Beta
×

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!

Norway Is Gamifying Warfare By Driving Tanks With Oculus Rift

Unknown Lamer posted about 3 months ago | from the better-killing-through-technology dept.

The Military 106

Daniel_Stuckey (2647775) writes "Look at Norway, where the Army has started using Oculus Rift to drive tanks with increased visibility, according to the Norwegian TV station tu.no. Four VR cameras are mounted on the sides of the tank to give the soldier inside donning the headset a full 360 degree view of what's going on outside, like X-ray vision. Using cameras to 'see through' a vehicle isn't a new concept; when the hatches are down tanks are notoriously hard to navigate. But the Oculus Rift dev kit is just a fraction of the price of traditional 360-degree camera equipment: Lockheed Martin's F-35 helmet for pilots can cost tens of thousands of dollars."

cancel ×

106 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Already did (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927257)

This is nice that someone implemented it. Dreamed about that for few years back as any armored vehicle driver has problems to see around well without rear camera etc.

Re:Already did (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 3 months ago | (#46928561)

you sure you're not some guy writing anime?

the concept is old hat.. executing it cheaply isn't that old.

and in other game war news, swedes are using playstation controllers for artillery rapid control.

F-35 (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927263)

The latency / integration requirements for the F - 35 are probably a lot more sophisticated.

Re:F-35 (3, Informative)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 3 months ago | (#46927311)

Yeah it's like "My bike helmet looks like something astronauts wear and it protects my head! Why isn't NASA buying these instead of those expensive space helments?"

Re:F-35 (3, Insightful)

Splab (574204) | about 3 months ago | (#46927335)

I get that it is a silly comparison, but what's with the negative vibes?

These guys have come up with a nifty solution to an expensive problem and they are using some awesome geek gear to do so.

Re:F-35 (2)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 3 months ago | (#46927533)

The tank solution is cool. Suggesting that this could work for something like a jet fighter is hilarious.

Re:F-35 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927741)

Good thing nobody suggested that.

Re:F-35 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927789)

Read the last sentence of the summary. Something can be said without saying it.

Re:F-35 (1)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | about 3 months ago | (#46933083)

Read the last sentence of the summary. Something can be said without saying it.

You are reading it wrong. The sentence suggest future potential (and which would obviously require future research/improvement/refinement.)

Not. The. Same. Thing.

Re:F-35 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927539)

A proof of concept perhaps, but certainly not a "solution". There is no way that this gear meets spec for actual use on the battlefield.

Re:F-35 (1)

kyrsjo (2420192) | about 3 months ago | (#46928803)

I think they said so in the video as well, when they where talking about how much this cost related to how much the finished version would likely cost. This is very much a proof-of-concept - it looks like the cameras are literally duck-taped to the vehicle.

Re:F-35 (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about 3 months ago | (#46928435)

"I get that it is a silly comparison, but what's with the negative vibes?"

FaceBook supports War is what came to my mind.

Hopefully the tank driver won't get some ads blended in when he' s trying to survive.

Re:F-35 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927313)

Possibly so. But more likely, Oculus Rift set their prices so that customers can afford it. Lockheed Martin set their prices so that government can proclaim their taxpayers must afford it. Big difference.

Re:F-35 (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927447)

There's that, and the F-35 helmets do far more than just a visual display. They're engineered to keep the pilot's noggin safe(OR is not), they keep the pilot oxygenated in high G turns(OR does not), and it's highly integrated with the F35's avionics(OR is not).

There are good reasons a pilot's helmet costs more than a thousand $$$.

Re:F-35 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927673)

Not to mention the fact that the tank VR is simply giving visual feedback. The F-35 helmet is providing information not only from visual sources, but the HUD itself, which must be properly overlaid onto the background. And it appears that this helmet has an integrated night vision system, which would only bump up the price.

F-35 Helmets (1)

Firethorn (177587) | about 3 months ago | (#46932251)

If I remember right, like the F-22 helmet it's actually radar stealthed as well. A 'big' dome is a good target for radar and the canopy is at least somewhat transparent to radar.

Re:F-35 (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 3 months ago | (#46927331)

Maybe the F35 flies faster than a tank and needs a stricter latency.

Re:F-35 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927357)

Maybe the F35 flies faster than a tank and needs a stricter latency.

With sufficient thrust, the tank flies just fine

Re:F-35 (3, Informative)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about 3 months ago | (#46927901)

Maybe the F35 flies faster than a tank and needs a stricter latency.

With sufficient thrust, the tank flies just fine

A flying tank has been built and tested already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org] ... but even the crazy Russians only tried that once. Nowadays they are paradropping BMD APCs with the crew on board... any volunteers?

