Slashdot Mirror
World's First Linux Powered Rifle Announced
stevew writes "Following up our earlier discussion about whether guns should be self-aware comes the announcement of the world's first Linux-powered rifle. A startup attending CES was showing how their 'Precision Guided Firearms' would use customized, computerized scopes to assist with aiming. 'The Linux-powered scope produces a display that looks something like the heads-up display you'd see sitting in the cockpit of a fighter jet, showing the weapon's compass orientation, cant, and incline. To shoot at something, you first "mark" it using a button near the trigger. Marking a target illuminates it with the tracking scope's built-in laser, and the target gains a pip in the scope's display. When a target is marked, the tracking scope takes into account the range of the target, the ambient temperature and humidity, the age of the barrel, and a whole boatload of other parameters. It quickly reorients the display so the crosshairs in the center accurately show where the round will go.'"
But does it run Windows?
Table-ized A.I.
Guns don't kill people, linux does.
Now you can sudo rm rf the real world.
Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of these babies!
Graybeard: "Oh my oh my, what would Sakharov think?"
Linux Kid: "Who is Sakharov?"
"Oh wait! I can't shoot anything because the screen's all blue!"
You are making me feel shame in my Emacs Cannon
Table-ized A.I.
Uh, that's what this is: a computer aided scope, not a change to the mechanics of the rifle. Even TFS says this.
This sig is exactly seventy characters long and a real waste of space!
Linux doesn't kill people, Linux users do!
If you want to make the scope into a computing device that's fine.
If you read even the summary, you'd know that's precisely what this is. Assuming headlines are at all factual or correct is likely to lead you to fail.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Imagine Beowulf armed with a cluster of these!
It's GNU/Linux, not GUN/Linux.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
TrackingPoint is quick to emphasize the rifle doesn't fire "by itself," but rather the trigger's pull force is dynamically raised to be very high until the reticle and pip coincide, at which point the pull force is reset to its default. In this way, the shooter is still in control of the rifle's firing, and at any point prior to firing you can release the trigger. In the mockups the company had on display for the press to experiment with, the action appeared to be the same
If it has speakers mod it like this gun lol
"It's the year of the linux desktop...BECAUSE I SAY SO!"
No, Rifles are devices that launch projectiles. Arguably, they're devices that use projectiles to transfer kinetic energy. Damage isn't a given or a guaranteed result.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
http://defensetech.org/2012/01/31/sandias-new-smart-bullet/
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
I'm waiting for them to add small servos to the barrel for a feedback loop to compensate for weapon sway and etc. Real life hand-held autoaim weapons.
the game
I feel like one of us should mention the rifled barrel.
Let me fix that for you: If you read even the summary, you'd think that's precisely what this is but if you read the article you'd know that it is not. Assuming summaries are at all factual or correct is likely to lead you to fail.
From TFA: The PGF isn't just a fancy scope on top of a rifle. All together, the PGF is made up of a firearm, a modified trigger mechanism with variable weighting, the computerized digital tracking scope, and hand-loaded match grade rounds (which you need to purchase from TrackingPoint).
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
what about big buck hunter?
You shot a doe to ranger station and pay $200.
Finally .. a killer Linux portable
It's not right in a couple of ways.
Militarily Linux is something built by individuals and companies from all over the world in collaboration. something that was created by humanity as a species not as a nation or even a political group. Maybe there is nothing in the licensing of Linux to say it can't be used for killing but it certainly seems against the spirit of the endeavour.
Right now it's being made part of a hunting rifle and that is pretty sickening too. Hunting is a skill and this takes away from the skill part of hunting. Where is the challenge when all you need to do is waggle the gun barrel in the general direction of the target and the scope decides when to fire? It wouldn't be so bad if it was just taking a photo. Even though how much pride could you take from taking the perfect picture when the camera does the hard bit for you.
