Slashdot Mirror


Voices in Your Head

ceejayoz writes "MSNBC/Newsweek is running a story about a 'Hypersonic Sound System' that can 'can take an audio signal from virtually any source and convert it to an ultrasonic frequency that can be directed like a beam of light toward a target up to 100 yards away.' Sounds like something that advertisers will love - Minority Report just got a little closer." These guys (and the Audio Spotlight guys) have been hyping this technology for years with nothing much to show from it. But now, Newsweek promises, it's going to change the world as we hear it.

336 comments

  1. psych-ops by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

    imagine how much this would freak out enemy soldiers :)

    1. Re:psych-ops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should have Tom Green at the microphone. That would be funny.

    2. Re:psych-ops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, if you can hit an enemy soldier in the head with a thin beam of audio, you can also hit him in the head with a bullet, which is considerably cheaper in the long run.

    3. Re:psych-ops by clockwise_music · · Score: 1

      Yeah man.. awesome.. imagine how much it would freak out _you_.

    4. Re:psych-ops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that nowadays everyone but you has come to the realization that Tom Green is a fucking retard.

    5. Re:psych-ops by yasth · · Score: 1

      Is it really?

      I mean imagine this:

      Voice: This is Allah.
      Startled T: Huh (looks around)
      Voice: No one else can here me but you. I have a task for you. Your commander is a traitor, you must kill him before tonight or many faithful will die.
      Startled T: but...
      Voice: Silence! Do it or you renounce me!
      Startled T: ok

      See? it can be used to play sick games. Ok maybe a bullet qould be cheaper, but inciting troops to comit fratricide is so much more interesting.

      --
      I'd do something interesting, but my server can't handle a slashdotting.
    6. Re:psych-ops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      generally why would the military bother? Not many practical applications outside of maybe crowd control. After all if you can get something in place to fire a sound beam at somebody's head you can almost certainly get something in place to fire a bullet...

      "Yes, now we can disorientate enemy troops."
      "uh yeah. or we could just kill them."

    7. Re:psych-ops by Clockwork+Apple · · Score: 1

      Um yes I suppose you could but that corpse the bullet will make WILL NOT switch sides and inform on his commrads, provide slave labor, or pay taxes. All of these are things the military/gov. would find worth "saving a bullet" to do.

      --
      "Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."
    8. Re:psych-ops by Grizzlysmit · · Score: 1
      See? it can be used to play sick games. Ok maybe a bullet qould be cheaper, but inciting troops to comit fratricide is so much more interesting.

      Come on we shouldn't use technology to hurt people, instead use it to cull vermin; "Like Billy Gates"!!!

      P.S. Note to mad scientists no, no need to genetically engineer us another Billy, we now understand what you get when you code for all AssHole.

      --
      in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that :-D
      Francis Smit
  2. not 1st by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not 1st post!

  3. My Voices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My voices tell me that Linux doesn't belong on my desktop.

  4. [Trolling Stones] oh yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    g to the oatse
    c to the izzex
    fo shizzle my nizzle fill in your own witty comment here

  5. What if it gets turned up to 11?? by billmaly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My only concern here is what happens when someone cranks up the amp on this and points it at someone's head at close range? Does it become a sonic bullet, destroying hearing (or worse), or is it limited in it's power by default?

    1. Re:What if it gets turned up to 11?? by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      They actually mention that in the article - incapacitating enemy soldiers by blasting 'em with 150 decibels.

      Dunno how they plan to stop people from doing that...

    2. Re:What if it gets turned up to 11?? by shird · · Score: 1

      Dunno how they plan to stop people from doing that...

      I thought the same thing about guns.

      --
      I.O.U One Sig.
    3. Re:What if it gets turned up to 11?? by Xaje · · Score: 1

      Actually, such an application is being considered by the military. Although they haven't committed to anything, they find it appealing to be able to make an enemy hear a decoy explosion, or even deafen the bejezus out of him!

    4. Re:What if it gets turned up to 11?? by EvanED · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sound doesn't deafen people. People deafen people.

    5. Re:What if it gets turned up to 11?? by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      Yes, but this is a little harder to figure out who's doing it - they're the only one who can hear anything. Imagine someone just starts to twitch on the street and you can't figure out why.

    6. Re:What if it gets turned up to 11?? by guttentag · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If you're really opposed to this form of advertising, you'll be able to call and 800 number and opt out. Then they will be required to leave you alone for five years, at which point you can opt out again if you haven't had a change of heart after seeing how this method of advertising has improved the lives of your friends and coworkers.

      Even if you don't opt out, with 300 million people receiving over 100 direct audio marketing messages each day, you'd be more likely to get struck by lightning than injured by a "faulty" ad beam.

      ---

      On a more serious, but related and entirely factual note... while making a purchase at Barnes and Noble one day, the cashier asked if I would like to join their discount club (pay $xx per year in trade for a percentage discount and presumably a neverending stream of electronic and snail junk mail).

      "No thank you," I told her. "I get enough junk mail as it is."

      "Oh come on," she urged, waving my credit card in a way that scared me. "You could save five dollars right here on this purchase!"

      "I said 'no.'"

      "Personally I like receiving things in the mail. I know that may sound pathetic, but it makes me feel good because no one ever mails me stuff."

      "Give me my card back."

      "But I haven't rung your order up--"

      "Give me my card back now or I'm calling the police. You have been insulting my intelligence for the last two minutes in an attempt to sell me something I have repeatedly stated I don't want and now you are holding my credit card hostage."

      She just stared at me in disbelief until I pulled out my cell phone, at which point she handed my card back and I walked out -- leaving the books on the counter.

    7. Re:What if it gets turned up to 11?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, well, well. Aren't you the hard case?
      Hey Earl, how do we feel about hard cases?
      We don't like 'em John...we don't like 'em at all.
      I say we gangrape him in the bum and make him lick the shit off our tallywackers.
      Great idea Earl!

    8. Re:What if it gets turned up to 11?? by XNormal · · Score: 2

      You could ask the same of regular speakers - what happens if someone cranks up the amp and points it at people at close range? Does it cause damage to people's hearing?

      Oh, wait. This is happening all the time in dance clubs - they always play at levels that cause irreversible hearing damage.

      IIRC, this device uses levels similar to medical ultrasound but since it's not in direct contact with the body the coupling loss is huge (tens of dbs).

      --
      Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
    9. Re:What if it gets turned up to 11?? by Ig0r · · Score: 2

      Always?
      We need to shut them down.

      Won't someone please think of the children!

      --
      Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
    10. Re:What if it gets turned up to 11?? by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Congratulations, you're an ass. Y'know those clerks get bitched at for *not* being persistent with that stuff dont you? She was, in a roundabout way, doing her job

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    11. Re:What if it gets turned up to 11?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She liked you.
      Your one chance and you blew it.

    12. Re:What if it gets turned up to 11?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People will catch on pretty quickly, especially if the strange behaviour is happening near to a blacked out van or whatever. Some people claim that a lot of this stuff was tried out on Greenham Common protestors in the `80s.

    13. Re:What if it gets turned up to 11?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Figured out why you`re still a virgin yet?

    14. Re:What if it gets turned up to 11?? by Deosyne · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Good job. Time to hit these pushy pricks where it hurts: in the bottom line. But the clerk was just doing her job, waaah. I don't give a shit. I didn't force these two-legged mules to get these particular jobs, nor did anyone else. There are plenty of jobs that even the dumbest individual can get that don't require one to hassle the shit out of people who have successfully mastered the ability to think for themselves. Fuck pushy register jockeys, telemarketers, spammers, dorr-to-door salesmen and all of the other jackoffs who think that I am incapable of determining what I want in life and so bug the shit out of me in order to let me know every fucking day.

      Having worked in customer service for years before going to school, I've becoming one of the most patient and mellow customers in the world, but I have two strict limits: within the confines of my home and after I've said "no thanks". From that point, if you persist in bothering me, we're going to find out how quickly I can break you, because I have quite clearly indicated my disinterest yet you have chosen to persist, indicating that you clearly don't give a shit about how I feel, so I'm happy to reciprocate at that point.

      And if these marketing scumbags starts beaming sounds into my ears, they'll have found a third limit, and I'm going to start delivering my size 12s into some transmitters. Damned if I'm going to deal with having advertising forced on me so that I can't turn it off or ignore it.

    15. Re:What if it gets turned up to 11?? by foeclan · · Score: 1

      I've never received unsolicited mail (electronic or otherwise) from Barnes and Noble, and I've had their discount card and I've been using bn.com for close to 2 years. The only thing they mailed was was their 'Book Magazine' (or whatever it's called), and there was an option not to receive it.

      Just figured I'd mention that.

    16. Re:What if it gets turned up to 11?? by sjames · · Score: 2

      Congratulations, you're an ass. Y'know those clerks get bitched at for *not* being persistent with that stuff dont you? She was, in a roundabout way, doing her job

      All salespeople are just doing their job. Does that make me an ass if I refuse to do business with a corperation that chooses to have their salespeople pester? How about if the spammer is just doing his job? Am I an ass for trying to get his email account closed? How about for putting him on my mailer's twitlist?

  6. Sonic Guns? by cheesethegreat · · Score: 2, Informative

    The technology creats a sound wave at the point where the two ultrasonics intersect. So, if the energy of the ultrasonics were high enough, or enough ultrasonic waves intersected close to each other, this could create a huge sonic force, enough to throw someone through the air, or knock down walls. Interesting weaponry applications, eh?

    1. Re:Sonic Guns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vibrations throwing someone in the air?

    2. Re:Sonic Guns? by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Informative

      Theoretically possible. Virbrations are a manifestation of kinetic energy, with air (in this case) being the medium. Given enough energy and the right harmonics, it could potentially at least knock someone over. Ever see a glass shattered by the right sound at the right intensity?

      A more 'practical' weapons application would be as a type of stun device, though. Hell, they are getting ready to start deploying a sonic based 'non-lethal' weapon, it's already mounted on a destroyer. Supposedly makes it impossible to do anything but clap your hands on your head and cry 'make it stop' over and over.

    3. Re:Sonic Guns? by sgtsanity · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This would be about as effective as setting a large speaker on high and setting it up against the wall. The range is the only thing that makes it effective. Far better ways of knocking down a wall would be to amplify the natural resonance of an object, like Tesla did a time or two. It creates a nifty little earthquake effect using a device about as big as an alarm clock.

    4. Re:Sonic Guns? by Exatron · · Score: 1
      A more 'practical' weapons application would be as a type of stun device, though. Hell, they are getting ready to start deploying a sonic based 'non-lethal' weapon, it's already mounted on a destroyer. Supposedly makes it impossible to do anything but clap your hands on your head and cry 'make it stop' over and over.

      I thought that was what Celine Dion and the various boyband clones were for.
      --
      "I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
      "Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
    5. Re:Sonic Guns? by letxa2000 · · Score: 0
      Far better ways of knocking down a wall would be to amplify the natural resonance of an object, like Tesla did a time or two.

      Two other better ways of knocking down walls:

      At close range, bulldozers.

      At long range, cruise missiles.

      Both are tested and proven. :)

    6. Re:Sonic Guns? by Skapare · · Score: 2

      It would be more like the exploding brain syndrome. I doubt it can throw someone in the air or knock down a wall, but possibly shatter a big hole in that wall.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    7. Re:Sonic Guns? by Jerf · · Score: 3, Informative

      People's bodies do not have strong resonance frequencies. Without that, nobody's going to be "knocked over" by a sound wave.

      "Stun" devices remain science fiction. In fact the idea that a person's nervous system could be somehow incapacitated with sound dates at least back to the late fifties, and you might be able to push it back to the forties or further with some research. (I know I've read fifties-era sci-fi that has sonic stun guns, though, so I'll stick with that.) In fact, it stems from the same misunderstanding promulgated by Star Trek, that everything has a resonance frequency and is just waiting to have havoc done to it by a passing vibrating object. It should not surprise you that the idea has fared about as well as the contemporary rocket jet packs and meals in pill form have fared in real life... what faint vestiges of them exist hardly resemble the '50's conception of them.

      This page has a pretty good analysis on the topic, and should probably be considered required reading for all of the budding psuedo-science stun gun designers on Slashdot today.

      (By contrast, simply blasting soldiers or rioters with high-energy sounds, distracting sounds, or even (perhaps ideally in the military sense) misleading sound is quite practical, even if less sexy.)

    8. Re:Sonic Guns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds like a plot to a bad Shaq movie... oh wait, it is!

    9. Re:Sonic Guns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You said 'NEVER, cross the streams!'?

    10. Re:Sonic Guns? by LBU.Zorro · · Score: 1

      Erm, not quite true, at least in one respect.

      True yes, human bodies do not have strong resonance frequencies, and that's primarily because we are soft. Only our bones are particularly hard. As you vibrate innacuracies such as your breathing, blood being pumped all vary your 'resonant' frequency. Even moving your arm alters the standing wave you would produce, thus it would be incredibly difficult if not impossible to shatter someone (even their bones since they change according to the stresses and contact with other materials).

      Having said that however, the assertion that it is impossible to 'knock someone over' with a sound wave is false. It is actually possible, and here's why:

      Sound is nothing more than our brains interpreting compressions and refactions of the atmosphere. These waves can vary in frequency, hence the higher and lower pitched noises, and can vary in amplitutde, hence the louder and quieter noises. What these really are are 'walls' (concave-flat depending on the source) of high and low pressure air radiating from the sound source. Akin to waves in the sea, you have a trough, low pressure and a peak, high pressure. If you had a wave of sufficient amplitude you could be running from vacuum to 2 atmospheres (might actually be higher than that). This creates a wave scenario where you have a fast moving ~600MPH wall of air of a pressure difference of two atmospheres. Easily sufficient to knock someone down, its akin to jumping out of a plane doing 1200 MPH, it throws you back, fast.

      The reason normal sound does not do this is that the amplitude is too small, even the loudest of concerts doesn't have the 'directed' power (noting that the aim is not to focus the power on someone, but to provide it to all the audience) necessary to knock someone down.

      This is not going into the stun devices, but phasors cannot work anyhow, looking at the link the person who wrote the page seems to believe that they were based on laser technology, this causes a problem since it will just burn holes in people, that would stun me, but I'd likely die shortly afterwards. The link has very little to do with sonic based weaponry, which is a pity.

      Z.

    11. Re:Sonic Guns? by Drownedrat · · Score: 1
      The technology creats a sound wave at the point where the two ultrasonics intersect. So, if the energy of the ultrasonics were high enough, or enough ultrasonic waves intersected close to each other, this could create a huge sonic force, enough to throw someone through the air, or knock down walls. Interesting weaponry applications, eh?

      Wrong end of the spectrum. Ultralow frequency knocks buildings down and jellies people. Was discovered by a french guy about 20 years ago.

      Believe there was an application to fatigue materials through high frequency sound.

      Ultrasonic scalpels also exist, but suspect had to focus at this range. Saw a demo where a pattern was burned into a (removed) kidney. When they'd finished sliced it open to show very neat tissue destruction. If worked at range you could do nasty things to someones brain, that might easily be missed or misdiagnosed in autopsy.

      D.

    12. Re:Sonic Guns? by Noofus · · Score: 2

      Ypu cant make energy. Thus this would only be possible with some way of amplifying the 'sound' to high levels with a large amplifier. A few kilowatts will be needed to knock someone over. (It takes a few horsepower to move a person around with a car/lawn tractor). A low (10hz) tone amplified to a few kilowatts will definatly be sufficient to 'move' a large object like a person. Ever been to a rock concert? Notice the multi-kilowatt amp stacks? Ever feel the bass pounding deep in your chest? Imagine that, but have the bass be below your threshold of hearing, much more powerful, and the entire force of the wave directed at you specifically.

