×

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!

Exxon's Brute Squad Hacks the Yes Men

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the can't-take-a-joke dept.

Censorship 308

tom_evil notes a story up on Infoshop.org about a parody site and the lack of a sense of humor in a large multinational. "One day after the Yes Men made a joke announcement of ExxonMobil's plans to turn billions of climate-change victims into a brand-new fuel called Vivoleum, the Yes Men's upstream internet service provider shut down Vivoleum.com and cut off the Yes Men's email service, in reaction to a complaint whose source they will not identify. 'Since parody is protected under US law, Exxon must think that people seeing the site will think Vivoleum's a real Exxon product, not just a parody,' said Yes Man Mike Bonanno. Exxon's policies do already contribute to 150,000 climate-change related deaths each year,' added Yes Man Andy Bichlbaum. 'So maybe it really is credible. What a resource!'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

308 comments

News For Nerds How??!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19702003)

Yes, Exxon Mobil is a big bad boogeyman to leftists, but why does this mean it's news for nerds? I love how stories relating to big bad, evil corporations that have no tech connection get posted.

kdawson is the biggest troll on slashdot. Please take your liberal rantings to daily kos.

Re:News For Nerds How??!! (2, Insightful)

maynard (3337) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702091)

Oh, fuck all the politics. These guys are funny! I mean, from giving a presentation to a food service industry convenstion about McDonald's making their new hamburgers from the shit of their customers' to this... Come on! It's FUNNY!!!

Re:News For Nerds How??!! (2, Insightful)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702189)

If you need to shout it's funny, it probably isn't so much.

I'd certainly call it funny if they produced the parody and uploaded it, but they didn't. They tricked someone into fronting the expenses for their stage and audience and did "performance art".

Not funny when it costs someone else's money. More like parasitism.

Re:News For Nerds How??!! (4, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702611)

They tricked someone into fronting the expenses for their stage and audience

See, that's the funny part.

because the retaliation was to disconnect them (5, Insightful)

putch (469506) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702183)

i dont like the yes men either. i tend to agree with their positions, but i feel like they ultimately hurt their cause because they wind up looking like idiots and don't change any minds but just serve as entertainment for the most die hard of leftists.

nevertheless, their internet connection was turned off because exxon didnt like what they were saying. it's kind of disconcerting. had this been any group conservative, liberal or otherwise it is troubling that they can be wiped off the face of the internet.

that's why it's news for nerds and why you're flamebait.

Re:because the retaliation was to disconnect them (2, Insightful)

MSTCrow5429 (642744) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702455)

nevertheless, their internet connection was turned off because exxon didnt like what they were saying.

That's purely conjecture at this point.

Re:because the retaliation was to disconnect them (4, Interesting)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702659)

Ok their internet connection was turned off at the request of unrevealed people, without a criminal charge or notification. There isn't even an attempt at establishing any kind of proper authority, just a command from someone powerful enough to make it happen. That's far worse than Exxon (or someone acting in Exxon's interests) being required to take this act publicly.

Conjecture My Ass (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19702677)

That's purely conjecture at this point.

"Broadview did restore both IPs on Wednesday, after the Vivoleum.com
website was completely disabled and all mention of Exxon was removed
from TheYesMen.org."

Re:News For Nerds How??!! (1)

DrRevotron (994894) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702191)

I just love how the three UK terror attacks (well, two were *attempted* attacks) have received ABSOLUTELY ZERO coverage on Slashdot, but this small story is front-page news here. God forbid all your theories about the War on Terrorism being a bumpersticker would be *debunked*. Oh NOEZ!

Way to set your political priorities straight, /.. You're right on par with the New York Times putting the JFK plot on page 30.

Hint: If you're going to destroy America like this, please, destroy yourselves first. We'll be right behind you... we promise... *cough*

Re:News For Nerds How??!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19702299)

Yeah, I was pretty surprised about the UK attempts, I thought that if we fought the terrorists in Iraq, they'd stay there and be obedient targets like Bush said, I never thought that there would be terrorism again outside of Iraq.

Re:News For Nerds How??!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19702313)

It sounds like you're pretty stupid, then.

Re:News For Nerds How??!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19702745)

AC, meet sarcastic AC.

Re:News For Nerds How??!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19702687)

no no no you miss understand. By helping to bring them the freedom to fracture into many different warring groups, we are ensuring the future happiness and prosperity of the people of Iraq . The children growing up there will hold us dear in their hearts and never forget what we haqve done for them. I'm sure they will show their appreciation when they grow up.

