I agree with every sentiment of your post except for this one:
Its not about taking your work home with you; its about getting paid to do work that you enjoy. This work I do was my hobby before it became my career. I enjoy it immensely and I want people around me who feel the same way. If you're just here for the paycheck then I hired the wrong guy. You won't deliver the standard of quality I want because when push comes to shove you just don't care.
I do take my work home because I love it; but I can't say that I'm able to get more than an hour or two of half-assed work done at home before I realize that I'm gonna be burnt out on it the next day.
The most motivated, intelligent and best employees I've worked with have often been those who punch out exactly on time. They love their work, and they'll work obscene hours if needed. But they know what they like to do, and they know how to do it. Pure business for a 9 hour workday, and then a straight line to the door -- they have other activities in their life that are different, interesting, and keep them from being burnt out! In my book, knowing that is a quality judgement. Knowing where your point of diminishing returns is is crucial to being good at your job.
I'm not saying that you're wrong. People who do their job as a hobby also are usually great employees, I'm just saying that the people who have the motivation and will-power to stand up to a boss like you and demand a fine line between work and the rest of their lives also usually have great qualities that you want in an employee. They think that the job is "worth working for its own sake," they just have other things that also are -- and let's be honest here, they're working not only to enrich you, but themselves also. You're not selling yourself short here, so why disrespect other people who demand their fair compensation also?
A company might get built on a one-trick workhorse, but they rarely survive for long on one.
You mean, as good of a version as the replacement GPS satellites that the US putting up are?
Sure, they're better than the 20 year old version orbiting around,but the replacement satellites that the US puts up has nearly the exact same specs accuracy-wise as the Galileo system. They're direct complements.
If by cause environmental problems, you mean follow the course of nature, then yes.
Algae blooms have been happening for a long time. It's not catastrophic. We can adapt. An algae bloom versus clean energy and pollution cleanup. Which one would you choose?
Cars do put out items such as Benzene (a NTC), Formaldehyde, etc. Diesel's produce nano-particles that lodge in your lungs -- definitely not good in any amount.
Same with lots of busses. Don't even get started on older cars also -- leaded gas anyone?
Get over cigarette and cigar smoke. There has never been any study that remotely suggested that dilute second hand smoke has any appreciable effect on health. That means if your neighbor is smoking, and you can smell it does not mean that you are being harmed.
I mean seriously, some people who live near me can take some massive shits that stink up the whole block. I don't accuse them of actually making me eat shit. I realize that it's not that big of a deal. I do the same with unwanted smoke, odors, etc. It's not going to hurt you. Just learn not to flip out over little things man.
Huh, it's odd that you're attacking the THAAD system. It's probably one of the more useful systems in the whole MDA (Missile Defense Agency) program. I can see people whining about some of the other interception schemes, but THAAD can be very, very useful.
For example, say China is threatening Taiwan. Say North Korea is threatening Japan (or some other country). Take an Aegis group out there, fully armed with THAAD systems, and park it in the ocean between the two. Now, we can sit there and try to force talks, because with that fleet in the ocean, we can guarantee (to some amount of reliability) that the fight can't escalate TOO far. At least the smaller side doesn't have to immediately capitulate to threats via nukes.
Basically, the THAAD system is a mobile THEATER based defense system. It's meant for diffusing extremely tense situations between two nearby countries. It's a very useful capability to have -- immediate de-escalation since the biggest threats are now mitigated.
Complain about MDA all you want, but the THAAD system would find it's usefulness proven even without the current political climate, and without Bush's current push for missile defense. It's just plain useful to have.
Most leagues have rules or modes that severely curtail lamer tactics. Also, if it's a team-based game, then usually they're already nerfed.
Any competitive conoutner-strike or team-based league I was in was devoid of any lamer tactics when you got into a high enough level. Those tactics might work great on big public servers, but they need to change when playing someone good.
As far as spawn killing goes, some people consider it a very large part of the game -- playing cat and mouse, and trying to outsmart the stronger opponent to get the upper hand and then become the predator instead of the prey. Not thatI ever thought that, but it's all in how you look at it.
If you aren't ready to immigrate, then don't immigrate. Period. Don't go to another country, and expect them to learn your language so that they can teach you in schools, and don't expect them to change their TV programming so that you can understand it. None of these people were displaced. They came voluntarily, and instead of assimilating, they're trying to do the assimilation. Hence the friction. I feel very little for them. I sincerely doubt that every other minority group in France is having this problem.
