Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Setting Up The Greenpeace Ship w/WiFi 513

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Setting Up The Greenpeace Ship w/WiFi

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:49PM (#9610470)
    Errr i mean, save the wifi!
  • Funny. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DAldredge ( 2353 ) * <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:53PM (#9610491) Journal
    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. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:59PM (#9610515)
      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. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 05, 2004 @12:18AM (#9610596)
        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. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Peyna ( 14792 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @01:00AM (#9610803) Homepage
          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.
          • Re:Funny. (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward
            It is necessary for an organization such as mine to use the resources available to me in a manner that maximizes my personal happiness.

            Therefore, I drive an H2 to the grocery store 2 blocks away.

            Or perhaps I just commute to work on light rail.

            I'm sure that you'll assume the former, since you've already assumed that people who complain about Greenpeace do nothing other than "[sit] at home in front of [a] computer complaining about minor hypocricies," but it serves to illustrate that constant, irritating p
            • [allegedly the French government]
              umm. . . the French defense minister kind of came out and admitted it was a sanctioned operation.
              Perhaps you should at least make an effort to try to look informed.
          • Re:Funny. (Score:3, Insightful)

            by sql*kitten ( 1359 ) *
            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.

            There's absolutely no reason Greenpeace couldn't use wooden, sail-powered ships (Hello? They were good enough for CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS!) with solar panels or small wind turbines on board for their electrical needs (such as radio comms). Chinese admiral Cheng Ho even g
          • Re:Funny. (Score:3, Informative)

            by Sethb ( 9355 )
            Greenpeace is made up by a bunch of hypocrites, who are at best completely uninformed, and at worse, racists bent on genocide. If you ever get a chance, watch the episode of Penn & Teller's "Bullshit!" where they talk about genetically modified food. It's simply not possible to feed the world without using new technology. If Norman Barlaug, winner of the Nobel Prize, hadn't created some GM wheat, a BILLION people would have died in Asia from starvation, but that doesn't seem to bother Greenpeace. T
      • Re:Funny. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by onyxruby ( 118189 )
        Wooden sailing vessels. They are wonderful sources of plying the seas and can be built from all natural materials. They even operate under this thing called wind power. Completely environmentally friendly. Capable of traversing the oceans and the globe itself. Only pollution is from the occupants of the ship. Used for thousands of years to go everywhere you can think of up to an including the first voyages to the Antartica.

        They were not sailing a wooden vessel. Nor were they sailing a vessel with a hybrid

        • IMHO, if I were a member of Greenpeace, and I was heading into ice-laden Antarctic waters, I wouldn't want to be in a wooden vessel.
        • Re:Funny. (Score:2, Insightful)

          by cfuse ( 657523 )
          Alternate energy sources, like windpower, are readily available, the just wont use them.

          If they really cared about the environment, they'd go nuclear. Whingeing greenies need to wake up and smell the coffee.

          • I couldn't agree more. Only recently have some in the environmental movement started waking up and realizing that their opposition to all things nuclear had an anti-military basis and not an environmental basis. I predict this issue will divide the environmental movement and eventually splinter it away from the whole anti-war movement. Nuclear energy is the cleanest energy we have, yet it's greatest impediment is the environmental movement.
        • Wooden sailing ships had a stellar safety record too!
          Oh wait. Let me check t3h Intarweb.
          Nope.
          They didn't. In fact it was quite dismal.
          There are a couple reasons why people were press ganged into serving aboard them.
        • I'm not a fan of Greenpeace, but don't you think that a wooden sailing ship would be just a -little- impractical? Even in people with the most extreme point of view, there comes a point where practicality will prevail.

          But, however, at least one of their ships, the Rainbow Warrior II, is a dual sailing/motor ship.

          And because of their previous experience in having their ships sunk by foreign governments, I don't blame them for not investing too heavily in a single ship.

          Info on their ships here [greenpeaceindia.org]
    • Don't apply logic to what those people do. As a general rule, they aren't that smart.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:55PM (#9610495)
    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)
    • by Bishop ( 4500 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @12:44AM (#9610733)
      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.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        And your little story is typical of many anti-environmentalist ones. First present "as fact" a couple of funny sounding anecdotes by people who are "on the inside" and then proceed to use those to tar the reputation of an entire group of people.

