Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Greenpeace's Custom Underwater Giant-Squid-Cam

Hemos posted more than 8 years ago | from the learn-more-about-it dept.

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. "

cancel ×

188 comments

Bah - More Giant Squid, Less Gavin's toys (4, Informative)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244495)

What all slashdotters really want to see is a giant squid - not Gavin's toys.

And I have one for you. Giant Squid in its Natural Habitat [google.com]

Seriously, youtube has an interesting video of a largish humbolt squid [youtube.com] and a dissection of a real giant squid at the London Natural History Museum. [youtube.com]

Oh - and a Coral Cache Mirror [nyud.net] in case Gavin's video dies.

Re:Bah - More Giant Squid, Less Gavin's toys (1)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244535)

Each time a Slashdotter buys scheisse at thinkgeek, a Chinese factory dumps 350 liters of toxic waste in the sea, so I guess squids will rather extinct than please your obese asses.

Re:Bah - More Giant Squid, Less Gavin's toys (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244560)

I'm actually kinda interested in the camera itself.

What would be the hardest part about designing a camera to go 1000m deep?

I would have thought that type of tech/know-how would be off the shelf by now.

Re:Bah - More Giant Squid, Less Gavin's toys (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244595)

What would be the hardest part about designing a camera to go 1000m deep?

The pressure is around 100 times greater then at the surface. Thats around 1500psi.

It's a considerable engineering challenge - but the video didn't really seem to go into that....

Re:Bah - More Giant Squid, Less Gavin's toys (1)

Lightman_73 (183090) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244679)

The pressure is around 100 times greater then at the surface.

Around 100 atm.

That said, there is at least another thing to consider. At 1000 m deep, light is completely absent. So you have to be able to light what you want to record on camera. The light drop-off at those depth and pressures is much more than that in air, or in shallow water. So it's not an easily tackable problem. Not to mention water turbidity...

Re:Bah - More Giant Squid, Less Gavin's toys (1)

NewKimAll (923422) | more than 8 years ago | (#15246381)

Designing a camera to those depths has already been done before. Ever see the James Cameron movie on the Titanic? Well, they had cameras for that and the depths were considerably more than just 1,000 metres.
--
If you build it yourself, at least ask those who have already been there and done that.

Re:Bah - More Giant Squid, Less Gavin's toys (2, Interesting)

rtaylor (70602) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244775)

What would be the hardest part about designing a camera to go 1000m deep?

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.

Re:Bah - More Giant Squid, Less Gavin's toys (1)

Z1NG (953122) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244872)

No disrespect intended, but if the solution is so simple then why isn't it being implemented. I think that in reality, the problem is more complex then you are allowing. Otherwise, don't you think that the scientists involved would have, after months of deliberation, come up with the same solutions you did in the seconds you took to write your post. Your ideas to overcome pressure difficulties are interesting, but I think that lighting would be the primary problem. And lets not kid ourselves, the real reason for devices not typically working at such low depths is that the dolphins don't want the third most intelligent organisms on earth to spy on their secret meetings.

Re:Bah - More Giant Squid, Less Gavin's toys (1)

rtaylor (70602) | more than 8 years ago | (#15245009)

No disrespect intended, but if the solution is so simple then why isn't it being implemented.
I described the reason in my first line. Budget. Very few off the shelf components could be used.

NASA or JPL or similar are probably best suited to such a task since they have expertise in custom manufacturing and budgets to go along with it.

Re:Bah - More Giant Squid, Less Gavin's toys (1)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 8 years ago | (#15245100)

How transparent is 3M Fluorinert?

As for the casing, I remember reading some years ago in an issue of Popular Science or some similar magazine that the Russians had developped concrete subs that could widthstand tremendous pressures... so maybe that could be used.

If you insulate your components properly, you could probably also sink them into the concrete and let it harden, leaving the required wires protruding for those essential external parts.

Re:Bah - More Giant Squid, Less Gavin's toys (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 8 years ago | (#15246437)

A camera is always going to have void space, but afaik, a 1000 foot camera isn't particularly difficult to do, it's just that the market is very small. Cameras with 200 ft. ratings are going to do much better sales, already being overkill for the millions of recreational divers.

Heck, if your camera is remote, you could just drop a compressed gas cannister and keep the housing at equilibrium pressure. It might be difficult to test the optics on the surface, but by no means impossible.