    13. Re:Sonic Guns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the person who wrote that knows that Ultralow frequencies are the natural resonant frequencies of the human body. He says "So, if the energy of the ultrasonics were high enough, or enough ultrasonic waves intersected close to each other, this could create a huge sonic force". Essentially there is only a 6 to 8 hz difference between the ultrasonic frequencies. Yes he is off by a little when you think of what humans can hear but there are animals which can hear at those frequencies. Oh, and about ultrasonic scalpels, essentially the tissue absorbs the energy from the wave and turns it into heat destroying the tissue. The waves would have to be pretty powerful to do anything at more than a meter range so it would just be better to microwave someones brain. And believe it or not the military has weapons to do this.

    14. Re:Sonic Guns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing about a natural frequency is that the amplitude is increased if something encounters its natural frequency as opposed to some other frequency. Infrasonic based weaponry takes advantage of this and essentially makes you cells dance really hard. But you see the thing about rock concerts is that they are using speakers and usually crappy speakers. Traditional speakers such as those found at rock concerts can not produce infrasonic sounds. The harmful effects of infrasonic sound were discovered when a ventillation fan was vibrating around 6-8 hz and was carried down an airshaft and then which resonated a scientist. He became sick and unable to work. He decided to research infrasonic sound after that was thought to be the cause. He produces the 6-8 hz tones with gigantic pipes. And later on with police whistles with a diameter of 2 meters or so because speakers can not produce infrasonic sounds. I have no idea where people get the idea that buildings can be knocked over. But I do think that it might have something to do with the "vortex cannon" which produced tons of sonic pressure by mixing two gases and igniting them in little chambers and using parabolic reflectors to direct the sound. Regardless that does not use infrasound. All infrasound was shown to do is to incapacitate people.

    15. Re:Sonic Guns? by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      I remember reading something on the discovery channel on non-lethal weapons that indicated study was being done to use directed sound (in the subwoofer range or lower) focused on people's midsection to make 'em become disoriented and puke their guts out

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    16. Re:Sonic Guns? by Jerf · · Score: 2

      What you describe is not a sound wave, though. Sound is inherently an effect with frequency and amplitude. You describe a pressure wave, which happens to be the way sound waves work, but not all pressure waves are sound waves in the traditional sense of "sound". (Yes, one could craft a definition of sound that works the way you want, but one could do that for anything; it won't match the traditional meaning, nor will most 'rules' regarding sound waves hold up.)

      A nuclear bomb produces several huge pressure waves, as do some smaller explosives, but those aren't really sounds... when you get down to small fractions of a Hz, trying to understand them as sound waves will just mislead you. You're better off modeling them as 600Mph limited winds.

      Also, remember the context of the conversation... one does not use a "sonic gun" to create these waves, one uses a big-ass explosive. Any sound wave generated by a "sonic gun" as the original poster envisioned is never going to "knock anyone over". See "conservation of momentum".

    17. Re:Sonic Guns? by RegularFry · · Score: 1
      A nuclear bomb produces several huge pressure waves, as do some smaller explosives, but those aren't really sounds... when you get down to small fractions of a Hz, trying to understand them as sound waves will just mislead you.
      They are, though. They don't get misleading if your model of sound isn't too simplistic. Hell, how do you think rifle sound suppressors work? All they do is filter the sound coming out of the barrel to attenuate the pop of the propellant.
      There's no reason you couldn't use a 'sonic gun' to produce a sound wave like that, as long as whatever passed for a membrane in the speaker could withstand the collossal movement involved, or avoided it somehow... Sometimes, it's easier to make beautiful music with C4.
      --
      Reality is the ultimate Rorschach.
    18. Re:Sonic Guns? by RegularFry · · Score: 1
      This is not going into the stun devices, but phasors cannot work anyhow, looking at the link the person who wrote the page seems to believe that they were based on laser technology, this causes a problem since it will just burn holes in people, that would stun me, but I'd likely die shortly afterwards. The link has very little to do with sonic based weaponry, which is a pity.
      I think you may have missed the point of the link, but that's OK, 'cos I didn't think much of the phaser debunking section myself either. Basically, what the linked page was trying to say was that phase coherence is irrelevant if you've got frequency coherence, because the average amount of energy is the same whether or not the phase is matched. Leaving aside the likelihood of nonlinearities in the response of the target making peaks more dangerous, it has nothing to do with the current topic, because, with a sound wave (and with a laser, but for different reasons), if you've got frequency coherence, you've always got phase coherence.

      Anyway, the phaser explanation I always liked was the one where you use a UV laser to ionise a path through the air, then transmit T-waves down your newly-formed conductor to incapacitate your intended date^H^H^H^Hvictim.
      --
      Reality is the ultimate Rorschach.
    19. Re:Sonic Guns? by exploder · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure that "conservation of momentum" necessarily prevents a sonic gun of this type from knocking someone over. Think about how it operates...a pair of ultrasonic waves interfere at the distination to produce a lower-frequency wave. Now, the ultrasonic waves are directional, but is the resultant wave? If it radiated from the destination in all directions, then the user of the gun wouldn't feel any reaction force.

      --
      Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
    20. Re:Sonic Guns? by LBU.Zorro · · Score: 1

      Technically it is a sound wave, I never mentioned the frequency, merely the amplitude, it could be running at 5kHz, I'm not saying its currently possible with our level of technology but in theory it would be possible. Yes you can say that it is best to model it as a wind, but at what point do you draw a line? Limits of human hearing?

      I also wasn't talking about the device mentioned in the article, since it really isn't going to be able to create the necessary level of power. Especially since the ultrasonic wave's amplitude will need to be around the same level I believe to recombine to the necessary force. And its harder to create high frequency high amplitude sound than low frequency high amplitude sound. I merely was arguing that in theory it is possible to knock someone down with what would be classed as a sound wave.

      As for it being impossible to create a sonic gun, I don't think so, very difficult, but you won't necessarily need to use explosives to generate it. As a point actually, explosives don't create true sound waves. The majority of explosives (not atomic) work by creating vast quantities of gas (normally CO2 or CO) in a very short space of time, thus you end up with a shockwave, this shockwave is a positive displacement of air, a high pressure wave. Whereas a soundwave doesn't actually move the air, the wave travels through the medium without moving the medium (as a net result; there is some movememnt as the wave travels, but it is on average zero movement). I was actually talking about a true soundwave, +x -x of the medium's pressure.

      Conservation of momentum is not really a limiting factor, true its not going to throw the target 20 miles, and in fact, will literally only knock him down akin to a wave on a beach, pretty much on the spot because of the sudden changes in the directions of the force, pull towards the low pressure, pushed by the high pressure..

      Z.

  7. I can see it already now: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny


    Hey baby, this is your appetite speaking
    </Barry White>

    1. Re:I can see it already now: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh Hungry? Oh Henry!

    2. Re:I can see it already now: by Stephen+VanDahm · · Score: 1

      "Hey baby, this is your appetite speaking"

      Case in point. I've got the TV on in the background. Right as I read your post, the Barry White ad came on TV. I felt violated somehow.

      Steve

  8. That technology has been around for a while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I've been hearing voices in my head for years now

    1. Re:That technology has been around for a while by kasperd · · Score: 1

      I've been hearing voices in my head for years now

      That also happens to me once in a while. What really bothers me is that there tend to be three of them arguing loudly with each other in a language I do not understand. Do you have any idea how annoying that can be?

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
  9. Innovation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Picture a car where parents can listen to the Eagles while their kids wild out to Eminem in the back seat."

    Picture a world where we've already invented headphones...

    1. Re:Innovation? by laymil · · Score: 1

      well, the problem with that is this:

      ITS ILLEGAL TO DRIVE WITH HEADPHONES ON.

      although personally i'd rather see people with headphones instead of subs...but then again, what do i know.

    2. Re:Innovation? by GreenHell · · Score: 1

      I think he's referring to the kids having the headphones on. That's what normally happened during my car rides, the parents tuned the radio to golden-oldies, and I popped a tape in my walkman and put on my headphones.

      --
      "I won't mod you down - I feel the need to call you a twit explicitly, rather than by implication."
    3. Re:Innovation? by laymil · · Score: 1

      not if you go by what the article talks about. what you're thinking about has the car stereo playing music over speakers...which isn't the same as the technology in the article.

      therefore, everyone would have to wear headphones...otherwise the analogy/suggested solution doesn't have the same appeal.

    4. Re:Innovation? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Then you need to either run your volume too loud or suffer from the golden oldies bleeding through.

    5. Re:Innovation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The irony is killing me.

    6. Re:Innovation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know CD players are cheap, if you needed to use tape to shut yours, you should have just bought a new one. I had a cd player once where the little latch was broken, I didn't have tape, I had to use my hands. :( oh and you spelled "disk" wrong, (you know the w-d and the i-a are well seperated.)

    7. Re:Innovation? by Mopana · · Score: 1

      An actor friend of mine mentioned something like this a while back. Apparently it's starting to make a mark in the theater world. Actor's get coached just like athletes. At a rehearsal, the director refines and fixes problems as they occur, but at an actual performance the actor is on his own. Now it's possible to coach while the audience is watching. Forgotten lines, obviously, but the director can shift the mood of a scene with a simple passing comment to the performer. Makes a big difference.

  10. Oh boy... by Anonymous+Cowtard · · Score: 1
    Can't wait until advertisers get their hands on this tech.

    Voice in my head: "Hey you, wouldn't you love some nice Starbucks(TM) coffee?"
    Me: "Huh, wha? Who is saying that? Get out of my head!!!"
    Policeman: "Please come with me. There are some nice men in white coats that'll make it all better."

    1. Re:Oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when advertisers start using this sort of tech to project voices inside my head i will stop at nothing to KILL all advertisers...

      KILL all advertisers

      KILL all advertisers

      KILL all advertisers

  11. Just like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Damn its just like what the girls at Digital Teenz do when they are sucking your dick

  12. Anti-sound beam hat? by Skeld · · Score: 1

    Hopefully with sound beams will come anti-sound beams. If not... this technology might become a bit of a headache.

    -Skeld

    1. Re:Anti-sound beam hat? by JPriest · · Score: 1

      I wonder if it will fit over top of the tinfoil hat I am wearing.

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    2. Re:Anti-sound beam hat? by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 2
      You can already buy noise-cancelling headphones. They are wonderful things. I wish they incorporated active noise-cancelling into many other things.

      Consider a car with active sound dampening. no road noise. No passing car noise. However, active sound dampening could be used intelligently, to allow you to clearly hear sirens, horns, etc.

      Of course, with the sound beams and active noise cancelling, the driver could (theoretically, with enough sensors & speakers) hold a hands-free cellphone conversation without the passengers being able to hear.

      Frightening.

      --
      That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
    3. Re:Anti-sound beam hat? by EvanED · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But you're stealing from the advertisers if you do that. It's theft. Your contract with the store when you walk in is that you're going to listen to the ads. Otherwise they couldn't sell as many things. Any time you don't listen to one of our advertisements you're actually tresspassing in the store.

      (If that sounds familiar, you might be thinking of this article)

  13. uhh, TLC had this a *looong* time ago by soupforare · · Score: 0

    One of their 'spy' specials.
    Intel agencies have been using IR and LASER beams bounced off of windows of Embassys to hear the conversations within.

    --
    --- Do you believe in the day?
    1. Re:uhh, TLC had this a *looong* time ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but you're an idiot. Please contact your parents about some retroactive abortion, the Pope will make an exception for you.

    2. Re:uhh, TLC had this a *looong* time ago by The+Raven · · Score: 2

      Yo didn't read the article, did you? This does not LISTEN to people, it does the reverse... it sends a directed 'beam' of sound, that cannot be heard anywhere except inside the beam itself. True, private sound that can be directed just like a beam of light. Read the article, then post.

      --
      "I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
    3. Re:uhh, TLC had this a *looong* time ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the reason you're such an off-track dipshit is that ol' woody's beaming that crazy talk into your head right about now...hey, whats that in that building over thar ?????

  14. Have I got a product for you.. by James_G · · Score: 5, Funny
    If advertisers like this, then I've got an even better device. Rather than broadcasting to a single individual up to 100 yards away, it will broadcast to EVERY SINGLE PERSON within a 500 yard radius! It's a device I like to call a "speaker" and you're going to see a lot of these around over the coming years.

    This amazing device can be yours for a minimal price. Just sent me $2000 and I'll ship a couple of devices capable of producing hundreds of watts of sound. None of this crappy 1 person 100 yards away stuff.. Man, where do they get their ideas?

    1. Re:Have I got a product for you.. by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but regular speakers don't feel like they're coming from inside your head. Think Minority Report - personalized advertisements etc. only you can hear.

    2. Re:Have I got a product for you.. by superpeach · · Score: 1

      But, thats just normal advertising.. people now expect to get 'personalised' adverts. You wont get many 20 year old women buying viagra, and you wont get many 70 year old men buying the ${MOST_POPULAR_BOYBAND} CD. With a load of sound beaming toys stuck in a town center, the advertisers could splurt different ad's out to the people who are most likely to obey them, all at the same time.
      Of course, they would need some clever way to quickly identify which person is most likely to buy what, but thats for someone else to work out.

    3. Re:Have I got a product for you.. by Ride-My-Rocket · · Score: 2

      All I want is self-cleaning underwear, for those really intense LAN deathmatches. Is that too much to ask for?

    4. Re:Have I got a product for you.. by letxa2000 · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Think Minority Report - personalized advertisements etc. only you can hear.

      Off-topic, but...

      I just saw Minority Report last night. While it would make sense that you'd only hear the advertising directed at you, I got the impression that wasn't the case. You could hear the "voice advertising" at the Gap store talking to the next customer that came in and Tom Cruise gave the customer a weird look for his choice of previous purchases.

      The kind of "advertising" shown in Minority Report would be both annoying and an invasion of privacy since it appeared everyone could hear your name and/or whatever "customized message" the advertiser wanted you to hear.

      I often wonder which will happen first: A "Minority Report" style advertising world where we're (even more) saturated with messages, or a world where the advertising world realizes that they've already reached saturation, the laws of diminishing returns have set in, and prodicing more intrusive advertisements in larger quantities only diminishes the consumers' response to such messages as they automatically "tune them out."

    5. Re:Have I got a product for you.. by Stephen+VanDahm · · Score: 2

      "It's a device I like to call a "speaker" and you're going to see a lot of these around over the coming years ... This amazing device can be yours for a minimal price ... [of] $2000...."

      Over my dead body! My company, Stevetech.com, has been awarded a patent for our revolutionary "speaker" technology. You'll be hearing from my army of lawyers soon!

      Only kidding,

      Steve

    6. Re:Have I got a product for you.. by Moofie · · Score: 1

      I don't care about personalized advertising. I want LESS ADVERTISING.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    7. Re:Have I got a product for you.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that if your speaker is too big you get arrested ... if all the projected noise sources are below legal levels (it doesnt need to be loud if its next to your ear) you can reach huge crowds without getting arrested (until laws are updated).

    8. Re:Have I got a product for you.. by sflanker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you are missing the point. Retailers have used sound for the purpose of marketing virtually forever. The bell on an ice-cream truck is a good example, or a vendor shouting about they're product in a market. So why doesn't everybody use this? Because in most settings it's annoying, it disturbs everyone in the general area, and it raises the ambient noise in the area.

      Imagine window-shopping in a mall. Now imagine every store constantly broadcasting about they're products loud enough for every one around to hear. All of a sudden this has become a very unpleasant environment. Now image that as you walk passed a particular store, looking at something in the window, and the store whispers to you, just you, about some of the products your seeing. Now you've been advertised to without disturbing all the passersby around you, the ambient noise is the same, and it's targeted marketing: don't yell at every one, talk to the guy who shows some interest. And as other technologies come along, such as face recognition, it can be personalized even further.

      So you go ahead and boast your current audio advertising methods, but they only place they're useful is on an ice-cream truck.

