Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

'Smart Gun' Firm Wants You To Fund Its Prototype

timothy posted about a year ago | from the you-can-bet-they-do dept.

Security 558

Lucas123 writes "After striking out at getting private investors to fund a new prototype, Safe Gun Technology (SGTi) is hoping it can generate $50,000 through a crowdfunding effort to build an assault-style rifle with fingerprint biometrics technology. Handgun and shotgun prototypes would follow shortly thereafter, the company said. SGTi, which is using the Indiegogo crowdfunding site for its Fund Safe Guns campaign, has so far raised just over $1,600. Several companies are working on developing smart gun technology, which can identify an authorized user through fingerprint, handgrip or RFID recognition techniques. Last week, a Massachusetts congressman submitted a bill that would require all U.S. handgun manufacturers to include smart gun technology in their weapons." I'm looking forward to the best car analogy that anyone can come up with on this topic.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


I'm sorry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43862989)

The only SmartGun I recognize is something that links to a socket in my palm and transmits targeting data to a HUD.

Re:I'm sorry (5, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year ago | (#43863353)

Hmm...seems this company can't figure out what the problem is....

That most gun owners don't WANT this type of tech, that could potentially bork and not allow you to fire at a critical moment.

A gun works JUST fine now....simple, mechanical, etc.

And by the way...can those folks in MA either vote out said congressman putting that bill forth, or just contain such laws to your state if you want them that way?

Sheesh, if this type thing comes about, I guess we'll see more efforts like recent ones, to have states certify guns make and labeled for "in state sales only" to get around the Feds being able to mess with and regulate them.

Hmmm ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863005)

They want to make safe guns, but they're starting out with an assault rifle.

Totally makes sense.

Re:Hmmm ... (3, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year ago | (#43863063)

How about they make a safe "Hammer" or "club" since these kill more people than all rifles every year? Oh right, because rifles are big loud scary objects!

Re:Hmmm ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863201)

How about they make a safe "Hammer" or "club" since these kill more people than all rifles every year?

Source please.

Re: Hmmm ... (4, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | about a year ago | (#43863435)

Or cleavers. Just recently a man walked up to a guy on the street and started hacking away at him. Not even rolling cameras slowed him down

Re:Hmmm ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863467)

and because they're black. Don't forget that.

Re:Hmmm ... (5, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#43863577)

I don't want a safe hammer that doesn't kill people, I just want a smart hammer that won't crush my fingers.

Re:Hmmm ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863319)

I assume they're looking at the police and military market since assault rifles are restricted class III items in the US for civilian ownership and not overly cheap.

Re:Hmmm ... (2)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#43863385)

An "assault rifle" is usually just a magazine fed hunting rifle. There's nothing particularly special about such weapons. They just look big and scary because they don't have any wood trim and they come with a pistol grip.

Although professional shooters are the best and most appropriate beta testers for this kind of new technology. This stuff should not be forced on the rest of us until cops are fine with it.

Re:Hmmm ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863511)

You're thinking "assault weapon". An assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon restricted to the military and people with the proper permits in the US. An "assault weapon" is a semi-automatic weapon (usually a rifle) whose definition beyond that point is fairly nebulous.

Re:Hmmm ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863513)

NO ONE who might need his gun to stop a grizzly bear or mountain lion is going to want this.

Re:Hmmm ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863551)

No, real assault rifles are class III items. People are getting their panties in a wad and calling semi-auto rifles "assault rifles" because they can't tell the difference between the real thing. They're also the same bunch who seem to think a magazine is a one time use item.

The danger is real. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863537)

But the correct response to fear is to strengthen one's self. The incorrect (but very popular) response is to weaken everyone else. This smartgun tech falls into the latter category.

Re:The danger is real. (0)

trum4n (982031) | about a year ago | (#43863639)

So instead of taking guns away from bad people, we should give guns to children? Like the newtown kids?

It's like a car... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863007)

... which quickly analyzes your ass shape and fart composition and only allows you to drive if your ass shape and fart composition is exactly the same as when you first bought the car. As an extra incentive, it discourages weight gain.

Re:It's like a car... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863253)

Better: It's like a car which analyzes your ass shape and fart composition and only allows you to drive if that matches when you first bought the car on the assumption that only carjackers ever get in accidents.

This solves ? (4, Interesting)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year ago | (#43863013)

What problem does this solve?

I realize that stolen guns are a big item in criminal circles, but my guess is these will be "hacked". Additionally, if these guns prove less than reliable (doesn't fire by the "owner"). And finally who is actually clamoring for "smart gun" weaponry, besides the anti-gun nuts?

Re:This solves ? (3, Interesting)

kk49 (829669) | about a year ago | (#43863077)

It solves (probably poorly) the problem of police officers being shot with their own guns and kids getting shot by guns their stupid parents left accessible.

Re:This solves ? (3, Insightful)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#43863121)

Do you think any parent irresponsible enough to leave their guns out around their kids is going to spring the extra $ to buy a smart gun?

Re:This solves ? (1)

kk49 (829669) | about a year ago | (#43863259)

That is why they want to have a law to make everyone buy one. It will take a while to get the old ones out of circulation...

Re:This solves ? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863399)

It will take a while to get the old ones out of circulation...

Like 100+ years? A 1911 from 1911 is still a useable gun, and an early AK47 will still be plenty useable in 2050. I doubt that the biometric grip these guys come up with will last like that, however.

Re: This solves ? (1)

peragrin (659227) | about a year ago | (#43863503)

The newton murders the son killed the mother and then stole her guns. He could have easily stolen the equipment to make smart guns work.

Basically in order to truly make a safe smart gun you Need an implantable NFC chip. Then have the gun look for that chip.
But even that is tough and crackable. (Kill person put gun in their hands dry fire it while recording play back recording to fire)

Re:This solves ? (1)

mapsjanhere (1130359) | about a year ago | (#43863241)

Provided that discovery channel immediately stops reruns of the Mythbuster episode on "how to beat a fingerprint reader". Because kids will never try to get around technology.

Re:This solves ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863289)

How? Police officers being shot with their own guns doesn't happen very often, and has been almost completely solved with a lanyard between the gun and the holster. The people who buy these "smart guns" are not in the same set of parents who leave guns accessible without proper discipline. Most of us who grew up with guns in the house have parents who taught them to handle them responsibly.

Re:This solves ? (1)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | about a year ago | (#43863407)

It just means that I'm going to cut off the officer's hand and use his hand to shoot him with his own gun. And I get to keep the hand as a trophy and wear it around my neck.

Re:This solves ? (1)

Znork (31774) | about a year ago | (#43863417)

Somehow I don't think the parents leaving their ammo and guns around their kids will be the ones buying safe guns. On the other hand, it might be a good excuse for a responsible person to get such a gun so they can leave it lying around for the kids to play with.

And really, trying to create a safety sensitive to fingerprints is overengineered idiocy. A safety incorporating, for example, a combination lock would accomplish the same thing for most purposes and it could be trivially made as a simple and highly reliable mechanical feature without any need for complex electronics and power.

Re:This solves ? (2)

chuckinator (2409512) | about a year ago | (#43863129)

This solves nothing. It attempts to placate an irrational fear of lethal technology.

Re:This solves ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863361)

That's what's funny...most technology is lethal if you hold it correctly. I could whack someone over the head with the device they're reading this on, and boom - you have lethal technology.

Re:This solves ? (1)

Roblimo (357) | about a year ago | (#43863519)

Wouldn't that make it an assault keyboard or laptop or whatever?

Re:This solves ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863633)

Only if it's black and has two or more "assault" features such as a Windows key or volume controls.

Re:This solves ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863599)

Yeah, I imagine that fuckwit Bloomberg will want me to register my model M keyboard with the state.

None, and worse. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#43863133)

Fingerprint scanning technology isn't even very good for DOORS yet. Why would anybody try to apply it to guns, at this stage of the technology?

Maybe when it gets to the stage that the Mythbusters can't beat them ridiculously easily with photocopies and gelatin, it might be appropriate. Now? Not a chance.