Re:Bah - More Giant Squid, Less Gavin's toys (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15246471)

I don't think it's as easy as that, the liquid inside would have much lower pressure than the liquid outside so it'd be not much different from using air. The liquid inside would have to be compressed to several bar (not sure if you need to match outide pressure or if you can keep it at much lower pressure if compression at that level isn't big enough to destroy the hull anymore) and that would make the cam go pop when outside of water. You need a strong hull first and foremost.

The first link is a video of President Bush... (1)

aardwolf64 (160070) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244656)

The first link is a video of President Bush...

Re:The first link is a video of President Bush... (0, Offtopic)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244689)

The first link is a video of President Bush...

Oh....right - it is too. He just looks like a giant squid.

Re:Bah - More Giant Squid, Less Gavin's toys (1)

brunson (91995) | more than 8 years ago | (#15246073)

Definitely!

With that headline I wanted to see a Remotely Operated or Autonomous Vehicle that looked like a squid, but would record what it saw through it's big creepy eye (cue closeup shot of the eye containing a ghostly aperature stopping down behind the lens with a faint, high-pitched whir) and transmit it back to a fuzzy monitor on a garbage scow, the video surrounded by black clad 20-somethings in knit caps, smoking thin brown cigarettes and led by a tall redhead knockout with a single minded passion to save the oceans and great rack.

*Sigh*

Oh, are you still here?

Crew envy (-1, Troll)

D3 (31029) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244509)

Yeah, I 'might' envy the crew if I wanted to belong an eco-terrorist organization! I'm really sorry I won't be the main target of the French Navy!

Re:Crew envy (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15244522)

Did you really need to give us an excuse to make fun of the French?

Re:Crew envy (0, Offtopic)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244548)

Yeah, I 'might' envy the crew if I wanted to belong an eco-terrorist organization!

Oh dear God, "eco-terrorist" huh? I guess you're one of those people who believe pirating music (or smoking marijuana you grew in your own garden) funds terrorism, or pretty much any other knee-jerk response to something the current administration dislikes that's labelled terrorism.

If there's anything sadder then someone unfairly being labelled a terrorist, its the general public's willingness to repeat it ad-nauseum until everyone starts to accept it.

Re:Crew envy (-1, Troll)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244590)

Or maybe it's because they fund arsonists that burn labs and factories to the ground and use that lovely sounding boat of theirs to ram and destroy ships. Not to mentioned illegally boarding and occupying other ships.

Re:Crew envy (0, Troll)

NIK282000 (737852) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244627)

Parent is not a troll, green peace, peta and the like are very much terrorist but because they are "saveing" fuzzy animals and forests no one calls them on it.

Re:Crew envy (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244672)

Parent is not a troll,

Parent and grandparent are trolls. They make claims that are not backed up by any sort of source (queue eager slashdotters linking to the new republic)

Please provide a link from a credible source detailing Greenpeace's terrorist activities.

Re:Crew envy (2, Informative)

NIK282000 (737852) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244693)

There ya go, they were charged for financing terrorism. http://www.libertysecurity.org/article283.html [libertysecurity.org]

Re:Crew envy (1, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244778)

Bzzzzt.

1) Being charged is not the same as being guilty.

2) EU anti-terrorism laws (like in the US) are overly broad & target non-terrorists (from your link: Hence, the EU definition of a 'terrorist act', on which EC Reg. 2580/2001 is based, results to be extremely wide and in many cases too blur and imprecise, leaving an open margin for interpretation to both national police forces, when prosecuting offences, and national judges, when requested to apply the norm

3) (Again from your link): This event, occurred without any damage to things and persons. Doesn't sound a helluva lot like terrorism to me.

Can anyone else respoding please try not to waste time with links like the above?

You asked fo what you got (1)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244873)

You asked for a link detailing their activities.

You didn't ask for a conviction, and frankly, your point about EU anti-terrorism laws is a useless diversion.

"Doesn't sound a helluva lot like terrorism to me."

Well, so what? You're wrong, why should we adjust the definition to suit you when you've already shown you'll say whatever you need to, and change the definition however you need to in order to continue trolling.

Terrorism is about terror. It has nothing to do with "damage to things and persons", so stop making up definitons when the real ones don't suit you.

Re:You asked fo what you got (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244968)

Terrorism is about terror. It has nothing to do with "damage to things and persons",.....

I surprised that you can be terrorised by something that doesn't damage "things or persons". You must be easily frightened. .....so stop making up definitons when the real ones don't suit you.

I didn't make a definition - I pointed out that it wasn't terrorism (where's the terror in a placard?)

