faq
code
awards
journals
subscribe
older
stuff
rob's page
preferences
submit
story
advertising
supporters
past
polls
topics
about
bugs
jobs
hof
|
| Dow vs. Parody | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 306 comments | Search Discussion |
|
|
| The Fine Print: The following comments are owned
by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any
way. |
| (1) | 2
(Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50) |
Have you seen The Thing? (Score:0,
Funny)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 01,
@12:33PM (#4994009)
|
| That guy's made of rock or something! And he's got a budd
that's made of fire, plus that stretchy guy and invisible
girl. If I were an ISP, I wouldn't be messing around with
superheroes like that! |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
The real reason Dow is upset
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday
January 01, @12:38PM (#4994035)
|
| It wasn't some "cosmic storm" that made them that
way, it was living next door to the Dow chemical
plant. Reed Richards used to work there as a
scientist. (But he was a good scientist who only
tested on evil animals... like cats.) |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
fp (Score:-1, Offtopic)
by
Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 01, @12:33PM (#4994013)
|
| word! |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Michael (Score:-1, Troll)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 01,
@12:34PM (#4994015)
|
| I won't even bother reading the story because it mentions
green peace and a corporation. Coming from Michael we know
what this is going to be: an orgy of socialism. Fuck off
Michael, you stupid liberal fuck. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
LOL (Score:0)
by
Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 01, @02:08PM (#4994377)
|
I don't know if you're responsible for some of the
other anti-michael posts lately, but I just wanted to
say "thanks". Anyone that continually harasses that
whining, flamebaiting pile of pseudoliberal pus is a
hero to me.
To reiterate: michael is a whining,
flamebaiting cunt. Just look at cetan's journal for
proof. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
in soviet russia.... (Score:-1,
Offtopic)
by rainman31415
(576575) on Wednesday January 01, @12:34PM (#4994017)
|
....oh who cares.....
rainman |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
|
|
Their Thing? (Score:2, Funny)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 01,
@12:35PM (#4994019)
|
I stumbled across this item on Wired about Verio
cutting off The Thing's
Did anybody else read this
as "Verio cutting off their Thing"? |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Well (Score:0)
by
Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 01, @12:43PM (#4994049)
|
| They obviously don't have any balls (testicular
fortitude). |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
I wonder if the framers of the
constitution... (Score:4, Insightful)
by UpLateDrinkingCoffee
(605179) on Wednesday January 01, @12:35PM (#4994021)
|
| ...had foreseen what corporations have become if they
wouldn't have put a few special clauses in especially for
them. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Re:I wonder if the framers of the
constitution... (Score:5, Interesting)
by UpLateDrinkingCoffee
(605179) on Wednesday January 01, @01:22PM (#4994198)
|
| Im talking about the trend these days to value
corporate freedom above individual freedom. I mean,
when did a *corporation* get the right to free
speech? The people that make up and run that
corporation certainly have that right, but this
trend of treating corporate entities as individuals
is getting out of hand.
Forcing a number of (presumably) individuals with
something to say off the web with the stroke of a
pen doesn't seem totalitarian to you? Due process
isn't even an option due to the cost. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:I wonder if the framers of the
constitution... (Score:1, Informative)
by Twirlip
of the Mists (615030) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com>
on Wednesday January 01, @01:30PM (#4994226)
(Last Journal: Friday
December 27, @02:02PM) |
I mean, when did a *corporation* get the
right to free speech?
You're asking
that question backwards. There's nothing in US law
that grants a right to free speech to
anybody. The law just assumes that that right
exists for all persons, individual and corporate
alike.
A better way to ask the question
would be, why should corporate persons not
enjoy free speech?
Forcing a number of
(presumably) individuals with something to say off
the web with the stroke of a pen doesn't seem
totalitarian to you?
Nope, for two
reasons. First, they didn't have the right to say
what they said in the first place; false
representation and defamation are illegal, and are
not protected by free speech. (Parody is, of
course, but this work was not a parody. It was
fraud.) Second, this activity wasn't a government
action at all; the government was never involved.
Rather, Dow complained to Verio and asked that
they enforce their AUP, and Verio complied. The
rules were laid down right from the beginning;
Thing.net chose to ignore them, so they lost their
service. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:I wonder if the
framers of the constitution... (Score:1)
by UpLateDrinkingCoffee
(605179) on Wednesday January 01, @02:02PM
(#4994344)
|
| The right to free speech in the U.S. is
granted to "persons" by the constitution. It
transcends the law. You are right that the law
assumes corporations have this right, but only
because somewhere along the line the supreme
court decided corporate entities were
"persons".. I'm submitting that corporate
persons have the same rights as individuals
because of supreme court precident and *not* the
intent of the framers of the constitution.
As far as this not being a government action,
wasn't the DMCA applied? Verio complied under
threat of the consequences of the law, which is
given power by the government.
I agree with you that false accusation and
defamation are not free speech. If they broke
the law, then they should be held accountable.
I'm just trying to point out how easy it is for
corporate entities to steamroller the rights of
individuals (in this case, the right to due
process and possibly the right to free speech).
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:I wonder if the
framers of the constitution... (Score:1)
by Capsaicin
(412918) on Thursday January 02, @12:21AM
(#4996912)
|
| The right to free speech in the U.S. is
granted to "persons" by the constitution.
Wrong. It prohibits the legislature(s) from
legislating away a presumed right. the law
assumes corporations have this right, but only
because somewhere along the line the supreme
court decided corporate entities were "persons"
Correct. However, having decided they
are persons, the question is, as the
previous poster pointed out, why in particular
corporate persons should be denied a right which
pertains to other legal persons? |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:I wonder if the
framers of the constitution... (Score:5,
Insightful)
by http://yro.slashdot.org/~www.sorehands.com
on Wednesday January 01, @02:03PM (#4994354)
(http://www.barbieslapp.com/)
|
Nope, for two reasons. First, they
didn't have the right to say what they said in
the first place; false representation and
defamation are illegal...(Parody is, of course,
but this work was not a parody. It was fraud.)
To be defamation, or more
precisely, libel Dow would have to show false
facts. What are the false facts that have been
published?
Second it is not false representation.
Parody by nature requires one to create an image
of what you are making parody of. To be fraud,
they must be attempting to get something of
value.
Second, this activity wasn't a
government action at all; the government was
never involved. Rather, Dow complained to Verio
and asked that they enforce their AUP, and Verio
complied. The rules were laid down right from
the beginning; Thing.net chose to ignore them,
so they lost their
service.
Asking a court to
restrict someone's right or penalize someone for
their speech is an infringment of the first
amendment. Using the threat os this should also
be considered the same.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:I wonder if the
framers of the constitution... (Score:5,
Insightful)
by uncoveror
(570620) on Wednesday January 01, @03:52PM
(#4994818)
(http://www.uncoveror.com/)
|
| Whether this was parody or fraud should have
been a matter for the courts to decide. Thanks
to the provisions of the DMCA, they didn't have
to get involved for censorship to occur. This is
what is meant by the term, "Chilling Effect." As
for defamation, printing negative information is
not libel if it is true, no matter how negative.
A biting satire of the company that continues to
ignore their responsibility for Bhopal, and is
even suing Bhopal survivors, that appears at
first glance to be Dow's real website is a valid
exercise in free speech in my opinion. I think
that the Supreme Court would eventually agree if
they heard this case, as it did in the Larry
Flynt vs. Jerry Falwell case. Dow deserves to
have the screws put to them. I support the Yes
Men, and Greenpeace for doing just that. Dow
could have avoided a lot of negative publicity
by ignoring the yes men. Now, more people than
ever before are learning that Dow is Union
Carbide, and people are still dying every day
because of their irresponsibility. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:I wonder if the
framers of the constitution... (Score:2)
by LostCluster
(625375) on Wednesday January 01, @10:54PM
(#4996622)
|
As for defamation, printing negative
information is not libel if it is
true...
Sorry. That exemption doesn't
apply here. They're posting press releases that
sure look like they're real Dow press releases,
but are things Dow never said and likely would
never want to say in a press
release.
Drop that line of reasoning, it
gets you nowhere. These "press releases" are
certainly not the truth. They translate to "Dow
Chemical announced today that 1+1=2." Even
though it's a true math fact, Dow never made any
announcement about it, so the statement is
false. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Groups are merely
collections of people..... (Score:1)
by Subspace
(170864) on Wednesday January 01, @08:43PM
(#4996215)
(http://slashdot.org/)
|
| A corporation is a group of people that
do have individual rights. They can choose to
exercise those rights as a group.
True, but that doesn't imply that a group
itself should have similar rights
independent of the members.
Show me in the Constitution - or in any
amendment - where such an idea can be
derived.
In looking just at the amendments, I see many
references to rights granted to
person(s)/people:
"...right of the people peaceably to
assemble..."
"The right of the people to be secure in
their persons..."
"No person shall be held to answer..."
"...nor shall any person be subject..."
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of
certain rights, shall not be construed to deny
or disparage others retained by the people."
"The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people."
"All persons born or naturalized...are
citizens of the United States.... nor shall any
state deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property...nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Nothing much said in there nor implied about
collections or groups of people. (Save the
Senate and House.)
Now I grant that we (the People) can
grant collections... groups...
businesses... corporations... certain rights and
responsibilities - as well we should. But
nothing in Constitutional Law states that the
rights of a collection... group... business...
etc.... trumps the rights of a
person.
The day that the Constitution acknowledges a
corporation over an individual, I'll leave this
land for a free country. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:I wonder if the
framers of the constitution... (Score:1)
by plague3106
(71849) <ajj3085@@@comcast...net>
on Wednesday January 01, @09:33PM (#4996384)
|
A corporation is a group of people that
do have individual rights. They can choose to
exercise those rights as a
group.
Doesn't really matter. You act
like all 1000 employees are acting as a group,
which is not the case. For a corporation, its a
small group of the employees making decisions,
which usually affect thier pocketbook as they
are the higher ups.
In effect, the higher
ups have 2 votes in your system. Thats not how
our system is supposed to work. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Look up the history of. . . `
(Score:5, Interesting)
by kfg (145172)
on Wednesday January 01, @02:08PM (#4994374)
|
the Virgina Colony. The Hudson Bay Trading
Company. The East Indian Trading Company.
Etc.
The framers of the Constitution knew damn
well what corporations "would become." They had
*already* become them.
Provisions were made in
the Constitution and legislative law to deal with this
issue. Great essays were written on the subject by
learned minds such as Thomas Jefferson. 50 years later
such matters were still uppermost in the minds of
America's great social philosopher's, such as
Thoreau.
Our forefather's weren't idiots,
weren't ignorant and weren't "cavemen." Their world
was, in many respects, "more like our own than our
own."
Stock markets, insurance companies,
leveraged buyouts and hostile takeovers, all done on a
global scale, were already a century or more of old
news before the first shot of the revolution was fired
on the green at Lexington.
For God's sake man,
Jefferson and Adams were *lawyers* and had actually
participated in such actions. They learned their
loathing of them first hand.
So what went
wrong?
Well, let me put it to you this way. Do
*you* still do business with these large corporations,
giving them the money and power to buy law? Traded a
little freedom for luxury items and security
maybe?
I forget who it was, but an ancient
historian, commenting on the aculturation of the
Britons under Roman rule, wrote something along these
lines:
"And so, the gullible natives,
eventually came to call their slavery
"culture.""
Ring any bells close to
home?
That's the problem with republicanism,
don't you see. The problems start at the top, more
often than not, but *responsibiltiy* always, always,
alway, falls to the bottom.
People don't want
responsibility. They want a Big Mac while bopping to
the latest Brittney Spears "tune."
KFG |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Look up the history of. . .
` (Score:5, Interesting)
by dazed-n-confused
(140724) on Wednesday January 01, @03:03PM (#4994574)
|
I forget who it was, but an ancient
historian, commenting on the aculturation of the
Britons under Roman rule, wrote something along
these lines: "And so, the gullible natives,
eventually came to call their slavery
"culture.""
Tacitus, Agricola
[aol.com] (hagiography of his father-in-law, a Roman
governor of Britain), s.21.
"To accustom to rest and repose
through the charms of luxury a population
scattered and barbarous and therefore inclined to
war, Agricola gave private encouragement and
public aid to the building of temples, courts of
justice and dwelling-houses, praising the
energetic, and reproving the indolent. Thus an
honourable rivalry took the place of compulsion.
He likewise provided a liberal education for the
sons of the chiefs, and showed such a preference
for the natural powers of the Britons over the
industry of the Gauls that they who lately
disdained the tongue of Rome now coveted its
eloquence. Hence, too, a liking sprang up for our
style of dress, and the “toga” became fashionable.
Step by step they were led to things which dispose
to vice, the lounge, the bath, the elegant
banquet. All this in their ignorance they called
civilisation, when it was but a part of their
servitude." |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Look up the history of. . .
` (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday January 01, @04:23PM (#4994929)
|
"People don't want responsibility. They want a
Big Mac while bopping to the latest Brittney Spears
"tune."
Who are you to tell them
different?
As an U.S. citizen you are free to
like any type of food, music, or OS that you want
regardless of taste. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Look up the history of. . .
` (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday January 01, @05:15PM (#4995243)
|
| Yes, you are absolutely free to like whatever
you want. BUT just as you are completely free to
buy these products, you are also completely
responsible for the results. A person who eats
meat is on the same moral level as the butcher.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Look up the history
of. . . ` (Score:0)
by
Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 01,
@09:32PM (#4996380)
|
"A person who eats meat is on the same moral
level as the butcher."
What about the
poor helpless plants?
They can't even get up
and walk.
At night I can still hear the
screams...
Oh my God what have I
done?
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
good points, but not entirely
true (Score:3, Insightful)
by Stu
Charlton (1311) on Wednesday January 01,
@05:30PM (#4995344)
(http://stucharlton.com/)
|
" leveraged buyouts and hostile takeovers , all
done on a global scale, were already a century or
more of old news before the first shot of the
revolution was fired on the green at
Lexington."
This isn't entirely true.
Large-scale corporations (the size of Hudson Bay or
East Indian, which were exceptions) didn't really
emerge until the late 1800's.
Another note is
the fundamental disconnect in power between
management and shareholder. Certainly businesses
started with owners that "hired hands" to run the
place. But eventually (WW2 and beyond) management
rose as a distinct discipline and practice.
Management held a tremendous amount of what could be
almost called "illegitimate" power.. that is, until
the backlash of hostile takeovers of the 1970's and
80's. Hostile takeovers before this time were quite
rare... and it's really what started the whole
"maximize shareholder value" fad we hear about today
-- if you don't keep your stock price up, you'll get
raided.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Look up the history of. . .
` (Score:2)
by fermion
(181285) <mailto:lowt@big[%20]t.com%20['foo'%20in%20gap]>
on Wednesday January 01, @06:10PM (#4995560)
(Last Journal: Friday
December 20, @12:24AM) |
| In general you are correct. All of us have the
responsibility, and many have the opportunity, to
make decisions that will help create the world we
say we want. This is especially true in the somewhat
capitalistic society in which many of us live.
There ate two issues that you miss. First, income
is generally distributed unevenly. The few who have
the largest share of the income, and who could make
the most difference, have a vested interest in
continuing the policies that made them rich and
minimizing policies that might make others rich at
their expense. The very many at the bottom generally
have no real choice. The can either eat at Burger
King or McDonalds. For instance, many lower income
neighborhoods do not have a big grocery store, but
the do have several fast food places, within walking
distance. As such, it is cheaper to go a fast food
place than to pay the relatively high prices at the
corner store.
Second, the consequences of certain decisions are
often purposely obfuscated to the consumer. For
instance, parents feed McDonalds to their kids
because the commercials equate taking your kids to
McDonalds to love for your kid. Parents buy huge
SUVs because they have been made so afraid of the
outside world that destroying the environment seems
to be the only way to save their kid from imminent
death. We laugh at the folly of organic food while
forgetting that so much or food is imported, and we
really don't know what pesticides were used in
foreign grown foods.
There are many other reasons why the bulk of the
responsibility should be placed on the powerful
elite. Yes, it is true that we as customers should
try very hard to make decisions that won't harm us.
However, we as citizens also need to put pressure on
out representatives not push the FUD that forces
otherwise rational people to choose irrational
things. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:I wonder if the framers of the
constitution... (Score:3, Informative)
by kurt_cagle
(410798) on Wednesday January 01, @02:16PM (#4994409)
(http://www.kurtcagle.net/)
|
In the mid-1880s, at the (well-renumerated)
insistence of the Railroad
companies, corporations
were given all of the rights that hitherto had been
assigned only to individuals via the Bill of Rights.
Until that time, the rights and abilities
of
corporations were highly restricted, in great
part because Jefferson, Madison and Franklin
were
all quite aware of what would happen if corporations
did gain these rights. In many ways the original
Revolutionary war was a corporate war - much of the
exploration of the
American colonies was carried
out by corporations that were looking for a cheaper
source of raw materials and a captive market for their
goods. When the American revolutionaries began to
fight back, it was these same corporations that paid
for the British troops, ships, and armaments, because
they saw the actions as being harmful to their
corporate interests. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:I wonder if the framers of the
constitution... (Score:0)
by
Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 01, @03:13PM
(#4994630)
|
| Hamilton lost the duel, but certainly won the
*war* for the shape the new nation would eventually
take. While Jefferson was accused of dalliance with
his female slaves, Hamilton gratified his own urges
by taking hand-colored woodcut prints of the various
17 Lords of the Jan Compagnie (Verenigde
Oostindische Compagnie) to the outhouse with him.
This seems to have started a tradition which endures
to the present administration, and as such
traditions do modify with the passage of time, I
fully expect to see all denominations of U.S.
currency bear Hamilton's portrait before the next
national election. This is the primary reason your
mother cautioned you about putting money in your
mouth. All loyal party members are welcomed to join
with me in my next worshipful pilgrimage this coming
April, when I lay the ritually completed 1040 at the
feet of the Heroic Seven Foot Statue of Hamilton
ensconced in the very rotunda of our Capitol, and
warmly reflect on the number of years for which
Microsoft paid no Federal Income Taxes. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
They keep going on about (Score:0,
Redundant)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January
01, @12:37PM (#4994027)
|
| "Corporate Free Speech". Shouldn't it work both ways?
Shouldn't parodies be allowed? Not allowing parodies is a
violation of invidual Free Speech, surely? |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Re:They keep going on about
(Score:2, Insightful)
by jwilcox154
(469038) on Wednesday January 01, @01:42PM (#4994262)
|
Shouldn't it work both ways? Shouldn't parodies
be allowed? Not allowing parodies is a violation of
invidual Free Speech, surely?
Not According
to G.W. Bush, he himself said "There ought to be
limits to freedom" when he was talking about Parodies
of his campaign website. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
OMFG (Score:5, Funny)
by
Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 01, @12:41PM (#4994047)
|
That was the most incomprehensible story summary I've ever
read.
There was the group, and we'll give them some
forgettable name, and they did some stuff, and DMCA, and ow
what hit me, the end. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Re:OMFG (Score:1)
by Threni
(635302) on Wednesday January 01, @03:30PM (#4994706)
|
| Not really - this is the sort of nonsense you
produce when taking a big hit of caffeine first
thing in the morning - especially on a hangover!
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
how is this different from the earlier
story? (Score:1)
by avi33 (116048) on
Wednesday January 01, @12:43PM (#4994050)
(http://www.usrnull.com/)
|
OK, here I go again, grousing about my stories that get
rejected, but apparently all I need to do is dig up a
previously covered story and link it all to
hell.
There's really nothing new here, other than to
say 'wired picked up a story that we did two weeks ago.'
|
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Re:how is this different from the
earlier story? (Score:2, Funny)
by
spazoid12
(525450) on Wednesday January 01, @12:55PM (#4994102)
|
I've noticed that lately all you need to do is
read back-issues of Wired magazine, and in particular,
PopSci magazine.
And then hope that either
Timothy or ChrisD is on duty.
But, of course,
I'm wrong and this is just trollish flamebait. And so
in an effort not to get modded down let me add: I
found this article to be insightful and informative. I
particularly found the Greenpeace link inspiring and
have made a mental note to someday, possibly, visit
that link...if nothing else, just to see what a bunch
of Zodiac owners are up to now. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:how is this different from the
earlier story? (Score:5, Insightful)
by Zeinfeld
(263942) on Wednesday January 01, @01:11PM (#4994168)
(http://slashdot.org/ |
Last Journal: Monday
October 07, @05:09PM) |
| There's really nothing new here, other than to
say 'wired picked up a story that we did two weeks
ago.'
The news that Dow is suing the Bopahl survivors to
try to silence their protests over Dows failure to
clean up is news to me.
The Union Carbide disaster at Bopahl was due to
sheer negligence and greed. Dow still refuses to clean
up the site of the disaster and has yet to pay
compensation to most of the victims.
Perhaps if students stopped and considered the
wisdom of joining a company that could kill 800 people
with its negligence and not care a damn Dow might have
a lot more difficulty recruiting on campus.
If you are choosing an employer in the chemical
business their safety record should be your first
concern. If you work for a company like Dow that is
saying that they can kill 800 people, create pollution
that will kill even more and they just don't care you
are quite litteraly putting your own life on the line
for their corporate profits.
