Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Double confused (Score 1) 125

If I am understanding you correctly, it is legal in California to record visual evidence of a crime, but not audio of someone discussing willingness to do illegal things. This possibly answers my objection. If it's a protection against self-incrimination, I don't think I can object to it.

If 60 Minutes has made undercover videos in California that included audio recordings, and they were never prosecuted for it, then I have an objection again.

As for the rest of your comments, you seem a bit confused. The animals are not accused of anything; the secret videos were of humans doing things to animals, and those secret videos are apparently perfectly legal.

P.S. "Flamebait"? Seriously? Moderators, if you must mod me down just because you don't like what I wrote, the traditional one to use is "Overrated". I may be overrated but I'm neither trolling nor flamebaiting.

I really do think the law should be easy to understand and applied even-handedly. Justice should be blind, and people I hate should be treated the same as people I admire.

Comment Double standard (Score 1, Flamebait) 125

Undercover videos are apparently fine when they record evidence of animal abuse.

But an undercover video related to abortion gets a different standard.

I am foursquare opposed to double standards under the law. If Mercy for Animals isn't charged for surreptitious recording, then this verdict should be overturned.

P.S. The NPR article makes the claim that the video was misleadingly edited. If so, then sue those guys for slander; lying by misleading editing is still lying. Don't selectively enforce a recording law because you are actually upset about something else.

P.P.S. " allegation that has been investigated by more than a dozen states, none of which found evidence supporting Daleiden's claim." If we are going to hammer people with 15 felony charges for collecting evidence, I'm not surprised there's no evidence. Also, I'm always suspicious of claims like that... "don't evaluate their video evidence on its own merits, discount it because nobody else has similar evidence from other locations" makes no sense. Again, if the video really was misleadingly edited in a deceptive way, nail them for that.

Comment Re:Natural byproduct (Score 1) 125

I've usually found that *most* companies hedge a lot on their culture propaganda, to the point it which it is usually meaningless drivel. The downside is that since it is content-free, nobody cares and they doesn't do anything for them or the peasants.

When they put too much meaning into the culture propaganda, people tend to believe it and expect follow-through, which they seldom get because it's propaganda. This results in a poisoning of the well and a further loss of credibility.

Comment I was in the UK in December (Score 1) 490

My observations as an American:

1) When we had random conversations with people we met, they all asked me what I thought of Brexit. Regardless of what I told them (which was neither supportive nor critical), to a person they were all Brexit supporters.

2) The presence of immigrants was very apparent after arriving. The tube car from Heathrow was half Indian subcontinent or Arab, and the hotel (in Westminster, 3 blocks from Parliament) was staffed almost exclusively by Eastern Europeans.

My sense is that the immigrant population combined with economic stagnation of middle and lower classes has crossed some psychological tipping point for a lot of people. I think if the middle class was booming there would be a lot less support for Brexit.

Comment Re:My prediction (Score 1) 261

The ISPs are whores. They'll do anything for money. The ISPs, just like Pilate, will wash their hands of it to soothe their alleged conscience so they can sleep at night. Or more likely so that the law makers cannot come after the ISPs. "Hey, we were just selling data as the law allows. The law didn't specify that rich and/or self-important people were exempt."

Comment Re: My prediction (Score 0) 261

As an example, I would point out Marcus Bachmann, the husband of ex-senator and ex-human being Michele Bachmann. Just Google his name and look at Google Images. A few years ago when the Bachmann's gay-conversion therapy business was big news, a site gave Marcus Bachmann a lifetime subscription. (Yes, really, but I don't have a link to an article.) No word on whether he has ever taken advantage of their generous offer.

Comment Re:The gov is just trying to level the field (Score 4, Insightful) 261

I choose whether or not I give Google certain information. Google may be able to deduce personal details about my life. But my ISP should not be able to. I should be able to safely hide behind a screen name without my ISP guessing things about my life.

Slashdot Top Deals

Prototype designs always work. -- Don Vonada