Russian paratroopers are religious (Re:F-35) (2)

mi (197448) | about 3 months ago | (#46928101)

Nowadays they are paradropping BMD APCs with the crew on board...

It is not just the BMDs — there is a paradropping church [en.ria.ru] in Russia's arsenal...

Re:F-35 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46928087)

One needs to fire the cannon just right to steer the flying tank into a safe landing into a lake.

Re:F-35 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927401)

Unlikely. Latency/response time has never been out of the ordinary in fighter jets. You aren't going to change direction every 10ms the way people do in computer games.
There is way more focus on having reliable communication than to even get the latency down below ten times what gamers find acceptable.

Re:F-35 (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 3 months ago | (#46927411)

The latency / integration requirements for the F - 35 are probably a lot more sophisticated.

More likely that the NRE is spread across far fewer units.

Re:F-35 (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 3 months ago | (#46927625)

There are well over 4,000 F-35s forecast to be purchased by various countries around the world, with the bulk being purchased by the US - which means that there are probably going to be 20 - 30,000 of these helmets purchased during its lifetime.

Re:F-35 (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 3 months ago | (#46927813)

"There are well over 4,000 F-35s forecast to be purchased by various countries around the world"

However other countries (besides the USA) don't have the same "never mind the financial crisis, we can't cut defense spending" attitude.
You'll probably find those orders cut back as the price goes up.

Re:F-35 (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 3 months ago | (#46927891)

Defense spending is a tiny, tiny fraction of the US budget.

Re:F-35 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46928145)

Defense spending is a tiny, tiny fraction of the US budget.

Um... Good point. Well made.

Re:F-35 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46928361)

Defense spending is a tiny, tiny fraction of the US budget.

Um... Good point. Well made.

Hope that's sarcasm, because 22% is not a tiny tiny fraction

Re:F-35 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46928287)

I hope you're being sarcastic....http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

Re:F-35 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46932949)

Somehow I doubt the OR is flight qualified and tested for the appropriate standards for humidity, shock, vibration, and thermal cycling that the flight helmet is certified for. Its cost also probably don't factor in additional cost for lifetime buy of parts. That is only the tip of the iceberg too. I would wager that many of the components in the OR were not even invented when the F35 program started.

Re:F-35 (2)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about 3 months ago | (#46927633)

By the time the Occulus has been made combat ready, hardened, with a beefed up resolution necessary for such work, it will probably cost upward of $10k per unit as well.

Re:F-35 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927869)

I don't think combat is the primary concern of this project, but rater safe training and operation of these vehicles here home in Norway where I believe all our tanks are. A few years ago, a tank drove off the road during training mid winter and sank with the operators in a march, and to make sure incidens like that doesn't happen is probably why they are using software and hardware of this class and with this time frame instead of using millions on combat focused systems.

Train like you fight ... (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about 3 months ago | (#46928585)

I don't think combat is the primary concern of this project, but rater safe training and operation of these vehicles here home in Norway where I believe all our tanks are. A few years ago, a tank drove off the road during training mid winter and sank with the operators in a march, and to make sure incidens like that doesn't happen is probably why they are using software and hardware of this class and with this time frame instead of using millions on combat focused systems.

I doubt its just for training. You have to train the way you fight. You can't expect crews to use oculus during training and then switch to small metal ports during battle.

cease fire stand down there's moms & babys aro (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927265)

rock on /. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FROE8VnBZxg we love you

Jamming in real war... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927267)

I'm just wonder what chances these remote control toys have against the outright jamming that would be seen in a war with a real country. I mean deploying a 1 megawatt sealed nuclear reactor to JAM everything would be pretty hard to over come right????? Also using spread location based jamming would make detection of the jamming targets almost impossible????

Re:Jamming in real war... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927305)

wanted to pointed out that by spread location I mean using MIMO type transmission to create a difficult to trace signal...

Re:Jamming in real war... (3, Interesting)

xtal (49134) | about 3 months ago | (#46927487)

You've just realized why autonomous drones are necessary; they can't be jammed.

If you're broadcasting a 1 MW jamming signal, you are a pretty bright light for HARM missiles or other radar-seeking technology. More sophisticated schemes or ECM are possible, but the physics is pretty clear on how you track down a broadcast location.

Re:Jamming in real war... (1)

GNious (953874) | about 3 months ago | (#46928075)

What costs more? 1MW jamming gear, or HARM missiles?

Re:Jamming in real war... (1)

xtal (49134) | about 3 months ago | (#46928575)

The jamming gear, likely by an order of magnitude or two.

