Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Connected Gun Lets Anyone Watch What Or Who You Are Shooting

Posted by samzenpus on from the point-and-double-click dept.

DavidGilbert99 writes A gun that lets novices make mile-long shots likes experts and which allows the owner to stream live video to show what the gun is aiming at to anyone, anywhere around the world is being showcased at CES. From the article: "Previously the longest range TrackingPoint’s weapons could accurately hit was about 1,200 yards with the company’s XM1 bolt-action rifle; the 'Mile Maker' adds 600 effective yards onto the range of the XM1 by using different rounds, a longer barrel, and most importantly, updated software in the computerized tracking scope. Aside from the 'Mile Maker,' TrackingPoint also announced that it will be expanding its weapons’ audio and visual capabilities—rather than streaming videos directly over local Wi-Fi or recording and uploading things after the fact to YouTube or Facebook, TrackingPoint firearms will gain the ability to live-stream the scope’s picture to remote users using TrackingPoint’s smartphone app. Later in 2015, the company will be shifting its lineup somewhat, removing all of the XS-class weapons from its catalog and replacing them with two, new lighter-frame options. The two, new bolt-action options will be chambered in .308 and .300 Winchester Magnum and will use the smaller scope from TrackingPoint’s AR platform. Finally, the company will also begin selling a smaller 'varmint gun' chambered in .260 Remington.

138 comments

  1. I can here it now. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    Fatality!

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:I can here it now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was imagining getting emailed a video of somebody aiming at my head. but then I am a pessimist

    2. Re:I can here it now. by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Streamed live to your Google Glass. Which has been hacked from outside just for this reason. There's a nice thought.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  2. I wonder if it likes editors? by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Funny

    A gun that lets novices make mile-long shots likes experts

    So, some sort of AI built into the system, wired to prefer the company of experts? Or does it learn, over time, to like experts?

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:I wonder if it likes editors? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      It waits for you to wander back over the target before it fires the bullet.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:I wonder if it likes editors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every tool likes experts, guns are not excepted. I just don't know what's the novelty here?

  3. You know the cops are going to want it .. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    You know the cops are going to want these. Why risk a face-to-face encounter with someone when you can safely cap them?

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by horm · · Score: 1

      That's not how it works. The rifle isn't remotely controlled, it just assists in aiming.

    2. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't even really assist in aiming. It just delays the actual firing of the round until its computer detects that the gun is actually aimed at the designated target.

    3. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      It doesn't even really assist in aiming. It just delays the actual firing of the round until its computer detects that the gun is actually aimed at the designated target.

      That's one heck of an "assistance." Just point it about where the target is and wiggle it around until it shoots.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      It doesn't even really assist in aiming. It just delays the actual firing of the round until its computer detects that the gun is actually aimed at the designated target.

      So it assists in capping the perp, and/or unarmed citizen.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    5. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Plus cops should start going to the range and practicing to get good at it, every cop I know sucks at shooting.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    6. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by Harlequin80 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Kind of. There are a few systems that improve your accuracy but you definitely still need some solid basics.

      Lasers don't have any drop, nor are they affected by wind conditions, so you tag your target with the laser and then the computer on the rifle calculates where you need to aim in order to hit the target. Really advanced ones will test wind conditions, humidity, and temperature before giving you the aim point. Some can also hold the firing till you have a perfect shot lined up. So you hold the trigger and the gun will fire when the target lines up. There is a little more too it than wiggling it around though.

    7. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      thank goodness! can you imagine how bad it would be if they were good at it? i would strongly prefer that the cops are like this guy.

    8. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It does actually assist in aiming, since it tracks the moving target and calculates the lead based on accurately measured distance.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by floateyedumpi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not to be pedantic, but lasers most certainly have drop. In fact, the photons in a pulse of laser light fall towards the center of the Earth at exactly the same rate of acceleration as bullets do (namely 32 ft per second per second). It's just that they travel so fast, the transverse velocity they develop (v=gt) and distance off target that they move (d=1/d g t^2) during their short time of flight (t) are negligible.

    10. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by Oligonicella · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think you meant "To be pedantic,".

    11. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why're ya avoiding & downmodding this Barb http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ? You troll apk http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... n' you can't back it up? Yes.

    12. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why're ya avoiding & downmodding this Barb http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ? You troll apk http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... n' you can't back it up? Yes.

    13. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by nicoleb_x · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Have you ever shot a rifle at long range? There is this this thing called atmosphere that actually slows down a bullet such that it slows and drops far out of proportion to the gravitational effects or even the Coriolis effects. Those damn lasers are hardly effected by the atmosphere. I'd even wager that the laser, traveling at the speed of light, reaches it's target so fast that drop is irrelevant where line-of-sight is a limiting factor. Now, when there is mirage, all bets are off. The target doesn't appear where it really is so laser or regular optics are going to be frustrated. So remember to start a big ass fire between you and the snipers or plan to be in the area only when bright sun is heating the air between you and the sniper.

    14. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      The other huge impact on your accuracy is the ammo. It is why I load my own. I will see a significant increase in spread unless I spend stupid amounts on commercial ammo. Much better to weigh your own.

    15. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Definitely falls in the pedantic category :P. For the purposes of my example photons have no drop. They also lose no speed through the air which is what makes the calculations for bullet trajectory so difficult.

      Not to mention there is a maximum effective range on bullets as below a certain speed they will tumble, go sideways and get to the point that even if they still hit the target they will do almost no damage. It's the reason why people don't die like crazy when morons shoot auto weapons up into the sky. Even if they hit you the falling bullet is very unlikely to do more then hurt like a bitch.

    16. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know 0.00002 inches of drop is "no drop" for normal human understanding and communication.

    17. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And meanwhile the target shoots at you?

      This one is for the ones that are looking to score slow perfect shots. Generally police want to hit fast less than perfect ones, or even not hit at all, because often just the sound of actually firing sobers people up really fast and makes them surrender. (ok, maybe not in US, where the police will just kill you, so the best bet is to shoot your way out)

    18. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aimbot!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P3_Sa5d2bk

    19. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Earth at exactly the same rate of acceleration as bullets do (namely 32 ft per second per second).

