World's First Linux Powered Rifle Announced 272
stevew writes "Following up our earlier discussion about whether guns should be self-aware comes the announcement of the world's first Linux-powered rifle. A startup attending CES was showing how their 'Precision Guided Firearms' would use customized, computerized scopes to assist with aiming. 'The Linux-powered scope produces a display that looks something like the heads-up display you'd see sitting in the cockpit of a fighter jet, showing the weapon's compass orientation, cant, and incline. To shoot at something, you first "mark" it using a button near the trigger. Marking a target illuminates it with the tracking scope's built-in laser, and the target gains a pip in the scope's display. When a target is marked, the tracking scope takes into account the range of the target, the ambient temperature and humidity, the age of the barrel, and a whole boatload of other parameters. It quickly reorients the display so the crosshairs in the center accurately show where the round will go.'"
gotta ask (Score:5, Funny)
But does it run Windows?
Re:gotta ask (Score:5, Funny)
Re:gotta ask (Score:5, Funny)
You mean CrossChair Office
or AcrossOffice Chair
Re:gotta ask (Score:5, Funny)
Re:gotta ask (Score:5, Funny)
It's CrossChairOffice.Org goddammit! CCO.o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
No! Sadly EMACS takes all space on the ROM.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
For $17,000 it not only should run Windows, but clean them and make them bulletproof too.
Re:gotta ask (Score:5, Funny)
You have pulled the trigger. You need to restart Windows in order to complete this operation. Would you like to restart now? (restarting in 10s...)
Re:gotta ask (Score:5, Funny)
MS Ammo Clippy: "It looks like you are trying to waste a grade school. Would you like some help?"
Re:gotta ask (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:gotta ask (Score:4, Funny)
what about big buck hunter? (Score:2)
what about big buck hunter?
You shot a doe to ranger station and pay $200.
So.. (Score:5, Funny)
Guns don't kill people, linux does.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for making me spit my tea all over my keyboard and monitor... funniest one liner I have read in a while
Re:So.. (Score:5, Funny)
When Linux is outlawed, only outlaws will have Linux.
Re:So.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So.. (Score:4, Funny)
No (Score:4, Funny)
Linux doesn't kill people, Linux users do!
Re:So.. (Score:5, Funny)
Guns don't kill people, linux does.
Yeah, but this model is safer -- you don't pull a trigger, you type "sudo kill -9 ".
Please be careful when entering the target's social security number.
Re:So.. (Score:5, Funny)
Can we use wildcards? Grep has never been so much fun!
Re:So.. (Score:5, Funny)
grep -v 'government_approved' /the/people.list | target | fire
Re:So.. (Score:5, Funny)
Linus doesn't kill people, Reiser does.
Re:So.. (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder if they are using ReiserFS in it too?
Re:So.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because they're idiots with money to burn on lawyers.
Oh boy (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, you still need to remove the body manually.
Re:Oh boy (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of the funnier things I've read today, thank you.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, no!
$ shoot person
I'm sorry Dave but I'm afraid I can't do that!
$ sudo shoot person
OK
Linux Kid responds (Score:2)
Graybeard: "Oh my oh my, what would Sakharov think?"
Linux Kid: "Who is Sakharov?"
The Windows Version (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Windows Version (Score:5, Funny)
Would that be a Blue Screen of Life?
Imagine! (Score:5, Funny)
It's GNU/Linux (Score:5, Funny)
It's GNU/Linux, not GUN/Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Watch the youtube video posted at http://tracking-point.com/ [tracking-point.com]
Pretty sure that's a Gnu at 0:17...
Re: (Score:2)
Year of the Linux Desktop (Score:3)
Can it run this too? (Score:2)
Woohoo! (Score:2)
Coming soon:. Maces and clubs running BASH.
Annie Get Your GNU (Score:2)
RMS's Broadway revival of Annie Get Your Gun [wikipedia.org].
CLI? (Score:3)
I wonder, does it come with commando line interface [unm.edu]?
Awesome! (Score:2)
Now our snipers can say "I'm gonna CTL-ALT-Delete you" when they take out a target....
What did the old one run on? (Score:2)
It's a shrunk-down ballistic computer! (Score:5, Insightful)
RTFA indicates that this is almost identical to the ballistic computer (aka gunsight computer) found in practically any modern MBT or IFV. They've shrunk it down and merged it with a rifle. However, they've once again failed the "Just because we CAN, doesn't mean we SHOULD" question.
I saw this once before: Objective Individual Combat Weapon [wikipedia.org]
It's what taking a $400 M-16 and mating it with a new 25mm grenade launcher, then running it through the Military Industrial Complex gets you: a $800,000 weapon that's too bulky to use, of marginal benefit, and of questionable utility.