The same goes for communities that have Dow
installations near them, or planned to be built near
them. Make sure that your representatives are aware
that Dow cannoit be trusted. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:how is this different from the
earlier story? (Score:2)
by Zeinfeld
(263942) on Wednesday January 01, @02:31PM (#4994458)
(http://slashdot.org/
| Last Journal: Monday
October 07, @05:09PM) |
| Again, my point is, it's just a
better-linked version of the original post.
Two slashdot stories in 18 years on the deaths
of 800 people caused by corporate negligence does
not appear unreasonable to me.
Unfortunately Slashdot is still stuck in a very
limited niche despite the clear poitential to do
more. I doubt that the majority of slashdot
readers have such narrow interests as the editors.
OK I can take the slashcode and put up my own
slashdot to discuss political issues, but slashdot
is not the code base it is the community.
A way to address the repeated stories problem
and the focus problem would be to create a kind of
hybrid of slashdot and google news. Instead of the
idiosyncratic and duplicative story selection by
the slashcrew the stories could be choosen
automatically in the same way as the google news
stories are.
This would also reduce the number of tedious
'Microsoft is ssooooooo evil' rants where a story
that has nothing to do with Microsoft is posted
but the editor feels obliged to tell us what he
thinks Microsoft would do in that situation. This
type of behavior was more acceptable when slashdot
was independent rather than run by a Microsoft
competitor.
Another scheme which might be interesting would
be to throw the editor queue open for inspection
(but not comment) and moderation. Perhaps readers
at karma cap or close could get moderation points
for this purpose.
Slashdot talks a great line about
decentralization etc. but really when it comes
down to it the whole thing is a corporate
dictatorship, one with a friendly face but not
something that meets the game they talk.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Much more than 800... they were 2000
or 4000 ppl! (Score:0)
by
Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 01, @05:37PM
(#4995376)
|
I can't recall for sure if 2000 or 4000 were
killed, but surely it was not "only" 800.
The
way things go one of these days Union Carbide will
be invited to India again.
And how, for God's
sake, can someone be so stupid (not to mention other
things) as to actually buy such
installation?
Ever since that terrible
incident I've been avoiding Union Carbide (Eveready)
products. Dow now has a fan, too.
You know,
the average American can be a very fair guy, very
reasonable, well-intentioned, even
non-belligerant... these corporations, though,
create your image throughout the world.
Think
Ferenghi.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:how is this different from the
earlier story? (Score:0)
by
Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 01, @09:12PM
(#4996318)
|
I have lived about 3 miles away from DOW's main
plant where it all got started my entire life, and
they are not that bad.
And why do you blame
DOW for something that supposely Union Carbide did.
I would say India is to blame for not having an EPA
organization to set things straight soon after it
happened. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
Pretty convincing (Score:1)
by Milo Fungus
(232863) on Wednesday January 01, @12:44PM (#4994057)
(http://www.angelfire.com/indie/milo
| Last Journal: Thursday
August 01, @10:23AM) |
| I read through the original discussion. It was really
interesting, especially posts like this
one [slashdot.org] and its
replies. [slashdot.org] The parody site is pretty
convincing. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Go to bed micheal! (Score:-1, Troll)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 01,
@12:46PM (#4994066)
|
Lets count sheep!
four
quadringentsexoctogintillion, seven hundred eighty two
quadringentquinoctogintilliard, two hundred two
quadringentquinoctogintillion, seven hundred eighty eight
quadringentquattuoroctogintilliard, fifty four
quadringentquattuoroctogintillion, six hundred twelve
quadringenttreoctogintilliard, twenty nine
quadringenttreoctogintillion, five hundred twenty eight
quadringentdooctogintilliard, three hundred ninety two
quadringentdooctogintillion, nine hundred eighty six
quadringentunoctogintilliard, six hundred
quadringentunoctogintillion, fifty nine
quadringentoctogintilliard, ninety seven
quadringentoctogintillion, four hundred fourteen
quadringentnovemseptuagintilliard, nine hundred seventy one
quadringentnovemseptuagintillion, seven hundred twenty four
quadringentoctoseptuagintilliard, twenty two
quadringentoctoseptuagintillion, three hundred sixty five
quadringentseptenseptuagintilliard, eight
quadringentseptenseptuagintillion, five hundred thirteen
quadringentsexseptuagintilliard, three hundred forty five
quadringentsexseptuagintillion, one hundred nine
quadringentquinseptuagintilliard, nine hundred eighteen
quadringentquinseptuagintillion, three hundred seventy eight
quadringentquattuorseptuagintilliard, nine hundred fifty
quadringentquattuorseptuagintillion, nine hundred forty two
quadringenttreseptuagintilliard, six hundred sixty two
quadringenttreseptuagintillion, nine hundred seventy
quadringentdoseptuagintilliard, two hundred seventy eight
quadringentdoseptuagintillion, nine hundred twenty seven
quadringentunseptuagintilliard, six hundred eighty six
quadringentunseptuagintillion, one hundred twelve
quadringentseptuagintilliard, seven hundred seven
quadringentseptuagintillion, eight hundred ninety four
quadringentnovemsexagintilliard, five hundred eighty six
quadringentnovemsexagintillion, eight hundred twenty four
quadringentoctosexagintilliard, seven hundred twenty
quadringentoctosexagintillion, nine hundred eighty one
quadringentseptensexagintilliard, five hundred twenty four
quadringentseptensexagintillion, two hundred fifty six
quadringentsexsexagintilliard, three hundred nineteen
quadringentsexsexagintillion, three hundred six
quadringentquinsexagintilliard, five hundred eighty five
quadringentquinsexagintillion, fifty two
quadringentquattuorsexagintilliard, six hundred seventy six
quadringentquattuorsexagintillion, eight hundred thirty four
quadringenttresexagintilliard, eighty seven
quadringenttresexagintillion, four hundred eighty
quadringentdosexagintilliard, eight hundred thirty four
quadringentdosexagintillion, four hundred twenty nine
quadringentunsexagintilliard, four hundred thirty three
quadringentunsexagintillion, two hundred sixty four
quadringentsexagintilliard, seven hundred ninety seven
quadringentsexagintillion, four hundred twenty five
quadringentnovemquinquagintilliard, eight hundred ninety three
quadringentnovemquinquagintillion, two hundred forty seven
quadringentoctoquinquagintilliard, six hundred twenty three
quadringentoctoquinquagintillion, six hundred eighty eight
quadringentseptenquinquagintilliard, three hundred thirty one
quadringentseptenquinquagintillion, twenty one
quadringentsexquinquagintilliard, six hundred thirty three
quadringentsexquinquagintillion, two hundred eight
quadringentquinquinquagintilliard, nine hundred fifty four
quadringentquinquinquagintillion, eight hundred forty seven
quadringentquattuorquinquagintilliard, three hundred fifty
four quadringentquattuorquinquagintillion, eight hundred five
quadringenttrequinquagintilliard, seven hundred ninety nine
quadringenttrequinquagintillion, nine hundred forty three
quadringentdoquinquagintilliard, three hundred forty one
quadringentdoquinquagintillion, three hundred nine
quadringentunquinquagintilliard, eight hundred twenty five
quadringentunquinquagintillion, nine hundred eighty nine
quadringentquinquagintilliard, thirteen
quadringentquinquagintillion, seven hundred forty three
quadringentnovemquadragintilliard, eight hundred six
quadringentnovemquadragintillion, one hundred eighty seven qu
Read
the rest of this comment... |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Re:Go to bed micheal!
(Score:0, Troll)
by spazoid12
(525450) on Wednesday January 01, @01:03PM (#4994137)
|
| hahaha. That one is pretty funny, too. Oh man, I
wish I were the only one with mod points to correctly
score these. Somebody is being far too sensitive...
often, a trollish flamebait is appropriate and funny.
here's one. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Go to bed micheal!
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday
January 01, @01:06PM (#4994151)
|
four quadringentsexoctogintillion, seven
hundred eighty two
quadringentquinoctogintilliard
Shut
the fuck up you stupid fucking limey.
Leave it
to the fucking Brits, after a thousand years of
continuous civilization, to still have trouble with
the decimal system. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Go to bed micheal!
(Score:2)
by os2fan
(254461) on Wednesday January 01, @07:10PM (#4995842)
(http://www.geocities.com/os2fan2/index.html)
|
| The author ofthe number is not using the british
system, but the European system. This is evident
from the use of -illards, the absence of 'and', and
a few other things.
The selected number here is 2^64, the decimal
expansion of which is 18 446 744 073 709 551 616.
USA = eighteen pentillion, four hundred forty six
quadrillion, seven hundred forty four trillion,
seventy three billion, seven hundred nine million,
five hundred fifty one thousand six hundred sixteen.
EUR = eighteen trillion, four hundred forty six
billiard, seven hundred forty four billion, seventy
three milliard, seven hundred nine million, five
hundred fifty one thousand six hundred sixteen.
UK = eighteen trillion, four hundred and
forty-six thousand, seven hundred and forty-four
billion, seventy-three thousand, seven hundred and
nine million, five hundred and fifty-one thousand
six hundred and sixteen.
NEW = three hundred and sixtynine billion, one
cention, fiftyseven thousand, thirtyone hundred and
eleftynine million, fifty centions, seven thosand,
ninety hundred and sixteen.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
These types of stories need MORE
publicity (Score:4, Insightful)
by ThresholdRPG
(310239) on Wednesday January 01, @12:46PM (#4994067)
(http://www.threshold-rpg.com/
| Last Journal: Thursday
January 02, @02:18AM) |
This is the kind of stuff that threatens to GUT one of the
most important benefits of the internet. The ability to
ridicule a company or government for things it has done to
cause real harm to others is quite possibly one of the most
important types of freedom of expression.
It is
absolutely vital to the continued existence of the internet as
a medium of free speech that large corporations are NOT
allowed to squelch opinions that do not cast them in a
favorable light.
There is, however, a place where the
line should be drawn. When creators of parody sites or
critical sites start publishing people's real life names, home
addresses, and other personal information against their will,
then they have gone to far. At that point, they are putting
actual people and their families at risk. When you create a
parody or critical web site, you do not know what kind of
people will visit the site. Some of the people who visit the
site may be very unstable individuals capable of all sorts of
terrible things. For a host of reasons, they might decide to
utilize the personal information in order to cause real
physical harm to the person being criticised or that person's
family.
Perhaps the web site riled up their anger, or
perhaps they thought the site was so amusing that they want to
"thank" the creators by going out and causing real harm to the
targets of the web site. This kind of stuff DOES happen folks,
so don't blow it off as mere paranoia.
The reason I
even bring up this issue is because of this part of the
article:
> "We even put down James Parker's real
home
> address! Very funny, right? Yes! Funny!"
>
the Yes Men said in a statement.
Actually no, that is
not funny. The only funny part about that was that James
Parker was able to seize the domain name by presenting his
drivers license and proof that he was the James Parker in
question. ;p
> "But on Dec. 4,
James Parker himself, with the
> help of a team of Dow
lawyers, sent a Xerox of
> his driver's license and a
letter by FedEx to
> Gandi.net, saying, basically, "This
domain
> belongs to me. See, that's my home
address,
> too. Give it to me!"
>
>
According to rules established by the Internet
>
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers --
> an
organization responsible for, among other
> chores,
Internet address disputes -- Parker was
> correct and
Gandi.net had no legal choice but
> to hand over
Dow-Chemical.com to James Parker.
That part I find
absolutely hilarious =).
So while it is absolutely
IMPERATIVE that governments and corporations NOT be allowed to
squelch parody sites or sites that are critical of their
behavior, it is equally important that the creators of such
sites be prevented from distributing personal information
about individuals.
The dangers inherent in the former
put our freedoms at risk, just as the dangers inherent in the
latter put lives at risk.
|
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
GO TO BED (Score:-1, Offtopic)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January
01, @12:48PM (#4994078)
|
| four quadringentsexoctogintillion, seven hundred
eighty two quadringentquinoctogintilliard, two hundred
two quadringentquinoctogintillion, seven hundred
eighty eight quadringentquattuoroctogintilliard, fifty
four quadringentquattuoroctogintillion, six hundred
twelve quadringenttreoctogintilliard, twenty nine
quadringenttreoctogintillion, five hundred twenty
eight quadringentdooctogintilliard, three hundred
ninety two quadringentdooctogintillion, nine hundred
eighty six quadringentunoctogintilliard, six hundred
quadringentunoctogintillion, fifty nine
quadringentoctogintilliard, ninety seven
quadringentoctogintillion, four hundred fourteen
quadringentnovemseptuagintilliard, nine hundred
seventy one quadringentnovemseptuagintillion, seven
hundred twenty four quadringentoctoseptuagintilliard,
twenty two quadringentoctoseptuagintillion, three
hundred sixty five quadringentseptenseptuagintilliard,
eight quadringentseptenseptuagintillion, five hundred
thirteen quadringentsexseptuagintilliard, three
hundred forty five quadringentsexseptuagintillion, one
hundred nine quadringentquinseptuagintilliard, nine
hundred eighteen quadringentquinseptuagintillion,
three hundred seventy eight
quadringentquattuorseptuagintilliard, nine hundred
fifty quadringentquattuorseptuagintillion, nine
hundred forty two quadringenttreseptuagintilliard, six
hundred sixty two quadringenttreseptuagintillion, nine
hundred seventy quadringentdoseptuagintilliard, two
hundred seventy eight quadringentdoseptuagintillion,
nine hundred twenty seven
quadringentunseptuagintilliard, six hundred eighty six
quadringentunseptuagintillion, one hundred twelve
quadringentseptuagintilliard, seven hundred seven
quadringentseptuagintillion, eight hundred ninety four
quadringentnovemsexagintilliard, five hundred eighty
six quadringentnovemsexagintillion, eight hundred
twenty four quadringentoctosexagintilliard, seven
hundred twenty quadringentoctosexagintillion, nine
hundred eighty one quadringentseptensexagintilliard,
five hundred twenty four
quadringentseptensexagintillion, two hundred fifty six
quadringentsexsexagintilliard, three hundred nineteen
quadringentsexsexagintillion, three hundred six
quadringentquinsexagintilliard, five hundred eighty
five quadringentquinsexagintillion, fifty two
quadringentquattuorsexagintilliard, six hundred
seventy six quadringentquattuorsexagintillion, eight
hundred thirty four quadringenttresexagintilliard,
eighty seven quadringenttresexagintillion, four
hundred eighty quadringentdosexagintilliard, eight
hundred thirty four quadringentdosexagintillion, four
hundred twenty nine quadringentunsexagintilliard, four
hundred thirty three quadringentunsexagintillion, two
hundred sixty four quadringentsexagintilliard, seven
hundred ninety seven quadringentsexagintillion, four
hundred twenty five
quadringentnovemquinquagintilliard, eight hundred
ninety three quadringentnovemquinquagintillion, two
hundred forty seven quadringentoctoquinquagintilliard,
six hundred twenty three
quadringentoctoquinquagintillion, six hundred eighty
eight quadringentseptenquinquagintilliard, three
hundred thirty one quadringentseptenquinquagintillion,
twenty one quadringentsexquinquagintilliard, six
hundred thirty three quadringentsexquinquagintillion,
two hundred eight quadringentquinquinquagintilliard,
nine hundred fifty four
quadringentquinquinquagintillion, eight hundred forty
seven quadringentquattuorquinquagintilliard, three
hundred fifty four
quadringentquattuorquinquagintillion, eight hundred
five quadringenttrequinquagintilliard, seven hundred
ninety nine quadringenttrequinquagintillion, nine
hundred forty three quadringentdoquinquagintilliard,
three hundred forty one
quadringentdoquinquagintillion, three hundred nine
quadringentunquinquagintilliard, eight hundred twenty
five quadringentunquinquagintillion, nine hundred
eighty nine quadringentquinquagintilliard, thirteen
quadringentquinquagintillion, seven hundred forty
three quadringentnovemquadragintilliard, eight hundred
six quadringentnovemquadragintillion, one hundred
eighty seven quadringentoctoquadragintil
Read
the rest of this comment... |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:These types of stories need MORE
publicity (Score:1)
by FearUncertaintyDoubt
(578295) on Wednesday January 01, @02:16PM (#4994408)
|
| There is, however, a place where the line
should be drawn. When creators of parody sites or
critical sites start publishing people's real life
names, home addresses, and other personal information
against their will, then they have gone to far.
I don't agree with that in cases where the person's
information is already public. If you can find that
information on the public internet, then why would
repeating it be illegal? And if repeating it in the
context of a parody doesn't make it less legal. Using
someone's real name always raises the spectre of
libel, however.
When you create a parody or critical web site,
you do not know what kind of people will visit the
site. Some of the people who visit the site may be
very unstable individuals capable of all sorts of
terrible things. For a host of reasons, they might
decide to utilize the personal information in order to
cause real physical harm to the person being
criticised or that person's family.
This is in the realm of good judgement, but not
law. Is People Magazine responsible for all the
stalkers who fall in love with celebrities? According
to your logic, one could say that People "incited"
some mentally unbalanced person to go after Jennifer
Aniston (hey, I said they were unbalanced). Do I think
People Magazine contributes to the cult of celebrity
which is detrimental to society? Yes. Do I think they
are legally culpable for that? No. And unstable people
watch CNN, too. If they see coverage of an oil spill
on CNN and then go kill an oil company CEO, is CNN
liable?
You can't know what effect your speech will have.
And you can't make people responsible for how someone
else might interpret that. Only when there is no room
for interpretation, such as "kill him!" can you make a
case for someone's words directly leading to a
criminal act. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:These types of stories need MORE
publicity (Score:2)
by harlows_monkeys
(106428) on Wednesday January 01, @03:51PM (#4994806)
(http://www.tzs.net/)
|
| This is the kind of stuff that threatens to GUT
one of the most important benefits of the internet.
The ability to ridicule a company or government for
things it has done to cause real harm to others is
quite possibly one of the most important types of
freedom of expression
That ability is not threatened at all by this. What
is threatened is the ability to try to deceive people
so as to mislead them about a company or government.
These sites were not parody sites. They were trying
to confuse people into thinking they were Dow's site,
and are using the claim of parody to try to hide their
attempted identity theft. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:These types of stories need MORE
publicity (Score:1)
by ManxStef
(469602) on Wednesday January 01, @06:56PM (#4995793)
|
It is absolutely vital to the
continued existence of the internet as a medium of
free speech that large corporations are NOT allowed
to squelch opinions that do not cast them in a
favorable light.
In that case,
can anyone tell me why this story doesn't seem to have
got any press in the US, and limited coverage in the
UK?:
US
wrecks cheap drugs deal [guardian.co.uk]-
Cheney's intervention blocks pact to help poor
countries after pharmaceutical firms lobby White
House.
This story also draws comment in the Guardian's
Leaders column [guardian.co.uk]:
"When
pushed to do so, the Bush administration will feign
concern for the world's poor. But its actions speak
louder than its words. The intervention by
vice-president Dick Cheney last week to torpedo a deal
to get cheap drugs into poor countries whose populaces
have been consumed by epidemics was a cold-hearted
piece of realpolitik. Forget the honey-coated pledges
of support for development and warm declarations that
global prosperity must be shared. The United States
was the only country out of 144 to oppose an agreement
that would have relaxed global patent rules on
treatments. The richest nation on the earth backed the
arguments of the drug lobby over the cries of the weak
and wasted. In doing so the US has emptied the current
round of trade talks of a meaningful and substantial
proof that globalisation could help the poor." (read
more [guardian.co.uk])
And then Americans
wonder why a vast proportion of the rest of the world
hates their Government? Maybe it's because they
continually let their large corporations get away with
murder ...
A corporation
has no soul to damn; no body to kick.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:These types of stories need MORE
publicity (Score:1)
by kputnam
(488584) <kyle&putnamcabinets,com>
on Thursday January 02, @04:00AM (#4997406)
(http://kyle.putnamcabinets.com/)
|
While I agree that parody and critism are
important parts of our freedom of speech, home
addresses and other information related to normal
citizens are all available on www.whitepages.com and
any phone book. While you can pay to have them removed
(or hell, don't have a phone in the first place), the
crime should not be publishing someone's home address
or other mildy personal information. The crime would
be someone stalking them or harassing or even harming
them, by restricting speech that way it is analogous
to not allowing publication of books about hacking
networks, building bombs, or sneaking past airport
security.
And don't you think that maybe if
James Parker's address was published inside of a
praising article about how he cleaned up the mess in
India he wouldn't feel so threatened? Since his
actions were instead atrocious, he better feel
threatened to have his address published and he better
expect to face some kind of consequences for his
actions too. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Do not pass go, do not collect $200
(Score:3, Insightful)
by LostCluster
(625375) on Wednesday January 01, @12:48PM (#4994081)
|
I think for once, the parody artists have gone too far and
I have to line up on the side of the big business.
Even
the /. poster admits that he got fooled into
thinking the "response" from Dow was really from The Yes Men.
That's over the line. It's one thing to be critical of Dow's
actions, but it's another thing all together to confuse people
into thinking you are Dow while making statements that Dow
doesn't want make.
Yeah, Dow was a little underhanded
to make the phone call after business hours, but The Thing
could have blocked that trick simply by having a 24/7
answering service and an admin with a beeper. It's hard for
them to try to claim that they aren't responsible for striking
a website when they are told that what the site owners are
doing is against the law, and I don't see why doing exactly
what they were doing should be legal. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Re:Do not pass go, do not collect
$200 (Score:5, Insightful)
by Tom (822) on
Wednesday January 01, @01:00PM (#4994122)
(http://web.lemuria.org/)
|
The entire point of the Yes Man's actions
has always been that it is confused with the real
thing. They've done a couple things that make you
really think about it, and they could only do it the
way they did.