      I am going to be pedantic. The photons and bullet do not accelerate at the same speed due to air resistance and the aerodynamic qualities of a spinning bullet.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    20. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by internerdj · · Score: 1

      What happens when the target image changes significantly? Like a suspect with cover? Holding waiting to shoot and you get to the right pixel and the suspect has moved out of view.

    21. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      And meanwhile the target shoots at you?

      No, in the meantime the target has no clue you even exist - and since your first shot will hit the target, he or she won't be warned by a near-miss.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    22. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      affected. Moron.

    23. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why're ya avoiding & downmodding this Barb http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ? You troll apk http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... n' you can't back it up? Yes. As to your character, & being a troll? Look no farther than YOUR OWN WORDS quoted on that note as you stalk apk + how you do it http://slashdot.org/comments.p... by ac posts.

    24. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by Talderas · · Score: 1

      This technology, in law enforcement hands, is going to be more useful in hostage situations and will probably be mostly deployed to police sharpshooters. This would allow them to fire on a suspect that they wouldn't normally fire on due to a risk of harming a bystander or hostage. It would also be helpful to police sharpshooters that are stationed on helicopters in order to account for the motion of the helicopter on a shot.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    25. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity what kind of differences are you seeing between hand loads and standard commercial ammo? I shoot a Finnish M39 and it has a spread of just over 1MOA with the cheap Brown Bear 203gr soft point boat tail ammo I can pick up for about $8-$10 a box.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    26. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      At what range? That is a hell of an accuracy on an M39. Either way that is a damn good result for that rifle. Most decent ones are 2MOA, to be close to one makes it one of the top ones.

      That said my experience is that ammo makes a bigger and bigger difference as your range increases. The difference in your muzzle velocity and the weight of the rounds themselves is magnified over range.

      Use cheap ammo at 1000 yds and I know I will get some complete misses in a set of 10. If I am using my "I've really taken my time ammo" where each bullet is weighed, matched with 10 others, and then given exactly the same grain load I should have a spread of around 8" at 1000yds across 10 shots. I am using a custom rifle with a 50x scope though.

    27. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      100 yards is about the farthest I typically shoot since I use it as a deer gun up in northern Minnesota where the trees are so thick you can't see much beyond that and most deer I take have been between 60 and 70 yards away. I was also referring to groups of 5 shots, not 10 so that also contributes to the smaller spread. I use a good long eye relief scope with 2.75x magnification mounted where the rear sight blade was (professionally mounted). FYI I was the one that had the scope mounted and did keep the original parts so that the rifle can be put back to its original state.

      As far as the quality it was last re-barreled in '44 but it is very clean and sharp with a good crown and still has all of the bluing. At one point fairly recently it was professionally bedded and floated probably by the previous owner so it wouldn't surprise me if it was owned by someone who did some WWII era competition rifle shooting with it. It does really likes that longer heavier brown bear 203 grain boat tail ammo while with the cheap 148 grain wolf stuff it shoots like trash and will open up to about 3.5 MOA.

      So it sounds like if I wanted to get into competition shooting hand loads would be a better option but for putting meat in the freezer the $10 box of 20 steel cased rounds are about as good as I could expect.

      I have made some farther shots with it out to about a quarter mile but those have all been off the dock at cans we set up across the lake but that is just for shits and giggles. Those are still pretty hard shots to make even on hot humid windless day, since it isn't any fun to just miss, with that gun.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    28. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      At 100 yds the ammo makes limited difference. You don't really see the difference until you get to about 300yds. At that point the difference in muzzle velocity starts to be noticeable, even if you have the rifle held in a vice. What also makes a difference is the weight of the actual bullet. A gram difference will through the bullets out at longer range.

      At 100 yds your skill and the quality of the rifle is what has the biggest effect. That rifle has obviously been looked after and had some money spent on it. But even still 1MOA groupings at 100yds shows you are a decent shot.

      As for competition, the longer the range the more exponential the errors become. 1 MOA at 1000yds is around a 10" spread and that ammo has a 100+ fps difference in muzzle velocity across 10 shots. If you sighted on a fast round you could easily have a slower round fall short of the target with that level of speed difference. Or even more painful, you sight on a slow round and your other shots clear the target completely and you have no idea where they ended up.

    29. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Thanks.
      I try to keep in good practice and was initially taught how to properly shoot by my grandfather who was a marine and later in boy scouts by a retired marine. For the boy scout rifle merit badge with the .22lr the requirement was 5 shots at 50 feet covered by a quarter but the retired marine wanted everyone to be able to do 5 covered by a dime. I do shoot a lot and have a higher end air rifle that I send about probably 9,000-10,000 rounds a year through as it is so much cheaper than even using .22lr and I can use the air rifle for pest control in my city while even firing off a .22 short would be illegal.

      For a Mosin-Nagant it wasn't cheap as I paid something like $350 for it years ago but from the initial inspection looked like it had the best potential of the three M39s that were available. It has been a very good deer gun as when I have seen deer with it I have always filled the freezer even if every deer did run a few 10s of yards instead of just dropping.

      I figured that was probably the case with hand loads but didn't know anyone who did it with competition shooting. I looked into possibly doing it but the meager cost savings, unknown benefits I could expect for my use, and high initial investment had always put me off. Now I know that unless I want to get into long distance competition shooting I wouldn't see much if any gain over what I am currently using which is good enough.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    30. Re:You know the cops are going to want it .. by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Consider trying lighter loads on the deer. I'm going to guess you get a pretty clean punch through with that ammo and are wasting a lot of the stopping power on the trees behind. Consider trying Igman 7.62x54r 150 gr. SP, still a nice cheap round but could increase the number of drops you have at 100-150yds. If your finding your range starts growing over 200yds go back to the Bears - http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/Mo...

      I wish I could use an air rifle / pistol in my country at home. Even though I live on acreage its illegal :(. I shoot an Anshutz 8002 S2 air rifle and a Morini CM162 Short pistol. Everything has to be on a range.

      For LR stuff I have a custom rifle - shehane tracker stock, Krieger barrel, a Rem 700 action, Weaver 36x scope, sitting on a farley co-axial rest. In addition I have dies, a press, hi accuracy scales and an Oehler Chrono for testing ammo speed.

