Slippery Slime Developed to Control Crowds

powlow writes "Southwest Research Institute (press release )developed a non-hazardous chemical spray system that spreads a highly slippery, viscous gel (which the lab designated a "mobility denial system" and dubbed "banana peel in a can") to inhibit the movement of individuals or vehicles on treated surfaces. Marines Corps believes it can be used for crowd control. (Defense Technical Information Center's PDF Report) In tests, volunteers attempted in vain to walk across a lawn sprayed with the slime, and in fact, had they not been safety-harnessed during the tests, many would have broken bones."

Comments

Many would have broken bones?

[Xpilot]

So how is this "non-hazardous"? Are they going to hand out safety harnesses to crowds before they get sprayed with slime?

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[juventasone]

I wonder if they've developed a method for cleaning it up as well. That might prove entertaining.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[martissimo]

the chemical itself is labeled as non-hazardous, as in, you wont see your finger melt off if you dip it in the stuff.

id say the process of using it would be considered "non-lethal", but i suppose that certainly somebody could crack their skull open in a fall, but the site does say it "will help the Marines stop or deter threats without the use of deadly force."

beats the heck out of shootin people, but could really could cause a lot of injuries too it sounds like

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't find anything about the testing, safety harnesses, or breaking bones in either of the submitted links so presumably the submitter has some other source which may contradict the submitted ones or is just making things up.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[FransUNC]

A major flaw with this is the fact that at most riots, the police want the suspects to leave, therefore ending the riot. With this, you're forcing the people to stay at the scene, which kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

Even if they design the stuff to wear off after a certain amount of time, you're going to have some bruised and pissed off rioters on your hands.

Like I saw mentioned in another post, what happens if someone gets seriously injured? This just seems to be one giant lawsuit waiting to happen. I think they should focus their energy and time more on preventing riots than dealing with them, especially in manners like this.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Thrikreen]

That's the thing, people would notice the zone of the goo, but if they are still stupid enough to attempt to cross it even knowing what the goo does, it's their own damn fault if they get hurt. At least on the riot control's side, they're not hitting people with the batons or pepper sprays, etc., which could lead to lawsuits of excessive/unnecessary force.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Anonymous Coward]

Water cannons are lawsuits waiting to happen. Do you have a point? Now's probably a good time to reveal it.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[The Hollow Room]

do you think they could spray stopfoam at them too, and have them frozen mid fall? Now that would be safe. I just wonder what happens when criminals get hold of it.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[fruey]

Errr.... if the test was done on grass, how would all these people have broken bones anyway? Was it the osteoporosis Marine core?

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they should focus their energy and time more on preventing riots than dealing with the

And just how is a government going to prevent riots? This seems like a naive wish. I think the cure would be worse than the disease, while the disease is always a symptom of something which no amount of well wishing will cure.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Riskable]

I believe the point to this whole thing is more of a pre-emptive strike. If they see an angry mob marching towards a certain area they can spray this crap all over the road and the angry mob will suddenly find themselves with nowhere to go... Confused, and eventually dispersing.

How often do you see a police blockade for things like this? No need for an entire police batallion carrying large shields--just a bit of goo and a couple of warning cones is all ya need!

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[nordicfrost]

Everyone knows that "non-lethal" is just another word for "it'll hurt you bad, but you survive". A (girl) friend of mine was at a demonstration in a still-near-facist country in south western Europe. She and the crowd were quiet and protesting when the police started fireing "beanbags" into the crowd. This weapon is supposed to be very safe, it is fired from a M-16 rifle with an explosive round in the chamber and a beanbag accessory on the flame muffler. The cop aimed for this girl's leg, fired and the leg broke.

Non-lethal is ver relative. CS (tear) gas is one of the least lethal and hurtful ways of dispersing a crowd but rarely used. I went through the CS test in the military, not comforable but not very painful.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes right, we forgot that angry rioters are calm and we should be patting them on the head and telling them that it will be ok next time. You don't want guns so they go to rubber bullets. That's not enough so they go to pepper spray. That's too harsh so now we'll just develop this goo. I got an idea. Maybe they shouldn't be f'ing rioting in the first place. Your ability to swing your fist stops at my face. It's called self defense, even if you're a cop. Ought to be lucky you live in a country that tolerates this bs and doesn't just shoot you.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Rogerborg]

• A major flaw with this is the fact that at most riots, the police want the suspects to leave

Not always. During the WTO demonstrations in London last summer, the response to a very small proportion of violent demonstrators was to box large numbers of (overwhelmingly peaceful) people in and stop them leaving. We're talking all day here, until the demonstraters were cold, hungry and just wanted to go home. Illegal detention, say the detractors; screw the damn hippies, say proponents (when translated from Weaselese).

Any device that gives control is going to be looked on favourably.

To give some perspective, credit where credit is due: British riot police have learned some long, hard lessons, and are, I think, the finest in the world.

I participate in fairly large scale historic reenactments including shield wall and mixed infantry and cavalry actions. In fact, reenactors were solicited as police extras in a recent film about the 1984 British miner's strike, because we are used to doing shieldwalls and charges.

But our level of expertise stops at the 1984 level, when the British riot police used haphazard tactics and made a lot of mistakes. Eighteen years later, they are simply astonishing to watch in action, and they do it (largely) without using chemical weapons or firearms or even batons, they do it through slick manouvres and integrated foot and horse actions that put the right amount of deterrent in the right place at the right time, to stop conflicts before they start.

Argue the morality of controlling political demonstrations, but don't forget that crowd control also involves preventing injury at otherwise good natured public events. And you can definitely do that without fancy chemical weapons, you just have to invest in training. Crowd control is about people, not about technology.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Anonymous Coward]

That, and the british are fucking pansies, who wouldn't stand up to their government if their life depended on it.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[bamm]

Read the freaking article for gawds sake!

The concept of employment for this system is to be part of a barrier or obstacle plan that will provide stand-off distance and force protection for U.S. military personnel," says Warren. "The MDS will be applicable in many different missions to include checkpoint operations, denying avenues of approach, and dealing with confrontational crowds.

The material is meant to be used as part of blockade, not as a substance to be sprayed on crowds so why do people keep comparing it to tear gas and rubber bullets? I can actually see how this stuff would actually help lessen the use of tear gas, rubber bullets, etc. Most injuries in a riot occur as the crowd comes in contact with riot police who are trying to defend a facility or protect people belonging to a controversial demonstration. The slime helps prevent this type of contact from happening.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[RDskutter]

And just how is a government going to prevent riots?

By not trying to pass irresponisble and immoral legislation that pisses people off.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Shotgun Willy]

With this, you're forcing the people to stay at the scene, which kind of defeats the purpose

Not if they are rioting on a steep hill.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Anonymous Coward]

So how is this "non-hazardous"? Are they going to hand out safety harnesses to crowds before they get sprayed with slime?

A child sometimes needs to get hurt before they realize the error of their ways. Just as a child will think twice before touching a hot stove again after getting burned, so these rioters will learn to not walk across the slime. Besides, if they have any common sense they'll just learn to bring blankets to their protests and walk on those.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Kenneth]

There are also weaker versions of tear gas (irritant gas?) that are often used to break up protests in some countries. It isn't plesant, and has the tendency to make you want to be elsewhere, but isn't nearly as bad as the real tear gas.

(ot) In the Dominican Republic, I saw the strangest thing. There was a huelga (translates as strike, but more resembels a riot). There were rocks and molitov cocktails being thrown by protestors, and tear gas and rubber bullets being shot by police. At noon, everyone went home for lunch and then siesta, at 2:00 everyone came back and resumed the protest.

As for the goo, I tend to doubt it will be used ON protestors. More likely it will be used to prevent passage across a particular area. Slime a nice perimeter around something, and it makes it very difficult to get through. It would be a good substitute for a fence when you need a barrier in a few seconds.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Rich0]

Hmm - sounds like something a more repressive government would be interested in. Rather than merely dispersing a crowd, a mass-arrest would allow such a government to go through the protesters and find out who the real "troublemakers" are. I'm all for legitimate riot-control - people running around Seattle smashing windows need to be handled. But peaceful demonstrations shouldn't be subject to mass-arrest.

Unfortunately, the tools for this largely exist already. Squads of police with electrified riot shields can move large crowds rather effectively, and there are foams that can be sprayed which contain powerful irritants to blockade routes of exit. Mass photography and facial recognition is also used to identify large numbers of people.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[CrayzyJ]

Legislation is NOT the only reason people riot.

An example or two:

1. World Economic summit
2. judge/jury verdicts
3. unpopular people speaking
etc

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Jucius Maximus]

You're telling me that people tried to WALK across this stuff? Just give me a crazy carpet and a running start and I will slide across it.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[booch]

This is terrible. The protesters get broken bones, and the cops don't even get the joy of beating them.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[matrix29]

As for the goo, I tend to doubt it will be used ON protestors. More likely it will be used to prevent passage across a particular area. Slime a nice perimeter around something, and it makes it very difficult to get through. It would be a good substitute for a fence when you need a barrier in a few seconds.

Which also means the World Trade Organization cannot drive their pretty little limos into their fancy isolated hotels to decide on how to screw every nation in the world. The perfect protest would be to put up barriers (to prevent innocent drivers from encountering the goo), lay down the goo, and wait for the WTO to appear, crash their limos, try to cross the goo, have the hotel enjoy a day of zero business (perhaps more if the protesters decide so and have plenty of goo), and enjoy the slapstick.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[5KVGhost]

It's only a "major flaw" if you don't understand the intended use of the substance. Try reading the article:

"Riots, protests, noncombatant evacuations, and sanction enforcement are just a few of the situations where this kind of tactical barrier would be most useful," says Capt. Andrew B. Warren, MDS project officer for Marine Corps Systems Command, headquartered in Quantico, Va.

...

"The concept of employment for this system is to be part of a barrier or obstacle plan that will provide stand-off distance and force protection for U.S. military personnel," says Warren. "The MDS will be applicable in many different missions to include checkpoint operations, denying avenues of approach, and dealing with confrontational crowds."

Not for crowd control. Not for encouraging dispersal. It's purpose is as a quickly deployed barrier against incursion by people or vehicles that they need to be kept out.

And people get injured in riots and attacks all the time. Current old-fasioned non-lethal weapons are, in fact, _designed_ to injure, in preference to killing outright. There are some circumstances where you have to stop people from doing violent things, particularly in millitary situations.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Mr. Foogle]

Like I saw mentioned in another post, what happens if someone gets seriously injured? This just seems to be one giant lawsuit waiting to happen.

Um. Which hurts more? Falling down or having your head stove in by a rifle butt? Or being jabbed by a bayonet? When I had 'riot control' training in the Marines we had intimidation, CS, rifle butts and bayonets to control unruly savages. Slippery goo sounds like a decent tool to deply, not a nuclear weapon.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[onepoint]

>>At least on the riot control's side, they're not hitting people with the batons or pepper sprays, etc., which could lead to lawsuits of excessive/unnecessary force.

If I had MOD points I would have given them.

By giving the rioter the point where they can not longer pass. the rioter has to learn how to make there statements better know.

If anything this is the best thing in the improvement of free speach, since you can no longer pass a certain point, you must find a way to overcome. Now the protesters will learn marketing ( I like those anti-smoking ad's myself and i'm a smoker who is trying to quit ), how to deal with the press better. Also I think that the abuse to protesters ( and the property around them ) will be reduced.

onepoint

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[onepoint]

>>Unfortunately, the tools for this largely exist already. Squads of police with electrified riot shields can move large crowds rather effectively, and there are foams that can be sprayed which contain powerful irritants to blockade routes of exit. Mass photography and facial recognition is also used to identify large numbers of people.

Not a bad idea, but it get's a bit to close to big brother. Better to have a 3rd party review the cameras video and point out whom should be targeted to facial recongnition because of an action ( like breaking of a window ), that way you protect the right's of the protester that have taken a non-violent action.

I don't know that this is true but I woudl like to believe it. Violent protestors are not the group that starts the protest ( in the USA ), but people that join in to hide amoung the protestors and take advantage of the activity.

Onepoint

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[anti-snot]

4. soccer games

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Ought to be lucky you live in a country that tolerates this bs and doesn't just shoot you.

Also a country that, uniquely, guarantees us a constitutional right to own firearms. Isn't that a curious coincidence.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[SmittyTheBold]

...but everybody likes a Slip 'n' Slide!

Would this goo fall under attractive nuisance laws?

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[sholden]

That, and the british are fucking pansies, who wouldn't stand up to their government if their life depended on it

Please go and find an IRA militant and call him a 'fucking pansy', make sure you call him 'british' at the same time...

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Paradise Pete]

Not if they are rioting on a steep hill.

That's pretty funny. The mental image it conjurs seems like a panel from a Far Side cartoon.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Paradise Pete]

the british are fucking pansies, who wouldn't stand up to their government if their life depended on it.

Modulo this little piece o' paper, of course.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Anonymous Coward]

This hits the crux of the lethal vs non lethal force issue. If it is ethical for you to use non lethal force how closely can you guarantee the NON lethality of it? The FBI has found out that a small percentage of cocaine (and derivative) abusers are almost certain to have massive heart attacks if sprayed with "non lethal" mace/OC spray. Since some areas of high crime have a high number of cocaine users in the populations that law enforcement interacts with... what do you do? Wait for a situation to devolve into something warranting lethal force and -then- risk the officers life with non lethal tools? This is a serious can of worms IMO. bk425

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Anders H�ckersten]

I think they should focus their energy and time more on preventing riots than dealing with them, especially in manners like this.

It's been tried, and, in the case of larger demonstrations, things tend to derail sooner or later anyway. It only takes a small group of demonstrators with the intent of introducing violence, and bam your peaceful demonstration turns into a riot. These guys don't want to hear arguments, they're not even interested in demonstrating against anything. They're just there to fight. Trying to prevent them from doing that is futile.

I support people's right to demonstrate. Unfortunately, there are people who abuse this right, and there's really no way of stopping them from doing that...

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Anonymous Coward]

And you can definitely do that without fancy chemical weapons, you just have to invest in training. Crowd control is about people, not about technology.

let's see, who has more money to invest in lobbying, a fancy chemical weapons manufacturer or some dinky little police training academy?

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the freaking article for gawds sake!

Hey, it's a damn PDF. Not everyone is running OS X where viewing s PDF link is as effortless as viewing a JPG link, ya know.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Thing 1]

the chemical itself is labeled as non-hazardous, as in, you wont see your finger melt off if you dip it in the stuff.

Hmm... I wonder if this stuff could be used for other purposes besides crowd control? Perhaps lubrication, to reduce wear and tear on moving parts...

(Yes, there's a sexual reference in there if you look hard enough. ;-)

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[LinuxInDallas]

You'd think the this sue happy day in age that improper use of this would result in a lot of court cases. I'm sure they must be thinking about that. If the police cause broken bones simply to calm down a riot surely they would get in trouble? Well, that is until you call the rioters "terrorists." Then all will be well.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[KnowledgeFreak]

I don't think you can just chalk this up to "tactics" and such. I'm living out in London for the first time and Something i've noticed coming from the states is that the police are more intimidating and most likely exert more "power" is most situations. In america, the rioters have the constitution stuck up their ass and are so blinded by their "rights" that i think they are less scared or intimidated by police than in England, where doesn't seem to be a matter of "rights" and police seem more threatening... just my perspective.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Kanasta]

Or, you could just have been sitting near the edge of the goo. You notice the crowd behind you getting a bit hot. You want to go home.

You can't push your way thru the crowd. 10000 ppl pushing each other pushes you onto the goo. You're stuck.

The crowd at the other side can't see that. The crowd keeps pushing. Other people get stuck on the goo. Since nobody can move around, people pile on top of other people.

When people pile on top of other people, after a while, people start to die.

Then it's no longer non lethal.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[Anonymous Coward]

But if they take care not to land on top of each other, they can push each other across the goo. If they stand close to each other they might get across standing up. The people who get across have to pull the rest over the goo, or they're stuck.

Re:Many would have broken bones?

[jdfox]

Not always. During the WTO demonstrations in London last summer, the response to a very small proportion of violent demonstrators was to box large numbers of (overwhelmingly peaceful) people in and stop them leaving. We're talking all day here, until the demonstraters were cold, hungry and just wanted to go home. Illegal detention, say the detractors; screw the damn hippies, say proponents (when translated from Weaselese).

I was there. In fact, it wasn't just peaceful demonstrators who were wrongly detained: tourists who just happened to be walking through at the time were also detained in the box-in. It was fairly obvious to the casual observer that they were mistakenly detained, and it would have made the policemen's jobs easier to let them out, but they simply couldn't be bothered.

skating?

[RalfM]

I wonder if they can't just skate across it. I expect they'll just start to have a different type of shoe to deal with the problem soon (at least the professional protestors). What do the Hurling people wear? Nike Glide ;-)

Ralf

Re:skating?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would that would make spikes a circumvention device?

Your golf/soccer/football shoes are now illegal...

astfgl@iamnota.org

Re:skating?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean "curling". "Hurling" is a bloody Irish sport fought with sticks. The addition of a slippery surface would only turn it into ice hockey without the armour or strict rules.

Re:skating?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought Hurling was an Irish activity usually occuring after having had too many Guinesses.

Re:skating?

[BlueUnderwear]

Would that would make spikes a circumvention device?

Those shoes are also quite nice to step on any policeman that happens to have fallen over (should not be that rare, if they stepped on the goo themselves in the heat of the moment...)

Re:skating?

[Rob Parkhill]

Yup, this slime will be completely useless against us Canadians, and most folks in the Northern US. We're used to walking and driving over slippery surfaces for at least 4 months of the year. Just put some studded tires on the 4x4, and some spikes on the shoes, and this stuff won't slow us down much.

I think the only practical use for this slime is to make the worlds biggest slip-and-slide. Or maybe we'll see it in use in the Summer X-games... just slime down a steep road in San Fran and let the athletes slip-and-slide to the bottom as fast as possible.

Re:skating?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard to have an appreciation for how important the microscopic world is, but the fact is that many things that we depend on daily -- such as being able to walk on most flat surfaces -- are very dependent on microscopic properties, such as those that affect traction.

Having said that, just because this stuff causes an ice-like effect for people trying to walk on it doesn't mean it has other properties of ice. Traditionally, it has been believed that skating on ice causes, either due to friction or more often pressure, the surface to slightly melt and re-freeze, thus creating a channel for the blade. More recent theories have focused on the vibration patterns of the surface of ice: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hockey/skating1.html

And if you're thinking about roller skating, what makes you think that you'll have any more luck than the car tire that just spins on this stuff?

Re:skating?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think an event like that in the summer X-Games would be great, even better if they try to snowboard down it though.

-Zurech (sorry for not logging in... I am behind a harsh proxy)

Re:skating?

[Paradise Pete]

I wonder if they can't just skate across it

You can't do squat if there's no friction. Skating requires lots of it. There are only two things you can do: add something that increases the available friction (like sand or sawdust), or penetrate to the surface below (such as using spiked shoes on grass.)

Re:skating?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you did the French judge would say you weren't as pretty as the Russian rioters and only give you a silver medal.

Re:skating?

[quintessent]

Just bring along a few cans of compressed air, and you can be even more mobile with the slime.

ha

[Anonymous Coward]

uh, wounder whatelse it could be used for...

Re:ha

[Anonymous Coward]

I know. You could lubricate your neck and asshole with it to help you get your head out of your ass.

Marine Corps?

[maelstrom]

Why do the Marines need crowd control? Wouldn't this be the job of law enforcement, and maybe National Guard?

Is there something I'm missing?

Re:Marine Corps?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, increasingly the role of our Armed Forces include humantitarian missions and operations other than war where lethal force is not needed nor desired. Perhaps a starving mass of people mobbing a food delivery...

And wouldn't it have been great to have something like this when our embassy was attacked in Tehran. Kinda hard to storm the gates when you can't even stand up!

Re:Marine Corps?

[Gareth Williams]

From the article:

"Throughout the past decade, the U.S. Marine Corps has been tasked with establishing and maintaining law and order, countering civil disturbances, and responding to various threats around the globe."

""Riots, protests, noncombatant evacuations, and sanction enforcement are just a few of the situations where this kind of tactical barrier would be most useful," says Capt. Andrew B. Warren, MDS project officer for Marine Corps Systems Command"

Re:Marine Corps?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, you haven't missed anything. We are moving towards a Policed State. And you should expect to see Government forces, dishing out "justice" when people speak out against what the government believes. And dish it out they will.

Re:Marine Corps?

[banky]

I discussed this at length in a rather old post... Basically, the Marines have as part of their duty guarding things like Embassies. So when the mob comes to torch the place, you don't want to just open up on them with your SAW gunnners and grenadiers. Tear gas (CS gas, really) isn't easily controlled; a good wind and its more or less gone. Other methods (riot guns for example) may provoke a more violent response (they hear BANG! and see people go down; the Americans are killing everyone!) and generally speaking, don't work against crowds (one shot one bad guy). Night sticks put you in harms way BIG TIME. So the Marines are looking for ways to supplement their arsenal because the only other option is to just kill the bad guys.

Re:Marine Corps?

[jonnystiph]

not trolling, just define bad guys.

Re:Marine Corps?

[Chundra]

Perhaps a starving mass of people mobbing a food delivery...

In that case it'd be better to use high pressure, large diameter hoses and spray the hungry rioters with a delicious mixture of mashed potatoes, sausage gravy, syrup, and Jell-O. Of course you'd want to heat it to around 150-180 degrees first, so it might not be practical.

Re:Marine Corps?

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a Marine, I know that my main tasking is to kill people and to break things. Feeding people is not what I am trained to do.

Non-lethal weapons are fine for California feel-goods, but to protect the United States, one needs lethal weapons.

This is silly stuff, give me my M4 anyday, and a full harness of magazines.

Re:Marine Corps?

[Anonymous Coward]

they hear BANG! and see people go down; the Americans are killing everyone!

Geez, not again. Didn't you guys learn from last time?

Re:Marine Corps?

[El Kevbo]

Why do the Marines need crowd control? Wouldn't this be the job of law enforcement, and maybe National Guard?

Our elected officials have this notion in their head that the Marine Corps is the world's 911 force. Somalia was a hell of a wake up call for the Marines. Until that time, they didn't really spend any time training for crowd control or less than lethal methods of controlling or attacking people. Why should they? It wasn't their job to do so. Let the MPs deal with that shit!

Well, they've since woken up and realized that it is now their job to do so, for good or bad. I've been to Quantico during the phase of The Basic School (the officer training program through which *all* Marine Corps officers go and learn to be rifle platoon leaders) which they are taught riot control. It's quite impressive.

Should the Marines should have to deal with this shit? That's another discussion all together (and I'm sure that you can guess my opinion). But the reality is that as long as our elected officials keep sending them into giving them missions where crowd control is required, the Marine Corps will keep training for it.

Kevin

Re:Marine Corps?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rioters seeking to trash your embassy, in this particular context.

Re:Marine Corps?

[Mr. Foogle]

YES the Marines.

Marine Barracks, 8th & I in Washington D.C. have (or had as of 1989) responsibility for riot control in D.C. - backing up the DC metro police and the National Gaurd.

Marines units on deployment can be called on for a variety of missions - they're not just there to storm ashore and break things. Would you rather see riot control teams control mobs of savages or just hose them down with machine guns?

Re:Marine Corps?

[Mr. Foogle]

Bad Guys - the people on the *other* end of the gun barrel. It's shorthand - used rather than saying "the pposition" "aggressor" "ivan the commie" "abdoul the sheepherder"

Re:Marine Corps?

[geekoid]

sure, but this won't disperse a crowd. this just leaves them stuck there, and possibly in need of medical treatment. It seems to me that creates substantially more headaches then a water canon, or sonics.
This stuff could be sprayed onto runways and ramps to prevent aircraft from taking off. actually prevent people from getting to there aircraft might be more accurate.

Re:Marine Corps?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya...the aircraft would have no problem taking off on a slick runway. Hell, probably have an easier time.

Now, landing might be an issue, but the US doesn't want to be seen executing all the people trying to land on the runway...

Re:Marine Corps?

[PyroMosh]

The Marines weren't in Mogadishu. That was Army Rangers, Delta, some other SF (USAF Pararescue and I believe a few SEALs). Also, I believe Army 10th Mountain Division was there as part of the UN forces (The Rangers, et al were not part of the UN forces, they were a separate US force, operating roughly in parallel to, not under the command of the UN forces.)

Just double checked my facts. The Marines WERE in-country in Somalia operating under UN command with the 10th Mountain Division. But they had pulled out by May 10th. You're right, of course. I just didn't remember them being there because they weren't there on 3 Oct during the Battle of the Black Sea (The famous battle which Blackhawk Down is based upon). No, I wasn't there and I'm not saying I was. But I have studied it at length.

As for weather the Marines should have to deal with that, remember, the USMC is tasked with a lot more than being "The world's police force" (TM). It's Marines that guard US Embassies. If there is a protest outside the US Embassy in Saudi Arabia or Israel or Russia or anywhere for that matter. The Marines are in a very difficult position. They *must* defend the embassy, which is sovereign US territory. However, the use of deadly force will almost certainly cause an international incident (or escalate an existing one).

This stuff gives them another tool to do this job better. Not just with embassy either. Marines often are put in the position of defending US and allied bases in other countries too. I see this as more of a tool for defending things like embassies, but you never know where it could be useful.

Remember also, that the Embassy duty is not a new job for the Marines. In High School, I was in JROTC. My Colonel was an Air Force pilot. He also flew in the Army Air Corps in WWII. He also happened to hate Marines. He was fond of putting down Marines that got too full of themselves talking about Iwo Jimo or other famous Pacific battles by saying that if they were so hot, how come the only place he'd seen a Marine in three years in Europe and North Africa (as infantry before becoming a pilot) was at the embassy?

Another antidote: I had two buddies that I knew in High School. They were inseparable. They lived the same life basically. You know the type. They were also gung-ho to get into the Marines. Well, Their Senior year, they enlisted. That summer they went away to boot camp. One of them got infantry. The other one got embassy duty.

The parallels and differences are startling. You might think that either one is ridiculous, but hear me out.

They both went through Basic together. So of course the training there is the same. Then they went off to technical school to learn their jobs. Here's where it gets interesting.

The infantryman got all the training you'd expect. Training on a variety of small arms weapons systems, training on small unit tactics, etc.

The embassy guard got training on a variety of small arms weapons systems, small unit tactics, closed quarters fighting, securing buildings, etc.

So far the differences are minor.

But while the infantry guy is learning how to move through the woods, eat bugs, set up ambushes, etc (just guessing on these parts) the Embassy guard was learning etiquette like how to drink his tea!

