backtop

Print 110 comment(s) - last by AssBall.. on Jul 30 at 7:58 PM

Greenpeace defaced computer manufacturer Hewlett Packard's roof do the company's slowness in phasing out brominated flame retardants and polyvinyl chloride plastic. Competitors Dell, Apple, and Lenovo have all removed these compounds, earning a bit of praise from the oft critical Greenpeace.  (Source: Greenpeace)

The organization proudly displayed pictures of its crime on its website.  (Source: Greenpeace)

Greenpeace is also using calls from Will Shatner in an attempt to torment HP into adopting change.  (Source: Kotaku)
Environmentally advocacy makes a statement, albeit in criminal fashion

Environmental advocacy group Greenpeace and the electronics industry have a curious dialogue that has developed over the years.  Ever the critic, Greenpeace regularly lambastes OEMs on their environmental track record.  However, companies actually seem to listen to the group and even get a bit competitive bragging at tech shows if their products top one of the group's lists. 

Over the years Greenpeace, and others, have pressured the industry to move away from halogenated plastics (linked to cancer), brominated flame retardants (also linked to cancer), lead based solder, and to step up disposal/electronics recycling programs.  However, for all the professionalism of Greenpeace's electronics testing and grading, its roots are still in radical demonstration. 

The organization returned to those roots last week, on July 21.  Protesters scaled the HP headquarters and painted "Hazardous Products" on its roof at night, using non-toxic children's finger paints.  Police are currently investigating the incident.

HP had promised Greenpeace that it would remove brominated flame retardants and polvinyl chloride plastics from its products.  However, the company, according to Greenpeace, is reneging on the agreement.  The company now says due to difficulties finding replacements it will continue using them until 2011, with business PCs phasing out the compounds in 2010.

Greenpeace points out that rivals Lenovo, Dell, and Apple all have removed the potentially hazardous compounds from their product lines.

HP defends its environmental track record, claiming it beats Dell, Apple, and others on electronics waste disposal and recycling.  It brags it recycled one billion pounds of electronics between 1987 and 2007.  Chides an HP spokesperson on Greenpeace's vandalist statement, "The unconstructive antics at HP’s headquarters today did nothing to advance the goals that all who care about the environment share."

Unforgiving, Greenpeace has also employed a perhaps even more painful tactic against HP.  It is calling the company's employees early in the morning with automated phone calls from actor William Shatner, urging the company to forsake its use of the chemical compounds.  The organization hopes that one of its extreme tactics will spur the company to action.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Environmental advocacy group???
By Etsp on 7/29/2009 12:03:42 AM , Rating: 5
Well that's a euphemism if I've ever seen one...

In reality, they are more along the lines of Hippie Extremists... or possibly Non-Violent Business Terrorists.

Greenpeace doesn't scare any individual. It does however use scare tactics against entire organizations so that their ideology is forcibly adopted by them. While they may not be killing people, their actions are still illegal, and they use fear as their primary engine of change.

Yeah, non-violent business terrorism sounds about right to me.




RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By LumbergTech on 7/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By oab on 7/29/2009 12:49:28 AM , Rating: 5
How about criminals?

Those involved in the HP thing (amongst the many other militant things that Greenpeace does) is certainly guilty of trespassing and vandalism.

Similar groups (such as the Sea Sheppard Society) are closer to the 'eco-terrorist' bent than Greenpeace is. Though in the past Greenpeace protesters have boarded ships on the high-seas illegally, which may in fact be piracy if they directly or indirectly stole things such as materials, or prevented the obtaining of materials through rendering the ship inoperative temporarily.

If workers are afraid to do their jobs out of fear of 'attack' by some organization, that is terrorism, it may not be the legal definition of terrorism (which I suspect includes violence in it), but it could be interpreted as terrorist.


RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By oab on 7/29/2009 12:51:26 AM , Rating: 2
Clarification: "How about criminals" should read "how about calling them criminals"


RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By lco45 on 7/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By chagrinnin on 7/29/2009 3:48:15 AM , Rating: 5
When you eat chinese,...do you hear OB1 in the back of your head saying, "Luke, use the fork."?


RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By lco45 on 7/29/09, Rating: 0
RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By tmouse on 7/29/2009 7:33:10 AM , Rating: 5
I love when people cannot make a logical point and fall back on the " people are robbed, killed, ect. X times a day which is more serious than your point" argument. No kidding Einstein, believe it or not people are aware of these facts, however most people are capable of being upset over multiple things (as the police are capable of pursuing multiple types of crimes). One does not exclude or excuse the other. If someone feels that trespassing and vandalism should be called what they are it will not affect the number of robbers or murderers being pursued by law enforcement one iota.


RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By lco45 on 7/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By tmouse on 7/30/2009 8:38:42 AM , Rating: 3
What is illogical is your assumption that people would not be "angrier about someone stealing an old lady's handbag". Your assumption that one has effect on the other is totally illogical. Some consider these actions "pranks" many feel a crime should be called a crime, doing so does not in any way effect their feelings about any other crimes. It's purely a sleight of hand argument, of course there are worse crimes but what does that have to do with this thread? AT least if you had said HP's actions are worse it would have had some connection to the discussion, but really suggesting people are more concerned with trespass and vandalism than a mugging? Was it even being called a violent crime? Maybe if your post was on a thread where someone suggested capital punishment or such, with a lot of people agreeing, I would agree that it was a disproportionate level of approbation.


RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By ebakke on 7/29/2009 9:53:33 AM , Rating: 5
So does that mean I'm free to express my artistic abilities on the roof/siding of your property? I expect that you'll be fine with it, that is, until we've stopped all handbag thefts.

Or should we just not care in this situation because it didn't happen to us? Or because it happened to a big bad corporation that had it coming?


RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By GaryJohnson on 7/29/09, Rating: -1
By lightfoot on 7/29/2009 11:27:42 AM , Rating: 5
How do you presume that people don't already care more about violent crime?

Sorry, but this is a tech website, thus a crime commited against a tech company gets the headline.

Go to the little old lady website if you want to see an article on the purse theft.


RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By Rugar on 7/29/2009 12:11:42 PM , Rating: 5
I own stock (albeit only a tiny bit) in HP. The cost of repainting the roof will be included in the yearly financial statement. Thus, I am directly hurt by this. Even if I didn't have a stake in this, it's still wrong to damage property which belongs to someone else. "Oh, look... someone keyed my car. Well, no one was hurt so no big deal."

Just because you may agree with the cause doesn't make the act of vandalism acceptable.


By deltadeltadelta on 7/29/2009 7:07:32 PM , Rating: 1
Vandalism hurts people. Not physically, but it leaves a mark. It leaves us feeling helpless. Those of us who have suffered it wonder why someone despised us enough to resort to such means. And in most cases of vandalism, we don't even know who committed the act. Faceless non-physical abuse hurts people.

And even with that aside, vandalism is a gateway crime leading to more serious crimes. Once it is OK to mess with someone's property (or a company) it becomes easier to be OK taking something that isn't yours or harming an actual person. There are more effective means to get a message out than what Greenpeace did.


RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By bissimo on 7/29/2009 11:31:37 AM , Rating: 2
It's a statement. The people who are responsible surely weighed the consequences of what they did before doing it and were ready to pay the price for their illegal actions. It's a simple cost/benefit analysis: Jail time + fines + paying for repainting < Publicity and increased awarenss garnered by the act? If so, they will do it.

Whether you agree with their stance or not, this sort of action is one of the cornerstones of American exceptionalism. People's willingness to make their point heard.

It's in all of our best interests to question authority and use our own best judgment if something is important enough to speak up about. I don't know much about HP's use of "hazardous" materials. But whether you agree with their politics or not, tearing them apart for their methods is ludicrous. They'll face legal ramifications. Nothing will ever change unless you speak up about it.


RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By Fritzr on 7/30/2009 6:25:42 AM , Rating: 2
Yep it is a very basic equation. is the cost less than the benefit? If yes then pay the cost and gain the benefit. Whether it is a purse snatcher deciding whether that particular purse is worth the risk of taking it or Osama Bin Laden sending 20 brainwashed jihadis to highjack and crash airplanes or checking out the chocolate bars at the store.

In this case the Greenpeace activists decided that in their personal opinion it was worth possible jail time to embarass Hewlett Packard. By committing a crime and then publicizing that crime and creating real damage to HP with the intention of forcing HP to do what the activists demand or suffer additional attacks (your local CPA can explain the ca$h value of public image) they have committed an act of terrorism.

To terrorize simply requires that your targets are afraid you will attack again. It doesn't even require that the target be asked or told to do something to appease the terrorist.


RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By tedrodai on 7/29/2009 12:49:38 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I'd call them criminals alright. After paying for the troubles they cause, some court-ordered community service would be right up their alley.

However, at least 1 good thing came from this publicity stunt: it reminded me to check my work voicemail. I always forget to do that.


By Remalith on 7/30/2009 11:12:44 AM , Rating: 2
I actually checked my voice mail right after reading this too. I don't work for HP, but I was still hoping Shatner called and left me a message. Sadly, he did not. I'm waiting Bill. Call me. :(


RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By someguy123 on 7/29/2009 1:23:59 AM , Rating: 5
clearly HP.

did you even read the article, or even the title of the article? they've defaced private property and placed it proudly on their website, essentially saying "if you don't do what we want you to do, expect this to happen to you too". not to mention the looming threat of negative media attention, whether justified or not, on a global scale if greenpeace ever sets their eyes on your company. how is this not terrorism?


RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By dark matter on 7/29/2009 2:33:13 AM , Rating: 5
You mean, the RIAA are terrorists as well!

I knew it!


By someguy123 on 7/29/2009 3:58:35 AM , Rating: 5
pretty much.


