Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone, neither do video games or marathons. Ask the deer if hunting hurts.
Not if you're a half-decent aim.
Kidding aside, a better question to ask them would be, 'which is preferable: to have a handful of your numbers die quickly and relatively painlessly every year, or have hundreds of thousands of your numbers die slow, painful deaths from starvation and/or disease?"
Of course, either way you're probably going to get that, er, no pun intended, "deer in headlights" look as a response. Don't have a lot of experience with mule or other varieties, but from what I've seen whitetail do not have a strong command of the English language.
I presume the person you are responding to is also against gay marriage - you know, since there's no necessity for it. That seems to be the point their entire argument hinges on: nobody "needs" to hunt for food, thus nobody should be allowed to hunt.
That's mind-bendingly hilarious, considering that you've ad hominem attacked every single person who disagrees with you, calling them "psychopaths" and various other derogatory terms, even though you have no way of knowing what their backgrounds or rationales are.
Maybe no one cares what your background is, since your assaultive posts already say everything we need to know.
You can always go hunting for the next can of meat at the nearest super or mini market.
Yea, but have you seen the kind of animals they use for supermarket meat? The conditions those animals live in? Go watch a PETA video, man, you won't touch mass-market meat for a month, I promise.
Besides, I've never been to a supermarket that serves venison.
We are specifically talking about people who hunt for fun, for the social experience and the enjoyment of tracking down and killing something.
No, you're personally attacking people who engage in a certain activity because you, for whatever reason, have subjectively decided that no one has a legitimate need to engage in said activity, and thus anyone who does is [insert favorite ad hominem here].
Talk about mental gymnastics - you ever eat a cheeseburger from a commercial outfit? Do you have any idea where that meat came from, or how the cow it was made out of lived before having it's neck cut so it bleeds out onto the slaugherhouse floor, in full view of all the other cattle? Yet here you are, judging me, because I occasionally take the time and effort to gather a bit of my own (meat that cannot be bought in a store), meanwhile as engaging in conservation efforts.
Or do you think letting hundreds of thousands of animals die of starvation and disease is a better idea than actively culling a handful every year? Because that would be kind of ironic.
Yea, namely that one is a method of food acquisition that requires training, certification, and licensing, and the other is a way for little kids (or people with little kid mentalities) to play up fantasies about murdering other humans.
"Food acquisition"? BULLSHIT. It's killing and terrorizing animals for fun. Nobody in the US needs to hunt to put food on the table. That argument is a load of crap.
Look, dink, just because you can easily go to the grocery store and buy your chosen food-that-had-a-mother "guilt free," because you didn't have to look it in it's sweet widdle face before it became your lunch doesn't make you better than the people who prefer the field-to-table process; IMO, it makes you worse, because you feel that this pawning off of the actual killing absolves you from being responsible for the death. Go watch a fucking PETA video of how stockyard animals live, then try and tell me that I'm torturing field-raised animals when I put a single round through their hearts.
Also - venison cannot be purchased at any grocer I've ever been to, and it's my favorite kind of meat, so... there's that.
No one actually dies when hunting either.
Exactly what do you call the dead animal that results from hunting?
Meat.
I sure as hell wouldn't try to affix human characteristics to goddamn livestock, I can tell you that - only a PETA terrorist or one of their supporters would do something so nonsensical.
Oh, because a human didn't die it doesn't matter? Wow, you are a pretty cruel individual. The medical term for people who lack empathy like that is psychopathy.
Oh, shit, you are a PETA terrorist, aren't you?
What's next, you gonna call me a monster because I had my pet dogs spayed and neutered? Go blow up a pig farm, terrorist.
Which is kinda the disturbing part since it speaks to hunters seeing animals as equivalent to those digital representations, no life before the player enters the scene, doesn't feel pain, exists for their amusement.
Oh please.
See, this is the other reason* why the hunting community ignores you "environmentalists," - the hyperbole. I mean, really, calling a person a 'psychopath' because they hunt for food, rather than wait for someone else to kill it for them? Childish narcissism doesn't even begin to describe it.
In Maine it's legal to bait an area until bears come to it, then chase them up a tree with a pack of dogs, then walk up and shoot them out of the tree.