Re:Jamming in real war... (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about 3 months ago | (#46928611)

What costs more? 1MW jamming gear, or HARM missiles?

Losing costs more than either.

Civilians (1)

phorm (591458) | about 3 months ago | (#46934235)

"you are a pretty bright light for HARM missiles or other radar-seeking technology"

Well, it's a good thing that no bad people deliberately set themselves up amongst civilian infrastructure or on hospitals, etc...

Re:Jamming in real war... (1)

RecycledElectrons (695206) | about 3 months ago | (#46929741)

What do nuclear reactors have to do with jamming?

RF jamming just means transmitting noise on certain frequencies, or on all frequencies, or on all frequencies except the ones you plan to use.

Frequencies, antennas, transmitters, and locations are relevant. How it's powered is not relevant.

I'm fairly certain a TANK would be a metal box that would block out most RF jamming.

If I wanted to disrupt this, I would use a rifle (or shrapnel) to take out the cameras.

Obligitary (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927289)

Not only will the OR be plastered with Facebook logos, but the tank itself will be a huge "FB" on a tank tread with a huge cannon on top. The men inside will be wearing Face Book suits (+1 to Charisma). Laugh now, but you won't be when you're on the other side of a FB-Rifle.

Gamifying doesn't mean what you think it means. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927301)

It refers to turning something that would otherwise be uninteresting into a game in order to make it more interesting for participants.

Re:Gamifying doesn't mean what you think it means. (4, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 3 months ago | (#46927567)

...Or at least adding game-like elements, like scorekeeping or achievements.

But you're right that this isn't gamification because it does not add any elements of gaming to the activity. It's a digital head-mounted display system for a tank, like the one in the F35. If there were an attack helicopter controlled with a dual-analog gamepad, that wouldn't be gamification either.

Re:Gamifying doesn't mean what you think it means. (1)

Xest (935314) | about 3 months ago | (#46928929)

Maybe the Occulus setup in these tanks makes score numbers fly out of people's corpses when you gun them down and if you get multi kills throws up text like "RAMPAGE", and "KILLING SPREE" in the middle of the display?

Re:Gamifying doesn't mean what you think it means. (1)

ComputersKai (3499237) | about 3 months ago | (#46929301)

Achievement Unlocked! 5 Kills with a single Shell!

Re:Gamifying doesn't mean what you think it means. (1)

Xest (935314) | about 3 months ago | (#46929399)

I think this needs further investigation. I bet I could easily find funding for a paper entitled "Does gamifying war make soldiers better, more efficient killers?".

Re:Gamifying doesn't mean what you think it means. (1)

RecycledElectrons (695206) | about 3 months ago | (#46929775)

You're not familiar with practical shooting sports. Yes, gamifying it makes some people more efficient killers.

Without gamifying, people take killing to seriously. They just learn what they are taught, and worry about screwing up.

When we made practical shooting a game, people looked for ways to win, and we invented CQB.

Re:Gamifying doesn't mean what you think it means. (1)

dinfinity (2300094) | about 3 months ago | (#46932103)

Thank you.

Point of war? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927307)

What's the point of war, when you have drones battling?

Couldn't they just solve wars by playing a video game?

I bet mr. Putin would PWN!

Re:Point of war? (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 3 months ago | (#46927365)

When you win a virtual war, you gain virtual territories and virtual natural resources. Also, in a virtual war, you don't have real innocent civilian casualties, which is what's so much fun with wars.

Re:Point of war? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 3 months ago | (#46927603)

Not by playing a video game, but maybe by having robots fighting other robots and destroying robot factories and unmanned bases etc. It could happen in a future full of unmanned war machines where it would be pointless for a person to try to fight a robot.

See also: Tiny robots in space :-P

Re:Point of war? (1)

jythie (914043) | about 3 months ago | (#46927887)

Virtual war would only work if you had some way to have each side agree to abide by the outcome. However, countries are far more likely to go 'no, I do not agree to loose, now I will hurt you in the real world' and start bombing something.

Re: Point of war? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46928111)

That's what I tell the escort service when I need a whore.

Learn to spell you faggot.

would be more useful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927347)

if more than one person could see the video and if it were capable of multiple video views in real time

Can we just kill that word? (5, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 months ago | (#46927383)

"Gamify" is such an ugly neologism, even in the situations it was coined to cover (ie. the ones where a non-game task is dressed up in game-style features by some means), that it really should be taken out and shot. In this case, they aren't even 'gamifying'. They're just experimenting with COTS gear as a, presumably cheaper, presentation system for the stitched-together output of the exterior cameras. That doesn't make the situation somehow more game-like.

