Slashdot Mirror


Riot Control Ray-Gun for Use in Iraq

team99parody writes "An 'Active Denial System' weapon that 'fires a 95GHz microwave beam at rioters to cause heating and intolerable pain in less than five seconds' is scheduled for service in Iraq in 2006 according to CNET and the print version of New Scientist. It was recently tested on people playing the part of rioters at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico where they asked the subjects to remove glass and contact lenses to protect their eyes. Hopefully real rioters will get the same courtesy. Police and the Marines are working on portable versions. Sandia Labs also has a nice writeup on this system with pictures of smaller versions of the weapon."

172 of 1,317 comments (clear)

  1. Coming to America by nokilli · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's only logical. Our right to peaceably assemble is in the process of being eviscerated, which means that future efforts on the part of the citizenry to protest the increasingly hateful policies of this government will become more and more confrontational, and which in turn sees the government resorting to ever more punitive policies in response.

    Prediction: the ray-gun is on the streets in America in time for the 2008 Republican National Convention.

    I can't wait to hear what they consider to be acceptable levels of casualties as the result of using this thing on people.

    The thing I regret most in this life is that of all the science fiction movies I loved watching as I grew up, Soylent Green ends up being the one that most closely depicts the future.

    (I'd rather take my chances on the Nostromo.)
    --
    Why didn't you know?

    1. Re:Coming to America by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      casualties? wtf are you talking about, you douche. and peaceful assembly? again wtf, you douche.

      Sad to see trolls like this proving the grandparent right.

      --
      The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
    2. Re:Coming to America by Tezkah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Proving the grandparent right? The grandparent pastes a link at the end of every post comparing the draconian drug policies of the US to the holocaust.

      A post who compares the death of 11 million + pepole based on their religion to laws that are stupid yet put in place by a democracy is now telling me that ray guns are coming to take away our political rights?

      Forgive me if I'm a little cynical toward the grandparent.

    3. Re:Coming to America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How many millions of people need to die from our drug policy before we do get to compare it to the Holocaust, in your opinion?

      (BTW Genius, Nazi Germany was a democracy too.)

    4. Re:Coming to America by iamdrscience · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Our right to peaceably assemble is in the process of being eviscerated,
      Since when are riots considered peaceable assembly? This thing is designed, like teargas, beanbag guns, rubber bullets, etc. to disperse riots. Now I'm not saying that that's all they'll be used for, certainly there are instances where the line is grey and the police in charge of these devices have inappropriately chosen to use them, but there is a valid reason for them to be developed.

      I'm glad that devices like these exist because as much as it's important for people to peaceably assemble, if a mob of people gets rowdy and starts destroying peoples' property en masse, they have abused their right and ought to be dispersed.
    5. Re:Coming to America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      put in place by a democracy
      Well, Nazi Germany started out as a representative democracy, too.

      But I didn't realize we were supposed to give people a hard time about their sigs.

      The fact is, crap like this is bad. I don't care how violent a small minority of Iraqis are. There is no sense in burning them and giving them cancer just for being in a crowd.

      And yes, if it were applied domestically, crap like this would be just as bad. The grandparent raises a good point. Recent attitudes of law enforcement towards political protesters post Patriot Act have been alarming. Add this "ray gun" crap, and you've got something bad.

      Maybe the grandparent shouldn't have singled out the RNC '08 convention, (would that offend you less?) but he is definitely right.

      In my opinion, anyone who sees a distinction between using this in Iraq and using it in the USA is extremely ignorant, naive, or worse. People are people, regardless of nationality. There are a few bad apples in Iraq but the majority are normal people like you or me. Something like this has far too much potential for misuse.
    6. Re:Coming to America by name773 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      or a material that's reflective at 95ghz
      with goggles that filter it of course (can they make those? i've seen them for lasers, but idk if that's possible in this range)

      also of interest, it only penetrates 1/64 of an inch or .397mm, so you could wear something that absorbs it, but that might get a little warm (although it says they don't leave the emitter on too long so nobody recieves permanent damage)

    7. Re:Coming to America by nokilli · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Absent the trend in placing new and more onerous restrictions on where, when and how many people are allowed to peaceably assemble, I might agree with you.

    8. Re:Coming to America by Velox_SwiftFox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Okay, our traditional liberty as Americans patriots to assemble for the purposes of riot and pillage is in the process of being eviscerated.

    9. Re:Coming to America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, Johnny, we're talking about your civil liberties.

      Now, I know what you're thinking. "But dude, these aren't Americans like us. We're talking about towel heads. They're all a bunch of douches. Fucking terrorists, they are."

      Well, fuck, son. There's no difference. I'll give you a hint: most Iraqis want nothing to do with terrorism. Meanwhile, we blast them all with depleted uranium and ray guns. Environmental risk? Cancer? Well fuck, it's not our soil.

      Man. Can you imagine what it'd be like if the kind of shit that happens in Iraq were happening in New York, Chicago, insert your home town here? Well fuck. If every American knew that, we wouldn't have this stupid war.

    10. Re:Coming to America by rhennigan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      holocaust Audio pronunciation of "holocaust" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hl-kôst, hl-) n. 1. Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire.

      Nowhere did it say THE Holocaust.

    11. Re:Coming to America by starwed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Forgive me if I'm a little cynical toward the grandparent.

      You have every right to be cynical. But have you looked into the history of this device? I remember hearing about it several years ago, where it was touted as a better means of crowd control for the police. This isn't some paranoid delusion of the grandparent, it's what the device was designed for.

      And honestly, the original intention is good. Current riot control measures can damage and injure protestors. This is supposed to replace that with a more "humane" method. The problem is that the system seems to have some problems of its own, and although the military claims otherwise, would you expect anything else? ^_^

    12. Re: Coming to America by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Insightful


      > Since when are riots considered peaceable assembly?

      A more interesting question is, why is riot control a problem in a country just liberated from an insanely bloodthirsty dictator?

      There's something wrong with this picture, and I don't think the trouble lies in my set.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    13. Re:Coming to America by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's designed to be used against people. How does it sort out the "rioters"? Is it any better than the cops at the NYC RNC convention last year, who swept up everyone on the streets, regardless of their "peacable" status? Or any of the other mass arrests I've ever heard of, where my friends, or their friends, have been picked up, even when just caught on the other side of the street, on their way to work?

      Have you ever been in a public demonstration? The actual treatment of your rights - ignoring them - is enough to wake up practically anyone. Especially when you see how different it is from TV and the movies. This raygun is going to get abused even worse than batons and tear gas, because its effects are mostly invisible. So the person leaning on the trigger, farther away from the action, won't be as inhibited by feeling personal responsibility. This thing is a nightmare from hell for people who actually care about exercising freedom, rather than just hiding behind a police fantasy, fearing for their property over crowds that will never threaten them.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    14. Re:Coming to America by jericho4.0 · · Score: 2, Informative
      The Basque people, Hawaiian, Nicobar islanders, and other scattered groups are probably directly descended from the first folks to show up. None of these are nations any longer, of course.

      Native americans were not the first people in the Americas, and the people they displaced weren't either.

      I still think the "stolen land" critique is valid, as these were active policy and millitary moves by the US goverenment. Unfortunatly, that was then and this is now, and there's not much the US can do but build a memorial.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    15. Re:Coming to America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, 'genius', PRE-Nazi Germany was a democracy. Nazi Germany was a dictatorship.

      Nazi refers to National Socialist, and the National Socialists were elected by the people. That doesn't describe a dictatorship. Power was consolidated at the national level later on, yes, but the powers utilized to do this were given to the party by the people.

      And to answer your question, you NEVER get to compare it to the holocaust.

      Never? No matter how many die? Fifty million dead as a result of our drug policy and yet, no comparison may be made? Why is that?

      Can we ever hold the life of one man as being of greater value than another? Of course not. That is, after all, the kind of thinking that led to the Holocaust in the first place.

      Only when you understand that should you consider a reply.

    16. Re:Coming to America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Amen, everyone properly inside the free speech cages will be shielded from the microwaves completely.

    17. Re:Coming to America by quarkscat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "...in time for the 2008 Republican National Convention."

      I consider you to be an optimist.

      First of all, if this device will be made available in Iraq in 2006, it will also be deployed here in the USA in time for the 2006 mid-term national elections.

      Secondly, you make the presumption that the two (identical as peas in a pod) major political parties will actually still engage in the public facade of national conventions in 2008. And by logical extention, that there will be national elections in 2008.

      The FEC (Federal Election Commission) let loose a "trial balloon" in the public press in the weeks leading up to the 2004 national elections that the elections "might need to be postponed" due to considerations of possible terrorist attacks. This is something that has never been done before, not during the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, WW-I, WW-II, the Korean Conflict, or the Vietnam "Police Action". I predict that there will be one or more major terrorist attacks in the USA conveniently timed to instill new fear and calls for martial law just prior to the 2008 national elections. The US Constitution limits a president to two four-year terms or 10 years, whichever is more. You don't really think that Dubya and the neo-Con(artists) would willingly give up power before they absolutely must, do you?

      Do you really think that the American people will be ready, by 2008, for the succession of the office of President to Jeb Bush? I don't.

    18. Re:Coming to America by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 3, Funny

      We(the Dutch) "stole" half of our country from the North Sea. Does that count? I guess the fish have an argument against us...

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    19. Re: Coming to America by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      A more interesting question is, why is riot control a problem in a country just liberated from an insanely bloodthirsty dictator?

      You think that "bloodthirsty dictator" was operating alone ?

    20. Re:Coming to America by Seumas · · Score: 3, Informative

      How about when police officers attend pre-assembly rallies and discussions under cover and try to promote violence from within and then attend the actual rallies under cover and start spraying people randomly with pepper spray just to stir them up and cause a disturbance so you can claim that they are violent and not peaceful?

      And yes, this does happen. It has been videotaped.

    21. Re:Coming to America by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Have you ever been in a public demonstration? The actual treatment of your rights - ignoring them - is enough to wake up practically anyone.

      The trouble is that the mood of crowds is unpredictable, can change *very* quickly, and cannot be reasoned with. Added to that people in packs tend not to act with the same restraint they would individually. When a crowd turns nasty, the people they're targeting are usually vastly outnumbered and have no chance of defending themselves "fairly".

      This thing is a nightmare from hell for people who actually care about exercising freedom [...]

      A mob of lunatics rampaging through the streets burning cars, smashing in windows and robbing houses - or even one just throwing rocks, firecrackers or bottles at a line of police isn't "exercising freedom".

    22. Re:Coming to America by TooncesTheCat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lets do some logic! Peaceful demonstration = No ray gun Rioting = Ray gun Although, what would suck would be on asshole ruining the whole peaceful demonstration thing and then the whole group gets the ray gun. :

    23. Re: Coming to America by zoney_ie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Course not. Sure didn't some big world superpower give him a load of help in the 1980s?

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    24. Re:Coming to America by q.kontinuum · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The trouble is that the mood of crowds is unpredictable, can change *very* quickly, and cannot be reasoned with. Added to that people in packs tend not to act with the same restraint they would individually

      This might be a reason to deny the right to assemble. But the right to assemble is graned by Your constitution, so this argument does not count.

      A mob of lunatics rampaging through the streets burning cars, smashing in windows and robbing houses

      Agreed. But on most demonstrations I was, it was only very few lunatics rampaging being used as an excuse to capture many obviously peacful people.

      or even one just throwing rocks, firecrackers or bottles at a line of police isn't "exercising freedom".

      COMPLETELY different story! How can one person render all others around him illegal? So next time I see a demonstration I don't like I will join the demonstration and throw a bottle. That way, all people around me loose there right to assemble. Nice, very efficient.

      --
      Trolling is a art!
    25. Re:Coming to America by jacksonj04 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Protest != Riot
      Riot != Protest

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    26. Re:Coming to America by Frodrick · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Since when are riots considered peaceable assembly?

      They mostly start out peaceful - except, of course, for G8 protests - but rapidly escalate. A row of police standing between the protestors and their target becomes a noisy protest with much fist shaking and placard waving. Pushing and shoving from both sides occur as the protestors attempt to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Then something gets thrown or someone gets hit - not seriously, but enough to inflame passions. After that everything gets thrown and everyone gets hit.

      I still remember Kent State. This will be used. Then it will be abused.

    27. Re:Coming to America by sQUIDBOY228 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What you are forgetting is this is a option other than lethal force. No more no less. It is a piece of machinery. The evil is not in the machine, it is and or will be in the use of the machine. I would perfur a bruning sensation to a bullet any day! U? The key here is to make sure the people in control of this country have an agenda that is consistant with that of the population. 2B>=Vote!