By deltadeltadelta on 7/29/2009 7:08:53 PM , Rating: 2
+6


RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By Starcub on 7/29/2009 1:39:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
how is this not terrorism?

Indeed! It's a hate crime! Those bastards are encouraging people to discriminate against polluters. More-over, forcing people to listen to a speech by Shatner everyday just... isn't... right.


RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By Yawgm0th on 7/29/2009 1:26:36 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
non violent business terrorism? hahhahahahaha

Eco-terrorists is the term OP should have used.
quote:
who is being TERRORISED?? wtf is wrong with you people

Seriously?

quote:
Unforgiving, Greenpeace has also employed a perhaps even more painful tactic against HP. It is calling the company's employees early in the morning with automated phone calls from actor William Shatner, urging the company to forsake its use of the chemical compounds. The organization hopes that one of its extreme tactics will spur the company to action.
That is terrorism. Terrorism doesn't require bombs or guns to be terrorism. It only requires the inducement of fear.


RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By Etsp on 7/29/2009 2:37:49 AM , Rating: 4
Some Eco-terrorists do use violence, and justify to themselves that it is less evil to do harm to people than it is to do harm to the environment, which is why I specified non-violent.


RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By tmouse on 7/29/2009 7:50:55 AM , Rating: 5
(as Will Shatner would say)

"They
are
using
recordings
of
Shatner
on the HP employees!"

That's at least psychological violence.


By Xenoterranos on 7/29/2009 12:16:03 PM , Rating: 2
Geez, did Shatner really need the money that bad? :D


By geddarkstorm on 7/29/2009 12:51:00 PM , Rating: 2
Playing Shatner's version of "Mr. Tambourine Man" would definitely qualify.


RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By OoklaTheMok on 7/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By knutjb on 7/29/2009 11:10:52 AM , Rating: 5
I agree with your commentary, they are using mob strong arm tactics and nothing more than ECO-THUGS. The terrorist label, while it might even be technically correct, it's the wrong word for this. It's like calling the mob terrorists, do they terrorize their victims, yes, are they terrorists, no. Same as calling a mugger a terrorist for the same reason.

Does greenpeace have a legally binding contract with HP? No? Greenpeace get lost.

The electronics world is going green as they learn how to deal with the changes and one little change has a domino like affect. The lead free solder requires a higher temp to flow and make a good joint. Because of the higher temp it's causing board components to fail during the soldering process. So all of the components are having to be redesigned to cope with that high temp soldering process. It doesn't happen over night like greenpeace wants. It's easy to whine but solutions are expensive and time consuming.

No, I'm not against a cleaner world, just do it sensibly not fanatically. Fanatics have a very long history of getting it wrong.


By Yawgm0th on 7/29/2009 2:30:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I agree with your commentary, they are using mob strong arm tactics and nothing more than ECO-THUGS. The terrorist label, while it might even be technically correct, it's the wrong word for this. It's like calling the mob terrorists, do they terrorize their victims, yes, are they terrorists, no. Same as calling a mugger a terrorist for the same reason.
Organized crime members generally are terrorists. Al-Qaeda is just a mob with different goals and larger-scale methods.

quote:

The electronics world is going green as they learn how to deal with the changes and one little change has a domino like affect. The lead free solder requires a higher temp to flow and make a good joint. Because of the higher temp it's causing board components to fail during the soldering process. So all of the components are having to be redesigned to cope with that high temp soldering process. It doesn't happen over night like greenpeace wants. It's easy to whine but solutions are expensive and time consuming.
Attempts at effectively replacing lead solder simply haven't panned out and nothing indicates they will. In the meantime everyone is losing money and the decreased reliability of PCBs has lead to increased disposal, increased production (replacements), and ultimately more harm to the environment than any theoretical damage from lead solder.

RoHS and many of Greenpeace's demands are based on alarmist environmentalism, not good science. I don't think this is an environment vs. economy issue as much as it is a politics vs. science issue. Greenpeace members are wrong scientifically because they are too politically motivated. As you put it so aptly, fanatics have a very long history of getting it wrong.


By Yawgm0th on 7/29/2009 2:23:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Burglary is terrorism then, George Bush is a terrorist... etc
Burglary is done with the intention of acquiring goods for free. Rarely are burglars out to terrorize their victims. In fact, they aren't supposed to even see their victims.

quote:
Everyone wants to throw the "terrorist" word around, but by doing so they dilute what a real terrorist is. But maybe everyone is too afraid or too much of a wimp to come to terms with the true scale of the actions of others so they always throw the "terrorist" card.
I think the opposite is the case -- terrorism has come to have a very specific connotation, but that does not mean that is the definition. In mainstream usage, "terrorism" is treated as synonymous with "violent extremism" and "genocide," but in fact terror is not always the aim of what we call terrorism. Death and destruction need not be the methods for an act to be terrorism.

quote:
What they did was a criminal act, not a terrorist act. They didn't have political message they were attempting to communicate to the government. They were not trying to modify the actions of the government. They were not attempting to threaten the US population.
Threatening phones calls early in the morning serve no purpose other than to induce fear. They did have a political message (if not political, what was their message?). Greenpeace sure is trying to modify the actions of the government, and in this case they very clearly were threatening American citizens. However, terrorism doesn't have to be political or government-oriented to be terrorism.

quote:
I think most of you people throwing around the "terrorist" word are just too young to know what real fear is. This was a benign act. It causes zero property damage.
It did cause some property damage, but terrorism has nothing to do with property damage.
quote:
It's the equivalent of going over to someones house and giving them a wedgie.
If I start calling your house at 3:00 in the morning and threatening you and then deface the building you work in, I bet you wouldn't think of it as a benign act.


RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By lco45 on 7/29/2009 7:41:49 PM , Rating: 1
You think having your roof painted an being called early morning by William Shatner is TERROR-inducing?

Man, you scare easily.

The day Greenpeace starts beheading HP execs on the internet, or detonating car bombs in the parking lot is the day they can be called eco-terrorists. Painting the roof of a building is more like a frat stunt.

Luke


RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By Parhel on 7/29/2009 9:58:31 AM , Rating: 5
I'm going to start referring to HP as "ink cartridge terrorists."


RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By lco45 on 7/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By lightfoot on 7/29/2009 2:55:02 AM , Rating: 5
You, my friend, should be charged as an accomplice.

The ends do not justify the means.

I doubt that these eco-terrorists bothered to calculate their own environmental impact from vandalizing HP's property and the required cleanup from said actions.

If they actually cared about their cause they would be part of the solution, not part of the problem.


RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By Griswold on 7/29/09, Rating: -1
By FITCamaro on 7/29/2009 8:27:53 AM , Rating: 5
Where are they lying? I don't see any commercials saying their laptops use no potentially harmful chemicals.

This is criminal activity. Pure and simple. They should be arrested and go to jail. Same as anyone else. Trespassing, destruction of property, and defamation.


RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By freaktmp on 7/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By FITCamaro on 7/29/2009 12:06:31 PM , Rating: 2
Any electronic device uses harmful chemicals in its construction. There is no way to make them without them. Electronics are not pieces of fruit.

You're using a computer so you're no better than them. Apple's use them too.


RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By AssBall on 7/30/2009 7:58:56 PM , Rating: 2
Your exactly right FIT. These idiots need to settle down about OMFG chemicals. Not everyone is excited about having low reliability expensive computers. Give me the harmless-ass lead and cadmium.


RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By lco45 on 7/29/2009 7:48:56 PM , Rating: 1
Gee, I wonder what the sentence would be?

"Accomplice to fingerpainting", what a heinous crime.

I might just add that I agree with you that the ends don't justify the means, and I think Greenpeace has let itself down by doing this silly thing.

Slower, but more morally justified results, would have been gained by more patient lobbying.

My only point that I've been trying to make is that people seem disproportionately incensed by what is, after all, a non-violent, pretty tame sort of protest.

Or perhaps Greenpeace have committed the ultimate crime of "rocking the boat"?

Luke


By omnicronx on 7/29/2009 9:05:29 AM , Rating: 5
Morons.. PVC is used everywhere. You better rip down your entire house quick, you don't want to get cancer!

You are not going to get cancer from either of these materials as neither are used for the external casing, meaning there will be no direct contact with the small amount of either chemical used.


RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By callmeroy on 7/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: Environmental advocacy group???
By omnicronx on 7/29/2009 8:57:25 AM , Rating: 3
Greenpeace only tells one side of the story. HP stopped using both materials for external surfaces for almost all uses almost 10 years ago. We are talking about a very small amount of internal components that would not pose a threat to humans. Not to mention there is no real proof that limited/indirect exposure of either can cause cancer even if it did.

The only real threat comes when you throw them out, but lets face it, I would be far more worried about the lead and mercury than the small amounts of either of these two chemicals.


By callmeroy on 7/29/2009 9:08:03 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for laying it out for me...

Like I posted earlier I'm not up to speed on this news story (and quite frankly I'm not interested enough to actually research it further - some of that is pure laziness too) , however with what you are saying I'd be inclined to retract support for GP and instead think they are just trying to get attention for their "brand" -- you know that Greenpeace logo....around here I"ve seen folks with shirts with the logo on it...and baseball caps too for instance.

Anything for advertising...


By FITCamaro on 7/29/2009 12:07:39 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. No one sucks on a laptop. If your baby tries, you stop it.


Terrorist Group?
By computergeek485 on 7/29/2009 12:11:32 AM , Rating: 2
The tactics seem more like a terrorist organization than anything imho.




RE: Terrorist Group?
By LumbergTech on 7/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: Terrorist Group?
By lightfoot on 7/29/2009 3:03:59 AM , Rating: 2
If the shoe fits....


RE: Terrorist Group?
By pequin06 on 7/29/2009 9:19:30 AM , Rating: 2
They are coercing with intimidation, the automated phone calls to HP employees is also harrasment.