Well, that's the problem. Eventually these interfaces are likely to be optical instead of electrical, which means no more backwards compatability. But I don't see it being a huge change. We already deal with all different types of sockets, SATA/ATA, etc. If they find a way to make components all optical, but convert to standard interfaces, then it would be as painless as the ATA->SATA transition. If they can't do that, then it will be a painful transition since there's no cross-over for the manufacturers to ease into, which would make them uneasy.
In the meantime, we might see a CPU that does everything optically, then ships the results out electronically, but one of the bigger advantages to all of this is being able to ship everything around optically.
I think that we havem ore competition in the computer industry right now then at just about any other time. If someone can squeeze more performance, or get an edge with optical, then they'll do it. In a commodity business, any edge you may be able to obtain is very important.
This is why you have to do what every other musican has ever done. That is tour. No better way to get your name out than that. In fact, that's how most bands do it.
The poster above you is correct. Transmitter strengths, transmit or receive, etc don't matter one bit. 6dB of gain from an increased antenna is 6dB of gain period. It helps both transmit and receive.
all I can say is huh? How did this get modded up so high?
A matter of national policy that cannot be negotiated? I don't seem to recall the 132nd ammendment stating that internet domain ownership is the right of every american citizen.
I didn't realize that other countries operated by making all of their national policies amendments to their constitutions. You're just being silly at this point.
This sort of attitude doesn't help create a warm fuzzy feeling about the US in the rest of the world. Someone in the Government should really take a step back and ask themselves why this would actually matter at all. The UN is the ideal place to run the internet rules at the moment, its got the largest reach and global membership and a stated goal of being independent.
Nearly the exact same could be said of the US in regards to how it's handling the internet. What legitimate complaint is out there right now with the way the US handles the internet in light of what you said above? With regards to the inrnet, what has any US policy maker ever stated as official policy that does not give you the warm and fuzzies? I can't think of any. But I can think of a couple quotes by large UN member nations about what they'd do if they had a voice in how the internet was run, and they certainly don't give me warm and fuzzies.
Because co-operation is bad eh? Damn those pesky Europeans for wanting oversight on a random organisation like ICANN which has been so successful and caused no issues thanks to its openness and brilliant decision making.
ICANN does blow, but I've yet to see a good proposal for an international governing body that would solve the problems of ICANN. Also, why are you specifically talking about Europeans? You want it turned over to the world. I think a little of your Euro-centric views are showing through here. What you just proposed is an internet run by the EU and US jointly. Hence, this has nothign to do with the conversation at hand. The conversation at hand is if we want to give EVERYONE oversight on the inernet, including countries that don't respect certain rights the way most Europeans and Americans do.
The US Goverment does itself, or its citizens, no favours by continually persuing unilateral rather than multi-lateral approaches.
ok. So? What does this have to do with anything? We unilaterally (well, Britian helped a lot) started the inernet, and gave it to the rest of the world. Sorry about that. Next time, we'll just turn over basic implementation over to the UN for every idea we have. Sounds good to me....My country does me plenty of favors by pursuing unilateral approaches many times. Sometimes you just have to get things done, which is exactly the approach that made the internet what it is today.
I'd be fully for moving control over the inernet to an international body if someone could just get the framework set up right. The internet IS the tool of the new millenium, and a bad transfer of power could be a large setback to global communications and information dissemination. Let's take careful, paced steps towards ensuring that the internet flourishes around the world, and not give in to knee-jerk anti-US arguments over something so important.
I would say that you're right in general, but I don't think that you're right in regards to the elite.
The cream of the crop engineers absolutely love to learn and try new, crazy things. That's why they're the best. The best engineers I've ever worked with have been 60 year olds who have literally self-taught themselves every new technology that has come around since they got their degrees. These are the self-motivated, self-learners with extremely flexible minds. They're worth their weight in gold at any age.
I don't see why this would change anything. A bird can now count from zero.
I don't see how us having a big brain automatically means that we stop eating meat. I think that you're making some huge logical jumps. Just because if we try really hard, we can stay healthy without eating meat doesn't mean that we should stop eating meat.
The iris is much more unique (I believe it has the highest amount of uniqueness in any biometric system), and I believe they've come up with some very compact and efficient schemes for its use. I remember when I looked back at various biometric technology about 3 years ago, iris scanning was the clear winner barring this patent nonsense.
Lots of lawsuits from people who "didn't fully comprehend all the risks", hospitals, doctors, procedures getting the labeled as killers, and having bad track records. Malpractice for relatively safe procedures is astronomical. No one wants to deal with those doctors (aka "so, 75% of your surgeries end up in death, why should I work with you?").