  4. Bahd Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's their intended market? Terrorists?

    1. Re:Bahd Idea by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nope. Dick Cheney. It's the "wont shoot your friends face" model.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  5. Not Far Off, Now... by IonOtter · · Score: 2

    It won't be long until something like this scene from Ghost in the Shell: SAC will be commonplace.

    --
    [End Of Line]
  6. Looking forward to personal Cruise missiles... by Press2ToContinue · · Score: 1

    ...3D-printed of course, and powered by ordinary household baking soda.

    Does anybody really know what time it is?

    --
    Sent from my ENIAC
    1. Re:Looking forward to personal Cruise missiles... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Does anyone really care?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  7. Just what's needed! by GrahamCox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Finally! Just what America needs - more and better guns!

    1. Re:Just what's needed! by mi · · Score: 1

      Finally! Just what America needs - more and better guns!

      You got it, my good man. We do need more and better of just about anything, that's legal and desired by consumers: TVs, refrigerators, toothbrushes, vibrators, cars, and, yes, weapons.

      Now, where were you going with that maxim of yours?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:Just what's needed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all about supply and demand. There is demand for products like these, so somebody will make them.

    3. Re:Just what's needed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being the jacker-offer-of-guns that you are, you were just chomping at the bit to start your usual holy way, but you completely missed the sarcasm. He's on your side.

    4. Re:Just what's needed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we have to make the supply first. Then the demand will come.

    5. Re:Just what's needed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So why are these okay, but smart guns are banned by the NRA in the US? Hitting something at a mile out is more important than making sure someone else doesn't grab and use your gun?

      And before you say New Jersey, I say fuck New Jersey, there are 49 other states and NJ should be free to be stupid.

    6. Re:Just what's needed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Need and want are two very different things.

    7. Re:Just what's needed! by Deep+Esophagus · · Score: 2

      You know, I'm a bit right-of-center on gun issues (which means that in most conversations I manage to piss off both my more conservative and more liberal friends, often with the same statement). I have no problem with widespread gun ownership and use of guns for personal self-defense.

      But this... holy mother of Charles Whitman, how can this not get into the wrong hands with tragic consequences? Random urban sniper sprees just got a whole lot worse.

    8. Re:Just what's needed! by Mr.+Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Saying Jersey, the difference is between optional and mandatory.
      If there was the option for "smart" guns to be sold alongside regular guns I doubt you would have heard a peep from the NRA, besides maybe a review in guns and ammo. But New Jersey decided that the moment a smart gun becomes available it must be mandatory on every weapon sold, then it becomes a matter of force vs choice. Repeal that little law and those who chose to use the smart guns can have them, while everyone else can purchase weapons with traditional safeties.

      --
      Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
    9. Re:Just what's needed! by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Well, if you live in New Jersey, get cracking. Otherwise, shut up.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    10. Re:Just what's needed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NRA doesn't even have the power to ban anything in the US.

      However, you seem to be aware of the reason why they argue against creating 'smart' guns. You just choose to cover your ears and scream 'La la la!' because it doesn't suit your rhetoric.

      There's currently two major problems with 'smart' guns:
      1) Laws that, upon the first such gun going on the market anywhere in the US, make it illegal to buy any other gun in certain locales. Note: NJ may well be 'free to be stupid', but it is *not* free to force it's citizens to be stupid.

      2) Reliability. Guns are, at their heart, very simple mechanical devices which deal with very large magnitudes of force. The first priority of any mechanical device is that it should function as intended, when intended. Adding components designed to make it *not* function as intended when intended cannot improve reliability. This is especially important when it comes to emergency safety equipment, such as brakes, parachutes, fire extinguishers, and firearms.

      Would you drive a car where the brakes would not engage if they didn't detect you were wearing a certain transmitter?
      Simply put, 'smart' guns make as much sense as 'smart' parachutes. When you need a gun, you *need* it to function. If it fails to do so, you are very likely going to be severely injured or killed.

      Additionally, the *single* point of failure a 'smart' gun is designed to eliminate will have essentially *zero* impact on firearm-related injures and deaths. (Less than .01% are inflicted by someone *without* access to a weapon intentionally under their control.)

    11. Re:Just what's needed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure... Have you even looked at the price of these things?

      You're talking $7,500 to $28,000, and that doesn't include the precision ammunition required for accuracy. Somehow you're going to get "Random urban sniper sprees" due to a weapon that very few people can afford, and even fewer own? The equivalent weapon *without* the scope will run you $700-$1500, and doesn't require precision ammunition. Which "random urban sniper" is more dangerous?
      A) The one with a rifle and 10 rounds of ammunition who can accurately hit about 2-4 people per minute at a range of about 1/2 mile?
      B) The one with a rifle and thousands of rounds of ammunition who can walk down the street hitting 10-20 people per minute at close range?

      Which weapon is more *likely* to be used for random violence?
      A) The high-end $10,000 precision rifle?
      B) The $500 off-the-shelf rifle or shotgun?
      C) The *free* hands and feet that come with virtually every human born?
      Hint: The answer is C, by more than 2:1.

    12. Re:Just what's needed! by harrkev · · Score: 1

      Random urban sniper sprees just got a whole lot worse.

      Really? I have not seen any evidence in the news reports lately. Is CNN burying a story on a sniper spree?

      In the grand scheme of things, this rates a large yawn. Guns (especially rifles) still make a hell of a boom. Yes, you can not shoot from a LOT further away, but the people around you can still hear it, call the cops, etc. Even IF you managed to put a suppressor on this thing, any round that can reach any appreciable distance is, by necessity, going to be far above supersonic, so there will still be a lot of noise.

      The current cost of this type of system also keeps this out of all but the most dedicated hands. Really, I see this being useful to hunters with too much money. Your average street thug will not be able to afford this. Besides, how often are rifles of ANY type used in homicides? They account for about 3% or so of all murders - a drop in the bucket.

      I remember California freaking out about the .50 BMG round so they outlawed it. Total number of crimes committed with the .50 BMG in the US so far? Zero.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
  8. Makes it easier... by jmac_the_man · · Score: 2

    This will certainly make marksmanship training instruction easier.