It is about as skilled as fishing with dynamite. What if these guns were used to extinct a species? I don't think people worked on Linux to help rich idiots ($7000 a rifle) pretend to be marksmen. Hopefully this is a venture which is going to fail.
I remember back when yugoslavia was falling apart I was on an Amiga channel and there were some young lads on there on both sides of the conflict desperately worried they would be drafted and be forced to fight on opposing sides. Still seems just as wrong now with the diversity of nationalities we share our common interests on line yet some of us be forced to take up arms by our psychopathic leaders of our great nations...
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
This is great for all us computer geeks who have dreamed of being sniper assassins. Even my sniper rifle runs linux!
No. The article specifically describes how the scope controls the pull weight in an attempt to keep you from botching the shot. There are mechanical modifications here, and as someone that shot competitive smallbore with very low weights I can tell you that dynamically messing with the weight is a potentially dangerous thing to do.
The part about having to use their ammo is bullshit I'm sure. In a $17,000 device, it better be able to perform regular ballistic calculations, and you could otherwise easily make or buy .300 winmag with the characteristics it expects.
Now that is what I call a "point-and-click" interface.
Coming soon:. Maces and clubs running BASH.
Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
RMS's Broadway revival of Annie Get Your Gun.
To overcomplicate a simple point and click interface.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
In a $17,000 device, it's target market provides the opportunity for another $17,000 of sales in consumables.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
I read the article and there doesn't seem to be any serious modification to the basic mechanics of the rifle. The "modified trigger" just adds resistance so that you can preemptively apply pressure to the trigger to avoid that motion causing your shot to misalign. There's no indication that it provides enough resistance to prevent the shooter from pulling harder and firing anyway. It would make sense that if it was a full trigger lock that they would simply call it that. They are even careful to state that the shooter is in control but the example they give is deciding NOT to fire so they don't really address whether failure to fire is possible or not.
This sig is exactly seventy characters long and a real waste of space!
You've got to accept that FOSS etc can be used for good and bad. Internet? Great boon to humanity, also allows for research of home-made explosives and distribution of CP. Linux? Allows people to be in charge of their computers, for free, as used by North Korea and arms manufacturers. Personally I'm pro-gun-control, but you can't deny that this isn't quite an elegant bit of engineering, and they have every right to develop it.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
I wonder, does it come with commando line interface?
Fair enough. I've never shot competitive so I can't comment on how the weight can impact you.
However the OP's complaint was regarding failure to fire and simply having a higher weight wouldn't prevent you from firing if you chose to. They're not calling it a full trigger lock. In that respect it does not sound like they've done anything mechanically that would compromise the weapon's ability to fire but I suppose that depends how the resistance is implemented.
This sig is exactly seventy characters long and a real waste of space!
And Linux ? LINUX ??? Are you insane ? Why on earth... This must be an early Aprils Fools... If you told me it's all pure assembly or even an ASM bootloader and a few C coroutines... I would even have considered a micro kernel to get different scope manufacturers hot swapping... But Linux ?!
Use the right tools for the job !!!
In that scenario the trigger is nothing more than a dead mans switch. You hold the trigger down, hold the reticle on target (ish) and the gun fires at the right moment. It may only happen in milliseconds, but the ultimate decision to fire isn't made by the human, the human just authorises it.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
Now our snipers can say "I'm gonna CTL-ALT-Delete you" when they take out a target....
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Except that even with a heavy pull, you can still pull and fire. This means you can lightly pull the trigger to get the effect you describe, or just pull a bit harder to override it.
Have you shot a rifle? You know how trigger pulls work?
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
And what, pray tell, would it sense? Wind needs to be figured from other sources, such as brush movement. There's no guarantee that the wind exposed to the rifle is the wind between the rifle and target.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
I want to see this linked to Google Glass for proper smart-guns ala Aliens.
The OICW and XM25 both have (had, in the case of the OICW) a similar sighting system: ping the range (or enter manually) and the reticule will relocate to the correct angle to fire the grenade to have it land at/over/in the target location (depending on whether the round is meant to detonate above a trench, over a wall or through a window into a building).
