51–60 of 158 posts
The TrackingPoint system is pretty awesome especially since it's tech which is available today and has some pretty neat applications such aiming through another device: http://www.military.com/video/guns/rifles/trackingpoint-shot...
I wonder what each bullet will cost once production starts? I sometimes think about the origins of the second amendment and if it's intent was to empower citizens against a potentially oppressive government then it has failed. US military technology might as well be black magic. What can a "well regulated militia" do against smart bullets, M1 Abrams, Apache helicopters, etc? Thank goodness we are kept fat and happy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the aims of this program was to essentially give any 18 year old kid the tool set to perform like a highly trained sniper. There will still be a need for marksmanship training but this enables the minimum standard of marksmanship for its user to be akin to an expert. Ballistics computation is complicated but this simplifies it to a more straight-forward "point and shoot" approach that almost anyone can underst…
Seems like a silly thing to focus on. Learning to shoot accurately is by far the easiest part of becoming a sniper.
I wonder what each bullet will cost once production starts? I sometimes think about the origins of the second amendment and if it's intent was to empower citizens against a potentially oppressive government then it has failed. US military technology might as well be black magic. What can a "well regulated militia" do against smart bullets, M1 Abrams, Apache helicopters, etc? Thank goodness we are kept fat and happy.
I believe you mean "second." Additionally, vastly superior technology doesn't necessarily outweigh other factors. It certainly makes a huge difference but history is littered with counterexamples.
I wonder what each bullet will cost once production starts? I sometimes think about the origins of the second amendment and if it's intent was to empower citizens against a potentially oppressive government then it has failed. US military technology might as well be black magic. What can a "well regulated militia" do against smart bullets, M1 Abrams, Apache helicopters, etc? Thank goodness we are kept fat and happy.
> Thank goodness we are kept fat and happy. This concept is actually called "bread and circus", and was originally applied by mid-roman emperors to better control the populace and keep political satisfaction up. I'm kinda disappointed that the wikipedia article doesn't go into detail about this because it played a huge part in maintaining control of the empire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the aims of this program was to essentially give any 18 year old kid the tool set to perform like a highly trained sniper. There will still be a need for marksmanship training but this enables the minimum standard of marksmanship for its user to be akin to an expert. Ballistics computation is complicated but this simplifies it to a more straight-forward "point and shoot" approach that almost anyone can underst…
Seems like a silly thing to focus on. Learning to shoot accurately is by far the easiest part of becoming a sniper.
I wonder what each bullet will cost once production starts? I sometimes think about the origins of the second amendment and if it's intent was to empower citizens against a potentially oppressive government then it has failed. US military technology might as well be black magic. What can a "well regulated militia" do against smart bullets, M1 Abrams, Apache helicopters, etc? Thank goodness we are kept fat and happy.
At least firehoses, dogs, and guns have a chance of illiciting sympathy from onlookers (e.g. the international community). Protesters on a big slip-n-slide will probably just end up on /r/funny.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It says "optical guidance system" in the article. I suspect that the sniper needs to light up the target with a laser sight, and there's a small computer and microchip that adjusts the form of the bullet (per other commenter's description here) so that the laser dot is always directly ahead. The article also says it's designed to compensate for "weather, wind, or target movement", so my assumption is that the sniper…
"It says "optical guidance system" in the article." It doesn't make much sense that if you were developing an advanced weapons system that, other than to get out disinformation, it would be a good thing to tell exactly what you are doing in any detail at all. What is the advantage of releasing any information at all other than: 1) To insure support and funding for projects 2) To scare the enemy. 3) To get the enemy t…
Countdown to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jVsQToSfag
Bah, 1984 called and Tom Selleck and Gene Simmons want their self-guided bullets back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA6ybohAVq8
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It says "optical guidance system" in the article." It doesn't make much sense that if you were developing an advanced weapons system that, other than to get out disinformation, it would be a good thing to tell exactly what you are doing in any detail at all. What is the advantage of releasing any information at all other than: 1) To insure support and funding for projects 2) To scare the enemy. 3) To get the enemy t…
This article sounds like a PR piece designed to get out in front of news and control the messaging. Likely they have reason to believe the project will leak shortly, and rather than having the media spin it as "Secret military lab designing killer guided sniper bullets! Police state imminent!", they want it out in public as "Your tax dollars are going toward some very advanced technology to ensure American military s…
[1] Obama did this with revelations of cocaine usage. Once it was out there it wasn't a big juicy story to present. Media likes scoops, exclusives not just digging up old info (ala some HN posts) of things that perhaps people missed (unless there is an angle that they can work).
I guess here is the thing about old news. People must assume that if something were said in 2012 and nobody made a fuss about it then it's because it's not a big deal.