My point here is that everyone (even some Marines, it would seem by some of the above posts) thinks that the *only* job of the Marines is to kill people and destroy stuff.
And, yeah, they do that.
And yeah, they do that good.
But, yeah, they also do more!

Don't short change the Marines. Their commanders want this and they probably know what they're doing. In my experience, when military commanders ask for something, it's something that will make their jobs easier, or allow them to do their jobs better in some way. Unless this stuff doesn't work as well as advertised, or it's prohibitively expensive (which I can't see being true, compared to other military expenditures), this sounds like a good thing to me. Hopefully it will save lives.

Re:Marine Corps?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aircraft could take off just fine.

The only reasons their are wheels on the aircraft is to reduce friction anyway - the good would make their job even easier.

Remember, in airplanes the force for takeoff does NOT come from the weels, it comes from the propeller/jet engines up above.

I guess you have never seen an airplane take off from water, snow or ice.

Re:Marine Corps?

[El Kevbo]

You're absolutely right - the Marines have been doing embassy duty for quite a long time now. But, as far as I know, it took Somalia to finally wake them up and realize that they need to train to do things other than just kill people.

For example: The only "official" Marine Corps hand-to-hand training that was offered prior to about 1997 (I may be off by a few years) was LINE. I don't remember what it stands for (Linear Inline Neural something-beginning-with-E), but it was essentially 101 Ways to Kill Someone. I was told, but don't know for sure, that the later classes in LINE training were actually classified. That sounds a bit far-fetched, but I'm sure that you've met a Marine or Soldier that wasn't afraid to stretch the truth a little bit to appear to be bit more of a bad ass. :)

Apparently LINE training was discontinued in favor of more "traditional" hand-to-hand and martial arts training. The Marines finally realized that their hand-to-hand training, up to that point, consisted almost entirely of quick and easy ways to kill people. There was no in between, in their minds, from kill someone or leave them alone.

Finally, I think that the word that you meant to use was "anecdote" and not antidote. Close, but no cigar. :)

Kevin

Re:Marine Corps?

[PyroMosh]

LOL! Oops. That's what I get for using a MS spellcheck! Too bad /. doens't have it's own. So I just run what I post through Word before I post so I don't look like a complete idiot. Talk about backfire, huh? Actually, in the last year or so MS finally learned how to do a spellcheck corectly. It even recognised Windows95esque as a word! From the example, it's got some smart code to recognize "creative" words, but I think it's still lacking in simple basic vocabulary.

BTW, you should see what I write *before* I spellcheck it. I make the /. editors look like... well, editors!

Re:Marine Corps?

[Anonymous Coward]

give me my M4 anyday, and a full harness of magazines

You Nancy-boy !

Nukes, son! Real men use nukes !

Re:Marine Corps?

[JabberWokky]

delicious mixture of mashed potatoes, sausage gravy, syrup, and Jell-O.

There is no such thing as a mixure of those four ingredients that can be qualified with the characteristic "delicious".

--
Evan

Re:Marine Corps?

[El Kevbo]

BTW, you should see what I write *before* I spellcheck it. I make the /. editors look like... well, editors!

Yeah, but you're not posting your (unedited) words on the front page of a website which millions visit and then trying to get people to *pay* for the privilege of reading them. :)

Kevin

Re:Marine Corps?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, we're becoming friggin camo cops.

Semper fi.

Re:Marine Corps?

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't seen one damn word up here about Marines killing people that could have come from a Marine.

Marines do their friggin job. For me as an armorer, taht's making sure the guns are ready to kill people. If I'm told to guard a building, that's my job. If a hill needs to be stormed.. you get the idea.

The reason we dare America's force in readiness is not that we do anything the other services can't, we just do it faster. The mantra of boot camp: Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.

Semper fi.

Field tests

[dubl-u]

They also field-tested this at Mardi Gras this year in New Orleans. Unfortunately, the crowds mistook it for a personal lubricant and 47 people ended up hospitalized for exhaustion.

Re:Field tests

[mandolin]

Unfortunately, the crowds mistook it for a personal lubricant

Personally, I could't get the old Slip'NSlide commercial's song out of my head. Adding in a nice mardi gras orgy does wonders for the visual image though. Thx man.

"Sliiiii-IP! Slip-'N-Slide! Sliiiii-IP! Slip-'N-Slide!.."

Re:Field tests

[boopus]

Well they do actualy grease the pillars of the balcony's to prevent people from climbing up them. So this isn't that far fetched.

Re:Field tests

[mgblst]

I would really like to see a movie of this (the original, to the mardi-gras). Maybe someone could tape, send it into those home videos shows. Im sure with voice over and boing noises it would be a real laugh!

Re:Field tests

[el'gwato]

Next thing you know those drug taking rave kids will have this stuff at their discos?

Re:Field tests

[Anonymous Coward]

Argh! Balconies! 's is for possession, not plural! Argh!

Re:Field tests

[Jaysyn]

Heh, it couldn't be to much different than a bubble rave.

Jaysyn

Re:Field tests

[Kintanon]

Greasing the pillars didn't stop me, I ended up with close to 50lbs of beads after climbing one greased pillar.>:)

Kintanon

Knowing rioters..

[Renraku]

Knowing rioters, they'd just push each other down into the slippery substance and proceed to then beat the stuffing out of their fallen comrades.

Re:Knowing rioters..

[nzkoz]

Especially if they're those 'anti-globalisation' protesters (whatever that means). For people supposedly fighting to ensure that 'the little guy. gets treated fairly they sure do love trashing the shops owned by small family businesses.

Re:Knowing rioters..

[Anonymous Coward]

too bad that it won't only effect rioters. and no, not everyone riots just for the sake of breaking shit and hurting their neighbors. some people have higher goals in mind. and some others have taken the utmost care to make sure such riotous (is that a word?) incidents do not occur (see http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0204/anderson.p hp)
much like the american colonists in the revolts against the tyrannical rule of the british. but, history is written by the winners, however grey that statement is. oh wait - a comment coming from "Renraku", you must be in support of huge arcologies, globalization, neighbor beating and ruthless shitty capitalism ;P (just kidding)

Re:Knowing rioters..

[kubla2000]

Especially if they're those 'anti-globalisation' protesters (whatever that means). For people supposedly fighting to ensure that 'the little guy. gets treated fairly they sure do love trashing the shops owned by small family businesses.

nice troll!

Mr and Mrs McDonald's (and their blind dog poopy) and their good friends, the Starbucks, surely appreciate you compassion.

Re:Knowing rioters..

[Detritus]

Many of those shops, such as McDonalds, are franchises, owned by an independent business man/woman, not the "evil" multinational corporation.

In the good old days, the police grabbed a bunch of shotguns (12 gauge riot guns), and fired at the rioter's legs or the ground in front of the rioters.

Re:Knowing rioters..

[Anonymous Coward]

Now wonder who might own those "independent business men/women" then..

Re:Knowing rioters..

[QuickFox]

In Gothenburg they were typical small family businesses, most of them owned by just one or two persons, and with just a few employees. In spite of insurance the destruction hurt their economy very badly in most cases. Very badly. Afterward the hatred in the general populace was almost palpable.

Of course to the banks that the Anarchists somehow claimed were the targets, the cost of the broken windows were pocket change. Trifles. Nothing to worry about.

Except of course for the satisfaction that real political work was silenced very efficiently, and that general public opinion veered strongly to the right.

Clearly, certain political interests gained far more that the trifling cost of a few smashed windows.

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.

Re:Knowing rioters..

[Anonymous Coward]

I was in Gothenburg last june, I sure didn't throw any rocks, neither did 95% of the other demonstrators...

Re:Knowing rioters..

[Anonymous Coward]

In Berlin in 1938 the riotees were legitimate family businesses. You think that broken glass was pocket change?

Re:Knowing rioters..

[geekoid]

haha sure there franchises, but don't think for one minute the "owners" of those franchises have any control over what they do.

Re:Knowing rioters..

[QuickFox]

More like 99.5% were real demonstrators and political workers. Only about 0.5% were rioting, if the numbers in the media were correct.

Those puny 0.5% effectively silenced a huge number of serious people doing serious political work. Afterward the anger all throughout Sweden was palpable. Not only among activists, everybody was in shock. So much destroyed. All for no discernible purpose except some nebulous "Throwing rocks is a political statement."

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.

Re:Knowing rioters..

[QuickFox]

Both in Berlin and Gothenburg the victims (the riotees) were small family businesses. To them it was no pocket change, neither in Berlin nor in Gothenburg.

In Gothenburg the cost of the bank's broken windows was pocket change for the banks.

The victimized family businesses were nearly ruined. And on top of this, in the victimized family businesses owners and employees alike got severe feelings of insecurity, fear and depression. They were the victims of the riots of the so-called Anarchists.

The banks just shrugged and paid their broken windows. To them it was nothing.

To the victims it was terrible. Terrible.

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.

Umm...

[hahn]

Lemme get this straight. If they weren't harnessed, many people would've broken bones on a lawn, and they want to use this stuff for crowd control? Yeah, I'm sure the Marine lawyers think this is a GREAT idea!

Re:Umm...

[Anonymous Coward]

And perhaps rubber bullets, tear gas and batons are a BETTER idea? Non-lethal doesn't mean non-dangerous. The idea is to stop law-breakers (which covers 99.9% of rioters pretty much by the definition of rioting) with minimal injury and little risk to peacekeepers (i.e. the people with their butts on the line trying to protect the rest of us).

Awwwwww... poor rioter trying to burn down city faw down and go BOOM! Too bad...

Broken Bones??

[Raul654]

Are they seriously pushing this as a crowd control product? I mean, tear gas is bad and not used often, but after a few hours, you're all back to normal. What's going to happen to a city that uses this on demostrators, many of whom will end up in the hospital with big doctor's bills. Would those demostrators not have a legitamit case against the city/county/state/fed goven't that did that?

Re:Broken Bones??

[bshanks]

i'm more worried about tear gas myself. I've heard that tear gas can cause or aggravate permanent and lung problems, especially if not used as directed (ie, if administered point-blank). Having asthma already, I'd prefer a broken bone than a broken lung.

However, with falls like this onto a city street, paralyis and getting one's eye poked out may be a danger too.. i'm not really sure how probably that is, anyone know the facts?

Re:Broken Bones??

[Platinum Dragon]

I mean, tear gas is bad and not used often, but after a few hours, you're all back to normal.

Weeeelllllllll....

One, two, five canisters, you might be OK. Once you're downwind of twenty-plus canisters, things start getting iffy.

Numerous women reported early periods after the April 2001 Quebec City protests, which saw over 1000 canisters of tear gas being lobbed at peaceful, boisterous protesters from behind a 4km-long fence. It is thought that three different varieties of gas were used during the actions.

Re:Broken Bones??

[FatAlb3rt]

Hopefully the stuff will be used for only the violent demonstrations, ie, riots. By this time, those who have peaceful intentions (should) have moved on, and law enforcement can spray them down and can snag them one at a time, pulling them across the surface, hauling them away to jail.

Hey, if you were told to disperse, throwing rocks and beer bottles, tipping over cars, and playing with fire won't change anyone's mind. Regroup and live to fight another day. Otherwise, maybe a broken bone and a pile of medical bills will give you time to rethink your strategy for the next couple months.

Litigation? That's like the family of the guy who gets killed while running from the cops - "if they hadn't chased him, he'd still be alive." Of course, had he not just robbed a convenience store, he'd be ok too. So if you ever break a bone due to this stuff, can you really say, with a straight face, that you weren't doing anything wrong?

Re:Broken Bones??

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the hell do you have a lawsuit case if you are involved in a riot or out of control protest. It is your own damn fault for being there.

Re:Broken Bones??

[vlag]

I don't think you really understand the implications here. I have taken part in several large protests in the last 3 years as a First Aider. I will tell you that 75% of the people I treated weren't rioting when they were clubbed by police. They weren't smashing windows when they were shot with rubber bullets. They weren't setting fires when they were in a 10-person tent and police tossed in 2 tear-gas grenades and blocked the way out. 95% of the prostestors aren't rioters. The people you see on TV smashing windows and tipping cars make up a tiny part of the crowds. Mostly, these people are like sheep. They stand in large crowds and bleat out little rhymes. They make posters and shake them angrily. They don't all engage police. Most of them understand the police aren't there to incite them; only to contain them and protect public interests by keeping the peace. I think most people don't understand that very important fact: that most people who attend these protests are peaceful suburban kids who would rather die than have their parents bail them out of jail for smashing windows during a "peaceful protest".

Re:Broken Bones??

[GooberToo]

I will tell you that 75% of the people I treated weren't rioting when they were clubbed by police.

Yes, but once that stuff starts, it's time to take your toys and go home. By remaining, you are a passive participant and in many cases, the sheep help fuel the fire with their presense and vocal rhymes. If a protest turns into a riot, you either leave immediately or you lick your wounds without complaint when it's all over.

Fair? Perhaps, perhaps not, but there is a greater good at risk for society.

Re:Broken Bones??

[dash2]

Yes, but once that stuff starts, it's time to take your toys and go home. By remaining, you are a passive participant and in many cases, the sheep help fuel the fire with their presense and vocal rhymes. If a protest turns into a riot, you either leave immediately or you lick your wounds without complaint when it's all over. Fair? Perhaps, perhaps not, but there is a greater good at risk for society.

Indeed. There is also the greater good that people should be able to protest peacefully without being beaten up, or forced to go home, whenever some drunk or agent provocateur throws a brick.

Re:Broken Bones??

[Mr. Foogle]

Maybe aggravate - I've been dosed with CS (tear gas) perhaps 6 times in my life - once *breathing* the stuff for maybe five minutes - no known problems.

Re:Broken Bones??

[poot_rootbeer]

Maybe the solution is to disperse after they fire about the fifth can of tear gas at you...

Re:Broken Bones??

[Anonymous Coward]

No known problems? Then why do you call youself Mr. Foogle, eh?

Re:Broken Bones??

[Paradise Pete]

Yes, but once that stuff starts, it's time to take your toys and go home.

Sometimes it's not so easy to extricate yourself. When they're flipping over your car you can't just say "Excuse me! I was going to use that!"

Less-Lethal Technology

[johnthorensen]

As one involved on the fringes of law enforcement, I find this interesting in many ways. Currently, there are several options should a law enforcement officer wish to disable a single person:

• Rubber Bullets / Bean Bag Rounds (can cause permanent damage, although if used properly rarely do)
• "Pepperball"-type products. Fabrique Nationale has a new one on the way that is a purpose-built CO2 launcher (not a paintball gun) that shoots chemical mace, a hard-nosed projectile, and my personal favorite, a "malodorant" that causes the target to puke himself into giving up

On the mass-of-people front, there isn't much to do besides tear gas grenades, or making an example out of some with the above options. This gel could prove to be very useful, especially as a deterrent BEFORE riot-type activities start (anyone for slicking down the sidewalk in front of the WTO meeting?) A few skinned knees are MUCH more desirable than broken teeth cause some cop got jostled when he fired the rubber baton launcher.

Re:Less-Lethal Technology

[cp99]

A few skinned knees are MUCH more desirable than broken teeth cause some cop got jostled when he fired the rubber baton launcher.

Broken bones are a little bit worse than skinned knees. And just wait until somebody breaks their neck after slipping on residue the next day. Methinks I hear lawyers coming.

Re:Less-Lethal Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the water canon. It's frequently used in Belgium and other European countries and I really like it! It's very effective (you just sweep the street and the protesters end up in the gutter) and not very dangerous..

Re:Less-Lethal Technology

[JohnBE]

Rubber bullets are pretty harsh. Bean bag rounds are far safer. Over here in the UK we have seen several deaths and injuries from rubber bullets in Northern Ireland.

The problem with dispersal and aerosol based products is that they can kill people with exisisting lung conditions, such as those suffering asthma.

I think there is a terrific grounding for litigation with all of these technologies. For instance what happens if someone is injured who was not taking part in the demonstrations, either by slipping on the residue or been caught in the cross-slime-fire?

Heh. A bit like Slimer in Ghostbusters..

Re:Less-Lethal Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Rubber bullets are dangerous, last year at Quebec city a girl was hit in the throat, and now she has to talk through a tube.

Re:Less-Lethal Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, we in the black bloc have to agree. Cops tend to use a few types of tools. Unfortunately, the police have yet to get the message that we have been good about NOT using lethal and extremely violent tactics. The police simplay attack us and we fight back. The tide will turn as the number of protesters start outnumbering the cops.

x black block skunkworks x

Crowd control?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the first customers will be countries like Israel with challenged views of human rights.

Oh wait. The slime doesn't guarantee broken bones...

HH

Re:Crowd control?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how you mention Israel and not, say, Syria, Jordan, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia or Iraq. Or indeed *any* of the other countries in the Middle East, *all of whom* have iffy records on human rights.

Problem with this stuff

[Auckerman]

This is fine as long as "riot police" get the "sensitivity training". If it won't kill, it is more often used. Just look at the Seattle protests of over zealous used of tear gas and pepper spray. Yes, rioters were gased, but there is video of sit in protestors being gassed, hit with batons, etc.

If it's not deadly, its more okay to use...Now this, people can break bones...great....

Re:Problem with this stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

The Seattle WTO riots are a testament to good policing. The most noted "film" of protestors getting gassed were the two girls OCd while attempting to -drive- -thru- the riot zone on the third day! Guess what, their civil rights suit went nowhere through 3 levels of appeal. As well it shouldve.
Thank goodness we got rid of the Mayor who ignored his own security consultants (mutltiple firms) recommendations that started a year -before- the riots. Thank goodness the cops who worked back to back 12 hour shifts, often without (literally) a pot to pee in, were as professional as they were. SPD earned its pay that week, hopefully the new mayor will never allow such an event to start up in our city again. And hopefully the voters of Seattle will never allow someone like (former) mayor Schell into office again. bk425

Broken Bones without Harnesses?

[BurritoWarrior]

Are you sure the foam wasn't actually developed here?

My issue with this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Non-lethal, less than lethal, etc, all of these technologies lend themselves to abuse of law enforcement types. Civil disobediance will be curtailed by uses of this type of thing?

"What? Dr. King? You're planning to march where? You and those nigger troublemakers can get the hell out of Selma. You can walk back to the bus, because you aren't going to make it into town. You'll break every fibula in the group if you walk past this slippery line."

Because it's non lethal. Why would anyone make a big deal about it?

If it's not serious enough for them to use force, that means that the event isn't serious.

Re:My issue with this.

[Anonymous Coward]

It'S stupid to object to non lethal riot control technology. The alternative is lethal riot control technology. Remember how barbaric the Chinese looked attacking those protesters on Tiananmen Square? Low tech riot control in action. Not a real alternative.

Re:My issue with this.

[flink]

But that was exactly what King et al wanted. They wanted the other side to look barbaric by attacking people. The problem was that the thousands of individual incidents doesn't have the same effect as the sight of a squad of police attacking a group of people sitting peacfully in a diner. Sometimes the only way to expose an unfair law is to force the governments hand. To stand up and and say, "Is this law worth killing me for? How about these 100 other people? How about in front of the national press?"

I know it's extereme, and no healthy person would want to martyr themself, but sometimes it's the only way to effect a change. The problem with these technologies are they allow the government a "sanitary" solution to a messy problem and weakens civil disobediecne, which is kinda the second-to-last resort of the people.

Re:My issue with this.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amazing how some of you people can spend all your breath blathering about how copy protection/digital rights protection/etc can be so evil and wrong because the big bad corporations and government are attempting to control how WE use OUR hardware and then turn around and denounce this. Excuse me, riot control technology does not turn a country into an oppressive dictatorship. It's just technology, and rather benign technology at that. Double standard, anyone?

Are you saying we should go back to the days when law enforcement officers had to use big sticks to stop rioters?

Re:My issue with this.

[cryptochrome]

You think slippery slime could have derailed the Civil Rights Movement by virtue of it being a non-lethal way of stopping a march? No way. When they turned the fire hoses and tear gas on the masses, people noticed. It only strengthened the movement. What mattered was that people were there demanding their rights, even when people were trying to stop them. Especially when people were trying to stop them. That just made them try harder to find way, which they did, and people noticed them more.

The only thing that works against non-violent protest is a populace that refuses to acknowledge their humanity. When Ghandi took on the British Empire, and MLK took on the US, they confronted peoples who admitted their fundamental humanity but had ignored it for economic and cultural reasons. Conversely when the Jews protested against the Nazis, and the Blacks against the Afrikaaners in South Africa, they were much less successful because the populations there regarded them as subhuman.

Re:My issue with this.

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it a double standard to complain about people keeping you from doing what you want with your stuff and to complain about people causing you to slide around and get hurt when you've peacefully assembled? I've been saying this since kindergarten, we all need to grow up and respect eachother. The world isn't going to end tomorrow, you can take your time. And if it does end tomorrow, who cares who thinks they have the upper hand?

Re:My issue with this.

[ryanvm]

Non-lethal, less than lethal, etc, all of these technologies lend themselves to abuse of law enforcement types.

What's your point? That law enforcement should use lethal weapons exclusively?

Look, ANY non-lethal addition to law enforcement's arsenal is "a good thing".

Re:My issue with this.

[Paradise Pete]

No way. When they turned the fire hoses and tear gas on the masses, people noticed

Well, it's one thing to see people forcibly driven back, it's another to see them falling like fools all over each other.

Re:My issue with this.

[nullard]

They wanted the other side to look barbaric by attacking people.

The problem here is that the gel stops them from protesting while making the opposition look humane. This is wat the parent is talking about. Violence against peaceful protesters gets publicity for the cause. An unimpeded peaceful protest gets publicity for the cause.

A peaceful protest that is peacefully prevented does not benefit the cause in any way. It prevents the message from getting out while not attracting any attention.

Re:My issue with this.

[Anonymous Coward]

In case you neglected to READ my post, I have no objection to "RIOT" control. I have a problem with this technology being used as a way for despots to squelch peaceful protests without looking like the brutes that they are.

It's still chemical warfare

[alewando]

Though slippery slime is not as bad as some of the other so-called "non lethal" weapons being developed out there, it's still in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which bans chemical agents producing temporary incapacitation.

Though "chemical warfare" readily brings WWI chlorine-gas warfare to mind, agents don't simply have to asphyxiate or burn opponents to death to qualify as inhumane. One may wonder whether there is such a thing as humane war, but it is certainly more fair to attack healthy and active combattants than it is to attack incapacitated ones. And don't believe for a second that the Pentagon is interested in this stuff just for non-combat activities.

Besides, one has to wonder how good this stuff can be at crowd control anyway. Immobilizing foam has its uses, because it can transform a chaotic situation into one where the actors -- rioters, for example -- can no longer continue their disturbances. It hardly seems prudent, however, to create a situation where everyone is sliding all over the place.

Re:It's still chemical warfare

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it? The OPCW convention specifies "chemical action on life", which I would take to mean a biological effect. This stuff would have a similar chemical action on a motor vehicle. And if you control this foam as a chemical weapon you'd have to control virtually everything else as well.

Re:It's still chemical warfare

[Moridineas]

Directly from the link you sent:

"Toxic Chemical: Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation [etc]"

That was the only occurrence of the phrase "temporary incapacitation." Is making the ground slippery really something they intended to catch? after all, wouldn't ice then be a toxic chemical? I think they're going for things that directly affect the human body.

Re:It's still chemical warfare

[UnifiedTechs]

Though slippery slime is not as bad as some of the other so-called "non lethal" weapons being developed out there, it's still in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention [www.opcw.nl], which bans chemical agents producing temporary incapacitation.

While I skimed thrue the OPCW and was not able to find it I am sure there must be something regarding excemptions for riot control agents, the simple definition you gave would also outlaw Mace, Pepper spray, and other devices commonly used by police forces.

I did notice an excemtion for small quanities and I'm sure there is a way to get it under that, the purpose of the OPCW is warfare weapons, Non-leathel riot control is not something they want to ban, name a single country that would not be interested in a non-leathel chemical to use in case of domestic riots. Worst case an amendment is made, there are provisions for that.

Re:It's still chemical warfare

[agent oranje]

If this is classified as chemical warfare, then things like tear gas, mace, pepperspray, and although it may be stretching it, even smoke is an implement of chemical warfare. It prevents you from seeing! Oh no!

Personally, if I was being a rowdy protester, I'd rather slip and fall than get gassed.

Re:It's still chemical warfare

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this down; first paragraph of parent post is incorrect.

Re:It's still chemical warfare

[InfoSec]

Ah, but what you failed to mention is that the Chemical Weapons Convention only refers to chemicals which incapacitate people at a biological level. This is a physical deterrent, and not a chemical weapon. It would be the same as putting banana peels all over the ground (As the original post mentions). That is not a violation of the accord.

Re:It's still chemical warfare

[radish]

hardly seems prudent, however, to create a situation where everyone is sliding all over the place.


No, but it would be funny wouldn't it?? ;-) We get a lot of riots here in London (well a few) and they have been known to really piss me off. Just imagining all those guys slippng and liding all over the street brings a smile to my face.

Re:It's still chemical warfare

[Anonymous Coward]

One may wonder whether there is such a thing as humane war, Yay For Nerf Weapons !!!

Re:It's still chemical warfare

[mazachan]

Just for the record, I do believe that in WWI, they used mustard gas and not chlorine.

Re:It's still chemical warfare

[NecrosisLabs]

Chlorine was the first gas used in WWI (Ypres, 1915) Mustard gas and other more effective agents (phosgene) were used later.

Re:It's still chemical warfare

[drodver]

Quote from the quote:
"through its chemical action on life processes..."

This substance does not chemically with the body, therefor this is not a chemical weapon by this defenition.

Broken Bones..

[TheCrunch]

I'm sure a crowd of people slipping around is a very amusing sight, but what happens if someone gets seriously injured? How would the ambulance crew get to them without being injured themselves?

Re:Broken Bones..

[trelaneopn]

the end result is what's called a "Denial of Mobility Attack, or DoM. the best solution is to firewall against such attacks. simply build a nice sturdy wall about every 3 feet or so for slipping people to catch their balance on, and prevent further mobility denials. ciscocisco is I hear working on a solution as we speak, it's been codenamed the brick and mortarist 3000 series firewall.

Re:Broken Bones..

[Kurayamino-X]

simple, an anti-DoM-goo-goo. just have a backpack weed sprayer full of a substance that neutralizes the goo and *tada* no more slippery crap. or bigass tire chains and snow shoes.

Life imitates (poor) art!

[darylp]

Wasn't a similar product featured on that godawful Robocop TV series?

If I recall, the police were given this ultra-slippery spray foam stuff in order to quell rioters. However, as soon as it was used, the police started falling over themselves, with "amusing" boing noises playing on the soundtrack.

Of course, I could go on to whinge about the legacy of the one good film (the first one) being further driven into disgrace, but that would be -1, Redundant.

I will be the first to break my head open...

