Slashdot Mirror
Internet Hunting
cybergrunt69 writes "An enterprising Texan, John Underwood currently has a website that lets you target-practice online with a .22 caliber rifle, but will soon start offering "hunting" abilities. He recently built a platform for about $10,000USD to house this new system on his 300 acre properly, but the Parks and Wildlife department is now scrambling to find ways to try and stop him. While this may sound like cheating to some people, this may be a large benefit to hunters with disabilities."
While the concept (firing a weapon from your home computer) is interesting, I think it removes some of the challenge and "sportsmanship" of hunting. Hunting is already lopsided in favor of humans anyway (Scents designed to draw the animal closer, clothing to mask or remove human odors, calls, etc) the idea of making it almost effortless is disturbing. If you want to kill an animal do it with your own hands on a weapon, not on a mouse button.
Oh and as far as disabled hunters go Here is a rather general article about disabled hunters and the "sport" they love.
I hope you die painfully and alone.
I thought the entire excuse for hunting was for tradition and the sportsmanship. This completely removes both. This is purely idiotic.
So if you kill someone while on-line are you guilty? And how are they going to get you if you're in some far off country. This is a dangerous idea that could (most likely will) get way out of hand.
Underwood, 39, said he will offer animal hunting as soon as he gets a fast Internet connection to his remote ranch that will enable hunters to aim the rifle quickly at passing animals. I can imagine it now... accounting for tirgger lag when you're hunting online. This would probably just plain suck on 56K.
The first thing that I thought when I read this was that 8 year old kids are going to use their parents credit cards and kill hundreds of deer just like a video game. This has the potential to run unchecked, due to the anonymity of the internet... I don't like it.
-dshaw
This sounds like a pretty good idea, But what is the difference between hunting real deer and fake deer at this point?
Unless you are actually going to use what you shoot for a purpose, it has no real value to me. I think this is a great idea though, Next thing we can do is put these things in Iraq and shoot enemies this way...Oh wait, that would be to complicated for the governement to handle, we will just stick with deer.
Mark
so its cruelty if it takes no effort?
sorry but if you are killing animals (in a relatively humane way, thats debateable) then it is either cruelty. or it isnt.
pick one. who and how they are doing it is irrelevant.
drinking beer and firearms, always a good combo.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Actually, lag might be a good defense.
"There was a DEER on the screen when I shot. Only afterwards did it refresh and show a person."
I think both the guy running the site and the users who cause injury to people are going to end up in a heap of trouble over this.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
Yeah, because an armed populace would prevent a major world power from invading your land today.
Like Iraq for example.
You can't win a fight.
Say what!? Is this so the animal orphans can eat their own parents?
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
...that can only end in tears.
Possible scenarios that occured to me within first 30 seconds:
- Internet hunter shoots animal, some human goes out to retrieve it. Oooh, what will the next hunter that gets online fire a shot at?
- "something goes wrong" and the system becomes unreliable. Who's going to onsite to fix the thing, while it's playing up?
- it's all a big con, and when you think you're "hunting" you're actually watching a carefully prepared film
- parachute one of these things into Fallujah, then auction off rights to "The Real Deathmarch 2004, with added reality"
Anyone care to round out a top 10 list? I would, but I'm at work, about to walk into a meeting and wishing I had one of these with me right about now...
It's going to be possible for off site hunting accidents and off site manslaughter.
How about making it illegal to operate a weapon remotely for anything but military purposes? The further you remove a person from the carnage the more it seems like a game, and the less thought and respect for life you're likely to see.
There are real consequences to this hunting. Animals die. You wouldn't pilot an aircraft with real people in it by remote control via a flight sim or camera setup.
Sorry if my thoughts are a little scattered.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
- It has no sane rules to elect the president. Something like the electorial college made sense 200 years ago, but not now!
- It permitted slavery. Later on, it get "re-interpreted". Duh, what does that tell you!?
- With no proper institutions to safe you from the evil empire (the UK) or evil neighbors, handguns made sense. Things have changed...
- ...
So, looking at the constitution as a source of truth and wisdom is, frankly, bullshit.Apart from that: What sportsmanship (or honor) is there if a disabled person shoots animals like this? It's pathetic, and people engaging in this sort of activity for fun are just disgusting bastards.
Bad example, that one's not over yet.
I'm not intending to troll, but I don't get the lure of hunting at all. The animals stand no chance. The hardest part is finding something - after that, if you have reasonable aim, you will surely kill it. I think all hunters should have to fight the animals with hand-to-hand combat. Give the animal a chance to do some damage in return.
