherwise, and we're sick of you defending pedophilia,"

      Thanks for giving me a reason to contact DICE and subpoena them for your information. IP + time made + verification of who owned that IP at that time = defamation and libel lawsuit instant win.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    28. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by vakuona · · Score: 1

      Where in my post do I suggest that being criminally liable is the same as being malicious? I didn't even talk about criminal liability in my post.

    29. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      Accidents often occur due to negligence. "Malicious" implies willful intent, "negligence" doesn't. BP's actions were not malicious.

      Willful negligence is malicious. Unmodified negligence isn't.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    30. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      There's no such thing as willful negligence. Negligence just is. By it's very definition negligence means to miss something, or not do something that has resulted in an accident. You can't willfully miss something that causes an accident.

      If you're implying they knew the outcome in advance and didn't take steps to prevent it, that's not negligence.

    31. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by jelizondo · · Score: 1

      If you are going to correct someone, at least be sure you are right.

      Negligence: A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act

      The Romans had willful negligence, which is called gross negligence in Common Law (English)-based legal systems and dolo (dolus) in Roman-derived legal systems.

      So you are wrong, there is willful negligence! And in my opinion BP committed gross negligence because their engineers knew the possible consequences of their acts.

      --
      Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey
    32. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I think there is a clear difference between "what, I was supposed to do that?" and "I knew I should have done that, but I didn't, for my own reasons, regardless of the consequences."

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    33. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Greenpeace was trying to do what is illegal to attempt to do, there is no remedy possible if they fail.

      BP was doing something which was legal to attempt to do, partial controversial remedies are available if they fail. BP failed, and were less than willing to remedy.

      Clearly, one is much more malicious than the other at the very outset.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    34. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1

      Let me predict the legal outcome of this situation. If you're a cop, it's okay, you can walk free. If you're black, you will be shot when arrested. If you're neither, the outcome will depend on how much money you have.

    35. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      Were they planting trees on the Nazca plains? No? Were they advertising themselves? Yes!

      So, in your mind, that single stupid act equates to "...has been, for quite some time now, nothing but a group lobbying for its self-interest..."
      OK, then. Riiiiiiight.

    36. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      Memberships and influence. Greenpeace have repeatedly shown to put those before their stated goals, before simple integrity and truth, and before their own volunteers. Greenpeace's real mission is Greenpeace.

      [citation needed]

    37. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Just Google it, do your own homework.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    38. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by terjeber · · Score: 1

      trying to save the earth from the likes of BP, which is the motive that drives Greenpeace

      This is not the motive of Greenpeace and it hasn't been for at least a decade, perhaps more. The motive of Greenpeace is to stroke the egos of the members of Greenpeace while they all sit in a huge circle jerking off to their own over-inflated images. Sadly they were not all inside the boat that the French sunk.

    39. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by terjeber · · Score: 1

      So really, both acts were malicious.

      Yeah, you are right. BP set out to kill a bunch of its employees, then they wanted to wreck a platform, spill huge amounts of valuable product and finally pay for trying to clean it up. You are absolutely right, BP was malicious. Or perhaps you have no f*cking idea what the word "malicious" means.

    40. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Accessing the sacred site and co-opting it for their message was not a mistake.

      Damaging the sacred site was a mistake.

      Your statement is self-contradictory. Accessing and co-opting the site was damaging the site, so damaging was not a mistake.

    41. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by terjeber · · Score: 1

      What interest is that?

      It's existence, size and importance. Any group, once it grows big enough, and no matter it's original motives, will be primarily concerned with its own existence once it grows past a handful of members. This is true in government, where the bureaucracy will, after a short while, be primarily interested in growing the bureaucracy. It is true in religious institutions who all eventually (quickly) lose sight of the religious aspects they are supposedly preaching and start concerning them selves primarily with growth, power and maintaining their own importance. It certainly happens in voluntary organizations like Greenpeace, which fast go on the same path as religious organizations.

      Companies, to a degree, have some oversight. If they do not make enough money as they grow big, their growth will sooner or later be limited by stock holders demanding profit. Not at first, for sure, but over time. So companies will be allowed to stroke their own egos for a while but not indefinitely. Since a government bureaucracy caters to politicians, and the general electorate is retarded, there is no oversight over the bureaucracy. Since there is no God/Allah/Your favorite sky fairy there is no real oversight over religious institutions, and their membership is even more retarded than the average electorate. For organizations like Greenpeace the only oversight that exists is the internal oversight, and they are to busy in their own circle jerk to notice or care.

    42. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Sounds like someone missed the whole "BP was convicted for failing to properly install and inspect legally mandated safety equipment" thing.

      Nice of you to blindly jump to the defense of an oil company, tho. I'm sure they appreciate it.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    43. Re:Despicable Greenpeace by terjeber · · Score: 1

      BP was convicted for failing to properly install and inspect legally mandated safety equipment

      Here let me google something for you: Hanlon's razor

  6. I see a lot of fatties in those photos and video by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perhaps them walking wouldn't have caused so much damage if they had reduced *their* carbon footprint by not stuffing their face with more than their fair share of food on the planet.

  7. Greenpeace fail to take the moral high ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Silly sods. Greenpeace's whole ethos is to take the moral high ground against destructive activities of government and big business.

    Well, their careless actions here have fucked that up big time. Once you throw away the "moral high ground", good luck getting it back.

    1. Re:Greenpeace fail to take the moral high ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Take the moral high ground? They act like they own it, no further justification necessary. Which means they shit in their own kitchen, and no mistake. To me, this pretty much clinches what I've been thinking for a while, and that is that their position is their religion, and damn any and all reality. This they share with more activist groups, like PETA. You could see that with them publishing reports full of suspiciously convenient numbers that turn out to be cherry picked (so much for their "science"), but now they've stooped to destroying world heritage. For all I care they can collectively sink with their ships, making a nice artificial barrier reef. That'll be the least damaging and most sustainable, meaningful thing they can do for the planet.

  8. mistakes were made by Ragica · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, here we have a nice example of something like Jon Stewart's "one mistake"... with all the willful environmental destruction in the world, this story of one admitted dreadful mistake by people who actually care deeply (for which the Greenpeace response -- as strong an apology as possible, while accepting that mere apology is insufficient -- is missing from the summary) becomes the story.... sad.

    1. Re:mistakes were made by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mistake? And not one of these environmental geniuses said to his buds, "Hey guys, this might be a bad idea" ?

    2. Re:mistakes were made by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not only just caring, it's also common sense, which Greenpeace, through most it's actions, shows to be completely lacking.

    3. Re:mistakes were made by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Greenpeace doesn't care about the environment. They care about making themselves feel important. Their behavior is such.

      They also would have to disband if they could acknowledge their mistakes like their stance against nuclear power which makes them partly responsible for global warming. Only idiots would think that we wouldn't burn more fossil fuels as our societies need for electricity continued to grow especially given the other techs available at up an til-recently. Also, green peace is trying apparently to bankrupt the very renewables they calm to love so much. They should have ask for investment in energy storage and that countries cut back on new renewable investments before the boom busts.

    4. Re:mistakes were made by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes, Jon Stewart's "one mistake" where his entire argument was based on a flawed premise and somehow pointing that out means that we're ignoring the rest of his drivel. Uh, no. You base your argument on false information, your argument collapses. Try again based in reality.

      Here's the thing. Just like no one cares about what message Stewart meant when he based on falsehoods, no one cares Greenpeace intended, only what they did. They destroyed a very fragile environment in order to make a dumb political point.

      It's not sad. If you don't want people to think you're complete morons, don't make really stupid mistakes. Goes for both Stewart and Greenpeace.

    5. Re:mistakes were made by khallow · · Score: 1

      You know, most of that willful environmental destruction does something useful in the process. Meanwhile Greenpeace's "one" "mistake" is more of the entirely useless showboating they've done for decades.

    6. Re:mistakes were made by tlambert · · Score: 2

      Responsible nuclear power is fantastic, unfortunately I don't see many examples of it in the real world. Lowest bidder nuclear power, yeah, we're doing great at that.

      It's wouldn't have to be that way if they didn't have to (because of anti-nuclear nutjobs) refile an environmental impact statement reexamining the who project every time they change pipe fitting vendors.

    7. Re:mistakes were made by kruach+aum · · Score: 1

      This is not a mistake, this is what happens when you hold "good intentions" above everything, destroying priceless artifacts in the process through sheer ignorance. It's this way of thinking that's ruining the world, far more than whatever cause they were trying to draw attention to.

    8. Re:mistakes were made by meerling · · Score: 1

      They've made plenty of others over the years, but this one is probably their most extensive and stupid yet.

    9. Re:mistakes were made by careysub · · Score: 1

      Rather that being a display of "good intentions" the message appears to me to be just an ad for Greenpeace. It is one thing to promote a message, and then take credit/blame for it - this just looks like advertising pure and simple.

      Even to many who generally support the same causes as Greenpeace, they are often full of self-importance and recklessness. A very flawed messenger.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    10. Re:mistakes were made by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      or "Hey, why don't we just Photoshop this".

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    11. Re:mistakes were made by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's wouldn't have to be that way if they didn't have to (because of anti-nuclear nutjobs) refile an environmental impact statement reexamining the who project every time they change pipe fitting vendors.

      We got to this point, having to file an EIR before you can wipe your ass, because so many people decided to just shit everywhere, and wipe their ass with our environment. Don't blame Greenpeace. Blame millenia of earth-rapists. We'd have wound up with such a thing anyway, or we'd all be dead already.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:mistakes were made by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      They walked near (but not on) a work of art. That was deliberate, as they were banking on the value of the art to draw attention to their words. The pictures of the event (during and after) show now "damage" that I (or anyone else) can see. But the Peruvians assert it's there.

    13. Re:mistakes were made by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      They "destroyed" the ground near an artwork, but didn't harm the artwork. It's not like they put their fist through a Monet. More like they scratched a frame.

    14. Re:mistakes were made by baker_tony · · Score: 1

      "Responsible nuclear power is fantastic, unfortunately I don't see many examples of it in the real world."

      France?

  9. Re:oh delicious irony by SwashbucklingCowboy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yes, that's overly simplistic.

  10. Human made by Dereck1701 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Nazca lines are human made, as we all know Greenpeace doesn't care about humans. They only care about the "environment", even though they often oppose things that would in fact help protect the environment.

    1. Re:Human made by c · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's kind of my sense. These lines are a *human* artifact, carved into the earth and left there for a thousand years. That's pretty much the definition of man despoiling the earth and it's not something I can see the hardcore environmental activist types having any qualms about trashing. They might not go out of their way to destroy it, but I can't imagine them feeling much remorse over it.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    2. Re:Human made by michelcolman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yep, and they also promote things that hurt the environment. Here in belgium they were actually encouraging people to burn woord for heating, since wood was renewable. Then they suddenly realised how much fine dust and smog was being created by those wood stoves. Oops.

      And don't get me started on nuclear power. New designs are perfectly safe and produce almost no waste, yet we can't build them because nuclear power is supposedly dangerous and creates waste that will poison the planet forever. So, for lack of alternatives, we keep extending the life of older plants until they blow up. And we try to replace them with renewables that actually pollute more. Those solar panels don't grow on trees. More people have been killed in the construction of wind turbines than in nuclear accidents. Oh, well, looks like I've gotten myself started. I'll stop now.

