Slashdot Mirror
Point-and-Shoot: TrackingPoint's New Linux-Controlled AR-15s
Ars Technica takes a look at the next generation of TrackingPoint's automatically aimed rifles (not "automatic" in the usual sense), and visited the shooting range where they're tested out. Like the company's previous generation of gun (still in production, and increasingly being sold to government buyers), TrackingPoint's offerings integrate a Linux computer that makes acquiring and tracking a target far easier and more accurate than it would otherwise be. Unlike the older models, though, this year TrackingPoint is concentrating on AR-15s, rather than longer, heavier bolt-action rifles. A slice:
The signature "Tag-Track-Xact" system has gained additional functionality on the AR models, too. With the bolt-action guns, there was only one way to put a round onto a target: first, you sighted in on the thing you wanted to hit and depressed the red tagging button just above the trigger. A red pip would appear in the scope’s crosshairs, and you’d place the pip onto the target and release the button. The scope’s rangefinding laser would then illuminate the target to measure its distance, and the image processor would fix on the object; if you moved, or if the target moved, the red pip would remain atop the target. Then, to fire, you squeezed the trigger and lined the crosshairs up with the target’s pip. When the two coincided, the weapon fired. This method works fine for a bolt-action rifle where every round has to be manually chambered, but it’s less than ideal for a carbine, which one might want to fire off-hand (i.e., standing up and aiming) or from the hip. With this in mind, the AR PGFs have a new "free fire mode," in which you can tag a target once and then shoot at it as many times as you want by pulling the trigger directly, with all the shots using the ballistic data from the first shot’s tag.
That means, says writer Lee Hutchinson, a rifle "with essentially 100 percent accuracy at 250 yards."
Because being able to do that with a fully-automatic heavy weapon will be the new level of warfare.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
RMS must be tearful with pride.
It's awesome being a Linux hacker. I used it to shoot off this first post.
With this in mind, the AR PGFs have a new "free fire mode," in which you can tag a target once and then shoot at it as many times as you want by pulling the trigger directly, with all the shots using the ballistic data from the first shot’s tag.
With the replay button, another Zorg invention, it's even easier. One shot...and replay sends every following shot to the same location.
Although I guess in this case you actually want to push the little red button.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
At this point, the main problem seems to be putting the human into the mix. I could see putting a laser distance gauge, and some rudimentary calculator to automatically adjust for distance; I am sort of thinking, highlighting the correct location in the scope instead of actually adjusting it. But if you you are going to design complete tracking tech, put the gun on a tripod with a few motors. Hell, you could probably even mount it on a guys backpack.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
First, you need to perfectly accurately sight the target, with no help. Then after you have done that, the computer will track for you. And if you screwed up the first step, and tagged a plant instead, you are screwed.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
How does it know what the target is after it has moved? Does it have to stay within the sights at all times, you cannot even lose sight of it in that tiny reticule? Or is it like marked at long distance with some sort of tracer?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
With a software driven firearm, you've committed a felony by writing a simple for loop.
(Created a machine gun)
Throw real world movement of the target, change of the landscape, and now you're talking something freakishly hard.
Don't forget variable winds between you and something 250 yards away... 100% accuracy my ass...
I mean, what's the worst that could happen?
Now to ensure that every high-school age child in America gets one!
It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
Cross winds at the end of the barrel have more of an impact than those down range, research how tank gunnery is setup.
How many more children will die because of this invention?
I'm going to go with "none in the foreseeable future".
Must we have something worse than Sandy Hook for people to wake up and say "no" to gun violence
How about the Bath School disaster, where 45 people died, mostly children? Or perhaps looking away from human causes, we could consider infant diarrhoea, which kills a couple million children per year and can be cured with a few pennies' worth of salt? How about political violence and genocides, which kill thousands of civilian children?
The simple answer is that there is no simple answer. The Bath School disaster was done with explosives. Infant diarrhoea is mostly a problem because parents don't have access to medical care, or realize that they need it. Political conflict is never so simple as having the good guys fight the bad guys - all sides think their righteous virtues are worth dying for, and worth having innocent people die for.
The reality of life is that it's trivial to kill someone. A human body is an incredibly complex machine, with billions of interacting parts, and it's just so easy to screw it up fatally. Sure, you could ban guns with fancy sights, but it's still just as easy to build a bomb, grab a knife, or slip a bit of poison into a meal.