Re:News For Nerds How??!! (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702327)

I just love how the three UK terror attacks (well, two were *attempted* attacks) have received ABSOLUTELY ZERO coverage on Slashdot, but this small story is front-page news here.
I'm sure that if the two cars loaded with explosives would have had WiFi triggers rather than plain old cell phone triggers it would have shown up on /. Better yet, if those cars were full of Vivoleum instead of gasoline Exxon could have sent their Brute Squad after the bastards that planted those bombs.

Of course, it would be horribly ironic if they came forward and claimed they did it as retaliation against their ISP.

Re:News For Nerds How??!! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19702369)

Those stories are sufficiently covered in other Media. If you want to read about those stories you can go there. Not all news stories need be covered in all types of media.

Re:News For Nerds How??!! (2, Funny)

Trailwalker (648636) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702685)

just love how the three UK terror attacks (well, two were *attempted* attacks) have received ABSOLUTELY ZERO coverage on Slashdot


1. Wait about three weeks.

2. The terrorists used low tech non-functioning methods, and were noticeably inept. More of "your government at work" sort of stuff.

Re:News For Nerds How??!! (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702599)

big bad, evil corporations that have no tech connection

Get this guy: "Exxon=no tech connection". I guess he's using solar power to run his WebTV. He must be so hi-tech he's running his Amigo on Brylcreem.

*sigh* Corproations have too much power (2, Insightful)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702009)

This is another example of how corporations and not people are the important ones in USA.

Not to mention that their ISP couldn't cut their pipe fast enough after Exxon complained. No due process here, just cut it off.... Only in America....

Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power (3, Insightful)

hotdiggitydawg (881316) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702033)

This is another example of how corporations and not people are the important ones in USA.

Not to mention that their ISP couldn't cut their pipe fast enough after Exxon complained. No due process here, just cut it off.... Only in America....
So take the power back then. Name and shame the ISP, and vote with your wallet.

Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19702243)

Are you going to out-vote Exxon with your wallet?

Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power (4, Funny)

rbanffy (584143) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702553)

No, but if you make Exxon buy each and every ISP out there you can then use your very effective anti-monopoly legislation...

No. wait...

Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power (1)

zullnero (833754) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702555)

Are you going to out-vote Exxon with your wallet?

No, unless Exxon IS the ISP! And it's not, if you RTFA.

Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19702569)

Exxon doesn't have to be an ISP when it has enough money to stamp any of them out of existence.

Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19702643)

Suggesting I use my wallet is a ridiculous idea.

My wallet is far too small to suggest as a weapon and frankly, free speech isn't something that I should have to purchase.

Insightful, my ass.

Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power (3, Insightful)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702039)

his is another example of how corporations and not people are the important ones in USA.

Not to mention that their ISP couldn't cut their pipe fast enough after Exxon complained. No due process here, just cut it off.... Only in America....


Unlike, say France, where it is crime to insult various people or groups.

Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power (5, Insightful)

Khaed (544779) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702207)

This shouldn't be moderated flamebait -- it's true enough. The US is *NOT* the only country where something someone else finds offensive will get shut down.

Ask the people who dared publish cartoons depicting Mohammad. (Meanwhile, in the US, I don't recall violent protests of "Piss Christ" that ended with any buildings being set on fire...)

Yes, there are many examples of freedom of expression being squashed in the US. But to imply "Only in America..." Wait, *seriously*? You *HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT*? C'mon!

Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702449)

Not only that, but it was a business deciding not to do business with someone due to a complaint against that person. I do not wish to live in a time or place where you are not free to decided these kinds of things on your own. ADA and Affermitive action are bad enough for many businesses as it is and have put many out of business.

Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19702497)

oh, come on. you know that's not true. the u.s. is a theocracy worse than the taliban by most here. after all, we beat and kill people who don't tithe and pray to the lord and such. we punish people who get abortions, or women who talk to men who aren't in their own families, or are homosexuals.
 
the u.s. is nothing but a dogmatic state that has no interest in anything but pushing christianity. seriously. if you post something to this tune it will normally be modded insightful. not that the moderating system here isn't a complete scam or anything.
 
cmdrdildo is a fucking moron and asshat.

Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702645)

I don't recall violent protests of "Piss Christ" that ended with any buildings being set on fire.

There didn't have to be, because a phoney-baloney catholic mayor who was banging some tootsie who wasn't his wife fell all over himself shutting down the art exhibit before the Christian Right could load their letter-writing campaign.

You don't need guerrilla violence when you've got all the power. All in all, these latest "terror-bombers" in the UK didn't hurt anyone but themselves, but Exxon kills hundreds of thousands per year.

Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power (1, Insightful)

Belacgod (1103921) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702439)

The fact that other countries also suck doesn't make us suck less. Censorship of this nature is a negative-sum game, not a zero-sum one.

Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power (1)

CriminalNerd (882826) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702045)

Well...if you look at it, a corporation is an entity that is run by the strength and resources of many, many people, so technically, a corporation DOES have more weight than people.

Don't you agree?

*sigh* bad arguments have too much power (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19702061)

"This is another example of how corporations and not people are the important ones in USA. "

So how does me as an individual calling the DMCA on you affect your argument?

Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702263)

Not to mention that their ISP couldn't cut their pipe fast enough after Exxon complained. No due process here, just cut it off.... Only in America....


Here, here! You don't see individuals wielding power to squelch opinions they don't agree with in other countries! Unless, they're a King of Queen... sure. Or a totalitarian ruler / despot. OK. Only by Kings, Queens, and despots... and other various heads of state. Maybe the wealthy. So power is only used outside America by Kings, Queens, despots, various Heads of State and the inordinately wealthy. OK. But not corporations! Not at all! Unless one of the aforementioned also runs a corporation. Or they have an agreement with one. Maybe then. But the important thing is that only in America... umm... hmm...

*sigh* Cults have too much power (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19702415)

"Here, here! You don't see individuals wielding power to squelch opinions they don't agree with in other countries!"

Scientology.

Re:*sigh* Cults have too much power (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702435)

OK... OK... Kings, Queens, despots, various Heads of State, the inordinately wealthy, Scientologists, and other religious or quasi-religious entities.

Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power (1)

computerman413 (1122419) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702273)

Cut a pipe? I thought cutting oil pipes caused environmental damage. Besides, I thought ISPs only controlled tubes.

Blame game. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19702013)

Not that anyone gives a damn, but is there any proof that Exxon actually was responsible?

Re:Blame game. (1)

LehiNephi (695428) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702691)

Chances are good that Exxon was responsible, but you're right--there's no proof at this point.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the statement "Exxon's policies do already contribute to 150,000 climate-change related deaths each year" is, at best, ingenuous. It's not as if Exxon is burning the hundreds of millions of barrels of gasoline/oil/natural gas per year--they're just supplying a commodity for which there is a large global demand. Blaming Exxon for global warming is worse than blaming gun manufacturers for crime.

Cue all the apologists (4, Insightful)

rkcallaghan (858110) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702023)

Remember folks, its not censorship when big business does it!

(Sarcasm-impaired mods: This post is a parody, much like the Yes Men's Vivoleum)

~Rebecca

They Have A Right (4, Funny)

mdsolar (1045926) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702117)

Remember corporations have human rights too. ExxonMobile has an inherent free speech right to distort debate http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/your-opinion-c ould-be-paid-for-by.html [blogspot.com] and threaten others with law suits to intimidate them.

It is their right to have no sense of humor, especially if the joke is at their expense. Please be more sympathetic.
--
Det solar power are save money too: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]

Re:They Have A Right (4, Interesting)

mikelieman (35628) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702209)

These Artificial Legal Entities need to be re-enslaved.

When the owners sign on the line, begging The People to permit their incorporation, they agree to go by the regulation The People impose.

It is very much like your drivers' license.

You OWN your car, and theoretically, in a Free Nation , that Property Right is absolute, and you may do with your property, your car, whatever you wish.

UNTIL you sign your Drivers' license application. At that moment, when you AGREE to abide by the Regulations for Vehicles and Traffic, that you surrender your Rights.

Exact same thing with the incorporation of ALEs. We *could* make them do whatever we want, and if they don't like it, they can just close up shop, and liquidate their assets back to the shareholders.

But somehow, this idea of them being just as good as a Flesh-and-Blood came about.

Re:They Have A Right (4, Funny)

mdsolar (1045926) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702239)

But the poor things are only trying to do right by their shareholders. Shouldn't their high moral purpose trump mere individual rights?

Re:They Have A Right (1)

mikelieman (35628) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702281)

Sarcasm aside, then what's the benefit to The People for permitting the existence of Corporate Artificial Legal Entities in the first place, if they don't FIRST benefit The People in tangible ways?

Why bother having the Secretary of State even bother filing the paperwork?

Re:They Have A Right (2, Insightful)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702333)

Apparently "The People" in your post only refers to people who don't own shares in corporations. Thanks for declaring me (and millions of others) non-entities.

Re:They Have A Right (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702427)

In Corporate America the corporations say they benefit you!

Which side do I put the sarcasm? Aside or beside ;-)

not an apoligist, just the truth (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19702139)

See, here is the problem: yes it is censorship, no it is not a violation of U.S. law nor the First Ammendment (as far as I can tell from the article). People often cannot separate the two, including the Yes Men.

