Build Your Own Bluetooth Sniper Rifle

Jim Buzbee writes "I don't think I'd do it, but these guys built a Bluetooth Sniper rifle, went to the roof of a downtown Los Angles skyscraper and pointed it at nearby buildings. See what they found, and if you're so inclined, they'll show how to build your own and maybe, just maybe, you too can snag Paris Hilton's address book." (Which was not snagged via Bluetooth snooping, as the article points out.) This version looks a bit more polished than the one mentioned last August.

Comments

Frightening, ?

[fembots]

After the DC Sniper incident, this gave me a fright as I thought someone has built a bluetooth-guided sniper rifle, which indicates when your bullet is aligned perfectly with your target's bluetooh tag, and those who auto-accept Bluetooth pairing are in trouble.

Seriously though, I wonder how many people do auto-accept BT connections? My PDA only accepts known pairs, so you need to physically talk to me to pair you up for the first time.

The friendly article seems to mentioned the "success" in BT detection, but didn't go in details of successful connection. It's like car thieves claim to detect 20,000 cars in the city centre, but didn't say how many were unlocked.

Re:Frightening, ?

[YetAnotherAnonymousC]

Fear not. Perfectly aligned in the EM wave sense does not equal correct alignment in the mass/bullet sense. One must adjust for windage, for one thing. For another, even if you could get the range via bluetooth, the parabollic trajectory of the bullet (some calibres are 'flatter' than others, and even different manufacturers) must be taken into account based on that range.

Re:Frightening, ?

[dirvish]

Seriously though, I wonder how many people do auto-accept BT connections? My PDA only accepts known pairs, so you need to physically talk to me to pair you up for the first time.

I imagine most people just use the default setting...

Re:Frightening, ?

[back_pages]

Fear not. Perfectly aligned in the EM wave sense does not equal correct alignment in the mass/bullet sense. One must adjust for windage, for one thing. For another, even if you could get the range via bluetooth, the parabollic trajectory of the bullet (some calibres are 'flatter' than others, and even different manufacturers) must be taken into account based on that range.

Yeah, no kidding! Gosh, if someone aimed EXACTLY at my blue-tooth cell phone, held up to my ear, by the time the bullet traveled 300 yards it would be AT LEAST 12 inches lower and 2 or 3 inches to either side! HA! The joke is on them!

Eh..

Re:Frightening, ?

[andkaha]

... until someone builds a easy-to-carry and effective laser/microwave-based weapon...

Re:Frightening, ?

[JPriest]

The idea that someone is going to add a blue tooth finder to a real rifle it just retarded. Why would you use an RF source when you have visible and ultra violet light? If you had a blue tooth sensor-jobie mounted on a gun and I had a standard scoped riffle, id put a pullet through both sides of your tinfoil hat every time. Don't you have a comet to catch anyway??

Re:Frightening, ?

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

I don't hunt because I dont like gutting dear. I like shooting sports though, and do a decent amount of target shooting with my SMLE.

Re:Frightening, ?

[Bilestoad]

It certainly looks menacing. I would not stand on top of a building and point it at windows in downtown L.A. if you paid me. A lot.

Re:Frightening, ?

[CAIMLAS]

How would a real sniper rifle with bluetooth be any sort of a concern?

Bluetooth is a short-range protocol. It doesn't transmit but, what, 20 feet at max?

A rifle, let alone a so-called "sniper rifle" would be pointless at that range. If you were 20 feet from someone and had a knife, you'd have just as good of odds of stabbing them as shooting them with an anamatronically controlled rifle... probably better, provided they don't see you and run away.

Re:Frightening, ?

[hankaholic]

I'm a little unclear as to how being able to target a given transmitter depends on whether that transmitter is willing to engage in data transfers with you.

The device must be sending a signal, otherwise your device wouldn't be aware of it, period.

Or am I missing something here? I don't see how devices discover each other without them both communicating their presence.

Re:Frightening, ?

[skubeedooo]

Perfectly aligned in the EM wave sense does not equal correct alignment in the mass/bullet sense.

Strange, I thought a laser was an EM wave. I'm not an expert, obviously, but don't some snipers use lasers for aiming?

Re:Frightening, ?

[djdavetrouble]

It certainly looks menacing. I would not stand on top of a building and point it at windows in downtown L.A. if you paid me. A lot.

I am sure it could be built to look like a telescope, cardboard box, antenna or whatever. They just built it like that because of all the extra testosterone coursing through their bodies. Point well taken, though.

Re:Frightening, ?

[ckaminski]

No sniper worth his salt his going to use a laser because:

A) lasers do not take into account windage and bullet trajectory, and
B) They give the sniper away.

Lasers to guide bombs, yeah, that's one thing... not bullets.

Re:Frightening, ?

[writermike]

I forgot about the DC incident. Instead, my thoughts went toward the d00d with the webcam and rifle on the hunting grounds.

Re:Frightening, ?

[Fred_A]

Laser sights are great for sniping from about 15 to 25 m away. Wind isn't too noticeable at that range.
I don't know if that's what you meant.

Re:Frightening, ?

[Fred_A]

Besides you couldn't fire at them unless you paired your rifle with their device first.

Not very stealthy. Duh!

Re:Frightening, ?

[Pepsi__Blue]

Don't say at least, ecause some sniper rifles are capable of much better performance, although they are very costly. For example, the Barrett M82A1 has an MOA of 1.5-2.0 or about 4.5"-6" drift at 300 yards. Additionally, the drift depends on the angle at which the rifle is fired, even if it is aimed directly at your phone. If you're shot at from above or below there will be an additional downwards component of the bullet's velocity working with the force of gravity causing the bullet to fall faster, whereas if you are up high and shot from below there will be an upwards component of the bullet's velocity working with gravity to decrease the drift of the bullet.

just a remiander (in the absence of air resistance, and bullets are designed for minimal air resistance)

Dy = 0.5(-32 ft/s/s)(Dt)^2 + v*sin(a)(Dt)
Dt = (Dx)/(v*cos(a))

so:
Dy = 0.5(-32 ft/s/s)((Dx)/(v*cos(a)) + (Dx)tan(a)

where:

a=angle
v=inital velocity
Dt= change in time
Dx= change in horizontal position
Dy= change in vertical position

therefore, if a is between 0 and 90 degrees there will be less drift than if a is between -90 and 0 degrees.

Re:Frightening, ?

[pi_rules]

Yeah, no kidding! Gosh, if someone aimed EXACTLY at my blue-tooth cell phone, held up to my ear, by the time the bullet traveled 300 yards it would be AT LEAST 12 inches lower and 2 or 3 inches to either side! HA! The joke is on them!

You're pretty close actually, accoding to Sniper Central typical .308 168 grain bullets when zeroed at 100 yards will drop about 16" and have a drift of about 7" in a 10mph crosswind.

Now if you were to go with the .223 cartridge as the DC "Sniper" did you're looking at about 10.5" of drop and 14 inches of drift in 10mph crosswinds.

Just an FYI.

Re:Frightening, ?

[jeremiahbell]

In order to hit a target with accuracy, or to a target at all, at a distance one must site in the gun. This means adjusting for drop and such.

Now one can apply the same principle to a blue-tooth siting rifle. Manufacture's of guns and ammunition publish siting tables which will tell you the approximate drop of a bullet and movement due to windage. With a device to read wind speed and little bit of coding to get your doo-dad (a.k.a. mean robotic sniper rifle) to compensate accordingly, after lots of testing and adjustment, the concept is doable.

The biggest advantage would be being able to site through walls and other obstructions to visual sight, otherwise it would just be easier to site in yourself. A three hundred yard shot is hard, but it is very doable with practice. I am damn accurace out to a hundred and fifty yards, and I have seen people do well past three hundred.

I would make it site in on cellphones or something that more people are likely to carry than blue-tooth devices which on a per capita basis are fairly uncommon.

That's just my piece.

Re:Frightening, ?

[node 3]

Well, the parabolic issue is just math, so that's no problem.

As for the issue of wind--you could use the cell phone's internet connection to check the weather.

And if you miss? Have the camera snap a photo so you can see where the bullet hit, and compensate for the next shot.

This could be a movie...

The trailer:

[fade in, city street scene, zoom in on businessman's cell phone, it reads 'accessing weather net...']

Raspy Voice Guy: "In a high tech world gone mad, your cell phone can kill you..."

[fast fade out with gunshot sound]

RVG: "From 200 yards away."

[abrupt music 'attack', then fast and disconcerting drums, lot's of quick shots of a normal city street life interspersed with people looking up from their phones to some distant skyscraper window]

RVG: "This summer, in theaters everywhere, your phone bluetooths you."

Re:Frightening, ?

[Aranwe Haldaloke]

"Fear not"? While a disregard for ballistics might make the sniper miss your head, the bullet could as well end up going through your torso or legs or what-have-you.

It's like saying, "dude, I'm gonna die," and someone quickly correcting you, "no, you'll just be lethally wounded with an actual chance of survival."

Re:Frightening, ?

[Taladar]

Or you could just sell it to the theaters as a solution for cell phone users in the theater annoying other customers.

Re:Frightening, ?

[TFGeditor]

You're wrong. There at least two of us, and at least one of us is also a reloader and a firearms-related industry professional.

Re:Frightening, ?

[Dun Malg]

You're proud to be a fucking murdering bastard ?

