Setting Up The Greenpeace Ship w/WiFi

An anonymous reader writes "If you're on any wifi related mailing lists, you've probably heard of Nigel Ballard of joejava.com, Minister of Propaganda for the Personal Telco Project in Portland Oregon. The Greenpeace vessel Arctic Sunrise came into Portland and wanted some an alternative to Inmarsat for their Internet access. Nigel set Greenpeace up with equipment and got VeriLAN to provide access."

Save the Wales!

Errr i mean, save the wifi!

Re:Save the Wales!

Collect the whole set!

- England
- Scotland
- Northern Ireland

good

So we can have live updates of the seals beatings in canada, thanks greenpeace.

Funny.

I thought that greenpeace was against the use of fossil fuels(ship) and plastics(computers)?

Is this a case where it is OK for them to have it, just wrong when the 'lesser' people have it?

Re:Funny.

They are against waste and extravagance. They aren't against technology or using energy.

They are against using fossil fuels to the point where it can cause environmental impact, that's why they support alternative energy sources.

Re:Funny.

Of course, waste and extravagance are subjective measures.

For instance, in 1997 Greenpeace circumnavigated James Ross Island in the Antarctic to highlight the problems caused by global warming (the island was previously attached to the mainland by a portion of the Ross Ice Shelf).

The vessel they used was the Actic Sunrise:
Gross tonnage: 949 tonnes
Length O.A: 49.62 m
Breadth: 11.50 m
Maximum Draught: 5.30 m
Maximum Speed: 13 Knots

This makes a your local radio station's publicity mongering H2 look like a matchbox car. But no, it was necessary. A satellite image of a big stretch of blue where none exited before just doesn't compare to the publicity generated by joyriding all the way to Antarctica in a 150 ft private yacht.

Hypocrites.

Re:Funny.

So is their only option to completely remove themselves from society in order to prove their point? Everyone would just ignore them. It is necessary for organizations such as theirs to accept some amount of hypocrisy in order to exist at all.

It's sort of like how vegans can live with eating food which comes from fields which when harvested result in the deaths of thousands of rodents. It would be nearly impossible to exist without contributing to animal suffering in some form, but they what they can to reduce such suffering.

At least they are doing *something*, which is a lot better than sitting at home in front of your computer complaining about minor hypocricies in the grand scheme of things of which they are are trying to acheive.

Interesting ideology

These are the same folks that like to release (um, set free) non-native mink into the natural environment causing devestation of the local animal population, right?

Greenpeace may cause some good, but I think they are terribly misguided at other things. I predict we'll hear a new phrase coming out of the Bush administration (if they survive the election): Eco-terrorists. Storming ships, and other acts (some of which are destructive) don't seem to be acceptable tactics to me.

Posted anonymously since my karma is more important than the air I breath. (or not)

Re:Interesting ideology

Never blackmail people for more than the cost of killing you.

Re:Interesting ideology

"Id like to see your wife get pregnant living next to a coal power plant or pulp factory with relaxed polution laws."

I got news for you. That's not how women get pregnant.

Re:Interesting ideology

On the radio there was an interview with one of the founders of Greenpeace. He was pushed out of the organization because he wasn't radical enough. Greenpeace was originally a group of environmentalists opposed to nuclear weapons. It was not the environmental activist group it has become. This founder told the story of how the ship's galley (kitchen) was subverted. First it was taken over by the vegatarians, then it was taken over by the vegans. This forshadowed what happened to Greenpeace itself.

Greenpeace is typical of too many activist groups. It has been taken over by a bunch of stupid angry people. The angry people might be in the minority, but their actions control the group. As a result the group's message is lost. The message is lost, not because the message isn't important, but because the methods used to convey the message overshadow the message itself.

Hmm!

Minister of Propaganda? Thats an interesting title.

The Greenpeace ship the Arctic Sunrise will be visiting Portland, Oregon on the 4th and 5th of July as part of our national campaign for an immediate moratorium on commercial logging and road construction on America's public lands.

Seems like setting up internet service just for two days seems silly. And given the coverage map [verilan.com] they have a small window of mobility if they want it.

Re:Hmm!

Seems like setting up internet service just for two days seems silly.

RTFA. It's not just for two days, it's for whenever they're in an area with WiFi available.