Re:This solves ? (-1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about a year ago | (#43863195)

This "solves" the major gun issue in the world: kids playing with guns and casual handling of guns.

Most gun-related deaths are due to improperly stored guns being mishandled by someone else in the household. We've tried education and legislation as far as how you store your gun and ammo, and while it has slightly decreased the injuries and deaths statistics, it hasn't made a significant impact. I think the idea with 'safe guns' is that even if the gun is stored on the kitchen table fully loaded, Mikey grabbing the shotgun to show off in front of his friends won't work, as he won't be able to fire the thing.

Of course, this has the possibility to undo all the education that's already been put in place, and if the safety on these things ever malfunctions, there's a false sense of security (and when you're dealing with a cap and packed powder, it doesn't really matter if the gun won't fire the hammer -- environmental forces can still do it for you).

The best "safe" gun I've ever seen is one where the firing pin is removed and worn around the neck of the owner, along with the key to the ammo safe.

Re:This solves ? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#43863415)

> This "solves" the major gun issue in the world: kids playing with guns and casual handling of guns.

Is that supposed to be sarcasm? Did you forget your sarcasm tag? That must be the case. Otherwise you're a big fat idiot that should watch less TV news.

Re:This solves ? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#43863427)

This "solves" the major gun issue in the world: kids playing with guns and casual handling of guns.

Most gun-related deaths are due to improperly stored guns being mishandled by someone else in the household.

If only there was some sort of physical object you could attach to a gun to stop it from firing if the kids got hold of it...something with a "key".

Re:This solves ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863507)

Most gun-related deaths are due to improperly stored guns being mishandled by someone else in the household

Wow. So wrong. Amusingly wrong.

I'll say what needs to be said, even though people will take offense to it, and mod this down to -100: Most non-suicide gun-related deaths are due to 15-30 year old poor brown people murdalating other 15-30 year old poor brown people, and no amount of tech is going to stop that. I'm not a racist, and I acknowledge and deplore the underlying socioeconomic causes, but those are the facts. Ignoring it doesn't fix it.

Accidental and or negligent deaths? Do better research. They're actually at an all time low. We just need to recognize that no matter how tragic, that number can not, and will not ever be non-zero until one removes the source of accidents and negligence in general: the human factor.

Re:This solves ? (5, Informative)

moeinvt (851793) | about a year ago | (#43863559)

"Most gun-related deaths are due to improperly stored guns being mishandled by someone"

Totally inaccurate. In the USA, MOST gun-related deaths are suicides. Roughly 20K in 2012. Another 10-11K gun-related deaths are homicides.

There were fewer than 1K deaths by "unintentional discharge" and some fraction of those are obviously due to mishandling by the rightful owner.

I don't see how this solves anything. Very few people are going to buy a firearms with the anticipation that their weapon is going to be found by a kid or an irresponsible adult.

Re:This solves ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863601)

Most gun-related deaths are due to improperly stored guns being mishandled by someone else in the household.

In the US, at least, that's patently false - ~50-60% of gun deaths are suicide. Then 35% homicide. Accidents are an order of magnitude lower.
2010: Gun homicides - 11,000
Gun suicides - 19,000
Accidental gun deaths - 600 (8% by under 6 year olds)
Even if you got rid of all guns, most of the suicides would probably happen anyway. Many of the homicides would likely still happen with smart guns. 600 people killed by accident is a lot, but self driving cars could save that many people every week in the US, let alone the rest of the world. That's where we should be expending our effort, IMHO.

Re:This solves ? (5, Interesting)

quietwalker (969769) | about a year ago | (#43863439)

Most of the anti-gun or gun-control measures being suggested appear to have little thought behind them. Assault weapons aren't involved with crime - they're just ~scary~. Massive restrictions on suppressor ownership didn't fix a non-existent assassination problem. So on with these trite changes that ignore the cultural or societal problems that are the root cause of gun issues such as safety and firearms crime. As the parent poster points out, what will this new functionality 'fix'?

This lack of foresight is endemic in gun debates, and we so often end up spending time, money, political capital and voter interest on or fighting non-functional 'solutions'. We appear to lack answers to even basic questions like "How much time and money is being spent to correct those few situations this technological fix claims value in?" or " Is this an efficient application of our resources?"

This is not a case of 'every little bit helps' - time and money are finite resources, and they should be spent where they achieve the best outcome. If you had a goal of reducing crimes involving handguns, spending on weapon modifications, regulations, certifications, and registrations may very well achieve your goal. It's not the only way to achieve it though - compare spending that money on education, which also has a statistical association with crime reduction. How about strengthening cultural value of marriage (single-parent homes produce more criminal children, committing more severe crimes, especially when the father is absent)?

The problem is most gun legislation right now is completely irrational. On one side we have those who are conditioned to be terrified of guns, and on the other, we have people who fear any regulation - even reasonable regulation - as a threat to their way of life, an unacceptable lockdown by big brother. Both scramble for facts, but the heart of both sides is driven by some irrational terror.

Is asking for a popular democracy to resort to fact-based reasoning too much of a stretch?

Re:This solves ? (2)

mmcxii (1707574) | about a year ago | (#43863655)

Is asking for a popular democracy to resort to fact-based reasoning too much of a stretch?

If people use fact-based reasoning even for a few decisions a day entire markets would collapse, there would be social upheaval and politicians would have to run for their lives.

Great, but who's going to use it? (5, Insightful)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#43863031)

I'm pretty sure anyone who feels the need to own or carry a gun is also pretty damned adamant about having it reliably and unquestionably work when they actually need it. The first time one of these things fails (even in a test) will be the last time anyone buys one.

Re:Great, but who's going to use it? (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#43863185)

The very fact that it has to rely on batteries -- even very good batteries -- means they simply cannot come even close to being sufficiently reliable to justify their existence.

How can the electronics claim to be 99.99x% reliable, when the batteries it relies on aren't?

Re:Great, but who's going to use it? (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year ago | (#43863393)

Because Tasers are powered by pixie dust?

Re:Great, but who's going to use it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863645)

Tasers have a ridiculous failure rate. Not just functionally, but also in stopping the threat.

Self defense firearms when used are literally the only thing preventing violent death or grievous harm. How much of a potential failure rate are you willing to accept for yourself or loved ones for a tool in that role?

With a few specific exceptions, mechanical complexity and parts count has been continually and deliberately reduced over the last 150 years of firearms development. The goal has always been to maximize reliability by reducing potential points of failure. Only military / police bureaucracy and political regulatory whims have moved against that trend by demanding the increased complexity and potential for failure of passive and active safety systems.

Re:Great, but who's going to use it? (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year ago | (#43863659)

Because Tasers are powered by pixie dust?

Because Tasers are never the only means of defense when they are used, they're just one of the first lines, and they are not used when deadly force is required and justified. Because they are electrical in nature, they kinda also have to have a battery.

A last-line defense that is failure prone because of an unnecessary added "feature" is a danger to the bearer.

What could possibly go wrong? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863045)

I can see it now ... an attacker tries to carjack you with no warning. You manage to get the gun out of your bag, but because of your fashionable driving gloves it refuses to fire. Thinking quickly and realizing what the problem must be, you frantically try to remove your right glove so that the gun can get a read on your prints. Relief fills your body as you get the glove off and aim the weapon at the terrorist who is trying to carjack you. You pull the trigger, but nothing happens. Shit! When was the last time you changed the batteries in this thing? Seeing what is going on, Achmed decides enough screwing around and sends a lead slug through your cranium - no witnesses this way. He then takes your car anyway, because your ignition did not have any biometric scanning built in.

This stupid garbage (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863049)

This stupid garbage was spammed at the bottom of the page in the idiotic "quote box" coming out of the slashdot logo. Enjoy, faggots.