If corporations have free speech,
why can't the Yes Men? Honestly, what's the worse
crime - poisoning a couple thousand people, or
impersonating someone who isn't even a
person?
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Do not pass go, do not collect
$200 (Score:3, Insightful)
by Twirlip
of the Mists (615030) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com>
on Wednesday January 01, @01:14PM (#4994175)
(Last Journal: Friday
December 27, @02:02PM) |
There is a line between parody and fraud. It's
obvious that the group in question went out of their
way to make their site look as much like an official
Dow site as possible in order to defame Dow
Chemical. That's not parody. That's intentional
misrepresentation.
Free speech does not give
you the right to say whatever you want and damned be
the consequences. It doesn't work that
way.
Honestly, what's the worse crime -
poisoning a couple thousand people, or impersonating
someone who isn't even a person?
Ah, the
classic "But they started it!" defense. That always
works so well in the courts. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Do not pass go, do
not collect $200 (Score:1)
by
dipipanone
(570849) on Wednesday January 01, @03:11PM
(#4994619)
|
What I like best about these sort of scams
is that nobody would ever have even *heard* of
this lame-ass hippie parody website if the dumb
arrogant fucks at Dow hadn't felt so affronted
that they had to attempt to censor it.
Haven't these captains of industry ever
heard the old maxim about how the internet
interprets censorship as damage and what happens
then? |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Do not pass go, do not collect
$200 (Score:3, Interesting)
by
MrHanky
(141717) on Wednesday January 01, @01:57PM (#4994324)
(http://www.google.com/)
|
There is a line between parody and
fraud. It's obvious that the group in question
went out of their way to make their site look as
much like an official Dow site as possible in
order to defame Dow Chemical. That's not parody.
That's intentional
misrepresentation. It might be argued
that Dow are misrepresenting themselves, and that
The Yes-Men are helping Dow to express more
truthfully what they stand for. Not that this
matters at all. All these pranks are meant to last
for some time, then get a lot of attention as the
corporation sends their army of lawyers, then
closed down. But some still work, like gatt.org [wto.org],
a parody of wto.org
[gatt.org]. They are so alike that I almost don't
see the difference myself. This one's been up for
more than a year. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Do not pass go, do not collect
$200 (Score:2)
by Tom (822)
on Wednesday January 01, @03:01PM (#4994562)
(http://web.lemuria.org/)
|
Ah, the classic "But they started it!"
defense. That always works so well in the
courts.
Nope, you read that wrong. I
don't care who did it first, what I care about is
what is being done.
Free speech
does not give you the right to say whatever you
want and damned be the consequences. It doesn't
work that way.
It doesn't? If it
carries consequences, then it ain't free speech.
If that were the definition of free speech, then
hey, you have a lot of free speech in, say, china.
You can say whatever you want. They might kill you
for it, but that's just the consequences, so it's
still free speech, right?
Is that how you want
it to work?
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Do not pass go, do
not collect $200 (Score:2)
by
EvanED
(569694) <mailto:evaned@netzeroEEE.net%20minus%20threevowels>
on Wednesday January 01, @03:27PM (#4994690)
|
"It doesn't? If it carries consequences,
then it ain't free speech. If that were the
definition of free speech, then hey, you have a
lot of free speech in, say, china. You can say
whatever you want. They might kill you for it,
but that's just the consequences, so it's still
free speech, right?
Is that how you want it
to work?"
What the parent means is that
you do not have the right to commit slander,
libel, etc. Let's think of what absolute free
speech means:
-no perjury laws (or you
wouldn't have free speech on the
bench)
-you can incite illegal
actions--such as telling someone to kill
someone--without reproach
-you can shout
'fire' in a crowded theatre, probably leading to
injuries an property damage and certainly
leading to lost revenue for the theatre owner,
and not be responsible even if it is just a
prank
This is not what the founding
fathers and other governmental people intended
when they wrote ratified the first amendment.
They were trying to protect against censoring
speech because of political messages. While
parodies are of course protected, they cease to
be protected when they cross the line to
fradulent misrepresentation, and the Yes Men
arguably did with their parody and certainly did
when they sent links to journalists claiming
that they represent Dow and were issuing a press
release. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
You have to be joking
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday
January 01, @01:01PM (#4994128)
|
One needs to read only a few lines of "Dow's"
response to realize that it's just a very well done
frameup, and by the time you're into the 2nd and 3rd
paragraphs it's hard to keep from gagging in
hysterics.
You can't be serious that anyone
would really think that this geniunely came from Dow.
Come on. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Do not pass go, do not collect
$200 (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday January 01, @01:35PM (#4994246)
|
| Possibly there should be two versions of the site,
an American version with "THIS IS A PARODY" blinking
across the screen, and with the references to DDT, to
financial considerations outweighing taking
responsibility for a disaster in which thousands die
because of financial considerations etc. underlined,
and an international verion for countries not
populated by drooling imbeciles. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Another vote against "The Yes
Men" (Score:2)
by MacAndrew
(463832) on Wednesday January 01, @02:27PM (#4994448)
(http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/)
|
Not that Dow is squeaky clean
... but that's beside the point. You don't
get a free pass to break whatever law no matter how
good your cause, even for civil disobedience. Worst of
all, it is so unnecessary.
The "parody" site is
deliberately misleading, and downright offensive. When
I looked for at least a disclaimer, I find
instead "Copyright © The Dow Company." The entire site
appears to be structured similarly. This insults our
intelligence. What, the critics' argument aren't good
enough to stand alone? We won't appreciate it unless
fooled?
The only reason I was studying
the site for hints was the warning I received in
advance. Their domain name dowethics adds nicely to
the fakery -- certainly it is a plausible name for a
corporation to operate.
Parody can be
protected speech, but not automatically. Impersonation
and falsehood are not protected -- else it would be
impossible to prosecute con men. Here, it doesn't even
matter if they're telling the truth -- they can't
pretend to be Dow. No brainer. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Do not pass go, do not collect
$200 (Score:2)
by localman
(111171) on Wednesday January 01, @09:55PM (#4996445)
(http://www.binadopta.com/)
|
Interesting. I wonder how the killing and maiming
of large groups of people, then sueing them further
into poverty can be taken on the same level as
libel.
The people killed, maimed, and sued were
real living breathing people. The victim of libel is a
corporation - a piece of paper. In this case I would
say a polite "puh-leez" to any concerns from the
guilty corp, and be quite sympathetic to the illegal
but well intentioned actions against
them.
Again: on one side you've got ongoing
massive injury and death of real people that has gone
unresolved, and on the other side you've got a
corporation that was badmouthed.
Cheers. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Do not pass go, do not collect
$200 (Score:2)
by localman
(111171) on Thursday January 02, @12:36AM (#4996956)
(http://www.binadopta.com/)
|
Sure, in general two wrongs don't make a
right, but the order of magnitude of the wrongs
must be considered, don't you think? As well as
the greater good. Would you apply the same logic
to police gunning down an active killer?
In
this case we're talking about wrong#1: mass
killing & continued damage vs. wrong#2:
possible libel. I'm sorry, but those wrongs are on
different planes. One is fundamental and the other
is incendental to our social
norms.
Basically what has happened here is
that it is illegal to point out that a company is
killing people. Think about that: the law is
serving to undermine itself. In cases like this
(any case of law vs. law) two wrongs will have to
happen and something has to give.
So some
people have decided to break the law to call
attention to this injustice. It reminds me of Rosa
Parks breaking the law... was that a case of "two
wrongs don't make a right" as well?
Please
- when issues are this serious don't resort to
trite answers like that.
Cheers. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Corporate Freedom of Speech ....
(Score:2, Interesting)
by dougmc (70836) on
Wednesday January 01, @12:50PM (#4994087)
(http://www.frenzy.com/~dougmc)
|
| Corporate
Freedom of Speech [google.com] only shows up 42 times in
google (web) and only 8
[google.com] times in google groups.
Yet according to Dow's press release, Corporate
Freedom of Speech is one of our most precious Freedoms
[dowethics.com].
Obviously it's one of those freedoms that nobody except Dow
talks about. (In fact, many of the google links are about
Dow.)
Of course, the troubling part is that obviously it's more
important than `generic' Freedom of Speech. At least according
to Dow.
Their press release alone reads like a parody. I really
hope it is. And if it's not, I hope they get spanked hard for
it. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Re:Corporate Freedom of Speech
.... (Score:2)
by dougmc
(70836) on Wednesday January 01, @01:07PM (#4994159)
(http://www.frenzy.com/~dougmc)
|
Obviously you did, too.
Obviously I did.
Had I just found it by itself, I'd have
attributed it to parody (I did mention that it reads
like a parody, after all), but the
/. story *said* it was from Dow --
What really sent me into orbit was
Dow's response to all of this and I
took that at it's word. Perhaps I should have made a
New Years Resolution to not take people I don't know
at their word, especially when it just looks wrong.
Which makes it a very good parody indeed -- not
just from The Yes Men, but also from the user
`michael' on Slashdot. He told us that this was from
Dow, and since we're all ready (me too) to believe
that the mighty Corporation is out to get us, I
believed him, even though it was somewhat absurd.
Let's hope that Dow doesn't get *too* sue-happy
over this -- now they could go after michael too.
I don't see where the DMCA comes into play here,
but there's still plenty of other things that Dow
could use to make The Yes Men and michael's life
unpleasant. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Corporate Freedom of Speech
.... (Score:2)
by Doppleganger
(66109) on Wednesday January 01, @01:18PM (#4994192)
(Last Journal: Tuesday
February 19, @08:36PM) |
What really sent me into orbit was Dow's
response to all of this. While writing this
submission I noticed that I have become a victim
of The Yes Men and "Dow's" response is actually
one of their parodies!
Perhaps you
should have made a New Year's Resolution to raise
your reading comprehension.
Especially
since you somehow think michael told you anything
was from Dow, when the Slashdot article clearly
states that tres3 was the writer... the only
portion not quoted from tres3 is the last seven
words: "We did an earlier story on this."
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Corporate Freedom
of Speech .... (Score:2)
by
dougmc
(70836) on Wednesday January 01, @01:29PM
(#4994223)
(http://www.frenzy.com/~dougmc)
|
Ok then ...
Posted by michael
[mailto] on Wednesday January 01, @11:31AM
from the no-sense-of-humor dept.
tres3
[mailto] writes "I stumbled across this
(that didn't quite quote
correctly. Oh well.)
I went after the bold stuff. A simple enough
mistake. Still, I'd suggest changing the
format ... what's more
important -- that michael posted this, or tres3
actually wrote it?
My reading comprehension is fine, when I
apply it properly. A better resolution would be
to remember to double (and triple) check
everything before I make silly mistakes in
public. I've made a few so far, and the year is
only a few hours old :)
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Corporate Freedom
of Speech .... (Score:2)
by
Doppleganger
(66109) on Wednesday January 01, @02:12PM
(#4994392)
(Last Journal: Tuesday
February 19, @08:36PM) |
Personally, I was clued in by the 'tres3
writes "I stumbled across
this.."'
That's a fairly standard
quotation format, attributing the quoted text to
tres3. It's similiar to an article in a
newspaper quoting things from a Associated Press
article.. the newspaper writer didn't write the
quoted bits.
'sides, your user number
isn't all that far away from mine.. you should
be used to the format around here by now!
:) |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Corporate Freedom of Speech
.... (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday January 01, @01:49PM (#4994285)
|
A corporation is not a natural person. It is a
legal fiction. A corporation should have none of the
rights extended to real people.
And this was
true until 1886 when the US Supreme Court, using the
fairly recently enacted 14th Amendment to the
Constitution (the amendment that says any person is
equal to any other person) decided for no apparent
reason that a corporation is a person, too. This
decision (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific
Railroad Company [118 U.S. 394 (1886)]) had no basis
in precedent and, in fact, ran counter to previous
rulings by the Court.
Since that time
corporations have gained the same rights as the rest
of us but without the responsibilities. Corporations
can commit crimes, but never go to jail (maybe an
officer or two, but never the corporation).
Corporations are immortal and never even have to think
about paying inheritance taxes. Corporations can earn
large incomes but not pay taxes (they get to write off
things real persons can't). Corporations can avoid or
minimize state taxes by incorporating in certain
states (e.g. Delaware) or by simply moving their place
of incorporation offshore (e.g. Bermuda).
Would
you like to be able to avoid taxes by simply erasing
the place of birth on your birth certificate and
changing it to Bermuda while retaining all the rights
and privileges of US citizenship.
Me too.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
But, did you know the net is only for
commerce? (Score:4, Interesting)
by tizzyD (577098)
<me@tizzyd.com> on
Wednesday January 01, @12:56PM (#4994107)
(http://www.tizzyd.com/)
|
(If anyone says "who cares," when they dump the chemicals
in your neighborhood and your kid is born with flippers,
realize that the great wheel has come full cirle. You get back
what you deserve!)
What gets me here is that, get this,
from Dow's own web site:
The provider, Verio, graciously complied with
our letter citing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
(DMCA). Not only did they shut down Dow-Chemical.com, but as
a good corporate citizen, they agreed to shut down an entire
network (Thing.net) of websites many of which, while
unrelated to dow-chemical.com, appear to serve no commercial
purpose, being dedicated to the unproductive analysis and
critique of society and corporate behaviour. Yep,
that's right, sports fans. If you serve no commercial purpose,
you have no right to exist. Such corporate arrogance is
horrid. In true W-esque fashion, unless you consume, you're
worthless. What do these guys want? Web sites for companies
only? What a yawn that would be. Remember the article a while
back, noting that the web has been growing in capabilities and
innovation not by big corporate bozo's but by, yep, web porn.
We may not like it, but those sleazy guys are the ones
Dow can sell fiber in the first place!
Lastly, I am so
pleased to have Dow no inform me as to the unproductive
analysis and critique that Thing.net was providing.
Before, I considered it merely satire or commentary. Now I see
what it truly was . . . a communist plot to keep Dow from
cleaning our water and preserving our precious bodily fluids.
Thanks Dow! |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
SHEEP COUNT (Score:-1,
Offtopic)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday
January 01, @12:58PM (#4994116)
|
| four whatthefucktillion, seven hundred eighty two
quadringentquinoctogintilliard, two hundred two
quadringentquinoctogintillion, seven hundred eighty
eight quadringentquattuoroctogintilliard, fifty four
quadringentquattuoroctogintillion, six hundred twelve
quadringenttreoctogintilliard, twenty nine
quadringenttreoctogintillion, five hundred twenty
eight quadringentdooctogintilliard, three hundred
ninety two quadringentdooctogintillion, nine hundred
eighty six quadringentunoctogintilliard, six hundred
quadringentunoctogintillion, fifty nine
quadringentoctogintilliard, ninety seven
quadringentoctogintillion, four hundred fourteen
quadringentnovemseptuagintilliard, nine hundred
seventy one quadringentnovemseptuagintillion, seven
hundred twenty four quadringentoctoseptuagintilliard,
twenty two quadringentoctoseptuagintillion, three
hundred sixty five quadringentseptenseptuagintilliard,
eight quadringentseptenseptuagintillion, five hundred
thirteen quadringentsexseptuagintilliard, three
hundred forty five quadringentsexseptuagintillion, one
hundred nine quadringentquinseptuagintilliard, nine
hundred eighteen quadringentquinseptuagintillion,
three hundred seventy eight
quadringentquattuorseptuagintilliard, nine hundred
fifty quadringentquattuorseptuagintillion, nine
hundred forty two quadringenttreseptuagintilliard, six
hundred sixty two quadringenttreseptuagintillion, nine
hundred seventy quadringentdoseptuagintilliard, two
hundred seventy eight quadringentdoseptuagintillion,
nine hundred twenty seven
quadringentunseptuagintilliard, six hundred eighty six
quadringentunseptuagintillion, one hundred twelve
quadringentseptuagintilliard, seven hundred seven
quadringentseptuagintillion, eight hundred ninety four
quadringentnovemsexagintilliard, five hundred eighty
six quadringentnovemsexagintillion, eight hundred
twenty four quadringentoctosexagintilliard, seven
hundred twenty quadringentoctosexagintillion, nine
hundred eighty one quadringentseptensexagintilliard,
five hundred twenty four
quadringentseptensexagintillion, two hundred fifty six
quadringentsexsexagintilliard, three hundred nineteen
quadringentsexsexagintillion, three hundred six
quadringentquinsexagintilliard, five hundred eighty
five quadringentquinsexagintillion, fifty two
quadringentquattuorsexagintilliard, six hundred
seventy six quadringentquattuorsexagintillion, eight
hundred thirty four quadringenttresexagintilliard,
eighty seven quadringenttresexagintillion, four
hundred eighty quadringentdosexagintilliard, eight
hundred thirty four quadringentdosexagintillion, four
hundred twenty nine quadringentunsexagintilliard, four
hundred thirty three quadringentunsexagintillion, two
hundred sixty four quadringentsexagintilliard, seven
hundred ninety seven quadringentsexagintillion, four
hundred twenty five
quadringentnovemquinquagintilliard, eight hundred
ninety three quadringentnovemquinquagintillion, two
hundred forty seven quadringentoctoquinquagintilliard,
six hundred twenty three
quadringentoctoquinquagintillion, six hundred eighty
eight quadringentseptenquinquagintilliard, three
hundred thirty one quadringentseptenquinquagintillion,
twenty one quadringentsexquinquagintilliard, six
hundred thirty three quadringentsexquinquagintillion,
two hundred eight quadringentquinquinquagintilliard,
nine hundred fifty four
quadringentquinquinquagintillion, eight hundred forty
seven quadringentquattuorquinquagintilliard, three
hundred fifty four
quadringentquattuorquinquagintillion, eight hundred
five quadringenttrequinquagintilliard, seven hundred
ninety nine quadringenttrequinquagintillion, nine
hundred forty three quadringentdoquinquagintilliard,
three hundred forty one
quadringentdoquinquagintillion, three hundred nine
quadringentunquinquagintilliard, eight hundred twenty
five quadringentunquinquagintillion, nine hundred
eighty nine quadringentquinquagintilliard, thirteen
quadringentquinquagintillion, seven hundred forty
three quadringentnovemquadragintilliard, eight hundred
six quadringentnovemquadragintillion, one hundred
eighty seven quadringentoctoquadragintilliard, one
Read
the rest of this comment... |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:But, did you know the net is only
for commerce? (Score:2, Informative)
by PNut_Head
(631216) on Wednesday January 01, @01:15PM (#4994179)
|
What gets me here is that, get this,
from Dow's own web site:
Actually, that is not from 'Dow's own web site'.
It's from a site that is set up to look almost exactly
like one sponsored, maintained or supported by DOW.
It's not. It's an example of parody gone too far.
There doesn't even seem to be a disclaimer about the
entire site being parody.
The original post does however mention that the
submitter was fooled as you were. It seems you did a
good job and RTFA, but should have spent a little more
time to RTFP more carefully. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:But, did you know the net is only
for commerce? (Score:5, Insightful)
by mat
catastrophe (105256) on Wednesday January 01,
@01:47PM (#4994274)
(http://matrophe.freeshell.org/)
|
|
Um, no. The above quotations are from DOW
Ethics.com [dowethics.com], which is
obviously one of the parody sites.
I say obviously, because I do not for one hot
second think that anyone here can or should defend DOW
Chemical in this matter. Yes, The Onion is an obvious
parody, but not because of the disclaimers or the site
design, but because of the content.
And don't pull out your tired and elitist "Joe
Average" arguments, because Joe Average is probably
not surfing the DOW chemical websites anyway. Those
sites are for investors and business types and if they
aren't smart enough to tell when they are being had,
well, fuck 'em.
These are very strange times we live in today, and
strange times call for strange measures. Yes, the
parody people took some extreme steps (ripping off
corporate design, registering similar domain names)
but that's what it might take to get attention. And it
certainly did get some attention, now didn't it? How
many of you would even be thinking about the policies
and procedures of DOW chemicals today if it weren't
for this story? Probably three of you. Certainly not
me, I'm nursing a headache from lack of sleep.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:But, did you know the net is only
for commerce? (Score:2)
by LostCluster
(625375) on Wednesday January 01, @10:47PM (#4996597)
|
Congratulations... you just hammered another nail
into The Yes Men's coffin.
You just bought a
statement that didn't come from Dow, but actually came
from a parody site. You then turned around and
reported it to the Slashdot audience as if it really
was a position statement released by Dow.
This
is exactly what Dow has a right to protect itself
against... from forgery that is so convincing it
suckered you into thinking it was authentic. You now
have a further damaged opinion of Dow Chemical. (Not
that they're squeaky clean to begin with, but they're
entitled to not have to get blamed for things other
people claiming to be them do.)
You've just
proven why The Yes Men deserve to be in jail. They're
nothing more than con men, just instead of taking
money, they're taking away the credibility of
companies they don't like. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
This is interesting... (Score:4,
Interesting)
by craenor (623901)
on Wednesday January 01, @01:00PM (#4994125)
|
I happen to think that for the most part you have the
right to put anything you want on your website. If you want to
run a parody of Dow, the Pope or John Lennon, go for it.
However, with that being said. Your ISP doesn't
necessarily have to put up with that. They also have a right
to decide what content they will host on their servers. If
they take offense at your postings or bow to pressure from a
corporation or the government, that's well within their right.
