First,
we don't actually know that Exxon complained to the ISP, because the
ISP did the takedown "in reaction to a complaint whose source they will
not identify." You can argue that it's likely to be Exxon, but the fact
is nobody knows.
Second, filing a complaint with an ISP is not the sort of action one implied by "Brute Squad".
Third, there was no hacking involved.
You
know, the only way to improve this headline would have been to name a
group other than the Yes Men as the ones who were cut off.
Yeah,
but if they didn't use such an inflammatory title, we wouldn't get 200+
posts (pageviews, baby!) of people bitching about the loss of free
speech, "only in America!", and due to the "climate change" part, we
get to have YET ANOTHER global warming thread on/.!
Really, it's gold all around for people who want to bitch about America/Bush/global warming.
I'm
more interested in naming and shaming the shit ISP who simply collapsed
after one threat. Their name isn't even in the summary (as of the time
of this posting). That should be the headline:
"Broadview Networks a bunch of pussies, shut down website after complaint made."
Or we could go with something less inflammatory (although with "Brute Squad" and "Hacks" in the title of this one...):
"Yes Men bash Exxon; Broadbiew Networks shut them down and refuse to reveal source of complaint."
Too long?
"Broadview Networks shut down YesMen after single mystery complaint."
Seriously -- headlines like this article's are not good for Slashdot. It's inflammatory, and it's stupid.
I
do believe that corporations in the US expect to be treated as a
"person" under national and international law. The problem with this
assumption is that if a person, even a head of state, murders 100
people, or even destroys massive property, such in the case Exxon
Valdez, that person can be significantly inconvenienced, while
corporation can evade punishment for ever. And if the corporation is
given the ultimate punishment, as in the case of Arthur Anderson, the
political reprecusions tend to much more significant than when the
equivalent human thug is punished by state sponsored killing.
On the other side of the argument there are persons who believe
corporations should have no rights at all. These people believe that
they can say the Microsoft sponsors the mass killing of anyone who
disagrees with them. This is ok a the accusation is so extreme that no
one would believe, so it is clearly satire. The problem, of course, is
where to draw the line. Is it ok to say that MS regularly sanctions
threats of any medium ranking figure who threatens their monopoly?
Where does satire end and stock manipulation begin?
Ultimately, I think we get into the nature of satire, and the
death of the art form. Traditional satire abstracts some tyranical
figure that is simply to dangerous to attack directly, and cleverly
illustrates the tyranny and negative impact of the figure. Or satire
highlights some social policy, and then proposes a ridiculous solution
to it. Satire is useless when launched at figures that can be attacked
directly or when is simply attributes characteristics that the figure
probably does not possess.
It saddens me that meaningless verbal attack is put forth as
satire. In this case the article could have proposed that ExxonMobile
convert the people into a product. Such a modest proposal would not be
original, but at least would be an attempt at satire, rather than just
the ranting of thugs. Or they could have attributed the action to
Butthole Petrol Incompentated(BPI), or EXpat Oil Nation MOBlized , or
whatever. Just make it interesting satire, not school house insults.
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday June 30, @09:27PM (#19702669)
So
you think Exxon didn't get punished for the Valdez accident? You're a
lying sack of shit. It cost them hundreds of millions of dollars in
direct costs, and billions (yes, with a "B") in indirect costs; thing
about the legislative changes that doubled the cost of production on
the north slope. And, by the way, wasn't the accident the fault of the
ship's captain, who's responsibility is the ship, crew and cargo? Yes,
he was accused of being an alcoholic. Guess what, in the US, you can't
fire someone for being accused of having a disease. That's the law. You
go shut up and play with your crayons.
I
think the point of the Yes Men's "performances" is to make the people
present realize that they can easily go over their own ethical
boundaries. Maybe they'll pay more attention to their own ethics after
that.
I do believe that corporations in the US expect to be treated as a "person" under national and international law.
You start your argument with a wrong assumption.
Corporations
(in the US and elsewhere) employ entire squads of lawyers whose sole
job it is to navigate the most profitable path through the jungle of
laws. That includes demanding to be treated as a "person" whenever it is profitable to do so, and on the other hand demanding to be treated as a purely legal entity whenever that is more profitable.