"Bhe ivfvba vf gb fcrrq hc gvzr, riraghnyyl ryvzvangvat vg." -- Nyrk Fpuher % Cnenyyry yvarf arire zrrg, hayrff lbh oraq bar be obgu bs gurz. % Cnegf gung cbfvgviryl pnaabg or nffrzoyrq va vzcebcre beqre jvyy or. % Crbcyr jub tb gb pbasreraprf ner gur barf jub fubhyqa'g. % Cuvybtlal erpncvghyngrf rebtral; rebtral erpncvghyngrf cuvybtlal. % "Cvpgher gur fha nf gur bevtva bs gjb vagrefrpgvat 6-qvzrafvbany ulcrecynarf sebz juvpu jr pna qrqhpr n pregnva genafsbezngvbany frdhrapr juvpu tvirf hf gur grezvany irybpvgl bs n ehoore qhpx ..." % Cvr ner abg fdhner. Cvr ner ebhaq. Pbeaoernq ner fdhner. % Cbylzre culfvpvfgf ner vagb punvaf. % Cbhaq sbe cbhaq, gur nzbron vf gur zbfg ivpvbhf navzny ba rnegu. % Cbjre pbeehcgf. Naq ngbzvp cbjre pbeehcgf ngbzvpnyyl. % Cebterff zrnaf ercynpvat n gurbel gung vf jebat jvgu bar zber fhogyl jebat. % Cebgbglcr qrfvtaf nyjnlf jbex. -- Qba Ibanqn % "Cebgbmbn ner fznyy, naq onpgrevn ner fznyy, ohg ivehfrf ner fznyyre guna gur obgu chg gbtrgure." % Dhnaghz Zrpunavpf vf n ybiryl vagebqhpgvba gb Uvyoreg Fcnprf! -- Bireurneq ng ynfg lrne'f Nepuvzrqrnaf' Tneqra Cnegl % Dhnaghz Zrpunavpf vf Tbq'f irefvba bs "Gehfg zr." % Dhnex! Dhnex! Orjner gur dhnaghz qhpx! % Enqvbnpgvir pngf unir 18 unys-yvirf. % Ernyvgl zhfg gnxr cerprqrapr bire choyvp eryngvbaf, sbe Zbgure Angher pnaabg or sbbyrq. -- E.C. Srlazna % Erzrzore Qnejva; ohvyqvat n orggre zbhfrgenc zreryl erfhygf va fznegre zvpr. % Erfrnepu vf gb frr jung rirelobql ryfr unf frra, naq guvax jung abobql ryfr unf gubhtug. % Erfrnepu vf jung V'z qbvat jura V qba'g xabj jung V'z qbvat. -- Jreaure iba Oenha % Ebhaq Ahzoref ner nyjnlf snyfr. -- Fnzhry Wbuafba % Fnyvin pnhfrf pnapre, ohg bayl vs fjnyybjrq va fznyy nzbhagf bire n ybat crevbq bs gvzr. -- Trbetr Pneyva % Fpvrapr naq eryvtvba ner va shyy nppbeq ohg fpvrapr naq snvgu ner va pbzcyrgr qvfpbeq. % Fpvrapr vf ohvyg hc bs snpgf, nf n ubhfr vf jvgu fgbarf. Ohg n pbyyrpgvba bs snpgf vf ab zber n fpvrapr guna n urnc bs fgbarf vf n ubhfr. -- Whyrf Uraev Cbvapne'r % Fpvrapr vf jung unccraf jura cerpbaprcgvba zrrgf irevsvpngvba. % Fpvrapr znl fbzrqnl qvfpbire jung snvgu unf nyjnlf xabja. % Fpvragvfgf ner crbcyr jub ohvyq gur Oebbxyla Oevqtr naq gura ohl vg. -- Jvyyvnz Ohpxyrl % Fragvrag cynfzbvqf ner n tnf. % Fvzcyvpvgl qbrf abg cerprqr pbzcyrkvgl, ohg sbyybjf vg. % Fbyhgvbaf ner boivbhf vs bar bayl unf gur bcgvpny cbjre gb bofreir gurz bire gur ubevmba. -- X.N. Nefqnyy % Fcnpr vf gb cynpr nf rgreavgl vf gb gvzr. -- Wbfrcu Wbhoreg % Fcnpr gryyf znggre ubj gb zbir naq znggre gryyf fcnpr ubj gb pheir. -- Jurryre % Fgngvfgvpf ner ab fhofgvghgr sbe whqtrzrag. -- Urael Pynl % Fgngvfgvpf zrnaf arire univat gb fnl lbh'er pregnva. % Fgryyne enlf cebir svoovat arire cnlf. Rzormmyrzrag vf nabgure znggre. % Fhccbeg onpgrevn -- vg'f gur bayl phygher fbzr crbcyr unir! % Gnxr na nfgebanhg gb ynhapu. % Grpuabybtvpny cebterff unf zreryl cebivqrq hf jvgu zber rssvpvrag zrnaf sbe tbvat onpxjneqf. -- Nyqbhf Uhkyrl % Grpuabybtl vf qbzvangrq ol gubfr jub znantr jung gurl qb abg haqrefgnaq. % Gur nvz bs fpvrapr vf gb frrx gur fvzcyrfg rkcynangvbaf bs pbzcyrk snpgf. Frrx fvzcyvpvgl naq qvfgehfg vg. -- Juvgrurnq. % Gur nzbhag bs gvzr orgjrra fyvccvat ba gur crry naq ynaqvat ba gur cnirzrag vf cerpvfryl 1 onanabfrpbaq. % Gur nzbhag bs jrvtug na rinatryvfg pneevrf jvgu gur nyzvtugl vf zrnfherq va ovyyvtenunzf. % Gur orfg qrsrafr ntnvafg ybtvp vf vtabenapr. % Gur ovttre gur gurbel gur orggre. % Gur ovttrfg qvssrerapr orgjrra gvzr naq fcnpr vf gung lbh pna'g erhfr gvzr. -- Zreevpx Shefg % Gur obzo jvyy arire tb bss. V fcrnx nf na rkcreg va rkcybfvirf. -- Nqzveny Jvyyvnz Yrnul, H.F. Ngbzvp Obzo Cebwrpg % Gur pynfu bs vqrnf vf gur fbhaq bs serrqbz. % Gur pyrnerfg jnl vagb gur Havirefr vf guebhtu n sberfg jvyqrearff. -- Wbua Zhve % Gur qrivy svaqf jbex sbe vqyr pvephvgf gb qb. % Gur qvssrerapr orgjrra ernyvgl naq haernyvgl vf gung ernyvgl unf fb yvggyr gb erpbzzraq vg. -- Nyyna Furezna % Gur qvssrerapr orgjrra fpvrapr naq gur shmml fhowrpgf vf gung fpvrapr erdhverf ernfbavat juvyr gubfr bgure fhowrpgf zreryl erdhver fpubynefuvc. -- Eboreg Urvayrva % Gur rnegu vf yvxr n gval tenva bs fnaq, bayl zhpu, zhpu urnivre. % Gur rpbabzl qrcraqf nobhg nf zhpu ba rpbabzvfgf nf gur jrngure qbrf ba jrngure sberpnfgref. -- Wrna-Cnhy Xnhssznaa % Gur rkcynangvba erdhvevat gur srjrfg nffhzcgvbaf vf gur zbfg yvxryl gb or pbeerpg. -- Jvyyvnz bs Bppnz % Gur sbyybjvat fgngrzrag vf abg gehr. Gur cerivbhf fgngrzrag vf gehr. % Gur Sbepr vf jung ubyqf rirelguvat gbtrgure. Vg unf vgf qnex fvqr, naq vg unf vgf yvtug fvqr. Vg'f fbeg bs yvxr pbfzvp qhpg gncr. % "Gur sbhe ohvyqvat oybpxf bs gur havirefr ner sver, jngre, teniry naq ivaly." -- Qnir Oneel % Gur shapgvba bs gur rkcreg vf abg gb or zber evtug guna bgure crbcyr, ohg gb or jebat sbe zber fbcuvfgvpngrq ernfbaf. -- Qe. Qnivq Ohgyre, Oevgvfu cfrcubybtvfg % Gur trarengvba bs enaqbz ahzoref vf gbb vzcbegnag gb or yrsg gb punapr. % Gur tbny bs fpvrapr vf gb ohvyq orggre zbhfrgencf. Gur tbny bs angher vf gb ohvyq orggre zvpr. % Gur ureq vafgvapg nzbat rpbabzvfgf znxrf furrc ybbx yvxr vaqrcraqrag guvaxref. % "Gur vqragvpny vf rdhny gb vgfrys, fvapr vg vf qvssrerag." -- Senapb Fcvfnav % Gur vafgehzragf bs fpvrapr qb abg va gurzfryirf qvfpbire gehgu. Naq gurer ner frnepuvatf gung ner abg pbapyhqrq ol gur pbvapvqrapr bs n cbvagre naq n znex. -- Serq Fnoreuntra, "Gur Orefrexre Jnef" % Gur xrl ryrzragf va uhzna guvaxvat ner abg ahzoref ohg ynoryf bs shmml frgf. -- Y. Mnqru % Gur yvtug bs n uhaqerq fgnef qbrf abg rdhny gur yvtug bs gur zbba. % Gur zneiryf bs gbqnl'f zbqrea grpuabybtl vapyhqr gur qrirybczrag bs n fbqn pna, jura qvfpneqrq jvyy ynfg sberire ... naq n $7,000 pne juvpu jura cebcreyl pnerq sbe jvyy ehfg bhg va gjb be guerr lrnef. % Gur zbba vf n cynarg whfg