Could it be possible that this could be used in highly complex, high speed radar systems that could guide little robot-like bats?
Maybe... after all:
"The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots."
At my university, if the router detects you launching traffic known to be a worm propagating, etc, it disables your wall jack. Clean. Simple. Effective. You go to a friend's computer and download the neccessary cleaning tools onto a CD, fix your machine, and call the computer center, and up you are again.
Is it common sense to double check the cost of an air filter?
I know jack about cars. I'm pretty sure a transmission costs somewhere between $1-3,000, but that's about it. And if my mechanic told me that my new car takes a new type of trans that cost $4K, well, sounds fine to me.
What's an air filter cost for a car? For all I know, it's a piece of gauze that costs $20, or it might be some kind of vacuum thingy that should cost $500. I'm sure as hell not going to muck around in my engine to figure out which it is and what it should cost -- I'd probably break some other expensive part in the process.
And double check the guy? He's my mechanic, I trust him. None of my computer geek friends are any more qualified to tell me what it "should" cost, the best I could do would be to go to another mechanic -- and how do I know he's not out to scam me too?
I don't have time to research the proper cost of every piece that goes into my car. People go to engineering college for four-five years, and often a master's degree after that, to design cars. Other people spend several years in trade school learning to repair them. Point is, there's a lot of things in a car. Since I'm busy learning about all the things that make up a computer processor, I'm kind of limited in how much time/brain I can devote to learning about all the pieces of a car.
What it comes down to is, everyone's ignorant about a great number of things. There's just too much out there in the world to know it all about everything. So if an expert/professional tells you how something is, you can check him against another expert/professional, but eventually, you've just got to trust somebody and hope you don't get screwed.
(Insert moral society/cooperative justice theory here.)
I don't see much difference in having touch-screen buttons as opposed to hard buttons except that I can change and configure the touch-screen to my liking.
Ah, but if you don't have hard buttons, then you have to look at the calculator.
I can touchtype on my TI-83+ because I know where everything is and can enter an entire complicated math expression at a rediculously fast speed. I only have to look down to glance at the answer.
If you've got to poke things with a stylus, it has to take your full attention to do it... you can't look at your physics textbook for the equation while typing it in at the same time.
I'm a rather devoted mechanical pencil user, and my personal favorite is the Koh-I-Noor Rapidomatic. It comes in 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, and 0.9 diameter (I use 0.7 myself).
Nice crosshatched metal grip, doesn't slip, and never jams. They're a bit expensive ($8-10), but one's all you need. Good stuff.
Really? Wow, then I suppose the UK society is so advanced that everyone's already got a degree, and there are no college students in the country then?:)
Another reason sports gambling is popular is because it takes knowledge on the gambler's part.
Before you bet on horse races, you consult two pages of very small text giving information about all the horses in the race and what lane they're in and how well they've done in previous races, etc.
Other sports like football are similar -- you look at who's playing that night, what players on that team are playing, etc.
Sports gambling is alluring because the more familiar you are with the sport, the better the odds are that you'll pick the winner (Who would you bet on? Notre Dame or South Dakota State?)
A lottery, by contrast, is purely random. So. Which number tonight? 5-78-21? It's as good as any other. Not quite as fun.
Let BuyMusic know that you can't use their service from your browser of choice. If they don't see any business lost from not supporting Moz, then they will see no reason to support Moz.
Why should we?
I get paid a lot for my technical opinions. I haven't seen a dime from BuyMusic.com. Apple's working hard to get a polished interface out for PCs. One that'll have their quality level that we're all used to seeing from them. I can wait til then.
I don't owe BuyMusic.com anything, much less suggestions to keep it's crappy DRM-locked music business afloat. It's their MBAs that came up with this stuff. It didn't roll off of my desktop.
Indeed, if the stove + keyboard did something unique, that's a fine idea for a patent.
The thing about software patents is, the algorithms they're patenting already existed. It's just that a microchip is doing the footwork, instead of a human.
Ordering system. You call up or write up an order slip, put some item numbers on it, and give it to a guy. The guy looks at the inventory, makes sure it's there. He then packs your order up, while making a copy for another guy, who sends you an invoice based on your customer ID. A guy at your end takes the invoice and pays money to their guy.
Fast forward to 2003. You put a credit card number in the computer, and click on a bunch of items to add their inventory numbers to a list.