Money. That's a lot of money in the surgery for a small chance of living.
This isn't so much people banning it though. Believe me, there's tons of new, exciting, dangerous surgeries abound. The test for this heart had 17 patients with those types of risks. There's lots of cutting edge research looking for people in the exact scenario you describe, and they usually get some for of radical new treatment. In this case, the FDA just decided that this radical new treatment hadn't matured enough yet. So, there will be a couple more studies where people can get artificial hearts if they really need them.
Basically, the FDA doesn't like to make radical treatments mainstream. It prefers to keep them in the research wings where people who need them can get them, but to keep mainstream procedures as safe and mundane as possible.
There are other laws protecting your credit card number, SSN, etc. Sure, distributing them with illegal intent is often a crime, but usually owning your personal, private information without a need for it is usually illegal.
Your analogy sucks anyways. We should have much tougher laws regarding personal information and privacy than we do have on publically available (but copyrighted) works. Some of the new privacy laws are getting there, but I don't think we're at that point yet.
I knew that there would be some Slashdot fan-boyism about this issue.
It's a good car, but it's not the holy grail of automobiles man. It has a small, rare problem that Toyota has admitted to and is fixing. No big deal. I'm not even sure why the article was posted. Having said that, you're attempt at sweeping it under the rug is a little ridiculous -- I mean, it is an actual bug in the software.
Only if you consider probably a mass (~30% or more) dying off of the deer population humane. If we stop regulating disease, and if we stop acting as predators, then the deer will boom for a year or two, and then crash horribly as they over-eat the food and expand too rapidly, and then without us continually searching for and then removing diseased deer, boom. Mass dying off of deer through starvation and disease. Seems rather humane. You're right.
it's not the lack of forests. There's more deer now than there ever has been EVER. Let me repeat that, we have more deer now than when every single forest was 100% uncut. We have a substantial lack of predators and disease, which is why we have so many deer.
Just like with anything, there's the bottom-feeders. Then there's the true hunters. If you have a problem with turrets, feeders, etc then attack them, not the hunters. I'm a hunter who despises baiting and feeders.
Paintball is fun, but for the average real hunter, there's a whole ton more effort and preparation that goes into a hunt. I'm training with my bow for months, learning survival skills, getting out there, and walking 30 miles a day all up and down the hills while on constant lookout EVERYWHERE and perpetually tracking the wind (so I don't get downwind of where I'm going) and sneaking and tracking.
Then there's the culmination of when all of the aforementioned comes together, and I bring an animal down. Then the real work starts, everything else doesn't compare to dressing your game and packing that huge animal out of that canyon or valley (invariably always one or those, and not on a hill) for the next two days.
Yes, there are a lot of road hunters and people who just sit by camp and hit things way off in the distance (sniping does require some form of skill though).
But then there are those who like the challenge.
Some of my friends hunt with hand-made spears. Some of the crazy ones go out with a pack, and make the spear themselves in the forest, then hunt. I consider them real, true hunters.
I bow hunt elk mainly, and I'd say there's a slightly greater than 50% chance I'll bag one in a season. We go out into true wilderness, walking and do it. I don't shoot unless I'm closer than 30 yards, which is generally pretty hard in the area we hunt. Then I pack it out 10 miles on my own back. My father loses 20 pounds every hunt we go on.
But let's get realistic for a second. Since when was nearly any hunt that man did fair? We're smarter, and we had the mental capabilities to easily slaughter huge numbers of animals for 10,000+ years. Complaining about hunting "no longer" being a challenge is a bit disingenuous. It hasn't been a challenge for thousands of years. We used to light fires to drive animals towards the hunters, or drive whole herds of animals off of cliffs. Baiting and partially domesticating wild animals with offers of food, then slaughtering them. I'd say that things are a lot fairer now than they were thousands of years ago, but not quite as fair as they were maybe 200 years ago. Largely due to it being more of a sport now than sustenance. Back in the day, it didn't matter if you killed a whole herd of 200 animals to get one, because you'd die if you didn't get that one. Today, we just go out and get that one. If we don't, then we hit the supermarket.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
Who modded this insightful? People say there are no stupid questions, but this one is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I agree with every sentiment of your post except for this one:
Its not about taking your work home with you; its about getting paid to do work that you enjoy. This work I do was my hobby before it became my career. I enjoy it immensely and I want people around me who feel the same way. If you're just here for the paycheck then I hired the wrong guy. You won't deliver the standard of quality I want because when push comes to shove you just don't care.