yvxr gur Rnegu, bayl vg vf rira qrnqre. % Gur zbba vf znqr bs terra purrfr. -- Wbua Urljbbq % Gur zbba znl or fznyyre guna Rnegu, ohg vg'f shegure njnl. % Gur zber gurl bire-guvax gur cyhzovat gur rnfvre vg vf gb fgbc hc gur qenva. % Gur zbfg rkpvgvat cuenfr gb urne va fpvrapr, gur bar gung urenyqf arj qvfpbirevrf, vf abg "Rherxn!" (V sbhaq vg!) ohg "Gung'f shaal ..." -- Vfnnp Nfvzbi % Gur angvba gung pbagebyf zntargvfz pbagebyf gur havirefr. -- Purfgre Tbhyq/Qvpx Genpl % Gur bayl shapgvba bs rpbabzvp sberpnfgvat vf gb znxr nfgebybtl ybbx erfcrpgnoyr. -- Wbua Xraargu Tnyoenvgu % Gur bayl cresrpg fpvrapr vf uvaq-fvtug. % Gur bayl crefba jub nyjnlf tbg uvf jbex qbar ol Sevqnl jnf Ebovafba Pehfbr. % Gur bayl cbffvoyr vagrecergngvba bs nal erfrnepu jungrire va gur `fbpvny fpvraprf' vf: fbzr qb, fbzr qba'g. -- Rearfg Ehguresbeq % Gur bccbfvgr bs n pbeerpg fgngrzrag vf n snyfr fgngrzrag. Ohg gur bccbfvgr bs n cebsbhaq gehgu znl jryy or nabgure cebsbhaq gehgu. -- Avryf Obue % Gur creirefvgl bs angher vf abjurer orggre qrzbafgengrq ol gur snpg gung, jura rkcbfrq gb gur fnzr ngzbfcurer, oernq orpbzrf uneq juvyr penpxref orpbzr fbsg. % Gur engr ng juvpu n qvfrnfr fcernqf guebhtu n pbea svryq vf n cerpvfr zrnfherzrag bs gur fcrrq bs oyvtug. % Gur ernfba gung rirel znwbe havirefvgl znvagnvaf n qrcnegzrag bs zngurzngvpf vf gung vg'f purncre guna vafgvghgvbanyvmvat nyy gubfr crbcyr. % Gur ehyr ba fgnlvat nyvir nf n sberpnfgre vf gb tvir 'rz n ahzore be tvir 'rz n qngr, ohg arire tvir 'rz obgu ng bapr. -- Wnar Oelnag Dhvaa % Gur Fuhggyr vf abj tbvat svir gvzrf gur fbhaq bs fcrrq. -- Qna Engure, svefg ynaqvat bs Pbyhzovn % Gur fbyhgvba bs ceboyrzf vf gur zbfg punenpgrevfgvp naq crphyvne fbeg bs ibyhagnel guvaxvat. -- Jvyyvnz Wnzrf % Gur fbyhgvba bs guvf ceboyrz vf gevivny naq vf yrsg nf na rkrepvfr sbe gur ernqre. % Gur fbyhgvba gb n ceboyrz punatrf gur angher bs gur ceboyrz. -- Crre % Gur fcrrq bs nalguvat qrcraqf ba gur sybj bs rirelguvat. % Gur fghql bs aba-yvarne culfvpf vf yvxr gur fghql bs aba-ryrcunag ovbybtl. % "Gur fhofcnpr _J vaurevgf gur bgure 8 cebcregvrf bs _I. Naq gurer nera'g rira nal cebcregl gnkrf." -- W. ZnpXnl, Zngurzngvpf 134o % Gur fhz bs gur Havirefr vf mreb. % Gur grfg bs vagryyvtrag gvaxrevat vf gb fnir nyy gur cnegf. -- Nyqb Yrbcbyq % Gur gerr bs erfrnepu zhfg sebz gvzr gb gvzr or erserfurq jvgu gur oybbq bs orna pbhagref. -- Nyna Xnl % Gur gehgu bs n cebcbfvgvba unf abguvat gb qb jvgu vgf perqvovyvgl. Naq ivpr irefn. % Gur gjb zbfg pbzzba guvatf va gur Havirefr ner ulqebtra naq fghcvqvgl. -- Uneyna Ryyvfba % Gur hasnpgf, qvq jr unir gurz, ner gbb vzcerpvfryl srj gb jneenag bhe pregvghqr. % Gur havirefr qbrf abg unir ynjf -- vg unf unovgf, naq unovgf pna or oebxra. % Gur havirefr vf nyy n fcva-bss bs gur Ovt Onat. % Gur havirefr vf na vfynaq, fheebhaqrq ol jungrire vg vf gung fheebhaqf havirefrf. % Gur havirefr vf yvxr n fnsr gb juvpu gurer vf n pbzovangvba -- ohg gur pbzovangvba vf ybpxrq hc va gur fnsr. -- Crgre QrIevrf % Gur Havirefr vf cbchyngrq ol fgnoyr guvatf. -- Evpuneq Qnjxvaf % Gur havirefr frrzf arvgure oravta abe ubfgvyr, zreryl vaqvssrerag. -- Fntna % Gur havirefr, gurl fnvq, qrcraqrq sbe vgf bcrengvba ba gur onynapr bs sbhe sbeprf juvpu gurl vqragvsvrq nf punez, crefhnfvba, hapregnvagl naq oybbql-zvaqrqarff. -- Greel Cengpurgg, "Gur Yvtug Snagnfgvp" % Gur Havirefvgl bs Pnyvsbeavn Fgngvfgvpf Qrcnegzrag; jurer zrna vf abezny, naq qrivngvba fgnaqneq. % Gur jbeyq vf zbivat fb snfg gurfr qnlf gung gur zna jub fnlf vg pna'g or qbar vf trarenyyl vagreehcgrq ol fbzrbar qbvat vg. -- R. Uhooneq % Gur Jevtug Obguref jrera'g gur svefg gb syl. Gurl jrer whfg gur svefg abg gb penfu. % Gurbel vf tenl, ohg gur tbyqra gerr bs yvsr vf terra. -- Tbrgur % Gurer *__vf* ab fhpu guvat nf n pvivy ratvarre. % Gurer ner ab qngn gung pnaabg or cybggrq ba n fgenvtug yvar vs gur nkvf ner pubfra pbeerpgyl. % "Gurer ner guerr cevapvcny jnlf gb ybfr zbarl: jvar, jbzra, naq ratvarref. Juvyr gur svefg gjb ner zber cyrnfnag, gur guveq vf ol sne gur zber pregnva." -- Oneba Ebgufpuvyq, pn. 1800 % Gurer ner gjb xvaqf bs fbyne-urng flfgrzf: "cnffvir" flfgrzf pbyyrpg gur fhayvtug gung uvgf lbhe ubzr, naq "npgvir" flfgrzf pbyyrpg gur fhayvtug gung uvgf lbhe arvtuobef' ubzrf, gbb. -- Qnir Oneel, "Cbfgcrgebyrhz Thmmyre" % Gurer pna or ab gjvfgrq gubhtug jvgubhg n gjvfgrq zbyrphyr. -- E. J. Treneq % Gurer vf ab yvxryvubbq zna pna rire gnc gur cbjre bs gur ngbz. -- Eboreg Zvyyvxna, Abory Cevmr va Culfvpf, 1923 % Gurer vf ab bcvavba fb nofheq gung fbzr cuvybfbcure jvyy abg rkcerff vg. -- Znephf Ghyyvhf Pvpreb, "Nq snzvyvnerf" % Gurer vf ab eblny ebnq gb trbzrgel. -- Rhpyvq % Gurer'f n jubyr JBEYQ va n zhq chqqyr! -- Qbht Pyvssbeq % Gurer'f ab shgher va gvzr geniry. % Gurer'f ab frafr va orvat cerpvfr jura lbh qba'g rira xabj jung lbh'er gnyxvat nobhg. -- Wbua iba Arhznaa % Guvatf rdhny gb abguvat ryfr ner rdhny gb rnpu bgure. % Guvf vf pyrneyl nabgure pnfr bs gbb znal znq fpvragvfgf, naq abg rabhtu uhapuonpxf. % Guvf vf gur gurbel gung Wnpx ohvyg. Guvf vf gur synj gung ynl va gur gurbel gung Wnpx ohvyg. Guvf vf gur cnycnoyr ireony unmr gung uvq gur synj gung ynl va... % Guvf cynpr whfg vfa'g ovt rabhtu sbe nyy bs hf. Jr'ir tbg gb svaq n jnl bss guvf cynarg. % Guvf havirefr fuvccrq ol jrvtug, abg ol ibyhzr. Fbzr rkcnafvba bs gur pbagragf znl unir bppheerq qhevat fuvczrag. % Gubfr jub pna, qb; gubfr jub pna'g, fvzhyngr. % Gubfr jub pna, qb; gubfr jub pna'g, jevgr. Gubfr jub pna'g jevgr jbex sbe gur Oryy Ynof Erpbeq. % ... gubhtu uvf vairagvba jbexrq fhcreoyl -- uvf gurbel jnf n pebpx bs frjntr sebz ortvaavat gb raq. -- Ireabe Ivatr, "Gur Crnpr Jne" % Guhf zngurzngvpf znl or qrsvarq nf gur fhowrpg va juvpu jr arire xabj jung jr ner gnyxvat nobhg, abe jurgure jung jr ner fnlvat vf