RE: Terrorist Group?
By GaryJohnson on 7/29/2009 10:04:09 AM , Rating: 2
Finger paint isn't intimidating.

Calling this terrorism implies that it's having some impact on people. That peope are terrified. And they're not. It's just vandalism. Nothing more.


RE: Terrorist Group?
By saiga6360 on 7/29/2009 10:18:24 AM , Rating: 2
I guess some people are scared of getting fingered.


RE: Terrorist Group?
By Starcub on 7/29/2009 1:54:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Finger paint isn't intimidating.

It is if they use non-toxic childrens paint...

...that can be REMOTELY DETONATED BY ANY JOE WITH A CELL PHONE!!!


RE: Terrorist Group?
By Fritzr on 7/30/2009 6:40:37 AM , Rating: 2
If they had fingerpainted the roof and then gone to the pub to congratulate themselves on a well executed prank, then that's all it would have been.

Instead they followed up by publicly embarassing HP and declaring that unless HP gave in to their demands HP could expect further attacks.

They also added harassment of HP employees with promises of continued harassment if HP did not do as they were told.

Damage+mass publicity+promises of repeat==attempt to induce fear. Add the demands to HP that they should follow orders and it becomes a form of extortion.

The Greenpeace activists involved in this action are terrorists. They could have left it a prank and hoped the local news picked it up without help, or even notified the news media without adding the threats, demands and harassment. Instead they took steps to ensure that their actions met the basic definition of terrorism.


RE: Terrorist Group?
By bman on 7/29/2009 12:27:57 AM , Rating: 5
It is about time Greenpeace dropped the suffix 'peace'.


RE: Terrorist Group?
By rcc on 7/29/2009 1:09:20 PM , Rating: 2
Greengoons?
Greenhypocrits?
Green..... ah, you get the idea.

Remember when something green was moldy, mildewed, or corroded? Outside of nature, of course.


RE: Terrorist Group?
By dark matter on 7/29/2009 2:36:48 AM , Rating: 2
Huh! The Copyright Industry are worse, they deface every film, every dvd, every game with their threats...


RE: Terrorist Group?
By lightfoot on 7/29/2009 3:02:54 AM , Rating: 4
Huh? The copyright holder places the warning on their own property.

Greenpeace defaces other people's property.

You must be part of the "Pirate Industry" to think that there exists a "Copyright Industry."


RE: Terrorist Group?
By dark matter on 7/29/2009 9:01:47 AM , Rating: 2
Actually the copyright holder does not do this. The governing body for copyright does this. And quit talking about property as though it belongs to someone else. When I BUY a DVD surely it should become MY property!

Nope, I don't pirate anything. And I refuse to buy any mainstream media whatsoever any longer. It's the only vote I have left.

You must be dumb if you think their is no such thing as a "Copyright Industry". Think about groups such as the RIAA, the MPAA, all the lawyers involved, all the admin staff involved, all the bum "reports" that have been "manufactured" by universities and other organisations to support the RIAA, MPAA's viewpoints, all the lobbying groups, all the anti-copyright groups, the international monitors, all legal staff, all the court cases, all the time taken up by the courts, all the R&D into DRM to prevent copyright infringement, all the covert surveillance, all the lobbying of the ISPs to adopt a three strikes rule, all the admin taken up by the ISPs to respond.

Smells like an industry to me...


RE: Terrorist Group?
By lightfoot on 7/29/2009 11:49:22 AM , Rating: 2
You own the disk; not the content. You simply own a limited license to view the content in your own home.

And yes, there is an industry that protects copyright holders - it's called the legal system. To call it the Copyright Industry is to imply organization where none exists. Each copyright holder is responsible for protecting their own copyright within the established framework of the law. Some copyright holders group together to provide mutual protection.

The RIAA and MPAA wouldn't employ any lawyers if they didn't need to.

You seem to be the type of person who has no ideas of their own worth protecting and thus sees no harm in stealing other people's work. Sad.


RE: Terrorist Group?
By Autisticgramma on 7/29/2009 3:49:46 PM , Rating: 1
Who made who,

RIAA hired lawyers, or Lawyers made the riaa.

The only way the 'AA's (not that one.) Wouldn't employ lawyers is if they bliped out of existance. Which would be good for every one.

I'll uninstall bittorrent when I get a disc with this 'license' at the movie theater where I already paid >$10 to see the movie. Why should I have to pay multiple times for the same thing?


RE: Terrorist Group?
By lightfoot on 7/29/2009 5:21:12 PM , Rating: 2
I bet you think you should own the band that plays at your favorite bar just because you paid the $10 cover charge too.

I'm done trying to explain ethics to criminals.


RE: Terrorist Group?
By rcc on 7/29/2009 1:06:38 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps extortionists is a better fit.


Greenpeace can go suck it
By chick0n on 7/28/2009 11:45:01 PM , Rating: 4
While I do agreed that we should all take care of the planet we live in. but I hate organizations like Greenpeace.