Though you've been modded down for the flamebait monger you are, and I know I shouldn't feed trolls, I feel compelled to address this idiocy. First, murder is a legal term, roughly defined as "the unlawful taking a human life". Now, since hunting animals is neither unlawful nor taking human life, you're an idiot (actually the correct conclusion is that it's not murder, but I like the idiot one better). Second, even if we ignore the misuse of the word murder and get to the premise of your position, i.e. that killing animals is a bad thing, this leads to other flaws in your position. Are coyotes "bad" for killing rabbits? Are house cats "bad" for killing birds? Humans hunt ungulates like deer and elk to keep their populations down. If we didn't, they'd overpopulate and starve to death in the winter. But I guess sensitive people like you would rather see hundreds of deer die of malnutrition and those that survive suffer the pain of hunger, rather than hunt enough of them to keep there numbers stable.

Moron.

Re:Frightening, ?

[Pepsi__Blue]

No offense, but your viewpoint is missing a key piece because you chose to ignore it, i.e. human have been on Earth for approxamatly 10,000 years, Animals in general have been around a lot longer, so you need to consider that animals clearly can take care of themselves, and in fact saying that we shouldn't let them overpopulate is akin to saying we should stop all forest fires, because both allow the old (growth or aged animals) to continue on while there is less room for the new (young growth and animal youths). What we are forgetting in our modern world is that Humans are not needed to take care of animals and plants , also we forget that some of our technological advances (i.e. medicine), while often are considered good, actually contribute to a stagnation in the evolutionary process. Basically, humans should not mess with nature, let it be itself.

Re:Frightening, ?

[strider44]

remind me not to piss you off.

Re:Frightening, ?

[woluwedal]

Fear not???? From a person how is explaining how he already knows how to aim a gun from a distance. I hope you don't know how to program as well, because if you enter those parameters about wind etc.... oh shit :0)

Re:Frightening, ?

[aaronl]

That is generally true. Your viewpoint is also missing something, though. Unlike most other forms of life, humans can think past the instinct level. We saw that our involvement in making our environment safer to us by removing other predators caused many animals to overpopulate. In response, we allow people to hunt to a certain controlled degree. This both allows people to hunt without causing extinction, and prevents overpopulation. Since people want to hunt and overpopulation will occur, this isn't a big deal.

As far as leaving nature alone, like I already stated, one of humanity's evolutionary advancements was the ability to alter the environment. This enables humans to make the world more hospitable to them. That is quite an advancement. You're right that it stagnates evolution, but that is likely one reason that humanity evolved into the warring species that we have.

Overall I think people are silly with the "protect the animals" arguments, but everyone is entitled to have their own belief. Just remember that "prey" animals have had "predator" animals evolve to eat them for all time that animals have existed. Humans just ended up being more effective at it than any other animal. We figured out that we can raise herds of animals for our food without having to hunt. Some people just enjoy the hunt; that is also part of our instinct.

Re:Frightening, ?

[mollymoo]

Basically, humans should not mess with nature, let it be itself.

What are we, aliens? No, we're animals from the planet Earth. By far the best damn animals the planet has ever seen, but still animals. We evolved. We are part of nature. The Interweb is just as natural as a beaver's dam.

Re:Frightening, ?

[1u3hr]

Bluetooth is a short-range protocol. It doesn't transmit but, what, 20 feet at max?

The whole point of TFA is that the "rifle" can connect to bluetooth devices up to 1 km away.

Unfortunately, the gun nuts are all talking about muzzle velocity, flash suppressors, one bullet one kill, etc, and starting brush wars about the 2nd amendment, as is their wont, so no one is actually discussing TFA anyway...

Re:Frightening, ?

[modecx]

Oh boy, I so like that idea...

I'd rather have a scope that could detect and targed a) the asshole that likes to kick the back of my seat b) the lady 5 rows behind me that likes to snap her gum... constantly c) people who think it's a bright idea to take their temperamental/hungry/sleep-deprived 0-5 year old kids to loud, scary movies not at all intended for kids.

Now, maybe I'm just sick, but I'd be entertained if there were a short flick about a madman that lost his last nerve, robbed the concessions booth and loaded malted milk balls, junior mints, gummy bears, stale popcorn, etc. into a machine junk-food launcher, and hunted these people down. It'd definitely get a laugh out of me.

Re:Frightening, ?

[Peaceful_Patriot]

You are obviously from the city, where the only deer you see are in zoos. Well, out here in Northern California the deer are so abundant they can be a nusience. More are killed on the roads and highways each year than by hunters. They are so used to people that they will happily lounge in your yard, eating your flowers, shrubs and the fruit from your trees. I know people who have given up trying to grow a garden because they are merely feeding the deer.

Get out of the city once in a while. You might find there are two sides to this story.

Re:Frightening, ?

[Dun Malg]

No offense, but your viewpoint is missing a key piece because you chose to ignore it, i.e. human have been on Earth for approxamatly 10,000 years,

Ten thousand? Try 2 million.

Animals in general have been around a lot longer, so you need to consider that animals clearly can take care of themselves

We're animals too. Us hunting is as natural as a coyote hunting. We do not exist outside of nature. We are part of nature.

Re:Frightening, ?

[jusdisgi]

No, no, the point is just that deer and some other animal populations will overpopulate annually...however many "extra" deer the population carries into the winter will starve. So, as long as our hunting/sport activities don't bring the population below the sustainable number, we're just doing them all a favor; we're trading a quick and relatively painless shooting death for a starvation.

It's not that we have to do this. It's just that it's more "humane" to the deer population to hunt them than to let them starve back to the right numbers.

Of course, when I talk to vegetarians, my first question is usually "what do you have against cows?" ...their species wouldn't be nearly as successful if we weren't eating them.

Oh, and in general, this ridiculousness about "we shouldn't mess with nature" is really hard to wrap a human brain around...the messing with nature thing is pretty much our whole schtick. You know...planting crops, making clothing, and websites to banally banter upon.....once He gave us that thumb, He knew we were gonna fuck with everything. Hell, if you listen to Peter, He told us it was cool.

Re:Frightening, ?

[Almost-Retired]

Bah, go study up on exterior balistics my friend. Gravity, acting on the bullet is straight down, but if the bullet isn't traveling perfectly horizontal, then the gravity vector of 32 feet per second per second isn't being applied at right angles to the path, but at a vector.

So if you are shooting downhill at a 45 degree angle, then that 300 yards you mentioned must be multiplied by the sin of the downward (or upward, they are in fact interchangeable) angle which for 45 degrees is .707 in round terms, making the true horizontal distance traveled only 212 yards, so the fall is proportionatly reduced and the bullet will hit a wee bit higher than the 300 yards over level ground math would indicate. Just a very few inches at 300 yards depending on just how far your piece can reach out and touch someone, but a much larger difference will be seen at the longer ranges and at even higher angles from level.

There are other effects to figure in, such as the distance for the air to slow it down remains at the line of site measured distance of 300 yards so the loss of velocity remains at the 300 yard figure. So does the effect of a crosswind in the drift.

--
Cheers, Gene

Re:Frightening, ?

[Trejkaz]

That's what I figured too. And since the default setting on most phones is to ask, you'd have to fool them into accepting the connetion. Something you learn fast from bluejacking, is that only a very small portion of phones will accept your connection, and only a fraction of those will actually accept the file.

Re:Frightening, ?

[schenkzoola]

Hooray for the Enfields!!! I just don't like how the stock doesn't cushion the recoil and I end up with a sore shoulder after shooting 10 rounds or so.

Re:Frightening, ?

[juhaz]

Anatomically modern humans have been on the planet for AT LEAST 100000 years, possibly even double, and hominids for several million. That is clearly long enough time for foodchain to adapt to presence of humans, to a level that abruptly removing them from equation would cause huge changes.

How did you think "animals clearly took care of themselves"? Herbivores decided that their population got too large and dropped dead? Well, Sherlock, they were killed, much more brutally, by other animals. Other large predators, be it wolves or cave lions or sabertooth tigers were dealing with the population problems of herbivores, we have diminished their number to so low as to be irrelevant in that role any more, and taken the place they previously inhabited as the top of the foodchain, which clearly includes keeping populations manageable as well.

Re:Frightening, ?

[say]

murder is a legal term, roughly defined as "the unlawful taking a human life"

That's your personal definition. Murder is most of all a moral term, describing unlawful or unethical killing. As long as you believe killing animals is unethical, you are inclined to call it murder, although not in the legal sense (but that's what you want to change).

As always, you can easily see this when changing perspective. While most texans will say execution is not murder, but killing, most europeans will definitely call it murder. While US soldiers won't say that they murder insurgents in Iraq, the (remaining) insurgents would. Moral and law is closely related. Don't dismiss moral statements because of the law. The law might change, you know.

Anyway, I think hunting animals for food is OK. I'm Norwegian, and I eat a lot of whale meat as well. So I don't agree with GP either.

Re:Frightening, ?

[Kuro-Bishounen]

I have mixed feelings about hunting. There is the idea that hunting is natural as you said, but on the other hand, there is the taking of life for pleasure. I will say, after many years of thinking on this subject, that those who hunt/fish and then put the product of the hunting/fishing to a good use ie. food, are fine. Hunting is natural to humans as omnivores. What I don't accept is the practice of hunting/fishing for the sole aim of enjoyment in the death of something. If you hunt foxes simply to watch a pack of hounds rip it to shreads and then smear the blood on children, or capture a fish just to have it stuffed and mounted as a trophy then you are, in my opinion, an unpleasant person who I would not wish to spend time with. Plus I will actively oppose you politically, as I already do.

Re:Frightening, ?

[SgtChaireBourne]

many "extra" deer the population carries into the winter will starve.

And because they ate up the food before they died, the other animals are left undernourished and succeptible to disease. Physical density, having too many animals in one place, makes the spread of disease like TB quite thorough. The ones that manage to live through the winter then wander into traffic. During the summer they get into crops.