Let's say "no" to pithy slogans and short-sighted politically-convenient campaigns.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
I'd say less than would die without it. It is a system that is designed to ensure that you hit your intended target. Worldwide I would hazzard a guess that most children killed by firearms are accidental victims in the category "collateral damage".
A gun that never misses its intended target would greatly mitigate collateral damage, thus being a net positive for innocents, including children. A few sandy hook type incidents shouldn't put much of a dent in that calculus. As well as the observation that school shooters tend to work at close range, where misses are not a huge factor.
Are you sure you want to shoot this target?
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
it’s less than ideal for a carbine, which one might want to fire off-hand (i.e., standing up and aiming) or from the hip.
nobody wants to fire from the hip (except in libtards' imagination)
Could this be Linux's killer app that would blow the competition out of the water?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
It's an aimbot for real rifles. Now, any rifleman can be a sniper.
Yes, it's too big, too complicated, and too expensive. That's a temporary problem. Ever see the first laser sight, from the 1980s? It used a helium-neon laser tube and required a power cord. There's been some progress since then. This aimbot technology should be down to smartphone size, if not cost, soon enough.
Really? You're shooting an AR-15 from the hip at a range where a trackpoint system would be helpful?
Like that scene from The Fifth Element? I'd post a link but I find it amusing that if you search youtube for "That scene from the 5th element", it's the second link.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I don't get it, how will a gun give them a firm texture and a slightly nutty taste?
...
Remote controlled troops will kill the terrists for US!
Other way around. This is the perfect assassination weapon.
Politicians will be queuing up to ban it as soon as they realize how big a threat it is to them. All the "terrists" need to do is to set the suitably disguised receiver and barrel of the rifle on an intentionally randomizing mount pointing where a politician is speechifying, tag the legislator via a phone link as soon as they're in sight, then walk away. A timer on the trigger can keep clicking away after a preset interval to get the job done.
Who knows, this might be the Colt Peacemaker of our day?
Will the be a version that blind people can use too?
250 yards is not particularly far away with a fast/flat cartridge like 5.56 NATO.
My ballistic calculator says that given the torso is, on average, 18" across, this system could aim dead center/upper chest (zeroed for 100 yds) and with no correction at all, hit its target correcting for elevation and windage for +/- 17mph wind with M855.
I am actually fairly unimpressed by this. Any dope can make a 300 yard shot with an AR on a head sized target and telescopic sights. If this was able to make those shots at 500+ yds, that would really be something.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
How accurate is that at 250 yds?
Ideal for home defence.
Requiem for the American Dream
Politicians holding a speech don't really move that much, they make great application cases for this tool...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Only as long as they get to choose the targets. It's much less fun if your enemy gets to pick who gets to bite the bullet.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Does anyone know what benefit is actually provided by using Linux? This is precisely the type of embedded system with life-or-death consequences where I'd expect to see the entire thing done in heavily-audited assembly, or something close to it, interfacing directly with the hardware, with no OS to get in the way.
Certainly I'd trust it more than a Windows CE-based weapon, and I suppose if you want to reduce your attack surface, open source is the way to go - you can cut out the components that aren't needed. But, even still - I see little reason for an operating system to be there, except for convenient/cheap/fast development.
There is one simple answer.
People (on average) are less afraid of things that they are FAMILIAR with and that they FEEL they have more control over. So people are comfortable driving to the airport but worry about the flight.
People are scared of "terrorists" killing them but are, statistically, more likely to be killed by someone in their own family.
So the scariest thing would be someone that you don't know who is planning to kill you or your child for a reason you don't understand.
But the reality is that if you're living in the USofA and you're white then you will die from the food you've chosen to eat and the exercise that you've chosen to skip. But since you have control over that (I'll start tomorrow) and it's familiar you won't worry about it.
All a matter of ammo.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So does a stinger. Better warhead. Heat seeking is easy with all that hot air and inflated sense of importance.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
It is amazing how much misinformation flies around about guns. One of the common ones is "OMG the M4/16 is such crap, the AK is so much bettar!"
You are quite correct about the range. The AR-15 platform weapons are much more accurate. Anyone who has ever fired both can easily tell that.