    28. Re:Coming to America by neonsignal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      because of course, property rights are more important than human life?

    29. Re:Coming to America by Biomechanical · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This isn't a counter-argument to either you or the next comment up, merely an observation of a rally I was in several years ago.

      It was a rally for the decriminalization (sp?) of cannabis.

      We sang songs, smoked dope (quite illegaly) with a couple of coppers on the job watching us, and generally just annoyed people by holding up traffic and chanting corny slogans.

      The few people I noticed who did try to get everyone all fired up and bloodthirsty got one of two things - the first few were, very inconspicuously, beaten up by a couple of the bigger, "gentle giants" in the crowd, and the other wankers were shoved straight into the arms of the police, who arrested the dickheads for "assaulting an officer", with a wink and a smile from the rest of us.

      We'd decided on having a peaceful rally, with some civil (polite too) disobedience by our pot smoking, and we'd kept that peace through some subtly violent methods. There was no damage to property, nor people who weren't being morons.

      We were Brisbanites, quietly, seriously, exercising our possible - still dunno if there's anything in the books that says we're entitled to it - right to peacefully assemble and express our displeasure at the government, and that's what we did, and because we were civil-minded, peaceful folk, we beat mary-hell out of the dumb fucks that tried to ruin it for us and then we handed them over to the police while wearing big, doped smiles.

      It was a pleasant day.

      --
      His name is Robert Paulsen...
    30. Re:Coming to America by miu · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I can't wait to hear what they consider to be acceptable levels of casualties as the result of using this thing on people.

      I imagine that any casualties will be subject to incredible levels of propaganda. Human nature is such that we are very very good at accepting the most hateful propaganda if it matches what we want to believe - and Americans still desperately want to believe that we are not monsters. So any casualties that result from this will be painted (and widely believed) to have got what was coming to them.

      --

      [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
    31. Re:Coming to America by Loconut1389 · · Score: 3, Funny

      What does Dance Dance Revolution have to do within anything?

    32. Re:Coming to America by Biomechanical · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Picture a man in black - because it's fashionable - holding a poor, misguided young geek wanna-be in his arms, a.l.a. world aid advertisements.

      "The young man you see before you is in dire need of rations of reality, but he is only one of many poor, unfortunate children who go by every day not knowing whether they'll see the clue tomorrow or not. Please, don't send these children your flamebait, but send them your clues. They dearly need the healthy guidance of a clue-stick."

      It's very simple Andrew. A riot is the unorderly assembly of a crowd of people who are operating under the general pretext of creating chaos through the violent disruption of other people's lives.

      A protest, or rally as we like to call them here in Australia, is a crowd of people collected together to cause chaos through way of peaceful, but annoying, disruption of other people's lives while loudly chanting and shouting why we're trying to draw attention to ourselves.

      One, the riot, is meant to cause chaos for the sake of anarchy, whereas the other, a protest, is meant to draw attention to a Cause by interrupting other people's lives and forcing them to see that there is a perceived problem in our society.

      "Please, for the sake of these children's future, show them the loving touch of a clue-stick."

      --
      His name is Robert Paulsen...
    33. Re:Coming to America by will_die · · Score: 3, Informative

      The FEC did let loose any "trail balloon" about delaying the elections.
      An office of the Justice department was ordered to do a paper on that and what would be required to delay the popular vote by a week or two at the most. It came down to that congress would have to approve the delay,the constitution does not place a date it is a federal law done by Congress and the President. Then a whole bunch of state laws would have to be changed, such as Florida's state law that says the vote has to be in place by a certain date in December.
      Overall a smart idea to have it research, but from the research it was quickly determined that it was impractical to do anything about, and just hope and pray that some attack did not prevent a large number of people from participating in the election.

      The information on that paper is easy to find and was publicly available at the time it was made a big thing in the press. So are you just using it as a non-issue to spew your hate speech or did you not care about the issue enough to do anything besides read about it at some kookie conspiracy web site?

    34. Re:Coming to America by RWerp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When you organize a big demonstration, one of your responsibilities is protecting the peaceful demonstrators from some aggressive people who might join the crowd and start trouble. You do it with the cooperation with the police. If there is sufficient organization, some idiot throwing bottles will not be a problem.

      Your right to peacefully assemble is not unlimited, it is limited by other people's rights, like the right to protect their property.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    35. Re:Coming to America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      This sort of fails to show any grasp of the complete inadequacies of Weimar Germany as a proper system for government. The ridiculous levels of representation almost ensured that any government that could be elected would be drawn from such a wide base that no party could reasonably expect to have an overall majority of 50%+. But you can have a minority government where the parties agree that one party can hold office, even where that party is not the party that has the most representatives in office. Also, you can have majority government where the largest party holds office. But you couldn't have this situation transpiring in Weimar Germany because parties were so plentiful that all governments were complicated, weakened coalitions. When you attempt to represent all, and have no 'winner' or dominant leadership, then you've got a system for unstable government.

      The whole Weimar system was something that the Nazis were against because it weakened Germany's position in the world - and this is exactly the reason that the Weimar system was put in place in Germany after the first world war.

      It's disgusting that the Nazis should have come to power, but you don't understand anything about the genus of the war unless you grasp the notion that the Nazis used democracy against itself to kill it in Nazi Germany. They competed in the elections to win on an anti-democratic platform. One way of reading their reasoning is that if the anti-democrats can win a democratic election then democracy is flawed and they can overthrow the representative system.

      Another unrelated point: I think it completely demeans the Holocaust to misrepresent it whether in fact, in magnitude or in perception. As far as I remember the figure for the victims of Jewish persecution was 6 million. The figure quoted before by a parent post was for victims of all categories of religious or ethnic murder, and that apparently was 11+ million. That's quite a big leap after someone factors in the deaths of Muslim, Negro, gypsy, Romany, Slavic and other peoples who were slaughtered because of their difference from the racial purity of the Nazi effort, or because they were lame or infirm. And that's still an inaccuracy if you use the creative accounting practice of keeping the ticker going after the second World War and counting the deaths of all Jews in Europe since that war ended.

      I feel compelled to complain about this use of figures because it taints the memory if the memory is misrepresented, as much as, and in the same way that, Israel's actions against Switzerland tarnished the memory of Jewish suffering during and after World War Two by effectively conning Switzerland out of a huge amount of money, and using the Jewish suffering as the lever for the con.

    36. Re:Coming to America by phreaki · · Score: 2, Informative

      Shotguns are not invisible, cannot be fired 24/7 and kill.

    37. Re:Coming to America by JudicatorX · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Because shotguns permanently maim and/or kill

      Because shotguns can't be used by one or two people against tens of thousands.

      Because shotguns aren't (usually) used to deny large crowds their fundamental right to assemble in peaceful process.

      Because shotguns weren't developed for crowd 'control'.

      Because before George "Fucking Haliburton" Walker Bush there were no "Free Speech Zones", and hence no "No-free-speech zones".

      --
      "It is a good divine that follows his own instructions" - Portia, The Merchant of Venice
    38. Re:Coming to America by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2, Informative

      So "boo hoo" these people were arrested and released, right? Now, every job they apply to, they will have to tell their employer-to-be they were arrested

      No. They don't. Your potential employer only has the right to know if you have been convicted of a crime. And most states limit that to a period of years.

      Try again.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    39. Re:Coming to America by jglen490 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "Since when are riots considered peaceable assembly?"

      First, one must define "riot", and then (more powerfully) must define who gets to decide what a riot is. Witness the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago in which the powers-that-were either panicked or were not understanding the purpose of protest.

      Yes, in an emotionally charged situation it's easy for anyone to lose control of that situation and to thereby allow, or even cause, an escalation. However, comma, this is a very powerful system and hardly qualifies as a "non-lethal" weapon. Any protests of "we would never use it in anger" notwithstanding, all it takes is a few extra seconds of panicked press on the controller to weld glasses to skulls and permanently burn a copy of the latest state quarter into skin, or much worse.

    40. Re:Coming to America by chrish · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's it, Citizen, you just earned yourself a trip to the Freedom Zone!

      --
      - chrish
    41. Re:Coming to America by chrish · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, yes he is. Have you seen how "fast" pot-heads move? It'd be like getting beaten up by Urkel.

      --
      - chrish
    42. Re:Coming to America by VanWEric · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the major point of difference between a riot control shotgun and a riot control laz0r b33m of 95Ghz millimeter microwaveryness is the intent of the person on the trigger end.

      A good cop ain't going to shoot me in the face with a shotgun (unless I'm doing something _really_ bad). A good cop will shoot me in the face with this gizmo if he has been told that it is "just a little pain" with "no permanent damage".

      The real danger comes from divorcing the damage inflicted from the percieved damage inflicted.

      And even if we train the riot cops, we don't know the worst case scenario. Riot cops get tear gassed during training - but that didn't save the life of the girl who was tear gassed during the red sox riots last year.

      --
      www.olin.edu
    43. Re:Coming to America by dtfinch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just in the past year pepperballs were used in a nearby small town to disperse a nonviolent crowd of Bush protesters. As far as I could tell there was no rioting or destruction of property.

    44. Re:Coming to America by Total_Wimp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, it is.

      The reason is that assembling to call the government to task for the wrongs they've done is instantly reclasified as rioting and pillaging.

      Boston tea party. A bunch of guys rioted and pillaged to decry the wrongs of the government.

      Rodney King verdict riots. A bunch of people rioted and pillaged to decry the wrongs of the government.

      What's the difference? Was one violent and the other peaceful? Did one involve property damage while the other did not?

      How about the WTO protests in Seattle that were broken up with rubber bullets and tear gas? Were they causing property damage? Were they pillaging?

      And then of course there's all the pillaging that was going on in Tiananmen square.

      Whenever you have a government force putting down "riots", you better take some time to figure out why so many people are so god damned upset. Calling them a bunch of pillagers is moste definately missing the point.

      TW

    45. Re:Coming to America by whopis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If we proceed ahead by excusing the actions of one group based on the evils and crimes committed by another group, then we are certainly doomed.

      Why do you insist that if one group is in the wrong, then anything done by the other group must be right and justified? Is it not possible that both groups committed unjustified actions?

      What about the group of blacks that pulled Reginald Denny from his truck and savagely beat him, smashing his head against the ground with a cinder block? Are they justified in beating him because a white jury freed a group of racist police?

      What about the targeting of Korean storeowners during the riots? How does that fit into the picture? Perhaps that was justified due to the light sentence Soon Ja Du (a Korean shopowner) received after shooting and killing Latasha Harlins during a minor robbery attempt.

      This is not about blacks vs. whites, or "whitey" vs. minorities.

      This is about evil people (who come in every race and color) and how much control and force they can exert over others when they are allowed to do so.

      To say that the L.A. Riots are a response to a black man being beaten by white cops is greatly misleading. Like many things this is not a clear cut black and white issue.

      After all, if that is all there was to it, how would you explain the hispanic cop that was involved in the beating? How would you explain the group of black residents that witnessed the beating of Reginald Denny live on the news and rushed out of their houses to save him?

      There are good people, there are evil people, there are people who are a mixture of the two. The ones who want you to believe that these incidents are merely related to race want you to have an uncontrollable visceral reaction to such thoughts. They fear people's ability to use intelligence and reasoning. They don't want you to understand the true causes behind anything. And that is how they will attempt to control you.

    46. Re:Coming to America by mattOzan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Boy, it didn't take long for this thread to be over! - Mike Godwin

    47. Re:Coming to America by grgyle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Singling out the bad apples is key, and when done right, can be effective from the police's side as well.

      A few years back here in Seattle, during the WTO riots/protests we had, police stationed "paintball snipers" at various points whose job it was to mark troublemakers with paint, which could then be picked out of the confusion for arrest. It arguably prevented more escalation from taking place.

      It also sounded like the closest thing to a real guilt-free first person shooter you could get, "Hippie Tagging, 3D" ;-)

      --
      ----- And all that the Lorax left here in this mess was a small pile of rocks, with one word...UNLESS.
    48. Re: Coming to America by kalel666 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I know this is one of those things that "everybody knows", that the US armed Saddam in the 80's, but the facts speak otherwise. Yes, we supplied Iraq with monies and arms, but we were far behind those paragons of International virtue like:

      USSR 17503 50.78%
      France 5221 15.15%
      China 5192 15.06%
      Czechoslovakia 1540 4.47%
      Poland 1626 4.72%
      Brazil 724 2.10%
      Egypt 568 1.65%
      Romania 524 1.52%
      Denmark 226 0.66%
      Libya 200 0.58%
      USA 200 0.58%

      But don't take my word for it. Refer to the report from SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) here: http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/Trnd_Ind_IRQ_Im ps_73-02.pdf

      If you're going to blame the US for something, go ahead, but a least blame us for something legitimate.