"Since parody is protected under US law"

You see, they are in a business relationship with the hosting company. The hosting company can break that relationship for pretty much whatever reason they see fit, including parody -- might not be smart but those are the facts. If the Yes Men put this out using their own resources, etc. and were sued for it, that's where US law would protect them. However, since they are in a business relationship with someone else, you really can't claim protection. Does that mean it's a smart idea / good idea for the hosting company to do this? No. But it's not a violation of someone's rights. That's the truth.

Re:not an apoligist, just the truth (1)

rkcallaghan (858110) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702225)

Anonymous Coward wrote:

See, here is the problem: yes it is censorship, no it is not a violation of U.S. law nor the First Ammendment ...
If you ask me, using the threat of US Government action is just as much a violation as the government taking that action on their own accord.

I wouldn't be one to claim that a "First Amendment" or "Illegal Censorship" issue takes place when legal, private action (such as a store refusing to stock your product) is the stick used. However, using the government itself as the stick (via a lawsuit), is very much the same. I will grant you however, that our current SCOTUS staff that runs entirely on party lines and is even willing to overturn Brown vs. Board; would likely side with the Corporation over the Constitution.

~Rebecca

Re:Cue all the apologists (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19702315)

Remember folks, its not censorship when big business does it!

No, it's not censorship when big business does it. It's censorship when big businesses use laws created and enforced by the government to do it. Anything without government involvement is not censorship. If Exxon managed to persuade their ISP to take the site down just by asking nicely, then this isn't censorship, just a shitty ISP. If Exxon threatened the ISP with a lawsuit, it is censorship. The latter is far more likely, but you don't have to be an apologist to distinguish between abuse of state power and agreements between private individuals.

Hardly a "hack" (2)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702029)

Nice trollish headline. It's hardly a hack, rather a cease-and-desist from an 800 lb gorilla. In other words, not news for nerds.

Re:Hardly a "hack" (1)

hamburger lady (218108) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702053)

it may not be a hack, but its still news for nerds. somebody got their pipe shut down for political parody FFS.

Re:Hardly a "hack" (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702123)

Just because it happens "online" doesn't matter. The issue is parody. "online" isn't some sacred, Gibsonian world. If it was about stuff that happened ONLY online, that would be a different story.

Re:Hardly a "hack" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19702269)

Yep, a troll post. Too bad we could mod (down) the approver of this post.

Re:Hardly a "hack" (3, Interesting)

bladesjester (774793) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702531)

I disagree. A hack is generally defined as using the rules of a system in such a way that it accomplishes something that the creators of the system never intended. The system doesn't have to be a computer (social engineering is a form of hacking as well.)

I'd say this qualifies.

Soylent Green fuel (3, Funny)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702047)

Apparently you they are starting a program where you can bring grandma into a recycling plant and exchange her for fuel. It's called Blue Hair to Green Fuel. They are hoping to show their carbon neutral environmental side.

Legal matters (1, Informative)

Xiroth (917768) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702049)

Uh, usually I wouldn't note problems in the summary, but a missing quote mark at the start of the second last sentence makes it seem like Slashdot is the one claiming (as fact) that Exxon causes 150,000 deaths per year, and could easily be grounds for a libel suit. If an editor reads this comment, they may want to fix that.

IANAL, though, so I could be wrong.

Re:Legal matters (1)

Watson Ladd (955755) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702107)

You are wrong, as it is a fact that Exxon causes 150,000 deaths per year. At least Nature says so! IANAL, and this is not legal advice, just my opinion. YMMV.

Re:Legal matters (1)

Black-Man (198831) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702389)

I read that article in the Post. Nowhere did it say Exxon causes 150K deaths per year. The article stated the WHO guess 150K deaths per year related to climate change. It would be correct to say Exxon CONTRIBUTES to 150K deaths per year, but then again, wouldn't the blame squarely fall on the folks driving the gas guzzling SUV's? Its not like Exxon is forcing us to buy the gas.

Re:Legal matters (5, Insightful)

LehiNephi (695428) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702739)

Bingo! It's important to keep in mind a few things on this very touchy subject:
  • Exxon (or whatever other oil company) are not the ones burning the hundreds of millions of barrels of oil/gasoline/natural gas every year.
  • Even if they were burning so much fossil fuel, Exxon only represents about 2% of the global oil production. They're the biggest private (i.e. not state-owned) oil company.
  • Who's burning all that gas? Well, as I drive to work (in my 35 MPG civic), I'm surrounded by people driving Tahoe's, F150's, Escalades, Explorers, Durangos, enormous Dodge Rams, Tundras, etc. By some divine decree, every building in Houston is kept at a temperature around 70F (which most people agree is too cool for the summer). That's who's causing the 150k deaths per year.

