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.
it'd beat the crap out of those stupid webgames I see everyone play at work. Or the low capatability NESCafe
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
In the days of true hunting, hunters with disabilities became the prey.
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.
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.
First robots with shotguns, now cyberednecks!
sigs, as if you care.
Sweet.. I want to be the first to get a kiltacular!!
This will never work.. the tree huggers will never allow it.. plus the whole idea is kinda stupid..
And today has been worse then most days.
On eBay a slice of cheese on toast. And now Internet Hunting? What next?
Wow, I should not post when knackered.
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
An attendant will pick up the shot animals!!!
WTF?
Who wants that job?
At the golf driving range we all target the ball-retriever machines/attendants when they go to get the balls... and , hey this is Texas we are talking about!
Shoot the rabbit and WIN AN IPOD!!!
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
What we NEED is a robot on a Segway (for terrain adaptation and minimal field footprint) that's noise-dampened, carrying a shotgun, with a sensor that won't allow it to shoot outside a given radius.
::Shht:: Counterhunters Win.
Why all this, you ask? So we can CIRCLE STRAFE those freaking animals over the internet~!
(Deer proceeds to knock over robot mid-hunt, rendering it useless)
Walkie Talkie Voice :
Why not run a simulation and let the clod think it's real?
rj
We've Slashdotted even the strangest of hardware, but I think a gun will be a new challenge for us.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
I'd like to see one of these in the food court of a mall, with a zoom feature and tanquilizer darts. I'd pay well over $20 if they mailed me a DVD compiling the video of me aiming, zooming, firing, and the associated reactions.
We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Back to you with the weather, Bob!
yeah.. and why the hell NOT just simulate this? with simulation you get all kinds of benefits.. like fighting against real people or wtf gives you the kicks.
help hunters with disabilities? sorry but if you can't get out into the forest with your hunting group.. well, you're already missing out on the whole point of hunting then and would be better off buying a copy of deer hunter.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I don't think the "he was a camper" defense would stand up in court.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
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
Yahoo has the story, too. They include a link to the website: live-shot.com.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
In a real world situation where we would still need to hunt.. wouldn't a disabled hunter.. be helped by other able hunters, if he/she is alone.. then they umm just die ? survival of the fittest and all ?
Or is hunting today still being done for survival of the village/town ?
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.
Here.
So, now people with disabilities can shoot at animals and thereby give them disabilities?
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
I think this really makes one thing clear, Texans like guns a whole lot.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
What if the platform that the camera is on tips over? Won't this large moving apparatus scare away any game? An automated rifle could shoot any animals, but whats to stop it from shooting the rancher? There will be so many carcasses, lol.
Though this is an interesting idea, there are many obstacles. The camera would have to have extremely good resolution in order to see an animal that is more than a few feet away. The camera and gun would have to be sighted quite well. Also, who would track the animal down, and do the dirty work? Who would reload the gun? This simply has too many problems to be effective. Also, part of hunting is being outside in the fresh air. Staring at a computer screen would not give nearly the same effect, especially if the camera is low resolution. If you want to kill animals from a computer, play a deer hunting computer game.
http://www.live-shot.com/
good job researching the story
I liked the part in the essay when they say:
"We were looking at a beautiful white-tail buck and my friend said 'If you just had a gun for that.' A little light bulb went off in my head"
Who says that? I'm no tree hugger, but I have never in my life seen a deer on a webcam, turned to my friend, and commented on how much I'd like to kill it. BTW, before you start screaming at me, realize that I am a due paying member of the NRA.
So does a St. Bernard pop his head out of the bush and giggle at you when you miss three shots?
Far out...
All men aren't pigs... we just smell that way.
I'm interested in the possibility of a competition writing programs that would do the hunting for you.
Think of it - who can do the best open source cybernetic sniper program? Remember those neat antipersonnel guns in Aliens?
Shhhh!
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Live Shot
Here's a link to the site. This is probably a bad idea, but I want gun toting robots for myself, so who am I to judge.
Let the Blue Screen of Death jokes begin!
Got mead?
Did it happen?
You clicked the button, you saw the shot, the deer appeared to fall, but did anything really happen. Does it even matter if it did? You can't use the kill for anything, there's no touch, no true surge of adrenaline from satisfying some primal urge.
I've been waiting for this (specifically a gun controlled from the net) because it won't be long before anything else that can be conveyed via telepresence will fall into place. This is going to lead to a huge bevy of essays on reality and the human experience, kick ass.
--- I do not moderate.
Can someone provide a link to his target practice page?
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
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.
I can't wait till some hacker manages first to bypass whatever safety mechanisms he includes and then to point the gun at his house, cronning a random couple of shots in the vicinity each minute. He'll never be able to leave the house again. Heheh
Servlet v2.4 container in a single 161KB jar file ? Try Winstone
Next up, the US Army will create a website that will let people control mobile gun platforms on the battlefield, except no one will realize the truth and we'll all think that it's just a free computer game. oh wait...
Next you'll be telling us that sex isn't as much fun if you pay for it.
paintball
While I hope that no one gets shot from this hare-brained :) scheme, I do suspect his eternal seat is in the smoking section.
Disclaimer: I'm a member of the Religious Right, lover of geeky technology, of guns, and especially of red meat cooked over an open fire.
sigs, as if you care.
I have a friend who is disabled and wheelchair bound. He took me out to a gun range for my first time last Saturday.
This is so patronizing to people who have disabilities that I cannot imagine how much this would piss him off. People with disabilities don't need this kind of help to go hunting; they can do just fine on their own.
Any REAL hunter, too, would be pissed off by this. This isn't hunting, this is akin to shooting fish in a barrel. All you're doing is waiting for an animal to pass in front of the camera. Christ, I am so disgusted by this.
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
I know I'll be bashed like hell for this but I can't help refrain myself.
Hunting, unless for food (and I mean survival here), is coward and stupid. The hunter must feels very macho shooting a deer with a rifle. What about go hunt a grizly bear bare handed?
Using the web to "hunt" is a even lower blow. You can be not only a coward but an anonymous one.
Scientia est Potentia
...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...
An advanced society makes accomodations for its disabled members, which is why prostitution should be legalized immediately.
paintball
Building on this idea, I hereby patent the remote control internet drive-by.
But I wouldn't call it cruelty. It's still shooting wild animals, which is a damn sight better for the animal than living in a factory farm and being "harvested" with a hammer.
I'm certain that the carcass will not be tossed out either. So why is this so bad?
While this may sound like cheating to some people, this may be a large benefit to hunters with disabilities.
I don't agree with this statement at all. Just because the "disabled" want to do something, doesn't mean that it has to be made able for the disabled to do. I would love to be the target of attraction for many chicks on campus (like your average slashdotter), but for some reasons (like your average slashdotter), I won't be. C'est la vie, that is my lot in life. Also, just because it would give the disabled some sort of perceived benefit, does not necessarily gives it merit. It's sort of like saying "It's for the children", when trying to argue the inherent good of something.the website www.live-shot.com
From the "how it works" page:
LIVE-SHOT is similar to a trip to the rifle range with one very notable exception. Everything is done through a computer and the internet. A paid membership will allow for access to the range viewing camera(s) at any time.
interesting...
looks like when hunting goes live you can hunt
Aoudad (Barbary Sheep), Blackbuck Antelope, A wide variety of sheep, Wild Hog, and Other antlered species like axis, fallow, and red stag will be available on a limited basis.
DOH! We shouldn't have patched the reactor with duct tape!!
Finally, hunters can masturbate over their kills without the risk of children seeing! Score one for family values!
fish and pipes
In the USMC we have a the ISMT... which stnads for Indoor Simulated Marksmenship Training, its actually very close to the real thing, they have it for all the weapons m16,m203,50 cal, saw, etc. the weapons give real recoil to an extent and it definally helps you improve your skill without the cost of amunation or the dangers of it, I think anything like that is really a good idea because you can used to firing a weapon without ever firing a real one, which is alot safer.
You have the link to CNN. Where's the link to this guys site? That's darn irritating. CNN didn't link to the site either! It's that sort of thing that makes my trigg^H^H^H^H^Hmouse finger itch.
Define "terrorists" . The way I see it, both the Coalition Army, and the barbarian are terrorists.
This has "HOAX" written all over it. It's classic culture jamming.
It's just like the stories about hunting nude women with paintball markers, Arm the Homeless, and Stu Magazine. I'd say odds are excellent that this is somebody pulling one over, quite cleverly and effectively, on the media.
See Sniggle.Net's News Trolls page for more information about the long, hilarious history of news trolling in the United States.
-Waldo Jaquith
>>better, that a 'customer' shoots him accidentally!
from the article:
He said an attendant would retrieve shot animals for
hmmm... who the hell will take that job?
http://request-header.info
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
I just can't be bothered.
As it happens I agree with you (if you look over my posting history you'll find many references to my vegetarianism), but, as it happens I also agree with the essential point of the parent poster.
A sport may be cruel, and yet still be a sport, with all the admirable things that are attendant upon sport. Bullfighting is barbarism, and yet it is, like it or not, a sport.
The problem with hunting over the internet is that it is just cruelty.
(Although I would posit that legimately hunting for food is another matter. I won't do it, but I don't fall into the trap of thinking of lions as "cruel" animals for seeking to continue living, and I respect people like Nugent far more than I do people who buy their meat but would blanche at killing an animal).
KFG
- 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.
Naa... you just can't transfer more than 100 pounds of deer meat over the Internet.
His site is here in case anyone was wondering.
A more concise summary of the essence of redneckhood may never have been spoken. Truly a quote for the ages.
Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
Just wait until someone writes an aimbot.
paintball
Bad example, that one's not over yet.