      --
      I HAVE CUBIC WISDOM THAT TRANSCENDS AND CONTRADICTS ONE DAY GODS
    49. Re:Coming to America by BarC0d3z · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not sure how you ended up with Insightful.

      "Rioting" really doesn't accomplish all that much. Whereas "Protesting" accomplishes more. Why do you think Dr. MLK is revered and Malcolm X villanized?

      But to answer your questions: Boton tea party was a small faction of people - the Sons of Liberty - who were considered extremists and denounced publicly by the likes of John Adams. We celebrate them now that history has had a chance to smooth out the rough edges. Regardless, the destruction they caused was very deliberate. Crates of Tea being imported from British owned companies and excessively taxed. It was symbolic because the British were excessively taxing everything imported. Tea just happened to be in the harbor at the time.

      Rodney King riots weren't decrying any wrongs of the government. It started out as a tantrum because 12 men and women couldn't determine beyond a reasonable doubt that those police officers were guilty of the charges brought against them. People were angry because the same laws that protect them from wrongful incarceration were protecting the people they didn't like. It escalated into a free-for-all of looting and stealing. There was no lesson learned that day except that people will steal and in some cases kill when they think they can get away with it.

      You got the WTO right - they were just protests. However there's a fine line when you have a large mass of people who are protesting and a mob of people who are becoming unmanageable. It's also a fine line when you have to be the one to manage those people. Give them their right to protest, but don't let them trample on the rights of others be allowing them to get violent. Rubber bullets sting a lot less than a crowbar to the back of the head.

      Tiananmen Square - I know you were being sarcastic so I won't berate you for it. All I can say is thank God I don't live in a communist state.

      I agree that freedom of assembly is a good thing. I can agree that getting to the cause for disgruntlement is a good thing. But "rioting" isn't synonymous with "protesting" as you seem to want to make it. Rioting does the exact opposite of what you're trying to accomplish. It allows your opposers to point to you and say, "See! They're barbarians. Their ideas hold no weight."

    50. Re:Coming to America by bleckywelcky · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, I think all riots would be classified as protests, but not all protests would be classified as riots.

      Protest != Riot
      Riot = Protest

    51. Re:Coming to America by Wile_E_Peyote · · Score: 2, Informative
      The reason is that assembling to call the government to task for the wrongs they've done is instantly reclasified as rioting and pillaging.

      Obviously you've forgotten the 60's. There were a great number of peacful protests that did not lead to the police bashing peoples skulls, therefore your assertion is false. It happens (Kent state), but it isn't the rule.

      Boston tea party. A bunch of guys rioted and pillaged to decry the wrongs of the government.

      The Boston Tea Party wasn't exactly a riot, all accounts I have read say it was remarkably peaceful.

      Rodney King verdict riots. A bunch of people rioted and pillaged to decry the wrongs of the government.

      This was a bad reaction and I wouldn't blame the police for using riot control tactics here.

      How about the WTO protests in Seattle that were broken up with rubber bullets and tear gas? Were they causing property damage? Were they pillaging?

      The answer to both questions is yes.

      And then of course there's all the pillaging that was going on in Tiananmen square.

      A serious abuse of power by the Chinese government and not comparable.

      Whenever you have a government force putting down "riots", you better take some time to figure out why so many people are so god damned upset. Calling them a bunch of pillagers is moste definately missing the point.

      Just because a bunch of people get together, doesn't mean they are there for good reason. Ever hear of Lynch Mobs? Soccer riots? Woodstock II?

    52. Re:Coming to America by trenton · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Sorry, man, but you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. You're telling me we should let riots roam unchecked because you can't separate the actual rioters from innocent bystanders? That's silly. Riots are dangerous and cause all kinds of property damage (owners of that property are the real victims) and must be stopped.

      (Side note: did you know insurance policy rarely cover riots, insurrections, wars, etc? How'd you like to still be making payments on a car which was set on fire four years ago.)

      Bottom line: if you don't heed the calls to disperse, you're just a guilty as the ones throwing bricks or rolling cars.

      --
      Too big to fail? Does that make me to small to succeed?
    53. Re:Coming to America by anaesthetica · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Your moral equivalency is really quite striking.

      Everyone has the right to assemble peaceably to protest what they consider a grievance against our duly elected and representative government.

      The Boston Tea party did not protest against a democratic and elected government, but against a monarch taxing unrepresented citizens.

      The Rodney King rioters damaged and looted the property of their fellow private citizens in protest of government action. That's completely unjust to those that had their homes and stores wrecked. A march, a rally, fiery public speeches, petitions, a sit-in at the court or city hall--all of these would have been acceptable. But the rioters damaged their neighbors in their anger at the government, and such action is rightfully stopped. It is one thing to protest against a monarch and another to protest against an elected and accountable government.

      WTO protesters in Seattle were not uniformly non-violent. Many private citizens, once again, had to pay the price for someone else's anger at the government. That's fundamentally unjust, that I might have my property destroyed by someone angry, not at me, but at the government.

      Tiananmen square was certainly peaceful to begin with, although I don't doubt that as it went on the protesters engaged in provocation with the police. But, you cannot draw equivalency between protest in a public square against a totalitarian government and protest in the streets of LA against an elected government's decision which involves destruction of private homes and stores. There is no moral equivalence there, whatsoever.

    54. Re:Coming to America by jscotta44 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      - Boston Tea Party: A riot against a government that DID NOT provide for a method of peaceful demonstration/protest. You could be shot just for saying you did not like the King. - Rodney King: Until you have had to deal with a known criminal on PCP, you do not know the fright that the police officers have to deal with when confronting a man like Rodney King. Should police officers be inhuman and above that level of fear/anger in their jobs, yes. And any police officer or other public official that goes beyond the limits should be punished. However, don't think Rodney King some poor downtrodden soul. He, as subsequent events proved, was just a low-level thug and crook on drugs. He just had the fortune to be filmed from a distance and gave the news stations good fodder to hoist onto us. There are real abuses of government power that we can only hope get filmed. This one was not it. LA Riots: Just plain wrong and it is a shame that anyone defends them. They were not even close to the same level as the demonstrations in China. And to try to compare them demeans the acts of the brave citizens of China. The LA Riots were just the, to them, righteous anger of a few turned into a cover for more thugs to harm innocent people. These riots were neither necessary nor right. Finally: Don't confuse the tool for the abuse of said tool. The ability of a government to disperse a crowd with non-lethal means is far more preferable than spraying a crowed with machine gun fire. If the government is wrongly dispersing crowds then hopefully the news organizations that get so much wrong will get it right and will enable our (USA) citizens to correct it. BTW...I am not totally against violence to correct a corrupt government and neither are the founding fathers of the United States of America. In fact, they provided for just such a possibility by providing for the citizens to arm themselves with weapons like guns. Don't let any anti-gun proponent mislead you. The main reason for the right to keep and bear arms is because they new that every government eventually corrupts to the point that the citizens must do something - every government. And no government fears anything more than an armed population.

    55. Re:Coming to America by Irvu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At the Republican and Democratic national conventions police have begun creating "Free Speech Zones" located inside barbed wire fences often miles from the actual convention site. People inside these zones were still, in some cases, subject to behavior restrictions (no shouting etc. At the RNC convention in new york police shut down a permitted march and arrested large numbers of people for being on the sidewalk or doing what they were otherwize told they could do. Many of those convinctions were subsequently thrown out and the police were rebuked both for arresting non-violent demontrators and for excessive use of force.

      At the Central American Free-Trade Agreement minesterial in florida last year unarmed and non-violent protestors were shot with bean-bag guns and rubber bullets (in theory non-lethal but they can in fact kill or at least cause permanent soft-tissue damage). Judges there are still sorting out the damage.

      Wake up!

    56. Re: Coming to America by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 3, Informative
      If you're implying the $200M from the US was used exclusively for chemical weapons and other WMD, then I'd love to see a source.

      You gotta be kidding. I am not gonna waste a day looking for primary sources, I will point you instead to this report, they cite their sources, go check them yourself. They mention figures totalling over $5 billion.

      USSR sold weapons to Saddam as he was not part of the Warsaw Pact and USSR was in no position to give him stuff. As a matter of fact when Saddam fell, he was $8 billion or so in debt to USSR/Russia for all that junk.

      Note that while the US money was earmarked for weapons, it was funnelled through various covers like the agriculture department. This is a standard practice with clandestine military aid, serving among other things to hide it from the taxpaying public.

      Also from the article:

      The Soviet government had refused to deliver arms to Iraq as long as Baghdad continued its military offensive against Iran.

      and

      The US government approved 771 licenses [only 39 were rejected] for the export to Iraq of $1.5 billion worth of biological agents and high-tech equipment with military application ...

      Look, I'm not excusing the fact we provided this materiel to Iraq, only that we were hardly alone, and weren't nearly the worst offender.

      The difference is that all the other participants were just trying to peddle their wares to Saddam (which still makes them covered in blood snakes) although of course they had their agendas. Particualry amusing is the fact that Saddam was falling out with the USSR over his war with Iran, which is what made him such a great buddy of the US. But unlike even the USSR (although they did sell him arms on credit - which ended up costing them dearly), the US was actively funding him during his attrocities, which is worse. Doubly so now, when the hypocrisy is of cosmic proportions, with all the "liberation" and search for WMDs crapola.

    57. Re:Coming to America by spun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sorry, I lived there with a native Hawaiian and studied polynesian culture, and you are flat out wrong. My room mate was heavily into the Hawaiian Sovereignty movement, so I probably know a lot more about the subject than you.

      There are two types of native Hawaiian people, the peaceful shorter, darker skinned folks who lived there prior to 800 AD, and the taller, lighter skinned Polynesians who conquered the islands around that time. The legends of "menehuna" or little people refer to these original inhabitants or more likely their gods, much like the Tu'atha de Danann of the Celts became fairies and elves to later conquerors.

      The Polynesian descended Hawaiians were certainly a sovereign nation, but let's not put them on a pedestal. They were a feudalistic hereditary aristocracy where the serfs had very few rights. They were very warlike, with local warlords from the various islands launching frequent raids on their neighbors until the outright conquest of all the islands by King Kamehameha with the help of his white allies and their cannons.

      As a footnote, there are basically three pacific cultures, the warlike feudal Polynesians, the clan based Micronesians, and the merit based Melanesians. Polynesians were the Vikings of the Pacific, when youger sons of landed nobles didn't inherit land, the would frequently pack up a bunch of plants, animals and warriors in a double hulled sailing ship of up to 100 feet in length and go of to find some uninhabited or easily conquered island to settle. The Micronesians are matrilineal , clan based and peaceful. The Melanesians are merit based as I said, meaning the leaders are whoever is the best at a particular thing. Likely the original Hawaiians were Micronesian, or possibly Melanesian though the Melansian Islands are much further away than either the Polynesian or Micronesian Islands.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    58. Re:Coming to America by RotJ · · Score: 2, Funny

      How do you classify a riot that occurs because your favorite sports team won something? It's not as much "I'm protesting" as it is "I'm drunk".

  2. So... by einstienbc · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wheres mine?

    --
    If you die horribly on television, you will not have died in vain. You will have entertained us.

    --Kurt Vonnegut

  3. Health implications by JemVai777 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I Wonder whether its usage can contribute to cancer down the track?

    --
    "The problem with our economy is that our budget is balanced by people who aren't" - A.E.N.
    1. Re:Health implications by DanMc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wouldn't worry about it... US gunfire and air strikes are more likely to kill you than cancer.

    2. Re:Health implications by Tezkah · · Score: 5, Funny

      I Wonder whether its usage can contribute to cancer down the track

      ... only if you use it to light your cigarette. =)

    3. Re:Health implications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Luckily, the ray gun comes with warning label. "May cause cancer or even death." And the operator gets a radiation shield.

    4. Re:Health implications by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Given that the only depleted uranium rounds are only fired from 25, 105, and 120mm guns, if you got hit by one cancer ought to be the last thing on your mind. Personally, I'd be much more concerned with keeping myself in one piece, or barring that at least in as few as possible.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    5. Re:Health implications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The round gets vaporised by braking during target impact and thus it gets to atmosphere, then into foodchain (or directly into your lungs if you are nearby). To smaller degree, if DU is not enclosed in full metal jacket, same happens to weapons crew.

