Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

388 comments

Hmmm (4, Insightful)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813597)

After reading that article I get the feeling there will be a law passed about "model aircraft" using cameras soon.

Re:Hmmm (5, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813609)

Hey! Kids!

Bring a straw!

Re:Hmmm (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813633)

Only the government can use drones. For the "good" of the people.

Re:Hmmm (5, Informative)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813975)

Ummm...no, not exactly, at least not yet. The FAA allows the "amateur" use of drones, provided they are flown at no more than 400 feet above the ground (AGL), and if they are not used for any type of commercial activity. They are supposed to finalize rules for commercial use of drones in the National Airspace System some time this year, although I've heard rumors that the rules may be delayed a bit.

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813987)

Sarcasm.

Re:Hmmm (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814009)

That wasn't a UAV that just whooshed over your head...

Re:Hmmm (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814109)

a) whoosh
b) a response to a post about a hypothetical future.

Re:Hmmm (3, Funny)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814167)

That wasn't a joke going over my head...it was only an illegally operated amateur-operated drone!

Re:Hmmm (3, Insightful)

Potor (658520) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813637)

Restricted airspace above meatpacking plants and CAFOs?

I could see that coming.

Re:Hmmm (4, Interesting)

baldass_newbie (136609) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813651)

Bet you a nickel the police would need a warrant before such surveillance.
In fact, I kind of hope they do, public benefit notwithstanding.

Re:Hmmm (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813689)

Why should the police require a warrant for this? You do not own the sky over your land...

Re:Hmmm (4, Informative)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813789)

The general rule is if it can be observed from off your property it's fair game. No warrant needed.

Re:Hmmm (3, Interesting)

WorBlux (1751716) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813909)

Exactly and flowing water is public (state) property anyways.

Re:Hmmm (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813921)

There has been some haggling(largely unsuccessful; because what wouldn't we do to Win The War On Drugs?) about exactly how much specialized gear you are allowed to 'observe' with before it becomes surveillance in gross violation of reasonable expectations.

Thermal imaging has attracted a number of court cases: cops in vehicles or aircraft go hunting for anomalously high longwave IR emissions that suggest a building may be being used as a grow-op. It can certainly be argued that IR radiates away from your house just the same that visible light does; but it doesn't do so well under the 'what a member of the public might observe from the street' test.

I'm assuming that cheaper drones, fancy terahertz imaging technology, laser mics, and other sci-fi stuff will continue to nibble at the question of what standard, exactly, 'observation' constitutes... Is it "absolutely anything I infer without physical trespass" or does it have some relation to what the 'ordinary man' could be expected to notice?

Re:Hmmm (5, Informative)

mindcandy (1252124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814373)

The technical arguments are here (older case) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States [wikipedia.org]

At the time, the dissent was based on "through the wall" versus "off the wall". Heat (it was argued in the dissent) was "off the wall" insofar as it was passively emitted. Use of technologies that go "through the wall" (your aforementioned terahertz imaging, et.al.) would seem to run afoul even of the dissenting justices in the above case.

Plain view doctrine (5, Informative)

mindcandy (1252124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814343)

The Horton test applies here.

1. they would be lawfully present (it's a public waterway).
2. they lawfully accessed the evidence (saw it in plain view with the unaided eye**).
3. the incriminating nature was immediately apparent (river of blood).

** When it comes to fancy technology, the current precedent is Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) although it was a close (5-4) decision, the premise being the police used "technology not generally available to the public".

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814587)

Bet you a nickel the police would need a warrant before such surveillance.

IANAL, but I bet they don't.

The US courts have consistently ruled that you warrants aren't necessary to look for things that are publicly visible. For example, a cop can look through the windows of a car any time you're pulled over, but looking inside the trunk or under a seat requires a warrant. If you can see something from 1000 feet up in the air, I suspect most judges will agree that meets any reasonable definition of "publicly visible."

Re:Hmmm (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813669)

They can never get rid of the flies, though. What we need is better miniaturization so we can put cameras on flies. (Or better teleportation, so we can make flies that can carry cameras...)

The Fly? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813817)

Did you not see the Movie? Teleportation and Flies Never ends well!

Re:Hmmm (5, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813657)

It would fit a general trend... [nytimes.com]

General Trend (mod parent up, Informative) (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813903)

Thanks for that link. I'm not a "PETA-freak", by any stretch of the imagination, but as a photographer, and just as a citizen who believes in the 1st Amendment, those are some of the scariest links I've read since NDAA. I'm glad I don't live in any of the mentioned states, but I have certainly photographed farms without written permission (I have a fondness for pastoral scenes with hay bales). I'd gladly contribute to any effort to get these ridiculous laws thrown out as unconstitutional.