How long before someone in the US gov't proposes this kind of system to help control the southern border? :)
These are breasts; this is source code.
Why do you have a problem with those two things belonging to one person?
It would.
However, the vast majority of Iraq's army was conscripts and ran away when given the chance. The vast majority of Iraq's citizens actually like the idea of becoming a democracy.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Shoot the rabbit and WIN AN IPOD!!!
For some reason I read that as "Shoot the rabbit and WIN POO".
I'm glad I was wrong.
You HAVE to ASK?
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
i think the plan is to have some kid hack the site, kill someone because of that, and then arrest all hacker as being internet-warfare-terrorist-WMD-buzzword-compliant!
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.
Live Ammo + Internet = Recipe for disaster. Yet another case where the law has to catch up to the cutting edge technology combined with stupid ideas that people come up with.
I can see it now. Site gets mentioned on slashdot. Within a half of an hour,all ammo stores are completely spent, with the rifle barrels glowing red-hot and sagging toward the ground. The entire area is covered in a light grey smoke, and police are showing up after receiving reports of automatic weapon fire.
It gives a whole new meaning to the idea of a slashdotting "melting down" the victim.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
i saw this and thought:
1. how are they going to pick up the dead animals. because if they don't it would be a waste.
2. animals aren't dumb after a while wouldn't they
just avoid said area?
3. how is different from say a video game and how would you know you are not getting scammed with niffy computer editing?
Ping!
I mean, pling!
Need I say more?
1) For example in mid 1800's after the civil war, many people wanted to continue a military occpation of the south, but decided it was unfeasable and impossible because of widespread private gun ownership.
See? Gun control is a good thing.
And gee, there are no counter examples *caugh*vietnam.
Besides, I wouldn't call the Iraq situation exactly over. A few more soldiers put bullets into the heads of wounded Iraqi soldiers and the population might just rise up en mass against the US.
On the flip side, if they keep abducting innocent people (like that poor woman who dedicated her life to helping Iraq) and killing them, then their cause gets little sympathy (rightfully so).
Finkployd
I don't want to takes side in the gun-debate, but will point out there are no plans to add "shooting" (except for pictures) to the Christmas Lights Webcam
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
Hey, I just got here. Did someone say something about winning poo? If so, I'm in like Flynn.
My other computer is a Jacquard loom.
Wonder if it comes with audio so you can hear the gun fire and the deer mumble "you fucking lagger!".
From the article:
He said an attendant would retrieve shot animals for the shooters, who could have the heads preserved by a taxidermist.
I'd hate to be an attendant when some net hunter wanders away from the computer, and his young son, thinking it just a video game, takes a second shot.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
If they're so disabled that they can't shoot a wild pig or a deer themselves, maybe they need to get themselves in front of the cross hairs too. Either that, or just forget it. Fucking pathetic.
Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.
I just want to say that when the US declared independence and the British attacked - they encountered something never before seen in the history of human kind - armed citizens
That wasn't unique. It wasn't even uncommon. Throughout most of human history for the vast majority of cultures "war" meant your citizens leaving their farms, picking up spears, and fighting the citizens from the next town over.
Yeah, and other people fail to understand that certain simple truths don't change even when time does.
The earth is a plane and all that, right? It's always a good idea to use your own brain instead of sheepishly following some old writings.
1) For example in mid 1800's after the civil war, many people wanted to continue a military occpation of the south, but decided it was unfeasable and impossible because of widespread private gun ownership.
First of all, make that late 1800s. Also: what occupation are you talking about? If you talk say continue, the south apparently was occupied after the war?
2) In the 1980's the USSR had extreme difficulties considering any military strategy against the United States, because they had absolutely no idea about how to deal with over 100 million private gun owners.
Why would they bother to keep 100 million private gun owners down? If the soviets would have won an (obviously nuclear) war against the US, the major cities would have been nuked, and the rest could have been left to rot.
Seriously: do you have any references for those odd claims that you're making here, or are you just pulling them out of thin air?
he Web site already offers target practice with a
Do they realistically expect people to be able to kill a deer with a .22? You'd need to hit it at least half a dozen times and hope it bleeds to death before it runs out of the camera's view.
...That is, if you're the kind of person who likes watching deer bleed to death. ;-O
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.)
Merge this concept with a virtual Post Office and you'll have a winner!
The dotcom boom went down 3+ years ago.
Ummmm, the Iraqis are still fighting. This war ain't over yet man. What do you want? Full on battles with troops in columns? Look at chechnya, proof that effective insurgent warfare takes many forms.
Photos.
So I assume they will have the deer carcass sent to them?
Nuclear weapons, to cite an extreme example, are not.
Well, to take that to an extreme - if everyone had a nuclear weapon, I wonder how many politicians would play black against white, young against old, man against women, and rich against poor for political gain.
Hmm, perhaps gun controll is not about regulating or public good, but rather about not wanting to reap the hatred that you sew.
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.
I'm going to market a gunrack that can accomodate a laptop. Then I'll sell bumper stickers that read,
"They'll have to pry the keyboard from my cold, dead hands!"
What in the hell are you talking about? Ever heard of Sparta or a billion other civilizations with armed citizens?
Photos.
Slashdot + Remote Deer Hunting = Deer Extinction
until someone who was recovering an animal (and forgets to disable the gun) gets shot by a hacker half way across the world
Get your torrents...
"Later on, it get "re-interpreted".
Actually, it got amended (Amendment XIII). The framers of the Constitution realized that social mores would change over time and provided a means to change it. If, as you believe, the second amendment is outdated, work to change it.
"So, looking at the constitution as a source of truth and wisdom is, frankly, bullshit. "
Be as it may, it's the law of the land.
(By the way, I think that Internet hunting is asinine)
Elmer: Be vewy quiet. I'm trying to win an iPod.
WABBIT TWACKS!! WABBIT HOLE!!
(aims rifle over the internet and fires) KILL THE WABBIT! KILL THE WABBIT! KILL THE WABBIT!
Bugs (via IM): Kill the wabbit?
Elmer: YO HO HO! YO HO HO! YO HO...
Bugs (IM'ing): Oh mighty warrior of great fighting stock
Might I inquire to ask eh... what's up doc?
Elmer (IM's back): I'm going to kill the wabbit!
Bugs: O mighty warrior, 'twill be quite a task
How will you do it, might I inquire to ask?
E: I will do it with my browser and remote rifle.
B: Browser and remote rifle?
E: Browser and remote rifle?
B: Remote rifle?
E: Remote rifle!
B: Remote rifle.
E: Yes, remote rifle, and I give you a sample!
(exit Bugs at 168kb/sec)
E: (spoken) There goes my iPod.
No, I used to think that too. Trolls are always trying new and clever ways to disguise the true nature of the link with mirrors, redirects, and other trickery.
Sleep is futile.
How many of you city fellas ever get a chance to milk a cow? Or a goat?
Why not an on-line cow/goat milker?
And an attendant could collect the milk and send it to you?
Maybe I'd better be quiet. Microsoft might patent the idea and create a Milk The Cow xbox game. Would it be called Grand Milk Cow?
If you ever look at a picture of an animal
and then imagine what it would look like through the scope on your rifle
you might be a redneck.
Who cleans up after you shoot something? Is there a timeout for someone to go bag your deer? Can you have it shipped home or even better, stuffed?
This also kind of reminds me of a short story I read in high school called the most dangerous game" by Richard Connell. One of my favorites.
As a 2nd amendment supporter, a NRA life member, an NRA Certified Instructor and Training Counselor, and a Certified Hunter Education Instructor I am neither shy about nor at all against firearms ownership and use. This application of technology however; although enterprising (for someone trying to make a buck) is IMHO just stupid. Remotely firing a real gun (or is it just really good CG) is the ultimate for couch potatoes. Pointing a gun and squeezing the trigger isn't the hard work. Learningto do it with a real gun takes real skill and practice. Clicking a mouse contains none of those skills or challenges.
As for the quote above - A google search on "disabled hunting resources" yields over 200,000 hits. As a disabled (visually impaired) hunter myself, I can assure Mr. Underwood that most if not every state has resources to help disabled hunters. As an instructor I was given some training on this subject.
As for hunting in Texas, there are plenty of White Tailed Deer in many states (Here in Ohio the herd estimate is 650,000) and most of the folks I know who spend the money to hunt out of state would much rather opt for an Elk or Moose in one of the western states. It's not about killing something, it's about the total experience, and I don't think a video game cuts it.
Here's one more dot-com I hope goes bust.
I've always viewed hunting as stupid. I'm not against killing animals or whatever... but getting up at 5AM and setting in a deer stand when its 25 degrees outside, freezing your ass off and not even seeing a deer is a waste of time.
I'd rather just go buy a burger or something.
And look at all the trouble that small number is causing.
If all 40 million or so Iraqis (IIRC about the population) took up arms, there'd be no country in the world that could control them.
Heck, if even 1 in 10 of the males aged 18-40 or so took up arms against the US, it would be impossible to control.
.. More guns and more Jesus.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
An enterprising Texan, John Underwood
Why doesn't it suprise me that this story takes place in Texas.
But it's ok. Soon all Texan schoolchildren will have RFID tags implanted so there is no chance a crazy redneck will accidently shoot them instead of a ninja deer.
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.
find the URL of the actual website and post it here. /.ing it should save a couple of days worth of animals.
President ISES
(International Society for Elimination of Sigs)
I indeed looked at the link after you (I'm assuming you're the one who posted the links) insisted they were genuine. After I found out they were not shock sites, I even posted an apology adn explained myself. Yet you continue to lash out with profanity at anyone who dare suggest that the links were not genuine g-mail invites.
Given the circumstances, anyone could, and likely would, mistake this for a troll. What is the big deal about?
Sleep is futile.
