Internet Hunting 892
cybergrunt69 writes "An enterprising Texan, John Underwood currently has a website that lets you target-practice online with a .22 caliber rifle, but will soon start offering "hunting" abilities. He recently built a platform for about $10,000USD to house this new system on his 300 acre properly, but the Parks and Wildlife department is now scrambling to find ways to try and stop him. While this may sound like cheating to some people, this may be a large benefit to hunters with disabilities."
This is interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh and as far as disabled hunters go Here [gapingmaw.com] is a rather general article about disabled hunters and the "sport" they love.
Re:This is interesting... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This is interesting... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a camera next time and see what a lame shot you actually are.
Wait just a minute! (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait just a minute! If you don't have a good view of the target (deer/sheep/tin can/whatever) then you have ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS TAKING THE SHOT!
That's how hunting accidents happen.
If I can't clearly see it, it ain't getting shot at. Otherwise I could shoot cousin Earl or some dumbass wandering around in our woods. Also, i
Re:This is interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is interesting... (Score:3, Funny)
Oh yea? When the worlds largest militia hits the woods in PA for deer season they've been playing cards, telling dirty jokes and drinking like it's the last drink forever till 3:00am. Then they get up at 5:00am and hit the woods in 20deg cold hanging from a tree.
Deer are safe in most the hunting camps I've been at:-) Your beer isn't.
Re:This is interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
If I forget to feed them, the thing is dead and eaten within 30 minutes.
Now the question I got to ask, is what happens when some human wanders in front of the camera one day with this system, and the person on the other side figures, hey this is
Re:This is interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, well I lived on a farm where there were a number of feral cats. These were cats that hunted to survive, rats and birds and whatever else they could catch were their food. They DID NOT TOY WITH THEIR PREY, they killed it and ate it. That was hunting!
My cats (ex feral cats from my parents farm) no longer need to hunt for food and as of such the way they hunt changes dramatically. Now they toy with their prey, they play games, they specifically let it go so they can catch it again and again and again...
So please don't give me that they're not human so it is different crap. I don't hunt (anymore), I don't believe hunting is right, but when I was a kid I used to hunt (with an air rifle) and it is exilerating. That doesn't make it right or wrong, you can argue the morality of it all you want, the exileration is something inherent in our makeup, and its the same with you little cat. It (the cat) may not be able to think about the morality of it, and thus you can argue what it does is less wrong than us hunting, but it is the same genetic predisposition (our ancesters were HUNTER/gatherers after all).
Re:This is interesting... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is interesting... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This is interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
I personally don't like to hunt, but I don't see why we should prohibit others from doing it, even in novel ways. As long as the hunters aren't c
Re:This is interesting... (Score:4, Interesting)
Finally, some hunts are just brutal. Two years ago, my roomate lucked out and after four years unsuccessfully going after bull elk in Oregon, he got an antlerless elk tag. Elk are amazing animals, can weigh well over a half ton but take two steps into heavy brush and be gone without a trace or hardly a sound. Anyway, he spent five days in Oregon's coast range before he shot a ~900 pound cow elk. So that's December in a rain forest in Oregon. Lows below freezing, highs around 50, near-constant rain so hard that if you want a shower just stick a bar of soap on your head and stand outside for five minutes. The day he got her there were 100 mph wind gusts recorded at Bandon, just to the south. He didn't use any calls or scents, but that day got within 50 feet of her wearing a bright yellow rainsuit. Someone always visits him at elk camp to make sure he's alright, and that year it was me. He had somehow gutted, skinned, quartered, and hung her by himself and carried out about 2/3 of the meat over two miles of steep, abandoned logging roads to his truck on the "main" logging road by the time I finally found him around dusk. The next day we drove back and got the remainder and I found out what it was like to carry an elk quarter on my back for a couple miles. Or at least a big chunk of it, anyway. I had about 80 pounds of elk leg on my back, and whenever I leaned over I'd "accidentally" bonk him in the head with her hoof, which stuck out over my head by about a foot and a half. From just two trips I got some of the worst muscle pulls I've ever had, I can't imagine doing it for over a day like he did. Elk hunters are full-bore batshit insane. Tasty animal, though. Beef sucks.