People have made the problem by removing predators like the big cats, wolverines, wolves, etc. and by continuing to destroy habitat. The problem is made worse when game management is oriented towards over population.

I wonder if the DNR would grant me a damage permit for MBAs.

Re:Frightening, ?

[CarrionBird]

Who the immoral one now?? He isn't longing to kill people, unlike you.

Re:Frightening, ?

[glesga_kiss]

Humans hunt ungulates like deer and elk to keep their populations down. If we didn't, they'd overpopulate and starve to death in the winter.

That argument always makes me think of South Park. "Quick Ned, thin out their numbers", "he's coming right for us!!". It has to be one of the worst arguments ever, it has more holes than the Chewbacka defense!

You do it because you enjoy it. Hunting is a primal instinct in all carivores, and you are just getting the opiate buzz that your brain is producing to reward you for you behaviour that is favourable to passing on your genes. A lot of the time, humans try to kid themselves that we are superiour to the animals. Not so, we have exactly the same drives and goals as them.

Not that I have a problem with hunting, don't see the opertunity to coming up for me in the UK, but if I ever get the chance to squeeze off a few rounds stateside, I'll likely be using targets instead.

Re:Frightening, ?

[TheLink]

In theory you could use lasers to guide bullets.

Your bullets have to be a lot smarter and more expensive than the usual ones though ;).

That said such systems would likely reduce the velocity and maximum range of the bullet.

It'll be better to use lasers to guide a pair of lasers which then guide a nice multi-kilovolt bolt of electricity.

You might still need bullets to break windows and stuff so the electric charge can hit the target.

Re:Frightening, ?

[m3talsling3r]

I can think of one reason why you might want a bluetooth enabled weapon: bigger caliber. Just think about it, stand behind the blast shields, point, click, and boom! Of course this could be useful for fireworks and a multitude of other reasons. There's a reason that sailors didn't "hold" their cannons on their shoulders ;).

Re:Frightening, ?

[TFGeditor]

Even though I am in "the business," I. too eschew antlers. Not that I wouldm't take an animal with a good rack, but I do not go looking for them, and given a choice between an old doe and a young buck, I take the doe every time.

Most people have been Disneyized to the point they believe there is no longer such a thing as "subsistence hunting" in the U.S. Of course, those same people probably believe all the woodland creatures talk to one another and that fishes name their children Nemo, et al.

Re:Frightening, ?

[Pepsi__Blue]

It depends on what you mean by human here, I believe "humanity" to come about at the time of civilization (first settlements known were in Southern Mesopotamia, in the Ubaid Period, 6000-5000 BC). However, as a species homo sapians have been around longer, but lacked the capability to live at more than a subsistance level. Even then, non-human animals were able to live by themselves without human intervention. Furthermore, until I see 12 gauge shotguns growing in the trees, or they are able to be produced without the technology and knowledge humanity has gained since the beggining of civilization, guns are not a part of nature.

Re:Frightening, ?

[Dun Malg]

It takes a big man to kill a ferocious unsuspecting deer at 50 yards with a high powered rifle. At least admit you do it because you enjoy it, not because it is necessary for your survival or you are doing the world a 'favour' by thinning the herd.

You must have replied to the wrong message, because I can't say I hunt for the enjoyment of it, as I have never hunted. For a lot of people hunting isn't about being a "big man", or even necessarily enjoyable. My brother in law hunted as a teenager to help feed his parents and siblings. Despite what armchair environmentalists like you think, there are people out there who hunt out of necessity. As for your snide "doing the world a favor by thinning the herd" remark, I find your sanctimonious spin amusing. If it weren't for humans killing of the wolves, the deer would be thinned by natural predation. As the descendents of those who killed all the wolves, is it not our responsibility to (at the very least) do the work those wolves used to do? Or were the wolves also evil? Is the natural state of the deer population winter starvation, and all predator activity (be it human or canine) is "unnatural"?

Re:Frightening, ?

[Dun Malg]

You do it because you enjoy it. Hunting is a primal instinct in all carivores, and you are just getting the opiate buzz that your brain is producing to reward you for you behaviour that is favourable to passing on your genes. A lot of the time, humans try to kid themselves that we are superiour to the animals. Not so, we have exactly the same drives and goals as them.

Oh indeed, I most wholeheartedly agree. I just usually don't bother to point out that particular line of reasoning to handwringers because they inevitably go for the "but we can control our instincts" line of reasoning and it turns into an argument over whether it is better to deny our animal heritage or embrace it. Subsequently, I usually skip that and go right for the argument of "as descendents of those who killed the deer's natural predator (wolves), it is our responsibility to take their place and keep their population under control".

Re:Frightening, ?

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

You have to love a brass buttplate. I do wish I could find a new stock though. Mine was sporterized prior to my purchasing it. I also wish that I could find the enfield sniper rifle that I saw when I was 15 in some hardware store out in the boondocks. It even had the original number 4 scope. You can't find those anymore.

Re:Frightening, ?

[Some_Llama]

"Rationalize all you want, you're still a fucking murdering bastard."

Just for that i'm going to go kill 3 animals.

It's ok because you hurt my feelings and this is a way to get back at you.

Re:Frightening, ?

[Some_Llama]

"So, yes.. I guess something has to replace the natural predators of deer and elk - wolves and mountain lions - that have been hunted to near extinction"

So you are saying that people "hunted" mountain lions and wolves for sustenance? Or just for fun?

Maybe it was for self preservation and the protection of children and infants.

Would you rather we didn't kill any animals and just let wild beasts carry away our children or kill us in the streets? Actually I bet you would...

BTW south park hates everyone equally, even radical peta AC posters

http://www.spscriptorium.com/Season8/E808script. ht m

Re:Frightening, ?

['The '.$L3mm1ng]

Personally, I'd like to see it looking like a rocket launcher. Of course this wouldn't help him.

I guess

[varmittang]

I guess we will see some more Paris Hiltin porn very soon.

Re:I guess

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

The "write-up" spacifically mentions Paris Hilton, so the parent post is "on topic".

Re:I guess

[varmittang]

BOOM!!!! That was the joke doing mach 4 over your head.

Re:I guess

[igny]

BOOM occurs at Mach 1.

Re:I guess

[ThreeE]

Actually no.

You will hear a sonic boom anytime something travels faster than the speed of sound at your location. Typically, this means an aircraft must travel abut Mach 1.15 above you for you to hear the boom on the ground. An aircraft travelling Mach 1 will typically not produce a boom on the ground as the speed of sound is greater on the ground than it is at altitude. And, of course, anything travelling faster (i.e. Mach 4) will cause a boom as well.

Back to our program.

Re:I guess

[ThreeE]

To add the parent's correct posting, sonic booms do occur subsonically local to the aircraft. The airflow is often accelerated to sonic levels as it travels over portions of the aircraft wings. This is actually one of the major causes of the "sonic barrier." These local sonic exceedences can screw with the lift, causing the aircraft to lose control.

A gentleman by the name of Chuck knew this and said, "So what. It's worth the risk."

Re:I guess

[Wyatt Earp]

And parts of the aircraft can be transonic while the whole thing isn't and sometimes smaller booms can be heard of, like the tip of the tail.

Re:I guess

[Ilan Volow]

You only get the Paris Hilton porn if you have the BlueTooth sniper rifle and pick up a quad-damage modifier. Otherwise, you get past episodes of "The Simple Life".

Re:I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

Mach (speed of sound) is relative to altitude.
Just to clarify, the airplane's instruments would read ~661 knots for it to be going mach 1.

Being cloer to the ground, the ground speed required to go mach 1 increases, airspeed stays the same. If you were at sealevel, and the airplane broke the sound barrier 10,000 feet above you, you'd still hear it.

Re:I guess

[gl4ss]

except that paris was using sidekick, right?
that lacks bluetooth.

Re:I guess

[Curious Yellow 82]

Paris Hilton porn, great, but if Paris is Hiltin porn then I'd like to know how big the sword being hilted is! And more importantly, is it made of pork? And if so, is it kosher?

Re:I guess

[GoodNicsTken]

I have a friend that works for Gulfstream. The FCC is looking at revising the ban on supersonic flight over the US.

Gulfstream has already developed a supersonic jet, and right now they have the sonic boom reduced to the noise level of a car door slamming.

It's not so much the shape of the wing, as the overall shape of the plane. The sound is louder when more of it hits you at the same time. Gulfstream's plane extends the nose several feet to help break up the resulting sound wave people hear on the ground as it flies overhead.

Not wise...

[lga]

From the article:

We decided to quickly conclude the scan, given police activity in the area earlier in the day from a bomb scare.

You too can get shot for looking like a terrorist!

Re:Not wise...

[pete6677]

For this reason, it would be an excellent idea to make the thing NOT look like a gun at all, even if it is unidirectional. People tend to get suspicious of strangers pointing gunlike objects around their neighborhood.

Re:Not wise...

[d34thm0nk3y]

Well, the article is down so I am not sure what it actually looks like. But it seems to me there is absolutely no reason to make this device look like a dangerous weapon.

Are any reasons given for why they decided to go with this flamebait (for lack of a better term) design? They could have made it look like a telescope instead I imagine.

Of course this is coming from somebody who used to think it was fun to sneak around and shoot frat jocks with bb guns back in highschool.

Re:Not wise...

[Eminence]

• People tend to get suspicious of strangers pointing gunlike objects around their neighborhood.

And for a very good reason. How probable it is that the thing that looks very much like a custom-built RPG launcher or high powered riffle is in fact a piece of harmless radio equipment? Just compare the number of Bluetooth and "traditional" riffles out there.

So it was outright stupid to design it in this way, although arguably riffle design has it's advantages - it's probably the best, evolved over time, layout of a device that has to be long and its operator is supposed to point it accurately without a support (tripod etc.).