A few more soldiers put bullets into the heads of wounded Iraqi soldiers
You know what? It really, really sucks to be a US Marine pacifying Fallujah. You get shot at. Your buddy gets shot and killed. You get shot in the face, and because you are lucky it's a graze, but you know you are mortal. And you have to go in anyway.
And these insurgents. They attach bombs to their dead, sometimes, just to blow up one more American. For all I know they attach bombs to their *wounded*.
So, this Marine decides that the insurgent is playing dead, and he decides that he doesn't really want to find out just what exactly the insurgent's plan is. So he shoots him.
You know, the Geneva convention protects this Marine. There are rules for when you are allowed to shoot and rules for when you aren't, and he is in the clear on this one. Playing dead does not count as surrendering.
All the people in that room were people who had been trying to kill Marines no more than a day earlier. I might feel a bit differently about this if they were just random people, but these were all combatants.
Are there any recorded instances of insurgents surrendering, hands up, no weapons, just being shot? No, I didn't think so.
Summary: shit happens, war sucks. I think the original quote is "War is Hell."
So, should we take this Marine and nail his ass to the wall? I say no. Anyone who says "yes" should volunteer to lead the next raid on an insurgent stronghold.
All soldiers can do is kill people and break things. (Sometimes this is necessary, however. 5,000 Iraqi kids were starving to death per *month* while Saddam was in power.)
if they keep abducting innocent people (like that poor woman who dedicated her life to helping Iraq) and killing them, then their cause gets little sympathy (rightfully so).
From what I can figure out, interviews with actual soldiers actually in Iraq, and third-hand reports from people who know people in Iraq, the average guys in Iraq are very happy to have the Hussein regime overthrown. They aren't stupid, and they can see for themselves that the soldiers are not after all raping all the women, eating the children, razing the mosques, etc. They see these guys fixing the power plants, fixing the water plants, giving candy to kids, and being blown up by the same guys who kidnap aid workers.
One thing, though, is that the average Iraqi doesn't really want to die, and the insurgents can kill them. So the average guys there might not tip off the soldiers even if they see some guys burying a bomb right there in daylight.
The soldiers can try to find and kill insurgents, but they cannot impose order; the insurgents can still decide where and how to cause mayhem. The average Iraqi is caught in the middle. But they don't wish for the days of Saddam, they look ahead to the days when this crazy shit is over and things settle down.
Iraq didn't welcome the US with open arms when they invaded, but they didn't rise up in armed opposition either. The insurgents are a tiny minority of Iraqis and they aren't even all Iraqis.
Most of the southern states were not readmitted into the union for 3-5 years after the war. During this timeperiod they were under martial law. Even then it took another 5 years or so for the states to resume local control of their own government. So, yes, there was an occupation.
See wikipedia for dates, look at the table near the bottom.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
Where did you study law bro?
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land!
Defend it or take a hike, Mike....
I think the real purpose of the all-volunteer army is to make it very clear that if you can't find enough people willing to lay down their lives for the war of the moment, maybe it's not something that's worth fighting for.
The military occupation of the former Confederacy was called "Reconstruction". After the Union's victory, the South was, in fact, divvied up into five military districts, and some of the Confederate states were not readmitted into the USA until 1870.
See Reconstruction on Wikipedia for more information.
I have no idea what the heck the original poster was talking about with the other half of his argument, however.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I'm a hunter in Texas, and I feel incredibly angry that this guy is doing this! Its obviously a highly unethical publicity stunt, in Texas it is a illegal to hunt from automobile much less a computer on the internet, please don't think that we are all nuts like this guy! I also question the article, as it mentions that state wildlilfe officials are "up in arms". I honestly don't think its that big of a deal to them, this guy is a nut-job, there should be no problems whatsoever for accomodating new regulations against taking a shot from a computer. You're also legally required to tag your deer as soon as you can, which means as soon as you find it, I don't see how this could ever be legal. I also don't even see how this has relevance to target practice, there are so many factors when you actually shoot that aren't there if a machine is doing the shooting for your. The only thing I can think is that it might help with learning to cope with wind, but if its only shooting .22LR you are learning the characteristics of a round that its only good for hunting squirrels and rabbit. I'd be interested to see how this guy thinks he's going to make money, there is simply no replacement for time at the gun range, although, I suppose the novelty of it might be enough for him to bring in some revenue.
I think it's even worse as it was said:
"We were looking at a beautiful white-tail buck and my friend said 'If you just had a gun for that.' A little light bulb went off in my head," he said.
For crying out loud, who the f*ck looks at something that's beautiful like that and all they want to do is shoot it.
That's just wrong.
here are the guys prices from his site. Here is a mirrored picture of his setup, I have a few gigs of extra transfer. Live Shot Setup
-William
God is everything science has yet to explain.
This "online hunting" seems a lot more to me like handing somebody a skateboarding game and claiming that makes up for their inability to use a skateboard designed for somebody with an average body. There's a LOT more to a hobby than just the momentary act.
If they want to accommodate physical disabilities, that's great. But accommodation does *not* involve separating somebody that's different... I don't want a fake version of reality apart from everybody else as a disabled person, I want to be able to participate with those I know/care about. If I can't find a way to do so, I move on to doing something else we *can* all paricipate in.
Well regulated, in the context of the Second Amendment, has nothing to do with limiting weapons or circumscribing the conditions of their posession. Well regulated means "practiced and ready for action". You see, in the 18th century soldiers could be generally classified into two categories: regulars, and irregulars. Regulars were the trained soldiers. The guys who knew how to march in formation, load under fire, and have a fair chance of hitting their targets. Irregulars were generally volunteers and/or conscripts with little training and haphazard equipment. The fact that the word "regulated" is no longer used in exactly the same sense as it was 200-odd years ago doesn't change the basis of the right to bear arms. Semantic drift does not modify the rights of man. If, 200 years from now, the word "peaceably" is predominantly used to mean "naked, bent over a chair", does that mean that the People only have the right to assemble if they're naked and speading their cheeks? Besides, interpreting "well regulated" to mean "limited by rules" throws the first part of the amendment into logical conflict with the second part. This should indicate to any reasonable person that this interpretation is wrong.
US vs. Miller set a precedent that not all weapons can be considered necessary for the existence of a well-regulated militia. "[I]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." I would contend that the same remark could be made about a remote-controlled internet weapon.
So a remote controlled rifle, not being a useful militia weapon, should be banned based on US v. Miller? How do you feel about semi-auto military rifles, then? They are provably the most militia-appropriate weapons of all, but their manufacture was banned. Interesting how certain groups cite US v. Miller when they want to limit posession of a hunting arm based on its non-militia status, but then turn and steadfastly assert that military-pattern rifles should be banned because they serve no "legitimate sporting purpose" (note: I know you didn't take the latter position in your post; I am referencing others I have seen in the past taking both sides based on convenience).
At any rate, I submit that US v. Miller (while admittedly being precedent) was a bad decision. Being that there is no hard authority on what constitutes an appropriate militia weapon, the law limiting long arms to 18 inch barrels should have been thrown out. Saying that a militia is limited to certain arms requires a willful disregard for history-- militias have traditionally armed themselved with whatever they could get!
This, of course, assumes that militias are still relevant in the modern US, something about which I am not convinced.
And that is the root of the problem. Through all these endless weasel-word lawyer games people have completely lost sight of the basic philosophical principal upon which the right to bear arms is based: the people are the ultimate powerholders. You must ask yourself, should the police be the only ones with guns? Do I want cops to have no fears about kicking in doors because they know that you (at most) have a kitchen knife while they have a Mossberg 500 shotgun? The fact that 20 policemen will certainly win a gunfight against you is largely irrelevant. The fact that we are an armed population should cause each and every government agent to hesitate before acting in the name of the state; to stop and think, "hey, I could get shot; are my orders worth getting shot over?" An armed populace keeps each individual-- government agent and private citizen alike-- on an equal footing. When the population is disarmed, they become the
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
While this may sound like cheating to some people, this may be a large benefit to hunters with disabilities.
What, exactly, is the large benefit to hunters with disabilities?
They can now "hunt" without having to deal with the non-ADA-compliant forest? I always thought that being in the forest was half the appeal of hunting in the first place.
They can once again kill something? I don't regard the thrill of victory as a valid reason for hunting.
They can once again kill something for food using a robotic weapon and, presumably, getting someone else to drag their prey home and butcher it? Might as well order up a Deluxe Pack from Omaha Steaks.
Can someone explain what this "large" benefit is?
Your right, I should have said continued....
.... part 3 and part 4
b 0109.h tml
OK here,
this document makes it very clear that the threat of gurilla warfare forced a policy of reconcilation instead of occupation
www.gsb.georgetown.edu/faculty/sweeneyr/ wp/Chapter%208_Civil%20War%20Reconciliation.doc
and heres one about why the Japaneese decided not to invade the wide and unprotected american coast line
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoo
I cannot imagine that this will last longer than a week. I know that this guy has a lot of property, and the range of a
I have one question.
Who other than Lloyds of London could insure this hair brained scheme? The premiums have to be HUGE!
I would take a
Agreement here... If I had mod points, I'd certainly give one to you.
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.
thats for 10 rounds, in 20 minutes, on top of the $15/month membership fee.
-William
God is everything science has yet to explain.
What happens if you shoot the attendant?
Seriously tho'. Anonymously websurf, steal someone's account, however the hell you break into the security, and just shoot some other person for free.
This is my own opinion, and sure to be trolled down/flamed, whatever - but I dun't care.
Personally, this is subjective, but hunting is STUPID. If you're at a level that this appeals to, then YOU are stupid.
Do you think hunting means man vs nature? Then I hope to God you descend into the wilderness, naked, and use your hands and feet to combat that grizzly you have stuffed over your sofa. THEN I'll be damned proud.