They run a business. Just because you want to take a
risk with something you choose to write. Doesn't meant they
have to take the risk with you. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Re:This is interesting...
(Score:2)
by craenor
(623901) on Wednesday January 01, @01:47PM (#4994276)
|
| They can certainly try. Bluffing is not against
the law. Corporations, government, lobbyists,
lawyers, churches, private individuals
... all of these groups will at times
attempt to pressure others with legalize, bad press
and the like. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:This is interesting...
(Score:2)
by octalgirl
(580949) on Wednesday January 01, @03:06PM (#4994592)
(Last Journal: Tuesday
October 01, @07:53AM) |
Your ISP doesn't necessarily have to put up
with that. They also have a right to decide what
content they will host on their servers.
You miss the point - they didn't take the site
down (a customer of theirs for many years) because
they wanted to, they took it down because they were
forced to after being hit with the DMCA. The safe
harbor provisions in the DMCA makes them take it down,
or be sued themselves. To me this all equals web
censorship. Whether the site is right or wrong, there
were other ways Dow could have approached this - they
went for the 'Let's silence our enemy' tactic. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:This is interesting...
(Score:2)
by HiThere
(15173) <mailto:charleshixsn@[%20]thlink.net%20['ear'%20in%20gap]>
on Wednesday January 01, @04:41PM (#4995050)
|
The Parody site was a bit over the line. They
were attempting to confuse the reader into believing
that they were DOW. (I was confused. The author of
the story was confused. etc. And I had been
warned.)
OTOH, the actions of the Yes Men
were in no way as reprehensible as the response from
DOW. This is similar to the protest at Bhophal. DOW
had done what it was legally required to do, so the
protest could be seen by DOW as unjust. But it
doesn't even compare in magnitude with the response
from DOW. Suing the protestors for 10 years income
is vile beyond words. These are people that they
(via their surrogate, Union Carbide) have already
poisoned, and that happened to survive. There is no
way to describe how viley malicious I believe the
management and legal staff of DOW to be. They are
good evidence that corporations should only be
chartered for a limited period of time, and that the
charters should NOT be renewable. They are good
evidence that management of corporations should be
held personally responsible for the deeds of the
corporation. Probably also the members of the board,
who, after all, are charged with
oversight.
Corporations that engage in acts
as vile as that should have their charters revoked
immediately, with forfeiture of all assets. The
victims should be paid first (NOT the government,
but the people who were injured), and then the
stockholders. And this includes confiscating the
wealth of the members of the board and the
upper-management. Any "golden parachutes" should be
included in the confiscation.
Legal? Of couse
what I'm proposing isn't legal. Who writes the ***
laws that let vile *** get away with things like
this? An accident is one thing, but this response is
unconsciousable.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Should ink manufacturers get in
too? (Score:2)
by abe
ferlman (205607) <bgtrio&yahoo,com>
on Wednesday January 01, @04:39PM (#4995037)
(http://www.geocities.com/bgtrio
| Last Journal: Friday
December 28, @11:38AM) |
Just think of all the middle men who are critical
to you saying anything in print, but who are being
left out of the veto chain.
Ink manufacturers,
paper manufacturers, font foundries, phone companies,
monitor manufacturers, disk manufacturers,
etc.
I didn't click the EULA on the fscking
first amendment, so I'd appreciate it if the
government would stop writing laws that give
corporations the right to decide whether my speech is
reasonable or not. If it's a business they're running,
they should stick to their business and stay out of
mine.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Should ink manufacturers get in
too? (Score:0)
by Anonymous
Coward on Wednesday January 01, @11:01PM (#4996651)
|
can you please explain your
sig
Sure, but I'm posting anonymously
since this is obviously off topic
here.
It's a response to the idea that the
GPL (General Public License - see www.gnu.org for
info) is "viral" so we should use a different
license for free software - the one most often
offered as an alternative is the BSD license,
because it allows the creation of non-free
derivative works (hence, the derivative works
don't catch the "freedom virus", get
it?)
But the only difference between the
GPL license and the BSD license is that with the
BSD license, you are allowed to make a derivative
work and stop others from redistributing the
combined work, but with the GPL you are
not.
So the only advantage of the BSD
license is that you are free to restrict the
freedoms of others by making closed-source and
patent-encumbered derivative works, but that this
freedom is non-viral; that is, for any derivative
work in question, once you've used the freedom,
it's all gone- there's none left for anyone
else.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:This is interesting...
(Score:2)
by ftobin
(48814) on Wednesday January 01, @08:57PM (#4996260)
(http://www.neverending.org/~ftobin/)
|
| I take it you don't believe in the value of common
carrier laws for telephone providers? Do you think
that telephone companies should be able to filter what
you talk about on the telephone? Granted, ISP's are
not common carriers (yet; there is debate about this),
but in my mind, there is great value in having
conduits of information not allowed to discriminate
based upon the content of the information. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
The Yes Men could be at fault
(Score:5, Interesting)
by fermion (181285)
<mailto:lowt@big[%20]t.com%20['foo'%20in%20gap]>
on Wednesday January 01, @01:03PM (#4994140)
(Last Journal: Friday
December 20, @12:24AM) |
| OK people, let take a chill pill and look at the
situation. In my opinion a parody should be an original
creation, be distinct from the object of satire, and not be
deceptive. The Onion
[theonion.com] is an excellent example of effective and
creative satire.
In the case of the "Yes Men" the attempt seems to be using
parody and satire to effect social activism. This, in itself,
is not a bad or uncommon thing. However, if one is going to do
this, one has to make sure the creation is actually satire.
The main tool that they use on the web appears to be
'Reamweaver', a tool to copy a website and modify in small
ways. From the Reamweaver website we have
Reamweaver has
everything you need to instantly "funhouse-mirror" anyone's
website, copying the real-time "look and feel" but letting you
change any words, images, etc. that you choose.
and
Use Reamweaver for fun, or, if you like, for
lots of fun... by obtaining speaking opportunities on behalf
of your adopted organization. Here's how to that:
1.
(Optional) Register a domain not too different from your
target's domain - e.g. we-forum.org, world-economic-forum.com,
wtoo.org, rncommittee.org .
2. Put
Reamweaver on your domain.
3. Tell search engines about
your domain.
4. When invitations arrive, accept them!
This does not seem to a tool conducive to satire. This
appears to be a tool that is to be used to misrepresent,
decieve, and ultimately allow an individual to go into the
community as the perceived representative of the company under
attack.
Social activism is good. Trying to create a better world is
good. However, when you invite a person from Dow Chemical to
your office, one would expect that the person is actually from
dow chemical. Furthermore, I am not sure I would equate the
Reamweaver technique to a person who registers a slightly
misspelled domain name and then puts up tons of pop ups and
installs viruses when some unsuspecting visitors accidently
hits the site.
I understand that the intention of the Yes Men are probably
just. I understand that they are probably good people,.
However, copying someone else's website and representing it as
your own is not good. It is one thing to rip other artists CDs
for personal use. It is another thing to rip those CDs and
then sell the copies. It is yet another thing to rip those CDs
change a few seconds, and then represent the tracks as your
own. What they are doing might be peaceful disobendience. It
does not seem to be satire |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Re:The Yes Men could be at
fault (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday January 01, @01:18PM (#4994189)
|
| thirty four quadringentoctononagintilliard, six
hundred eight quadringentoctononagintillion, eight
hundred twenty eight quadringentseptennonagintilliard,
two hundred forty nine
quadringentseptennonagintillion, eighty five
quadringentsexnonagintilliard, one hundred twenty one
quadringentsexnonagintillion, five hundred twenty four
quadringentquinnonagintilliard, two hundred ninety six
quadringentquinnonagintillion, thirty nine
quadringentquattuornonagintilliard, five hundred
seventy six quadringentquattuornonagintillion, seven
hundred forty one quadringenttrenonagintilliard, three
hundred thirty one quadringenttrenonagintillion, six
hundred seventy two quadringentdononagintilliard, two
hundred sixty two quadringentdononagintillion, eight
hundred sixty six quadringentunnonagintilliard, eight
hundred ninety quadringentunnonagintillion, twenty
three quadringentnonagintilliard, eight hundred fifty
four quadringentnonagintillion, seven hundred seventy
nine quadringentnovemoctogintilliard, forty eight
quadringentnovemoctogintillion, nine hundred twenty
eight quadringentoctooctogintilliard, three hundred
forty four quadringentoctooctogintillion, five hundred
quadringentseptenoctogintilliard, six hundred twenty
two quadringentseptenoctogintillion, eighty
quadringentsexoctogintilliard, nine hundred eighty
three quadringentsexoctogintillion, four hundred
eleven quadringentquinoctogintilliard, four hundred
forty six quadringentquinoctogintillion, four hundred
thirty six quadringentquattuoroctogintilliard, four
hundred thirty seven
quadringentquattuoroctogintillion, five hundred fifty
four quadringenttreoctogintilliard, four hundred
fifteen quadringenttreoctogintillion, three hundred
seventy quadringentdooctogintilliard, seven hundred
fifty three quadringentdooctogintillion, three hundred
sixty six quadringentunoctogintilliard, four hundred
forty eight quadringentunoctogintillion, six hundred
seventy four quadringentoctogintilliard, seven hundred
sixty three quadringentoctogintillion, five hundred
five quadringentnovemseptuagintilliard, eighteen
quadringentnovemseptuagintillion, six hundred forty
one quadringentoctoseptuagintilliard, four hundred
seventy quadringentoctoseptuagintillion, seven hundred
nine quadringentseptenseptuagintilliard, three hundred
thirty two quadringentseptenseptuagintillion, three
hundred seventy three quadringentsexseptuagintilliard,
nine hundred seventy quadringentsexseptuagintillion,
six hundred eight quadringentquinseptuagintilliard,
three hundred seventy six
quadringentquinseptuagintillion, six hundred ninety
quadringentquattuorseptuagintilliard, four hundred
four quadringentquattuorseptuagintillion, two hundred
twenty nine quadringenttreseptuagintilliard, two
hundred sixty five quadringenttreseptuagintillion,
seven hundred eighty nine
quadringentdoseptuagintilliard, six hundred forty
seven quadringentdoseptuagintillion, nine hundred
ninety three quadringentunseptuagintilliard, seven
hundred nine quadringentunseptuagintillion, seven
hundred sixty quadringentseptuagintilliard, three
hundred fifty eight quadringentseptuagintillion, four
hundred sixty nine quadringentnovemsexagintilliard,
five hundred fifty two quadringentnovemsexagintillion,
three hundred nineteen quadringentoctosexagintilliard,
forty five quadringentoctosexagintillion, four hundred
eighty four quadringentseptensexagintilliard, nine
hundred ten quadringentseptensexagintillion, fifty
quadringentsexsexagintilliard, three hundred four
quadringentsexsexagintillion, one hundred forty nine
quadringentquinsexagintilliard, eight hundred nine
quadringentquinsexagintillion, eight hundred eighteen
quadringentquattuorsexagintilliard, five hundred forty
quadringentquattuorsexagintillion, two hundred eighty
three quadringenttresexagintilliard, five hundred
seven quadringenttresexagintillion, one hundred fifty
nine quadringentdosexagintilliard, six hundred eighty
three quadringentdosexagintillion, five hundred sixty
two quadringentunsexagintilliard, two hundred thirty
two quadringentunsexagintillion, nine hundred forty
one quadringentsexagintilliard, nine
Read
the rest of this comment... |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:The Yes Men could be at
fault (Score:0)
by Anonymous
Coward on Wednesday January 01, @01:35PM (#4994247)
|
| You must be the funny guy who ran the "parody"
website http://www.paypaI.com right, which
"parodied" the graphics and login of
http://www.paypal.com ? Damn that was hilarious when
you stole all those people's money. Ha ha ha.
Information wants to be free! |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:The Yes Men could be at
fault (Score:0)
by Anonymous
Coward on Wednesday January 01, @01:40PM (#4994256)
|
| Oh, shit. Copying a website and changing it in
small ways for silly result. That wouldn't be
something called misrepresentaion would it? I've
heard of misrepresentaion. It sounds bad. I hope
it's outlawed. I'm going to write my Congressperson
asking for a new division of the police force
especially designed to bust into people's houses
looking for this thing called misrepresentation. I
mean, a company could actually lose PROFIT over a
thing like this!
-- ...in the Fox News-Wall
Street Journal editorial page-Rush Limbaugh echo
chamber.--Martin Peretz, New Repubic |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:The Yes Men could
be at fault (Score:0)
by
Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 01,
@02:18PM (#4994416)
|
Ummm no, not really.
What makes this
parody is the fact that they didn't commit any
crime (like posting childporn) in Dow's
name.
What they DID was make a statement
in the companies name that was so honest that
anyone with two braincells should have realized
that there was no way Dow would have said
that.
Okay, fuckedcompany.com fell for it
but then we're talking about PUD here. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
DMC eh? (Score:1)
by jeeryg_flashaccess
(456261) on Thursday January 02, @02:43AM (#4997276)
(Last Journal: Wednesday
November 27, @05:29PM) |
So the dow-checmical.com website was put up only
to be taken down a short time later. Hmmm, they could
have planned THAT better...and they
did!
Reamweaver seems to serve a malicious
purpose to those who use it for that. Consider that it
may have been their intent to "violate" the DMCA just
to get exposure (PRESS coverage).
So what is
the question that every activist should be asking
themselves right now? It's...
"How can the DMCA
help my cause?"
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
no dow = no computer. no greenpeace = better
world (Score:-1, Flamebait)
by Anonymous
Coward on Wednesday January 01, @01:09PM (#4994166)
|
Without dow, you freaks wouldnt have computers, PDAs,
cars, and blowup dolls.
Greenpeace does NOTHING good.
Only thing Greenpeace does is suck the dick of PETA. PETA, the
other company.
Shut the hell up, this all happened
years ago. 20,000 people died. More thans that will die in car
accidents today. I dont see the tree hugging bastards trying
to make the roads safer.
I hate hippies
|
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
|
|
Potential Profits (Score:1)
by Alien54 (180860)
on Wednesday January 01, @01:10PM (#4994167)
(http://radiofreenation.net/)
|
| Another example of the corporate concern with possible and
potential profits taking precicence over any sense of ethics.
the mafioso mentality continues to spread. It must be nice
as a stock holder, to have someone like this, who will make
money for you without any heavy duty ethical pondering on you
part.
Flush the toilet before it backs up .....
oops, too late. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Didja all catch... (Score:5,
Insightful)
by FFFish (7567) on
Wednesday January 01, @01:11PM (#4994170)
(http://slashdot.org/)
|
...that bit about DOW suing the families that were
destroyed/hurt by their Bhopal disaster?
A bunch of
women marched on DOW HQ in India, delivering some of the
contanimated soil and water from Bhopal. The protest lasted
two peaceful hours. A single DOW employee greeted
them.
DOW is now suing them for the equivalent of
US$10K -- a helluva lot of money, particularly in India -- for
"lost wages" because of the "work
disruption."
Disgusting. First they slaughter hundreds
and thousands of employees and families through cost-cutting,
undertraining, and poor plant maintenance; then they refuse to
clean up the mess; then they sue the very people who were hurt
by the accident.
Sometimes it would be e'er so nice to
be able to punish CEOs as if they'd committed the crimes
themselves. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Re:Didja all catch...
(Score:2)
by Lysol
(11150) on Wednesday January 01, @01:25PM (#4994210)
|
Yah, and for compensation for the deaths, UC only
paid out around $300-$400 each. Beyond sad.
Of
course, you have to wonder what part the Indian govt.
had to do with all this. I mean, they closed the case
in '91 or whenever it was and stated that they thought
it was fair.
Dow's corporate free speech thing
is a load of garbage. However, one has to wonder, even
tho they aren't the best, they bought someone else
that did something and i'm not sure how i feel about
them having to do deal with it. On the other hand, it
only seems natural and a way to make them look like
they really do care if they went in and
pre-emptively made things better..
But
of course, they is rarely the case for any global
entity. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Didja all catch...
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on
Wednesday January 01, @02:00PM (#4994334)
|
I think the funny thing is that the world press
went along with this eco-terrorist attack against
the chemical industry. The evidence of sabotage,
while quite clear, was supressed.
The Bhopal
plant was creating fertilizer. You know, the stuff
used to prevent mass starvation by increasing food
crops. However, mass starvation is a wonderfull tool
for maintining power.
Now let the slashtards
reply. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Didja all catch...
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on
Wednesday January 01, @02:21PM (#4994429)
|
Any links to your statement of sabotage? It's
the first time I heard about it.
But even
IF it was Sabotage the fact remains that the soil
got contaminated and that people died. Dow (or UC)
should have cleaned up the mess and stuck the bill
to whoever did the sabotage (if there was one).
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Didja all catch...
(Score:2)
by j3110
(193209) <mailto:sam@techstacy%20.%20o%20rg>
on Wednesday January 01, @01:58PM (#4994328)
(http://slashdot.org/)
|
| You can, and it doesn't have to be an American
citizen that got it either. As long as the board
members are in the US, you can bring them up on
charges. They'll pin them on an Indian exec, but the
company will have to hold it's head in shame from the
publicity. That's why there are conspiracy crimes
(conspiracy to commit murder etc.) and accessory
crimes (even if they know what would happen, they are
accessories since they have the power to stop it).
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Didja all catch...
(Score:2, Interesting)
by sedmonds
(94908) on Wednesday January 01, @02:52PM (#4994530)
|
1> Union Carbide plant suffers catastrophic
incident, resulting in hundreds and thousands of
injuries to employees and families.
2> Dow
Chemical purchases Union Carbide plant.
3>
Dow Chemical CEO should pe bunished for the
accident.
What are you smoking to get that
conclusion from the first two events?
Yes, its
horrible that people were injured and died as a result
of the industrial accident. Its pretty rotten to sue
the victims and their families for disrupting
work.
Its disturbing that idiots will personal
harm to the officers and representatives of Dow for an
accident which occured at a plant BEFORE THEY OWNED
IT.
Even so, holding a CEO responsible for
every occurance involving every job site is insane. In
cases where the CEO had prior knowledge, sure, but
making the assumption that every officer of every
company knows every detail of business in a company
employing tens of thousands worldwide is
laughable.
It may look a lot nicer on your 5
o'clock news to see corporate officer Joe hauled away
in handcuffs, but it doesn't satisfy justice pinning
everything on just the officers. Justice is satisfied
by the prosecution of the offenders. Those who
commited crimes, or exercised -unreasonable-
negligence.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Didja all catch...
(Score:1)
by j h
woodyatt (13108) <jhw@wetware.com>
on Wednesday January 01, @04:14PM (#4994892)
(http://www.wetware.com/jhw
| Last Journal: Thursday
December 05, @06:56PM) |
| 1> Union Carbide plant suffers catastrophic
incident, resulting in
| hundreds and thousands
of injuries to employees and families.
|
|
2> Dow Chemical purchases Union Carbide
plant.
|
| 3> Dow Chemical CEO should pe
bunished for the accident.
|
| What are you
smoking to get that conclusion from the first two
events?
DOW Chemical didn't just purchase the
plant. They purchased the entire company- including
all its liabilities as well as its assets.
Is
this whole "corporate enterprise" thing a new
concept to you?
-- |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Didja all catch...
(Score:1)
by sedmonds
(94908) on Wednesday January 01, @05:56PM (#4995471)
|
So by your thinking then any industrial
accident would result in that company never being
sold again? Who would purchase a company if doing
so meant that it was legally their fault the
accident happened in the first place? And would
these companies never again have a CEO? Of course
not, thats just plain stupid.
If Joe Blow
became the CEO of Ford tomorrow, would that mean
that he should be prosecuted for exploding
pinto's? Of course not, thats fucking ridiculus.
Joe blow had nothing to do with any phase of the
exploding pinto. It happened before he became
CEO.
If Chrysler purchased Ford tomorrow,
should Jurgen E Schrempp be personally prosecuted,
either criminally or civilly, for the exploding
pinto's? Of course not, no sane human being would
claim he should.
So why is it you seem to
think that the CEO of Dow should be punished for
an accident which occured before Dow purchased
Union Carbide? I truly don't understand how he had
any involvement whatsoever in the
incident.
Yes, Dow did sign on for the
liabilities of the former Union Carbide. But that
does absolutely nothing for justifying why the CEO
of Dow should be held personally responsible for
the Union Carbide accident.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Didja all
catch... (Score:1)
by snol
(175626) on Wednesday January 01, @08:15PM
(#4996105)
|
Perhaps what you're missing is that it's
rare for ANY person to be civilly or criminally
prosecuted for the actions of a corporation. The
disincentive for corporations to do illegal
things is almost always a fine or lawsuit
against the corporation itself - part of the
miracle called "limited liability." Owners'
(shareholders') and only consequence when their
company behaves badly is that their stock is
devalued; CEOs stand to lose their jobs if the
consequences to the shareholders are bad
enough.
I believe what the original
poster was getting at was that this system of
punishment for misbehaving corporations is often
an ineffective deterrent to bad behavior; it
would be better if those responsible for the bad
decisions were punished as individuals more
often.
btw I don't think he specifically
said it was the CEO of Dow that should be
punished. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Unfortunately for him...
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on
Wednesday January 01, @04:15PM (#4994896)
|
The CEO of DOW is probably the same bloke that
was CEO of Union Carbide..!