Re:General Trend (mod parent up, Informative) (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813995)

Honestly, even if you have no interest in animals, photography, or the First Amendment, those sorts of proposals should probably still make you nervous.

If the chaps who handle the most-likely-to-carry-cool-zoonotic-diseases part of your food supply are so proud of their processes that they want independently documenting them to be a felony, how good can you reasonably trust them to be?

Re:Hmmm (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814105)

All they need to do is classify any drone as "munition", then BATFA can have some fun.

Re:Hmmm (1)

dead_cthulhu (1928542) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814331)

Methinks I need to work on my reading skills. I was starting to wonder what British film awards had to do with any of this.

Re:Hmmm (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814583)

Actually, it's me who needs to work on my writing skills, since it should, of course, have been BATFE.

Re:Hmmm (1)

GPierce (123599) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814163)

I should have saved a link, but somewhere in the last month or so I recall a story that described how spying on factory farms had been defined in law as a form of terrorism. I didn't pay enough attention because lately everything is being redefined as some kind of terrorism. As I vaguely remember it, the offense involved trespassing on private property. Unfortunately you will have to check this out for yourselves if you are interested.

Re:Hmmm (3, Informative)

MechaStreisand (585905) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814297)

Perhaps this link [nytimes.com] is what you were thinking of (mentioned by another poster above you - credit goes to him).

Re:Hmmm (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814211)

On what planet is pig blood harmful to a river?

Re:Hmmm (1, Flamebait)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814245)

this one.

Re:Hmmm (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814669)

The same one where fish shitting in it is .... oh, wait.

somebody get slayer on the line, stat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813627)

they could go with a whole concept-record thing.

Is a UAV necessary? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813675)

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Columbia+Meat&hl=en&ll=32.751275,-96.787695&spn=0.001405,0.002068&sll=32.802955,-96.769923&sspn=0.47903,0.576782&vpsrc=6&t=h&z=19

Re:Is a UAV necessary? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813691)

Comparing the images you can't tell that it's blood in the Google Maps image, but in the image from the UAV, you can at least see that it's red. Red silt in that part of the country looks rather at odds with the geographic features there.

Re:Is a UAV necessary? (1)

BitwiseX (300405) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813793)

Comparing the images you can't tell that it's blood in the Google Maps image, but in the image from the UAV, you can at least see that it's red. Red silt in that part of the country looks rather at odds with the geographic features there.

I color calibrate my monitor with a Huey, and I'd say it does look maroon to me, but at any rate it very clear begins right in the middle of Columbia Packing's property.

Re:Is a UAV necessary? (5, Informative)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813923)

A better link: http://g.co/maps/8vdr9 [g.co]

No, you can't tell its blood, but you can see a color difference upstream vs downstream even in Google Maps.
The creek is generally green upstream, and dark ruddy brown below the plant.

If you zoom in closer on Google Earth you can see this color shift very well.: 32.749052 -96.789131
Also the historical imagery on Google Earth does not show this if you step back to 2009, when water levels were much higher
or 2008 when they were similarly low.

Re:Is a UAV necessary? (1)

3dr (169908) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813993)

The grove of trees behind the plant is where it appears to source from. The creek upstream (left) looks normal, and downstream of the trees looks bloodied. The Trinity river isn't far away, and at the mouth of the creek it is very red.

No UAV needed for this one. Had anyone looked in Google's imagery and known that location was a meat packing plant, the conclusion would be simple.

Re:Is a UAV necessary? (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814507)

Yep. Very simple indeed.

Re:Is a UAV necessary? (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814569)

If you follow the creek back a little ways towards the packing plant, just south of the power line there's a round something in the field near the trees where the creek turns dark, here [g.co] . It's pretty large (as wide as the truck that left the tire tracks around it)... I wonder what it could be? I looked around at the other fields near there but didn't see anything like that.

Re:Is a UAV necessary? (2)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814503)

Sorry, gotta call BS on that one. It's not the same color as the "red silt" that predominates in the area. I'm a local resident and I know that there's nothing that color in the soil or water normally to make it- that's friggin' blood or a chemical contaminant emanating from the packing plant.

Re:Is a UAV necessary? (1)

xaoslaad (590527) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813773)

Only in that it is what brought attention to it. Had someone realized it on Google Maps first, then it would have worked just as well...