    3. Re:Human made by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd be more nuanced on the qualms of hardcore environmental activist types. A lot of them regard non-Western cultures with the same "noble savage" mentality that colonial-era literature used to criticize Western culture. They might not see the ancient Peruvian line-drawers as despoiling the earth but as creating a synthesis of nature and art, guided by some sort of wisdom and appreciation for the earth that man has now forgotten. It would be really easy to write a speech along those lines, with a few gems about corporations being the real "savages," etc, and it would be convincing as fuck until someone thought it through, which thankfully doesn't happen with these sorts of emotional sop-speeches. Just like no one thought through the consequences of trapsing around in the Peruvian desert.

    4. Re:Human made by tlambert · · Score: 2

      Well, look around you, watch what humans do... can you blame them for not liking this particular species?

      Yeah, I don't like what those Greenpeace activist humans did to one of the 1,007 UNESCO wold heritage sites, the same way I'd hate them for demolishing other UNESCO world heritage sites, like the Statue of Liberty, Yosemite, The Pyramids in Egypt, Ankor Wat in Cambodia, the Great Wall in China, or the Acropolis in Greece.

      Or are you saying that those sites are deserving of being defaced by Greenpeace activist humans as well?

      You do realize that Greenpeace activist humans are members of the set of all humans, right?

    5. Re:Human made by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      Yeah they probably wouldn't bat an eye at demolishing the pyramids at Giza if it saved a desert tortoise or two.

    6. Re:Human made by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

      If one is going to self-loath, keep it pointed inward.

    7. Re:Human made by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, watch what humans do.

      They build amazing structures, write inspiring music, invent fantastic technology, care deeply for others, and sacrifice their lives to save a friend. I've seen people risk their lives to save a dog drowning in a frozen lake, or to save complete strangers from a burning building. The world holds it's breath when miners are trapped in a cave in, and if they are miraculously saved, we weep tears of joy at the happy reunions with their loved ones. When tragedy strikes in the form of a hurricane, flood, tsunami or earthquake, we come together to donate our money and our time to help those affected. People have returned thousands of dollars lost to their owners when they had nothing to gain from it. Some people devote their entire lives to helping the least fortunate among us.

      Sure, the world has plenty of evil people that do evil things. But if you can't see the good in humanity as well, you're not looking hard enough.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    8. Re:Human made by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Demolish? It's about the same as if they went past Liberty Island, causing wake in a no-wake zone. OMFG, burn them all!!! There was no damage to the hummingbird "carving".

  11. Man-made by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "near the Nazca lines, ancient man-made designs" ... interesting how they go out of their way to let you know these "designs" are "man-made" ... just like if you were referring to Mount Rushmore you would naturally write something like "Today activists staged a protest at Mount Rushmore, a relatively recent man-made sculpture"

    1. Re:Man-made by PPH · · Score: 1

      they go out of their way to let you know these "designs" are "man-made"

      As opposed to having been made by aliens like the Egyptian Pyramids.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  12. Morons by PPH · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They could have achieved the same thing with Photoshop.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Morons by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When I first saw the photo yesterday or day before, that's exactly what I thought it was. Because no one would be stupid enough to go trampling through that area and defiling one of the Nazca lines with some crude political message. Right?

      --
      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.
    2. Re:Morons by PPH · · Score: 1

      Do you really think their message would have been seen nearly as much if they had done this with Photoshop?

      I think the number of people that would see this message live while flying over the Nazca plain is vanishingly small. The audience is the readers of various press publications.

      Yeah. Someone would have outed them for using Photoshop. But their comeback would be, "You didn't expect us to actually trample a fragile ecosystem to get our message out." And that would have been worth something. As it stands; they get the Bozo award.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  13. Re:I see a lot of fatties in those photos and vide by AqD · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or they could just kill themselves and everyone to save the planet.

    Carbon emission wouldn't be an issue if the whole human population is reduced by 90%.

  14. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by chuckymonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are you upset? You seem upset.

    --
    "Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
  15. Re:This is an overreaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You are a bigot; you think in terms of environmental damage without even considering the people who were insulted by Greenepeace's callousness. This has nothing to do with ecological impact, it has everything to do with irreparably damaging a world heritage site and something that is extremely important to Peruvian and South American culture. They didn't cause environmental damage, but they basically insulted an entire nation by being careless and thoughtless about their culture to make a message that would result in nothing.

    Then their initial response was essentially a backhanded slap to the Peruvian people. From the Greenpeace Facebook page:

    "Without reservation, Greenpeace apologises to the people of Peru for the offense caused by our recent activity laying a message of hope at the site of the historic Nazca Lines.
    We are deeply sorry for this."

    Which basically says "we're sorry people got offended by our message of hope." It should be reading "we're sorry we irreparably damaged this site and trod on your culture", so once again, callousness and carlessness.

    Greenpeace is not a good organization. It's a bunch of people who make a lot of noise and act like thugs and morons, and often their positions are not supported by science or thoughtful discourse.

  16. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Its all the fault of the young, eh? You seem angry

  17. Re:oh delicious irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Because it's darker sand on top of lighter sand.

    Heavy footprints change the colour of the ground.

    Rake would do more damage.

  18. Re:oh delicious irony by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 4, Informative

    Go to a sand trap in a golf course. Sprinkle a thin layer of black dust over the sand, but thick enough so that you cannot see the sand beneath. Walk through that area of black dust over whitish sand.

    Now use a rake to remove the footprints.

    --
    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.
  19. Re:This is an overreaction by cowdung · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I agree that this is an opportunity for politicians to discredit Greenpeace.. its not an issue of ENVIRONMENTAL damage.. its an issue of preserving National and World Heritage. The government of Peru is not worried about plants and animals in this case.. it is worried about keeping these ancient grounds for future generations.

    What they did is the equivalent of pissing on the Mona Lisa.

  20. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm more disappointed than I am upset. The Millennials could have been a truly great generation. Yet they've squandered this opportunity in every way. People who could have done amazing things have instead sunk to new lows, dragging everyone and everything else with them. The loss of what could have been is something to be disappointed about.

  21. Re:This is an overreaction by Connie_Lingus · · Score: 1

    for the life of me, i don't understand why the author of this post would feel the need to remain anonymous.

    it is logical, thoughtful, and sensitive...have things gotten so bad here on /. that people feel the need to hide any non-liberal commenting in the clock of an AC?

    --
    never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
  22. We should be more careful by devent · · Score: 2

    Maybe in 1000 years that will be the only which remains as a sign of human civilization. That, and the pyramids.

    --
    http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    1. Re:We should be more careful by characterZer0 · · Score: 2

      And the landfills.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    2. Re:We should be more careful by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Maybe in 1000 years that will be the only which remains as a sign of human civilization. That, and the pyramids.

      And never ending piles of "Certificate of Attendance".

  23. Re:This is an overreaction by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

    The correct response is simple, declare them terrorists, cut off there funding etc etc.

    --
    No sir I dont like it.
  24. Re:oh delicious irony by geoskd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Then please tell us how a rake would not work.

    The surface consists of a hardened layer that has been darkened by weathering process'. The subsurface is a much lighter layer of sand that blows away easily, and is a different color from the hardened surface. Once damage has been inflicted on the surface, the sand beneath can blow away (and does with each storm) causing the damaged areas to spread over time. The only way to prevent this is not to cause the damage in the first place.

    It should be noted that there is no wildlife in those areas of sufficient size to damage the surface, It is only through human intervention that damage can occur. If Greenpeace values its reputation, they will expel every idiot involved in this debacle and tell them don't come back.

    --
    I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
  25. Re:oh delicious irony by RevGregory · · Score: 1

    Please explain to me how a rake is going to discriminate between the lighter colored sand the normally lays under the surface and the thin, dark layer that is on top so it can separate them and redistribute them back in layers to cover the damage? Sand trap rakes are used to remove the impressions in the surface of a sand trap that is basically uniform in color, which is NOT the problem caused by the Greenpeace foray into Nazca which disturbed the upper layer exposing the lighter layer underneath...which is pretty much how the lines themselves were created. Given that the lines have not been obscured by natural forces for approximately 1,500 years we can assume that evidence of Greenpeace's ignorance will last at least as long. Like Greenpeace you seem to have proposed a action without first understanding the problems it could cause because a rake would simply cause more damage.

  26. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In what universe is fixing up crumbling old downtowns and making them livable again an evil thing to do?

    And the PC crapola you cite, including the Greenpeace organization and all its Luddite folderol, was a creation of the Boomers.

  27. Re:This is an overreaction by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

    I'm not the AC you are responding to, but sometimes I'm not on my own computer, and just don't feel like logging in to make a comment. Or maybe the person is just a lurker, and never made an account.

    And what do timepieces have to do with it? ;^)

    --
    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.
  28. Re:oh delicious irony by Connie_Lingus · · Score: 1

    so then why haven't the Inca's totally blocked off the area and how did this large GP group get access to just be able to walk over over it?

    --
    never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
  29. Re:This is an overreaction by Connie_Lingus · · Score: 1

    lol...i think my adoring /. fans would miss my usual "stupid typo" posts if i started fixing them.

    --
    never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
  30. Re:This is an overreaction by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

    I'd say it is more like pissing on the Kaaba Stone in Mecca. It is something that defines a group of people, part of their heritage. Not simply some picture that one guy painted.

    --
    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.
  31. Image of the damage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://www.facebook.com/AsociacionMariaReiche/photos/a.352196254900127.1073741825.341434422642977/678386932281056/

  32. I was actually going to add... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That anythink you're complaining about the Millenials fucking up is directly the responsibility of the Boomers since they didn't not only didn't have time to raise us, but let us be told we couldn't be responsible nor self sufficient until we were adults. So you got a whole generation of children acting like children well into adulthood because you bunch of codgers fucked us all up because you couldn't be bothered to teach us, or avoid coddling us, or even properly learn from your parents (our grandparents, or in some cases great grandparents) examples and improve on what they did.

    As a result you've got a whole generation of fuckups fighting against a previous generation of fuckups and pretty much having a fuckup circlejerk all around. Especially now that all the Great War survivors are losing out to Father Time's belt. You know, the age old parenting tool, until you Boomer fuckups decided we shouldn't use it anymore!

    Now get off my lawn you smelly old bastards before I beat your ass with your own walk^H^H^H^Hsegway (Walkers are so gramma-y, gotta get with the times after all!)

    1. Re:I was actually going to add... by S.O.B. · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That anythink you're complaining about the Millenials fucking up is directly the responsibility of the Boomers since they didn't not only didn't have time to raise us, but let us be told we couldn't be responsible nor self sufficient until we were adults.

      If you really are a Millennial then your parents are likely Gen-Xers so the Baby Boomers had no role in raising you except as grandparents. If you really were raised by a Baby Boomer then you're more likely Gen-X.

      While it is possible for some exceptions for people born at one end of a group or the other, Millennials are the children of Gen-X and Gen-X are the children of the Baby Boomers. For example, it is possible for someone at the end of the Baby Boom to have a child but that would be a rare exception that proves the rule.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    2. Re:I was actually going to add... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      The reason we slacked off on raising our children (GenX, your parents) is that by approximately 1972 we had come to the conclusion that humanity was about to become extinct. This would be because of overpopulation, then resource exhaustion, then acid rain, then the new ice age, then nuclear reactors, then industrial chemicals, then global warming. As soon as we can ask the nurse for more alarmist library books, we'll think of another reason.

    3. Re:I was actually going to add... by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      The generations overlap much heavier than that. The bulk of the millennials are the children of the baby boomers with only the very last portion of the millennials children of Generation X. As a general rule the generation periods overlap, particularly because there is no consistent definition of exactly what the generations are.

    4. Re:I was actually going to add... by istartedi · · Score: 2

      I'm a "spanner" myself. WW2 parents, Gen-X peers. This happens when your WW2 parents don't have you until they hit their 40s. Thus, you skip the entire generation and have some anomalous things going on, such as all your cousins being *adults* while you're growing up. Silly me, aren't cousins always adults? Nope. For most people, those are aunts and uncles, and aunts and uncles aren't so old.