It's target market is the military. The aim, to turn a whole lot of second rate shots into first rate snipers and to generate huge profits for the company. You can also expect police forces to purchase the aiming system in order to enhance accuracy. The operating system is largely arbitrary, although it would be interesting to see how compact an install they achieved and driver and kernel set up as quality of 'appliance' style installs are interesting.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
No, other way around. The computer authorizes it, the human is the one that actually does it. As in, the computer has no way to fire the gun by itself.
Yup, target shot with .22 rifles for a couple of years, I also understand that the shooter's heartbeat and respiratory state play a role. I'd certainly agree that the "decision time" when a human takes a shot is quite long, you squeeze the trigger while you keep the sights on and at some point it goes bang, but it's not a "yes/no" pull on the trigger. I don't believe that this system would be any more dangerous than a human (it could well be safer), but I do maintain the final decision is made by software. (Interesting semi-technical book on the theme: Governing Lethal Behavior in Autonomous Robots)
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
Personally I'm pro-gun-control
Me too.
Gun-control: A steady hand
RTFA indicates that this is almost identical to the ballistic computer (aka gunsight computer) found in practically any modern MBT or IFV. They've shrunk it down and merged it with a rifle. However, they've once again failed the "Just because we CAN, doesn't mean we SHOULD" question.
I saw this once before: Objective Individual Combat Weapon
It's what taking a $400 M-16 and mating it with a new 25mm grenade launcher, then running it through the Military Industrial Complex gets you: a $800,000 weapon that's too bulky to use, of marginal benefit, and of questionable utility.
Honestly, the Marine Corp and British Marines have a solution that works far better than either the OICW or this new gadget: it's called PRACTICE. I'm willing to bet that putting in a couple of dozen hours at a local shooting range would do the potential buyer of this gadget far more good. Not to mention saving them $15k or more. I also seriously doubt this "system" is rugged enough to be used (and abused) in the field for any length of time, even just for hunting. Even by pampered super-rich hunting dilettantes.
Sometimes, technology just gets in the way of getting things done.
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
will acquire a whole new meaning.
Another case of gun nuts taking useful technology and exploiting it.
Yes. The hacker spirit lives.
We just had them ruin 3D printing. I guess Linux is next?
FYI, 3D printing lower receivers didn't ruin 3D printing. People with your attitude did. "Ahhh! It's a plastic gun! Overreact or it will kill us all!"
This+3-D printers = a little more power to the people. Also doubling of manpower for sniper teams that want to take risks (no spotter needed)
The great part of a sniper's work after he's in position and hidden is essentially calculus. The vector analysis that takes into account all these things and spits out windage and elevation. That and steady hands are all that's needed to place a shot with all the accuracy of which a rifle is capable.
Countering this trend toward more effective less educated sniper teams are a myriad of new technologies that a well funded country/group can/will soon be able to afford. These include vehicles (and bribes) that allow fast and silent insertion and egress, visible/ir/radio scattering camouflage, and other cute little bits of technology that allow better silence, tactics, information, and weapons.
My point? None really, just a few thoughts.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
The idea of "authorizing fire" isn't really a new paradigm. M-1 tank guns have worked like that since the 80s I believe, probably earlier. The gunner pressed 'fire' then the gun waited until it was actually on target until it fired.
All aircraft are similar... the pilot presses a button, that send a signals to a series of computers (potentially over thousands of miles for UAVs) letting them know that you want to fire, then the actual electrical charge is sent if it decides to fire. Guided Missiles since Vietnam... trigger authorizes them to explode, but you aren't guaranteed that they get the target you want, lots of Hollywood examples of making the missile kill the wrong target :)
Pedantically, pulling a trigger doesn't a fire a gun... it releases a locking mechanism which authorizes a firing pin to strike a primer (on most guns).