I do take my work home because I love it; but I can't say that I'm able to get more than an hour or two of half-assed work done at home before I realize that I'm gonna be burnt out on it the next day.
The most motivated, intelligent and best employees I've worked with have often been those who punch out exactly on time. They love their work, and they'll work obscene hours if needed. But they know what they like to do, and they know how to do it. Pure business for a 9 hour workday, and then a straight line to the door -- they have other activities in their life that are different, interesting, and keep them from being burnt out! In my book, knowing that is a quality judgement. Knowing where your point of diminishing returns is is crucial to being good at your job.
I'm not saying that you're wrong. People who do their job as a hobby also are usually great employees, I'm just saying that the people who have the motivation and will-power to stand up to a boss like you and demand a fine line between work and the rest of their lives also usually have great qualities that you want in an employee. They think that the job is "worth working for its own sake," they just have other things that also are -- and let's be honest here, they're working not only to enrich you, but themselves also. You're not selling yourself short here, so why disrespect other people who demand their fair compensation also?
A company might get built on a one-trick workhorse, but they rarely survive for long on one.
You mean, as good of a version as the replacement GPS satellites that the US putting up are?
,but the replacement satellites that the US puts up has nearly the exact same specs accuracy-wise as the Galileo system. They're direct complements.
Sure, they're better than the 20 year old version orbiting around
If by cause environmental problems, you mean follow the course of nature, then yes.
Algae blooms have been happening for a long time. It's not catastrophic. We can adapt. An algae bloom versus clean energy and pollution cleanup. Which one would you choose?
Funny this is, it's illegal to do so with a lawsuit. Just much harder to prove the intent, and also involves another lawsuit.
I'm sorry, but I have to call you on this one.
Cars do put out items such as Benzene (a NTC), Formaldehyde, etc. Diesel's produce nano-particles that lodge in your lungs -- definitely not good in any amount.
Same with lots of busses. Don't even get started on older cars also -- leaded gas anyone?
Get over cigarette and cigar smoke. There has never been any study that remotely suggested that dilute second hand smoke has any appreciable effect on health. That means if your neighbor is smoking, and you can smell it does not mean that you are being harmed.
I mean seriously, some people who live near me can take some massive shits that stink up the whole block. I don't accuse them of actually making me eat shit. I realize that it's not that big of a deal. I do the same with unwanted smoke, odors, etc. It's not going to hurt you. Just learn not to flip out over little things man.
Huh, it's odd that you're attacking the THAAD system. It's probably one of the more useful systems in the whole MDA (Missile Defense Agency) program. I can see people whining about some of the other interception schemes, but THAAD can be very, very useful.
For example, say China is threatening Taiwan. Say North Korea is threatening Japan (or some other country). Take an Aegis group out there, fully armed with THAAD systems, and park it in the ocean between the two. Now, we can sit there and try to force talks, because with that fleet in the ocean, we can guarantee (to some amount of reliability) that the fight can't escalate TOO far. At least the smaller side doesn't have to immediately capitulate to threats via nukes.
Basically, the THAAD system is a mobile THEATER based defense system. It's meant for diffusing extremely tense situations between two nearby countries. It's a very useful capability to have -- immediate de-escalation since the biggest threats are now mitigated.
Complain about MDA all you want, but the THAAD system would find it's usefulness proven even without the current political climate, and without Bush's current push for missile defense. It's just plain useful to have.
Most leagues have rules or modes that severely curtail lamer tactics. Also, if it's a team-based game, then usually they're already nerfed.
Any competitive conoutner-strike or team-based league I was in was devoid of any lamer tactics when you got into a high enough level. Those tactics might work great on big public servers, but they need to change when playing someone good.
As far as spawn killing goes, some people consider it a very large part of the game -- playing cat and mouse, and trying to outsmart the stronger opponent to get the upper hand and then become the predator instead of the prey. Not thatI ever thought that, but it's all in how you look at it.
BS.
If you aren't ready to immigrate, then don't immigrate. Period. Don't go to another country, and expect them to learn your language so that they can teach you in schools, and don't expect them to change their TV programming so that you can understand it. None of these people were displaced. They came voluntarily, and instead of assimilating, they're trying to do the assimilation. Hence the friction. I feel very little for them. I sincerely doubt that every other minority group in France is having this problem.