    1. Re:Makes it easier... by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 1

      This will certainly make marksmanship training instruction easier.

      And it will make anybody who uses this thing unable to hit the broad side of a barn the moment the batteries run out.

    2. Re:Makes it easier... by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      It will make marksmanship training easier because the instructor can see the shooter's sight picture, and tell the shooter to make corrections based on that.

  9. Don't put cameras on everything by ClickOnThis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Live-streaming of a rifle-scope? That sounds like death-porn. Who's the audience?

    And what's next? Cameras installed in the bullets?

    Despite the chill this technology gives me, I can see military applications (e.g., real-time mission-monitoring) but its use by consumers makes no sense to me.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    1. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by Shoten · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Live-streaming of a rifle-scope? That sounds like death-porn. Who's the audience?

      And what's next? Cameras installed in the bullets?

      Despite the chill this technology gives me, I can see military applications (e.g., real-time mission-monitoring) but its use by consumers makes no sense to me.

      That's what I was thinking...but with a chilling difference. Imagine if the shooters in the Paris attack had something like this, and chose to shoot their targets at distance, while producing videos they could later put up on YouTube? Not good...

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    2. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      I can see where it would be beneficial to some types of training - working on follow through, etc. for shooting skeet, trap, or sporting clays. Or working on control for position shooting matches.

      But for the common consumer end user? Pure novelty. And we've been doing similar for a long time - taking pictures or video thru scopes, etc. so it really isn't much new. I guess being able to include range finder and calculate distance so you know about the drop would be nice, but usually wind is a much bigger issue (for me anyway) and I'm not sure how it could help there without more specialized equipment (wind flags w/ maybe a pattern or something so it can provide a speed/direction reading to the computer)

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    3. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Live-streaming of a rifle-scope? That sounds like death-porn. Who's the audience?

      And what's next? Cameras installed in the bullets?

      Despite the chill this technology gives me, I can see military applications (e.g., real-time mission-monitoring) but its use by consumers makes no sense to me.

      That's what I was thinking...but with a chilling difference. Imagine if the shooters in the Paris attack had something like this, and chose to shoot their targets at distance, while producing videos they could later put up on YouTube? Not good...

      It's worse: the rifle live-streams to the internet. So, even if the attackers don't survive (though they likely will if they're a mile away) their deeds are broadcast already to the world.

      That said, the Paris terrorists went inside a building to kill their targets, so long range wasn't really a factor.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    4. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by Nutria · · Score: 2

      Imagine if the shooters in the Paris attack had something like this ...

      Exactly. Just wait until some guy with a thick accent named Abdul Mohammad Mustafa buys a couple and they wind up in Syria or Palestine...

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    5. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      I can see where it would be beneficial to some types of training - working on follow through, etc. for shooting skeet, trap, or sporting clays. Or working on control for position shooting matches.

      Fair enough, although live-streaming isn't crucial for those applications.

      But for the common consumer end user? Pure novelty. And we've been doing similar for a long time - taking pictures or video thru scopes, etc. so it really isn't much new.

      It's the live-streaming that gives me pause. Real-time remote viewing might be useful for the military, but in consumer hands it seems like sick voyeurism.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    6. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

      While quite a bit of tech is initially designed for the military, it eventually trickles down to the consumer level in one form or another.

      Most folks have no need of NV or Thermal optics, but you gotta admit they are pretty cool to play with :D Price will keep this stuff out of reach for the majority of folks anyway. Doubtful it will find its way onto a Walmart shelf near you anytime in the foreseeable future. However, police can certainly use some sort of video mission monitoring on their weapons these days :|

      Besides, I've never seen any hardware or software turn an amateur into a professional. Ever.

      While the computer can help ( emphasis on HELP ) aim the weapon, there will still be some variables it cannot account for. Especially at those ranges.
      Wind being the biggest one. Wind can change directions and speed multiple times at long range. By itself, the computer will be unable to compensate and will require a skilled shooter behind the trigger to engage a target at that distance and still hope to hit it.

      Folks like to throw the terms " Thousand Yards " and " Mile Long Shots " around like it's commonplace. I laugh when I hear them because if you do shoot seriously, then you KNOW what kind of skill it takes ( in addition to cu$tom, top of the line gear with tolerance$ any engineer would be proud of ) to make that shot a reality.

    7. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they wanted they could have strapped a GoPro do the top of their rifles, committed the crime exactly as it went down and gotten equally gruesome and disturbing video. This isn't exactly pandora's box here. If anything I'd imagine this being used mostly for hunting shows on the Outdoors Network.

    8. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Live-streaming of a rifle-scope? That sounds like death-porn. Who's the audience?

      My first thought was the justice system. Tasers, for example, log a heck of a lot of information - time and duration of any shocks, when it was fired, etc... Some have proposed 'gun cams' to have a view of exactly what the officer was aiming at.

      Second thought was training - here's what went down in situation XYZ - police, hunting, military, whatever.

      Last thought(should have been earlier) was military. They already have 'gun cams' in aircraft and many land vehicles. Intelligence agents will go over the footage to help determine whether the target was properly 'serviced'(or if they hit the wrong target), damage levels, estimated repair/restoration times, etc...

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    9. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "That said, the Paris terrorists went inside a building to kill their targets, so long range wasn't really a factor."

      Maybe because of the lack of rifle able to aim from a mile afar and, at the same time, broadcasting it live to the Internet.

      Oh, wait!

    10. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Maybe because of the lack of rifle able to aim from a mile afar and, at the same time, broadcasting it live to the Internet.

      No, because they had to enter the building in order to see their targets. They forced one of the employees to surrender her pass-code in order to enter the offices.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    11. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      It would be fantastic for long range rifle competition training. Having your trainer sat next to you and seeing what you are seeing at point of fire would be highly useful.

    12. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by LessThanObvious · · Score: 1

      A good hitman might appreciate it. Got a high profile target, what better way to achieve real time anonymous attribution prior to payment? This technology has no place outside the military. I'm a strong supporter of gun rights, but I see some serious risks to allowing this technology outside the military and every time a gun is used for evil it hurts the cause of protecting their legitimate ownership and use.