Hell. If you even assembled your own tools, rather then buy a gun at Walmart, a case of beer, and shoot some poor mother cub while laughing with your buddies, I'll respect you.
- - - -
KickingDragon
Damn Califernians er messin' round with good 'ol southern huntin' too. Is this ervenge fer Dubya n' Congriss kickin' thur ass?
Table-ized A.I.
Is this webcam rifle thing gonna haul the game back to the truck, too?
Having one kind of impairment doesn't mean the whole body and/or brain doesn't work. What makes you think that having a disablility that makes traversing a forest difficult would have anything to do with aiming a gun, real or virtual?
Think about it: quads and paras are able to drive motorized wheelchairs and properly-equipped *cars* -- aiming a gun isn't likely to be a problem.
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
How about have surplus turbofied Mars rovers chase around the animals with a pellet gun?
Table-ized A.I.
"Sony will be releasing a stalker robot that can stalk celebraties and other individuals from afar, recording their everymove with a joystick and touch of a button. This is seen to be a major boon for disabled stalkers."
Said the deer: "Lets go, this guy bots"
the only thing I'm really surprised about is why someone didn't think of this any sooner? It was really only a matter of time, but I'm surprised nobody else thought of it!
What other insane ideas are we leaving out?
Berto
I'd pay well over $20 if they mailed me a DVD compiling the video of me aiming, zooming, firing, and the associated reactions.
Careful what you ask for.
Table-ized A.I.
[Iraq] Bad example, that one's not over yet.
That fact that it is not over yet is one of the reasons it is a good example.
Table-ized A.I.
I read the blogs from the people who are over there. I don't like mainstream media, they're always trying to push their opinion down my throat.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
So a remote controlled rifle, not being a useful militia weapon, should be banned based on US v. Miller?
Not necessarily. However, US v. Miller makes it clear that the Constitution doesn't prevent the banning of remote controlled rifles. I would argue that the remote controlled rifle has no purpose except to slaughter animals for fun. You don't get to take the animal home and eat it, it can't be good weapons training to shoot an animal over the internet, it's useless for self-defense and you don't even get any fresh air and exercise. As such, I wouldn't have a problem if this weapon were banned.
I'm not necessarily arguing that it should be banned, I was merely responding to GGP's assertion that the second amendment guarantees that this device will (and should) always be legal. On to more general issues:
And that is the root of the problem. Through all these endless weasel-word lawyer games people have completely lost sight of the basic philosophical principal upon which the right to bear arms is based: the people are the ultimate powerholders....An armed populace keeps each individual-- government agent and private citizen alike-- on an equal footing.
Ok, so we've established that guns shouldn't be banned. On the other hand, just because the government has access to a weapon doesn't mean it should be available to citizens. Powerful explosives and nuclear weapons are two examples. The problem here is that powerful weapons can be devastating in the wrong hands. Even if we were all armed and had the proper training, a nutcase could pull out an automatic assault weapon in a crowded place and kill many people before anyone could respond. In another example, although the wide availability of guns can prevent police from abusing their power, it can also prevent them from effectively doing their job. For these reasons, I think that some restrictions on guns are valid. Not that powerful guns should necessarily be banned, but that there should be should be appropriate restrictions on their availablility and use. The scope of these restrictions is, in my mind, up for debate.
To summarise: guns should not be banned because their legality curbs government power. Guns should not be completely unrestricted because the potential for abuse is too great. The question (for me, at least) is where the line should be drawn.
Don't you hate meta-sigs?
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Is his website blind-friendly?
Surely you don't mean humans are the best predator "regardless of size"? And pound-for-pound, humans may be good, but my cat Gizmo is the "perfect" predator. In her age, she hunts only birds now (her tastes have refined), but she can still grab low flying ones right from the air!
What will be the ad for this thing?
"Congratulations! You can now have the hamburger in one hand and the mouse in the other, hunting without physical activity in the comfort of you own home".
I recognize the importance in the disabled hunter's case, of course, but for the rest this just comes off like just another step to make sure you never leave your house.
think of it as amazon.com for ted nugent. :P
for a minute there, i lost myself...
You'd probably be more likely to recieve the Poo in this situation. ;)
-Vendal Thornheart
this guy is ingenious, I bet the DoD will be at his door soon. Imagine what they would pay for such a system
"brxref
Ecologically, the problem arises when you have enough people trying to cheat the system (which is going to happen - poachers are inevitable) and/or too many "legal" hunters. The dynamics of population are not geared to handle culls well.
The mass extinctions I mentioned in Australia, plus various extinctions elsewhere (eg: the Moa and the Haas Eagle in New Zealand, the Wooly Mammoth in Europe, etc) were the result of hunting to the point where the population collapsed totally.
In more modern times, the Passenger Pidgeon was totally exterminated in a single human generation. Virtually every whale species came close to extinction, due to "factory ships" slaughtering them in vast numbers. Several did, in fact, get hunted to extinction. Blue Whale numbers are only now beginning to show a modest gain, even though the ban has been in place for 20-odd years.
Modern hunters don't, as a rule, seem to be any smarter than the early humans, when it comes to knowing when to stop.
When they are smart, where they take the proper precautions to avoid excess (and to know what "excess" even means in a given situation), where they don't hide from what they're doing (eg: using high-power rifles to shoot across ravines), THEN I would be willing to accept that they've more than shown they understand the ecological impact of what they are doing.
The ethical side... nnnnngggggg... that's not really answered. Let's say that it turns out that some Cetatians are intelligent, sentient beings with something akin to an aquatic civilisation. Those in Japan who happily go out and kill dolphins by the hundred might easily claim that they are being honest about the hunt and the death, et al, but under those circumstances, I'd still prefer them to find some other way of being honest.
Ok, that's a fairly extreme (though totally genuine) example. It's pretty clear that your average Elk and Deer are unlikely to be nominated for the Nobel Prize in Physics any time soon. On the other hand, if that was the limiting factor for what was reasonable to shoot, we wouldn't have a world overpopulation crisis. We might not even have a world population.
Yes, you've got to draw some line somewhere. Humans aren't capable of photosynthesis (yet) so do need to eat. The question is where you draw the line, and what reasoning you use to do the drawing.
I'd say honesty about what you're doing is a very big part of that reasoning. Denial of reality is generally a Bad Idea. But honesty can't be the only part of the reasoning. There's got to be more, and that "more" part has to be rooted both in what the ecosystem can support and in what can ethically be considered fair.
If you've reached this point, you probably don't know where the hell I'm going. Well, neither do I. It's late here. What I do know, though, is that anything which results in compassion and thought going into a decision on whether to hunt or not, has got to be an improvement on a culture of "blood sports". When it's all just a game, and the prize is a trophy far removed from the reality of life... That's when you have problems.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
*they encountered something never before seen in the history of human kind - armed citizens.*
you fail history.
you think they were the first? you think that brits hadn't bumped into "armed citizens" before? ARE YOU NUTS???
so before flame wars start.. YOU START ONE.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
A month ago I went to that website and played what I thought was another one of those "Whack the Monkey" flash ads. But it turned out to be *sniff* real! I feel horrible. I clobbered the living hell out of that poor darling little monkey before I realized it.
Table-ized A.I.
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!
He could always just cave in and set it up to paintball them.
That way it would be sort of cruel *and* (just a little bit) funny (as opposed to just cruel..and deadly).
Maybe thats not really a good idea. o_O
Wait, I hear the venture capitalists calling!
Quack, quack.
"We were looking at a beautiful white-tail buck and my friend said 'If you just had a gun for that.' A little light bulb went off in my head," he said.
Remind me never to go out drinking looking for women with these guys.
Seriously though - what's to stop someone shooting the attendants? Who would be legally responsible?
If someone shoots the guy remotely, is it technically suicide?
> 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
Where did you study law bro?
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land!
Defend it or take a hike, Mike....
The constitution was designed to be challenged and changedas social values changed. It requires a large majority (of the democratic representatives) to make a change, but it certainly can and will happen - most of the the points you discuss are amendments to the constitution - that is changes. Sure, many of them happened almost mmediately, but the point is that the document was designed to be a living one, and hence to be challenged.
To defend everything in the sonstitution somply because it is the constitution is at least as stupid as challenging ideas that someone thinks have become outdated and worthy of alteration or new amendments.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Thanks for totally missing the joke, and then EXPLAINING it.
paintball
What if someone shoots at the attendant ?!
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
then think of it as amazon.com for cannibals. :p
for a minute there, i lost myself...
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
Imagine someone use that rifle to shoot and kill a HUMAN BEING via the NET !
Will that be counted as a MURDER or an ACCIDENT ?
Who will be responsible for the death ?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
- Your prey is a renewable resource
- It's actually a Fair fight.
- It's cheaper
- Far less moral dilema
- You can chat with them too.
About the only advantage of cyber-hunting is that you don't have to get your feet dirty. Might as well just go to a rendering plant and pay to kill a cow.Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
It's only a matter of time before he installs guns on tracked vehicles, which you can rent out using your credit card, going mobile hunting from the comfort of your own living room.
And for a bonus, it means that you're not there to get your ass shot by your friends in a "hunting accident".
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Why not bring in team play? a lot of bots controlled by humans over the internet, running around and killing things...
err..wait...
Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
Tetris is NOT a game.
Tetris is about skill, and patience, and responsibility, and consequences.
Tetris is about handling blocks safely.
Tetris is about working alone, or in a group, to achieve a difficult goal. (arguably it doesn't help working in a group)
Tetris is about coming to a personal understanding that you, and your family, are also blockheads.
Tetris is about the lengths you will go to keep your blocks stacked and disappearing.