But really, who cares

Seriously, who cares? Mark me troll (I know it will happen) but I could give a crap that some ship came into port and somebody gave them free internet while in town, then wired up their ship. Is the fact that this is a Greenpeace ship make it newsworthy? What if it was "Joe's Boat Inc"? Would we be reading about it?

Seriously, WiFi on ships is not new, and there were not very many technical details. Just a bunch of pics of a boat and some Greenpeace artwork. I know it is the 4th, but can't we find some better stories to post?!

I mark the "story" post Stupid -1.

Ecoterrorism

Greenpeace has a bad history of brushes with or outright supporting ecoterrorism. Why does this make the front page when other articles with similiar projects have been done elsewhere?

Their are many other upright environmental organizations that have worldwide work in very challenging locales, so why approve a greenpeace story?

Many of these conditions are very challenging environments that could be teach someone a great deal. Why choose a group that rightly shouln't be called a charity in the first place. /Environmentalist sick of ecoterrorists and extemists making the environmental movement look bad.

Re:Ecoterrorism

Hi.

I work for Greenpeace.

I was wondering if you care to support your outlandish claims that we support ecoterrorism?

Greenpeace has a history of Non-Violent Direct Actions for more than 30 years.

We do not and will not tolerate ecoterrorism.

Granted I am not speaking for Greenpeace, I am speaking as a member of it who just so happens to be an active reader of Slashdot.

You might not agree with protesting, but it's hardly any type of terrorism.

Now onto what you asked, why did this make the front page? It's quite obvious that this made the front page because of the people involved and the challenges that those people overcame.

Greenpeace is a very upright environmental organization.

We have many worthwhile causes.

I don't know of many other organizations that stand up for the thousands killed in Bophal, or the illegal logging in the Amazon, but Greenpeace does.

Re:Ecoterrorism

Greenpeace labeled "eco-terrorists"
Friday, 14 December 2001, 6:03 pm
Press Release: The Institute Of Cetacean Research

MEDIA RELEASE

December 13, 2001.

Greenpeace labeled "eco-terrorists"

Dr. Seiji Ohsumi, Director General of the Institute of Cetacean Research in Tokyo today referred to Greenpeace as an "eco-terrorist organization" and issued a public statement following the sighting of the Greenpeace vessel Arctic Sunrise in the Antarctic where Japanese vessels are conducting the 15th year of their whale research program.

Dr. Ohsumi said:

"Two years ago, the Greenpeace vessel Arctic Sunrise went to the Antarctic and attempted to disrupt our research. At that time, the Greenpeace vessel caused a collision with our research ship. Greenpeace activities caused damage to property and included theft of personal property and trespassing.

This was a malicious and reckless threat to the lives and safety of the vessel's crew and scientists. It was also a serious violation of maritime navigation laws. Japan views the Greenpeace protest against our scientifically valid and perfectly legal research program as eco-terrorism and as a publicity stunt designed to misinform the public and increase the support and financial wealth of its organisation.

Today, our research vessel has sent a message to the Arctic Sunrise and Greenpeace warning them that any attempt to bring their vessel or persons into close proximity to our research vessels poses a serious safety risk. We also call on the public and all nations involved in maritime activities including those that also sustainably utilize the ocean's resources based on scientific findings to condemn any unlawful activity by Greenpeace.

Japan's research program poses no threat to Antarctic whale stocks. Greenpeace's criticism of the program is based on emotional reasons, ignores both science and international law and is a rejection of the basic principle that resources should be managed on a scientific basis.

Japan has been very open about its research on Antarctic minke whales in the Southern Ocean - not only with the International Whaling Commission's Scientific Committee, but also the general public around the world. By continually misrepresenting the science, organizations such as Greenpeace do nothing towards educating and informing the public of the true worth of Japan's Antarctic minke whale research.

Japan began its whale research program after members of the IWC said that scientific information was insufficient to properly manage the sustainable utilization of whale resources. Since then, Japan's research program has received strong support from the IWC's Scientific Committee.

The IWC Scientific Committee has acknowledged that the research has "made a major contribution to understanding of certain biological parameters" and that "the information produced has set the stage for answering many questions about long-term population changes regarding minke whales in the Antarctic."

This research is particularly important since the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling requires that the IWC's regulations be based on scientific findings.

