Greenpeace's Custom Underwater Giant-Squid-Cam 188
Seagull76 writes "Check out this 1 minute video with Greenpeace's underwater photo/videographer and deep sea toy specialist, Gavin Newman, aboard the Esperanza.
After months of confronting whalers and pirates, some might envy the crew aboard the next leg of Defending Our Oceans who are heading to the beautiful Azores in the mid-Atlantic. For this leg of the expedition, the Esperanza has been equipped with state of the art monitoring equipment, including a remote operating vehicle (ROV) which can shoot video down to a depth of 300m, and a drop camera capable of reaching depths of 1,000 metres - giant squid territory! The ship will become part of the ongoing University of the Azores research program intended to establish greater scientific knowledge of the importance of deep-sea habitats and marine life. "
Re:Bah - More Giant Squid, Less Gavin's toys (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't see the challenge myself, aside from in the budget. The hard part is that off the shelf components make it difficult.
Find a transparent non-conducting liquid which doesn't compress and fill the device with it so there is air left inside the device or the individual components. The expensive part is ensuring the solid state components, lens, etc. has absolutely no air gaps and are filled with some kind of oil at very least.
Make the device powered by its gravitational fall through the water (small solid metal blade that rotates) and tie it off so it can be pulled back up again.
Even finding solid, non-compressible, lighting shouldn't be that hard (Leds or something similar).
It is a very challenging problem if you insist on using an air-filled lens and components.
actually... (Score:3, Interesting)
And your practicality argument is just plain stupid. They are doing a necessary thing, in order to accomplish a certain goal. That's what he's referring to. It is completely absurd to say that a person who believes in the environment cannot use any fossil fuels. How would they fly to a conference? Or maybe they'd video conference, if none of the components in the equipment was made out of plastic and the power to run it came from the wind! There simply is no way right now to completely avoid using fossil fuels to accomplish a goal. So are you merely arguing that no person should bother to do as much as they can?
It is not practical at this time to fill a ship's bunkers with biodiesel. A ship could take upwards of 10,000 gallons of fuel at once. Sourcing that much biodiesel is not easy, or perhaps even possible. Over time, perhaps this will change. I too would like to see wind used to power ships again. But it'll really be most useful on the open ocean. To maneuver (say, to block harpoons) will require burning fuel, because the wind doesn't always cooperate.
I am no fan of Greenpeace, honestly, I see them as terrorists. But I find your argument that practical limits mean one shouldn't try to improve some aspects of our enviroment to be foolish.
Re:Greenpeace is irrelevant (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, here's a link with some info for you: Waikiki presentation [honoluluadvertiser.com].
If you want info on the shill part, check his Wikipedia entry.
Never mind the fact that he's now working with Christine Todd Whitman, who remains one of the most green-washed industry shills ever to come out of the great state of NJ. It's sad that CTW is considered an environmentalist, just as Moore is considered one -- neither of them is anything more than centrist on environmental issues.
Anyway, Greenpeace being refuted by a founding member is meaningless when that founding member has totally changed his perspective.
Re:Terroist? Not exactly, but some times close (Score:3, Interesting)
Thankfully, I am not the person "Slashdot". So when the person "Slashdot" does something that is seemingly hypocritical, you can rest assure that the person running around calling them self "Slashdot" isn't me. In this case, while the person "Slashdot" might share files and have a problem with vandalism, I do not. I have a problem with vandalism and I don't pirate. I don't buy music either. There is plenty of legal music in this world such that you don't need to pirate OR buy from the RIAA.
If you would rather events like the exxon valdez disaster or bhopal just got quietly ignored as they would be without GP, then thats a matter for your conscience. As far as I know Exxon mobil havent paid a single dollar in compensation for that valdez shipwreck, and thats even after GPS campaigns. Without people like GP, they would probably be trying to sue the seagulls for stealing their oil.
Greenpeace does not have a monopoly on publicizing these disasters. There are plenty of other organizations that have put in the effort to improve the environment without resorting to publicity stunts that far from bringing attention to the problem, tend to piss off allies. Having Greenpeace on your side is the left wing equivalent of getting a local militia group that threatens to shoot cops and tax collectors on site to endorse your program to cut back taxes. It is counter productive.
Greenpeace plays to their own whacko brand of quasi-religious environmentalism. Hell, I think this quote sums up their position:
"We are putting Monsanto on notice, along with each and every Biotech firm that is contaminating our fields and our food supply now - or has future plans to introduce GE seeds - this is the beginning, we will not stop until France is declared a GE free zone."
This is what they say on their own frigging page. This shit ISN'T what wins over anyone but your fellow quasi-religious-environmentalist nut jobs. This is like declaring that you are going to go disrupt Jewish religious services until all the heathens convert to Christianity.
Greenpeace has done more to make "environmentalist" be spat out like a curse word then any other group out there. Calling yourself an environmentalist is slowly losing its stigma, but it is losing its stigma DESPITE Greenpeace, not because of it. Greenpeace is a curse on the environmentalist movement. Greenpeace is a blessing to every corporate dumper out there. While Greenpeace is out there, these corporations point to their stupid and dangerous stunts as proof that the other side is just made up of stupid college kids with too much time on their hands. I bet Exxon executives wake up every single day and thank god for Greenpeace and jump for joy when one of those idiots performs some act of vandalism that they can then take to a congressmen as proof that the other side is nuts.