gehr. -- Oregenaq Ehffryy % Gvzr vf na vyyhfvba crecrgengrq ol gur znahsnpgheref bs fcnpr. % Gvzr vf angher'f jnl bs znxvat fher gung rirelguvat qbrfa'g unccra ng bapr. Fcnpr vf angher'f jnl bs znxvat fher gung rirelguvat qbrfa'g unccra gb lbh. % Gb pbairefr ng gur qvfgnapr bs gur Vaqrf ol zrnaf bs flzcngurgvp pbagevinaprf znl or nf angheny gb shgher gvzrf nf gb hf vf n yvgrenel pbeerfcbaqrapr. -- Wbfrcu Tynaivyy, 1661 % Gb vairag, lbh arrq n tbbq vzntvangvba naq n cvyr bs whax. -- Gubznf Rqvfba % Gbqnl'f fpvragvsvp dhrfgvba vf: Jung va gur jbeyq vf ryrpgevpvgl? Naq jurer qbrf vg tb nsgre vg yrnirf gur gbnfgre? -- Qnir Oneel, "Jung vf Ryrpgevpvgl?" % Gbedhr vf purnc. % Gjb vf abg rdhny gb guerr, rira sbe ynetr inyhrf bs gjb. % Gjb creprag bs mreb vf nyzbfg abguvat. % Gjb jevtugf qba'g znxr n ebat, gurl znxr na nvecynar. Be ovplpyrf. % HSBf ner sbe erny: gur Nve Sbepr qbrfa'g rkvfg. % Haqrefgnaqvat vf nyjnlf gur haqrefgnaqvat bs n fznyyre ceboyrz va eryngvba gb n ovttre ceboyrz. -- C.Q. Bhfcrafxl % Hgvyvgl vf jura lbh unir bar gryrcubar, yhkhel vf jura lbh unir gjb, bchyrapr vf jura lbh unir guerr -- naq cnenqvfr vf jura lbh unir abar. -- Qbht Ynefba % Jr ner rnpu ragvgyrq gb bhe bja bcvavba, ohg ab bar vf ragvgyrq gb uvf bja snpgf. -- Cngevpx Zblavuna % Jr pna qrsrng tenivgl. Gur ceboyrz vf gur cncrejbex vaibyirq. % Jr pna cerqvpg rirelguvat, rkprcg gur shgher. % Jr pnaabg pbzznaq angher rkprcg ol borlvat ure. -- Fve Senapvf Onpba % "Jr qba'g pner. Jr qba'g unir gb. Jr'er gur Cubar Pbzcnal." % Jr qba'g xabj bar zvyyvbagu bs bar creprag nobhg nalguvat. % Jr qba'g xabj jub vg jnf gung qvfpbirerq jngre, ohg jr'er cerggl fher gung vg jnfa'g n svfu. -- Znefunyy ZpYhuna % Jr tnir lbh na ngbzvp obzo, jung qb lbh jnag, zreznvqf? -- V. V. Enov gb gur Ngbzvp Raretl Pbzzvffvba % Jr unir n rdhny bccbeghavgl Pnyphyhf pynff -- vg'f shyyl vagrtengrq. % Jr zhfg oryvrir gung vg vf gur qnexrfg orsber gur qnja bs n ornhgvshy arj jbeyq. Jr jvyy frr vg jura jr oryvrir vg. -- Fnhy Nyvafxl % Jr jnea gur ernqre va nqinapr gung gur cebbs cerfragrq urer qrcraqf ba n pyrire ohg uvtuyl hazbgvingrq gevpx. -- Ubjneq Nagba, "Ryrzragnel Yvarne Nytroen" % Jr jub eriry va angher'f qvirefvgl naq srry vafgehpgrq ol rirel navzny graq gb oenaq Ubzb fncvraf nf gur terngrfg pngnfgebcur fvapr gur Pergnprbhf rkgvapgvba. -- F.W. Tbhyq % Jr jvyy unir fbyne raretl nf fbba nf gur hgvyvgl pbzcnavrf fbyir bar grpuavpny ceboyrz -- ubj gb eha n fhaornz guebhtu n zrgre. % Jr'ir frag n zna gb gur zbba, naq gung'f 29,000 zvyrf njnl. Gur pragre bs gur Rnegu vf bayl 4,000 zvyrf njnl. Lbh pbhyq qevir gung va n jrrx, ohg sbe fbzr ernfba abobql'f rire qbar vg. -- Naql Ebbarl % Jreaure iba Oenha frggyrq sbe n I-2 jura ur pbhyqn unq n I-8. % "Jung V'ir qbar, bs pbhefr, vf gbgny tneontr." -- E. Jvyyneq, Cher Zngu 430n % Jung vf nytroen, rknpgyl? Vf vg bar bs gubfr guerr-pbearerq guvatf? -- W.Z. Oneevr % Jung vf zvaq? Ab znggre. Jung vf znggre? Arire zvaq. -- Gubznf Urjvgg Xrl, 1799-1875 % Jung vf abj cebirq jnf bapr bayl vzntva'q. -- Jvyyvnz Oynxr % Jung vf erfrnepu ohg n oyvaq qngr jvgu xabjyrqtr? -- Jvyy Uneirl % Jung vf jnagrq vf abg gur jvyy gb oryvrir, ohg gur jvyy gb svaq bhg, juvpu vf gur rknpg bccbfvgr. -- Oregenaq Ehffryy, "Fxrcgvpny Rffnlf", 1928 % Jung gur qrhpr vf vg gb zr? Lbh fnl gung jr tb nebhaq gur fha. Vs jr jrag nebhaq gur zbba vg jbhyq abg znxr n craaljbegu bs qvssrerapr gb zr be zl jbex. -- Fureybpx Ubyzrf, "N Fghql va Fpneyrg" % Jung gur fpvragvfgf unir va gurve oevrspnfrf vf greevslvat. -- Avxvgn Xuehfpuri % Jung gur jbeyq *ernyyl* arrqf vf n tbbq Nhgbzngvp Ovplpyr Funecrare. % Jura n zna fvgf jvgu n cerggl tvey sbe na ubhe, vg frrzf yvxr n zvahgr. Ohg yrg uvz fvg ba n ubg fgbir sbe n zvahgr -- naq vg'f ybatre guna nal ubhe. Gung'f eryngvivgl. -- Nyoreg Rvafgrva % Jura Nyrknaqre Tenunz Oryy qvrq va 1922, gur gryrcubar crbcyr vagreehcgrq freivpr sbe bar zvahgr va uvf ubabe. Gurl'ir orra ubabevat uvz vagrezvggragyl rire fvapr, V oryvrir. -- Gur Teno Ont % Jura fbzr crbcyr qvfpbire gur gehgu, gurl whfg pna'g haqrefgnaq jul rirelobql vfa'g rntre gb urne vg. % Jura fcrphyngvba unf qbar vgf jbefg, gjb cyhf gjb fgvyy rdhnyf sbhe. -- F. Wbuafba % "Jura gur tbvat trgf gbhtu, gur gbhtu trg rzcvevpny." -- Wba Pneebyy % Jura gur jrvtug bs gur cncrejbex rdhnyf gur jrvtug bs gur cynar, gur cynar jvyy syl. -- Qbanyq Qbhtynf % Jurer ner gur pnyphyngvbaf gung tb jvgu n pnyphyngrq evfx? % Jurer vg vf n qhgl gb jbefuvc gur fha vg vf cerggl fher gb or n pevzr gb rknzvar gur ynjf bs urng. -- Puevfgbcure Zbeyrl % Juvgr qjnes frrxf erq tvnag sbe ovanel eryngvbafuvc. % Jul qba'g lbh svk lbhe yvggyr ceboyrz... naq yvtug guvf pnaqyr? -- Nyna Furcureq, gur svefg zna vagb fcnpr, Trzvav cebtenz % Jvgu nyy gur snapl fpvragvfgf va gur jbeyq, jul pna'g gurl whfg bapr ohvyq n ahpyrne onyz? % Jvgubhg yvsr, Ovbybtl vgfrys jbhyq or vzcbffvoyr. % Ln'yy urne nobhg gur trbzrgre jub jrag gb gur ornpu gb pngpu fbzr enlf naq orpnzr n gnatrag ? % "Lrnu, ohg lbh'er gnxvat gur havirefr bhg bs pbagrkg." % Lbh pna abg trg nalguvat jbegujuvyr qbar jvgubhg envfvat n fjrng. -- Gur Svefg Ynj Bs Gurezbqlanzvpf % Jung rire lbh jnag vf tbvat gb pbfg n yvggyr zber guna vg vf jbegu. -- Gur Frpbaq Ynj Bs Gurezbqlanzvpf % Lbh pna abg jva gur tnzr, naq lbh ner abg nyybjrq gb fgbc cynlvat. -- Gur Guveq Ynj Bs Gurezbqlanzvpf % Lbh pna'g purng gur cubar pbzcnal. % Lbh pnaabg unir n fpvrapr jvgubhg zrnfherzrag. -- E. J. Unzzvat % Lbh xabj lbh'ir ynaqrq trne-hc jura vg gnxrf shyy cbjre gb gnkv. % Lbh zrna lbh qvqa'g *xabj* fur jnf bss znxvat ybgf bs yvggyr cubar pbzcnavrf? % Lbh fubhyq arire org ntnvafg nalguvat va fpvrapr ng bqqf bs zber guna nobhg 10^12 gb 1. -- Rearfg Ehguresbeq % Lbh jvyy arire nzbhag gb zhpu. -- Zhavpu Fpubbyznfgre, gb Nyoreg Rvafgrva, ntr 10 %