Our program continues to make major contributions to understanding the biology of whales in the Antarctic. It involves non-lethal research, including sighting surveys and biopsy sampling, as well as a small take of whales for research that cannot be effectively done by non-lethal means.

This includes examination of earplugs for age determination studies, reproductive organs for examination of maturation, reproductive cycles and reproductive rates, stomachs for analysis of food consumption and blubber thickness as a measure of condition. The number of minke whales taken (440) is the smallest number required to obtain statistically valid results. This take in no way threatens the population, which was estimated by the Scientific Committe

Re:Ecoterrorism

Dr. Seiji Ohsumi, Director General of the Institute of Cetacean Research in Tokyo today referred to Greenpeace as an "eco-terrorist organization"

Consider the source. The DG of a "research" institute that is really just a whaling company operating via a legal loophole. Not exactly an impartial judgement.

Re:Ecoterrorism

It doesn't matter whether some guy thinks they're terrorists or not - let facts speak for themself:

At that time, the Greenpeace vessel caused a collision with our research ship. Greenpeace activities caused damage to property and included theft of personal property and trespassing.

The alleged facts, as reported by the aggrieved party, a group ideologically opposed to Greenpeace who misrepresent what they do in order to evade the worldwide moratorium on whaling. Hardly impartial, as I said.

mmm....Kujira

Not to defend Greenpeace (I don't particularly like them), but the first article there made me chuckle a bit. Japan is one of the few countries operating a whaling business "legally" under the guise of the "research" quoted above. I'm sure that their findings are cutting-edge, nobel-prize worthy and the like, but they take a very small "sample" of the whale, then return the carcass to the mainland where it ends up in restaurants. I don't know why the Japanese government even puts up the pretense. They just like the taste of whale meat (it is pretty good...) Because the rest of the world criticizes this habit, the whaler^H^H^H^H^H^Hresearchers get really defensive about their bus^H^H^Hresearch, and issue statements like the one above, reminding the world of how benevolent they are.

Re:Ecoterrorism

A quick google brought this [sfgate.com] to my attention. I do believe that the boarding of another vessel without the consent of the captain/crew is considered an act of piracy.

Re:Ecoterrorism

>I was wondering if you care to support your outlandish claims that we support ecoterrorism?

Oh, please, don't make it so easy!

Tree spiking [landrights.org] murders innocent workers.

A quote from Mr. Paul Watson [nationalcenter.org] (as a Greenpeace member, I'm certian you know of him, as he is a principal founder of your organization)

"I was the person who first thought up the tactic of tree-spiking and as such I feel obligated to defend this child of my imagination." (Link [groundswellsierra.org])

Care to make me find more examples?

>We do not and will not tolerate ecoterrorism.

That's why the principal founders of your organization devise murderous tactics, right?

It doesn't sound like a sane organization when it's founded by people like Paul Watson.

>Greenpeace is a very upright environmental organization.

Excellent. Tell me what happened to your boats in British Columbia on July 3, 1997. Find me a link to the info on the greenpeace website, if you're so upright.

Of course, we won't find one, because on that day the people of Victoria, BC fought back and blockaded YOUR boats.

>We have many worthwhile causes.

Many? Care to name 3 that aren't runing people's lives?

>You might not agree with protesting, but it's hardly any type of terrorism.

Hey, I agree with protesting. But protesting doesn't include blockades and property invasion. That crosses the line of protesting (which is marches in the streets, passing leaflets, general education of the public) and becomes sets of criminal acts, even in countries with the most liberal of free speech laws, such as the US. Criminals don't deserve to benefit from their work.

>or the illegal logging in the Amazon

Which you defend through such extreme violations of the law you become pirates yourselves, charged under laws intended for true pirates [smh.com.au] (such as yourselves -- it's shameful to take over other people's private property like that -- all the more reason the world will have to continue to arm itself against radicals such as yourselves). For some reason it's wrong to pirate logs, but just fine to pirate ships.

You can't be serious.

>I don't know of many other organizations that stand up for the thousands killed in Bophal

You have to go back 2 decades [wordiq.com] to find something decent Greenpeace did?

That's sad. But, sadder still, is the proof that your protesting really was worth nothing:

"Meanwhile, very little of the money from the settlement reached with Union Carbide went to the survivors, and people in the area feel betrayed not only by Union Carbide (and chairman Warren Anderson,) but also by their own politicians. On the anniversary of the tragedy, effigies of Anderson and politicians are burnt."