Re:Not wise...

[Anonymous Coward]

DARWIN AWARD CANDIDATE 1: Hmm...I wonder if Airforce One has BlueTooth vulnerabilities.
DARWIN AWARD CANDIDATE 2: Hey yeah! Get out your nifty BlueTooth detector thingie!

Re:Not wise...

[OverlordQ]

Image of the gun. Imo somebody could easily mistake that for a homebrew silencer on the end.

Re:Not wise...

[CortoMaltese]

Well, it's just yet another innovative way of getting the Darwin Award...

Re:Not wise...

[nazgul000]

Wow... the nerd James Bond.

Re:Not wise...

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be easy to make it look like a telescope, then you would only be shot for looking like a voyer. ;)

Re:Not wise...

[aXis100]

It's not just gun like things...

On several occasions whilst my mates and I have been doing WiFi surveys with handheld dish antennas. (seeing where we can connect to our own gear), old people have come up and abused us for "eavesdropping". Yeah, real tinfoil hat type stuff.

That said, making it looks like (and named after) a rifle is idiotic.

Re:Not wise...

[jspoon]

Better yet, it would be cool if you could put one of these things in half of a large pair of binoculars. Then you could aim it through the remaining side, to find your target and watch for physical activity.

Re:Not wise...

[Dun Malg]

Well, the article is down so I am not sure what it actually looks like. But it seems to me there is absolutely no reason to make this device look like a dangerous weapon.

The really moronic thing is that the actual "business end" of this thing is contained within that white piece of PVC pipe at the front. The part that looks like a rifle (appears to be a folding stock for Mini-14) is literally bolted on behind it. These guys are clearly working the photo-op angle on this thing. Probably fishing for grants or contracts or whatever it is they think they can do for money by making it look sinister. If they were into pure functionality, a tripod mount like a telescope (with a small spotting scope on the side) would have been a better choice. Plus, you could probably sit on the roof of a building with a telescope all day wothout getting shot at even once.

Re:Not wise...

[indiechild]

The thing also looks a lot like a water-cooled machinegun from the WWI era (complete with big heavy cooling sleeve around the barrel). Police snipers seeing someone with this thing on a roof top would be very alarmed.

Re:Not wise...

[HD Webdev]

People tend to get suspicious of strangers pointing gunlike objects around their neighborhood.

Not generally on the West Coast in high density areas from my experience.

That's why women being raped there are encouraged to scream 'fire' instead of 'rape'.

People there generally try to get away from uncontrollable dangerous situations where guns/violence are involved and try to brain-wash themselves into believing that not getting involved is a Good Thing.

With a fire, it's something different. It's easy enough to gauge the safe distance from it and yet 'participate' in the event.

That's why a woman being raped and screames 'fire' is much more likely to get help than one who screams 'rape'.

Re:Not wise...

[1u3hr]

From TFA:

You start out with a stock that all other components will be attached to. The guys at Flexilis decided on the Ruger 10 / 22 folding stock from Ramline, but you can use any stock you want. You can even make the BlueSniper without the stock, if you want to be more discrete about scanning Bluetooth devices. The stock just makes the BlueSniper look more menacing, not to mention really fun to hold.

Re:Not wise...

[xgamer04]

If viewed from the back, it also sorta looks like a PVC pipe. It made me think of a potato gun.

Re:Not wise...

[pnice]

That explains so much to me. I kept looking around the room and I was like, "Damn baby, I don't smoke my cigarettes until I'm done having sex."

I know, very tacky. Just doing my part.

Bluetooth

[Anonymous Coward]

Snoop my Apple Bluetooth wireless mouse and switch the button (singular) to right-click.

Re:Bluetooth

[michaeldot]

Yes, Bluetooth is in almost everything these days - I have 3 gadgets within arms reach of me with BT - but if others are anything like me, it's almost always turned off.

• I have my PowerBook's Bluetooth turned off 99% of the time to save battery power,
• my iPAQ 2210's Bluetooth turned off 99% of the time (which BTW I sync to the PowerBook using PocketMac - works like a charm for bringing PocketPC into the Mac OS X world shows up in iSync and everything),
• and my Sony Ericsson cellphone turned off 98% of the time when not being used a GPRS modem

I can't imagine every leaving these on all the time, I treat Bluetooth like a "wireless cable."

I don't know if I'm particularly battery conscious or not though?

Re:Bluetooth

[binarytoaster]

I don't get where most people are getting that their devices are set up to auto-discover. All of my devices (my PB, my cell phone, my PDA) require that I set them as "discoverable" for a certain period of time - on my phone, it lets me set it as discoverable for 10 seconds; my PDA was set off by default; the PB requires me to set it as discoverable.

I leave my cell phone's radio on so I can use Salling Clicker with it, but that's about it.

Bluetooth

[SteelV]

It seems like Bluetooth is in almost EVERYTHING these days (the Power Book I recently ordered, my new cell phone, etc. all are enabled). Is this merely an extention of the ubiquitousness of the technology? Or is there some inherent flaw that makes Bluetooth vulnerable? I'm inclined to believe the former -- that a properly secured Bluetooth system would be safe -- but I don't know much about the technology.

Any experts in the house (of course there are, we're on Slashdot!).

The Jackal could have used it...

[NightWulf]

This way the secret service could have identified him, he's the guy with the annoying blue spotlight shining out of his ear while yelling "Can ya shoot her now?"

Re:The Jackal could have used it...

[SteelV]

Great movie, heh. Yes, I think he used a cell phone to dial in to another cell phone to control the device. Much less conspicuous (even in '97)!

Re:The Jackal could have used it...

[SteelV]

I must have seen the Jackal nearly 10 times. I love that film (same with Gladiator, Brave Heart, etc. although I've only seen them two or three times each -- they're way too long).

The Jackal was really on the brink of cutting edge technology. He had a huge, remote-controlled machine gun, secret identities, and a sail boat. If only he had a Bluetooth sniper rifle, then he NEVER would have been stopped!

Re:The Jackal could have used it...

[UltimaL337Star]

You mean, "Can you hear me now?"

See what they found

[KinkifyTheNation]

See what they found...

You mean other than a dozen FBI agents bursting down their door?

Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the server just got headshot.

He's lucky that

[CodeYoddler]

he wasn't in Chicago, somehow the thought of some guys up on the top of a building pointing a rifle towards random people probably wouldn't last long with the police...

The inherent Bluetooth flaw...

[lxt]

...is human curiosity. Yes, there are many dangers from snooping, and there have been recent reports of prototype Bluetooth viruses - but even upgraded and securer versions of the protocol won't stop the fact that you just won't be able to refuse opening that interesting looking picture somebody is trying to send you.

I've seen it a lot at my school, whereby a particularly dodgy or deprecating picture (no goatse yet, but can't be long) is passed along in the lounges by somebody simply searching for Bluetooth phones and sending a pic, which simply can't be refused ("because it might be something important!!!"). I'd say it's even more tempting to accept a Bluetoothed file than an email attachment, because in Bluetooth you're only getting the bare information about a file (ie, the size of it and file type), whereas you can generally filter out automatically generated email viruses with ease...

The solution is to turn Bluetooth off all the time except when you want to use it (something I do anyway, since it conserves battery power), but a surprisingly large number of people seem to have it on all the time.

Happy hunting

[k.ovaska]

Site is dying. Now they're facing the real test: can you use a Bluetooth rifle against a Slashdot attack? There's one Slashdotter... another one... look, over there! But the battle is hopeless, most Slashdotters are secure in their parents' basement.

Re:Happy hunting

[rob_squared]

"Site is dying. Now they're facing the real test: can you use a Bluetooth rifle against a Slashdot attack? There's one Slashdotter... another one... look, over there! But the battle is hopeless, most Slashdotters are secure in their parents' basement."

Or they don't have a cell phone because they don't need one anyway?

ObMirrorDot

[semaj]

It's not even funny any more how fast these sites go down. It doesn't do the site owner or us any good - once again, what will it take for Slashdot to implement a mirror system?

For example... this one.

Re:ObMirrorDot

[baadger]

I wish mirrordot would cache linked pages. A depth of 1 within the same domain would do wonders.

Re:ObMirrorDot

[djdavetrouble]

What slippery slope? Fuckedcompany was borne from maggots in a manure pile, it started at the bottom of the slope.

Its just a shame that they don't use things that already exist such as mirror dot, coral, etc.. They really don't _need_ to implement much. It is just arrogance.

Re:ObMirrorDot

[dfelznic]

What is wrong with Coral? http://www.coralcdn.org/

Take a gander at:

http://www.tomsnetworking.com.nyud.net:8090/Sect io ns-article106.php

Well then

[sarak11]

Damn, now all that stands in my way is a few hundred dollars and a drill press. Er, and the ability to actually piece things together successfully *looks wistfully at pieces of failed Van de Graaff machine*

Re:Slashdotted

[lmalmeida]

Shouldn't that be http://www.tomsnetworking.com.nyud.net:8090/Sectio ns-article106-page2.php instead? And from here, I can't connect..

Yeah, especially since...

[evolutionaryLawyer]

They made the think look like a rifle with collapsing stock etc... A kid almost got killed outside detroit about a year ago for hanging around on a roof with a paintball gun.

So let me get this straight, if you have your device always on and discoverable you are vulnerable? Jesus, I would never expect that. Next thing you know it will be dangerous to be connected to the web without a firewall installed.

Bluetooth is nice, but the security measure do seem pretty weak, no minimum pin length etc.

Re:Yeah, especially since...