Honestly, the Marine Corp and British Marines have a solution that works far better than either the OICW or this new gadget: it's called PRACTICE. I'm willing to bet that putting in a couple of dozen hours at a local shooting range would do the potential buyer of this gadget far more good. Not to mention saving them $15k or more. I also seriously doubt this "system" is rugged enough to be used (and abused) in the field for any length of time, even just for hunting. Even by pampered super-rich hunting dilettantes.
Sometimes, technology just gets in the way of getting things done.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, the Marine Corp and British Marines have a solution that works far better than either the OICW or this new gadget: it's called PRACTICE.
That practice is quite expensive. What if, one day, any soldier could fire any weapon through a hole in a fortification from a distance like an elite sniper does to avoid detection? The OICW is too much too soon, and so is this, but it's never too soon to lay the ground work, only to imagine deployment.
Re: (Score:2)
sure, this magic gun makes people more accurate, but what about every other gun in exisitence?
Today the technology is mounted on the gun because it's where it has to be. Tomorrow (for some sufficiently large value of tomorrow) it will be mounted on the soldier and work with many guns, at least with anything for which the system has data — and perhaps it can build ballistics tables by monitoring performance.
Re:It's a shrunk-down ballistic computer! (Score:5, Insightful)
And thus, today, this item makes no practical sense whatsoever.
And saying "well, it will work someday" is exactly how the DoD gets away with blowing vast quantities of money.
I don't think you're familiar with how the development of technology works. We don't get subscriptions from God where he periodically sends us new stuff to use. If we ever want something to be workable then we have to trudge through the entire phase where its not until it works right. With your attitude we wouldn't have cars now because the ones in the 1880's didn't really work well so we shouldn't have spent any time developing the tech.
kill -TERM -1 (Score:2)
will acquire a whole new meaning.
a sniper's work (Score:2)
The great part of a sniper's work after he's in position and hidden is essentially calculus. The vector analysis that takes into account all these things and spits out windage and elevation. That and steady hands are all that's needed to place a shot with all the accuracy of which a rifle is capable.
Countering this trend toward more effective less educated sniper te
Linux is not so relevant (Score:2)
That they have selected Linux is only significant in that it is free for them to use and actively developed. That by itself is just a drop in the barrel of the large number of device makers who select Linux to build their machines. Who is making such devices using Windows? I think no one. I know it has been tried in the past but I doubt it is going on at present. Perhaps someone will point out some examples to the contrary.
The industry recognizes Linux is great for these types of purposes. Virtually a
Zorg runs Linux! (Score:5, Funny)
It's the Replay function of the ZF-1!
Voilà, the ZF.1. It's light, handle's adjustable for easy carrying, good for righties and lefties, breaks down into four parts, undetectable by x-ray, ideal for quick discreet interventions. A word on firepower, titanium recharger, 3,000 round clip with bursts of 3 to 300, with a Replay button--another Zorg invention--it's even easier. One shot and Replay sends every following shot to the same location. And, to finish the job, all the Zorg oldies but goldies: rocket launcher; arrow launcher, with exploding or poisonous gas heads; our famous net launcher; and, the always efficient flame thrower--my favorite; and, for the grand finale, the all new Ice Cube System. http://www.uselessmoviequotes.com/umq_f004.htm
Borderlands 2 reference... (Score:2)
We just need to add a voice now!
Good Decision!
DIe Die Die!
http://borderlands.wikia.com/wiki/Shotgun_1340 [wikia.com]
Oooh! (Score:4, Funny)
Awesome for target practice (Score:3)
I love tech like this, though I would only use it for target practice. Though i'd much rather an HMD that gave the same info and could give measurements of whatever you're focusing on. Some training with those would be excellent for architecture, construction, surveying, etc...
Hax (Score:3)
Goddam aimbots.
Great.. you took old technology and publicized it (Score:3)
I worked on a much more advanced and ultimately classified project for the Navy SEALS that produced a 'first shot kill' gun sighting system for the SEALs in ... 1993. The sight was designed to go on crew served weapons and sniper weapons. It included aim point calculation, full ballistics computing, sensors, range finder, thermal and optical sighting, low light level, yadda yadda yadda. At the time the sofware was required to be ADA (thanks, DOD).
Just because you put a shiny Linux on something doesn't make it all new and stuff.
Re:Thanks for nothing gun nuts (Score:5, Funny)
You are making me feel shame in my Emacs Cannon
Way to go (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thanks for nothing gun nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thanks for nothing gun nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
Another case of gun nuts taking useful technology and exploiting it.