The issue that people like the grandparent conflate is the lethality of the 5.56x45mm round at longer ranges. Though the M16 can easily hit a target at long range (with a skilled marksman operating it), because of the small size and low mass of the round, it is often not as effective as you would want. If the bullet does not fragment or tumble, it can go right through someone and the small hole does little damage.
That is the issue it has at range, not accuracy or ability to reach that range.
Also this isn't like it is some completely unknown, or unsolvable, thing. The military also has weapons that use 7.62x51mm rounds which are larger rifle bullets and have much greater range, mass, and kinetic energy. For longer engagements still things like 8.58Ã--70mm and 12.7Ã--99mm are used.
Of course as you move up in caliber and amount of propellant, weapons become bigger and heavier, and have larger amounts of recoil to deal with, it is always a tradeoff and is one reason why the standard personal weapons use 5.56.
In terms of 5.56x45mm vs 7.62Ã--39mm (which is what the AK uses, is is not the same as the larger NATO round) the real issues come up at medium range (100-300m) and with barrier penetration. The light, high velocity 5.56 round tends to be fantastically lethal below 100m because the high velocity results in fragmentation when it hits the target. However since military rounds may not be specifically designed to fragment or expand (the Geneva convention prohibits it, civilian and police rounds are available that do), as it slows down at greater ranges they lose that ability and are not as damaging. Also, because of their low mass and tendency to fragment they are poor performers when shooting through barriers like windshields, doors, and so on.
THAT is the issue the rounds have in general use vs 7.62Ã--39mm rounds. Not long ranges. While they aren't super effective beyond 300m, they are reasonably accurate at least, which is not the case with the 7.62 rounds. At a long range engagement an M4 would be at a decided advantage to an AK-47.
However neither was designed for long range use. They are carbines, made for medium range and below. They trade overall power and range for smaller size, lower weight, and better portability. As their widespread use in many conflicts around the world indicates, they do well in that arena.
we could consider infant diarrhoea, which kills a couple million children per year and can be cured with a few pennies' worth of salt?
Really? Are you sure just a little salt can solve that problem?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Australia banned guns: Sure, there are no school massacres but the murder rate hasn't decreased. Neither has gang-related violence.
In this particular case, "intended" is not the same as "illuminated". The gun doesn't know what your intended target is, only what you light up. If you point it at a child, that's what it will track: the responsibility is yours. Or put another way, guns don't stop people from killing people - people do.
This product is marketed as a way to improve accuracy and record shot videos, not to make the gun safer. Weapons are inherently unsafe, and the only way to make one safe is to destroy it.
How many? Not enough. Seriously, though, we need some flamethrower and high-explosives violence.
"I might enjoy something like this target shooting, but other than some fairly narrow sniping applications against static targets, ..."
Politicians love to give speeches and deliver statements in a static positions.
'Australia banned guns: Sure, there are no school massacres but the murder rate hasn't decreased.'
You're reading the wrong newspaper, the Washington Post says otherwise.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
"So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness."
Yup. Salt (well a sachet of infant electrolyte mix) and access to clean water would solve that problem as the kids tend to die from dehydration.
Not in ALL cases but the death rate would definitely go down. Back when I was working as a dive master on the coast of the Sinai desert, we used to take the baby rehydration sachets all the time if we'd overindulged in the post-diving beers the night before.
....Linux deathtop?
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
There's also the fact that a fancy scope system designed to improve accuracy against relatively distant targets likely isn't worth the weight, much less the cost, for use indoors at very close range.
It's possible that there are some would-be snipers out there, currently restrained only by incompetence; but barring those this system isn't of obvious interest for most spree killing purposes.
It's not as nice as a sanitation system good enough to prevent the problem; but ORT is pretty good at keeping you from dying of it and a great deal cheaper.
So, okay, rifle, take a picture through a scope, assuming the target doesn't move
Motion tracking isn't exactly an untested idea. In fact, years ago, I "invented" (well, "conceived" would perhaps be a better word) almost exactly the same thing as this rifle, only mine had a target discriminator, tracker, and a 2D actuator (for automatically swinging the barrel towards the target by a modest amount).
Ezekiel 23:20
Perhaps this is not about accuracy at these kinds of ranges; eventually, weapons like this might be able to give you much faster reactions. E.g., you see four enemies, you press the trigger (the weapon doesn't fire), you swing the weapon across the general direction of the enemies, and it fires automatically four times at just the right time as the barrel is passing over the targets (or, more accurately, the proper aiming points).