    9. Re:Have I got a product for you.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So you go ahead and boast your current audio advertising methods, but they only place they're useful is on an ice-cream truck.

      Excellent. Keep the ce cream trucks. All others FOAD.

  15. Potential SPAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There needs to be legislation to block this potential weapon from the hands of advertisers. If we act now we can stop it in its infant stages, before evil corporates get a hold of the technology. Hurry....

  16. Think about the Pop-up Ads by pardasaniman · · Score: 0

    Oh dear, A new way to spam people!!!

    1. Re:Think about the Pop-up Ads by ninkendo84 · · Score: 1

      100x redundant

      --

      $ make love
      make: don't know how to make love. Stop
    2. Re:Think about the Pop-up Ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It won't give up!
      It wants me dead!
      God damn this voice inside my head!

  17. I saw this on Batman Beyond by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In one episode, the villain (Shriek) was trying to make Bruce Wayne think he was crazy by projecting the sounds to him and only him as voices in his head. The best part of the episode was Bruce explaining how he knew he wasn't hearing voices in his head to Terry (the newer Batman). He knew the voice wasn't coming from inside his head because he doesn't call himself Bruce in his thoughts.

  18. ultrasonic by ninkendo84 · · Score: 1

    wait, doesn't ultrasonic mean it's beyond the range of human hearing? it's difficult for advertisers to target you if you can't hear them.

    --

    $ make love
    make: don't know how to make love. Stop
    1. Re:ultrasonic by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 2

      just as two frequencies of light make a different pattern when they interfere, the ultrasound makes different frequencies (sound) when they interfere.

      --
      That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
    2. Re:ultrasonic by Rellik66 · · Score: 1

      Think Subliminal messaging

      --

      Too many zeros, not enough ones

    3. Re:ultrasonic by The+Electric+Messiah · · Score: 1
      Just like the article states . . . When two sounds interfere, another sound which has the frequency of the difference between the two original sounds is produced.

      Anybody who's ever played a musical instrument in a small chamber-type group is familiar with this concept. For myself, it was introduced playing with Gerald Webster, a fine trumpet prof we had at Willamette University for a year. If two notes are played, and both notes are in tune relative to each other, a sub-tone is produced which at first sounds like a buzz in your ear. With practice, you can actually discern that the buzz harmonically "makes sense" with respect to the interval being played.

      The reason it was first discovered by in conjunction with high-powered notes from an organ is that the sub-tone is very low in volume. Think about the wave structure associated with a certain tone. Then superimpose your second tone with an equal volume, or amplitude. Find the difference, and the amplitude of the difference is going to be quite small compared with the original amplitudes.

      Hope that clears it up.

      --
      "Bold as Love"
    4. Re:ultrasonic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      should you get something like sin((a+b)/2)*sin((a-b)/2)? can one hear amplitude modulation?

    5. Re:ultrasonic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It actually produces two frequencies the subtraction and the addition of the frequencies. It is called heterodyning and it has been used for this application for a long time. It is called heterodyning. The theremin for example uses 200mhz frequencies to and a variable one with a range of 180-mhz-200mhz combined to produce audible noise. Not exactly like this because it was mixed before it went through a transducer.

      nk

    6. Re:ultrasonic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think a better way of describing it is through dissonance (which any musician should be familiar with, too). When you play two very similar notes, it pulsates rapidly, at varying frequencies depending on the closeness. If you could control this pulsating very finely, you could make a carrier signal beyond human hearing that would pulsate audibly when crossed with a slightly out of phase signal of close frequency.

  19. Broadcasting Thoughts by yintercept · · Score: 2

    Woody Norris wants to tell you something--and he can put the words inside your head from 100 yards away.

    Woody Norris thinks he is most clever scientist of the 21st century...but did Woody notice the yellow eyed green creature parked in a silver disk on the limbs the green tree 100 yards outside his office...

    1. Re:Broadcasting Thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? What are you talking about? Yellow-eyed green creature parked in a silver disk on the limbs of the green tree 100 yards away?

    2. Re:Broadcasting Thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're grey, not green.

  20. Just Super by Inexile2002 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now I can have information about increasing my penis 3 to 6 inches beamed directly into my head as I walk down the street. The very idea of pedestrian spam, spamming houses, cars, offices... give the advertisers military grade psychological warfare equipment and this will make email spam seem like well... something pretty damn trivial (drew a complete analogy blank there).

    The day I get blasted with an add for Coke beamed directly into my head while walking down the street is the day I quit my job and start organizing consumer boycotts full time.

    1. Re:Just Super by pla · · Score: 1

      The day I get blasted with an add for Coke beamed directly into my head while walking down the street is the day I quit my job and start organizing consumer boycotts full time.

      Nah. Just claim it whacked you with a painfully loud sound, and you had to trash their equipment in self defense. Who can prove you wrong, since only you could hear it?

    2. Re:Just Super by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 2

      PASTA - Post-Advertisement Stress-induced Traumatic Action

      Yes, after hearing commercials in their own heads for hours, people will be so stressed out that they will go crazy and start breaking stuff.

      A whole new later of temporary insanity. ;)

      --
      That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
    3. Re:Just Super by John+Hasler · · Score: 2


      The day I get blasted with an ad for Coke beamed directly into my head while walking down the street is the day that the guy running the beam gets his machine blasted somewhere that it won't fit very well.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    4. Re:Just Super by ElrondHubbard · · Score: 2

      Let me fill in the blank: This kind of targeted audio advertising will make e-mail spam seem about as obtrusive as a notice from the local council, prominently displayed at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, inside a disused lavatory, with a sign on the door reading "Beware of the Leopard".

      --
      "The deep-fried Mars bar is a symptom of a wider crisis." -- Nutritionist Ann Ralph, on the Scottish diet
    5. Re:Just Super by lpret · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it seems that we'll first have some pretty cool uses for this, but eventually we will have the ultimate spamming utility. This is stuff that marketing people with no ethics dream of.

      Also, wouldn't it give a lot of people an insanity defense for killing people, "The voices in my head told me to do it!!"?

      --
      This is my digital signature. 10011011001
    6. Re:Just Super by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the local planning department in AlphaCentauri for fifty of your earth years.

    7. Re:Just Super by Inexile2002 · · Score: 1

      Thank you! I hate drawing an analogy blank. Man, where were you the other day at the pub when I really needed you.

    8. Re:Just Super by Sauron23 · · Score: 1
      The day I get blasted with an ad for Coke beamed directly into my head while walking down the street is the day that the guy running the beam gets his machine blasted somewhere that it won't fit very well.
      Probably not if it's equipped with the 170db "self-defense" mode you won't.
    9. Re:Just Super by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The day I get blasted with an add for Coke beamed directly into my head while walking down the street is the day I quit my job and start organizing consumer boycotts full time.

      The day you get blasted with an ad for Coke directly at your head SHOULD be the day your Congressmen ban this privacy invading practice. Loud speakers is one thing, but if you can't even wear ear plugs and block it out that's quite another. Just because you're walking through a public place doesn't give advertisers the right to invade the privacy of your body.

      Remember people, this is OUR country and our representatives are elected by us to enact legislation that enforces our will. The problem is that over the last 50 years the child-like sheep attitude has crept up in this country that taking an active role in the governing of your country isn't important. The only thing that's important is acquiring more wealth to satiate the capitalist machine. What do we get for all of our troubles? Dot com bubbles, stock market crashes, entire life savings wiped out, and greedy (yes, GREEDY) executives walking away with hundreds of millions of dollars and laughing all the way to the bank while their employees are laid off and left with nothing, not even their retirement funds. This country and its legislature has bowed to and defended these corrupt corporate criminals for far too long. Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing, Adelphia, Tyco, AOL/Time Warner, etc. These are just some of the names of the massive scam artists who both empty your pocket book and ensure that the legacy you're leaving your children are harsh anti-freedom laws, poverty, and corrupt government. This country needs a massive movement to clean out the corrupt senators and representatives through any means necessary. I suggest first trying the peaceful means by voting them out of office, but this almost never works. The next freshmen that take their places are corrupted within 6 months by these same evil corporate interests. What can we really do though? It's a radical step, but a revolution may be in order. THAT my friends is why the Second Ammendment really exists. Not to defend your home against burglars or for hunting deer, it's to make sure that the people of this country are more heavily armed than even our standing army under the control of a corrupt government. 270 million American militia is quite a formidable force against even our best trained professional fighting army. Add in that they may choose not to fight their own brethren and family on the orders of a corrupt government and you can see that the American people rising up against their corrupt government would be able to enact changes. It is every Americans god-given right to replace their government with another if they fail to follow our will. The founding fathers made CERTAIN that we understood that from their writings. The corrupt government would have you believe this is not the case though and anyone thinking this is a traitor. Sorry friends, but people taking money on the side from powerful CEOs to enact laws to imprison our citizens over shit as stupid as copyright infringement are the real traitors. The tree of liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots.

    10. Re:Just Super by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They outlawed compulsive subsonics in our aural advertising...stopped us from projecting our messages on aircar windows...soon we'll be testing a system that projects direct on the retina of the eye."

      Fred Pohl brought up all of this fifty years ago in The Space Merchants. Eerily prescient.

  21. uhh.... how does this work? by terradyn · · Score: 1

    I read the article and still don't quite get how you can hear it if it is hypersonic. Does it cause your eardrum to vibrate at hypersonic speeds? If so, how do you hear this and does it cause more damage to your ears than traditional headphones? The military applications are definitely interesting to say the least.

    1. Re:uhh.... how does this work? by The+Raven · · Score: 2

      A previous article (months or years ago) said that it worked by setting up interference patterns in the ultrasonic beam. Just like interference patterns in normal sound can let you make subsonic noises, interference patterns in the ultrasonic beam can create audible sound.

      Exactly how they do it? I dunno. I'm not even sure they have released their method to the public yet.

      --
      "I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
    2. Re:uhh.... how does this work? by B1ackDragon · · Score: 1

      But then wouldn't the interference pattern act just like a regular speaker? How do they keep it so just one person can hear it, and no one else? They make it sound like its bypassing the ear entirely, which surely can't be possible. I mean, if I can hear it, then sounds waves _are_ being produced (interference created or otherwise) so why can't the guy next to me? I must say I'm skeptical...

      --
      The snow doesn't give a soft white damn whom it touches. -- ee cummings
    3. Re:uhh.... how does this work? by man_ls · · Score: 2

      Much of the sound of your own voice while speaking is not sound waves traveling back in through your ears -- they are the result of vibrations of your skull from speaking.

      This will probably operate on the same principle -- a 51HZ beam at one waveform and a 50Hz at an opposite will partially cancel, and you get a 1Hz resonance inside your skull, which you hear much as you would your own voice while speaking.

    4. Re:uhh.... how does this work? by RpiMatty1 · · Score: 1

      Because of the fact that the waves are higher frequency (which means they have ashorter wavelength), the waves can be directed to a spot better.
      The person next to you may be able to hear, but the area in which the sound can be heard is much smaller than with conventional speakers. IT is probably very small.
      Much like a laser is more focused than a flashlight.

    5. Re:uhh.... how does this work? by Eccles · · Score: 1

      But then wouldn't the interference pattern act just like a regular speaker?

      My guess is that it is two beams projected from slightly different points, so the sound is only heard at the intersection point of the two beams.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    6. Re:uhh.... how does this work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      interesting. I was unaware that the human ear can hear frequencies of 1HZ. can we also see EM energy at 1HZ?

  22. Can we by jsse · · Score: 1

    cheat in examination with this?

  23. heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    This is God, Stop jacking off.

    1. Re:heh by kidface · · Score: 0

      Real Genius. One of Val Kilmer's finest works!

  24. scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine whispering words into the ears of enemy soldiers.

    Soldier #1 hears "You are going to die." whispered into his ear - as if by someone standing next to him, but no one's there. He turns to Soldier #2 and says, "Oh my God, did you hear that?"

    Soldier #2: "What are you talking about? I didn't hear anything."

    Soldier #1 thinks he's going crazy.

    1. Re:scary by starX · · Score: 1

      Actually I tend to think it would still go a little like this:

      Soldier #1 and Soldier #2 die because they were hit on a carpet bombing run, because they were spotted by a sattelite orbitting the earth. When we can actually get the sattelites to shoot the bullets and just send people up to reload once every few months, then THAT will be scary.

    2. Re:scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's simpler than that, really. they use the existing spy sattelites, and then shoot off ICBM's - intercontenental balistic missiles - from the other side of the world. by the definition of space, they actually do enter space... and then come plummeting down w/in 30 m or less of their intended target. they don't even have to reload the spy sattelites. i think we did this for a considerable amount of desert storm, and exclusively for the first week or so of the attack on afghanastan

    3. Re:scary by DimitryP · · Score: 1

      ICBMS were not used in ether desert storm or afganistan. you may be thinking of cruise missiles, which do not enter space at all. ICBMs are generally used for nuclear warhead delivery.

      --
      Guns are like umbrellas and condoms. Better to have one and not need it, than need it and not have one.
  25. Why this -won't- change the world as we hear it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They seem to miss why this may be a useful invention,
    but not a revolutionizing one.

    Consider where and when we have speakers today. Would the function be improved by being able to target a specific person?
    Why would this technology lead to sound being used where it previously has not?

  26. conversely by rigelstar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The real winner will be the engineer that develops a practical system to counter-act such a device. A small device such as a watch that can detect the signal and then send a destructive wave to cancel the signal would be good.

    1. Re:conversely by sgtsanity · · Score: 1

      Actually, they already have such systems. However, they're a bit on the bulky side and are used to lessen the running noise from things like cars and airplanes.

    2. Re:conversely by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      I'd rather a laser death beam that automatically takes out the guy who's beaming the "ENLARGE YOUR PENIS" adverts into my head.

    3. Re:conversely by XaXXon · · Score: 1

      The real winner will be the engineer that develops a practical system to counter-act such a device. A small device such as a watch that can detect the signal and then send a destructive wave to cancel the signal would be good.

      ahh, but that's not possible. It works with normal sound waves because they go out pretty much evenly in all directions. But this sound works more like a laser. You can't tell that there's a laser somewhere unless it hits you. So this watch wouldn't be able to produce anti-sound unless the the sound beam was hitting it. And if the sound is hitting the watch, it's not hitting your ears, so who cares.

    4. Re:conversely by Sauron23 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      headphones.

      Now to get around the stupid slashcode I'll blather on about nothing for a few lines. How about we couple this to the tracking tech that was on /. a while back. That might have been HP, with the smart card/radio(?) badges you wore around the office...

      Sure your boss will tell you it's all for efficiency. It'll be quieter in the office, no more broadcast pages, everyone will have their electronic dog collar on. "You have a call on line 4". At least until managment turns the real efficiency program on.

      Joe Worker hanging out at the water cooler talking to Peggy Receptionist for a couple of minutes. At 2 minutes one second: "Your yearly review is in 23 days Joe Worker, your truency with Miss Receptionist has been noted in your HR file. This is your 3 notice this week Mr. Worker" This in your bosses voice.

      Live the fantasy.

    5. Re:conversely by flux · · Score: 1

      But you could detect one of the two beams while you pass it (or its reflection). I imagine such detectors could be placed to public parks or other such places, if deemed necessary..

    6. Re:conversely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of those robotic flies with an ultrasonic direction-finder and an exothermic payload should do the trick!

    7. Re:conversely by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 2

      A practical system to counter-act such devices: a directional ultrasonic receiver & a hammer.

      You can claim "justifiable insanity" at the trial: "Yes Yer Honor, I _was_ hearing voices in my head!"

  27. Minority Report by GT_Alias · · Score: 1
    I was watching Minority Report trying to figure out how they might be able to do that directed advertising you'd see in the scenes where Mr. Cruise would be walking through the public areas, hearing advertisements spoken to him directly. This seems like just the answer, every single person that walked by would get eye-scanned, ID'd, and have a custom ad delivered straight to their ears.