Tetris is about knowing, deep in your gut, that the blocks you drop will disappear. And Tetris (for humans) is about honoring those blocks, by making its disappearance for your benefit as fast and painless as possible, an easier disappearance than it would suffer from the bytes and operands of some virus, from deleting or from formatting.
Tetris is about understanding your place in nature:
You are a blockhead.
You are at the top of the hiscore list
You are SO full of shit that you MUST be careful, lest you wipe out those things you depend on for your own life, like braincells.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Now that would get the heart going!
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
When they come for us, I'm sure that "You have consistently abused technology to allow the murder of other beings for pleasure. You present a clear and obvious danger to other civilizations."
PLUS
"And there's a clear link between your governments and the attacks on the Two Quasars of Megaloon 2 and the intergalactic terrorist Batititi. Aphod 3, a friend of a guy who met Batititi's third son-in-law (estranged) at a starship swapmeet, had a cappuccino in Paris in 1873. The connection is obvious!"
"We were looking at a beautiful white-tail buck..."
Isn't that beautiful? I know, let's blow it's fucking brains out.
I suppose I just don't get it....
The degree of ignorance required to assert that there were no armed citizens until 1776 is absolutely flabbergasting. Seriously, I take my hat off to you.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
You're not a goddamn hunter if you're disabled.
hunters are humans with humanity disability
//TODO: put sig here
A quite likely scenario is that the shooter does not manage to actually KILL the animal, but simply wound it gravely.
What happens when a wounded animal runs off? With normal hunters, you would continue to hunt it to put it out of its pain. It's more or less a moral obligation to make the animals death as painless as possible.
With this 'remote shooting gallery' idea, things are going to go very wrong the moment they shoot with live ammunition on animals.
Modify the system to 'shoot' a photo instead, pinpointing where you would have hit. Perhaps even estimating if it would have been a kill.
Just avoid a system where it is more or less guaranteed that animals will suffer more than any hunter would accept.
Fast, Soon, Correct. Pick 2.
INDEED !
Now we can have a real live Duck Hunt... But without that fucking dog there to laugh at you when you miss...
Meet new people, and kill them.
With the same idiotic logic, maybe we should have internet attached rifles, mortars and tanks.
Handicapped people may want to shoot irakis too.
Dyslexics have more fnu.
would venture out to retrieve the carcass before unplugging the gun.
"Little things hitting each other. THAT'S WHAT I LIKE!" - Time Bandits
If people want to know their place in the food chain, they should compare their teeth and nails to those of a lion.
No buddy, look at the brain of a lion and then compare that to what's in the cranium of even the stupidest among us and then tell me where in the foodchain lions belong. We've got guns and trucks and they've got shit in comparison. As far as I'm concerned, they're a species shit out of luck. Today for an animal species to survive it either has to be real tasty or nice and cuddly or a lot smarter and meaner than us. Sorry buddy, but if you wanted to place someone above us in the foodchain you would have to look off-planet and find yourself an Alien Predator.
Some of you vegetarian spiritualists pussies suggest that people be made to personally kill the animals they eat. Watch me.
Giving new meaning to plug and prey
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
nuff said
"Capital punishment makes the state into a murderer. Imprisonment makes the state into a gay dungeon-master"
...while retrieving the kill of the previous shooter.
Much more fun than hurting harmless animals, not?
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
Of course, you only get one shot, and then you have to buy a new monitor.
Why Senator Rangel! I had no idea such distinguished types posted on /.
Or should it be, mod this whole idea "Flamebait".
Oh, come on, I admit it is an effective flamebait... can't... resist... posting... reply... arg...
From the article:
Berger expressed reservations about remote control hunting, but noted that humans have always adopted new technologies to hunt.
Technologies like: Barbed Wire Fenced Grazing Grounds and Slaughter Houses! He as a texan should know. This web enabled Slaughter house cannot be more efficient than the real thing.
Notice I didn't mention using machine guns to hunt !
Quem a paca cara compra, paca cara pagará.
Mark my words. Some wacko will set up a copycat in a city.
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
How long before the first redneck misunderstands and shoots at his computer wih a rifle?
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
eh, light bulb went "on"...
Some people shouldn't have guns...
Rocket science is easy. Neurosurgery, now *that's* difficult.
So when cats hunt (in the way they do) its YOU moralising thier NATURAL behavior.
As if humans don't moralise their *own* natural behaviour...
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
You could probably find a nice window overlooking the White House lawn, or even the National Mall....
I don't thing mixing guns ant the Internet (where those guns will certainly get 0wn3d) is a good idea.
If you really want the thrill of "killing something online" (quick, somebody call the patent office), why not just get a good FPS (might even be a hunting FPS). Okay, you need a good bot, maybe a hybrid could be done (the real robot, real animals, but blanks instead of real ammo).
GPG 0x1B479C78
But, like many pro-gun activists, you seem to indicate that the Second Amendment is an absolute right. Clearly, it is not, nor should it be. That is why felons cannot own firearms. That is why you cannot just go to the local gun store and buy a howitzer or a fully automatic firearm. That is why you cannot carry a gun whenever and wherever you want. That is why some states require you to complete a gun safety course before you get a permit. And that is why some states don't let you carry guns at all.
Do I believe that some of these "abridgements" of our freedom are unnecessary and have nothing to do with "fighting crime" or "public safety"? Yes, I do. But I also believe that with the freedom (and power) of owning a gun comes the responsibility of knowing what you are doing. We do not have some unfettered right to own a gun in the U.S., no more than we have some unfettered right to say whatever we want (even though the First Amendment starts out with "Congress shall make no law".)
To actually be on topic, however, a remote-control firearm is really not about "guns" or the "Second Amendment", contrary to what a lot of posts are trying to say about it. This guy owns private property. You are free to do whatever you want on your property providing you are breaking no laws or causing no harm. Freedom is the essence of the U.S. Constitution, not whether one Amendment is more important than another. The law already has methods to handle this internet hunting idea. Both criminal and personal injury law apply if the operator is negligent, reckless or shows a callous disregard. And they also apply to the owner if sets-up this contraption to be able to aim it 45 degrees in the air and fire (though even at 45 degrees, not a whole lot of firearms will make it past 300 acres). What I find offensive is that the Texas Bureau of Parks is trying to find a way to stop him from doing it completely, simply because they just don't like it.
Freedom is about being able to live your life the way you want. Others may not like it. They may "anguish" over it. But that is different from being "injured" by it. If this guy wants to operate a remote-controlled rifle/hunting range, I support that notion providing it is done safely. Do I agree with it? No, I think it is pretty stupid and intuitively, contrary to what hunting is all about. But I agree that if he can find a way to set it up responsibly and have it be used safely, then he should be free to do it.
I hope you don't spend time manually adding all those links to wikipedia.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
I know know it's early but it sounds like its gonna be the Killer App.
Anyone got a link so we check this out. I'm interested in exactly how this works.
the stereotypes, my god the stereotypes. nothing makes me smile more than chair-bound city dwellers squawking about how easy hunting is with "high powered rifles" and "gps" etc. etc.
you should all be ashamed of yourselves...
Umm... I just had to reply. An armed populace sure has made it damn difficult to take over Iraq.
What about shooting the quickly passing by farm hand, or children that stray into the kill zone? Just as the internet empowers perverts to imitate women in chat rooms, or blatant racism in forums, the anonymity (real or perceived) will silence some people's conscience.
eh? who else has web-controlled guns?? (and can I play?)
Is it just me who saw the title of this article and thought "Be vewy quiet. I'm hunting Internets."
And then wondered if Nukular weapons would be appropriate.
I hope all the RKBA advocates are working to stop this idea now.
This is a BAD idea for Americans and gun ownership and it will hurt rather than help the 2nd Amendment advocacy.
Gun ownership is about responsibility. period.
Having a remote control gun for the video game generations is ludicrous. There is a serious lack of personal responsibility already in this society today. If you let people shoot things over the internet you're just removing another step of accountability.
that being said, i don't worry about who gets the blame if someone is accidentally shot and killed. the owner of the land, the gun, and the server would be criminally negligent for letting people on to the property to be shot at.
that should put a chilling effect on the proliferation of these kind of things in a hurry.
-- Believe your Justice!
Rule 2: Always keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
Rule 3: Never let the gun point at anything you aren't willing to shoot.
Rule 4: Always identify your target, and if possible, know what is behind it.
Rule 5: Always unplug the ethernet cable before going downrange.
I can just see it now. Some crazy person could set up a remote security system with this technology and shoot burglars upon entry. Where to people come up with this stuff? Technology is crazy these days. I mean there are even remotes that find the remotes these days. I want to know what you can't do remotely these days. Not much really. You can pretty much automate your entire house by sitting anywhere in the world. Kind of scary really.
What kind of loser would hunt sheep?
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
What kind of moron gets pleasure from the suffering and death of animals?
Thats just sick...
What kind of heartless moron can derive pleasure from inflicting pain and death on wild animals, then have the nerve to call it a sport?
They must be the most evil kind of dumbasses.
But I'd pay to shoot those fuckers on line. Now THATS a sport. Giving them some of their own medicine and seeing how they like it.
Don't switch subjects: You claimed that the Soviets were scared to invade the US in the 1990s; providing a link on why the Japanese didn't want to do this in the 1940s does not support that claim.
Wow I see a ton of anti-hunting sentiment on here but just have to sit back and laugh at all the posts by the severly misguided. I grew up on a farm in wisconsin and still actively hunt, as a matter of fact deer hunting season is in a few days.
First of all this guy is located on one of those farms that raise animals especially to be hunted. While I don't specifically see much point in this type of hunting it differs very little to all of
the beef cattle in pens I pass on my way to work every morning.
This morning on the way to work I saw two deer splattered all over the highway hit by either trucks or some mom in a SUV not keeping alert.
