Maybe what he's saying is that he hunts for the food not for the fun of it.
No, he quite clearly and explicitly wrote that he does it because otherwise he thinks it's hypocritical. So as not to be thought of as a hypocrit by himself or others, he shoots Bambi.
So many kids seem to think that steak they see in the supermarket just miraculously appears they don't realise it came from a live animal that had to be killed and slaughtered.
This is the fault of the parents in one of two ways:
They didn't teach the kids where the meat comes from.
They feed the kids meat in the first place.
To correct for either of those doesn't require that they go out and kill another animal just so kids learn something.
He's merely taking personal responsibility for the killing, which you appear to object to.
No, he's killing one more thing so he feels he's less of a hypocrit. If the hypocrisy bothers him so much, he should just become a vegetarian. The entire problem goes away then.
Without the people that actually partake in the aforementioned, you'd never eat a good seafood or rare-meat meal again.
And this is a problem because...?
Now, what about the people that have gone one-on-one with a wild animal trying to stay alive even though he/she never intended to harm it, let alone kill it?
Last I checked, we're talking about hunting which is when one goes out in the wild with the intent of killing something. Self-defense when you weren't looking for a fight is an unrelated case.
animals always have the advantage of strength and lethality
Him teaching me about all sorts of wildnerss things - knots, tree and plant identification, tracking, constellation observations, etc.... My family did a ton of stuff outside - but few of them were as peaceful and quiet as the 99% of the time your hunting.
So you couldn't have taken pictures of the animals instead?
When the deer can shoot back is when I'd agree with you.
I don't see something like internet hunting promoting, for example, an intimate parent/child bond...
If you're suggesting that conventional hunting (killing a defenseless animal for "sport") is a good way to promote a parent/child bond, I... I... I don't even know how to respond to that other than by saying there are so many better ways to bond with a child. Good parents can think of them.
I take up the invitation to go hunting and kill a deer or a snowshoe hare, because I just feel there's something hypocritical about being unwilling to kill animals, but being willing to have someone else do it for you and pick up the results at the supermarket.
So you kill a deer for no other reason that to make yourself feel better and less of a hypocrit? Somehow, I don't think the deer cares about your feelings.
The other option that you seem not to have picked up on is simply to stop buying animal flesh at the supermarket.
No doubt from one that has never been hunting and frozen his balls off...
Presumeably, nobody forced you to go hunting and freeze your balls off.
Whatever it was you killed lost its life. I feel more sorry for it than your balls.
...or gone one-on-one with a wild pig.
Again, presumeably, nobody forced you to go one-on-one with a wild pig. You therefore did it voluntarily for "sport" whereas the pig was simply trying to stay alive.
If you used a gun (or even a knife), I'd say that it wasn't exactly a fair fight.
If you dislike the potential of freezing your balls off or the odds of going one-on-one with an animal that's fighting for its life, the solution is simple: stay home.
Java was born (and continues to develop) with the benefits of the "lessons learned" from its forefathers (C, C++, Tcl!)
Then Java is a slow learner since many of the new features of Java 1.5 (enums, generics) have been around in other programming languages for decades going back to languages like Ada. And even Java 1.5 is still missing useful features of other languages. Java is still one of the few languages that has added nothing new to the body of computer science and language design.
Personally, I'd prefer that Apple not cater to the unwashed masses of dumb computer users out there who don't know any better.
Using your reasoning, BMW hasn't "won" (ever!) either. They're quite happy to let others sell cheap, commodity cars.
Apple doesn't have to dominate the desktop market. Aside from the fact that they've been going out of business for 30 years, they're doing very well financially lately. (Oh, if I only bought Apple stock 5 years ago.)
IMHO, if one doesn't know in advance whether one likes to write code or not (from hacking on computers during one's teen years), one shouldn't choose CS as a major.
Dashboard? Innovative? Its just a copy of the many other widget platforms that have been available for quite a few years now.
I doubt it. Have you seen the demos? Nothing else is as polished. And the fact that they can be entirely programmed in JavaScript will mean that lots of people will be able to code them. Dashboard will be the new HyperCard.
At the time, there was no infrastructure for anything. There would be no profit for a private company to construct post roads only to deliver mail cheapy.
Companies like UPS and FedEx exist only because there are already roads (and airports).
How do you define what a city should and should not provide for its citizens?
Recreational/information services such as cable TV or internet access are not essential. Therefore, a city should not provide them. (Emergency 911 service is guaranteed through state law even if you don't otherwise have phone service.)
Is it inherently fair or unfair for a city to subsidize the cost of trash collection? My family has payed a seperate service to pick up our trash for a decade while our taxes go towards subsidizing a service we don't use.
It's not clear to my why anybody would want/need a private trash company. Regardless, that's a choice you made. The city needs to have trashed picked up.
What about telephone polls? My great grandparents had to pay to have telephone polls installed on their road leading up to their house.
Telephone service is regarded by everybody as an essential service, even if only used for 911. At the time of your grandparents, there was no other way to get phone service other than by land-line. If this were done today, it could be done much more cheaply by using cell phones with only a few base stations.
People are clamoring for internet access but there has never been a big movement for free cable/phone service.
First, I don't believe people are clamoring for it. Such people would be the ones who otherwise don't have any internet access. (Those who have internet access have no reason to clamor for it.) Even if such people exist, they would have had to write/lobby their legislators in significant numbers. I also don't think that's the case since most people are too apathetic to write letters to their elected officials.
My guess is that city legislators want their city to be seen as progressive to attract residents or something, but it's not because the people want or need free WiFi. And if that's the real reason, I certainly don't want to fund it.
But the phone/cable companies have already done the work. By your argument, the city should simply pay the phone/cable companies directly and give away phone/cable for "free."
Slashdot Mirror
Here.
TFA shows a picture of an Apple //e, not an Apple ][. To see the latter, look
here.
- They didn't teach the kids where the meat comes from.
- They feed the kids meat in the first place.
To correct for either of those doesn't require that they go out and kill another animal just so kids learn something.The other option that you seem not to have picked up on is simply to stop buying animal flesh at the supermarket.
- Again, presumeably, nobody forced you to go one-on-one with a wild pig. You therefore did it voluntarily for "sport" whereas the pig was simply trying to stay alive.
- If you used a gun (or even a knife), I'd say that it wasn't exactly a fair fight.
If you dislike the potential of freezing your balls off or the odds of going one-on-one with an animal that's fighting for its life, the solution is simple: stay home.Ah, OK. It's probably because Steve has had a long-time personal goal of beating Bill because he wants to win.
Using your reasoning, BMW hasn't "won" (ever!) either. They're quite happy to let others sell cheap, commodity cars.
Apple doesn't have to dominate the desktop market. Aside from the fact that they've been going out of business for 30 years, they're doing very well financially lately. (Oh, if I only bought Apple stock 5 years ago.)
... especially Java zealots, try reading Modern C++ Design by Alexandrescu. It'll blow your mind. Java generics don't even come close.
Companies like UPS and FedEx exist only because there are already roads (and airports).
My guess is that city legislators want their city to be seen as progressive to attract residents or something, but it's not because the people want or need free WiFi. And if that's the real reason, I certainly don't want to fund it.
But the phone/cable companies have already done the work. By your argument, the city should simply pay the phone/cable companies directly and give away phone/cable for "free."