Ezekiel 23:20
Don't you need guns, or at least giant knives, to protect yourself from the wildlife over there?
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
You would be surprised how bad people shoot in the real world... I hunt. I fire about 50 shots on big game (mostly boar, deer and moose) a year, and well over thousand if you count small game. I compete, primarily in sporting and skeet but also 300 meter rifle.
In my experience the wast majority of shooters have a hard time hitting a deer sized targets with a rifle at 300 meters without special training. Add any sort of complication, like a little bit of stress, moving target, bad light or the like, and most people won't hit a deer sized target consistently (that is, 10 out of 10 in the heart-lung area) at 100 meters. The performance of the cartridge barely matters. Most people simply need a lot of training to aim and fire a rifle well, especially under stress.
I spend a considerable amount of my spare time tracking down deer which were wounded by people with the "Any dope can make a 300 yard shot" attitude. They are typically not quite so tough at 4 am in the morning when we have spent a few hours tracking down the deer they wounded. While it is good training for the dogs, and it is very rewarding work, it would be better if people learned how hard it is to shoot well on distances over 100 meters.
Return Fire!
I can't Sir, It hasn't finished compiling!
God dammit! I knew Gentoo was the wrong distro for our rifles.
Shut up and take my positive mod points!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Salt is the cure for the medical condition. The underlying problem is abysmal access to even that minimal amount of medical care, and that doesn't have such an easy solution.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Go look at the real data. Homicides are declining in Austrailia and the US. Since Austrailia banned guns the firearm murder rate dropped but it dripped faster than the overall homicide rate which means that quite a few killers still decided to kill even without a gun. In the same time the US had more guns and more people carrying guns and also saw a decrease in homicides. If you remove the places with strict gun laws the homicide rate drops even further.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
We have nasty spiders and snakes, but you don't use firearms to kill either of those. Both only strike humans defensively. Our large land animals are all herbivores; kangaroo, emus and cassowaries have a very nasty kick but they'll run away in preference to attacking you. Dingoes, despite the high-profile death of Azarea Chamberlain back in 1978, are basically wild dogs, and represent little threat to people.
We also have a collection of potentially lethal acquatic species, including the Blue-Ringed Octopus, several species of jellyfish, and some sharks. Again, guns aren't a lot of use against them.
Crocodiles, which I guess you're referring to with the giant knife reference, are the one animal that will actually try to eat an adult human. They only live in the tropical north of the country, far away from the major population centres, and any that move in near the cities in those regions are killed or relocated by professional shooters.
So, no, you don't need a gun to protect yourself from the wildlife in Australia. And despite some myths, if you want a rifle or shotgun for hunting or target shooting, or need one for farming or pest control, you can get one in Australia. You just can't walk into a gun shop and buy an AR-15 or a big-calibre handgun for "self-defence" here. And, nearly 20 years after the changes to the gun laws, that remains overwhelmingly popular here.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Recent history disagrees with your assessment. Think of the attack on Baghdad after 9-11. What would a similar attack on command and control structures have looked like during the 50's,60's or 70's? High altitude bombing with 500 pound unguided bombs with an accuracy of ~ 1 mile? How many more bombs would it have taken to get the same effect? 10x? 100x? How many more buildings in downtown Baghdad would have been destroyed because the bombs missed their target? How many apartment buildings full of families would have been leveled?
Of course a gun is unsafe - the entire point of the thing is to kill whatever you point it at. But ask yourself this - if you were standing next to a target and the Broward County SWAT team was going to shoot it from 500 feet away, would you rather have them use a regular M-16 or one of these computer-controlled weapons?
Sure, the weak link in either scenario is the guy pulling the trigger. But it is still pretty obvious which weapon is safer for the non-target. (safer, not safe)
It takes a child with a gun to stop a mass murdering gun nut with a gun.
I'm concerned... these children keep bouncing around and won't stand still long enough for me to massacre them.
The reality of life is that it's trivial to kill someone. A human body is an incredibly complex machine, with billions of interacting parts, and it's just so easy to screw it up fatally. Sure, you could ban guns with fancy sights, but it's still just as easy to build a bomb, grab a knife, or slip a bit of poison into a meal.