      I've run into a few other people with the same "span" and it's always interesting. In some ways, I can relate to boomers more than I do to my peers.

      By now, we should have some Millenial "spanners" too--people who skipped Gex-X and grew up with adult Boomer cousins. I have no idea what that'd be like... but maybe we'd both have the common ability to understand that to some extend, all of this generation bullshit isn't really that damned important. People are people, and while analyzing cohorts isn't an entirely worthless concept, it needs to be kept in its place..

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    5. Re:I was actually going to add... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Spanners are lots of people. My sister and I are "too old" to be Gen-X, but way too young to be boomers. But my father was born in the Great Depression, and missed serving in WWII by only a couple years. Both of my grandfathers were born in the 1800s. 110 years from great-grandparent to birth of great-grandkids. I know others that do the same in 50 years. My grandfathers fought in WWI. My dad fought in Korea. Nobody counted generations until the Boomers made one of the clearest generations to be defined. But even then, I've seen the generation assigned to them span many more years than practical. The generation lasts longer than a generation. When your parents and you are in the same generation, the generation definition is wrong.

    6. Re:I was actually going to add... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Since Jesus, nearly every generation has thought it was the last.

  33. Re:oh delicious irony by Guy+From+V · · Score: 1

    It would take a damn good rake to manipulate every grain of sand that was disturbed so that they were reoriented the exact way they were gently eroded over centuries so that they resembled adjacent, undisturbed grains even remotely close enough. Also, even if that could be done, does it really matter anymore? Might as well just get a sewing machine out to fix the Shroud of Turin you wore like a cape and ripped a corner getting it caught in your bike chain. ...yeah that was the best analogy I could think of without interrupting my stream-of-typing consciousness, screw it.

  34. :-( Subject line not necessary by MrL0G1C · · Score: 2

    http://www.latinamericanstudie...

    I was hoping that the authorities were exaggerating, but looking at the pic on this page one can see that they aren't :-(

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  35. Re:oh delicious irony by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well, "the Inca's" don't exist anymore. They were a group that ruled the area in the past.

    As to why Peru hasn't "totally blocked off the area", it would take thousands of troops to surround the area, just to prevent the one group of morons in several decades who thought trampling world historic sites for political messages sounded like a good idea.

    --
    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.
  36. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by rasmusbr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What the hell is wrong with Millennials?!

    Same goddamned thing that's "wrong" with every other generation ever. Greed, selfishness, etc. The difference in outcomes stems from things like cheap air travel, which makes it possible for local idiots to literally go global. I bet these Greenpeace activist could have never afforded to fly to Peru in say 1964.

    Of course, the boomers and their Soviet counterparts came pretty close to inadvertently wiping out civilization during Able Archer, which no other generation has managed to repeat since then.

  37. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I hate to break the news to you, but these so-called "Millenials" you keep ranting about do not exist. And if they existed, theyd' all be 14 years old.
    More generally speaking, not all people from one generation are the same, and the elderly have been complaining about youngsters even before Seneca wrote about it.

    Take it easy, my friend, and perhaps get a bit more sleep. (Lack of sleep is one of the primary causes of grumpiness.)

  38. Re:This is an overreaction by Kkloe · · Score: 1

    Why cant people be anonymous?, we are on a place where people can choose to be or not be signed in, if you do want just sensible posts of people that logged in choose another forum for that. There is a lot of eliteness bullshit with the people of this site, where people just down vote anonymous posts because they regard themselves in higher standard when they in fact pack more bull shit than the anonymous users

  39. ego by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Green peace, Peta, and other "Groups" like them stopped being about the "issues" a long time ago and have since turned into ego trips for its members. It seems like a game for them to pull off the biggest stunt. Do they seriously think world leaders are "unaware" of renewable energy? Seriously?

    That message wasn't for world leaders, it was a dick measuring contest with other activists.

  40. Once Upon a Time.... by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A long time ago I might have supported organizations like Greenpeace and PETA on general principles, but the membership of both organizations have grown so outrageously batshit insane and arrogant that I feel differently now.

    I feel like roasting a live cat over a pile of burning coal, frankly.

    Way to win hearts and minds, idiots!

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:Once Upon a Time.... by topham · · Score: 2

      Greenpeace started that way. There's been evidence over the years of key members participating (and providing funds) in more radical organizations, with Greenpeace acting as a nice cover/front. In recent years their lies have started to pile up and it's becoming more obvious they are simply in it for the money.

    2. Re:Once Upon a Time.... by Tom · · Score: 1

      It is apparently normal that organisations for social change attract extremists, and many of these organisations fail to guard against the takeover by people who are just more fanatical, and thus dedicated. I've witnessed the same with the german Pirate Party, which used to be about digital rights, and nobody cared. Then it got a few percents at some elections and appeared on the radar. These days, it is about feminism, drug policy, political refugees, city planning and whatever other pet topic some troll pushed through.

      Greenpeace always had this activism thing and at the time when the public largely didn't care about the environment, that was probably the right thing to do, to get attention. But as with all things, you have to continuously make it bigger to get headlines again, especially if you have reached your goal and people do pay attention already. And if you go more and more extreme, sooner or later something will break. People die (already happened), or things like this.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  41. Re:oh delicious irony by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

    not to be over simplistic or even the least bit forgiving against GP and this ridiculously stupid stunt, but perhaps they should look into a device called a "rake".'

    it does wonders in sand traps for removing footprints...a different beast to be sure but come on..."no known technique"? :)

    While you probably can't just fix it with a rake, I find it hard to believe that it's impossible to restore it at all. Get some engineers out there -- at Greenpeace's expense -- and have them figure out a way to put dark rocks on top of light sand.

    It's kind of like those boy scout leaders that knocked over the rock formation at Goblin Valley. People were calling for them to spend the rest of their lives in jail over it. We've been putting rocks on top of other rocks for thousands of years -- the better solution would have been to have them pay to get a construction crew out there to fix it.

    --

    How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  42. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Globally speaking, a good portion of "The Greatest Generation" were fucking Nazis. Another decent sized chunk were Marxist, another chunk Fascist, and yet another chunk, Japanese Imperialists.

    But yea, it makes total sense to whine that today's generation is somehow worse, morally speaking, than the assholes who started the last world war.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  43. Re:oh delicious irony by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2

    good point about the Inca's not being around anymore...of course I meant their ancestors.

    Presumably if the Incas aren't around anymore, their ancestors aren't either...

    --

    How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  44. I used to think they were a group of idiots by mpercy · · Score: 2

    bent on keeping the world in a Stone Age sort of existence. And then they blew up those ancient Buddha statues. The Taliban, that is.

    Pretty much felt the same way about Greenpeace, and now they've defiled the Nazca lines. I'm for the same treatment for them that we gave the Taliban.

  45. What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Did you get just as upset when the Taliban and ISIS blow up archeological sites as well?

    I'm curious to see how far your anger reaches.

  46. Re:oh delicious irony by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

    You're not really defending blatant douche-baggery based on the notion that other people have been douche-bags in the past, are you?

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  47. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've read that earlier comment several times now.

    I don't see the words "Greatest Generation" appearing in there anywhere.

    I don't see that commenter holding them up as an example of a good generation.

    So why the fuck did you bring them up?

    Pointing out that Generation Y is made up of a bunch of shitbags doesn't mean that earlier generations were any better.

  48. Re:This is an overreaction by PPH · · Score: 1

    What we are seeing is a rare opportunity

    Not really. There have been many opportunites to observe Greenpeace acting like a bunch of self absorbed twits.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  49. They did harm real environment by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    When there's a dark layer of soil on top of sand it's usually a macrobiotic crust, that has taken a few hundred years to do its thing - that is what they crushed as they walked. There's not much worse you can do as far as lasting ecological damage except for sawing down trees a few hundred years old...

    They did also harm the aesthetics of the lines themselves.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  50. Re:The disturbed sand? by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

    How indignant is Peru when a wind storm comes through?

    Not very, because there's practically no wind in the area. Additionally, the coated pebbles protect the ground even during those rare windy days.

    --
    Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  51. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Wait, you're really saying that modern San Francisco today is "livable"?

    Yeah, that's maybe true if you're in the 1.6% of people making more than $250,000 a year.

    If you're making anything less than $250,000 a year, like most people (including those working in the software industry), living in San Francisco is going to be absolute hell.

    You're looking at paying at least $2000 in rent each month. When I say "at least", I'm talking about a single room in a filthy boarding house, assuming you aren't in an illegal "rental suite" somebody built in their garden shed.

    Realistically, if you want a small one-bedroom apartment that isn't in somebody's shed and that isn't infested with vermin, you're looking at about $8000 to $9000 a month.

    Yeah, you'll be paying over $100,000 per year merely for minimal housing costs. If you want to raise a family, and need more than a single bedroom, you'll be looking at upwards of $200,000 per year. Oh, and don't even think about buying even a run down, broken, tiny house unless you've got $5,000,000 or more to spend.

    Food is as expensive as hell there. Clothing is as expensive as hell there. And if you want to fit in with the society there, you're going to need to attend all sorts of "social functions" at expensive and trendy restaurants. That will quickly use up most of the remaining $150,000 you make each year.

    Don't forget that to make that money, you'll be stuck in terrible traffic for most of the very early morning, and even late into the night. When everybody has to work 18 hour days just to survive, sometimes at three or more jobs, "rush hour" lasts most of the day.

    Modern San Francisco is "livable"? Hardly!

  52. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by camperdave · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Apples and Oranges. ISIS and the Taliban are all about destruction. It's what they do. Greenpeace, on the other hand, is about preservation and conservation.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  53. Re:The disturbed sand? by Guy+From+V · · Score: 1

    Because wind and rain rarely occur there at all, that's why only a few months ago when an extremely rare wind event happened it uncovered geoglyphs previously undiscovered.

  54. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by Jawnn · · Score: 1

    Are you upset? You seem upset.

    And with good fucking reason.

  55. Every step destroyed the cryptogamic soil crust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is desert. It can take up to 250 years for the crust to regrow in the places where they have stepped. In the meantime, the loose soil below is subject to erosion.

  56. They're more like telemarketers by tlambert · · Score: 1

    Greenpeace seems to have the notion that the more obnoxious and arrogant you are, the more you can get people to agree with you.

    Turning off people who might otherwise agree with them. Instead, they just generate hatred.

    They're more like telemarketers. You eventually cave into their demands to make them go the hell away. At least that's the theory behind obnoxious and abusive marketing.

  57. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I hate to break the news to you, but these so-called "Millenials" you keep ranting about do not exist. And if they existed, theyd' all be 14 years old.
    More generally speaking, not all people from one generation are the same, and the elderly have been complaining about youngsters even before Seneca wrote about it.

    Take it easy, my friend, and perhaps get a bit more sleep. (Lack of sleep is one of the primary causes of grumpiness.)

    The start of the bracket for the generational definition for Millennials is based on their high-school graduation / college freshman admission year, and thus refers to those born in 1982. Those 14-year-old kids you refer to are the young end of the bracket.

  58. Re:oh delicious irony by Connie_Lingus · · Score: 1

    man did everyone here wake up with a hangover this morning?

    didn't anyone notice that i was, you know, just trying to be funny AND apply some reasonable logic to this?

    how much would you care to wager that in less then a year, the site will be looking exactly like it did before?

    because without a doubt, many many people without your "special shoes" have trampled over that site over the past centuries.

    what GP did was reprehensible...that is so obvious its beyond question.

    my OP just poked fun at the official who claimed "OMG this has never happened before!"