I guess what I'm guess at is that it's not a black/white 'fire / authorize to fire', it's a gray spectrum of complexity, and we fear (rightly so) that this complexity may reach a point where a failure in that system will result in the wrong person/people being killed... and then perhaps that it will fire at anything at all that we didn't consider 'authorized' fire. I think the first concern is already out of the barn, the second one is the one to be concerned with... will a weapon fire without authorization??? If so... bad.
It already changes things substantially. Think about it: sniper teams will now have to consist of a sniper, a spotter and a debugger.
That they have selected Linux is only significant in that it is free for them to use and actively developed. That by itself is just a drop in the barrel of the large number of device makers who select Linux to build their machines. Who is making such devices using Windows? I think no one. I know it has been tried in the past but I doubt it is going on at present. Perhaps someone will point out some examples to the contrary.
The industry recognizes Linux is great for these types of purposes. Virtually any purpose really. The real trick is the services and applications writing. Those are things which can be written for any OS and Linux may have some great tools available for it, but Windows, as far as I know, has the best. So 'free,' stable and actively developed is definitely winning the war over 'developers! developers! developers!"
WINE needs some serious development. SaMBa is pretty much there now isn't it? Linux is filling all the gaps left behind by Windows. Isn't it time it starts closing in even further?
Linux as a kernel to host applications is well established anyway. And yet, while companies such as the one I work for think nothing of buying Cisco (running Linux), Falconstor (running Linux) and VMWare (running Linux) I still hear many say that Linux is a toy for hobbyists. What has to be done to overcome that perception? These are people who see no problem with running Windows in mission critical situations. Disturbing.
But if the human is holding down the trigger such that the reticle match-up causes the finger to depress the trigger before the human's brain registers there was a match-up, then it's the human authorizing (by applying constant slight pressure) the gun to fire (by changing the trigger mechanical resistance).
How is it still made by the software? All it can do (here) is make it easier - you still have to pull the trigger, and you can fire whether it wants you to or not. You only have to pull the trigger a bit harder.
My own rifle is a Marlin XL7 .30-06. It's got a special safety latch built into the trigger (there's a little lever that sticks out the center of the trigger. Without pushing that back, the trigger will not pull. Basically it enforces you to properly finger the trigger) and is adjustable down to a 2.5lb pull.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
It's the Replay function of the ZF-1!
Voilà, the ZF.1. It's light, handle's adjustable for easy carrying, good for righties and lefties, breaks down into four parts, undetectable by x-ray, ideal for quick discreet interventions. A word on firepower, titanium recharger, 3,000 round clip with bursts of 3 to 300, with a Replay button--another Zorg invention--it's even easier. One shot and Replay sends every following shot to the same location. And, to finish the job, all the Zorg oldies but goldies: rocket launcher; arrow launcher, with exploding or poisonous gas heads; our famous net launcher; and, the always efficient flame thrower--my favorite; and, for the grand finale, the all new Ice Cube System. http://www.uselessmoviequotes.com/umq_f004.htm
Still for that much, may as well put it on a solenoid operated hardmount system that will keep the aim steadier than any human can. Once you get that far, may as well operate the trigger by solenoid too. With that modification, it wouldn't hurt to change the optical scope to a video feed so the gun could be remotely operated while the user stays under safe cover. And once you use a video feed, why not put the targeting on a laptop with a trackball for aiming or a tablet with a touchscreen? Once automated to that degree, recognition and tracking software could be used to keep aimpoints locked on multiple targets as they move about within view of the sight. Then it's pretty much a matter of pushing the fire button to sequentially and accurately hit all the selected targets as fast as that automated gun can range, calculate, and shoot.
Bonus points if it can hit 10 selected targets within 30 degrees separation in under 5 seconds. That would be win.
Then if it works reliably enough, you pretty much have the real life eqivalent of a noob-proof aimbot hax. Easy killz with a multi-kill bonus. "Army of One" could be considered less of a old and cheesy marketing gimmick with such a system deployed. That would be worth $17,000.