Yes. The hacker spirit lives.
We just had them ruin 3D printing. I guess Linux is next?
FYI, 3D printing lower receivers didn't ruin 3D printing. People with your attitude did. "Ahhh! It's a plastic gun! Overreact or it will kill us all!"
Re:Thanks for nothing gun nuts (Score:4, Informative)
Anything that permits the creation of unlicenced firearms must itself be strictly licensed in order for firearms licences to be an effective means of keeping tabs on gun use. That's not overreaction - that's just understanding the nature of licensing. And there is no debate to be had on this point.
You can debate the suggestion that gun licencing should be strictly enforced if you like, but not the one that says if gun licencing is to be enforced, personal gun manufacturing must also be tightly licenced.
cnc's arent licensed. neither are drills. neither are stepper motors and heating elements.neither are arms or steel. it's what you do with them that's licensed.
Re: (Score:3)
Its more like penises are ruined because they were used in a blowjob.
Guns are not bad things, even if they are something you are not comfortable with.
Re:Do Not Want! (Score:5, Informative)
Uh, that's what this is: a computer aided scope, not a change to the mechanics of the rifle. Even TFS says this.
Re:Do Not Want! (Score:4, Informative)
No. The article specifically describes how the scope controls the pull weight in an attempt to keep you from botching the shot. There are mechanical modifications here, and as someone that shot competitive smallbore with very low weights I can tell you that dynamically messing with the weight is a potentially dangerous thing to do.
The part about having to use their ammo is bullshit I'm sure. In a $17,000 device, it better be able to perform regular ballistic calculations, and you could otherwise easily make or buy .300 winmag with the characteristics it expects.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Do Not Want! (Score:4, Interesting)
It's target market is the military. The aim, to turn a whole lot of second rate shots into first rate snipers and to generate huge profits for the company. You can also expect police forces to purchase the aiming system in order to enhance accuracy. The operating system is largely arbitrary, although it would be interesting to see how compact an install they achieved and driver and kernel set up as quality of 'appliance' style installs are interesting.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Still for that much, may as well put it on a solenoid operated hardmount system that will keep the aim steadier than any human can. Once you get that far, may as well operate the trigger by solenoid too. With that modification, it wouldn't hurt to change the optical scope to a video feed so the gun could be remotely operated while the user stays under safe cover. And once you use a video feed, why not put the targeting on a laptop with a trackball for aiming or a tablet with a touchscreen? Once automated to
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough. I've never shot competitive so I can't comment on how the weight can impact you.
However the OP's complaint was regarding failure to fire and simply having a higher weight wouldn't prevent you from firing if you chose to. They're not calling it a full trigger lock. In that respect it does not sound like they've done anything mechanically that would compromise the weapon's ability to fire but I suppose that depends how the resistance is implemented.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that if the computer is modifying the pull weight of the trigger, then then the computer HAS to be integrated into the mechanics of the rifle itself.
Re:Do Not Want! (Score:5, Interesting)
Fair enough. I've never shot competitive so I can't comment on how the weight can impact you.
Basically the logic is this - if at this instant pulling the trigger would cause a miss it is REALLY hard to pull it. If at this instant pulling the trigger would cause a hit then it is REALLY easy to pull it. So, you basically pull with medium force on the trigger the whole time and when you happen to have the gun lined up perfectly your finger will suddenly give way and fire the shot.
A bit analog vs just having the trigger be an authorization to fire and letting the gun take the shot, but it works out about the same in the end. The gun basically fires for you, with your force against the trigger being just another spring in the mechanism.
Re:Do Not Want! (Score:5, Funny)
It already changes things substantially. Think about it: sniper teams will now have to consist of a sniper, a spotter and a debugger.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to make the scope into a computing device that's fine.
If you read even the summary, you'd know that's precisely what this is. Assuming headlines are at all factual or correct is likely to lead you to fail.
Re:Do Not Want! (Score:4, Informative)
Let me fix that for you: If you read even the summary, you'd think that's precisely what this is but if you read the article you'd know that it is not. Assuming summaries are at all factual or correct is likely to lead you to fail.
From TFA: The PGF isn't just a fancy scope on top of a rifle. All together, the PGF is made up of a firearm, a modified trigger mechanism with variable weighting, the computerized digital tracking scope, and hand-loaded match grade rounds (which you need to purchase from TrackingPoint).