        The guy you are talking about is Patrick Moore and he now works (for a LOT of money) for the lumber industry, and uses his "Greenpeace founder" credentials to shill for nuclear energy and genetically engineered foods. He has made a great little chunk of change on

        • I don't have to tar the reputation of Greenpeace. They have done it to themselves.

          Why can't an environmentalist like nuclear energy and genetically engineered foods? Both have advantages and risks. In some cases the advantages outweigh the risks.
      • 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.

        The medium is the message. They have become nihilists, except they lack the true purity of spirit because they seem to think they are something better.
      • Take that anecdote - then replace "galley" with "USA", "vegetarian" with "christian", and "vegan" with "fundamentalist".

        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.

        Ph33r.
    • Eco-terrorism isn't a new phrase, even today the FBI takes it seriously. Groups like ALF and ELF are especially bad. A couple of weeks ago there was even a of terror alert set because the FBI suspecting ELF of planning a string of attacks (it started after they set a fire to a lumberyard to protest that their forklifts pollute too much. By that logic, what ELF property should I burn down to protest that their fires pollute too much?). They don't get too much attention because they don't target human bei
  • Hmm! (Score:2, Interesting)

    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! (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jonathan ( 5011 )
      Minister of Propaganda? Thats an interesting title.

      Technically, *any* spread of information favorable to a cause is propaganda. Most corporations for example, have propaganda divisions, but just call them "Public Relations". The idea that propaganda must be false is a misconception.
    • Re:Hmm! (Score:5, Informative)

      by novakreo ( 598689 ) * on Monday July 05, 2004 @12:38AM (#9610710) Homepage

      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.

      • Sure, it's great to use free Wi-Fi when it's available.
        But commercial Wi-Fi support would let them also use it whenever they can see a commercial hotspot, for a fee that's not at all that excessive compared to 56kbps Inmarsat - typically $5-10/day.

        I'm surprised that most large ports don't already have arrangements for that sort of thing...

    • Minister of Propaganda? Thats an interesting title.

      It's Portland, that is completely normal. I grew up there. Everyone is just so darned ecclectic: we would come up with crazy titles like Miss Vampyrothsss the Wicked, talking about how Sisters of Mercy really spoke to us, while sitting around the darkest table we could wrestle away from some piss ant 14 year-olds at Quest. But only on a Thursday.

      Minister of Propagana? Man, you got off easy.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    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 som
  • Ecoterrorism (Score:4, Insightful)

    by onyxruby ( 118189 ) <{ten.tsacmoc} {ta} {yburxyno}> on Sunday July 04, 2004 @11:58PM (#9610509)
    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.
    • Enviromental movement? Movement in the sense of 'bowel movement', I take it.
    • Re:Ecoterrorism (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ConsumedByTV ( 243497 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @12:34AM (#9610686) Homepage
      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 (Score:5, Informative)

        by DAldredge ( 2353 ) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Monday July 05, 2004 @12:42AM (#9610722) Journal
        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 (Score:5, Insightful)

          by RedWizzard ( 192002 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @01:03AM (#9610815)
          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 (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Dachannien ( 617929 )
            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.

            • Re:Ecoterrorism (Score:5, Insightful)

              by RedWizzard ( 192002 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @01:39AM (#9610981)
              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.
            • Regardless of whether those "facts" are true or not, exactly how is that terrorism? Where is the terror?
        • mmm....Kujira (Score:5, Insightful)

          by terrymaster69 ( 792830 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @01:43AM (#9610997)
          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.
        • I was on board the Greenpeace ship in question at the time. They rammed us, not the other way around (actually more of a sideswipe). Luckily, we had a video camera rolling. The videotape clearly showed the much larger whaling factory ship at fault. Lloyds (the periodical of note on this subject) listed them as at fault. Fact is that some people throw the word "terrorist" around like they would "Nazi". If you want you can read my account of the incident [greenpeace.org], written and posted from the ship at the time. Yo
          • Re:Ecoterrorism (Score:3, Insightful)

            by DAldredge ( 2353 )
            It's a shame they didn't sink your boat. I am saying this because it is a BAD, EVIL, OLD diesel boat that puts of lots of EVIL, BAD, SMELLY polution.

