Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Lets try logic (Score 1) 590

by VocationalZero (#43838217) Attached to: PETA Wants To Sue Anonymous HuffPo Commenters
If PETA suddenly started getting more share of the pet adoption market, the net survival rate of non-PETA shelters would drop accordingly. Pet adoption demand has been easily met every year, so your point is pretty much moot. PETA itself claims it does not see euthanasia as a means of population control, but as a last resort for animals suffering painful, terminal conditions (supposedly).

I would be more comfortable with the shelters spaying / neutering wild pets in a catch and release type of program, but this method is more expensive than putting them to sleep, and the net suffering (due to the typically brutal lives that wild pets usually endure fighting disease and competing for territory and food) would actually decrease slower per dollar invested, in theory. I'd love to see some data on this, but I've been unable to find any studies that try to approach this from a purely pragmatic angle.

On the topic of euthanasia as a means of population control, is there a point at which killing one animal so another animal will suffer less worth it if the net suffering relieved is great enough, or is allowing both animals to suffer always the better choice? Is a live of misery still worth living? I still have no idea

Comment: Re:No harm done (Score 1) 630

by VocationalZero (#42418037) Attached to: Drawings of Weapons Led To New Jersey Student's Arrest
An armed guard is a good idea, but it may be cost prohibitive. The guards themselves would also be another potential point of failure.

Most shootings happen at close distances, so it would fallow that non-lethal weaponry such as tazers (with projectiles) could be effective in many scenarios. The issuance of non-lethal weaponry to staff with a breif, possibly one-time training session would have a real shot at lowering classroom shooting fatalities.

It may still seem to be cost prohibitive, but how would it compare to the proposed $200M gun buyback program? Another issue could be that like with guns, the weapon could be used against the employee. However, trading potential deaths for potential injuries sounds like a win to me.

When you don't know what to do, walk fast and look worried.