Re: (Score:2)
I read the article and there doesn't seem to be any serious modification to the basic mechanics of the rifle. The "modified trigger" just adds resistance so that you can preemptively apply pressure to the trigger to avoid that motion causing your shot to misalign. There's no indication that it provides enough resistance to prevent the shooter from pulling harder and firing anyway. It would make sense that if it was a full trigger lock that they would simply call it that. They are even careful to state that
Re:Do Not Want! (Score:5, Informative)
TrackingPoint is quick to emphasize the rifle doesn't fire "by itself," but rather the trigger's pull force is dynamically raised to be very high until the reticle and pip coincide, at which point the pull force is reset to its default. In this way, the shooter is still in control of the rifle's firing, and at any point prior to firing you can release the trigger. In the mockups the company had on display for the press to experiment with, the action appeared to be the same
Re:Do Not Want! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that even with a heavy pull, you can still pull and fire. This means you can lightly pull the trigger to get the effect you describe, or just pull a bit harder to override it.
Have you shot a rifle? You know how trigger pulls work?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is it still made by the software? All it can do (here) is make it easier - you still have to pull the trigger, and you can fire whether it wants you to or not. You only have to pull the trigger a bit harder.
My own rifle is a Marlin XL7 .30-06. It's got a special safety latch built into the trigger (there's a little lever [biggamehunt.net] that sticks out the center of the trigger [shootingtimes.com]. Without pushing that back, the trigger will not pull. Basically it enforces you to properly finger the trigger) and is adjustable down to a 2.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
... for a few brief milliseconds the software takes over the firing decision.
You are correct.
The shooter's initial action is to put the target designator on target. The scope does all the math on windage, barrel heat, hold over, etc. and produces a firing solution.
Then the shooter holds down the trigger, which doesn't fire the gun, he just authorizes the scope to fire when the gun is in the right position. The shooter just wiggles around and tries to get the gun in the right position, and when the scope decides the gun is in the correct position, it fires the gun.
One cool benefit i
Authorizing fire not new (Score:4, Informative)
The idea of "authorizing fire" isn't really a new paradigm. M-1 tank guns have worked like that since the 80s I believe, probably earlier. The gunner pressed 'fire' then the gun waited until it was actually on target until it fired.
All aircraft are similar... the pilot presses a button, that send a signals to a series of computers (potentially over thousands of miles for UAVs) letting them know that you want to fire, then the actual electrical charge is sent if it decides to fire. Guided Missiles since Vietnam... trigger authorizes them to explode, but you aren't guaranteed that they get the target you want, lots of Hollywood examples of making the missile kill the wrong target :)
Pedantically, pulling a trigger doesn't a fire a gun... it releases a locking mechanism which authorizes a firing pin to strike a primer (on most guns).
I guess what I'm guess at is that it's not a black/white 'fire / authorize to fire', it's a gray spectrum of complexity, and we fear (rightly so) that this complexity may reach a point where a failure in that system will result in the wrong person/people being killed... and then perhaps that it will fire at anything at all that we didn't consider 'authorized' fire. I think the first concern is already out of the barn, the second one is the one to be concerned with... will a weapon fire without authorization??? If so... bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This could result in a failed hitting of target or an outright disaster.
The whole point of requiring the operator to pull the trigger is to PREVENT a disaster. You don't pull the trigger unless you have a clear range. If you're trying to do a headshot on a hostage taker holding the gun you wouldn't apply any trigger pressure until you had the gun aimed opposite the hostage.
Basically you should treat any gun as if it will discharge the moment you release the safety. Actually, it is best to treat it as if it will arbitrarily kill anybody in front of it at any time even if it i
Re:Do Not Want! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This does it. It rides the trigger pull weight so it's hard to pull when off-target, but at the right moment it's lightened.
So: aim, lightly pull trigger. When the fire computer says go, the trigger lightens and the pressure you are providing slips the sear, and things go boom.
But, at the same time, you can just pull harder and override it.
Re: (Score:2)
BSD has no problems with this kind of use.
To quote the founder of OpenBSD:
But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, telling people what they can and can't do with the software running on their hardware is against the very spirit of the endeavor. Just because you have some special emotional reaction to guns doesn't mean others do. MANY linux users and developers are gun enthusiasts.
As for skill... whats your point?
Yes, I would consider this cheating in most competitions. This is like complaining that people use cheat codes in video games. Unless you are competing with them on score, who the fuck cares?
Re:Deer deer me (Score:5, Funny)
Finally .. a killer Linux portable
Finally .. a killer Linux app
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
3D printer plans coming soon.
Re: (Score:2)
And what, pray tell, would it sense? Wind needs to be figured from other sources, such as brush movement. There's no guarantee that the wind exposed to the rifle is the wind between the rifle and target.