I was going to comment on your 'trolling' jibe, but a quick perusal of your posting history [slashdot.org] shows you to be a troll of the most common sort.

And yet I was right (1)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 8 years ago | (#15245246)

"I was going to comment on your 'trolling' jibe, but a quick perusal of your posting history shows you to be a troll of the most common sort."

Nice. That's called an ad hominem. And it doesn't change the facts as I listed them.

"I surprised that you can be terrorised by something that doesn't damage "things or persons"."

What a colossally stupid comment. Who is damaged by a bomb scare? No one. Who is damaged by threat of violence against a particular group of people? No one. God how could you allow yourself to say something so stupid?

"I didn't make a definition"

No, you simply added unrelated qualifications to the current one. No difference.

"I was going to comment on your 'trolling' jibe, but a quick perusal of your posting history shows you to be a troll of the most common sort."

Why, because I've been modded down? I've been modded up too, and if current history is any indicator, you're a far warse troll than I am. In fact, near as I can tell, I haven't received a single troll mod. How many do you have?

Lastly, your sad attempt to divert attention from your own errors by attacking me is an ad hominem. I have included a definition, so in the future when you say something stupid, you won't be able to attack the person pointing out how stupid your comment is. Well, you can, but you'll know it's an ad hominem, so you'll be using it intentionally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem [wikipedia.org]

I should have read your name before responding to you. It's pretty clear you didn't choose it by accident.

Re:And yet I was right (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15245417)

1st of all - can you please learn to use html (or grab the firefox slashdot extension) - your reply is hard to read.

Nice. That's called an ad hominem. And it doesn't change the facts as I listed them.

It doesn't change the facts as you listed them, quite correct, but often its not worth responsing to someone who has a penchant for personal abuse (oh, and I based my troll comment on reading your replies, not others moderation of them).

What a colossally stupid comment. Who is damaged by a bomb scare? No one. Who is damaged by threat of violence against a particular group of people? No one. God how could you allow yourself to say something so stupid?

The linked article does not mention a bomb threat - it talks about a peaceful protest. Do you really think that is terrorism?

I should have read your name before responding to you. It's pretty clear you didn't choose it by accident.

Jeepers! This was right under the line you linked to Ad hominem! Hahahaha, I should call Alanis & let her know about some 'Irony'.

Re:And yet I was right (1)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 8 years ago | (#15245583)

"This was right under the line you linked to Ad hominem! Hahahaha, I should call Alanis & let her know about some 'Irony'."

Go ahead. You'd be wrong about that too, just like she was.

It's not an ad hoiminem. You are whiny. I make no other observations, nor do I address your arguments. If I had, it would be an ad hominem, but I didn't, so it's not.

"involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself."

Addesssing the fact that you are whiny is not an ad hominem if it does not address your argument. Perhaps if you hadn't been in such a rush to reformulate your argument after i destroyed it, you couuld have actually read the link I gave you.

First you said this

"I surprised that you can be terrorised by something that doesn't damage "things or persons"."

Then when shown that examples of such terrorism DO occur, you change the subject and respond with this

"The linked article does not mention a bomb threat - it talks about a peaceful protest. Do you really think that is terrorism?"

At this point, it's pretty obvious you're not interested in seeing or reading anything that refutes your world view, and when shown something that does, you change your assertions.

I won't waste more time with someone who isn't interested in educating themselves. You've made up your mind, and any evidence that contradicts you, you dismiss, or dance around, or outright ignore.

When are you running for office?

Re:And yet I was right (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 8 years ago | (#15245751)

First you said this

"I surprised that you can be terrorised by something that doesn't damage "things or persons"."

Then when shown that examples of such terrorism DO occur, you change the subject and respond with this

"The linked article does not mention a bomb threat - it talks about a peaceful protest. Do you really think that is terrorism?"


*sighs* sorry, sorry, I thought we were talking about the article that was linked. Clearly you're the one who sets the topic. I'll try to keep up in future.

I won't waste more time with someone who isn't interested in educating themselves. You've made up your mind, and any evidence that contradicts you, you dismiss, or dance around, or outright ignore.

Aaah, the pre-emptive, I'm not going to reply to you, so don't bother replying. Cute. Hope you remembered to take your ball on your way home.

Re:You asked fo what you got (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15246225)

You pretend that you're not calling Greenpeace terrorists in one breath, then through implication call them terrorists in the next. Who can argue with that? I read through this whole thread, and have to congratulate you on a spectacular job; rarely have I seen so many self-contradictory arguments chained together, and never into such a clear object lesson of some people's enmity with basic logic.