They always use some extreme measures no matter the cost, and their excuse is always the same. "Oh we're just trying to send this message out" or whatever similar.

Whenever they feel like to do some stupid ass shit, I just feel like to put that straight pipe back on my car and idle for 15 minutes.

eat me, bitch.




RE: Greenpeace can go suck it
By chick0n on 7/28/2009 11:51:48 PM , Rating: 3
not to mention, Greenpeace is just a fuxking short sighted organization runnin' by a bunch of morons.

Lead Free Solder? ROFL. it freaking suck, it cant withstand any heat. Lots of electronic solder joints failed because Lead Free solder suck, the results? more warranty claims, more trash, more harmful materials !

Prius is a nice Eco-friendly car? LOL. Do any of those GP morons know that how do they make those NI-MH batteries ? lmao.

Yeah, Greenpeace, kiss my ass. Let me put my straight pipe back so I can idle with all those wonderful exhaust coming out of the pipe.


RE: Greenpeace can go suck it
By Tsuwamono on 7/28/09, Rating: 0
RE: Greenpeace can go suck it
By Rhl on 7/29/2009 12:36:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When I drive to work i have to drive down a busy road where greenpeace people hand out pamphlets to people and explain how much gas we would save by owning some tiny ass little car. I drive a big ass Cherokee with oversized tires and I get MAYBE 15 mpg and when they say why don't you drive something more fuel efficient and i usually respond with Well, number 1: I prefer a vehicle that doesnt break down constantly. Number 2: I can't fit in 90% of the cars that get better mileage then this in this price range. and Number 3: I wouldn't be able to park ontop of civics when i go to the mall. So you see, I'm saving the environment by parking on your piece of shit because then its another 5 foot by 8 foot area that stays grass instead of asphalt.


I knew your post was a joke as soon as you claimed Jeeps are reliable vehicles.

Ignorance truly is bliss.


RE: Greenpeace can go suck it
By chick0n on 7/29/2009 1:02:44 AM , Rating: 1
it really depends on the year model.

Hmm, Just because its "Jeep" doesnt mean that it breaks down all the time, my uncle had to lemon his Sienna because it kept overheating for no freaking reason.

I dont buy Jeep and probably never will. just saying.


RE: Greenpeace can go suck it
By chick0n on 7/29/2009 12:44:45 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly, you got the car that fits you, can carry the stuff u need, and get decent mpg (for the size of the car). I dont see any problem with that.

GP people are just bunch of idiots.


RE: Greenpeace can go suck it
By someguy123 on 7/29/2009 1:46:09 AM , Rating: 2
i'm not an advocate of forcing people to adhere to my ideology (like fuel efficient cars), but seriously all your rationale is retarded.

if your jeep gets 15MPG basically EVERYTHING is more fuel efficient than your current car, even many midsized vans. unless your body floats outside of your doors, you can fit in a van.

not saying you need to go out and buy a van, but don't be an idiot for no reason.


RE: Greenpeace can go suck it
By chick0n on 7/29/2009 11:52:56 AM , Rating: 2
I disagreed.

For his SUV's size, 15 mpg is actually decent.

I have a Honda FIT that can go 32 city and 40 if all highway. but its totally different car for different people.


RE: Greenpeace can go suck it
By tjr508 on 7/29/2009 6:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
My 9000# truck gets better MPG towing a 5000# load and almost as good towing a 12000# load.

His "SUV" is just a 4WD unit-body minivan with a more boxy design. 15 MPG in this case is not decent.


RE: Greenpeace can go suck it
By ClownPuncher on 7/29/2009 12:05:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yet they waste your gas by stopping you to talk while you idle your car.


RE: Greenpeace can go suck it
By lco45 on 7/29/09, Rating: -1
RE: Greenpeace can go suck it
By lightfoot on 7/29/2009 2:50:34 AM , Rating: 5
I'm sure you wouldn't mind if they finger-painted your property. Maybe your car for it spewing such filth into the air. Maybe your cloths for being made in a sweatshop in China. Or maybe just your face for being part of a overpopulated race that doesn't deserve to exist.

Did I cover all the Greenpeace catch phrases or did I miss one?

I don't condone their actions, and I doubt that you would if you were the victim of their "messages."

The day that Greenpeace creates anything or improves the planet in any way, I may consider changing my opinion of them. Vandalizing productive well meaning companies for the sake of criticism improves nothing.

In the mean time, they are simply petty thugs and criminals.


RE: Greenpeace can go suck it
By lco45 on 7/30/2009 1:45:21 AM , Rating: 2
Let me get this right.

You're angry at Greenpeace for defacing HP's roof, but you're not angry at HP for selling carcinogenic products?

Luke


RE: Greenpeace can go suck it
By tmouse on 7/29/2009 7:45:25 AM , Rating: 3
Well technically most finger paints come in plastic containers, they had to use a lot of paint to generate a sign that big so they are increasing the demand for the paint which requires more plastic which is mostly made from new petroleum which has to be refined; that produces more global warming and produces cancer causing agents in its production. Now if they had used their own blood it would have served two purposes, first the statement would have been much more dramatic and second it would have eliminated a few extremists.