[subtropolis]

No kidding. I saw the live feed when that al-Jazeera crew was hit in Baghdad. There was a tank holding a bridge and at least one warthog buzzing around overhead. There's nothing like seeing a tank swivel its turret towards you (well, maybe one-up on that would be if you're actually there). I've always wondered if the camera was mistaken for a weapon.

IMO, this guy with the bluetooth device should not use this unless it's mounted on a tripod, with all black parts painted bright orange. I'd even consider mounting one of those cyclist's orange flags to the tripod as well. Or wear an orange traffic vest. Seriously, he should make himself as obvious and non-threatening as possible. He might not notice a SWAT team arriving.

Of course, then the terrorists will just do the same thing. We can't win!

Re:redundent?

[davidesh]

ya he mentioned that one...
but he forgot the time it was mentioned a day after here.... http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/06/224222 4&tid=193&tid=1
seriously folks... get some new news worth reading

google cache

[chevman]

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:RUM0Y5_0xhEJ: www.tomsnetworking.com/Sections-article106.php+&hl =en&client=safari

a better use

[Sv-Manowar]

how about instead of sniper rifles in a city, binoculars on a nudist beach ?

why do the best inventions always need to be modified to be better.

Re:a better use

[NoGuffCheck]

As its bluetooth guided and a nudist beach, I'd be a little worried that the binoculars would home in on something other than the wrinkly old naked mans pockets (that he isnt wearing) to find his stashed-away bluetooth devise.

Re:a better use

[CarpetShark]

Agreed. There are much more fun uses for technology, and they have the benefit of being not-quite-so-psychotic, too ;)

Re:a better use

[rzebram]

Is this replacing the missing "breasts" option in the latest poll?

How to deal with that?

[Eminence]

It's not a trivial question. On one hand airwaves are free for anyone to receive. On the other if someone would steal data from my BT enabled device and went to publish it on the web (Paris Hilton case) I would very much like to get him punished for that.

In other words, users are generally right in their expectance of some form of protection of their privacy. You could argue that BT devices should have been built in a way that would prevent any of that from happening, but it's easy to criticize with hindsight. I think some line in the sand would have to be drawn on this one too, the problem is that it would be technologically ignorant lobbying-prone politicians who would do the drawing. It's enough to look at the case of good, old-fashioned radio scanners to foresee results.

Re:How to deal with that?

[cowboy76Spain]

It is not a matter of hindsight. You can say that if you are talking of SMTP or something alike. When BT was developed, it should have known that allowing any device to connect to yours is a security risk. And it should have been known that 90% of the users won't RTFM if its device just works. So, by default, BT devices should have been set by default to connect only to known devices. Or, at least, the first time a customer uses it, he should be asked. The reason it was not done was probably it would make easier for John Doe to connect his devices without really knowing not even the most basic things about them, and to make people think that the technology was "easy to use" and "secure" ("if I do not need to do anything to keep my BT configured to be safe, then it must be safe, isn'it?")

Re:How to deal with that?

[Eminence]

You are right, of course. However, I believe BT designers were not geeks and their thinking was not twisted enough. The were operating within the "very very local connections" mindset - I'm totally sure no one even considered the possibility of any sort of attack on such device coming from a mile away or so. BT was supposed to create the "PAN" or Personal Area Network - in other words to communicate within few feet.

Now, I wonder if designers of the Zigbee would pay attention.

Re:How to deal with that?

[theLOUDroom]

How to deal with that?

By knowing what the fuck you're transmitting.

In other words, users are generally right in their expectance of some form of protection of their privacy.

Actually, they're generally wrong in both senses of the word:

• Technically, they vastly overestimate the security of their own devices. Even if they know the level of insecurity, they act like the have no responsibility for it. "How dare someone connect to my cellphone THAT IS PROGRAMMED TO AUTOMATICALLY ACCEPT ALL CONNECTIONS! The injustice of it all"
• Ethically, you're making use of the public airwaves. The onus really should be on you to keep your own information private. Being a user of an unliscensed band, you have no more right to it than me.

It's enough to look at the case of good, old-fashioned radio scanners to foresee results.

Those laws are both very shortsighted and wrongheaded. Besides providing a false sense of security, and acting as a disincentive to tecnological innovation, I expect them to come under scrutiny soon, as manufacturers will want to begin selling software defined receivers.
Anyways, besides me personally thinking they suck, BLUETOOTH OPERATES IN AN UNLISCENSED BAND. Regulation of an unliscensed band in the manner that you're describing would be truly unprecedented. The FCC has gone so far as to tell airport authorities that they can't regulate the 2.4GHz band at their own airports, do you really think they're going to deviate from this stance because you can't be bothered to properly configure your cellphone?

Executive summary:
How to deal with it?
Turn off bluetooth unless you're actually using it.

There is no need to have yet another rule, law or regulation just because someone can't be bothered to understand what it is they just bought and why it's broadcasting their information to anyone who asks.

Re:How to deal with that?

[Eminence]

• There is no need to have yet another rule, law or regulation just because someone can't be bothered to understand what it is they just bought and why it's broadcasting their information to anyone who asks.

I beg to differ. I can't agree with the view, that people who don't know how a thing technically works should not expect protection of their privacy, property or other reasonable rights. Maybe manufacturer or seller of the device should be bothered with "why it is broadcasting personal info", but certainly not the end user.

The end user has a right to be technologically ignorant and still have his privacy protected. At least as long as we agree that privacy is a right everyone has, not only technologically savvy - which is how the things my look now but certainly is not how they should look.

Re:How to deal with that?

[theLOUDroom]

I beg to differ. I can't agree with the view, that people who don't know how a thing technically works should not expect protection of their privacy, property or other reasonable rights.

That's a REALLY silly idea.
So I go out and buy a gun, and I bear no responsibility for what happens with it?
How am *I* supposed to know that I shouldn't jerk the steering wheel to one side while doing 90 on the freeway?
You mean I'm not supposed to reach inside the toaster and grab the bread with my bare hands?

Maybe manufacturer or seller of the device should be bothered with "why it is broadcasting personal info", but certainly not the end user.

The consumer should have gone out and read a product review. If they can't be bothered to do even the slightest research, they're asking for trouble and they need to learn that.


The end user has a right to be technologically ignorant and still have his privacy protected.

If you were actually arguing for a fundamental right to privacy, I'd agree with you, but you're not. You're arguing for some crazy restriction of others rights. One much, much worse than current cellphone laws.

You have a really messed up view of what "rights" are:

• Our society has agreed that this little chunk of wireless spectrum will be like a public sqaure, open to all. Sing, dance, play music, make deals, whatever.
• All of a sudden some idiot comes along, yelling his private information for all to hear.
• Now we're all supposed to stop paying any attenion to what happens in the square until he decides to stop being an idiot. He's using a precious, public resource unwisely, but rather than face the consequences of those actions and hopefully be improved as a result of them, we're supposed to loose a valuable resource.
• Since it's now illegal to even tell this guy he's actively being an idiot, things will never get better.

What's even better is that a non-idiot can take advantage of this new law to start what look to the other party like regular, consensual communications and then later claim they we're.

If you really get into it, thinking like yours would actually destroy the whole damned internet, since it would no longer be safe to connect to public servers, as the server could later claim you "violated it's privacy".
Never mind the fact that they obviously were actively making the information availible to anyone who wanted it, and have absolutely NO security measures in place, we're now supposed to be mind readers and guess whether they "really, really mean to".
After all, what if I actually WANT to give you my phone number?
How are you going to prove that in court when you piss me off later and claim I "stole" it?

Re:Slashdotted

[darkonc]

If I build the rifle, can I read their site by bluetooth?

I'm sorry, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

...this is idiotic. Not their little invention (which is pretty slick), but their test on top of a skyscraper. Are you really that fucking stupid? A couple of guys with a sniper rifle sitting on top of a tall building is just asking for trouble. Probably doesn't even have a license for it. This is even more stupid than that guy who shined a laser into an airplane cockpit on more than one occasion. I've done some dumb things in my life, but Jesus Fucking Christ. Cops have killed people for less than that.

Re:I'm sorry, but...

[cgenman]

It's LA. They'll probably just think he's looking for the freeway.

Re:I'm sorry, but...

[digitac]

They weren't on TOP of the skyscrapers, they were pointing it at them from another building nearby. It isn't easy to get to the roof of the skyscrapers in LA. I work in Library Tower and I've only been up to the roof once, and I had to take the stairs. The elevators require security cards and the stairwells are alarmed. Rumor has it they had to add sensors to the helecopter pad on the roof to stop LA SWAT from landing there while on training missions, but I've never been able to confirm that one. ::Digitac

Re:I'm sorry, but...

[mollymoo]

This is even more stupid than that guy who shined a laser into an airplane cockpit on more than one occasion.

All this "laser pointers blind pilots" stuff is pure BS (I know that's not what you said, this is a tangent). Look up beam divergence. Work out how accurately you'd have to aim the thing even if you had a laser powerful enough to do any damage. I'm sure Raytheon would build you something for a few megabucks, but someone holding a laser pointer being a danger to a fast moving, distant target? Don't make me laugh.

Re:I'm sorry, but...

[khrtt]

OK, let's assume perfectly collimated diode laser, with divergence determined by coherence length. The latter for a typical diode laser would be about 1mm. For a very crude estimate, with a 600nm red beam, this means 300nm divergence over 1mm distance, or 300mm over 1km. Suppose you point the thing at a landing plane 200m from the ground, and the spot is 60mm in diameter. Suppose you have one of them those bigger 100mW lasers, not just a stupid pointer. Then the light intensity would be comparable to the 6mm spot from a 1mW pointer, which is rather bright. If you really do hit the pilot in the eye with this thing (which would be next to impossible to achieve other than by freak accident), you could really blind the guy. So, while a laser pointer would not be nearly strong enough to be dangerous, a bigger laser module could be, and modules like that are readily available.