    13. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      What is the difference between live remote viewing or viewing a static file of the event later? Other than the "no spoilers" part, I can't think of one....

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    14. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Live remote viewing implies broadcasting, and that raises the question of the intended audience, and of the expected fate of the rifle-operator.

      To me, the situations that would "require" live viewing instead of a static file after the fact are one or more of the following:

      1. The audience has a real-time tactical interest in the video.
      2. The rifle-operator may not be able to provide a static file later (i.e., may be captured or killed.)
      3. The rifle-operators or their organization wish to send a real-time message, whose impact would be reduced if it were displayed after the fact.

      The only groups I can associate with the above situations are the military (1,2) and terrorists (2,3) with obvious differences in their respective objectives and rules of engagement. One can imagine many benign consumer-oriented situations that might use this technology, but none of them really require live-streaming.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    15. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Just wait until the next school shooting when one of these is live streaming.

    16. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

      I could see the snipers on the SWAT teams using this to give additional information to those in command rather than just relaying information over the radio and also for verifying a shot when there is time.

    17. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by Nutria · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Just wait until the next school shooting when one of these is live streaming.

      Let's go for the trifecta!
      1) School shooting,
      2) by a black guy,
      3) with a Muslim name.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    18. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2

      Take away the killing someone aspect and replace it with a sporting aspect and you start to get reasons.

      When your coach is trying to get your LR Bench Rest groups to improve having them able to real time see what you see at point of fire would be excellent.

    19. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

      And what's next? Cameras installed in the bullets?

      Just like in Natural Born Killers! Maybe we can add "filters" to give it a retro feel and sound fx!

    20. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what has proven effective at stopping school shootings, and immediately stopped every school shooting in recent history?

      An armed response.

      You know the number of innocents that got shot accidentally by the police as they were responding to a school shooting?

      Zero.

    21. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Mohamed Merah already filmed this killing spree with a GoPro, including killing two boys six and three as well as chasing down an eight year old girl in the school yard and shooting her in the head at point blank range. Al-Jazeera got the tape but refused to show it to anyone, oddly enough it never showed up on the Internet. So disgusting shit was still possible long before this gun cam.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    22. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by Nutria · · Score: 0

      Al-Jazeera got the tape but refused to show it to anyone

      I bet they'd show a tape of a white American (preferably a cop) shooting black kids...

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    23. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      Live-streaming of a rifle-scope? That sounds like death-porn. Who's the audience?

      When you go shooting, lots of people (especially beginners) take home the target with the bullet holes. This sounds like the next step.

    24. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because that's exactly what you need when bullets fly left and right, some jackass with a cup of coffee at home second guessing every move you make.

    25. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 0

      Do you know what's proven even more effective in other countries? Gun control.

      Meanwhile, armed response is not immediate, and for a suicidal spree killer, suicide-by-cop is a perfectly acceptable endpoint.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    26. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      How much? (It's always fun to make easy money off a bigot.)

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    27. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by deadweight · · Score: 1

      I am deer hunting and my buddies are watching? How is that "sick" other than the aspect of some people hate hunting? They could even give me hints like COW DON'T SHOOT NOT A DEER YOU MORON or similar LOL ;)

    28. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by Shoten · · Score: 1

      Maybe because of the lack of rifle able to aim from a mile afar and, at the same time, broadcasting it live to the Internet.

      No, because they had to enter the building in order to see their targets. They forced one of the employees to surrender her pass-code in order to enter the offices.

      Um, no.

      They chose to enter the building in order to attack their targets. Because when you're using automatic weapons against multiple unarmed, unarmored targets (one person was armed, but all you have to do is shoot him as early on in the process and the dynamic stays the same) you want to have them in an enclosed area so that you can keep them corralled while you slaughter them. Simple truth, dark as it may be. But they had an option. In fact, they exercised an alternate option in the case of the first person they encountered...whom they ambushed in the open when she went about her daily routine, so that she could be coerced into granting them access to the building in the first place.

      But if your tactical options change...instead of an en masse shooting at close range using relatively inaccurate weapons, you can shoot at a distance...then you can change your tactics. The goal here is to incur fear (hence, "terror"ism) in a larger population. I live in DC, and remember what it was like when Malvo (that piece of shit) was shooting people at random. It would be way, way worse if there was video of it, and it would be even worse for their intended fear-target (the media) if they demonstrated that such death could come from out of the blue, anywhere. And if they don't start shooting everyone on the same day, then you get a strange challenge: Do I not go to work? If so, isn't that capitulation? For how long do I not go to work? If I don't go out at all, how can I do my job...but how do you protect me and my staff from snipers who can hit us from range in an urban setting? It sounds like a really awful, terrifying way to live...and with every subsequent shooting, the news cycle reboots and it gets on the front page.

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    29. Re:Don't put cameras on everything by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I used to know a guy who hit a target a mile away while standing up on his first try (he'd been doing it from the prone position, which is the only way you're going to get any accuracy at that distance, and stood up just to try it once). He never tried it again, because he knew he'd never get that lucky again, and he wanted to keep his perfect record.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  10. Perfect for contract killers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Live streaming of the scope! Perfect for contract killers: lets the client watch all of the action!

    1. Re:Perfect for contract killers by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Been able to do this for years. I have a Picatinny mount for an iphone in an otterbox case.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Perfect for contract killers by turp182 · · Score: 1

      I had to look this up, imaging a phone on a rifle rail would look pretty funny (and obtrusive), and I was not disappointed...

      http://ecx.images-amazon.com/i...

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    3. Re:Perfect for contract killers by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      I have mine on a tactical mug.

      http://www.amazon.com/Battle-M...

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  11. markets everywhere by mcrph · · Score: 1

    Well, even a hitman needs a good portfolio... I guess.

  12. High tech Toy by Guy+From+V · · Score: 1

    Unless the aiming assembly package has the ability to let environmental sensors which allow for real-time feeds along the whole path of the bullet, this won't be anything but a novelty. A very cool and expensive one, but still a toy.

  13. Who is this for? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    Military use? I could see a lot of application there, snipers are some of the most intensively-trained soldiers. But then why show it off at CES?