Also nobody said it would be pleasant, but it's fairly easy to see where the use of technology could escalate in this particular application. And it's not that far-fetched given what exists currently to make it a reality.
Yes, you can override it to fire or not fire, but when the system is functioning as intended then it holds the firing pin until the time is right. Yes, it all happens on a faster scale which is dwarfed by the human input times, but for a few brief milliseconds the software takes over the firing decision.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
We just need to add a voice now!
Good Decision!
DIe Die Die!
http://borderlands.wikia.com/wiki/Shotgun_1340
The point is that if the computer is modifying the pull weight of the trigger, then then the computer HAS to be integrated into the mechanics of the rifle itself.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Does it work on heretics and xenos scum?
-- Cisk for the Cisk God
Maybe they wanted a higher-level solution to easily draw the pretty HUD.
You are right though, Linux seems way too unreliable and unresponsive for something like a rifle.
Yay, now I'll have something to shoot my Android-powered oven with when it becomes self aware and attempts to cook my dog as revenge for not cleaning it.
Uh, wait ... never mind.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Does the HUD have a good scoring system?
like 10 points for joggers, 20 points for skateboarders, 50 points for little old ladies and 100 points for school yard playground?
then you could post your score to facebook or any social network and brag and compare with others!
it holds the firing pin until the time is right.
I must be dense or you're reading something into it that's not there. Can you please point me out to where it states this?
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Am I the only one who senses a potential problem? They better make sure there are no bugs and else!
Assume the shooter applies larger force (while the pull force is increased), but suddenly the software leaves this mode. This could be due to a software error, battery failure, an ionizing radiation altering the CPU state, whatever (software error is most likely). Then suddenly the rifle goes off (while the shooter applied constant pressure throughout). This could result in a failed hitting of target or an outright disaster.
For example, if the pull force is increased, then only two events should allow it to be reduced:
1. firing occurs either due to the computer resetting it (target match) or the shooter applying the necessary pressure OR
2. complete release of the trigger for a short amount of time (maybe coupled with movement of the gun)
This should be true even if the software disconnects, meaning that the second condition should be guaranteed by a mechanical process.
Fair enough. I've never shot competitive so I can't comment on how the weight can impact you.
Basically the logic is this - if at this instant pulling the trigger would cause a miss it is REALLY hard to pull it. If at this instant pulling the trigger would cause a hit then it is REALLY easy to pull it. So, you basically pull with medium force on the trigger the whole time and when you happen to have the gun lined up perfectly your finger will suddenly give way and fire the shot.
A bit analog vs just having the trigger be an authorization to fire and letting the gun take the shot, but it works out about the same in the end. The gun basically fires for you, with your force against the trigger being just another spring in the mechanism.
This could result in a failed hitting of target or an outright disaster.
The whole point of requiring the operator to pull the trigger is to PREVENT a disaster. You don't pull the trigger unless you have a clear range. If you're trying to do a headshot on a hostage taker holding the gun you wouldn't apply any trigger pressure until you had the gun aimed opposite the hostage.
Basically you should treat any gun as if it will discharge the moment you release the safety. Actually, it is best to treat it as if it will arbitrarily kill anybody in front of it at any time even if it is unloaded. It isn't about fear - it is about respect. If you use the enhanced sights to further improve your accuracy then you're fine. You shouldn't be releasing the safety let alone pulling the trigger if the gun isn't aimed down a clear range.
You shouldn't need to ask. Of course we can and why wouldn't we?
You've got to accept that FOSS etc can be used for good and bad.
And this is good.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Fishing with dynamite requires real skill. Use too much and there's no water left. Use too little and you go hungry.
Aim bots are not allowed!
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
He could have just shot his wife and said Linux did it. He could have easily pointed the blame on the ReiserFS implementation supplied in the gun's particular kernel.
I love tech like this, though I would only use it for target practice. Though i'd much rather an HMD that gave the same info and could give measurements of whatever you're focusing on. Some training with those would be excellent for architecture, construction, surveying, etc...