    Scary.

    1. Re:Minority Report by Catbeller · · Score: 2

      That wasn't a coincidence. Speilberg had a large number of people interested in future technological developments come up with rational extropolations of current research. The MIT project, for instance, to produce just this effect.
      So, just about everything you saw in Minority Report, tech-wise, is under consideration somewhere.

      I, however, am sadly certain that this will be used as a weapon. Blow a person's eardrums out with that thing, or even worse. How much sonic energy does it take to make your head blow up like an overheated pumpkin?

      Is there a defence that can be devised? 180-out-of-phase speakers? What?

      Physics majors, any answers?

    2. Re:Minority Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see why people are worried about this being used as a weapon. We already have plenty of weapons that can blow your head up from a distance. If anything, this is more limited because it requires two synchronized sound sources.

    3. Re:Minority Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, however, am sadly certain that this will be used as a weapon. Blow a person's eardrums out with that thing, or even worse. How much sonic energy does it take to make your head blow up like an overheated pumpkin?

      Well what do you want? Liberals bitch and moan when we kill people with guns so they want some non-lethal weapons. We come up with ways to blind and deafen enemy soldiers without killing them and then they complain about that! What would you like us to shoot at them, nerf weapons? Should we just roll over and let the enemy march right down Pennsylvania Avenue?

    4. Re:Minority Report by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Funny


      Physics majors, any answers?

      A simple metal helmet should protect you. In fact, tinfoil might be sufficient.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    5. Re:Minority Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Should we just roll over and let the enemy march right down Pennsylvania Avenue?

      Sorry, too late.

    6. Re:Minority Report by BoBaBrain · · Score: 2

      "Score:4 Informative"

      The mind boggles...

      I said it before and I'll say it again. We need to use the [HUMOUR] tags.

      --
      I am a Karma Library.
    7. Re:Minority Report by zCyl · · Score: 2

      Is there a defence that can be devised? 180-out-of-phase speakers? What?

      Physics majors, any answers?


      Duck and cover.

      Seriously, ultrasonic frequencies do a poor job of going through any barrier. It would make a lousy weapon compared with, say, a sniper rifle.

  28. Legislation against using it? by JPriest · · Score: 1

    I know in some areas it is illegal to have car audio systems that are too loud, I would guess this will be misused as soon as it goes mainstream. I know that is the first thing I would do with it. I can picture sitting on a park bench fsck'ing with joggers. It would be kind of freaky to have someone whisper at you standing in the middle of a field. I wonder if anyone will decide to check themselves into a mental institution based on this technology.

    --
    Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
  29. Re:Why this -won't- change the world as we hear it by JPriest · · Score: 1

    Low volume distance. You can still hear music at a concert from the nose bleed section without killing the people in the front row.

    --
    Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
  30. No more headphones by billatq · · Score: 1

    Actually, I'd like a device similar to this. How many times have you wanted to listen to some music loud, but can't disturb everyone else? I know I'd love this sucker.

    1. Re:No more headphones by starX · · Score: 1

      And the best part is that you're not even damaging your ears.

    2. Re:No more headphones by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      How do you figure? The energy that damages your ears is that tiny fraction which actually hits your eardrums. Therefore, it's the same whether coming from a 300W speaker or a 3W headphone.

      Hint: If it sounds like a jet engine to you, then it's beating on your eardrums like a jet engine would.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    3. Re:No more headphones by RiotXIX · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but imagine how embarrassing it will be when teachers in class are shouting at you, and you're just sitting there fixated.

      Seriously though, yeah, this would be a cool application of it.

      --
      "You know you don't act like a scientist, you're more like a game show host." Dana Barret
  31. This is how it works in layman's terms by wackybrit · · Score: 5, Informative

    For some reason I feel this is a double post, but no-one here seems to have noticed, so I must be nuts.

    Here's how it works in laymans terms. I am no science wizard, but this sounds good to me..

    There are things called beat frequencies that occur when you have two frequencies present. For example, if you play 20Hz into one ear, and 25Hz into the other, your brain can be 'tricked' into thinking it is hearing 5Hz (the difference between the two frequencies).

    This is all well and good, but 20Hz soundwaves don't travel too good. Ultrasonic frequencies do though. Remember those TV remote controls in the 70s and 80s that used ultrasonics? You could control your neighbor's TV. (See the start of Poltergeist 1 if you forget)

    But how does sending 50Khz sound waves through the air help you hear anything? Ay, well there's the rub. The concept of beat frequencies is used once again.

    If you send a 50Khz sound wave from one source and pinpoint it at a certain spot, and then send a 51Khz sound wave from another source to the same spot, anyone at the place where those two beams join up will hear a 1Khz sound, thanks to beat frequencies.

    That's how you can pinpoint sounds to a single place. It just took a genius to get the connection between beat frequencies and ultrasonics to work this one out. I think it's cool.

    1. Re:This is how it works in layman's terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is all well and good, but 20Hz soundwaves don't travel too good. Ultrasonic frequencies do though.

      Then why is it that you can hear the assholes subwoofer in their microcar from streets away? (Sidenote: I'm actually joking there->The reason you can hear it is that the human ear is very poor at picking up low frequencies, so said frequencies have to be amplified that much more, hence they can propagate a much longer distance)

      Totally separate conversation: I saw a Best Buy commercial for car stereo equipment that stated "Announce your arrival...three blocks away". I spit in your general direction for capitalizing on these criminal little tiny penis assholes who insist that the rest of us have to hear their shitty music. I think we should form vigilantee squads to vandalize their shitbox cars and kick in their shit sounding stereo system.

    2. Re:This is how it works in layman's terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sidenote: I'm actually joking there->The reason you can hear it is that the human ear is very poor at picking up low frequencies, so said frequencies have to be amplified that much more, hence they can propagate a much longer distance
      not exactly. It's because the low frequencies are able to travel through things such as metal far better than high frequencies. This lets you hear the lows through the trunk, but the highs can't be heard, such as singing.

    3. Re:This is how it works in layman's terms by throwaway18 · · Score: 1
      I have an electronic book from the mid-1980's, Electronics Explained by Peter Laurie, which has a circuit for a "selective shouter". That design is intended for use with more widly spaced speakers than described in the article but its the same basic thing. I suspect most of the innovation in Norris's design is the tight beam ultrasonic speakers.

      This relies on human ears not having an entirly linear response. Human ears being very good at receiving sound I imagine a significant volume of ultrasound is needed. I work in the audio industry, we use inaudible tones for monitoring speaker lines where sound systems are used for emergency announcments. I can say from experiance that a few watts of 20KHz left on in the workshop gives me a headache.

      Human ears are very insensative at 50KHz. 20-30Khz would be more appropriate. I think the laurie design used a 20Khz carrier and translated 0.3-3Khz speech signals to 20.3-23Khz I can hear loud sounds at 14-15Khz. At 20Khz I can't hear anything but standing next to a horn speaker putting out a fw watts I can feel somthing, an I'm getting a headache feeling, possibly my eyeballs vibrating.

  32. Weapon Systems by Alien54 · · Score: 2
    ABC News has a clip on the Military using this as a type of beam weapon:

    http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/video_index/vide o_index.html

    seems like there are a mixture of applications.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  33. Should help schizophrenics... by cliveholloway · · Score: 5, Funny
    My wife's a psychotherapist - she used to suggest to her schizophrenic clients that they carry a cell phone (or at least know where the nearest payphone was). When they felt they needed to argue with the voices in their heads, she suggested they just pretend they are making a call to help ease the embaressment of the situation.

    Now i guess they just need to push the arguments towards, "No, I don't want to buy a fucking Coke" and no-one will suspect a thing...

    cLive ;-)

    --
    -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
    1. Re:Should help schizophrenics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "used to" -- why did she stop? Sounds clever.

    2. Re:Should help schizophrenics... by cliveholloway · · Score: 2
      currently not working - we have a new baby :)

      cLive ;-)

      --
      -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
  34. Re:Why this -won't- change the world as we hear it by martyn+s · · Score: 1

    Well they can do that already, by not having all the speakers by the stage.

  35. If it works, many possibilities by SuperGlue · · Score: 1

    I can see a few uses that would be fun....

    Shoplifters - Security could remind the thief that you might want some eggs to fry with that steak you shoved down your pants.

    Cheating - An open window in the classroom and a friend could feed you all your answers :)

    Drug Dealers - Hey man, 1 hit of this stuff and you will be hearing things (Hands over Bunk dope)

    Shy people Dating - A good smooth talker friend could coach you with the right words.

    Sporting Events - Plant a few fans in the stands to destract the players with a few choice comments.

    Church - Too many possibilities to list

    Military - Create a little internal strife to destabilize a country.

    Pranksters will have a blast....

    Hmmmmm...... I wonder if it works under water....

    1. Re:If it works, many possibilities by tg_schlacht · · Score: 1

      You forgot:

      Using it to drive your enemies insane.

      Using it to push people close to the edge all the way over.

      It could open up whole new realms in the exciting realm of political assassination.

    2. Re:If it works, many possibilities by SuperGlue · · Score: 1

      No doubt... Lots of things for their Psych Warefare department to play with...

      I am Glad the Military Police didnt have these when I was a Army Dependant Tripping on Acid back in Hawaii.......

    3. Re:If it works, many possibilities by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 2

      Drug dealing - forget selling cheap/fake drugs, consider the drug seller options.

      You could stand in an alleyway and talk only to the people you want, without worrying about being seen/heard by police.

      Think about informants and other covert situations. Your informant sits on a park bench and you, 100 yards away in a car, ask him questions to which he responds with motioning.

      --
      That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
    4. Re:If it works, many possibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'd have great fun with this in church. Aim it at the priest's head, "You are a liar. You are feeding these souls to me, and I AM SATAN!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH...!"

    5. Re:If it works, many possibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want one mounted on each corner of my car. When another auto changes lanes too close to mine, I want to play the sound of scraping metal to be heard only by the obnoxious driver.

  36. Ultrasound this, ultrasound that by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now wait a minute! I thought ultrasound caused small fusion reactions to occur when sonic cavities collapsed! Rather than projecting a sound, isn't this thing going to cause people's heads to explode in a fusion reaction???

    1. Re:Ultrasound this, ultrasound that by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it's ever so much better than cellphone cancer.

  37. What we need now by Boyceterous · · Score: 1

    is the old Get Smart "Cone of Silence" Invent THAT!

    1. Re:What we need now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, you beat me. I gotta get up earlier.

  38. Tomorrows World by Trevelyan · · Score: 1

    The BBC TV show Tomorrows World had this some time ago. The idea demonstrated then was for use in night clubs, ie go on the dance floor get blasted as expected, but walk off, eg to the bar, and NO sound at all.
    ofcource this puts a big hole in that tv add for ...er i forget its name (but any UK peep who watches enough tv should know =)

  39. Sonic Stun Guns by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

    You know you want three. Admit it.

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  40. MKULTRA by limekiller4 · · Score: 1

    Ooookay. Dismissing the MKULTRA nuts just got a whole lot harder. Thanks, michael. =)

    --
    My .02,
    Limekiller
  41. A short explanation of how it works by sgtsanity · · Score: 1

    When you play two notes on, for example, the piano, it actually generates three notes: the two played notes, and the difference between the two. By using two ultrasonic sound waves, which are directional, they can make the generating waves un-hearable to the human ear, and put the difference wave nicely within the hearing range of most humans.

  42. Newsweek Objectivity by PRickard · · Score: 5, Interesting
    "But now, Newsweek promises, it's going to change the world as we hear it."

    OK, Newsweek has now slipped into the same category as the TV channels that show infomercials 20 hours a day. A couple of weeks ago Newsweek touted Microsoft Palladium as the revolutionary future, now they're saying this sound wave thing will be. How much would it cost me to have Newsweek run a long article about my futuristic world-changing vaporware product that happens to be 8 to 15 years away from actual production? It's worse than biased media, it's buy-your-own-news.

    --

    == Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ====

    1. Re:Newsweek Objectivity by Em+Emalb · · Score: 2

      Yeah, it's a damned shame. All we want is some frigging NEUTRALITY when news places report the news.

      It's gotten horribly bad these days. When's the last time some news was reported without the "personal" slant added in? Good thing Reuters is still around. I also think (for the most part) the BBC does a good job.

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    2. Re:Newsweek Objectivity by guttentag · · Score: 4, Informative
      I was working for washingtonpost.com (officially called "Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive" because the organization was responsible for both publications' sites) when The Post announced its alliance with MSNBC.

      One of the provisions of the alliance was that Microsoft would publish Newsweek.com. The first reaction I heard from my coworkers was a concern for Newsweek's objectivity, or at least the appearance of objectivity. The Post's top brass assured everyone that the deal would have no impact on Newsweek's objectivity. I'm not saying it has; just putting a little insider kerosene on your fire.

      One of the other provisions was that washingtonpost.com would feature Windows Media clips of Washington Post reporters on MSNBC. We were instructed to embed the video in our templates and also call a .js file hosted on MSNBC's site. The sole purpose of the .js file was to weed out non-Windows browsers. For instance, I visited the page (on our site) with a Mac and was redirected to an MSNBC page stating "Windows Media Player is not available for the Macintosh." I showed this to one of the top editors, who replied our users should know better than to buy a substandard computer. I then downloaded Windows Media Player for Mac from Microsoft and demonstrated that the video works perfectly if you take the .js reference out. The next morning the multimedia editor was waiting at my desk to get the details, and later began re-encoding the video files in Real format -- over Microsoft's loud objections.

      Bottom line: Microsoft tried to use its deal with The Washington Post to prevent non-Windows users from viewing Post reporters on The Post's own site. I can only imagine what goes on at "newsweek.msnbc.com."

    3. Re:Newsweek Objectivity by PRickard · · Score: 3, Informative

      guttentag typed: Bottom line: Microsoft tried to use its deal with The Washington Post to prevent non-Windows users from viewing Post reporters on The Post's own site. I can only imagine what goes on at "newsweek.msnbc.com."

      Excellent information, I appreciate the insider's perspective on that deal.

      I've been opposed to the MSNBC agreement from day one for obvious reasons. I usually disagree with Ralph Nader, but he gave a pefect quote about Microsoft in 1995 or 1996...

      "When you move from conduit to content, as Microsoft is doing--into publishing, into cable, encyclopedias, etc. you get another abuse of concentrated power. We've always believed the conduit should be separate from content."

      I agree with this 100% and honestly think it should be made into law. Dangerous ground.

      Back in 1995 or 1996 Microsoft came within a few million dollars of buying Turner Broadcasting (CNN, TBS, TNT, et al.). The Turner agreement was that Microsoft would basically purchase them for something in the area of $12 billion, then Microsoft's Turner subsidiary would use that money to buy bankrupt CBS. Imagine what kind of Microsoft we'd be dealing with if that agreement hadn't collapsed. Scary to even consider.

      --

      == Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ====

    4. Re:Newsweek Objectivity by Surt · · Score: 1, Troll

      I hope you're kidding about the bbc. Have you heard any of their coverage about events in the middle east? Could they be any more anti-US or anti-Semitic?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  43. A very informative exchange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check this out - Pompei (inventor of the Audio Spotlight) exposes Norris' hype a while ago on their public stock board. Quite a thread, and includes a response from their CEO, as well as Pompei's response to him:

    http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&board=21750 59 7&tid=atco&sid=21750597&action=m&mid=1 27

    Very enlightening.!

  44. helmets by ramzak2k · · Score: 1

    10 demerit points for driving without helmets. For those who havnt seen his homepage http://woodynorris.com/

    --

    Siggy Say, Siggy Do
  45. Some cool applications... by Critical_ · · Score: 1

    Well, I am a big home theater nut. This could have good applications if it works.