Do you understand the appeal of first person shooters?
There is a HUGE difference between doing something imaginary in a video game and killing a real, live creature or a real live person.
Yea, namely that one is a method of food acquisition that requires training, certification, and licensing, and the other is a way for little kids (or people with little kid mentalities) to play up fantasies about murdering other humans.
Here's a hint, in a video game no one actually dies and all the participants know that.
No one actually dies when hunting either. At least, you hope no one actually dies, but accidents do happen.
Trouble is, if a kid's only interaction with firearms is playing a fantasy game where "no one dies," if/when they encounter a real firearm they aren't going to understand just how dangerous of a tool it is. Kids who hunt know the difference.
It's one thing to fantasize about something and quite another to actually do it in the real world.
True. Now apply that to your own thought process: your fantasy about what hunting is, and how hunters are motivated, is one thing, and reality is another.
We're talking about people getting amusement from the real world suffering of another creature.
Proof that you don't know jack about hunting, other than what [insert preferred 'envronmentalist' group] told you to think. FWIW, most hunters try to avoid causing the animals to suffer.
That's why we invented target practice.
I hope you can actually understand why that is very very very different.
I do. I hope you can understand how unreasonably uninformed you are presenting yourself as.
Just because you call it game doesn't make it a sport. I really do not understand the appeal of killing animals for fun
Do you understand the appeal of first person shooters? Same concept, only with sport hunting you get a meatspace trophy to hang on the wall, as opposed to some sort of digital achievement.
Not that I agree with the practice (much the opposite), but I do understand it.
As for "hunting with drones," I also see a legitimate use case: scouting. Being able to establish migratory and feeding habits without having to hike through miles of wilderness and spend weeks camping along deer trails would be a real boon to those of us who like to hunt (for food), but work real jobs and thus do not have the time necessary to establish said patterns.
TL:DR - you're preachin' to the choir, bud, now go convert some heathens.
Then you should look for people who don't spend money on campaigns, and vote for them.
I do. Well, I don't vote for them because they didn't spend any money, but it seems to work out that way - the guys I try to elect are usually as broke as me.
But that doesn't change the fact that the system is gamed so that only the wealthy elite stand a snowball's chance of actually winning an election.
Because, you know - they can afford to advertise, and most people base their vote on political ads.
Who I vote for has no bearing on which ads the majority votes for. We need a sea change for elections to matter again, and I agree that's not likely to happen so long as the current cycle perpetuates ad infinitum.
A lot of people (most people, actually) tend to believe that the usage of the term in the First Amendment implies the "fourth estate," a characterization of the 'professional' journalistic media; however, according to etymonline.com, the term "the press" was not used in reference to professional journalistic endeavors (i.e., the 'fourth estate') until the mid-1820's, long after the Constitution was written and ratified. Prior to that, the term "press" in literary reference was commonly accepted to mean the printing press.
Thus, it stands to reason that the freedom our founding fathers were protecting in the First Amendment is not the freedom of the fourth estate, but rather the freedom of the common man to disseminate information freely, be it in blog, newspaper, or other format.
Which may also destroy your project as the impedance of those meters sucks balls and the testing current is so high, it could actually destroy a transistor. I actually got one of those for free in a toolkit, worthless piece of crap, can't even measure a resistor properly (more than 20% off the accuracy) and gives off enough current that when you measure a 20W speaker it actually gives off a tone.
So... what you're saying here is, while it's a piss-poor measurement tool, it might work well as an atari punk console...
Because we sure as hell can't trust our "representatives" to do their jobs, that's for sure.
So why does everybody keep voting for them?
Because the system is gamed so that only members of a certain, elite ruling class can afford to campaign, thereby assuring that no matter who you vote for, they all have the same interests at heart.
For example, my district recently threw out an incumbent in favor of a "fed up" Tea Party candidate in the last election; however, the only thing that changed was the name on the placard. Ol' Tea-Billy wasn't even in DC for 24 hours before sidling up to the lobbyists feeding trough, just like his predecessor.
A class action lawsuit will get you a t-shirt, ball cap, and a bag of peanuts (airline size, which holds about three peanuts).