At least the US Government managed to squeeze some money out for them. I wonder, how much did Greenpeace give?

Now, for my final point, care to respond to this?

"IT'S OFFICIAL: GREENPEACE SERVES NO PUBLIC PURPOSE [highnorth.no]"

Revenue Canada, the tax-collecting arm of the government, has refused to recognize the new Greenpeace Environmental Foundation as a charity, saying its activities have "no public benefit" and that lobbying to shut down industries could send people "into poverty."

"But according to court records made public in June by John Duncan, the Reform MP from British Columbia, the federal charities division found the group's activities "have not complied with the law" on charitable organizations."

"The recent Greenpeace campaigns against PVC plasticisers and

Re:Ecoterrorism

A quote from Mr. Paul Watson [nationalcenter.org] (as a Greenpeace member, I'm certian you know of him, as he is a principal founder of your organization)

Paul Watson is a good example of an eco-terrorist, but to be fair, he left Greenpeace a long time ago. Whether he was expelled or just felt unwanted is an open matter, but Greenpeace is far more moderate than him.

Re:Ecoterrorism

A quote from Mr. Paul Watson (as a Greenpeace member, I'm certian you know of him, as he is a principal founder of your organization)

From the article you linked to:
He was reportedly ousted from Greenpeace in the late 1970s for violating the organization's principle of "non-violent" action.

Clearly, you can't condemn an organization for the radical actions of one of it's members, who was kicked out of the organization because of those actions. If that was the case the NRA would have been called a terrorist organization decades ago. How many wackos and gun-nuts that went on killing sprees have been members of the NRA? Should we start calling the NRA a terrorist organization now?

Your logic is flawed. QED

Re:Ecoterrorism

WHen you "protest" by sabotaging trees so that loggers will be killed when they try to cut.

We don't do that. Greenpeace has never, ever done that.

Back up your facts.

WHen you intentionaly impede international shipping so that your "voice" will be heard, and in the doing cause a menace to navigation.

Example?

Do you mean to tell me that a very small rubber raft is stopping shipping? No, it's not.


THat's terrorism. Your right to speak your mind ends where my right to not be endangered by it begins.

Sure, can you cite an example where Greenpeace actually endangered someone? Because I am pretty sure that you're going to come back and try to sell me something, but it won't be the truth.

Greenpeace never puts someone in danger. Not loggers, not sailors.

When we did our logging campaign in Oregon last month, I had a chance to talk with the loggers that were being stopped from logging. What did they say when asked how they felt about the protests?

They said: "These people mean us no harm, it's Greenpeace, not ELF."

That's important, the people being protested didn't even have harsh words for us.

We don't do the things we say we do.

And as far as the French, they were charged and payed Greenpeace for KILLING our photographer after SINKING our ship. Who is the criminal there?

Perhaps it's the government that payed Greenpeace for it's crime? Gee, I wonder!?

You don't know what you're talking about.

Which Greenpeace?

It is important to note that there is not one organization called "Greenpeace". It is a loose collaboration of groups using a common name. Some of these groups tend to be more radical than others.

For instance, Greenpeace France, is for killing all Americans. They say this because they are tired of the stupid "france surrenders" jokes and because Americans are fat and stupid.

Meanwhile, other Greenpeace groups, such as Greenpeace Canada, have a more radical agenda -- supporting the sustainable use of forest resources. Truely insane!

Greenpeace:

Somebody set us up the wi-fi!

Not news, is it?

I mean, wi-fi on a boat is no big thing if the boat isn't moving. Effectively, it's just wi-fi on a house with ocean view, isn't it?

So please, somebody: Post a link to affordable wireless technologies that will actually help people on the fringes of the Internet. I'm writing from a South Pacific island where we have the dubious privilege of paying USD 200/month for dial-up access. Affordable wireless over distance is something we dream about so fervently we often have to clean the sheets in the morning.

Just don't let the French sneak aboard...

because then the Arctic Sunrise will turn into the Arctic Surprise.

/ Rainbow Warrior, where are you now?

Oh?

We'll see how long it takes the French to blow this one up, I suppose. :)

-Erwos

An announcemnet from PETA!

As A smokesman of PETA I must detest this use of cruel "WiFi" equipment transversing open seas! The signals put out interfer with our precious dolphins and other marine wildlife!