    So far, we have seen things move from the old days of mono output then to stereo. Stereo is a great thing since, if the quality of the speaker and CD is excellent, then not only can the sounds be positioned in the plane of the speakers but also it can have a transparent effect of being layered from front to back. (e.g. guitar on right side, singer in the middle in front of drummer, bass on left side).

    With Dolby Surround we got 4 speakers that gave us stereo fronts and two mono surround speakers. This was nice at the time because it gave 3 channels of sound (left, right, rear) but whenever an airplane came flying from rear to the front, it always felt like it came from directly the middle area behind you. It wasn't convincing.

    Dolby Pro-logic gave us an added center channel with was encoded into the front stereo channels and a processor would remove it and pass it to the center. This was nice, but was added since not everyone can sit in the "sweet spot". Remember, with stereo, you can only get the right imaging of the music if you sit where both speakers are equidistant from your ears. The center channel made it so people sitting on any one side of the viewing area could feel the centered nature of dialog. This was all analog though so there would be "leakage" of channels.

    Next came Dolby Digital and DTS. Both of which are 5 full range discrete channels and 1 subwoofer channel. Discrete means that each channels audio was digitally encoded so this solved the problem of "leakage" that plague Dolby Pro-Logic because the decoder chip no longer had to "guess" where the sound was supposed to go. This also brought the stereo capability to the rear channels such that pans from the rear to the front could occur more realisticly. The problem? Dolby digital and DTS are both lossy formats that sample the sound and compress it during the encoding process. This makes it possible to fit the sound track onto DVDs. DTS compresses less but there is not much difference in the way of sound quality.

    With the arrival of Star Wars episode 1, we got Dolby Digital EX which has a "matrixed" center channel derived from the rear stereo speakers much like the way the front center channel was in Dolby Pro-Logic. DTS followed suit and brought their own DTS Neo:6 format with a matrixed rear channel. Now both DTS and Dolby digital provide 6.1 channels which allows a discrete rear center channel so pans are even more convincing to those who are sitting off-center. Remember, the rear stereo imaging is affected by where a person sits. If the speakers are not equidistant, then the effects are off-center as well. The rear channel fixed that.

    So what's next? Well Meridian has a loss-less system called MLP which is awesome sound quality wise. DVD Audio is coming out which has a higher sampling rate so the sound quality is better (analogy: think about an MP3 encoded in 64kbps versus one encoded in 160kbps, that is to say that CDs have a twangy sound compared to the higher-resolution DVD-Audio). Lexicon/Meridian/etc. all have 7.1 and 8.1 systems either out already or they are almost their. So what will happen? We keep adding speakers to our home theaters until there is no more room to sit? If this method of projecting audio could work, then we could get rid of the clutter of speakers and amplifiers and solve the problem. What do you guys think?

    1. Re:Some cool applications... by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 2

      But to make the complex sound for each person, you must have an ultrasonic system for each person, as well as a sensor system that can track each person and the local obstacles to sound.

      Then you would need emitters all around the room to improve the the ability to target people in a varied environment. Each emitter would have to be on a pivot to work best, and you would need some great software to dynamically track people's movements to prevent "falling out" of the sound accidentally.

      --
      That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
  46. Try this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  47. DeHSS by el_flynn · · Score: 1

    Here's an interesting idea. Take this technology (original excerpt here). Use it and figure out how to generate the cancellations in a spherical field, pack it into something lightweight and portable and we've got something to cancel out all the purpoted uses that American Technology Corp. has in store for you.

    --
    The Wknd Sessions - Malaysian and South East Asia independent music
  48. MOD PARENT TO +5 Informative! I posted a comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    already so i can't mod it up. Very very good history.

  49. I'm inclined to think this is bullcrap. by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 1

    From what I understand, you can't direct sound like you can direct light. Here's why:

    When you emit light, you are emitting particles. Those particles can be focused or diffused. With laser, all the particles are in near-perfect alignment. They're all going straight, as opposed to a flashlight, where the photons spread in a cone-shape fashion. But the point is, you are "creating" the medium in which your signal is being sent, and you can control the path it takes.

    You cannot focus sound. There is no such thing as a sound laser. Sound is vibrations transmitted from one air particle to another, until it reaches your ear. All particle dynamics can be simplified to an image of many pyramids. You push on one particle, it pushes on two in the desired direction. They push 3. Those 3 push 4, which push 5, ad nauseam. Hypersonics can lessen the diffusion by transmitting the signal so fast that it has little time to diffuse, but if you think you can send a message from 50 feet away and only get one reciever in a crowd, I'm inclined to disagree.

    1. Re:I'm inclined to think this is bullcrap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not trying to direct the twin ultrasonic beams with flashlight precision.

      They're directing the focus of the intersection of the two beams, the in-our-hearing-range interference patterns - and that, they can direct with precision.

    2. Re:I'm inclined to think this is bullcrap. by cybermace5 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ok...I'm inclined to think you were born yesterday.

      Ever been to even the most basic children's museum? Then you've seen the two parabolic reflectors that transmit a whisper clearly across a crowded, noisy room.

      Ever cupped your hands around your mouth to shout to someone far away? You must have looked pretty stupid, if, as everyone knows, you can't focus sound.

      Ever seen an amphitheatre? They're designed specifically to focus sound to the listening audience.

      Those great big flaps of flesh that stick out of your head, that just happen to be rougly cone-shaped and connected to your auditory canal? What do you think those are there for? For that matter, ever seen a horse, dog, or cat when it's listening to something?

      Sound is a wave, and can be focused. Everything exhibits both wave and particle properties, light can be focused because of its wave properties, not its particle properties.

      You obviously skipped 1st grade physics.

      --
      ...
    3. Re:I'm inclined to think this is bullcrap. by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 1

      "Ok...I'm inclined to think you were born yesterday."

      Sounds like a challenge. Lets begin, shall we? :P

      "Ever been to even the most basic children's museum? Then you've seen the two parabolic reflectors that transmit a whisper clearly across a crowded, noisy room."

      That will work if they intend the recipients to have a 6 foot dish to collect the DIFFUSED waves.

      "Ever cupped your hands around your mouth to shout to someone far away? You must have looked pretty stupid, if, as everyone knows, you can't focus sound."

      So that made it so nobody next to the person could hear it? Yes, shocking truth. For any real distances to be considered, it does just make you look stupid. And you admitted it. Whee!

      "Ever seen an amphitheatre? They're designed specifically to focus sound to the listening audience."

      You dont know the difference between directing and focusing, do you?

      "Those great big flaps of flesh that stick out of your head, that just happen to be rougly cone-shaped and connected to your auditory canal? What do you think those are there for?"

      See above...

      "Sound is a wave"
      true
      "and can be focused."
      buzzzz!

      "Everything exhibits both wave and particle properties"

      You need to read past chapter one of whatever book you're reading :)

    4. Re:I'm inclined to think this is bullcrap. by LBU.Zorro · · Score: 1

      Sound can be focussed.

      Sound can be reflected.

      Sound can be refracted.

      I was going to explain it all, but then I remembered a simple way to prove it to you.

      Place your hands near your ears, like you were going to put them over your ears but hover them around 2 inches off. Now hiss. While hissing twist your hands.. You will notice an alteration in the volume as your hands pass a certain point, this is because the high frequency noise is bouncing off your hands and you are receiving more hiss.

      This empirical test shows that sound can be reflected, and if it can be reflected then it can be focussed, and it probably can be refracted. (I know it can but I can't think of a simple test for it).

      Sound is a number of waves travelling through a medium, air, thus although it is not a wave and a particle in the same sense as items in the electromagnetic spectrum, it does have a particulate medium to travel through.

      And as a point how do you expect "to collect the DIFFUSED waves." if they cannot be reflected???

      How do parabolic microphones work? Speakers with bass reflex ports??

      Sound is a wave, sound can be reflected.

      Echo, echo, echo, get the point?

      Z.

    5. Re:I'm inclined to think this is bullcrap. by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 1

      *sighhhh*

      My key points all along have been "large distances", "to a single person", and "without a large dish" at the sender or the reciever.

      I can appreciate a zeal for physics :) But please read fully before you reply.

    6. Re:I'm inclined to think this is bullcrap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok please just go read those papers and those books listed on the audiospotlight website. I could spend forever talking about them. Or you could try to look it up here are some words:

      Non-linearities of sound
      Parametric Array
      Self Demodulation

      The technology is nowhere near as simple as it is made to seem. Otherwise it would already be here. It is not a single person but a limited range say 3 degrees of variance as opposed to 60-80 which comes from a traditional loud speaker. Plus its not the 20hz-20khz which is being directed but the ultrasonic frequency which is acting like light and because of ultrasound is directional it can be targeted in a relatively small area and at long distances. When it reaches a certain point the beam is completely demodulated and the audible sound is produced. I have been toying with this tech all of this summer as a sci-fair project specfically reducing audio distortion with these devices. If you go read the articles listed on the audiospot light and have at least a high school physics background you should be set to go but you probably need a basic understanding of calculus.

      nk

    7. Re:I'm inclined to think this is bullcrap. by RegularFry · · Score: 1

      Just to play devil's advocate, using the example of the huge parabolic reflectors, if you stood slightly out from the focal point of the transmitting mirror and spoke, the sound would be focussed to a point.
      Oh, and there is a finite speed at which a person passing through a doorway will diffract. Not that that's at all relevant.

      --
      Reality is the ultimate Rorschach.
    8. Re:I'm inclined to think this is bullcrap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You obviously skipped 1st grade physics."

      If you think they teach physics in 1st grade, I'm inclined to think you never attended first grade.

  50. technology for war by clockwise_music · · Score: 1
    It's technology like this that gives me the heeby-jeebies. I wouldn't want to accidently turn up the volume too loud...

    We can now blind people, deafen people and "incapacitate" people. I wonder how long it will take before all of our other senses can be destroyed by 'technology'?

  51. Not trolling, just stating truth. by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 1
    The first fu$#!ng Pepsi machine that blasts an add my way is getting a brick in its speaker at 2:00am. Simple as that. If we let the bastards force their crap logo's and brain wash us even more, we might as well all log off of slashdot, take down www.gnu.org and go to CompUsa, buy a copy of WinXP Pro Full Install and put a shotgun muzzle in our mouths.

  52. Close, but no cigar by wowbagger · · Score: 5, Informative

    You got a few things right, but a few things wrong.

    First, beat frequencies are quite real - there is no "tricking" your brain into hearing something that isn't there - the signal is there.

    Specifically, whenever you feed 2 signals f1 and f2 into a system with any non-linearities, you will get four frequencies out - the original f1 and f2, and two new frequencies (f2-f1) and (f1+f2). So, if I feed 51kHz and 50 kHz into a system, you will get 1 kHz, 50 kHz, 51 kHz, and 101 kHz. This is the same principle that all modern radio receivers work on - it is called heterodyning, and a modern radio is a superheterodyne receiver.

    Now, in terms of propagation, low frequency sound does better than high frequencies - hence why thunder goes "CRACK" when it is close and "rummmblee" when it is far away - all the high frequencies have been attenuated by the air. Also, this is one of the reasons why all you hear of the assholes with the ThunderThump 3000 car stereos is the low frequencies - what little high frequencies they produce are attenuated by the car's body and the distance.

    However, to get any directionality from a sound transducer, it must be large with respect to the sound frequency. The problem is that the bulk of the frequencies humans hear have very long wavelengths - it is possible to make a directional beam of 20 Hz sound, but you would need a speaker system the size of a football field. Somewhat impractical if you want them all over the place, pumping out your "BUY ME NOW" message.

    However, by translating the frequencies up to 50 kHz, you reduce the wavelengths down to the point where the speaker needn't be much larger than a paperback to get the directional gain you want. So, you upconvert the signals to ultrasonic frequencies, and you use the fact that just hitting a surface acts as a nonlinear mixing element.

    However, I have always wondered how much of the signal is going into the (f2-f1) component, and how much of the power is in the other three frequencies you cannot hear? What kind of damage will this energy do over the long run?

    Not to mention that, with the steady erosion of the respect of the right of people to be left alone, how will this be abused? Will we see "reality TV" shows freaking people out? (say, by beaming "LOOK OUT! HE'S GOT A GUN" to one person in a crowd). Let alone the targeted advertisments ("Hey lard butt! Yeah, YOU. Get your fat ass into Fred's Gym, across the street. NOW!")

    Personally, if this sort of thing gets deployed in public places, I want to start carrying one of the boxes you used to downmix bat echolocation down to audible, locate the speakers, and use my Leatherman on them... Or my Browning...

    1. Re:Close, but no cigar by wackybrit · · Score: 2

      Thanks for that, as I said, I am no science wizard. (In fact, I hated Science at school, and still don't really like science other than what is necessary to get by in engineering or programming)

      I share your concerns about the 'pollution' that could be caused by these devices. And the amount of damage that could be caused by these is crazy to think about.

    2. Re:Close, but no cigar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the device doesn't make use of the beat frequency, but the Tartini difference frequency.

    3. Re:Close, but no cigar by sirsex · · Score: 0
      However, I have always wondered how much of the signal is going into the (f2-f1) component, and how much of the power is in the other three frequencies you cannot hear? What kind of damage will this energy do over the long run?

      In a system with perfect coupling between to sinusoidal waves, half the energy will be the (f2+f1) and half will be in the (f2-f1) frequecies. The two original freqcienies will have no energy.

      The point of coupling will be were the two soundwaves intersect.

    4. Re:Close, but no cigar by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2
      The human ear cannot hear low frequency sounds or they come out sounding like clicks. Binaural beats do involved tricking the brain as the auditory system cannot perceive 5hz.

      http://web-us.com/thescience.htm
      Binaural beats are auditory brainstem responses which originate in the superior olivary nucleus of each hemisphere. They result from the interaction of two different auditory impulses, originating in opposite ears, below 1000 Hz and which differ in frequency between one and 30 Hz (Oster, 1973).For example, if a pure tone of 400 Hz is presented to the right ear and a pure tone of 410 Hz is presented simultaneously to the left ear, an amplitude modulated standing wave of 10 Hz, the difference between the two tones, is experienced as the two wave forms mesh in and out of phase within the superior olivary nuclei. This binaural beat is not heard in the ordinary sense of the word (the human range of hearing is from 20-20,000 Hz). It is perceived as an auditory beat and theoretically can be used to entrain specific neural rhythms through the frequency-following response (FFR)--the tendency for cortical potentials to entrain to or resonate at the frequency of an external stimulus. Thus, it is theoretically possible to utilize a specific binaural-beat frequency as a consciousness management technique to entrain a specific cortical rhythm.
    5. Re:Close, but no cigar by Guignol · · Score: 1

      Is this really how this works ? I'm suprised by the fact they mention audio spotlight as competition, also Pompei (the guy from audiospotlight) telling the other guy is a thief... I've been looking at the audio-spotlight solution, and it doesn't work like that. It only uses "one" ultrasound source and doesn't recreate the original sound by mixing the 2 ultrasonic waves. I also have a hard time to imagine that's what they do themselves in this article since there is only one speaker. How do you "cross" the two beams ? how do you select the distance where you want them to be mixed. If it did work like that, it would effectively produce sound "at one point" but you would need two speakers. also, it wouldn't work so well for a nightclub. (how would it ?) I suppose his invention works just like the pompei's one, and that it doesn't produce sound at a specific point, but rather a beam. (hence "spotlight like sound") In pompei's case, you only ned one ultrasonic source. Air is a non linear propagation medium, that is, it affects high frequencies more than it affects low ones. Pompei modelled air response and basically process incoming sound with an "inverse" filter. sounds travels in the air in an ultrasonic form and is progressively deformed by air back into an audible stream, but a much more narrow one. Air acts like a low pass fiter and thus progresively (over a few cms) makes the ultrasonic encoded stream into the original sound, but this one travels in air quite straigthly instead of spreading almost sphericaly like "normal" sound does. I think this article is nothing but undocumented hype. I also have heard about militar applications, but they were not interested in silly weapons (really, a gun is much better) but rather in efficient, directed comunication from one person to another. also if anyone is in between, he will hear everything as well.