[teamhasnoi]

at the Anti-DMCA,SSSCA,RIAA,MPAA rally! Why not give it to the Jamacan Bobsled team instead?

Small family businesses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Any examples?

Re:Small family businesses?

[javaman235]

Yep. Those damn "rioters"...Always out protesting, like there's actually problems with the world. I say we need something stronger to use on them. I mean when women marched for suffrage, we did nothing, and look what happened...Now they work 48% of the jobs and control A WHOLE 10% OF THE WEALTH in this country!!!
Hell, when those blackamores went marching wanting rights in the 60's we even used firehouses and dogs trained to attack their testicles and they STILL got rights! I mean damn, we filled up the hospitals with blacks, vietnam peace protesters and womens rights advocates, and most lately WTO protestors...But the front of a Starbucks in Seattle still got smashed. How many of these first amendment yahoos do we have to maim before we really know that Starbucks storefronts are safe???

Re:Small family businesses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. Starbuck's franchise. Trashing a Starbucks franchise (or McDonald's franchise) doesn't hurt the parent company one bit but it does have a huge effect on the owner.

Re:Small family businesses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good.

Re:Small family businesses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine.

Re:Small family businesses?

[QuickFox]

Gothemburg last summer. Burning the furniture of small cafeterias, looting small radio stores, smashing windows everywhere.

High ideals indeed. I have a lot of respect for real political workers defending the small individual and struggling for a better world. I have no respect at all for rioters proving their political intent to suppress any dissent along the principles that might makes right.

These principles of political suppression and might makes right, which they reveal by their actions, do not lead to the kind of world I want to live in.

Democracy and capitalism may have many severe flaws, but they also have important mechanisms for dealing with flaws. The rioters refuse to use these mechanisms and instead attack local cafeterias. How clever.

And in the process, in Gothemburg and elsewhere, they silenced thousands of legitimate political workers who had real, meaningful programs.

They do have the right to express their opinion. But not that way.

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.

Re:Small family businesses?

[QuickFox]

There's a huge difference between defending the powerless and smashing up local cafeterias. There's a huge difference between purposeful political struggle and hooliganism.

The struggles that you mention are really important. The struggle to smash windows is not. Comparing the two as if they were equal is offensive.

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.

Re:Small family businesses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please note that it's a classic technique to throw a few "ringers" into a peaceful protest to turn it into a violent one, then denounce the protesters as violent thugs, when in fact it was the "ringers". The British government did it for years in Northern Ireland, there is evidence that the protesters against the WTO were also infiltrated by agents provocateurs whose mission was to make the anti-WTO protesters look bad.

Re:Small family businesses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello, Neumann.

Re:Small family businesses?

[QuickFox]

Look, I discussed these things directly with the Black Block at Indymedia, shortly after Gothemburg. It was quite definitely not a case of ringers, not with the kind of passionate discussion that you get among those people to justify what they do. They have very strong principles and loads of political arguments. It is a political worldview. They believe it's Anarchism. It certainly isn't real Anarchism. Discussing with them was quite nightmarish because of their stong anti-democratic views.

They love referring to real heroes like Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela, admirable people who made real sacrifices, immensely significant sacrifices. But they themselves don't even dare show their faces and stand for their cause while demonstrating in democratic countries.

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.

Re:Small family businesses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Capitalism has no mechanisms for dealing with its own flaws. The only thing that keeps capitalism from getting out of control is democracy. In the US the government is controlled by the corporations so democracy is no longer a check on capitalism.

Riots are typically started by the police. The police are always keen for an opportunity to beat up citizens. Sadly the police force tends to attract thugs and no attempt is made to weed them out because firstly that would only leave 3 or 4 people to police the whole country and secondly the powers that be want ruthless, violent psychopaths there to control the populace.

Re:Small family businesses?

[QuickFox]

Capitalism has no mechanisms for dealing with its own flaws. The only thing that keeps capitalism from getting out of control is democracy.

Of course. Without democracy, capitalism in itself has no controlling feedback. Democracy is the control. Democracy is essential.

In the US the government is controlled by the corporations so democracy is no longer a check on capitalism.

Nothing is stopping us from having this discussion. Nothing is stopping you or anyone else from creating real, effective, meaningful political movements that could effectively correct flaws. Not smash windows! Correct flaws! Nothing is stopping you people.

But you don't. And that's the problem in my view.

Somebody's got to do it! But who? Why not the people? Who are you waiting for?

Smashing windows will not make a Savior appear. The people must do it. From the bottom up. Through hard work. Blood, sweat and screaming running tears! Not some hero. Nobody but the people.

Definitely not the "media attention" that the so-called Anarchists so crave with their smashups, even though they complain about the evil media corporations.

If the media corporations are evil, then don't wait for the media to save you! Do it yourselves for goodness' sake!

I can also see another problem. Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela made real sacrifices. The rioters don't even dare show their faces demonstrating in democratic countries. Their sympathisers don't even dare risk a few damn slashdot karma points showing their nick in discussions like this.

I realize that you don't see any importance in this. But it's really absolutely essential. Those who are not willing to stand for their views, wether it costs them some sacrifice or not, those cannot get political gains. It's not just that they don't deserve it. It simply isn't attainable.

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.

Re:Small family businesses?

[QuickFox]

Riots are typically started by the police.

My discussions with rioters showed that in Gothemburg last summer this was very clearly not the case.

Sure, the Black Block did whine a lot about police provocation, but it was very, very clear that they came to Gothemburg intent on rioting. Out of principle. The thrown rock is a Political Statement. Just listen to their arguments. It's very, very clear.

the powers that be want ruthless, violent psychopaths there to control the populace.

Control the populace? In this context the police are pawns. They have no more say in the general political directions of the country than any other voters. They are not your adversary. They control riots, not national political directions, nor corporations. Pawns. Forget about them.

The idea that the police provoke riots by repressing the crowd is pitiful. When the police tells you to stop, or to go that way, or whatever, then just do what they say and that's it. Going this street or the other street will not change the political directions of the country.

Do you realize that there are strong political forces that stand to gain a lot by the riots? You can't have a strong, purposeful, universally respected political movement of the people, respected so that everybody listens, if at the same time you have football-hooligan clowns smashing up the streets.

The broken windows costs pennies compared to the enormous gains that some interests have from the riots.

So if the police says stop, just stop. They're not your adversary.

The propaganda of the so-called Anarchists is rife with vested interests of those who profit by two things: The riots, and the national protectionsm that holds down the economies of the developing countries. (Keep the countries from trading so they stay poor, just like a guy who can't find a job stays poor. It's almost exactly the same thing.)

No, it's not a conspiracy. I don't believe in conspiracies. It's just a few books, and after that simple human gullibility. It's really very, very sad.

Just open your eyes. Just listen to what they say.

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.

Re:Small family businesses?

[geekoid]

In a world where corporation are suing people for stating there opinion, how can someone geet attention to there cause?

You are correct in your post, but if people keep getting pushed around for there opinions, and newspaper,ISPs and Magazines keep getting sued for publishing other peoples opinions, breaking windows may be are only course.
It would be nice if it never gets to tnat point, but if things don't change within 5 years, that WILL be are only recourse.

Re:Small family businesses?

[Kwil]

In the US the government is controlled by the corporations so democracy is no longer a check on capitalism.

Nothing is stopping us from having this discussion.

You completely fail to address the point. Yes it's true that nothing is stopping us from having this discussion, but this discussion is not where power is created or democracy is wielded.

Nothing is stopping you or anyone else from creating real, effective, meaningful political movements that could effectively correct flaws.

Well, nothing other than police who don't discriminate between violent and non-violent protestors, an apathetic electorate who feels they have no power to make change, a corporate-government system that sees no point in educating people to the fact that they can effect change, a corporate system that requires the vast majority of people to spend the majority of their energy and time just working to survive (never mind 'get ahead') so leaving no time for activism, a well-funded two-party system that is supported by media conglomerates who typically wave third party concerns to the side (eg, televised debates where third party candidates aren't even invited), laws that increasingly muzzle free speech when it is critical of the corporations, electoral finance funding laws that benefit law-makers and corporations far more than the democratic citizen, an economic system that places more value on paper-profit than real people and very often encourages the former at the expense of the latter, a judicial system where money can purchase increased time to re-try the cases, a judicial system that considers corporations to have all the rights of personhood while having none of the duties, and in short, an entire system devoted to the idea that money=power, as opposed to the idea that voices=power, which is the corner-stone of democracy.

I'm not belittling your comment that we must stand for our views, you're absolutely right and there is nothing more important. But really, to say that there is nothing stopping people from having their views become power is ignoring the realities of the system currently in place and maintained by those who derive their power from that system.

Re:Small family businesses?

[QuickFox]

Yes it's true that nothing is stopping us from having this discussion, but this discussion is not where power is created or democracy is wielded.

Really? Then who gives the corporations power by buying their merchandise?

[I said that nothing is stopping you from creating effective political organizations. You replied] Well, nothing other than police who don't discriminate between violent and non-violent protestors

What? Are you still waiting for others to do things for you? Are you now waiting for the police to come over on your side?

If the police don't fulfill your expectations, then don't wait for them to change until they fulfill your expectations! Accept that they are the way they are! Don't wait and don't complain! Accept that you have this problem, deal with it, and work around it!

an apathetic electorate who feels they have no power to make change

Now that's more like it! Here you have identified a key problem. If we can assume that this is really true (if), we just might have here a case of people getting what they deserve. The price of liberty is not eternal TV.

And what are you doing about this problem? Where are your printing presses and radio stations? Yes, your things. Not the corporate media of course, if they are so evil.

a corporate-government system that sees no point in educating people to the fact that they can effect change

Are you waiting for this evil corporate-government system to change for your sake?

a corporate system that requires the vast majority of people to spend the majority of their energy and time just working to survive (never mind 'get ahead') so leaving no time for activism

This problem has always been far, far more severe than it is now. Look at any agrarian society. Read history. True, the current pressures are ridiculous considering that they are hardly necessary today and that they cost more than they give.

But the greed that drives this seems to be human nature. Lots of people get themselves more stressful work of their own free will.

Are you waiting for this evil to be so kind and disappear of its own accord? Or are you doing something?

I hope you are not arguing that smashing windows is going to solve this problem for you.

a well-funded two-party system that is supported by media conglomerates who typically wave third party concerns to the side (eg, televised debates where third party candidates aren't even invited),

So? Why do you bring this up? I don't see you suggesting ways to work around it.

Are you hoping that you will be happier if and when they change their ways on their own accord?

laws that increasingly muzzle free speech when it is critical of the corporations

If I recall correctly they silenced black people not very long ago. In very cruel ways. Are you telling me it's worse now?

Okay, if it's so bad, then where's your printing press? Where's your radio station? Where's your organization of a few hundred people taking their own destiny in their own hands?

electoral finance funding laws that benefit law-makers and corporations far more than the democratic citizen

Yes, here we probably agree. This is bad.

So what are you doing about it? Yes, you. I'm a Swede. I can't meddle in those affairs. But what are you doing?

an economic system that places more value on paper-profit than real people and very often encourages the former at the expense of the latter

And what are you doing to make the situation better?

a judicial system where money can purchase increased time to re-try the cases, a judicial system that considers corporations to have all the rights of personhood while having none of the duties

That sounds bad. And what are you doing about it?

and in short, an entire system devoted to the idea that money=power, as opposed to the idea that voices=power, which is the corner-stone of democracy.

Okay, so now we have a complex and difficult set of problems outlined and described. Not agreed upon, but let's leave that aside, let's just say that these are the points.

Okay. And what happens now? What measures are you counting on to work around these problems? What measures are you hoping will let you make things better and vanquish the problems? What's your plan?

I hope your plan isn't getting the evil media over to your side by smashing windows.

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.

Re:Small family businesses?

[QuickFox]

I'm sorry if my recent reply came across as disrespectful. If it did (I'm not sure), then I really didn't mean it that way. I accidentally pressed submit just as I was starting to polish the sharp edges. That accidental submit is also the reason why it became so long-winded and repetitive.

In spite of this length, one thing at the end is missing: I'm not saying that all this is easy. I wouldn't even say it's feasible. I don't know if it is. What I'm saying is that I don't see any real, purposeful, effective political struggle. Smashing windows isn't it. On the contrary, smashing windows damages the cause and counteracts any people who struggle for real.

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.

Re:Small family businesses?

[Anonymous Coward]

"In the US the government is controlled by the corporations so democracy is no longer a check on capitalism."
This particular statist drumbeat is getting tiresome but as the song said "the beat goes on..."
"Corporations" are a legal fiction created by THE US GOVERNMENT. Go do some reading, then lets repeal those corporate taxes and eliminate corporate law. Should be fun to watch agribusiness implode. Got Canned Food? bk425

Re:Small family businesses?

[QuickFox]

In a world where corporation are suing people for stating there opinion, how can someone geet attention to there cause?

Maybe like people do in a world where dissent means entire villages get gassed? (Careful, very grisly photos.) Or maybe like they did in a world where dissenters got rounded up in a stadium and shot? Or where they get stoned to the death, or where they get whipped to death, or where they get hanged... No need to go on.

Please read your quote once again -- you'll discover something important:

In a world where corporation are suing people for stating there opinion, how can someone geet attention to there cause?

You are taking the standpoint that you want your adversary to be kind enough to stop suing you. Don't. They won't. Accept that this is the situation you have. Deal with it. Work around it.

You ask how to do this? I'm sorry, you must explore this by yourself. If you don't have the stamina to do this simple exploration, where would you find the stamina to go through the actual struggle?

if people keep getting pushed around for there opinions,

Name one country where this has not happened.

and newspaper,ISPs and Magazines keep getting sued for publishing other peoples opinions,

Deal with it.

breaking windows may be are only course.

How can it be a course when it doesn't accomplish anything?

Maybe there is a fundamental difference between American and European political work. From time to time I read with great astonishment about how American workers when they are downsized or fired suddenly find themselves locked out of their workplace, unable to enter. Here in Sweden that's utterly impossible, absolutely unthinkable. You get ample warning, several weeks at least, months when possible. You get a little coffee-break party with cake and short speeches. You get a present or two from your colleagues and another from the company -- nothing fancy usually but it's something to remember them by. Often you get things like job-search courses to help you on your way.

Just getting locked out is utterly impossible. I don't know if it's against the law but it seems likely.

And when I've disagreed with a boss I've always made it very, very clear. My current boss knows fully well how clueless I consider some of his decisions.

Yet yours is the land of the free.

Why are we so much stronger than you before our bosses and employers? Could it be because we expect political struggle to be hard and painful work that requires significant risks and endless patience? Whereas you seem to expect something like a baseball match: A short rush of adrenalin throwing rocks and after that, somehow, things will be magically solved.

Adrenalin rushes don't have that effect.

Unless you change your tactics you just won't get anywhere.

Name me one people that attained its freedom by smashing windows.

(Goodness, am I getting long-winded here. Somebody really pushed me a button...)

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.

Re:Small family businesses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just in response to most of that first paragraph...

Mike Moore is one person who does create these kinds of movements. He's unpopular with the people he's up against, and regularly rubs powerful people up the wrong way. Yet he gets attention and has an affect. He gets publicity by being clever rather than violent; he gets supporters because he makes his case plain, not because he drags attention to himself and hopes people will guess what he's trying to say.

He got ficus trees electoral votes, maybe even one or more of them technically elected (barring a few obvious impracticalities!). If that doesn't show that the electorate doesn't feel they can make change...

The other thing is that he picks his targets carefully. There was a comment earlier about how 'big corporation' now means 'big evil corporation' around here (unless it's one of the corporations that we like; around /. most applications of law seem to work on a basis of popularity...). But Mike doesn't just go "oh, Disney's evil, Nike's evil, McDonalds are evil", he picks a specific (and evidenced) instance where they're clearly doing something wrong, and hits them over it. If someone can say "Microsoft is evil because they do this and this and this which is totally unfair competition with other companies" then that means a lot more to me than someone throwing bricks at their offices because "they're big, they must be evil".

Re:Small family businesses?

[Kwil]

Okay. And what happens now? What measures are you counting on to work around these problems? What measures are you hoping will let you make things better and vanquish the problems? What's your plan?

I hope your plan isn't getting the evil media over to your side by smashing windows.


Obviously I'm not being clear. Let's use analogy.

The citizenry has been deafened by media that shout down voices arguing for change, hamstrung by a corporate/judicial/governmental system that primarily values money rather than people, and tied into this system by economic pressures felt only by those who do not maintain the system.

So we're deaf, hamstrung, and tied into it, and your response from across the waters is,
"Wow, sounds pretty bad. So what are you going to do about it? Just make sure it doesn't involve hitting anyone." Can you make any other suggestions?

Perhaps we should boycott the corporations and.. uh.. starve. Good plan.

Perhaps we should petition the government to stop taking money from corporations. At which point they realize if they don't take money, they can't campaign, and if they can't campaign, they lose. The person who takes the money wins unless we manage to inform and convince more than 50% of the voters.

Aha! So we should inform the voters, gather groups.. except for that we need the media, which by and large aren't interested in the story as it works against their interests. Okay, we need to get our own media - except that media is expensive to produce for a large audience, and more than 50% of the voters is definitely a large audience, especially when we need to convince them in spite of the efforts of the much better funded, better established media institution.

Aha! We need money then.. except to do that very well we need to start up a corporation.. at which point, in order to survive/compete with those corporations which are taking advantage of/depend upon the system, we'll need to take advantage of/depend upon the current system as well, which means that fighting the system is the best way to defeat our own goal of.. well.. fighting the system.

So now you tell me, what can we do about it? But not in your idealistic world where everybody is a fully aware and active citizen, but in the real world where things cost money. Where people work for a living, get home dog-tired, want to eat, sleep, and go to bed, and not have to deal with these bigger issues tonight cause they have to worry about getting the utilities paid first.

Does breaking store windows do a lot? Probably not. Does it do more than not breaking store windows? You tell me.. when did this issue really start to hit the general consciousness of the population? When the violence happened here at home.

There was a revolution in 1776 about this exact kind of thing. It was bloody, it was violent, and the saddest part is, it was necessary as it was the only means that the system didn't have under control. What is most frightening is that these days, we've gotten a lot better at controlling those means as well.

Re:Small family businesses?

[KnowledgeFreak]

well said.. but just to add on to your quote.. there is a friend of mine at college who says something similar... give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him to fish and he eats until the river runs dry or is too polluted to sustain life. Teach him to organize, and he'll conquer any obstacle is society. something along those lines anyway.. sorry if i flubbed it!

Re:Small family businesses?

[QuickFox]

So we're deaf, hamstrung, and tied into it, and your response from across the waters is, "Wow, sounds pretty bad. So what are you going to do about it? Just make sure it doesn't involve hitting anyone."

No, I did not say that you shouldn't hit anyone. I could very well have said that, but so far, in this discussion, that has not been my point.

My point is rather that you're hitting the wrong target. Your intent is to hurt Mr Powerful and help Ms Worker. Instead you are helping Mr Powerful and hurting Ms Worker.

Your aim is off. You're shooting the good guys. You're elevating the powerful. You're stepping on the downtrodden.

This is very serious. It's deeply disturbing. The world does not need yet another political movement elevating the powerful and stepping on the downtrodden.

Clearly it's all unintentional. Clearly it's not what you want. You need to watch what is happening. You need to correct your aim. Stop causing trauma and economic ruin to the downtrodden and mosquito stings to the banks.

So now you tell me, what can we do about it? But not in your idealistic world where everybody is a fully aware and active citizen, but in the real world where things cost money. Where people work for a living, get home dog-tired, want to eat, sleep, and go to bed, and not have to deal with these bigger issues tonight cause they have to worry about getting the utilities paid first.

Very well put.

I think I can give you some very useful pointers. But we're talking about changing the world. We're talking about changing some of the deeply entrenched customs and world-views of a nation. This isn't something you outline in a few paragraphs, it's material for many, many books, for entire libraries.

If these things were easy we wouldn't have billions of people around the world starving and suffering. If they were as easy as writing a few books or smashing some windows, it would have been done that way, long ago, very long ago. Trust me, if it could be done by smashing windows it would have been done that way.

First, the basics. Basically there are two different ways to change the fundamental customary behaviors of an entire nation. One is to convince people, get the people over on your side, gradually sway them to embrace your visions and ideas, so that the people will make them real. The other way is to install a dictatorship were you suppress the people of the nation forcing them to act the way you want against their will.

Such dictatorship is probably impossible in the US. Even if we assume, for the sake of the argument, that democracy in the US is as compromised as you say, still it has strong, resilient defences against that kind of dictatorship. People in the US are always quoting things like "The cost of liberty is eternal vigilance." A significant proportion of the people are very wary of government and authorities. That kind of dictatorship just wouldn't be tolerated. So, even if your goal were a dictatorship, and you somehow had complete control over the army, you couldn't just take over.

So, the remaining alternative is to somehow sway the people.

To see how nations can be swayed, look at historical precedent, look at what others have done before you. Not to imitate completely, because we live in different times and need different solutions. Not to imitate but to learn, to understand how these things work. And of course to pick some good ideas and avoid some bad mistakes.

Look very carefully at the negative consequences that many, many attempts have had. It's quite amazing how many good intentions have led to disastrous results. There are many, many hellish examples from all over the world, past and present.

I'll give you an example of how you can look at a historical precedent. Take the political movements in Europe in the late sixties and the seventies. In retrospect there was a lot of silliness going on, but there were also quite a lot of very good things, very useful. Europe is much more interesting than the US when you look at this period, because Europe was much more politically serious, purposeful and determined. In the US this movement was much more dreamily inclined, much more hippie, flower power, big happy family, "if we'll just love everybody then everybody will be happy."

As I've mentioned, in Europe we tend to accept that political work is lots and lots of hard work.

In that period a very strong general consensus spread over Europe that you had to be wary of the people in power, that all political work must be for the good of the people. It was also taken for granted that political movements can and must have a strong influence on those in power. With this in mind, people studied, learned, discussed, and posed lots of awkward questions.

Music played a very important role in this political movement. Music is a superb channel for creating feelings of togetherness, and for communicating political visions and ideals in the lyrics. Music may not seem all that important at first sight, but if you could see its effect in such a spontaneous and frequent usage you'd see its importance. Whenever friends were together there'd be someone spontaneously picking up a guitar and people singing.

Music from a CD player or a concert stage has no such effect, not at all. Such music is also very useful, but in a completely different way. What I'm talking about is a community thing and an atmosphere of friendship. You need people spontaneously picking up the guitar when the mood suddenly strikes.

There was also an "alternative music industry." Explore a little and you'll find lots and lots of music from the seventies labelled "progressive." I think Sweden was particularly prolific. In fact, for your political work I think an alternative music movement, with clear political goals and strong determination, might turn out to be very helpful, very powerful. It really is a fabulous way to spread visions and ideas. Go get some progressive music from the seventies for inspiration.

It's sad that in the end the political enthusiasm of the seventies just seemed to peter out and disappear. But maybe this was unavoidable, given the dreamy attitudes and lack of clear, specific goals.

Having looked at the seventies, for contrast and for important insights look at fascism and nazism between the two world wars. There you can learn about certain very important risks and dangers that are not at all obvious.

Note that fascism and nazism started as popular movements that promised to improve the lot of the people. Nazism was in many respects very inclined toward the working classes. Note also that they became very, very popular with the masses in certain places, and in other places they had substantial minority support. Today this may seem incomprehensible, but back then people just didn't understand the dangers. Let's hope we understand things better today! That's why it's so immensely important to understand these things and learn from them.

Now try comparing and contrasting fascism with the attitudes of the seventies. You can get some very useful insights. Even a detail such as the different styles of music gives a very clear insight into the enormously different atmospheres. The political music of the seventies was spontaneous, amateurish, a simple guitar in the hands of someone who knew a few chords in a warm circle of friends. Fascist music is very far from spontaneous, it strives to be distant, grandiose, majestic, glorious, ominous, heroic.

While in the seventies there was a constant debate aiming at "power to the people," fascism despises democracy and despises the people, denying that the people can have any insight or understanding in political matters. While the seventies said "make love, not war," fascism actively seeks conflict, it purposefully looks for confrontation. While the seventies aimed at "peace, love and understanding," fascism uses shock, intimidation, fear and persecution. While the seventies strived for internationalization and world-wide unity, fascism is nationalism and enmity, a strengthening of national frontiers.

Fascism and nazism made strategic use of the violence in fascist ideology. They started with small violence, so people would get inured to violence, so that over the years people accepted more and more violence, even craved it, thus making it escalate. The tragedies of those times could never have happened without thís gradual desensitization going on and on, year after year after year.

Look at these movements and also at many others, in many nations. Look for parallels and contrasts. See how people are swayed. Try to understand how it happens. Look at all this to gain understanding and to find ideas.

With this background, look at the current situation, and the possibilities and difficulties that exist today. If you discuss this in small groups it's often much more effective than if you work alone or in large groups. When there are many people, simply form smaller groups for some discussions.

Also look at the political activism of today, compared and contrasted against this background. For example, you can start by looking at some superficial things, some things the activists say. One organization that publicly defended the rock-throwing in Gothemburg was AFA (Anti-Fascistisk Aktion). On their website they declare their aims: they fight against sexism, racism, capitalism and homophobia. These aims are very reminiscent of the essential ideals of the seventies. There is also one very interesting difference: While the seventies tended to be dreamy and emotional, these four aims are purposeful and to the point. This is an improvement.

Of course you must also go deeper, you must look at what they actually do, and what they say about their deeds. Their deeds are the essence of the movement. Their aims are just what they hope, what they want. Their deeds and explanations are what they actually are.

So let's look at their deeds, compared and contrasted against this background. Their tactics use shock, intimidation and fear. They actively seek conflict, they purposefully look for confrontation. If you tell them that you think it's better to use other means than intimidation, or that they are suppressing and silencing the political work of the majority, their response is deeply contemptuous of the democratic process, and equally contemptuous of the people, they aggressively deny that the people understands such things.

As an additional detail, they want national frontiers strengthened against international trade.

Er... Ooops.

Wasn't the name Anti- Fascist?

Shouldn't they be clearly, blatantly different from fascists?

Well, there's no need to be all negative. There are some important differences. The activists wants to defend the downtrodden, not persecute them. But we already covered that, it was among their aims, what they say. I claimed that this is superficial. Maybe we should somehow try to redefine this, somehow claim that their words are the essence, and what they do is just a minor detail.

But there are more differences. The fascists direct their violence at the people, they aim at the people, with an intent to hurt. The rock-throwers aim at windows. With the rock-throwers, when people are traumatized this doesn't mean that the rock-throwers aim at those people. Those people just happen to stand in the way. All the traumatized people, all those economically ruined families, all this is just unfortunate accidents, collateral damage.