    --
    never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
  59. Re:I see a lot of fatties in those photos and vide by tlambert · · Score: 1

    Or they could just kill themselves and everyone to save the planet.

    Carbon emission wouldn't be an issue if the whole human population is reduced by 90%.

    Actually, it'd still be an issue, since ~26% of the CO2 put into the atmosphere each year comes from the yearly brushfires in Africa.

  60. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    Plenty of other people are willing to put them up on a pedestal. That's kind of the whole point of the "Greatest Generation" moniker. It's so pervasive that it's just taken for granted. No one has to bring it up.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  61. To be entirely fair... by tlambert · · Score: 1

    for which the Greenpeace response -- as strong an apology as possible, while accepting that mere apology is insufficient -- is missing from the summary

    To be entirely fair... the strongest possible apology would be to turn themselves in to the Peruvian authorities, and spend six years in a Peruvian prison, as martyrs to their cause.

    1. Re:To be entirely fair... by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Since they're being detained, they may not have a choice in that "apology". Peru doesn't seemed impressed with their sincerity.

    2. Re:To be entirely fair... by guises · · Score: 1

      It's unlikely that Peru really cares about them. These sorts of situations are usually more about political posturing than about the actual people or event.

      It's funny... there's one picture showing a huge amount of damage caused by their footprints, even deeper and more visible than the landmark lines in places, and in the rest of the pictures you can't see any damage at all.

    3. Re:To be entirely fair... by tlambert · · Score: 1

      It's funny... there's one picture showing a huge amount of damage caused by their footprints, even deeper and more visible than the landmark lines in places, and in the rest of the pictures you can't see any damage at all.

      The pictures showing no damage are the "before" pictures.

      Too bad none of the idiots at Greenpeace knew how to use photoshop.

    4. Re:To be entirely fair... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Funny, some of the "before" pictures have the sign they put.

  62. Re:oh delicious irony by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    If you were trying to be funny, you did a very poor job of it. You're also doing a very poor job of trying to be reasonable - for one, no, "many many people" likely have not trod that ground due to it being a remote, sparsely populated area. Secondly, jamming a signpost in the ground is a bit different than simply walking across an area.

    Perhaps you should consider using /sarc tags.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  63. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by r.freeman · · Score: 1

    They've ruined the Internet, too. We can't go a single day now without somebody incorrectly calling somebody else "racist" or "sexist" or "misogynistic". They force censorship wherever they go, because according to them it's completely inappropriate for somebody to potentially read or hear something that might hurt their feelings, even if it's completely factual and correct.

    This, a million time this.

  64. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by S.O.B. · · Score: 2

    I hate to break the news to you, but these so-called "Millenials" you keep ranting about do not exist. And if they existed, theyd' all be 14 years old.

    I hate to break it to you but the group called the "Millennials" are not called that because they were born at the beginning of this millennium but because they were born at the end of the last one. Generally that means from early/mid 1980's to 2000.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Millennial
    http://www.livescience.com/38061-millennials-generation-y.html
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/millennial+generation

    --
    Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
  65. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by r.freeman · · Score: 1

    Greenpeace is saying they are about prservation, same as politicians say they do shit "for your protection".
    While in fact both are about power and money.

  66. Re:This is an overreaction by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    What we are seeing is a rare opportunity for a politician to accuse Greenpeace of overreach.

    They've done it before.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  67. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by lucm · · Score: 2

    Neither fire, the wheel, the printing press or the spork came from the "greatest generation". I don't know what they achieved to deserve that moniker.

    But they did not come up with switch rape or yo (the app) either, so when it's all said an done, I'd say that at least they are not the worst generation.
     

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  68. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by Oligonicella · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It takes a true imbecile to make that leap.

  69. Apologies by Bueller_007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We are not ready to accept apologies from anybody," says Luis Jaime Castillo, the vice minister for cultural heritage. "Let them apologize after they repair the damage.

    First, the damage cannot be repaired. But second, Greenpeace has NOT issued a real apology. Their disgraceful excuse for an apology is here:
    http://www.greenpeace.org/inte...

    The obvious missing element is an apology for defacing a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Instead, they offer mere apologies for how things LOOK, and the typical "I'm sorry if anyone was offended" not-pology. Peru should throw all of the activists in Prison, and when the Executive Director shows up in Lima, lock him up too.

    Meanwhile, as others have pointed out, the image of the message doesn't even look real in the first place, and they could have gotten the exact same image from Photoshop. Here's the worthless Greenpeace image:
    http://www.iflscience.com/site...

    And here's the damage the fuckers caused:
    http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-c...

    Prison sentences for all.

    1. Re:Apologies by thehomeland-org · · Score: 1

      The damage certainly won't be repaired by people who refuse to imagine how it could be. It is most definitely reparable.

      The damage is not even obvious. There are already lines and paths, and even what appears to be an airstrip, and the outline section has to be pointed out to tell the difference.

      Also, the hummingbird itself wasn't damaged, just the land next to it. It's like cutting down a single tree next to Mt Rushmore.

      I really don't see the problem. It seems super easy to fix. I wouldn't issue an apology either. WAY overdramatized story.

  70. Re:oh delicious irony by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    man did everyone here wake up with a hangover this morning?

    Sure seems like you did.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  71. Re:I see a lot of fatties in those photos and vide by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

    those bush fires are started to clear the jungle/forest and create new farmland. And the reason they do that is... overpopulation. So yes, it wouldn't be an issue if the population is low.

  72. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by sjames · · Score: 2

    In what universe is fixing up crumbling old downtowns and making them livable again an evil thing to do?

    The one where as a result, many of the people who were living there can no longer afford to do so as a result.

  73. Re:oh delicious irony by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

    Frank Zappa: "Facetiae does not translate to print."

  74. Peru =Group.Terrorist.Greenpeace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This will probably not make it past moderation, since I refuse to register with Dice. Just like every other comment I have made on Slashdot since Dice bought it.
    Anyway, enough of that rant.

    It almost sounds like Peru is going to be declaring Greenpeace a terrorist organization - basically, they destroyed something for political gain and influencing others. Personally, ever since they temporarily supported the "Sea Shepherds" (A maritime terrorist group), I have considered Greenpeace to be a corporate sponsor of terrorists. The hypocrisy of that group is pretty jarring. They teach that a short half-life material is less radioactive than a long-half life material. They teach that it's okay to endanger others to further 'goals.'

  75. Re:greenpeace even worse than sex crimes by lucm · · Score: 1

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    I had a quick look. The subject is mildly interesting but what really disturbed me was that scene at 9:14. Why is there a towel under that woman and her dogs? WHY?

    Call me a ludite or an amish, but I'm fucking happy that so far there's no mainstream technology that can provide a smell track with video.
     

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  76. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by r.freeman · · Score: 1

    This is very interesting comment. If you would make account here PM me, or contact me at jabber/xmpp JID:rfree@mempo.org or e-mail rfree @ i2pmail dot org.

  77. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by jythie · · Score: 1

    Every generation is the worst generation. Now if you do not mind me, I have to go patrol my lawn....

    (ironic aside, I actually have involved a shotgun and worries about kids on my lawn)

  78. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 2

    Greenpeace was founded by Boomers and is ran by Gen X'ers, which includes those who set the stunt up. The only Millenials I saw were the ones posing for photos.

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
  79. Re:The disturbed sand? by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

    Way to miss the point. The complaint is they defaced a national treasure.

  80. Re:Lucky it wasn't Cristo by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

    No this. Thankfully Florida told him to cram it. On the other hand, his messes *can* be cleaned up. This can't.

  81. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    And if you want to fit in with the society there, you're going to need to attend all sorts of "social functions" at expensive and trendy restaurants.

    This is obviously false, since, if your previous statements are to believed, nobody else in "society" can afford to do that either.

    --

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

  82. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by laurencetux · · Score: 1

    The universe where "making them livable" means

    1 Close to shotgunning the existing remnants of "good folks" because they must be The Problem.
    2 building only artsy boutique type shops (who cares about a Certified Fair Trade Vegan Coffee Shoppe when a good diner is whats needed)
    3 driving out the folks you claim to be helping (because they do not fit the New Style you are bringing)
    4 only building Loft and Condo type housing (which makes the Homeless situation worse)
    5 bringing in outside workers because the local workers do not fit The Narrative (i dare any of these projects to seek out the Homeless/Under Housed for workers)

    created by Boomers and taken as a Holy Cause by Millenials

  83. typical hippies by steak · · Score: 1

    the ends justify the means, until they lose the moral high ground.

  84. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    I'll take greatest generation and Cuban Missile Crisis for $500 Alex.

    Able archer wasn't the first it's probably not the 2nd or the last either it's just one we found out about and isn't even all that well known currently.

    That said the whole recent trend towards political correctness, and kids acting like Orwellian zampolits is not what I would call a good thing.

  85. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by rochrist · · Score: 1

    This isn't a millennial thing, or an environmentalist thing, it's a Greenpeace thing. They've been arrogant pricks for at least 30 years.

  86. Screw Greenpeace by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 2

    While I envy their goals, Greenpeace are nothing but a bunch of assholes whose antics are counterproductive. The court system is not the only way to go about protecting wildlife and the environment, I get that. But the inflammatory things they say and their repeated criminal actions not only make them incapable of affecting any meaningful change, but instead they galvanize those they accuse of wrongdoing and hurt the abilities of reasonable people to carry on the mission. Every time I see Greenpeace in the news I can't help but wish they'd just go away, so the rest of us might be able to talk some reason into the polluters and habitat destroyers of the world. With them present it is impossible to convince many on the wrong side of environmental issues, because Greenpeace are so needlessly combative and wrong-headed.

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    1. Re:Screw Greenpeace by myid · · Score: 1

      Suppose I wanted to convince you to eat vegetarian.

      1) I might politely point out the advantages to a vegetarian diet, being careful not to bother you. Result: You might eat a little less meat a few times a year. And you would not thing that vegetarians were such bad people.

      2) Or in the middle of the night, I could walk on your lawn, damaging it, and put pro-vegetarian signs on your lawn. Result: Just to resist me, you'd order a 1/2-pound burger. There's no way you would decrease the amount of meat that you ate, if I annoyed you like this. Plus, you'd think that vegetarians were a bunch of !@#$'s.

      Greenpeace and some of its supporters are saying that Greenpeace is trying to draw attention to global warming. But trespassing and damaging activities like this don't draw attention to global warming. Instead, they draw very negative attention to Greenpeace. I haven't seen any polls, but I would guess that fewer people today like or respect Greenpeace than a few days ago.

  87. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

    Please don't equate Greenpeace assholes with everyone younger than you. Most "millenials" are not trampling your lawn or ruining Debian. Do you care to make up any more stereotypes?

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  88. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by bazmonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At the heigh of WWII the Nazi party had 8 million members. That's .4 per cent of the world population of 2 billion. No where near "a good chunk."

    The original post blindly labeled my entire generation as hipster, gentrifying assholes. The same argument comes to mind.

  89. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by gunnnnslinger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    switch rape

    As a longtime resident of a 'crumbling downtown' that is getting made 'livable again', I can tell you what's wrong with it. We have had a self-sustaining and functional community in my neighborhood for over 30 years. Everyone from outside called it the 'bad part' of town, and we always just accepted that, because we don't want any attention anyways. A few hipster breweries and barcodes set-up in shop a few years ago, and now rents have gone up between 50-200 percent, the cops are here all the time when those nice cars attract petty theft, there are drunken douchebags screaming, fighting, vandalizing low-income apartments and houses all hours of the night every night, and buildings that sold for 170k 10 years ago are put on the market for 1.5 million.