Re:Is a UAV necessary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814359)

I guess it could be a good idea to check the surrounding of your local meat processing plant in google map to know if they don't have the same problem.

Go environment!!

Re:Is a UAV necessary? (2)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814559)

Yep, looking at the sat imagery...there's little doubt about it. What's more of an epic fail is that a State Rep's office is right across the street. Special.

Re:Is a UAV necessary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813931)

Of course! Otherwise people won't buy into the "importance of UAV's for the safety of our citizens" also "the importance of banning all non-government UAV for the privacy of our citizens".

Take a close look at the Google images... (4, Interesting)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814049)

In the GOOGLE MAP [google.com] where the creek joins the river, it's pretty obvious.

I'm wondering how this could have been going on for so long, long enough for Google to have images (so obviously it's not a one time or sporadic event) event, without anyone noticing, does no one boat up that river? Fish on it? No nearby land owners?

Odd...

Re:Is a UAV necessary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814087)

Obviously this is pure speculation, but the Google Maps view of the area seems to indicate the soil in the immediate vicinity of the plant has a definite reddish tone not visible in other nearby areas. Is it possible the abattoir waste is being washed into the septic field? Not quite sure what the appropriate disposal methods would be but this may be a case of a company being negligent and exceeding the capacity of their waste management system rather than dumping directly into the river. Although from the looks of it, it doesn't make much difference as far as the river is concerned.

Re:Is a UAV necessary? (1)

quantaman (517394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814243)

Looking at the google map it's not exactly an unpopulated area. There's a ballpark, a dam with a bridge not far downstream, and it's within a block of a sizable suburban development.

How was this not common knowledge? One would expect there to be kids swarming all over that creek (hopefully not swimming). I'd expect this was somewhat common knowledge in the community and nobody thought it was a problem, or thought to report it.

Re:Is a UAV necessary? (2)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814499)

Well, how about any of these reasons:

  • Most or at least a large majority work at the plant. Rat out your employer, lose your job...
  • People figured that the blood in the creek wasn't a problem, maybe even thought it was approved the by the appropriate regulating agency
  • People thought that that was a shame about the creek but don't trust/want the government nosing around

If libertarians had there way (0, Troll)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813685)

we would have no recourse.

Re:If libertarians had there way (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813707)

*their

Pollution is destruction of property, destruction of property is a civil or possibly criminal crime.

Re:If libertarians had there way (0)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813735)

*their

Pollution is destruction of property, destruction of property is a civil or possibly criminal crime.

Unless the owner of the property is the commons.

Re:If libertarians had there way (0)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813791)

If the property in question is privately owned (as all property should be) then there is no problem. The owner will sue the meat packing company. If the owner is everybody (i.e nobody) then people will treat it carelessly like almost all property was treated in former communist countries.

Re:If libertarians had there way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813945)

Privately owned rivers. That's a Super idea, Clark. Would that work for the oceans as well?

Re:If libertarians had there way (3, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814123)

Also the air.

Libertarian naivete would be cute if it weren't dangerous.

Re:If libertarians had there way (3, Interesting)

Miseph (979059) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813969)

So if everybody owns the land, we are enslaved, but if individuals own all the land we are not... right. Freedom is slavery, up is down, libertarianism isn't batshit insane stupidity. I'm not sure how I really feel about this little game.

Re:If libertarians had there way (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814115)

Since we are talking about environment, compare the amount of pollution (and for that matter individual liberty) in capitalist countries and in socialist countries. So yes, if land is privately owned there is more liberty than if the land is owned by the state.

Re:If libertarians had there way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814237)

Since we are talking about environment, compare the amount of pollution (and for that matter individual liberty) in capitalist countries and in socialist countries.

You mean like China compared to Sweden? Now I'm confused...can you provide any citations that show one ideological system pollutes more than another?

Re:If libertarians had there way (0)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814289)

Sweden is a capitalist country with privately owned companies and mostly free market economy (although an extensive welfare state, that btw it increasingly cannot afford, makes many uneducated people call it socialist). It is also relatively clean.

China, for the last 50 years or so has been a socialist country (as in public ownership of industry - the definition of socialism) and it is extremely polluted. Recently it is becoming somewhat more free market oriented although still almost all of the biggest companies and the the biggest polluters are publicly owned. So what is your point?

Re:If libertarians had there way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814517)

So what is your point?

