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.
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.
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 :
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!
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
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.
So, now people with disabilities can shoot at animals and thereby give them disabilities?
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
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?
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?
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.
Say what!? Is this so the animal orphans can eat their own parents?
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
...that can only end in tears.
Possible scenarios that occured to me within first 30 seconds:
- Internet hunter shoots animal, some human goes out to retrieve it. Oooh, what will the next hunter that gets online fire a shot at?
- "something goes wrong" and the system becomes unreliable. Who's going to onsite to fix the thing, while it's playing up?
- it's all a big con, and when you think you're "hunting" you're actually watching a carefully prepared film
- parachute one of these things into Fallujah, then auction off rights to "The Real Deathmarch 2004, with added reality"
Anyone care to round out a top 10 list? I would, but I'm at work, about to walk into a meeting and wishing I had one of these with me right about now...
An advanced society makes accomodations for its disabled members, which is why prostitution should be legalized immediately.
paintball
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!!
It's going to be possible for off site hunting accidents and off site manslaughter.
How about making it illegal to operate a weapon remotely for anything but military purposes? The further you remove a person from the carnage the more it seems like a game, and the less thought and respect for life you're likely to see.
There are real consequences to this hunting. Animals die. You wouldn't pilot an aircraft with real people in it by remote control via a flight sim or camera setup.
Sorry if my thoughts are a little scattered.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
- It has no sane rules to elect the president. Something like the electorial college made sense 200 years ago, but not now!
- It permitted slavery. Later on, it get "re-interpreted". Duh, what does that tell you!?
- With no proper institutions to safe you from the evil empire (the UK) or evil neighbors, handguns made sense. Things have changed...
- ...
So, looking at the constitution as a source of truth and wisdom is, frankly, bullshit.Apart from that: What sportsmanship (or honor) is there if a disabled person shoots animals like this? It's pathetic, and people engaging in this sort of activity for fun are just disgusting bastards.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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?
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.
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.
It's nice that you can just go and 'buy aburger or something.' In some areas (yes in the US) you hunt to eat. I don't, have never hunted, though I fish (usually catch-and-release, but I will eat some of the fish that I catch) and know how to use a bow or firearm if necessary. I live 20 miles from Manhattan, but even fewer miles from the Highlands of New Jersey. I feel that it is a good idea to be able to surivive in the woods.
The light at the end of the tunnel is a train.
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.
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
I have no problem with hunting, nor killing animals (mmmm... lamb!) but this guy's idea is just plain idiotic.
It's not a good idea because it poses a significant, and unusual, risk to human life and on top of that, it is going to remove the level of immediacy that is required to allocate legal responsibility for an action (i.e. shooting a gun) with a person (Joe Sixpack).
What if someone is out in the range adjusting some equipment, and the thing that was supposed to disconnect the Internet death trigger malfunctioned... I mean, is he planning on using an OS that is authorized for mission critical / life supporting systems? That won't be Windows or Linux, as you probably know.
The idea is just flawed. We as Engineers go to a lot of trouble to make systems that are safe for humans. This system poses unnecessary and probably significant risk to humans.
I think it's just the 'grown up' version of pulling the wings off flies; an indulgence of the barbaric side of human nature. I appreciate that you see some kind of spiritual side to it, but the majority of hunters I encounter seem to be pissed idiots, blasting away at roadsigns and leaving beer cans and rubbish everywhere.
If people want to have a spiritual experience or a team building exercise there are numerous civilised alternatives. If people want to understand where their meat comes from, they should tour some factory farms and industrial slaughterhouses. If people want to know their place in the food chain, they should compare their teeth and nails to those of a lion. If people want to honour animals, they should leave them alive rather than spuriously 'thinning out their numbers', South Park style.
And yes, I grew up on a farm and have killed things and eaten them. But I was young and stupid then.
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling
I hope someone does write an aimbot.
Part of responsible, real-life hunting is taking responsibility for your crappy shots. If you wound an animal but don't fell it, you need to track it down and put it out of its misery. Period.
What happens when John Q. Callous hits his target in a slow death spot from a thousand miles away? Who's going to make sure that the animal doesn't crawl into a hole and suffer for hours until it dies?
Me personally, I'm crap with a gun even if I've had hours to practice with it. How many n00b fools are going to try this with neither the means nor the inclination to make a humane kill?
John Hancock wuz here.
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!
> 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
Thanks for totally missing the joke, and then EXPLAINING it.
paintball
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
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?
Rarely is the question asked, were the light bulb ever on?
example.org - powered by Linux!
INDEED !
nuff said
"Capital punishment makes the state into a murderer. Imprisonment makes the state into a gay dungeon-master"
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)
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 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
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
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
Hunting, as a sport, emphasizes aspects which put food on the table for our ancestors. It's not simply about putting a jacketed slug into an animal, its about excercising patience, the stalk, the outdoors, about becoming one with your environment. What passes for hunting nowadays is already a travesty, what with laser range finders and designaters, infrared high power scopes, pheremone enhanced scents, and prerecorded broadcast noises designed to attract rutting deer. We (the hunting community) have lost respect for the animal as a clever prey worthy of our effort, and have turned it into a glorified bloodsport with a billion dollar a year industry convincing us they need their product to get that edge.
So don't get upset over this moron and his robo-hunter. Its just one more turn.
(Real hunters use iron sites. Hardcore hunters use a bow and arrow. Real men hunt with giant fucking knifes and sharpened sticks.)
Wait just a minute! If you don't have a good view of the target (deer/sheep/tin can/whatever) then you have ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS TAKING THE SHOT!
That's how hunting accidents happen.
If I can't clearly see it, it ain't getting shot at. Otherwise I could shoot cousin Earl or some dumbass wandering around in our woods. Also, if you can't see it, you may shoot a doe with a fawn, which is a no-no, least 'round here.
Damn, people, think about this shit! Hopefully you were just spouting off, but anytime you pick up a firearm you have got to be careful.
Let's recap the rules for safe gun handling, shall we?
1) All guns are always loaded!
2) Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy!
3) Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target!
4) Always be sure of your target!
(Sometimes they're phrased differently, but the content is essentially the same)
-gandalf23@work