Slashdot Mirror
US Successfully Tests Self-Steering Bullets
mpicpp sends this report from The Independent:
The United States Department of Defense has carried out what it says is its most successful test yet of a bullet that can steer itself towards moving targets. Experienced testers have used the technology to hit targets that were actively evading the shot, and even novices that were using the system for the first time were able to hit moving targets. The project, which is known as Extreme Accuracy Tasked Ordnance weapon, or Exacto, is being made for the American government's military research agency, DARPA. It is thought to use small fins that shoot out of the bullet and re-direct its path, but the U.S. has not disclosed how it works. Technology in the bullet allows it to compensate for weather and wind, as well as the movement of people it is being fired at, and curve itself in the air as it heads towards its target.
I can shoot around corners now?! Sweet. Hello Cool World, here I come.
https://youtu.be/7jVsQToSfag?t...
Someone might have lived.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
I can shoot around corners now?! Sweet. Hello Cool World, here I come.
You can also be shot around corners. Welcome to "you don't stand a chance, Bub" world.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Like... dwarfs?
Tom Selleck better move quick or Gene Simmons is going to blast his ass!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I wonder if this will decrease civilian casualties in the long run?
! killer, a dyed-in-the-wool killer. Cold blooded, clean, methodical and thorough. Now a real killer, when he picked up the Exacto, would've immediately asked about the little red button on the bottom of the gun.
According to the article the bullets are not "self directed" but able to compensate for factors that could change the direction like weather, wind, or movement of the target.
"Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
Aldous Huxley
Smart vibrators, dildos, or other types of marital aids?
call Trojan, i can see a product designed for her/or him to "hit the right spot".
I can see it now mingled in with CNN or ABC nightly news
Gary Oldman shows how it's done:
https://youtu.be/1Pb1Voc85ac
Die dulci fruere. Have a nice day.
Oh, and get your heart to beat at 500 bpm, or something. ;-)
Just when I thought the federal government couldn't spend any more tax dollars, they have found a way to do precisely that!
Not air! People should stop hacking Life! It makes things unfair and unfun for the rest of us who are trying to play.
Go play BF1942 if you want to do that crap.
Roger Rabbit: Dumb Dumbs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbRZKrvAZ7U
Sweet! A Zorg invention coming to fruition. I like it!
Experienced testers have used the technology to hit targets that were actively evading the shot.
"All right, I'm asking for volunteers . . ."
Smart vibrators, dildos, or other types of marital aids?
call Trojan, i can see a product designed for her/or him to "hit the right spot".
I can see it now mingled in with CNN or ABC nightly news
ModPoints?? Even for Dark Humor??
Seriously, China will just "acquire" one of these bullets, and copy it. All the same tech, none of the R&D budget required.
That's why you shouldn't TALK about stuff that could give you a strategic advantage in wars.
Isn't that how that one bullet killed Kennedy?
what happens if it misses the wrong Hole???
how can it determine if the payload has been delivered to the correct place?
once it has "landed" how can it confirm the target??? Once asertained the wrong decision has been made, how long would it take to correct?
Moving past that, what algorithm would be used to determine the next course of action, and how accurate is that algorithm?
all very important questins when ur deaing with these types of things..
can u put a string on it like a leash?
More likely they slightly adjust the centre of gravity while the bullet is rotating. Adjusting the mass internally would be simpler and more reliable then fins.
How can you not be "self directed" if you are compensating for "movement of the target". It has been given a target and actively modifying its flight profile in flight. There must be some intelligence and/or sensing and/or feedback to do this. Seems like an exercise in semantics to call it not-self-directed (at least in flight).
Is this a disclaimer to avoid getting these bullets confused with things like autonomous killbots? Though it is pretty easy to assume killbots will overwhelming choose these bullets as ammo :-)
Letter To Iran
First they need to develop a bullet that will sprinkle some crack on em.
Expect to see every Barney Fife explaining the unfortunate collateral damage on the 6pm news.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Right.... so there's nothing prohibiting a criminal from getting it, because he's not following the law anyways... Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens who might want to defend themselves with a firearm will be using inferior mechanisms to what the criminals have.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Am I the only one who thought of that scene from Roger Rabbit?
I can shoot around corners now?! Sweet. Hello Cool World, here I come.
No. This will be military only technology. Us citizens are still going to be stuck with 19th or earlier century firearm technology.
But we still do have the right to bear arms - as antiquated as they are.
Actually, the only difference between the M4 (standard issue to US military) and the clone you buy at Cabelas is a three-round burst mode. That is unless you live in repressive states like NY, CA, and MD. Then you have to deal with stupidities like funky stocks, dysfunctional magazine eject buttons, smaller magazines, etc. to please the hoplophobes.
