And it even allows others to easily maintain your box for you. Sure, they might use it to send the occasional spam message, but that's a small price to pay.
Though to be fair, the rate with which they are finding remote exploits seems to be going down.
Gee, you poll people using a cross-platform toolkit and they anticipate a potential shift in market shares and value? Maybe the fact that they are using _a cross-platform toolkit_ already is a bit of a pre-selection? Naaaahhhhh..
I dunno, maybe I am missing something, but either you _have_ to give out the data by law in which you can't charge anything. Or you do not _have_ to give out the data in which handing it out seems questionable at best. Charging for it smells illegal, to me.
None of what you said contradicts anything I said.
I should have stated that my comments regarding IR are for green (and IR;) lasers only, though. Re-reading what I said, I could have made this more explicit. OTOH, I directly replied to what you said without contradicting you.
Incorrect. It has to do with IR inasmuch as you _do not see IR light_. Thus, the apparent brightness is a _lot_ lower than the true light output. Obviously, the fact that IR is great to transport heat helps in burning tissue.
Also, with lasers, you do not need to focus any more precisely _because_ the beams are parallel (it gets focused within the laser's casing). This (and the fact that they waves are in sync) is why a laser can cut steel while a flashlight can't.
Is there or is there not a clear correlation between gun ownership and intentional deaths by means of guns? There is. You seem to conveniently ignore that in your argument.
In theory, those people will be schooled, monitored and need to keep tabs on every single bullet they fire. This is more, or less, true depending on where you live.
Finally, the thing is _you are not protecting yourself_! You are raising the stakes for both sides, thus increasing potential damage for _both_ sides. Should someone break into your house or attack you on the street? No. But once they are doing it, they don't magically become stupid. They still have a need to "protect" themselves in the same way you do. Result? Raised stakes for both sides.
In Germany, the default judgement when carrying a gun while committing a crime doubles. Also, the criminals do not need to protect themselves from overzealous home-owners. The result? _No criminal carries a gun while doing whatever they do_.
Your argument would make more sense if the average kill rate in the other countries came even close to the one gun-happy first-world nations. Hint: the US of A lead by an incredible margin. And the gun-related intentional deaths come _on top_ of the kill rates. One might suspect that is because it's _ridicously simple to kill someone with a gun_. It lowers the barrier, increases opportunity, leads into an armament race, forces/incites people to react more strongly because they need to fear that they will be shot themselves.
Alternatively, one might account it to magical bullet fairies who have been drinking too much.
And before you start citing Switzerland: Once you were in the Swiss military you become, in theory, a reserve soldier which is why you are supposed to take the gun with you. _And_ most of their intentional death are suicides. You are right inasmuch that shooting oneself is more "popular" in Switzerland than elsewhere given easy access to weapons and the, mostly wrong, belief that it will be a quick & painless death.
> So you argue they are wrong because you don't like their rhetorical style, regardless of the content of their message.
No, I am saying that they are twisting facts into the shape that suits their opinion.
> If culling is needed, why wouldn't you want to take advantage of some people's enthusiasm for it to have a voluntary workforce for that curbing?
Because I happen to think that having people run around with guns is too high a price for the tiny amount of taxes saved.
> Are you a puritan? Why do you hate people who enjoy something?
A-a-a-ad hominem. And strawmanning. Are you a terrorist? Why do you hate people who don't want others to run around with guns?
Anyway, I am not ignoring enjoyment. I am merely saying that:
a) private hunting is enjoyment, plain and simple. Nothing else. (Unless we are in a survival scenario) b) the means to fulfill a need can be more intrusive into other people's freedom than the means to achieve enjoyment.
And before you go interpreting this as my freedom to "hate enjoyment": I mean the freedom to "live in a society that is less dangerous because less weapons go around". Which outweights "boy, I love shooting at and killing living beings", at least imo.
And with that, I will stop replying to you. Sorry.
By refusing to separate the need for food from the enjoyment of hunting, pro-hunters are, deliberately or mistakenly, muddying the waters in this discussion. Same goes for separating the need to curb overpopulation from the enjoyment of hunting.
The trick is that a need justifies actions more easily than mere enjoyment. This skews the debate significantly.
> You seem to be saying that if someone can't demonstrate a clear need to hunt for food that they shouldn't be allowed to hunt (or eat their kill, or what is your point exactly?) because it's something that they want to do instead of need to do.