Re:Legal matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19702387)

a missing quote mark at the start of the second last sentence makes it seem like Slashdot is the one claiming (as fact) that Exxon causes 150,000 deaths per year, and could easily be grounds for a libel suit.

Did you miss the fact that the entire paragraph is set off as a quote, with the blockquote element, styled like every other quote on this site, with a grey line down the left hand side, preceded by an attribution to somebody called tom_evil? It's marked as a quote in many different ways. While the punctuation might be desirable as an additional marker, there are plenty of others that make it clear that it's a quote.

Re:Legal matters (1)

Xiroth (917768) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702437)

Did you miss the fact that the entire paragraph is set off as a quote, with the blockquote element, styled like every other quote on this site, with a grey line down the left hand side, preceded by an attribution to somebody called tom_evil?
Hmm, I'm fairly sure that it's not quite so simple, unfortunately. I doubt that it would take much to convince a court that, as an edited contribution of a news (not opinion) piece posted onto the front page of the website, the article would be expected to be considered fact by regular readers of the site. In that case it's as much Slashdot's responsibility as it would be a newspaper company's if one of their news journalists wrote a libellous article and they printed it.

Where are the facts (1)

it0 (567968) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702063)

The isp killed the site, not Exxon, they just filed a complaint.

I can imagine that Exxon's logo's are protected by trademark etc, but I think they still can be used for parody.
However, I guess the initial site looked like a real Exxon site, and it wasn't apparent that it was a parody, looks like a legitimate reason for Exxon to complain.

Still what "threats" did they make, I so no copy of an email or letter.

After the Yes men removed the logo's and made it clear it was a parody, the ISP still blocked it.

Has Exxon contacted the Yes men directly? Or vice versa, the article mentions nothing.

Also if you are worried about the 150.000 deaths, don't use oil, except it's used in everything, even lubricant for windmills...

Re:Where are the facts (1)

it0 (567968) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702097)

The yes Men site links to the following article [reuters.com]

A small quote

"Masquerading as officials from ExxonMobil and the U.S. National Petroleum Council, the two appeared before an oil industry audience and the buzz was that they would deliver long-awaited conclusions of a study commissioned by U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman."

Maquerading!=parody

Parody it is. (2, Insightful)

mdsolar (1045926) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702325)

In fact, having witnessed the breathless chops licking surounding the Petroleum Council report http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/trimming.html [blogspot.com] , I can say for sure that this was parody. No one would have taken this for the real thing if they were not completely stupified by anticipation. That report is going to say that we are going to boost our oil use by 30% by 2030. Amazing hornswagle, but there are many many people wishing to be duped by it.
--
Break free of fossil fuels: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]

Re:Where are the facts (1)

gsslay (807818) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702231)

The isp killed the site, not Exxon, they just filed a complaint.

Actually, that's not even a fact either. Well, not one anyone here can say. The article states; in reaction to a complaint whose source they will not identify..

It's a fair bet it was Exxon, but only the ISP or Exxon can state that as a fact.

Re:Where are the facts (4, Insightful)

canuck57 (662392) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702285)

Also if you are worried about the 150.000 deaths, don't use oil, except it's used in everything, even lubricant for windmills...

And how many lives have been saved by oil, might I suggest many of millions each year that rely on the fuel to transport food and drugs...

Re:Where are the facts (1)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702301)

The reason the original site looked exactly like the Exxon site is because that is the group's schtick... and I have wondered before how long they could keep it up.

These guys were written up in Harpers Monthly (Nov '01) for creating a WTO web-site, convincing organizers for an international conference (textile manufacturers?) that they were legitimate reps, and actually carrying through with a presentation at the conference. The presentation apparently included a large inflatable penis, and a gold jumpsuit. The article reported that the presentation was met with a loud ovation and many attendees did not figure out they had been duped.

Fortune also ran a story on the feat which was apparently carried out with military precision down to the last detail.

I am amazed they have continued operating this long... but apparently they steer clear of making definitive remarks that they are official reps of an organization, relying instead on insinuation and the fact that so few people verify sources that appear to be 'real' on the web.

Regards.

150,000 deaths per year (2, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702109)

That is such a load of bullshit, i hardly know where to start.

how about, that even IF climate change is man made (that's a big IF) there is NO CREDIBLE way to link someone dieing in a storm to exxon. The storm could have happened without climate change, the person could have not walked into that torrent of water, there's no way to trace emissions to a specific company as the cause for a storm or any kind of weather.

It just shows the absurd claims global warming cult members will make in order to feel self righteous.

Re:150,000 deaths per year (1)

tgatliff (311583) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702169)

Keep in mind that groups like this try to make their way to the top of the news by making outlandish statements... The bolder the statements, the easier it is to get people to listen to them... Statements like these are nothing new...