    6. Re:Close, but no cigar by RegularFry · · Score: 1
      Personally, if this sort of thing gets deployed in public places, I want to start carrying one of the boxes you used to downmix bat echolocation down to audible, locate the speakers, and use my Leatherman on them... Or my Browning.

      Hang on a tick...
      You'd be using a box to turn an ultrasonic signal into an audible one. Don't the bat downmixers just mix an audio stream with a 30kHz signal and take a single sideband anyway?
      --
      Reality is the ultimate Rorschach.
  53. Is this healthy? by toupsie · · Score: 2

    Isn't there a risk that your head might explode if someone play's Immigrant Song by Led Zeppelin?

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    1. Re:Is this healthy? by Kredal · · Score: 2

      It's more of a risk if someone plays Indian Love Call, by Slim Whitman...

      Hey, it happened in Mars Attacks.

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
  54. Late night guess by craw · · Score: 1

    This is just a guess. Ultrasonic frequencies are greater than that that a human can hear. Higher frequencies also mean shorter wavelengths. This means that the sound source (e.g., transducer) can be equivalently smaller. One can then make a planar array of transducers that can be used to directional focus a beam of acoustic energy in a preferential azimuth. For instance, an Aegis cruiser's main radar array is a planar array.

    But how does one then "hear" the signal in this directional acoustic signal. As others have pointed out there is something called the beating frequency when two signals interact. I would therefore have to surmise that the array contains two sets of arrays to transmit two different signals/ultrasonic frequencies. This might explain why he has problems at lower frequencies. The signals need to be closer in their frequency signal, which will also cause problems in the directional beam-forming.

    Wish I could think about this a bit more, but I have to print a bunch of stuff right now.

    1. Re:Late night guess by RegularFry · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell, one reason for shifting up to ultrasonics is that you don't need a phased array. You could get the same directionality with a large array of speakers transmitting at the original frequency, but it would be too big to be practical. Doing it this way, you only need two transducers. I think.

      --
      Reality is the ultimate Rorschach.
  55. Hey baby! by orthogonal · · Score: 1

    "No, I'm the geek behind the hunk you thought was talking to you. I'm beaming my voice around him with HyperSound!"

  56. Cool by starX · · Score: 1

    Now when I tell the doctors that the ogvernment is beaming the voices into my head, maybe they'll actually believe me!

  57. This Was Spinal Tap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    It's very special, because, as you can see--the numbers all go to 11. Right across the board. Eleven, 11. . . . And most amps go up to 10? Exactly. Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder? Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not 10. You see, most blokes are going to be playing at 10--you're on 10 on your guitar, where can you go from there? Where? I don't know. Nowhere! Exactly! What we do, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do? You put it up to 11. Eleven. Exactly. One louder. Why don't you just make 10 louder, and make 10 be the top number, and make that a little louder?

    Spinal Tap was great.

    1. Re:This Was Spinal Tap by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Sad... the moderators gave the parent "interesting" rather than "funny." At least someone else got it!

  58. Will a tinfoil burkha shield this? by NetBoy · · Score: 1
    The first application is military, the second
    one is marketing. How warm and fuzzy.

    I wonder what happens if one cranks up the power?
    Is that like the poodle in the microwave?

    I suppose taking actions to defeat someone's
    ability to use these things on you will mark
    you as a terrorist. That will be supported by
    judges noting that such use by marketers is
    protected "Free Speech".

    Yes, boss, I'm a damn fool; I know you wanted
    that hole over there.

  59. This "speaker" Doesn't "sound" differnt either. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It won't feel like it's comming from inside your head anymore than anysound wave does.

    It's still sound, not telepathy.

  60. In related news by Oculus+Habent · · Score: 2

    It turns out that "Field of Dreams" was military testing of this sound system and holographic projection systems.

    --
    That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
  61. artist's rendition by jjeffries · · Score: 5, Funny

    Here is an rare drawing of the initial design...

    1. Re:artist's rendition by pangloss · · Score: 1

      muad-dib!

  62. Can you hear me now? by anaesthesia · · Score: 4, Funny

    Good.. Can you hear me now?..Good..

  63. mgs by Bob+Kronkel · · Score: 0

    Sound to me like codec, from metal gear solid(tm).

  64. the military by supernova87a · · Score: 2

    I recall that this technology has also been explored by the military. Last I heard, it was to be used to confuse troops on the other side -- "what's that noise", "where's that coming from?" , and so on.

  65. Vindication by teasea · · Score: 1

    And they have been saying I'm crazy for wearing this tinfoil-wrapped colonder on my head! We'll see who is crazy now!

  66. Doon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really hope noone mutters "Muad'Dib" near onna them things ;)

  67. Mind Control..... by Newer+Guy · · Score: 2

    I can see it now... kill yourself...kill yourself...turn the wheel of youre car hard right...NOW!

  68. It's magic! by Stonent1 · · Score: 0

    sarcasm

    Wow beaming sound from one location to another. That was something Marconi could have only dreamed of!

    /sarcasm

  69. What the hell is the buy lnux department? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    C'mon Please please refrain from hawking LNUX shares. Remember, as stated on Forbes.com ' VA is not a Linux company '.

    1. Re:What the hell is the buy lnux department? by Kredal · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure it was meant to be a "subliminal message" given the nature of this article. So you weren't supposed to notice it enough to respond directly to it.

      Just go buy some shares of lnux, and you'll be fine.

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
  70. Scanned eyes, beamed sounds, not in Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You start shining lights in my eyes and beaming annoying sounds at me and I'll show you just how good my aim with this Glock is. Thank God we can carry sidearms in Texas easily.

  71. Reminds me of... by OneFix · · Score: 2, Informative

    That scene in Real Genius...You know... ...
    Mitch: And from now on, stop playing with yourself!
    Kent: It is God! ...

  72. resonant frequency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you ever see the video of the bridge swinging up and down and eventually collapsing due the wind having the right resonant frequency? Could this be using to cause structural damage to bridges, buildings, etc?

  73. Other forms already in use by Kallahar · · Score: 2

    Our local Ralphs supermarket recently installed flat-panel LCD screens on every register to show advertising to the people waiting in line to check out. Video I can tune out, you simply look away, but they added audio. You can't not pay attention to audio, which is why I am now boycotting Ralphs. I still think consumer boycots are the best way to go. Here's my boycot list:

    Shell - Bastards wouldn't let me use their bathroom because they close them at 10pm.
    Arco - Deceptive pricing, $0.35 if you use an ATM card, noted in very small print on the pump.
    TNN - Put a black bar that blocks content without adding anything extra.
    Movies on TV - "Edited for Time", removing content to put in commercials or fit a schedule.

    What else do people boycot?

    Travis

    1. Re:Other forms already in use by Inthewire · · Score: 1

      7-11 for firing a cashier who disarmed a robber
      K-Mart (not that I've ever been, but still...) for refusing to sell firearms on September 11th and afterward
      All radio and television because I hate advertising
      Anything in the state of Arkansas, because they piss me off
      Willingham's (a barbecue place in town) for firing my favorite waitress because she stood up to the manager

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    2. Re:Other forms already in use by Eil · · Score: 2


      What else do people boycot?

      Ridiculous boycott lists.

      (Seriously, I can think of about a dozen other things or companies that need boycotting more than "Movies on TV" and "Shell because they won't let you use the bathroom.")

    3. Re:Other forms already in use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been boycotting Exxon for years. They paved the Alaska Marine Highway you know. I saw it first hand.

  74. HSS warning label by Ilan+Volow · · Score: 2


    "Warning: through sound and motion you might accidently paralyse nerves, shatter bones, set fires, suffocate an enemy or burst his organs."

    --
    Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
  75. Prior art by SocialWorm · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Conspiracy buffs have been claiming that the NSA, or scary government organization of your choice, has had technology of this exact sort for several years. I remember reading a "report" on it back in '98 or so. See http://www.angelfire.com/nj/kristinashomepage/soun d.html for a more recent bit on the subject. It has a more insidious use for this technology not mentioned here:
    A person could be tricked into thinking that God is speaking to them, for example. Depending on the targeted person's state of mind, he or she could be manipulated into doing something that he or she would not normally do.
    --
    My Blog: http://nic.dreamhost.com/
    1. Re:Prior art by jafac · · Score: 2

      Yes yes, there was an x-files episode where once the government started beaming messages into your head, unless you travelled in a westerly direction at 100 miles per hour, your head would explode, or something like that. One of the more bizzarre plotlines.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    2. Re:Prior art by SocialWorm · · Score: 1

      Huh? That seems like something completely different to me.

      --
      My Blog: http://nic.dreamhost.com/
  76. Ultrasonic sound... by KingoftheEvilDead · · Score: 1

    ...generating voices in my head, or in the head of anybody in the vicinity. Great, just what I need, my dog begging me to take him to the Gap.

  77. Re:This "speaker" Doesn't "sound" differnt either. by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

    It won't feel like it's comming from inside your head anymore than anysound wave does.

    Quoth the article: "What the person across the room hears is, well, unbelievable: all of a sudden, the sound of a waterfall has materialized in his head."

    I'm not sure how the technology works (they don't give much actual detail about it) but it may be vibrating the skull, which would make it sound like it's coming from inside your head. (I have a Thinkgeek "Soundbug" and if you push it against your forehead, you hear it from between your ears - very weird!)

  78. Not a new idea by any means... by Zarquon · · Score: 2

    Oldest story where they used the same mechanism (modulating an audio signal onto an ultrasonic frequency and sending it to people) is a story by L. Spague de Camp, _The Exalted_, first published in 1940. (Fun story, by the way; my copy is from _The Astounding Science Fiction Anthology_, edited by John Campbell, Simon And Schuster. Publication date is roughly 1952.)

    "There's the soft-speaker, for instance-"
    "What's that?"
    "It's like a loud-speaker, only it doesn't speak loudly. It throws a super-sonic beam, modulated by the human voice to give the effect of audible sound-frequencies when it hits the human ear. Since you can throw a supersonic beam almost as accurately as you can throw a light beam, you can turn a soft-speaker on a person, who will then hear a still small voice in his ear apparently coming from nowhere..."

    --
    "'Tis great confidence in a friend to tell him your faults, greater to tell him his." --Poor Richard's Almanac
    1. Re:Not a new idea by any means... by Zarquon · · Score: 2

      Doh.. meant oldest story _I_ know of. It may be an even older idea.

      --
      "'Tis great confidence in a friend to tell him your faults, greater to tell him his." --Poor Richard's Almanac
  79. Direct Sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft will probably buy the technology and change its name from Direct Sound to DirectSound LOL!

  80. Re:Once again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that's +1 Insightful!


    --
    SweetAndSourJesus
    my nuts smell fantastic tonight

  81. If you thought pen lasers were annoying... by IroygbivU · · Score: 1

    Just wait until the kiddies get their hands on one of these.

    Cinemas are going to need metal detectors to prevent the influx of highly irritating and disruptive gadgets - mobile phones, pen lasers, pen speakers - otherwise it's going to be their downfall.

  82. Surround sound.. by XaXXon · · Score: 2

    I think this would be really handy for home theater setups. Most of the places I've lived just aren't set up right to have proper surround sound. The rear speakers just don't really have any place to go, and even if they did, the wires would be really obnoxious. Often times the front left and right speakers can't be pushed out far enough to really give the proper seperation, either.

    But, by using this technology, all you'd have to do is point these high-freq speakers at the spots from which you want the sound to come and *poof* you've got a virtual-speaker there.

    They're saying that there are issues with reproducing bass signals, but that's where your subwoofer comes in. Now, that is often the uglies part of the system.. big and bulky, but if you could find somewhere for that to go, then that should make up for the lack of bass from the high-freq speakers. Sort of like those Bose systems with the little satelite speakers and the sub. Together, the system sounds really good.. but unplug the sub? It's not a pretty sound..

  83. I used to be prepared by KingPrad · · Score: 1
    Looks like I need to dig out my old aluminum foil hat. It used to protect me from alien mind-readers and brain reprogramming by the government, but now it can also block spam!

    I think we can all agree that foil hats are a fashion statement long in coming. :-)

    --
    Stop the Slashdot Effect! Don't read the articles!
  84. Cool tech, but the examples are a bit odd . . . by 0bjectiv3 · · Score: 1

    "Picture a car where parents can listen to the Eagles while their kids wild out to Eminem in the back seat."

    By the time this thing enters mass production, I seriously doubt many "parents" will be old enough to be Eagles fans. Furthermore, if you let your "kids" (and I mean real kids) listen to Eminem, you're a terrible parent.

    Remember, even though a tech is ready for prime time, the suits still need time to make lame commercials (that I see every single commercial break), establish "corporate partnerships", and find a way to make the financials look good regardless of how well the product actually sells.

    --

    "Saddam Hussein cavorts with terrorists."
  85. How do I tell 'em I'm broke? by crovira · · Score: 2

    That's the quickest way to get these dick-heads to leave you hanging on the phone. Just tell 'em you're broke.

    You don't even get a chance to start a sob story about it either. They figure they'rte going to give you the same warm welcome they've been getting all day and they slam the phone in your ear.

    Its great. Word gets around and they don't call anmore.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
    1. Re:How do I tell 'em I'm broke? by Eil · · Score: 2


      Junkbusters has an excellent anti-telemarketing script that I'm going to put into employ when I move back to my home state in a few weeks.

      It's got some pretty cool stuff. Like, if they don't answer certain questions correctly (or at all), you can tell them that they are now open to a lawsuit. And be right.

  86. Re:MKULTRA & more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use Google like we always do. Read the past. Shouldn't we be even more concerned; the older Slashdotters have heard this as "secret plans" before. It is now just allowed by private industry instead of other, er, organizations. Time for my lead helmet with the nice LEDs... ;)

  87. Whats next ? Directed Sound blackholes ? by rkt · · Score: 1


    Inside a car the signal can bounce off the backseat... even if its directed. There is no way one can have two sets of directed speakers in a car even if the concept of "directed speakers" is possible.
    Whats next ? Directed Sound blackholes ?
    rkt

  88. He he he he he! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pity dissent in this country!

  89. Big deal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Rather than broadcasting to a single individual up to 100 yards away, it will broadcast to EVERY SINGLE PERSON within a 500 yard radius! It's a device I like to call a "speaker" and you're going to see a lot of these around over the coming years.

    Oh, whoo-hoo. I've got something that has your invention beat by a mile--it can braodcast to millions of listeners all over the country, perhaps even the world! It's called a radio, see, and. . .

    1. Re:Big deal! by zCyl · · Score: 2

      I've got something that has your invention beat by a mile...It's called a radio, see, and. . .

      And you're building them without speakers?

    2. Re:Big deal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And you're building them without speakers?

      D'oh!!

  90. Tinfoil Hats ? by legomad · · Score: 1

    This could create a whole new use for tinfoil hats.

  91. I'm in. by Jon+Howard · · Score: 1

    Let me know when you want some help.

  92. Brown Sound by northstarlarry · · Score: 1
    There's an unverified (AFAIK) story about the "brown sound," which is the resonant frequency of the human colon, so if you produce it at a high enough SPL, people's colons will open and they will need to change their pants.

    Also, if I send a 10KHz sine wave straight into somebody's head at 170dB SPL, I don't think they're going to be able to do much until I turn it off. They'll probably be partially deaf, too, at least for a little while.