    But but but think of the business!! Amirite??? We were a mixed use neighborhood, but mostly residential and parks, with a few bodegas, a 40 year old family grocer, a few small restaurants and a few pubs. In the last 7 years we have had the displeasure of becoming the home to 9 huge alcohol related endeavors. Business can go fuck itself. It's ruined a decades old community.

    By far the worst part about it though, is having to listen to dips hits like you, that move in, live her for a year or two, and then say shit like "BUT LOOK WE CLEANED IT UP FOR YOU DERP".

  90. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by gunnnnslinger · · Score: 1

    Edits for rage typing: Meant to say 'bar-cades' not 'barcodes". TLDR is my neighborhood got gentrified. All the mexicans and browns couldn't afford it and moved on, and now I have to listen to wealthy 23 year olds who have lived here for 2 years pontificate to me about how everything hear is 'cleaned up' and 'better' now that their money is in charge and my rent goes up $50 every 6 months. Also didn't mean to quote 'switch rape', but what the hell, maybe it's appropriate?

  91. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    What they achieved was naming themselves "The Greatest Generation". Nobody else did it; they decided to call themselves that.

    And of course, that doesn't make it so.

    Even so, I have to admit that GP has a point. The "current generation" seems to be completely full of itself, with an arrogance it never earned. At the same time they're making some of the same stupid mistakes their grandparents did, when they should know better. It's like nobody ever taught them history.

  92. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    Millennials are not in charge. Wait until that happens before you judge.

    In any case, not all Millennials are hipsters etc. Just as not all boomers were hippies. If you want to attack someone, then be specific to what you're talking about. Rail against hipster activist douchebags. Don't attack all millennials..

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  93. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by Crimey+McBiggles · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Name one thing a Millennial - any Millennial - has done to improve America.

    Edward Snowden (millennial) blew the lid on massive online surveillance (an invention of the boomers).

    QED

    --
    Crimey
  94. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by Immerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >They wear glasses without any lenses, for crying out loud. No sane person would do something that fucking dumb.
    In fairness a large percentage of the male population wears ties - an utterly useless accessory that's every bit as stupid as lensless glasses.

    As for Ferguson - personaly I've heard almost none but the obvious trolls claim the thug's actions were excusable. What they mostly said was that it was utterly unnaceptable for a police officer to shoot a man who didn't pose a comparably severe immediate threat, especially not eight times. It seems extremely unlikely that the man still posed a serious threat after the first several shots hit him, making the later shots bald-faced murder. And that the official response was such an obviously biased travesty that the justice department may as well have just hung up a giant "Fuck You All" sign.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  95. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Yes, the picturesque thugs and raving street lunatics that once made your neighborhood special are gone. Because of the gentrifiers, you have to look at freshly painted walls and live with the hell of tourist traffic and rising property values. Probably the water coming out of your faucet is transparent now. Oh, the horror.

  96. Re:oh delicious irony by quantaman · · Score: 2

    You're not really defending blatant douche-baggery based on the notion that other people have been douche-bags in the past, are you?

    Actually I think he might have a point.

    Squatters have started raising pigs on the site of Peru's Nazca lines - the giant designs best seen from an airplane that were mysteriously etched into the desert more than 1,500 years ago.

    "We get 120-180 reports or alerts about encroachments every year," Alva said. "For my colleagues in the rest of Latin America, who get two or maybe five cases per year, that figure is unbelievable."

    It's not like they unsealed a tomb, careless people have been tromping around these things for millenia from early European explorers to various locals to backpacking douchbags who look up the location on google maps.

    And yes it caused damage, but they didn't wreck the figure anymore than any of those previous groups wreaked it. It's like touching a painting in a gallery, your individual poke won't leave a mark, but if a bunch of people do it the painting will be ruined.

    I think that's probably the main motivation for the comments, first they're rightfully offended by Greenpeace attempting to expropriate their heritage to try and make a viral video. But moreover they're worried that Greenpeace will inspire copycats to visit the sites, and it won't take a lot of that before you start seeing visible damage.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  97. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by khayman80 · · Score: 5, Informative

    By the way: the "Greatest Generation" (which nobody but themselves call them) were the first generation in the history of the U.S. to leave their children with less than they themselves had. "Greatest Generation" my ass. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-01]

    ... I have problems with the whole "Greatest Generation" thing. ... their self-designation of "Greatest Generation" is undeserved. ... as a generation - aside from war effects - they were the greediest and least caring for future generations in history. ... They are the first generation in history to leave for their children an economy far worse than they enjoyed. ... I could go on, but I won't. My issue is with the name "Greatest Generation". They weren't. They aren't. By a very long way. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-16]

    What they achieved was naming themselves "The Greatest Generation". Nobody else did it; they decided to call themselves that. And of course, that doesn't make it so. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-13]

    As usual, Jane/Lonny Eachus is wrong: "'The Greatest Generation' is a term coined by journalist Tom Brokaw to describe the generation who grew up in the United States during the deprivation of the Great Depression, and then went on to fight in World War II, as well as those whose productivity within the war's home front made a decisive material contribution to the war effort, for which the generation is also termed the G.I. Generation."

    Members of the "Greatest Generation" were born from 1901 to 1924, but Tom Brokaw was born in 1940.

    So Jane/Lonny Eachus is wrong. Again. The "Greatest Generation" isn't a self-designation.

  98. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Informative

    Globally speaking, a good portion of "The Greatest Generation" were fucking Nazis.

    There is no "globally speaking" about the greatest generation. The term refers to Americans of that era that assumed the burdens that they did. And in ordinary discussion I don't think that refernces to a particular generation in a culture are inclusive of all people across the globe that fall into a similar age bracket otherwise most of those discussion which are framed in terms of particular cultures and values would be meaningless. You've made a poor argument.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  99. Re:This is an overreaction by jklovanc · · Score: 1

    Would you say the same think if Greenpeace put a big banner across Mount Rushmore and parts fell of due to them driving in pitons?

  100. Watch it with the broad brush there.. by jcr · · Score: 1

    At the most, some dozen people or so were involved in this latest Greenpeace vandalism stunt, and you're using that to blame tens of millions of people. There have been obnoxious people in every generation since mankind evolved, and they have always been vastly outnumbered by decent people.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Watch it with the broad brush there.. by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      some dozen people or so were involved in this latest Greenpeace vandalism stunt

      People who aren't millennials, to boot.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
  101. Picture of damage by bradley13 · · Score: 2

    Here is a picture of the damaged Greenpeace caused. Basically, all of the lighter color in the red-marked area is where their footprints broke the crust.

    Repair is, of course impossible. Serious financial consequences, plus criminal prosecution of all involved.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  102. That has always been the case. by jcr · · Score: 1

    Greenpeace is not, and has NEVER been an environmental organization. From the very beginning, they have been a marketing organization abusing the public's sympathy to environmental concerns to suck up contributions that would otherwise have gone to people doing real work to improve the environment.

    If you care about pollution, deforestation, preserving wildlife, etc, contribute to Ducks Unlimited, the Nature Conservancy, the Audubon Society, and your local environmental organizations.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  103. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    What they achieved was naming themselves "The Greatest Generation".

    The defeat of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Fascist Italy don't ring a bell? Ending the death camps and the Holocaust? Helping to rebuild Europe? Nothing?

    Now I'm wondering about something, and trying to remember something. How old are you, and which genereation was it that was referred to as "the "Me" generation"?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  104. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    \Neither fire, the wheel, the printing press or the spork came from the "greatest generation". I don't know what they achieved to deserve that moniker.

    The defeat of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Fascist Italy don't ring a bell? Ending the death camps and the Holocaust? Helping to rebuild Europe? Nothing?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  105. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The alternative you clearly prefer is to continue the degradation of civilization. There is no other possible alternative; things either get better or they get worse. You have consciously and deliberately chosen making things worse.

    BTW, why didn't the people who were living there improve it?

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  106. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by ultranova · · Score: 1

    They wear glasses without any lenses, for crying out loud. No sane person would do something that fucking dumb.

    No sane person would care if someone did.

    --

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

  107. Lack of Concern by jklovanc · · Score: 2

    The stupid part was that this could actually have been done with little or no damage at all had the activist just followed some basic rules when dealing with the area.
    1. No not walk in other's footsteps.
    2. Wear the foot square pads on your feet to spread out your weight.
    3. Do not bring cars to the site.

    Had they done some basic research they may not have had a problem. The activists did note care about the damage they did.

  108. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by Your.Master · · Score: 1

    And we all know that if even one person survives in the West, then civilization is saved!

  109. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

    The people in charge at the start of the Korean and Vietnam wars were born before 1940, which rules out the Boomers. Do you really think 7-year-olds were in command in Korea?

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  110. Photos by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Informative

    From this post here are some interesting images.
    The Damage. Those are new lines created by Greepeace. Notice the bright line to the left. That is where they drove their cars off the existing roads. I guess walking a bit is more important than preserving an international heritage site.
    The Foorwear This is what they should have been wearing to visit the lines. It spread out the weight and causes less damage. They did the worst thing possible by walking in a line in regular shoes.

  111. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    From Socrates to the collapse of the Greek Empire after Alexander the Great's death is about 75 years. It is very tempting to claim cause and effect.

    Considering that much of what we know of Socrates is from Plato, who had his own axe to grind, the number of years may be even less.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  112. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by sjames · · Score: 1

    Perhaps because they didn't have any money?

    I prefer a plan that raises things from the bottom up so that the residents already there naturally make improvements based on their improved financial status.

  113. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by Your.Master · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To make it a fair comparison, you must move the time window such that the oldest boomers alive are the same age as the oldest millenials are now. That makes it the late 70s at earliest.

    In the late 70s, the World Wide Web did not exist yet, and would continue to not exist for a decade.

    The Internet was invented by the generation before them, and it was not yet all that important.

    If you want to do intergenerational comparisons, you need to do one of three things:

    1. Wait ~50 years.
    2. Restrict yourself to the world as it existed when the oldest Boomer was in their early 30s (even if they already a great thing, it must be recognized as a great thing).
    3. State your values clearly so we can know what defines "improvement of America".

    I don't find Barack Obama particularly damning as a Presidential choice (it's not like he was a big drop-off from the last guy). You obviously don't value social media, which is kind of interesting actually, given that:

    - In my experience things like facebook are more widely appreciated by the older generations than by the Millenials.
    - Web forums, including slashdot, are social media. Forums were invented at the tail end of the pre-millenial generation, so you get a bye on using social media to complain about social media's worthlessness, but what makes you like forums but dislike others? What is the essential difference that makes the latter worthless?

    why again do we have to let men who "feel like" women into the lady's room?!)

    This is not a new issue; this is not a Millenial invention.

    They've destroyed traditional cultural norms.

    First: so what?

    Second: literally every generation ever has done that. The US had a cultural norm that slavery was okay, and it was later replaced by a norm that slavery was abhorrent.

    Note: I'm not an American so I have no horse in the "who improved America most" race.

  114. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    The thug was trying to force the gun out of the police officer's hand before the first shot was fired. It's hard for a threat to be more serious than that.

    The thug was under the influence of mind-degrading drugs. Such people often keep fighting violently even after being shot several times. The pain/shock reflex that stops sober people is disabled.

    A panicked person might well keep firing until the gun is empty. I've heard (I don't know if it's true) that police are trained in such situations to keep firing.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  115. Probably not as bad as the article says by ahowlett · · Score: 1

    The damage has probably been exaggerated.

    Remember that this site has survived for 1500 years without government protection.