With that being said, on the political side, I clearly see a shift coming at some point... Meaning, more people are feeling that their lives are being actively manipulated by corporations, and manytimes they are probably right. Actually, the original 1960's "movement" was to combat exactly this, meaning a focus on self-reliance. Unfortunately, though, all of this has been lost thru time with the only things remembered now being drugs and free love crap..

Re:150,000 deaths per year (1)

tgatliff (311583) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702211)

Also, please be kind on my personal perspective of the 1960's counterculture... I certainly am not looking to offend, and It is only my personal opinion. I certainly do not try to push myself as some sort of expert... :-)

Re:150,000 deaths per year (-1, Offtopic)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702171)

learn to use your mod points correctly idiots, the above comment was in direct response to the headlined story, therefore not a troll.

Re:150,000 deaths per year (1)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702237)

They dont like it when you dont agree with them, so they mod you down since your in dissent.

Re:150,000 deaths per year (3, Informative)

Khaed (544779) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702381)

yeah, welcome to /. moderators: They think "Troll" is the same as "person who I disagree with."

Trolling is generally defined as saying something assholish to get replies ("why the fuck would anyone use vi?" or "why the fuck would anyone use emacs" for examples). While flamebait is trying to instigate a flamewar, like: "vi is clearly better than emacs because it has a simpler interface" or "emacs is better because it has more features." Off-topic -- well, if you can't figure that one out, you ought not be moderating, or even on slashdot. The closest to "-1 I disagree" is Overrated.

This works both ways; there are also moderations in the UPWARD direction that make no sense. This article has a few already. Generally, saying bad things about corporations (unless you're twitter) or Bush can get you moderated up unless you have zero tact. (Seriously, we all know Bush is a fucking moron. Just a year and a half left, and he's gone.)

Sometimes saying *good* things about people we *really hate*, like the RIAA, gets you moderated up. I think this is because mods just get so shocked their brains cease to function correctly.

Also, there are six billion people on this planet. 150,000 people die about every twenty-four hours. It's not going to affect us. Human beings like to reproduce. We're in no danger of dying off with such a small number of deaths. You want to impress me? Add three zeroes to that number. Then I'll concede we're in trouble. Maybe I'm just jaded, but people die every day for stupid reasons. People have been dying since there were people. All this hand wringing and fretting isn't doing any good -- either work to solve problems, or shut up. But don't be an asshole about it. Besides, if you want to be really cynical, eventually, the universe will reach maximum entropy (if you believe the Heat Death theory).

Re:150,000 deaths per year (1, Troll)

canUbeleiveIT (787307) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702201)

The "Health and climate scientists at the University of Wisconsin at Madison" say so, so it must be true. Heaven knows that UW Madison isn't as left-wing, America-hating, and socialist as a university can get. Oh wait, maybe it is...

Oh well, this is slashdot, so the cultists modded you down for not subscribing to the hive mentality.

Re:150,000 deaths per year (0, Troll)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702241)

yep, that's about it. ever notice that stats like that are nice round numbers. if they had actual facts, wouldn't the figure be 150,001, not a neat 150,000? oh thats because they don't really know THEY ARE JUST MAKING SHIT UP.

Why not start here? (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702221)

The Darfur conflict is largely fueled by desertification brought on partly by climate change. Here are some 2005 estimates: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A124 85-2005Apr23.html [washingtonpost.com] . Things have not gotten any better since then, but the deaths have become harder to count.

Their are deaths that can be even more directly tied to warming: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/04/doom.html [blogspot.com] as well. You should look into things a little more closely I think.
--
Get affordable solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]

Re:Why not start here? (1)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702311)

You could tie anything to warming though if you get creative enough. Climate change is an inevitability of the system that governs Earth's weather and keeps its temperature somewhat stable. Unless the energy going in is the same as the energy going out, then you will have change. Another thing to point out is that the 150,000 deaths, as linked by the article, is attributed to an increase in maliaria, diarrehia, and malnutrition.

Also, the washington post is known to be a liberal newspaper.

And odds are, Earth would of "spiraled out of control" a long long time ago if the system of temperature control that governs it didnt have a way of dealing with overheating and overcooling.

Re:Why not start here? (2, Funny)

mdsolar (1045926) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702365)

Hum... You Honor, how can you charge me with killing all those people? They were going to die anyway. Everyone does you know.

But seriously, read the article and see if malnutrition is not mentioned.

Are you thinking of the Gaia hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis [wikipedia.org] as your control mechanism?