All of which are more harder and/or more convoluted than a firearm.
To stab someone you have to get up close and personal and that increases your risk. If they're bigger than you it is a much greater. You also have to get them in the right spot/s or they can survive.
Building a bomb takes patience and learning to get it right. Similarly with poison, where there are certainly household chemicals that can be used, but they tend to be harsh and easy to taste. Getting more subtle poisons would take much more effort.
Contrast all of these things to a firearm which is both relatively easy to get, not too hard to operate, and exposes minimal risk to the attacker.
Read Marshall McLuhan: any particular technology changes the culture in which it exists. Sadly he didn't cover them explicitly, but just like everyone carrying around a smartphone with 'net connectivity and photo and video capabilities, a society which has firearms carried about (legally or illegaly) is altered by their availability.
How does it tell the difference between an innocent bystander and a terrorist/infidel ?
Is a satellite in sub-orbit with a pinprick sized high energy laser on it. Zap target from 8++ miles high, give him what looks like an aneurism, & bingo: No "hitman" (or huge contract fee) cleaner required to "terminate with extreme prejudice" & hard to detect that it wasn't "natural causes" since the wound would cauterize itself and not be the size of an immediately noticeable bullethole. Situation, is contained. Hope I didn't give anyone any ideas, however, I doubt severely this is "original thought" on my part either. If I can think of it, odds are, it's been done and is being done.
... it would be better if people learned how hard it is to shoot well on distances over 100 meters.
The corollary to this is "don't shoot beyond your abilities." If you know you're inexperienced or a poor shot while under the influence of 'buck fever', don't try the long shots in the first place. These days there are plenty of does* that will basically walk right up to you for a clean, humane kill.
*Where I live, they've basically declared open season on deer - 6 a year, three of which must be anterless, the whole 1.5 month firearms season is either-sex, plus all the bonus deer tags you can buy.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
I thought it was well established that the purpose of carbines like the AK and M-16 was to essentially serve as a long range shotgun, not to be a long range highly accurate rifle.. fire it down range and those folks 300-500 meters away will tend not to stand up and come running towards you. You then wait for the artillery or close air support to remove them.
The idea also was that "muzzle rise due to recoil" means that in a three shot burst, you'll nicely straddle the range of elevations needed to compensate for the drop for all ranges, so all the guy/gal with their feet in the mud needs to do is get the left right azimuth reasonably close.
This merely pushes engagement ranges out once again. WWI riflemen were trained to shoot at hundreds of yards, in fact the sight-system on the old WWI bolt-action rifles is often stepped out to crazy ranges like 1200 yards. (Not that they'd actually hit anything.) It's only with the advent of general-issue personal weapons with rapid fire capability that aimed-fire ranges have shrunk in the modern era. (Some would say that they shrunk to what typical engagement ranges were ANYWAY.)
Now, the conventional wisdom of shooting from 500 yards instead of 100 yards is shooter safety, as it gives the advantage to the shooter - the reply-fire (even if it's of large volume) is likely to be reflexive, hasty and (normally) unlikely to hit anything 500y away.
This is no longer necessarily true. Counter-sniper systems are getting better every day - more sophisticated, quicker, and more accurate - meaning .50 cal or heavier suppressive fire can land on the shooter's position as quickly as 0.75 seconds from registering the incoming shot.
What this means only is that infantry combat is truly entering the computer age.
Human reflexes have been recognized to be largely too slow to perform any but the grossest weapons-release functions for air and (some) naval combat, this now means that even for infantry combat we're going to have automated rifles firing on targets, and automated systems firing back - both quicker, and better than people could do it.
-Styopa
You'll have to wait a few years until they integrate radar and track the bullet's flight. The first one might miss, but the one behind that will hit exactly. By then they'll have dropped the pretense of a human pulling the trigger too.
Isn't 250m about the end of extreme range for an assault rifle like the ar15, m16, m4 of the SA 80 - this is why DMR full power rifles are making a come back.
It gives it a whole new meaning if they're using Suicide Linux.
if you were standing next to a target and the Broward County SWAT team was going to shoot it from 500 feet away, would you rather have them use a regular M-16 or one of these computer-controlled weapons?
if they were going to risk taking such a shot i would rather it be by a highly skilled sharpshooter trained in taking such shots, and not some junior member of the team that thinks he can take the shot because he has a fancy gun.