Re:Can we just kill that word? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 3 months ago | (#46927421)

Another word would just rise to replace it.

sweet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927445)

Sweet! Now we can get updates real time from facebook about what the tanks are doing.

Externally mounted cameras (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927491)

A couple of paint grenades (paint filled "water balloons") and your fancy VR system is blind.

Re:Externally mounted cameras (3)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 3 months ago | (#46927615)

If you can put a paint grenade on a tank you can also put a Molotov cocktail on the tank.

Tanks generally operate with infantry support; good luck with that.

Re:Externally mounted cameras (3, Informative)

jythie (914043) | about 3 months ago | (#46927907)

Not that much different then usual. A couple of paint bombs can cover up view ports just as easily.

Re:Externally mounted cameras (1)

RecycledElectrons (695206) | about 3 months ago | (#46929801)

Paint ballons may not stick to the glass, and require you to get close to throw.

A rifle can take out a camera at 300 yards.

Re:Externally mounted cameras (1)

radarskiy (2874255) | about 3 months ago | (#46930451)

In which case you are no worse off than without the VR system.

Science fiction becomes reality? (1)

Tolvor (579446) | about 3 months ago | (#46927509)

The first thing that I thought of when reading the article was the scifi novel "A Boy And His Tank" (Leo Frankowski), or maybe a slight echo of the ending of "Ender's Game" (In short, both follow the plot idea of "Yeah kid, this is a neat game. Blow them up!! Great job. Next battle, um, simulation, is tomorrow."

Let's see... computer simulated fighter combat (drones), computer simulated tactical combat (robo-soliders), computer simulated tank combat... Meanwhile Iran hacks drone into following its orders and land (oops). May the best hacker win.

Why is the soldier inside? (1)

AndyKron (937105) | about 3 months ago | (#46927605)

Why is the soldier inside? Shouldn't he be FAR FAR AWAY?!

Re:Why is the soldier inside? (5, Funny)

drainbramage (588291) | about 3 months ago | (#46927843)

Union requirement.
Rules are rules.

Re:Why is the soldier inside? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46928657)

What union? My sample maybe small (Canadian forces) but they don't have unions, nor are they allowed to strike.

Re:Why is the soldier inside? (2)

quipalicious (1036368) | about 3 months ago | (#46929167)

Correct, our stike capability was removed some time ago, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org] And we're not really in favor of purchasing the JSF either, although our overlords have other ideas.

Re:Why is the soldier inside? (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 3 months ago | (#46928119)

Because reliable coms on a ground vehicle are hard in a war setting. Planes pretty much always have an unobstructed view of the sky for sat coms. Sat coms are nice and directional. Sat com lag would be a killer in a fast past ground environment.

Re:Why is the soldier inside? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46932219)

Why would a tank not have an unobstructed signal to a satellite? Just don't drive it into a cave and you're basically fine. Even then, you could drop ground-based signal repeaters if you were about to enter dense cover. Most of a tank's cost and mass go into the plating that protects people. They could make them a lot lighter, cheaper and more nimble if they didn't have to protect the crew. In effect tanks would become self-driving artillery.

Re:Why is the soldier inside? (1)

Xest (935314) | about 3 months ago | (#46928973)

Yeah because nothing screams "great idea" like setting up your tanks so that they're a trivial DDOS away from being surrounded, captured, and taken by the enemy.

Re:Why is the soldier inside? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46932269)

The same argument applies for drones of all sorts, and we probably have lost a few to hacks. Still, it's better than losing people, especially if the drones do not cost a fortune and the hacks are infrequent.

Re:Why is the soldier inside? (1)

jsepeta (412566) | about 3 months ago | (#46929873)

great point! tesla wanted all warfare to be handled by robots

Stupid analogy (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 3 months ago | (#46927609)

Four VR cameras are mounted on the sides of the tank to give the soldier inside donning the headset a full 360 degree view of what's going on outside, like X-ray vision.

Or like a window.

Re:Stupid analogy (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 3 months ago | (#46927985)

A window is like X-ray vision!

Parts of the system is EMP safe, the other parts? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927617)

Is low toy grade. Its amazing! We have found out that the toy grade playthings are actually CHEAPER than the mil spec EMP safe water/dirt/shock/static hardened military counterpart!!!

Re:Parts of the system is EMP safe, the other part (2)

Terrasque (796014) | about 3 months ago | (#46927895)

Considering the fallback is to drive it just the way it's done every day today, I don't see that as the biggest problem.