LOL here's the point, Clark: are you or aren't you able to substantiate your dubious claim that one ideological system pollutes more than another? If you can't/won't, then you're probably one of those unfortunate folks who has elevated ideology to the same level as religious dogma.

Re:If libertarians had there way (1, Offtopic)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814547)

Oh please! China is about as communist as my left buttock, in fact other than a few hippie communes in the northwest in the 60s I don't think anyone has ever tried to have an actual communist state. What China was and to a point is, which was one of the reasons for the great Sino/Soviet split when the USSR divorced itself from his example was a variation on Stalinism, which is where a handful at the top live like Gods while the people do without. I know its hard after being pounded with propaganda to this very day (notice how anything the right doesn't like like healthcare for the poor is labeled 'socialist' like that is the same as kiddie fiddler?) but its easy enough to tell the difference as i sincerely doubt "the people' were asking for The Holodomor, the great purges, or to eat bark in NK while dear leader's fatass kid ate all the cookies. As for why China is so polluted its because they don't care how the worker's live (which again is the opposite of how Karl Marx designed communism) as long as they can roll around in cash while building up their military. it reminds me of old Joe and his 'five year plans" as by the end of those he had built some seriously pollution monsters, the only non Chinese city in the top 10 most polluted is an old Joe era chemical factory town in Russia.

As for TFA here is a perfect example of why the FDA and EPA need real teeth instead of letting the right gut what little regulations we have because its pretty obvious without the threat of millions in fines and a loss of their business most corps won't give a fuck about anything but the bottom line. of course the bitch is it never seems to fail that no matter how many times we think we've closed the loopholes the little bastards just get smarter, look at how many superfund sites we ended up stuck with because they set up some shell corp to take the fall. I'm seeing the same thing happen in my own state with the NG frakking and wildcatters as they've set up shell corps that rent everything from the tools to the office furniture to be the "face' company that just gets burned if bills pile up or they get hit with fines and then they can just start another shell corp, rent the gear again, and they are right back in business. We really need to make a law so these CxOs are held responsible for the damage their companies cause so they can't just 'pull an Enron' and walk away with the cash while we get stuck with the bills.

For a good example playing out now look how the airlines are gonna end up dumping their retirement accounts onto the US taxpayer while the CxOs bail with golden parachutes. they got to gamble with the funds and when things went pop they get to say "tough shit buh bye" and cash out, its completely fucked and rewards sociopaths and if we don't do something about it we'll have no choice but to become socialist because the majority of those with company run retirement accounts are libel to find nothing but a picture of the CEO snorting coke off some 19 year old hooker in their nest eggs they've worked their whole lives for.

Re:If libertarians had there way (3, Insightful)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814637)

Hmm. Bloody Libertarians, all "we the people" and "all praise to our founding fathers, their God guided hands, and their immaculate document." What'd we do with that document? We discovered that it dealt with damn near nothing of the problems the nation was and would face. So, we amended the hell out of it because it was anything but complete and still we had/have innumerable problems as society and its issues evolve. Our history--well before we established any kind of oversight--was fraught with a great deal of problems. Limiting thing to just water ways still includes and is certainly not limited to farmers damming up streams for irrigation to the detriment of their neighbors farther down. Mercury dumped without care into waterways for the extraction of gold. Manufacturing dumping whatever waste they saw fit into waterways to the point rivers actually caught ablaze. Septic systems amounting to little better than a pipe running from the house to the river (pond, lake, etc.). Collapse of fish populations due to pollution and over fishing. The list goes on...

Re:If libertarians had there way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813745)

No recourse... to what ? Hobbyists flying UAVs? Seeing the same things you could see from any manned aircraft? Reporting things they don't like to the police?

Call me a libertarian kook, if you must, but I can't see why you should have any "recourse" to any of these. They all seem perfectly normal.

Re:If libertarians had there way (5, Insightful)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813761)

To the extent that dumping blood into a river is harmful to others they are entitled to compensation. If you think libertarians are in favor of "liberty" to harm others, then your understanding of libertarianism is as bad as your spelling.

Re:If libertarians had there way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813821)

Why are you trying to ruin a perfectly good straw man argument? It's an election year. Logic and truth have nothing to do with it.

Re:If libertarians had there way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813869)

To the extent that dumping blood into a river is harmful to others they are entitled to compensation.

under what law? is there a law against merely being harmed? maybe if i owned the river i could sue over some arbitrary loss in the value of my property, but in that case i could sue almost anybody. shit, coal plants put mercury in my river! fuck them, i'm suing.