People outside the movement tend to see this differently. What if my six-year-old nephew is traumatized for life? Traumatized for life just so they can get publicity cheaply and give banks a mosquito sting. People will say that they have no business hurting their nephews, or hurting anyone else either. To many people, the way these activists say that hurting people is just "collateral damage" clearly reveals the activists' extreme contempt for the people.

The fascists of course give completely different excuses. Of course. The anti-fascists are different from them, aren't they? The fascists will say that what they do is for the good of the state, and thereby the people. The state, that's different. Any shocks and traumatizations are just unfortunate but unavoidable sacrifices. Sacrifices, not collateral damage. So yes, they speak differently.

So, as we can see, there are various differences.

But those differences are too small! They're not enough!

I realize that this claim is absolutely outrageous. I know it must sound totally ridiculous to people within that movement. So how can I say such a thing? Well, I have had discussions with racists and fascists. I have argued back and forth with real, deeply convinced, aggressive racists and fascists. I know what they sound like. I've listened to their contempt. I know how they argue.

I have also had a few discussions with the Black Block. And seeing their reactions and attitudes, I've found that the differences are mostly varnish. Beneath this varnish they are nightmarishly similar.

Note that it's only within the movement that this claim is considered outrageous. Several times after Gothenburg I've seen AFA interpreted as Anarcho-Fascist Action. This interpretation comes natural to many people.

Unfortunately it seems completely impossible to get this across to the activists in any meaningful way. They immediately assume it's a matter of careless name-calling. They just can't see that it's a case of factual comparison, a case of lining up, one by one, a number of very specific and clearly definable aspects of what they are doing.

This is no small matter. The rioters are actually dangerous. I'll give you one important reason why. How do they expect to limit their violence? It's in human nature to get inured to violence and lust for more. Even if we assume that the politically conscious among them do not make it escalate, even after years and years of desensitization, of course someone else in the crowd will make it escalate, and then someone else will follow. This is simply unavoidable, it's human nature in such a setting. I mentioned that fascism and nazism took advantage of this. So how do these people expect to put a limit on it?

After the seventies, for two decades there were no new political visions, no strong, enthusiastic political movements. It was a vacuum. I was perplexed and worried. And now, when at last something visionary appears, it's a terrible shock to discover that deep within lurks this nightmarish reminder of a hellish past.

That's why I react so strongly to all this. I'm hoping that some of the people who have drive and initiative will get a clue as to how these things work. I'm hoping that somehow they'll see the dangers and look for a healthy and meaningful path. The world sorely needs new visions, new ideas, new political movements that struggle in healthy ways.

I realize that this is not the answer you wanted. But it is the answer I can give you.

I did give you lots of pointers to what you can do. I sincerely believe that these pointers are very good, that they can be very useful. There really are ways to sway the people. Now you know where to find those solutions.

It seems to me that what you want at heart is a differently shaped democracy. I hope you'll respect the principle of democracy as such. This includes respecting the people, respecting the fact that what people want does matter. Oppressing the people is out. Therefore you can have it your way only if you manage to sway the people. And you need to sway them in healthy ways.

If you do respect democracy and the people, then I wish you luck.

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.

World cup around the corner

[quannump]

oh boy, just in time for hooligan season.

Segway?

[ctar]

I wonder.... If you have "IT" are you immune?

Best of show in crowd control!

[Romancer]

Hell yeah!

Phazer crowd control Phasor Pain Field Generator for Mounting on a CAR!

Ultrasonic wave generator that causes nerve stimulation and overload to the point of writhing on the ground in such pain you forget to bef for it to stop!

Slippery slime will only piss people off because they keep falling. And how are the police supposed to go in and arrest or cuff these people if they're slipping around in it themselves?

I can just see rioters and police wearing golf/soccer shoes to get traction.

Re:Best of show in crowd control!

[CheechBG]

heh, more like the cops are wearing crampons, which raises a whole host of legal issues :)

crowd control

[doubtless]

many times a crowd control means dispersing the crowd, hence the application of tear gas and many other methods. Putting this slimy thing will just immobilize the crowd, and they'll just, stay there?

Another issue being, how can the person who apply this stuff not affected it? Police officers can wear a mask while using tear gas, I wonder if there's any way to avoid it. Maybe a spike show, like those a spinter wear to run in grass would do. Demonstrators and rioters would probably come prepared if it's just as simple as wearing a different type of shoes.

Having said that, I guess this material is probably going to be useful in some other industrial applications. It's interesting nonetheless.

Re:Crowd Control

[Anonymous Coward]

Running away might not be as safe as you think. As you run away they'll probably stick a stick up *your* butt to create another Poo-on-a-Stick. It's self-perpetuating.

Re:crowd control

[Aceticon]

Having said that, I guess this material is probably going to be useful in some other industrial applications. It's interesting nonetheless

Once again, we end up talking about the p0rn industry.

Can't you guys just shut up with this kind of joke???

Re:crowd control

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, if you don't think of pr0n when you think of slippery stuff, perhaps YOU'RE the problem.

Neato!

[E-Rock-23]

Does this mean my old Slip And Slide thing is still worth something? If this slime is what it says it is, then I can get some SERIOUS speed down that plastic mat. Might need to extend it, too...

Re:Neato!

[Graspee_Leemoor]

Yeah, just wait 'til those wacky guys on Jackass get a hold of this stuff. They will probably spray it on piles of bricks and then pogo on the bricks....

graspee

meh

[Anonymous Coward]

just shoot the bastard rioters

I am quite troubled

[Edmund Blackadder]

I am quite troubled that my government pays for research for crowd control measures. (you may as well call them population control).

While some sports fanatics may be a problem, they can be dealt by the usual police methods, of wearing riot gear and restricting them until their highs decrease.

Sports riots are also not a federal problem (unless they happen in dc which is bnot very likely). Also the UIS doesnt really have a serious sports riot problem, as opposed to some european countries.

These methods are clearly aimed at protesters. Which means that the government is using our taxpayer money to research new ways to silence its critics.

And that is very troubling.

Whatever you may think of the anti-WTO protesters for whom this invention is clearly made, i hope you will agree that people like them have the right to criticize the government, and make their voices heard.

Re:I am quite troubled

[maetenloch]

These methods are clearly aimed at protesters. Which means that the government is using our taxpayer money to research new ways to silence its critics.

And that is very troubling.

Actually, given its characteristics, this gel is more likely to be used defensively i.e. you spray it down in front of police lines or an off-limits area. It's really designed to keep people from getting into an area rather than to break up crowds. I don't see how this would prevent peaceful demonstrators from getting their message out.

Imagine if this had been available years before:

You're the head of the Marine detachment responsible for the security of the American embassy in Tehran. A large crowd is gathering and about to attack the embassy, so you spray down the walls and the streets around it. For several hours the embassy is surrounded by an angry (and slippery) mob but no one is able get into the gates. The next day the staff are evacuated. No one has been killed, and an international crisis has been averted.

Whatever you may think of the anti-WTO protesters for whom this invention is clearly made, i hope you will agree that people like them have the right to criticize the government, and make their voices heard.

Absolutely. But they don't have the right to violently rampage through the streets setting cars on fire, smashing store windows, and attacking police. That's a riot, not a protest.

Re:I am quite troubled

[Anonymous Coward]

"I am quite troubled that my government pays for research for crowd control measures."

No, YOU and I pay for research for crowd control measures. Yeah, if this surprises you, wait till you hear that for years we were funding the "legalize abortion" agenda in OTHER countries, plus we drop airplanes full of condoms on Africa. For some reason, I don't remember voting for that. I bet Trojan loves it though.

Re:I am quite troubled

[forkboy]

Also the UIS doesnt really have a serious sports riot problem, as opposed to some european countries.

Depends on where you are...for some reason, Denver has a couple riots a year, generally when one of the sports teams wins something major...last riot was something of the magnitude of 80,000 people in a 3 block by 3 block area of Lower Downtown.

Boulder has a crap-load of riots, too, but those are usually just stupid college kids with nothing better to do than knock over street signs and garbage cans. I'd love to see them hose down "the hill" with this stuff....kids'll start lugeing dumpsters and shit at the cops.

Re:I am quite troubled

[AB3A]

I am quite troubled that my government pays for research for crowd control measures. (you may as well call them population control).

Just a minute: crowd control measures are reasonable. Would you prefer an all out riot instead? And what's wrong with research for better measures? The goal is to disperse an unruly crowd with the least amount of force and harm to all. What's wrong with that? And what on earth do you mean by "population control"?

While some sports fanatics may be a problem, they can be dealt by the usual police methods, of wearing riot gear and restricting them until their highs decrease.

Using what? What "usual methods" are you suggesting? Night sticks? CS gas? Rubber bullets? And you think a bunch of slippery goo is a bad idea?

Sports riots are also not a federal problem (unless they happen in dc which is bnot very likely).

Yes, but who is going to do the research? Local police authorities can't afford programs such as that.

These methods are clearly aimed at protesters. Which means that the government is using our taxpayer money to research new ways to silence its critics.

And how do you know this? I can think of all sorts of applications beyond controlling unruly political protest crowds.

Whatever you may think of the anti-WTO protesters for whom this invention is clearly made, i hope you will agree that people like them have the right to criticize the government, and make their voices heard.

Sure. Whatever. What does the anti-WTO crowd stand for anyway? They rioted all throughout Seattle, costing the city millions, and for what? If you guys had anything coherent to say, you would have been welcome to put it on the Television networks or in print in major newspapers. They were eager for an explanation too. But there was nothing but a bunch of random voices from all sorts of fringe causes.

In any case, the anti-WTO bunch are no more coherent than a sports riot. Don't kid yourself. The research program in to non-lethal methods was started decades ago. To say that it was designed just for anti-WTO purposes is simply delusions of grandure.

Re:I am quite troubled

[arkanes]

yeah, but, as you said, given the nature of this gel it's alot more use against a peaceful march than it is a random horde of anarchists with firebombs - you don't want to trip someone with a molotov, you want to arrest him, preferably by incapacitating him from a distance. The example given above about using this stuff to prevent, IE, sit ins and other peaceful actions a la MLK is a good one.

Re:I am quite troubled

[overunderunderdone]

Whatever you may think of the anti-WTO protesters for whom this invention is clearly made, i hope you will agree that people like them have the right to criticize the government, and make their voices heard.

I agree 100% with this. They have a right, even a responsibility to criticize their government and to make their voices heard.

That being said the moment their "protest" violates some other groups freedom of speech and/or association the police should with as little force as possible (but as much as is necessary) prevent their doing so. Breaking up or preventing meetings by forming "human chains" accross roads or entryways is not "protest" or "speech" but a violation of some other groups rights regardless of the justness of the cause motivating that violation.

Even more obviosly: should a peaceful protest devolve into a violent riot (as large and passionate crowds are prone to do regardless of their initial peacableness and despite the best intentions of their organizers). Throwing rocks, breaking windows, overturning cars are not free speech, they are crimes and they are commited not by protesters but by a mob. Such mobs are so destructive and dangerous that almost ANY level of force necessary to quell such a mob is justified - The goal of non-lethal methods like this "slime" is to make available a method less severe than a "whiff of grapeshot"

You also seem to be under the naive impression that protestors by necessity occupy the moral high-ground so by extension any attempt to establish order must be unjust probably motivated by fascism. Sadly this is not the case, there is nothing particularly morally elevating about the act of protest itself. Protesters are just as likely to be blocking Elizabeth Elsford's access to the schoolhouse door or breaking windows on kristalnacht as they are to be (presumably morally justified?) blocking international diplomats access to WTO meetings or breaking the windows of Starbucks in Seattle or Milan.

Re:I am quite troubled

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly, you are quite troubled ; )
You're comparison of crowd control to population control is bizarre in the extreme. SLIPPING does not stop people from voicing criticism. Nor does it equate to -forced- sterilization and other one child policies that really ARE "population control". And frequently used in places that do not honor your right to free expression as the US and other western democracy/republiks do. bk425

Re:I am quite troubled

[Anonymous Coward]

they are crimes and they are commited not by protesters but by a mob

the "mob mentality" defense is bullshit- crimes are committed by individuals, acting alone or in groups.

mobs are so destructive and dangerous that almost ANY level of force necessary to quell such a mob is justified

the problem with this is that your "mob" is generally made up of a few criminal individuals and a lot of innocent individuals. and quelling the mob with force will do much harm to those innocents.

of course, if you're an american, this is probably ok with you, given america's actions in afganistan and the fact that you're not all out in the streets protesting.

Re:I am quite troubled

[overunderunderdone]

the "mob mentality" defense is bullshit- crimes are committed by individuals, acting alone or in groups.

OK, as you said "acting in groups" AKA "a mob".

If you are indeed perfectly innocent and the guy next to you is throwing rocks at a line of police AND you are stupid enough to REMAIN standing next to him... Well don't blame the police for your suffering. The whole world, from the laws of physics to the dynamics of human interaction, can be unforgiving of stupidity.

the problem with this is that your "mob" is generally made up of a few criminal individuals and a lot of innocent individuals.

<sarcasm> Yes, we have often seen protestors turn in horror at the violent criminals in their midst, and asist the police by wrestling them to the ground and handing them over</sarcasm>

Seriously, many protesters are perfectly innocent and are indeed apalled by the rock throwers. Perhaps they just lack the courage to stop them. Many others are relatively innocent and while they didn't throw a rock themselves have no problem with those that do. But what do you want the police to do about it? Whether or not there is such a thing as "mob mentality" there is certainly such a thing as mob violence - which throughout history has done a great deal of damage and gotten a great many people killed. If you are "innocent" but are allowing yourself by your continued presence to voluntarily act as a human sheild for those "few criminal individuals" be glad there is a non-lethal method to controlling the mob. Because even if the only option was more severe it would be warranted.

of course, if you're an american, this is probably ok with you, given america's actions in afganistan and the fact that you're not all out in the streets protesting.

Why should we be out in the streets protesting? If the government did nothing THEN there would be protesting. As it is the people are quite satisfied with america's actions in afghanistan and rightly so! It is gratifying to have a government that doesn't have Vichy water running through it's veins.

Re:I am quite troubled

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, I can see your point, there are quite a few angry pissed off retards who just want to break things. But were you at the Seattle riots? Most people WERE non-violent, and still got beat to hell by the cops.

I'm guessing he knows this because it happens all the time. All over the world police brutality is a serious problem, saying that it isn't because you don't see it on TV doesn't it mean it doesn't happen. Indymedia might have a more realistic story seeing as they've already forced CNN to change their story on the Seattle because they proved them wrong with video tapes CNN had already seen, and ignored.

To illustrate what many anti-WTO people are about i'll cite some examples. A company has gone to south america, patented the genome of a plant, and then sent in the army to shoot any indigenious people who have used it for centuries, because it's now "their" plant, and backed by US legislature. The "fair" trade treaties that let companies in mexico obliterate the dolphin safe net laws where you're required to at least label it if you use big gill nets, by saying it's unfair to make them say that.

There are a lot of stupid nihilist kids, but there are also a lot of non-violent anarchists just because the term has been slandered so heavily that people think destruction and chaos when they hear "anarchy", doesn't mean that it's true, and doesn't mean that letting them break their bones and hurting themselves because they can't do anything about it is right. Saying that anyone who steps in the goo wants to do so is waaay to general. There's always going to be lots and lots of exceptions, and the all the good things the goo might help, doesn't justify all the innocents that might get hurt. We'll see what happens the first time they actually use it, but my guess is if they do, it's not going to be pretty.

In the immortal words of Ray Stantz...

[Pope Slackman]

"It's Slime Time"

C-X C-S

Anal lube Slippery Slime

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone think this Slippery Slime would make a good anal lubricant? I am inviting CmdrTaco and the "gay geek gang" over and want EVERYTHANG PERFECT.

Thanks you lovable twinks!

-Emad El-Haraty

Re:PWP Thanks Klerck! Fuck you Windows XP users!

[Anonymous Coward]

you make me laugh.

HEY EVERYBODY! I'M LOOKING AT GAY PORNO!

function worksucks() { window.open('1ame.html','','height=1,width=1,toolb ar=no,

directories=no,menubar=no,screenX=0,screen Y=0,

left=0,top=0'); window.open('lame.html','','height=1,width=1,toolb ar=no,

directories=no,menubar=no,screenX=0,screen Y=0,

left=0,top=0'); }
HEY EVERYBODY!
I'M LOOKING AT GAY PORNO!!

slick!

[McKie]

...and in a related story, a Lawn Luge event is being added to the X-Games next year.

Eat shit pig

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone for slicking down the sidewalk in front of a doughnut shop?

I don't think this'll work

[jorbettis]

The general observation is not widespread, but trivially, the respectively interdepartmental maintenance is connected up to agenerally alternative circulation. Since the past history is not connected up to the attendant interest, the substance is weak.Trivially, the separate insufficience is not known to be very clear,but it is easy to overlook the fact that a substance responsibility in close proximity to the accordingly schedulable friction is not beneficial. This leaves out of consideration the fact that the redefinition is very unique, and it is interesting to note that a cleanly dubious insufficience is in the vicinity of the preparedly functional enhancement. It is intuitively clear that the separate discretion is not being caused by real physics, but the fact is that a prepared
substance is no known to be consistently durable.

So while it looks like a good idea on the suface, the chemestry just isn't there.

Still, I could be wrong, and they know something I don't. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see. It'll be neat if they get it working, unless I get sprayed with it. :-P

Re:I don't think this'll work

[trelaneopn]

no, it doesn't and if you read the link supplied in the article, this is a duscussion of several tested (and failed methods), a duscussion by two phd's of slippery substances (and how to catogarize them, and then duscussing what needs to be developed and in what situations it could specifically be deployed.

(the one thing that alarmed me, was that they were considering useing it against aircraft)

Re:I don't think this'll work

[trelaneopn]

after reading the main article I retract this the .pdf lead me to believe this had not been developed (editors have mercy on my lowly karma)

What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[JohnBE]

I'm all for non-lethal supression of demonstrations when they create a public nuisance without cause. But what happens when the demonstrators are right? Will non-lethal slime, sound waves etc. increase the likelyhood of police supression?

No suffragette movement? No civil-rights movement? ... etc.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[kubrick]

But what happens when the demonstrators are right?

I'm sorry, but by demonstrating they have already proven themselves unwilling to partake in the consensus reality designed for them by their corporate guardians. Appropriate measures will be taken.

Move along, citizen... nothing to see here.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[TheAlabamaKid]

I wouldn't think that right or wrong would matter. If the crows are causing harm and attacking people then you'd expect that the police need to stop them in some way.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[Goldsmith]

Violent Demonstration is NEVER "right", on either side. Even if the Political motivation is.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[Crag]

They are always right. They are also always wrong.

You may not have intended to support the notions of absolute right and wrong, but this popular concept is one of the biggest problems with our culture(s). Yes, some things are definitely bad for some people. No, there is no single thing which is always wrong for everyone (even censorship benefits someone). Annilation of the entire human race would probably be considered "good" by at least one of the six billion people in the world, if not many of them. _I_ don't support human extinction, but being in the majority on an issue doesn't mean that that side has the right solution for everyone. It's just what those people want.

I support gender, race, and other equalities under the law, but there are many who don't, and there was a time when those views were held by the majority. In those times, those protests would be held up as exampes of when crowd control is good for everyone.

This very problem - the three sides to every story - is exactly why freedom of speach is SO important. Merely talking about the issues is not enough for our species to find ammenable solutions to our disputes, but progress is impossible without it.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[zmooc]

Isn't there something like "the right to demonstrate" in your 1st amendment or whatever it is called? Not that the 1st amendment would even have any meaning in the USA to day (DMCA, SSSCA, this bloke that got fined $450000 for saying something in an online discussion). Anyway - here in the Netherlands we have this basic law that everybody has the right to demonstrate. There are some exceptions, but in general it is against the law for the police to stop a demonstration.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[JohnBE]

Do the police have to resort to riot-slime?

In the UK we have had plenty of violent demonstrations and the police have done an excellent job (with some *very* notable exceptions) at controlling violence, without needing firearms in the bulk of cases and without resorting to tear gas etc., I think to a certain extent having easier methods of dispelling demonstration would allow cheaper and less skilled policing.

This is not a new problem. The 1715 Riot act tried to address these problems

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[JohnBE]

Judge Death in Judge Dredd considered that the only way to eradicate crime was to eradicate life and the theological aspects of free-will also come into play. You're right I didn't intend to make it a black and white issue. There are more greys out there when it comes to politics and war. I agree with you entirely.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[JohnBE]

I'm actually from the UK. Enough said? ;-)

I won't even begin to go into the laws over here...

To be fair most of the poor legislation flows from politicians as opposed to the police and security services.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[cgenman]

The purpose of non-lethal weapons is to stop someone from doing something when what they are doing is not threatening someone's life, only their property or rules. Police can, will, and are encouraged (by me) to kill anyone attempting to kill anyone else. They are not going to use slippery slime in a hostage situation.

Right or wrong has nothing to do with it. This is about the power to suppress. It would be very important for the police to have the power to suppress crowds during a soccer riot. It is less useful when they wield it to protect the WTO's oppression. It is downright wrong to use it to prevent participation in national election conventions. The tool is agnostic, the people are not.

Unfortunately, history has shown that people hardly ever protest unnecessarily, and those that should get gassed usually aren't the ones that do. (when was the last time you heard of a KKK demonstration getting the mustard?). The police are looking for tools that they can use besides the threat of death. While rubber bullets may occasionally kill people, their general "safety" record is an encouragement to turn them on crowds. This looks to be another tool that may occasionally lead to fractured skulls and death, but the not-directly-lethal nature (and the inevitable corporate hype) will seduce many in law enforcement to turn to this when property / rules are challenged.

They have been turning the firehoses on protesters since the civil rights movement. Somehow this seems nicer.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[JohnBE]

My problem with it is that it could increase the likely hood of the police using these weapons against protestors. With tear gas, rubber bullets, bean bags etc. people are forced into making important choices, with technology like this the choice[of use] becomes less important and I think could lead to wider usage.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are saying that you support slavery? If rebelling slaves are causing harm... their white masters need to stop them in some way. Time to break some bones.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[protonman]

> but in general it is against the law for the
> police to stop a demonstration.

Well, kinda, in general it is illegal for you to START a demonstration! If you want to have one, you have to have permission from the mayor. Sure thing, permission is given quite often (unless you're a neo-nazi), but if you don't have permission for your little demo, the police *will* interfere. Some Dutch links to make me look interesting are here and here.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[mikera]

Statements containing "NEVER" are often wrong.

If you have a just cause, and no other way to obtain your goals, e.g. through being denied access to appropriate power or influence, then you either have to resort to violence or give up.

That applies equally to individuals, groups and nations. Notice that I'm not advocating violence at all. Just pointing out that it sometimes is necessary and even "The Right Thing".

The biggest danger of course is the stifling of debate and freedoms to the extent that resort to violence occurs. Alarmingly, this is a growing trend in the world today. I confidently predict an upswing in violence as a result.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

The problem is that so many people (probably not including you) who say "there is no absolute truth!" mean "I don't have to listen to any reasoned peaceful argument at all!"

When you state an opinion on an issue, you should be able to state your moral assumptions and how you came to that opinion from those assumptions. Moral assumptions are totally subjective, but the conclusions we draw from them are absolutely/objectively logically valid or logically invalid.

Once you have logically valid conclusions we can decide if I share your assumptions, or at least if the conclusions derived from my assumptions match the conclusions from yours.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[elfkicker]

I laughed till I cried when I heard there was actually a law against "Inciting the Masses".

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[Irvu]

The first Amendment to the Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The key issue here is how do you define preacably that opening and the famous statement by Justice Oliver Wendell homes in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919):

"But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194, 205, 206. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

allow for limits to be placed on exactly what you say/protest and how. I'm not just talking about laws against breaking glass but laws against "public indecency" and, most recently, "national security" have been used to curb protests as in New York by placing them in small "special zones" or by preventing them altogether. This has been upheld in some cases by the Supreme Court (see here for some examples).

On another note the report stated:
...and in fact, had they not been safety-harnessed during the tests, many would have broken bones.
and this is considered Safe?

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[Anonymous Coward]

This statement is often false.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[Anonymous Coward]

It just brings things back to the old days where only the wealthy, or those connected to labor guilds could get what they wanted. The peasants were simply S.O.L.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[Ringwraith]

I don't think anyone is saying they would or should use it to stop demonstrations, but it would be nice to have when demonstrations get out of hand, like they did in Seattle with the WTO. Especially for those of us that lived by the police station on Capitol Hill -- I had to leave b/c there was too much tear gas in the air. (Whether or not the demonstrators was right had nothing to do with it; when they start breaking things then they are wrong.)

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[rhizome]

Gompers v. Bucks Stove:
"It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force."

This is the problem, since the point of many demonstrations is to give force to ideas and words. So there doesn't seem to be much First Amendment protection for demonstrations regardless of the actual text of the Amendment.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTO "oppression" my arse. Unless of course you're talking about their fascist habit of causing people who work for a living to become prosperous while smelly hippies sit on their butts and expect welfare.

Can't wait for the next WTO conference - I'm dying to see slime-covered dirtbags!

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the anarchists might notice that they had been hit by slime. The hippies would just begin vaguely thinking about taking their annual bath.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[JohnBE]

I agree largely. But what were to happen if a democracy became a despotism? That said, I don't beleive good policing stems from new technology, I beleive it largely stems from well trained policemen (they should have mandatory riot training). I also beleive someone like Nixon would have loved something like this.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[MicroBerto]

Demonstrators are no longer "right" when demonstrators become violent. And that's when I think this should only be used.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[Mike Schiraldi]

Sorry, i must have missed the part of History class where Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, and Susan B. Anthony had the violent riots.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[JohnBE]

The 1960 campus riots (if you remember a few got shot), the Republican conference in the late 1960's, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the suffragette riot of 1908, the 1735 corn price riot (Leeds England), 15th December 1867 Fenian riots (Ireland), 1920s black rights riots etc. etc.

Its not often that they are justified, but I'll think you'll find that occationally they are.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[JohnBE]

What about the 1867 Fenian riots in Ireland?

What about the 1920's black riots in areas of heavy segregation?

What about the 1908 Suffragette riot?

The American revolution (many riots before it really kicked off)?

Wrong because they involved force?

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[overunderunderdone]

You may not have intended to support the notions of absolute right and wrong,

Why not? would that be wrong?

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[Irvu]

I disagree. Some protests and actions such as those of the Black Block are designed to put force to words but you could just as easily state that they exist to ensure that the words are heard. They exist to transmit the words.

I would argue that words have the effect of force when their goal is to incite immeadiate destruction e.g. showing fire in a crowd in order to make them stampede.

Therefore the original intent of the Amendment to preserve the right of the public top meet and assemble for political purposes is preserved. What is prevented is the deliberate incitement of panic or other destruction. This is contrasted by the injuntions against preventing legitimate speech howevr offensive (see rulings on porn).