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Goddam aimbots.
Guess it depends on how much you read into it and how the shooter actually uses it. The article states "the trigger's pull force is dynamically raised to be very high until the reticle and pip coincide, at which point the pull force is reset to its default. In this way, the shooter is still in control of the rifle's firing, and at any point prior to firing you can release the trigger." The way it is described here, specifically with the "at any point prior to firing you can release the trigger" I read it as the intended operation is for the shooter to apply a force equal or higher than the normal pull, move the aim to the target and at that point the scope reduces the required pull force and the gun fires. Then the the shooter is no longer making the actual decision to shoot, but rather the decision to abort (by releasing the trigger) Maybe the meaning was that the extra pull weight will indicate to the shooter that the round will probably miss but that is not how I would read into the sentence above. Then again, I have not actually seen the rifle in action, but rather read a technical journalists writeup after a presentation by a sales pitch. There might have been room for misinterpretation ;-)
... for a few brief milliseconds the software takes over the firing decision.
You are correct.
The shooter's initial action is to put the target designator on target. The scope does all the math on windage, barrel heat, hold over, etc. and produces a firing solution.
Then the shooter holds down the trigger, which doesn't fire the gun, he just authorizes the scope to fire when the gun is in the right position. The shooter just wiggles around and tries to get the gun in the right position, and when the scope decides the gun is in the correct position, it fires the gun.
One cool benefit is that you can keep the same target designated and just keep putting round after round on the same target.
sudo make-me-a-sandwich
This computer is running Linux, not Windows 8. It WONT crash.
I would think that Minix 3 might be more suitable, although I dare say Tiny Core Linux or some such would be responsive enough. What sort of CPUs do these guns use - ARM? Would power consumption be an issue here? Can't the kinetic energy produced by the recoil be enough to recharge the batteries for the next round?
I worked on a much more advanced and ultimately classified project for the Navy SEALS that produced a 'first shot kill' gun sighting system for the SEALs in ... 1993. The sight was designed to go on crew served weapons and sniper weapons. It included aim point calculation, full ballistics computing, sensors, range finder, thermal and optical sighting, low light level, yadda yadda yadda. At the time the sofware was required to be ADA (thanks, DOD).
Just because you put a shiny Linux on something doesn't make it all new and stuff.
Ah, in that usage the shooter is providing consent-to-fire. Just like aircraft use consent-to-release for modes like continuously calculated release point (CCRP)
The pilot lines up, when close he holds the release. The computer waits for the right moment, and if the pilot is holding the consent to release, the bomb drops. The pilot has to use a different drop mode (continuously calculated impact point, CCIP) to get an actual "push button, drop bomb" functionality.
Not a new idea at all, and in fact I do like the idea. Much less room for error on the collateral side. If an error is to be made, it's in not releasing the munition. In the case of bombs that's generally the safer side for it to fall on.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Anything that permits the creation of unlicenced firearms must itself be strictly licensed in order for firearms licences to be an effective means of keeping tabs on gun use. That's not overreaction - that's just understanding the nature of licensing. And there is no debate to be had on this point.
You can debate the suggestion that gun licencing should be strictly enforced if you like, but not the one that says if gun licencing is to be enforced, personal gun manufacturing must also be tightly licenced.
cnc's arent licensed. neither are drills. neither are stepper motors and heating elements.neither are arms or steel. it's what you do with them that's licensed.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I keep thinking the next progression here are going to be electrode nets in your helmet to let the rifle know when the brain thinks it has the shot. They've done so much research on flashing images in front of your eyes, and the brain deciding before the conscious mind knows. In shooting real targets and in playing FPS there are many moments when everything lined up and as I went to pull the trigger they went back out of alignment ot in FPS the target went back behind cover. I'd always love to have those moments back, but in theory a sensor on my brain letting the gun fire at something I'm already actively targeting and letting the gun decide when it has the best shot would be a win. And yes the spotter's job is over if any of this stuff takes off.