Then a quote should be easy (1)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 8 years ago | (#15246318)

All you have to do is point to the exact statement that I used to do either of the things you've attributed to me.

Or MAYBE you pathetic AC, there has been more than one person replying and you're too dim-witted to notice.

   

Re:Crew envy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15245998)

Did you even read the link you posted? (Same to you, moderator.)

From your link:

"manifesting their opposition to the genetically modified feed for animals with a colored stand before the Agricultural Council, irrupted into the council headquarters, climbed up to the roof and displayed a banner of protest."

Wow! What vicious, truly dangerous terrorists. Not only did they display a banner of protest -- they went so far as to climb up to the roof to do it! And, in true terrorist form, they ran a colored stand (with the implied threat of raining multicolored flowers upon the Agricultural Council members).

Re:Crew envy (2, Informative)

Opie812 (582663) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244862)

Oh dear God, "eco-terrorist" huh?

Greenpeace has been called eco-terrorist long before that little incident in the U.S. They've been described as such even before the U.S. invaded Iraq to save the world from Al-quesadilla or whatever they call themselves.

Re:Crew envy (-1, Troll)

CaptainZapp (182233) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244616)

Yeah, I 'might' envy the crew if I wanted to belong an eco-terrorist organization!

Well, give me an eco-terrorist organization anyday as opposed to the current terrorist organization that inhabits the white house.

There is no need to thank me.

Pay attention group (2, Insightful)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244675)

What you just read was the Common Karma Whore.

Its behaviors include off-topic comments about the US government, which it uses as a method of attracting less intelligent moderators.

As you can see, this Karma Whore's trap worked perfectly, fooling a particularly mindless moderator, and successfully gaining karma.

Many moderators are intelligent enough to see the Karma Whore's attempts for what they are. Sadly, in any population there will be those that aren't bright enough to sniff out the trap, despite its simplistic construction and lack of sophistication.

Karma Whores rely on such individuals, as they are also not very bright, and without other less intelligent prey, would not survive long in the wild.

Re:Pay attention group (1)

Ninjaesque One (902204) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244815)

Nay: the moderator himself was a karma whore. You see, with being part of a group comes a natural 'responsibility', not bound by any earthly directive, but being one implied, that you will use your new-found moderation points to bolster other karma whores. Your situation probably happens quite a bit, but I would guess that the karma whore phenomenon is mostly self-subsistant, due to the nature of the moderation system.

Whoops.. (3, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244511)

Misread the title as "Greenpeace's Custom Underwater Giant-Squid-Scam".

Then I saw things about a toy specialist and it really got me wondering.

Bah, as so often with misreads, the real story was boring in comparison. ;-)

I want Greenpeace squid scam conspiracies with toy specialists! :-p

Re:Whoops.. (1)

baxissimo (135512) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244762)

I misread it as "Greenpeace's Custom Underwear Giant-Squid-Cam".
The real story proved boring to me, too. I was all excited to hear about that toy specialist's fancy underpants.

Footage about the camera, not from it. (4, Informative)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244518)

Just to clarify, the video is just this guy describing and showing the camera itself. There doesn't seem to be actual video from the thing viewable. Shame.

Re:Footage about the camera, not from it. (1)

xmas2003 (739875) | more than 8 years ago | (#15245131)

Was kinda interesting hearing the description ... but yea, no footage of giant squid on video - too bad as that would be cool. Here is a live video feed showing another type of sealife [watching-paint-dry.com] - although not as big/interesting as a giant squid ;-)

Re:Footage about the camera, not from it. (1)

RareButSeriousSideEf (968810) | more than 8 years ago | (#15245797)

We want squid! We want squid!

Looking at that guys nose... (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244524)

... I think he must've been headbutted by a whale at some point!

Me too! (4, Insightful)

amightywind (691887) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244538)

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.

Giant squid have already been photographed [nationalgeographic.com] in their natural habitat by Japanese scientists. Greenpeace is a radical political organisation with little scientific credibility. Marine science is already in more capable hands. One can only wonder about their real motivations.

After months of confronting whalers and pirates...

It takes one to know one.

Re:Me too! (3, Funny)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244677)

Giant squid have already been photographed in their natural habitat by Japanese scientists.

This is a better shot by the Japanese team; Squid [pbs.org]

Re:Me too! (1)

amightywind (691887) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244735)

LOL!