Note that while the green lasers are not direct diode kind, they probably have about the same coherence length. Gas lasers achieve much better coherence length, but the power out of a cheap unit would be much lower.

Re:I'm sorry, but...

[danila]

Cops have killed people for less than that.

Sheesh. Nice country you have there. Only the last time I checked they were not called "cops", they were called "mercenaries at the service of a feudal lord" or something.

And instead of doing something about crimes committed by police you would rather call innocent people idiots.

Re:is it just me?

[soliptic]

How exactly do you plan to kill people with a wee beam of blue light?

Re:is it just me?

[ltbarcly]

is it just me

Yes.

It's one thing not to RFA, but to not even read the headline? SO STUPID!

I dont think Sniper Rifle is the correct term here

[OverlordQ]

Really, they should of called it something besides a 'Sniper Rifle' I'm sure that'd go down well when the cops ask what you're doing.

"Oh i'm just pointing my Bluetooth Sniper Rifle at that crowded building of . . ."

*insert police beatdown here*

Re:is it just me?

[ErichTheWebGuy]

How exactly do you plan to kill people with a wee beam of blue light? I dont. But it wouldn't be very hard for someone else to modify the design for more lethal applications.

Re:is it just me?

[C10H14N2]

It would make interesting news if he tried this in, oh, say Washington, DC. He would been carried off the roof in a black rubber bag. I'm surprised downtown LA doesn't have better surveillance. However, I'm sure he'll be getting a visit from the FBI in 5..4..3...

Crazy.

Re:is it just me?

[Anonymous Coward]

what is the matter with you fucking people? is it so fucking hard to imagine someone modifying the original design for use with a real fucking gun? step the fuck off!

No such thing as short range RF

[G4from128k]

This article shows that "short range" RF technologies such as bluetooth or RFID are only short range in the context of a particular transceiver. If someone wants to access an RF device from a greater distance, they need only build a high-gain antenna.

Re:No such thing as short range RF

[C10H14N2]

True. Voyager 1 was on the order of 23 watts and the last signal was received from over 8 billion miles away. Meanwhile, agents on Proxima Centauri have already begun a global RFID inventory of Wal*Mart stores world-wide in preparation for the invasion. They should have the results sometime late summer 2013.

Re:No such thing as short range RF

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

No! RFID tags like those that Wal-Mart will be using are powered by the radio signal. It's not simply a matter of having enough antenna gain or a sensitive enough reciever - you need to produce enough power to activate the tag. It's hard enough to read them 3 inches away - and you need 64x more power to read them even two feet away. At 8ft, you need 1024x more power. Even a relatively low-power signal is now approaching the power range of a microwave oven.

Remember, Bluetooth was designed to have 30+ foot range. You only need 16x more power - and a decent antenna gain - to increase that to 120ft - not a hard feat.

Now, it *is* definately possible to 'snoop' on RFIDs being energized by another reader. That's why RFID credit cards would be a bad idea (and why current RF credit cards *aren't* RFID - they have two-factor authentication).

Re:No such thing as short range RF

[deimtee]

That is all just so wrong.
You are assuming that every transmission is perfectly omnidirectional.
That was the whole point of this rifle - make it directional- and there is no reason you couldn't mount two similar ones side by side for RFID tags, one to transmit power in a beam and one to read it. You don't have to saturate a sphere, just deliver the minimum power to a point.
That said, I think they are idiots for making it look like a rifle. At 12.5cm wavelength you should be able to do better with a small parabolic dish and you would be a lot less likely to get shot.

Re:No such thing as short range RF

[t_allardyce]

Even a relatively low-power signal is now approaching the power range of a microwave oven.

Great, now not only does biometrics encourage would-be ID thieves to cut off peoples fingers or make a copy (which cant be changed like a pin), but RFID is going to start groups pointing microwave guides at people and firing out 800W.

Don't be so sure its not out of reach, it certainly doesn't have to be anywhere near half a mile, less than a meter is more than enough for most pick-pockets and those with more sinister agendas. I see absolutely no need for RFID in cards, swipe and smart cards have worked fine for years, sure they wear out but if people are so fucking lazy that they can't cope with getting a new card every couple of years then they can bloody well have their details and serial numbers tatooed on their head.

updated link...

[Anonymous Coward]

www.tomsnetnotworking.com

Re:is it just me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it would. Actually it would be easier to buy a rifle

Mach 4 is greater than Mach 1

[wasted]

BOOM occurs continuously as the craft is traveling at speeds greater than Mach 1, not just when the craft first exceeds Mach 1. It is not unusual to hear BOOM BOOM or BOOM BOOM BOOM if the craft is low enough.

Sunday Slashdotting

[cheezus_es_lard]

You know the Tom's Hardware web admin is sitting in a family room somewhere wondering why his pager keeps going off.... Sunday Slashdottings must be one of the most evil things inflictable on a person ;-)

Stuck at item one...

[rkww]

Folding Stock - About $50.00 - Ramline Ruger 10/22 Folding Stock

It doesn't seem likely that this would be something I could import into the UK without raising some eyebrows...

Re:is it just me?

[LokieLizzy]

Shut up. Just shut up.

Re:Slashdotted

[Misroi]

readsite()
{
buildrifle();
}
buildrifle()
{
readsite();
}
main()
{
buildrifle();
}

An Unexpected error has occured: "Stack Overflow"
Report to slasdot? YES|NO

for all you bluesnoopers..

[Keruo]

if you snooped my slashdot login just now, I know you're within 30 meters

you'll recognize me from my baseball bat and my tinfoil hat

*HEADSHOT*

[HTL2001]

"slashdot" did 46723723346844684 damage to "innocent webserver" in 1 hit(s) with the "bluetooth sniper rifle"
head: 46723723346844684
body: 0
arms: 0
legs: 0

conneting to my phone

[varmittang]

When connecting something to my phone, I have to enter a pin code. Like my PowerBook, I have to physically tell the phone to allow a contaction via bluetooth, then enter a pin code that the PB gives into the phone to have them conneted to eachother. I even had to enter a pin code into my phone when connecting my headset. So which providers just let anything connect via bluetooth, or am I still open to attack?

The courts have dealt with similar issues

[evolutionaryLawyer]

True the airwaves are free and many times the courts have supported the rights of individuals to intercept open, unencrypted broadcasts. But the key is the unencrypted and the broadcast. Look at the old satelite dishes, you could latch on to most signals, but if they tried to scramble it then it was stealing.

If it is encrypted, you cannot decrypt it, because it is obviously not yours. If it is not broadcast, i.e. you use RF to gain access to a system and gather information that is not being broadcast, in this case anything other than basic ID info, it is illegal.

On the other hand, courts are also starting recognize leeching WiFi as theft as well, so who knows where this is gonna end up.

Why make it look like a rifle?

[Mal-2]

If they had made this look like a telescope rather than a weapon, and mounted it on a tripod, they could have pointed it just about anywhere they wanted and nobody would have paid a whole lot of attention to them. The rifle-like appearance only served to make the device look much more dangerous than it was.

There are times when the form factor of a rifle makes perfect sense (rifle stocks for cameras, for example), but many others where it just DOESN'T. This is one of the latter group.

Mal-2

Re:Why make it look like a rifle?

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Either way someone will notice. If you looked out your window and saw a bunch of nerds with a telescope looking back at you, you'd be pissed that people were spying on you.

Re:Why make it look like a rifle?

[Mal-2]

You can pay a quarter to use public telescopes in many parks and public attractions, and have been able to for many years, so I don't think anyone is all that concerned about telescopes pointed at downtown buildings, even if it's from the roof of another building. Besides, if there's a significant altitude difference, it's going to be craptacular seeing anyhow, as ceilings and floors are going to limit the view into any single window tremendously.

The whole point of this was that they are far enough away that you WON'T see them staring back at you if you look out the window. If they were that close, they wouldn't need equipment this elaborate in the first place.

Mal-2

Re:Why make it look like a rifle?

[chill]

FYI: Several cities have laws against pointing telescopes at windows of buildings. Several also have laws regulating the minimum angle of elevation a telescope must be set to.

Of course, if you can identify a couple of nerds over 1 Km away pointing a telescope at your window, you're probably breaking the same laws.

-Charles

Re:Why make it look like a rifle?

[khallow]

I agree with this reasoning. The solution IMHO is to make the equipment look like mundane equipment that someone would be carting around on a rooftop. Maybe a pipe, squeegee, broom, or the like. Ie, it's better to look like you're cleaning the windows or repairing the HVAC than sniping or spying.

Re:Why make it look like a rifle?

[m50d]

Yeah...because no one would worry about someone pointing a telescope into people's apartments.

Re:Why make it look like a rifle?

[Rich0]

Well, it probably would bring the cops, but at least it wouldn't bring a SWAT team invasion with flashbangs and the whole works. If the president were in town it might bring an airstrike...

Re:Why make it look like a rifle?

[Mal-2]

Because on a rifle stock it LOOKS LIKE A WEAPON. A camera on a rifle stock looks like... a camera on a rifle stock. A long lens is pretty obvious, and there's not much point to putting a camera on a rifle stock with a short lens -- in fact most stocks would end up getting in the picture, as they're intended to provide left hand support for a long lens. Anything over 300 mm (or a zoom) is going to have a lot of glass, unless it's a mirror lens. And if it's a mirror lens, it's FAT and probably won't work with that rifle stock.

Tripods are much steadier than anyone's hands, and I can't imagine the acceptable drift is going to be very large from a km away. Leave the pan portion of the tripod head unlocked and you should be able to track a signal without hand shake getting into it.