Oh, and hunters should have to always make use of the meat/hides/fur/whatever in some way. I mean if you're going to run around in the woods and pick off mostly defenseless animals with rifles, at least make some use of them, eh? Otherwise it's just a waste.
With this new system though, you don't even have to go out in the woods and find an animal. You just wait for one to appear on your monitor. And you don't have to have great aim, really... you just click. That's not hunting, it's pointless slaughter.
Yeah, because an armed populace would prevent a major world power from invading your land today.
Like Iraq for example.
An armed populace isn't there to stop an invasion. It's there to discourage one, by making occupation fiendishly expensive, and breaking the invader's will (and bankbook). The colonials were vastly outgunned by the British, and yet we won. Why? Because at a certain point, it wasn't worth it to the British to continue operations over such a long distance at that time. In Vietnam, the US was forced to pull out because the war had dragged on too long in the eyes of the US public, despite the fact that we had crushed a huge portion of the NVA. In Afghanistan, the Soviets conceded defeat at the hands of farmers and sheep/goat herders.
In each of these situations, the "insurgents" had outside aid - the colonials relied on the French, the Vietcong relied on the Chinese, the Afghanis relied on the US. However, the irregulars had to make up the core of the fighting force, and for that, you have to have individuals with arms, and the experience to use them.
The United States is in an interesting state. We have an all-volunteer military (Coast Guard, Navy, Marines, Army, Air Force), as opposed to some nations in Europe and Asia, that have conscript armies with required military service. The idea behind subjecting every male to compulsory military service is to create a pool of able-bodied cannon fodder that you can equip and arm in the event of war, with a minimum of training (since, theoretically, they've all gone through basic.) In many other countries, the United States included, we rely on volunteers to make up our military forces (including the Reserves and the National Guard), and subsequent to regular service, the Individual Ready Reserves (made up of veterans) to call up in time of need.
You notice that in either case, the government needs to expend taxpayer money to train and equip its soldiers. If you acknowledge the Second Amendment as an individual, rather than a collective right, you can allow individual citizens to train and equip themselves, in the comfort of their own communities, without having to spend a single dime of taxpayer money (although government sponsored programs such as the Civilian Marksmanship Program sure do help to encourage individual firearms ownership.)
It's hard to believe that Miller has become some sort of precedent when one party wasn't able to present arguments to the court. One side argued, and the case was decided -- predictably -- based on the arguments of that one side. It's weak.
The "absence of any evidence" wasn't because the opposition could not bring arguments to bear, but because there was no opposition to point out that in fact shotguns with barrels shorter than 18 inches were in fact employed as military arms in both WWI and WWII. Clearing fortifications with a shortened shotgun is far easier than using a longer arm. Unfortunately, no one was present to provide this insight. So while the opinion of the court may be factually accurate, it only relates to evidence presented by the parties present (one side), not the evidence that could be presented. That's the way court procedure works, and while the decision is correct in terms of the evidence at trial, it's a really bad precedent to cite since the court never considered competing arguments from both sides beyond the initial briefs.
Another point is that "well regulated" (as in 'a well regulated militia') had a different meaning in the time the amendment was drafted than we might understand it to be now. In those days, "well regulated" was a reference to how proficient the unit was and what level of discipline was evident in the military formation. Even today, giving a firearm to a gunsmith "for regulation" refers to ensuring that the firearm operates correctly and that the parts conform to the mechanical specifications of the firearm's design. To assign "well regulated" a meaning that involves the application of laws and executive policy is to entirely misunderstand the intent and in fact the actual word of the amendment as it was understood at the time of it's drafting.
Having said all that, this idea of remotely shooting game via the internet is ludicrous.
Now what would be really cool is if you did this at a paintball range and had these things in trees firing at players (with paint of course.
While we're at it, how about a random paintball-webcam just set up somewhere? People come online, see someone walk by on the cam, and fire the paintball gun at whatever poor soul happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or make a game of it: people try to run across a range of these things to win a t-shirt.
this is my sig
Most of the disabled guys I know have very little problem getting laid (or finding long-term mates); I'm a disabled woman and I certainly haven't found it a problem... Considering this is a site full of *non-disabled* guys that can't manage to get laid, I rather think legalizing prositution would be far more to your advantage than theirs.
Not the case. Hunter-gatherer societies were small enough that they could manage to be fairly protective of the rare people that were disabled, whether they were born that way (rare) or injured. Just because somebody becomes disabled doesn't mean their family or friends stop caring about them.