Re:Me too! (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15246501)

I was SO expecting a hentai link there...

Re:Me too! (1)

Alicat1194 (970019) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244881)

...photographed in their natural habitat by Japanese scientists.... Marine science is already in more capable hands

Yep, the giant squid taste mighty fine this year.... (but we may have to up our quota next year, just to be sure)

Re:Me too! (2, Funny)

DesireCampbell (923687) | more than 8 years ago | (#15245658)

"After months of confronting whalers and pirates..."

What? They're killing pirates now?! But lack of pirates [venganza.org] is causing "Global WarmingTM".

Damn hippies, you'll kill us all! I'll see you in pasta hell [venganza.org] .

News for nerds?! (1)

babbling (952366) | more than 8 years ago | (#15245930)

I can't believe Slashdot has stooped this low. Tentacle porn?!

The only thing Fance does that I approve of: (0, Troll)

morgandelra (448341) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244540)

They Shoot Greenpeace terrorists on the high seas.

GreenHypocrisy (3, Insightful)

onyxruby (118189) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244543)

When will greenpeace end their days of hypocrisy and start sailing the seas in these nifty windpowered devices they call sailing ships? They use renewable energy, don't use polluting engines (much as greenpeaces current fleet does) and are arguably just about histories most proven technology.

Of course then they would limited to actual research instead of political stunts. Almost all of histories most famous research ships were wooden sailing ships and greenpeace spits on the legacy.

They need exposed as the frauds they are and for people to stop accepting the lie that they are an environmental group. They are a political group that has done more to harm environmental progress (look at their record on nuclear energy for a prime example) than anybody short of big industry.

This coming from someone /has/ worked in the recycling industry, doesn't drive a big car gives to environmental causes and so on. Give money to legitimate environmental groups, live responsibly and let this political whore / quasi terrorist organization die.

Re:GreenHypocrisy (1, Troll)

rundgren (550942) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244709)

*standing ovations* Mod Parent UP, UP and away!

Speaking of sailing boats (1)

technoextreme (885694) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244783)

When will greenpeace end their days of hypocrisy and start sailing the seas in these nifty windpowered devices they call sailing ships? They use renewable energy, don't use polluting engines (much as greenpeaces current fleet does) and are arguably just about histories most proven technology.

You know what is even more ironic is that someone is actually developing sailboat freighters. I remember reading in a magazine (I don't remmeber which one) that sailboats might be a good way to move those huge ships around. I would like it if someone pointed me to some information about this.

Re:Speaking of sailing boats (1)

Ryan Amos (16972) | more than 8 years ago | (#15245349)

With the way fuel prices are going, I think shipping companies would love to be able to raise a mast on a clear, windy day and catch a free ride and save $50,000 worth of gas. I don't think there would be a ship like this without an engine at all (too many deadlines to make) but it makes sense if the weather is right.

It's environmentally friendly *and* it saves money. That's the only thing that is going to make companies "go green" en masse.

Re:GreenHypocrisy (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15244876)

Greenpeace sucks. I agree with some of what they want to accomplish, but their eco-terrorist tactics make me ill.

Re:GreenHypocrisy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15245826)

Disclaimer, I' donate to Greenpeace. Now that that is out of the way. I'm sick and tired of everybody appending the word terrorist to groups of people they don't like or don't agree with. Doing so is Orwellian nonesense. It makes the word terorrist a word without meaning, because if everybody is a terrorist then nobody is! (As an aside, do you seriously think the 9/11 hijackers are in the same league as Greenpeace, are you really that stupid?). Why not be a little more precise and call what they do by its proper name --- non violent direct action or civil disobedience. Don't read this comment as saying that I agree with everything Greenpeace says or does, because I don't. I do believe in checks and balances, though. I support big agro, power companies and militaristic governments by just shopping in a supermarket or paying taxes. Why not give some money to the oter side too? If only to make sure a larger part of the solution space is searched (I mean solutions to real environmental problems).

If you really would like to see questionable tactics, look up "Sea Shepherd". That will make you cringe for sure.

Re:GreenHypocrisy (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15246295)

Putting jacks in trees with the goal of injuring/killing loggers is a terrorist act. Ramming ships with the greenpeace huge ship of unknown environmental benefit with the goal of.. well i don't know what the goal was. also they were navy ships being rammed, so.. anti-war? anyway, terrorism. well terrorism unless part of a legitimate military action. But I don't think you'll ever hear greenpeace claim to have any military goals legitimate or otherwise.

