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.
"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!
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
I feel like one of us should mention the rifled barrel.
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.
To overcomplicate a simple point and click interface.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
Finally .. a killer Linux portable
Finally .. a killer Linux app
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.
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.
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!"
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.
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
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.