A database comes along, checks that they've got enough of everything in stock, and tells a guy to pack 'em up for you. Their database talks to your credit card co's database, based on your credit card number, and bills you.
In 25 years when we have more intelligent robots, will the whole process be patentable again by removing the one guy involved (the one who takes the item off the shelf, addresses it, and puts it in the mail) and instead sticking a robot in this place?
But in the context of fear over IP theft, I was merely pointing out that it wouldn't suddenly "render the laws of economy obsolete," because the companies that would be suddenly finding their patents useless would have to willfully market their stuff with plans enclosed -- it's not like music CDs that suddenly found their scarcity rendered meaningless.
This isn't going to take off unless it's actually adapted by companies. Unlike how digital music CDs suddenly became passe by the invention of MP3s and the spread of broadband, you're not suddenly going to be able to copy your existing objects. Furthermore, any company who doesn't want to distibute plans for use with these printers, just won't, and it's not like you'll be able to just grab your friend's random object he bought and print yourself one.
Companies won't go to it unless they're not going to get ripped off.
So, either this will die an unnoticed death because companies don't find it viable, or else some sort of protection will get built into it that forces everyone to play fair.
As always, the market adapts. We shall see what the future brings.
The most practical alternative at the present time appears to be use of a magnetic stripe card in addition to the password, similar to the authentication process for an ATM
Please explain to me how this is better security.
Currently, I type a series of numbers (for all intents and purposes, a password is a series of numbers) into the keyboard, it goes down a wire, and into the computer. A USB dongle attached to the end of the wire may surreptitiously record all the numbers I typed in. This lets someone scan my password and use it themselves.
You propose that I do the above, but have a little box attached to the computer through a second wire. When I swipe a card through the box, a series of numbers are shot down to the computer through the wire. I fail to see how this couldn't be logged.
Hell, it wouldn't even have to be a USB dongle. What's to stop someone from switching a legit card reader with one with a memory chip inside? Then you couldn't even peek behind the PC and see if there was a logging device attached.
Card, biometrics, passwords... when it comes down to it, they're all just numbers on a wire. And no one of them is any more secure than any other.
The better answer: It's like a business office you can rent by the hour.
I think they started doing "just photocopying jobs," but they'll also print large glossy posters and other stuff too. They have basically offices for rent -- you can videoconference from a Kinkos, and you can use computers to access the Internet, etc.
Also, what really counts as "one count of copyright infringement?"
If I copy a CD, I've infringed on copyright... so, that's one infringement.
But if I copy an MP3 file, is that one infringement? A CD of 16 tracks should be 16 counts then, shouldn't it?
If I copy half of an MP3 file, I've still infringed upon someone's copyright (assuming I don't legally own the MP3)... so, wouldn't copying the whole file really be two counts? But why even stop there? It's been ruled that four notes of a song constitute a complete work...
Two reasons, because users break down into two categories:
1. Home users don't care about the magic end-of-support date. My mom still runs Windows 95 because it reads her email and she can use Word on it. It's been EOL'd long ago.
2. Corporate users don't go "oh goodness, there's support running out in two months, we better start looking at new options!" These guys start thinking years in advance about what their next OS strategy is. Even then, because corporate IT depts often move very conservatively, mission critical services that run on NT 4 and "just work" aren't likely going to change over to something new just because NT 4 is EOL'd. (And, frankly, anything important running on an NT 4 box probably wouldn't port over too well to Linux. The TCO for the migration would probably be too high.)
If this were a game revolving around NT 4->2K migration, it would've had to happen at least a year ago to be effective.
I've read Locke and the rest of the bunch. Locke says natural rights include Life, Liberty, and Property. "Copyright" wasn't in there as far as I recall.
But if we're talking about Enlightenment-era philosophy, why not include the Federalist papers? They encourage a very strictly limited definition of copyright. Far less than the benefits enjoyed by the RIAA. Time for reform if you ask me.
Natural rights would be rights that you possess all the time. Your possessions, your good health, etc. This compares with rights which would exist only within the framework of a social contract. The right to vote obviously wouldn't exist outside of such a contract -- the fact that a governing body exists is a prerequisite for such a right. The same holds true for copyright. In the state of nature, anyone could copy your ideas and your intellectual property and you couldn't do anything about it. The presence of the enforcing agency and your agreement to the social contract would be a prerequisite for copyright rights. Therefore, it is not a natural right.