One day after the Yes Men made a joke announcement of ExxonMobil's plans to turn billions of climate-change victims (hypothetical, unlikely premise, original research)
into a brand-new fuel called Vivoleum, the Yes Men's upstream internet
service provider shut down Vivoleum.com and cut off the Yes Men's email
service, in reaction to a complaint whose source they will not
identify. 'Since parody is protected under US law, Exxon must think
that people seeing the site will think Vivoleum's a real Exxon product,
not just a parody,' said Yes Man Mike Bonanno (conjecture). Exxon's policies do already contribute to 150,000 climate-change related deaths each year,' (highly suspect claim, no evidence given to support) added Yes Man Andy Bichlbaum. 'So maybe it really is credible. What a resource!'
Do
you understand that satire only works if it's based on reality, and the
question at hand isn't the satire bit, but the invented numbers and
finger pointing without evidence bit?
One
day after the Yes Men made a joke announcement of ExxonMobil's plans to
turn billions of climate-change victims (hypothetical, unlikely
premise, original research) into a brand-new fuel called Vivoleum
Here
you attack the central concept of the satire, the outrageous claim that
ExxonMobil is planning to turn dead people into oil. That's not
"invented numbers" or "finger pointing without evidence", it is the satirical statement itself. You also seem to be having problems differentiating between Wikipedia and real life.
'Since
parody is protected under US law, Exxon must think that people seeing
the site will think Vivoleum's a real Exxon product, not just a
parody,' said Yes Man Mike Bonanno (conjecture).
This would be an example of irony. Did you really think that they really believed that ExxonMobil is trying yo shut them down because they accidentally stated the truth, as they are implying?
Exxon's
policies do already contribute to 150,000 climate-change related deaths
each year,' (highly suspect claim, no evidence given to support)
And
that's hyperbole. Considering that the previous statements are all
intentional lies as part of the satire, why do you think they would
suddenly be completely serious with this one?
We
all know most corporations are humorless. If the Yes Men parody had
been presented in the Monty Python form it would have been more
acceptable to a UK corporation.
Firstly,
if the ISP received a DMCA section 512 take down notice for the
content, they should give the customer the full details of that notice.
Secondly,
if they didn't receive a section 512 take down notice, they should have
asked for one (thats assuming that the ISP was told to take the content
down for copyright reasons, if it was for other reasons, there are
other procedures to be followed)
if it was for other reasons, there are other procedures to be followed
Really?
I was under the impression that in the US at least, ISPs aren't exactly
terribly well educated. The "procedure" could be "The 14-year-old on
the helpdesk fires up Windows Explorer and deletes the customer's home
directory".
I
sure hope they are better educated than this. An ISP is liable for
missing data in this situation if upon appeal through the court system
the individual who had his/her website taken down in this manner has
the decision reversed because it is not considered a valid take town.
And there are other additional legal consequences if the directory is
simply deleted. To disable the contents of the website is fine, but
that just starts a whole other set of legal framework to put the
content back up.
If ordered to do so, the ISP has to put the
information back up.... at least until the end of the service contract.
Free content ISPs have other rules, but take down/bringing back content
still applies.
If it is a business affair, or somehow tied to
donations, you can prove actual damages on top of any statutory damages
that may come up as well... and have to be paid by the ISP or the
individual/business who asked for the take down. Removing the content
places the financial responsibility squarely on the ISP, not the
company who asked for the take down notice. A CYA for an ISP would be
to at least back up the data before deleting it from the main servers
if that is done at all.
At the end of July, Thing.net will terminate its contract with Broadview and move its operations to Germany, where internet expression currently benefits from a friendlier legal climate than in the US,
I
think these people are in for a rude awakening. AFAIK, Germany doesn't
even have a parody exemption, and mere mention of a corporate trademark
on your web site can make you subject to large fines.
If you
want to get this kind of message out, don't introduce a single point of
failure (web hosting). Instead, make it funny, put it in the form of a
press release, make it easy to cut-and-paste, and people will be
mailing it around widely. Bonus points if you can get various news
wires to pick it up. If you need pictures, make them free of any
trademarks, potential copyright issues, or other obstacles and you can
host them on Flickr.
The
speed of the takedown has more to do with the power of lawyers than the
power of corporations. If the ISP wants to take advantage of the "CYA"
safe harbor afforded them by the DMCA and other similar laws, they have
to comply with takedown notices without delay.
If the notice came from a credible lawyer for an individual, it would still have to be honored.