I'll see your self-steering bullets and raise with a knife-missile.
I'll nick-name it "skippy the devastator" - strangely enough it's in love with my slap-drone.
OMG ban, he's using an aimbot!
RTFA dude... the "breakthrough" here is the miniaturization and placement, within the projectile, of an optical imaging sensor, and guidance system. This is a passive, self-contained tracking system BUILT IN to each round -- there is no "riding beam" or external targeting mechanism. So, while obfuscation or other methods of disguise may be attempted in order to fool the imaging system, traditional active laser or EM-based jamming technologies aren't going to have much effect...
-AC
So now we'll have to pay for million dollar bullets on top of everything else?
Dum dums
They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
And at the cost of $10,000 per bullet they will become the mandated ordnance by Congress despite probably costing 30 cents per bullet to produce. Just like the switch from naval artillery to "smart" missiles.
Who's there?
KA.
Ka who?
KA-BOOM!
maybe you should try solving the criminal proble
Easier said than done... obviously I'm not suggesting that nothing get done about it, but I am saying that pretending that criminals aren't going to ever use this kind of thing is laughable... and, as I said, law abiding citizens will have to use inferior mechanisms to defend themselves.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
From here.
...to kill more brown people in the desert...
What happens when an enemy get this type of gun?
Maybe you should stop spouting false dichotomies.
Love how you snuck in undertones by simply saying "the zionists."
Kudos to you.
This will have two results:
1) Reduce labor/soldier costs the elite pay to suppress the rest of us, since now they can hire the dumbest of the dumb and still expect them to kill anyone who opposes them. They're easier to brainwash, too, so they're more reliable.
2) The terrorists will now more easily bankrupt the U.S. since each shot fired will now cost $$$.
It must be tough for you to sleep with so much anxiety and fear.
If someone wanted to shoot you, do you think they'd waste expensive tech like this on you?
If they did, do you really think you'd see it coming?
Let's say you did. Inferior or not, you aren't going to shoot the bullet or the "bad" guy with your gun?
I'm so proud that the US government will spare no amount of time, effort, or money in developing new ways to kill people. Killing people is much more important than health, education, social services, and the non-war economy.
I don't respond to AC's.
Because the more correct initialism, "EATO" sounded too much like the bullets should be covered with orange powder.
But we still do have the right to bear arms - as antiquated as they are.
They're working on that... https://www.firearmspolicy.org...
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Rules that Firearm Magazines Can Be Based on Feelings (April 27, 2015):
“[i]f a ban on semiautomatic guns and largecapacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit.”
This is for super-long-range sniper fire. Criminals don't have any need for this kind of weapon - when the mob wants to assassinate you they put a gun right up against your mellon and empty the magazine.
This reminds of that Tom Selleck SciFi movie Runaway where the evil bad guy had these rocket-propelled smart bullets.
Looking at the video they look like they are more then bullets, they appear to have some sort of internal propulsion, and they seem to change speed.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Greater accuracy means fewer accidental casualties. It also means faster, more decisive military victories. I am pretty happy we got this technology before any of the real monsters did.
If this tech frightens you, the best way you can protect yourself from it is to stay politically active, and keep your government accountable. Don't weaken your military forces, keep them under observation and focused on the right targets. You can't stop the march of technology, nor can you legislate threats away. All you can do is make sure tech is used properly and only against real threats.
This, and so much this for just about every gun related cry for regulation.
I keep seeing people talk about high capacity magazines, assault rifles etc etc every time gun violence comes up. Oh we need to ban this, we need to background check that.... never mind that they are whipping themselves up into a froth about the least common categories of gun violence.
In the end, real crime, even the real heinous shit, tends to be done with either hand guns or hand held melee weapons. Almost nobody uses rifles for crimes, more hammers are used to kill than rifles....all rifles, assault or otherwise....but nearly every gun control nutter I talk seems to think every gun owners secret dream is to carry around an AK-47 all day.
In fact, so far the only real connection between gun laws and crime is, places with crime problems tend to make more gun laws as a result.... which doesn't do shit about their crime problems. The whole issue is only popular because its an easy sound bite "solution", you know, the kind that "always work" like banning drugs.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
... Plenty of money to find new ways of killing more People. Looks like Orwell was right: the only scientific advancements will one day be how to murder, torture, mutilate, and rape the Innocent faster, furiouser, and with greater pain and suffering in the process, all with an orgiastic delight of such evil bestowed upon the Official inflicting the harm. If You want to know what the future looks like, imagine a boot stomping on a Human face forever.