    I'm not saying that this site should be open to the public. I definitely don't want hordes of tourists walking on it. Anyone who has visited Chichen Itza, Machu Pichu or Tikal knows what I mean. But do you really think that twenty people, most of them wearing running shoes (check 0:50 on the youtube video), will do that much damage? Hey slashdot, we are supposed to be the techies. How about getting before and after images and doing some digital image correlation.

    I doubt there was any real damage to the site. The government is doing the right thing discouraging future visits. And Greenpeace definitely eff'd up from the public relations standpoint.

  116. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by WrongMonkey · · Score: 2

    Look at the pictures. Those Greenpeacers don't look like Millennials to me.

  117. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    Livable huh? Did you live in one of them? Unless you were willing to live in one of these places, then you can't really call them liveable really.

    The fact that people for whatever reason end up in a slum doesn't make that place "liveable".

    By such a weak standard, you could claim that any slum on the planet is "liveable" including that notorious one in Hong Kong.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  118. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by LiquidAvatar · · Score: 1

    Those damn kids had better get off your lawn!

    --
    It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.
    -Voltaire
  119. Re:I see a lot of fatties in those photos and vide by srmalloy · · Score: 1

    Or they could just kill themselves and everyone to save the planet.

    I am reminded of the fortune-file entry "/earth is 98% full. Please delete anyone you can."

  120. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

    Green Peace is not run by millenials. It's run by Boomers, as would have been revealed by a trivial amount of online research.

    By the way, channeling ancient Greek complaints about the youth isn't exactly original.

    --
    .: Semper Absurda :.
  121. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by lucm · · Score: 1

    \Neither fire, the wheel, the printing press or the spork came from the "greatest generation". I don't know what they achieved to deserve that moniker.

    The defeat of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Fascist Italy don't ring a bell? Ending the death camps and the Holocaust? Helping to rebuild Europe? Nothing?

    What about the Nazis, the Japan Imperialists, the Italian Fascists and the people who destroyed Europe? Don't ring a bell either?

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  122. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

    The defeat of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Fascist Italy don't ring a bell? Ending the death camps and the Holocaust? Helping to rebuild Europe?

    And, logically, establishing Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy, creating the death camps, committing the holocaust and destroying Europe.

    --
    .: Semper Absurda :.
  123. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

    At the same time they're making some of the same stupid mistakes their grandparents did

    Not really, but never let the facts get in the way of self-congratulation!

    Compared to recent past generations, millennials commit fewer violent crimes, are less likely to have unplanned pregnancies, are more educated and more tolerant. Given the amount of social research now available, these and other related trends can all be verified with trivial effort.

    Just because you and Socrates don't like the young people you meet, doesn't mean social progress stopped the day you came of age.

    --
    .: Semper Absurda :.
  124. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

    The defeat of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Fascist Italy don't ring a bell? Ending the death camps and the Holocaust? Helping to rebuild Europe? Nothing?

    And, logically, establishing Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy, creating the death camps, committing the holocaust and destroying Europe.

    "Great" doesn't always mean "good."

    --
    .: Semper Absurda :.
  125. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

    In your opinion, was the "white flight" of years past good?

    We're basically seeing that trend reversed because of contemporary lifestyle changes.

    --
    .: Semper Absurda :.
  126. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    Just look at what they've done to San Francisco, Brooklyn, and numerous other places. They move into well established urban locales, drive up rents, and destroy the existing communities. Even the Boomers generally didn't do this, as they just built their own shitty suburbs.

    This nation was built on the principle that being first doesn't entitle you to the land. There's no reason why people should not be permitted to drive up property values around you whatsoever. Not fucking one. When that happens, your property value goes up. If you can no longer afford to live there because property taxes have risen or because grocery prices have because your save-mart was replaced with a whole foods, then you will get more for your house than when you bought it (unless you are a dumbshit, and bought at the top of the market) and you can afford to move someplace else — someplace not yet gentrified.

    No, the problem with these systems is rent, because rent is theft. It's profiting from basic needs on the principle of artificial scarcity. Look at our country, there are far more vacant houses than there are homeless families. Why is this situation permitted to persist? Greed. And, mind you, it's Boomer greed. They're the ones running the banks.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  127. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    I bet these Greenpeace activist could have never afforded to fly to Peru in say 1964.

    Not only would it have been cheaper, but they would have been able to just get on the fucking plane and go without being anal probed.

    Of course, the boomers and their Soviet counterparts came pretty close to inadvertently wiping out civilization during Able Archer, which no other generation has managed to repeat since then.

    Every generation since forever has been working hard on it. It's called deforestation.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  128. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

    Same goddamned thing that's "wrong" with every other generation ever.

    And yet, violent crime, teen pregnancy, teen drug use, etc. are much lower now than during the youths of the Baby Booms or Gen X.

    --
    .: Semper Absurda :.
  129. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    The thug was trying to force the gun out of the police officer's hand before the first shot was fired. It's hard for a threat to be more serious than that.

    The thug was moving in the other direction when the last shot was fired, which struck him from behind. There's no basis to argue that so many shots were necessary.

    A panicked person might well keep firing until the gun is empty. I've heard (I don't know if it's true) that police are trained in such situations to keep firing.

    If they are, that's bad. If not, then what happened was still bad. It's not unusual to not know how many rounds you have fired in a panic situation, but it is unnecessary to empty the clip every time. That's for gangster movies. Guess what happens during the reload if you find out too late that your target had a friend?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  130. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

    You're just a bad parent. In general, millenials are less violent, more tolerant, more educated and use less drugs than preceding generations. All of these trends can be verified with trivial research. Social progress is real, regardless of you and Socrates.

    --
    .: Semper Absurda :.
  131. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

    Good points, IMHO. I'm not sure you'll find much of an ear with the people channeling Socrates on the youth, though.

    --
    .: Semper Absurda :.
  132. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

    The thug was under the influence of mind-degrading drugs. Such people often keep fighting violently even after being shot several times.

    Yes, as we all know, marijuana makes you invincible to bullets.

    --
    .: Semper Absurda :.
  133. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by fruviad · · Score: 1

    In other words, "Get off my lawn!"

  134. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    Oh, I see. You're confused, you think that the Germans, Japanese, and Italians are part of the greatest generation. No, the reference is to Americans of that era that took of the burden of defeating the Axis powers, among other things. Or did I get your point of confusion wrong?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  135. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    The reference is Americans of that era, not to every person of that era across the globe. So no, itdoesn't apply logically to the Axis powers. Great as good isn't an unwarranted flavor of meaning in this case.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  136. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by rossz · · Score: 1

    It's simple. "Nothing is more important than my cause." That is the result of raising them to believe they are entitled.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
  137. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    "Greatest generation" only applies to Americans. Or is this a troll based on your .sig "Semper Absurda"?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  138. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    They wear glasses without any lenses, for crying out loud. No sane person would do something that fucking dumb.

    Hey everyone. Don't mention jewellery. God forbid this poster finds out his own generation wore items that serve no useful purpose, he may just grab a gun and start shooting.

  139. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    If we had of nuked all the population centers in Russia we would have killed off most of our own population and been breeding mutants for another century. Really I had no wish to play Fallout the Cuban Missile Crisis edition.

  140. Re:This is an overreaction by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    cut off there funding etc etc.

    Here here!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  141. Re:This is an overreaction by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Not the same at all. The Mona Lisa wasn't created by Erich Von Daeniken in the 1970s.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  142. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by Lotana · · Score: 1

    I am part of this generation. I have no answers to your questions. All I can do is feel ashamed and speculate.

    My guess is that my generation is spoiled rotten. We never had any challenges or widespread hardships compared to the generations prior. Baby boomers dealt with Cold War. The Greatest Generation before them fought in World War 2. We got everything delivered to us on a silver platter, so we never learned to appreciate it or even learnt concepts of respect.

    What the activists did in Peru is discusting beyond words. All I can do is hope that they are a horrible exception and that (Degenerate though as we are) the rest of this generation are not as bad as them.

  143. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by lucm · · Score: 2

    No, Americans did not "take the burden of defeating the Axis powers". That part was done by the Soviet Union. As far as the glorious victory over Japan, achieved with the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents (also known as the biggest war crime of History), then yes, it was 100% American.

    The truth is that Americans of that generation (and many others) were far from being as great as Hollywood movies made you believe. They were like the dullard who hangs out with the cool kids and that puts himself in the center of every event when he writes his diary.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  144. Re:This is an overreaction by HatofPig · · Score: 1

    It's cred. I'm happy to have snagged a six-digit UID. It shows I've been here long enough to know the ropes.

    --
    Silicon & Charybdis McLuhan Kildall Papert Kay
  145. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by sjames · · Score: 1

    It was neither good nor bad.

  146. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

    Socrates said this same stuff about the next generation thousands of years ago,before any modern advancement etc. ancient things get ruined,thats why they are called ruins. the smart people will make things better enough that it mostly negates the idiots.when it doesn't work anymore finally,well thats when we go to mars and try again.

    --
    stuff |
  147. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by spasm · · Score: 1

    "I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise [disrespectful] and impatient of restraint".
    (Hesiod, 8th century BC)

  148. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by slasher999 · · Score: 1

    Well said sir.

  149. Re:I see a lot of fatties in those photos and vide by tlambert · · Score: 1

    those bush fires are started to clear the jungle/forest and create new farmland. And the reason they do that is... overpopulation. So yes, it wouldn't be an issue if the population is low.

    Awfully accommodating of the lightning gods to clear farmland... since almost all of them are started by lightning.

  150. Re:I see a lot of fatties in those photos and vide by bingoUV · · Score: 1

    They have sequestered carbon in their bodies. Nothing wrong in that.

    --
    Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  151. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

    Americans! You seem to think the entire world shares in your American memes (and counter-meme in this case).

  152. Re:oh delicious irony by bingoUV · · Score: 1

    The *purpose* of greenpeace was to etch their own message alongside the ancient lines. So it's like you took a brush to an art exhibition, and touched the painting with one dipped in nice oil colors.

    --
    Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  153. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

    The defeat of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Fascist Italy don't ring a bell? Ending the death camps and the Holocaust? Helping to rebuild Europe?

    And, logically, establishing Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy, creating the death camps, committing the holocaust and destroying Europe.

    No, that would have been the generation before them. As one other person mentioned, they were born between 1901 and 1924. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, were all born prior to that (Hirohito was born in 1901 so it's debatable that he'd be part of the same generation, but he also inherited his reign.) I don't know what their moniker is, but if I were to coin it myself, I'd say it was the absolutism generation. (It also may be that many of them had a strong influence from Bernard Forster's interpretation of Nietzche's work. Hitler seemed to share a lot of opinions with Forster for example.)

    I know there were some people during those years who were otherwise somewhat sympathetic with e.g. Hitler (such as Henry Ford) but again, I think it's safe to say that most of them were from the generation prior.

    Now I don't want to comment on whether or not 1901 to 1924 was truly the greatest generation, but your statement about their generation being responsible for the rise of fascism would be incorrect.

  154. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    No, the problem with these systems is rent, because rent is theft. It's profiting from basic needs on the principle of artificial scarcity. Look at our country, there are far more vacant houses than there are homeless families.

    “Whenever there is in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.”

    You might be surprised as to who wrote that.

  155. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

    Not 100% American either, the Soviets have destroyed the Kwantung army in Manchuria.
    So basically the Russians did most of the work in WW2, the Americans took most of the credit.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  156. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by sjames · · Score: 1

    You're ignoring the next steps though. As situations improve for the community as a whole, the car is just the start. Next they want to upgrtade their apartment, generally within the community. At that point, building owners either start to upgrade or their buildings go vacant. At that point, strong building regulations can drive improvements within the means of the current residents.