    6. Re:Health implications by carldot67 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's hard to say.

      All cells have a fundamental shock response to heating as well as to UV and other stimuli. They produce various repair enzymes that wander around doing useful stuff like refolding damaged proteins and relinking damaged DNA.

      The problem is they sometimes get it wrong leading to mutations or regulation imbalances. Heating also changes the shape of proteins. Go higher than 42C for many animal proteins and they cease to work properly, in some cases permanently until they are replaced (there is a natural turnover).

      Now since proteins are involved in genetic switchgear and regulation I can easily see the possibility of one delicate subsystem going out of whack: growth factors, receptors, messengers, polymerase initiation factors, repressors etc. If one or more of these go wrong you _can_ have unregulated cell growth. aka Cancer.

      This would be particularly true for children or individuals with a pre-existing disposition.

      Numbers are hard for me to take a stab at without data and mammalian heat-shock isnt my field (although my degree in molecular biology is a good start).

      However, and as most people would suspect, unnatural stimuli given often enough to a large enough sample will eventually throw up something bad in individual cases at a rate higher than a control group. Its a statistical certainty.

      What "how often", "eventually" and "large enough" and "something bad" mean in relation to the weapon are anyone's guess. And I think thats a problem. You can find all this out for Aspirin, so why not the weapon?

      On balance, if you get tagged by this thing once due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time then the chances are it's not going to harm you long term. That said, I would really, really steer clear of it. It sounds like a nightmare.

      Speaking from a social viewpoint, I personally think its a dangerous escalation. If the authorities start firing this at people then it can surely only be a matter of time until they start firing back.

      --
      I wish at was Friday, but I dont want to wish my life away. So I wish it was last Friday.
    7. Re:Health implications by plumby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It means that the level of uranium 235 (compared to U234/U236) is reduced to below the levels found in nature. It is around 60% as radiocative as natural uranium, and once inside the body has exactly the same effects as natural uranium (mostly lung/kidney damage). Not as dangerous as enriched uranium it's true, but still not particularly nice stuff.

    8. Re:Health implications by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Speaking from a social viewpoint, I personally think its a dangerous escalation. If the authorities start firing this at people then it can surely only be a matter of time until they start firing back.

      Mod parent up. That's the point. Shooting at people with stun guns and CS gas causes them to throw stones at you (not to take sides, it also works the other way round: If you start throwing stones, don't be surprised if a CS grenade comes back).
      So why should this be any different? It will be a shock and probably disperse the crowd the first few times around. After that, it'll incite violent reactions. Since it is a most natural reaction to eliminate the source of your pain, I wouldn't want to be the cop who's holding the gun.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    9. Re:Health implications by pkahle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      At the moment, the "gun" is mounted on a Humvee. So you don't much have to worry about anybody carrying it. Also, it's purpose is to scatter a whole crowd. It's not directed at a single person, it's got a wide arc of fire. And from what I've heard, nobody's managed to stay in the beam more than 2 seconds (in somewhere over 2000 test subjects)

    10. Re:Health implications by Fishstick · · Score: 3, Funny

      >they sometimes get it wrong leading to mutations

      great - that would serve us right, have a bunch of angry, mutated Iraqis using their heat vision, super strength or invisibility against us!

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    11. Re:Health implications by admiralh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That sounds fine for test subjects in a situation where there is easy and immediate freedom of movement. Also the test subjects were allowed to remove glasses and contacts (they'd focus the microwaves). I don't know the physiology, but it seems to me that eyes would be the organ likely to be damaged first.

      Now let's think about the real world. A mob is approching the Humvee where the ray-gun is mounted they fire a sweep pattern at them. The front line (the ones hit) falls back into the second line that's pshing forward creating a pileup of bodies. This is OK if they stop the beam at this point, it prevents the crowd from advancing.

      But what happens if they keep sweeping the beam? Those people caught in front are going to get a lot more than just 2 seconds worth of heating, since they're simply *unable* to avoid it. Also, what if someone gets knocked unconscious, and cannot voluntarily avoid the beam? How much exposure time until their faces melt?

      Now of course the question is, is this less injurious/more effective than other riot control methods, such as tear gas, machine guns, etc.? That I don't know, but I'm highly skeptical that this method is any better.

      --
      Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
  4. "non" lethal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    • Interesting that they focus on the non-lethal aspect. I'd suspect the military would also be interested on whether you could turn up the power a bit, and you have a lethal ray gun that can hit lots of people at once.
    • Wonder if the volunteers of which the article speaks were found in a similar way that earlier human radiation 'volunteers' were found.
    • Wonder if making people feel like they're being burned alive counts as torture?
    1. Re:"non" lethal? by thorndt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The U.S. military operates in two modes:
      1) Peacekeeping
      2) Warfighting

      In Peacekeeping mode, the object is to, you guessed it, keep the peace, but with very very tight rules of engagement and use of deadly force.
      In Warfighting, the military aims to make "the other poor bastard die for his country," as quickly as possible.

      Obviously the ray-gun is a crowd-control, not a crowd-incinerate, device--and the military is quite happy to use it as such.

      --
      - The race is not [always] to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. -
    2. Re:"non" lethal? by PeterBrett · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, that's correct. The basic premise is as follows:

      If you kill an enemy soldier, you've eliminated and enemy soldier from the field.

      If you incapacitate an enemy soldier without killing him, you've eliminated three enemy soldiers from the field.

      That's one of the reasons NATO use high-velocity, highly penetrating 5.56 mm ammunition. It's one of the least lethal types of rifle ammunition in existence. The problem was that the 7.62 mm bullets used in e.g. the British SLR were just too deadly.

    3. Re:"non" lethal? by ExtraT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Interesting that they focus on the non-lethal aspect. I'd suspect the military would also be interested on whether you could turn up the power a bit, and you have a lethal ray gun that can hit lots of people at once.

      You people just crack me up! You think the military doesn't have the means to "hit many people at once" right now? Much more cheaper, effective, and morally depressing (for the enemy) means than some SciFi raygun?
      Ever heard of mortars? a single 120mm mortar hitting a crowd could probably take out tens of people. And one could fire them at a rate of 5-10 per minute with a single mortar
      Ever heard of machine guns? Ever heard of FAE bombs? What about FAE tipped RPGs (Russians use these out the wazu)?
      Ever heard of flachette rounds? Very, very effective!

      In short, take off your tinfoil hat, and realize one thing: if the military wanted to commit a massacre, they could do it without any technical difficulty. And they certainly don't need to design a futuristic microwave ray-gun so that they have a "massacre weapon".

  5. Better than teargas? by robpoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I hope that it might be a little more humane than lobbing teargas at someone.

    Of course, someone will sue the inventor, the user, his boss, the bosses boss, the company, the government and some guy named Joe - because their cousin's niece's daughter's friend's cat got nuked by that thing...

    --
    = Grow a brain...
  6. Wow this is stupid by vectorian798 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But New Scientist magazine reported Wednesday that during tests carried out at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico, participants playing the part of rioters were told to remove glasses and contact lenses to protect their eyes. In another test they were also told to remove metal objects such as coins from their clothing to prevent local hot spots from developing on their skin.

    In real life obviously there are going to be people wearing lenses or carrying metal objects so what gives???

    Is Iraq just the guinea pig for our experiments now?

    While I certainly support non-lethal weapons in use of riot dispersion, this does not seem safe at all (and certainly, I do not want to be aimed at with microwaves!)

    1. Re:Wow this is stupid by kfg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is Iraq just the guinea pig for our experiments now?

      Yes.

      KFG

    2. Re:Wow this is stupid by Bog+Standard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If the population of Iraq is indeed used for this under an experimental basis shouldn't the US be hauled up infront of a War Crimes tribunal for breaching some sort of convention. After all it could be deemed that they are doing mass experiments on humans to find the effects of said gun etc.

      Be alert, the world needs more lerts

  7. Little Waves in an Ocean of Hate by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's the way to win "hearts and minds" of people angry at the US occupation forces: zap them with rayguns. We'll teach them how the 21st Century US welcomes them with "compassionate conservatism", by frying them with rayguns. After sizzling whole towns, there's no way they'll ever listen to insane jihadists telling them that the Great Satan has burned them with hellfire, that we're all better off in a medieval fiefdom under god. Yeah, sticking Iraqis into a microwave oven is exactly the way to get them to calm down, stop their civil war, and break out those flowers they're supposed to be greeting us with.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Little Waves in an Ocean of Hate by ChipMonk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      by frying them with rayguns

      After which, they can still go home to their spouses and children, which is far more than they could say under the Old Regime. Of course, this won't stop them from strapping explosives around their waists and blowing up children.

    2. Re:Little Waves in an Ocean of Hate by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right. No more killing some of the people against the regime (Saddam Hussein), which at least kept them from suicide bombing. Now, we'll just fry lots more people against the regime (the US), sending them all home really mad. Complaining to their friends who were more sympathetic to the US, maybe giving us a chance, until their neighbor came home blind, burned, and raving about American rayguns. Yeah, they'll be counting their blessings right about then.

      Do you really think Iraqis are saying "they're not as bad as Saddam, I hope they stay"? Or are they saying "they're almost as bad as Saddam, I hope someone suicide bombs them"?

      Saddam is GONE. It doesn't matter that the US made him go away - any Iraqi with a memory knows we propped him up, that we also propped up the Iranians who killed a half-million Iraqis. They remember the last 10 years of sanctions, in which maybe another half-million Iraqis died, while Saddam continued to live like a king in his palaces, killing more of them.

      Let's say Iraqis were suicide bombing, which is actually mostly Saudis newly recruited to a jihad now conveniently next door, instead of in some mythical Arab newspaper Israel. These desperate people are going to calm down how? Because Americans are frying them with rayguns? Just like those ingrate Vietnamese, who couldn't wake up to the relief of napalm and Agent Orange after generations of French torturers boiling them alive. We'll have to nuke that village in order to save it.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:Little Waves in an Ocean of Hate by kfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The US began funding those French fires as early as 1947, simply driving more and more people into the camps of the communist revolutionaries, making the whole idea that the Vietnam war was in support of democratic self rule in Vietnam a bit a joke to the Vietnamese, who also had memories.

      Funny how people have a very keen sense of being the pawns of hypocritical self interest.

      KFG

    4. Re:Little Waves in an Ocean of Hate by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, some Americans now remember that Nixon revealed in tapes before the 1972 elections that he was backing the South Vietnamese only long enough to win reelection, then he was dropping them like a napalm bomb. Which he did, to the cheers of the hippies. If third-rate burglars like G. Gordon Liddy hadn't given the press and prosecutors the kind of easy meat they needed to nail Nixon, he would have claimed he pulled out of Vietnam as the "peace president", and sent his Chinese ambassador, George Bush Sr, to a landslide election in 1976.

      Now that Bush Jr is in front of the camera, they're not making any of those mistakes again. Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense who "lost Vietnam" by officiating over the fall of Saigon, has been sure not to let any bodies get counted, let alone televised. President Vice President Cheney learned, while on Nixon's staff, to stay in the privacy of the president's shadow, letting him speak whatever the political genius whispers in his earbuds.

      But it's all so similar to Vietnam, which was so mostly successful for the Republicans, with such clearly identifiable mistakes. This time, though, the press knows they can grab the limelight like Woodward and Bernstein, and turn minor careers into popular myths, guaranteed lifetimes of selling books and being hailed as geniuses. That's why they're howling for Rove now, after 5, 25 years of watching that reptile get away with literal murder (or accessory to).

      Personally, I remember Watergate, and I really remember Iran/Contra. It's not an echo: it's the same creeps, with the same playbook, updated from their Superbowl losses to work with some new blood. Blood all over their hands.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:Little Waves in an Ocean of Hate by quarkscat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Methinks you need to turn the clock back just a bit more.

      Think about the Republican Eisenhower/Nixon plan for the liberation of Communist Cuba, AKA the Bay of Pigs Fiasco that "failed" because Democrat JFK wouldn't furnish "air support". The Republicans have made use of Cuban-American expatriates in covert operations ever since that time, including terrorist bombings and air piracy against Cuban civilian aircraft. They played a part in repeated attempts to assassinate Castro, which may have been a direct cause of JFK's death. The Cuban-Americans were also part of the CREEP "team" that buglarized the Watergate offices of the DNC. They were called upon again as part of the "tiger teams" that got directly involved in the war against the Sandanistas. And it was a Cuban-American on the IT staff of the Senate Republicans that "broke into" the Senate Democrats' fileservers, and then released damaging emails and "position papers" to the press in 2002.