Re:This stupid garbage (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863131)

I got it too. Super Annoying. ROT13, obviously, because /. thinks ROT13 is hilarious, but here's the unROTed version:
"Our vision is to speed up time, eventually eliminating it." -- Alex Schure % Parallel lines never meet, unless you bend one or both of them. % Parts that positively cannot be assembled in improper order will be. % People who go to conferences are the ones who shouldn't. % Philogyny recapitulates erogeny; erogeny recapitulates philogyny. % "Picture the sun as the origin of two intersecting 6-dimensional hyperplanes from which we can deduce a certain transformational sequence which gives us the terminal velocity of a rubber duck ..." % Pie are not square. Pie are round. Cornbread are square. % Polymer physicists are into chains. % Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth. % Power corrupts. And atomic power corrupts atomically. % Progress means replacing a theory that is wrong with one more subtly wrong. % Prototype designs always work. -- Don Vonada % "Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together." % Quantum Mechanics is a lovely introduction to Hilbert Spaces! -- Overheard at last year's Archimedeans' Garden Party % Quantum Mechanics is God's version of "Trust me." % Quark! Quark! Beware the quantum duck! % Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives. % Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled. -- R.P. Feynman % Remember Darwin; building a better mousetrap merely results in smarter mice. % Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and think what nobody else has thought. % Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing. -- Wernher von Braun % Round Numbers are always false. -- Samuel Johnson % Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time. -- George Carlin % Science and religion are in full accord but science and faith are in complete discord. % Science is built up of facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house. -- Jules Henri Poincar'e % Science is what happens when preconception meets verification. % Science may someday discover what faith has always known. % Scientists are people who build the Brooklyn Bridge and then buy it. -- William Buckley % Sentient plasmoids are a gas. % Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. % Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall % Space is to place as eternity is to time. -- Joseph Joubert % Space tells matter how to move and matter tells space how to curve. -- Wheeler % Statistics are no substitute for judgement. -- Henry Clay % Statistics means never having to say you're certain. % Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter. % Support bacteria -- it's the only culture some people have! % Take an astronaut to launch. % Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards. -- Aldous Huxley % Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand. % The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanations of complex facts. Seek simplicity and distrust it. -- Whitehead. % The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely 1 bananosecond. % The amount of weight an evangelist carries with the almighty is measured in billigrahams. % The best defense against logic is ignorance. % The bigger the theory the better. % The biggest difference between time and space is that you can't reuse time. -- Merrick Furst % The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives. -- Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project % The clash of ideas is the sound of freedom. % The clearest way into the Universe is through a forest wilderness. -- John Muir % The devil finds work for idle circuits to do. % The difference between reality and unreality is that reality has so little to recommend it. -- Allan Sherm