From
the article: "Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics and his colleagues question whether polar bear populations
really are declining and if sea ice, on which the animals hunt, will
actually disappear as quickly as climate models predict" Climate change sceptics criticise polar bear science [newscientist.com]
The idea of turning people into fuel isn't that far-fetched at all. It was only last week that Syntroleum Corp [google.com] and Tyson Foods [google.com] announced a multi-million dollar deal to build a plant to turn animal fats into biodiesel ( CNN [cnn.com], WSJ [wsj.com]). There were not specific about the source of the "animal fats"...
Oh,
fuck all the politics. These guys are funny! I mean, from giving a
presentation to a food service industry convenstion about McDonald's
making their new hamburgers from the shit of their customers' to
this... Come on! It's FUNNY!!!
If you need to shout it's funny, it probably isn't so much.
I'd certainly call it funny if they produced the parody and uploaded
it, but they didn't. They tricked someone into fronting the expenses
for their stage and audience and did "performance art".
Not funny when it costs someone else's money. More like parasitism.
i
dont like the yes men either. i tend to agree with their positions, but
i feel like they ultimately hurt their cause because they wind up
looking like idiots and don't change any minds but just serve as
entertainment for the most die hard of leftists.
nevertheless,
their internet connection was turned off because exxon didnt like what
they were saying. it's kind of disconcerting. had this been any group
conservative, liberal or otherwise it is troubling that they can be
wiped off the face of the internet.
that's why it's news for nerds and why you're flamebait.
Ok
their internet connection was turned off at the request of unrevealed
people, without a criminal charge or notification. There isn't even an
attempt at establishing any kind of proper authority, just a command
from someone powerful enough to make it happen. That's far worse than
Exxon (or someone acting in Exxon's interests) being required to take
this act publicly.
So,
kind of like a MUD (toading), or IRC (kicking)... Somebody with
superuser privileges took a dislike to them. At least used to happen
all the time all over the internet. The difference is that now the
channel op isn't "one of us".
Yes, it's EXACTLY like that. Except for the part where everything you just said is completely fucking wrong.
In
absolutely no way is this like anything you just suggested. These guys
were paying for a service and had that service terminated for a reason
they won't disclose. Presumably, because Exxon contacted them regarding
it.
This issue involves free speech, trademark and parody at the very least.
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday June 30, @09:28PM (#19702677)
That's purely conjecture at this point.
"Broadview did restore both IPs on Wednesday, after the Vivoleum.com website was completely disabled and all mention of Exxon was removed from TheYesMen.org."
I
just love how the three UK terror attacks (well, two were *attempted*
attacks) have received ABSOLUTELY ZERO coverage on Slashdot, but this
small story is front-page news here.
I'm sure that if the two cars loaded with explosives would have had WiFi triggers rather than plain old cell phone triggers it would have shown up on/. Better yet, if those cars were full of Vivoleum instead of gasoline Exxon could have sent their Brute Squad after the bastards that planted those bombs.
Of course, it would be horribly ironic if they came forward and claimed they did it as retaliation against their ISP.
Just
wait... Someone will point out that if the bombing plots had just used
an iPhone then it would have been 10X easier to actually complete their
plan...
Better
yet, if those cars were full of Vivoleum instead of gasoline Exxon
could have sent their Brute Squad after the bastards that planted those
bombs.
It's very important to stop terrorism.
Anyone filling their car with gasoline is a potential criminal and should expect to be arrested.
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday June 30, @07:32PM (#19702369)
Those
stories are sufficiently covered in other Media. If you want to read
about those stories you can go there. Not all news stories need be
covered in all types of media.
Yeah/.
is especially fond of anything to do with evil MegaCorps or internet
censorship, but don't fret. The "MI5 threat level Critical" is nice and
high up on the Firehose. For whatever reason it didn't get submitted
until 6:30, so the surf at work crowd has missed it until tomorrow.
Perhaps there is little to say except, "Wow, that sucks. Glad the two
didn't explode." Nothing to debate or solve.
The War on
Terrorism is a bumpersticker, not because of a lack of very real
terrorists, but because the war being fought is only going to generate
more terrorists, and many of the Homeland Security measures are doing
more damage than the terrorists.
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday June 30, @11:14PM (#19703217)
Here's a better one.
Exxon grosses $360bn per year.
Their (world-wide record) profits are $36bn per year.
What retard thinks that oil companies make only 10% profit? A lemonade stand does better than that.
Exxon
is a vertically-integrated company. They pump, refine, and distribute
their own oil. If that yields only 10% profit, then screw the oil
business. I'm going into foodservice.