It might also get a legal ruling setting the precedent that throttling certain services that your customers pay for is service theft, and get the ISPs who fail to comply with the ruling fined in a huge way.
Which is the part I care about - nobody with a lick of sense joins a class action lawsuit for money. Well, anyone who's not a lawyer.
The proper solution is to turn the pipes into public infrastructure, like water, lights, and sewage, and allow service managers, not providers to sell time share.
Which probably won't happen until somebody (or rather, a large collective of somebodies) sues the holy living shit out of the service "providers."
Because we sure as hell can't trust our "representatives" to do their jobs, that's for sure.
Let's call a duck a duck, shall we? All this "Netflix throttling" and other shady dealings of the ISPs controlling what content customers can view, reasonably, on the connections those customers are paying for, is nothing more than service theft.
Maybe we can put this whole net neutrality debate to bed with one good class action lawsuit, on behalf of all customers of ISPs who commit this type of service theft.
That original $30,000 shipment was apparently 2,000 multimeters. I'm guessing that $30,000 "worth" of Fluke meters, while a nice gift, will constitute a lot fewer units, meaning fewer makers will end up getting their hands on a meter.
I guess the makers will have to get by on $10 eBay meters instead of $15 SparkFun meters (that coincidentally, *also* have the Fluke color scheme).
To be clear, I mean specifically the "multimeter with a yellow border = Fluke" trademark. As plenty of people in comments to the previous article noted, yellow is the natural color for a safety device.
Since when is a friggin' multimeter a "safety device?"
Slashdot Mirror
Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone, neither do video games or marathons. Ask the deer if hunting hurts.
Not if you're a half-decent aim.
Kidding aside, a better question to ask them would be, 'which is preferable: to have a handful of your numbers die quickly and relatively painlessly every year, or have hundreds of thousands of your numbers die slow, painful deaths from starvation and/or disease?"
Of course, either way you're probably going to get that, er, no pun intended, "deer in headlights" look as a response. Don't have a lot of experience with mule or other varieties, but from what I've seen whitetail do not have a strong command of the English language.
Only if you plan to, you know, do something useful with one.
I hope you don't have anything bad to say about serial killers, because if you do, I will smack you with your very own first paragraph.
Ever hear the term 'false equivalence?'
Come back after you read the definition. Or don't, like I give a rat's arse what some eco-terrorist thinks.
You were done before you started, terrorist.
Go terrorize someone else.
If you're not hunting for food then you are participating in a leisure activity or game--not a sport. That's why it's called "game hunting".
A minor point - it's called "game" hunting because that's what you're hunting: wild game.
The term has nothing to do with the rationale of the individual hunter.
I presume the person you are responding to is also against gay marriage - you know, since there's no necessity for it. That seems to be the point their entire argument hinges on: nobody "needs" to hunt for food, thus nobody should be allowed to hunt.
Probably hates video games and marathons, too.
Buddy, you have no idea what my background is.
That's mind-bendingly hilarious, considering that you've ad hominem attacked every single person who disagrees with you, calling them "psychopaths" and various other derogatory terms, even though you have no way of knowing what their backgrounds or rationales are.
Maybe no one cares what your background is, since your assaultive posts already say everything we need to know.
and they also do it to have a rug on the floor and stuffed head on the wall to brag about it
Fringe benefit.
Besides what would you rather they do? Leave all that useable material in a pile on the forest floor to rot? Seems kinda wasteful.
You can always go hunting for the next can of meat at the nearest super or mini market.
Yea, but have you seen the kind of animals they use for supermarket meat? The conditions those animals live in? Go watch a PETA video, man, you won't touch mass-market meat for a month, I promise.
Besides, I've never been to a supermarket that serves venison.
Real men bow hunt, firearms are for lazy assholes.
What, no atlatl?
Pussy.
We are specifically talking about people who hunt for fun, for the social experience and the enjoyment of tracking down and killing something.
No, you're personally attacking people who engage in a certain activity because you, for whatever reason, have subjectively decided that no one has a legitimate need to engage in said activity, and thus anyone who does is [insert favorite ad hominem here].