Re:If libertarians had there way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813927)

You can sue almost anybody now for almost anything. If you pick your battles well, then you'll win more often than you lose. This happens to be one of those cases where you are likely to win.

Re:If libertarians had there way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813899)

ya, if you don't view things the way this person does, it's YOU who the idiot is.

Re:If libertarians had there way (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813925)

Since each typical polluter only causes a tiny amount of damage to the environment, and therefore only a small amount of damage to each individual, the recourse of individual against the collective effect of all polluters (which is non-trivial, by the way) is massively limited. Unless of course the public were to organize to protect their rights. Maybe the organization could even hold elections for leaders that would (ostensibly) represent the interests of the constituents. What do libertarians have to say about such a collective organization of individuals?

Re:If libertarians had there way (5, Funny)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814137)

The organization would have to collect taxes! Theft! Socialism! Slavery!

Re:If libertarians had there way (2)

BetterSense (1398915) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814467)

Grandparent is being snide, but actually asks a legitimate question.

Parent mocks, but Libertarians would be perfectly fine with such an organization...as long as it was supported by voluntary contributions, by selling a product, or some other means besides taking money from people by force.

Re:If libertarians had there way (2)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814543)

Or by charging for a service such as contract enforcement through courts. Given that every transaction involves a contract that could be a fair amount of money, enough to finance a government as our constitution envisioned it, and it would not involve force - you would be free not to pay it, but your contract would not be enforceable in court. There are many other ways too.

Re:If libertarians had there way (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814411)

Ideally people who cause pollution would pay up compensation based on the amount of harm caused to each individual. That is just a fair guiding principle. It is true, as you say, that sometimes it is impractical to work out the exact amount of damages. Like with just about everything in law, some pragmatism is required.

The problem you mention comes up in tort law all the time. If you drop fireworks which then explode and startle an old lady a block away who stumbles into a ladder causing a worker to drop a can of paint onto somebody's head causing them a large hospital bill. Who should pay it? It is almost always complicated but the only answer is to figure out the general principles and do the best we can in each case. Libertarianism doesn't provide a clear cut answer to every question, but then neither does anything else.

Since tort law doesn't handle pollution problem perfectly, why do you think that a better answer is to pass regulation? Working out the details of that regulation will be just as complicated, and quite often can cause more harm than good. Who will write up the rules regulating each industry? Your elected representatives don't understand every industry and every type of pollution in every situation, not even one percent of it. In practice it is only the industry itself that has the knowledge to do so and what tends to happen is that regulation is written by the biggest players with most lobbying power in order to benefit themselves against competition, increase cost of entry etc.

Re:If libertarians had there way (1, Insightful)

Improv (2467) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814379)

Most libertarians I know think that business owners should be free to, say, only serve white people.

Re:If libertarians had there way (4, Informative)

trout007 (975317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814299)

Here is a great essay called, "Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution" by Murray Rothbard.
http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf [mises.org]

In the libertarian theory unused property comes into ownership through homesteading which basically mean you have to start using unused land. The same theory exists with air/water pollution, noise, and radio waves.

So if an airport is build far away from people it homesteads the right to make the noise associated with running an airport. Anyone that decided to move nearby has to accept that level of noise. If people still move in then the level of noise the airport makes cannot be increased say by landing a new jet that is louder than previous aircraft. This is because it is a nuisance to the other property owners. This is the same reason an airport couldn't be built in a populated area without violating peoples property rights.

If a coal plant is built in a remote area where it's exhaust cannot be detected by surrounding property owners they have gained a right to pollute that air. If someone moves into that area they do so with the knowledge that the coal plant pollutes there. But if people move in anyway they can't sue to stop the pollution. But they can sue if the plant increases the pollution.

The same with a river. If before anyone owned property downstream on the river a meat packing plant moved there and polluted the river they would have homesteaded the right to pollute that river. That isn't very likely. There were most likely owners of property on the river before any industry. Therefore anyone that polluted the river would be violating everyone downstream property rights and they could sue for damages.You can have a class action lawsuit by all plaintiffs against a single polluter.

In reality a libertarian system would have a much cleaner environment because anyone could sue for damages. The EPA exists to protect businesses from lawsuits. It sets a legal limit where companies can pollute to where they face no threat of lawsuit. Also they don't get sued for damages but are fined by the government which leaves the property owners that had their property damaged with no recourse.