      So, it really is all the same players, and with similar but updated playbooks, but the same dirty tricks. With brother Jeb Bush as the governator of Florida , is it any wonder that President George Bush has promised amnesty and SS benefits to illegal aliens who have increasingly flooded across our still unsecured after 9/11/2001 southern border. The Cuban-Americans have proven to be capable and willing covert partners of neo-Con(artist) Republicans. No doubt Dubya&Co. expect similar support from the illegal Mexicans.

    6. Re:Little Waves in an Ocean of Hate by quarkscat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      With the (literally) tons of money being spent on the Iraq war, including new "high technology" answers to the wrong geopolitical questions, there is a convergence of "Rumsfeld" technology coming.

      Picture 20 or 30 thousand less American troops in Iraq in 2006, replaced with remote controlled DARPA challenge robots with these microwave "rayguns" mounted aboard. Along with the already effective and deadly remotely piloted UAVs riding "shotgun" overhead. All being controlled by US military (or contractors) in nicely air conditioned facilities in Qatar. Everything from "crowd control" to "riot dispersal" to killing insurgents, all without the loss of American solder's lives protested in silent memorial on PBS.

      Considering the penchant for the Dubya regime to "cookie cutter" patch the same problems in different venues, I would expect this very same technology to be applied to the control of domestic American insurg^H^H^H^H^H^Hprotestors in the same time-frame.

    7. Re:Little Waves in an Ocean of Hate by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anonymous exacerbator Cowards like you, in the Pentagon, and across the flyover states, are exactly the assholes making terrorism worse. You read my post, and all you get from it is your imagined "hippy" fantasies? Look, I understand that someone crushed your fragile heart when you were a child, so you attack anyone who understands the power of compassion to cut hatred. Of course everyone in your town has been beating each other that way for years, probably since Grandpappy stole the land from the Indians. But now that we're shooting into crowds, the bombers and insurgents are gaining more recruits with every one of our bullets.

      You understand nothing of terrorism, of asymmetrical warfare. The benefit is to provoke the military, the US, into more attacks on people who haven't already chosen the "rebel" side. Which gets one rebel bomber to provoke the US military into creating 10 replacements after they get a taste of collective punishment. After a while, the population will never accept the US military as anything but hated tyrants, "the same as Saddam". After 2 years of occupation, following 10 years of airbombings and sanctions, we've already lost most of the ground to the point of no return.

      So assholes like you, who won't go to Iraq to back up your bloodthirsty "preferences", are working for the enemy. Without you, we might have been able to back a federated faction of Iraqis determined to depose Saddam, and recover their country as a democracy. Just like the French did with American colonists, so our revolution could be our own, and we'd be bonded together by taking it ourselves. But of course a moronic pawn like you just hears "France", and can't escape the "French are weak" brainwashing you chug like Coors. If you keep saying "keep on shooting", at least have the decency to back that up with some sacrifice, like going to Iraq yourself. At best, you'll neutralize a suicide bomber with your otherwise worthless, exploding ass.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  8. Commute by 3770 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Having one of these mounted on my car would help me with my daily commute.

    --
    The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
  9. That's a relief by legLess · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From the article:
    Burn injury is prevented by limiting the beam's intensity and duration.
    Well thank god for that. We all know the customary restraint of law enforcement and military personnel will prevent any civilian injuries,
    --
    This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
  10. Re:Talked about earlier... by Mahou · · Score: 2, Insightful

    so the government has created a sunburn gun and people are complaining about it. i guess they'd reather that they shoot the crowds with live ammo?

    --
    if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
    ...te?
  11. Wouldn't this be foiled by ostsJoe · · Score: 5, Funny

    by tin foil?

    1. Re:Wouldn't this be foiled by Pitr · · Score: 2, Informative

      The tin foil would get quite hot, and probably cause worse burns, anthough it would probaly also prevent any side effects that would be caused later on. Then again, tin foil over an insulating layer could do the trick.

      Of course, if it really only penetrates 1/64th of an inch of skin, I assume simply being constantly hosed down with water would prevent the weapon from being effective, as the water should absorb the microwaves before they get to the skin.

      I believe there are also ways of reflecting microwaves, but I might be remembering something else, or just watching too much TV...

      --

      --Not to be worried, Pitr fix.
    2. Re:Wouldn't this be foiled by Boricle · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I suspect that what happens then is that they use the "less-lethal" tool first - anyone left standing, or with shiny foil face masks are then categorised as "combatants" and "more-lethal" tools are then used.

      The trick will be to incorporate the foil into some unobtusive clothing, dress up like a woman in head-to-toe covering (otherwise it will look strange if you are in full head covering). Or maybe a member of the Klan with some sun-glasses on. That'd be unobtrusive (not). Any kind of full body covering will do. Cow costume..., Scuba gear, ummm....

      Of course the fact that you are not running away screaming might still be a bit of a clue.

      Probably won't do much for improvised explosives though.

      ...which reminds me, I must remember to wrap my passport in foil..

  12. So many questions by Valacosa · · Score: 5, Insightful
    My first thoughts:
    • How wide-focus is this? Would police be able to use this on the street without frying everyone?
    • Could some sort of protection be made against this? (Portable Faraday cage, maybe?) If not, what's to prevent one of these falling into the black market and eventually being used on Police?
    • So Iraq has become the population-control guinea pig. What's even better is that this will probably be viewed by police as a magical dissent-eliminating ray. It's not. If people can't peacefully protest (or even riot), dissent is just forced underground, causing it to be made manifest more anonymously, more unexpectedly, and likely more distructively. Instead of more protests or riots, we have more things like...say...roadside bombs.

      Wait, isn't that terrorism? Using this thing could increase terrorism? Fucking wonderful.
    --
    "Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
  13. Re:Make some money by partipilo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Technically microwaves consist of non-ionizing radiation, will not have cumulative effects, and in low doses are reasonably safe. I've defeated the safety interlocks on an old microwave and run it with the door open. The energy dissipates quite quickly with distance.

  14. "Nonlethal" at the sandia article by hobotron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nonlethal weaponry is a horseshit myth.

    The term they should have used (and what law enforcement uses now, after more than a few wrongful death lawsuits, is the term of "Less lethal". Did any of the Kirtland Air Force Base participants have a pre existing heart condition? I bet they didnt let pregnant women participate.

    Im so glad that when every time one of these proportedly nonlethal weapons pops up its run under a FULL and accurate barrage of labratory and set up tests, which almost never reveal the compounding issues that lead to death in real world enviroments.

    The news.com article asks a few of the many lurking questions to this system. We all know this device is going to Iraq to go through real world testing before its used here in the US. Someone is counting on all the "little kinks" that are more than likely deadly will be ironed out under the public eye.

    I find it highly ironic that our testing of this indescriminant weapon will be used in our even more indescriminant war.

    Terrorists dont use large crowds as weapons, if you stop and think at why this weapon would be needed, its ultimately crowd control on our home front. Now why would we need that? Lakers winning again? I highly doubt it. Someone had a plan when they initated and funded the development of this, and it doesnt look like a good one.

    --
    There is truth in humor.
  15. Re:mod these trolls down. by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why the heck are mods modding this flame-war up!?!

    What could be more on-topic than a flame-war?

    --
    The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
  16. What a plan. by Dr.+Mystery · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's torture in a can.

  17. Re:Talked about earlier... by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No, they'd rather people not shoot protesting crowds. If the crowds are using lethal force or threatening the position of our troops, our troops will use lethal force back with or without our magic ray gun.

    Seriously, from a practical standpoint, what will happen the first time we fire this thing into. say, one of al-Sadr's regular 10k+ angry-mob protests? Everyone with glasses risks going blind; everyone with metal on them gets burns. Everyone with a pacemaker risks getting their heart stopped. It'd be almost a guaranteed new Sadrist revolt, plus easily increasing other Shia and widespread Sunni insurgency recruiting, while not killing any insurgents. Of course, the effects don't apply just to the crowd; beams keep on going.

    But lets take this further than the obvious anger that the US using some sci-fi style technology on a country that has no ability to resist it would inspire. Everyone who gets cancer within a few months of such a usage within half a dozen blocks of the site will blame it on the US's new "pain-ray". Everyone who miscarries? The same. Everyone who gets a headache, who has a heart attach, who comes down with a nasty disease... it'll all get blamed on the device.

    Strategically, this is an awful decision.

    --
    Point of interest. Offering to shoot us might not work so well as an incentive as you might imagine.
  18. Napalm is not used anymore by jeti · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Napalm is not used anymore by the US. It has too much of a bad name going with it. Instead, the US uses Mk-77 incendiary bombs. These contain a mixture with kerosene instead of gasoline. Works as well though.

    To my knowlege, the Mk-77 has not been used inside the US. But apparently 500 of them were used by the marines in the last gulf war.

    Please get your facts straight.

    1. Re:Napalm is not used anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      To my knowlege, the Mk-77 has not been used inside the US. But apparently 500 of them were used by the marines in the last gulf war.

      And, apparently, in the current war in Iraq too. US media may not have covered this story.

  19. We have lost the war on Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We have given up on winning their hearts and minds, instead we will cook their hearts and minds with experimental ray-guns. God Bless America!

  20. Why bother? by mc6809e · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They'll hate the US, anyway.

    Historically invasion meant the invading power had complete control. You do what you're told or you're killed. The US invaded Iraq, yet went out of their way to spend $1,000,000 per laser guided bomb so they could be "nice" and avoid killing innocents. They're still hated. Being nice doesn't work. This weapon is another waste of money. It will only make people more angry.

    And that is a fact of war. You kill them, or they'll come back and kill you. Anything less is a waste of time.

    If you can't stomach that, then don't bother attacking in the first place.

    1. Re:Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here's a hint for you:

      Those $1,000,000 per laser guided bombs have absolutely nothing to do with 'avoiding killing innocents'. They're about making sure that bomb hits the target it's aimed at, so's not to have to drop a dozen $100,000 ones. That avoidance of 'collateral damage' is just polite lip-service given to mollify the easily led on the home front. I mean, look at how uppity they got with My Lai... better put a PR spin on that, pronto.

      And the reason you're hated is that the innocents die anyways. Lighting up schoolbusses and torturing people in the same prisions and chambers that saddam used to use might be a giveaway to why that may be.

      It's strange that you have a realist perspective as to war and its outcomes, yet are so completely suckered in by the idea that your 'representatives' in-country give a fuck about any hajji that happens to wander in front of his scope. Here's a hint: Individual soldiers *may* have some qualms, after the fact, about gunning down unarmed prisoners and children and so on, but the forces in general couldn't give a rats ass. ... and why should they? It's not like the dirty little ragheads are actually HUMAN or anything, right?

  21. Why is it ... by chrispycreeme · · Score: 5, Insightful

    with all our technology, science, power and resources, all we seem to do is come up with more and more fucking evil disgusting ways of hurting people? This is fucking sick.. Does nobody else see this?

    1. Re:Why is it ... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I totally agree - I expect far more of Slashdot than publicising this crap.

      Until recently, I was also an aircraft fanatic and used to go to a lot of air displays here in the UK. But then it suddenly dawned on me that, with military aircraft, I was basically paying to go into an airshow where manufacturers are basically showing off weapons to interested buyers. Suddenly, these shows no longer seemed that appealing...

      ...but this stuff is a hundred times worse.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    2. Re:Why is it ... by chrispycreeme · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I dont blame slashdot so much.. I mean I would rather know about it than not know about it- and it does have to do with technology. If they tried to make it sound all cool and hip to torture citizens of a foriegn country that would be a bit much. I guess I am more disgusted with the people who funded and developed this technology with the intent on using it on Iraqis... Yea, that wont make them hate us.. jeeze, even I hate us for doing it.

  22. In other news... by Khyber · · Score: 2, Insightful

    More US troops get killed with instantaneous bullets while waiting for a simply microwave to do it's job in under 5 seconds.

    Sorry, MASERs are only useful in wide-spread setups, creating an effective "anti-human force field" To wait 5 seconds for somethign to do it's job when a bullet is more likely to take your head off in far less time, is a fucking waste of money and life, IMHO.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  23. Re:Totally Inappropriate Slashdot Article by The+Wooden+Badger · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Tell me about robots, new types of air-conditioner and spacecraft but keep this weapons crap out of here - we geeks are pretty much pacifists and don't care about this stuff.