If they wanna be really ghetto about it, a tv tray and a bunch of beanbags will do, and something that looks like a telescope would end up just looking like a tube on a bunch of beanbags.

Mal-2

Re:I dont think Sniper Rifle is the correct term h

[LiquidCoooled]

Actually, I think thats a perfect name for it.

The dumb shit can't expect to walk around with something like that and expect people to stay calm.

Re:Not wise... neither illicit

[JimmehAH]

Not true

Bluetooth Guns for Police

[buckhead_buddy]

I misunderstood the title of this article, but the idea of putting a bluetooth device on a gun and making it only fire if you are "within range" of your tag sounds like a good idea after the Atlanta manhunt this weekend where the accused stole the gun from a deputy in the courthouse and shot the judge (as well as others). Not a foolproof item, but it might help somewhat.

Re:Bluetooth Guns for Police

[LiquidCoooled]

Neat idea, but police occasionally have to fire at criminals who aren't tagged.

You can't expect the officer to stop the gunfight, pass the hostile a bluetooth phone and then carry on.

You could expect more awful scenes inside courthouses if criminals knew police weapons could only be fired at the accused.

Re:Bluetooth Guns for Police

[Bionic_Baboon]

I read about a similar idea a few years ago. The user wore a ring using something similar to rfid and the gun would only fire if the ring was within a few inches of the ring.

Re:Bluetooth Guns for Police

[kingsqueak]

I think what the poster was implying was, that the officer would have a bluetooth tag on their person, keyed to their own firearm. For their weapon to discharge, it would need to pick up the signal first.

They have systems like this already that use a ring worn on the firing hand. Without the ring on, the gun won't fire.

Re:Bluetooth Guns for Police

[focitrixilous P]

When a cop needs to fire his gun, it is presumably a time sensative situation. On the slightest chance the gun would fail to fire as needed, for whatever battery or interference reason, the probably results in a dead cop. 99% of the time it would work fine, but the odds in a gun fight are bad enough without worrying about the state of your bluetooth. Also, if you take a gun from a police officer to shoot him with, you are presumably within bluetooth range, as it would likely have a 3-5 meter range of transmission. Anything less increases the odds of failure to fire. Also, this would dramatically increase the costs, as such a weapon would need to be devloped first. I think the risks in a gun locking out on an officer outweigh the added safety of stolen gun prevention.

Back to homework. Sigh.

Re:Bluetooth Guns for Police

[antispam_ben]

think what the poster was implying was, that the officer would have a bluetooth tag on their person, keyed to their own firearm. For their weapon to discharge, it would need to pick up the signal first.

This would also prevent another cop from picking up and using a gun from a downed cop (after getting any distance from the downed cop).

(I wondered how this news story would show up on slashdot)

Interesting proof of concept

[evolutionaryLawyer]

Normally with a proof of concept you don't actually hack/infect normal people, you do it to your own shit. e.g. you hack into your own server, or the server of a willing victim, not a bank. You infect a computer in a controlled environment so that it does not go out into the wild etc. These guys really opened themselves up to trouble by messing around with real people, not a bunch of their friends in a field.

Darwin Award Candidate

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't seem very bright to build a rifle-shaped device, and then test it by aiming it from the top of a tall building.

Let me guess, it's powered by a bunch of large batteries, conspicuously wired together in a military-style vest.

Re:Darwin Award Candidate

[kingsqueak]

The funnier part to this is just how stupid the avg inhabitant of Los Angeles is that they never even thought to call it in. Too busy sucking on a soy latte and looking in their mirror to notice.

In NYC, they probably would have been shot or eaten by a police dog, and I would have laughed.

Re:Darwin Award Candidate

[nsaneinside]

According to the Darwin Awards rules page, the candidate must be dead first - though I guess we can wait a few days and see what happens...

Re:Darwin Award Candidate

[antispam_ben]

According to the Darwin Awards rules page, the candidate must be dead first - though I guess we can wait a few days and see what happens...

Go ahead and fill out the rest of the form, Name, Date Of Birth and all, just leave blank date and time of death, and for the description of death just leave a few sentences of white space then write "while holding a home-built Blutetooth Sniper Rifle."

Re:is it just me?

[C10H14N2]

Oh like my saying it or not changes the fact that it's true. The guy's an idiot. He's lucky he's not a dead idiot. That's the sort of dumb-ass stunt that can effectively shut down five square blocks of a city and result in said idiot being shot, regardless of if it's a real rifle or a squirt gun.

Professional look?

[Columcille]

While the early version was held together with tie-straps and rubber bands, this newest version has a much more professional look.

Yes, the professional hit man look is exactly what I'm trying to have when I'm searching for vulnerable bluetooth devices.

Why a gun

[golfsportila]

I understand that using a gun stock makes it look "cooler", but the article makes it seem like it wouldn't work if you didn't put it together in the same way. You really only have to buy the antenna and a connector for your card in your laptop to get it to work fine, its not as mobile as with the gumstick computer, but you could probably mount that gumstick computer on the side of the antenna if you really wanted something that mobile.

Re:Why a gun

[mobby_6kl]

> the article makes it seem like it wouldn't work if you didn't put it together in the same way

Really? From the article:

The guys at Flexilis decided on the Ruger 10 / 22 folding stock from Ramline, but you can use any stock you want. You can even make the BlueSniper without the stock, if you want to be more discrete about scanning Bluetooth devices.

Re:Why a gun

[Gyorg_Lavode]

quote: "You can even make the BlueSniper without the stock, if you want to be more discrete about scanning Bluetooth devices. The stock just makes the BlueSniper look more menacing, not to mention really fun to hold."

Coral links for dummies

[ThreeDayMonk]

That's not how Coral links work. You have to put the ".nyud.net:8090" right after the hostname (or, to express the same thing in another way, right before the first single slash).

To whit: http://www.tomsnetworking.com.nyud.net:8090/Sectio ns-article106. php.

However, it's not working right now.

Misleading headline!

[payndz]

I thought it was going to be a cheap and easy way to mount a sniper rifle on a powered pan/tilt tripod head and use bluetooth to control it remotely, like Brice Willis did in that lame remake of 'Day Of The Jackal' only with higher geek cred. I was disappointed.

When did Slashdot become Make Magazine?

[jmagar.com]

This is the second story today ripped right off of Make Magazine. I understand the competition to bring stuff that matters to the forefront, but I am just a bit disappointed that /. has become so un-original.

The Infrared camera hack was first reported on Make too.

A Darwin award in the making...

[Hartree]

Yes, indeed! Let's make something that looks like a heavy rifle with a scope on it. Then climb up on a skyscraper in downtown LA and start pointing it round at other buildings and pedestrians down on the street, etc.

Double bonus points if Schwarzenegger or some other high profile politician is in town that day.

Re:A Darwin award in the making...

[dkalley]

Yes, indeed! Let's make something that looks like a heavy rifle with a scope on it.

Or at least a homemade suppressor, pretty dumb. The whole folding stock option adds to the 'shoot me I'm idiot' sign on his back. He should be really k00l and whip it out at Starbucks.

Our antenna thingy

[po8]

For a different take on the antenna "gun", check out our "Trackmaster 2000" 802.11/ATV rocket tracking antenna for the PSAS launch vehicle.

Re:Slashdotted

[darkonc]

<I>An Unexpected error has occured: "Stack Overflow"</i>

Silly snoop! That should have been:

main()
{
readsite();

}

Otherwise you ene up with an infinite loop.

(( sheesh! Some people just don't know how to code! ))

Spelling mistake!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's supposed to be a Bluetooth snooper rifle! Heh!

Re:Spelling mistake!

[antispam_ben]

It's supposed to be a Bluetooth snooper rifle! Heh!

With the attention this will get you from various personnel, it should be named the Bluetooth pants pooper rifle.

what's in a name

[idlake]

Guys, don't be stupid. When you call something like this a "sniper rifle" or "bluetooth sniping", then politicians will have an easy time walking all over our civil liberties and banning anything other than government or Microsoft-approved hardware and software. Names like "sniping" and "wardriving" just make political rhetoric too easy.

Call it a "security enforcement sensor" or a "privacy alert device" or "child protection wand" and politicians will have a much harder time banning it and throwing you in jail for using it.

Re:what's in a name

[Zakabog]

That's actually a good idea. Here are some things with updated names:

P2P, File sharing == Freedom sharing.
Wardriving, warflying, warjogging == Access Point Liberation.
Bluetooth Sniper Rifle == Terrorist Locator.

I think if we called the thing a Terrorist Locator they'd sell it at Walmart, and my grandmother would buy 9 of them.

Re:what's in a name

[yuri benjamin]

I prefer the children angle - "Child Protection Wand" - won't someone think of the children! Any politician wanting to ban that must be a child hater, maybe even a pedophile!

ObJoke: In soviet russia the children think of you </lame>

No you would not.

[ThreeE]

No you would not.

Here's a good reference that explains:

"Depending on the aircraft's altitude, sonic booms reach the ground two to 60 seconds after flyover. However, not all booms are heard at ground level. The speed of sound at any altitude is a function of air temperature. A decrease or increase in temperature results in a corresponding decrease or increase in sound speed. Under standard atmospheric conditions, air temperature decreases with increased altitude. For example, when sea-level temperature is 58 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature at 30,000 feet drops to minus 49 degrees Fahrenheit. This temperature gradient helps bend the sound waves upward. Therefore, for a boom to reach the ground, the aircraft speed relative to the ground must be greater than the speed of sound at the ground. For example, the speed of sound at 30,000 feet is about 670 miles per hour, but an aircraft must travel at least 750 miles per hour (Mach 1.12, where Mach 1 equals the speed of sound) for a boom to be heard on the ground."