Besides the point, Josi my pet Dolphin Friend [dolphinsex.org] ran away!

Greepeace - good/bad not relevant to the story

This is a tech success story! Putting aside my personal feelings one way or the other about Greenpeace, I was impressed that this guy was able to put this together so quickly!
My biggest problem with this article is it didn't contain enough tech!!

I'd also have been more impressed if the folks that got this setup had done this for one of their local schools.

Nice to have a happy post here!
Be well,
Tojosan

Where's the tech?

Putting aside the policial luggage Greenpeace carries with it... just why is this story on Slashdot?

It's really nothing more than your typical distant-WiFi setup, with a few repeaters to cover hard-to-reach parts of the metal ship. Nothing really groundbreaking to report...

From the linked article:

That's me standing at the bottom of the tower that leads to the crows nest, and yes I did climb it, the wireless CAT5e cable runs all the way up to the top for maximum range.

I love that wireless Cat5e! It's almost as good as wireless Cat6!

I know.

Let's set up the Greenpeace ship with a seive-shaped hull.

Umm... Useless?

So, they put WiFi on a ship... When they're out at sea they still have no access, and when they park their boat at whatever place they decide they're going to protest next, hopefully someone will just have a big antenna pointing out into the middle of the ocean to give them access?? Seems far fetched and stupid to me.

Besides all of my dislike of greenpeace this just seems pointless (like most of what greenpeace does). Why doesn't greenpeace use all their man hours of volunteer work to try to create technology that supports their movement?

Heck, they could sell that boat (I bet they'd fetch at least 10-15 million for it), take that cash and buy a bunch of solar panels, take their volunteers, buy some land in the desert somewhere, and build a solar generation plant... Then wow they've got renewable revenue, proving their point, and making money to support more renewable power generation elsewhere... But wait that would be capitalist and thats bad (to them..) so they'll just continue with their eco-terror tactics and hope someone starts taking them seriously.

And in other news...

The US Navy introduced new WiFi seeking torpedo's. The torpedos will also be equiped with hemp-sensing technology to assist in correct target assignment.

Dolphins

I guess we'll find out if it's just sonar that bothers the dolphins.

Am I the only one...

...thinking this only gets accepted to slashdot because it contains the word Greenpeace? Wifi was set up on a DOCKED SHIP... in Portland... BIG DEAL!

I'm guessing - just guessing mind you - that if this guy had wifi'd the Exxon Mediterranean [topcities.com], we wouldn't be seeing it on slashdot.

Greenpeace extremism leads to backlash

A bit OT, but Greenpeace's extremism seems to push away the majority of people. There will always be 20% who truly believe your message, 20% who will never believe your message, and then 60% who can be swayed either way.
When you tell people everything they do is "evil" you alienate them. Mothers who want to protect their children from car accidents by driving SUVs... evil, nerds using their computers which suck huge amounts of power and use dangerous chemicals to manufacture... evil, nuclear powered space vehicles... evil.
By the time I finished talking to a Greenpeace person in college, I was so pissed off I wanted to make my car run on whale oil, and run over baby seals for fun.

So this means...

Now they can go war-sailing!

Er, I mean... peace-sailing.

Why the venom?

I must say - I am completely surprised by the level of vitriol against greenpeace, as I am by the stark irrationonality of the accusations against them in this "discussion".

Now, I dont know much about them, but I know that they neither commit or condone tree-spiking, or putting people other than themselves in harms way.

I also know that Paul Watson's greenpeace was a very different animal, and that is why he is no longer a member of it.
It betrays weak thinking, poor research, or simple bad faith to caste greenpeace in a poor light simply because of the actions or thinking of Watson, or any other former member.

Note well - Im not defending greenpeace.
I dont know enough about them
Just enough to know that all the bile coming out in this discussion is pointless and irrational.
Crys of "terrorist" are absolutely absurd.

And, besides, it makes me think...
Amongst ye accusers, how many of you have given up a significant portion of your life, a few days even, in order to commit to an action that you felt was for a greater good?
Even if you eventually felt that you were misguided?
Can anyone here who has been amongst the most vociferous critics of gp make a personal claim that they, themselves have made a worthwhile sacrifice in order to feel that they had really contributed to humanity?
Some members of gp put their bodies and their lives on the line.
What do you do?