Many say that I am not wanting for food because
I can go to the grocery store and get my meat. Well yes this is true, but when I was just out
of high school I actually worked at a meat packing plant. Not only did I work at the plant I had the job of killing those animals for you. Tell me what
the difference is between me pulling the trigger there than doing it in the woods? I have done both
the only difference I can tell is the range at which I done it.
If you are a vegitarian well then good for you but
I prefer meat and I am not changing because you want me to.
I see alot of posts about the challenge of hunting. Deer are a ton smarter than most of you realize, for every deer I shoot a whole bunch get
away by outsmarting us. Now that being said I did not find a whole lot of sport in pressing a pneumatic bolt firning weapon against a cow and shooting it dead so you can go have your steak or hamburger tonight.
Everyone have a great day and when you are sitting at the local steak house think about the fact that somebody pulled the trigger so you can eat.
Got Code?
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.
I don't get the lure of hunting at all.
I'll try to respond to this, honestly and respectfully. Bear in mind, I'm only one hunter, so my motivations will not match those of all other hunters.
My father imparted me with two fundamental hunting ethics:
1. Give your prey a the opportunity to use his strengths against you
This means that, when hunting birds, you don't shoot them on the ground, or in the water. If you encounter a stationary game bird, you first flush the bird, and allow it to put some distince between it and you, before you shoot. For big game (deer, for example), choose your weaponry or environment so as to require a very close (20-30 yards) encounter. Deer have unbelievably sharp senses of sight, smell, and hearing. Getting one to approach you to within 20 yards is no easy task. Some big-game hunters proudly display the elk trophy they took with a 350-yard shot -- I wouldn't call that hunting; it's more like a display of marksmanship. If you want to impress me with your skills as a hunter, show me the elk you took with a bow at 25 yards.
2. Only kill what you intend to eat.
You can't "catch and release" when you're hunting. If you don't intend on eating it, you've got no reason to kill it.
People who grow vegetables will tell you that tomatoes, corn, beans, peas -- all taste better when they come from your own garden. In addition, you know that they're organic (if you've chosen to raise them that way.) In the same way, pheasant, duck, and venison taste better to me when I know I've harvested it myself. In addition, I know that this meat is "free range" and organic, as well as lower in fat than anything I can buy at market.
In your comments, you raise some frequently-heard arguments:
The animals stand no chance. Neither does the pig, cow, or chicken going to slaughter. Using ethic #1, above, the prey is allowed to use his innate talents against my technology. The majority of the time (in my own hunting experience) the animal wins.
The hardest part is finding something - after that, if you have reasonable aim, you will surely kill it. This is partially true. It is difficult, and rewarding, to find game animals. I've spent many long, quiet hours remaining motionless in the woods waiting to hear or see a deer. Some of those unsuccessful hunts are memorable to me because of everything else I've seen -- an ermine catching a mouse, a wren landing on my boot, a skunk leading her kits across a field.
Reasonable aim isn't a guaranteed kill, however. There are species of ducks (scaup) I hunt that fly at nearly 50 miles per hour. This season, I saw perhaps 300 of these ducks, was able to lure enough into range to take a dozen shots, and killed only two.
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.
I've often thought about this. I've been close enough to deer on several occasions that I could have jumped out of my tree with a knife in hand to do battle. I'm not sure it's legal in my state to kill a deer with a knife. I'm also not positive that I could have a "cleaner" kill with a kife than with an arrow or bullet to the heart.
I understand that hunting is not for everyone. I don't deride those who don't enjoy hunting. There's a thrill in hunting, and it's not about killing, death and destruction - it's about personal accomplishment, of self-sufficiency. Sure, I could go to the grocery store and buy a duck -- hunting may cost more, but in the end I get the duck, the memory of the sunrise that morning, and a sense of achievement as well.
The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
I had an idea to do this about a year ago. Alright... I didn't build it yet (let alone patent it!), so I guess I really can't complain.
;)
I thought it would be better to automate the process a little more. Set up each blind with an auto-targeting rifle using machine vision for target identification and tracking. It would be feasible using off-the-shelf components. One could go so far as having a system that even automatically compensates for range, air density, and wind, and targeting appropriate kill-zones on the animal.
I considered the risk of erroneous identification. At this time, I felt the best way to handle this is via photo/video confirmation via cell or network. That way the kill shot would have to be confirmed by a human. It would be limiting if the dial-up/login/confimation takes too long, though.
Another advantage would be to have multiple hides with autonomous systems. It would be especially useful running multiple hides simultaneously from one managing remote console. In fact, in this case they wouldn't even have to be automated, just remote controlled. My preference would still be having automated sighting, identification, and tracking. Then it's just pulling the trigger (or clicking the mouse) over a secure (or closed-loop) connection.
Would laws pertaining to hunting from vehicles pertain to this scenario? It seems the intent of that law might prohibit automated systems.
Obviously each component of the system would have to be thoroughly tested in many unloaded scenarios.
It would probably be a lot more practical (and with considerably less legal concern) to do all this with cameras only. The ideal situation would be a wide-view camera for motion detection and targeting. A high-quality high-zoom camera would be the "rifle" camera. It could be set to take video, sequenced frames with a delay, or single shot, depending on preference. This sort of setup could acquire very high quality photographs of wildlife without much effort. No remote console/control would be necessary.
It could be made less expensive by only using one camera with variable zoom, using it as both the spotting scope and the capture camera. Another cost-cutting measure would be to drop the bulk of the image recognition for identifying the animal. It could be simplified to look for motion and apparent size to find objects of interest and capture those. Human or automated post-processing could decide the value of the image/video.
Upon doing a web search, I found that there are lots of camera traps/hides/blinds. But most are tripwire-triggered (IR beam gate or IR motion). None I found incorporate image motion detection, image recognition, and automatic camera pan/tilt/zoom.
So how much should I charge when I start selling these?
they simply won't kill the animal, only cause it pain
.22LR, you just have to get the shot placement juuuusssst right. But yes, I wouldn't consider going after most american deer breeds with a .223. It's considered a varmit cartridge for a reason.
.223 is overkill for squirrel and gopher (except for longer ranges). About right for coyote. I'd want something bigger than a .30-30 for elk hunting. Something like my .300WBY. You have to match your cartidge to your game and hunting style.
Well, you can kill an elephant with a
On the other hand, a
I don't read AC A human right
If the attendant is not clueful enough to disable the firing mechanism before moving into range of the camera, then he wins a Darwin.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Slashdot is NOT a game.
Slashdot is about skill, and patience, and responsibility, and nerds.
Slashdot is about handling trolls safely.
Slashdot is about working alone, or in a group, to write a funny comment.
Slashdot is about coming to a personal understanding that you, and your family, are nerds, that every day you post is because someone else - plant or animal - moderated you up.
Slashdot is about the lengths you will go to keep your posts fed and healthy.
Slashdot is about knowing, deep in your gut, that the link you post will cause some server to hurt and die through slashdotting. And slashdotting (for nerds) is about honoring that server, by making its death for your benefit as fast and painless as possible, an easier death than it would suffer from the click throughs of some other site, from virii, from accidental unplugging, or from RAID failure.
Slashdot is about understanding your place in nature:
You are a troll.
You are at the bottom of the food chain.
You are SO ineffective at what you do that you MUST be careful, lest you wipe out those things you depend on for your own karma.
This space for rent
Think of all the new opportunities in Washington:
Computer Weapon Control lobby
Computer Weapon Registration lobby
The NCA (National Computer Association)
Plus all the new laws about carrying concealed computers, computer weapon training courses, no more computers in federal buildings...
It's a job creation goldmine!
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
Wah wah wah socioeconomics wah wah wah I don't want people to be able to serve their country to pay for college wah wah wah.
I have very real problems with forced service. I have no problem with paying a fair wage for a dirty and sometimes dangerous job. Are upper-class kids going to go into the military? No, not very often. But it provides a pretty decent way for lower class kids with no opportunities to get training and an education if they want it.
As opposed to mandatory service, where there's zero societal benefit (other than easing a few people's minds because "Poor people aren't being forced by socioeconomics to fight anymore!" - yeah, now they, along with everyone else, are being forced by force of law to fight, for zero benefit. Nicely done.)
Yes, let's have a draft! Because I swear to you, and I will swear to the draft board, that if you force me to join and then give me a gun, my conscientious objection will consist of taking said gun and emptying its rounds into the nearest unoccupied (hey, I don't want to hurt anyone) non-explosive (see previous) armed forces property. I have no issue with the military; I have major issues with other people trying to force me to do something.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
A peasant with a pitchfork != warrior with a sword.
Please feel free to provide an example of a nation with an armed capable populace that was not part of the general armed force.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
The simple fact is that eating pasture fed animals that are slaughtered on home pastures (whether game or stock) is much more humane than the alternatives.
.22 between the eyes. We also had a contract for wild goat meat with a supplier to a number of ethnic restaurants. This meant every couple of months having the Kelpie/Border Collies round up a mob of goats (with the help of a Jackaroo on a Ag-bike) & penning them in a large yard with electric fencing that contained suffient pasture &/or saltbush. Then every week, depending on demand between 1 & a dozen or more would be slaughtered, which involved them being run up a race one by one by a dog, & then having their throats deeply slashed as their heads were ripped back so their necks broke at the same time. It may sound gruesome but their quality of life was much better than feedlot stock & their last days were much better than the lasts days of pasture stock that are trucked off to the meatworks, often via the markets as well.
.223 or a .303 bullet passing through their heads. Well other then the pouched Joeys that had their skulld smashed, but being a research station that was in the public eye (that had city types often visiting) the Roo shooter was told not to shoot obvious mature females for this very reason. He could take 50 roos a night, work that out over a year.
The alternatives being:-
1/ pasture fed stock that are packed together like sardines & truck/trained/shipped hundreds, sometimes thousands of miles for slaughtering.
2/ Feedlot stock that are penned like tinned sardines virtually all their lives in knee high shit & need to be pumped full of anti-biotics to survive & are fed on a diet that's totally unnatural (when young feedlot cattle are weaned off milk & pasture to a diet that's virtually all grain that's forced onto them, they can be chonically ill for at least a month, as cattle just arn't designed to eat a diet that's more than 15% grain for extended periods). Don't let us start on the problems caused by the lack of sunlight, etc.
It's a real pity govt regulations have meant virtually the end of on-farm slaughtering (trucking pre-slaughtered animals in refridgerated trucks is infinitly more humane). What's even worse is the govt tax policies & subsidies that encourage feedlot meat, when without such artificial influences, feedlot meat would be totally unviable compared to pasture beef/lamp/pork/whatever except for very high price niche gourmet supplies.
You see feedlot stock require constant attention, drugs, suppliments, hormones, etc, while many types of pasture stock need not ever see a human being till slaughter time.
I use to work on a 100,000 acre outback sheep station, that also kept cattle & pigs, plus feral pigs 'n goats & wild roos, so I know what I'm talking about.
Of course the sheep did need attention, including mulesing at lamp marking, shearing & diping every year & crutching mid term between the shearing, but most of the cattle only ever saw human beings up close when being rounded up for slaughter. The pigs were kept in a huge pen out the back & got the slops from the kitchens (the sheep station was a research station owned by a Uni) & were let out to graze during the day on pasture 'n saltbush. For most of the pigs the 1st time they experianced humans up close was at slaughter time, when one of the Kelpie/Border Collie crosses led them up the race to face a
Ontop of that we had a contracted Roo shooter working the property when Roos plagued up. Mind you only the 2 Roo species that were in plague numbers were slaughtered, The Roos probably had the most humane deaths of all - not knowing they were going to be a meal till they fell within the beam of a spotlight & were instantly killed by a
For chrissake, this is a dumb idea. Give them an NES, the little plastic gun, and a copy of Duckhunt. Much more safe.
Best. Game. Evar.
I will grant that the OP spoke poorly. but so did you, in the exact same way, you conflated freeman and citizen. which are two completely different groups. Historically there have been at least 3, sometimes more groups.
... conflating citizens, freemen, and soldiers.
citizens, usually armed, particpating in governance, later called nobles
Professional warriors, sometimes freemen sometimes slaves armed and trained
Common freemen, never armed not really free and typically unable to participate in the common defence or governance later called peasants
Slaves, never armed never free never trained later called serfs
I have not covered all distinctions or subgroups, but the mistake you and the OP made is the same
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
"We were looking at a beautiful white-tail buck and my friend said 'If you just had a gun for that.' A little light bulb went off in my head," he said."
Stereotype yank? Oooh pretty: let's kill it!
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
More importantly - an armed populace makes it much harder for a government to take it's natural course toward totalitarianism.
Consider the context of the US constitution. Those people had successfully revolted against what they considered an oppressive government because the populace was well armed.
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
user: user
pass: ' or '1'='1
I don't even know. A long time.
"We were looking at a beautiful white-tail buck and my friend said 'If you just had a gun for that.' A little light bulb went off in my head," he said.
Oh, yeah. It's beautful. Good reason to kill it, I guess :P
As for you rednecks saying "well you eat at mcdonalds right?", no, I don't approve of McDonalds, either. And we buy our eggs from cage-free chickens. Besides, there is a difference between ignorance (hamburgers come from hamburger factories, right?) and straight out cruelty (ooh! let's shoot a bullet through its heart! yeah!) I much more respect people that are at least *trying* to be nice.
Duct tape, XML, democracy: Not doing the job? Use more.
I thought hunting was about 4 yobs driving down creekbeds in a old ute with a car load of beer 'n blasting anything that falls in the beam of the spotties with a .303, a .223, a .22 Magnum & Macca's double barrel shottie.
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.)
Indeed, the parent was a horrible analogy! Torture would imply that the animal being hunted is intentional pain.
Perhaps you should go to Iraq for awhile, then you might learn what it's like to be a torture victim. When you hunt, one does better to get a clean shot off, killing the prey as quickly as possible (without ruining the meat). If one has the skill and opportunity, a head-shot is probably best in many cases. Anybody who would deliberately shoot to injure and animal as opposed to kill is not a hunter but a sadist.
As for the "food" animals, their lives are often ones of terrible neglect. As you say, I'd rather be a buck living a happy life of grass and rutting and then suddenly *blam*, than be a pig stuck in a small pen, hearing the painful squeels and smelling the blood as others are taken off to be processed and knowing somehow that my turn is next...
Lets be honest the vast majority of Americans in Iraq rarely get beyond the Green zones except when in armed convoys. As such they only ever meet quisling Iraqis that work in Green zones or Iraqis that are saying whatever they think the American wants them to say because there's a heavily armed convoy backing the American up.
What do you think people are? Non-animals? We're in the Animal Kingdom, no?
they are all animals...we are humans...why shouldn't we eat them
So, by this logic, and, assuming people are animals, we should eat them, too? Even though I'm vegan, I can identify a good argument for eating animals. This is not a good argument.
Am I of the 'overly aggressive type' that you feared? I hope you understand that our difference of opinion about this matter does not make us enemies.
I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. --Isaac Bashevis Singer
For those of you who have asked questions about someone hacking into a computer and turning off the safety and shooting someone, or the safety malfuncitoning or something, did you ever consider that you can UNLOAD the rifle? If you UNLOAD the rifle then it's pretty hard to get killed by the rifle unless the guy includes a bludgeon function as well.
I'm by no means saying that this is a good idea, but if you go out into the field to work on equipment and don't have the presense of mind to unload the gun, then you're probably going the way of the dodo bird before too long anyway.
`which fortune`
Look I know you get a craving for the hitting Ctrl and Shift+Direction every once in a while but please keep it to the games.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Have any of you thought of if someone set this up in the window of a bulding in dense population with a high speed internet connection, and then connected to it from somewhere else and started going rampage on people, how can they allow such home made remote shooting machine to even be used for comercial ends ?! This is wrong on so many levels
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
Another take:
Some advantages come with disabilities in other areas.
Colorblind individuals often have excellent night vision. Having the Sickle cell gene protects against malaria.
To take this to extreme:
Dolphins gave up manuverability on land for better mobility in water.
I don't read AC A human right
Something like the electorial college made sense 200 years ago, but not now!
Why? There are reasons for a representative body to make decisions (see: Legislative Branch of the USA Government).
Fact is the vast majority of people in any 3rd world country are too busy surviving to bother with taking up arms against the occupier.
But the fact is most Iraqis are worse off now. Unemployment has doubled with the coming of the Americans (& inflation due to the higher incomes of those that do work & the high incomes of contractors, means that the 50% that are unemployed are worse off than the odd 20% that were unemployed in embargo era Iraq) & death rates in the country have tripled (just ask any morgue employee), meaning a significant percentage maybe a majority sympathise with some insurgents.
I say some because so far more than 300 seperate insurgent groups have been positively identified (there are probably thousands) & it seems most are not of the extremist Wahhabi/salafist variety that go arround executing aid workers.
Generalising about insurgents as all being war criminals & terrorists because of the actions of Zarqawi & co is no more logical & accurate than generalising about all American soldiers being war criminals because a small minority abused prisoners & a Marine shot dead a disarmed wounded insurgent on camera.
If they lost the ability to move well enough to hunt, there was always plenty of work to be done. Whether that meant grinding grain by hand, preparing skins for leather production, the dressing of game, production of arrows or other weapons.
I don't read AC A human right
Out in the country we kill them wherever we can, because it's dinner
If you're looking for as much meat as quickly as possible, then by all means, go ahead. What you're describing is hunting as a chore, not hunting as a pastime.
My grandfather grew up on the plains of North Dakota in the 40's. His father would give him three shotshells and expected him to return with dinner. If he didn't, Grandpa tells me, he was punished. Grandpa had no qualms shooting a flock of mallards in the water at close range.
Every year, I return to the old family farm in North Dakota, to hunt those same mallards. With a bag limit of five, I'd be done hunting in ten minutes if I simply found the first flock sitting on the water and started pounding them. Instead, I set out decoys and wait to shoot them on the wing, and get a full morning of entertainment out of it. I'm not a farmer, I'm an actuary. I have the luxury of time and an unlimited supply of ammo.
And I probably enjoy my hunting a lot more than Grandpa did, 60 years ago.
The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
The vast majority of shotguns purchased by the US military for both WWI & WWII (like more than 90%) were used by/issued to Airfield security personel , MPs & the Shore Patrol & used as police weapons for things like riot work etc.
Just as many police units keep a shotgun in the Trunk, it was the same for Shore Patrol & MP units during the 2 world wars. When you consider such units existed where ever Americans were based, from Iran to Australia to Africa to China, India, Iceland, etc, etc, etc, let alone combat zones, you'll see that such units were easily able to fully utilise shotguns stocks purchased by the military.
So in reality the use of shotguns as trench guns & jungle guns were more rare exceptions than the rule. Just ask war veterans, I bet at least 98% will say they never saw shotguns being used in combat situations by US forces.
(though even at 45 degrees, not a whole lot of firearms will make it past 300 acres).
.223 or larger. Other than .30-30, .35 Remington, and some of the slower rounds, most rifles that are considered to be "high powered hunting rifles" used for hunting medium sized game (.30-06 being very popular, .270, .300, 7mm, .243, .308 etc. regardless of the 'species' such as Winchester, Remington, or Weatherby) are quite capable of maximum distances over a mile when fired in such a way.