But this so-called hunting from the safety and comfort of your own computer is just plain wrong, I agree.
Re:This is interesting... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This is interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
I was looking around for stuff to mod, but this I have to reply to.
The life of some of the animals you eventually buy in the stores is horiffic. I'm not a vegetarian, and I don't think farming animals is inherently wrong, but we have pigs living their entire lives in cages they can't even turn around in.
I'd rather have the animals have five years of freedom and a painful death any day over five years of hell and a peaceful death.
Whatever (Score:3, Interesting)
The alternatives being:-
1/ pasture fed stock that are packed together like sardines & truck/trained/shipped hundreds, sometimes thousands of miles for slaughtering.
2/ Feedlot stock that are penned like tinned sardines virtually all their lives in knee high shit & need to be pumped full of anti-biotics to survive & are fed on a diet that's t
Re:This is interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
I fish, and my freezer has some venision my neigbour bagged last week. I live in a rural setting in BC, and many out here only eat meat they or their friends catch. It's not that we're romanticizing killing, but refusing to divorce ourselves from the killing.
I know there are many hunters out there that don't frame it the same way, but it's still better tha
Re:Even MORE interesting when the target is HUMAN (Score:3, Funny)
well... (Score:2)
Hunters with disabilities (Score:5, Funny)
An advanced society.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:An advanced society.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:An advanced society.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Disabled (Adjective).
Second definition:
Impaired, as in physical functioning: a disabled veteran; disabled children.
I'd call sex a physical function, and I'd call geeks impaired in their ability to get some sex. Due to means that are usually beyond the control of said geeks.
Re:An advanced society.... (Score:4, Funny)
Getting laid by Mr. Hottie, maybe... but never any problem getting laid.
Re:An advanced society.... (Score:3, Insightful)
All the time in my head I'm thinking... "But... you just have to not say 'no' and you get laid..."
They just don't understand our pain.
Re:An advanced society.... (Score:3, Funny)
Sigh... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hunters with disabilities (Score:4, Insightful)
I dunno (Score:3, Interesting)
Now what would be really cool is if you did this at a paintball range and had these things in trees firing at players (with paint of course.
Re:I dunno (Score:3, Insightful)
While we're at it, how about a random paintball-webcam just set up somewhere? People come online, see someone walk by on the cam, and fire the paintball gun at whatever poor soul happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or make a game of it: people try to run across a range of these things to win a t-shirt.
What's the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's the point? (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought the entire excuse for hunting was for tradition and the sportsmanship. This completely removes both. This is purely idiotic.
Is it?
In our society, animals are considered materials for our use, as we see fit, with a few rare exceptions[1].
In the US, most hunters are those who hunt for entertainment.
Free market forces seem to indicate that there is a large enough group of people who consider this entertainment enough to exchange money for the privledge. While you or I may not consider it
Re:What's the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
As is the case with humans, wild animals are capable of surviving the extremes of their nominal climates with only available shelter, but exhibit stress responses characteristic of discomfort when placed outside of a small band of temperatures and humidities. Domesticated food animals do not exhibit those stress responses when raised under nominal feedlot conditions. Domestic turkeys, for instance, do not secrete stress hormones when crowded. (Why do we know that? Those hormones slow growth, so agribusiness types have measured exactly the point at which they start showing up in the animals' brains. Farmers under contract to the businesses follow the buidelines they set down.)
Bottom line: well, surprising as it may sound, no, you're wrong. There are a great many good reasons to be vegan, or at least purely vegetarian, but the welfare of animals doesn't actually qualify.
Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
That's what city people who never actually hunted think.
Hunting is NOT a game.
Hunting is about skill, and patience, and responsibility, and consequences.
Hunting is about handling deadly tools safely.
Hunting is about working alone, or in a group, to achieve a difficult goal.
Hunting is about coming to a personal understanding that you, and your family, are also animals, that every day you live because something else - plant or animal - died to feed you.
Hunting is about the lengths you will go to keep your family fed and healthy.
Hunting is about knowing, deep in your gut, that the animal you hunt will hurt and die. And hunting (for humans) is about honoring that animal, by making its death for your benefit as fast and painless as possible, an easier death than it would suffer from the teeth and claws of some other peredator, from disease, from accident, or from starvation.