Don't Tell The French ...

They'll get close with a captured Greenpeace zodiac andupload a virus so the mother ship will be defenseless and they can set off a nuclear bomb... Oh wait! that's the plot of Independence Day. Never mind.


In A.D. 2004
WAR was beginning.
Greenpeace Captain: What happen ?
Zodiac Boat Mechanic: Somebody set up us the bomb.
LAN Operator: We get signal.
Greenpeace Captain: What !
LAN Operator: Main screen turn on.
Greenpeace Captain: It's You !!
The French: How are you gentlemen !!
The French: All your base are belong to us.
The French: You are on the way to destruction.
Greenpeace Captain: What you say !!
The French: You have no chance to survive make your time.
The French: HA HA HA HA ....
Greenpeace Captain: Take off every 'zig' !!
Greenpeace Captain: You know what you doing.
Greenpeace Captain: Move 'zig'.
Greenpeace Captain: For green justice.

Navigation

Maybe wi-fi will help keep the activists from accidentally crashing their boats into the whales they purportedly show up to protect.

Okay. Seriously, this is silly.

I'm a techie that has done work for Greenpeace, and I don't see what all the bickering is all about. First of all, Greenpeace is not radical at all. They're a non-profit CORPORATION with college-educated non-hippies and a heirchical structure. In fact, many environmental groups look down on them for being too corporate and too mainstream. They have NEVER done tree-spiking, and they only their primary way of acting as a watchdog group is by bringing media attention to issues at large non-violently. They are not anti-capitalism. Do they break the law sometimes? Yes, but so did Rosa Parks (and for trespassing as well). Are they doing a lot to save our last remaining rainforests? Yes. Sometimes it takes policing the waters when others can't. They call people out when THEY are already doing something illegal. No one seems to complain when it's James Bond or Batman, and Greenpeace does so nonviolently. About their boats. First of all, most of them are VERY ecologically sound even though they are huge and fast (energy effcient, careful selection of paints and materials, etc.) but they need the size and speed in order to compete with the ships of illegal loggers, toxic dumpers, whalers, etc. About GM foods. People forget that companies like Monsanto developed products such as the "Terminator seed [google.com]" which was supposed to be given as food aid, spread throughout poorer countries and wipe out other crops, and then become sterile after one genereration so those countries would become dependent on U.S. aid provided by Monsanto. It is no secret [opensecrets.org] that they are very friendly to this administration. Also, people have gotten sick from eating GM foods that have been spliced with genes from animals they are allergic too. It is also nearly impossible to keep seeds from spreading in the wild (which has happened) and breeding with natural plants in unpredictable ways. The fact of the matter is, we simply rushed this tech out to the market and more research needs to be done and more precautions need to be taken with our food supply. Besides, in this county, Greenpeace are mostly pushing for labeling of GM foods. People forget that organizations like Greenpeace are working hard to maintain a BALANCE because this world is becoming more and more unhealthy and unliveable every day. Oh, so why did this make it into Slashdot? Because watchdog groups need tech to compete, and it would be nice if more people donated their time to help these groups out. Heck, no one complained when Wired magazine made organic foods [wired.com] their cover story.

Re:Parent is DUPE, mod down accordingly

Well, if people would respond and not mod me to hell, I would not have to repost.

It appears that people are unable to defend greenpeace so they are trying to hide posts that they do not like.

Re:Why doesn't Greanpeace practice what it preache

+3 Troll seems about where the parent post belongs...

Greenpeace isn't exactly an organization that makes sense. They oppose the use of technology that's bad for the environment, but then they turn around and use technology when it suits them. Still they have their backers and it's quite a vocal group.

I'm a little surprised Slashdot would bother posting this article... it's flamebait from the start.

Re:Greenpeace is great

Someone once associated with GreenPeace may have bombed an empty building once (that's not terrorism)

What do you call it then, vandalism? And that is better?

Obviouslys a lot of Windows using Republicans have logged onto the forum to spam because of the threat of independent throught and anti-bush material.

I'm not a Rep or a Dem, but they arent spamming, they are trolling. And I'll defend their right to freedom of speech as much as I'll defend yours. Mod points: use em if you got em.

Re:Greenpeace?

Yes terrorists.

I met Greenpeace folks in Portland that were proud to 'know' people who disabled brakes on logging trucks to scare/injure/kill the drivers.