Life > Settings > Auto Aim [ON|off]
I hear battery life is really really short.
Great! Fast forward six months when this technoogy makes it to da hood - now your local notoriously-bad-shot powder merchants can play 'Fistful of Dollars' on Cecil B. Moore avenue and cap innocents two blocks over!
1963 was the real first test just now they making it out as being new and just have it testing done.
I was also thinking Wanted, although it took me longer to check the name. Spoiler warning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbRZKrvAZ7U
never mind that they are whipping themselves up into a froth about the least common categories of gun violence.
It's the least common within the category of violent crimes. But a huge percentage of that category is drug and/or gang related crimes. If a suburban middle class person is going to be killed in random violence, it's likely going to be a psycho bringing a 100 round drum magazine into a movie theater- like what happened in Colorado a couple years ago. The same people are more likely to be killed non-randomly by a family member, but nobody wants to acknowledge that.
In theory maybe. In reality, most criminals are amatuer combatants, at best, and they buy the cheapest, or the most intimidating weapons, not the most effective. And they don't snipe -- they do drive-bys and kick-ins.
At any rate, there is no law banning steerable bullets, and there's no reason to think there will be. They're much better suited to hunting than to the "thug life" anyway.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Now, George was a good straight boy to begin with,
but there was bad blood in him someway
he got into the magic bullets and
that leads straight to Devil's work
just like marywanna leads to heroin
You think you can take them bullets and leave 'em, do you?
Just save a few for your bad days.
well...
Well, now we all have those bad days when we can't hit for shit.
The more of them magics you use,
the more bad days you have without them
So it comes down to finally
all your days being bad without the bullets
It's magics or nothing.
Time to stop chippying around and kidding yourself,
kid, you're hooked, heavy as lead
And that's where old George found himself.
Out there at the crossroads.
molding the Devil's bullets.
Now a man figures it's his bullets,
so it'll hit what he wants to hit.
But it don't always work out that way
You see, some bullets is special for a single aim.
A certain stag, or a certain person
And no matter where you aim, that's where the bullet will end up.
And in the moment of aiming, the gun turns into a dowser's wand,
and point where the bullet wants to go
I guess old George didn't rightly know what he was getting himself into,
the fit was on him and it carried him right to the crossroads.
- Tom Waits, The Black Rider
Well, if some stupid choads in Dallas would quit carrying long guns everywhere to push for "open carry" of handguns, people might not be as afraid. These idiots are hurting their cause more than anything.
Actually, the only difference between the M4 (standard issue to US military) and the clone you buy at Cabelas is a three-round burst mode. That is unless you live in repressive states like NY, CA, and MD. Then you have to deal with stupidities like funky stocks, dysfunctional magazine eject buttons, smaller magazines, etc. to please the hoplophobes.
Hell you don't need an AR-15, you can get identical functionality to the AR-15 with a Mini-14. A buddy, a US Marine Sergeant at the time, said he would rather have had a Mini-14 with a large capacity magazine (factory made for law enforcement and military only) than his M16-A2. He thought the lesser effective range was more than offset by the additional reliability and ease of maintenance and the compactness. Of course the M4 takes away the compactness advantage.
Well, to be honest he would have preferred an M-14. The Mini-14 was preferred when limited to 5.56mm.
Even at 10K/round that wouldn't be crazy compared to the cost of training the sniper and getting them in and out of the area.
What do you expect?
Texas is all about the holy trinity: Jesus, Guns and Football.
Have gnu, will travel.
So price-wise we're talking chunk of metal vs optics + power source + inertial dampening material + possibly motors or servos + precise machining + better purity metals. Sounds like a price difference of 10,000,000:1.
When the situation involves bullets in the air, the risk of accidental casualties is there. That is as true today as it was when we used arrows, spears, and rocks.
This technology, even if imperfect, still decreases that risk. If it does not, then it has no value in hostage situations, and hence won't be used in those situations (due to the cost alone). Further, if it does not decrease that risk, you can bet your bottom dollar the developers of the tech are going to be working on that, as it is a major selling point.
You are probably not very experienced in military engagements, and are just operating on Hollywood nonsense and "common sense" anyway, so showing you the light of reason is probably fruitless.
when the unarmed black person running away from the cop ducks behind a tree.
If a suburban middle class person is going to be killed in random violence, it's likely going to be a psycho bringing a 100 round drum magazine into a movie theater- like what happened in Colorado a couple years ago. The same people are more likely to be killed non-randomly by a family member, but nobody wants to acknowledge that.
Nope. It's likely to be self-inflicted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
But that doesn't fit well within the narratives of either the pro or anti gun control crowds. It's not really scary or sensational, just sad.