Well, maybe not,
but don't you think that the CEO of DOW didn't know
of it? And, knowing of these actions, did he reduce
compensation/fire the ass of the CEO of Union
Carbide?
No? then he's still culpable.
Remember, CEOs get post of money, because the buck
stops there, and he's in a demanding job. Correct?
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Didja all catch...
(Score:2)
by Black
Copter Control (464012) <samuel-local
AT bcgreen DOT com> on Wednesday January 01,
@09:46PM (#4996419)
(http://www.bcgreen.com/)
|
3> Dow Chemical CEO should pe bunished for
the accident.
What are you smoking to get that
conclusion from the first two events?
Yes, its
horrible that people were injured and died as a
result of the industrial accident. Its pretty rotten
to sue the victims and their families for disrupting
work......
First of all: The victims didn't disrupt
work .. other than for the one
employee who came out to talk to them (his choice).
It's not the accident that I consider Dow to be
responsible for: It's their continuing refusal to
scoop the poo resulting from their industrial
'accident'. People are still dying by the
chemicals released at Bhopal. Dow inherited
responsibility for those continuing deaths. In suing
the survivers, they are now wilfully adding to the
woes of the victims of Bhopal.
I am not my dog, but if my dog dumps shit on my
neighbour's property, and I refuse to pick it
up, then I'm the one who's going to get the
ticket, not my dog.
Union Carbide refused to clean up their mess.
Dow, in merging with UC, also absorbed UC's
responsibility. The CEO of Dow gets millions of
dollars a year to take responsibility for the
actions of the company. It's time for him to earn
his keep. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Didja all catch...
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday
January 01, @02:52PM (#4994534)
|
I'm glad some people are actually reading the news
behind this and rather than getting all involved with
the lawyer speak and usual slashdotter obession with
DMCA, actually getting annoyed about this companies
disgracefull actions.
One thing you should all be
doing if this shocks you is emailing your finance guys
at work and asking them to check that your pension
fund doesnt invest in this company, and if you cant be
bothered to do that, its no good complaining about the
excesses of corporate america... |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Didja all catch...
(Score:4, Interesting)
by kaphka
(50736) <1nv7b001@sneakemail.com>
on Wednesday January 01, @04:51PM (#4995106)
|
...that bit about
DOW suing the families that were destroyed/hurt by
their Bhopal disaster? How do we know
that that story isn't another "parody"? I can find no
reference [google.com] to it outside of Greenpeace
[greenpeace.org] (which is not high on my list of
reliable news sources,) and it seems even more absurd
than The Yes Men's original forged press
release.
Half of the "informative" posts on
this article cite anti-Dow hoaxes as "facts," and use
them to justify their opposition to Dow's attempts to
suppress hoaxes. If that doesn't prove libel, I don't
know what could.
(Having said that, I can't see
what any of this has to do with the DMCA. But hey,
libel cases are expensive. Why bother suing, when you
can just say the magic words and make any website
dissappear?) |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Something is up here... (Score:1)
by BesigedB (632170)
on Wednesday January 01, @01:14PM (#4994174)
|
If I posted this on my isp's webspace I would be the one
to get in shit, not the ISP so forcing them to close
down.
Its another case of a big company killing off an
enemy/rival who cannt fight back, and the world will be worse
for it. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
|
|
"peaceful protest" (Score:4,
Insightful)
by eyeball (17206) on
Wednesday January 01, @01:16PM (#4994180)
(http://www.spacehaven.com/
| Last Journal: Thursday
November 14, @03:08PM) |
... of 200 women survivors from Bhopal delivered toxic
waste from the abandoned Carbide factory back to Dow's Indian
headquarters in Bombay...
From reading between the
lines of the article, it appears that they are suing the
protesters, and not all the survivors, for what sounds like an
irresponsible protest rather than a peaceful one. If someone
showed up at my company's door with deadly chemicals, we'd
have to shut the place down for security reasons, at a cost to
the business.
Dow may be wrong or negligent in
compensating the survivors, but protesters causing a business
to loose money to gain their attention or try and get them to
change their action is about as effective as spanking a child
when they don't eat their peas. They're just going to grow up
hating those that spank them.
|
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Re:DOW didn't do anything wrong;
however... (Score:1)
by Platinum
Dragon (34829) on Wednesday January 01,
@06:29PM (#4995667)
(http://platinumdragon.ca/
| Last Journal: Friday
February 08, @03:10AM) |
I never really liked Greenpeace, and this
reminds me why.
Except this wasn't a
Greenpeace action. This was 200 women, who live on
the land contaminated by the Union Carbide
accident, trying to get someone, anyone
(preferably the company that purchased the
polluter, and thus took up its liabilities and
responsibilities) to put in some money and help
clean up the land. The government clearly failed
to do it, despite getting money from Dow already
according to some other posters.
What else
are they supposed to do? I don't think this is the
first protest that has taken place, and if that
land is still toxic waste, someone has
clearly failed in their responsibility to clean it
up. Why should the Indian government have to do
it, when Union Carbide made the mess? Since Dow
bought Union Carbide, isn't Dow
responsible?
Milton Friedman forbid we hold
corporations responsible for anything but making
money... |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:"peaceful protest"
(Score:1)
by bheerssen
(534014) on Wednesday January 01, @02:01PM (#4994339)
(about:mozilla) |
You shouldn't anthropomorphize corporations so
much. It only encourages them
;)
But seriously, what other way is
there to get a corporation's attention? Corporations,
by their very nature, are only interested in making
money. Sometimes by every means available, however
nefarious, as is the case regarding Union Carbide in
Bhopal. In order to effect social justice and
corporate responsibilty, the corporation must be
penalized fiscally or they will never change. The
profit motive is lacking otherwise. And that, sadly,
is the only motive that corporations respond to.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
How does it feel to be sheep?
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday
January 01, @03:40PM (#4994764)
|
Why do you think that people have less rights than
corporations?
Corporate US can breathe easier
knowing people like you are there to jerk their knees
to defend them.
Why don't you say "Baaa Baaa"
after every post just to remind yourself of what you
do and why? |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:"peaceful protest"
(Score:0)
by nsuccorso
(41169) on Wednesday January 01, @03:50PM (#4994802)
|
Dow may be wrong or negligent in compensating
the survivors, but protesters causing a business to
loose money to gain their attention or try and
get them to change their action is about as effective
as spanking a child when they don't eat their
peas.
Actually, they were completely
unsuccessfuly at getting the business to loose
money from their coffers to clean up the mess caused
by Union Carbide. The money remained securely where it
was before. Therefore, the basis for you criticism
seems to be voided! |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
So let me get this straight...
(Score:2)
by Newer Guy
(520108) on Wednesday January 01, @03:52PM (#4994820)
|
| 1 Dow contaminates the soil. 2 The
women scoop up the souil that DOW HAS CONTAMINATED and
brings it back to Dow. 3 Dow sues the women for
returing the soil that THEY (Dow) contaminated. And
you think that Dow's right here? Expect to get a call
form ther president offering you a job, 'cause you're
no better then him! |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Troll Alert! (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday
January 01, @04:46PM (#4995086)
|
I think you're trolling at this point,
but:
(1) You're saying that Dow employees
are not representatives of Dow because they're
"poor working stiffs"?
(2) What "assault"?
Returning Dow property (spilled chemicals) to a
Dow office?
What the fuck?
Do you as
a person expect to be able to walk down the
street, randomly shooting pedestrians - and when
the police turn up claim to be a "poor working
stiff"? ("Oh! well, that's alright then, carry on
shooting people".)
No. This would not
happen.
So why should Dow have the
manufactured freedom to kill thousands of people
and escape any responsibility for their actions?
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Troll
Alert! (Score:2)
by MWoody
(222806) on Wednesday January 01, @08:15PM
(#4996101)
(http://mwoody.com/)
|
(I hesitate to respond, as I suspect this is
some sort of weird reverse-psychology troll, but
WTF)
OK, so when you, as an American (I'm
assuming), are assassinated for our actions
overseas by a random terrorist, I certainly hope
your relatives feel the same way. We certainly
hope they won't go crying that you were just an
innocent civilian/working stiff who just
happened to belong to the organization/country
with which the killers had a problem. After all,
if you had problems with the conduct of the
organization as a whole, you'd have
moved/quit.
The simple fact is that
corporations the size of DOW employ tens of
thousands of people, the vast majority of which
are not only innocent, but most likely
completely unaware of any corporate misconduct.
There are people here who deserve to have
biological waste shoveled down their pants, but
the chance of them being the same people who
have to accept this crap when it's dropped on
their workplace doorstep are very slim. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Troll
Alert! (Score:2)
by the
eric conspiracy (20178) <.moc.nosralhe.
.ta. .hsals.> on Wednesday January 01,
@09:39PM (#4996396)
|
After all, if you had problems with the
conduct of the organization as a whole, you'd
have moved/quit.
So if some terrorist
decides that my country has offended him in some
gross way, and kills me because I happen to be a
citizen of that country, it is my fault for not
leaving that country?
Are you totally
cracked? Insane? Nuts?
Sure, there are
plenty of things I don't agree with in the way
my country conducts itself. But does that mean I
must leave the country? What a crock! Haven't
you ever heard of the concept of trying to
change things as a constructive member of
society?
The fact of the matter is that
there will ALWAYS be somebody that has an axe to
grind against any large organization. There is
no country on Earth that is satisfactory to
every human on the face of the planet. So if you
feel this action is ok, then we are consigned to
random violence and anarchy forever.
The
question is how are you going to resolve the
problem. Is killing randown citizens (and yes
children who have no say in where they live) the
answer? If you think yes, then you have eschewed
every civilized principle that seperates modern
man from primitive.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Troll
Alert! (Score:2)
by the
eric conspiracy (20178) <.moc.nosralhe.
.ta. .hsals.> on Wednesday January 01,
@09:27PM (#4996368)
|
(1) You're saying that Dow employees are
not representatives of Dow because they're "poor
working stiffs"?
Yup. They had
NOTHING to do with the decisions made by Union
Carbide some 25-30 years ago when this Bhopal
facility was being planned. Making some low
level employee of one company accountable for
the actions of another company acquired in a
financial transaction is the most perverse,
twisted notion I have ever
encountered.
(2) What "assault"?
Returning Dow property (spilled chemicals) to a
Dow office?
Yup. Somebody dropping
chemical waste into my immediate environment
surely qualifies as an assault on
me.
Do you as a person expect to be
able to walk down the street, randomly shooting
pedestrians
Nope. Now please explain
to me how this has anything with a receptionist
working for Dow in India.
So why
should Dow have the manufactured freedom to kill
thousands of people and escape any
responsibility for their actions?
Dow
didn't kill any of these people. A company that
Dow acquired 2 years ago in a financial
transaction made some mistakes - and Dow now
inherits the liabilities associated with those
mistakes.
That does not justify criminal
acts against Dow in any way.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Troll
Alert! (Score:0)
by Anonymous
Coward on Wednesday January 01, @11:17PM (#4996725)
|
| You probably missed some of the back story
of why the protestors delived the contaminated
dirt to Dow so let me fill you in. Dow chemical
has held the position that the soil was
perfectly safe for living on and growing things
on so they refused to pay for the clean up of
the soil, The people who live in the affected
area are too poor to fight Dow in the legal
arena so they think, "hey, if Dow thinks this
soil is perfectly fine and safe they won't mind
if we give them some of it." Now cut to where
Dow is sueing the people who delivered the dirt
for trying to poison them with the contaminated
dirt, now try to notice the comical irony.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Troll
Alert! (Score:1)
by ReaperOfSouls
(523060) on Thursday January 02, @12:02AM
(#4996859)
|
Yup. They had NOTHING to do with the
decisions made by Union Carbide some 25-30 years
ago when this Bhopal facility was being
planned.
Correct, but they are now
responsible for the enviornmental impact, that
the plant has caused. If you choose to work for
a corperation that does not own up to its
responsibilities and are aware of this,
ethically you are as guilty as the
CEO.
Making some low level employee of
one company accountable for the actions of
another company acquired in a financial
transaction is the most perverse, twisted notion
I have ever encountered.
No one made
the single Dow employee that ventured out in the
to Bombay parking lot acountable. Neither did
any of the protesters hurl the tainted soil at
the "poor working stiff". There was no physical
attack of any sort. Nor was the the employee
halled of in shackles because of the sins of his
employer.
Yup. Somebody dropping
chemical waste into my immediate environment
surely qualifies as an assault on me.
The protesters were not inside the
building. They didn't scoop up the tainted soil
and plop it on any one's desk. They didn't drop
bits in the coffee filters. In essance, for the
past two years, the protesters, have been forced
to live in the waste that dow is so fearful of.
And obviously that was the point of the protest.
The protesters brought a sample of the tainted
soil as a symbol, if the company's employees
would not have anything to do with it, why
should those souls have to live in
it?
The point of the matter is that Dow
does not feel it is responsible for the results
of negligence and ineptitue that its purchased
company commited. If Dow had just purchased UC
rescently and pledged to clean up the mess, I
would agree that they have no copablility here,
but the fact of the matter is that they have
owned UC for nearly two years. They have made no
efferts to clean up the mess and completely
renounced any responsibility in cleaning up the
mess.
Dow didn't kill any of these
people. A company that Dow acquired 2 years ago
in a financial transaction made some mistakes -
and Dow now inherits the liabilities associated
with those mistakes.
Yes you are
correct, they did not kill the anyone due to the
original spill, but in the the past 2 years they
have, through negligence, continued to forgo the
oppertinuty to make right what was the
responsibility of the company it purchased. As
you stated, they now own the liability of UC,
which they currently deny responibility for.
That does not justify criminal acts
against Dow in any way.
There were
no criminal charges brough forward. Dow is suing
for time lost. It is a tort, not a criminal
acusation. If they were violent, or destructive
in this case, Dow's actions would not be so
deplorable. The fact of the matter is they did
not stand in the way of Dow going about its
business. Peacefully protesting the criminal
neglect commited by a corperation should always
be protected.
Bottom line. Dow bought UC,
because of its profit potential. Actually last
year Dow's revenues raised nearly 5%. The
survivors of the tragedy, cannot sue UC. UC is
now part of dow, and because of that fact dow is
now responsible for cleaning up. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:"peaceful protest"
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday
January 01, @04:57PM (#4995147)
|
What would you do if (this is
conjecture):
(1) A chemical comapny turns up at
your HOME.
(2) A chemical company dumps chemical
waste in your GARDEN, STREET, LIVING ROOM, BEDROOM and
DRINKING WATER (if that seems unrealistic, think of
the fumes from a chemical spill - you can't
escape).
(3) You have nowhere else to go, you are
in abject poverty. You breathe the fumes for several
days trying to salvage your life's posessions and work
out what's going on.
(4) Everyone else living under
your roof dies from chemical poisoning, somehow you
survive but are crippled for live - say blind in one
eye, and your lungs don't work so well now, it hurts
to stand and you occasionally cough up blood.
?
What would you do now ?
Get a lawyer? You don't
have the money.
Scream blue murder to the
press? They're not interested, being on the payroll of
the corporation.
Something tells me you're
living in such a state of isolation that you don't
understand the magnitude of the events that took
place.
Turning up on the doorstep of the
chemical company (with some of those chemicals) would
just about be the only thing you *could*
do.
Would you like fries with your Big Mac?
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:"peaceful protest"
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday
January 01, @05:10PM (#4995218)
|
But then wouldn't the sit-ins during the civil
rights era also be considered irresponsible protests?
What about the bus boycotts? |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:"peaceful protest"
(Score:1)
by Siriaan
(615378) on Wednesday January 01, @05:20PM (#4995284)
|
Exactly how did those deadly chemicals come about
in the first place? We're not talking about some
disgruntled employee who got fired for stealing office
stationery dumping some industrial weedkiller on the
front lawn, these peopl have had their live completely
ruined by the negligence and sheer inhumanity of a
company that refuses to take responsibility for their
own messes. By acknowledging that the soil is
contaminated and deadly, they also confound their
guilt by tacitly admitting that there genuinely has
been a ecological disaster.
As for other
courses of action, what the hell else are these people
supposed to do? Likely they have absolutely no money
to fight a legal battle and are up against a MASSIVE
corporation who is probably quite adept at silencing
negative publicity.
How dare you suggest that
this is irresponsible. A company losing some business
compared to HUNDREDS of people losing their lives?
What choice do these people have? |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:"peaceful protest"
(Score:1)
by Blue
Stone (582566) on Wednesday January 01, @05:59PM
(#4995483)
|
"If someone showed up at my company's door with
deadly chemicals, we'd have to shut the place down for
security reasons, at a cost to the
business."
What if they were your
deadly chemicals and they were just returning
your property to you, because you left
it on their doorstep, and...well, didn't really
give a fuck?
I can only describe this action by
Dow, as the act of cunts. I have nothing but
contempt for them. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:"peaceful protest"
(Score:2)
by sg_oneill
(159032) on Thursday January 02, @02:28AM (#4997243)
(http://guild.murdoch.edu.au/)
|
I can only describe this action by Dow, as
the act of c*nts. I have nothing but contempt for
them.
Bravo. While I normally would
avoid such a word, strangely this is really the only
way to honestly describe it.
Dow chemicals
really are c*nts. They chose to be. I say someone
shut THEM down.
Hey isn't it amazing , in a
few countries in the world, you can get brutally
executed for killing people. But not if your a
corporation, even if you cop 800 victims. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:"peaceful protest"
(Score:2)
by mgblst
(80109) on Wednesday January 01, @10:21PM (#4996523)
(http://asmsource.cjb.com/)
|
From reading between the lines of the article,
it appears that they are suing the protesters, and not
all the survivors, for what sounds like an
irresponsible protest rather than a peaceful one. If
someone showed up at my company's door with deadly
chemicals, we'd have to shut the place down for
security reasons, at a cost to the business.
You can't see the irony in this. So you
would have to shut your business down for security
reasons. What about the people whose land is filled
with these chemicals, what the fuck do they shut down,
there houses?
Who the fuck modded this post up,
or has Dow somehow taken over this website too! |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:"peaceful protest"
(Score:2)
by LostCluster
(625375) on Wednesday January 01, @11:42PM (#4996814)
|
I don't get it. Dow dumps chemicals, they get
sued by the people they've harmed. Those people turn
around and dump contaminated soil on Dow, and they
shouldn't be sued?
Sorry, being poor doesn't
mean you get to torture the rich. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
I am truly disgusted (Score:2)
by theolein (316044)
on Wednesday January 01, @01:16PM (#4994185)
(http://www.hotmao.com/ |
Last Journal: Thursday
July 11, @08:53PM) |
Dow chemical suing people who have a yearly income of
$1000 for $10000 after the tragedy in Bhopal (which still
hasn't been cleaned up) is so low and disgusting that one
wonders what kind of snarling inhuman lunatics run that
company.
It is this kind of thing that breeds
terrorists and whips up frenzy amongst people who have no
recourse to medical care, much less fat corporate
lawyers.
I can't carry on because I am absolutely
speechless with disgust at those fucking bastards. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Re:I am truly disgusted
(Score:2)
by Artifex
(18308) on Wednesday January 01, @02:44PM (#4994500)
(Last Journal: Tuesday
July 16, @12:44PM) |
Dow chemical suing people who have a
yearly income of $1000 for $10000 after the tragedy
in Bhopal (which still hasn't been cleaned up) is so
low and disgusting that one wonders what kind of
snarling inhuman lunatics run that
company.
Greenpeace has their own
spin, but. as has been stated by others here, Dow
probably had to spend money to clean up the chemicals
the protestors brought with them, etc.
Two
wrongs don't make a right. Did those protestors think
about how they were spreading the environmental impact
by collecting chemicals from one location and
potentially contaminating another? Or just about what
good press they would get?
I can't carry on because I am absolutely
speechless with disgust at those fucking
bastards.
Which ones? The ones
who, having made a mistake, half-assedly tried to
clean it up and then abandoned their work, or the ones
deliberately trying to cause (or at least threaten)
environmental harm not only to the culprit but to
anyone nearby?
I'm disgusted by Greenpeace's
role in this. They've figuratively gone from trying to
block Japanese whalers to dragging whale carcasses
into a city and leaving them in front of a building
where the whalers have offices, not caring that it's a
public street and others would have to clean up
their mess.
The protesters' attitudes
might have been summarized by "they messed up our
backyard, let's mess up theirs," but where does that
lead, except to two messed up backyards? |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:I am truly disgusted
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday
January 01, @03:06PM (#4994590)
|
| Dow is suing the protestors, who were members of
greenpeace. They probably aren't even from the area.
How do you know the income of the greenpeace
protestors that they flew in just for that protest?
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
Play a little devils advocate.
(Score:3, Insightful)
by bm_luethke
(253362) on Wednesday January 01, @01:17PM (#4994187)
|
First off there seems to have been a genreal uproar over
dows "response" link, notice even the author raelised it was a
parody and not in any way from dow, so you can't really fault
dow for that peice (though the author says " While writing
this submission I noticed that I have become a victim of The
Yes Men and "Dow's" response is actually one of their
parodies! :-) The story is still valid " -
umm, dow didn't write it but lets hate them for it anyway?
plenty of reason to hate dow but using a parody to hate them
really weakens your position.)