Talk about mental gymnastics - you ever eat a cheeseburger from a commercial outfit? Do you have any idea where that meat came from, or how the cow it was made out of lived before having it's neck cut so it bleeds out onto the slaugherhouse floor, in full view of all the other cattle? Yet here you are, judging me, because I occasionally take the time and effort to gather a bit of my own (meat that cannot be bought in a store), meanwhile as engaging in conservation efforts.
Or do you think letting hundreds of thousands of animals die of starvation and disease is a better idea than actively culling a handful every year? Because that would be kind of ironic.
Go find someone else to bother, PETA terrorist.
Yea, namely that one is a method of food acquisition that requires training, certification, and licensing, and the other is a way for little kids (or people with little kid mentalities) to play up fantasies about murdering other humans.
"Food acquisition"? BULLSHIT. It's killing and terrorizing animals for fun. Nobody in the US needs to hunt to put food on the table. That argument is a load of crap.
Look, dink, just because you can easily go to the grocery store and buy your chosen food-that-had-a-mother "guilt free," because you didn't have to look it in it's sweet widdle face before it became your lunch doesn't make you better than the people who prefer the field-to-table process; IMO, it makes you worse, because you feel that this pawning off of the actual killing absolves you from being responsible for the death. Go watch a fucking PETA video of how stockyard animals live, then try and tell me that I'm torturing field-raised animals when I put a single round through their hearts.
Also - venison cannot be purchased at any grocer I've ever been to, and it's my favorite kind of meat, so... there's that.
No one actually dies when hunting either.
Exactly what do you call the dead animal that results from hunting?
Meat.
I sure as hell wouldn't try to affix human characteristics to goddamn livestock, I can tell you that - only a PETA terrorist or one of their supporters would do something so nonsensical.
Oh, because a human didn't die it doesn't matter? Wow, you are a pretty cruel individual. The medical term for people who lack empathy like that is psychopathy.
Oh, shit, you are a PETA terrorist, aren't you?
What's next, you gonna call me a monster because I had my pet dogs spayed and neutered? Go blow up a pig farm, terrorist.
Which is kinda the disturbing part since it speaks to hunters seeing animals as equivalent to those digital representations, no life before the player enters the scene, doesn't feel pain, exists for their amusement.
Oh please.
See, this is the other reason* why the hunting community ignores you "environmentalists," - the hyperbole. I mean, really, calling a person a 'psychopath' because they hunt for food, rather than wait for someone else to kill it for them? Childish narcissism doesn't even begin to describe it.
In Maine it's legal to bait an area until bears come to it, then chase them up a tree with a pack of dogs, then walk up and shoot them out of the tree.
Sounds more like trapping than hunting.
Do you understand the appeal of first person shooters?
There is a HUGE difference between doing something imaginary in a video game and killing a real, live creature or a real live person.
Yea, namely that one is a method of food acquisition that requires training, certification, and licensing, and the other is a way for little kids (or people with little kid mentalities) to play up fantasies about murdering other humans.
Here's a hint, in a video game no one actually dies and all the participants know that.
No one actually dies when hunting either. At least, you hope no one actually dies, but accidents do happen.
Trouble is, if a kid's only interaction with firearms is playing a fantasy game where "no one dies," if/when they encounter a real firearm they aren't going to understand just how dangerous of a tool it is. Kids who hunt know the difference.
It's one thing to fantasize about something and quite another to actually do it in the real world.
True. Now apply that to your own thought process: your fantasy about what hunting is, and how hunters are motivated, is one thing, and reality is another.
We're talking about people getting amusement from the real world suffering of another creature.
Proof that you don't know jack about hunting, other than what [insert preferred 'envronmentalist' group] told you to think. FWIW, most hunters try to avoid causing the animals to suffer.
That's why we invented target practice.
I hope you can actually understand why that is very very very different.
I do. I hope you can understand how unreasonably uninformed you are presenting yourself as.
Just because you call it game doesn't make it a sport. I really do not understand the appeal of killing animals for fun
Do you understand the appeal of first person shooters? Same concept, only with sport hunting you get a meatspace trophy to hang on the wall, as opposed to some sort of digital achievement.
Not that I agree with the practice (much the opposite), but I do understand it.
