Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Absent sci-fi tech (Score 1) 576

And without calling Sir Issac Newton a liar, a bullet imparts significantly more energy onto the recipient than the shooter.

Nope, to say that you have to call Sir Isaac Newton a liar. A bullet imparts significantly less energy onto the recipient than the shooter. Recoil springs and slide rails don't absorb any of that energy, they just spread it over a longer period of time. Large muzzle brakes actually can some of the energy in the direction, but those only exist on very large-caliber weapons (mostly .50 BMG).

Comment Re:Absent sci-fi tech (Score 1) 576

Number three,and to a lesser extent two, are what people are referring to with the term "Stopping power". If a bullet is said to have more stopping power, they usually mean hydroshock temporarily interrupting nervous system function. It isn't just for the central nervous system however, it works everywhere. Think of it this way, have you ever been struck so hard or hit something so hard that part of your body went numb? Imagine that feeling applied with an order of magnitude more force through a bullet hit.

Actually, a bullet strike generally carries much less energy than many other forms of impact that you might receive, and be stunned by.

By your own admission stopping power isn't a myth, just firearms jargon you were not fully aware of.

It's a myth in handguns. And actually pretty rare even in rifles.

Comment Re:Absent sci-fi tech (Score 1) 576

The only practical solution currently is rubber bullets. The cops get to keep the ease of use and most of the stopping power of a gun but the lethality levels go way down.

"Stopping power" is a myth -- a rather obvious one if you think about the physics. The bullet can't carry any more energy than is imparted on the shooter, and actually carries less.

People who are shot stop for one of four reasons.

1. People stop because they know they're supposed to fall down when they get shot. That is, the bullet doesn't actually do any incapacitating damage, but they fall down anyway. Rubber bullets might be able to do this, but it doesn't work on everyone, and once everyone knows the police are carrying rubber bullets, it will work on even fewer people.

2. People stop because the bullet did structural damage that prevents them from being able to move. Mostly this means broken bones in strategic places. For example, if a bullet shatters an ankle or a knee, you're going to have a hard time walking. If a bullet shatters your pelvis, you will be completely unable to even stand. Rubber bullets can't do this reliably, and might not be able to do it at all.

3. People stop because the bullet severely traumatized their central nervous system. Shoot someone in the head and they'll (usually) switch off like a light. Rubber bullets might be able to do this, sometimes (e.g. penetrating through an eye socket, or through a thinned area of the skull), but not non-lethally. Very high-powered rounds can also achieve the same instant lights-out effect through hydrostatic shock. A large-caliber rifle round to the upper chest, for example, might not do lethal damage (assuming treatment is quickly available), but might generate a hydrostatic shock wave that slams into brain and/or brain stem with enough force to temporarily disable the target. Handguns cannot do this, it requires enough energy that it's really only feasible to get from a weapon with considerable recoil, enough that you almost certainly need a stock to transmit the recoil to the shooter's torso. Rubber bullets carrying that much energy would probably penetrate, assuming it was even feasible for police to regularly carry high-powered hunting rifles (note that mid-energy weapons like AR-15s can't do it).

4. People stop because they black out from blood loss. This is the primary goal of shooting someone with a handgun, to create a hole (or, more likely, holes) that open up large blood vessels, causing the target's blood pressure to drop dramatically, reducing blood flow to the brain and causing a blackout. It's most reliably achieved by several bullets into center mass, into the large mass of organs and blood vessels in the torso. Rubber bullets can't do this. And if they could they'd be no less lethal than lead bullets.

So, no, rubber bullets do not provide "stopping power". They're useful for harassing people who are willing to run away when faced with painful bruises, and they have the advantage (to the police) that the bruises can be delivered from a distance. But against someone you really want to stop? No way.

Comment Re:ICEd (Score 1) 502

EVs won't discharge power through their charging ports. The charging ports aren't just dumb connections.

So you are saying that this requires modifications to the vehicle itself? Because that makes it sound like the car requires no modifications at all.

That requires cryptographic authentication from the interface. I suppose if you could extract the key from one of those, you might be able to make a fake charger. Or you could buy one of those units and put a fake front on it.

Comment Re:TLDR, were any laws broken? (Score 1) 231

In this instance all the profit went to the employees, thus instead of being taxed at the corporate level it was taxed at the (higher!) individual level. So what's the difference?

The difference is that the taxes were collected directly from voters who were able to see exactly how much they paid, rather than from a non-voting entity who would pass the tax to voters invisibly. Corporate taxation is all about hiding taxes from the people who pay them, so it's a problem when the taxes don't get appropriately hidden. In order to keep attention from being paid to the actual taxes collected, therefore, those who wish to hide taxes from taxpayers moralize about how corporations aren't paying their fair share, thus encouraging the voters to push for better hiding of the taxes from themselves.

It's a pretty incredible setup when you realize what's going on. People aggressively demand to pay more taxes with less visibility and accountability.

Comment Re:Fuel cells to the rescue? (Score 1) 502

An electric with a 1000 mil range could be charged entirely at home

Sure it could. But if you charge at home, you're paying for the electricity. Charging at work is free (for the car owner, that is). If you have a choice of paying to charge your car or charging it at no cost to you, which are you going to choose?

Meh. Electricity is cheap. Sure it's better to charge on someone else's dime if you can, but it costs far less per mile than gasoline so it's really not that important an issue.

Comment Re:ICEd (Score 1) 502

Now I feel like installing fake charging ports just to fuck with assholes like you.

FYI, in order to make that work your fake charging station would have to actually charge cars. Otherwise car owners would realize as soon as they connected that it wasn't working. Even if you charged their cars for a few minutes, then shut off the juice, you still wouldn't fool them for long. EV owners use smartphone apps to exchange information about the chargers around, and yours would quickly get flagged as broken.

Regarding the AC's comment, it is pretty rude for ICEVs to park in charging spots. Not that keying their cars is at all an appropriate response. I usually just leave a note on their windshield, pointing out (nicely) that they're just like the guy who parks in front of the gas pump at a busy station, and then goes into the convenience store to shop and eat lunch -- but worse, because odds are there are enough gas pumps and stations so that you can actually get to one. Charging stations tend to be much harder to find in many areas.

1: No code table for op: ++post