4 ms·
Indeed, it's one of the reasons I'm neither betting on IoT being big any time soon, or engaging in it myself (heck, Heinlein had similar advice in The Moon is a
by hga 11y ago
Indeed, it's one of the reasons I'm neither betting on IoT being big any time soon, or engaging in it myself (heck, Heinlein had similar advice in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress in 1966).
The saving grace is as the CEO comments:
“The shooter’s got to pull the rifle’s trigger, and the shooter is responsible for making sure it’s pointed in a safe direction. It’s my responsibility to make sure my scope is pointed where my gun is pointing,” McHale says. “The fundamentals of shooting don’t change even if the gun is hacked.”
As long as you're following the Four Rules (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper#Firearms_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Cooper#Firearms_safety) at worst these hacks will brick your rifle or make you miss, but in practice they wouldn't make you hit something you're not willing to hit.
- marcoperaza 11y agoThat's not a saving grace at all and I'm surprised they would try to downplay this given the potential liability. It's totally reasonable that there's someone/something you ABSOLUTELY DO NOT want to hit very close to your intended target. This exploit can make you inadvertently hit that target instead of the one that you aimed for.
- hga 11y agoIt's totally reasonable that there's someone/something you ABSOLUTELY DO NOT want to hit very close to your intended target. If that's true, you don't take the shot, with rare exceptions like hostage shield situations and war, which these guns are not suitable for. The rules exist for many reasons, including that we don't entirely trust the gun or ourselves. These guns provide additional failure modes, but the existing ones are bad enough.