Re:GreenHypocrisy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15245168)

So you're pro-nuclear power (just diverting attention from better technologies like geothermal), you do drive a car (just not a big one -- big whoop), and you worked in an industry which uses enormous amounts of oil (or are they picking up recycling in horse-drawn carts now)? Clean up your act you wannabe!

Seriously though, Greenpeace is finally doing something which might be useful, and you're complaining about "hypocrisy"? "Hey, you were bad before, so you're not allowed to act good! Ever!" Do you think that actually achieves anything? Not to mention that nobody is so flawless as to be above being called "hypocritical". Instead, you might want to consider encouraging their good behavior. Save the complaints for when Greenpeace is actually doing something wrong, not when they came up with some useful technology.

Re:GreenHypocrisy (2, Insightful)

Peyna (14792) | more than 8 years ago | (#15245190)

I love how everyone is willing to cry "hypocrisy" the minute someone doesn't 100% practice what they preach. It's called practicality and the greater good. There are certain evils they are willing to accept in order to achieve their goals. Sure, they could completely abandon anything and everything which harms the environment, but then they'd be sitting in the woods alone all day and could not have any impact on society. Instead, they've decided that having one more diesel powered boat is a lot better than having billions of tons of trash and oil dumped into the ocean.

Re:GreenHypocrisy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15245464)

I'll remember this comment the next time someone brings up hypocracy in religion. It's okay that the priest hurts children as long in the end he does some good.

Re:GreenHypocrisy (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15246540)

How is hurting children necessary for the greater good?

Re:GreenHypocrisy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15245531)

He was just looking for something about Greenpeace to complain about.

Anyway, I think Greenpeace lost sight of the greater good a long time ago.

Perhaps (0, Troll)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 8 years ago | (#15245689)

"I love how everyone is willing to cry "hypocrisy" the minute someone doesn't 100% practice what they preach. It's called practicality"

So how much "practicality" does Greepeace allow whalers, or people who wear fur, or other groups they disagree with?

And by the way, it can be called practicality and hypocrisy at the same time. They aren't mutually exclusive.

One question, you should be able to answer. Are the Greenpeace boats runnig Biodiesel? If yes, then bully, if no, then you need to shut the fuck up. There's nothing impractical about putting a different fuel in the tank.

actually... (2, Interesting)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 8 years ago | (#15245891)

Greenpeace doesn't really get involved with people who wear fur. They more get involved on the production side, not the wearing side. And fur-wise, they only get involved with baby seals, not furs in general. I think you're thinking of PETA.

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:actually... (1)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 8 years ago | (#15246069)

"They more get involved on the production side, not the wearing side. And fur-wise, they only get involved with baby seals, not furs in general."

Ok, firts, that wrong. Second, I was referring to the incident where Greenpeace dyed baby seals, subsequently making them eaiser prey and limiting their ability to tolerate cold.

"It is completely absurd to say that a person who believes in the environment cannot use any fossil fuels."

Great I agree, that's why I never said that. Why make up an argument instead of addressing mine?

"But I find your argument that practical limits mean one shouldn't try to improve some aspects of our enviroment to be foolish."

Never said nor implied that. Why make up an argument instead of addressing mine?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man [wikipedia.org]

Read that, then edit your post. I doubt you'll have more than a few punctuations left.

Really, why reply to me when the only thing you've addressed are arguments I didn't make? Does it make you feel special to make up arguments then knock them down?

Re:Perhaps (1)

Peyna (14792) | more than 8 years ago | (#15245898)

Is biodiesel better for the environment? It would take millions of acres of farms to produce enough to replace oil and so instead of burning fossil fuels, we've destroyed every last inch of forest.

Re:Perhaps (1)

GuloGulo (959533) | more than 8 years ago | (#15246098)

"Is biodiesel better for the environment?"

Better than fossil fuels.

"It would take millions of acres of farms to produce enough to replace oil and so instead of burning fossil fuels, we've destroyed every last inch of forest."

If we were talking about replacing oil, you'd be right. Nice how you tried to change the subject like that.

We're not talking about replacing oil however, we're talking about replacing oil ON GREEPEACE VESSELS. So save the fearmongering and address MY point, not a made up point that you think makes your position more defensible.

Obligatory... (3, Funny)

de_smudger (971193) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244546)

ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn! (oh come on, somebody had to didn't they ;)

Pirates DQ'd from Competition. (1, Funny)

FryingDutchman (891770) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244585)

"After months confronting whalers and pirates..."