Well, that's the problem. Eventually these interfaces are likely to be optical instead of electrical, which means no more backwards compatability. But I don't see it being a huge change. We already deal with all different types of sockets, SATA/ATA, etc. If they find a way to make components all optical, but convert to standard interfaces, then it would be as painless as the ATA->SATA transition. If they can't do that, then it will be a painful transition since there's no cross-over for the manufacturers to ease into, which would make them uneasy.
In the meantime, we might see a CPU that does everything optically, then ships the results out electronically, but one of the bigger advantages to all of this is being able to ship everything around optically.
I think that we havem ore competition in the computer industry right now then at just about any other time. If someone can squeeze more performance, or get an edge with optical, then they'll do it. In a commodity business, any edge you may be able to obtain is very important.
This is why you have to do what every other musican has ever done. That is tour. No better way to get your name out than that. In fact, that's how most bands do it.
The poster above you is correct. Transmitter strengths, transmit or receive, etc don't matter one bit. 6dB of gain from an increased antenna is 6dB of gain period. It helps both transmit and receive.
all I can say is huh? How did this get modded up so high?
A matter of national policy that cannot be negotiated? I don't seem to recall the 132nd ammendment stating that internet domain ownership is the right of every american citizen.
I didn't realize that other countries operated by making all of their national policies amendments to their constitutions. You're just being silly at this point.
This sort of attitude doesn't help create a warm fuzzy feeling about the US in the rest of the world. Someone in the Government should really take a step back and ask themselves why this would actually matter at all. The UN is the ideal place to run the internet rules at the moment, its got the largest reach and global membership and a stated goal of being independent.
Nearly the exact same could be said of the US in regards to how it's handling the internet. What legitimate complaint is out there right now with the way the US handles the internet in light of what you said above? With regards to the inrnet, what has any US policy maker ever stated as official policy that does not give you the warm and fuzzies? I can't think of any. But I can think of a couple quotes by large UN member nations about what they'd do if they had a voice in how the internet was run, and they certainly don't give me warm and fuzzies.
Because co-operation is bad eh? Damn those pesky Europeans for wanting oversight on a random organisation like ICANN which has been so successful and caused no issues thanks to its openness and brilliant decision making.
ICANN does blow, but I've yet to see a good proposal for an international governing body that would solve the problems of ICANN. Also, why are you specifically talking about Europeans? You want it turned over to the world. I think a little of your Euro-centric views are showing through here. What you just proposed is an internet run by the EU and US jointly. Hence, this has nothign to do with the conversation at hand. The conversation at hand is if we want to give EVERYONE oversight on the inernet, including countries that don't respect certain rights the way most Europeans and Americans do.
The US Goverment does itself, or its citizens, no favours by continually persuing unilateral rather than multi-lateral approaches.
ok. So? What does this have to do with anything? We unilaterally (well, Britian helped a lot) started the inernet, and gave it to the rest of the world. Sorry about that. Next time, we'll just turn over basic implementation over to the UN for every idea we have. Sounds good to me....My country does me plenty of favors by pursuing unilateral approaches many times. Sometimes you just have to get things done, which is exactly the approach that made the internet what it is today.
I'd be fully for moving control over the inernet to an international body if someone could just get the framework set up right. The internet IS the tool of the new millenium, and a bad transfer of power could be a large setback to global communications and information dissemination. Let's take careful, paced steps towards ensuring that the internet flourishes around the world, and not give in to knee-jerk anti-US arguments over something so important.
I would imagine that they'll just delete the mp3's that are in the filesharing program's directory.
I would say that you're right in general, but I don't think that you're right in regards to the elite.
The cream of the crop engineers absolutely love to learn and try new, crazy things. That's why they're the best. The best engineers I've ever worked with have been 60 year olds who have literally self-taught themselves every new technology that has come around since they got their degrees. These are the self-motivated, self-learners with extremely flexible minds. They're worth their weight in gold at any age.
I don't see why this would change anything. A bird can now count from zero.
I don't see how us having a big brain automatically means that we stop eating meat. I think that you're making some huge logical jumps. Just because if we try really hard, we can stay healthy without eating meat doesn't mean that we should stop eating meat.
The iris is much more unique (I believe it has the highest amount of uniqueness in any biometric system), and I believe they've come up with some very compact and efficient schemes for its use. I remember when I looked back at various biometric technology about 3 years ago, iris scanning was the clear winner barring this patent nonsense.
Basically, it's the public and perception.