I met Greenpeace folks who told me what they do is not breaking the law because, "We're right and the government is wrong, so the law shouldn't apply to us."

Greenpeace, on their site, has a story about "peaceful protestors" [greenpeaceusa.org] who are being denied (according to Greenpeace) the right to protest peacefully because they are being charged with trumped up charges. Never mind that they broke in to an energy plant (coal), climed a smokestack, and affixed a banner to it. Seems to me they broke several laws there . . . oh, my bad -- laws don't apply to them.

I hope the pub from this WiFi helps others to go to their website (as I did upon reading it) so they can see how Greenpeace really is. Some may agree, some may reach my conclusion -- that they are terrorists . . . But that's the beauty of the web . . . and a little thing called free speech.

Re:Greenpeace == Criminals

Umm...no...
According to International Maritime Law, nobody other than the authorities of the State whose waters you are in are allowed to forcibly board your ship. And even they require some legal run around. When you are out in the deep (i.e. out of any country's territorial waters), then nobody is allowed to board your ship forcibly. That is considered an act of piracy. That being said, IANAL. :-p

Re:Greenpeace is great

The hell it's not terrorism. I own a couple current empty pole barns, bomb them and i'll kick their ass.. -d

Re:Greenpeace is great

Obviouslys a lot of Windows using Republicans have logged onto the forum to spam because of the threat of independent throught and anti-bush material.

That's cute with the broad strokes of generalizations with loaded language. In my opinion, such a comment degrades the credibility of the rest of your post. If you want to make a sensible persuasion, labeling your opponents in such a manner defeats your efforts.

Re:The NRA are terrorists.

Loggers then don't count as civilians?

Re:TROLL. Mod down and read...

Unfortunately, under capitalism, you have to go with whatever the industry leaders suggest is marketable.
That's not Capitalism, that's a monopoly market - one of Capitalism's "Market Failures". Further, the SUV market is far from a monopoly. And the reason SUVs are not fuel-efficient is because they have big engines and lots of power. And big powerful engines along big powerful machines are what appeal to Americans in general. So that is why these products are "marketable". You want to make SUVs more fuel efficient? Raise gas prices to double the current level. Apart from the civil disorder it would cause, I can see people shifting to fuel-efficient cars in a split second. THAT is Capitalism. Voting with your dollar.

people who contribute more to the public good receive more in return

Please pull your head out of the sand, and while you're at it, let's have a definition of "Public Good". What's good for the public? Please do let us know, oh wise one. By your logic, since Stalin was leader of Russia, he must have done a LOT for the public good. Oh, wait - what's that? Stalin wasn't a True communist? I see. Well, until the world can produce a true communist, communism and socialism are truly the work of the Devil. Please state even ONE communist or socialist country which is rich, which feeds all of its people, and keeps them all "Happy". Or are all communist countries poor becuase of some Capitalist plot to prevent reaching their full potential?
I should change my name to Troll-Biter....

Re:Thing is.....

Dubya: Slashdot isn't for you. Trust me on that one, buddy. :^)

Re:I Second This - Southern Republicans

Maybe someone should cross post into their Christian-racist forums about a need for environmentalism and human understanding.

What would be the point. You think if we told Osama Bin Laden about not murdering innocent lives he would've listened with a sympathetic ear? These people's minds have been made up, and they've been raised in an environment that does not encourage independent thinking. I'll stick to tackling them on Slashdot meself. I've earned me a nice Karma Bonus just crafting out semi-thoughtful replies to their crap.

Re:Thing is.....

That's a pretty broad brush you are using.
Please.
Carry on.
Tell us how you can't support the US Military because they fired on civilians at Kent State.
Or how you can't support the NRA because one of their members blew up a building full of people.
Or how you can't support the police because there are bad cops out there.

Wait.
Oh.
Yeah.
None of those make any fucking sense.

Please don't make people who fundamentally agree with you look stupid. We'd appreciate it.

PS. I don't know about you, but I personally don't view Greenpeace as being terrorists. Hippies certainly, eccentric definitely, misguided probably, but I'd be a lot more worried about the ELF than Greenpeace, and even they just burn shit down / blow shit up.
I'm getting a bit tired of people labeling those who do not agree with their political ideology / whatever as terrorists. Don't weaken the word. Suicide bombers are terrorists, hippies who put signs on smokestacks and hang off bridges really can't compare with that.