By Hakuryu on 7/29/2009 2:42:59 AM , Rating: 5
I see alot of comments here about how Greenpeace is in effect a terrorist group, even if non-violent, or they are unrealstic.

While I can partially agree, what choice do they have? They are driven to make change, and try diplomacy, but be honest... the almighty dollar trumps right and wrong. Should we use materials that do not cause cancer? Yes. Is it easier for a business to continue to use cancerous materials, perhaps shave a few dollars off their prices to stay competitive? Yes. Is it more important to keep a business thriving and perhaps save jobs, or possibly save lives but lose some jobs? Tough question.

It is easy to knock Greenpeace, but not so easy to come up with a solution that satisfies morality and the economy.




By foolsgambit11 on 7/29/2009 3:49:04 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but this attempt to label Greenpeace with a term that is anathema to the general public is just ridiculous. Greenpeace is not a terrorist organization. Graffiti is not violence or the threat of violence. Call them fanatics if you like, but not terrorists.

I certainly prefer the tactics of less-extreme environmental organizations, and they seem to get as-good or better results than Greenpeace.


By Starcub on 7/29/2009 2:04:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sorry, but this attempt to label Greenpeace with a term that is anathema to the general public is just ridiculous.

Yeah, but it makes for great humor, especially when you throw in a 'harrasing message' from William Shatner.

I wonder if Greenpeace didn't piece together that message using Capt. Kirk clips from different episodes of Star Trek. Sort of like a vocal analogy to the print method employed by TV serial killers. God knows it would be... so... easy... to... do.


By Fritzr on 7/30/2009 7:00:25 AM , Rating: 2
Whether you agree with the goals or not, it is the methods that define terrorism vs protest.

Another terrorist group that is well thought of in US due to eventually succeeding, perpetrated a non-violent protest that is now known as the Boston Tea Party. They threatened no one, they just destroyed the tea before it could be unloaded. That was a protest.

Greenpeace was not protesting they were terrorizing. They took action that amounted to an attack on HP by 1) Vandalizing HP property. 2) Publicizing the Vandalism in a manner designed to damage HP's 'Good Will' value. 3) Threatening further attacks if HP did not follow orders.

Greenpeace could hire picketers ... but then that would mean finding supporters and having them spend 60 minutes putting on a show for the TV cameras. Doesn't look good that they need to use terrorism by a small group. Makes one wonder why they don't have enough support to field a hired band of "spontaneous protesters".


By Starcub on 7/30/2009 5:02:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Greenpeace was not protesting they were terrorizing. They took action that amounted to an attack on HP by 1) Vandalizing HP property. 2) Publicizing the Vandalism in a manner designed to damage HP's 'Good Will' value. 3) Threatening further attacks if HP did not follow orders.

So can we drag HP into court for being a terrorist organization due to the fact that they:
1) Crippled their own products. 2) Destroyed their reputation for quality. 3) Told consumers to go jump in a lake while setting an industry standard for anti-competitive and extortionary behavior?

Sorry, I'm no fan of extremist protestors (assuming you could even call what they did in this case extremist), but HP gets no sympathy from me.


By brob on 7/29/2009 4:00:41 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, they can act responsibly and civilly, like the rest of society.

What you're suggesting is, in effect, that it's perfectly acceptable for a man to break in to his neighbor's house and steal food because he's unable to find work so he can obtain it through lawful purchase.

Actually, that scenario would be MORE acceptable that the childish rants and tantrums that define Greenpeace. They use fear and intimidation to achieve their objectives. At best, that is assault and extortion in the eyes of the law. At worst, it IS terrorism.

Stop trying to make these bullies and criminals out to be some kind of noble freedom fighters. They're a bunch of jack-booted thugs, nothing more.


Shatner's One Thing...
By InfantryRocks on 7/28/2009 11:41:16 PM , Rating: 2
...but if they sic Adam West on 'em, then you know they're serious!




RE: Shatner's One Thing...
By Totally on 7/29/2009 12:42:29 AM , Rating: 2
1 Adam West would not help their cause and I don't think they chance the risk of being run down by a batmobile shooting out 50ft flames out the rear.


RE: Shatner's One Thing...
By bupkus on 7/29/2009 2:17:00 AM , Rating: 1
The only flames shooting "out the rear" appears to be yours.


RE: Shatner's One Thing...
By PhoenixKnight on 7/29/2009 10:53:27 AM , Rating: 2
Nobody messes with Adam We!


Greanpeace sucks
By Luticus on 7/29/2009 8:30:04 AM , Rating: 2
Greenpeace, like PETA, is just another psycho organization that shouldn’t be allowed to represent good worthy causes like protecting the environment or animal rights because their actions drive people away rather than do any stitch of good. They really should stop “misrepresenting” causes people “should” care about.