Hunting is about understanding your place in nature:
You are a predator.
You are at the top of the food chain
You are SO effective at what you do that you MUST be careful, lest you wipe out those things you depend on for your own life.
Re:What's the point? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What's the point? - Tetris (Score:3, Funny)
Tetris is about skill, and patience, and responsibility, and consequences.
Tetris is about handling blocks safely.
Tetris is about working alone, or in a group, to achieve a difficult goal. (arguably it doesn't help working in a group)
Tetris is about coming to a personal understanding that you, and your family, are also blockheads.
Tetris is about the lengths you will go to keep your blocks stacked and disappearing.
Tetris is about knowing, deep in your gut, that the blocks you drop w
Re:What's the point? (Score:4, Interesting)
-- snip --
I grew up in rural Wisconsin in a hunting family, and a hunting town (the place shuts down during deer hunting season). So I know what hunting is.
What you described was hunting 2 or 3 hundred years ago. If you understood our place in nature _today_ you would know that we can produce enough crops to live entirely on non-animal sources of food.
Back when it was kill or be killed there was honor in hunting for survival. Today the choice is kill, or hit the produce section of your super market. There's no honor in gratuitous killing.
You can get all that mystical hunter crap you were talking about on the way to the grocery store anyway - check it:
Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hunting is about handling deadly tools safely.
Would someone please explain that to all the hunters we caught rifle hunting within a couple hundred yards of my house when I was a kid, despite fine mist of NO HUNTING signs that we sprayed across our property?
Or the guy who set up the salt lick on our property?
I'd especially like to have that explained to the guy who came out of the forest (and into our backyard) screaming some gibberish about how dangerous it is to be outside (in my backyard, playing on a swingset) during deer season, all because he had seen some movement and had the gun lined up and ready to fire, his finger only checked because he heard me say something?
There are a lot of guys who romanticize hunting. Which is great, there is truth to the "hunting shows you your place in nature" story. But in my experience, you guys are totally outnumbered. For most folks, hunting seems to simply be about finding things and shooting them. Any food you might get is just a bonus.
That's the only way I can understand why we had so many encounters with hunters firing rifles more or less in our backyard when I was a kid, or when we had so many problems with hunters hunting on my school's wildlife preserve when I was in college, or why I am seeing this story about a remote-control rifle that you can control from the Internet right now.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
but the majority of hunters I encounter seem to be pissed idiots, blasting away at roadsigns and leaving beer cans and rubbish everywhere.
How do you know?
I mean, do you ask everybody you meet if they're a hunter?
I have friends who do and don't hunt. There's not a test that I can apply, other than asking "do you hunt?" I expect it's the same with you, unless you have a "hunter seeker" that tells you when you're talking to a hunter. So you have the following sample of the hunting population: (1) people whom you've asked if they hunt, (2) people whom you find out hunt through other means (such as, they mention it in conversation), and (3) pissed idiots that you assume are hunting, or observe hunting.
I'm going to make a guess here, and assume that you probably don't have a lot of conversations about hunting. So most of your sample is probably from #3. That's a skewed sample.
I have never knowingly had a conversation with the "pissed idiot" variety of hunter, and I've talked with many hunters. I have seen people getting pissed and blasting away at roadsigns, but I haven't ever known them to be hunting. Just being dangerous idiots.
I've seen multiple comments mirroring your sentiment in this thread, and I'm surprised. If you walked through a school and saw 98% that were dressed normally, and 2% that were dressed in too-tight white shirts with pocket protectors, would you assume that all computer types are thusly dressed? Or would you consider that perhaps computer types come in different shapes and sizes, and that perhaps there are computer geeks in that 98%? Stereotypes are always dangerous when you try to evaluate a social class.
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your view seems pretty narrow there. Claws and teeth don't always determine what you can or can't kill. All kinds of factors matter. The ability to plan, make and use tools, and so forth. I'd wager a human alone would be better equipped against a lion than a monkey (say) would be. Humans can take trees and turn them into spears, and other things. Intelligence edges us up the food chain, not
Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
It may or may not be noble on absolute terms, but I personally I think hunting a wild animal gives it far more dignity relative to livestock raised solely for slaughter. Personally, I'd say the ones who take "pleasure in killing something else" aren't out hunting, they're at the slaughterhouse cracking open the skulls of cattle with a hammer. I mean, with hunting you maybe kill one large mammal a day if you're good and if you're lucky, but you get to see bits of cow brains fly all day, every day at the meat plant. Of course, even that gets boring after a while, but there's always opportunities to get... shall we say "creative?"