From Dictionary.com:
regulate As with many things in a document more than 200 years old, the language and choice of vocabulary is subject to interpretation, and those interpretations subject to debate.
Some claim that "well-regulated" refers to the maintaince of a organized milita, subject to government purview, in absence of a standing army (ie, regulated by the government.) Others put forward the interpretation that "well-regulated" refers to a militia that just well trained, as to obviate the need for a standing army and the power that it would confer (in terms of the power of force, and the power of taxation to support such a standing army) to any municipal, state, or (this would be in the future) federal government.
Obviously, in today's America, with its all-volunteer standing military, and the federal income tax (which has only been in effect for about 91 years out of the 228 years that this republic has been in existence, and was originally levied only on the very richest of rich), the power has most definitely shifted to a federal government that did not exist at the time that this country was founded.
I think many people are waking up to the fact that entrusting any one centralized entity with so much power is a very, very, very bad idea - precisely the lesson that the founders of the United States attempted to lay down in the way that they wrote our constitution, and structured our government. That this much power attracts those who would seek to bend that power to their ends, as we can see from all of the special interests who shop their bills around Congress, and the politicking from both parties to maintain the power they have (by gerrymandering their congressional districts to create "safe seats", for example.)
It has been clear for some time that not every type of armament is illegal. Nuclear weapons, to cite an extreme example, are not.
I think you meant the following:
It has been clear for some time that not every type of armament is legal. Nuclear weapons, to cite an extreme example, are not.
To quote Dictionary.com:
Disabled (Adjective).
Second definition:
Impaired, as in physical functioning: a disabled veteran; disabled children.
I'd call sex a physical function, and I'd call geeks impaired in their ability to get some sex. Due to means that are usually beyond the control of said geeks.
Learn something new.
It also doesn't mean they stop being valuable to the group -- they may not be able to walk well (say), but they could still know the best way to bring down some large animal, or where the best trap-lines were, etc. It may be very much in the self-interest of the group to carry a "disabled" person.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
I have no problem with hunting, nor killing animals (mmmm... lamb!) but this guy's idea is just plain idiotic.
It's not a good idea because it poses a significant, and unusual, risk to human life and on top of that, it is going to remove the level of immediacy that is required to allocate legal responsibility for an action (i.e. shooting a gun) with a person (Joe Sixpack).
What if someone is out in the range adjusting some equipment, and the thing that was supposed to disconnect the Internet death trigger malfunctioned... I mean, is he planning on using an OS that is authorized for mission critical / life supporting systems? That won't be Windows or Linux, as you probably know.
The idea is just flawed. We as Engineers go to a lot of trouble to make systems that are safe for humans. This system poses unnecessary and probably significant risk to humans.
I think it's just the 'grown up' version of pulling the wings off flies; an indulgence of the barbaric side of human nature. I appreciate that you see some kind of spiritual side to it, but the majority of hunters I encounter seem to be pissed idiots, blasting away at roadsigns and leaving beer cans and rubbish everywhere.
If people want to have a spiritual experience or a team building exercise there are numerous civilised alternatives. If people want to understand where their meat comes from, they should tour some factory farms and industrial slaughterhouses. If people want to know their place in the food chain, they should compare their teeth and nails to those of a lion. If people want to honour animals, they should leave them alive rather than spuriously 'thinning out their numbers', South Park style.
And yes, I grew up on a farm and have killed things and eaten them. But I was young and stupid then.
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling
I hope someone does write an aimbot.
Part of responsible, real-life hunting is taking responsibility for your crappy shots. If you wound an animal but don't fell it, you need to track it down and put it out of its misery. Period.
What happens when John Q. Callous hits his target in a slow death spot from a thousand miles away? Who's going to make sure that the animal doesn't crawl into a hole and suffer for hours until it dies?
Me personally, I'm crap with a gun even if I've had hours to practice with it. How many n00b fools are going to try this with neither the means nor the inclination to make a humane kill?
John Hancock wuz here.
I concur. In my experience I've spoken to women about this and their biggest complaint? Getting too much attention from men they don't like.
All the time in my head I'm thinking... "But... you just have to not say 'no' and you get laid..."
They just don't understand our pain.
1. Hordes of eager would-be Internet hunters sign up for service.
2. Site gets used for about a week.
3. All the animals leave because they figure out pretty quickly that going into a certain area next to the strange man's house = death.
4. No more animals = no more subscriptions = no more funding. Site goes bust and the guy finds himself a new career.
Check back a month after he switches from target-practice to live-prey. I predict the site will be out of business by then, unless the guy decides to start stocking his back yard with prey.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized!