    Yeah! tell me about Quake, and Doom, and Half Life, and Counter Strike, and Halo, and Unreal...

    --
    Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
  24. Freedom Ray by HunkaHunkaBurninLove · · Score: 5, Funny

    This will nicely wrap up our hearts-and-minds campaign.

  25. Re:Right... I'm sure that's it by arodland · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Government, as an institution, is supposed to exist to solve (or at least mitigate) the people's problems.

    The average person, when placed in a position of power, wishes to use that power to improve his own situation. Such a person, in a government position finds that the best way to increase his personal power is to increase the size and importance of his domain of power -- which, as we've seen, is based upon "solving" some problem that the people have.

    The best method they've found so far is to create the problem with one hand while solving it with the other. Move more responsibility from the people to the government, and justify more work. Create more complications and loopholes in the tax codes, and work harder to bust tax evaders. Make more things illegal, and make law enforcement look good. It's a justification to do more, to take more of your money for your own good. It is evil. It's a million acts of small, petty evil in the guises of kindness and service.

    As to the bit about the Republicans -- it's been said before that the US is run by two parties: the party of Evil and the party of Stupidity. I agree with that assessment, but I think that the roles change day-to-day. Neither one is any better than the other.

  26. Re:Hearts and Minds by pegasustonans · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is this part of the battle for "winning hearts and minds"?

    No, it's the battle for cooking them up with Worcestershire sauce.

    --
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
  27. Re:Totally Inappropriate Slashdot Article by pandrijeczko · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Yeah! tell me about Quake, and Doom, and Half Life, and Counter Strike, and Halo, and Unreal...

    We geeks are also pretty good at distinguishing fantasy from reality.

    Besides, Counter Strike is the only game you list that has any basis of fact, all the others are in totally fictional environments.

    The whole point of violence in games, particularly with kids, is you don't stop them playing these games because they are just fun pure and simple. It's bad parents that use PS2s and XBoxes as "babysitters", leave their kids on them for hours on end and don't spend time with them balancing out in-game violence with real-life love and attention.

    So let's have none of this "game violence" BS...

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  28. Re:Potentially lethal? by Grym · · Score: 4, Informative

    The real question is, can we trust the weapon operators to use this responsibly?

    Probably not. Last year the police in the US managed to shoot one of their pepper-spray paintballs through an bystanding girl's eye, killing her. And that's a "non-lethal" weapon you can aim!

    The thing in the article covers an entire area. Do you think the operator is going to check and make sure that nobody in the crowd is wearing glasses, jewelry, or contacts? That's impossible!

    Even in theory, this isn't a non-lethal weapon at all... It's quite obvious that this is intended as a means of disarming (have we forgotten that guns/knives are metal?) and/or killing large groups of people immediately without collateral damage; just like a neutron bomb, only more controllable and cheaper.

    -Grym

  29. they've used this in Miami by pirateshot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have anti-globalization activist friends who were in Miami in 2003 protesting the FTAA meeting going on at the time. They tell me that the cops (other than having their own embedded journalists, getting extremely favorable corporate media coverage, beating people senseless and blinding some people with pepperspray) used some sort of microwave weapon on them and it made them throw up. For more info on that protest, check out a movie called the Miami Model http://www.ftaaimc.org/miamimodel.

    1. Re:they've used this in Miami by basic0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'd never heard of this "microwave weapon" until now, but you may be referring to the "Long Ranged Acoustic Device" which has been in use by police and military for years now. Apparently, with the right sound frequency, it's able to cause nausea and disorientation within seconds. More info can be found here

    2. Re:they've used this in Miami by Khyber · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are right, it was indeed the weapon you describe.

      It's been known for quite some time now that using waves of sound can do all kinds of things to the human body. Using stereo-separated soundwaves of differing frequencies, you can create a harmonic that your brain respods to. This has been shown to make people sick, or make them feel better and give relief from a headache. It's also shown to be possible to make people hallucinate, put them to sleep, pep them up, and more. Our skulls and brains respond rather well to nice resonating frequencies. Kudos for you bringing this up. Makes me wish I could post and mod at the same time.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  30. Torturers new favorite toy? by Smuttley · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seems like they wont leave any external marks. How long before the portable ones are being used in interrogations by Iraqi police?

  31. Iam certain by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ..it is possible to devise a genuinely non-lethal weapon. The problem is, I doubt anyone would buy it if such a thing really existed. In order to be truly non-lethal, it would need to operate on some principle other than extreme shock or total immobilization.


    I'm surprised they haven't deployed water cannons over there - those would seem to be infinitely less lethal than machine-guns or even this microwave laser they're proposing. However, given the heatwaves and lack of electricity for cooling, there's a danger people would riot just to cool down.


    Of course, a lot of the dissaffection is as a result of a lack of amenities in an extremely unforgiving climate. On that basis, it would probably be much more cost-effective simply to give every household their own generator and supply them with fuel until the power situation has been stabilized. Probably kill a whole lot fewer people, too. Might even win a few friends.


    For the safer parts of the country, they could even run a water delivery service. Drop off a 20 or 50 gallon tank in the morning at the front door, picking up the empties in the process. No different than what a million milkmen do every day in England - except the getting shot at part, and the size of the bottles.


    That wouldn't eliminate problems, but it would reduce a LOT of the tension. And if you reduce the tension, you reduce the risk of riots and other violent protest. Containment is better done by meeting legitimate complaints, rather than suppressing them. Suppressing them only risks building the tension up more, which increases the risk of massive confrontation.


    Things are bad enough, over there, why go out of our way to make things worse, when it is cheaper, easier and quicker (not to mention more ethical) NOT to?

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  32. Re:This WILL cause lots of nice CANCER. by Dahan · · Score: 4, Informative
    GHz is not a measure of energy.

    True, but the energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency. E = hf, where h is Planck's constant. That's why hard ultraviolet light (~1 PHz or 1,000,000GHz) has enough energy to knock electrons out of orbit and cause mutations in DNA, while 95 GHz microwaves do not have enough energy to do so, no matter how many photons you crank out.

  33. The answer is: TINFOIL! by notany · · Score: 5, Funny

    Tinfoil. Tinfoil hat, dungarees, under your normal clothes. And you can carry tinfoil placards that reflect microwaves back to police.

    --
    Dyslexics have more fnu.
    1. Re:The answer is: TINFOIL! by Frodrick · · Score: 2, Funny

      Did you ever put tinfoil in the microwave?

    2. Re:The answer is: TINFOIL! by notany · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Yeah. I tried to put tinfoil in the microwave. The point is that if you wrap tings in tinfoil, it won't let microwawes in.

      All the outside special effects, sparks and lightning, just make the demonstrators look like they have been attaced by The Dark Lord of Sith (tm). Great way to get prime time TV-coverage for the cause.

      --
      Dyslexics have more fnu.
    3. Re:The answer is: TINFOIL! by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 3, Interesting
      From an article on the subject.


      In another test they were also told to remove metal objects like coins from their clothing to avoid local hot spots developing on their skin.


      So, this countermeasure would require an extra-ordinary measure of dedication on the part of the activist. It converts "a gun that causes momentary (but severe) pain, but leaves no trace" into "a gun that leaves causes lasting pain, along with burns".

      So, best wear some sort of heat protection underneath your tinfoil suit.

    4. Re:The answer is: TINFOIL! by Pxtl · · Score: 3, Informative

      Those are dull metals. Highly reflective metals (like aluminum foil) would do better.

  34. Re:Totally Inappropriate Slashdot Article by lxs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    we geeks are pretty much pacifists and don't care about this stuff.

    You misspelled apathetic.

    Seriously, this attitude is why crappy patents and laws like the DMCA are passed uncontested. It's all very nice living with blinkers on your eyes, ignoring the real world, but don't go crying when that world rudely intrudes on your own life.

    If you really were a pacifist, then you should be extremely interested in the ways states have of hurting dissenters, since this thing could be used against you or your fellow humans (but not while you're locked in your bedroom playing Everquest)
    Not to mention that inhumane weaponry like this is the best propaganda tool for those opposing war.

  35. Pain Beam vs. Rubber Bullets and Tear Gas by CaptainPhoton · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The posts I have seen are very critical of the government, but I have not seen adequate discussion on the merits of this device compared with the riot gear currently in use. We should perform this analysis.

    Also, I am very much in favor of considering the use of nonlethal weaponry for regular forces. Every war we fight is tragic and horrible, but every war we fight is more humane than the previous. I consider myself a pacifist, and until we have evolved to rid ourselves of violent ideologies, the development of nonlethal weaponry is worthy and admirable. If we can corral our opponents without maiming and shredding their bodies to pieces, I think we're improving the human condition.

    The government that controls the weapons may be democratic or totalitarian, but I argue that the weapon ownership is a different discussion since most governments have automatic weapons, rockets, and bombs and can currently opress their citizens using equal methods.

  36. Technology to Defeat The Corporate Police State? by torpor · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Okay, so this crowd control of the lower classes is one thing.

    But where are the tech research projects to defeat the techno-millitant industrial corporate police? Do you really think the world is safe breeding such corporations, capable of producing devices like this for the purpose of MASS CONTROL?

    Weapons-manufacturers are the ones who create wars to sell their products. The U.S. Gov't has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted to keep its despotic fingers out of the mass-control pie. Why should we be 'grateful' that 'non-lethal weapons' are now being created out of electronics, when electronics have been governing the masses for decades now?

    Show me a hand-held device that defeats television. Show me a device which will de-fuse a rabid neo-con. Show me a tool that can be used to bring religions together in peace.

    Too many times I've seen Defense-industry nazi's get their rocks off on their latest weapons designs. I think its about time the people of the world revolted against the weapon makers ..

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  37. Why is it ... not tested 'at home'? by Miska · · Score: 2, Insightful


    whilst on the subject, I doubt this would get very far if:
    - it were a question of field testing this on congress/senate people
    - it it were some important constituents that were fieldtested upon.

    testing it in a country on the other side of the globe - where the military doesn't do civilian death tools - is all too convenient.

    cowardly by any other name

    --
    -
  38. everything's back to front now by markandrew · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This shouldn't surprise anyone, really - the whole culture of western government (the US and UK, certainly) is moving away from solving the problems they face, and toward minimising the bother they cause the government.

    Too many people protesting outside parliament? Don't find out why they're so angry, just make it illegal for anyone to protest, peacefully or otherwise, within 1km of parliament.

    Too many corrupt middle-eastern regimes? Don't try to help get rid of the corruption, just invade one and hope for the best!

    Too many terrorist attacks? Don't try to figure out why so many people are willing to die to hurt you, just find a convenient country to blame and invade it!

    Too many underage criminals active at night? Make it illegal for *any* children to be on the streets at night, whether they're doing anything wrong or not.

    Too many riots and violent protests? Don't worry about it, just develop new and ever more sophisticated ways of punishing those who take part, or even those who are in the same place at the same time.

    What's next? Too many people thinking Bad Things? Don't worry...

    The whole mindset of the people in control at the moment is skewed - they're not solving problems, they're just hiding symptoms (or, increasingly, brutally suppressing them).

  39. Nonviolent demonstrations? by sustik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This will be perfect for the police for those sit-in (non-violent) demonstrations. A problem there is to apply force to remove the demonstartors: that puts the police action in pretty bad light.

    With this weapon the police seemingly will not touch the demonstrators, no physical force will be used, but the dissenters will clear away regardless.

    And no, not just in Iraq... It is a perfect tool for ANY government that wants to look like humane and democratic while needs to silence political dissent. It is time to pass a law about what type of weapons could be used for crowd control, especially in case of nonviolent protesters. (What is wrong with water cannons anyway?)

  40. Testing "intolerable heat" - in NEW MEXICO? by evilandi · · Score: 4, Funny
    Lemme see if I've got this straight.

    They tested a system to find out whether people were experiencing intolerable heat in New Mexico?

    Surely in New Mexico, all you have to do is just stand in the sun?

    --
    Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
  41. Iraquee Guinea pigs by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This once again looks like the US is doing weapon-experiments on humans they'd shoot otherwise. As they did in the Gulf and any other 'war'.

    It's disturbing really. I imagine this might be used domesticly as well when they see most Iraquee civilians don't end up dead or heavily mutilated and the ray proves 'humaine enough'.

    More of these internet vids from kids being overrun by the riot-police and beaten up for voicing their discontentment using peacefull protest to come. nNow with added rays!