The sharp shooter can use whatever weapon he is most confident with and has proven himself on in training. if he isn't confident in using the computer controlled weapon then you probably don't want him to use it in your scenario as he may be more likely to mess up.
so i guess in summary use the right tool for the job...but also if a life is at stake you probably also want to make sure the operator is both skilled and comfortable with using that tool.
Any dope can make a 300 yard shot with an AR
Hey! I'm not a dope!
But otherwise, I agree. Even a non boat tailed 5.56 -- even the XM193 -- is accurate at 250 yards, and will drop a deer.
I read that a single bomb is more likely to take out a strategic target in modern times than the entire payload of an entire fleet of WW2 bombers was in the 40's.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
War has changed.
With increasing lethality brought on by machine targeting, how about we shoot the weapons that the enemy is holding/operating instead of shooting the enemy that is holding the weapon? After all, eventually, it's going to be weapon vs weapon and no humans will go anywhere near combat.
I'd just love it if America could send nearly-invulnerable machines after ISIS that simply destroyed or confiscated all their weapons without serious harm to a single person. [In Arabic] "Play time is over. Set down the RPG. You have been a bad boy." The idea of machines being made progressively more lethal and more invulnerable makes me awfully nervous. But I digress; shoot the weapon, not the man (or woman, or child, or dog, or bird, or whatever).
Alternately, send in machines that break enemy machines. Suppose somebody invented a robotic insect that flies onto a weapon and welds itself to a key point that would prevent the weapon from working? Triggers seem ideal. High kinetic energy solutions aren't always necessary.
500m with an M16A2 is part of normal training in the Marine Corps. This is with open sights. I can put 10 rounds in an 8" circle at such distances.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
the US did not create Al Quaeda, stop repeating that lie.
I do not think you realize how difficult it is to train third world people to use state of the art military equipment.
been there done that. not even something worth doing. i give you the current state of Iraq as an example of 10 years of training flushed down the drain.
besides these weapons should be fairly easy to neutralize by any reasonably modern military.
Is that because mother's milk doesn't have enough salt?
If I had known the cure were that easy, I would have told more people. One problem is that people just don't know that is the cure (even if they are worried about diarrhoea as an issue)
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
So...real life aimbots?
WTF is ORT
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Define 'special training'. I'm one of nine million US Army veterans alive in the US, and a 300 meter shot is no biggie without optics (400m was the long range norm with iron sites). To up the ante, the last time I checked the USMC had higher rifle standards than we did (and more training) so it would be cake for most of our beloved Jarheads (I'm old, grizzled, and out of the service.. so.. rivalry can suck it.. we were on the same team).
Yes, I own and AR-15, and yes, I still shoot. Put optics on my AR and my weekend warrior self is good to 600 meters on a man size target.. not guaranteeing a good shot on the heart-lung area on a living being at that range though..
Oral Rehydration Therapy. The preferred version is slightly more complex; but it's pretty much a sugar/salt solution in water, designed to replenish lost fluids without causing electrolyte issues if consumed in large quantities. Cheap and easy to do without much equipment or medical expertise.
They are developing software that works with moving targets and changing backgrounds.
It already takes into account barometric pressure, elevation, range, temperature, shooting angle etc.
They are working on one with compensation for cross-wind as well
FOr a slashdot reader you dont seem to have a very good grasp on technological advancement.
The weakness is that you still have to manually designate the targets before performing this maneuver. Now if you were unethical enough to have the system auto-designate heat signatures with confirming target identity, you're golden.
I am not sure, but I do know it has wireless interface to an ipad with which your spotter or whatever can watch what you are seeing through the scope.
true but can you do the same with a short barrel M4 which seems to being much more widely used these days with a DMR being used for longer range as was found in Afghanistan.
That I can mount lasers AND ar15s to my sharks now?!
Why don't you cite data like GP did? It's like you're going out of your way for people to disbelieve you.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Is that because mother's milk doesn't have enough salt?
In short, yes. It's a problem mostly in places where the mother's milk doesn't have enough of pretty much anything, but salt's the one that kills first.