Re:If libertarians had there way (5, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814661)

In reality a libertarian system would have a much cleaner environment because anyone could sue for damages. The EPA exists to protect businesses from lawsuits. It sets a legal limit where companies can pollute to where they face no threat of lawsuit. Also they don't get sued for damages but are fined by the government which leaves the property owners that had their property damaged with no recourse.

Right. Because I want to spend the rest of my life (and income) suing various and sundry large corporations or interests that want to pollute or otherwise disturb the environment surrounding my own property.

I like arguing with people, but not that much.

Google Skyview (1)

pgward (2086802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813701)

Remember how many people were caught "in the act" on Google Street View. Imagine Google Sky View! Every sunroof, every light well, every rooftop garden!

Re:Google Skyview (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814563)

Where's the 'Bad idea' mod?

Re:Google Skyview (1)

z0idberg (888892) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814597)

Can't tell if serious.....

maps.google.com ???

Not surprising (5, Interesting)

atari2600a (1892574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813731)

Most slaughterhouses in the US pay no attention to federal humane slaughtering & biohazard laws, what I find most surprising is they just *threw away* the wastewater-- that stuff makes perfect additive for fertilizer!

Re:Not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813907)

Mad cow. There is no way to fix that once it gets into the ground.

Re:Not surprising (1)

BluBrick (1924) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814223)

You can't make it into fertilizer, but it's acceptable to sluice it away down the creek for other animals to drink? Poor justification.

$10 says there's decapitated skeletons underwater (2)

Jmanamj (1077749) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813733)

Now someone needs to pilot a UAV into the home of the company's CEO to expose his life-prolonging Voodoo practices.

Re:$10 says there's decapitated skeletons underwat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813813)

I saw that X-Files episode [wikipedia.org] , too.

Big brother? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813741)

So spying on others is bad... But only if it's the government doing it. Got it.

What would be the libertarian solution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813779)

Lately I've fancied myself a libertarian but I'm struggling with how something like this would be addressed under a libertarian model. A libertarian would be supportive of personal liability (responsibility) but not of regulation. If there isn't a regulation preventing this sort of thing, then how would a company such as this be held liable?

Re:What would be the libertarian solution? (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813967)

Pretty sure there are regulations against polluting a stream. 1580 feet downstream of this is a navigable river.
So your huge philosophical troll-bait is moot.

Re:What would be the libertarian solution? (3, Interesting)

towermac (752159) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814091)

Don't hurt yourself too much. Pure libertarianism is about as viable as pure communism. Both have the laudable goal of freeing the common man from oppression.

I wonder if it isn't the common man's lot to always be oppressed to some extent; and money and power will always be worth, well, money and power.

Re:What would be the libertarian solution? (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814187)

A court system.

Those that are damaged sue.

Re:What would be the libertarian solution? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814233)

Under the Libertarian model, the harm done to others by this slaughterhouse will be instantly and automatically undone the moment it is recognized, mediated by completely impartial and omniscient courts and lawyers who cost nothing to hire. The slaughterhouse always has sufficient cash reserve (or at least dissolution value and insurance coverage) to compensate for all the damage it has ever caused, and the damage is always completely reversible, in direct defiance of various laws of physics and biology. Human nature is modified so that everyone recognizes their own responsibility instantly and does not try to evade it. Life is good.

Then you wake up and realize that Libertarianism is great in theory, but completely untenable in the real world.

Kids.... (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813851)

...get the charcoal and the rope swing. We's gonna have us a party.

Could be useful technology. (1)

erik umenhofer (782) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813895)

Can this technology notify me when it discovers Wonka's river of chocolate?

Re:Could be useful technology. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814055)

Can this technology notify me when it discovers Wonka's river of chocolate?

that's indoors, you'd need a warrant

A significant overreaction (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813929)

That creek is just flowing with the blood of their enemies.

It's really potent stuff. (4, Funny)

davidbrit2 (775091) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813961)

We made a toaster dance with it.

Whoa, whoa, WHOA... (2, Insightful)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813981)

Isn't this really something for the Free Market to decide? I mean, the Government and all its "rules" - talking about public "health" and "safety" - are just going to get in the way of the Job Creators at this Dallas meat packing plant... </sociopolitical-commentary>

This is a tragedy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813997)

Think of all the starving vampires!

Re:This is a tragedy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814079)

Think of all the starving hampires!

FTFY

Not surprising (3, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814037)

I can see how they can do this undetected for so long, the Trinity around Dallas is little better than an open sewer. It's nasty and smells really bad.

Columbia Packing CEO sez: (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814351)

That'll do, pig. That'll do.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...