i see your point but i can think of a couple things that might come into play.
the first is, i would want a pilot with experience flying. period. i really don't care what he flew, but good, safe aviation involves a mindset that will not be attained sitting safely on the ground. it is easy to stay calm and collected when you are on the ground.
the second is, is it that much cheaper to use a simulator than small craft? i'm not sure what the slowdown is there. unless maybe a single instructor can watch over more than one student at a time in simulators. if the pros think this training is important, i would give that a lot of weight.
i can't figure out how much harder it would be to get them time in smaller aircraft. they don't have to actually go out and practice in a large passenger jet now do they?
Seeing quite a lot of people wearing war^H^H^Hface paint, honking like mad and singing badly and, most importantly, heavily intoxicated somehow doesn't put any nice imags in my mind.
that's funny because nice images are exactly what i get. when the world cup was in the u.s. and i lived in chicago it was awesome having fans walking about in big groups, singing, honking, etc. i'd never seen anything like it and haven't since, it was a lot of fun. maybe seeing it too much is the problem. for me it was a really novel and cool thing.
I don't know anything about Russian law, but do religious groups have the right not to be dissed? Would that go for all religious groups, and non-religious groups too?
I don't know about Russia, but I do believe more than a few european countries do have laws that limit speech about religion, race, etc. I am thinking about a recent case of a Swedish pastor who came under charges for asserting that homosexuality was wrong. I would think with laws like that on the books, this may get more of a hearing than somewhere that doesn't have such limits. Like I said, I don't know about Russia, but it seems it is possible.
they aren't a big news item in the release. if you go to the site you will see that this is the case. but here on slashdot a story was run about the template/clip art contest. when the contest complete the winners were available for download but not all submitted entries. today i was checking to see if all submissions were available to download and saw that they were - and a new version of the suite as well. so i figured i'd write (and submit) a journal entry about both at the same time. that's my decision and not anything you'll see the OOo folks doing.
well you are interesting. calling me names, but you don't understand what i wrote. which one of us needs to engage the brain? let's take a step back and review - and i promise i wont call you names. maybe this will encourage you to take the same path. here is what the parent said, "Grocery shopping and walking down the sidewalk are required for participation in society. Hunting is not."
Where does it mention putting food on the table? Where do I mention putting food on the table? See how you completely missed the point?
participating in society is about more than meeting the physical needs of existence. participating in a society can involve a lot of shared experiences that may not be 'essential' to survival. This is why we still let many native american groups participate in types of hunting that are illegal to everyone else. sure - they could 'live' without out it, but it has meaning for them. hunting has a similar level of meaning for some americans. if a blind person wanted to share in that, then it would be nice for them to participate to the fullest of their abilities, rather than just have someone take their place and do it for them.
the thing is, there are two issues here that are getting mixed up and i seem to have riled up a bunch of people who are against hunting in general. the on-topic question is 'can blind people safely hunt?' and the answer is yes. and i don't think there is anything to laugh at - unless you are laughing at the fact that they are disabled. i don't think it's funny.
My father's family hunted to put food on the table. Fished for the same reason as well. I am willing to wager you could find some people in the U.S. still living in that manner. A small group - but this isn't something that disappeared 200 years ago.
Hunting is not a small part of wildlife management on 2 fronts. The first is population control. If hunting did not have an impact on population, there would be no need for limits. The second is money. Outdoor sports generate millions of dollars for wildlife management.
As far as it being pleasurable. As a favorite author of mine once pointed out - some surgeons like the cutting and the blood. I don't care as long as they are good at what they do. Hunting provides a strong connection with nature. The hunters I know are much more concerned about the environment than the people who never leave the confines of civilization. My family will not starve if I don't go out and shoot game, at the same time, I've always eaten whatever I've killed. So it may not be necessary, but that doesn't mean it isn't beneficial activity on many levels. And this does not instill in me any desire to harm humans.
This is about a guide dog that was determined to be vicious. i doubt it happens often. probably more often than blind hunters hurting people, because i'm sure there are a lot more guide dogs than blind hunters. and i know that if a guide dog starts to show aggressive tendencies they can be retired if it can't be remedied.
visually impaired people can hunt. this includes the blind. i think that now the bill forces a definition of legally blind for the purpose of allowing the use of lasers - but up until now the legally blind would just have been a part of the visually impaired.
hunting has been a part of the human experience for a long time. for many people the entire process holds very deep meaning. i find it disturbingly scary that having never experienced this you find it so easy to equate it with war and murder.
if you are a vegan i guess you have some right to get upset about the death of the animal, but otherwise, you don't even make sense. the modern harvest of wild game is much more civilized than the methods that provide most of what the majority in this country eat.
hunting is increasingly become something that is not a part of normal life. but for a long time it was and in some places it still is. it is also the primary source of most of the good that happens in the area of wildlife management in america. i guess eventually it may go away completely due to a host of reasons. but disabled folks ought to be able to do anything that they can safely do - the same as people who are not disabled.
a blind person hunting in a legal fashion is not presenting any more risk than a sighted person hunting. in fact, i think it could be argued that it is safer. it is not inane and has been going on safely for some time.
i guess that's part of what bugs me about this too. for a lot of people hunting is something much more meaningful than 'slaughter for fun'. to deny that to someone because they are disabled really ticks me off. now it sounds like you and i have very different opinions about hunting, but i think we both agree it is not a laughing matter.