I don't really know why
the copyright violations in this are DMCA, it seems that
normal copyright and trademarks cover thier violations, and
yes they are violations. They were before DMCA and still will
be if the DMCA is repealed. Though this should not have forced
the whole site down, just the removeal of the
copyrighted/trademarked images (hey, make some parody version
of them - that's legal, but you can't just copy thier images
and pretend to be them). Plus they quote cybersquatting
statutes, they don't really seem to be cybersquatting (though
using dow-chemical is iffy on copyright, had they used
something like dow-chemical-sucks they would have easily been
in the parody/protest stuff, but they seemed to have
intentionally tried to fool someone into thinking they were
dow to get them there).
And lastly "Dow has committed a
reprehensible act, even for corporate America, by suing the
survivors for ten years of income ($10,000) for protesting
Dow's failure to clean up the mess." No, even according to the
greenpeace article the survivors carried contamited material
to thier site - that's not legal. While I greatly sympathise
with them (and definatly think they got screwed royally) that
doesn't give you the right to do that. As neither does being
rich give someone the right to pollute with impunity. Much
like in the US many protestors seem to think that the first
amendment gives them the right to trasspass and destroy
property, it doesn't - gather on public land all you want,
don't block traffic and not only are you legal but you garner
much more sympathy.
In sum, they have a very legitimate
complaint, dow chemical did some VERY bad stuff and deserve to
be raped in court, and never have and probably never will. But
that doesn't give you the right (in the US, or apparently
india either) to do whatever you feel (eye-for-an-eye,
tooth-for-a-tooth isn't in the constitution). Plus my final
complaint is that we have only heard one side, greenpeace
isn't really know for being exactly unbiased and giving
complete stories. There are much more effective ways to try
and get something, they failed, now all they do is make people
much less sympathetic overall to their cause (maybe it makes
them feel better though). |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Re:Play a little devils
advocate. (Score:0)
by Anonymous
Coward on Wednesday January 01, @01:22PM (#4994197)
|
| thirty four quadringentoctononagintilliard, six
hundred eight quadringentoctononagintillion, eight
hundred twenty eight quadringentseptennonagintilliard,
two hundred forty nine
quadringentseptennonagintillion, eighty five
quadringentsexnonagintilliard, one hundred twenty one
quadringerntsexnonagintillion, five hundred twenty
four quadringentquinnonagintilliard, two hundred
ninety six quadringentquinnonagintillion, thirty nine
quadringentquattuornonagintilliard, five hundred
seventy six quadringentquattuornonagintillion, seven
hundred forty one quadringenttrenonagintilliard, three
hundred thirty one quadringenttrenonagintillion, six
hundred seventy two quadringentdononagintilliard, two
hundred sixty two quadringentdononagintillion, eight
hundred sixty six quadringentunnonagintilliard, eight
hundred ninety quadringentunnonagintillion, twenty
three quadringentnonagintilliard, eight hundred fifty
four quadringentnonagintillion, seven hundred seventy
nine quadringentnovemoctogintilliard, forty eight
quadringentnovemoctogintillion, nine hundred twenty
eight quadringentoctooctogintilliard, three hundred
forty four quadringentoctooctogintillion, five hundred
quadringentseptenoctogintilliard, six hundred twenty
two quadringentseptenoctogintillion, eighty
quadringentsexoctogintilliard, nine hundred eighty
three quadringentsexoctogintillion, four hundred
eleven quadringentquinoctogintilliard, four hundred
forty six quadringentquinoctogintillion, four hundred
thirty six quadringentquattuoroctogintilliard, four
hundred thirty seven
quadringentquattuoroctogintillion, five hundred fifty
four quadringenttreoctogintilliard, four hundred
fifteen quadringenttreoctogintillion, three hundred
seventy quadringentdooctogintilliard, seven hundred
fifty three quadringentdooctogintillion, three hundred
sixty six quadringentunoctogintilliard, four hundred
forty eight quadringentunoctogintillion, six hundred
seventy four quadringentoctogintilliard, seven hundred
sixty three quadringentoctogintillion, five hundred
five quadringentnovemseptuagintilliard, eighteen
quadringentnovemseptuagintillion, six hundred forty
one quadringentoctoseptuagintilliard, four hundred
seventy quadringentoctoseptuagintillion, seven hundred
nine quadringentseptenseptuagintilliard, three hundred
thirty two quadringentseptenseptuagintillion, three
hundred seventy three quadringentsexseptuagintilliard,
nine hundred seventy quadringentsexseptuagintillion,
six hundred eight quadringentquinseptuagintilliard,
three hundred seventy six
quadringentquinseptuagintillion, six hundred ninety
quadringentquattuorseptuagintilliard, four hundred
four quadringentquattuorseptuagintillion, two hundred
twenty nine quadringenttreseptuagintilliard, two
hundred sixty five quadringenttreseptuagintillion,
seven hundred eighty nine
quadringentdoseptuagintilliard, six hundred forty
seven quadringentdoseptuagintillion, nine hundred
ninety three quadringentunseptuagintilliard, seven
hundred nine quadringentunseptuagintillion, seven
hundred sixty quadringentseptuagintilliard, three
hundred fifty eight quadringentseptuagintillion, four
hundred sixty nine quadringentnovemsexagintilliard,
five hundred fifty two quadringentnovemsexagintillion,
three hundred nineteen quadringentoctosexagintilliard,
forty five quadringentoctosexagintillion, four hundred
eighty four quadringentseptensexagintilliard, nine
hundred ten quadringentseptensexagintillion, fifty
quadringentsexsexagintilliard, three hundred four
quadringentsexsexagintillion, one hundred forty nine
quadringentquinsexagintilliard, eight hundred nine
quadringentquinsexagintillion, eight hundred eighteen
quadringentquattuorsexagintilliard, five hundred forty
quadringentquattuorsexagintillion, two hundred eighty
three quadringenttresexagintilliard, five hundred
seven quadringenttresexagintillion, one hundred fifty
nine quadringentdosexagintilliard, six hundred eighty
three quadringentdosexagintillion, five hundred sixty
two quadringentunsexagintilliard, two hundred thirty
two quadringentunsexagintillion, nine hundred forty
one quadringentsexagintilliard, nin
Read
the rest of this comment... |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Play a little devils
advocate. (Score:1)
by bm_luethke
(253362) on Wednesday January 01, @02:25PM (#4994440)
|
Well, the way I see it three
reasons.
One) there is a conspiracy. This is
the least likely, too many news sources out there to
only have greenpeace reporting it. I would beleive
conspiracy if many were running it and the three big
+ cnn + fox were not running it, but I can't believe
that any group has that much worldwide
influence.
two) thier slow. This is possible.
News in india probably is not very high on thier
lists unless it's REALLY bad (such as the original
contamination). I would buy this
three)
misrepresentation. As I said greenpeace isn't really
known for unbiased reporting and telling the whole
story. Maybe they blew it out of proportion or
misreported it.
Most likely I would guess a
little bit of two and three, the contamination
happened a while ago, out of most people memories.
It takes time to fully research what they have (and
I bet if they ran mostly false reports on dow they
would rightfully sue). And I bet that there is more
to this story than what they are saying (from both
sides). |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Play a little devils
advocate. (Score:2)
by HiThere
(15173) <mailto:charleshixsn@[%20]thlink.net%20['ear'%20in%20gap]>
on Wednesday January 01, @04:57PM (#4995146)
|
Too many news sources? I had heard that most
of the media was owned by seven corps, but more
recently I was told that there had been some
mergers and it was now down to five. Still sure
that there are too many sources for a conspiracy
to be practical?
Then try it this way. The
people in control of major corporations tend to
see the other people in control of major
corporations as their peers, and they don't want
to annoy them too much. No conspiracy needed. Just
peer group pressure. Sometimes someone will be
obnoxious, and print something that annoys one of
his competitors or enemies. But not usually. That
sound more plausible? Do you think that denying
this effect sounds plausible at all? I suppose the
only question would be "How strong an effect is
is?"
Another example of orchestrated media
events is reporting on Israeli/Palestinian events
in the US vs. Europe. I understand that the press
in the US is dependably biased in favor of Israel,
where in Europe it is dependably biased in favor
of the Palestinians. If so, this would be an
interesting thing to research the causes of.
Genuine conspiracy is probably unlikely, but
theories about group coordination without explicit
agreements could probably be applied. (Consider
the "bird flocks" in Tierra.)
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Play a little
devils advocate. (Score:1)
by
bm_luethke
(253362) on Wednesday January 01, @08:46PM
(#4996228)
|
| no, no, no, you misunderstood what I said.
The poster talked about a google search, I
seriously doubt that all the web news sources
are owned by five companies. Most of the large
media companies are owned by a very small amount
of companies, but by no means are THAT many
owned by five companies (i mean there are PLENTY
of non-mainstream news companies), a google
search should have turned up plenty of
resources. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
I am the author/submitter
and... (Score:1)
by tres3
(594716) <class5.pacbell@net>
on Wednesday January 01, @03:51PM (#4994805)
(http://lwn.net/ | Last
Journal: Monday
August 26, @10:51AM) |
| Although Dow's response is a parody the
story is still valid because the story is about DOW
using the DMCA to force Verio to terminate service to
The Thing, RTMark, and The Yes Men. The copyright and
trademark issues may or may not be valid regardless of
the DMCA but it is the DMCA that provides DOW with a
means to have the upstream provider cancel their
service.
Next: the protestors are being sued for
interrupting work at the DOW offices in India not for
transporting pollutants back to the corporate source.
Finally: a more recent poster lays a pretty good
foundation that DOW has paid everything that the
courts have ordered and then some.
Conclusion: This is slashdot!! It's not like
this is an unbiased group of people here -- anymore
than Greenpeace or The Yes Men. What we do here on
slashdot is discuss, argue, debate, criticize, demean,
curse, and provide links to more information so that
we can all become better informed. Thanks for your
contribution!
In response to your response below as to why it is
being covered up on the Internet how about this fact:
it happened in 1984. Back then the Internet was for
government and Universities only -- NOT news
organizations. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:I am the author/submitter
and... (Score:1)
by bm_luethke
(253362) on Wednesday January 01, @09:00PM (#4996267)
|
Although Dow's response is a parody the story
is still valid because the story is about DOW using
the DMCA to force Verio to terminate service to The
Thing, RTMark, and The Yes Men.
The
problem is that nearly the entierty of you r
argument about this being evil is not from dow. Just
because the DMCA was invoked does it make it bad, in
this case it was already covered under traditional
copyright law. If the links provided in the
beginning had been valid then I would agree with
what you said, the single response that is actually
from dow is actually rather
valid.
Finally: a more recent poster lays
a pretty good foundation that DOW has paid
everything that the courts have ordered and then
some.
umm, ok - you just seemed to give
an argument against what you said and has nothing to
do with what I said (or at least what I meant, maybe
I wasn't as clear as I could have been). I actually
agree with greenpeace (and beleive me when I say
that is about the only time I will say this in my
life) that DOW got off easy, the courts did not fine
them NEAR what they should (and hence the "get away
with it" line).
Conclusion: This is
slashdot!!
ohh, so since this is
slashdot we should be happy to have misinformation
spread around? I suppose that means reposts ==
slashdot == good also? Or any of the other myriad
stuff one typically wades through to get anything
usefull? The problem I had was just that,
intentional or not, you seemed to beleive greenpeace
totally correct and used "evidence" that you even
knew was a farce to prove a point. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
How the DMCA got involved
(Score:4, Insightful)
by LostCluster
(625375) on Wednesday January 01, @04:05PM (#4994867)
|
This kind of misrepresentation and use of Dow's
trademarks in a way that makes people thing The Yes
Men's site belonged to Dow has always been illegal
under assorted trademark and copyright laws, and has
nothing to do with the DMCA.
Where the DMCA
kicks in is the takedown provisions. Dow called Verio
and said "Get this off the Web now!" and Verio was
required to honor that request. Verio tried calling
The Thing, but they weren't available because they had
shut down for the day and didn't leave anyway to
contact anyone in control. Verio had no way to delete
the site other than to pull their whole line, so they
did.
Eventually The Thing pulled the illegal
site, and Verio restored access. However, because The
Thing caused this whole mess by not having somebody on
call who could respond to the takedown demand, they
downtime was theirs even though Verio is taking the
blame. Verio has now decided they don't want to do
business with The Thing anymore, because they don't
like being blamed for their customer's inactions.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Play a little devils
advocate. (Score:0)
by Anonymous
Coward on Wednesday January 01, @05:57PM (#4995479)
|
> No, even according to the greenpeace article
the survivors carried contamited material to thier
site - that's not legal.
They were carrying
Dow's OWN CHEMICALS from the mess around their homes
to Dow's offices. That's just courtesy.
If you
put a bunch of toxic crap in my backyard, and I take
some of it back to you, you have no right to
complain!
As for legality, if it's illegal on a
small scale, it must be much more illegal on a larger
scale, so fix the big problem first. Then hey, presto,
there's no waste left for anyone to carry
around.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
Thing needs help (Score:1)
by somebaudy
(594704) on Wednesday January 01, @01:23PM (#4994202)
(http://www.somebaudy.com/)
|
| Feel like defending the right to parody, free speech, etc?
Grab your Paypal and push that loading bar
[thing.net] to the right. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Toss this nutjob in prison. (Score:-1,
Troll)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 01,
@01:25PM (#4994211)
|
| The guy running that site that was shutdown is a criminal
under the DMCA and he needs to be punished harshly for this
severe infraction. Folks, the law is the law and as such must
be obeyed at all times, minus the exemptions for government
employees and media corporations of course. This is a
socialist country and you are here to serve the state. Before
you start complaining, socialist systems have been proven to
be the best. Anyone who belittles anyone in the ruling class
needs to be punished. Just pay your taxes, obey and support
all laws, and shut the hell up. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
|
|
Umm... (Score:1)
by Spazntwich
(208070) <spazntwich@@@yahoo...com>
on Wednesday January 01, @01:26PM (#4994214)
(http://www.ablabla.org/)
|
Is anyone else more than a little confused about what is
and isn't a parody in all of this?
Dow killed lots of
people and released a press release about it and now people
have made a parody of it but the parody supposedly infringed
on the DMCA and DOW released another press release but that
was just a parody but DOW is really suing people but that's a
parody of a parody and now the DMCA has grown arms and a mouth
and is devouring babies? |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
|
|
Dow's Responses (Score:5, Insightful)
by backtick (2376)
on Wednesday January 01, @01:30PM (#4994227)
(http://wwwdotslashdotdotorg/)
|
Far be it from me to think walking away from an ecological
disaster is a good thing, but from what I can see, according
to both the US and Indian courts, Dow has done everything they
said they'd do relating to this, and everything the lawsuits
against them said they had to do.
The paid ~$500
million to the Indian Government for ongoing cleanup, to
create a medical program for anyone who lives in the affected
area, and to cover things like ongoing monitoring of the
chemical creep. They also paid out an additional ~$20 million
to build and maintain a new hospital specifically in the area
to handle any related medical claims. They also added an
additional ~$55 million dollars to the hospital support funds
when they bought out UCI.
They actually have paid out
far more than the lawsuits against them in US courts
originally stated (where the Indian government received a
ruling for ~$350 million). I think all told that Dow has
produced over $600 million for cleanup and ongoing support and
healthcare.
All in all, most of the cleanup, treatment
and monitoring of chemical contamination in the area is
supposed to be handled by the Indian Government, not by Dow
directly. If those hundreds of millions of dollars are being
spent somewhere else, are people asking the government (or
whoever they've appointed to handle the situation) where it's
going?
This is especially apt as many of the court
cases have focused on Dow's liability, and the majority still
uphold the 'reasonable doubt' that Dow was criminally liable
(which is why they still haven't tried very hard to get Warren
Anderson shipped their for homicide charges), and even some
went so far as to support the findings of 3rd party teams that
the chemical release was a result of a deliberate act by a
disgruntled worker.
Now, it's been 18 years, and I
don't personally have any knowledge of anything to do with
Bhopal beyond what I can read. However, based on that
information, I think a lot of this is the result of PR by
Greenpeace and others who conveniently ignore the things that
Dow *has* done.
As an aside, I don't work for Dow, have
any relatives who work for Dow, or own stock in Dow (unless
one of those pathetic 401k funds that are basically WORTHLESS
right now has shares, in which case I don't give a damn). I
just see a lot of knee-jerk reactions and wonder if a lot of
people who 'know about bhopal' have ever done more than read 1
website or less? Could Dow be a tool of Satan designed to make
life on Earth a living hell, run completely by unfeeling
demons who want to kill and maim innocent people? Sure. Is it
probably that black-and-white? I really doubt it. It's only
fair to research both sides. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Re:Dow's Responses (Score:1)
by Gatsby137
(632418) <gatsby137&hotmail,com>
on Wednesday January 01, @02:34PM (#4994471)
|
| I found this
document [bhopal.com] while Googling for more info
on the Bhopal disaster--it's more or less the story of
the disaster and the ensuing legal mess from Union
Carbide/Dow's point-of-view. (Google lets us view it
as HTML here
[216.239.33.100].)
I tend to agree with the above poster. I'm not
usually one to defend a corporation, but it looks like
Dow did make an awful lot of reparations. The actual
truth of the matter, I'm sure, is obscured far beyond
our ability to discern it, particularly by a few
minutes of Googling. Cheers, Mike V. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Dow's Responses (Score:2)
by HiThere
(15173) <mailto:charleshixsn@[%20]thlink.net%20['ear'%20in%20gap]>
on Wednesday January 01, @04:27PM (#4994954)
|
Very nice. But I'm not sure that an expert from
Union Carbide counts as disinterested
testimony.
And none of this justifies suing
the survivors for 10 years income because they
protested. I don't care that DOW may have felt that
the protest was unjust. It was no where near as
unjust as the reaction. It makes me wish that the
entire upper management of the corp would be taken
out and mutilated. In a way that left them unable to
speak coherently or feed themselves.
Permanently.
If they can't understand that
the survivors may be desperate, and that they have
some responsibility for **EFFECTIVE** relief, then
they can't be counted as humans. Yeah, they paid
some money. So? Their responsibility wasn't to pay
money, their responsibility was to ameliorate the
damage that they had, at minimum, contributed to.
(The safety standards by which the plant was
operated were unconsciousable. Legal, I believe, and
so *** what!)
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Dow's Responses (Score:2)
by Psion (2244)
on Wednesday January 01, @02:44PM (#4994501)
(http://www.psidonia.org/)
|
[applauds]
Excellent post! I have
little doubt that Greenpeace is once again playing
fast and loose with the facts to further their
political agenda against multinational corporations.
It's just a shame that so many people buy into the
notion that Greenpeace is an unbiased guardian when
even one of the founders of the organization now says
of it, "They're using environmental rhetoric to cloak
agendas like class warfare and anti-corporatism that,
in fact, have almost nothing to do with
ecology."
And now the info in your post, if
true, shows they're up to the same old tricks with
Dow.
Yep, we do have to keep an eye on
corporations and make a point to highlight grievous
activity...that's what gave The Yes Men "parody" such
legs. But we also need to keep an eye on activist
groups like Greenpeace and be every bit as suspicious
of their propaganda. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Dow's Responses (Score:2)
by canadian_right
(410687) <alexander.russell@telus.net>
on Wednesday January 01, @06:34PM (#4995700)
(http://www3.telus.net/alexander_russell/)
|
| Green Peace was once a great organization, but
they are now just fanatics, that do indeed, play
fast and lose with facts. It has become so bad that
one of the founders, Bob Hunter, actually quit the
GreenPeace quite a while back. More recently, Green
Peace has been prattling on about the "Great Bear
Rain Forest" here in BC and how the forest companies
are cutting it down. Despite the fact that the
forest companies are cutting down old growth forests
as fast as they can, there is NO "Great Bear Rain
Forest". Green Peace made it up because it looks
good on billboards. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Dow's Responses (Score:2)
by greenrd
(47933) on Wednesday January 01, @05:23PM (#4995303)
(http://angrydot.presidium.org/)
|
| The paid ~$500 million to the Indian Government
for ongoing cleanup, to create a medical program for
anyone who lives in the affected area, and to cover
things like ongoing monitoring of the chemical creep.
They also paid out an additional ~$20 million to build
and maintain a new hospital specifically in the area
to handle any related medical claims. They also added
an additional ~$55 million dollars to the hospital
support funds when they bought out UCI.
Well, that's good if true. But that's not enough.
Let's see what Greenpeace says
[greenpeace.org]:
The survivors have never received
adequate compensation for their debilitating
illnesses and even 18 years after the disaster, the
polluted site of the abandoned factory, bleeds
poisons daily into the groundwater of local
residents.
And in more detail from their myths
and realities [greenpeaceusa.org] page:
In the criminal proceedings in courts in
India, preceding the settlement, UC and members of
its senior staff (including Chairman Warren
Anderson) refused to appear in court or obey court
orders. Warren Anderson and UC were notified as
absconders by the court.
This settlement was made without any consultation
with the survivors. The survivors petitioned the
court against the settlement. The court ruled that
the settlement did not remove criminal liability
from UC, UCIL and senior staff mentioned in the
initial criminal case.
These figures should be compared to $108 million
that Monsanto Company was ordered to pay the family
of a single chemical worker who died due to benzene
exposure or the $2.5 billion offered by Johns
Manville Corporation for about 60,000 claimants of
injury caused by exposure to asbestos. (5)
As per the current settlement, the average
claimant (the gas affected who put in a claim for
compensation) receive approximately $300-$500, which
in most cases does not pay for medical bills.
...
# Myth. An independent investigation claimed that
a disgruntled employee caused the incident.