    --
    I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
  42. Nice thought by zpok · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Something a friend of mine said some four years back (when everybody shouted "tinfoil hat" at the idea): if a few seconds can do this, imagine doing it for a few minutes.

    Isn't it nice we have all these backward countries to test our toys with and send our kids to to teach them some geography?

    --
    I think, therefore I am...I think.
  43. and it does it all... by PengoNet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...without addressing the actual cause or reason for the protest.

    which is, of course, the fundamental flaw to this sort of "solution". It only goes skin deep in more sense than one.

  44. Re:Right... I'm sure that's it by ashlux · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Government, as an institution, is supposed to exist to solve (or at least mitigate) the people's problems.

    Wrong wrong wrong wrong.

    This is not why government exists. It exists for the protection of rights and preservation of justice:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
  45. This reaction surprises me by drewpc · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I'm currently serving in the Marine Corps and the reaction I've heard here on slashdot is surprising. It seems that no one at all has chimed in saying "hey, maybe this is a good thing".

    I was at the Force Protection Equipment Demonstation this year where I talked to some of the Marines at the Joint Non-Lethal Warfighting Lab about this exact product. We as Marines are looking at this tool as a lifesaver (literally). If we can roll through a place like Fallujah and use this tool to incapacitate the bad guys in front of us, then that saves their lives and puts less risk on our Marines. We want to and are doing everything we can to improve our non-lethal and less-than-lethal capabilities so that we have more options when we're faced with an enemy.

    More importantly, the general vibe that I got from these responses is that you all think that we're a bunch of indiscriminent killers! Guess what...we're not! We don't want to kill if we don't have to. However, when someone is pointing a gun at us, we're not going to sit there and wait them out. For example, we have Marines coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan who are messed up psychologically because they had to shoot a kid who was shooting at them. They had no choice. They did the right thing, but now they're fucked up in the head. The only reason they're fucked up though is because they believe that it's morally wrong to shoot a child. But when that child puts themselves into a situation where they become a combatant, the only response we have right now is to shoot them.

    Back to this less-than-lethal ray gun, if that Marine could've incapacitated that child instead of killing him, then the Marine can go home knowing that he completed his mission and didn't have to shoot a child, and that child can go home alive.

    I'm really dissapointed in this crowd. I've been a slashdot reader for the last 8 years and I've been pretty impressed with most of the comments up until now. Have a little faith in the people serving on the front lines. We're professionals, just like you try to be at work. We care about honor, courage, commitment, etc. Frankly, if I can use this ray gun to help make my Marines safer and bring them home to my families, then as a commander, I'm all for it.

    --
    -- Get your free Mini Mac http://www.FreeMiniMacs.com/?r=14209873
    1. Re:This reaction surprises me by be-fan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think the reactions are to the army using weapons on bad guys. I think the reactions are in the context of the army using the weapon as stated in the article --- on rioters. There is a big difference between the two, and a big difference between rubber bullets and the stuff they use on rioters here and a ray gun...

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    2. Re:This reaction surprises me by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Insightful
      This is a great post, and I appreciate your sharing your views. I do not often hear from people "on the ground". You make good points and I believe you when you say that the US military is professional. You guys do an important job that I, frankly, would not want to do. But I am concerned that not every person is as professional as you are. I am also concerned that things can get out of hand and that many situations are quite open to interpretation.

      If someone is pointing a gun at you, you probably do have to shoot them. Not too much interpretation there. But governments around the world, including the US govt., have a history of misusing power and classifying protesters as "rioters" or worse. We have seen many examples of police and soldiers overreacting to situations. Kent State and all that kind of stuff. Although, perhaps this microwave thingy would have helped in that situation.

      Basically, I hold our men and women in uniform in high regard, but I don't trust our civilian leadership one bit. And I know how clashes between citizens and the authorities can get out of control. Anyway, thanks again for your perspective. And thanks for doing the job you do. I hope, in the future, our government has better reasons for sending people like you into harm's way.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    3. Re:This reaction surprises me by dlapine · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Hey, I was in the USMCR, so I can sympathize with you and the amount of danger you're when your troops are out in the street. Anything that can give the military troops an edge should be considered.

      There are two caveats.

      Looking at the posts, I'm getting the sense that most of folks are more worried about civilian crowds here in the US, and what something like this would do to a group of peaceful protesters that the police or National Guard have been ordered to disperse. As a commander, you surely remember the incident at Kent State, where lethal force was used against a crowd of students. Giving local authorities this kind of "non-lethal" weapon does not give any citizen in the US a warm fuzzy about our right to assemble peaceably.

      The second point concerns the US appearance before the world. This weapon, in the hands of uncontrolled troops, could conceivable save the lives of soldiers at the cost of indiscriminately killing the civilians. Given that our military (Well, the Army, anyways) has already admitted losing control of their troops at Abu Gareb, it's not that much of a stretch to see any new "area of effect" weapon being misused at some point. Heck, it's hard enough to get the job done in the best of circumstances, so please forgive us if we show some wariness when a new technology is announced that will provide a "shortcut" for troops.

      As I said, any new weapon that gives US troops more options in the field should be considered. Please remember however, that there are plenty of video clips floating about that show some US troops to be less than responsible- not every grunt is in the Corps and can be expected to have Marine discipline, but every US troop on the ground still represents the entire country, and some of them are not demonstrating the professionalism we hope to see, even under averse conditions.

      Don't think that the average slashdot user wants to see anyone killed, but posters do have higher awareness of the potential side effects of new technology. In some respects, whatever is said here on /. won't matter at all. If the new weapon is made available for you guys, the military will use it or not, as the situation dictates. You'll modify how it gets used according to your experiences with it in combat, and if it makes a difference, it will keep being used. Nothing anyone here says will make a difference in that.

      The bottom line is this: As long as the Marine Corps, and the rest of the military remember that they represent all of the U.S. in their actions, we will cut you guys more than enough slack to get the job done. Semper Fi.

      --
      The Internet has no garbage collection
    4. Re:This reaction surprises me by scjnsn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are an idiot who has no idea what war is like or how to win it. You probably think that the only way to beat terrorism is to adopt it. I think if we truly wanted to win the war on terror we would tie enemy combatants up and execute them in public. This is how it has always worked in the past. Why should we think that all of a sudden being considerate and gentle is a valid tactic? It is because of you left-wing weenies that Iraq is a quagmire now.

    5. Re:This reaction surprises me by Caraig · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The men and women of the Armed Forces have, and always have had, my highest respect, since it is they -- and by extension, you --who put themselves in harm's way when the chips are down.

      What you describe, unfortunately, is exactly reflective of most (sensible) peoles' concerns over this weapon. I can definitely see the utility in an anti-insurgency operation. Not sure where the snipers are? Microwave 'em. In a few moments you'll have a pack of screaming guys rolling on the floor (and maybe one will have the solenoids of his improvised explosive device cook off -- sucks to be him) who, a few moments ago, were trying to kill you. Round them up and lock them away and they better be damn grateful that they're still alive, if a bit cooked. (The actions of certain members of the Abu Gharib staff notwithstanding, I consider most all of the military personnel over there to be reasonably compassionate people at heart who would rather incapacitate their enemy than kill outright.)

      Unfortunately, this weapon is not being billed as an anti-insurgency weapon (though it will doubtless be used as one.) It is being developed to counter riots and rowdy protests (before they turn into riots.) This is what has most posters here up in arms. it isn't about the potential military/anti-insurgency used of this weapon; it's about the eventual domestic use of it on protesters. To many people, it's just a few steps between using this... and tanks rolling in Tianmien Square.

      Think that kind of response to protests can't happen in the US? Well... it can happen, period (it DID happen) and thus it CAN happen, even here. I like to think that the citizens of the US are proud enough that they won't let it ever get to that point, but that faith is being eroded away bit by bit. Things liek this ray-gun, which are intended to be used domestically, are part of that erosion.

      If it will help you do your job on the ground better, and help to bring home our troops, and allow you to continue to perform your jobs honorably, I'm totally for it. But as I said, this is being developed for use domestically. that same device that saved your platoon, sitting atop the cupola of an Hummer... will be on the turret of a riot control truck attached to your local police department when you get home.

      --
      "I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
    6. Re:This reaction surprises me by Maltheus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We don't want to kill if we don't have to.

      You're in an all-volunteer army invading a country that has done us no wrong and wasn't a threat to us or their neighbors. Congress hasn't even declared a war (authorizations of force are not declarations of war and actions this long aren't covered by the war powers act), Article 51 can't begin to cover the case for invasion and it completely flies in the face of just-war theory on the reciprocity princlple alone. When you, as a volunteer soldier, kill somebody in a war that has no legal basis, then you are a murderer by definition. Nobody has forced you into the marines, you're resonsible for your own actions. You don't have to join the marines, therefore you don't have to kill. There wasn't a gun to your head until you decided to put it there. It's that simple. What d'ya think you were gonna do when you signed up, bake cookies and rap about Jesus? And saying our leaders lied about Iraq is not an excuse since the lies were unbelievable right from the start. Nobody was duped unless they wanted to be.

  46. Re:Why bother? You wouldn't understand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First off, I salute your courage to serve our insane country. Come back in one piece, okay? Having said that:

    The active denail system is coming on-line because we are not allowed to use tear gas as it is considered a chemical weapon.

    I am stunned if that statement is true. Because police officers in the US regularly use tear gas against civilian demonstrations (this happened recently to a friend of mine at a peaceful "bring our troops home before more get killed" demonstration that was broken up with gas because the cops didn't feel like putting up with it). Either: (1) there is some really fucked up politics at work and someone decided there was more money selling you a microwave laser than tear gas (in which case there should be outrage), or (2) police brutality is massively widespread in the US because they use tear gas (and there should be outrage if the US Army doesn't think it's humane). I'm guessing it's the former.

    Iraqi's are moving towards the first democratic government in the arab world.

    Yes, it was also a great boost to Iran, who recently elected a hard-liner who mockingly thanked George W Bush in his acceptance speech for scaring the country into voting for him.

    What other nation has sacrificed the blood of hundreds of its own, spent its own treasure for the purpose of helping others.

    Except that wasn't what we were told. Us stick-at-home taxpayers who are funding your desert adventures were told that you were going to prevent a madman from destroying the world with his nuclear and chemical weapons. None were found. We were lied to. And now almost 1,800 of you fine Americans have been killed, 18,000 wounded in action. We're not very happy about this, neither are we overjoyed about the 25,000 to 100,000 Iraqis that have been killed and 40,000 wounded (accurate death figures are hard to come by since the allied forces are not publicly tracking civilian deaths, but 25k is the accepted 'best case' minimum estimate, 100k the 'worst case').

    You may accept your orders and faithfully carry out whatever mission you're told - even if they appear to contradict - but we don't. The Commander In Chief is employed by us. We elected him, we pay his wage and we're his boss. He lied to us and we're upset about this and about the Iraq war. This is why we're sore about Iraq, we do not forgive and we do not forget. If any of your subordinates lied to you and did not perform their mission, what would your reaction be? A court-martial at best?

    Next time get your C in C to read "The Art Of War" first. Besides lying to the peons at home (ie: me), mistake number 1 was dissolving the Iraq army instead of having it work for you. It would have made your work far easier.

    Every moment of the war and occupation have been covered by media.

    Yes, and right now they're saying that Iraq is at the tipping point of descending into anarchy, that the allied occupational forces (ie: you) are not helping the situation by providing targets and that supposed allies like Syria and Pakistan are allowing suicide bombers free entry into Iraq.

    I'm so sorry that you're in the middle of this mess, doubly so that you don't see the forest burning down around you because of all the trees.

  47. Re:Talked about earlier... by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Strategically, this is an awful decision.

    But at least it's consistent with all the other strategically awful decisions.

    --
    Freedom: "I won't!"
  48. but... by DerProfi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You're forgetting one thing: This would never happen in China! The Chinese would likely just shoot the rioters, as in dead, with real bullets, end of story.

    Meanwhile, there'd be nary a peep out of the international media because they'd be too busy getting the vapors over some captured terrorist whose dinner (honey-glazed chicken with rice pilaf) wasn't properly halal, or who is being forced to use 1-ply toilet paper instead of 2-ply (the humanity!), or who is being forced to read Slashdot against their will (shoot me, please!)