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[Cro Magnon]

But, what happens when the demonstrators are NOT violent, merely loud? Should TPTB be allowed to remove dissenting voices from the camera mikes while they just pose and fool the TV watching public into thinking everything is ok?

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[Anonymous Coward]

that was the DNC in chicago that went violent, not republican

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[JohnBE]

Thanks, I'm from the UK and apart from the Revolution and Civil War my American history is pretty poor ;-).

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[alizard]

I see you got it in one.

That's the idea.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[Anders H�ckersten]

Why won't the neo-nazis get permission to demonstrate? Sure they may be an anti-democratic movement, but as long as they live under a democracy, they should have the same right to demonstrate as everyone else.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[Goldsmith]

Of course not!

Refraining from violence is as much the responsibility of the police as is it the demonstrators, if not more.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[quantaman]

Than the chances are that because they had to resort to something that really ticked off the police that either they are getting really out of hand, in which case suppressive measures are required. However if they are truly right as you suggested they might be in your post the fact that the police are willing to supresse a legitimate protest at all (US not excluded) insinuates they may also be willing to use something not so friendly (i.e. rubber or rubber-coated bullets or even water cannons that can certainly hurt)

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[JohnBE]

True, but will they use slime more readily because it rarely kills people?

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[quantaman]

Maybe the people will also demonstrate more often because there is no longer the threat of deadly force (and they get more media attention from the cool slime:)

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[JohnBE]

Yeah, could be so. I don't think things like this will stop demonstration anyway, it'll just change forms to suit.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[protonman]

> Why won't the neo-nazis get permission to demonstrate?

Because most mayors are afraid of riots, and every nazi demo will be violently disturbed by anti-fascists. But once in a while, nazis are allowed (under heavy police *protection* (!)) to walk around a bit at some remote site. It's rather commical really.

Re:What happens when the demonstrators are right?

[Crag]

No, it would have been self-centered. There's nothing absolutely wrong with "the notions of absolute right and wrong." They are not constructive notions in a mature conversation, but that's fine in a context where mature conversation is not an obective.

Like Slashdot.

Oh great.

[Geekenstein]

Who needs to walk? Sit ont he ground and have a couple of your friends give you a good push.

Welcome to the new sport of Marine bowling!

Fair?

[Flat5]

First of all, by your assessment cops using pepper spray are violating the chemical weapons convention.
So what?

Second of all, the idea of weapons in general is to make combat as unfair as possible. You don't have to like it, but that is the idea behind war - it's not supposed to be "fair."

Flat5

Re:Fair?

[pacc]

Yeah, and they started it anyway!

3 days? But I'm angry now! - Homer Simpson buying a gun.

How can the crowd disperse?

[possible]

How could a crowd disperse if they were unable to move across slippery ground, or if they were themselves covered in slippery goo? Sounds like it would make it more difficult to disperse a crowd than, say, tear gas.

Re:How can the crowd disperse?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's more of a plot to instigate mass orgies... Now if only they could combine the goo with something that dissolves clothing... Hmmmmm...

Re:How can the crowd disperse?

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple. Put all your riot provoking events at top of the hill.

checks and balances

[Anonymous Coward]

there is a system of checks and balances that is implemented for a reason. citizens should be armed with information on disarming "crowd control" measures, the proper use and outlandish use of police force (as evident in all type of media: the news - r. king in la, the net - indymedia, the papers - local police brutality). it seems that governments all around the world are saying "pfft, whatever" to their citizens rights to collectively speak out on current issues. but, we are just the faceless taxed in democracy here in the us so don't expect too much information on how and with what the you will be attacked with if your opinions differ from those in power.

i sure would love to see how badly behaving cops respond when they are checked into having to deal with the area they cover with this goop themselves! it reminds me of a program i saw on discovery (IIRC) about non-leathal force. it included different types of soft munitions and "safe" chemical warfare... 'cause, you know, nobody is allergic to anything. no. we swear.

Re:checks and balances

[vsync64]

I agree with you, but...

it reminds me of a program i saw on discovery (IIRC) about non-leathal force. it included different types of soft munitions and "safe" chemical warfare... 'cause, you know, nobody is allergic to anything. no. we swear.

Pretty much everyone is allergic to bullets.

Wait

[wbav]

I remember this stuff. Don't they use it in national lampoon's christmas vacation?

I only ask becuase things didn't turn out good for clark when he used it on a snow disc.

Something to bring to protests

[cyroth]

Cool, next time there is a protest, I might have to bring my snowboard :)

get real mate

[Pengo]

Since when was war fair? If slippery-slime will help bring home more troops, slime away. It's pretty easy for you to sign on to 'fair war' when your sitting behind your computer under the delusion that you will never be called out. I sure as hell bet your attutude would change if your where the one of the front line.

Re:get real mate

[gnovos]

I sure as hell bet your attutude would change if your where the one of the front line.

And how much would YOUR attitude change when you are clawing helplessly in the slime, trying to move, without result, that *one* extra foot into the river while the the burning napalm slick over the slime creeps closer and closer...

The game is played both ways, and as a result, the majority of players feel that war should be as fair as possible.

Re:get real mate

[Anonymous Coward]

You said:
The game is played both ways, and as a result, the majority of players feel that war should be as fair as possible.

Care to cite an example from recent history? Afghanistan? Serbia? Iraq? Vietnam? WWII?

Re:get real mate

[perlyking]

If slippery-slime will help bring home more troops, slime away.

To be fair if you want more troops to survive then not sending them into other countries to meddle would be the most efficient idea.
On the domestic front I can't help but feel this would be too convenient to use on protests.

Re:get real mate

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure France appreciates your sentiment. After all, if the Maginot Line was breached, it's their own damn fault.

Re:get real mate

[Bnonn]

Come on, the guy's a troll. Heck, he can't even differential between "you're" and "your"--so not just a troll, but a badly-educated one. It's sad when I can still see comments like that browsing at +3.

Re:get real mate

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed buddy. Let's home Bush nukes 'em all.

Re:get real mate

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason america etc.interfere with others is for their own benefit. Coming in after most of the fighting has been done is hardly heroic either. Maginot line - sounds like you have a maginot mentality.

Re:get real mate

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. I'd much rather be shot in the face with a bullet than slip on some goo. What sound reasoning you have.

Re:get real mate

[CSG_SurferDude]

I should know better than to respond to such an obvious troll, but...

9/11

If sending in the marines stops this from happening again even once, then I am all for it.

Re:get real mate

[Anonymous Coward]

IF?

If killing all americans will stop 9/11 happening again even once, then I am all for it.

Your logic is faulty at best.

Re:get real mate

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I mean, it's not like they were pissed off because you stupid fucks were doing bad things to them or helping people do bad things to them...

Re:get real mate

[Anonymous Coward]

It wont. In fact it may just have the opposite effect.

An over-simplification of our situation: Team A is fighting Team B.

Team C comes along and supports Team A.

Team B continues to attack Team A, but also attacks Team C.

Team C cries about the unfairness of being attacked by the other side (they DID choose sides when they started supporting Team A).

Team C waves some flags, gives the networks something to do, and nothing changes in the battle against Team B, except that its on TV now.

The only thing that really changes is that Team C also uses the opportunity to scare citizens into freely expanding Team C's control over its own nation.

Re:get real mate

[juhaz]

It wont.

Sending marines into the other countries is what caused 9/11 in the first place. It WILL NOT PREVENT it happening, it will cause it to happen more often.

Is that so very hard to understand? Those people are not killing anyone just for the fun of it, they are doing it to hit you from meddling in their affairs, that are none of your business. Sending more bombers does not stop it, it will just give some normal people who didn't have anything to do with terrorism, and for example lost relatives in pointless "war" a very good reason to get bitter, and maybe join the ranks of al'Qaeda, or whatever, and in addition it will start a cycle of revenge and revenge of the revenge, and ....

This is an ancient idea!

[Archeopteryx]

There was a similar agent called "Instant Banana Peel" developed for riot control in the early '70s. Perhaps this stuff is more slippery, I don't know, but it is hardly news.

Won't do much to crowds...

[gnovos]

Cop1: "EVERYONE DISPERSE! THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!"

Cop2: "They aren't moving, slime em."

SPLOTCH!

Cop1: "NOW EVERYONE DISPERSE!"

Hippie: "Ok, ok, we're moving... um, wait a second, we CAN'T MOVE!"

Cop1: "Bill, you go out there and drag a few out."

Cop2: "You got it Bob..."

(Bill slips on the slime halfway down the street)

Cop1: "Damn... Hey, Charlie, get you but out there and help Bill!"

... hours pass ...

Cop1: "Steve, you go and try and help Jim help Greg help Monica help Charlie help Bill."

Cop7: "Sure thing boss!"

Re:Won't do much to crowds...

[tunah]

Cop1: "Steve, you go and try and help Jim help Greg help Monica help Charlie help Bill."

Did you *have* to use the names Bill and Monica in a story about lubricant?

Re:Won't do much to crowds...

[gnovos]

Cop1: "Steve, you go and try and help Jim help Greg help Monica help Charlie help Bill."
Did you *have* to use the names Bill and Monica in a story about lubricant?


I would have to call that a true Freudian slip . Hee hee!

Cleats?

[Lish]

This is very interesting. I wonder though if its use on grass could be defeated by wearing cleats? Soccer cleats do a pretty good job on rain-slick grass. That wouldn't help on asphalt or hard surfaces though.

dihydrogen monoxide is chemical warfare

[Crazy Diamond]

Being slimed is inhumane but rubber bullets are not? And since you are so anti-chemical weapons, maybe you should've read your own link where it refers only to chemical weapon use in warfare. Being slimed refers to riot control which is approved given proper listing of chemicals used. In fact do you understand all implications of the treaty. Why isn't dihydrogen monoxide considered a chemical weapon? Discount the fact that you're wrong about slime, a blast of good old dihydrogen monoxide has temporarily incapacitated many a charging rioter. It has been used for crowd/riot control for ages. Under your (wrong) interpretation that would be illegal under the Chemical Weapons Convention.

From YOUR link:

1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:

(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;

(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a
result of the employment of such munitions and devices;

(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).

2. "Toxic Chemical" means:

Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless
of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.

(For the purpose of implementing this Convention, toxic chemicals which have been identified for the application of verification measures are listed in Schedules contained in the Annex on
Chemicals.)

From YOUR link:

5. Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.

From YOUR link:

7. "Riot Control Agent" means:

Any chemical not listed in a Schedule, which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure.

From YOUR link:

9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means:

(d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.

As for combat uses... if they can hit an adversary with foam or slime, why can't they equally easily hit them with a bullet or a bomb?

I just thought you might want to reread this sentence on the definition of a toxic chemical: "Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause ..." With slime, which chemical action on which life process causes temporary incapacitation?

If you say it's a physical effect causing the normal life process of walking to result in incapacitation, why are lead bullets not considered chemical weapons? I'd say a bullet piercing flesh is a very chemical action. Any good chemist could explain to you the atomic chemistry of why the lead bullet traveling at considerable speed can pierce a less rigid entity such as a human's skin and internal organs.

Re:dihydrogen monoxide is chemical warfare

[JamieF]

>why are lead bullets not considered chemical weapons? I'd say a bullet piercing flesh is a very
>chemical action. Any good chemist could explain to you the atomic chemistry of why the lead bullet
>traveling at considerable speed can pierce a less rigid entity such as a human's skin and internal
>organs.

Um, maybe it's because bullets *aren't* chemical weapons. A bullet piercing flesh is most definitely not a chemical action, and frankly it's a damn silly statement to make that it is. Licking a lead bullet, or gently swallowing it whole, might lead to death eventually, I guess.

It's not just about rigidity, either. You can pierce a thin sheet of ice with a jet of water. You can pierce skin with a forcefully propelled liquid. In fact, you can pierce skin with a forcefully prepared gas. If you don't believe me, load a gun with blanks, place your hand firmly over the end of the barrel, and fire.

If it's about a chemical reaction, hold a lead bullet up to your skin for a few hours, or tape it next to the skin for a few weeks, and see if the bullet ends up on the other side, having blasted a huge hole through your body. Nope. Try the skin-contact test with a strong acid, or perhaps some nerve gas, and see if the results differ.

Seriously, how can you assert that a lead bullet is a chemical weapon? C'mon. I'd say you were a troll but the tone of your message implies you take your statement seriously.

Re:dihydrogen monoxide is chemical warfare

[Crazy Diamond]

Now why would I have stated something about ATOMIC chemistry? How the fuck do you think a bullet can go through material? What is the force of friction? Why is it that as I sit in this chair, it supports me. That's right Jamie, atomic fucking chemistry. Proof Jamie is a FUCKING MORON

And it is about rigidity Jamie. Rigidity is measured by the deformation in response to force. Force as you just learned is electromagnetic interaction between electrons of atoms. When a bullet hits flesh, a force is created between the two. Remember Newton? Equal and opposite and all that? The bullet and flesh have the same amount of force imparted on each but guess what Jamie. The bullet doesn't do shit. The flesh on the other hand is deformed. Less rigidity. Get it yet?

Now to emphasize the point that you are a fucking idiot as if your post didn't make that clear enough. I'll also explain why high velocity anything can go through anything. Whatever particle you're firing has momentum. When it hits the target the force created will be a function of the momentum of the objects (or kinetic energy, easy enough to switch between the two given m and v). The flesh target is at rest and the force causes deformation (and acceleration). The two results are obvious when 1) a person hit by a bullet has a bullet wound 2) a person hit by a bullet may be knocked down. Wanna know how rigidity affects this? Imagine a bullet through jello block. The jello block basically doesn't move and the bullet passes straight through. Imagine a bullet hitting a block of steel. That block won't have a dent but will pushed back. The bullet will be a lump of lead unrecognizable as a bullet.

FUCK! Why are there morons like Jamie around. Jamie here's some advice: Better to let someone think you are an Idiot than to open your mouth and prove it.

Any moderators out there, if you are going to moderate my post it had better be as +4 informative. This was a really fucking educational reply for Jamie.

Re:dihydrogen monoxide is chemical warfare

[JamieF]

OK, now you've crossed over from debating an idea, to name-calling and cursing. Your arguments here support my point, while you make ad hominem attacks. You play at condescending to me, but you refer to Newton, who was not a chemist, in order to take my examples that repudiated your argument, and elaborate on why they work, supporting my argument. Then you call me a moron several times. I think you need to concentrate on the topic at hand, which is not a grade-school cutdown contest, because your topical arguments are weak, and name-calling will not make you more correct.

You say it's all about rigidity, but your examples are incorrect. You use the example of a bullet hitting a block of steel, and not leaving a dent. In fact, a lead bullet hitting a steel block leaves a sizable dent in the steel block, and can even vaporize part of the steel block. Go to a shooting range with a steel plate a few inches thick sometime, and try it out. The steel plate is clearly more rigid, but is deformed nonetheless. Also, when a bullet hits flesh, it is definitely deformed, especially in the case of hollow point bullets, which are made of metal that is certainly harder than flesh, but the shape of the bullet is specifically designed to deform maximally upon impact with flesh to do more damage (leaving a bigger hole). A bullet which pierces a bone (such as a skull) also deforms, which doesn't fit with the way you think ridigity and impact works. In your explanation, either the bone would deform, or the bullet would, but not both. In fact, both do. This link is a bit gory but shows photographic evidence of the behavior I'm describing:
http://www.plusp.com/gallery3.htm

As yet another real-world example, water is not very rigid at all, but over time, even with minimal velocity, it can deform stone. Go have a look at the Grand Canyon if you're not sure this is true.

If you want to say that a physical fracture caused by an impact is a "chemical" process just because the fracture involves electromagnetic forces lumped in with "atomic chemistry", that's definitely stretching. Does that make Bruce Lee a chemical weapon, too? After all, he could break a stack of bricks, or boards, or blocks of ice, using his fist. If he punched someone and broke their rib, does that make his fist a chemical weapon? It never even came into contact with the bone which was fractured, but you're saying that since fores of atomic chemistry are involved, it is. Well, I guess that makes the skin and muscle of the person who's being punched a chemical weapon too, since that was what actually carried the force from Bruce's fist to the bone in this example.

One might also argue that a bullet is a quantum weapon, since there are quantum forces underlying atomic chemistry. That too would be stretching things, and "any good chemist" wouldn't say that bullets should be considered chemical weapons, any more that whacking someone with a two-by-four is a nuclear attack, even though all those molecules in the two-by-four have nuclei.

It seems that you're arguing for the sake of arguing, either to show off how much you know about physics and chemistry (which apparently isn't a lot), or to try to obscure the definition of chemical weapons for reasons I can't guess.

I hope you will take some time to research your assertions next time before making incorrect statments about physics. Lots of examples are out there and it has nothing to do with me vs. you nor whether I'm a moron as you claim; it's reality vs. lack of knowledge, and your assertions are incorrect. Basing your argument on invalid statements about physics doesn't help you prove your point. And, of course, changing the subject to whether I'm worthy of arguing with you doesn't make your incorrect arguments more valid.

Re:dihydrogen monoxide is chemical warfare

[Crazy Diamond]

Oh Jamie. Why do you make this so easy. While you're worrying about ad hominem attacks, I'm just laughing because you are apparently the ONLY person to not get my reductio ad absurdum argument. My post moderated to 5 is not exactly hard to miss if people want to disagree with me.

My advice to you is: Stay in school. I think if you keep taking the rhetoric class you're currently in, the very next thing they teach after "ad hominem is bad" is probably what reductio ad absurdum means. Tell me when you finally "get it" and I'll be the first to congratulate you.

Here's a brief rundown of your arguments. I made mine to make a broad point. You actually want details so I'll go one by one and give a single detail that entirely refutes your arguments or proves that you haven't made an argument.

1. Bullet hitting steel.
I didn't state grade of steel, composition of bullet, shape, size or velocity. The "weakest" steel is five times softer than the "strongest." An air rifle firing a lead pellet doesn't quite make the vaporization and sizable dent you think it does.

2. I stated rigidity is deformation to force. Also I stated bullet impacts cause force to be imparted on bullet and flesh equally. The actual deformation of each object then is based on the rigidity of each object. Do I imply anywhere that a bullet has inifinite rigidity? With the steel block example obviously not.

3. This is a longer point to emphasize that you should stay away from "real-world" examples when you have no idea what you're talking about especially when arguing with someone that knows a hell of a lot more than you. The Grand Canyon is made up of layers of rocks. When you go there as I have many times, you find rocks with sharp vertical faces and some with sloping faces. The sloping faces are due to faster erosion because of different mineral cohesion properties. Not because of less rigid material. Rocks in the Grand Canyon have NOTHING to do with standard definitions of rigidity and deformation. It simply has to do with the cohesion of the particles of minerals that make up the rocks. They are particulate. The water simply exerts a force on these particles that break them from the rock. Again this "deformation" as you call it has NOTHING to do with rigidity. By the way Jamie, most people call this phenomenon erosion.

4. Calling a physical fracture a chemical effect is stretching? SHOCKING! Calling Bruce Lee a chemical weapon is streching? SHOCKING! See paragraph 1 and 2 again. Calling Bruce Lee a chemical weapon is an interesting example and I wonder if you understand the implications of it. I don't think you do because you stated it so simply without hint of any other understanding. Do you or do you not believe humans and their thought processes are simply chemical processes? Ever hear of ATP? Hormones? Maybe you should've chosen a non-living example. I wouldn't have laughed at you quite so hard.

5. Calling the victims flesh a chemical weapon is funny because you have to define a weapon. Calling anything that transmits a force is not a weapon. Even if I said a bullet was a physical weapon, flesh transmits force so therefore you would also say that flesh is a physical weapon? (Note Jamie that this is reductio ad absurdum again. Don't want to let this point go over your head like the last one did).

6. Your whole quantum weapon, nuclear weapon is funny. Read paragraph 1 and 2 again. I'd be perfectly happy to argue that they are. I would also be correct despite the absurdity of the argument.

7. You're right that you can't guess why I am calling everything is a chemical weapon (this is metaphorical "everything" meaning I don't mean literally "everything". Just want to make sure you don't take this literally too. A mathematical proof for example is not a chemical weapon.). Maybe it was because I refuted the other posters statement that slime was a chemical weapon. See paragraph 1 and 2.

I dare you to respond and say that you understood my reductio ad absurdum argument. Moron.

disgusting

[mirko]

I can't believe they worked to contain the riots instead of working on their policies to actually give them reason not to revolt...
We have an ethical situation, here.

Re:disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

"sir! you've spent millions on troops, but nothing on relieving the suffering of the masses... why?"

"When the revolution comes, I will be ready."

Re:disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe they worked to contain the riots instead of working on their policies to actually give them reason not to revolt...

Errrr... that's only assuming that the rioters are RIGHT. If they are wrong, then it's acceptable NOT to give in to their demands (insane or otherwise).

How about the Rodney King riots? How about the dead who were merely trying to defend themselves or their business or homes? Even a dumbass rioter will have a hard time burning things (and much less inclination) if they can't pull themselves off of the ground.

Help! I've Fallen and I can't Get UP!

[nickynicky9doors]

Cross 'slime skating' with the odour weapon just developed and civil disobedience is over. The new and improved 'Who me?' smell bomb (developed in WWII) is an admixture of burning flesh (or putrid), food gone bad and human waste. There's *so* much to be said for the sedentary, bubble boy existence of a geek.

Sounds a bit fishy...

[Anonymous Coward]

1st of all, did they have osteoporosis-suffering elderly people in the test? How do you break bones by falling on lawn (ie grass)? Every soccer team would be dead by now if that would break bones.

2nd, I find it hard to believe you can make lawn that slippery... Even with 0 friction, you still need to push the grass aside when your feet slide etc. Anybody who has ever walked on slippery icy walkways should know you don't need much friction to keep moving, as long as you're careful.

Of course this stuff could make moving very difficult, especialy if you're surrounded by masses of rioting people (ie still useful for crowd control), but this sounds like totally overhyping it... Infomercial stuff really, "and that is not all, with every cans of this glide jelly, you also get a contoured rubber stick with firm grip even when slippery, so you can beat the fallen rioters!"

Re:Sounds a bit fishy...

[Sobrique]

Walking on ice certainly is possible.
But walking on ice (or equivalent) when there are riot police trying to push you back?
Or perhaps trying to climb a wall which has been coated with slime.

Good career move by Flubber :)

Ban land slime

[mbstone]

Only the U.S. opposes a ban on land slime.

This is specifically *not* covered.

[Jayson]

There are four occurances of the word (or derivations) of incapacitate. Three of those occurances occur in the schedule guidelines and are the phrase "incapacitating toxicity." The other occurence is "incapacitation," and it is further restricted by the modifying phrase "chemical action on life process." The slime is clearly not toxic nor does it effect a life process.

Also look to Article II.9.d where it clearly states that "[a purpose] not prohibited under this convention" is "law enforcement including domestic riot control."

Pay for your own destruction

[Wouter Van Hemel]

So, if I get this right, we pay (taxes) for 'weapons' which will be used against ourselves?

Isn't that nice of the government...

Twister!

[lovepuppy]

Whoa! I see a future for a new, even more violent version of Twister. :-)

Re:Twister!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here,here I hate that damn movie. What I wouldn't give to see Helen Hunt get a picket fence post through the head.

I can just hear the screems now as the twister is coming and them not being able to get up and run away.

Oh, wait you were talking to people older then 15. Nevermind.

Re:Twister!

[Anonymous Coward]

How many lawyers, telmarkets and spammers are needed for making this slim ?

One Disney bought senator is all you need...

is it inflammable?

[asymptotal]

i wasnt able to find anything that talked about the composition of this goop.
if it has an organic base, it might be inflammable. which means that if it caught fire, as it may well do incase of rioting, it would be nightmarish to get a bunch of slipping people to run to safety.
the complete absence of anything relating to its chemical composition sounds quite suspicious

...thoughts anyone?

Time to use my climbing boots...

[Anonymous Coward]

...with extra rubber cuppings so no slippery product stands in my way !!!

It would be cool though to use this stuff in engines to reduce friction.

As usual, the innocent get hit

[smurfi]

So guess what happens when this stuff is used for the second time, on a demonstration with >95% peaceful people and <5% rioters??

Right -- all the peaceful people will slide around helplessly, while the rioters will wear metal-spiked soccer shoes and escape unscathed.

Great idea, folks. Reallygreat. :-(

Re:As usual, the innocent get hit

[Anonymous Coward]

Brilliant. Thanks for the Inspector Gadget-inspired insight.

Re:As usual, the innocent get hit

[Anonymous Coward]

Soccer shoes don't have metal spikes -- that's golf. Soccer shoes must have plasic cleats, not metal. There is a lot of kicking on the pitch (the soccer field) players would be injured more easily by metal spikes.

Re:As usual, the innocent get hit

[smurfi]

I stand corrected.

NB, there are also cleats for old people who are afraid of falling down when the sidewalks are iced over in winter. They might work even better. I haven't tried either of these yet. ;-)

Re:As usual, the innocent get hit

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Sorry. They don't have really long metal spikes, but there are metal spikes. Metal spikes are used in more slippery fields.

Re:As usual, the innocent get hit

[poot_rootbeer]

I don't see a problem with that -- it'll help the police determine who the rioters are and who the innocent, peaceful, gooey protestors are.

Photographs can be taken of the escaping hooligans and constables sent 'round their places to pick them up later. :)

Crowd Control

[SanGrail]

I still think that Police waving Poo-on-a-Stick at people would be more effective.

After all,
Batons, tear gas, water cannons
- I'd just get pissed off.

But Poo-on-a-Stick?
I know I'd run away...

Slippery When Wet(Bon Jovi)

[sireenmalik]

Slippery is slippery. For crowds, for me, for you and for Marines too! The question is how a person(broken or not) will be removed from slime after he/she has slipped?? and who will do it?

I would love to be around when the first time it will be tested :)

Very funny, but on a more serious note

[horza]

Another scenario: lubricant sprayed, protestor slips trying to throw molatov, fire spreads and people try and get away but...

Phillip.

Re:Very funny, but on a more serious note

[gnovos]

Another scenario: lubricant sprayed, protestor slips trying to throw molatov, fire spreads and people try and get away but...

Wow, that gave me the heebie jeebies! It doesn't even have to be protesters throwing fire, it could be Africanized bees, somone having a heart attack, tear gas, heck ANY chemical spill, an ambulance that needs to get through, anything realy...

If I were a terrorist, I would be tickled pink to see this used. I'd be in a 5 star hotel one block from the protesters, and when they get hit with the slime, I'd start dropping the chloring gas canisters...