I am the superior life form.

I am superior.

My distinction is that I think so.

I want what you have.

I kill you. I take what I want.

I am superior. You are the inferior race, and I am justified in all I do because of my superiority.

Is this an agreeable situation? If it is, congratulations- you are logically consistent. If it is not, why not?

Seriously! Tell me what is wrong with it!

Obligatory Simpsons Quote

Don't kid yourself Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about!

neonazi linux distro just out...

its called linuKKKs

Suchetha

from the no-comment-on-the-politics-involved dep

You can call it flaimbait but what Gojira has said here is true. means => ends not ends => means I personally would consider any help to such an organisation the same as aiding the PLO, IRA, Hezbollah, ELN or any of many other organisations [infoplease.com]

Even when its a freak right is right. (Gojira has me listed as a foe)

Re:Greenpeace is great

i currently work for the Union of Conserned* Scientists, and i, for one am glad that you've put so much throught* into this.

In a special investigation entitled "efforts against Windows using Republicans" we've come up the following relation:
SUV/MPG = U$
So one can clearly see that to maximize U$, the SUV drivers must minimize MPG. That's why we're going to bomb the houses of SUV drivers--while they're empty (that's not terrorism)
*(sic)

Re:selfpeace

That's a pretty serious accusation, that AI defended assasination. Are you willing to back it with something more sunstantial ?

Re:Whither Greenpeace

That screed was inspired by meeting and talking with members of various advocacy groups. Few have the slightest idea of why their group's goals and tenets are in existance. Their real reason for joining is social, i.e. to fill a vacancy in their lives. And it's sooooo kOoL to be helping a worthy cause.

Re:The NRA are terrorists.

> Terrorism as defined as killing civilians in order to influence government policies. Greenpeace does not do that.

So spiking trees, sabotaging trucks, running a RIB infront of a big ship causing it to ground...those are not acts of terror?

> However, the NRA has had members that have gone on "rampages" in the south in order to make a statement against the unlawful federal government.

really? I live in the south...Hell, I'm a member of the NRA... Where are these "rampages" you speak of? Did I miss the memo from HQ saying "go shoot someone who oposes us"? Not Hardly. It would seem to me that you are a treehugger trying to move the spotlight off of greenpeace.

> The NRA has members who have bombed buildings in the US.

This is turning into FUD. Perhaps you meant to say Greenpeace or ELF instead of NRA?

> The NRA suggests that gun use increase even though it has been proven that more guns is equal to more crime (while regulations on them reduces crimes).

So if the fact of having a gun causes a crime, then the fact of having a pencil causes misspelled words? Has it occured that the gun doesn't do the killing? It takes the will of a human to pull the trigger the excite the round, guns don't do that on thier own.

> If we go by the logic republicans are using, the NRA is worse, since their members are more extreme and target civilians.

again, I must have missed the memo to be extreme. Every member I know is far from extreme. I know lunatics with guns that are NOT members of the NRA that are hella extreme.

> (I can't count how many NRA members were happy that McVeigh targeted an Oklahoma city federal building after Clinton banned assault rifles.)

Nor can I. Know why? because NO member was happy that US citizens died. NO member was happy that some crazyass went and bombed innocents.

The NRA is one of a few organizations that are fighting to keep the second amendment alive. It's liberals and treehuggers that are trying to make it go away. I may not always agree with thier advertizing campaigns; but on the whole, I support what the NRA is doing to keep the freedoms that our forefathers gave us.

(wait, I feel a rant comming on...)

I think that to curb crime, the US needs to bring back PUBLIC EXECUTIONS. Every Wednesday night at 7pm, air them on EVERY network (ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX/UPN/WB/etc). Don't make a game show out of it, just show the hard, gruesome facts. Bring back hangings in the middle of town. If people can SEE what will happen to them if they fsck up hardcore, then perhaps they will think twice about doing it.

Gun control cannot do what Public Executions can.

Re:But does it Run Linux?

Greenpeace ships each have their own LAN with a Linux server. Many of the tech community within Greenpeace has been lobbying for more use of Linux, but it's hard going explaining to environmental activists the importance of open source. As it seems it is hard going explaining environmentalism or even activism in general to a lot of the tech world. I think in the near future you will see more Linux on Greenpeace ships.