    Are they planning to sell this to hobbyists? Hunters? Do we really want this kind of thing in the hands of civilians? It's absolutely useless for self-defense, but it'd make one really good murder weapon if the police have to search an 1800yd-radius circle to find where the shooter was.

    1. Re:Who is this for? by MBGMorden · · Score: 2

      Hunters like to take long shots. Realistically the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with cheap "throw-away" handguns. The use of rifles - particularly bolt action scoped rifles - is negligible in overall crime rates. Strange though - SHOT Show (http://shotshow.org/) - basically the hunting/shooting equivalent of CES - is kicking off in 2 weeks. Seems like it would be a lot more appropriate there.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    2. Re:Who is this for? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Realistically the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with cheap "throw-away" handguns.

      Roughly 90% of firearm murders. More people are killed by 'bare hands' than by rifles or shotguns.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    3. Re:Who is this for? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      1800 yds is a long way. But high velocity rounds from 1000 yds with a standard scope are more than doable if the target is stationary. If you can setup with a rest and know where your target is a good shooter can put 10 rounds inside a palm sized spread.

  14. It's already been done by Scramando · · Score: 1

    Fredo and Pidgin - Like Guns

  15. Just wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..until some POS jihadi starts streaming his shots live....

  16. Uh oh by tool462 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not looking forward to the selfies...

    1. Re:Uh oh by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Not looking forward to the selfies...

      Well, you've got to admit, it would be an effective form of gun control :-)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:Uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why're ya avoiding & downmodding this Barb http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ? You troll apk http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... n' you can't back it up? Yes.

    3. Re:Uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, no, it wasn't Barbara who downmodded you in that post. It was me. Glad you noticed and it upset you!

  17. It just holds back firing pin when trigger pulled. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There is no AI involved. The computer just holds back the firing pin when the trigger is pulled and watches the video in. As the rifle wobbles around it continues holding the firing pin back until the rifle accidentally wobbles over the target due to the actions of the human holding it. Assuming of course the trigger is still being held down by the human.

  18. Nope, more are killed with guns by js_sebastian · · Score: 1

    Realistically the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with cheap "throw-away" handguns.

    Roughly 90% of firearm murders. More people are killed by 'bare hands' than by rifles or shotguns.

    [citation needed]

    Actually, one quick google shows that in 2011 in the US 8583 of 12664 homicides were committed with firearms, vs only 726 with bare hands. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cj...

    Things may be different worldwide, in places with much less firearms available to the public of course. But then so is the homicide rate (in first world countries at least)...

    1. Re:Nope, more are killed with guns by Mspangler · · Score: 2

      You didn't read the question;

      ""More people are killed by 'bare hands' than by rifles or shotguns." The rifles and shotguns are the important part. Previous poster was discussing the fraction of total firearm murders done with long guns vs handguns.

      So, were more than 726 people killed with rifles and shotguns? It's probably buried somewhere in that same report.

    2. Re:Nope, more are killed with guns by Mspangler · · Score: 2

      I ran your link, and rifles were 323, and shotguns were 356. Total is 679, so parent is correct. Bare hands (726) kill more than rifles and shotguns combined.

      However, there are 1684 "undefined gun" homicides in the list. Not sure what is up with that. Never recovered the weapon, so couldn't say for sure?

      Incidentally the homicide count for knives is 1694. So knives kill more people than assault rifles and assault shotguns combined by a two to one margin.

    3. Re:Nope, more are killed with guns by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      As Mspangler mentioned, follow your own cite, rereading what I said:
      ~90% of firearm murders are with a handgun
      'bare hands'(in quotes because I'm not being literal, kicking somebody to death still counts) murders outnumber the statistics for rifles and shotguns, at least counted separately. Even adjusted they add up to 'darn close'.

      Pulling the statistics from the cite:
      8,583 murders with a firearm.
      6,899 where the firearm was known. We'll figure that the 'other gun/type not stated' follows the ratio where known. Realistically, the only 'other gun' I can think of that wouldn't be a handgun, rifle, or shotgun would be improvised 'zip guns', which I'd probably count as a handgun anyways.
      6,220 handguns. 90.16%
      323 rifles 4.68% (Adjusts to 402)
      356 shotguns 5.16% (Adjusts to 443)

      This is the reason why I've said in the past that I'd respect gun control proponents more if they went after handguns, responsible for the most murders, as opposed to seemingly targeting rifles the most when, outside of unusual years, shotguns are actually responsible for more murders.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    4. Re:Nope, more are killed with guns by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      However, there are 1684 "undefined gun" homicides in the list. Not sure what is up with that. Never recovered the weapon, so couldn't say for sure?

      Probably so. You can normally tell the difference by the wound characteristics between a center-fire rifle shot, shotgun, or handgun. However, a surprising number of people are murdered each year with a .22lr caliber firearm, which besides being the smallest and least powerful caliber(.17HMR is actually more powerful), is commonly chambered in both handguns and rifles. So unless you recover a weapon or have some other evidence, somebody killed with one could have been killed by either a handgun or rifle.

      Other than that you still have improvised 'zip guns' out there which don't fit any category well, and probably cases where the police don't want to make the call, for whatever reason.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    5. Re:Nope, more are killed with guns by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      So knives kill more people than assault rifles and assault shotguns combined by a two to one margin.

      Worse, actually, with the including of 'assault' in the description. Not all murders by those two categories are by weapons that also meet the 'assault' standard.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    6. Re:Nope, more are killed with guns by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Australian laws are definitely most targeted at hand guns. Rifles in comparison are almost simple to own. That said semi-automatic and automatic rifles and shotguns are outright banned here.

      You can have a magazine fed bolt action rifle though and you can cycle through those pretty quickly.

    7. Re:Nope, more are killed with guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Peon.

      Young girls and good guns are all banned.
      Fuck Feminist Cuntrys.

    8. Re:Nope, more are killed with guns by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      That said semi-automatic and automatic rifles and shotguns are outright banned here.

      Why? Is it really helping anything?