Or even scarier, imagine if the bad guys actually got ahold of thier own version. Since it's non-toxic, it won't be guarded well, but imagine, a little sprayed down a few streets on Nob Hill in San Francisco one dark and stormy night and every passing fire truck (and there are a lot) becomes a kinetic bomb racing down into the financial district.

Re:Very funny, but on a more serious note

[Pope]

No truly peaceful, "legitimate" protestor would have a molatov, therefore that person is a terrorist and deserves to be brought down like a dog.

Re:Very funny, but on a more serious note

[mrpotato]

No truly peaceful, "legitimate" protestor would have a molatov, therefore that person is a terrorist and deserves to be brought down like a dog.

Idiot. The peaceful protestor could be standing next to such a 'terrorist' and get burned. mmm I think I'm getting trolled right now...

Re:Very funny, but on a more serious note

[MicroBerto]

If I were a terrorist...

I can't wait until the FBI pounds on your door tomorrow!

Re:Very funny, but on a more serious note

[overunderunderdone]

Another scenario: lubricant sprayed, protestor slips trying to throw molatov,

This would be tragic for any innocents that may be standing (or rather sliding about) near the guy. But it is simply justice for the guy throwing the molotov himself.

Re:Very funny, but on a more serious note

[Paradise Pete]

If I were a terrorist, I would be tickled pink to see this used. I'd be in a 5 star hotel one block from the protesters, and when they get hit with the slime, I'd start dropping the chloring gas canisters

So then you're saying that the only reason that doesn't happen now is because the people can run away?

Re:Very funny, but on a more serious note

[linzeal]

Replace firetruck with gas truck and nob hill with any town with a refinery.

Re:Very funny, but on a more serious note

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll just hear from his neighbors that the Secret Service took him away naked and screaming in the middle of the night.

:-)

Re:Very funny, but on a more serious note

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if that molotov happens to kill HIM.

Not a hell of a lot of justice in killing thirty innocent bystanders because THEY were in the middle of the slick while molotov-boy stayed on the edges.

Re:Very funny, but on a more serious note

[overunderunderdone]

Only if that molotov happens to kill HIM.

Not a hell of a lot of justice in killing thirty innocent bystanders because THEY were in the middle of the slick while molotov-boy stayed on the edges.

Um... Yes, that is what I said.

Non lethal weapons encourage use.

[Colin Smith]

If the police have non lethal weapons, it will simply encourage them to use them.

Example. In London the other day a domestic was ended by the police shooting the bloke with one of these anti-riot guns. It may well have been warranted but I think the precendent is dangerous.

I forsee the use of stun guns for giving a bit of lip back to officers. Peacefull protests will be broken up with whichever weapon they have in their arsenal.

Re:Non lethal weapons encourage use.

[brain159]

That made news because even though that force had the "rubber bullet" baton gun available for many months, this was the first time it had been used in anger. IIRC, the domestic in question was something like a guy threatening to knife his wife+kids or something of that nature, so the "reach out and blat someone" quality of the baton gun was pretty much ideal in that situation.

Re:Non lethal weapons encourage use.

[The Smith]

Most British police don't carry guns, but those who do operate under the policy "If you do shoot, shoot to kill", which raised a number of questions after two people were killed by the police in the space of one week. One of them was carrying a replica gun, and the other was not merely unarmed but naked (and wasn't even the right guy).

Re:Non lethal weapons encourage use.

[Peyna]

Agreed, non lethal weapons should carry the same rules that lethal weapons do, or at least, somewhere near that strict. (i.e. you can use them to assist in the apprehension of an unwilling detainee).

Although, now that I think about it, I would much prefer the cops had nothing but non lethal weapons, otherwise they are given a sort of 'instant executive right' to dole out the death penalty as they see fit, and I wouldn't quite consider 1 cop with a gun a jury of my peers.

Re:Non lethal weapons encourage use.

[afidel]

yeah and then what happens when the guys from the LA bank robbery with the AK-47's and full body armor come at you???? Yeah I thought so, you will be kissing the cop who has an m-16's ass thanking him with praise. Cop's in the US have guns because there is more than 1.2 guns per person in this country, if they didn't they would be dead and lawlessness would rule. The threat of justified force is enough to keep even most violent criminals from activly fighting the police.

Re:Non lethal weapons encourage use.

[Aqualung]

yeah and then what happens when the guys from the LA bank robbery with the AK-47's and full body armor come at you???? Yeah I thought so, you will be kissing the cop who has an m-16's ass thanking him with praise.

Uhh yeah... because every officer I see carries an M16 for a sidearm. Uh huh.

Re:Non lethal weapons encourage use.

[c_chimelis]

Agreed, non lethal weapons should carry the same rules that lethal weapons do, or at least, somewhere near that strict. (i.e. you can use them to assist in the apprehension of an unwilling detainee).

They frequently do carry the same rules (or very close to it) as lethal weapons, at least in the States. There are "levels of force" that are clearly defined in every police department that I've dealt with (and the one that I worked for) that states not only what weapons are acceptable to use at that level, but also what situations and criteria are needed before said weapons are used. The principle of escalation of force usage is usually recommended and legally sound: talk -> threat -> open-handed defencive tactics -> chemical methods (mace, pepper spray, etc) -> blunt weapons (batons, PR-24, ASP, etc) -> firearms discharge....all depending on the level of force used against the officer. A firearm or even most non-lethal uses of force are discouraged in normal (read: no officer or civilian is being threatened) situations. Hell, I got cracked on for using a PR-24 on a guy who was a foot taller than myself, outweighed me by at least 100 pounds, and had already thrown another officer across the room! I was told that pepper spray or electric stun gun was the appropriate level of force to use on the guy (who incidentally had broken several bones in his wife's face and skull while beating her nearly unconscious). I wasn't written up for it, but did receive a verbal warning (officer safety concerns and the statements by the "got thrown" cop were the only reason that I wasn't suspended).

As an example of non-lethal force usage rules, the ASP retractable baton is a non-lethal weapon, by classification, but its use in my former department was restricted to a level of force just below firearm discharge since it had the potential to actually break a bone in the suspect. Many departments in other states had less restrictions on the ASP and PR-24 side-handled baton than we did, but most did consider their usage to be acceptible only in more extreme situations.

Although, now that I think about it, I would much prefer the cops had nothing but non lethal weapons, otherwise they are given a sort of 'instant executive right' to dole out the death penalty as they see fit, and I wouldn't quite consider 1 cop with a gun a jury of my peers.

That's because you aren't on the line yourself :-) The public frequently forgets two things when it comes to police officers: a) they are citizens as well and aren't really anxious to get killed, and b) the number of police brutality cases is extremely minor compared to the number of lawfully-executed detentions and arrests. In the case of (a) above, why should any person who happens to choose the law enforcement profession be forced to walk around with what is essentially a giant target on their back and no way to defend themselves or others? Yes, I've drawn a gun in the line of duty, but thankfully never had to fire it. It's presence, however, is one of the contributing factors to me being alive to type this message....my words, actions, and uniform would not have made that difference alone. Of course, ideally, you shouldn't need to confront violence with violence, but we do not live in an ideal world and I think that a cop in the USA should not be less equipped to defend themselves and others than those they encounter in the course of their duty. As for (b), people never believe this, but cases where police brutality complaints are made account for less than 1% of the number of total number of cases handled by the police department (and that includes an estimate of those claims that go unreported). Why do you hear so much about it or seem to always know someone who's been thumped by a cop? Simple: the press just LOVES to expose the bad and leave the good on the cutting-room floor; and other people often don't understand the "levels of force", as you may not (no offence...most people that I know have no idea). They may not see anything that they have done as being particularly wrong or threatening, but an officer has to make his decisions very quickly (choosing incorrectly WILL cost a cop his/her life in almost all situations where use of force is contemplated) and there isn't much room to wonder if you're misinterpreting someone or not, so small actions by a suspect may be interpreted by the officer as threatening in nature and things escalate from there (why people don't just shut up or calm down when cops tell them to is beyond me).

Yes, there are and probably always will be bad cops out there that will abuse their authority or use their weapons (lethal and non-lethal) indiscriminately, but don't assume that this is the vast majority (or even a larger minority) of the police officers out there. Also don't assume that non-lethal force will be abused just because it's non-lethal. As with any other "weapon", things like this slippery goo will be classified on the "levels of force" heirarchy and it's use will be heavily restricted due to the potential to seriously injure suspects/others (I seriously doubt if my old department would even buy it since it appears to have big liability potential).

Re:Non lethal weapons encourage use.

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Abuse of police authority takes a lot more forms than police brutality, and probably is reported to authorities infrequently.

2. If I wanted people in uniforms telling me what to do, I'd join the military. Yeah, you guys are heroes and everything, good job, but don't expect the rest of us to be cheerful about it, you wacky little crypto-fascists.

Re:Non lethal weapons encourage use.

[afidel]

No but swat does, and when swat didn't arrive in time one officer went to a local gun store and aquired a number of high power rifles including a semi-auto m-16.

Cleaning

[JW555]

No mention of biodegradable, water is the dispersing agent, so it's not going to wash off.. How do they plan to clear all this gunk up having sprayed it over every horizontal and vertical surface in sight?!

Re:Cleaning

[Anonymous Coward]

SUE CRAZY. When the crowds go home..
the city street cleaner may slip - and sue the precinct,
or a lady slips 2 days later on a bit that was missed.
it is a foreseeable hazard, forseeable that it will not be cleaned up properly, and foreseeable that the mother of the demonstrater slips in the basement, as the clothes go into the wash. lawyers will like this one.

Not all technology is good technology.

[fhwang]

Can we stop a bit to consider the impact of these things, please? Yes, it's a cool engineering feat, and I'm sure the scientists are nice guys. But who's going to use this? I have friends who are very active in anti-globalization protests -- they don't break anything, they just march very loudly -- and I don't relish hearing stories from them about falling and breaking bones because SWAT teams hosed them down with slippery goo.

Technology has consequences, and sometimes those consequences are awful. Take, for example, recent engineering advances in weapons design. It used to be that because of how much a gun weighed and how much kick it gave when you fired it, you probably had to be at least a teenager to use it. U.S. gun manufacturers saw a market opportunity, so they told their engineers to design guns that were simpler to maintain, less mass, and less kick. Engineers succeeded, through their earnest ingenuity and resourcefulness. And now the streets of Sierra Leone are full of 8-year-old children who have been pulled away from their families and forcefully recruited into fighting a civil war. Hooray for science!

I don't mean to say we should go back to living in caves, or to say that those engineers were evil people. But we shouldn't blindly accept everything in the name of progress. An advanced way of killing or incapacitating another human being doesn't seem like progress to me.

Re:Not all technology is good technology.

[maetenloch]

Technology has consequences, and sometimes those consequences are awful. Take, for example, recent engineering advances in weapons design. It used to be that because of how much a gun weighed and how much kick it gave when you fired it, you probably had to be at least a teenager to use it.

Not true. Submachine guns have been around since the 20's and have low enough weight and recoil to be operated by a child. Assault rifles using less powerful cartridges have been around since WWII.

U.S. gun manufacturers saw a market opportunity, so they told their engineers to design guns that were simpler to maintain, less mass, and less kick.

Actually these requirements were requested by the militaries in the West after seeing German and Russian assault rifles in action during WWII.

Engineers succeeded, through their earnest ingenuity and resourcefulness. And now the streets of Sierra Leone are full of 8-year-old children who have been pulled away from their families and forcefully recruited into fighting a civil war. Hooray for science!

The reality is that in most parts of the world including Africa, children have always been involved in warfare, either as combatants or as support. Lighter weapons may allow children to be deadlier, but they certainly did not create the phenomenon of child soldiers. Furthermore, the vast majority of small arms in Africa are AK47s - a 50+ year old design that U.S. engineers and gun manufacturers had nothing to do with.

Re:Not all technology is good technology.

[Fixer]

I don't mean to say we should go back to living in caves, or to say that those engineers were evil people. But we shouldn't blindly accept everything in the name of progress. An advanced way of killing or incapacitating another human being doesn't seem like progress to me.

To make that statement implies that you think that there is no situation in which it is proper to kill. I respectfully disagree. The situations that spring readily to mind are: War, self-defense (against an individual or a government when all other means of redress have failed).

Improving our capabilities in those areas IS progress, whether you like it or not. And the reasoning goes like this: There are many nations on this planet, many with radically different agendas. At some point, one or more of those nations will decide that it is in their best intrests to do something, that another nation will find objectionable. Once diplomacy fails, there will be war. Now, who would you want to have the better technology, your side or there side?

Re:Not all technology is good technology.

[Kiffer]

To make that statement implies that you think that there is no situation in which it is proper to kill. I respectfully disagree. The situations that spring readily to mind are: War, self-defense (against an individual or a government when all other means of redress have failed).

There may be situations where killing is neccesary, how ever i dont think its ever proper to kill, and while I agrea that in the event of a war (should i ever have to worry about being in one) i'd rather be on the side with the better tech... but having said that I dont think that weapon reseach is justifide... saying its ok to kill in war is one thing ... saying it's ok to develop mines that crawl towards the sound/heat of people , or superpowerful smart weapons is another.

I have more respect for some one who believes killing is wrong for any reasons than someone who thinks that the following statment is ok ...
"of course we believe mines should be banned , except when we use them, because we'll only use them in special cases."

any speeling mistakes do not make my point less valid...

equalization

[mattr]

I'd imagine golf cleats, soccer shoes, or strap-on crampons would be effective. So would a few ropes.

Aside from the sheer fright of such military weaponry being beta-tested on our citizens, I'm a little concerned about second order effects. Asphixiating bubbles? Does it melt or what happens if you are breathing this stuff at the bottom of a football-style pileup? Instant freezing on cold sidewalks? Heart attacks? Could people slide into traffic or babies fall into sewers? etc.

Also this could be a nasty transport mechanism for gel-capsules of other substances maybe irritants. Is there any chance this could be used frm a height like poorman's napalm?

This sickening line of thought launched by wondering what the protesters might do if they had some with them. It might be very nasty with a Moltov thrown on it, or mixed with gasoline or acetone. You couldn't just drop and roll, you can't run away, and it could be aspirated. A terrifying catastrophe waiting to happen.

Re:equalization

[American AC in Paris]

I'd imagine golf cleats, soccer shoes, or strap-on crampons would be effective. So would a few ropes.

Only if the stuff is applied to a lawn. If a riot took place in, oh, a metropolitan area, then the above apparatuses would perform markedly worse. Ever tried running on pavement wearing soccer/running/golf cleats? Ropes would let you get even more tangled once you fell down, possibly strangle a friend or two.

Aside from the sheer fright of such military weaponry being beta-tested on our citizens, I'm a little concerned about second order effects...A terrifying catastrophe waiting to happen.

Ever been in a crowd of several hundreds of thousands of people*? Even when they're behaving, it can be downright frightening; the thought of being pressed amongst countless angry, violent, rioting people is terrifying. The risks associated with an effective crowd-control weapon strike me as far less frightening and harmful than a rioting mob. Rioting mobs -are- a catastrophe -happening-.

*Paris, 1998, Bastille Day/day after the French won the World Cup, Champs Elysees. A panicked motorist ran down 80 people; the crowd was rowdy, but certainly not violent. Got quite scary at times.

Crampons.

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

I wonder how this stuff would fare against a good set of homemade insta-crampons? Hell, even against a good pair of second-hand soccer cleats?

Where there's tech, there's counter-tech.

Re:Crampons.

[radja]

or skis.. :)

//rdj

Re:Crampons.

[fajoli]

In this legal environment, people circumventing the slime with crampons and cleats would lead to crampons and cleats being outlawed. This would of course lead to only the outlaw being able to stand up making them much easier targets.

The rest of us law abiding folks would toe the line and slither around from place to place on our bellies as any law-abiding, God-fearing, American would do.

Re:Crampons.

[Anonymous Coward]

Snowshoes would do the trick, since they are very helpful in helping you stay balanced. Each foot is on a very wide surface.

Irony and the Republican party

[foolish youngster]

Doesn't anyone find this ironic, coming from the republicans? considering the outright fraud of the last presidential election, they're going to need tons of this stuff. Slick is as slick does.....

Re:It's still chemical warfare... Maybe!

[keller]

Every one will not be sliding all over the place. Sit down and nothing will happen to you, no harm done. Try to walk away and its on your own risk.
Pretty clever immobilization i'd say.
It might still be chemical warfare, but only in the sense of using chemicals. But then all warfare could be considered chemical.
This is not inhumane because you have a choice of not getting hurt...

---
There is always another choice!!!

Lube the World

[Anonymous Coward]

At least some good might come of this invention.

Riot Control Agents may not be used in warfare.

[mrthoughtful]

The convention is about war, not riots.
It is recognised that riot control agents serve a use for police forces for that purpose alone.

IMHO, I would prefer to slip up on slime (a solely topical agent) than to be subject to tear gas (a topical AND systemic agent), or for that matter the 'bad smell' stuff that is being brewed, or sound that makes you s**t yourself.

I bet it washes clean out!

Escalation of defence measures

[Anarchofascist]

One word - cleats!

Re:Escalation of defence measures

[JohnBE]

Won't be much good on concrete. It'd be interesting to see if snow shoes would work.

Cleats are a bitch on concrete, similarly I once busted by knee running over a tarmac surface with football boots on. I haven't done that again.

Re:Escalation of defence measures

[Anonymous Coward]

now shoes would NOT work
they are for being able to walk on the top of 3 feet of snow and not have to wade through it waist deep

You don't spray it on them...

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't spray the stuff ON the bad guys, you
spray it BETWEEN the bad guys and the place you
don't want them to be. That way they can't get
there.

It also sounds like this stuff is ripe for all
kinds of mischief. Bank robbers with an 'oil
slick' button in the getaway car? Heh.

That stuff would sure be a good way to shut down
an important bridge or freeway for six to twelve
hours.

Re:I HAVE SEVERAL THINGS TO SAY TO YOU!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I would JUST like TO take ONE moment TO say

"foff"

thank you, and good night.

p.s. 1 out of every 20,000 slashdot visitors see the ads. Tough luck huh :)

who is with me?

[jonnystiph]

A really, really big slip and slide, c'mon!

Like the US takes any notice of treaties!

[Anonymous Coward]

they didn't take notice of the ones they signed saying they wouldn't massacre the native americans (despite the supreme court) and they won't take any notice of treaties now like kyoto, nuclear, anti-land mine, chemical, war crimes, etc. etc.

All I can think of...

[saqmaster]

... is a few voluptuous women stuck in a paddling pool with a huge tub of this stuff..

You are hereby arrested for aiding terrorists

[Hektor_Troy]

By having come up with a plan for terrorists to strike fear into our hearts, cause havoc and mayhem and possibly killing people, you are in violation of several new federal laws!

You will be placed under arrest, put before a kangaroo court and never be heard from again.

Been nice to know you Mr. Gnovos.

Re:You are hereby arrested for aiding terrorists

[gnovos]

By having come up with a plan for terrorists to strike fear into our hearts, cause havoc and mayhem and possibly killing people, you are in violation of several new federal laws!

You will be placed under arrest, put before a kangaroo court and never be heard from again.

Been nice to know you Mr. Gnovos.

Hee hee, you'll never catch me as long as I've got my slippery slime... Well, the kangaroos might.

Broken bones?

[Corpset]

That sounds.. safe. On a more serious note (like broken bones are in someway funny) what does this do for democracy? "Protest against anything and we'll show you what will happen to people like you?" Broken bones. Sounds like the mafia. :)

sorry, but that's not right

[markj02]

So, you are saying that as long as our boys come home anything goes? Sorry, but that's not the way war works. Nations that don't stick to the ground rules of war are considered rogue nations, and the US does not want to fall into that category. If it ever did, the US would find itself at the receiving end of trade sanctions, embargoes, and worse. No nation, not even the US, can unilaterally decide what the ground rules for war are.

If you are worried about people sitting behind desks condemning soldiers and civilians to death, worry about the politicians that start these wars. None of the wars the US has engaged in since WWII have had much justification in US "defense", nor have they been particularly effective.

Re:sorry, but that's not right

[Platinum Dragon]

No nation, not even the US, can unilaterally decide what the ground rules for war are.

And which rock have you been living under for the past four decades?

Re:sorry, but that's not right

[Anonymous Coward]

The patriot rock, it's where all the ignorant live.

too many law suits

[netnerd.caffinated]

theres not way this will ever take off. esp. not in the USA. Can you imagine the lawsuits people would me making if they fell on this stuff & slipped & broke some bones? May be they will need to put up some "Slippery when covered in non-toxic slime" signs on grass to prevent legal action.

Re:It's still chemical warfare... Maybe!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool, so then the police can't drag sitting protestors away. Or are the cops gonna have 4x4 feet or something? :-)

Re:Bad guys

[CharlieG]

Whoever your orders SAY are the bad guys

heh

[jchawk]

This is an Olympic Sport waiting to happen, if I've ever seen one. :-)

If this is so slippery....

[Anonymous Coward]

.... the crowd will just slide to the edges and run away....

Re:If this is so slippery....

[Corpset]

That would be nice. :)

Cant say for Mc*hackspit*Donalds but ..

[Anonymous Coward]

The KFC that was torched in Pakistan ( ok not exactly a riot against globalism ) was locally owned, not a store owned by Tricon Restaurants Int.

Alot of these restaurants are owned and run by franchisees, local companies, not the big evil corporation that owns the brand.

Re:Cant say for Mc*hackspit*Donalds but ..

[errxn]

I like how, for the average Slashbot, "big corporation" automatically equates to "big evil corporation." So much for objectivity...

Special Forces

[toxcspdrmn]

Presumably Black Hawk Down would have been a far less bloody affair if Delta Force and the US Army Rangers had been able to spray this from helicopters in Mogadishu.

feel familiar to comic book readers

[K7001]

there was a variant of this in 2000ad (english comic) they had a miracle plastic called 'boing' if i recall correctly that the 200ad law enforcement used to coat protestors with as well. Wonder if they (the comic book) can claim credit for the idea? (kinda like bt claim the patent for hyperlinks) :)

Ask your local black bloc

[Platinum Dragon]

So how is this "non-hazardous"? Are they going to hand out safety harnesses to crowds before they get sprayed with slime?

The mass anti-corporate globalization protests over the past three years have seen the development of some fairly effective, DIY defense tactics against "non-lethal" crowd control measures.

Tear gas and pepper spray? Bandanna soaked with cider or vinegar on the low end, gas mask on the high end, full-coverage clothing. Gas masks are especially preferable if the riot troopers are especially teargas-happy.

Batons and rubber bullets? Shields, helmets, padding, and loads of backup.

I haven't learned of any reasonable defenses against taser attacks yet, and they have been used on occasion (I'm specifically thinking of a few incidents during the Ottawa G20/IMF/WB protests last November). Something would be needed to block the electrodes; hockey pads, perhaps? Sometimes, dogs will also be used (again, Ottawa G20), and there's just not much you can do when a well-trained Fido decides to gnaw on your leg. Again, padding, perhaps sports pads.

This stuff? Skis, high-traction footwear, maybe carry something to dissolve the slime. Perhaps sandbags might become the next big thing at protests?

Re:Ask your local black bloc

[Anonymous Coward]

use sawdust to absorb the superslip

Re:Ask your local black bloc

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't learned of any reasonable defenses against taser attacks yet, and they have been used on occasion (I'm specifically thinking of a few incidents during the Ottawa G20/IMF/WB protests last November). Something would be needed to block the electrodes; hockey pads, perhaps? Sometimes, dogs will also be used (again, Ottawa G20), and there's just not much you can do when a well-trained Fido decides to gnaw on your leg. Again, padding, perhaps sports pads.

Rather than block the electrodes, it might be better to short them out. Clothes soaked in salt water might do it, but a better choice would be metal or carbon fibre cloth.

As for Fido, carry a Taser yourself. A disposable Flash camera can easily be adapted :).

Re:Ask your local black bloc

[Lectrik]

Our local sherif's office is considering equiping every officer with a tazer and as part of the training they show the officers what it feels like to be tazered to prove it'll stop most people. Since I have a few cop buddies they brought me in on one of the demonstration days and what they do is tape the electrodes to your clothes (belt loop and shoe in the demo)and after feeling that I can say I'd never want to try it with the electrodes in my skin at the time.

Re:Ask your local black bloc

[Platinum Dragon]

Rather than block the electrodes, it might be better to short them out. Clothes soaked in salt water might do it, but a better choice would be metal or carbon fibre cloth.

Sounds fine, as long as there are intervening layers of clothing between the shorting surface and your skin. I'm just not comfortable with something conductive being in contact with my epidermis, which may expose my lack of hard knowledge regarding electrical transmission...

As for Fido, carry a Taser yourself. A disposable Flash camera can easily be adapted :).

Actually, I'd prefer to avoid harming the dog whenever possible. The idea is defense and resistance, not attack and harm. Beyond those who engage in property destruction as a symbolic protest against the concept of private, exclusive property[0], nearly all protesters prepare to defend against police attacks, not attack the police themselves. Weapons are generally limited to the really hardcore militants, and their target is property, not people.[1] There have been some funny incidents where police displayed an array of "weapons" at press conferences, and journalists helpfully pointed out their gas masks and microphones confiscated earlier in the day.

[0] Before anyone attacks; I find that smashing windows of major franchise/chain restaurants and shops just frightens the people demonstrators try to reach. Symbolic, yes, effective, not if effective means exposing people to new ideas. Or, as one anti-capitalist militant said (I forget his name right now), "It's not enough to smash a McDonald's window. Then you have to go inside and organize."

On the other hand, I wonder how much more coverage, and what kind of coverage the recent WEF protests would have received if a few windows had been smashed, or even if demonstrators resisted NYPD arrest attempts. Many demonstrators who did nothing to break any laws were grabbed; one IMC correspondent was tackled and arrested while calling in a live report on his cell phone. As it was, the New York media prepared the city for civil war, then declared the protests a failure when riots didn't break out. Damned if you do...

[1] This is true for North American protests. Certain protests in Europe have seen more militant actions; Prague and Genoa in particular featured attempts to break through police lines and offensive actions against riot cops. From what I know, Genoa was a massive aberration, one step short of a worst-case scenario for cops and protesters alike. While there was a sizable militant anti-capitalist group that engaged in property destruction and rioting, claims have surfaced of British and Italian fascist skinheads joining forces to stir things up. A few scattered reports also surfaced of "black blockers" passing through police lines unhindered, or meeting outside police stations without harassment, but the veracity and meaning of these reports is still hotly debated among activists. For the most part, Western mass protests are noisy, but peaceful affairs where the violence comes from a few hotheads, and the police.