Reality. Even though UC has had an opportunity in
court to provide information on this sabotage
theory, originally presented by Arthur D. Little
(ADL), and thus resolve the case, it has failed to
do so. However, the corporation still promotes this
argument. When this theory was proposed in an
international seminar, there was widespread
condemnation by experts. A safety specialist with
the World Bank noted that he "was shocked when [he]
heard that ADL people were promoting the "sabotage"
theory for Bhopal at the Institution of Chemical
Engineers conference in London." (12)
See also this
page [bhopal.net] on Carbide/Dow's ongoing
negligence with respect to poisoning of water
supplies.
I don't know much about Bhopal so I thought it best
to quote directly, but I couldn't let such one-sided
bullshit stand unchallenged.
Are you by any chance an astroturfer working for
Dow? Maybe you're not, but I wouldn't be terribly
surprised if some of the pro-Dow arguments here came
from astroturfers.
(If ad homenim arguments can be used against
Greenpeace, I don't see why I shouldn't use ad homenim
arguments right back!)
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Dow's Responses (Score:2)
by mgblst
(80109) on Wednesday January 01, @10:29PM (#4996558)
(http://asmsource.cjb.com/)
|
| Fascinating account of what has happened. But, I
can't see anywhere in your post, where you discuss
what happened to those responsible? No one was jailed
because of this tragedy, and it is quite possible that
the people involved are still working at Dow. If you
are happy with this outcome, then could you please
move next to one of their plants? thanks, J. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Dow's Responses (Score:1)
by digbat
(535674) on Wednesday January 01, @11:00PM (#4996647)
(http://slashdot.org/)
|
The New
Scientist [newscientist.com] provides a little
more information about the legal actions and
negligence issues. It strikes me that DOW knew about
the Bhopal events before they bought UC. DOW seem to
want to continue to avoid responsibility for the
effects of their commercial activities just as UC did
before.
The compensation that the Bhopal
victims have had so far wouldn't keep many of us in
food and clothes for a month. What compensation would
UC or DOW have paid if this had happened in the
USA?
digbat
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
Whither Globalization? (Score:4,
Insightful)
by teetam (584150) on
Wednesday January 01, @01:30PM (#4994228)
(http://www.etash.com/)
|
| I grew up in India and whenever I think back to the Bhopal
tragedy, I still feel nauseated. American politicians today
who scream about Iraq gassing its own people should take a
look at this.
A negligent American company releases poisonous gases in a
third-world country and kills or injures tens of thousands of
(dark-skinned) people. You would think the world would be
outraged.
No. Suddenly, Dow chemicals was no longer a global company
- it was an American company, run by American citizens who are
bound only by American laws! The Indians had to struggle very
hard to bring these people to court - it is still not over, 18
years after the 'accident'.
Globalization is a wonderful thing, but only if all such
aspects are dealt with. People tend to forget that free
markets in countries like the USA work well only when the
companies are governed by law and regulated by watchdog
organizations. While the West aggressively pushes for global
free markets, they don't seem to realize that there is no
global law and no global watchdog or regulatory body.
What Dow chemicals did is an extremity, but there are many
other simpler violations. Think about it - Coke sells cans in
USA, among hundreds of other countries. That is great. But,
how many of these countries have proper recycling facilities?
Many third world countries are being pressurized by the world
bank to open up to MNCs and are they are all becoming dumping
grounds for these multi national companies. Heck, most of
these countries don't even have proper drinking water for its
population, but Coke and Pepsi are available
everywhere!
|
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Re:Whither Globalization?
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday
January 01, @01:39PM (#4994254)
|
The difference between Dow and Iraq is one of
intent. Hussein did it PURPOSELY to kill those people.
Dow did it accidentally. Does that mean they are blame
free? Of course not, but it's the same line between
manslaughter and murder. Different crimes with
different consequences, yet both result in someone
else's death.
People always point to
globalization as a problem. Globalization already
happened. It's over. The real problem is corporatism.
Do you know how many globalization protestors eat
chinese food and never realize that's globalization
too? |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Whither Globalization?
(Score:2)
by teetam
(584150) on Wednesday January 01, @01:50PM (#4994288)
(http://www.etash.com/)
|
| I am not protesting globalization. As I said, it
is a wonderful thing.
What I am concerned about is why steps are not
being taken by the advocates of globalization to
ensure corporations and its executives are held
responsible for its actions?
Why is Nike able to get away with sweat shops in
Indonesia where people work in inhuman conditions?
Why are the other junk food companies are held
responsible for the amount of garbage they generate?
Are there effective pollution checks in place all
over the world, just like in the West?
Sure, most of the responsibility lies with that
country itself. But, let's face it - some of these
countries haven't even solved their basic problems
of food and water yet!
In the place of corporate appeasement, if the
West starts to have real capitalism, may be these
things will be resolved. Till then, companies will
use "globalization" as an excuse for circumventing
wage laws, pollution control laws and consumer
safety laws. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Whither Globalization?
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday
January 01, @02:41PM (#4994491)
|
Without minimizing the horror of the tragedy, it
is useful to remember what actually
happened.
The plant at Bhopal was owned and
operated by Union Carbide India, Ltd (UCIL). UCIL was,
in turn, owned 50.9% by Union Carbide of the US with
the remaining 49.1% owned by Indian financial
institutions and Indian private citizens.
The
plant was managed and staffed by Indian
citizens.
Sometime in the early AM of December
3rd, 1984, one of those Indian citizens operating the
plant either by accident or on purpose (according to
investigators) triggered the release of the gas which
killed thousands.
There were no Americans in
the plant at the time of the gas release.
To
paraphrase you: This is a case of negligent,
third-world, brown-skinned operator releasing poison
gases in his own third-world country, killing or
injuring thousands of dark-skinned people. You'd think
the world would be outraged.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Whither Globalization?
(Score:5, Insightful)
by the
eric conspiracy (20178) <.moc.nosralhe.
.ta. .hsals.> on Wednesday January 01, @04:19PM
(#4994906)
|
American politicians today who scream about
Iraq gassing its own people should take a look at
this.
A negligent American company releases
poisonous gases in a third-world country and kills or
injures tens of thousands of (dark-skinned) people.
You would think the world would be
outraged.
Your comparison between Carbide
and Hussein is morally bankrupt.
There is a
very large difference between the negligence (if there
was actual negligence) of Carbide and murderous intent
of Saddam Hussein to commit genocide. Carbide
certainly did NOT go out and say 'let's kill off a
bunch of folks using MIC to cut down on these local
protests'.
There is also the fact that the
UCarbide plant in West Va, had problems with MIC
accidents as well. The concept that Carbide was doing
anything in India because it felt that Indians were
less worthy than Americans is speculative, to say the
least.
UC does bear a great deal of
responsibility for what happened in India. But it was
not genocide, murder, chemical warefare or any other
such act. It was an unintended industrial accident of
unprecidented impact.
Maybe UC was negligent in
it's operations of the Bhopal plant - but the fact is
that best practice standards then and now are two very
different things. And the fact is that ultimately that
local management of a chemical plant is in the best
position to address safety issues. That local
management must share a great deal of the
responsibility for what happened, including ultimately
the leaky valve that was the immediate cause of the
accident. That local management was
Indian.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Whither Globalization?
(Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on
Wednesday January 01, @04:23PM (#4994933)
|
So CEO's in the US are a bunch of dangerous,
incompetent fools?
While Saddam Hussein could
be persuaded *not* to gas people, it would be
impossiblew to stop a bumbling fool as long as they
are in a position where their cack-handed mistakes
can kill or injure thousandes.
Well, I hope
I've got that right... |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Whither Globalization?
(Score:2)
by Patman
(32745) <pmgeahan
AT chartermi DOT net> on Wednesday January 01,
@08:30PM (#4996163)
|
No. Suddenly, Dow chemicals was no longer a
global company - it was an American company, run by
American citizens who are bound only by American laws!
The Indians had to struggle very hard to bring these
people to court - it is still not over, 18 years after
the 'accident'
You mean Union Carbide,
right?
Dow Chemical purchased Union Carbide
*sixteen years* after the accident. Regardless of
their current policies, I fail to see how that makes
Dow Chemical responsible for it. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
USA - the world's biggest polluter. So what's
new? (Score:1, Flamebait)
by WIAKywbfatw
(307557) on Wednesday January 01, @01:43PM (#4994264)
|
The United States is the world's biggest polluter. This
isn't trolling. This isn't flaming. This is fact.
Four
percent of the world's population, 25 percent of the
pollution. Way to go, USA.
Recent American achievements
in the "who cares if your kids got asthma?" race:
- Torpedoing any serious effort to curb greenhouse gas
emissions in the 1997 Kyoto agreement (thanks, Bill
Clinton).
- Later reneging on America's commitment to ratify that
agreement, despite the fact that 178 other nations have done
so (thanks, George W. Bush).
- Failing to tackle arsenic pollution in its own drinking
water (currently at levels way above those that would be
illegal in Europe and elsewhere) until 2004 (thanks again,
Bill).
- Attempting to reverse that legislation, only to have it
blow up in his face (thanks again, Dubya).
- Allowing Alcoa, the world's third largest Aluminium
maker, to profit from a loophole in Texas environmental laws
by further polluting that state with 60,000 tons of sulphur
dioxide each year (from which Paul O'Neill, Dubya's
Secretary to the Treasury profited).
- Cutting funding for research into cleaner, more fuel
efficient cars by 28% (Dubya again).
- Reversing an age-old bi-partisan policy of demanding
more fuel effieciency from car makers (Bill again).
- Carrying on that policy (Dubya again).
- Exempting SUVs from having to meet the same minimum
mileage requirements of other cars (Bill again).
- Cancelling the 2004 deadline for car makers to develop
prototype high-mileage cars (Dubya again).
- Breaking a campaign promise to invest $100 million into
rain forest conservation (Dubya again).
- Vetoing a proposal to increase public access to
information about the potential consequences of chemical
plant accidents (Dubya again).
- Refusing to honour an international accord to enforce a
1972 treaty banning germ warfare (Dubya again).
- Cutting $500 million from the Environmental Protection
Agency's budget (Dubya again).
- Ignoring campaign promises to regulate carbon dioxide
emissions (Dubya again).
- Proposing the opening up of previously unspoilt national
monuments in Alaska and elsewhere in the hunt for yet more
coal, oil and gas (Dubya again).
- Permitting oil and gas developments off the coast of
Florida and in Montana forests (Dubya again).
- Attempting to reverse legislation protecting 60 million
acres of national forest from logging and road building
(Dubya again).
- Promoting the development of "mini-nukes, in direct
violation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (Dubya
again).
The list goes on and on.
Not only is
the US the world's biggest polluter, it's also the world's
biggest consumer. Per capita, Americans use more energy,
more oil, more gas than any other nation in the
world.
Even the most patriotic simpleton has got to
see that this isn't something to be proud of - if nothing
else, the shit's going to hit the fan sooner or later. Why
not try and do something about it? |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Re:USA - the world's biggest polluter.
So what's n (Score:2, Interesting)
by the
eric conspiracy (20178) <.moc.nosralhe.
.ta. .hsals.> on Wednesday January 01, @02:57PM
(#4994545)
|
Per capita, Americans use more energy, more
oil, more gas than any other nation in the
world.
That sort of automatically follows
from the fact that America has the highest GDP and
GDP/capita, doesn't it?
Personally I agree with
you that the US should be doing a lot more to control
it's greenhouse gas emissions. But tirades that ignore
the fact that there are other sources of pullution in
this world, and in fact the US is not doing that badly
in terms of pullution per GDP do little to address the
overall problem.
If you look at statistics like
pollution / GDP, which is a much more indicitive
measure of how a society is handling pollution issues,
America is not the highest in the world, and isn't
even close. For example if you look at lb. of sulfur
dioxide emissions per $1000 USD GDP we have the
following as the top
polluters.
Poland
Greece
Australia
Canada
Turkey
Czech
China
Russia
In
fact the situation with pollution in China is so bad
that 8 of the 10 most polluted cities in the world are
in China.
China, with a GDP equal to about 10%
of the US GDP releases 13% of the world's CO2 vs. the
US's 23%. That is a factor of more than 5 per GDP
dollar greater than the US. At this rate, and China's
rate of economic growth it is estimated that China
will be the #1 CO2 emitter by the end of the decade.
By 2020 China is expected to be emitting more CO2 than
the US, Japan and Canada combined.
Yes, the US
is the largest consumer of economic resources, and the
largest polluter in the world. Be even if the US were
to freeze it's CO2 emissions at 1990 levels, it would
little to impact world CO2 levels or growth of those
levels. That growth is coming from places outside the
US. And even worse is the efficiency of that growth in
terms of pollution per GDP dollar.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:USA - the world's biggest
polluter. So what's n (Score:2)
by the
eric conspiracy (20178) <.moc.nosralhe.
.ta. .hsals.> on Wednesday January 01,
@09:09PM (#4996305)
|
A more "fair" comaprison pollution/GDP Per
Capita, as opposed to your comparison of
pollution/gross GDP.
That is just not
right. Per capita comparisons in greenhouse gas
production do not reflect the real, important goal
- sustainable economic development. Sure, China
has a much lower per capita greenhouse gas
consumption - but China as is still a developing
country with a rapidly growing economy.
The
real goal is minimization of energy consumption
per dollar of GDP, not just stopping CO2
emissions. That we could do (at great human cost)
by simply turning everything off. If we cut
emissions per $ GDP, we can actually improve the
human condition.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:USA - the world's biggest
polluter. So what's n (Score:3, Insightful)
by NexusTw1n
(580394) <slashdot.mumuland@com>
on Wednesday January 01, @05:45PM (#4995420)
(Last Journal: Monday
October 07, @05:39AM) |
Yes, the US is the largest consumer of
economic resources, and the largest polluter in
the world. Be even if the US were to freeze it's
CO2 emissions at 1990 levels, it would little to
impact world CO2 levels or growth of those levels.
That growth is coming from places outside the US
Nonsense.
According to the UN :
"China has, despite economic growth
estimated at 36 per cent, managed to reduce it
carbon dioxide emissions by 17 per cent since
1996/97. "
"A study by scientists at the Lawrence
Berkley National Laboratory in California
concludes that China's C02 emissions are already
400 to 900 million tonnes below what was
expected in 2000 which is approximately equivalent
to all C02 emissions from Canada, at the low end
of the range, or Germany, at the high end of the
estimate. "
"In the United States, which at 23 per
cent has the highest share of global C02
emissions, levels of the greenhouse gas have grown
from 4.8 billion tonnes in 1990 to over 5.4 tonnes
in 1998 China is doing all it can to
reduce its emissions, the US is still
increasing its pollution."
Like much
of the world, China is doing something about C02,
which is a good job, because the US's refusal to
work with the Kyoto Protocol is embarrassing.
Source
[solutions-site.org] |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:USA - the world's biggest
polluter. So what's n (Score:2)
by the
eric conspiracy (20178) <.moc.nosralhe.
.ta. .hsals.> on Wednesday January 01,
@07:50PM (#4995987)
|
According to the UN...
A number
of sources claim this data is phoney. In
particular China is widely believed to be
underreporting coal consumption. In fact, the
combined reduction in CO2 emissions and increase
in economic activity that China is claiming is
without precedent in world history, and as such is
extremely unlikely to be anything close to the
truth.
Here is what the WWF says about
China's greenhouse gas
status:
Overview
The 1990s was the
hottest decade in the past millennium. CO2
emissions worldwide are now around 12 times higher
than they were in 1900 as the world burns
increasing quantities of coal, oil and gas for
energy. The global temperature build-up is
seriously disrupting the natural balance of the
world's climate, creating more extreme weather
conditions and putting one-third of the world's
forests at risk, as well as the species that
depend on forests for their survival.
China
currently accounts for 13% of the global carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions, ranking second after the
US. Although China signed the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change, commitments have yet
to be made in terms of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. In the past two decades, China has
experienced massive economic development and
social change. With an average economic growth
rate of 9% per year, the energy system plays a
central role in shaping development in industry,
agriculture, and the service sectors.
China
has achieved considerable progress in improving
energy efficiency and CO2 emissions reduction.
However, 70% of energy production is still
dependent on coal, and demand for automobiles is
growing fast. China¡¦s challenge will be to shift
its energy mix into a cleaner path, particularly
in the development and dissemination of new and
renewable energy technologies, and promoting
structural change for more efficient energy
use.
Basic facts
* China is set to overtake the US
(at 21%) as the biggest producer of greenhouse
gases by 2025 unless current trends are
modified.
* 7
of the world's 10 most polluted cities are in
China
*
economic losses and health costs due to pollution
alone are equal to 8% of China's GDP (source: the
World Bank)
*
acid rain in China is widespread, causing severe
damage to crops and forests
* more than 70% of China's energy
production is from burning coal
Key
threats
* Use
of unsustainable energy sources, such as coal and
oil, which leads to air and water pollution and
global warming
* Non-sustainable consumption patterns and
wasteful use of energy
Another interesting
that seems to slip through the cracks is that the
"former Soviet Union" countries emit more
greehouse gases than the US does.
And here
is another good one - while the US emissions grew
5% over the period of 1995-2001, The emissions per
GDP went down 11%.
Also you might want to
look at the other signatories of the Kyoto
convention, and what their performance is. For
example Japan has been recently averaging a 1.1%
growth in greenhouse gas emissions per year - and
that's for a country that is essentially
economically stagnant.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Corrections re Clinton
(Score:2)
by MacAndrew
(463832) on Wednesday January 01, @03:16PM (#4994653)
(http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/)
|
I'm no Clinton cheerleader, but I'm fairly sure
every single one of your attributions to him is false.
Also bear in mind that the President cannot
single-handedly enact every policy.
*
Torpedoing any serious effort to curb greenhouse gas
emissions in the 1997 Kyoto agreement (thanks, Bill
Clinton).
Bush torpedoed Kyoto immediately
after taking office.
* Failing to tackle
arsenic pollution in its own drinking water (currently
at levels way above those that would be illegal in
Europe and elsewhere) until 2004 (thanks again,
Bill).
*
Attempting to reverse that legislation, only to have
it blow up in his face (thanks again,
Dubya).
President Bush deserves the blame for
repudiating
action on arsenic [go.com] permanently, Clinton
for leaving it until the 11th hour. At least Clinton
put it on the table -- Bush never will because of the
mining interests.
* Reversing an age-old
bi-partisan policy of demanding more fuel effieciency
from car makers (Bill again).
Age-old? CAFE
has been essentially frozen since President Reagan.
Clinton might have failed to raise it, but in face of
a very hostile Congress.
* Exempting SUVs
from having to meet the same minimum mileage
requirements of other cars (Bill
again).
No. The "exemption" (lower standard
actually) was practically why SUV's and minivans were
invented in the eighties, not the other way around.
Notice how station wagons, subject to car standards,
disappeared long ago? The lax standard was intended to
favor pickups in rural areas and the like, not a fleet
of urban vehicles. Cheap fuel prices and style
perferences have accelerated adoption of SUV's. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
you're statistics are
selective (Score:0)
by Anonymous
Coward on Wednesday January 01, @06:08PM (#4995544)
|
First of all, the Communist Bloc in eastern Europe
and Soviet Russia polluted the world far worse, and
killed far more people as a result, than the USA ever
has. Ever heard of Chernobyl? How about Romania?
Siberia?
Second, take a look at your car
mileage statistics, vs. car safety. When auto
manufacturers were mandated to create lighter cars,
accident fatalities went UP. That's one reason SUV's
are so popular: the large body protects the occupants
far better than your pathetic little Echo.
You
don't want people to be safe. You just want them to be
equally miserable. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
blah blah blah USA sucks blah blah
wah (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday January 01, @09:16PM (#4996332)
|
That's what you get when you produce 26% of the
world's goods. With 4% of its population, no
less.
Time to get your statistics straight, and
try looking at the whole picture next time, instead of
just what you want to see. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
How many people... (Score:2)
by RenQuanta (3274)
on Wednesday January 01, @02:01PM (#4994340)
(http://mywebpages.comcast.net/earnoth/)
|
| ...are going to use the Greenpeace
letter generator [greenpeace.org] to send a complain to
the Dow CEO? It'd be interesting to get a gauge on how much
mail he'll be getting... |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Re:How many people...
(Score:2)
by HiThere
(15173) <mailto:charleshixsn@[%20]thlink.net%20['ear'%20in%20gap]>
on Wednesday January 01, @05:19PM (#4995278)
|
I did. I find the actions of DOW (not speaking
here of Union Carbide) vile beyond description. I wish
I could write vile beyond belief, but there have been
too many examples.
To me, DOWs responsibility
is to clean up the place where the people live, not to
pay money to the govt. Paying money to the govt.
counts as paying protection money. Cleaning up the
area counts as helping people. And suing people who
protest their not being ethical strikes me as about as
low as it's legally permissible to get. (Morals and
ethics don't figure in here. DOWs reaction to the
whole mess has been without any consideration of
morals or ethics.)
Union Carbide had an
accident while running a plant that was unsafe. Bad.
Very bad. But not especially morally cuplable (except
for the cost cutting that shorted the safety
standards). Perhaps they had some reason to believe
that the money they paid the Indian Govt. would be
used to remediate the damages (OK, so I egnage in
fantasy occasionally). But they were bought by DOW.