"If you can't get to a supermarket, okay, I can understand why you'd need to hunt."
Yes, because you can get venison so cheap at the supermarket...
"As it stands now, though, I have nothing but contempt for the overweight rednecks who need a rifle and a corpse to feel like men."
They're not the ones ignoring where the food on their plate came from. What they think about it and how it effects them is debatable, but it certainly isn't blithe ignorance.
Re:What's the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
> It may or may not be noble on absolute terms, but
> I personally I think hunting a wild animal gives
> it far more dignity relative to livestock raised
> solely for slaughter.
To that statement reads as equivalent to this:
"It may not be noble on absolute terms, but I personally think that stalking and raping a woman gives her more dignity relative to women who are raised solely for arrang
Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the entire excuse for hunting was for tradition and the sportsmanship.
Different people have different reasons, but some of the common ones are:
The main reason I enjoy hunting is that it motivates me to get closer to nature than I ever do otherwise. That's a really odd fact, one I don't understand. I'm not necessarily anxious to kill anything, though I like the meat, and the thrill of the stalk is fantastic (I most often hunt with a bow). What I enjoy most is being out there. So why don't I go out there just to go, rather than to hunt?
I do, actually. I like to hike and camp, and I spend lots of time in the mountains just because I enjoy being there. I take hikes involving one or two thousand feet of elevation gain and three or four miles horizontal distance. I take lots of pictures and occasionally "stalk" with my camera.
But when I'm hunting it's not unusual to climb three thousand feet or more and hike 5-10 miles in the morning and then do the same again in the evening. And although I always pay attention to my surroundings (that being the point of going there), I pay much *more* attention when hunting, and I therefore get a lot more out of it. For example, when hunting I can often smell the animals and even identify them by their scent. When I'm just hiking I don't seem to notice their scents at all. Hunting motivates me to do things like dressing from head to toe in camouflage and then sitting completely motionless for hours, until the animals have completely forgotten I'm not just an oddly-shaped bush. A fawn bounced into me and knocked me off the log I was sitting on, once.
I enjoy hunting because I like the cool experiences I have as a result of doing somewhat extreme things to get very close to nature. I could do *exactly* the same things without spending $60 on a hunting license, plus more than I want to think about on all of the gear, but I don't, and when I try it's not the same.
Anyway, the point of this wildly off-topic rumination is to say:
Shooting animals via remote control over the Internet isn't "hunting" for people who for whatever reason can't do it in person. It's just a weird, hi-tech way of slaughtering animals. Killing is actually the smallest and least important part of sport hunting.
Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Admit it, you like to kill.
Re:What's the point? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What's the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
I quite agree, King George was a lunatic and you kicking his forces out of America was an excellent idea. A work of sheer brilliance! But then you went and handed the bulk of the power to people you could trust even less. "No taxatio
Guilty or not (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd use the lag defense (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'd use the lag defense (Score:3, Insightful)
"There was a DEER on the screen when I shot. Only afterwards did it refresh and show a person."
I think both the guy running the site and the users who cause injury to people are going to end up in a heap of trouble over this.
Re:Guilty or not (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Guilty or not (Score:3, Informative)
The MQ-1B Armed Predator is a variant of the RQ-1 Predator modified to be able to accomplish a ground attack role as well as reconnaissance. [globalsecurity.org]
On 04 November 2002 six al-Qaida members traveling in a vehicle in Yemen were killed by a Hellfire missile fired by a CIA controlled Predator unmanned [globalsecurity.org]
Lag? (Score:2, Insightful)
If that don't beat all. (Score:2)
First robots with shotguns, now cyberednecks!
Abuse? (Score:3, Insightful)
-dshaw
Who wants a job? (Score:5, Funny)
WTF?
Who wants that job?
At the golf driving range we all target the ball-retriever machines/attendants when they go to get the balls... and , hey this is Texas we are talking about!
Re:Who wants a job? (Score:4, Funny)
Jesse: "I want it to have guns. That would be cool."
Oooh I see even more marketing opportunities here! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oooh I see even more marketing opportunities he (Score:4, Funny)
For some reason I read that as "Shoot the rabbit and WIN POO".
I'm glad I was wrong.
Mouse aiming? Forget that, I need WASD too~! (Score:5, Funny)
Why all this, you ask? So we can CIRCLE STRAFE those freaking animals over the internet~!
(Deer proceeds to knock over robot mid-hunt, rendering it useless)
Walkie Talkie Voice :
Lag? (Score:3, Funny)
Uh oh (Score:3, Funny)
Shopping Mall+ This + Tranq Darts = GREAT FUN (Score:4, Funny)
Great Idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless you are actually going to use what you shoot for a purpose, it has no real value to me. I think this is a great idea though, Next thing we can do is put these things in Iraq and shoot enemies this way...Oh wait, that would be to complicated for the governement to handle, we will just stick with deer.
A Link (Score:5, Informative)
Disabilities (Score:3, Funny)
let's computerize this! (Score:3, Interesting)
Think of it - who can do the best open source cybernetic sniper program? Remember those neat antipersonnel guns in Aliens?
Linkage (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a link to the site. This is probably a bad idea, but I want gun toting robots for myself, so who am I to judge.
Now THIS is an idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
Possible scenarios that occured to me within first 30 seconds:
- Internet hunter shoots animal, some human goes out to retrieve it. Oooh, what will the next hunter that gets online fire a shot at?
- "something goes wrong" and the system becomes unreliable. Who's going to onsite to fix the thing, while it's playing up?
- it's all a big con, and when you think you're "hunting" you're actually watching a carefully prepared film
- parachute one of these things into Fallujah, then auction off rights to "The Real Deathmarch 2004, with added reality"
Anyone care to round out a top 10 list? I would, but I'm at work, about to walk into a meeting and wishing I had one of these with me right about now...
The site is www.live-shot.com (Score:4, Informative)
From the "how it works" page:
LIVE-SHOT is similar to a trip to the rifle range with one very notable exception. Everything is done through a computer and the internet. A paid membership will allow for access to the range viewing camera(s) at any time.
interesting...
looks like when hunting goes live you can hunt
Aoudad (Barbary Sheep), Blackbuck Antelope, A wide variety of sheep, Wild Hog, and Other antlered species like axis, fallow, and red stag will be available on a limited basis.
What happens when a human gets shot (Score:5, Insightful)
How about making it illegal to operate a weapon remotely for anything but military purposes? The further you remove a person from the carnage the more it seems like a game, and the less thought and respect for life you're likely to see.
There are real consequences to this hunting. Animals die. You wouldn't pilot an aircraft with real people in it by remote control via a flight sim or camera setup.
Sorry if my thoughts are a little scattered.
Redneck philosophy in a nutshell. (Score:5, Funny)
A more concise summary of the essence of redneckhood may never have been spoken. Truly a quote for the ages.
Re:And taken in context even worse (Score:4, Funny)
Rarely is the question asked, were the light bulb ever on?
The lure of hunting? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, and hunters should have to always make use of the meat/hides/fur/whatever in some way. I mean if you're going to run around in the woods and pick off mostly defenseless animals with rifles, at least make some use of them, eh? Otherwise it's just a waste.
With this new system though, you don't even have to go out in the woods and find an animal. You just wait for one to appear on your monitor. And you don't have to have great aim, really... you just click. That's not hunting, it's pointless slaughter.
Why Hunt? A hunter responds. (Score:5, Informative)
I'll try to respond to this, honestly and respectfully. Bear in mind, I'm only one hunter, so my motivations will not match those of all other hunters.
My father imparted me with two fundamental hunting ethics:
1. Give your prey a the opportunity to use his strengths against you
This means that, when hunting birds, you don't shoot them on the ground, or in the water. If you encounter a stationary game bird, you first flush the bird, and allow it to put some distince between it and you, before you shoot. For big game (deer, for example), choose your weaponry or environment so as to require a very close (20-30 yards) encounter. Deer have unbelievably sharp senses of sight, smell, and hearing. Getting one to approach you to within 20 yards is no easy task. Some big-game hunters proudly display the elk trophy they took with a 350-yard shot -- I wouldn't call that hunting; it's more like a display of marksmanship. If you want to impress me with your skills as a hunter, show me the elk you took with a bow at 25 yards.
2. Only kill what you intend to eat.
You can't "catch and release" when you're hunting. If you don't intend on eating it, you've got no reason to kill it.
People who grow vegetables will tell you that tomatoes, corn, beans, peas -- all taste better when they come from your own garden. In addition, you know that they're organic (if you've chosen to raise them that way.) In the same way, pheasant, duck, and venison taste better to me when I know I've harvested it myself. In addition, I know that this meat is "free range" and organic, as well as lower in fat than anything I can buy at market.
In your comments, you raise some frequently-heard arguments:
The animals stand no chance. Neither does the pig, cow, or chicken going to slaughter. Using ethic #1, above, the prey is allowed to use his innate talents against my technology. The majority of the time (in my own hunting experience) the animal wins.
The hardest part is finding something - after that, if you have reasonable aim, you will surely kill it. This is partially true. It is difficult, and rewarding, to find game animals. I've spent many long, quiet hours remaining motionless in the woods waiting to hear or see a deer. Some of those unsuccessful hunts are memorable to me because of everything else I've seen -- an ermine catching a mouse, a wren landing on my boot, a skunk leading her kits across a field.
Reasonable aim isn't a guaranteed kill, however. There are species of ducks (scaup) I hunt that fly at nearly 50 miles per hour. This season, I saw perhaps 300 of these ducks, was able to lure enough into range to take a dozen shots, and killed only two.
I think all hunters should have to fight the animals with hand-to-hand combat. Give the animal a chance to do some damage in return.
I've often thought about this. I've been close enough to deer on several occasions that I could have jumped out of my tree with a knife in hand to do battle. I'm not sure it's legal in my state to kill a deer with a knife. I'm also not positive that I could have a "cleaner" kill with a kife than with an arrow or bullet to the heart.
I understand that hunting is not for everyone. I don't deride those who don't enjoy hunting. There's a thrill in hunting, and it's not about killing, death and destruction - it's about personal accomplishment, of self-sufficiency. Sure, I could go to the grocery store and buy a duck -- hunting may cost more, but in the end I get the duck, the memory of the sunrise that morning, and a sense of achievement as well.
Slashdotting a rifle.... (Score:3, Funny)
It gives a whole new meaning to the idea of a slashdotting "melting down" the victim.
steve
.22 Caliber, huh? (Score:3, Informative)
he Web site already offers target practice with a
Do they realistically expect people to be able to kill a deer with a .22? You'd need to hit it at least half a dozen times and hope it bleeds to death before it runs out of the camera's view.
...That is, if you're the kind of person who likes watching deer bleed to death. ;-O
Think of the possibilities? (Score:3, Funny)
Why not an on-line cow/goat milker?
And an attendant could collect the milk and send it to you?
Maybe I'd better be quiet. Microsoft might patent the idea and create a Milk The Cow xbox game. Would it be called Grand Milk Cow?
Large benefit?! (Score:3, Interesting)
What, exactly, is the large benefit to hunters with disabilities?
They can now "hunt" without having to deal with the non-ADA-compliant forest? I always thought that being in the forest was half the appeal of hunting in the first place.
They can once again kill something? I don't regard the thrill of victory as a valid reason for hunting.
They can once again kill something for food using a robotic weapon and, presumably, getting someone else to drag their prey home and butcher it? Might as well order up a Deluxe Pack from Omaha Steaks.
Can someone explain what this "large" benefit is?
This will NEVER last! (Score:3, Interesting)
I cannot imagine that this will last longer than a week. I know that this guy has a lot of property, and the range of a
I have one question.
Who other than Lloyds of London could insure this hair brained scheme? The premiums have to be HUGE!
I would take a
Someone's gonna die (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a good idea because it poses a significant, and unusual, risk to human life and on top of that, it is going to remove the level of immediacy that is required to allocate legal responsibility for an action (i.e. shooting a gun) with a person (Joe Sixpack).
What if someone is out in the range adjusting some equipment, and the thing that was supposed to disconnect the Internet death trigger malfunctioned... I mean, is he planning on using an OS that is authorized for mission critical / life supporting systems? That won't be Windows or Linux, as you probably know.
The idea is just flawed. We as Engineers go to a lot of trouble to make systems that are safe for humans. This system poses unnecessary and probably significant risk to humans.
Hack that computer and kill someone (Score:3, Interesting)
Poor Monkey (Score:3, Funny)
I thought this was fake (Score:3, Insightful)
But I guess we're taking it seriously.
Luring, or waiting for, animals to walk in front of a camera so you can shoot them by remote control isn't hunting. It's executing animals for fun, and it shouldn't be any more legal than someone drowning cats to get their jollies off.
Holy Liability Batman. (Score:3, Insightful)
Shoot your computer (Score:4, Funny)
Not Hunting, Just Killing (Score:4, Insightful)
So don't get upset over this moron and his robo-hunter. Its just one more turn.
(Real hunters use iron sites. Hardcore hunters use a bow and arrow. Real men hunt with giant fucking knifes and sharpened sticks.)
Re:hunters with disabilities? (Score:2)
rj
Re:Not sport (Score:2)
help hunters with disabilities? sorry but if you can't get out into the forest with your hunting group.. well, you're already missing out on the whole point of hunting then and would be better off buying a copy of deer hunter.
If you don't think THIS is a sport... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Gun rights primer (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Gun rights primer (Score:5, Insightful)
Like Iraq for example.
Re:Gun rights primer (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Gun rights primer (Score:3, Insightful)
Like Iraq for example.
An armed populace isn't there to stop an invasion. It's there to discourage one, by making occupation fiendishly expensive, and breaking the invader's will (and bankbook). The colonials were vastly outgunned by the British, and yet we won. Why? Because at a certain point, it wasn't worth it to the British to continue operations over such a long distance at that time. In Vietnam, th
Re:Gun rights primer (Score:4, Insightful)
Apart from that: What sportsmanship (or honor) is there if a disabled person shoots animals like this? It's pathetic, and people engaging in this sort of activity for fun are just disgusting bastards.
Re:Gun rights primer (Score:3, Informative)
Most of the southern states were not readmitted into the union for 3-5 years after the war. During this timeperiod they were under martial law. Even then it took another 5 years or so for the states to resume local control of their own government. So, yes, there was an occupation.
See wikipedia [wikipedia.org] for dates, look at the table near the bottom.
Re:Gun rights primer (Score:3, Informative)
OK here,
this document makes it very clear that the threat of gurilla warfare forced a policy of reconcilation instead of occupation
www.gsb.georgetown.edu/faculty/sweeneyr/ wp/Chapter%208_Civil%20War%20Reconciliation.doc
and heres one about why the Japaneese decided not to invade the wide and unprotected american coast line
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoo b 0109.h tml
Re:Gun rights primer (Score:4, Insightful)
The "absence of any evidence" wasn't because the opposition could not bring arguments to bear, but because there was no opposition to point out that in fact shotguns with barrels shorter than 18 inches were in fact employed as military arms in both WWI and WWII. Clearing fortifications with a shortened shotgun is far easier than using a longer arm. Unfortunately, no one was present to provide this insight. So while the opinion of the court may be factually accurate, it only relates to evidence presented by the parties present (one side), not the evidence that could be presented. That's the way court procedure works, and while the decision is correct in terms of the evidence at trial, it's a really bad precedent to cite since the court never considered competing arguments from both sides beyond the initial briefs.
Another point is that "well regulated" (as in 'a well regulated militia') had a different meaning in the time the amendment was drafted than we might understand it to be now. In those days, "well regulated" was a reference to how proficient the unit was and what level of discipline was evident in the military formation. Even today, giving a firearm to a gunsmith "for regulation" refers to ensuring that the firearm operates correctly and that the parts conform to the mechanical specifications of the firearm's design. To assign "well regulated" a meaning that involves the application of laws and executive policy is to entirely misunderstand the intent and in fact the actual word of the amendment as it was understood at the time of it's drafting.
Having said all that, this idea of remotely shooting game via the internet is ludicrous.