Re:150,000 deaths per year (1)

Wister285 (185087) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702489)

You bring up a good point and I would like to add to it. Don't complain that ExxonMobil is satisfying a demand that it has not created. It's like trying to blame companies in the automotive industries for automobile accidents. It's not their fault that some people use their products improperly. If any of the oil companies scaled back production or stopped, a global depression would most likely be created and we would see the beginnings of a new Dark Age. If you don't like oil, move to a city and start walking or using public transportation. Centralization both limits destruction of open space and the energy that is required to move people to where they have to be. I know that might be beyond what some people are willing to do, but it's the only real solution.

On a somewhat related note, I think it's ironic that many of the environmentalists that I have met also use drugs. I have absolutely no problem with drugs fundamentally since I think people should be allowed to do what they wish, but I do have a problem when they are illegal and their illegal distribution fuels crime and terrorism. It's pretty hypocritical to blame companies for altering the environment when illegal drug trafficking causes millions of people to suffer everyday.

Nice headline, guys! (4, Insightful)

SEE (7681) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702143)

First, we don't actually know that Exxon complained to the ISP, because the ISP did the takedown "in reaction to a complaint whose source they will not identify." You can argue that it's likely to be Exxon, but the fact is nobody knows.

Second, filing a complaint with an ISP is not the sort of action one implied by "Brute Squad".

Third, there was no hacking involved.

You know, the only way to improve this headline would have been to name a group other than the Yes Men as the ones who were cut off.

Re:Nice headline, guys! (5, Insightful)

SEE (7681) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702165)

Yes, bad form replying to myself here. But!

1) We know the Yes Men have previously masqueraded as ExxonMobil executives.
2) This takedown has generated additional publicity for the Yes Men.

Wouldn't it have been a master stroke by the Yes Men if they had faked their own ISP into taking them down by making the complaint themselves?

Re:Nice headline, guys! (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702253)

Wouldn't it have been a master stroke by the Yes Men if they had faked their own ISP into taking them down by making the complaint themselves?
This isn't George Bluth Sr. we're talking about here. ;-)

Re:Nice headline, guys! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19702283)

Nah, they'd not do that. They're righteous d00ds and would never do that.

*snicker*

I bet they get a government grant.

Re:Nice headline, guys! (1)

Khaed (544779) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702259)

Yeah, but if they didn't use such an inflammatory title, we wouldn't get 200+ posts (pageviews, baby!) of people bitching about the loss of free speech, "only in America!", and due to the "climate change" part, we get to have YET ANOTHER global warming thread on /.!

Really, it's gold all around for people who want to bitch about America/Bush/global warming.

I'm more interested in naming and shaming the shit ISP who simply collapsed after one threat. Their name isn't even in the summary (as of the time of this posting). That should be the headline:

"Broadview Networks a bunch of pussies, shut down website after complaint made."

Or we could go with something less inflammatory (although with "Brute Squad" and "Hacks" in the title of this one...):

"Yes Men bash Exxon; Broadbiew Networks shut them down and refuse to reveal source of complaint."

Too long?

"Broadview Networks shut down YesMen after single mystery complaint."

Seriously -- headlines like this article's are not good for Slashdot. It's inflammatory, and it's stupid.

America's Urban Black Population Falls Dramaticall (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19702175)

America's Urban Black Population Falls Dramatically
As Many As One Tenth Of Black Population Dead Over Past Five Years

6/30/2007 10:49:41 AM
Discuss this story in the forum
Overthrow Staff

Washington, DC -- A new report, cited in the Economist magazine, indicates America's black population has fallen dramatically over the past five years, despite Census bureau estimates and demographic doomsayers' prediction of growth that would overwhelm whites.

In America's three largest cities -- New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago -- black populations dropped by one tenth due to the cumulative effects of murder and disease.

Discussing "the disappearance of blacks", the Economist writes, "Roughly half of America's murder victims and about the same proportion of suspected murderers are black. In five years America's three biggest cities lost almost a tenth of their black residents ..."

One tenth of America's black population -- over 3.8 million Negroes -- lived in those three cities, and the disappearance of 380,000 of them due to AIDS, murder and other causes represents a one percent decline in America's overall black population.

The trend is similar to that in Africa, where nations such as South Africa have seen AIDS and crime cause their national population to begin falling at a rate of one half to one percent a year, and where acts of war and genocide -- Negro crime taken to an exponential level -- have destroyed a tenth or more of the population of central African nations every several years.

