Re: For Liars and Loafers, Cellphones Offer an Alibi
At 12:01 AM 6/27/04 -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
Interestingly, some [early] models had external antenna jacks built in to them.
Again I am a few Moore's generations behind. (Does that make me a semi-Amish atheist? Or a reformed Luddite?) Where I vacation sometimes, I would need a metallized umbrella (or better) and tripod to find a cell basestation. And that rules out valleys leaving ridges, although a few hundred feet of RF cable isn't so expensive. I am aware of the need for non-fixed antennae for 802.11blah fun; I did not realize that modern cells don't have RF connectors. I have also heard of folks war-flying with a simple (tilted) dipole thus pointing part of the donut-shaped receptive region (orthogonal to the dipole) at the ground.
Go for the head shot, they're wearing body armor
If at close range, it is far easier to simply throw water at them prior to firing. For one, the water acts as apowerful lubricant, effectively removing the armor,
huh? Wet kevlar is still strong, no?
and for two, it distracts the hell out of them ;-)
The fundamental problem is the head is more agile than the C.G. However if you don't hit a seam, or aren't using something better than a handgun, only a rapid bit of ballistic neurosurgery will disable the target. Best to have enabled the claymores when your cameras notice a change. And as Mr. Burns says, to let the hounds loose. -------- A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. --George Washington
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
Go for the head shot, they're wearing body armor
If at close range, it is far easier to simply throw water at them prior to firing. For one, the water acts as apowerful lubricant, effectively removing the armor,
huh? Wet kevlar is still strong, no?
Strong, yes, but it does not react the same way. I have had an opportunity to acquire body armor and receive "formal instruction" in proper use, yada yada, and it was repeated over and over again that in order to provide a reliable barrier to high speed projectiles, it had to be kept *dry*. The instructor went as far as making the "half joking" recommendation that approaches to persons with obvious liquids (coffe cups, soda cans, etc.) should be considered potentially lethal. We were repeatedly warned that searches and questionings of persons "armed with fluids" should be delayed until such time as the potential lubricants were properly neutralized. The lubricant effect is what makes teflon tipped hydrashocks so effective in spite of big heavy kevlar armor - water may not be as good as teflon, but I am not willing to bet my life on it. As to raw strength, what makes Kevlar so good is that it will stretch. It is relatively useless against sharp objects such as knives which do not present a wide surface. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org "...justice is a duty towards those whom you love and those whom you do not. And people's rights will not be harmed if the opponent speaks out about them." Osama Bin Laden
participants (2)
-
J.A. Terranson -
Major Variola (ret)