Re:Parts of the system is EMP safe, the other part (1)

kyrsjo (2420192) | about 3 months ago | (#46928915)

And that it's a prototype. It doesn't make much sense to build the hardened version before you've tested that the concept works.

'Military grade' isn't just a phrase (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927735)

Try ejecting out of an f35 with an oculus rift rubber banded to your face - I'll take a premium helmet, please.

With Facebook live-blogging the tank's location... (1)

Chas (5144) | about 3 months ago | (#46927845)

Driver: Why did I suddenly get a bunch of ads for funeral services and life insurance? FFFFFUUUUUU
*ARTILLERY STRIKE*

TU != TV Station (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46927969)

TU or Teknisk Ukeblad is litterly Technical Week Magazine, a 150+ year old magazine owned by three engineer unions and distributed to their members and other subscribers. As most news outlets, they have a web page with a video section with video extending their written articles. They are not a TV Station.

I wouldn't want it (5, Insightful)

portwojc (201398) | about 3 months ago | (#46928095)

As a former M1A1 tank driver I would not want this system at all. I don't need something extra that can go wrong and leave me blind at the wrong time. Imagine yanking all that crap off just to be able to see again. Give it to the commander and let him play with the toy but he'll set it aside I'm sure.

Tanks are not all that hard to navigate. Plus you're not suppose to get tanks into positions where you have those sorts of problems. If you do then you have the rest of your platoon to help be your eyes. As well as "scratch your back" if you need it.

Re:I wouldn't want it (1)

quipalicious (1036368) | about 3 months ago | (#46929197)

I presume it's a precursor to setting the driver back a few paces from the tank.

Re:I wouldn't want it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46929269)

Yes but the M1A1 is different than the Leopard 2 where the driver and commander use the same view. With that said, sometimes it has to be tested before it can be classified as a waste of time. The difference could be that the driver has better situational awareness and able to position himself better or see a combatant with an RPG about to fire on him. I could see a lot of benefits in urban combat situations, not as many in open field.

Re:I wouldn't want it (1)

Notabadguy (961343) | about 3 months ago | (#46929467)

As a former M1A1 tank driver...Give it to the commander and let him play with the toy...

As a former M1A2 tank commander, I resent your request you insensitive clod!

Re:I wouldn't want it (1)

portwojc (201398) | about 3 months ago | (#46931015)

Then let's give it to the company commander instead. He needs something to keep him occupied so we can get the job done.

Gamification means something different (1)

YoungManKlaus (2773165) | about 3 months ago | (#46928289)

srsly, who even allows such headlines through?

Re:Gamification means something different (1)

MildlyTangy (3408549) | about 3 months ago | (#46933989)

srsly, who even allows such headlines through?

Those who are so lazy that they cannot be bothered to even fully type out the word 'seriously'.

Those people are almost always directly responsible for headline tragedies such as this/

Tank Drone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46928321)

Why sit in that tank at all? Turn the tank into an unmanned drone and sit in the safety of your own gamers man-cave.

Re:Tank Drone (1)

Duhavid (677874) | about 3 months ago | (#46931789)

Hey, look at all this radio traffic
It's command/ control traffic from their tanks to where the operators are ....
2 battles later
Hey! My tank isn't obeying me!
Neither is mine!
My God, they are headed rigCARRIER LOST

take it to the next level (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 3 months ago | (#46929043)

They should just solve all wars and conflicts with Dance Dance Revolution. I've been saying it for years. That or Starcraft II if it's a korean conflict.

I wouldn't say "gamifying warfare" (1)

harvestsun (2948641) | about 3 months ago | (#46929045)

It's a bit more like "warifying gamefare"

Facebook for Tanks! (1)

jsepeta (412566) | about 3 months ago | (#46929865)

Just what you don't want in the heat of battle: friend requests from Zuck

Facebook's plan (1)

greenwow (3635575) | about 3 months ago | (#46930265)

Expect this to end as soon as Suckerberg finds-out. As he said, he destroyed Oculus just to prevent this sort of thing from happening. Keeping it out of the hands of professional murderers like this is exactly the reason he destroyed that company, and thus the device. He knew the Republicans would steal it and try to use it to kill. This is what their kind always does with new technology. They want to see how it can be used to murder people. Hopefully, he'll be successful in killing Oculus to prevent the death of thousands or more people.

No fair!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46931833)

I wanna play!

Who would want to be a tank soldier? (1)

MildlyTangy (3408549) | about 3 months ago | (#46933967)

In this day and age, who on earth would want to be a soldier in a tank?

The number of weapons available that can kill you in a very nasty manner with almost no chance of survival is so high that you would have to be suicidal to volunteer for tank duties.

Tanks are vulnerable.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>