    When that process happens over time, it builds nice communities. When it happens due to a sudden influx of people with more dollars than sense you destroy the community.

  157. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by doccus · · Score: 1

    Here's the big problem.. who do you think raised these rotten millenials? The woodstock generation.. a more self serving self righteous generation never existed and I'm ashamed to be part of it...

  158. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by baristabrian · · Score: 1

    Ah, yes, the infamous "race to the bottom," with well-intentioned (no doubt) efforts to *make* everybody suffer *equally* and make *everybody* miserable. That's the ultimate result of blindly and relentlessly pursuing what is frequently touted as (and heard---in the form of shrill voices crying) "fair" this, and "fair" that!

    --
    -- "I'm not in a hurry; I'm in Hawaii." The Homeless Guy
  159. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by bkcallahan · · Score: 1

    Get off my lawn you kids!

  160. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by doccus · · Score: 1

    I'd like to add that I used to marvel at how all my hippie friends raised their kids, and thinking no good was going to come of this, that if those kids ever have kids of their own we're in real trouble. Well, they did, and we're in trouble. Thankfully some have chosen to carry the burden for the rest of us .. but defacing Nazca is NOT how to do it..

  161. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    But but but think of the business!! Amirite??? We were a mixed use neighborhood, but mostly residential and parks, with a few bodegas, a 40 year old family grocer, a few small restaurants and a few pubs. In the last 7 years we have had the displeasure of becoming the home to 9 huge alcohol related endeavors. Business can go fuck itself. It's ruined a decades old community.

    That is a real problem, but it's a direct result of city zoning and alcohol license policies. If they don't make it impossible to open the booze joints in the neighborhoods where the patrons live, that won't happen.

    and buildings that sold for 170k 10 years ago are put on the market for 1.5 million.

    Yes. That's how you know it's time to sell and run for the hills if you don't want to be a part of mainstream society. Perhaps literally; 1.5M will buy you a lot of nice property in the hill country, unless it's one of the hill countries that became gentrified.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  162. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    I don't find Barack Obama particularly damning as a Presidential choice (it's not like he was a big drop-off from the last guy).

    Don't be grateful for another turd just because turds are the only things on the buffet.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  163. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    My guess is that my generation is spoiled rotten.

    The Boomers were spoiled rotten. Just look at what they've accomplished.

    I suspect people have been saying this stuff throughout history, though...

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  164. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by Methadras · · Score: 1

    I'd be a little upset about this. It was a needless thing to do. Greenpeace would do itself a better favor by placing their 'change agents' in upscale liberal/leftist neighborhoods where they can make their insipid pleas for Gaia to uninformed white people instead of disrupting the very thing they are fighting for in the name of their cause. They might as well kill whales to save them.

  165. Transgender Persons by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

    Our culture has evolved over thousands of years. There is a reason things are the way they are, and you don't get to start throwing away well established cultural norms just for the sake of change.

    You seem to have the idea that evolution represents a forward march of progress, but that it should have stopped thirty years ago (when you were last comfortable with it). These ideas seem to conflict with each other.

    Because forums are for discussions and conversations. People can communicate ideas and get responses. Millennial's use of social media is solely about inflating their egos. They use things like Instagram and Twitter where they sprout their useless opinions, never once listening to anyone but themselves. Ever seen a group of Millennials at the mall? They're all on their damned phones, taking pictures and posting them to social media, barely interacting with each other. Older generations use Facebook to communicate, Millennials use it to keep everyone updated about their meaningless lives, never once listening to anyone else. It's all about them, their selfies, and generating "likes."

    Every generation that has experienced new media forms has complained about them, and the new cultural norms that have resulted from their use. I don't know what you think you're adding to anyone's life by being upset about this.

    This is not a new issue; this is not a Millenial invention.

    Weird how this has never come up before in my life until Millennials started getting involved in politics. Try asking if a man should be allowed in the lady's room twenty years ago and no one would understand why the hell you'd even ask that question.

    Human biology does not necessitate having different facilities for different genders' waste elimination. Almost all households don't bother with it. That they exist in public is purely a social phenomenon. We had separate facilities for blacks, too, at one point. There are biological differences between the sexes, but those don't necessarily correlate strongly to gender identity. Biology doesn't have the neat divide between these things that you imagine there is. One hopes that eventually humans will stop confusing pooping with having anything to do with either sex or gender. (It will still be polite to leave the seat down).

    Myself, I have a measure of compassion for the poor bastard who has to make a Sophie's choice whenever they want to take a shit in public. I wish I could convey to you the terror and shame that this situation involves for differently gendered people.

    You have to consider that there is no cure for "feeling like a woman". In all sincerity, it's wonderful that you've never felt like you had the wrong body. Having your brain tell you that your body is wrong in some way is a continual torment. Faced with the options of self-mutilation and a lifetime of social consequences, or a lifetime of body dysphoria, many people choose death.

    It is easier and cheaper not to cater to the physically handicapped. Yet we build ramps and elevators, we put braille on signs, we allow service animals practically everywhere, and we accept that it is reasonable for these accommodations to be made -- that people with disabilities have a right to the same quality of life as anyone else. In this case the only accommodation being asked is being able to use a public bathroom in peace, although it would be great if we could work on not publicly humiliating these people as well. If our society is getting to the point of having to discuss transgender rights, that can only be a good thing.

    There is one piece of good news for you: no one is seeking to abolish your freedom to be a bigot. What you're noticing is simply that most people are not sufficiently misanthropic to perpetuate your views.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
  166. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

    Mod up 1000. But sadly you'll get flame for making this jewel of common sense observation...

    --
    Murphy was an optimist
  167. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    They walked on the ground. The photos in the article, take at the time after the sign was laid (thus the damage was done), showed no signs of damage. I'm sure that if you crawl on the ground with a microscope, you can identify where they walked, but the designs were designed to be seen from the air. And a high-res photo from the air shows nothing I can see.

  168. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

    Stop it. You're triggering me. Waaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

    --
    The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  169. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

    I had a friend many years ago that was shot by police. He was shot in the heart and he still managed to cross the distance between himself and the cop before he fell. If he had managed to stay functional for another five seconds he would have managed to seriously damage if not kill the cop.

    --
    The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  170. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

    Rent is theft? Have you been told today? if not, FSCK OFF.

    --
    The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  171. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

    “Whenever there is in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.”

    You might be surprised as to who wrote that.

    Was it Michael Moore?

    --
    The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  172. Re:This is an overreaction by Quinn_Inuit · · Score: 1

    While I agree that this is an opportunity for politicians to discredit Greenpeace.. its not an issue of ENVIRONMENTAL damage.. its an issue of preserving National and World Heritage. The government of Peru is not worried about plants and animals in this case.. it is worried about keeping these ancient grounds for future generations.

    What they did is the equivalent of pissing on the Mona Lisa.

    Don't give them ideas!

    --

    Stop learning! Only you can prevent esoterrorism.
  173. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    How many Soviets fought in the Pacific campaigns, such as Okinawa, Tarawa, the Philippines, and Iwo Jima? Were any Soviet warships present at Midway or Coral Sea? Did the Soviets contribute any warships to defeat the U-boats in the Atlantic to keep the supply lines open? Did any Soviet armies fight in Africa, the Middle East, or Italy? Did they help liberate France? How big was their strategic bombing campaign against Germany? How million tons of war material, food, and other supplies did the USSR ship to the US and UK?*

    The answer to all of the above is either zero, or close enought to zero that it doesn't matter. The reverse is certainly not true.

    The Soviets then, and Russians now, don't seem shy at all about claiming credit for the defeat of the Axis. They still hold a rather large military parade each year to celebrate it. (I trust nothing is said about Italy since .... you know.)

    * Did you know that 30-40% of the heavy tanks helping to defend Moscow at the Battle of Moscow in 1941 were Lend Lease material?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  174. Re:oh delicious irony by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a spray of laquer would fix the problem. Darken the light stand stirred up, and prevent erosion. Claiming it's impossible means it's easy, but undesirable.

  175. Re:oh delicious irony by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    For a site that you can't see the grains of sound of, your "fix" is excessive. From the air, the photos of the "damage" all have additional editing to help them stand out. Because, if you don't point them out (or know where you are looking for), you'll never be able to see it. Sounds like a problem laquer would fix. Hold the existing sand in place, and darken it. If that were done, the damage would be invisible to those seeing it from a safe place.

  176. Re:This is an overreaction by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    You are a bigot; you think in terms of environmental damage without even considering the people who were insulted by Greenepeace's callousness.

    I wish there was a way to tag posts, and block posters until they argued with people I chose for them. This AC is arguing that offending someone is an actionable activity. But the Libertarians on Slashdot generally argue there is no right to not be offended, and someone deliberately trying to cause offense should be held blameless, and result of their actions is the responsibility of those who acted.

    Because I'm generally in the middle of that issue, and I get both sides telling me I'm wrong. I guess they've given up arguing with each other, and now just argue with everyone.

  177. Re:This is an overreaction by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    It is a liberal (not non-liberal, though that's a mouthful) comment. "People have the right to not be offended" is a requirement of the post. That's a liberal idea, at least according to the vocal members of Slashdot.

    Maybe he was hiding because the liberals are persecuted heavily on here. Loonitarian is the official ideology of Slashdot, because they are the most vocal and abusive, running off all others.

  178. Re:This is an overreaction by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    I sea what you did they're.

  179. Re:The disturbed sand? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    "Defaced" with about as much damage as taking a boat too close to Liberty Island with a wake in a no-wake zone.

  180. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by lucien86 · · Score: 1

    WWII Its all a matter of perspective - and propaganda.. -
    If you take Stalin's version of the History then the entirely innocent Soviet Union fought the evil fascists who had murdered 25 million East Europeans.
    If you take the old Wests version before the "Stalinisation" of our history (est 1991), then the Soviets killed/murdered between about 10 million and 30 million people in Eastern Europe during WWII - including up to about 10 million in death camps, and including about 1.5 million Jews.. The difference between the Soviets and the Nazi's was that the Soviets had 50 years to cover it up and fully brainwash local populations into believing their version of the history... Like Churchill said 'the Winners Write the History..'

    The USA's crimes are miniscule in comparison -
    10,000's of Japanese prisoners of are murdered out of hand after being captured or surrendering..
    10,000's of Japanese women raped after or during the end of the conflict..
    200,000 killed by the two atomic bombs, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    100,000 to 200,000 killed during the fire bombing of Tokyo, mostly women, children, and OAP's..
    (In their defence most of the US high command were using performance enhancers at the time - especially 'cocaine'.)

    We in the UK can smugly claim that we committed very few war crimes in comparison. -
    Except maybe the carpet bombing of the German cities - using incendiaries.

    --
    Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  181. Running the "urban decay" movie in reverse by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    Got me beat.

    If a neighborhood is in decline, with businesses leaving or going bankrupt, and new businesses (if any) being ones like payday loans and pawnshops, and residences deteriorate, unsurprisingly, rents and real estate values go down. It is called a name like "urban decay" or "urban blight", and it's a bad thing.

    If people reverse the process -- fixing up existing buildings or replacing them, starting new businesses that create a lot of value for their customers -- unsurprisingly, rents and real estate values go up. it's called "gentrification" and it's a bad thing.

    By a lot of the same people.

    I guess some people just don't like change.

    And they call other people "conservative". Go figure.

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  182. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by lucien86 · · Score: 1

    Dumb ass. During testing some 2000 nuclear bombs were detonated .. Chernobyl released the same radiation as at least 200 nuclear bombs.. So why aren't we all dead and where are all the mutants? because its all 90% fantasy and always has been. Propaganda by Greenpeice and all the other Psudo-Green liars.. How many people have Greenpeace killed? well the switch from nuclear and to coal has already killed between about 5 and 10 million people globally, and that's about 10 to 20 times the number killed so far by nuclear bombs..