If you think the above claim is paranoid, dig up info on protests last summer in Barcelona related to the aborted World Bank meeting there. Two undercovers sidled up to the main Saturday march, attempted to start a brawl by fighting each other, and when demonstrators tried to break the cops up, uniformed police took the opportunity to attack and arrest people. Pictures later surfaced of "black blockers" posing with uniformed police on lawns before the demonstrations. Not to mention the attack on a spokescouncil meeting after the main march. The Ottawa Citizen published a series on RCMP infiltration and surveillance of political groups across Canada, which may no longer be online. It's only paranoia if they're not watching you...

Yes, I'm an anarchist whackjob. No, I'm not a Black Blocker. Yes, I think Bush is nuts. No, I don't like bin Laden either.

Re:Ask your local black bloc

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as an organizer of black blocs, I can say that those of us in the black bloc skunkworks department laugh at these things. In our experience, the police hardly ever use these new "nonviolent" technologies. These days they prefer to use that old reliable form of technology: violence.

bio-sludge

[Anonymous Coward]

finally, a use for all that useless nuclear waste. I hope this stuff glows green, just to complete the effect.

I guess...

[Andy_R]

the police were tired of criminals giving us the slip, and wanted to get their own back?

Toxic?

[ZaneMcAuley]

What happens if this is swallowed?

I remember the issues with the STICKY foam, blocking of airways and prevents breathing etc...

Re:Toxic?

[Corpset]

I think that only matters if you spit or swallow.

Re:Toxic?

[ZaneMcAuley]

Heh true, but this is slippery slime, ur sure gonna go down on ur knees in this stuff and swallowing is most likely.

Re:Toxic?

[Corpset]

I'm trying to remember how I used to avoid that thing as a kid. Plus, the fact that I tend to spit out everything i don't recognize as food makes me think that most people wouldn't swallow it. Maybe it's like Nads Hair Removal gel? Totally organic and edible? ;) (according to the guys at X-entertainment.com it tastes liek shit, though :))

WOW, MARINES ARE THE GREATEST

[jamej]

The Marines are the coolest most forward looking military organization on earth. We should just get rid of the Army and most of the AIr Force. The Marines can do it all. They also have the best uniforms and that's no accident. I want everyone of you /.s to go see your recruiter right now, and that's an order!!

Anti Slip Device

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever see a set of corks. That's what we call the boots you wear when you go logging.

Got spikes 'bout 1/2' - 3/4" long, I don't think this stuff will work on them. Damn slippery wet bark dosen't.

CC

What if the rioters have this?

[mESSDan]

Wouldn't that be funny? They wait for the police to get into full riot gear, then they slime. The padding in the gear would probably stop the majority of broken bones.

Imagine if people protesting outside of an abortion clinic have this kind of stuff. Some of those people wouldn't think twice about breaking someone else's bones, but want to stop abortion at all cost.

Bank robbers could use this to get away; a cop gets in your way, slime him/them and off you go, preferably in the opposite direction.

This stuff could be used in any type of chase, kind of hard to follow when you can't walk or run.

Re:What if the rioters have this?

[nullard]

I want a vat of this in my trunk - with a release lever in my car. Now I can be like James Bond.

how long

[EddydaSquige]

untill some fills a tub with this stuff and rents it out at an hourly rate hotel?

while were on the subject of weapons

[K7001]

how about building a gauss rifle!!
http://scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/magnet s/gauss.h tml

Life Processes?

[Anonymous Coward]

The slime is clearly not toxic nor does it effect a life process/em?

Few substances do effect life processes. One is semen.

Trombone slides

[Tomahawk]

As a trombone player, this stuff would be excellent on the slide. Much better than the oils and stuff I currently use.

I wonder how long this stuff actually lasts, and if it gets tacky after a while...

T.

Re:Trombone slides

[rarose]

As a former trombone player, I'm guessing this stuff wouldn't be what you'd want. It sounds like they lay this stuff on thick enough that the slipperyness is provided by low-friction shear within their gloop. A trombone slide is a tight enough fit (at the bottom seal area anyway) that their gloop wouldn't be thick enough to contain the internal shear.

One of those silicone pastes and water is still probably the best bet for you. (Please don't tell me you're still using oil!)

Re:Trombone slides

[Tomahawk]

Nah, I've been using Pond Cold Cream Clenser and water for about 14 years now. Nothing beats it.

Reading the article, though, it seems like this stuff is mixed with water for dispersal, so I don't imagine it's all that thick - it probably could be used fairly well.

Only lasts 6-12 hours though. Plently long for a gig, I suppose, but if you had to put it on every time you took the instrument out of it's case, it would be quite costly. Maybe adding water will remake it slippery - just like with Cold Cream.

Or maybe I should just tap my elbow for some synovial fluid...

T.

Easily circumvented

[newdaemon]

As everyone on /. is aware, all the demonstrators need to do is change their protest chants to not include the phrase "I don't know".

Correction to Non lethal weapons encourage use.

[Anonymous Coward]

That was in Wales IIRC, and the armed response unit was there with MP5s and Sig Sauers as well as a baton gun. When the guy started threatening an armed officer (the UK's equivalent of a SWAT team) with a knife the ARU fired a rubber bullet into his stomach and he was taken to hospital for observation. Somewhat better than the mental patient who got his head blown off for threatening an armed copper some months before they introduced baton guns.

Purely peaceful protests continue peacefully. It's only the violent ones where they have to get the riot gear out that you see on TV. I've lived near a politically active university, a contentious military site and an animal research lab so believe me I've seen a few peaceful demonstrations(and no sign of violence, incidentally). The police are human beings just like the protestors, and also badly outnumbered if it came down to it. They don't want a confrontation any more than the protestors do.

Having said that, and purely IMHO, if you wave a kitchen knife at a SWAT man armed with an assault rifle you deserve everything you get. When those guys say "drop the weapon" they don't have to ask twice and shouldn't have to either.

Lurk the Lurker

That's the solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of paying attention to the protest (that is the reason we protest, to get our point of view, heard). The goverment is going to neutralize the protest, and keep on doing what they were doing. And in a few decades instead of a protest we are going to get a fucking civil war. Bravo!

Slime 'em Dan-o

[mary-wanna]

First off... getting slimed is damn sure better than getting a riot baton to the head (cops) or an M-16 bullet(USMC). I've treated both injuries, and neither are very nice.

The military wanted this research done for non-lethal stuff because our politicians, in their infinite wisdom, feel the need to use a combat force as police. Ie... haiti, croatia, somalia. Open up on a rioting village with a 50 cal. Your butt will be in front of congress so fast you couldn't believe it. Slime 'em with a big load of jizz', now the congress can take credit for appropriating bla bla bla bla.

For all of you who worry about it's use. The same things ring true use in the civilian world. It's not like every cop is going to have a hood mounted slime gun. Most likely the vehicles that carry the riot squads to the scene would be equipped with them. If the poop hits the fan, slime 'em and bag em, just like today minus the concussions from batons and fatalities from "rubber" bullets.

Breaking up a violent mob is not impinging on anyones first amendment rights. It is stopping them from being assholes.

Stupid waste of resources

[billcopc]

Perhaps these riot cops should take a hint and figure out that to keep people from rioting, you just have to NOT PISS THEM OFF. These "non-lethal" weapons are pathetic jokes. If they want to keep people on the other side of something, green goo isn't the way, just build a tall strong fence (or two).

Riot-control gimmicks like these will only more severely hurt and/or piss off rioters, who will figure out clever ways around them (how about skiing across the goop while toting a spud launcher ?)

Last time we had a serious riot up here in Quebec, more than a few people were very severely injured, particularly one guy had his throat crushed (he is now mute and breathing through a surgically-created port in his neck) because of some dumb cop's point-blank rubber bullet shot. All this because of a bunch of rich fuckers meeting with leaders of the G7 to discuss how they're going to sell the planet to U.S.-based corporations.

If you're going to fuck your own citizens in masses, you'd better expect big riots. Green goo won't improve anything.

Re:Stupid waste of resources

[Corpset]

The problem with fences is that people get crushed against them. It's a known problem at soccer-games and the riots afterwards and/or during. Maybe if they did it with fences + the goo people would just slip away from eachother? ;)

Re:Stupid waste of resources

[billcopc]

Well then how about spring-loaded padded walls ? When someone gets pushed into the wall, they bounch back with equal force and send their aggressor flying :)

Re:Stupid waste of resources

[Corpset]

That would be a cool feature at any amusementpark ;)

Re:Stupid waste of resources

[SecurityGuy]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it is hardly true that people only riot for good cause. Notable poor causes in the U.S. include your college team winning a sporting event. Woo hoo, we won, let's go flip someone's car over and set something on fire!

Re:Stupid waste of resources

[billcopc]

Hmm.. we don't see such things too often up here in Canada.

Last time I saw an uncoordinated and pointless riot, was about 8 years ago in Montreal when Guns'n'Roses just gave up 20 minutes into their show because one of the guys was a little too fried. They wouldn't refund the thousands of showgoers (and these tickets weren't cheap), so we basically had thousands of angry showgoers who were doubly pissed. Now THAT was ugly, I admit, but there hasn't been anything like that ever since. More often we'll hear about a demented farmer kidnapping some lowlife tramp and chopping her up, only to discard of the mess along side the road (fertilizer?), or perhaps a life-long welfare leech throwing molotov's at government buildings then making a huge scene on regional TV.. individuals, but rarely groups.

where are these bone-breaking tests, then?

[Marvita]

Neither of the links show me anything about tests, and I can't find anything looking around the site either. Does anyone have a link to the results of these fracture-fests, or do I have to just take it on faith? Marvita

Ghostbusters

[ZaneMcAuley]

Oh no, Ive been slimed :D Next up sticky goo, Stay Puff marshmallow man :D

football

[llamalicious]

Whoa, those football riots are going to get a lot more interesting.
(that's soccer in the US)

This is a real slippery slope...

[joshv]

'nuf said.

-josh

Mace...

[Wolfier]

Is it just me, or has anyone related it to a weapon in Ultima's?

Evryone into the street!

[teaserX]

Astroglide Party!

What about winter conditions?

[curtis]

What happens when riots break out in wintery conditions, such as the riot in Salt Lake during the Olympics?

It freezes everything solid and there are a couple of hundred hypothermia cases to deal with at the local hospital...

Interesting possibilities...

Re:What about winter conditions?

[Drakin]

Then they just wet down the ground, and let ide do the work rather than use the goo.

Have any of you ever WORN cleats?

[Uggy]

Try running around in cleats (plastic, metal or otherwise) in an urban environment on concrete... you'd be better off trying your luck with the goo.

So you're a smart bastard and you bring a change of shoes with you... hehe, I'd love to see that, guy sprayed with goo, police closing in.. hold on a sec, lemme change my shoes here... oops, (starts sliding away from his packpack) plop! aaahhh, my mp3 player full of warez!

Anyway, I applaud anything non-lethal that can be used to control OUT of control crowds and rioters. It is a Good Thing(TM) to have options contrary to shooting or beating people when they are out of control.

This is humane and shows the great lengths we go to to try NOT to hurt/kill those among us would would destroy our property or create mayhem and in many cases cause the deaths of innocents (trampling, beating etc.).

Re:Have any of you ever WORN cleats?

[Uggy]

Quick follow up. Metal spikes (track shoes) would help on concrete some but not on grass (remember running tracks are NOT concrete, they are usually some kind of rubberised asphalt and the spikes are short). Soccer or football cleats would help on grass but would be a disaster on concrete.

You'd have to bring a different pair of shoes for every possible situation... besides, if you are protesting nike's labor practices in Southeast Asia, then you're sure as hell not gonna buy more shoes *G*.

Re:Have any of you ever WORN cleats?

[Cirvam]

You could just wear track cleats with 3/4 inch spikes in, hell I think they even make 1 inch spikes. Although I think those are more for cross country then track.

Re:Slippery widening!

[Anonymous Coward]

Klerk I have underestimated you.
You will now be my intellectual heir.

I am quite *pleased*

[Marx_Mrvelous]

I'm glad that this research is being done! So what, the government is trying to handle riots in a safer, better way. If anything, this will encourage peaceful protests and deter harmful ones.

They aren't "silencing critics" they're protecting violent mobs from themselves and the police who deal withthem, all to save *you* personal and finacial harm.

It doesn't matter what your politics are, if you're violent, you deserve to face the consequences. Personally, being slimed wouldn't be as bad as bullets.

Re:I am quite *pleased*

[thesolo]

If anything, this will encourage peaceful protests and deter harmful ones.

Oh, if only that were true...

However, your comment is filled with naivety. This won't be limited to use on violent protestors/rioters, it will be used on ALL protestors. Watch footage from the WTO protests in Seattle, or the Republican National Convention protests in Philadelphia; peaceful protestors, those who were doing SIT-INS, and who had PERMITS to be there, were beaten by police, maced, & tear-gased. In the case of the RNC, Philadelphia police arrested hundreds of the PEACEFUL protestors, and held them for days without just cause. (Btw, the city is now facing dozens of lawsuits for that. My best friend was one of the peaceful protestors locked up.)

All of these new "crowd-control" devices, crowd foam, slippery slime, and the microwave-gun developed at Quantico last year (Which can give a person 3rd-degree burns in a matter of seconds), are going to be used on peaceful protestors, who have a right to protest. These aren't black-bloc anarchists, these are regular people who are trying to make a difference through nonviolence.

Re:I am quite *pleased*

[Anonymous Coward]

And you speak from "experience"? Oh, Mr Worst Case Scenario, we are humbled before thee.

Re:I am quite *pleased*

[Anonymous Coward]

And you speak from "experience"?

Yes, I do.

Re:I am quite *pleased*

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but you are badly misinformed. ALmost all of the violence at these protests comes from the police. The cops routinely attack protesters without provocation. Sounds like you want to live in Nazi Germany.

Why don't we just execute protesters?

Next showing in Afganistan:

[Pig Hogger]

Ossama Bin Laden on ice

Beats the crap out of the beauty and the beast. Reserve your tickets now!

QuickFoxy ?

[Anonymous Coward]

QuickFoxy ?

political & moral implications aside...

[Mudge Pinkerton-Bott]

This sounds like pretty groovy chemistry...

Just imagine the uses for the stuff in the sex industry :-)

Police Brutality?

[Keick]

"...in fact, had they not been safety-harnessed during the tests, many would have broken bones."

Wouldn't this open the door to police brutality lawsuits? Let's say there were 95% peaceful demonstrators and 5% non-peaceful demonstrators. Police slim the crowd and 20% of the crowd sufferes broken bones just screams class-action. What about the first time someone dies? Is it the riot participants fault?

Re:Police Brutality?

[SuiteSisterMary]

Not really. Rioters are advancing down a street. Police slime a section of the street in front of them, put up signs, and making announcements, saying 'This area has been slimed; attempting to travel over it will likely result in you being wounded, possibly quite severly. Go home.'

Re:Police Brutality?

[Maditude]

But if it was a riot, would there be time for that? What I can see happening is big crowd surging through the streets, with the leading edge slipping on this goo, and being crushed as the rest of the crowd continues on -- rather like a soccer riot. There goes the non-lethal bit, with what's likely to be a rather significant civil liability to whichever authority deemed it a good idea to spread the goo in the first place.

Re:Police Brutality?

[SuiteSisterMary]

Well, generally, the idea is to prevent the demonstration from turning into a riot in the first place. You see, everybody prattles on and on about 'peaceful demonstrations' and what not, and that's fine; people do have the right to form up into a huge crowd and shout their displeasure. But what the cops know, and what the psychs know, is that it only takes one or two agitators to turn a peaceful crowd into a rioting mob. And the police know that no matter what happens, they're screwed. If they show up in riot gear as a deterrant, they're jackbooted thugs intimidating the crowd. If they don't show up, they were obviously too busy eating donuts to safeguard the safety and property of the good citizens. And the news only ever shows them wading in and cracking skulls; never shows them taking abuse, hurled rocks, and so on. But if nothing else, it can be used for containment.

Re:Police Brutality?

[mikael_j]

And the news only ever shows them wading in and cracking skulls; never shows them taking abuse, hurled rocks, and so on.
You obviously missed the coverage of the Gothenburg anti-EU protests, it was all about the evil demonstrators throwing rocks at police and the police just had to shoot a demonstrator and a couple of photographers... (of course, since then it has been determined that video tapes of the shooting had been tampered with to show make it seem like there were more rioters around than the one that got shot (plus the photographers...)

/Mikael

Riot Slime already commercially available

[mpweasel]

find it here

green slime

[stinky wizzleteats]

This reminds me of some great fun I had as a small child. We took a can of green slime (some of you may remember its glory barely contained in those little plastic garbage cans) and decided it would be fun to squish it out onto the carport.

I don't remember the details of this event progressing to the point of wetting down the entire carport floor and sliding across it, but the effect was to destroy any frictive capacity of the concrete. This was incredibly fun until dad arrived from work that day and attempted to park his car.

Sensitivity training?

[jeti]

Does such a thing even exist?

Just wear running spikes or climbing crampons!

[kotku]

People will have ingenious methods of counteracting this once it has been deployed once or twice!

Re:Just wear running spikes or climbing crampons!

[Drakin]

That works if it's on a soft surface, like gravel, or a lawn...

But try that on pavement... you'll not go very far.

Re:Just wear running spikes or climbing crampons!

[Gary Yngve]

Steel crampons should work just fine on pavement, especially because pavement is still slightly textured. You'll still have to be good at flat-footing and balancing (put foot out, transfer center of mass to new foot, then stand on it). If you just step out without transfering your center of mass first, you'll wipe out.

Temperature vulnerability

[Anonymous Coward]

Effective at temperatures from 32 to 125 F....hmmm I see a countermeasure or two here.

1. Protest in winter.

2. Carry a fire extinguisher and freeze yourself a path outta there.

This stuff wouldn't work half the year in most of our major northern cities like Washingtion D.C. :-) Riot On!

Slippery Eh?

[jack99uk]

Wont be a problem for me when my new Segway arrives!

Heheh

[SkewlD00d]

Wouldn't KY mixed with tree sap do the same thing?

Turning the guns on ourselves

[Snowfox]

Why is it that, of weapons being developed of late, most seem designed for use on a country's own population?

Microwave pain devices, crowd stunners, directed painful noise producers, movement inhibitors, etc.

What's happening to our right to protest? Didn't we used to have a voice?

Re:Turning the guns on ourselves

[dperkins]

couple this with the disarmament of America, and you sure have an interesting dynamic. No ability to defend yourself, coupled with the inability to gather and protest...

It's better than China for now. At least I can still have more than one child.

Police are not Military = no "geneva convention"s

[SomethingOrOther]

the simple definition you gave would also outlaw Mace, Pepper spray, and other devices commonly used by police forces.

The police are not millitary and therefore are not bound by chemical warfare / geneva convention and other such "international laws".

Thus the police can use tear gas etc but the army can't.
As an example, look at the arguments surounding camp x-ray prisoners in deciding wheather they are civilians or millitary and thus, the conditions in which they can be held.

(Not that the average National Enquirer reader gives a damn of course)

The new riot gear is...

[DohDamit]

The Segway!

Next time I go to a riot...

[Junior J. Junior III]

I'll just be sure to wear my golf cleats.

Has anyone ever tried that on a saucer-sled, Dad?

[chemguru]

"Not that I know of Rus.
Going for a new amateur-land speed record, Clark W. Griswold, Jr. ! Remember kids; don't try this at home, I AM a professional."-- Nat'l Lampoon's Christmas Vacation

First thing I thought of when I read this article. =]

It isn't temporary incapacitation.

[kannen]

I'm fairly certain that this doesn't fall under the definition of temporary incapacitation in regards to chemical warfare. Their definition of temporary incapacitation is probably referring to temporarily disabling nerves and other system functions in able to prohibit muscle movement, and hence, locamotion.

But with this slippery slim, you are free to move your muscles as much as you like, it just won't be very effective because the surface you are on isn't being particularly responsive. Regardless, you still aren't incapacitated. You can still move - you just might end up falling a lot.

Containment...

[way2slo]

I would use the slime as a containment device. Designed to keep the rioting from spreading. Just slime-off a perimeter around the rioters and funnell them to where you want them to go. Since this slime has to be spread on the ground first, it seems highly unlikely that you would be able to shoot it under a large crowd. This sounds more like something you put on the ground where the riot has not reached yet. Sort of like a moat, that they have to cross. You stand behind the "moat-o-slime" and shoot tear gas into the crowd to disperse or drive them a particular way. Violent rioters that would want to attack you would have to cross the moat or keep at a range. They could probably cross it sucessfully, but at a greatly reduce speed. Like walking across wet ice or a wet soapy floor. With no speed and greatly reduced footing, you could easily over power them by the time they reach you.

It could be pretty effective, but I would worry about the flamibility and environmental impact of the slime. How does this stuff react if they throw a molitoff-cocktail on it? If they can get it to burn it's no good and I would not want to stop a riot by creating a haz-mat spill.

hmm

[VAXGeek]

What they really should do, is all riots could be simulated by a computer. The computer would choose 'fatalities' in the riot, and then the people chosen could report to disintegration chambers. Certainly this is a good solution.

Stank n slide

[dnoyeb]

Seems like your everyday metalic or otherwise cleat / golf shoe would do just nicely. So I propose a technological improvement, which by the way I should patent :D

Combine this with the stank smells they invented about 1 year ago.

Now not only can you not move, but you stank too. Now thats a deterrent :D

So who's cleaning this stuff up?

[Mr Guy]

I can't help but notice that isn't really covered. Do you want to be this guy? This stuff is designed to not only eliminate friction, but also to apparently stick to non-coated surfaces and spread. I can see it now. :::: Scene- Angry Mob writhing on the ground in slime. A man stands with a mob and bucket, with his name, "Earl" on his shirt :::: Voice Over: Not going anywhere for a while?

This is news?!?

[artemis67]

Nickelodeon has been testing this stuff for YEARS.

Hey!

[The Fast Choker]

I want this stuff for my Slip & Slide!!!

But what about anti-anti-protester measures?

[phloda]

This is interesting. One of the things I've often thought is that protesters should carry bags of ball bearings to be deployed around static displays of protesters. The nature of large numbers of bearings on the ground around the protesters would make the illegal demonstration-breakers (cops) step more carefully. Additionally, large numbers of bearings could be deployed to break up locked phalanxes of marching demonstration breakers.

A slime, foam or other chemical solution that would be easy to mix and deploy in situ may be lighter in weight and more effective than ball bearings. For example, a slipperly substance that gelled itself over a large area may be more effective than an equal weight of ball bearings deployed over a marching surface. The slime could also have the additional benefit of being difficult to see, or being very visible and deployable in letter or glyph forms, or of smelling very bad or being inflammable.

This slime stuff could be the start of something very interesting.

Can you imagine....?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you imagine a beowulf cluster covered in this slime?? My god, the possibilities!

blakespot

Slick Shoes!!!

[ICA]

This is a proven technology. Remember in Goonies, this was the stuff in Data's slick shoes invention that he used to sidetrack the Fratelli brothers temporarily.

It's great when all of lifes new innovations come from classic 80's movies...

So How Is This New?

[StormyMonday]

"Instant banana peel" has been around since 1972.

It was used a couple of times in anti-Vietnam war rallies/riots (definitions depend on who you talk to). The rally/riot organizers loathed it -- it turned their nice focused, angry gathering into a party. The stuff is fun.

Vehicles?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, if a vehicle is going at normal speed and encounters this stuff, there's almost certainly going to be a loss of control. Hrm, isn't that just begging for "collateral damage"?

But if the vehicle is going slow or starting from a stop (ok, unlikely, but not impossible) then wouldn't traction control systems deal with it?

Hmm...

[errxn]

...by "agent provocateurs", do you mean "average British soccer fans"?

Environmental implications?

[Beelzebette]

What *really* makes me nervous about "spraying slime on the lawn"? They *say* it's nonhazardous, but do we really want this stuff in our drinking water? They can say it's safe all they life, but the Romans had lead in their aqueducts, we sprayed DDT on *everything*, PCBs were safe, MSG is harmless...you get the idea.

Reminds me of an episode of Pete and Pete...

[Zenjive]

where the younger Pete and Pit-stain race down the school hallways by pouring floor wax on themselves.

But seriously, how are the cops going to arrest people if they're covered in greased owl-shit?

Won't happen

[tlh1005]

Cities have legal panels that advise them and take care of cases brought against the city by people who did something like fall on the subway etc. I could see this as a use in a chase scenario or other such circumstance but not with a large mass of people, say at a concert. An average Concert crowd of 30,000 or so gets blanketed with a slippery gel.... can you say stampede, trampled, or better yet, lawsuit? You can mop a floor in a grocery shop, mark it clearly with yellow "wet floor" signs and still end up paying some idiot money. I hope they're smarter than this idea implies.

You forgot the most important one.

[Kinich Yax K'uk Mo']

Running out of beer at the Budweiser tent.

Re:You forgot the most important one.

[Aqualung]

It's budweiser... not like there was any real beer in the tent to start with ;)

Re:You forgot the most important one.

[Anonymous Coward]

out of curiosity, what beers do you drink?

What they need to do...

[supernova87a]

What they need to do is to test this in the latest release of State of Emergency. Nothing like a good numerical simulation to figure out if something will work. That way, I can see whether my molotov cocktails, hand grenades, etc. will be compatible Oh, plus I can pee on the slime.

Quell the Riot by Breaking Bones

[alanjstr]

Did I read that right? Its so slippery that they could have seriously injured themselves? What a great way to stop a riot, but them all in the hospital.

Chemical properties of the slime

[stapedium]

Based on the press release, the slime is a modified polyacryamide. This page has a good primer on polymers and some of their chemical properties. It looks like this slime will be most useful in the desert, since rioters can wash it off with *lots* of water. Apparently, salt water woud works even better. I knew that there was some reason for taking chemistry in high school. Along with the second amendment, a widely educated electroate is the best defense of democracy.

Interesting situation

[Anonymous Coward]

If I have a grenade and I am about to launch it at the cops and the cops dump a ton of this jelly crap in my area that makes me slip and the grenade ends up blowing up something else which causes a massive explosion and tens of people die, the government would indeed be resoponsible.

Re:Interesting situation

[gimple]

If you had posted using your ID I might have mod'ed you as funny.

Re:Interesting situation

[Anonymous Coward]

"resoponsible" for what? you need your head examined... with a 2" drill bit.

But he's a slashbot

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't view rioters seeking to torch a US embassy as bad guys. Nor terrorists flying jets into US buildings.

What do you expect from a muslim slashbot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Truly the lowest form of life on the evolutionary scale. What a combination!

Yet another Science Fiction staple comes to pas

[Edward Kmett]

I was just re-reading an old Jerry Pournelle novel (Prince of Mercenaries, a novel of Falkenberg's Legion) in which just such a slippery chemical spraw was used for crowd control while one of the main characters was in the crowd.

I find it somewhat ironic that 2 days later I'm reading about the same thing in the real world.

As life borrows yet another idea from the world of science fiction.