Hunting is not. maybe where you live. not in all places.
i bet the chance of a seeing eye dog biting someone are higher than a blind hunter hurting someone. i would love to see someone bring up a single case of a time where a blind hunter, being assisted by a seeing person, hurt somebody.
and finally, automobiles are much more deadly than guns. so what's your point? a person who cannot see, can successfully participate in a safe hunting experience, but not driving a car. what does one have to do with the other?
this isn't dangerous. i would love to see stats on hunting accidents and blind hunters. this has been legal in many places for a long time. the people who are dangerous when it comes to hunting are the people who are stupid. whether or not someone can see is no indication of their intelligence.
yeah - blind people should sit at home, in the dark and leave everyone alone. what right have they got to go out and do things in the world around 'normal' people?
I can think of a couple reasons. One is - many people who are legally blind can still see to some extent. These aids may help them to be more involved in the hunt. It may also help the sighted person be more assured that they are getting a good shot- helping them to make a clean kill.
Some regular hunters may want this but not many. There have been provisions in many places that allow the handicapped advantages that they alone can use. Crossbows are a common hunting tool that fall into that category. But even if some hunters wanted this and got it, it wouldn't really matter. Hunting has become primarily a game management tool. As long as hunters don't over harvest, and the methods they use don't cause undue suffering, it's irrelevant how they harvest the animal. But most hunters are moving towards making things more difficult, not easier. For an example see the growing popularity of black powder hunting.
Slashdot Mirror
n/t
i think i'd be pretty happy about this.
i see your point but i can think of a couple things that might come into play.
the first is, i would want a pilot with experience flying. period. i really don't care what he flew, but good, safe aviation involves a mindset that will not be attained sitting safely on the ground. it is easy to stay calm and collected when you are on the ground.
the second is, is it that much cheaper to use a simulator than small craft? i'm not sure what the slowdown is there. unless maybe a single instructor can watch over more than one student at a time in simulators. if the pros think this training is important, i would give that a lot of weight.
i can't figure out how much harder it would be to get them time in smaller aircraft. they don't have to actually go out and practice in a large passenger jet now do they?
not that there's anything wrong with that.
Seeing quite a lot of people wearing war^H^H^Hface paint, honking like mad and singing badly and, most importantly, heavily intoxicated somehow doesn't put any nice imags in my mind.
that's funny because nice images are exactly what i get. when the world cup was in the u.s. and i lived in chicago it was awesome having fans walking about in big groups, singing, honking, etc. i'd never seen anything like it and haven't since, it was a lot of fun. maybe seeing it too much is the problem. for me it was a really novel and cool thing.
yeah it is. that show had such promise and proceeded to suck at unprecedented levels.
I don't know anything about Russian law, but do religious groups have the right not to be dissed? Would that go for all religious groups, and non-religious groups too?
I don't know about Russia, but I do believe more than a few european countries do have laws that limit speech about religion, race, etc. I am thinking about a recent case of a Swedish pastor who came under charges for asserting that homosexuality was wrong. I would think with laws like that on the books, this may get more of a hearing than somewhere that doesn't have such limits. Like I said, I don't know about Russia, but it seems it is possible.
so all the people i've watched busting straps on youtube are pro ball players? wow. what teams do they play for?
We use both of those as well. It seems to be working pretty well as in the past - we did what has been mentioned so much above, nothing.
and you probably are a klutz anyway.
they aren't a big news item in the release. if you go to the site you will see that this is the case. but here on slashdot a story was run about the template/clip art contest. when the contest complete the winners were available for download but not all submitted entries. today i was checking to see if all submissions were available to download and saw that they were - and a new version of the suite as well. so i figured i'd write (and submit) a journal entry about both at the same time. that's my decision and not anything you'll see the OOo folks doing.
i could see it going that way too. hopefully there will never be any opportunity to find out.
i do - and the medication does nothing to help, you insensitive clod!
well you are interesting. calling me names, but you don't understand what i wrote. which one of us needs to engage the brain? let's take a step back and review - and i promise i wont call you names. maybe this will encourage you to take the same path. here is what the parent said, "Grocery shopping and walking down the sidewalk are required for participation in society. Hunting is not."