And as for the DMCA not depriving you of property... when you consider that upon receipt of a DMCA notification, you must take what "may be" infringing material off of your web site before the case is settled, that can certainly lead to loss of property, if by removing the alleged infringing material your business online is harmed.
I never claimed to be a lawyer. Or a member of the JD class of 2005. But, I think my concerns mirror those of many others. And for christ's sake. This is a discussion board. "Whining about it" is what you're SUPPOSED to do here -- you're supposed to discuss on a discussion board! (How bout that, eh?) You think that just because I post on Slashdot, I don't vote or write to my congressman? They're not mutually exclusive actions...
And yes. The courts do know more about how they work than I do. However, a lot of their actions seem counterintuitive. And yea, they are the ruling body in the country. But the last time I checked, just because something's status quo doesn't make it right (never confuse law and justice for synonyms). So, exercizing that good old-fashioned 1st amendment right of mine, I'm gonna bitch about how things are. Maybe some of my thoughts are "wrong" in the context of current law. But that doesn't mean I don't feel that they should be changed.
Okay. They're going after the users, not the toolmakers. This is good. However, I'm still outraged for a few main reasons.
1. The max penalty is $150,000 per song. Had you stolen a CD from a store, would you be charged $2,250,000 (assuming that there are fifteen tracks on a CD, not unreasonable)? Any store would be laughed out of court if they wanted 2 and a quarter million dollars in damages for a single CD. However, the RIAA gets away with it.
2. The use of the DMCA outrages me. It's a violation of basic constitutional rights, like due process. They can subpoena you without a court order. They can force an injunction merely by notifying you -- they don't need to prove you guilty of something, merely suppose it. That's damned dangerous.
3. There are legitimate uses for P2P. If, indeed, I've performed "copyright infringement," by downloading music, then that means that I've violated a license to listen to that music. That means that buying a CD isn't buying a specially pressed piece of plastic -- it's buying a license to listen to certain music. That means I'm legally justified in downloading MP3s of the songs I own on CD. And often times, I misplace CDs. So I feel totally fine about downloading MP3s of those CDs. However, if the RIAA saw me doing this, they'd slap me with a lawsuit. And then I'd have to waste thousands of dollars on legal fees proving that what I was doing wasn't illegal. And that unnerves me. I mean, you steal a CD from a music store, and lights flash, alarms go off, etc. It's pretty clear-cut as to who's stealing music and who's walking away with it legitimately. But the possibility for false positives on illegality for P2P makes it far less justified to just "shotgun" off lawsuits, especially to only casual users.
4. A democracy is made up of the general will of the populace. MILLIONS of people in the country share files (lets save the debate about whether it's sharing or theft or whatever for another time. It's just the verb I'm using). Most of these people are college students and people in their twenties. These are the future of America. The RIAA is what, two hundred 50-year-old lawyers with a giant bank account?
The government should be responding to how people act en masse. Copyright is a civil granted right -- it's not a natural right. That means the people can revoke it. (As opposed to your right to life, to not be beaten up on the street, etc.) And if millions of private citizens are acting in concert in a manner contradictory to how current copyright law acts, well, it's time to change the law.
5. No one has gone to jail or ever will for sharing non-copyrighted materials
The M-16, firing the 5.56 nato round, has roughly 70% as much kinetic energy and momentum as the 7.62 Russian round used by the AK-47. Yet, pradoxically, battlefield statistics from show that the survival rate of people shot with 7.62Rus is significantly higher than that of people shot with 5.56NATO.
Does that study take into account hit location? AK-47s are used a lot by terrorists and other para-military types, M-16s tend to be used by highly trained US Army soldiers. Are the latter just plain better shots?
An M-16 round through the heart, despite its lesser force, will do a bigger number on you than would an AK-47 to the leg...
Slashdot Mirror
Could it be possible that this could be used in highly complex, high speed radar systems that could guide little robot-like bats?
Maybe... after all:
At my university, if the router detects you launching traffic known to be a worm propagating, etc, it disables your wall jack. Clean. Simple. Effective. You go to a friend's computer and download the neccessary cleaning tools onto a CD, fix your machine, and call the computer center, and up you are again.
Is it common sense to double check the cost of an air filter?
I know jack about cars. I'm pretty sure a transmission costs somewhere between $1-3,000, but that's about it. And if my mechanic told me that my new car takes a new type of trans that cost $4K, well, sounds fine to me.