Re:No you would not.

[jamesh]

that's not a reference, that's a quote. It could have come from the 'false' section of snopes for all we know. :p

ok, here we go....

[jpardey]

1: In Soviet Russia, the Bluetooth enabled beowulf cluster imagines YOU!, Oh, and collects Paris Hilton's phone numbers. 2: ?? 3: Profit!

Re:ok, here we go....

[Seehund]

In Korea, only old people make jokes about Slashdot memes and clichés.

what's in a shape?

[idlake]

I forgot to add: make any such device look like a gigantic Christian cross, not like a sniper rifle. People have a hard time banning crosses and you have a God-given right to point crosses anywhere you please. If it has a Bluetooth antenna at its tip, well, that's just an expression of your religious commitment to communicating with God and your fellow man.

And, whatever you do, don't make it shaped like a 4ft dildo. With sniper rifles, at least the powerful gun lobby will stand behind you. When someone stands behind you while you are pointing a 4ft dildo off a rooftop, it's probably not to protect your civil liberties.

Re:what's in a shape?

[DrStrangeLoop]

I forgot to add: make any such device look like a gigantic Christian cross, not like a sniper rifle

nice, this will also give you a +3 modifier vs undead ;)

I saw the words Paris Hilton and Sniper Rifle...

[AndyChrist]

Imagine my disappointment.

Re:is it just me?

[Jurph]

Step 1: Assemble Bluetooth "sniper rifle" according to instructions
Step 2: Remove Bluetooth antenna from assembly.
Step 3: Buy real, working, sniper rifle.
Step 4: Cram Bluetooth antenna up Parent Poster's ass.
Step 5: Use actual gun to shoot people.

(Step 5 void where prohibited by law.)

More stealth, and something to not get shot over

[BiggRanger]

If I were going to build on of those I'd do it in something a little less conspicuous, say maybe a pair of binoculars. A good pair can do range calculations, etch the lenses with cross hairs. You're less likely to get shot at looking someone through binoculars than a high powered rifle thing.

Pedantry

[Jurph]

The word "physically" is overused, and you've done it here. To "physically tell" a phone something would be talking to it. You mean you have to command the phone via physical keystrokes.

I've had people tell me to "physically click" on an icon, and that a drag-and-drop will "physically copy" a file from one folder to another on the same hard drive.

Try to keep track of which verbs can and can't happen physically before overusing the word. You'll appear physically smarter.

Re:Pedantry

[varmittang]

I used physically instead of "push buttons on key pad and navigate menus", because I thought everyone would get the idea. I'm sorry I missed the conference on over used words. I'll remember to put it in my day planner.

Re:Pedantry

[antispam_ben]

I used physically instead of "push buttons on key pad and navigate menus", because I thought everyone would get the idea.

You could have said you digitally told the phone, unfortunately it can be confusing because both your hand and Bluetooth have digits.

I vote for digital as the most overused word of the last 20+ years (ever since the Compact Disc came out, resulting in Digital-Ready speakers and turntables).

I know the word, you manually told the phone, meaning you used your hand (including all those usurped-name appendages...)

Re:Pedantry

[1u3hr]

a drag-and-drop will "physically copy" a file from one folder to another on the same hard drive.

What's un-physical about changing the magnetic state of parts of your hard disk? It's as physical as carving into a stone tablet.

Re:Pedantry

[xgamer04]

My digital headphones go to 1010.

Re:Pedantry

[1u3hr]

My digital headphones go to 1010.

Shouldn't that be 1011? (We are being pedantic, after all.)

Re:Slashdotted

[brsmith4]

um... you end up with an infinite loop that way too.

main()->readsite()->buildrifle()->readsite()->buil drifle()... Stack overflow.

Subject

[Legion303]

"'maybe, just maybe, you too can snag Paris Hilton's address book.' (Which was not snagged via Bluetooth snooping, as the article points out.)"

Then why bother mentioning it? Aren't editors supposed to, I don't know, *edit* shit?

LOL

[No Such Agency]

AWP whore!

Re:is it just me?

[aaronl]

I would hope there wouldn't being legal ramafications. You can kill someone with most things out there, but why should you be responsible for someone else's actions? We're not even talking about someone that purposefully designed a weapon for concealment and quite good ranged kills here. This is just a good antenna that some guy decided to make look like a rifle.

The shape isn't too bad since it's easy to hold and aim that way if you want it to be portable and quick to use. The problem with it is that it does look like a lethal weapon, and that makes using it dangerous. Would've been a better idea to set it up like a telescope on a tripod. Then you still get good portability, but a more stable base.

It may be irresponsible to build a device intended to get you surreptitious access to others people's mistakely considered private data, but no more than that. Perhaps he'll catch some hell for designing an electronic surveillance/eavesdropping device, but I would hope not.

Someone would have to go through some lenghts to make that fatal, too. You would definitely have to pump out a *lot* more power. You'd need a fair bit more than 115VAC@20A(=2300W, 2000W radiant) to saturate a target to lethal exposure at 200m. Your components would all have to be replaced to handle the higher power. You could screw up someone's eyes quick, maybe their bladder over a little time, mess with some guys testes, etc., without much trouble, but near term death isn't likely.

Then again, anybody that can get their hands on a Magnetron can build a more dangerous version of this. Step one: buy a microwave oven. Step two: take it apart for the Magnetron.

Dangerous game

[Peaceful_Patriot]

Is it just me, or does it seem a little dangerous to be lurking on city rooftops with a very realistic looking rifle, pointing it at nearby buildings? It seems like a good way to find yourself surrounded by very real rifles that fire very real bullets and they are not aiming at your Bluetooth!

Re:Slashdotted

[FLEB]

Yea, but the first way would just go to the original server, not nyud. Once the URL hits the first slash, that's the server you're on.

Re:I dont think Sniper Rifle is the correct term h

[wirelessbuzzers]

How about a "snooper rifle"?

Develop an unreliable gun or.....

[Anonymous Coward]

We could decide that it's not wise to guard a 200 lb unshackled man with a 50 year old woman.

I could have sworn...

[skogs]

I could have sworn we discussed this on Slashdot just the other day. Go figure. I know I read this story...and since my only source of news is slashdot I must have read it here. I can't find it in the past stories...but I know I read it.

Re:is it just me?

[Money for Nothin']

is it just me, or is this just a little irresponsible to both build in the first place, then publish instructions for it?

Why would that be irresponsible? The person built a device which sends/receives radio signals via the Bluetooth protocol.

Nothing new here for nearly a century, except that this uses Bluetooth and is not-so-cleverly designed to resemble a sniper rifle (a big fat one, at that).

How is it irresponsible to build something (*anything*), then post instructions about it?

As with all things -- guns, cars, bombs, computers, planes, trains, automobiles, books, rap music -- irresponsibility is in the hands of the user, not the creator.

WTF is the US geek fascination with guns?

[fantomas]

So these guys build a radio signal detector of sorts. WTF - call it a gun - call it a sniper rifle - paint it matt black - stick bits on to it so it actually looks more like a gun - pose for photos looking like they are bigging it up with a gun over their shoulder?

Geeks feeling that aligning themselves with gun culture makes them harder, more like big men? If I ever build one of these and want to drive round London with it, you can be sure it will be fluffy, happy coloured and definitely not gun shaped. Surely the gun shape is heavy on the arms? Why not put most of the guts of this thing in a backpack, and run a cable out to a light handheld unit?

Re:WTF is the US geek fascination with guns?

[YetAnotherAnonymousC]

I think, among other things, that guns are one of the few modern machines that you can cheaply (depending on model) tinker with/maintain/etc that don't involve electronics, computers, etc. You can't even do nearly as much on cars anymore without having to deal with electronics. It can be refreshing to deal with springs, latches, etc.

A wise thing to do in these times

[gilesjuk]

Sounds like a really clever way of getting shot to me. Lie on a roof with a gun pointing it at people in the street, you'll get shot or arrested in no time.

Building it like a gun ..

[torpor]

.. just gives geeks a reason to get all 'gun-like' in their poses.

there's no reason this project couldn't have been done in the shape of a Happy Fun Ball.

Sniper rifle?

[nmg196]

If I was going to stand at the top of a building and point this device at people I'd have *definitely* made it look much less like a gun!

It's not a rifle

[karlandtanya]

Unless it has twisty grooves going down the barrel.

I'd RATHER not have this done to me

[Surak_Prime]

I guess now we know - Bluetooth is the frequency, Kenneth!

Where do you go with a Bluetooth sniper rifle?

[merikari]

Library tower? Obviously the sixth floor window in the Book Depository was already taken.

your sig

[subtropolis]

hilarious - almost had coffee up my nose

Re:Mod parent up!!!

[Echnin]

Well, the laws that legalize it are for the best of the animals, but the hunters do it for fun. That's more like it, I think.

Like a video for an '80s hair band...

[Jivecat]

...his instrument isn't plugged in!

Re:Slashdotted

[darkonc]

um... you end up with an infinite loop that way too.

(-: Perhaps, but the stack isn't as deep when you overflow -- because you skipped a step :-)

Re:Slashdotted

[brsmith4]

Your stack size is static, therefore it doesn't matter if you overflow the stack with and (n^n) algorithm or an (n^n)-1 algorithm as you will still exceed that same limit, hence the stack will be the exact same size, either way, when you crash.

However, the joke is seen and that was funny.

what about bicycles?

[fantomas]

tinkering with bicycles is a far healthier hobby I reckon :-) Lots of moving parts to tinker with, and using it gets you fit. 8 miles to work, and back each day gives me regular tinkering with the bike and getting a bit fitter too!