DOW bought the liabilites as well as the credits, but
this doesn't really count the moral baggage (unless
they kept the same management...I didn't check, so
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt). But after
all this time the site is still polluted, and people
are still forced to live there. This is no credit to
the Indian govt., and they were the people that the
protest should have been aimed at, really. But it was
aimed at DOW. This is understandable by any normal
person. It may well have been unjust, I'm not certain.
But it was reasonable. DOW had not made restitution to
those that it (i.e. Union Carbide) had injured. And
it's response was to sue them for 10 years
income.
A company that would do this deserves
to have it's charter yanked immediately. It deserves
to be obliterated, to be sold at auction. And the
management deserves 20 years in solitary. Plus
confiscation of all assets (for distribution to the
*other* stockholders to recompense them for their
losses).
Not that I think this will happen, but
anyone who cares so little for people shouldn't be
allowed to encounter them. And luxury is clearly
inappropriate.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
In Soviet America (Score:0, Troll)
by DarkKnightRadick
(268025) on Wednesday January 01, @02:02PM (#4994348)
(Last Journal: Friday
December 13, @09:35PM) |
| The Corporation says "FUCK OFF!" |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
This is the best part of DOW...
(Score:2)
by Hott
of the World (537284) on Wednesday January 01, @02:07PM
(#4994368)
(http://slashdot.org/)
|
"we firmly believe that those who violate the right to
Corporate Free Speech have no place on a commercial network
like the internet.
It's another example of our
committment to Living. Improved Daily. With an internet shaped
by Corporate Free Speech.
Just another example of
some PR manager having his head too far up his ass. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
|
|
Free Speech (Score:2)
by Henry V .009
(518000) <marstrail
AT hotmail DOT com> on Wednesday January 01, @02:13PM
(#4994397)
(http://slashdot.org/)
|
|
A lot of people don't understand the concept, so I'll
explain. Everyone in America can think of at least 10 good
laws about speech that would improve society. I know I can.
Ban hate speech, ban those psychic ball-gazing frauds, ban
tobacco advertisements, and so on. And those would be good
laws. In my opinion.
Unfortunately, everyone else has a different set of good
laws for restricting speech. And I probably don't agree with
most of them. The only way to come to agreement on how we
restrict speech will therefore be through our elected
officials.
The founders understood that. And they also understood that
the government bodies they were setting up simply wouldn't be
perfect enough to be trusted with making these kind of laws.
For that reason they put up a fence around that area of the
law. The First Ammendment establishes that the government
can't make laws regarding speech, and that it can't make laws
regarding religion. Sure, some good might be accomplished if
the fence wasn't there, but eventually the damage would
outweigh the good.
So everytime you see some piece of speech that you think
shouldn't be allowed, restrain yourself. Don't call for it to
be banned. The government isn't smart enough to be messing
around in there. Protecting that speech protects your
speech. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Re:Free Speech (Score:1)
by VB
(82433) on Wednesday January 01, @03:07PM (#4994595)
(http://www.dedserius.com/)
|
Succinctly put... While it's important that
speech issued about corporations should not be false
and libelous, restricting speech ends
there.
"...we firmly believe that those who
violate the right to Corporate Free Speech have no
place on a commercial network like the internet.
"
It's unfortunate that in Dow's quoted
official statement they mistake the Internet for a
commercial network, when it was actually funded from
government funds as a public network; which should
maintain public free speech protection, rather than
"Corporate Free Speech" protection -- whatever the
hell that is.
It's a shame the YesMen infringed
on Dow's copyrights in their parody, but pretty
disturbing that Dow lawyers were able to effectively
shut down their ISP. I'd love to see a list of Dow
products I can boycott. Any one have such a
list?
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:Didn't you read my
submission... (Score:2)
by LostCluster
(625375) on Wednesday January 01, @11:20PM
(#4996739)
|
Wrong order of events though, Dow never
asked for The Thing to be shut down.
Dow
simply asked Verio that it see to it that the
site was removed from the web. Verio called The
Thing, but they had gone home for the night.
(Make a note... if you ever plan on running an
ISP that hosts contraversial content, have
somebody on your admin staff carry a beeper!.)
Since The Thing couldn't/wouldn't help get the
site down, Verio had to do it the only way they
had to power to do, which was unplug the thing
as a whole.
Verio didn't like having to
do that, especially because it made them look
like they wanted to take down hundreds of sites
that had nothing to do with this situation. So,
Verio decided they wanted to get out of this
mess, so they used an out clause in their
contract with The Thing.
Dow only wanted
one site shut down... it's Verio who's walking
out on The Thing as a whole. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
This is a good thing. (Score:2)
by forii
(49445) on Wednesday January 01, @02:16PM (#4994405)
(http://www.forii.com/)
|
| RTMark sent out spam. Unsolicited mass email. Whether it
was a political rant, a parody, or "INCREASE YOUR PENIS SIZE"
doesn't matter, I didn't ask for it, I didn't want it, and it
still arrived in my (and many other people's) mailbox.
I sent a message to RTMark's ISP (The Thing),
complaining about the message, and that it violated their
Terms of Service. This isn't the first time that I have
received spam from RTMark, or is it the first time that I have
complained about it, and yet it had not stopped. If The Thing
refused to do anything about it, or if they condoned it, then
they are no better than a bunch of worthless spammers, and I'm
glad that Verio cut them off.
|
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
The SPAM issue (Score:1)
by tres3
(594716) <class5.pacbell@net>
on Wednesday January 01, @02:58PM (#4994553)
(http://lwn.net/ | Last
Journal: Monday
August 26, @10:51AM) |
| I was unaware of the SPAM side of this story. I
read slashdot almost everyday but somehow missed the
earlier story about this. (The earlier story did not
contain any info about Dow suing the survivors
though.) Back to the SPAM issue. It seems that the
issue of SPAM is being considered on Capital Hill by
some of our politicians. Although no serious bills are
yet being considered there is one form of SPAM that
will never be regulated: political speech. That is
what RTMark's SPAM was -- political speech. This will
never be squelched as it would not be in the interests
of politicians to silence themselves or the Political
Action Committees (PACs) that speak for them and/or
against their opponents. What I'm saying is: This
type of SPAM will never go away.
There are grounds for a serious First Amendment
lawsuit here against any ISP that limited your ability
to speak out politically. Unfortunately there are also
grounds for a corporation to sue for sending out
regular SPAM as well since the Supreme Court has often
upheld the rights of corporations to engage in "Free
Speech". I know. I know. What the corporations are
speeching about never seems to be free.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:The SPAM issue (Score:1)
by forii
(49445) on Wednesday January 01, @03:09PM (#4994608)
(http://www.forii.com/)
|
Spam should not be regulated by the government.
That said, nobody can force an ISP to carry a site,
and if The Thing will not crack down on abuses under
them (that go against their own stated TOS), then
I'm glad that someone is cracking down on The
Thing.
If RTMark wants to spam again, maybe they can
go through some Chinese ISPs like the other spammers
have to.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
More info on the DOW shanagans...
(Score:0)
by Gortbusters.org
(637314) on Wednesday January 01, @02:21PM (#4994428)
(http://www.gortbusters.org/)
|
Take
a look here for the recent revealing of the hoax.
[gortbusters.org]
Don't
forget the original press release when the hoax started.
[gortbusters.org]
|
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
My letter to Dow (Score:2)
by octalgirl
(580949) on Wednesday January 01, @02:25PM (#4994441)
(Last Journal: Tuesday
October 01, @07:53AM) |
Don't ya just love the web? Here's the
link [greenpeace.org] to instantly write a letter to
Dow.
And here's what I just sent them:
As the
new CEO and President of Dow Chemical Company, I am stunned at
your actions against the survivors of the Bhopal, India
industrial tragedy. Dow has been a respected name in corporate
America for so many years. But this incomprehensible treatment
of the poor and sick, when you should be doing everything in
your power to make things right, to offer aid and rebuilding,
health care and clean up, changes my vision of Dow and its
executives and my family and I have lost all
respect.
Once again the almighty dollar rules a
corporation rather than the fundamental care of the people who
once supported it. It matters not that this incident occurred
under Union Carbide, you knew this when you bought them.
You know quite well that if this had happened in the
U.S., this would have been fixed by now. To attack a poor and
innocent people, those that have lost many family and still
struggle to survive, shows your true bully side. To think that
you would do this because they dared to perform a peaceful
protest is nothing more than shocking to me. Dow was always
such a respected name.
When you add to that your
treatment of the parody site Dow-chemical and the whole YesMen
fiasco, to use such an ill-gotten law as the DMCA to silence
the web and force the take down of not only a web site, but
also an entire ISP is unfathomable. It shows that your new
stance is to merely silence those who would dare stand up to
you, and this is nothing more than a cartelish, mob mentality
than can no longer have respect.
I implore you to
correct this. To drop your charges against the poor and
suffering of India, and to drop your charges against a parody
web site, which under the US copyright law, it is perfectly
legal to parody just about anything.
I have begun my
march to inform those in my family and my place of work of
your actions. Others are doing the same. Will you sue me too
just to silence me?
I grew up with the name of Dow and
have always believed it be an important and respected company.
Unless these serious issues are corrected, I can no longer
ignore the truth, nor can I think of Dow with any high
regard.
Take note that I am writing this to you via the
convience of the web. Yes, the Internet is a wonderful and
rich thing which allows us to recieve such information and
respond accordingly, even on New Year's Day. The DMCA does
nothing but silence this information. But I include my own
salutation, because I do not agree with the one built into
this online form.
With utmost sincerity,
A very
aware U.S. citizen-
(name here)
|
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
|
|
well.... (Score:2)
by stinky
wizzleteats (552063) on Wednesday January 01, @02:29PM (#4994453)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last
Journal: Tuesday
December 10, @08:41PM) |
|
I never find myself on this side of the argument, but the
only thing I see here which is not steaming troll meat is the
Dow DMCA complaint, which is actually pretty reasonable. The
owner of the dow-chemical domain is not named George
Dow-Chemical, images and text WERE taken from the dow web site
without their permission, and all of this was used to deceive
the public as to the intents and actions of Dow.
One could actually make a pretty good argument that those
opposed to the DMCA wish only to plagarize and deceive, based
on the actions of these parodists. For this reason, I cannot
support their efforts. Freedom of information is too important
to me. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Re:well.... (Score:2)
by nagora
(177841) on Wednesday January 01, @02:59PM (#4994556)
|
| and all of this was used to deceive the public
as to the intents and actions of Dow.
I think you mean "make clear to the public the real
intents and actions of Dow", don't you? That is the
point of satire and I don't see any reason why
mass murderers should be allowed to hide behind
something as trivial as copyright laws to protect them
from having their actions brought to larger attention.
TWW |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:well.... (Score:2)
by stinky
wizzleteats (552063) on Wednesday January 01,
@03:12PM (#4994624)
(http://slashdot.org/
| Last Journal: Tuesday
December 10, @08:41PM) |
|
You misunderstand. I in no way oppose anyone
saying anything. But saying something while
misrepresenting yourself as the party you are
attempting to criticize is cowardly and illegal.
Discussing the actions of Dow is one thing. Doing
so with a domain name and web site format intended
to deceive the viewer as to the source of the
material is quite another.
I happen to agree with you with regard to the
behavior of Dow, but giving the Dows of the world
more ammunition to shut down public participation by
clearly attemtpting to deceive the public is no way
to effectively protest it. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:well.... (Score:2)
by the
eric conspiracy (20178) <.moc.nosralhe.
.ta. .hsals.> on Wednesday January 01,
@03:52PM (#4994819)
|
I don't see any reason why mass murderers
should be allowed to hide behind something as
trivial as copyright laws to protect them from
having their actions brought to larger
attention.
In what regard are these mass
murderers? Certainly Dow had no involvement with or
ability to alter the circumstances involving Bhopal
befire the fact. And to be honest I really doubt
that there are any people that were involved with
the Bhopal incident still with UC at the time of its
acquisition by Dow.
If you are talking about
some form of corporate responsibility, well, yes.
Certainly the UC of 1984 was responsible for this
disaster. And they paid the price for it, both
financial and in the courts of public opinion. Dow
must continue to assume the liabilities associated
with this as a corporation because of their
acquisition of UC.
As for murder, I have my
doubts that it applies in this case. Murder involves
intent to kill somebody. Nobody has any evidence
that anyone at UC said 'let's kill off a bunch of
folks in India'. Calling this murder really shows
that you have no interest in presenting the facts
fairly.
|
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
Re:well.... (Score:1)
by Grax
(529699) on Wednesday January 01, @10:04PM (#4996468)
|
I am fully in favor to satire and parody but it
must be marked as such. Somewhere on the page it
should say "This is parody site. Not endorsed by Dow
Chemical Company"
Their site says "Copyright
The Dow Company". They've basically turned over
ownership of their parody to Dow and now they
deserve whatever Dow wants to do to them.
I
do not, however, approve of how the situation was
handled with respect to pulling the entire internet
connection. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
A link to a Register Article about the
issue. (Score:2, Informative)
by tres3 (594716)
<class5.pacbell@net> on
Wednesday January 01, @02:35PM (#4994476)
(http://lwn.net/ | Last Journal: Monday August
26, @10:51AM) |
| I tried to send this to the story gods at slashdot as an
amendment to my posting of this story. I guess that it didn't
get there in time or they chose not to amend my submission
(Although it was edited from the way I submitted it). Anyway
here is a link to The Register's article
[theregister.co.uk]. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Re:A link to a Register Article about
the issue. (Score:0)
by Anonymous
Coward on Wednesday January 01, @08:40PM (#4996202)
|
| Just one link in your comment? Did the link
shitting monster go to bed for the night? Jesus
Christ. Look at that fucking thing. There's so many
fucking links its impossible to tell just what the
fuck is going on. You get an F. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
greenpeace (Score:-1, Troll)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 01,
@02:41PM (#4994492)
|
| I was really into this article, until greenpeace was
mentioned. Buncha wackos. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
|
|
More Green Crap?? (Score:-1, Troll)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 01,
@03:01PM (#4994564)
|
Here its Jan 1st and we're already starting to drown in
more green crap. I'm really sick of hearing about
environmental news that is totally unfounded and I'm NOT going
to believe any green news let alone any news from a green
site. I thought everyone here was along my beliefs that
anything that comes from a tree hugger's mouth is
shit.
(Yes this is a intentional troll to make fun of
the browns here).
|
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Off Topic (right topic this time)
(Score:-1, Troll)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday
January 01, @03:03PM (#4994570)
|
| Thank-you Slashdot, I was losing faith. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Adam's Family (Score:1)
by
anarchima
(585853) <mailto:anarchima@hotmaiCHICAGOl.com%20minus%20city>
on Wednesday January 01, @03:05PM (#4994588)
(http://thewelkin.hey.nu/ |
Last Journal: Saturday
December 21, @06:45PM) |
| Yes, I thought "The Thing" was in reference to the Adam's
family (you know: dum, dum, dum! dum dum! dum dum
... No? Oh...). Of course then I read the article
and... |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Might as well go after Universal Pictures
too (Score:1)
by Powercntrl
(458442) on Wednesday January 01, @03:12PM (#4994626)
|
The movie Problem Child 2
[imdb.com] has a scene where LaWanda Dumore is going through
Junior's file which has most of his shenanigans from the first
movie and also reveals... He's the one resposible for the
Union Carbide plant explosion.
Of course, when you're a
movie studio, your right to parody is backed up by your high
priced lawyers.
|
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Is this guy Related to Hitler?
(Score:2)
by Newer Guy
(520108) on Wednesday January 01, @03:34PM (#4994734)
|
| "We are being portrayed as a heartless giant which
doesn't care about the 20,000 lives lost due to Bhopal over
the years," said Dow President and CEO Michael D. Parker. "But
this just isn't true. Many individuals within Dow feel
tremendous sorrow about the Bhopal disaster, and many
individuals within Dow would like the corporation to admit its
responsibility, so that the public can then decide on the best
course of action, as is appropriate in any democracy.
"Unfortunately, we have responsibilities to our shareholders
and our industry colleagues that make action on Bhopal
impossible. And being clear about this has been a very big
step." This Parker guy is truly evil. He has no conflict
whatsoever about what he's doing . He even admits it within
his comments. "Many others" might be outraged that Dow is
responsible for the deaths and suffering of thousands and
thousands of people, but not Mr. Parker! The fact then Dow is
(then) able to use the DMCA to cut off discussion of their
nightmarish deeds gives the perfect example of why this evil
law needs to be overturned.... NOW!!! |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
|
|
Dow complaint seems valid (Score:3,
Insightful)
by geekee (591277) on
Wednesday January 01, @03:51PM (#4994809)
|
| If anyone bothers to read the Dow complaint pdf, they'll
note that Dow is suing for trademark infringement, and for
sqatting on dow-chemical.com. I don't know what the law says
about using a companies trademarks in a parody, but I can see
where they'd have a case. Their website name claim is clearly
valid as well. If you're going to make a parody site, you
should do so within the law. I can see why their ISP dropped
them. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Re:Dow complaint seems valid
(Score:1)
by grishnav
(522003) <grishnav&croxnp,net>
on Wednesday January 01, @05:35PM (#4995359)
(http://croxnp.net/~grishnav)
|
| A lawful use of a trademark as a parody must
comment on or inform the original use of the mark by
the mark's owner. from
http://articles.corporate.findlaw.com/articles/fil
e/articles/dlo/dlo000012/title/Subject/topic/Intel
lectual%20Property%20Law_Trademark/filename/intell
ectualpropertylaw_1_237 They were commenting on the
actions of Down, and therefore, were legally using the
marks (just as long as the disclaimed it all
somewhere). Now, were they selling T-Shirts, or worse,
gases, no. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
|
|
This organization is getting sued, too
(Score:2)
by release7 (545012)
on Wednesday January 01, @04:41PM (#4995052)
|
| It ain't easy doing battle with the big boys.
This owners of this web site, http://www.slaverready.com/[slaverready.com]
is also getting sued. Not for the content of the site but
because the logo on the site supposedly infringes on Labor
Ready's logo. What a bunch of BS.
You may not be able to fight city hall but you can't fight
corporations without getting crushed. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Good. (Score:2)
by Chris Johnson
(580) on Wednesday January 01, @04:43PM (#4995068)
(http://www.ampcast.com/chrisj)
|
Let's see them thrown in jail with lots of publicity-
provided the WHOLE story is told.
In news today, terrorist group The Yes Men are
threatened with jail for impersonating representatives of
Dow Chemical. The Yes Men sent email and built a web site
parodying Dow's recent lawsuit against Bhopal
survivors.
The lawsuit was brought when 200 women
survivors of the Bhopal chemical disaster brought toxic
waste to Dow corporate offices in Bombay. The protest was
said to be peaceful and nonviolent. Under Indian law, Dow
inherits responsibility for criminal acts of Union Carbide,
which it acquired. The survivors have been in fruitless
negotiations with Dow headquarters in Mumbai for over a
year, in efforts to persuade the company to undertake
cleanup of the disaster site.
The disaster of almost 20
years ago left tonnes of toxic waste on the plant site,
which still remains and is leaching into the ground water of
the area. Union Carbide did not clean up the toxic waste,
though they did pay a settlement to the Indian government in
1989 that amounted to a few hundred dollars for each person
affected, injured or killed by the continuing disaster.
Health care costs for those living in the area with the
toxic waste have rapidly passed this figure. Dow has
expressed its regret and states that it cannot justify the
expense of a cleanup of the disaster site.
Back in the
US, the Yes Men are looking at jail sentences for their
activities- which largely consist of putting cruder words in
the mouths of Dow representatives to justify actions Dow is
actually taking. The lesson for all of us- it's not what you
say, it's how you say it!
Over to you, Binky...
And that's not a parody at
all...
:) |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Swept away (Score:2, Interesting)
by Forgotten
(225254) on Wednesday January 01, @04:53PM (#4995113)
|
| The amazing thing to me is that no mainstream media seems
to have picked up that astonishing, week-old "Dow sues
protestors" story. It doesn't seem to exist outside of indie
and activist sites. Guess that's not the sort of anniversary
they want to allude to this time of year? Another reason to
hate xmas, I suppose - it makes the media even more useless
than it usually is. |
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
Re:Swept away (Score:2)
by LostCluster
(625375) on Wednesday January 01, @11:33PM (#4996787)
|
Either that, or the other explanation that's been
floated around here.
Since only the indie and
activist sites are reporting it, is it just an urban
legend? I'd assume that the major networks would have
sent an intern to dig for any additional information
beyond these less-than-reliable websites. However, if
that intern came back with "Dow says they didn't file
such a lawsuit, and I can't seem to find anybody who
other than the activist sites you gave methat say
otherwise." I doubt the story would make it into a 30
minute newscast.
"Web rumor turns out to not
have any proof behind it" doesn't exactly make the
news. |
| [ Reply
to This | Parent
] |
| |
UNION CARBIDE, NOT DOW!!! (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 01,
@05:05PM (#4995193)
|
The Bhopal accident occurred at a Union Carbide
plant.
Dow Chemical bought Union Carbide two years ago.
DOW CHEMICAL HAS A GOOD SAFETY HISTORY AND WAS NOT INVOLVED IN
THE BHOPAL ACCIDENT.
Their current actions are
reprehensible, but Dow Chemical DID NOT kill anyone in Bhopal.
|
| [ Reply
to This ] |
|
|
|
|
| (1) | 2
(Slashdot Overload: CommentLimit 50)
| |
|