-----

Published by:

Overthrow.com / White Politics, LLC
ATTN: Bill White, Editor

Post Office Box 8601
Roanoke, VA 24014

http://www.overthrow.com/ [overthrow.com]
nationalsocialistworkers@yahoo.com

nature of satire (4, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702289)

I do believe that corporations in the US expect to be treated as a "person" under national and international law. The problem with this assumption is that if a person, even a head of state, murders 100 people, or even destroys massive property, such in the case Exxon Valdez, that person can be significantly inconvenienced, while corporation can evade punishment for ever. And if the corporation is given the ultimate punishment, as in the case of Arthur Anderson, the political reprecusions tend to much more significant than when the equivalent human thug is punished by state sponsored killing.

On the other side of the argument there are persons who believe corporations should have no rights at all. These people believe that they can say the Microsoft sponsors the mass killing of anyone who disagrees with them. This is ok a the accusation is so extreme that no one would believe, so it is clearly satire. The problem, of course, is where to draw the line. Is it ok to say that MS regularly sanctions threats of any medium ranking figure who threatens their monopoly? Where does satire end and stock manipulation begin?

Ultimately, I think we get into the nature of satire, and the death of the art form. Traditional satire abstracts some tyranical figure that is simply to dangerous to attack directly, and cleverly illustrates the tyranny and negative impact of the figure. Or satire highlights some social policy, and then proposes a ridiculous solution to it. Satire is useless when launched at figures that can be attacked directly or when is simply attributes characteristics that the figure probably does not possess.

It saddens me that meaningless verbal attack is put forth as satire. In this case the article could have proposed that ExxonMobile convert the people into a product. Such a modest proposal would not be original, but at least would be an attempt at satire, rather than just the ranting of thugs. Or they could have attributed the action to Butthole Petrol Incompentated(BPI), or EXpat Oil Nation MOBlized , or whatever. Just make it interesting satire, not school house insults.

Re:nature of satire (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19702669)

So you think Exxon didn't get punished for the Valdez accident? You're a lying sack of shit. It cost them hundreds of millions of dollars in direct costs, and billions (yes, with a "B") in indirect costs; thing about the legislative changes that doubled the cost of production on the north slope. And, by the way, wasn't the accident the fault of the ship's captain, who's responsibility is the ship, crew and cargo? Yes, he was accused of being an alcoholic. Guess what, in the US, you can't fire someone for being accused of having a disease. That's the law. You go shut up and play with your crayons.

And energy from Exxon supports 6x10^9 people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19702359)

Take away that energy, and people start starving.

Oh, wait, lowering the number of humans on the Earth is a good thing, right?

I sure wish the stupid humans-are-evil eco-freaks who couldn't live outside of the shelter of a high-consumption society (hell, who am I kidding - they can't live outside the shelter of their parents...) would have to suffer the consequences of their dumbass ideas - wholesale starvation and death.

And those of us who don't think of humanity as a plague on the Earth get to watch.

Hell, eco-freaks were so fucking short-sighted they've pretty much killed the nuclear power industry, so we're all stuck dealing with green-house gas generating and acid-rain causing coal and oil power plants. How many hundreds of millions of people have to suffer from malaria because of complete overreaction to the effects of DDT, a cheap and effective means of mosquito control.

So why the hell should we listen to those same twits now?

Re:And energy from Exxon supports 6x10^9 people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19702457)

You call them twits, but they're right. We're destroying, polluting, and consuming our Earth and we all know it. When this happens to less intelligent creatures, they die off as they have for millions upon millions of years. For us, we just keep finding short-term solutions that keep pushing us along a few more years until we encounter yet another problem.

I can hardly sit here and advocate mass genocide; but there may come a time when we run out of solutions and the mass death will come to as an inevitable conclusion in the form of famine or unusable living space. Short-sightedness that makes us refuse to accept the idea of changing our lifestyles or accepting the idea that too many people can be unhealthy for our living space will bring us there. Humans are only as good as they act.

All we are doing is buying ourselves a highly artificial and highly separated from the Earth lifestyle for the now rather than long-term.

Why This isn't News, but Agitprop (0)

MSTCrow5429 (642744) | more than 6 years ago | (#19702505)

One day after the Yes Men made a joke announcement of ExxonMobil's plans to turn billions of climate-change victims (hypothetical, unlikely premise, original research) into a brand-new fuel called Vivoleum, the Yes Men's upstream internet service provider shut down Vivoleum.com and cut off the Yes Men's email service, in reaction to a complaint whose source they will not identify. 'Since parody is protected under US law, Exxon must think that people seeing the site will think Vivoleum's a real Exxon product, not just a parody,' said Yes Man Mike Bonanno (conjecture). Exxon's policies do already contribute to 150,000 climate-change related deaths each year,' (highly suspect claim, no evidence given to support) added Yes Man Andy Bichlbaum. 'So maybe it really is credible. What a resource!'

Shutdown not because it was a parady... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19702741)

...but because it violated numerous Exxon patents and trade secrets.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...