            After all, one would not want the environment polluted...

      • Re:Ecoterrorism (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jabberjaw ( 683624 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @01:24AM (#9610913)
        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 (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Doppler00 ( 534739 )
        We have many worthwhile causes.

        Which includes cripplying large portions of the U.S. economy?

        moratorium on commercial logging and road construction

        I've lived in logging communities. I know first hand what the environmental movement has done to cripple a legitimate part of our economy. Guess what? After logging companies cut down trees they plant new ones. Trees grow back (amazing!). They do not create wastelands of stumps countrary to popular belief.

        We are working internationally to stop nuclear powe
      • Re:Ecoterrorism (Score:5, Informative)

        by shepd ( 155729 ) <slashdot.orgNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday July 05, 2004 @01:41AM (#9610989) Homepage Journal
        >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 (Score:4, Insightful)

          by KjetilK ( 186133 ) <kjetil@@@kjernsmo...net> on Monday July 05, 2004 @07:27AM (#9612046) Homepage Journal


          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 (Score:4, Insightful)

          by illumin8 ( 148082 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @10:02AM (#9612685) Journal
          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
      • by plopez ( 54068 )
        boy, this topic is really bringing out the trolls.

        In my opinion the real ecco-terrorists are the corporate interests which are destroying the planet for short-term profits. The list of crimes commited or tacitly supported by these organizations is huge and include supporting death squads in Nigeria and S. America, use of slavery, aparthied, price fixing, lying to investors, illegal clear cutting of forests, poisoning water and air suppplies etc.

        And these acts impact human beings, who die when they are poi
      • We do not and will not tolerate ecoterrorism.


        Granted I am not speaking for Greenpeace.


        Anyone else have a hard time getting back up off the floor after that?
      • "Skippy" Moore* might emulate his older (younger?) brother Mike Moore [moorewatch.com] by practicing deceitful editing of your comment in the future 'documentary' GreenWar:

        " Hi. I work for Greenpeace. ... we support ecoterrorism ... Greenpeace has a history of ... Violent Direct Actions for more than 30 years. ... We do ... ecoterrorism. ... speaking for Greenpeace, ... who just so happens to be an active reader of Slashdot ... You might not agree with protesting, but it's ... [a] type of terrorism ... It's quite obvious

    • Greenpeace are worse than terrorists. [checkbiotech.org]

      Greenpeace has been at the head of banning DDT use worldwide.
      Careful indoor use of DDT can save hundreds of thousands of lives each year in Africa. Many countries still ban DDT because of Greenpeace, and millions of lives have been lost because of them.
      They oppose GM designed to grow in bad conditions in poor countries and could save millions of lives from starvation while raising the standard of living.
      Millions of people respiratory diseases from burning fuel indoo

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 05, 2004 @12:07AM (#9610552)
    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!
  • Not news, is it? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by grcumb ( 781340 )

    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.

    • This [freeshell.org] is a cost effective solution.

      Synopsis: Purchase an antenna suitable for your purposes and attach it into a suitably configured Linux box. The link gives you a step by step.
  • Oh? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Erwos ( 553607 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @12:30AM (#9610653)
    We'll see how long it takes the French to blow this one up, I suppose. :)

    -Erwos
  • by Eric(b0mb)Dennis ( 629047 ) * on Monday July 05, 2004 @12:31AM (#9610656)
    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!
  • 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
  • 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...
  • by AEton ( 654737 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @12:52AM (#9610770)
    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!
  • 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.
  • Am I the only one... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kir ( 583 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @01:47AM (#9611018) Homepage

    ...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.

  • by servognome ( 738846 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @02:08AM (#9611104)
    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.
  • by Max Threshold ( 540114 ) on Monday July 05, 2004 @04:24AM (#9611551)
    Now they can go war-sailing!

    Er, I mean... peace-sailing.

"The identical is equal to itself, since it is different." -- Franco Spisani

Working...