What's an air filter cost for a car? For all I know, it's a piece of gauze that costs $20, or it might be some kind of vacuum thingy that should cost $500. I'm sure as hell not going to muck around in my engine to figure out which it is and what it should cost -- I'd probably break some other expensive part in the process.
And double check the guy? He's my mechanic, I trust him. None of my computer geek friends are any more qualified to tell me what it "should" cost, the best I could do would be to go to another mechanic -- and how do I know he's not out to scam me too?
I don't have time to research the proper cost of every piece that goes into my car. People go to engineering college for four-five years, and often a master's degree after that, to design cars. Other people spend several years in trade school learning to repair them. Point is, there's a lot of things in a car. Since I'm busy learning about all the things that make up a computer processor, I'm kind of limited in how much time/brain I can devote to learning about all the pieces of a car.
What it comes down to is, everyone's ignorant about a great number of things. There's just too much out there in the world to know it all about everything. So if an expert/professional tells you how something is, you can check him against another expert/professional, but eventually, you've just got to trust somebody and hope you don't get screwed.
(Insert moral society/cooperative justice theory here.)
I don't see much difference in having touch-screen buttons as opposed to hard buttons except that I can change and configure the touch-screen to my liking.
Ah, but if you don't have hard buttons, then you have to look at the calculator.
I can touchtype on my TI-83+ because I know where everything is and can enter an entire complicated math expression at a rediculously fast speed. I only have to look down to glance at the answer.
If you've got to poke things with a stylus, it has to take your full attention to do it... you can't look at your physics textbook for the equation while typing it in at the same time.
I'm a rather devoted mechanical pencil user, and my personal favorite is the Koh-I-Noor Rapidomatic. It comes in 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, and 0.9 diameter (I use 0.7 myself).
Nice crosshatched metal grip, doesn't slip, and never jams. They're a bit expensive ($8-10), but one's all you need. Good stuff.
That's fairly good news, though I see that it costs anywhere from 250 to 2500 dollars to buy a scanner, with upgradeable ones starting at around $500.
And a good set of wrenches will set you back $15 too. Tools aren't free. What's your point?
Really? Wow, then I suppose the UK society is so advanced that everyone's already got a degree, and there are no college students in the country then? :)
The WHOIS database works wonders for ya.
fprintf.
Seriously.
When I don't have a console to stdout to, I just use a file.
Many colleges run their CS dept. out of their Engineering school. Therefore, a strong engineering school would indicate a strong CS dept.
Nobody goes to Harvard for computer science, even though they're one of the best "science" schools around.
Another reason sports gambling is popular is because it takes knowledge on the gambler's part.
Before you bet on horse races, you consult two pages of very small text giving information about all the horses in the race and what lane they're in and how well they've done in previous races, etc.
Other sports like football are similar -- you look at who's playing that night, what players on that team are playing, etc.
Sports gambling is alluring because the more familiar you are with the sport, the better the odds are that you'll pick the winner (Who would you bet on? Notre Dame or South Dakota State?)
A lottery, by contrast, is purely random. So. Which number tonight? 5-78-21? It's as good as any other. Not quite as fun.
Let BuyMusic know that you can't use their service from your browser of choice. If they don't see any business lost from not supporting Moz, then they will see no reason to support Moz.
Why should we?
I get paid a lot for my technical opinions. I haven't seen a dime from BuyMusic.com. Apple's working hard to get a polished interface out for PCs. One that'll have their quality level that we're all used to seeing from them. I can wait til then.
I don't owe BuyMusic.com anything, much less suggestions to keep it's crappy DRM-locked music business afloat. It's their MBAs that came up with this stuff. It didn't roll off of my desktop.
Indeed, if the stove + keyboard did something unique, that's a fine idea for a patent.
The thing about software patents is, the algorithms they're patenting already existed. It's just that a microchip is doing the footwork, instead of a human.
Ordering system. You call up or write up an order slip, put some item numbers on it, and give it to a guy. The guy looks at the inventory, makes sure it's there. He then packs your order up, while making a copy for another guy, who sends you an invoice based on your customer ID. A guy at your end takes the invoice and pays money to their guy.
Fast forward to 2003. You put a credit card number in the computer, and click on a bunch of items to add their inventory numbers to a list.