RE: Greanpeace sucks
By Aeonic on 7/29/2009 9:31:01 AM , Rating: 2
+1.

This only makes me want to go out and buy some HP equipment. Greenpeace can suck it.


RE: Greanpeace sucks
By Pythias on 7/29/2009 10:50:08 AM , Rating: 2
Patrick Moore agrees with you.


Is it Just me??
By aguilpa1 on 7/29/2009 11:33:22 AM , Rating: 4
Is it just me or does that top of that building look like a giant computer CPU socket.




RE: Is it Just me??
By Fritzr on 7/30/2009 7:02:41 AM , Rating: 2
I saw tbe same thing. Thought it might have been Photoshopped before I read the article :)


No Thor no nothing...
By The0ne on 7/29/2009 9:50:23 AM , Rating: 2
C'mon we all know Greenpeace isn't going to get anywhwere with anyone unless Thor is there. He's the man to kick butt!




RE: No Thor no nothing...
By Pythias on 7/29/2009 11:04:40 AM , Rating: 2
It really cheezed me off that Marvel turned THOR into a hippie.


All the effort for what
By cashed on 7/28/2009 11:48:18 PM , Rating: 2
At least use an OIL base semi-gloss paint so it lasts and takes time and money to remove. The next rainfall or a sprinkler will wash that right off.

cough




RE: All the effort for what
By Tsuwamono on 7/28/2009 11:58:06 PM , Rating: 1
I think that would make them even more hypocritical wouldn't it?


plain rude
By Borkil on 7/29/2009 12:06:26 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Unforgiving, Greenpeace has also employed a perhaps even more painful tactic against HP. It is calling the company's employees early in the morning with automated phone calls from actor William Shatner, urging the company to forsake its use of the chemical compounds.


wow that is just harassment, they better be calling the CEO's and people in charge who could actually bring about change and not the regular workers. i'm all for peaceful protests but harassing phone calls in the morning is pushing it...




By lco45 on 7/29/2009 2:11:39 AM , Rating: 3
What with transparent aluminium and now even Bill Shatner's getting involved...

Luke




The Horror...
By klstay on 7/29/2009 8:30:47 AM , Rating: 3
Imagine working for HP and trying to sleep in on the weekend;

Zero hour, nine a.m. and a machine calls and Shatners you!

NOOOOOOOOOO.....




The Sun (linked to cancer)
By pequin06 on 7/29/2009 9:15:32 AM , Rating: 3
Will Greenpeace please save me???

What a bunch of tools.




Greenpeace...
By Nfarce on 7/28/2009 11:46:48 PM , Rating: 2
If ever there were a group of outdated radical trouble and property destructing hippie liberals who should be labeled as such, this would be the group. But we sure won't hear the media report it as such.




By Yawgm0th on 7/29/2009 1:41:11 AM , Rating: 2
By lobbying against nuclear energy, Greenpeace has effectively forced this country to remain highly reliant upon carbon-emitting and heavily-polluting energy producers. Regardless of whether man-made CO2 causes global warming, Greenpeace does more than every computer manufacturer combined times one hundred to cause carbon emissions and pollution.

Gas, oil, and coal emissions are incontrovertibly pollution and cause far more adverse effects to human health than the theoretical dangers of lead-based solder or any other electronic byproducts.

I don't think I need to explain the geopolitical issues related to our current reliance on oil.

Worse yet, their extremist antics such as this are more likely to make the American public apathetic to serious environmental issues (read: not this one). Greenpeace has just reaffirmed my belief (and probably the widely-held belief) that they are a fringe group of eco-terrorists who should largely be ignored.




By CZroe on 7/29/2009 2:27:54 AM , Rating: 2
"Greenpeace defaced computer manufacturer Hewlett Packard's roof do the company's slowness in phasing out brominated flame retardants and polyvinyl chloride plastic."

"...do the..." should be "...due to the..."




I get frustrated at work
By corduroygt on 7/29/2009 9:25:06 AM , Rating: 2
I wish greenpeace came to visit my workplace, I really get angry and frustrated at times, and would love to take it out on em.




GreenPeace and PETA
By CurtOien on 7/29/2009 10:00:44 AM , Rating: 2
I'm all for the environment and animals. Groups like this are an embarrassment.




Typo?
By iregulate on 7/29/2009 11:48:48 AM , Rating: 2
"Greenpeace defaced computer manufacturer Hewlett Packard's roof do the company's slowness in phasing out brominated flame retardants..."




By roykahn on 7/30/2009 12:12:48 AM , Rating: 2
Greenpeace need to hire some of the PR firms that help the USA & Israel governments. Then they can come up with ways of excusing their actions. They could describe their activities as "humanitarian intervention" or "spreading democracy". You can excuse anything if you use the right spin. Maybe call the HP boss a tyrant, say that HP are hiding MMT's (materials of mass toxicity), or say that their products are assisting terrorists. Greenpeace just have to learn from the masters of PR.




"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki