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."

Comments

This is interesting...

[Erect Horsecock]

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.

Re:This is interesting...

[kaiser423]

Matters what animal you hunt, and with what. With just about any weapon (exceot the mouse button), there is stalking and tracking required. You can hike around for a week in elk country and hardly see a single one if you don't know what you're doing. Personally, I like bow hunting just because of the sportsmanship. Gun hunting is a lot easier, but with certain animals it's still hard.

Re:This is interesting...

[mordors9]

This is another side effect of the PC movement. For some reason the differently challenged can not be told there are some things they can not do. I read an article earlier in the year where some of their advocacy groups were suing the Federal government to provide access to more wilderness areas. Now I'm sorry but as soon as you pave a roadway for access, the wilderness is gone. Now the idea that they should be able to hunt without having to leave their home is just going to far yet again. Hopefully the State can put a stop to this before it gets started.

Re:This is interesting...

[Concerned Onlooker]

In the end the worm always eats the bird.

Re:This is interesting...

[SetupWeasel]

Yes, an animal still dies, but the difference between hunting for food and buying it at the store is the difference between lethal injection as a criminal punishment and letting someone torture a man to death as his criminal punishment.

I was looking around for stuff to mod, but this I have to reply to.

The life of some of the animals you eventually buy in the stores is horiffic. I'm not a vegetarian, and I don't think farming animals is inherently wrong, but we have pigs living their entire lives in cages they can't even turn around in.

I'd rather have the animals have five years of freedom and a painful death any day over five years of hell and a peaceful death.

Re:This is interesting...

[Bowling Moses]

It depends on who, where, and what you're after if you consider if hunting is lopsided towards humans or not. We have bag limits and tags on anything worth eating, hunting seasons, and limitations on what you can use. Sure now we've got camoflage and scents and calls, but they aren't all that great and require skill to use. For whatever dumbass reason many hunters prefer the much less effective camo that has leaves and berries and crap printed on it than stuff that actually works. Scents? Helps for hunting some species but then at least in Oregon you can't use them for black bear unless you apply it to your own clothing! Then there's the decline in hunter skill and experience. I'm a total novice and manage to get out only maybe every other weekend at best during hunting season, but lots of people don't even do that.

Finally, some hunts are just brutal. Two years ago, my roomate lucked out and after four years unsuccessfully going after bull elk in Oregon, he got an antlerless elk tag. Elk are amazing animals, can weigh well over a half ton but take two steps into heavy brush and be gone without a trace or hardly a sound. Anyway, he spent five days in Oregon's coast range before he shot a ~900 pound cow elk. So that's December in a rain forest in Oregon. Lows below freezing, highs around 50, near-constant rain so hard that if you want a shower just stick a bar of soap on your head and stand outside for five minutes. The day he got her there were 100 mph wind gusts recorded at Bandon, just to the south. He didn't use any calls or scents, but that day got within 50 feet of her wearing a bright yellow rainsuit. Someone always visits him at elk camp to make sure he's alright, and that year it was me. He had somehow gutted, skinned, quartered, and hung her by himself and carried out about 2/3 of the meat over two miles of steep, abandoned logging roads to his truck on the "main" logging road by the time I finally found him around dusk. The next day we drove back and got the remainder and I found out what it was like to carry an elk quarter on my back for a couple miles. Or at least a big chunk of it, anyway. I had about 80 pounds of elk leg on my back, and whenever I leaned over I'd "accidentally" bonk him in the head with her hoof, which stuck out over my head by about a foot and a half. From just two trips I got some of the worst muscle pulls I've ever had, I can't imagine doing it for over a day like he did. Elk hunters are full-bore batshit insane. Tasty animal, though. Beef sucks.

But this so-called hunting from the safety and comfort of your own computer is just plain wrong, I agree.

Re:This is interesting...

[DigitumDei]

Okay, well I lived on a farm where there were a number of feral cats. These were cats that hunted to survive, rats and birds and whatever else they could catch were their food. They DID NOT TOY WITH THEIR PREY, they killed it and ate it. That was hunting!

My cats (ex feral cats from my parents farm) no longer need to hunt for food and as of such the way they hunt changes dramatically. Now they toy with their prey, they play games, they specifically let it go so they can catch it again and again and again...

So please don't give me that they're not human so it is different crap. I don't hunt (anymore), I don't believe hunting is right, but when I was a kid I used to hunt (with an air rifle) and it is exilerating. That doesn't make it right or wrong, you can argue the morality of it all you want, the exileration is something inherent in our makeup, and its the same with you little cat. It (the cat) may not be able to think about the morality of it, and thus you can argue what it does is less wrong than us hunting, but it is the same genetic predisposition (our ancesters were HUNTER/gatherers after all).

Re:This is interesting...

[arivanov]

If you hunt just because of the sportsmanship, have you ever considered trying to hunt with a camera? Getting a clean professional quality shot of a deer is thousands times more difficult compared to shooting it. A rifle will shoot through branches and leaves. A camera does not.

Take a camera next time and see what a lame shot you actually are.

Re:This is interesting...

[schizacopf]

We should take this idea to Iraq, and mount it on some sort of mobile platform. I'll pay $1,000 an hour, to shoot at insurgents from the comfort of my own home!

Hunters with disabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

In the days of true hunting, hunters with disabilities became the prey.

Re:Hunters with disabilities

[MoggyMania]

Not the case. Hunter-gatherer societies were small enough that they could manage to be fairly protective of the rare people that were disabled, whether they were born that way (rare) or injured. Just because somebody becomes disabled doesn't mean their family or friends stop caring about them.

I dunno

[copperheadclgp]

I guess I can understand the thinking... but I'm not sure I agree with it.

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.

What's the point?

[Epistax]

I thought the entire excuse for hunting was for tradition and the sportsmanship. This completely removes both. This is purely idiotic.

Re:What's the point?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I thought the entire excuse for hunting was for tradition and the sportsmanship.

No.

That's what city people who never actually hunted think.

Hunting is NOT a game.

Hunting is about skill, and patience, and responsibility, and consequences.

Hunting is about handling deadly tools safely.

Hunting is about working alone, or in a group, to achieve a difficult goal.

Hunting is about coming to a personal understanding that you, and your family, are also animals, that every day you live because something else - plant or animal - died to feed you.

Hunting is about the lengths you will go to keep your family fed and healthy.

Hunting is about knowing, deep in your gut, that the animal you hunt will hurt and die. And hunting (for humans) is about honoring that animal, by making its death for your benefit as fast and painless as possible, an easier death than it would suffer from the teeth and claws of some other peredator, from disease, from accident, or from starvation.

Hunting is about understanding your place in nature:

You are a predator.

You are at the top of the food chain

You are SO effective at what you do that you MUST be careful, lest you wipe out those things you depend on for your own life.

Re:What's the point?

[YU Nicks NE Way]

The only difference that I see is that the wild animal has a much nicer life then the caged turkey up until the moment of death.

That's actually rather implausible. The wild animal is likely to suffer from parasitic infections in its vital organs, which would cause chronic discomfort. It is likely to die slowly and painfully of the complications caused by an infection if it isn't lucky enough to be torn apart bit by bit -- while still alive, mind you -- by a predator.

As is the case with humans, wild animals are capable of surviving the extremes of their nominal climates with only available shelter, but exhibit stress responses characteristic of discomfort when placed outside of a small band of temperatures and humidities. Domesticated food animals do not exhibit those stress responses when raised under nominal feedlot conditions. Domestic turkeys, for instance, do not secrete stress hormones when crowded. (Why do we know that? Those hormones slow growth, so agribusiness types have measured exactly the point at which they start showing up in the animals' brains. Farmers under contract to the businesses follow the buidelines they set down.)

Bottom line: well, surprising as it may sound, no, you're wrong. There are a great many good reasons to be vegan, or at least purely vegetarian, but the welfare of animals doesn't actually qualify.

Re:What's the point?

[adamdeprince]

Then why does every good hunting story start with "after the first six pack?"

Re:What's the point?

[swillden]

I thought the entire excuse for hunting was for tradition and the sportsmanship.

Different people have different reasons, but some of the common ones are:

• The joy of being outdoors and close to nature. Hunting gets you closer to and more involved with nature than just about any activity other than maybe wildlife research.
• The adrenaline rush of the stalk.
• The pleasure of eating the game.
• Camaraderie with other hunters (often family).

The main reason I enjoy hunting is that it motivates me to get closer to nature than I ever do otherwise. That's a really odd fact, one I don't understand. I'm not necessarily anxious to kill anything, though I like the meat, and the thrill of the stalk is fantastic (I most often hunt with a bow). What I enjoy most is being out there. So why don't I go out there just to go, rather than to hunt?

I do, actually. I like to hike and camp, and I spend lots of time in the mountains just because I enjoy being there. I take hikes involving one or two thousand feet of elevation gain and three or four miles horizontal distance. I take lots of pictures and occasionally "stalk" with my camera.

But when I'm hunting it's not unusual to climb three thousand feet or more and hike 5-10 miles in the morning and then do the same again in the evening. And although I always pay attention to my surroundings (that being the point of going there), I pay much *more* attention when hunting, and I therefore get a lot more out of it. For example, when hunting I can often smell the animals and even identify them by their scent. When I'm just hiking I don't seem to notice their scents at all. Hunting motivates me to do things like dressing from head to toe in camouflage and then sitting completely motionless for hours, until the animals have completely forgotten I'm not just an oddly-shaped bush. A fawn bounced into me and knocked me off the log I was sitting on, once.

I enjoy hunting because I like the cool experiences I have as a result of doing somewhat extreme things to get very close to nature. I could do *exactly* the same things without spending $60 on a hunting license, plus more than I want to think about on all of the gear, but I don't, and when I try it's not the same.

Anyway, the point of this wildly off-topic rumination is to say:

Shooting animals via remote control over the Internet isn't "hunting" for people who for whatever reason can't do it in person. It's just a weird, hi-tech way of slaughtering animals. Killing is actually the smallest and least important part of sport hunting.

Re:What's the point?

[Dusabre]

You know what - all the pleasures you have described can be felt by going for a bicycle ride through the countryside, snowboarding or if you really feel like spend thousands of bucks on equipment AND want to stalk something, by playing paintball.

Admit it, you like to kill.

Re:What's the point?

[Guppy06]

"I eat steak and chicken and enjoy both, but let's not pretend hunting's anything noble or magnificent"

It may or may not be noble on absolute terms, but I personally I think hunting a wild animal gives it far more dignity relative to livestock raised solely for slaughter. Personally, I'd say the ones who take "pleasure in killing something else" aren't out hunting, they're at the slaughterhouse cracking open the skulls of cattle with a hammer. I mean, with hunting you maybe kill one large mammal a day if you're good and if you're lucky, but you get to see bits of cow brains fly all day, every day at the meat plant. Of course, even that gets boring after a while, but there's always opportunities to get... shall we say "creative?"

"If you can't get to a supermarket, okay, I can understand why you'd need to hunt."

Yes, because you can get venison so cheap at the supermarket...

"As it stands now, though, I have nothing but contempt for the overweight rednecks who need a rifle and a corpse to feel like men."

They're not the ones ignoring where the food on their plate came from. What they think about it and how it effects them is debatable, but it certainly isn't blithe ignorance.

Re:What's the point?

[hikerhat]

...Hunting is ...

-- snip --

I grew up in rural Wisconsin in a hunting family, and a hunting town (the place shuts down during deer hunting season). So I know what hunting is.

What you described was hunting 2 or 3 hundred years ago. If you understood our place in nature _today_ you would know that we can produce enough crops to live entirely on non-animal sources of food.

Back when it was kill or be killed there was honor in hunting for survival. Today the choice is kill, or hit the produce section of your super market. There's no honor in gratuitous killing.

You can get all that mystical hunter crap you were talking about on the way to the grocery store anyway - check it:

• Going to the grocery store is NOT a game. It really isn't any fun at all.
• Going to the store is about skill, patience, and responsability, and consequences. Cooking skill so you know what to get, patience because the store is always crowded, and you should be responsable and select organic produce.
• If you drive to the store you have to handle your deadly tool (your car) safely. Be especially careful in the parking lot - there are kids running around. And be double plus careful on icy winter roads.
• Walking around the produce section is about coming to the understanding that you are an animal that's learned to grow all the food it needs for you and your family. And only plants need to die to feed you, not animals.
• Going vegetarian is about the lengths you'll go to keep yourself and your family fed while honoring animals with their lives. Sure, it isn't easy at first. You have to learn all new recipes. Your hunting buddies will make fun of you. You have to question some of the core beliefs you were raised on. But remember, you're going to great lengths here.
• Going vegetarian is about knowing, deep in your gut, that you can live without killing animals. It is about honoring animals not by killing them but by not killing them. Sure, they may be killed more painfully by a predator than by your gun (ignoring the tremendous number of animals that are only wounded by the hunter, that limp off and slowly and painfully die. You guys ain't all dead eye shots you know.) But that _is_ a kill or be killed kind of situation, and there _is_ honor in that. Not that animals really care much about honor.
• Eating fruits and vegetables is about understanding your place in nature in 2004. You don't need to be a predator anymore. You can choose which part of the food chain you want to be connected to.
• You are SO effective at growing food that you don't need to eat animals anymore.

I agree with you that hunting isn't about "tradition" and "sportsmanship". But that isn't what "city people" think hunting is about. That's the standard propaganda that the NRA and outdoor sports magazines try and feed to "city people" to make them think hunting is about "tradition" and "sportsmanship". They even call hunters "sportsmen".

Re:What's the point?

[Bastian]

Hunting is about skill, and patience, and responsibility, and consequences.

Hunting is about handling deadly tools safely.

Would someone please explain that to all the hunters we caught rifle hunting within a couple hundred yards of my house when I was a kid, despite fine mist of NO HUNTING signs that we sprayed across our property?

Or the guy who set up the salt lick on our property?

I'd especially like to have that explained to the guy who came out of the forest (and into our backyard) screaming some gibberish about how dangerous it is to be outside (in my backyard, playing on a swingset) during deer season, all because he had seen some movement and had the gun lined up and ready to fire, his finger only checked because he heard me say something?

There are a lot of guys who romanticize hunting. Which is great, there is truth to the "hunting shows you your place in nature" story. But in my experience, you guys are totally outnumbered. For most folks, hunting seems to simply be about finding things and shooting them. Any food you might get is just a bonus.

That's the only way I can understand why we had so many encounters with hunters firing rifles more or less in our backyard when I was a kid, or when we had so many problems with hunters hunting on my school's wildlife preserve when I was in college, or why I am seeing this story about a remote-control rifle that you can control from the Internet right now.

Guilty or not

[ThinkPad760]

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.

Re:Guilty or not

[Apiakun]

Of course you are guilty. I was wondering the same thing myself when I read about this earlier this morning. If some random person were walking along, and you clicked to shoot and killed them, then what? What if you're accessing the site through an anonymous proxy? How would that be dealt with? I see they are attempting to rule on whether or not you must be on site in order to make a kill, but in the meantime, what happens?

Who wants a job?

[Kotukunui]

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!

Re:Who wants a job?

[MikeHunt69]

And today in the Monster Garage, we have Jesse James (distant relative to the famous outlaw) and his hand selected team. They have 5 days to rip, grind and burn and turn a 1988 Dodge pickup into the worlds fastest supercharged roadkill collector.

Jesse: "I want it to have guns. That would be cool."

Oooh I see even more marketing opportunities here!

[Xpilot]

Shoot the rabbit and WIN AN IPOD!!!

Mouse aiming? Forget that, I need WASD too~!

[MukiMuki]

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.

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 : ::Shht:: Counterhunters Win.

Lag?

[sp00]

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.

Shopping Mall+ This + Tranq Darts = GREAT FUN

[dj42]

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.

I'd use the lag defense

[NotQuiteReal]

I don't think the "he was a camper" defense would stand up in court.

A Link

[suwain_2]

Yahoo has the story, too. They include a link to the website: live-shot.com.

Linkage

[s0l0m0n]

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.

Re:Gun rights primer

[Chuck Chunder]

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.

I think the modern term is "insurgents".

Re:Gun rights primer

[PhiRatE]

Yeah, because an armed populace would prevent a major world power from invading your land today.

Like Iraq for example.

An advanced society....

[raehl]

An advanced society makes accomodations for its disabled members, which is why prostitution should be legalized immediately.

Re:An advanced society....

[MoggyMania]

Most of the disabled guys I know have very little problem getting laid (or finding long-term mates); I'm a disabled woman and I certainly haven't found it a problem... Considering this is a site full of *non-disabled* guys that can't manage to get laid, I rather think legalizing prositution would be far more to your advantage than theirs.

Re:An advanced society....

[EvilStein]

I hate to tell you, but I don't know one single woman that has EVER had ANY problem getting laid.

Getting laid by Mr. Hottie, maybe... but never any problem getting laid. :P

The site is www.live-shot.com

[insane66]

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.

What happens when a human gets shot

[syousef]

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.

Re:Gun rights primer

[gloth]

Yeah, unfortunately, most people fail to understand that the constitution and its amendments was written with the late 1700s in mind. Need examples:

• 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.

Redneck philosophy in a nutshell.

[caffeinated_bunsen]

"If you just had a gun for that."

A more concise summary of the essence of redneckhood may never have been spoken. Truly a quote for the ages.

If you don't think THIS is a sport...

[raehl]

Just wait until someone writes an aimbot.

Re:Oooh I see even more marketing opportunities he

[krumms]

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.

The lure of hunting?

[Ghostgate]

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.

Re:Gun rights primer

[silentbozo]

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.)

Re:Gun rights primer

[$ASANY]

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.

Someone's gonna die

[bigberk]

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.

Hack that computer and kill someone

[Guus.der.Kinderen]

There has been a vivid discussion on this topic at http://www.antionline.com/showthread.php?s=&thread id=263951 . The thread starter (there) has an interesting point of view on the matter. Choice quote:

I can see it now. The dumb ass goes to pick up all of the dead animals laying about, after first choosing the "turn rifle off" option. Someone breaks into the site using a couple of bounce points, chooses the "turn rifle on" option and BANG BANG BANG.

Or even worse, some kids happen to be playing in the field! "I know I shot the kids all dead, but I thought it was a game".....

Although he gets a little aggravated, he does has a valid point. Should giving people control over a gun (i.o.w: "killing device") over the internet even be considered?

Sigh...

[raehl]

Thanks for totally missing the joke, and then EXPLAINING it.

Re:Really?

[Piquan]

but the majority of hunters I encounter seem to be pissed idiots, blasting away at roadsigns and leaving beer cans and rubbish everywhere.

How do you know?

I mean, do you ask everybody you meet if they're a hunter?

I have friends who do and don't hunt. There's not a test that I can apply, other than asking "do you hunt?" I expect it's the same with you, unless you have a "hunter seeker" that tells you when you're talking to a hunter. So you have the following sample of the hunting population: (1) people whom you've asked if they hunt, (2) people whom you find out hunt through other means (such as, they mention it in conversation), and (3) pissed idiots that you assume are hunting, or observe hunting.

I'm going to make a guess here, and assume that you probably don't have a lot of conversations about hunting. So most of your sample is probably from #3. That's a skewed sample.

I have never knowingly had a conversation with the "pissed idiot" variety of hunter, and I've talked with many hunters. I have seen people getting pissed and blasting away at roadsigns, but I haven't ever known them to be hunting. Just being dangerous idiots.

I've seen multiple comments mirroring your sentiment in this thread, and I'm surprised. If you walked through a school and saw 98% that were dressed normally, and 2% that were dressed in too-tight white shirts with pocket protectors, would you assume that all computer types are thusly dressed? Or would you consider that perhaps computer types come in different shapes and sizes, and that perhaps there are computer geeks in that 98%? Stereotypes are always dangerous when you try to evaluate a social class.

Re:What's the point? - Tetris

[mwvdlee]

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.

Re:And taken in context even worse

[the way, what're you]

"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.

Rarely is the question asked, were the light bulb ever on?

Shoot your computer

[morie]

How long before the first redneck misunderstands and shoots at his computer wih a rifle?

Why Hunt? A hunter responds.

[bshroyer]

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.

Not Hunting, Just Killing

[thelizman]

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!

[gandalf23atwork]

Getting a clean professional quality shot of a deer is thousands times more difficult compared to shooting it. A rifle will shoot through branches and leaves. A camera does not.

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