A database comes along, checks that they've got enough of everything in stock, and tells a guy to pack 'em up for you. Their database talks to your credit card co's database, based on your credit card number, and bills you.
In 25 years when we have more intelligent robots, will the whole process be patentable again by removing the one guy involved (the one who takes the item off the shelf, addresses it, and puts it in the mail) and instead sticking a robot in this place?
That's not novel. It's just progress.
Not to say there wouldn't.
But in the context of fear over IP theft, I was merely pointing out that it wouldn't suddenly "render the laws of economy obsolete," because the companies that would be suddenly finding their patents useless would have to willfully market their stuff with plans enclosed -- it's not like music CDs that suddenly found their scarcity rendered meaningless.
This isn't going to take off unless it's actually adapted by companies. Unlike how digital music CDs suddenly became passe by the invention of MP3s and the spread of broadband, you're not suddenly going to be able to copy your existing objects. Furthermore, any company who doesn't want to distibute plans for use with these printers, just won't, and it's not like you'll be able to just grab your friend's random object he bought and print yourself one.
Companies won't go to it unless they're not going to get ripped off.
So, either this will die an unnoticed death because companies don't find it viable, or else some sort of protection will get built into it that forces everyone to play fair.
As always, the market adapts. We shall see what the future brings.
The most practical alternative at the present time appears to be use of a magnetic stripe card in addition to the password, similar to the authentication process for an ATM
Please explain to me how this is better security.
Currently, I type a series of numbers (for all intents and purposes, a password is a series of numbers) into the keyboard, it goes down a wire, and into the computer. A USB dongle attached to the end of the wire may surreptitiously record all the numbers I typed in. This lets someone scan my password and use it themselves.
You propose that I do the above, but have a little box attached to the computer through a second wire. When I swipe a card through the box, a series of numbers are shot down to the computer through the wire. I fail to see how this couldn't be logged.
Hell, it wouldn't even have to be a USB dongle. What's to stop someone from switching a legit card reader with one with a memory chip inside? Then you couldn't even peek behind the PC and see if there was a logging device attached.
Card, biometrics, passwords... when it comes down to it, they're all just numbers on a wire. And no one of them is any more secure than any other.
The short answer: It's a photocopy store.
The better answer: It's like a business office you can rent by the hour.
I think they started doing "just photocopying jobs," but they'll also print large glossy posters and other stuff too. They have basically offices for rent -- you can videoconference from a Kinkos, and you can use computers to access the Internet, etc.
Also, what really counts as "one count of copyright infringement?"
If I copy a CD, I've infringed on copyright... so, that's one infringement.
But if I copy an MP3 file, is that one infringement? A CD of 16 tracks should be 16 counts then, shouldn't it?
If I copy half of an MP3 file, I've still infringed upon someone's copyright (assuming I don't legally own the MP3)... so, wouldn't copying the whole file really be two counts? But why even stop there? It's been ruled that four notes of a song constitute a complete work...
So, how does one define a count of infringement?
Both your dads are wimps. My pop's got the strength of INFINITY TIMES INFINITY Neanderthals! :)
No, frankly, it couldn't.
Two reasons, because users break down into two categories:
1. Home users don't care about the magic end-of-support date. My mom still runs Windows 95 because it reads her email and she can use Word on it. It's been EOL'd long ago.
2. Corporate users don't go "oh goodness, there's support running out in two months, we better start looking at new options!" These guys start thinking years in advance about what their next OS strategy is. Even then, because corporate IT depts often move very conservatively, mission critical services that run on NT 4 and "just work" aren't likely going to change over to something new just because NT 4 is EOL'd. (And, frankly, anything important running on an NT 4 box probably wouldn't port over too well to Linux. The TCO for the migration would probably be too high.)
If this were a game revolving around NT 4->2K migration, it would've had to happen at least a year ago to be effective.
Plus what?
"Arrrrrrrrr!"
... Hm. On second thought. No, sorry I apologize for that.
I've read Locke and the rest of the bunch. Locke says natural rights include Life, Liberty, and Property. "Copyright" wasn't in there as far as I recall.
But if we're talking about Enlightenment-era philosophy, why not include the Federalist papers? They encourage a very strictly limited definition of copyright. Far less than the benefits enjoyed by the RIAA. Time for reform if you ask me.