    1. Re:Brown Sound by Jerf · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I remember hearing stuff like that, which is why I left the door opened. It's unverified... but of COURSE it's unverified, as to be fair it is exactly the sort of thing the military would justifiably suppress. (That said, I doubt it's useful, but I don't really know.)

      Regarding your last paragraph, check my last paragraph. Also, watch your dB, remember, they are exponential. A gun shot tops out at around 140... at 170, they may not have an eardrum left.

      (You can get some fun results with that... a nuclear bomb is actually only in the low 200s, as I recall.)

    2. Re:Brown Sound by northstarlarry · · Score: 1
      I seem to remember that the loudest sound a human (eardrum) can take is around 190. I could be mistaken -- it's happened before.

      Anyway, according to the story, the French police wanted to use the brown sound to quell riots. The question is, of course, how do you keep the police from soiling themselves, too?

      Different individual parts of your body do have resonant frequencies (though not the whole, as you said); you actually percieve sound through other parts than just your ears, particularly your bones.

      Regarding your comment about sound waves v. pressure waves, any wave of any kind has amplitude and frequency; those are characteristics of a wave. A pressure wave is, naturally, a series of alternating, at a given frequency, zones of pressure (force over a given area), at a given amplitude (amount of force). What makes sound different is that its frequency is such that it's perceivable by the auditory organs of a creature. Remember that other animals can hear both higher and lower frequencies than humans, and that frequency perception varies among humans. Just because my grandfather can't hear anything above 10kHz anymore, doesn't mean that a pressure wave above 10kHz isn't a sound wave. I believe that whales actually perceive sounds down below human range (10Hz or so).

  93. Noise canx headphones don't help hi freq noise by Goldenhawk · · Score: 2

    Sorry, but if you actually TRY the noise-cancelling headphones you'll quickly discover that they don't work so well on high-frequency content. They're mainly intended to help damp out the rumbling of jet engines inside an airplane cabin. You can still clearly hear human speech.

    The problem is that to accurately cancel a sound, you have to EXACTLY invert its phase - match it and you double the volume instead. Bass is a lower frequency with a longer wavelength and is easier to accurately match and thus cancel. You can measure the sound with a microphone a small distance from the ear canal, without causing much problem. But the high frequency sound is more directional, and you'd have to mount the microphone which measures the sound to be canceled almost directly in the ear canal to get a real measurement of what you need to be canceling. Not exactly comfortable to wear, or convenient.

    As electronics get smaller, I wouldn't be surprised to see active cancellation hearing-aid-style inserts. This method would probably work perfectly. As a matter of fact, the only real high-end noise cancelling system used something like that setup, with a remote electronics pack.

    --
    --Brandon / Split Infinity Music

    1. Re:Noise canx headphones don't help hi freq noise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out of a traditional speaker higher frequencies are more directional but out of these parametric arrays higher frequencies have directionallity like that of low tones from a speaker. What is also strange is that the device itself, the parametric arrays, produce a small bit of audible sound.
      If you want to verify this check out the audiospotlight at MIT and go read his article.

      nk

  94. Re:This "speaker" Doesn't "sound" differnt either. by Cruciform · · Score: 2

    QSound was supposed to do this, cause vibrations in the auditory system to make the sound seem like it was coming from inside you and around you. I don't know how well it worked because the only time I saw anything with the QSound label it was in an arcade and everything just ran together in one huge cacophony.

  95. Binaural beat generator by karlidog · · Score: 1

    BrainWave Generator is pretty cool for playing with binaural beats, or at least making weird sounds come out of your computer. And some of the presets do seem to put me in an interesting state of mind.

    1. Re:Binaural beat generator by nmarshall · · Score: 0

      but does it run on linux?????
      no?

      try sbagen for your linux / win / mac Binaural beat needs!!!

      --
      nmarshall

      The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained..
      --Colonel Burr 1783
  96. How can we abuse _this_ new toy? by Geradbaal · · Score: 1

    The potential for abuse of this device is overwhelming.

    First listed use of this device was for the military... why not use it for toys? You know the toys that make all kinds of annoying noise when your toddler plays with them? It would be nice if it was the child alone that was "entertained" by incessant peizo-buzzer quality nursery rhymes.

    --

    "I'll have a positivly scathing retort in twenty minits!"

    1. Re:How can we abuse _this_ new toy? by forkboy · · Score: 2

      beaming ultrasonic waves at a toddler or infant for extended periods of time cannot possibly be healthy for them. I'm dubious of even having done to myself until there's been research done that shows this has no long term effects on brain or hearing function.

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
  97. Physical Assault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If I choose to use this in my easy chair at home with my stero, tv etc. fine.

    But I would consider any use of this on me without my explicit permission (in a public space, in a store, etc.) to be an assault.

  98. Denham's Dentrifice by ElOttoGrande · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    I was just having a discussion with a friend about the possibility of advertisers beaming things straight into our heads. I already think there's too much advertising in the world and i don't think marketers would use this thing ethically at all. He says if they don't use it ethically people will just get annoyed and vote with their dollars.. (just like they did with DVDs, and overpriced cds :-/)

    but anyway... i'm reminded of this eerie scene from a well known sci-fi novel:

    Trumpets blared.

    "Denham's Dentrifice."

    Shut up, thought Montag. Consider the lilies of the field.

    "Denham's Dentifrice."

    They toil not-

    "Denham's--"

    Consider the lilies of the field, shut up, shut up.

    "Dentifrice ! "

    He tore the book open and flicked the pages and felt them as if he were blind, he picked at the shape of the individual letters, not blinking.

    "Denham's. Spelled : D-E.N "

    They toil not, neither do they . . .
    A fierce whisper of hot sand through empty sieve.

    "Denham's does it!"

    Consider the lilies, the lilies, the lilies...
    "Denham's dental detergent."

    "Shut up, shut up, shut up!" It was a plea, a cry so terrible that Montag found himself on his feet, the shocked inhabitants of the loud car staring, moving back from this man with the insane, gorged face, the gibbering, dry mouth, the flapping book in his fist.

    1. Re:Denham's Dentrifice by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      My sig says it all.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  99. Advertising beamed into our heads? by screwballicus · · Score: 2

    This will no doubt comprise the superliminal branch of their three-pronged attack.

  100. Re:This "speaker" Doesn't "sound" differnt either. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Listen to mono sound on some in ear headphones and try to localize the sound ... having a sound-source projected all around your head (which would happen if the two ultrasonic beams converged on your head) will give you the same sort of feeling.

  101. Re:This "speaker" Doesn't "sound" differnt either. by Suidae · · Score: 2

    qsound is mostly just varying amounts of inversion on one side of a stereo channel. If you happen to be in the sweet spot it sounds kinda like its coming from inside your head. There were some qsound demos that came with the SB AWE32 years ago. The kind of stuff you play with for a minute or two and think 'I can't believe they are trying to sell this crap.'

  102. What's gonna happen to the mosh pits? by eatenn · · Score: 1

    It's not gonna look nearly as badass when you're watching a bunch of people slam into each other and you can't even hear what's driving them to do it.

    And how stupid are the bands playing live and in concert gonna look when you can't hear what the hell they're playing? My God... it will be like a world mimes!

    This settles it: down with technology!

    --
    "But the cars are all flashing me, bright lights are passing me, I feel life passing me by" - Stiff Little Fingers
  103. Obligatory wayne's world quote by yobbo · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Glen: "I wish to God that somebody would do something to block out the voices in my head for five minutes. Voices that scream over and over; 'Why do they come to me to die? Why do they come to me to die?"

    Wayne: "Okay..."

  104. I'm too lazy to read the article by quintessent · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    As they so often are, /.'s summary of the article is ambiguous where it matters most. You can shoot an ultrasonic signal at my head, but will I hear it? Is that what the article is about?

    1. Re:I'm too lazy to read the article by quintessent · · Score: 2

      For the differently clued (moderator, listen up):

      1) Every sentence of my post was about the article.

      2) I was making a point there.

  105. This is not new by samjam · · Score: 1

    I saw a circuit diagram to do this based on single sideband modulating the audio signal at 20KHz and mixing with a sine wave 20KHz generated with tweeters.

    The book called the circuit a "selective shouter", I saw this in a red hardback book in the library of the Queen Elizabeth I Sixth Form College, Leicester in 1989. I since went back to track down the book but can't find any trace of it.

    Sam

  106. Bacofoil Defence? by clickety6 · · Score: 1

    Will my aluminium foil helmet still block the evil beams?

    --
    ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
  107. At last! Revenge shall be mine! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How to deal with neighbours across the road who play loud music until the wee small hours? Wait until they're asleep and then use this handy gizmo to exact a targetted revenge without disturbing any of the other neighbours!

  108. Voices in my head. by DarkHelmet · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    You know what I want you to do? I want you to go upstairs to that apartment where that guy keeps playing that Barry Manilow record 'Copacabana' over and over and over again. I want you to ring the doorbell, and when he answers the door, I want you to stab him in the neck with a number 2 pencil over and over and over again because he must PAY! Chop him up and put him in the freezer and as you leave the apartment light the place on fire!
    </Denis Leary>

    God I'd have fun saying that to people as they're walking down the street.

    --
    /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    1. Re:Voices in my head. by Kredal · · Score: 1

      Of course, you have to say it with the really scratchy pissed-off sounding voice, or it just won't do any good at all.

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
  109. Non-lethal weapons by Noofus · · Score: 3, Informative

    There are some riot control devices that look like a cannon. They essentially consist of a massive multi-kilowatt power amplifier that is used to fire 10hz tones (lower limit of human hearing is around 20hz) at the crowds. "Loud" enough sound at 10 hz is enough to knock people over and make them lose control of their bowels.

    I imagine this could easily be used to 'beam' a low tone like this at someone specific (a hostage taker, etc) and make them incapacitated without any harm to others in the area.

    1. Re:Non-lethal weapons by forkboy · · Score: 2

      Ah yes, the infamous "brown note." What a shitty tactic.

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
  110. I would use it... by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2

    to beam "helpful suggestions" to drivers in front of me that are driving like idiots...

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  111. Privacy Issues by Choco-man · · Score: 1

    It doesn't appear that anyone's brought up the inevitable privacy issues. Unsolicited intrusions into your person most certainly constitute an invasion of privacy at the least, physical assault at the worst. with a tv, you pay for the service and have the option of turning it off. with this, it's forced upon you and it doesn't really appear to have a turn off option.

    i'd really like to be the first person this is used on commercially. i'd retire a very rich man.

  112. poor puppies by cheezfreek · · Score: 0

    Ooh, the dogs aren't going to like this one bit.

  113. What if by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    I've always wondered what would happen if someone mounted a magnetron from a microwave onto a tripod and followed someone down the street in the cross-hairs.

    What would happen if someone turned up the volume on this thing - could they damage someones ears? what if, a small group of terrorists played tapes of gun-shot sounds and pointed each machine at a secret-service agent who was pretecting the president. They could confuse each agent into thinking shots were coming from different locations, and maybe also disruppt their communications (its hard to listen to an earpeice when theres allot of noise around lol). What if, i became fed-up with people sticking these things on me as i walked down the street so i wore a device that would retransmit it back at 100 times the power? Maybe advertisers will use automatic transmitters that lock onto individual people - will there be a legal difference between doing that, or just setting up a field around the area infront of their shop etc. What if someone points it at someone elses shop pursuading customers that the shop they're about to walk into is going to overcharge them - Will we have major sound wars?

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  114. This is OLD news by spectrum- · · Score: 1

    Have a look at this article.. this was reported in December 1999. Tommorow's World demonstrated it really well; a dancefloor thats loud, but once you leave it, near silence. Also they should fun practical jokes - whisper in somebody's ear from hundreds of yards away.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/tw/items/991229_rev ol utioninsound.shtml

    Graham.

  115. what a relief! thank you slashdot! by guest12 · · Score: 1

    so THATS where they were coming from. And I thought I was crazy! It was just beta testing...

  116. Fighting back by CaffeineAddict2001 · · Score: 2

    As soon as someone shoots one of these things at you, just pull out yours and fire it right back at him only reamplified =)

  117. Letter to the Editor, from Dr. Pompei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello, this is Dr. Pompei. I thought you would be interested in reading my letter to the Newsweek editors:

    (Regarding story "Hearing is Believing",
    http://www.msnbc.com/news/786016.asp? cp1=1 to appear in Newsweek, August
    5th printed issue.)

    The authors of "Hearing is Believing" achieved their apparent objective of presenting an entertaining portrait of Mr. Norris, but have failed their readers by not researching their subject more thoroughly. If they attempted to contact actual users of the technology (both mine and his) more than one day before their publication date, they might have had time to report more facts rather than Norris' fantasy.

    For example, the authors might have learned that there does not appear to be a single, public installation of HSS anywhere in the world. However dozens of top museums, corporations, and venues have purchased and have been using Audio Spotlights for years. Also, they might have learned that about all that Norris seems to have invented in this field is the HSS name, since he essentially copied basic technology developed by competent researchers in the 1980's. After spending $30 million of other people's money, he has little improvement and no evidence of salable product to show for it. In contrast, I spent less than 0.3% of that as a Ph.D. student at MIT and have a fully functional system being sold and delivered to major companies and museums around the world.
    (listed on the website below)

    In these times of increased scrutiny of the honesty of CEO's, it is unfortunate that the authors did not take the time to fully investigate
    claims made by would-be innovators, particularly those whose primary goal in garnering such publicity seems to be raising money from the
    public. Surely, your readers deserve the whole story.

    Dr. F. Joseph Pompei
    Holosonic Research Labs, Inc.
    www.audiospotlight.com

  118. Check out Audio Spotlight by emin · · Score: 2, Informative

    As the headline of the story says, check out Audio Spotlight from MIT. I was lucky enough to see Joseph Pompei (the inventor of Audio Spotlight) give a demonstration and it was amazing. The technology works as promised: it produces a directed beam of sound which can make noises come from anywhere in the room you want. Furthermore, Mr. Pompei struck me as an exceptionally competent researcher. He had looked at a lot of issues like what kind of frequency response you can get (bass is harder to get than treble), whether the ultrasound causes long term damage (not according to a Harvard study), and how to manufacture (short answer: lots of DSP chips).

    I don't new about the guy Newsweek talks about, but the technology is real and I'm looking forward to hearing it.

  119. no way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    at 10hz those waves are 33 metres long.

    1. Re:no way by exploder · · Score: 2

      It's not the wavelength of the sound you're sending that matters. It sends a couple of ultrasonic waves that interfere with each other at the destination to produce the result. The ultrasonic waves are, of course, highly directional and controllable. The article did say that they had trouble producing the lower tones of music, however. I would imagine the 10Hz "brown note" isn't workable (yet).

      --
      Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
  120. Hmmmmm by nizo · · Score: 2

    People hearing voices in their head? Wow talk about old news, they used to burn people for that kind of thing..... Though I have to admit, making a product you can sell based on this is pretty slick (well aside from whoever makes boatloads of money from things like Thorazine).

  121. Calm Down by ianscot · · Score: 4, Insightful
    She must've really scared you fluorishing that card, because the things she said just seem like a benign, somewhat ditzy bookstore clerk trying to make conversation. She was bored. You were seriously over the top.

    If you want to humiliate someone or win a great battle against indiscriminate or aggressive advertizing, try addressing yourself to the book company. The $8-an-hour clerk isn't responsible. Neither are the poor high school dropouts trying to sell you long distance service. Ask for a manager, and then explain to the manager that "suggestive selling" the membership was intrusive.

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
    1. Re:Calm Down by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      No, they are not responsible, but once i say no once, drop it.

      His reaction may have been over the top, but somewhat understandalbe. Especially if she wasn't giving him his card back.

      What bugs me about it is this; I came to the store knowing what i wanted, if i had wanted to biggie size the combo (or whatever) i am smart enough to tell them myself. Its annoying when ordering something to be constanly interupted. Plus in the confusion of them constantly interupted, they screw up the order. Ask me those questions after i've told you what i want; i can always change my mind if i like what they have to say.