As for "hunting with drones," I also see a legitimate use case: scouting. Being able to establish migratory and feeding habits without having to hike through miles of wilderness and spend weeks camping along deer trails would be a real boon to those of us who like to hunt (for food), but work real jobs and thus do not have the time necessary to establish said patterns.
TL:DR - you're preachin' to the choir, bud, now go convert some heathens.
Then you should look for people who don't spend money on campaigns, and vote for them.
I do. Well, I don't vote for them because they didn't spend any money, but it seems to work out that way - the guys I try to elect are usually as broke as me.
But that doesn't change the fact that the system is gamed so that only the wealthy elite stand a snowball's chance of actually winning an election.
Because, you know - they can afford to advertise, and most people base their vote on political ads.
Who I vote for has no bearing on which ads the majority votes for. We need a sea change for elections to matter again, and I agree that's not likely to happen so long as the current cycle perpetuates ad infinitum.
A lot of people (most people, actually) tend to believe that the usage of the term in the First Amendment implies the "fourth estate," a characterization of the 'professional' journalistic media; however, according to etymonline.com, the term "the press" was not used in reference to professional journalistic endeavors (i.e., the 'fourth estate') until the mid-1820's, long after the Constitution was written and ratified. Prior to that, the term "press" in literary reference was commonly accepted to mean the printing press.
Thus, it stands to reason that the freedom our founding fathers were protecting in the First Amendment is not the freedom of the fourth estate, but rather the freedom of the common man to disseminate information freely, be it in blog, newspaper, or other format.
Which may also destroy your project as the impedance of those meters sucks balls and the testing current is so high, it could actually destroy a transistor. I actually got one of those for free in a toolkit, worthless piece of crap, can't even measure a resistor properly (more than 20% off the accuracy) and gives off enough current that when you measure a 20W speaker it actually gives off a tone.
So... what you're saying here is, while it's a piss-poor measurement tool, it might work well as an atari punk console...
Because we sure as hell can't trust our "representatives" to do their jobs, that's for sure.
So why does everybody keep voting for them?
Because the system is gamed so that only members of a certain, elite ruling class can afford to campaign, thereby assuring that no matter who you vote for, they all have the same interests at heart.
For example, my district recently threw out an incumbent in favor of a "fed up" Tea Party candidate in the last election; however, the only thing that changed was the name on the placard. Ol' Tea-Billy wasn't even in DC for 24 hours before sidling up to the lobbyists feeding trough, just like his predecessor.
A class action lawsuit will get you a t-shirt, ball cap, and a bag of peanuts (airline size, which holds about three peanuts).
It might also get a legal ruling setting the precedent that throttling certain services that your customers pay for is service theft, and get the ISPs who fail to comply with the ruling fined in a huge way.
Which is the part I care about - nobody with a lick of sense joins a class action lawsuit for money. Well, anyone who's not a lawyer.
The proper solution is to turn the pipes into public infrastructure, like water, lights, and sewage, and allow service managers, not providers to sell time share.
Which probably won't happen until somebody (or rather, a large collective of somebodies) sues the holy living shit out of the service "providers."
Because we sure as hell can't trust our "representatives" to do their jobs, that's for sure.
Let's call a duck a duck, shall we? All this "Netflix throttling" and other shady dealings of the ISPs controlling what content customers can view, reasonably, on the connections those customers are paying for, is nothing more than service theft.
Maybe we can put this whole net neutrality debate to bed with one good class action lawsuit, on behalf of all customers of ISPs who commit this type of service theft.
That original $30,000 shipment was apparently 2,000 multimeters. I'm guessing that $30,000 "worth" of Fluke meters, while a nice gift, will constitute a lot fewer units, meaning fewer makers will end up getting their hands on a meter.
I guess the makers will have to get by on $10 eBay meters instead of $15 SparkFun meters (that coincidentally, *also* have the Fluke color scheme).
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Digita...
Or this $5 unit from Harbor Freight, that also happens to have a spot for testing PNP and NPN transistors.
That is, $5 if you don't have one of the "free multimeter" coupons they put in the Sunday paper every other week.
To be clear, I mean specifically the "multimeter with a yellow border = Fluke" trademark. As plenty of people in comments to the previous article noted, yellow is the natural color for a safety device.
Since when is a friggin' multimeter a "safety device?"