Where does it mention putting food on the table? Where do I mention putting food on the table? See how you completely missed the point?
participating in society is about more than meeting the physical needs of existence. participating in a society can involve a lot of shared experiences that may not be 'essential' to survival. This is why we still let many native american groups participate in types of hunting that are illegal to everyone else. sure - they could 'live' without out it, but it has meaning for them. hunting has a similar level of meaning for some americans. if a blind person wanted to share in that, then it would be nice for them to participate to the fullest of their abilities, rather than just have someone take their place and do it for them.
the thing is, there are two issues here that are getting mixed up and i seem to have riled up a bunch of people who are against hunting in general. the on-topic question is 'can blind people safely hunt?' and the answer is yes. and i don't think there is anything to laugh at - unless you are laughing at the fact that they are disabled. i don't think it's funny.
i'd say the sighted person.
My father's family hunted to put food on the table. Fished for the same reason as well. I am willing to wager you could find some people in the U.S. still living in that manner. A small group - but this isn't something that disappeared 200 years ago.
Hunting is not a small part of wildlife management on 2 fronts. The first is population control. If hunting did not have an impact on population, there would be no need for limits. The second is money. Outdoor sports generate millions of dollars for wildlife management.
As far as it being pleasurable. As a favorite author of mine once pointed out - some surgeons like the cutting and the blood. I don't care as long as they are good at what they do. Hunting provides a strong connection with nature. The hunters I know are much more concerned about the environment than the people who never leave the confines of civilization. My family will not starve if I don't go out and shoot game, at the same time, I've always eaten whatever I've killed. So it may not be necessary, but that doesn't mean it isn't beneficial activity on many levels. And this does not instill in me any desire to harm humans.
http://www.nfbnet.org/pipermail/nfbf-l/2006-August /000864.html
This is about a guide dog that was determined to be vicious. i doubt it happens often. probably more often than blind hunters hurting people, because i'm sure there are a lot more guide dogs than blind hunters. and i know that if a guide dog starts to show aggressive tendencies they can be retired if it can't be remedied.
visually impaired people can hunt. this includes the blind. i think that now the bill forces a definition of legally blind for the purpose of allowing the use of lasers - but up until now the legally blind would just have been a part of the visually impaired.
hunting has been a part of the human experience for a long time. for many people the entire process holds very deep meaning. i find it disturbingly scary that having never experienced this you find it so easy to equate it with war and murder.
if you are a vegan i guess you have some right to get upset about the death of the animal, but otherwise, you don't even make sense. the modern harvest of wild game is much more civilized than the methods that provide most of what the majority in this country eat.
hunting is increasingly become something that is not a part of normal life. but for a long time it was and in some places it still is. it is also the primary source of most of the good that happens in the area of wildlife management in america. i guess eventually it may go away completely due to a host of reasons. but disabled folks ought to be able to do anything that they can safely do - the same as people who are not disabled.
a blind person hunting in a legal fashion is not presenting any more risk than a sighted person hunting. in fact, i think it could be argued that it is safer. it is not inane and has been going on safely for some time.
i guess that's part of what bugs me about this too. for a lot of people hunting is something much more meaningful than 'slaughter for fun'. to deny that to someone because they are disabled really ticks me off. now it sounds like you and i have very different opinions about hunting, but i think we both agree it is not a laughing matter.
Hunting is not.
maybe where you live. not in all places.
i bet the chance of a seeing eye dog biting someone are higher than a blind hunter hurting someone. i would love to see someone bring up a single case of a time where a blind hunter, being assisted by a seeing person, hurt somebody.
and finally, automobiles are much more deadly than guns. so what's your point? a person who cannot see, can successfully participate in a safe hunting experience, but not driving a car. what does one have to do with the other?
this isn't dangerous. i would love to see stats on hunting accidents and blind hunters. this has been legal in many places for a long time. the people who are dangerous when it comes to hunting are the people who are stupid. whether or not someone can see is no indication of their intelligence.
yeah - blind people should sit at home, in the dark and leave everyone alone. what right have they got to go out and do things in the world around 'normal' people?
I can think of a couple reasons. One is - many people who are legally blind can still see to some extent. These aids may help them to be more involved in the hunt. It may also help the sighted person be more assured that they are getting a good shot- helping them to make a clean kill.
Some regular hunters may want this but not many. There have been provisions in many places that allow the handicapped advantages that they alone can use. Crossbows are a common hunting tool that fall into that category. But even if some hunters wanted this and got it, it wouldn't really matter. Hunting has become primarily a game management tool. As long as hunters don't over harvest, and the methods they use don't cause undue suffering, it's irrelevant how they harvest the animal. But most hunters are moving towards making things more difficult, not easier. For an example see the growing popularity of black powder hunting.