No. What I am saying is that as there is no _need_ to hunt merely a _want_ to hunt, the metrics by which to measure if it's OK change. And that hunters, purposefully or accidentially, confuse those matters in their arguments citing reasons of _need_ for an activity of _want_.
> A decent hunter can kill an animal quickly and no more painfully than a slaughterhouse can.
True, if you use super-sonic bullets (no sound to warn/frighten) which explode the head (no way to feel pain). In theory, rubber bullets of the same force that bolt guns have would, in theory, be able to stun the animal like said bolt guns, but you would need to hit from the front, aim perfectly and actually invent and then use them.
> Some people feel that raising something in captivity to slaughter it is not as ethical as taking an animal from the wild. In this way,
True. I happen to disagree, but so what.
> Taking into account the above, why is it wrong to hunt, but alright to slaughter?
The fact that most shot animals suffer til their death, some are maimed and escape (or die & wither elsewhere) is only part of the whole thing. My main issue is that people running around with guns is a bad thing. Obviously, people in the USA would disagree (not all, of course). I happen to live in almost gun-free Europe, though.
No, I am arguing that the need can be fulfilled by alternate means which leaves us with the enjoyment aspect of hunting. This removes pretty much all base of all the arguments made by hunters. Sorry.
Although I find your story hard to believe, this is clearly a survival scenario (and a failed society which does not provide a decent minimum standard to _all_ its people).
Glad to see that you out of that situation far enough to be posting on/., though. Seriously, I am.
Slashdot Mirror
Troll if I ever saw one. No mod points, though.
And it even allows others to easily maintain your box for you. Sure, they might use it to send the occasional spam message, but that's a small price to pay.
Though to be fair, the rate with which they are finding remote exploits seems to be going down.
Gee, you poll people using a cross-platform toolkit and they anticipate a potential shift in market shares and value? Maybe the fact that they are using _a cross-platform toolkit_ already is a bit of a pre-selection? Naaaahhhhh..
I dunno, maybe I am missing something, but either you _have_ to give out the data by law in which you can't charge anything. Or you do not _have_ to give out the data in which handing it out seems questionable at best. Charging for it smells illegal, to me.
None of what you said contradicts anything I said.
I should have stated that my comments regarding IR are for green (and IR ;) lasers only, though. Re-reading what I said, I could have made this more explicit. OTOH, I directly replied to what you said without contradicting you.
Oh well, lesson learned for both of us :)
Incorrect. It has to do with IR inasmuch as you _do not see IR light_. Thus, the apparent brightness is a _lot_ lower than the true light output. Obviously, the fact that IR is great to transport heat helps in burning tissue.
Also, with lasers, you do not need to focus any more precisely _because_ the beams are parallel (it gets focused within the laser's casing). This (and the fact that they waves are in sync) is why a laser can cut steel while a flashlight can't.
> check your 'sent' folder, did you really send those messages or is it just claiming you did in the Reply To?
If that is the only way you have to check if your account has been compromised, you have other problems...
You seem to be un-aware of the nature of proxies, tunnel end-points and trojaned machines.
Is there or is there not a clear correlation between gun ownership and intentional deaths by means of guns? There is. You seem to conveniently ignore that in your argument.
In theory, those people will be schooled, monitored and need to keep tabs on every single bullet they fire. This is more, or less, true depending on where you live.
Finally, the thing is _you are not protecting yourself_! You are raising the stakes for both sides, thus increasing potential damage for _both_ sides. Should someone break into your house or attack you on the street? No. But once they are doing it, they don't magically become stupid. They still have a need to "protect" themselves in the same way you do. Result? Raised stakes for both sides.
In Germany, the default judgement when carrying a gun while committing a crime doubles. Also, the criminals do not need to protect themselves from overzealous home-owners. The result? _No criminal carries a gun while doing whatever they do_.
Your argument would make more sense if the average kill rate in the other countries came even close to the one gun-happy first-world nations. Hint: the US of A lead by an incredible margin. And the gun-related intentional deaths come _on top_ of the kill rates. One might suspect that is because it's _ridicously simple to kill someone with a gun_. It lowers the barrier, increases opportunity, leads into an armament race, forces/incites people to react more strongly because they need to fear that they will be shot themselves.
Alternatively, one might account it to magical bullet fairies who have been drinking too much.
And before you start citing Switzerland: Once you were in the Swiss military you become, in theory, a reserve soldier which is why you are supposed to take the gun with you. _And_ most of their intentional death are suicides. You are right inasmuch that shooting oneself is more "popular" in Switzerland than elsewhere given easy access to weapons and the, mostly wrong, belief that it will be a quick & painless death.