This is a ridiculous supposition. Criminals don't just magically get things due to their disdain for the law. If you choose not to follow the law, drugs and military contraband don't just appear in your presence, there has to be a supply. That supply is either bought or stolen or a mixture of the two. With no legal civilian supply of these bullets, anyone who wanted them illegally would be forced to steal them from the government, which is possible but difficult. This is why grenades aren't commonly used in street crime in the US, despite being relatively common worldwide - there is no civilian supply chain to siphon them off of, unlike handguns.
Damn! And I thought the Holy Texas Trilogy was yer Mamma, yer sister, and yer cousin Beth.
Hoplophobe? Well, well. I guess you rednecks found a smart kid to help you understand that awfully fancy word you got there. Sorry, Jimbo, big flowery words don't fool anyone. You're still nuts.
Conisdering I haven't read it yet, as a US citzen let me ask: And we needed this WHY? To try to get the kill count up even higher? What is this CoD? NO it's fucking real life. The US has enough military hardware already, where is this advanced threat that would even remotely require this technology to deal with? I don't see it anywhere.
What I do see is yet another weapon tech that could really be abused in the wrong hands. Yes it requires a spotter now, but how long until it uses GPS satellites for guidance instead? with the ability to chase it's target for miles? and penetrate body armor? Best of all, how long until someone manages to hack such a system remotely and uses it for ?
Not to mention the US is not immune to bad apples being in power so here's another thought, will they include this on the drones too? So that not only do they get to sit around in a well defended bunker on the other side of the world, safe from any retaliation, but they'll be able to shoot and then watch their prey desperately try to out run the bullet until their deaths, screaming in mortal terror the whole time. (Bonus points if they include a camera on the bullet and break out the popcorn.) Do we really want to enable THAT possibility?
The US has a bad enough international image as is. Why do we need to create more weapons that have such horrible potential in the first place? Are we that desperate to try and provoke everyone else on earth to finally say: "OK, we can't allow this to continue, something must be done about the immature state rattling it's saber with bloodlust in it's eyes."? Because if that's the goal, by the time everyone else does get to that point, they will be doing it out of fear and the US will be the one with the heaviest casualties. Why are we trying to provoke a fight?
it could be life saving technology
...and make it do 180 degree turn - that'd be fun :)
If it relies on fins, those would need to be mounted on part of the bullet that doesn't spin as a result of the rifling. If the entire bullet doesn't spin, are the fins enough to keep the bullet stabilized?
..by contractors, probably. "I didn't mean to shoot the civies, the bullets went right for them!
This could be useful for US police force if they can adjust the algorithm to automatically hit black targets.
Florida would be the first in line to order them.
I think that the heavy movement to "ban" guns and guns parts--whether such bans are useful or not--is in contradiction of the 2nd Amendment. That people have been doing this and trumpeting it has only gotten the American people used to the Bill of Rights applying in a more narrow fashion, leading to lack of outcry about the violation of every other Bill of Rights Amendment except the 3rd. (And, with the way more urban training missions are going in the military, I wouldn't be surprised to see that violated in the next few years, just so the government can cover all ten...)
Where are you getting your data regarding more hammers being used to kill than rifles? I've looked over the CDC database for all causes of death, and while they do not have a specific category for "hammers," they do have a category for death by assault with blunt objects. Guns are separated into different categories, and the "death by blunt object" value is an order of magnitude lower than deaths caused by rifles. I'll grant that this doesn't specifically look at crimes (assault isn't always crime-related), and I agree with your overall message that the link with crime is pretty weak, but the real data is worth knowing.
As a Vietnam veteran and human I find this horrifying. I should go a long way toward making war even more terrible. And for all you gung-ho chickenhawk wanna be tough guys: keep in mind, we won't have an exclusive on this. The day after the first one is captured, the reverse engineering will begin and soon these smart bullets will be seeking us.
Your right, thats all blunt objects, and its the FBIs statistics I was looking at:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cj...
So "blunt objects" and "personal weapons" (including fists, etc), EACH are more than double that of rifles at 380.
But this is homicides, doesn't count intentional self wounding, since, that isn't really a useful statistic, being...intentional and consensual.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I think I see where some data discrepancy may be coming from. The CDC data groups rifles with shotguns and "larger firearm" (and has separate statistics for various firearms relating to assault vs. intentional self-harm and a few others; I'm only looking at the assault category). Those numbers are 10-20x that of "assault by blunt object." The FBI data seems to be a bit more precise in that shotguns and rifles are separated out individually, and also kept separate from "large firearms." I note that the "firearms, type not stated" value for the FBI data is rather large. So I suppose your statement about rifles, specifically, is correct.