Consider a place where an average salary is $40 a month. Unfortunately, there are millions of people (infants and mothers included) who live where half of that would be considered a wealthy income. Surely you've seen the desolate scenes on TV where they ask for some number of cents per day to buy little Mary a pair of shoes to walk over the rocky debris to school... We're talking about those places, and worse.
These are places where having clean water isn't as great a concern as having any water. Most of the local population is undernourished, including the mothers. Without proper nutrition, they produce too little milk, and what they do produce is too poor in nutrients to support the infant.
From a biological perspective, salt is fascinating*. In the body, it serves to provide many of the ions needed to control molecules, and it holds water in various places. That's why eating salty food makes you feel dehydrated - your salty blood pulls water from the other tissue. Similarly, when that salt makes its way to your urine, more water is pulled with it, making you urinate more (spawning many myths (and some facts) about salty drinks cleansing the body).
In an infant with a salt deficiency, the lack of salt prevents the intestines from working properly, as the cellular channels lack the energy to open. That prevents nutrients (including salt) from being absorbed into the blood. The blood's low salt level stops the absorption of water, leaving the feces liquid, which will quickly be released, carrying the vital salt with it. Where an adult would be able to hold their stool in longer or try to eat more food to compensate for the lower absorption rate, an infant can't do that of its own will, and the mother can't just produce more milk on demand, especially if she's also undernourished.
The cure is a solution - one of "clean" water with salt and sugar (as fuzzyfuzzyfungus noted above), that can easily be absorbed, raising the blood's salt level, allowing more nutrients and water to be absorbed.
If I had known the cure were that easy, I would have told more people. One problem is that people just don't know that is the cure (even if they are worried about diarrhoea as an issue)
Unfortunately, it's also not as easy as telling people on the Internet about the condition. People with access to the Internet aren't likely to be affected by it. It is pretty common knowledge among related volunteer organizations, but there is a severe lack of knowledge in the local communities where the problem is deadly. There are many medical volunteer groups, and they do great work... but the problem is bigger than their limited resources can cover.
* My biochemistry knowledge is remembered from five years ago. The facts presented may or may not be entirely true.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
No, you don't. I've been thinking of applying computer vision to this problem for years. CV also gives you lead calculation for moving targets, barrel angular velocity vector estimation (track the background and filter the data with Kalman or something) and rough but probably quite satisfactory estimate of target distance for short-range and mid-range firing (just assume the running figure is 1.7 meters tall and you won't be off by more than, say 15%), so you might even be able to omit the rangefinder and inertial sensors and do it purely in software - a DSP, FPGA, or even a mass-produced ASIC is probably going to be much cheaper than these precision measurement instruments. That doesn't extend to long distances, of course, but most fighters don't shoot at long distances these days. That's why they can afford to fire with 5.56x45, of course.
Ezekiel 23:20
...until their crap breaks and leaves the untrained shooter up shit creek without a rifle he or she can use effectively. And, break it will.
I doubt there is a politician on this planet that would warrant the expense of a stinger. Also, it's a weapon for air targets, not hot-air targets.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That's what I thought of too when I saw this.
The M4 is fully capable of hitting man-size targets out to 500M with close to the same accuracy as an M16. The barrel is only a little shorter. Additionally, I don't understand your point? Both rifles are designed for a range of engagement distances.
Unfortunately, it's also not as easy as telling people on the Internet about the condition.
Yes, but I haven't always lived in places where the internet is common. I've met people who knew that this was a problem, and worried about it, but didn't know the solution and I didn't know what to tell them either.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I would probably call it a trigger-bot... splitting hairs.
Seriously, this would be better used on a tri-pod mounted railgun that is used to guard a base.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Sounds good to me. I think a railgun that shoots out the weapons and their depots would make sense. Then have troops follow in and then decide if they need to shoot or noth.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
For Jack Black, did it?
Guns are banned in Australia? Better tell that to the gang members walking around with rifles and pistols.
Because we have the internet and I think asking people to do a little of their own research is better than linking to studies that I could have cherry picked myself.
The OP didn't link to stats but a Washington Post article. Go look up official crime stats from both countries.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
If you can't bother, then I'll take your lead and not bother either. Defaulting to disbelieving you.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
250m is about the end of extreme range for a .22 LR carbine.
M4s/M16s are towards the end of their legs at 600m. DMRs like the SPR go out to about 800m. Military bolt guns reach out to 1100m and beyond.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);