Slashdot Mirror


PETA Is Not Happy That Google Used a Camel To Get a Desert "StreetView"

First time accepted submitter flopwich writes Google used a camel-mounted camera to get a 'street view' of a stretch of desert in the United Arab Emirates. PETA's director Ingrid E. Newkirk is upset about it, saying they should have used jeeps. "These days, jeeps are in common use in the desert, as are light planes and even dune buggies, and satellite images could also easily have been taken instead," she said. "(Google) should leave camels out of its activites altogether."

8 of 367 comments (clear)

  1. Hey, wait a minute... by exploder · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When did "News for nerds, stuff that matters" disappear from the Slashdot homepage?

    --
    Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
  2. The sliding scale of activist groups. by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Animal Abuse - Sure a no brainier.
    Fur Coats - I can see that we don't need Fur Coats anymore as there is a big selection of cheaper and effective other sources for coats. (Fur as in they need to kill the animal)
    Food from babies - Veal and Lamb. Tasty but the animal is so cute I loose my appetite when I think of it that way.
    Food meats - Sure people are happy being vegetarian. I tried it myself my body hated me for it. (I will need to add leather although it isn't food, but a product from the animal from the processing of the rest of the food)
    Anything made from animal - Wool, Egg, Milk products come to mind. Now we are going to the crazy zone. These animals although are in sub-human conditions are still much better off then if they were out in the wild fending for themselves. Efforts should be towards improving their conditions not stopping their usefulness.
    Pets and worker animals - These are like family to us, and are treated extremely well often much better then most people who care for them live. Pets like Dogs have evolved (threw breading) to really like being around humans and helping us out. To say the dogs should be wild is actually making go against their nature.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  3. Re:Sheesh, what's the problem? by scubamage · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Shhhhh! Don't ruin the head-in-the-clouds holier-than-thou bubble that they try to live in! That's like trying to tell a vegan that anywhere from tens to thousands (depending on which study you look at) of animals are killed per hectare in the commercial production of vegetables! Not to mention the native species that go extinct due to native vegetation being felled to make room for their kale smoothie ingredients. Tillers aren't too kind to field mice, worms, or bugs they encounter. But PETA (and vegans) only really give a damn about animals they find "cute."

  4. Fact Check Please!!! by halfdan+the+black · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is this even true? I did some goggling, and could not find *any* official or otherwise direct statement from PETA.

    In any case, I think PETA badly dilutes its message by frequently saying borderline ridiculous statements.

    No living being should be subject to the kinds of torture in medical tests, period!.

    That begin said, there is no problem with animals and humans cooperating. Camels carry a load, and in return they are fed and cared for. Whats wrong with that. Its called a *symbiotic* relationship in case you forgot sixth grade ecology. If farm animals are well cared for, and killed instantly for meat, well, I guess I'm sort of essentially OK with that.

  5. Re:PETA won't be happy until all animals are extin by macs4all · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services report on their investigation [huffingtonpost.com] found that 94% of the animals given to PETA for adoption were instead euthanized, 90% within one day.

    Are you kidding me, Barbara???

    Yow!!! As someone who still has nightmares about the two pets (dogs) I have had to have euthanized, one with Osteosarcoma at 17 years old in 2009, and the other with Cronic Renal Failure and Adrenal Gland Cancer at age 13 just last July, something like that makes me insane...

    At the risk of getting flamed for "Godwin-ing", I just thought they were a way-over-the-top animal protection group; not the ones who had the "Final Solution" to animal cruelty...

  6. Re:PETA Won't be Happy by sudon't · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They remind me of a certain person I know who, rather than give away a pair of cats she could no longer keep, had them euthanized. Her logic was along the lines of: No one could love them, or give them a better home than me, so they're better off dead.

    In terms of what they do with their funding, i.e., pay out very nice salaries, PETA is no different from other charities. The biggest beneficiaries of most charities are the executives of that charity.

    --
    -- sudon't

    Air-ride Equipped

  7. Re:And? by gman003 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Several of their "animal shelters" were closed because the government was going to force them to call themselves "euthanasia clinics" because they killed so many animals. PETA closed them rather than accept the more accurate name.

  8. Re:PETA won't be happy until all animals are extin by quantaman · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I was skeptical about the claim that PETA euthanizes so many animals, but studies say it's true, and may even understate the situation.

    The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services report on their investigation found that 94% of the animals given to PETA for adoption were instead euthanized, 90% within one day.

    This is not ethical treatment of animals. There's no "nuance" here. Putting the vast majority of healthy pets to death rather than trying to find homes for them is cruel and highly unusual.

    Of course, with $35 million in annual revenue, who can afford to take care of the animals, what with paying all the salaries for the people working for PETA to exploit them? PETA's job is to raise funds to pay PETA salaries. The animals are just raw material to be exploited, then tossed in a dumpster

    I'm not a fan of PETA by any stretch but I can't criticize them for this.

    I'm sure PETA would adopt out all of the animals they were given if there were enough people willing to adopt them. But the fact is there simply aren't that many people looking for pets, and the people who are looking generally don't want the kinds of pets who are given up for adoption.

    So given there's no one to adopt those animals what do you propose they do with them? Pets require a lot of food and care, you basically have a choice between storing them in conditions that are slightly expensive and really horrific, really expensive and somewhat pleasant, or cheaply euthanizing them. Given the fact that $35 million is completely insufficient to humanely care for that many animals what would you suggest they do instead?

    --
    I stole this Sig