I
am a Brit, but I fail to see why news of the terror attacks is 'news
for nerds'. It is important but it is covered on many sites elsewhere
which cover the news from around the world. There is nothing
particularly 'technical' about these attacks. They have not resulted in
a single death and there appear to be as many casualties among those
perpetrating the crimes as those they were attacking (One of each at
the latest count. One attacker badly burned and in a critical
condition, and 1 innocent bystander treated for a leg injury). So, in
terms of 'stuff that matters' they are also probably not particularly
exciting to discuss in this forum. I am not saying that the attacks are
not significant, nor am I suggesting that they should not be discussed
in full, but simply not relevant here.
Nice headline, guys!
(Score:5, Insightful)(http://jargon-file.org/)
Second, filing a complaint with an ISP is not the sort of action one implied by "Brute Squad".
Third, there was no hacking involved.
You know, the only way to improve this headline would have been to name a group other than the Yes Men as the ones who were cut off.
Re:Nice headline, guys!
(Score:5, Insightful)(http://jargon-file.org/)
1) We know the Yes Men have previously masqueraded as ExxonMobil executives.
2) This takedown has generated additional publicity for the Yes Men.
Wouldn't it have been a master stroke by the Yes Men if they had faked their own ISP into taking them down by making the complaint themselves?
Re:Nice headline, guys!
(Score:2)(http://www.animal-assist.org/donate.html)
Re:Nice headline, guys!
(Score:2)Really, it's gold all around for people who want to bitch about America/Bush/global warming.
I'm more interested in naming and shaming the shit ISP who simply collapsed after one threat. Their name isn't even in the summary (as of the time of this posting). That should be the headline:
"Broadview Networks a bunch of pussies, shut down website after complaint made."
Or we could go with something less inflammatory (although with "Brute Squad" and "Hacks" in the title of this one...):
"Yes Men bash Exxon; Broadbiew Networks shut them down and refuse to reveal source of complaint."
Too long?
"Broadview Networks shut down YesMen after single mystery complaint."
Seriously -- headlines like this article's are not good for Slashdot. It's inflammatory, and it's stupid.
Re:Nice headline, guys!
(Score:2)(http://mattozan.net/)
I'm on the Brute Squad...
Re:Nice headline, guys!
(Score:2)(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Friday July 29, @01:12PM)
nature of satire
(Score:5, Interesting)(Last Journal: Thursday May 03, @12:34PM)
On the other side of the argument there are persons who believe corporations should have no rights at all. These people believe that they can say the Microsoft sponsors the mass killing of anyone who disagrees with them. This is ok a the accusation is so extreme that no one would believe, so it is clearly satire. The problem, of course, is where to draw the line. Is it ok to say that MS regularly sanctions threats of any medium ranking figure who threatens their monopoly? Where does satire end and stock manipulation begin?
Ultimately, I think we get into the nature of satire, and the death of the art form. Traditional satire abstracts some tyranical figure that is simply to dangerous to attack directly, and cleverly illustrates the tyranny and negative impact of the figure. Or satire highlights some social policy, and then proposes a ridiculous solution to it. Satire is useless when launched at figures that can be attacked directly or when is simply attributes characteristics that the figure probably does not possess.
It saddens me that meaningless verbal attack is put forth as satire. In this case the article could have proposed that ExxonMobile convert the people into a product. Such a modest proposal would not be original, but at least would be an attempt at satire, rather than just the ranting of thugs. Or they could have attributed the action to Butthole Petrol Incompentated(BPI), or EXpat Oil Nation MOBlized , or whatever. Just make it interesting satire, not school house insults.
Oh Wait...
(Score:2)(http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar | Last Journal: Friday February 23, @04:53AM)
How about Vivoleum(TM)?
--
Turning sunlight(TM) into a product: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Re:nature of satire
(Score:1, Informative)Re:nature of satire
(Score:2)Re:nature of satire
(Score:5, Insightful)(http://web.lemuria.org/)
Corporations (in the US and elsewhere) employ entire squads of lawyers whose sole job it is to navigate the most profitable path through the jungle of laws. That includes demanding to be treated as a "person" whenever it is profitable to do so, and on the other hand demanding to be treated as a purely legal entity whenever that is more profitable.
