Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
And this is why saying that the second amendment is a good idea to fend off a possible military take over doesn't work as an excuse. Military technology is light years ahead of what you're able to buy legally in most states
@ddhboy: Sure, but you don't need to win. Assuming your cause is just, you just need to hold out long enough and cause enough trouble that it is more trouble than it is worth to crush you.
@Canoehead: The difference (at least compared to the American Revolution and Indian independence) is that England was separated from its colonies by a vast ocean.
Any armed American Revolution today would probably look more like the Civil War, except that the military has equipment that is orders of magnitude beyond what a private citizen can get. Not pretty.
@Zanzan42: Civil war never is pretty, but is still better than a massacre of unarmed citizens. While US military hardware is certainly orders of magnitude more advanced than anything in civilian hands (and that's fine with me), to use that hardware on a sustained basis against a widely popular civil insurrection would require a level of callousness that I don't believe exists in the US population at large, nor does it exist among the ranks of the military.
I guess my point is that a completely disarmed citizenry can be relatively easily cowed by an armed, organized military force, whereas an armed citizenry raises the "pain threshold" such that voting populace and/or the military may decide that the price in blood, treasure and bad PR is too high and that a non-violent solution should be applied. Of course, there are no guarantees in life (and even less so in warfare), and an armed citizenry is not the only bulwark against a tyrannical government, but it is one that I would be loathe to lose.
To be pedantic, the grenades aren't actually laser-guided. That implies that they home on reflected laser energy and have an internal guidance mechanism. This is simply a rangefinding and automated sight elevation system, which is quite ingenious in its own right but not the same thing as a true laser guidance system. [In my head, I hear Sheldon from Big Bang Theory saying all this]
I actually have a grenade launcher, but it's been modified to lob golf balls with parade blanks. This little cutie looks like it could be a real improvement in my golf game. Must ask Santa for one.
For the rest of you out there with raised eyebrows, it's that one particular acid-blooded xenomorphic bitch from the movies. Not just, you know, bitches in general.
@robotsneedhugs2: No no no. Don't you see? That's what the grenades are for. The ammo count is for when you're sitting on top of the local mall playing shoot the celebrity look-alike.
@robotsneedhugs2: That's why... Uh, you know, we use technology to count everything for us, and also calculate the lead we're going to need on our grenades.
@robotsneedhugs2: When you're cruising through the hoards you can leisurely count and shoot at the same time. Besides, gotta save bullets. Projectile weaponry is only as good as the ammo cache you can carry, and my armor-plated Winnebago can't carry it all yanno.
@Kaiser-Machead: Now a real killer, when he picked up the SCAR assault rifle, would have immediately asked about the little red button on the bottom of the gun.
At least retinal scanning would prohibit a Bad Guy from using it for aimed shots.
Maybe they could have a "timed login" that would allow continuous use as long as the weapon is kept in motion... logging out and requiring new biometric login after the weapon is motionless for a preset period. That way the Good Guys could take gloves off briefly, log in to their weapon, and put them back on.
Still NOT good when ambushed... but better than having to fight bare-handed.
@Synthfilker: I was sarcastically pointing out the flaw in having a biometric system on a weapon for military personnel. Biometrics always add a lag to firearm activation, a lag that would not be permissible in warfare.
I'd think that the greatest lag is always going to be the reaction time. The goal is to trim that down as low as it can go but in the end its just an inherent part about how the human body works.
I'd think that in any situation as soon as the brain told the body to pick up the gun, raise the gun, and pull the trigger the biometric part would have already done its job.
@tande04: With our current systems, there will be a lag. Perhaps one day that lag may be imperceptible, but as of now, they are nowhere near close enough to be usable. Right now, the current tech also does not always recognize the user perfectly, having a 90% success rate. In life or death situations, that is not permissible. The closest and best tech is looking at using RFID tags, but even that is problematic as there is the potential that the RFID tags could be jammed.
@Nathan Obbards: There would also need to be some sort of permissions. I mean, if my gun jams and my buddy goes down next to me, I'm gonna grab his gun. Need to be sure though that it doesn't lock me out.
What I don't get, is why we need all this super tech for the guns. Yes, I can see benefiting from this stuff in specific situations, but overall, they need to be robust and indestructable. They need to be an AK-47.
@FartSponge: It's for safety (think kids) and so that guns cannot be used agains the person who carries them (criminals with police officers, opposing forces, etc).
True, realtime wireless communication is available globally, but it's not truly global. There are plenty of places where coverage is spotty at best. It's also a very complex system that it tends to break down in isolated spots from time to time. What happens if an airplane happens to crash in a location where a cellular tower was recently destroyed by a lightning strike or fire, etc.? Does the FAA just toss up their hands and say "Sorry, I guess we'll never know. The data just never got recorded." Sometimes simple is better. Black boxes have proven themselves time and again. They're simple and they work. If we can recover them from the bottom of the ocean (think TWA 800) then we can recover them from virtually any airline crash.