There are 640 acres in a square mile (1 mile on a side). Most states have laws requiring the minimum calibre rifle for hunting deer being
"We were looking at a beautiful white-tail buck and my friend said 'If you just had a gun for that.' A little light bulb went off in my head," he said.
"If I just put strychnine in mine and my good buddies coffee, the world would be two morons closer to perfection!" he elaborated.
Rich Gentlemen Hide - The Existential Comic
My favourite movie gun reference:
------------
POOM POOM POOM POOM. I blew him out of the gas station, and ever since then, I always carry this.
(He pulls out a revolver)
I hear you. A well-armed populace is the best defense against tyranny.
I'll drink to that. And you know, I haven't fired this for such a long time I don't even know if it'll work.
Well, why don't you pull the trigger and find out.
(BOOM. He shoots the bartender in the chest. The bartender gets up, grabs the gun hidden behind the counter, and shoots the other guy. Both fall dead. Blood is everywhere.)
--------------
Classic
'plex
Rich Gentlemen Hide - The Existential Comic
Just look at the quality of life & they're dead in seconds.
Now compare that to stock animals, whether pasture fed or feedlot stock.
Pasture fed stock can spend days squashed together like sardines as they are trucked/shipped for slaughter hundreds or even thousands of miles away, & then they are more often than not slaughtered in ways that are much crueller than a bullet in the head.
Feedlot animals are even worse. They're penned together like sardines most of their lives knee deep in shit & need to be pumped full of anti-biotics, hormones & suppliments just to survive. Ontop of which they're fed a diet they arn't designed to live off naturally & thus are ill for a signifivant proportion of their lives. Take cattle they're not designed to have a diet consisting of more than 15% grain for any sort of extended period, yet feedlot cattle have a diet that's more than 90% grain. Really feedlots are hell on earth for the animals in them.
Give me game any day - try one year old saltbush fed feral goat & one will never look back.
One thing I do disagree with is the hunting of native wildlife (that hasn't plagued out due to human driven enviromental changes), why someone would shoot a majestic creature like a mountain lion or bear is beyond me. Some people claim that bears & mountain lions can be dangerous, but only when humans intrude in their enviroments, either directly or via housing developments, in which case I feel bears & mountain lions should have every right to kill people, just as one by default should accept being potential shark bait when one swims in the sea.
In a series of what police are calling, "unusual events," a Texas man was slain today when his home computer contracted a virus, and shot him dead via a networked camera and rifle apparatus.
Even though the system was connected to the Internet, and had Windows XP's Service Pack 2, authorities believe there was no foul play involved.
Thank you for reading One Man's Opinion. No participation necessary. Offer void where deemed by law or PATRIOT Act.
When *I* go to the grocery store in the morning...
Get the groceries.... check
Memory of sunrise that morning.... check
Sense of achievement.... check.... Ohhhhh I am so sad.
--Rob
Towards the Singularity.
I have been toying with the idea of presenting a similar idea to the government, to sponsor the AC-130. For a fee, you would get gun camera footage of 30 secs of operation of the geteling guns and 3 rounds from the Howitzer. I'd take a DVD of that! I'll buy that for a dollar! -Rich
I don't know about your but I don't like eating Polaroids. They give me gas. They also make some pretty poor summer sausages, IMHO.
The point to really make regarding this quote from Miller is that it explitly recognizes that there is a class of weapons that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear, and that classes of weapons is those in current use by our armed forces, ie the fully automatic M-16. Another point is that the ruling really doesn't say that the government can regulate sawed-off shotguns, it says that the case has not been proven that the government cannot regulate them.
Read the full text of the decision here: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardw el/public/nfalist/miller.txt
For fun, calculate how much DDT would be lethal for you!
Well, I'm pretty sure the term you're looking for is "Torrie" (with a y, maybe?), not fellow citizen. They were on the side of might and right, aligned with the King. And they weren't popular.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
In Mt Rogers National Recreation Area in Virginia. It is hunting season. These guys are jokes. I hunted until I was 22 or so then quit because of drunk rednecks shooting at anything that moves and pulling pistols over my dead buck (really happened: he saw me shoot it and stole the deer from me at gunpoint). I saw guys hunting in pairs this past weekend with more equipment than wits. Using GPS, wireless comm, laser sights, etc. What a fucking joke. I shot my first deer when 12 with a .270 that had no scope and had to cut its throat for a coup d'grace. I still get the willys thinking about it.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
For one thing, the Soviet Union only had two years they could have invaded the US in the 1990s, since they expire in 1991. And, of course, the reasons for the Japanese and Soviets not invading are the exact same. If you were a general, how would you deal with 100 or 200 MILLION armed citizens during an invasion?
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
Another important aspect of hunting that should not be overlooked is population manangement. In most areas of my state, Wisconsin, whitetail deer populations are in excess. This leads to increased crop damage and car accidents, among other negative things. The deer hunting season is viewed as a harvest to bring population numbers back to normal. If someone thinks a quick death by bullet is inhumane, it's much "better" than a long period of starvation due to an overpopulated herd in a harsh winter.
The Constitution was designed to "create" and "limit" the powers of our central government.
It was designed to be a shield between the free people of this land and their public servants (aka elected representatives).
It is not the purpose of The Constitution to define the rights of "We The People". The first ten ammendments were added despite the protests of many drafters of both The Declaration and The Constitution, in the end it was decided to mention those ten rights specifically so that they could never be violated.
It is not subject to (re)interpretation as our language and the meaning of words becomes more vague.
Perhaps most importantly, It is not the purview of either of the three branches of government created by The Constitution to assign it any meaning other than that clearly intended by the people of that time and age who created it.
"The Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all." --George Washington
Testimony of Eugene Volokh on the Second Amendment, Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Sept. 23, 1998.
http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/beararms/testimon .htm
Eight years ago, I got into an argument with a nonlawyer acquaintance about the Second Amendment. The Amendment, this person fervently announced, clearly protects an individual right. Not so, I argued to him, thinking him to be something of a blowhard and even a bit of a kook.
Three years ago, I discovered, to my surprise and mild chagrin, that this supposed kook was entirely right. In preparing to teach a law school seminar on firearms regulation (one of the only about half a dozen such classes that I know of at U.S. law schools), I found that the historical evidence -- much of which I set forth verbatim in the Appendix -- overwhelmingly points to one and only one conclusion: The Second Amendment does indeed secure an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Who knows, you might bag a rarely spotted Osama.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
Tonight's "All Things Considered" on NPR
reported that the man's name is John Lockewood
(Lockwood/Lokwood?), not John Underwood.
Online audio should be available later today at:
http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/
Just FYI.
seriously, what could possibly go wrong??
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
The moral vegetarians/vegans are the ones you're referring to. And I don't think there's anything wrong with the way they're approaching the problem: Remember, cows eat grain too. Much more of it than we do in fact. But that's not the only reason people become vegans or vegetarians. There are environmental reasons and there are health reasons too.
The environmentals claim that producing enough meat to feed a human takes at least 10 times as much arable land (for the grain to feed the animals), takes much more water, and creates much more waste, than it would to simply cut out the middle-man and eat the grain directly. If everyone suddenly turned vegetarian, we'd have a huge surplus of grain left over. Some of the farms would probably go out of business (sorry, environmentalists don't let businesses get in their way) and return their fields to fallow, giving some precious habitat back to the wildlife.
The health people have some legitimate and some imagined concerns. For certain, factory farms and even family farms are pumping more and more antibiotics, chemicals, drugs, and hormones into the animals, often without any regard for whether they actually need it, it's just standard procedure. I can't say whether this is in fact a health risk or not, but it makes me uneasy personally, and it's one of the main reasons I like to eat vegetarian dishes when I can. At least the pesticides are supposed to wash off...
Random and weird software I've written.
I'm not sure where or what you hunt, but in my experience that is simply not the case. I hunt whitetail deer in the woods of the Applachian Mountains. There are many times when I can watch a deer for several minutes, know exactly what it is, have plenty of "good shots," but never have a clear enough view to get a good picture.
This happens because you can only see parts of the deer at a time, while the rest is behind a tree. But that doesn't mean you can't see the deer's head (to know whether it's a shooter), then wait for it to walk forward enough to get a clear shot at it's vitals.
I'm sure what you're saying might be the case in certain areas, but it's definitely not the case here.
The deer population is so high around my farm due to the great availability of food (corn, soybeans, alfalfa). I'm not sure what the natural predators would be - we have coyote, I don't think wolf and bear would fit in too well with the human population. (in the lower third of Michigan) Before white settlement in Michigan this was 99% mature forest lands, with a very low deer population.
I've nearly given up on planting trees or a garden. The deer eat everything (or kill the trees by rubbing antlers on them). To my mind, the deer population is about three times too high. I think I'll have to put up a tall fence, but that will be expensive and ugly.
(there is also the tuberculosis and chronic wasting issues -- if the deer pop. isn't cut way back, there will be more finacial problems for cow farmers, and you'll be paying more for cheese, milk & steaks)
before those days.. general armed force generally was the populace. any 'uncivilised' country. how about vikings? sparta? hell, any african country before modern times(every male being a warrior!), how about that? the even gave sometimes a run for the brits.
what exactly is the difference between a sword and a pitchfork anyways, as both can be used to kill and have been used as tools in an uprising? is a hunter with a rifle then a soldier in an organized army automatically?
usa was not the first, get over it. it was not even the first to seperate from a bigger empire by means of war.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
this shouldn't be modded troll... He's absolutely right. For another angle on this refer to the New Hampshire state constitution, where it's encoded right there with all the other rights as "Right to Revolution" (Article 10). http://www.state.nh.us/constitution/constitution.h tml