Natural rights would be rights that you possess all the time. Your possessions, your good health, etc. This compares with rights which would exist only within the framework of a social contract. The right to vote obviously wouldn't exist outside of such a contract -- the fact that a governing body exists is a prerequisite for such a right. The same holds true for copyright. In the state of nature, anyone could copy your ideas and your intellectual property and you couldn't do anything about it. The presence of the enforcing agency and your agreement to the social contract would be a prerequisite for copyright rights. Therefore, it is not a natural right.
And as for the DMCA not depriving you of property... when you consider that upon receipt of a DMCA notification, you must take what "may be" infringing material off of your web site before the case is settled, that can certainly lead to loss of property, if by removing the alleged infringing material your business online is harmed.
I never claimed to be a lawyer. Or a member of the JD class of 2005. But, I think my concerns mirror those of many others. And for christ's sake. This is a discussion board. "Whining about it" is what you're SUPPOSED to do here -- you're supposed to discuss on a discussion board! (How bout that, eh?) You think that just because I post on Slashdot, I don't vote or write to my congressman? They're not mutually exclusive actions...
And yes. The courts do know more about how they work than I do. However, a lot of their actions seem counterintuitive. And yea, they are the ruling body in the country. But the last time I checked, just because something's status quo doesn't make it right (never confuse law and justice for synonyms). So, exercizing that good old-fashioned 1st amendment right of mine, I'm gonna bitch about how things are. Maybe some of my thoughts are "wrong" in the context of current law. But that doesn't mean I don't feel that they should be changed.
I mean, I just don't understand this mentality
Okay. They're going after the users, not the toolmakers. This is good. However, I'm still outraged for a few main reasons.
1. The max penalty is $150,000 per song. Had you stolen a CD from a store, would you be charged $2,250,000 (assuming that there are fifteen tracks on a CD, not unreasonable)? Any store would be laughed out of court if they wanted 2 and a quarter million dollars in damages for a single CD. However, the RIAA gets away with it.
2. The use of the DMCA outrages me. It's a violation of basic constitutional rights, like due process. They can subpoena you without a court order. They can force an injunction merely by notifying you -- they don't need to prove you guilty of something, merely suppose it. That's damned dangerous.
3. There are legitimate uses for P2P. If, indeed, I've performed "copyright infringement," by downloading music, then that means that I've violated a license to listen to that music. That means that buying a CD isn't buying a specially pressed piece of plastic -- it's buying a license to listen to certain music. That means I'm legally justified in downloading MP3s of the songs I own on CD. And often times, I misplace CDs. So I feel totally fine about downloading MP3s of those CDs. However, if the RIAA saw me doing this, they'd slap me with a lawsuit. And then I'd have to waste thousands of dollars on legal fees proving that what I was doing wasn't illegal. And that unnerves me. I mean, you steal a CD from a music store, and lights flash, alarms go off, etc. It's pretty clear-cut as to who's stealing music and who's walking away with it legitimately. But the possibility for false positives on illegality for P2P makes it far less justified to just "shotgun" off lawsuits, especially to only casual users.
4. A democracy is made up of the general will of the populace. MILLIONS of people in the country share files (lets save the debate about whether it's sharing or theft or whatever for another time. It's just the verb I'm using). Most of these people are college students and people in their twenties. These are the future of America. The RIAA is what, two hundred 50-year-old lawyers with a giant bank account?
The government should be responding to how people act en masse. Copyright is a civil granted right -- it's not a natural right. That means the people can revoke it. (As opposed to your right to life, to not be beaten up on the street, etc.) And if millions of private citizens are acting in concert in a manner contradictory to how current copyright law acts, well, it's time to change the law.
5. No one has gone to jail or ever will for sharing non-copyrighted materials
Tell that to Dmitri Sklyarov.
I'm not debating the merits of lethality.
The parent post said that NATO rounds were more lethal than AK-47 ammo. I was just curious if that was the ammo, or the shooter.
The M-16, firing the 5.56 nato round, has roughly 70% as much kinetic energy and momentum as the 7.62 Russian round used by the AK-47. Yet, pradoxically, battlefield statistics from show that the survival rate of people shot with 7.62Rus is significantly higher than that of people shot with 5.56NATO.
Does that study take into account hit location? AK-47s are used a lot by terrorists and other para-military types, M-16s tend to be used by highly trained US Army soldiers. Are the latter just plain better shots?
An M-16 round through the heart, despite its lesser force, will do a bigger number on you than would an AK-47 to the leg...