    BTW The statement that nuclear war would kill 'everyone' on Earth always ignored the populations outside the big cities or outside the US or Russia or allies.. Africa, South America, most of Asia, even North America north of the US or half of Europe - all would be mostly untouched, but then the anti nuclear lobby were never much for geography, history or facts in general..

    Me I'm with Gene Roddenberry and afraid that it is only those civilizations that go through the fire of a global nuclear war that get to survive and eventually become interstellar civilizations.. The rest rot through their own self importance and arrogance and eventually suffocate themselves with climate change and the pollution and short sightedness of consumerism..

    --
    Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  183. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by lucien86 · · Score: 1

    Trouble is some people will take that as racism. We in the UK have a turd called David Cameron as Prime minister, before that it was a turd called Tony Blair, and before that John Major, before that Thatcher.. - all turds, all white ... Course they are only metaphorical turds not real - real turds never have chosen to fund HS2 or gone into Iraq and bailed out the thieving bankers with our money....

    --
    Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  184. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by lucien86 · · Score: 1

    Once you take coal into account Greenpeace have killed far more than either ISIS or the Taliban. (coal 10,000 x more dangerous than nuclear promoted by Greenpeace.) With their agrarian, anti-science philosophy contaminating the climate change and environmental debate they are also arguably a bigger threat to the future as well. :D

    --
    Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  185. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by lucien86 · · Score: 1

    This is all assuming you believe everything the police officer says is true. As we in the UK keep learning, when they do something wrong or commit crime no one lies more fluidly than the police.

    --
    Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  186. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    I don't know if you are stupid or just plain insane. But please keep ending your posts with how nuclear war is a good thing.

  187. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    Not really, but never let the facts get in the way of self-congratulation!

    Yes, really.

    Compared to recent past generations, millennials commit fewer violent crimes, are less likely to have unplanned pregnancies, are more educated and more tolerant. Given the amount of social research now available, these and other related trends can all be verified with trivial effort.

    Yes, they commit fewer violent crimes. They have fewer unplanned pregnancies because of what they were TAUGHT by past generations. They are more educated because their parents and grandparents ensured that they would be; that is not an "accomplishment" of their own.

    But what about other things? What about the fact that they have been attempting to make the same political and economic mistakes made by their grandparents and great-prandparents? (I'm referring here to socialism and fascism.)

    And "tolerance"? Are you fucking joking? What passes for "tolerance" today is political correctness. Any attempts at dissent are greeted with personal and rather vicious attacks. "My view of 'tolerance', or I will attack you" is not real tolerance, it is the opposite. It is hypocrisy masquerading as tolerance.

  188. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by lucien86 · · Score: 1

    I always forget - sarcasm should be labelled ['sarcasm'] for the hard of thinking..

    --
    Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  189. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    I was only "wrong" to those who didn't get the point. Ahem.

    Who said it first is irrelevant. I could have found that on Wikipedia too. The relevant and only important point is that that is the name they gleefully adopted and decided to call themselves.

    Whether some news guy thought you were a hero or a villain if far less important than what you go around for the rest of your life calling yourself. And that was the flattering name they decided to call themselves.

    I'm not trying to put them down. People of that era did some great things. But "greatest generation"? Hardly.

  190. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    I always forget - sarcasm should be labelled ['sarcasm'] for the hard of thinking..

    You obviously weren't alive at the time. There were people that welcomed the idea of a nuclear showdown with the Soviet Union.

  191. Re:The Dour Truth of the Matter by lucien86 · · Score: 1

    Yes but be the same argument embracing capitalism makes you indirectly 'morally guilty' for the deaths of about 500 million to 1 billion people - the number killed by poverty during the twentieth century.. Hey I'm a capitalist and half a communist too - so does that make me responsible for both?
    Real Marxists of course would point out that Soviet communism was far more like fascism or simple dictatorship than real communism and would probably then point at the French Libertines.

    --
    Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  192. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by khayman80 · · Score: 1

    By the way: the "Greatest Generation" (which nobody but themselves call them) were the first generation in the history of the U.S. to leave their children with less than they themselves had. "Greatest Generation" my ass. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-01]

    ... I have problems with the whole "Greatest Generation" thing. ... their self-designation of "Greatest Generation" is undeserved. ... as a generation - aside from war effects - they were the greediest and least caring for future generations in history. ... They are the first generation in history to leave for their children an economy far worse than they enjoyed. ... I could go on, but I won't. My issue is with the name "Greatest Generation". They weren't. They aren't. By a very long way. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-16]

    What they achieved was naming themselves "The Greatest Generation". Nobody else did it; they decided to call themselves that. And of course, that doesn't make it so. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-13]

    Who said it first is irrelevant. I could have found that on Wikipedia too. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

    We either disagree about the definition of the word "irrelevant" or the phrase "nobody else".

  193. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    How many Soviets fought in the Pacific campaigns, such as Okinawa, Tarawa, the Philippines, and Iwo Jima?

    Well, how many Americans fought the Japanese in Manchuria?
    How many Americans fought in Yugoslavia?

    Did any Soviet armies fight in Africa, the Middle East, or Italy?

    You mean the battles that were barely a blip on the radar compared to what happened on the Eastern front? But yes, matter of fact, USSR and UK invaded Iran together.

    How big was their strategic bombing campaign against Germany?

    Large enough. USSR has started bombing Berlin two weeks after it entered WW2. Two years earlier than the Americans that were - as 20 years earlier - quite late to the party. You didn't know that?

    Did you know that 30-40% of the heavy tanks helping to defend Moscow at the Battle of Moscow in 1941 were Lend Lease material?

    Which was paid for in gold and for decades after the war. That was just business, nothing more.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  194. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Germany was not defeated only on the Eastern Front. Britain had a very large role in the air war early on, and is the main reason the Luftwaffe wasn't much stronger in the German invasion of the Soviet Union. While the German Navy didn't take that much manpower, it did take a lot of other resources, and it was defeated primarily by the Brits.

    From about mid-1943 on, the US intervention had a major effect, but it wasn't until Fall 1944 that the main US armies were decisively engaged against Germany. The US was not responsible for making sure Germany didn't win, but had a considerable affect on the outcome.

    As far as Japan goes, their defeat was primarily due to US. We do have to acknowledge the serious Australian effort (although MacArthur went to some lengths not to), and some assistance from the British. The Soviet contribution was more indirect until the very end, tying down large Japanese land forces.

    The nukes (or are you referring to the firebombing of Tokyo, which was the single most lethal bombing attack in history) were not war crimes according to the laws of war at the time, and my best estimation is that they considerably reduced the number of Japanese civilians to die from the war. (In addition, they almost certainly saved more civilians in China and other areas, although I've never seen possible Chinese loss of life brought up by anybody but me.)

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  195. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by delt0r · · Score: 1

    Greenpeace may have started with the boomers. But the new generation with a lot of time on their hands and rather limited experience or for that matter education, on how things really work. I remember feeling all indignant about big industry and "corporations", but i kept reading and soon learnt the reality of the situation. After all I was enjoying a rather nice lifestyle because of of big industry and corporations.

    I mean how many greenpeace people with iPhones, or worse driving around protesting all the time on the unemployment benefit (know a few that did that in NZ) do you know.

    --
    If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  196. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

    Nothing makes me angrier than the cops that shoot first and ask questions later. But according to the coroner's report, the thug was never shot from behind. Plus, 9 black witnesses reported that he was charging the officer during the last of the shots fired.

    --

    -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  197. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by Talderas · · Score: 1

    Well, how many Americans fought the Japanese in Manchuria?
    How many Americans fought in Yugoslavia?

    In Yugoslavia there were probably around something less than 10 Americans engaged in operations against Fascist forces. However, if you're referencing traditional forces engagement and conflict in Yugoslavia could not reasonably happen without first securing Italy, Greece, or Germany. Maintaining supply lines would have been exceedingly difficult.

    Large enough. USSR has started bombing Berlin two weeks after it entered WW2. Two years earlier than the Americans that were - as 20 years earlier - quite late to the party. You didn't know that?

    Large enough? The Soviet Union was responsible for 6,700 tons of bombs being dropped against Germany throughout the war. That was 3.1% of Soviet bombing missions and accounted for 0.2% of all bombs dropped against Germany. All told that means the Soviets dropped roughly 220,000 tons of bombs. The Soviets focused most of their bombing on countries like Romania and Finland to try to force those Axis satellite natiosn into surrender. The Soviet never really had production geared to producing long range strategic bombers so their ability to contribute in such a fashion was exceedingly limited.

    Comparatively the US dropped 40,000 tons on Berlin in January of 1945 and in one month bombing the capital of Germany with nearly 6x as much ordinance as the Soviety employed throughout the war. The figures I was able to find for the US and UK show 1,463,423 tons for the US and 1,307,117 tons for the UK. I'm not sure if that was against German targets or of that was for the entire war in Europe thus including targeting other belligerants besides Germany.

    By no metric can you consider the Soviet bombing effort against Germany "large enough" when compared against the US or UK contribution. What they did do was a token effort and the effort directed elsewhere was politically motivated to secure bargaining chips against the US and UK by securing the surrender of other nations before the US or UK could get involved.

    --
    "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  198. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

    By the way, channeling ancient Greek complaints about the youth isn't exactly original.

    neither is making the same statement 4 times, in slightly different ways. (was probably more than 4 but i lost interest/count)

    maybe make the false reference again as to how crime, pregnancy, and drug use is lower now than ever as well, because i'm still not tired of hearing it.

  199. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

    In other words, "Get off my lawn!"

    HAHAHAHAHA CUZ THEY'RE OLD... GET IT?

    HAHAHAAHHAHA man that shiz never gets old or overused!!!

  200. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

    neither is making the same statement 4 times

    You seem fine with your trolls doing it. When trolls post the same inflammatory nonsense over and over, the same trivial refutations are going to get posted over and over too.

    the false reference again

    The trouble with your variety of troll is that no amount of data can ever change your mind, once made, on any topic. Any facts you don't like are dismissed as fabricated.

    --
    .: Semper Absurda :.
  201. Re: What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Meh, I never cared for mindless jingoism.

    Also, that generation of Americans murdered millions of innocent Japanese civilians, subjugated their women, forced a number of their countrymen into "detention camps" because they happened to be of Japanese descent, institutionalized (and violently defended) racial segregation... the list is extensive.

    Point being, if you're going to bitch about "what's wrong with kids today," expect someone to point out that every generation, even the "best" ones, were pretty fucked up too. And I say that as a member of neither group being discussed, in case your the sort of person that matters to.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  202. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by BalthCat · · Score: 1

    lol You're ridiculous. WHY DIDN'T THE POOR FIX IT? IF THEY WANTED IT IMPROVED THEY'D HAVE SPENT WHAT LITTLE MONEY THEY HAD TO MAKE IT BETTER SO THAT GENTRIFICATION COULD DRIVE THEM OUT EVEN FASTER. My intention IS to convey yelling, Slashdot. Thanks though. I wonder how much I have to do to counter this obnoxious filter. Are we somehow under the impression that caps inherently make something less civil than say, gross disrespect? Can I call people names? Is that acceptable? I guess I haven't tried that enough.

  203. Re:What the hell is wrong with Millennials?! by BalthCat · · Score: 1

    The suggestion is that if everyone has a suitable income / level of wealth, there'll be no need for gentrification, and no need to run for the hills before you get bled dry in the home you've lived in for years. You're also aware that renters generally cannot sell their houses right? Jesus, are you not even trying to reason this out?