      But yeah, I can understand why handguns are so controlled. I was making more of a comment about the US gun control movement, which seems to concentrate 90% of their efforts on targeting the most popular rifles in the country, which are responsible for less than 5% of firearm murders(not even ALL murders), while not saying much at all about handguns.

      They're also notorious about introducing legislation in response to a famous shooting, dedicated to said famous shooting, where if you look at the proposed laws, would have done NOTHING to prevent said shooting. For example, take the 'assault weapon ban' It was championed by an organization that formed in response to an assassination attempt against Reagan that seriously injured James Brady. What was the weapon used in said assassination attempt? A .22 caliber revolver. Not something targeted under the ban at all.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    9. Re:Nope, more are killed with guns by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      I don't know if it is helping or not. The laws have been in place since 1996 and we have a very low level of gun crime. If someone fires a weapon it makes the national news.

      The major incident that sparked the laws was the port arthur massacre in tasmania. In that 35 people were killed and 20+ more injured, the weapon used was an AR-10. That said Martin Bryant is extremely disturbed and would have found some other way.

    10. Re:Nope, more are killed with guns by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Going by the last two famous spree killings in Europe, you end up with two options: Bombs and illegal guns. The man up north used both, as well as dressing as a police officer to deter suspicion. Down in France you had the recent attack where they apparently used illegally obtained full auto AK type rifles. If they had been unable to get those, a bomb may or may not have killed as many people.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    11. Re:Nope, more are killed with guns by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      In Australia it helps that we dont have any land borders so it is much harder to smuggle weapons into the country.

      That said the recent cafe shooting in sydney was done with an auto-shotgun. A weapon that is on the restricted list. I don't think there is any 100% solution. But I do believe that reducing the number of readily available guns does make certain actions harder.

      At least here the number of accidental shootings is almost zero. Violent crime still exists and people do get shot. But they are rare enough that they make the national news.

  19. Bad Ideas by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

    I''ve been around, used and owned guns pretty much my whole life, so I'm about as far from anti-gun as you can be, and I'm calling it now: There is zero reason for this to exist, and it is a "Bad Idea".

    --
    I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    1. Re:Bad Ideas by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Could you perhaps share your reasoning?

    2. Re:Bad Ideas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. Of course, I did Read The Fine Article, so that may be the problem. The militaries of the US and Canada ordered samples, and yes, having more snipers is very much needed.

      With this system (the fully optioned version) we can has snipers. In fact, every soldier could be a sniper.

  20. Who says you need skill or training to carry aroun by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    Who says you need skill or training to carry around a gun.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  21. Video: Precision Guided Firearm Demonstration .. by lippydude · · Score: 1

    TrackingPoint - Precision Guided Firearm (PGF) Demonstration [360p]

  22. Wow ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    There's some scary internet videos waiting to happen.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  23. What problem does that solves? by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    I am not sure I understood what problem the camera-on-a-gun fixes.

  24. Vastly overrated capability by BobandMax · · Score: 1

    TtrackingPoint's system can provide an accurate distance to target, as can many LASER range finders. It can provide ambient data, as can several other systems. It can provide an approximate superelevation aiming point based on cartridge ballistic characteristics and the other two data sets. Finally, it can provide approximate windage hold based upon manual input. What it cannot do is tell you what the wind is doing between you and the target. I have seen this system fail miserably in strong, gusting conditions where a skilled human shooter would have ~60% probable. So, marketing bullshit aside, this is no universal panacea. Even if it could discern and provide a summation of all wind effects, derive a solution and project an appropriate aiming point, wind can change faster than the shooter can pull the trigger. The greater distance, the more likely that is to happen. Even with a high B.C. bullet, a change or misestimation of ~3 mph can result in more than 18" displacement at 1000 meters. That is what we like to call a miss.

    There are systems in development, using three LASER frequencies, that aim (pun intended) to achieve wind effect characterization between the shooter and target. While results have been reasonably encouraging, they are neither fully developed nor compact enough for small arms use and would still suffer the time lag problem in difficult conditions.

    --

    "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
    -- Pablo Picasso
  25. Re:Great Military idea by willworkforbeer · · Score: 1

    Yes, in the current warfare environment, snipers are needed desperately. Many current snipers are worked to death in theater, and this system will make snipers out of every soldier so equipped. The system is obviously not just a laser range finder; once a target is selected it does the calculations and makes the shot perfect. Soon up to a mile distant.

    --
    Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
  26. Slashdot lets anyone watch what bennett wrote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not a long time ago, I was just a normal internet user that surfed various news sites like Sladshdot, reddit, or wsj.com. I read a story, perhaps clicked onto some links it contained, and I was mostly happy with my life.

    Then, one day, I surfed Slashdot. It was one of those days you will remember for the rest of your life. So, as I surfed Sladshdot, the title of a story got my attention. I read the summary. The topic seemed interesting, so I decided to read further. I read:

    Read on below for the rest what Bennett has to say.

    Usually I don't read first line of a story which contains the user who has submitted it. On that day, I didn't neither. As I've only read that bottom line, I asked myself: who is this misterious Bennett? I decided to click onto the "Read the comments" link to read more of the story that was, as it seems, written by some Bennett. During reading, I was already impressed by the clear and detailed but still concise structure of the text. As I finished reading, I was convinced it was the best story I've ever read on Sladshdot, or any comparable news site. I asked myself: perhaps this misterious Bennett has contributed more frequently than just once?

    To find that out, I went to Sladshdot's search bar and searched for "Bennett". I clicked the second entry, and it began with:

    Frequent contributor Bennett Haselton writes

    I searched for the "Read on" line, and I was happy when I found it. As it seemed, he was a frequent contributor. However the story was on a topic completely unrelated to the topic of my article. Would the other article still be as insightful as the first? And the other stories in the search result? Would they be also by Bennett? Or someone else? I decided first to be happy to have found such an insightful article, and decided to make a photograph of me, before I read the second story.

    I still have that photograph of me and I can see the hope and the satisfaction in my eyes, the hope that the other stories are also written by this brilliant author called Bennett, and the satisfaction of having read such an insightful article. As I've read the first couple of stories by Bennett, I couldn't believe what my eyes saw: all the stories were as insightful or even more insightful than the original story I read. I asked myself whether the spectators in the Globe theatre would have felt the same way when they watched a piece by shakespeare: Witnessing history of writing. I realized Bennett is one of histories great writers.