HANDgun (1)

puddingebola (2036796) | about a year ago | (#43863053)

But what if I cut off the owner's hand and use it to fire the gun with? Huh?! Didn't think about that one, did you technology people? Then I could go around committing mass acts of violence and it'll look like the guy who got his hand cut off did it all. And you won't be able to prove it in court. See?

count me out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863057)

i already prefer to buy used guns from individuals because the manufacturing quality on an older weapon is usually better, and it shoots just as well for a fraction of the price. just one more reason to keep buying weapons with no paper trail...

After (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year ago | (#43863075)

When is the government going to mandate smart cars, smart kitchen knives, smart tree branches, smart rocks, smart lightening bolts, smart light sabers [towleroad.com], smart hammers, smart chainsaws, smart door knobs, smart electrical outlets, smart rivers, smart rain, smart earthquakes, smart bridges, and most importantly, smart politicians?

Re:After (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863149)

That site is gay.

Re:After (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863307)

Wow, you are totally right. The government shouldn't regulate things unless it regulates everything in that category. My son's tricycle is a vehicle - it is unreasonable that he does not need the same license for it that I need for my motorcycle.

Re:After (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#43863455)

The government shouldn't regulate things period.

You are confused. Perhaps you're European or perhaps you've spent too much time listening to journalists.

It is the GOVERNMENT that is supposed to have a limited role and few rights.

You are confusing the liberties that free men should have with the expectation that the government is free to interfere with yours.

It's the role of government as nanny that needs to be justified, not the other way around.

takes a certain kind of mind -- (5, Insightful)

washort (6555) | about a year ago | (#43863111)

This is the sort of thing that sounds like a great idea to people who don't know much about computers or guns, and the ways that they can fail.

I'm looking forward to this development (0)

msobkow (48369) | about a year ago | (#43863115)

No, I am not trolling.

I genuinely believe that weapons should be "locked" to their owner.

Re:I'm looking forward to this development (4, Insightful)

flatt (513465) | about a year ago | (#43863231)

Yep, there's no problem that can't be solved with DRM.

Re:I'm looking forward to this development (3, Insightful)

Dan Ost (415913) | about a year ago | (#43863305)

Then you haven't thought things through.

"Locks" like what is being suggested here is simply another point of failure on a system that is optimized to have as few failure points as possible. No one that knows anything about guns will willingly buy this.

Re:I'm looking forward to this development (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863325)

When the technology is good enough that law enforcement and military personnel use it, and it's the gold standard for the secret service and bodyguards for our politicians and other VIP's - I'll re-evaluate my opinion of it.

Until then...keep dreaming.

Re:I'm looking forward to this development (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863555)

Yah well I firmly believe that I should be able to achieve escape velocity by jumping. Its a fundamental flaw in the universe that i can't do that! and I demand it be fixed!

How to do this (1)

ShooterNeo (555040) | about a year ago | (#43863119)

Proposal : the only validation method I think is usable is an implanted RFID tag with encryption. I don't think these exist yet, the current ones that can be implanted can be "cloned" because they emit a fixed data string when queried.

Why not fingerprints/palmprints? Validation is too slow, too many ways for the sensor to get obscured or some other failure to happen to cause the gun to not register the user instantly. Also, fingerprints/palmprints can be hacked easily.

Anyways, it would use implanted RFID tags, and there would be mechanical switches in the gun itself that must be closed before the weapon starts scanning for a tag. That way, when a user is not holding the gun, the switches are open, and it does not use any energy at all. (the switch allows power to flow to the circuitry). It would have to use long life, non rechargable lithium ion batteries similar to what they use in pacemakers.

Ultimately, the whole technology package would be a module that could replace part of the firing mechanism for an existing tried and true firearm, such as a popular model of glock or something. I think if it were reliable enough, police would want to use it.

Re:How to do this (1)

Fallen Kell (165468) | about a year ago | (#43863433)

You also need a powered RFID scanner to query the tag, which means either the owner's hand or the gun needs a power source to operate. I do not foresee these selling well if it only has a shelf life of a few months to a few years. The people who want a gun, want one that is reliable and can sit in a case for years and still work at a moment's notice. Swapping out a battery doesn't sound like something people will want to need to do....

Re:How to do this (1)

leonardluen (211265) | about a year ago | (#43863501)

why does it have to be implanted? why not put it in a ring, bracelet, or glove? that way it is still on your person and would be difficult to take, but allows you to loan it to someone if needed?

fingerprint ID for a gun won't work (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863135)

Fingerprint ID for a gun won't work for obvious reasons. You can't guarantee fingerprints can be read if your finger is dirty or injured. Further more when you need to pull a trigger on a gun you need it to go off right then and not have to mess around with it.

Lots of government money has already been wasted on this concept only to conclude its not practical

Good luck fellas (1)

smkndrkn (3654) | about a year ago | (#43863143)

I won't be contributing.

All this will do is add a piece of technology that is more prone to breakage than the gun itself. One purpose of the weapon is to defend yourself, almost always, quickly. The last damned thing I want on my gun is another locking mechanism that could fail when I need it most.

They're also going to beg you to buy their product (5, Insightful)

PseudoCoder (1642383) | about a year ago | (#43863177)

Because nobody in their right mind is going to want a "smart" gun. I advocate for smart gun owners. In fact, I help train them. It is much more effective than the "smart gun" will ever be, and the cost will be about the same. Trying to fix stupid with technology is a losing bet.

Reliability is a sticking point when people ask advice for which gun to buy. You want it to shoot every time you pull the trigger. I'm not going to add a layer of uncertainty to a life-critical mechanical device. What if I need to use it during the winter when I'm likely to be wearing gloves? Or if it's raining and my hands are wet? No thanks; we'll pass.

Car Analogy (4, Interesting)

sehlat (180760) | about a year ago | (#43863207)

A google car which detects whether you're upset and refuses to start even if your wife's water just broke.

Additional extra smart Features - (1)

RichMan (8097) | about a year ago | (#43863243)

Lets look at some extra smart features
a) RF signal to disable the gun around schools, malls and movie theatres
b) ID + location beacon that is transmitted for 1 hour after any firing
c) write only GPS time and location log of all firings. Anything within 5 minuts and 50m is logged as single event with total rounds fired count
d) Friend of Foe ping with identification.
e) remote disable using secure key, this must be active on all privately owned guns
f) ability to turn off features (a,b,d,e), but the gun will transmit its ID and the fact it has had the features turned off for 8 hours. Turning off the disable takes effect after 4 hours of applying during those 4 hours the gun will begin transmitting the id. It is legal to test the disable feature at licensed locations, usually police stations and gun ranges. It is illegal to have d,e disabled without a very special license.

Comments, "militia's" will not like most of this, the f option is what makes it work and acceptable.

Re:Additional extra smart Features - (1)

quietwalker (969769) | about a year ago | (#43863619)

The problem with all these things is not that they can't be done, but that each one of them individually exceeds the complexity of the simple mechanics of a gun, and none of them are endemic to it's functioning. This, in turn, implies that disabling those functions while retaining the gun-like features is relatively simple.

To put it another way, you can put a gps unit, friend or foe, operator ID broadcaster, fingerprint scanner, remote disable switch, etc on a car. There's nothing to stop someone who has physical access from just ripping them out though, as they're not required for the car to work.

The end result of this then is additional but relatively easily surmountable difficulty for those who wish to use the weapons illegally, while further restricting the usage by those who would have already been using it legally. End result: no significant impact.

You just can't legislate DRM on simple machines and expect it to have any real impact.

Perhaps in some science fiction world it'd be more realistic, when software functionality is somehow intrinsic to the operation of the device and making a new device from scratch is less effort than overriding an existing one. However, we're not on the bridge of the Enterprise yet.

Reliability concerns (1)

IndigoDarkwolf (752210) | about a year ago | (#43863245)

"Dammit, why did my car just shut off again?!"

I think anyone here will recognize how easily "smart gun technologies" will be circumvented on the streets, either by hardware hacks or software ones, meaning the technology will be useless at preventing illegal firearms transfers after a few days of being introduced. The only kind of crime that would be prevented by biometric or RFID identification would be stealing someone's gun to use on them in the heat of the confrontation. This seems somewhat desirable for peace officers and security personnel, but only if the technology can be made robust enough to prevent false negatives. No officer would ever want to place their lives in the hands of a gun that might refuse to fire at the most important moment.

For the majority case, sport and range shooting, the "feature" is nothing more than a potential nuisance, something else that can break in an already complex, dangerous system.

If so much money is wasted... (1)

Takatata (2864109) | about a year ago | (#43863273)

...on something that can easily hacked and never will work reliably, why not spend money on something much better, which can also easily hacked and never will work reliably? A gun, which refuses to shoot unarmed people?