This kind of eliminates the latter from the monkey/robot/ninja deathmatch now doesn't it? I mean if they can't even take out a bunch of berkenstock-clad hippes on the wet deck of a ship how can they handle a cybernetic bushido-wielding Capuchin?

I also find it odd that an environmentalist group patrols the oceans in a large diesel ship. Counter-productive much there Granola Moonbeam Humpflowers?

A cluster of cameras to shoot each tentacle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15244643)

How about a hydra of cameras that could follow each tentacle? a beauwolf of cameras??

Re:Pirates DQ'd from Competition. (1)

NIK282000 (737852) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244652)

Now if they could power their ships on ego or stupidity then they would be wearing the clever pants now wouldn't they.

Re:Pirates DQ'd from Competition. (1)

stiggle (649614) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244774)

The only people I've seen recently storming ships to sieze parts of the cargo (ie. Pirates) has been Greenpeace themselves. Trying to prove GM soya bean shipments so taking samples of the cargo while in International Waters.

Re:Pirates DQ'd from Competition. (1)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244904)

Piracy (albeit more high tech than the old kind) is a fairly major problem in certain parts of the world, the straights of Malacca in particular. They board from small speedboats carrying hand or very light weaponry and typically target the containers that have the good stuff, they also go after crew valuables.

Re:Pirates DQ'd from Competition. (1)

Ninjaesque One (902204) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244851)

Bushido is a weapon?

Re:Pirates DQ'd from Competition. (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 8 years ago | (#15245468)

I don't think Greenpeace has had to worry about ninjas since that one debacle with French ninjas they had a while back, but I'm not sure about their track record with robots. Monkeys, though, I believe they try to save.

Terrorist (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15244592)

Should we really be glorifying these eco-terrorists?

Next on Slashdot: The latest Al Qaeda gadgets! -- The IRA has produced a movie; it will blow you away! -- Take a look into the circuitry behind PLO suicide bombs!

Propaganda (2, Insightful)

hsoft (742011) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244895)

I guess we are all victims of propaganda. Myself, being a victim of Greenpeace propaganda, and american people being victims of Fox News (a.k.a. Bush administration) propaganda, flagging everyone not sharing their views as terrorists, part of the evil axis.

What makes greenpeace terrorists? Have they killed anybody? Did they kill these whalers? Are they placing bombs on the most polluting factories? Are they invading Irak to force them to be ecologists (Operation "Spreading eco-freedom"!)? THAT would be eco-terrorism.

Re:Propaganda (1)

banaanimies (944641) | more than 8 years ago | (#15245084)

Green Peace the terrorist organization has killed thousands of people. They force companies to waste money with their tricks. Average worker makes $20 000 a year and lives about 65 years. Wasting 1,3 million dollars is same as killing someone*. Considering this, Green Peace has killed more people than Al Qaeda and CIA together. * This line of reasoning has been founded true at popular Slashdot spammers & arrests threads.

Re:Propaganda (1)

got2liv4him (966133) | more than 8 years ago | (#15245173)

You definitly seem to have been a victim of propaganda.

Re:Terrorist (5, Informative)

identity0 (77976) | more than 8 years ago | (#15245809)

Interesting that you would consider Greenpeace to be "terrorists". I'm taking a course on terrorism right now from a extremely right-wing professor, and even he nor the book we're using(which has whole sections on ecoterror) would consider Greenpeace to be terrorists.

Perhaps you're confusing them with Earth Liberation Front [wikipedia.org] , who commit arson, or Animal Liberation Front [wikipedia.org] , who are the reason many biology labs have tighter security than datacenters these days.

Greenpeace may be a bunch of annoying holier-than-thou hippies, but they are basically a activist org, not a full terrorist or revolutionary one.

Bad form Hemos (0, Troll)

jrwillis (306262) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244629)

Nothing like supporting a bunch of terrorists. Next I guess it'll be the wacky hijinx of al quida that we'll be commenting on. Really Hemos, bad form for posting this.

In other news, I think the Salt & Pepper squid from T&S Seafood sounds good for lunch today...

Diving with Diablo Rojo (1)

NtwoO (517588) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244644)

This is a very nice read about the smaller brother of the Giant squid called the Diablo Rojo [diver.net]

Humboldts were very present this year (1)

ianscot (591483) | more than 8 years ago | (#15245742)

Humboldt squid were fished pretty heavily off California this winter. I have a Google news thing set up to tell me anything new with "giant squid" in the text, and lots of stories about fishing trips showed up. Seems like they're gone for the season now, though.