> Yes, because as we all know, US militias during the American Revolution used such useful and noble tactics as kidnapping aid workers,
It has been established that this is done by outsiders eg. the mythical "Al-Zarqawi" group and not by the general poplace.
> storming hospitals,
Didn't the US storm one hospital and flatten the other in Fallujah recently? They have also bombed other hospitals throughout Iraq.
>and detonating bombs to kill their FELLOW citizens.
Again, this is outsider terrorists. Think about who actually benefits from it? The only legitimate militia are the Iraqis themselves attacking the invader soldiers.
RebateFX.com - Spread rebates for Forex traders
But I guess we're taking it seriously.
Luring, or waiting for, animals to walk in front of a camera so you can shoot them by remote control isn't hunting. It's executing animals for fun, and it shouldn't be any more legal than someone drowning cats to get their jollies off.
demi
Disability comes as a result of being impaired. Whilst it is true that when speaking of disabled persons most people think about physical/mental impairments these are not the only kinds of impairments that can exist.
I for one am socially impaired.
I do go to a shrink and do all effort to get better and I can assure you it is a 'painful' and difficult process. The real problem with my life as a socially impaired person is that people fail to recognize my abilities and capabilties... they only see my DISABILITY.
So, even though I don't move around in a wheelchair and talk through a voice sythesizer I am still disabled in today's society. As a rule of thumb, if you're not considered normal you're disabled in one way or another.
[And yes, I have mucho problems getting close to anybody and never managed to find a long term mate because of my strange character. Please note that I did not choose my character by any deliberate decision; it's a result of a lot of factors that are/were beyond of my control]
- "They misunderestimated me."
nuff said
"Capital punishment makes the state into a murderer. Imprisonment makes the state into a gay dungeon-master"
Luckily it takes a lot less to make a paper target bleed to death.
But even if they used a much larger rifle for hunting actual animals, I still don't see this doing well.
It's common that you actually have to track the deer after you shoot it, even with a good hunting rifle like a 7mm magnum and getting it straight through the chest, the deer can get up and hop away. Then you have to follow blood splotches and bone chunks until you find your deer.
Besides, this doesn't sound very sportsman-like. Might as well go play duck-hunt and buy yourself some meat at the butcher.
A lot of people claim that nothing dies to feed them, but that's almost never actually the case.
Do you eat cheese? Hopefully it's certified Kosher, or from a company like Cabot that explicitly states no animal products are used. Otherwise, it's likely to contain renet (calf stomach lining).
Do you eat wheat? Wheat harvesting machines kill hundreds of small animals in the process. Saying you're not killing them on purpose is a rather bad place from which to argue.
Do you eat any of those "alternate" products: fake meat, soy milk, etc.? Many of those are actually tied to large meat packers. You may not be directly consuming meat, but you're funding it.
You may consider it a noble goal to attempt to reduce your impact on the animal kingdom, and I'll support you in that. But it's usually dangerous to speak in terms of absolutes.
Hunting, as a sport, emphasizes aspects which put food on the table for our ancestors. It's not simply about putting a jacketed slug into an animal, its about excercising patience, the stalk, the outdoors, about becoming one with your environment. What passes for hunting nowadays is already a travesty, what with laser range finders and designaters, infrared high power scopes, pheremone enhanced scents, and prerecorded broadcast noises designed to attract rutting deer. We (the hunting community) have lost respect for the animal as a clever prey worthy of our effort, and have turned it into a glorified bloodsport with a billion dollar a year industry convincing us they need their product to get that edge.
So don't get upset over this moron and his robo-hunter. Its just one more turn.
(Real hunters use iron sites. Hardcore hunters use a bow and arrow. Real men hunt with giant fucking knifes and sharpened sticks.)
Wait just a minute! If you don't have a good view of the target (deer/sheep/tin can/whatever) then you have ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS TAKING THE SHOT!
That's how hunting accidents happen.
If I can't clearly see it, it ain't getting shot at. Otherwise I could shoot cousin Earl or some dumbass wandering around in our woods. Also, if you can't see it, you may shoot a doe with a fawn, which is a no-no, least 'round here.
Damn, people, think about this shit! Hopefully you were just spouting off, but anytime you pick up a firearm you have got to be careful.
Let's recap the rules for safe gun handling, shall we?
1) All guns are always loaded!
2) Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy!
3) Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target!
4) Always be sure of your target!
(Sometimes they're phrased differently, but the content is essentially the same)
-gandalf23@work