Its more like penises are ruined because they were used in a blowjob.
Guns are not bad things, even if they are something you are not comfortable with.
You can make a gun with a set of simple metal working tools.
Under current law, you can make a gun yourself, and use it (varies by state). But to sell it, you must apply for a serial number and affix it permanently to the weapon. There are a crap ton of regulations that make that process of making a manufactured gun legal to sell a rather fiddly and complex process.
Just took a whole new meaning.
I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.
kernel panic! kernel panic! kernel panic! "help, Billy, the damn thing won't stop firing!"
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
chmod 222, CLICK!, SHIT!!!
chmod 666, CLICK!, CRAP!!!!
chmod 777, CLICK!, wft goddam piece of GRRR!
chmod, fuck it, pulls knife
This is a neat system but it requires a lot of known information about the cartridge ahead of time (bullet weight, muzzle velocity, etc) to do the ballistic calculations in addition to some of the environment variables (cant, range, wind, etc).
It'd be cool if the scope could do some kind of impact POI tracking so that the displayed point of aim could be adjusted for the actual flight path of the bullet. This would allow it to compensate (or try to) for other variance in field conditions, such as differences in wind (shooting from cover to an open area), deviation in cartridge loads as well as shooter performance.
Now, I don't know how they would actually do this on the fly -- a sensor may be able to track a tracer round, but actual bullet impact at any distance would be hard to track.
Maybe it would be of value to shoot some quantity of test rounds at a target and then tell the scope where you aimed and where you hit and let it do some statistical analysis to figure out what's going on and then use that information in the field to at least partially compensate.
Not really. You don't need a license to own a gun. Most jurisdictions require you to have a license to carry a gun in public (concealed or occasionally open carry). Almost all the regulations in the US surrounding guns concern the sale or public carry/use of guns.
In the UK, if you built your own car and never drove it off your own property, would you still need to pay that road tax?
the location of control, alt and delete are hard to reach.
and rebooting, then running self-test can get your ass killed if you are not careful.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I worked on a much more advanced and ultimately classified project...
And why the fuck are you talking about it?
I am sure Linus is thrilled that his OS is installed on weapons.
geek n performer who performs morbid or disgusting acts, as biting off the head of a live chicken
Hadn't posted in a long time and . . .
I have been dreaming of something like this for YEARS!
I love target practicing, and varmint hunting, and this is awesome.
App needs to be ported to BSD ;-)
The jokes in here are memorable too.
SARAVA!
You obviously didn't read the article. It's a bolt action rifle so you need a human to load a round a fire it (don't start with how they could make a semi-auto version...there are a couple reasons why they chose a bolt action for this system.). And it comes out of the box with video streaming capability. The thing even comes with an iPad to view the video stream. What you are talking about though is "remote controlled hunting" which is illegal in most US states, and can get you in in US federal prison trouble if you try to do it with a semi-auto rifle as that, by definition, turns the rifle into a "machine gun". Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_hunting
This is all we could salvage. We've got four pulse-rifles with about fifty rounds each. Not so good. About fifteen M-40 grenades and two flame throwers less than half full...one damaged. And We've got four of these robot-sentry units with scanners and display intact.
No worries, the gun will only fire if you have the right region code.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
And that is why military snipers are trained to manufacture their own ammunition to precise standards.
This must be the next big killer application.
And it only plays this one first person shooter game.
Which is equivalent to saying the knife was responsible for the stab wound.
Aristotle writes (Metaphysics VIII-IX): "A movement in which the end is present is an action."
Or using Anscombe's example. If I poison the well it wasn't the inhabitants that killed themselves by drinking the water.
You always pull the trigger to shoot, even if you're controlling a drone on another planet. Everything between is just an extension of your intention.
If you want to investigate absurdly intricate murders, check out Philosophy of Action;)
Defining Statistics and Social Research