They're very aggressive, your diver is right. A comparable species (supposedly) that's on the scale of architeuthis is the "colossal" squid. [bbc.co.uk] Very active, hooks on the suckers, and in other ways a little closer to Humboldts. There's a nice little diagram on that BBC page showing the scale next to an old double-decker London bus.

Custom Underwear (1)

crerwin (971247) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244645)

Yep, misread the title as such. Damn hippies.

This doesn't end well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15244848)

The Esperanza? A squid?

This doesn't end well at all [tv.com] . Not at all, sir.

bkd

Greenpeace is irrelevant (3, Informative)

goldspider (445116) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244931)

Re:Greenpeace is irrelevant (2, Interesting)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 8 years ago | (#15246524)

Do some more homework. That founder is a paid shill for the nuclear industry now. This was covered pretty extensively sometime last week on slashdot, IIRC.

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.

Greenpeace and Squids? (2, Funny)

Z1NG (953122) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244932)

I don't know about squids, but going "deep sea diving" with a hippie pretty much guarantees you will see at least crabs.

Harrassing Marine Life (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15244951)

Why is Greenpeace harrassing marine life? Or are they just sport fishing for squid?

Giant-squid-cam! (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 8 years ago | (#15244976)

Did anyone else expect (hope?) that this was an underwater camera disguised as a giant squid? It would be great for capturing those evil giant-squid hunters in the act. Maybe Greenpeace could use it to attack evildoers such as pirates, whalers, and Exxon tankers.

Be great for images of Sperm whales, anyway (1)

ianscot (591483) | more than 8 years ago | (#15245673)

Did anyone else expect (hope?) that this was an underwater camera disguised as a giant squid? It would be great for capturing those evil giant-squid hunters in the act.

You know, that's not a bad idea. So far we've got footage of the one living, active giant squid ever, and it was caught on a (suitably huge) bait line. We also have never seen Sperm whales actually hunting on their long dives; a National Geographic "Search for the Giant Squid" special a few years ago attached some cameras to the whales and followed them down a while, but the Physeters were swimming in such close formation that they knocked the cameras off each other. Even the close group of whales was news to science, actually. Nobody really knows if, as is speculated, the Sperm whale's nose is actually part of a sonic weapon used to incapacitate its prey at depth. This is the largest predator (aside from "preying" on krill) that we've ever found in the world, and we know jack about it even though we've killed loads of them.

But let's run a camera disguised as Architeuthis down into something like the Kaikoura trench and see if we can't get footage of those whales coming in for a kill, shall we?

What a great idea you've had!

Hahahah IT BROKE! (4, Informative)

jgaynor (205453) | more than 8 years ago | (#15245107)

Ironically, they broke it yesterday [greenpeace.org] by unexpectedly banging it against some coral.

Around lunchtime, just as I was on a Defending Our Oceans project leaders conference call, and being cautiously optimistic about how well things are going out here so far - disaster struck the underwater video and stills research camera, affectionately known as the 'Drop-Cam'. While surveying a coral ridge it had crashed into a rocky outcrop and been broken into pieces.

Re:Hahahah IT BROKE! (2, Insightful)

j-turkey (187775) | more than 8 years ago | (#15245807)

Ironically, they broke it yesterday by unexpectedly banging it against some coral.

...and damaging or destroying the coral. Nice going, guys.

digs (1)

AchingHunger (913936) | more than 8 years ago | (#15245277)

Dumbledore is the giant squid!

I am an Employee of Greenpeace... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15245708)

...and I am highly offended by this post.

Re:I am an Employee of Greenpeace... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15245936)

I am a citizen of this planet, and I am highly offended by Greenpeace.

Needle in Oceanstack (1)

Britz (170620) | more than 8 years ago | (#15245803)

Oceans are pretty large and cameras don't look all that far (especially when it gets very dark, like in deep sea). How many giant squid do you think are there? Are they all hungry to become celebrities?

I bet they won't see jack.

Just what they need at Hogwarts (1)

Myrrh (53301) | more than 8 years ago | (#15245888)

...to keep an eye on the giant squid, you know. And the merpeople.

The problem: (1)

Perseid (660451) | more than 8 years ago | (#15246352)

They were going to use giant-squid-cam.com for their videos, but they found out the domain was already taken by a porn site...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...