Re: Magpul= Art of the Precision Rifle
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's a bit more than just listing things wrong... it's more of:
80 - 40 - 20
An instructor can impart 80% of what they are teaching effectively, the student at the time of the instruction will get 40% of that instruction, and then be able to successfully recite 20% of that after leaving. So if you have 20% of what is being told as "right" is he really wrong ?
Well yes, and
....
d with a bullet's trajectory.
Use your common sense, if it makes you tilt your head and go huh, you're probably on the right track. Especially if you hear a lot of talking without much being said. </div></div>
What you and graham said totally makes sense. I guess I saw some of those things and just didn't pay attention to it, since I just automatically registered it as off. It was actually really surprising how much the 'expert' shooters that he was training were blatently lacking in fundamentals.
I guess I just didn't see why SO much hatred was put upon these videos. It looks like there is just a really big back story to it and that this talk has been going on for a while, and thats why...
All that 'ip' controversy doesn't really make sense to me. I've dealt with IP in my business and there isn't much gray area. Its supposed to be clear cut. Either you have a patent or you don't. Even if you came up with something new, if its been longer than a year since it was first shown in the public eye, its unpatentable. If its something that might be 'new' but is an obvious method to someone specializing in its field, its unpatentable. You can't patent mathematic formulas. Copywrighting has nothing to do with protecting formulas or any other intelligence. copywrighting is more for written works and designs and such. Nothing is really protected other than replication. I'm no lawyer, but I just don't see what all the fuss is about when it can't be patentable.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's a bit more than just listing things wrong... it's more of:
80 - 40 - 20
An instructor can impart 80% of what they are teaching effectively, the student at the time of the instruction will get 40% of that instruction, and then be able to successfully recite 20% of that after leaving. So if you have 20% of what is being told as "right" is he really wrong ?
Well yes, and
....
d with a bullet's trajectory.
Use your common sense, if it makes you tilt your head and go huh, you're probably on the right track. Especially if you hear a lot of talking without much being said. </div></div>
What you and graham said totally makes sense. I guess I saw some of those things and just didn't pay attention to it, since I just automatically registered it as off. It was actually really surprising how much the 'expert' shooters that he was training were blatently lacking in fundamentals.
I guess I just didn't see why SO much hatred was put upon these videos. It looks like there is just a really big back story to it and that this talk has been going on for a while, and thats why...
All that 'ip' controversy doesn't really make sense to me. I've dealt with IP in my business and there isn't much gray area. Its supposed to be clear cut. Either you have a patent or you don't. Even if you came up with something new, if its been longer than a year since it was first shown in the public eye, its unpatentable. If its something that might be 'new' but is an obvious method to someone specializing in its field, its unpatentable. You can't patent mathematic formulas. Copywrighting has nothing to do with protecting formulas or any other intelligence. copywrighting is more for written works and designs and such. Nothing is really protected other than replication. I'm no lawyer, but I just don't see what all the fuss is about when it can't be patentable.