@IphtashuFitz: By beaming data to a central monitoring computer system, I'm guessing that realtime statistical software could determine likelihood of crash based upon data from the point takeoff - right now we're sort of checking results after the fact.
This paragraph from the original article was really interesting:
"It may be that cockpit recorders disappear altogether in the future. Technology that transmits an aircraft's voice and data to hardware on the ground is already being used by NASA, and may become more common moving forward."
So, the real question is, what the hell are pilots doing in there that they don't want recorded?
And, its not like I'm accusing them of having orgies or doing blow. But I think about why I wouldn't want a camera in my office. And that's all the time I spend not working. Reading Giz, checking my email, sending text messages. Sure it's a negligible amount of time and mostly counts for two 10 minute breaks in a day. But I don't want the person flying my airplane to be hitting refresh every 30 seconds during the Giz Apple Liveblog.
@mcjake: I think it's that they are under a strict orders/rules/regulations about minute things, like talking while flying, and if something Act Of God happens, even if it had nothing to do with it, they could be found liable for it b/c they broke a rule.
I also think it's b/c as they scream like little girls as they crash, they want their family/friends to think they died battling to the end.
Wireless communication might be available, but there are some times where planes crash in places where the only thing available is satellite, and that isn't exactly free after purchase of the hardware. Plus, this still works in the event of a radio failure, haven't you ever noticed (in stories, I don't know about actual percentages or anything) that the pilot's radio seems to cut off and they're never seen again?
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/21/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
Any armed American Revolution today would probably look more like the Civil War, except that the military has equipment that is orders of magnitude beyond what a private citizen can get. Not pretty.
11/20/09
I guess my point is that a completely disarmed citizenry can be relatively easily cowed by an armed, organized military force, whereas an armed citizenry raises the "pain threshold" such that voting populace and/or the military may decide that the price in blood, treasure and bad PR is too high and that a non-violent solution should be applied. Of course, there are no guarantees in life (and even less so in warfare), and an armed citizenry is not the only bulwark against a tyrannical government, but it is one that I would be loathe to lose.
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/21/09
11/20/09
[/hudson]
11/22/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
I understand now, well stated.
11/20/09
For the rest of you out there with raised eyebrows, it's that one particular acid-blooded xenomorphic bitch from the movies. Not just, you know, bitches in general.
11/20/09
It's Friday.
11/20/09
[zombietools.net]
11/20/09
Awesome.
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
I'd love to shoot a Kriss, P90 or SCAR someday
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
WE MUST DESTROY GW!
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
Yeah... with gloves on? Epic fail.
At least retinal scanning would prohibit a Bad Guy from using it for aimed shots.
Maybe they could have a "timed login" that would allow continuous use as long as the weapon is kept in motion... logging out and requiring new biometric login after the weapon is motionless for a preset period. That way the Good Guys could take gloves off briefly, log in to their weapon, and put them back on.
Still NOT good when ambushed... but better than having to fight bare-handed.
11/20/09
11/20/09
I'd think that the greatest lag is always going to be the reaction time. The goal is to trim that down as low as it can go but in the end its just an inherent part about how the human body works.
I'd think that in any situation as soon as the brain told the body to pick up the gun, raise the gun, and pull the trigger the biometric part would have already done its job.
11/20/09
11/20/09
What I don't get, is why we need all this super tech for the guns. Yes, I can see benefiting from this stuff in specific situations, but overall, they need to be robust and indestructable. They need to be an AK-47.
11/20/09
03/06/09
03/06/09
03/06/09
"It may be that cockpit recorders disappear altogether in the future. Technology that transmits an aircraft's voice and data to hardware on the ground is already being used by NASA, and may become more common moving forward."
So, the real question is, what the hell are pilots doing in there that they don't want recorded?
And, its not like I'm accusing them of having orgies or doing blow. But I think about why I wouldn't want a camera in my office. And that's all the time I spend not working. Reading Giz, checking my email, sending text messages. Sure it's a negligible amount of time and mostly counts for two 10 minute breaks in a day. But I don't want the person flying my airplane to be hitting refresh every 30 seconds during the Giz Apple Liveblog.
03/06/09
I also think it's b/c as they scream like little girls as they crash, they want their family/friends to think they died battling to the end.
03/06/09
03/06/09
IIRC, the recordings are always property of the NTSB, and possibly not allowed to be released under FOIA. I could be wrong.
03/06/09
03/06/09
03/06/09
03/06/09