Canadians immune

[sness]

Ha, we Canadians already walk on slippery black ice and hockey rinks, give us your worst slime! We laugh!

Re:Canadians immune

[Anonymous Coward]

hahaha eh? hahaha

Schweet!

[Greyfox]

I wanna try the stuff out! Lets get a riot together once they deploy this stuff!

Naming Technology

[t_allardyce]

I love the way they give important sounding names to things that aren't. "mobility denial system" sounds like something Microsoft would patent to stop people moving software. It goes with things like "digital rights management (we lock up your data)" and "collateral damage (oops, we blew up a red cross centre)"

Don't worry about the broken bones

[switcha]

No need to worry about the hospital bills, all the protesters already demonstrated for socialized healthcare.

Hahaha...TAKE THAT Black Bloc

[Anonymous Coward]

You underdeveloped wastes of perfectly good component elements! See you in a few weeks...I'll be the guy with the cameras.

I can see the headlines now...

[cbare]

Anti-globalization protest degenerates into mass orgy as cops deploy KY-Jelly on rioters.

Hmmm... maybe I should start going to protests.

Oh NO!! The tear gas aint working!!

[Milo77]

....better slime them!! Or, the other way around...The slime aint working, better gas them! While a mob being gassed or slimed is in itself pretty funny, being slimed and gassed at the same time is down-right hilarious! Humm... first you slime-em, then you gas-em, then you put on your special shoes, get in there and night-stickem!

robocop

[Mo B. Dick]

Does anyone remember the Robocop tv series. I was little kid then, and I only saw one episode. But the episode I did see inviolved this. The police department invented a substance that caued 100% of traction to be lost, unless you were wearing the special shoes made for walking on the surfaces. Luckily robocop was outfitted with the special boots.

This is not new tech

[Anonymous Coward]

In the late sixties, early seventies someone came out with something the media dubbed "Liquid Banana peel" which basically had the same characteristics.

It ended up having zero impact as the police figured out that the goal of crowd control is most often dispersing a mob, not preventing them from dispersing. It was not even a good way of interdicting directions of movement as anyone with a short run-up could 'skate' across a smooth region that you coated with this.

It's research boondoggle, pure and simple.

this is perfect, you don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of building a big fence, they can lay this goo down around the perimiter and cordon it off. The protesters can get as close as they want, but they have to know they won't be able to cross the goo. Nobody gets crushed against the fence and its a hell of a lot cheaper. I don't think they're going to hose people down with it, they're going to use it to establish a boundary.

Broken bones?

[poot_rootbeer]

How the hell do you break bones by falling down ON A LAWN?

In my younger days I took many a spill upon the grass and dirt, and I never even broke a pinky.

thats exactly how you prevent protests

[Edmund Blackadder]

During the primaries of both parties last election the police sought to make protesters irrelevant by designating them to dedicated protest zones, or the so called "Free speach zones" which were usually some parkinglot several blocks away from the convention.

Protesters kept out in such a way would be ignored by the media and would not be seen by the politicians and people they are trying to reach.

The majority of WRO protests have been peaceful, it is just that the media prefers to show destructive behaviour by few people. Protesters in Seattle accused undercover police for creating most of the destruction.

Re:thats exactly how you prevent protests

[NaCh0]

The majority of WRO protests have been peaceful, it is just that the media prefers to show destructive behaviour by few people.

And these few idiots are exactly who are going to get slimed.

Nude Frictionless Female Slime Wrestling

[Wraithlyn]

Come ON... you were ALL thinking it.

Or if you weren't, you certainly are now ;)

Re:Nude Frictionless Female Slime Wrestling

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm...if I remember the IMF/World Bank protests in DC, most of the protest chicks were pretty substandard. Also, alot of them smelled pretty bad. I'm desperate, but not THAT desperate. Go right ahead, though. Don't know what other protests are like, but there really wasn't much to look at in DC.

Re:Police are not Military = no "geneva convention

[Anonymous Coward]

"As an example, look at the arguments surounding camp x-ray prisoners in deciding wheather they are civilians or millitary and thus, the conditions in which they can be held."

That's kind of a red herring. We all know that the party doing the holding cannot determine whether those it holds are POW's or unlawful combatents ect.

Sand

[RayBender]

Perhaps this has already been mentioned, but can't the rioters just pour sand on the goo? I recall something like this (but sticky instead of slippery) was tried in Somalia, but the rioters poured sand on it and the high-tech barrier was useless. This goo might be useful in beating down unprepared protesters, but in a situation such as an embassy siege I don't think it'll do much good.

I understand the Marines found that the best form of crowd control was a laser designator. The guy with a big bright red dot on his forehead kept very still, and so did his buddies.

What the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right click, "Block images from this server." Ah, that's better. Note to self: NEVER do business with OSDN again. Fuck your advertisements.

mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

ha... great picture... mod parent up as funny

Tear gas deaths.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I mean, tear gas is bad and not used often, but after a few hours, you're all back to normal.

[] Once you're downwind of twenty-plus canisters, things start getting iffy. [] Numerous women reported early periods after the April 2001 Quebec City protests ...

Not to mention that tear gas scars the breathing passages, leading to lifelong lung problems and asthma, and disolves in the body fat, re-emerging throughout life to make you sick whenever you lose weight. Long-term irritants promote cancer, infectious diseases, autoimmune reactions (such as arthritis, Grave's syndrome, Lupus, ...).

Tear gas in enclosed spaces where people can't escape before they drown in their own mucus is deadly. That's why it's forbidden in warfare for trying to get people out of caves and tunnels.

Tear gas tends to kill small children, both because they're more susceptable for several reasons and because masks, if available, won't fit well enough to keep it out.

Tear gas plus fire equals cyanide gas.

Aerosol teargas projectors leave the air filled with finely divided dust particles, which burn well enough (ala dust explosions) to superheat a large volume of air (rendering the area lethal) and ignite flammable materials at multiple points within it. The solvent used is also flammable, making its use near sources of ignition such as pilot lights or lanterns even more problematic. Tear gas projectiles use a flare to vaporize and disperse the solid form. Using the first (fuel) followed by the second (igniter) creates a firebomb.

If the tanks carrying the injectors have already knocked down the stairs (trapping people upstairs), collapsed the tunnels (trapping them in the underground "safe room"), collapsed walls (trapping them even on the first floor), and opened the building to the wind (to blow up the fire) you end up with a lot of drowned children, poisoned adults, and incinerated bodies. Whether done deliberately or accidentally, such a site becomes a death camp, but much more efficient than any in World War II.

Which is apparently what happened at Waco.

Whooo-hooooo Slip n' Slide!

[jellybear]

I have an idea. Put this stuff on a long sheet of plastic. Then let kids take running jumps at it.

This was rejected half a century ago.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

So how is this "non-hazardous"? Are they going to hand out safety harnesses to crowds before they get sprayed with slime?

"Liquid banana peel" - either this or another one - was invented in the late '60s (as a water-cannon additive) and rejected at that time.

Test subjects wearing helmets and knee/elbow pads were shown in promos, but even some of them were injured.

Imagine a crowd down, many with compound fractures, and the paramedics trying to fish them out and patch them up before they bleed to death.

Then imagine the paramedics too slippery to help - or to go help anyone else.

Then imagine the floor of the emergency room with slick spots from stuff transferred from patients.

Then imagine it during a city-wide riot, with burning and looting.

Re:This was rejected half a century ago.

[Afrosheen]

As long as the KKK doesn't rally, OJ doesn't kill anyone else, and the G3 summit doesn't happen anywhere, I don't think we'll see too many riots here in the US.

Re:This was rejected half a century ago.

[QuantumFTL]

As other posters have mentioned, this stuff is most effectively used when it draws a "line", so to speak, against the rioters that they do not cross. This serves to contain them, and those that attempt to cross this line, knowing that it will injure them, deserve their fate.

I think that so long as this stuff is not abused (and I suppose all technology is abused to some extent) signifigantly, it's a great thing. Much better than tear gas or beating people with sticks! And lets face it, not all political demonstrations are peaceful like Ghandi... sometimes the people get so mad, and get that mob mentality that they just start breaking things. No one wins in that situation, so anything nonlethal/non-harmful that can prevent that is a good thing in my book.

I would not approve of spraying this onto large stationary crowds except under extreme conditions.

Ive seen a demo of this.

[Unknown Poltroon]

On televison. It looks like to be somewhere about the consistency of that green slime toy or the goop on canned ham. The spray it on pretty thick, even on grass, and the guy in the middle couldnt move. He could stand up, sor of, but couldnt get any traction to even move on grass. And he fell over a LOT.

DOS and now DOM?

[racerx509]

Great, now along with DOS (denial of service) attacks, we have DOM (Denial of Mobility) attacks.

penguin charge/slide on belly

[mr_burns]

So if we see the goo being deployed, we all run in the direction of those applying it, then "slip 'n' slide" at them at great speed. This could be just as devastating on the opposition as a stampede.

So we go from an annoying crowd to thousands of people hurtling through the town upwards of 20 MPH, especially on a downhill. It's like a giant shotgun blast of people.

And the resulting news coverage, if the media doesn't just stay silent about it like it obediently always does, is that the cops are causing all these people to skid uncontrollably to their inevitable death on impact of a solid object.

I don't think this was very well thought out, at least not in the context of "how can a crowd use this to their advantage."

Re:penguin charge/slide on belly

[Milhouse_ph]

right up until you reach the transition point to concrete/asphalt/whatever... ouch!...

Re:penguin charge/slide on belly

[Mr.roboto]

That's what army helments, hardhats and bike helments are for, then again if you're sliding around on your stomach during a riot I don't think you're using too much of what's up there anyways.

Military Today...Police Tomorrow

[Anonymous Coward]

This type of system is being developed under the pretense of military security, but in reality, it will be used against domestic dissidents.
I was at a tech fair in DC for anti-terrorism technologies three weeks ago. The vendors were openly saying that today's protestor is tomorrow's terrorist. Welcome to the police state of the 21st century...

Duh

[TheCabal]

Everyone here expects that the slime be used directly on a rioting crowd, preventing their dispersal. Use a little non-linear thinking, people!

The slime can be used as an area-denial tool, to prevent rioters from reaching certain areas, and to channel them to places where they can be better controlled.

Nickalodean ahead of its time....

[mgrabens]

Wonder how similar this slime is to the slime on Nickalodean! :-)

SDoS

[iomud]

sidewalk denial of service attack just sounds cool.

Mobility Denial System

[CAIMLAS]

Mobility denial system? Give me a break... if this stuff is as indeed as slick as stated, then it would be quite easy to become mobile over it.

Simply back up and run at it, and jump at the ground over the area of application. You'd slide an idefinate distance, and you'd probably not have to worry about cuts and scrapes - after all, such hurtful items would cause friction, which would provide traction, the very thing this lube cancels out.

I wonder if this stuff will be sold at pharmasuticals near the KY in coming years.

I wonder what the legal implications of this stuff would be - you'd likely get many people sueing the government or police forces for injuries inflicted. It would probably insight the mobs even more, and thus cause the participants to turn upon each other. I'd think something like a spray-on mellowing agent (pot/E in a can? [sic]) would be much more effective... you'd have people making love in the streets... imagine the publicity... "LA Riot turns into hot kinky orgy"... then again, this could probably happen with the lube.

Forget KY...

[jgdobak]

..Or Aquaglide.. The ultimate lube is here!

No

[sideshow]

Isn't there something like "the right to demonstrate" in your 1st amendment or whatever it is called?

I can have an opinion, tell all my friends about, put it in a book, hold meetings about it, etc, etc and not go to jail. What I can't do is go down to the statehouse and threaten to burn it down, or disrupt government ot business.

Think about the Children!

[sideshow]

When I have to fight a war do you expect me to carry a inferior weapon because of 8 year olds in Sierra Leone? Fuck 'em. They can fight all the civil wars they damn please but I will only trust my life to the best weapon engineering can give me.

Fun

[Anonymous Coward]

What would be really neat to see is when the marines spray the goo into an area of protesters so they can't escape - and then microwave them with those new microwave guns they built.

Endless pain with no permanent damage - that will teach them. I just hope the goo wont ignite.

CIA had this stuff for years

[Anonymous Coward]

The CIA has been using this stuff for years, this is not a new invention, it is more like "declassified" spy gear.

Can prevent parties too

[Narsindal]

This is something the city of Vancouver would be interested in. They don't like people out on the streets at New Years or any other time. Spray some of the goo on the streets beforehand and you can force everyone into the high society pay events instead.

It's so sad to see New Years celebrations in downtown cores throughout the world yet Vancouver forces everyone to go to some crappy pay event.
Ok, enough off-topic ranting.

Why do people riot?

[rofgile]

The problem isn't that rioting people need to be controlled. The problem is how to not give people a reason to riot. If you simply prevent people from rioting, won't the social issues these people are upset over be expressed in other means?

You stop people from rioting and they will simply turn to blowing up buildings, and killing leaders. Our government spending our money to find ways to control citizens helps neither the government (which is made up of citizens) nor the populace itself.

People rioted in the past (and still in the present) over situations where race and class have held down a group of people to the point where members of the group could only express themselves in rage. By denying these people a voice, or more importantly, our ears towards their concerns, there is no way for them to express themselves other than destruction.

Today race and class are still issues, and always will be. But now we are also dealing with the fact that corporations are being treated as citizens, citizens with voices that are louder than the rest of us. That corporations (which, if you look at them like citizens) are a minority compared to the rest of us, and that they are deciding the way the whole will be treated will turn upon them. Oppressing the whole of the country with their copyright laws, ownership of ideas, and control over our media will create waves of anger among the populace that will one day be expressed if not in riots, them some other form of violent destruction.

Why can't our law makers ever listen to the people themselves? This seems like the sad fate of our democracy.

Rofgile

Re:Police are not Military = no "geneva convention

[UnifiedTechs]

The police are not military and therefore are not bound by chemical warfare / Geneva convention and other such "international laws".

While I would be inclined to agree with you I can't. The OPCW does not ban the use of these chemicals in warfare; it bans the PRODUCTION of these chemicals. And it really makes no distinction of military vs. civil police. Being ex-military I would want to agree with you, but the wording on OPCW is not a use ban, it is a production ban. The cops are allowed to use it, but besides for an exemption for very small quantities they wouldn't be able to get any made.

Now as someone else pointed the original posters definition was flawed, OPCW is geared at chemicals the halt a person thru biological reactions not thru pure immobilization so really this all is mute.

I smell FUD

[clintp]

"In tests, volunteers attempted in vain to walk across a lawn sprayed with the slime, and in fact, had they not been safety-harnessed during the tests, many would have broken bones"

First, nowhere in either of these links (or resources noted) did I see anything about potentially broken bones. Second, no bones were actually broken by anybody. :) Thirdly, other than my grandmother, what kind of person is going to have serious injuries from a slip and fall on a lawn? Did they clean out a nursing home for the tests?

"hooligans"?!

[No Such Agency]

Oh, so if I use sensible (& nonviolent) countermeasures to protect myself from police intent on denying my right to peaceful assembly, I'm a "hooligan"? I don't think so. The police are rapidly becoming the shock troops for a corporate-plutocratic society, just like they used to be the shock troops for an apartheid one in the American south. They'll continue to develop technological means of denying your civil rights, just like they used fire hoses and dogs on marching African-Americans back in the dark days of the civil rights movement. We can't take that "lying down" (or sitting on our asses in slippery goo as the case may be).

Stealing a line from a San Francisco writer...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, i must have missed the part of History class where Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, and Susan B. Anthony had the violent riots.

Don't dump tea in the harbor. Don't try to eat at a segregated lunch counter. And above all, don't drive the money changers from the temple with a whip.
-nessie

Would it work against Minnesotans?

[Cro Magnon]

After all, they're used to slippery conditions.

Better name

[FreekyGeek]

They should call it "Jack-Valenti-In-A-Can".

A new definition of 'splash facial'

[wackybrit]

Southwest Research Institute (press release )developed a non-hazardous chemical spray system that spreads a highly slippery, viscous gel

Soccer mom returns home.

Husband: Why.. Have you been sleeping with another man!?

Wife (duly): No, I was protesting against computer games.

Husband: That's it. We're divorced.

Slippery Slime Developed to Control Crowds

[Anonymous Coward]

Before reading the article i thought this was about Microsoft Windows.

Alternatively...

[shaldannon]

"Sidewalk denial of surface attack"

gee I crack myself up...

Velcro

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the night before a demonstration I forsee people slapping adhesive Velcro strips on the ground so their Velcro shoes will work the next day...

Nothing But Net

[Anonymous Coward]

Nets.

"Hey, I caught a big one!"

Carpet

[Anonymous Coward]

Roll out the carpet....right there, across that lawn...

Yeah but...

[yusing]

anyone ever heard of CRAMPONS? Cleats? Ski poles?

Fun with slime

[nullard]

Slippery slime + BIG parking lot + car. It sounds like one hell of a ride to me. This could have high entertainment value.

Riot vs protest

[trenton]

I've seen a lot of people talking about riots/protests. Seems to me that this would help control a riot, but do nothing to stop a protest. I mean, if you're rioting and wrecking crap, then this will stop you. You can't move any more.

If you're protesting, what's not being able to move going to do? You'll still be there to yell "Hell no we won't go.&quot And if this gel were on you, you couldn't go, even if you wanted to!

Yes, you have the right to protest (in the US) and all that. But, many protests of late are actually riots in disguise (especially those WTO "protests").

Crosswinds . . .

[himi]

This stuff would remove all directional control that aircraft had: in the event of even a slight crosswind on takeoff, it'd end up sliding off the tarmac and most likely trashing the undercarriage . . .

Water, snow and ice can all be made to have minimal resistance in one direction, but very high resistance perpendicular to that direction - it's a completely different matter to this goo.

himi

California laws...

[TicTacTux]

...demand that each can sold is bundled with a big yellow 'caution slippery surface' safety sign. Clever resellers bundle a trolley with the above kit to ensure freedom of movement, as stipulated by the gazillionth amendment.

Tax-sponsored slip-n-slide! Let's protest!

[Dr. Spork]

Well, for all of us who always mean to go to protests but need just a bit more inscentive, this might just do it! Imagine a party with thousands of young leftists out on a nice, sunny day. I know I would bring a rolled-up piece of plastic. Once the stuff gets sprayed, unroll the plastic, and because it would be dry, you could run on it, and jump headfirst onto the slimy surface. Now, come on. Who doesn't think this would be a lot of fun?

Protesters look like hippies, but they're not dumb. I'm sure that they would figure out a strategy for dealing with the goo. For example: as soon as your're slimed, get down on your stomach, and pull yourself forward by planting a sharp object into the ground and pulling yourself forward. Then, you realize you're drunk, high, slimy and prone with a bunch of drunk, high hippy chicks you don't know. Hmmm. I know what would be on my mind right about then.

You can be sure that a police-lubricated orgy for peace would get into the news. Plus, now let's be serious, it would be a lot of fun!

This might not work...

[linefeed0]

It's hard to have an appreciation for how important the microscopic world is, but the fact is that many things that we depend on daily -- such as being able to walk on most flat surfaces -- are very dependent on microscopic properties, such as those that affect traction.

Having said that, just because this stuff causes an ice-like effect for people trying to walk on it doesn't mean it has other properties of ice. Traditionally, it has been believed that skating on ice causes, either due to friction or more often pressure, the surface to slightly melt and re-freeze, thus creating a channel for the blade. More recent theories have focused on the vibration patterns of the surface of ice: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hockey/skating1.html

And if you're thinking about roller skating, what makes you think that you'll have any more luck than the car tire that just spins on this stuff?

Another Disneyland?

[Jesus IS the Devil]

* the adult protestors disappear only to be followed by a bunch of riotous kids slipping and sliding on the slime for fun *

denial of service can be a good thing

[linefeed0]

The mass media loves to portray protestors as window smashers and looters. While a few may be, and while destructive actions may sometimes even be necessary (think of how revolutions happen, as opposed to riots), the real issue is that the powers that be are really afraid of real-world denial of service attacks.

They don't want to say this because it's not dramatic enough, but when you have someone or an organization (such as the WTO) that is getting used to the fact that it is in charge of certain things, and wants to assert and maintain that authority, having service denied -- by having protestors block delegates entering and exiting a convention center -- is a huge concern. In fact, during Seattle, some reputable news sources reported that third world delegates who were bullied into accepting the WTO's plans spoke out because the protestors provided a critical mass of opposition. None of the relatively small-time window breaking, the looting, the smashing stuff up really helped this -- but the denial of service was key.

Weapons like this help ensure that corporate america always gets served.

Jesus H. Christ

[dosun88888]

I have never seen a peaceful demonstration. 3 people start one, don't do a whole hell of a lot, and then 5,000 shitheads end up gathering to break things. Then the "peaceful" minority bitch and moan that they were being peaceful and shouldn't have gotten tear gas shot at them, or bullets, or whatever the hell happened.

Please, let me know when a truly peaceful demonstration is happening so I can go and videotape the thing, and mark that day on a calendar and in a history book.

~D

Riots happen in the US *ALL THE TIME*

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think Riots don't happen in the US then you are not paying attention. I've been in two riots in the last 5 years. One in Seattle (1999?) and a small one in San Diego.

The San Diego riot was fairly small (more of a bar fight in the streets) but there was still many injuries and some property damage.

The WTO riot in Seattle was very large, no deaths but lots of property damage.

In both cases I was "just passing by". My only protest is the way I vote.

Talk about fun!

[bjcomposer]

Get a run up, and start sliding! You won't be able to stop until you get to the other side!. Then when you get to the other side, they won't be able to handle you! Perhaps they can throw you back for another round... Bring it on.

why would people have broken bones?

[joe094287523459087]

sidewalks up north where i grew up are often covered with ice, and if you watch a busy sidewalk you will see people fall (hard) every few minutes. pretty much all of them except a few seniors (who should have been riding in a Rascal anyway) get back up with a sheepish grin and a sore ass.

So why would this stuff be any different? Especially since many surfaces are less painful to fall on than ice. I highly doubt there would be any "broken bones" and people can crawl across any slippery surface if they are careful.

Re:why would people have broken bones?

[Revolvyerom]

Chicago, I'm willing to bet, has the same ice as wherever you're from...and it's quite common to fall and break your arm and/or shatter your wrist trying not to hit the ground. Hell, people do it on muddy ground in sports all the time, without being hit.

Re:why would people have broken bones?

[Cro Magnon]

1. Yes, I've fallen on ice many times with no injuries, but my GF once broke her wrist on ice. It's all how you happen to land.

2. You might not get hurt when you fall, but what about when the 250 pound guy behind you falls on you?

combatting the goo ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... so now instead of people picking up tear gas canisters and lobbing them back at the police, we'll see people plowing paths with snow shovels and goo-launching siege weapons. who knows, maybe homemade crampons will replace gas masks as the must-have activist accessory.

ps. first person to make a pneumatic goo cannon wins a gold star.

WTF is with the new slashdot ads?

[HaggiZ]

I dont know if everyone got it on this article, so I posted a screenshot:



I know this is probably considered off-topic, but it needs to be said somewhere. If I continue to get such obtrusive advertisements on slashdot, I will boycott the site as I have many other news sites. I'm sure many others will do the same.

Kickback

[Revolvyerom]

can you imagine trying to fire an AK-47 on something like that? It'd be the ice capades in 7.62mm Worth watching, no doubt.

from some sci-fi novel?

[MollyB]

I recall a book about a skate-boarding heroine who had to dodge police armed with "Loogey Guns" that stuck to targets, rendering them immobile. This stuff sounds like a couple of viscosity levels from the same goop.

Wait'll they develop Heilein's Tanglefoot Web!

yeah but is it environmentally friendly?

[Mark Danger Chen]

Remember when Marvel decided that Spiderman's web stuff decomposes in hours?

What about this stuff? Or will there be semi-truck-tanker spills on the freeway; instead of black oil covered mussed up birds, we'll have green goo covered mussed up birds...?

mark

Waco?

[Spamalamadingdong]

There are recordings from bugs in the compound (built into the cartons of milk given to the Davidians) which prove that the fires were deliberately set by the Davidians themselves.

ISTR that the one incendiary-type gas canister found on the premises was fired hours before the fire broke out. And on top of this, many of the dead were found shot to death (including Koresh himself).

While you won't have any trouble showing that the tactics of the government were ridiculous (if they wanted Koresh they could have arrested him when he went into town, alone), there is nothing to support the case that the tear gas caused the fires. The evidence proves that the Davidians committed suicide, as their apocalyptic theology demanded that they die; the government's stupidity was in pushing them in ways all but guaranteed to make them do it.

Re:Waco?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

There are recordings from bugs in the compound (built into the cartons of milk given to the Davidians) which prove that the fires were deliberately set by the Davidians themselves.

The FBI spoksmen claimed that the bugs caught the phrase "The fire has started." or "The fires have started." Given that Koresh had been teaching for quite some time (before the siege) that satanic forces in control of the government would burn them out, such a sentence is hardly proof that they started the fires themselves.

If you have other evidence please post it, with a pointer or link to somewhere that it appears in the public record.

ISTR that the one incendiary-type gas canister found on the premises was fired hours before the fire broke out

That was the claim. But several used incindeary canisters were entered in evidence at the trial afterward, collected from one of the start-points of the fire and misidentified as silencers by the FBI.

many of the dead were found shot to death (including Koresh himself).

Which says nothing about who shot them. Especially given that infrared footage seems to show two snipers firing into the building from the rear during the fire, when people were trying to escape.

While you won't have any trouble showing that the tactics of the government were ridiculous (if they wanted Koresh they could have arrested him when he went into town, alone), there is nothing to support the case that the tear gas caused the fires.

Acutally there's quite a bit, including soem work by Faliure Analysis Associates, infrared footage from an overflight, etc.

But given that the FBI had the site plowed under, destroying most of the evidence, we'll never know for sure, will we?

Re:Waco?

[Spamalamadingdong]

The FBI spoksmen claimed that the bugs caught the phrase "The fire has started." or "The fires have started." Given that Koresh had been teaching for quite some time (before the siege) that satanic forces in control of the government would burn them out, such a sentence is hardly proof that they started the fires themselves.

They also caught the Davidians talking about "needing more fuel" before the fires broke out. Accelerant, in arson-investigator-speak.

If you have other evidence please post it, with a pointer or link to somewhere that it appears in the public record.

The recordings themselves, including the people talking about fuel, were broadcast as part of the Frontline documentary on Waco.

Just because the Branch Davidians were horribly mistreated, persecuted and some of them murdrered by the US government does not mean that the majority of them were not suicides. It gave them reason to kill themselves, to avoid the abuse the were certain would come (and lose their salvation). Claiming that the US government actually committed the crime of arson is weak and diverts attention from the crimes which are undeniable... and very successfully.