Car Analogy (3, Interesting)

saynt (19633) | about a year ago | (#43863363)

If your car doesn't start immediately on the first turn of the key, you die of multiple gunshot wounds.

Car analogy (1, Interesting)

Teun (17872) | about a year ago | (#43863387)

Anyone driving a car has to do a test to get a licence.

In most US states you can just go out and buy a gun, no licence needed to own or use it.

Such a gun licence, with or without a prior test, would do away with the discussion about buying guns a shows, you don't have licence, no sale.

Re:Car analogy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863451)

Do I need a license for a screwdriver too?

Re:Car analogy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863497)

Yeah, but guns kill a lot less people than cars do, maybe it should be the other way around.

Re:Car analogy (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year ago | (#43863567)

Everyone does have a license to own a firearm. It's called the 2nd Amendment.

Driver's licenses are not regulated by the federal government, and there is no Constitutional guarantee of a person being allowed to drive a vehicle.

Re:Car analogy (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#43863597)

Anyone driving a car has to do a test to get a licence.

No, anybody driving a car on a public road has to be licensed or face prosecution if they get caught.

People can drive all over their own or others' private property all they want without any sort of license.

Start with the military (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863389)

Okay, if the government wants this, then let the military develop this technology and prove it on the war agaist terrorism.

On it passes this test then it will be reliable for us civies.

Missing the obvious solution.. (2)

xtal (49134) | about a year ago | (#43863403)

Fingerprint approaches just are not going to work, because the environment is insufficiently controlled.

Why not either design the assault rifle to use a small implantable RFID key device, that is coded to you and works every time? If it's implantable, it's always there..

That strikes me as a simple and elegant solution. You're always going to need a battery, but the power level might be low enough to measure the lifetime in years.


Another approach would be to code the ammunition not the rifle, and electrically detonate it. That way you could have a fresh "battery" every time. Likely cost prohibitive, however.

There's a few hundred million weapons in the US now anyway, millions more sold every year. I think the horse left the barn some time ago.. making this kind of moot.

If I ran the kingdom in light of the above, I'd have mandatory practical firearms training for every high school student. That'd make too much sense, though..

Car analogy? (4, Insightful)

pla (258480) | about a year ago | (#43863409)

Best car analogy? Okay, how about this:

You leave work late one evening. You notice a group of trashy teens across the parking lot, but see similar groups often enough so think nothing of it. You start walking toward your car, and as soon as you've gotten committedly-far from the safety of your office building, the teens start moving quickly toward you. You notice two now have knives out.

You start running toward your car, and make it with a good 10+ second buffer before the thugs reach you. You press your thumb to the door lock and...

Bzzzt. Damn that paper cut you got right after lunch! You try again: Bzzzt. Third time: Bzzzt.

The thugs reach you, stab you 27 times, rape a few of the new holes, and take your iphone and wallet. They leave you to die, which you obligingly do roughly twelve minutes later.

Whether you "like" them or not, if you acknowledge that guns have any legitimate use, they need to just plain work when needed. Period. No papercuts preventing them from recognizing your fingerprints, no batteries to die, no "instant background check" to take 30 seconds to verify that you haven't started taking Prozac in the past few days.

And if you don't think guns have any legitimate purpose, well, too bad - Because the authors of our constitution did.

Kickstart It! (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year ago | (#43863447)

For a Pledge of $1000, Jaqen H'ghar will kill 3 people of your choosing using this product. Just don't waste it on the wrong 3 people that could have ended the book series quickly.

Car analogy time...legal responsability (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | about a year ago | (#43863469)

Not going for 'funny' points here, but still.

In plenty of juristictions, you can be in trouble if you're in possession of car keys whilst under the influence of drink or drugs.
(BTW, are they not the same thing? Why the distinction? But I digress...)

How would this work with a 'smart' gun?

Your car keys are on the table when the cops bust the bar. You've just finished your 10th strong drink. No problem; someone (sober) in your entourage was going to drive you home.
Your 'smart' gun, (why do I dislike that term so much?), is on the table. Hmmm...kinda hard to convince the law that someone else is in charge of it.

Because that's exactly the argument they use to bust you when you are "drunk in charge"...of just a set of car keys.

Mind you, I suppose you could argue that if you go out drinking with a gun, you deserve all you get.
Or you live in Detroit.

I bet the people who would fund this... (2)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#43863483)

are not gun owners.

I can't imagine any reason that I would want their project to succeed.

Re:I bet the people who would fund this... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#43863667)

I can't imagine any reason that I would want their project to succeed.

Really? They probably want the government to mandate that their patented technology be used by all gun manufacturers. It's a rent-seeking [wikipedia.org] goldmine if they succeed.

The guns are smart enough... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863487)

...it's the moron's holding them that are the problem.

Assault Style (1)

NoImNotNineVolt (832851) | about a year ago | (#43863489)

to build an assault-style rifle

Much like the double rainbow guy, I can't help but ask...
"What does it mean? I don't know what it means..."

Really. What the fuck is an assault-style rifle? Have we not muddled the language enough yet?
An assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle that is designed for tactical operations.
An assault weapon is a semiautomatic rifle that is specifically named in the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, or has a certain combination of cosmetic features specifically identified in the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.
An assault-style rifle is... is what?

Kickstart Jim Bell's "Assasination Politics" (1)

Maj Variola (2934803) | about a year ago | (#43863495)

This would be an amusing hornets' nest to kick: Kickstart Jim Bell's "Assasination Politics"

Repeal the Second Amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863535)

This technology will likely have issues. It sounds great in principle, but probably can be hacked and could prevent people from defending themselves if there's a glitch. Furthermore, what's to prevent someone who passes the incomplete background checks from getting an assault weapon and the massacring people anyway? It sounds good in principle, but in practice is probably trouble.

The solution is simple. If you want to eliminate gun violence, eliminate guns. The second amendment exists in part because of the reluctance to have standing armies and the perceived need for citizens to defend themselves against a potentially tyrannical government. The first reason didn't last long since a standing army was established under President Washington. As for the tyrannical government, there's no way a bunch of people with semi-automatic rifles are going to defend themselves against the firepower of the United States military. The second amendment is antiquated.

I'm not opposed to people having a handgun for self defense. But the people arguing against gun control because of the second amendment are loony. Repeal the second amendment rather than creating new technologies that might not work well and that gun owners will resist. Just repeal the second amendment. Problem solved.

ATF letter on electronic trigger (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863545)

Didn't ATF rule electronic triggers classify as a machine gun because they are more easily convertible to full auto? Wouldn't these violate that ATF letter/ruling? Also, unintended consequenses and all that since conversion would require a soldering iron instead of a machine shop.

Increases security but will not prevent much. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863591)

As long as we use gun powder and bullets for fire guns you can't reliable stop anyone from working around the fingerprint technology. It is too simple to modify a gun, simply by cutting off the handle and attaching a new one or even. With the right tools, or even the wrong ones, you can make anything a lethal weapon. Heck, even potato guns are lethal and just about anyone can build one. There are a million more ways to commit the same crime a gun does.

Or look at airplanes... Based on one single person, every person now has to remove their shoes. They let you bring laptops onboard, but not knives? Any laptop contains bits of metal that can be broken apart into sharp shards but box cutters and pocket knives are confiscated? Like most security, it only trivially increases the difficulty of committing a heinous act until it can appease the public opinion and absolutely will not prevent the one-off psychos from acting.

Crowd anti-funding? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43863593)

Where can we contribute to prevent this idiocy being pursued?

Car analogy (1)

Mini-Geek (915324) | about a year ago | (#43863615)

This is the equivalent of a car with a steering wheel that has fingerprint sensors on it, at the 9 and 3 o'clock positions. If it is unable to read valid fingerprints, the engine stops and the steering wheel locks in place.

It's safer because it doesn't let someone steal your car (be it your child, or a thief), and it forces you to drive with both hands on the wheel at all times.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account