    As I've finished reading all contributions by Bennett Haselton on Sladshdot, I went back to the first Bennett story, and read them a second time. I sat three days straight, missing all social events during that span, only reading Bennett's stories, and reading them again and again. During that time my eyes opened to the fact that my whole life, I've known nothing. Bennett's stories explained every aspect of very complicated things in such detail, that I formed something in my mind. First, I couldn't describe it what it was, but years later I know that, for the first time of my life, I formed something called "opinion" on a topic. Previously, I've only adopted opinions from others, but Bennett's stories enable people to make their opinions for themselfes, to form them. With his stories, Bennett gives you the material to form your own opinion on your own. I know you will say that you can form your opinion on your own, and that you don't need Bennett for that. I
    disagree with you. What you call opinion, is in reality just ideology you imitate from others. You don't form your opinions, you don't have them.

    Every time Bennett writes a new story on Sladshdot, I take a free day and spend it reading the story

  27. Please take time to read this it might interest y by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not a long time ago, I was just a normal internet user that surfed various news sites like Sladshdot, reddit, or wsj.com. I read a story, perhaps clicked onto some links it contained, and I was mostly happy with my life.

    Then, one day, I surfed Slashdot. It was one of those days you will remember for the rest of your life. So, as I surfed Sladshdot, the title of a story got my attention. I read the summary. The topic seemed interesting, so I decided to read further. I read:

    Read on below for the rest what Bennett has to say.

    Usually I don't read first line of a story which contains the user who has submitted it. On that day, I didn't neither. As I've only read that bottom line, I asked myself: who is this misterious Bennett? I decided to click onto the "Read the comments" link to read more of the story that was, as it seems, written by some Bennett. During reading, I was already impressed by the clear and detailed but still concise structure of the text. As I finished reading, I was convinced it was the best story I've ever read on Sladshdot, or any comparable news site. I asked myself: perhaps this misterious Bennett has contributed more frequently than just once?

    To find that out, I went to Sladshdot's search bar and searched for "Bennett". I clicked the second entry, and it began with:

    Frequent contributor Bennett Haselton writes

    I searched for the "Read on" line, and I was happy when I found it. As it seemed, he was a frequent contributor. However the story was on a topic completely unrelated to the topic of my article. Would the other article still be as insightful as the first? And the other stories in the search result? Would they be also by Bennett? Or someone else? I decided first to be happy to have found such an insightful article, and decided to make a photograph of me, before I read the second story.

    I still have that photograph of me and I can see the hope and the satisfaction in my eyes, the hope that the other stories are also written by this brilliant author called Bennett, and the satisfaction of having read such an insightful article. As I've read the first couple of stories by Bennett, I couldn't believe what my eyes saw: all the stories were as insightful or even more insightful than the original story I read. I asked myself whether the spectators in the Globe theatre would have felt the same way when they watched a piece by shakespeare: Witnessing history of writing. I realized Bennett is one of histories great writers.

    As I've finished reading all contributions by Bennett Haselton on Sladshdot, I went back to the first Bennett story, and read them a second time. I sat three days straight, missing all social events during that span, only reading Bennett's stories, and reading them again and again. During that time my eyes opened to the fact that my whole life, I've known nothing. Bennett's stories explained every aspect of very complicated things in such detail, that I formed something in my mind. First, I couldn't describe it what it was, but years later I know that, for the first time of my life, I formed something called "opinion" on a topic. Previously, I've only adopted opinions from others, but Bennett's stories enable people to make their opinions for themselfes, to form them. With his stories, Bennett gives you the material to form your own opinion on your own. I know you will say that you can form your opinion on your own, and that you don't need Bennett for that. I
    disagree with you. What you call opinion, is in reality just ideology you imitate from others. You don't form your opinions, you don't have them.

    Every time Bennett writes a new story on Sladshdot, I take a free day and spend it reading the story

  28. Nice Gun by abhishek765 · · Score: 1

    Awesome gun to shoot out the terrorist who, come to attak our nation. This gun will be very helpfull to us in Future.

  29. Re:Great Military idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just what the Talibam or BlackRag want.
    Factory makes x units. Some will be used on Squirrels , Racoons or has been Alaskan wannabes, some will be exported or reverse engineered. The mouse and mousetrap have gone through another iteration. Lot of money for a WW1 mauser with $800 of smartphone tech. Next will be guns with smartphone adapters - which playstations already do - kindof. .

  30. Perverse by jandersen · · Score: 1

    The title says it all, really. I mean, even if you are against guns, you can still follow the idea that it is exciting to own a gun and be able to shoot well, because it is something that requires skill, but this sort of thing? Wouldn't a gun enthusiast be ashamed of him/herself rather than broadcasting to the world at large?

  31. I suggest you call it a gun throughout by Sqreater · · Score: 1

    Words have meaning.

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
  32. Re:It just holds back firing pin when trigger pull by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

    Experts can shoot with a target not in the sights though -- moving targets, strong winds... snipers need to be able to handle that sort of thing.

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  33. It needs F1-F10 keys by Kevin+Fishburne · · Score: 1

    So you can play Duke Nuk'em quotes on cue.

    --
    Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
  34. Why not connected police guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's almost off topic, but given how small a digital camera can be made, why doesn't someone create camera that could be mounted to the barrel of police pistols. They could be designed to snap photos whenever the gun is fired or, perhaps even better, anytime there's a loud gun shot. It'd settle many of this 'who's at fault' disputes.

  35. Re:It just holds back firing pin when trigger pull by rpstrong · · Score: 1

    Minor quibble: the firing pin isn't held back, the trigger pull pressure is substantially dropped. Meaning that a light pull won't be enough to fire the gun unless you're on target. But a firm pull will fire it any time; and it will never fire unless the trigger is pulled.

  36. Why do we need more guns? by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    Especially more guns that are even more accurate on long distance? Are there not enough people getting shot in this country? Guns for well-organized militias (aka police force) yes, for individuals, a clear NO! It appears as that some engineers have neither ethics nor morale nor responsibility.