Why This isn't News, but Agitprop
(Score:1)Re:Why This isn't News, but Agitprop
(Score:1, Troll)(http://wakaba.c3.cx/)
Re:Why This isn't News, but Agitprop
(Score:1, Flamebait)Re:Why This isn't News, but Agitprop
(Score:2)(http://wakaba.c3.cx/)
Here you attack the central concept of the satire, the outrageous claim that ExxonMobil is planning to turn dead people into oil. That's not "invented numbers" or "finger pointing without evidence", it is the satirical statement itself. You also seem to be having problems differentiating between Wikipedia and real life.
'Since parody is protected under US law, Exxon must think that people seeing the site will think Vivoleum's a real Exxon product, not just a parody,' said Yes Man Mike Bonanno (conjecture).
This would be an example of irony. Did you really think that they really believed that ExxonMobil is trying yo shut them down because they accidentally stated the truth, as they are implying?
Exxon's policies do already contribute to 150,000 climate-change related deaths each year,' (highly suspect claim, no evidence given to support)
And that's hyperbole. Considering that the previous statements are all intentional lies as part of the satire, why do you think they would suddenly be completely serious with this one?
Re:Why This isn't News, but Agitprop
(Score:2)Re:Why This isn't News, but Agitprop
(Score:1)Did the ISP do the right thing
(Score:3, Interesting)Secondly, if they didn't receive a section 512 take down notice, they should have asked for one (thats assuming that the ISP was told to take the content down for copyright reasons, if it was for other reasons, there are other procedures to be followed)
Re:Did the ISP do the right thing
(Score:2)(http://www.whitepost.org.uk/)
Really? I was under the impression that in the US at least, ISPs aren't exactly terribly well educated. The "procedure" could be "The 14-year-old on the helpdesk fires up Windows Explorer and deletes the customer's home directory".
Re:Did the ISP do the right thing
(Score:2)(http://127.0.0.1/ | Last Journal: Saturday August 14, @12:21PM)
If ordered to do so, the ISP has to put the information back up.... at least until the end of the service contract. Free content ISPs have other rules, but take down/bringing back content still applies.
If it is a business affair, or somehow tied to donations, you can prove actual damages on top of any statutory damages that may come up as well... and have to be paid by the ISP or the individual/business who asked for the take down. Removing the content places the financial responsibility squarely on the ISP, not the company who asked for the take down notice. A CYA for an ISP would be to at least back up the data before deleting it from the main servers if that is done at all.
Maybe this had something to do with it...lol
(Score:1)(http://webhome.idirect.com/~kvollick/ | Last Journal: Sunday June 24, @04:02PM)
It is called contractual interference and it time
(Score:1)IANAL and therefore do not deserve to be shot, but here is the wikipedia entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interferenc
grass--greener
(Score:3, Informative)expression currently benefits from a friendlier legal climate than in the US,
I think these people are in for a rude awakening. AFAIK, Germany doesn't even have a parody exemption, and mere mention of a corporate trademark on your web site can make you subject to large fines.
If you want to get this kind of message out, don't introduce a single point of failure (web hosting). Instead, make it funny, put it in the form of a press release, make it easy to cut-and-paste, and people will be mailing it around widely. Bonus points if you can get various news wires to pick it up. If you need pictures, make them free of any trademarks, potential copyright issues, or other obstacles and you can host them on Flickr.
Who's their "upstream provider" ?
(Score:1)(http://www.mindonthenet.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday April 27, @08:47AM)
Just an example of the power of lawyers...
(Score:3, Informative)If the notice came from a credible lawyer for an individual, it would still have to be honored.
More anti-global warming funding from Exxon
(Score:1)(http://webhome.idirect.com/~kvollick/ | Last Journal: Sunday June 24, @04:02PM)
Maybe Vivloeum isn't that far-fetched
(Score:1)(http://www.luscombe-carter.com/)
Re:News For Nerds How??!!
(Score:2, Insightful)(http://www.daduh.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday April 26, @05:25PM)
Re:News For Nerds How??!!
(Score:3, Insightful)I'd certainly call it funny if they produced the parody and uploaded it, but they didn't. They tricked someone into fronting the expenses for their stage and audience and did "performance art".
Not funny when it costs someone else's money. More like parasitism.
Re:News For Nerds How??!!
(Score:5, Funny)See, that's the funny part.
Re:News For Nerds How??!!