    2. Re:Calm Down by dev0n · · Score: 1

      What bugs me about it is this; I came to the store knowing what i wanted, if i had wanted to biggie size the combo (or whatever) i am smart enough to tell them myself. Its annoying when ordering something to be constanly interupted. Plus in the confusion of them constantly interupted, they screw up the order. Ask me those questions after i've told you what i want; i can always change my mind if i like what they have to say.

      The problem is that lots of people do biggie size their order when asked if they want to by a clerk/salesperson. Suggestive selling works, which is why most retail and food chains use it extensively.

    3. Re:Calm Down by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that lots of people do biggie size their order when asked if they want to by a clerk/salesperson. Suggestive selling works, which is why most retail and food chains use it extensively.

      Well i used to ask for biggie sizing when i wanted before they started asking me before i finish telling them. So for me personally, its just an annoyance, i know beforehad if i want that done or not. But perhaps it is just me.

  122. Minority Report's version by ianscot · · Score: 1
    Minority Report was a mess of a movie, more like 5 premises jumbled together so they violated one another. The way it presented future technologies made me feel schizoid just watching, too.

    The computer interfaces and the customized advertizing thing were the worst offenders. In the future, people will use computer interfaces so jerky and bewildering that nobody else can follow anything they're doing. They will then, inexplicably, display those interfaces on a really big screen so others can stand around wondering what the heck they're doing. Shopping in stores will become so intrusive that everyone will stagger from store to store, dodging the customized messages flung in their direction. Wouldn't it be more like "Choose your custom background music while you're shopping here"? The good folks at Muzak would be more imaginative with something like this than the "futurists" who consulted on the film. Or maybe you could get prices, or combination deals based on what you were looking at... you think?

    Pop culture has some pretty backward ideas about how to design around new technologies. Maybe it's right, too; let me know when someone designs a decent alarm clock.

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
  123. Vandalism... by j_kenpo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wow, devices that beam sound directly at me used for advertising... in the past vandalism on billboards were pretty amusing, if not unsightly. If people start to vadalize these devices, say by cracking them with bats so we dont have to hear any unwanted advertisements, Id say vandalism will have taken on a new role, going from destructive to useful.

  124. Re:This "speaker" Doesn't "sound" differnt either. by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

    I have a stereo with Qsound built in, not sure what it was supposed to do originally, but it does do a good job at making the sound appear to NOT be coming from the center of the tapedeck (the midpoint between the speakers) so i leave it turned on rather than off.

    --
    If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
  125. The voices... by supabeast! · · Score: 1, Redundant

    in my head tell me to quench my thirst with Sprite!

  126. You just gave the Son of Sam what he needed by fataugie · · Score: 1

    See, it _was_ that goddamn dog telling him to do it after all! How fast until we see an appeal?

    For all you little kids and non-US types, the Son of Sam was a serial killer who said his dog was telling him to commit the murders (back in the late 70's I think it was.....hell I was just a kid, I can't remember exact dates).

    --

    WTF? Over?

  127. Edison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    researcher Joseph Pompei, who's developed a rival product under the name Audio Spotlight (automaker DaimlerChrysler is evaluating it in some concept cars) and accuses Norris of everything from taking credit for the work of others to dubious business practices, all of which Norris denies. "For over a decade, [Norris has] promoted impressive-sounding technology of which he has very little evidence of real understanding

    Oh, now I see why the article implied that Norris is a modern day Edison.

  128. What a breakthrough! or not! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This type of concept has existed for years in the architectural field (e.g. the Oval Office). What a challenge it must have been for a physicist to find a way to use focal points, angles of reflection and arc curvatures. Just a new twist on something old, hardly a paradigm shift. It even has a counterpart in the microphone that looks like a giant contact lens on the sidelines of sporting events.

  129. This Just In ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After hearing about HSS technology, Jack Valenti ordered his employee, Senator Foghorn Hollings, to a introduce a bill requiring all Americans to carry a 50-pound *AA DRM filter unit around in a back-pack. The bill is expected to pass unanimously as soon as the checks clear.

  130. Re:This "speaker" Doesn't "sound" differnt either. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They tried that on Roger Waters CD `amused to death`.

    "If the dog at the start doesnt sound like he`s barking in your neighbours garden, then your speakers may be out of phase"

    Yeah, either that or i wasnt in the room when the Qsound salesdroids managed to sell their shoddy, worthless piece of crap to a coked up hasbeen and thus am precluded from the placebo effect.

  131. Re:This "speaker" Doesn't "sound" differnt either. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you sure you have a stereo, and not just a mono? Qsounds supposed to make things sound like they are not somewhere between your speakers, but are in fact further away. Of course, it doesnt work, because its impossible. But dont tell any of the record companies that pay out for this stuff.

  132. The company website by NickDngr · · Score: 2, Informative

    For those who are interested in things such as white papers on the technology, go to American Technology Corp. website. I used to work there... the article does not do it justice.

    --
    Yoda of Borg am I! Assimilated shall you be! Futile resistance is, hmm?
  133. dune! by simpl3x · · Score: 1

    maybe it can be hacked to make one of those nifty ultrasonic guns! CAn YOU HeAr ME NOWWW!

  134. careful who you say that to... by allism · · Score: 1

    Several years ago, I was seeing a shrink who had me take the MMPI. Back then, the test asked multiple questions about hearing voices in your head, including the true/false statement: "I hear a voice in my head." I made the mistake of answering 'true' to this (I hear my own voice in my head all the time, don't you?) and spent months being asked questions like "Do you feel compelled to drive your car off a bridge because the voices in your head tell you to?"

    Soon the shrinks can ask "Did you spend all your money/sacrifice your sister's pet gerbil/go postal because the voices in your head told you to?" and how the heck are the shrinks gonna know whether the voices are organic or mechanical? Time to buy stock in GlaxoSmithKline...

  135. hypersonic or ultrasonic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ???well, which is it?

  136. Physics: close range wont hurt! by slashnot007 · · Score: 1

    Since its a "tight" beam, close range and long range will have about the same intensity since the signal is not dispersing with distance (or is dispersing slowly). So being close is probably not a great danger than being a medium distance. On the otherhand if the dominant loss mechnism is absorption in the air rather than dispersion then to reach ultra-long ranges a high intensity beam could be used and that would of course be dangerous close in.

  137. ultraSonication can cause cell death by slashnot007 · · Score: 1

    Yes you are 100% correct. Ultrasonification can be very dangerous to living matter. One could argue that the energies involved might be small since the erar is sensitive. But the counter argument is that this device is 100% based on the fact that the ultrasonic energy is creating a non-linear response inside your head that is causing you to hear the audio-frequeny beat frequency. Almost by definition a non-linear response by an otherwise hisgly linear system requires a strong stimulous. Thus the ultra sonics energy is really affecting your body in an abnormal way. presumably it does not have enough energy to cook the proteins in your body or directly burst cells. But maybe for example it could make cells temporarily more porous, disrupting their ionic balances, allow free radical intrusion which long term could promote eventual cell death, cancer or infection. These would be very very rare events spread out over very long time, be hard to detect and prove cause and effect.

  138. What ever happened to those 'audio domes'? by TheHouseMouse · · Score: 1

    I remember coming across a company that sold these weird speaker dome type things. It looked like a dome (about 2 feet wide), with a odd looking speaker driver on top of it. They were marketing them to vending corporations (ATM's) and to companies that rent convention space. They didn't seem nearly as scientific as these speaker panels, but they claimed that there was very little sound that bleed outward. PS: I recently saw a company on Fox News Chicago being interviewed with this type of supersonic speaker. Not sure what company it was, but they said they were working on marketing the product to the military for use in the battlefield. They briefly said something about a tricked out one that could kill a person on sight, as well as a handheld version with a collection of the worlds most annoying sounds (a baby crying...backwards).

    --
    Only the meek get pinched. The bold survive.
  139. Re:This "speaker" Doesn't "sound" differnt either. by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

    Well, it sort of does that, it depends on what you're listening to--with radio it's largely unnoticable, except for a slight boost in volume, but with CDs, esp. live recordings there's a nice difference, it sounds as if it's coming from about a bit behind the speakers, and spread out to the left and right, as an actual band would be set up

    --
    If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
  140. Sources by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    The sources of those are easier to detect though.

  141. Audio technology update (circa 1975) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "But no single speaker can accurately reproduce the --full range of audible sound (approximately 20Hz to 20,000Hz)..."

    Sure. Tell that to anyone who's ever listened to a Magneplanar, Ohm-F, Bose-901, or full-range electrostatic speaker. All are full-range, single element speakers (OK, the Bose 901 has nine identical full range elements). All have been around for decades.

    Is the rest of this article up to the same high standards of careful journalistic research?

  142. Re:This "speaker" Doesn't "sound" differnt either. by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 2
    I'm not sure how the technology works (they don't give much actual detail about it) but it may be vibrating the skull

    The article mentioned that he was using a pair of ultrasonic beams, so it was my assumption that he was focusing the two beams on the person's head and that the person was hearing the "beat frequency" of the two beams.

  143. Give that man a cigar by wowbagger · · Score: 2

    (but not from Bill's humidor...)

    Correct - what I was alluding to was being able to hear the original ultrasound before the mixing, so as to better locate the speakers.

    And I'm not sure if the bat boxes do a single-sideband on the signal - I think they just do a straight mix of a bandwidth limited input - the mike responds to 20kHz->40 kHz, and then you mix with 20 kHz, yeilding 0->20 kHz and 40->60 kHz. Who cares about the high-side signals?

  144. What about our four legged friends? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine every coke machine was a dog whistle! Poor Lassie!

    This sounds like a very evil piece of technology, I hope somebody is priming their time machine to go back a few years to take this guy out. All you'll need is a coke machine (yeh.. right.. terminator two was wrong, real life killer machines are so much more uncool than Arnie)

  145. If you are into "conspiracy theories"... by cr0sh · · Score: 2

    Google on "Voice to Skull" technology - and be afraid...

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  146. The Reality Dysfunction by OneNonly · · Score: 1

    Sounds like something out of the great Sci-Fi series The Reality Dysfunction (Peter F. Hamilton).

    Only that was directed video and audio :) The "HyperSonic MultiMedia System" is next perhaps???

  147. This is very interesting. by BasharTeg · · Score: 1

    I understand what they're saying and find it very enlightening. Thank you Slashdot, for this great information.

    1. Re:This is very interesting. by delus10n0 · · Score: 1

      Quit trying to be a karma whore.

      --
      Not All Who Wander Are Lost
  148. Voices in My Head: A Paid Presentation by lo_fye · · Score: 1

    ok - this audio beam inspired me to expand on the predictions a bit... show the potential for good, and evil... Voices in my Head: A Paid Presentation Have you ever tried listening to 2 notes at the same time using headphones - 1 note in the right ear and 1 in the left? If you have, you'd know that with both headphones on at once, the sounds overlap in your head and you can only hear 1 note, at a pitch exactly between the actual 2 notes coming out of the headphones. In this case it's your brain integrating & re-interpreting signals - but now two companies are taking this premise and turning it into products. The idea is this: take two super-high frequencies of sound (beyond human hearing range) and pump them out - high frequencies have very small wavelengths and so the sound is very concentrated, more like a beam than a wave. When these two frequencies hit each other, the overlapping parts cancel each other out, and you only hear the difference between the two (called Tartini Tones). Now, regular music and voices are just a series of frequencies we hear through the air... so Norris' idea was to take any audio source, like a microphone, or stereo and reverse-engineer the frequency from say 440 Hz to two separate ultra-sonic frequencies (say 20,000 Hz and 20,440 Hz) and then to re-broadcast those two separate frequencies - and this is the cool part - when re-broadcast, they are in their focused, concentrated, narrow wavelength form which is "directable" like a beam of light. **Only the person you are shining this beam on can hear the sound** As you can imagine, this has wild implications. Some of the best of which include the ability to do things like have 4 bands playing at 1 club, and you just have to stand under the "audio beam" of the band you want to hear - the others will be silent to you, or at least as quiet as their un-amplified instruments. At the less social end of this spectrum are niceties such as separate audio channels for each passenger in a minivan - without the need for headphones. The dashboard and back of each seat could broadcast an audio-beam into the head of the person facing it, and no one else would hear that audio. This could be a boon for the radio-tuner industry as a need would arise for tuners capable of receiving multiple stations at once to ensure maximum listener pleasure. That's all very nice and mundane, but doesn't seem very profitable. Well, everything's profitable when the military gets involved, and this is one technology they are very interested in. Diversion is a tried and true tactic, and audio beam technology will enable them to project the sound of a large platoon approaching the left side of a city - while simultaneously deploying troops to right side. They could theoretically do tricks such as cut a phoneline, and beam their audio feed to your head - making you believe that you were still talking with your trusted friend, while in fact is was a pre-fab military soundtrack, or voice actor. Even more frightening than that though is that audio beam technology will allow them to broadcast ear-piercing sounds into the heads of their enemies mid-battle, while sparing the ears of allies. Hard to fight when your eardrums feel like they're about to burst. Luckily most of us are not wanted by the military; unluckily, we are all wanted by many other entities. Imaging you are walking down the street on a beautiful sunny day, and all of a sudden, out of nowhere you hear "chssk - gulp, gulp - ahhhh, that ice cold Coca Cola sure was refreshing - want one?" You stop and look around, but no one's there. No, wait - there is a coke machine about 50 yards in front of you... and it has an audio beam on it. Bastards. You keep walking down the street, past lingerie stores where then mannequins somehow talk to you through the glass, into the mall where every square foot of floorspace has now been sold to audio advertisers. Every step you take makes you the next victim of an aural advertisement - beamed directly from Disney into your head! Who owns what you hear? Who gets to decide? The Opera browser lets us turn off javascript pop-up ads, but how can we turn off audio beams whose messages penetrate our very minds? This technology has some devastating potential from a "rights management" perspective - all we have to do is twist the words of a few recent music and movie industry pundits to see the future - "By coming into our mall in the first place, consumers are implicitly agreeing to have our advertising beamed into their heads. How else are we supposed to survive as corporate entities if they are allowed to wear audio-beam prevention devices? These should be made illegal in capitalist spaces as they prevent the generation of revenue from audio beams. We must be allowed into people's heads." The only way we'll be safe from this is for legislation to be put into place banning the broadcast of unsolicited audio materials from any focusable audio source. If this is not done before the technology becomes widespread we *will* be hearing arguments exactly like the one above, and we may lose the right to decide whose voices live inside our own heads. by Derek Martin --------------- Some of the companies already using these audio-beam technologies include: Alma Media American Greetings British Airways British Telecom Creative Labs Daimler Chrysler Eastman Kodak General Motors Hewlett-Packard Jack Morton Worldwide Johnson & Johnson Kaiser Permanente Kraft Foods Marks & Spencer Motorola Newseum NCR Corporation Orange Procter & Gamble SEGA Steelcase Symbol Technologies Time Warner Toyota Walt Disney Imagineering ACMI at Federation Square PGA European Tour, 2002 Adelaide Festival, 2002 Australia American Loudspeaker Manufacturer's Assoc. Audio Engineering Society Boston Museum of Science List Visual Arts Centre, Boston, MA Northwestern University Media Lab Europe, Dublin, Ireland Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC Sega Joypolis, Tokyo Japan Symphony Hall, Boston, MA Potomac Institute, Arlington, Virginia Thomson, Dolby, and Harman Sources: http://www.discover.com/awards/arc97/9707-7G.html http://www.locationsound.com/96winter/hyper.html http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/08/27/151022 5&tid=141 http://www.msnbc.com/news/786016.asp http://www.elwoodnorris.com/interview.htm

    --
    geeks are cats who dig a certain kind of cool