Lots of lawsuits from people who "didn't fully comprehend all the risks", hospitals, doctors, procedures getting the labeled as killers, and having bad track records. Malpractice for relatively safe procedures is astronomical. No one wants to deal with those doctors (aka "so, 75% of your surgeries end up in death, why should I work with you?").
Money. That's a lot of money in the surgery for a small chance of living.
This isn't so much people banning it though. Believe me, there's tons of new, exciting, dangerous surgeries abound. The test for this heart had 17 patients with those types of risks. There's lots of cutting edge research looking for people in the exact scenario you describe, and they usually get some for of radical new treatment. In this case, the FDA just decided that this radical new treatment hadn't matured enough yet. So, there will be a couple more studies where people can get artificial hearts if they really need them.
Basically, the FDA doesn't like to make radical treatments mainstream. It prefers to keep them in the research wings where people who need them can get them, but to keep mainstream procedures as safe and mundane as possible.
There are other laws protecting your credit card number, SSN, etc. Sure, distributing them with illegal intent is often a crime, but usually owning your personal, private information without a need for it is usually illegal.
Your analogy sucks anyways. We should have much tougher laws regarding personal information and privacy than we do have on publically available (but copyrighted) works. Some of the new privacy laws are getting there, but I don't think we're at that point yet.
Exactly.
Why the hell would a Terrorist outfit pirtae Sith? For money? Please, they can get it much easier other places.
I knew that there would be some Slashdot fan-boyism about this issue.
It's a good car, but it's not the holy grail of automobiles man. It has a small, rare problem that Toyota has admitted to and is fixing. No big deal. I'm not even sure why the article was posted. Having said that, you're attempt at sweeping it under the rug is a little ridiculous -- I mean, it is an actual bug in the software.
Only if you consider probably a mass (~30% or more) dying off of the deer population humane. If we stop regulating disease, and if we stop acting as predators, then the deer will boom for a year or two, and then crash horribly as they over-eat the food and expand too rapidly, and then without us continually searching for and then removing diseased deer, boom. Mass dying off of deer through starvation and disease. Seems rather humane. You're right.
it's not the lack of forests. There's more deer now than there ever has been EVER. Let me repeat that, we have more deer now than when every single forest was 100% uncut. We have a substantial lack of predators and disease, which is why we have so many deer.
Don't generalize hunters.
Just like with anything, there's the bottom-feeders. Then there's the true hunters. If you have a problem with turrets, feeders, etc then attack them, not the hunters. I'm a hunter who despises baiting and feeders.
Paintball is fun, but for the average real hunter, there's a whole ton more effort and preparation that goes into a hunt. I'm training with my bow for months, learning survival skills, getting out there, and walking 30 miles a day all up and down the hills while on constant lookout EVERYWHERE and perpetually tracking the wind (so I don't get downwind of where I'm going) and sneaking and tracking.
Then there's the culmination of when all of the aforementioned comes together, and I bring an animal down. Then the real work starts, everything else doesn't compare to dressing your game and packing that huge animal out of that canyon or valley (invariably always one or those, and not on a hill) for the next two days.
In hunting, the challenge is what you make it.
Yes, there are a lot of road hunters and people who just sit by camp and hit things way off in the distance (sniping does require some form of skill though).
But then there are those who like the challenge. Some of my friends hunt with hand-made spears. Some of the crazy ones go out with a pack, and make the spear themselves in the forest, then hunt. I consider them real, true hunters.
I bow hunt elk mainly, and I'd say there's a slightly greater than 50% chance I'll bag one in a season. We go out into true wilderness, walking and do it. I don't shoot unless I'm closer than 30 yards, which is generally pretty hard in the area we hunt. Then I pack it out 10 miles on my own back. My father loses 20 pounds every hunt we go on.
But let's get realistic for a second. Since when was nearly any hunt that man did fair? We're smarter, and we had the mental capabilities to easily slaughter huge numbers of animals for 10,000+ years. Complaining about hunting "no longer" being a challenge is a bit disingenuous. It hasn't been a challenge for thousands of years. We used to light fires to drive animals towards the hunters, or drive whole herds of animals off of cliffs. Baiting and partially domesticating wild animals with offers of food, then slaughtering them. I'd say that things are a lot fairer now than they were thousands of years ago, but not quite as fair as they were maybe 200 years ago. Largely due to it being more of a sport now than sustenance. Back in the day, it didn't matter if you killed a whole herd of 200 animals to get one, because you'd die if you didn't get that one. Today, we just go out and get that one. If we don't, then we hit the supermarket.