> So you argue they are wrong because you don't like their rhetorical style, regardless of the content of their message.
No, I am saying that they are twisting facts into the shape that suits their opinion.
> If culling is needed, why wouldn't you want to take advantage of some people's enthusiasm for it to have a voluntary workforce for that curbing?
Because I happen to think that having people run around with guns is too high a price for the tiny amount of taxes saved.
> Are you a puritan? Why do you hate people who enjoy something?
A-a-a-ad hominem. And strawmanning. Are you a terrorist? Why do you hate people who don't want others to run around with guns?
Anyway, I am not ignoring enjoyment. I am merely saying that:
a) private hunting is enjoyment, plain and simple. Nothing else. (Unless we are in a survival scenario)
b) the means to fulfill a need can be more intrusive into other people's freedom than the means to achieve enjoyment.
And before you go interpreting this as my freedom to "hate enjoyment": I mean the freedom to "live in a society that is less dangerous because less weapons go around". Which outweights "boy, I love shooting at and killing living beings", at least imo.
And with that, I will stop replying to you. Sorry.
So it seems we agree that industry-farming is bad while ecological farming (whatever that means in any given situation) is good :)
Nah, let's start by looking at the content of the links:
My link points to a strong correlation (not causation) between gun ownership and _intentional_ gun-related deaths.
Your link points to a non-existant correlation between gun ownership and gun "control" laws.
Bottom line? Don't "control" guns, simply get rid of them. Doing away with the pretense that hunting is a _need_ is part of that.
OK, one last try, then I am giving up on you:
By refusing to separate the need for food from the enjoyment of hunting, pro-hunters are, deliberately or mistakenly, muddying the waters in this discussion.
Same goes for separating the need to curb overpopulation from the enjoyment of hunting.
The trick is that a need justifies actions more easily than mere enjoyment. This skews the debate significantly.
I will simply paste the first link that came up when I googled gun death:
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
You are more than welcome to rationalize this away. I will be waiting and interested in how you do it.
Re-read what I said. Then, re-read it again.
I just read "Scientists Forget New Target For Alzhiemer's"... Freudian much?
As long as society is impacted (people with guns run around), society should have a say. This is the basic principle of any working society.
> You seem to be saying that if someone can't demonstrate a clear need to hunt for food that they shouldn't be allowed to hunt (or eat their kill, or what is your point exactly?) because it's something that they want to do instead of need to do.
No. What I am saying is that as there is no _need_ to hunt merely a _want_ to hunt, the metrics by which to measure if it's OK change. And that hunters, purposefully or accidentially, confuse those matters in their arguments citing reasons of _need_ for an activity of _want_.
> A decent hunter can kill an animal quickly and no more painfully than a slaughterhouse can.
True, if you use super-sonic bullets (no sound to warn/frighten) which explode the head (no way to feel pain). In theory, rubber bullets of the same force that bolt guns have would, in theory, be able to stun the animal like said bolt guns, but you would need to hit from the front, aim perfectly and actually invent and then use them.
> Some people feel that raising something in captivity to slaughter it is not as ethical as taking an animal from the wild. In this way,
True. I happen to disagree, but so what.
> Taking into account the above, why is it wrong to hunt, but alright to slaughter?
The fact that most shot animals suffer til their death, some are maimed and escape (or die & wither elsewhere) is only part of the whole thing. My main issue is that people running around with guns is a bad thing. Obviously, people in the USA would disagree (not all, of course). I happen to live in almost gun-free Europe, though.
No, I am arguing that the need can be fulfilled by alternate means which leaves us with the enjoyment aspect of hunting. This removes pretty much all base of all the arguments made by hunters. Sorry.
The purpose, if any, of why they are raised is irrelevant when both die in the end.
The way to get there and how it happens is what matters.
The fact that you shorten "couldn't buy alcohol" to "couldn't buy" so casually says more about where you live than the Sunday prohibition.
Although I find your story hard to believe, this is clearly a survival scenario (and a failed society which does not provide a decent minimum standard to _all_ its people).
Glad to see that you out of that situation far enough to be posting on /., though. Seriously, I am.
I prefer paying that tiny bit more taxes than having everyone and his retarded uncle to have rifles.
Fishing rods tend to be less dangerous than guns.
How about a farm in which people are treated decently? I don't have any problem paying a bit extra for "fair" meat. Do you?