(Score:1)because the retaliation was to disconnect them
(Score:5, Insightful)(http://slantdrilling.blogspot.com/)
nevertheless, their internet connection was turned off because exxon didnt like what they were saying. it's kind of disconcerting. had this been any group conservative, liberal or otherwise it is troubling that they can be wiped off the face of the internet.
that's why it's news for nerds and why you're flamebait.
Re:because the retaliation was to disconnect them
(Score:3, Insightful)That's purely conjecture at this point.
Re:because the retaliation was to disconnect them
(Score:5, Interesting)(Last Journal: Friday January 26, @01:35PM)
Re:because the retaliation was to disconnect them
(Score:3, Insightful)(http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/ | Last Journal: Wednesday June 13, @12:39PM)
Re:because the retaliation was to disconnect them
(Score:1)In absolutely no way is this like anything you just suggested. These guys were paying for a service and had that service terminated for a reason they won't disclose. Presumably, because Exxon contacted them regarding it.
This issue involves free speech, trademark and parody at the very least.
Re:because the retaliation was to disconnect them
(Score:2)Re:because the retaliation was to disconnect them
(Score:2)(Last Journal: Tuesday July 03, @03:57PM)
So the internet of the present == MUDs of the past?
Senator Ted Stevens, is that you?
Conjecture My Ass
(Score:5, Informative)"Broadview did restore both IPs on Wednesday, after the Vivoleum.com
website was completely disabled and all mention of Exxon was removed
from TheYesMen.org."
Mod Parent AC up
(Score:1)(http://swoolley.homeip.net/)
Why not provide information?
(Score:2)(http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar | Last Journal: Friday February 23, @04:53AM)
--
Convenient Solar Power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Re:because the retaliation was to disconnect them
(Score:2, Insightful)(http://www.bladenforce.com/)
Re:News For Nerds How??!!
(Score:2)(http://www.animal-assist.org/donate.html)
Of course, it would be horribly ironic if they came forward and claimed they did it as retaliation against their ISP.
Re:News For Nerds How??!!
(Score:1)(http://www.acousticdev.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday June 19, @08:35PM)
Re:News For Nerds How??!!
(Score:1)(Last Journal: Wednesday June 27, @10:37PM)
It's very important to stop terrorism.
Anyone filling their car with gasoline is a potential criminal and should expect to be arrested.
Re:News For Nerds How??!!
(Score:2, Funny)(Last Journal: Wednesday October 15, @06:16PM)
Re:News For Nerds How??!!
(Score:1, Insightful)Re:News For Nerds How??!!
(Score:2)Get this guy: "Exxon=no tech connection". I guess he's using solar power to run his WebTV. He must be so hi-tech he's running his Amigo on Brylcreem.
Re:News For Nerds How??!!
(Score:3, Funny)1. Wait about three weeks.
2. The terrorists used low tech non-functioning methods, and were noticeably inept. More of "your government at work" sort of stuff.
Re:News For Nerds How??!!
(Score:1)Are you ready for a drink from the Firehose?
(Score:2)(Last Journal: Friday January 26, @01:35PM)
The War on Terrorism is a bumpersticker, not because of a lack of very real terrorists, but because the war being fought is only going to generate more terrorists, and many of the Homeland Security measures are doing more damage than the terrorists.
Re:/. fooled by yes men
(Score:1, Interesting)Exxon grosses $360bn per year.
Their (world-wide record) profits are $36bn per year.
What retard thinks that oil companies make only 10% profit? A lemonade stand does better than that.
Exxon is a vertically-integrated company. They pump, refine, and distribute their own oil. If that yields only 10% profit, then screw the oil business. I'm going into foodservice.
Or: clever accounting.
I'll take 10%
(Score:2)(Last Journal: Tuesday November 01, @10:41AM)
Exxon grosses $360bn per year.
Their (world-wide record) profits are $36bn per year.
What retard thinks that oil companies make only 10% profit? A lemonade stand does better than that.
Exxon only has 80000 employees. 36bn/80000 =\ $450K per employee.
I suggest you, Mr. A.C., show me a 2-person lemonade stand keeping $1 Million per year as PROFITS (remember PROFIT, not GROSS).
Re:/. fooled by yes men
(Score:2)(http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar | Last Journal: Friday February 23, @04:53AM)
Re:News For Nerds How??!!
(Score:4, Insightful)(http://pietersz.co.uk/ | Last Journal: Wednesday May 04, @06:22AM)
These are my favourite type of terrorists: incompetent ones.
Re:News For Nerds How??!!
(Score:2)