    --

    3000+ comments meta-modded. 0 mod points awarded.
    Lesson for other meta-suckers: Don't believe the hype!
  49. Media turning a blind eye to protests/abuse by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting
    A more subtle encroachment on rights that's sneaking by right now is control of the media and that concerns your rights by influencing your decisions. Without information, informed decisions are not possible. And, if informed decisions are the corner stone of democracy, then without them democracy is not really possible.

    Maybe the "active denial" microwave gun will be used on protesters. It's hard to guess because there has been so damn little coverage of protests. So without it's hard to gauge what's going on elsewhere.

    Recently, there were major protests at Spanish universities, including faculty, against sw patents. No coverage.

    The other year, there were hundreds if not thousands of protests against the war in Iraq going on around Europe. Many had record turnout. Almost no coverage of them in Europe after the first few, no coverage in the US.

    Or take the WTO protests in both Europe and the US. Very, very little coverage. In the US, the coverage only extended to the small number of violent protesters, not the topic of the protest nor the days of peaceful manifestation.

    Or take coverage of May Day protests. Very little coverage, if any. One BBC report cover it, but used one sentence to say how peaceful they all were and then used the rest of the report to say how hard it was to track down an unruly protest whilst playing the sounds of violence and breaking glass in the background. That's not news anymore that's spin, almost as good as Faux News or CNN.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    1. Re:Media turning a blind eye to protests/abuse by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Public demonstrations will probably regain some effectiveness within a few years, as most demonstrators have digital video cameras in their mobile "phones", and most couch potatoes have broadband to videoblogs. Which is one reason why corporate media concentration of Internet power is so dangerous. If they own the pipes, and shut them down when "demand spikes" would carry personalized videos of corporate cops bashing real humans, they'll continue to suppress the news. Otherwise, the very personal videos, often of a "friend of a friend", will flood the schedules of most people with the money to do something about it. Such personal stories, especially live, are much more compelling than any political marketdroid spin, even crafted by Karl Rove and the best ad agencies.

      But mass public demonstrations haven't done anything but confirm the complacent expectations of every ideology, for at least a generation. They used to work, because 10,000 people dropping everything to march in the streets was so unusual, that the rest of the people knew they were serious. That some exceptionally bad thing must have happened to galvanize such exceptionally collective response. But now we're used to it, people believe that "professional protesters" need conflict to keep their careers.

      What really can work now is, again, to use the telecom infrastructure to really affect "regular people". A few demonstration organizers can collect phone#s by Bluetooth as people show up at distributed, even changing, locations. They send talking point messages via Bluetooth to everyone who shows up, along with a map of a section of town to cover. Then everyone goes door to door, canvassing a block or so, fanning out simultaneously to cover a whole town. They don't even have to get the talking points right. Just talking at all to their neighbors will have the effect of bringing people together, destroying the alienation that works for the fascists every day. If some of them are also videoblogging people getting "radicalized" when they get a neighbor at their door, letting them know what's happening downtown, the effects get globalized.

      If I were an active demonstrator, or an organizer, I'd be working this technique every month. We're already familiar with the basic operation, from flash mobs. Now it's time for smart mobs to mobilize the rest of the population. We have to raise the ante, and use more of our freedoms, to take P2P politics above the centralized efficiency of the fascist corporate government. Once we do, they can't fight the power of a people armed with as sophisticated communications as the fascists have.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  50. slashdot - predictable by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Browsing at 4: 33 comments, universally bemoaning the near-fascist oppression of the Evil Bush & Co., as well as the obligatory comments about how we shouldn't be in Iraq.

    1) Do you people understand what a Riot IS? This is not a bunch of grungy stoners standing around peacably smoking hemp before they are brutalized by the jackbooted police thugs. I've BEEN in a riot, and they are characterized by VIOLENCE. Violence and damage to property, as well as against other people standing around. Many posters have said something about the indiscriminate use of these weapons. Hey dumbass: the point of RIOT CONTROL cops is not to beat your sorry ass down (as much as you may deserve it) it's to DISPERSE the rioters, because people are far less likely to be (rioting) assholes when not protected by the anonymity of the herd around them. If you're a spectator, you're part of the fscking problem. For all the sympathy we're supposed to have for 'innocent bystanders' accidentally caught in this weapon's area of effect, I don't see a SINGLE post suggesting sympathy for the people whose businesses, cars, property, and yes, even LIVES are threatened/damaged/ruined by the rioters.
    But then again, why should they get sympathy? They're working a job, running a local business, making a living, supporting a family...you know, all those things that the "anti-globalization protestors" (really fancy way of saying unemployed vandals) are supposedly "protecting"...

    2) It's great we're in Iraq, we're accomplishing good things in the majority of the country where the psychotic terrorists aren't an everyday event. And yes, it's JUST as irrelevant for me to make that point as it is to make yours that "we shouldn't be there".

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:slashdot - predictable by hashfunction · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "we're accomplishing good things in the majority of the country where the psychotic terrorists aren't an everyday event" Yes, you are accomplishing *great* things in the Green Zone! You should be nominated for the peace prize. I wholeheartedly agree that in any discussion, being civil and respecting another's opinion is crucial. However, i do not understand how to respect an opinion that is so inhumane. So cruel and apathetic and ignorant!

    2. Re:slashdot - predictable by kilfarsnar · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "For all the sympathy we're supposed to have for 'innocent bystanders' accidentally caught in this weapon's area of effect, I don't see a SINGLE post suggesting sympathy for the people whose businesses, cars, property, and yes, even LIVES are threatened/damaged/ruined by the rioters."

      This is a good point, and a view that is probably underrepresented here. The act of rioting does not deserve a defense. I don't condone violence in response to a problem. But it is useful to ask why a riot happens. Sometimes it is as you say; a group of unemployed vandals or a pack of boneheaded sports fans after a Superbowl win.

      In the case of Iraq though, I think a lot of the rioting is a result of our negligence and mismanagement. That is why so many here have the reaction they do. The US military never established order. There has been looting, rioting, and lawlessness in Iraq from the moment we toppled the government there. We had a responsibility to establish law and order and we didn't do it. Now, as a result of this and the fact that clean water and electricity are in short supply, we have rioting. In response to this, we are developing new weapons, but having very little honest discussion of why the riots are happening.

      I agree with you that riot control is necessary in the short term. But more important in the short, medium, and long term is to understand why people are so upset that they riot.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    3. Re:slashdot - predictable by crabpeople · · Score: 2, Informative
      "I don't see a SINGLE post suggesting sympathy for the people whose businesses, cars, property, and yes, even LIVES are threatened/damaged/ruined by the rioters."

      Businesses, cars and property mean NOTHING if people are not allowed to "disturb the peace". How in the world you think damage to businesses and cars should ever be a reason to torture people with microwave death rays, is amazing to me. then i remembered you live in a perminant state of FEAR being an american. In that way I am able to slightly identify your responses. THey arent logical, or even make sense, but fear is hardly ever "logical".


      "But then again, why should they get sympathy? They're working a job, running a local business, making a living, supporting a family...you know, all those things that the "anti-globalization protestors" (really fancy way of saying unemployed vandals) are supposedly "protecting"..."

      if people dont think this persons "reality" isnt acurate, maybe they should re read that last paragraph again. Let me just say I had no idea people protesting the government dont deserve sympathy. its the same line of reasoning that says that suicide bombers are pussies or whatever, cowards, i believe is what they say.

      whoes more of a coward? you hiding behind the police state, or someone willing to risk there LIFE to change the system?



      "It's great we're in Iraq, we're accomplishing good things in the majority of the country where the psychotic terrorists aren't an everyday event."

      you simply havent watched any footage from over there have you? my guess is you just watch the snippets on the news. blowing people up and torturing them is not "good things" in my book. are troops deploying food and water to the masses? can they keep the power on 24x7 for the big cities? are they assisting in the hospitals giving care to the injured? or are compasionate civilians doing that while the american army kills things. thats the entire fucking point of an army right? to kill? or do you have some illusion about how and why people are trained to go to war.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    4. Re:slashdot - predictable by dvdeug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you know what happens when the military uses violence to stop rioters? Ever heard of the Boston Massacre or Kent State Massacre? It doesn't matter how justified the violence the military uses is, it almost always produces backlash against the military and the causes the military supported.

      The point of riot control is frequently to silence the people. It's way too often used against peaceful crowds, people who may be upset but haven't committed any violence or vandalism. The people could go home and survive; but perhaps they don't want the epitath to the life to be "Was he free? Was he happy? The question is absurd:/Had anything been wrong, we should certainly have heard." (W.H. Auden, The Unknown Citizen).

  51. Re:Technology to Defeat The Corporate Police State by Average_Joe_Sixpack · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think its about time the people of the world revolted against the weapon makers ..

    I'm not sure what your babbling on about, but in North America, Europe, Eastern Europe and in many parts of Asia the standard of living has never been higher. So I don't exactly see the masses wanting to "rock the boat."

  52. Re:Right... I'm sure that's it by BorgHunter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually...

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    So you're right, but not exclusively right.

    --
    "Excuse me, did you say 'Trekker'? The word is 'Trekkie.' I should know; I created them." -- Gene Roddenberry
  53. tech always used for other than intended purposes. by ziggy+the+zagnut · · Score: 2, Interesting



    For those who think this device's use will somehow be limited to rioters, I want you to look up Victoria Snelgrove

    She was killed by non-lethal technology (second hand shot from a pepperball gun to the temple) less than one year ago.

    Technology always gets used for things other than what it was intended for. From people scratching on turntables, to aircraft, to video game music, to internet over cable, etc.

    Those who suggested the emergence of "acceptable casualty rates" have the most foresight. That being said, this thing is pretty powerful. I wouldn't cry chicken little about it yet. The government doesn't get that scary that quickly. However, this is the kind of thing where we really ought to recognize that we can create any kind of technology we want to. Is this "heat ray" what we really want? What if we could instead, say, transport prepared food in minutes between here and other countries? You could feast on different food every night from around the world!

    Probably one of the scarier things about this is it looks easy to build. Just a high-powered oscillator and Fresnel antenna (look closely at the pics). Now that the US has put the idea out there, I can imagine all kinds of people making their own...and forgetting to ask people to take off their glasses and remove their keys and pocket change and turn it off after five seconds.

    And for those who might say 65 GHz oscillators are difficult, I thought they were too, until I just looked them up and found parts.

    Remember, it feels like heat, because it IS heat.

    And finally: "After her death , Boston Red Sox outfielder Trot Nixon said he would have traded back Game 7 Of The 2004 ALCS to have her back."

  54. 2006? by CrazyTalk · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Service in Iraq in 2006? I take it the US doesn't even think there is a CHANCE they will be out of there anytime soon.

    Never have I been less proud to be an American (well, maybe during the last two elections)

  55. Don't these people ever learn... by heffrey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    25,000 civilians dead in Iraq since the invasion, 80% killed by the occupying forces (the rest by the insugents).

    And now we want to use ray guns. Anyone else think the world's going a bit mad?

    Comparing the 25,000 figure with the death toll due to terrorism around the world leads me to think that the west's policy is "an eye for an eyelash".

  56. Health Risks by airship · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are significant health risks to certain individuals when targeted by 'non-lethal' riot-control measures. For example, persons with acute asthma (like me) can experience a fatal reaction to tear gas or pepper spray. Likewise, I imagine a person with lens implants in their eyes (like me) might be at risk for permanent damage, even blindness, when exposed to this 'non-lethal' microwave weapon.
    And there is always the high probability of people being hurt in a stampede to get away from such weapons.
    'Non-lethal' does not mean 'harmless', people. And guess what? The government won't care.

    --
    Serving your airship needs since 1995.
    1. Re:Health Risks by ultramk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      OK, so then they'll just use machine guns and hand-grenades.

      Problem solved, right? ...if I were the rioting type, I think I would prefer the less-lethal options, thanks.

      Or, if you have health problems that put you at additional risk, leave the rioting to others.

      m-

      --
      You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
  57. Anarchists by darkbit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When "anarchists" have been present in past protests, they have been shown to be plain clothes policemen for the purposes of provocateuring (starting violence) which then give police the justification to crack everybody's head. Just concoct a few anarchists and it doesn't matter if it's ray guns or tractor beams. The end result is the same: the scientific dictatorship is setting the rules and your opinion doesn't count.

  58. feel like they're being burned alive by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In what way does this device make them 'feel' they are being burned alive rather than actually burning them alive? This isn't pepper spray that triggers pain sensors without associated damage. This thing makes people feel like they are burning because it is in fact cooking them!

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  59. I believe the fear is.... by electrosoccertux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    a result of looking what this could turn in to. Sure, most of us might not ever be in a riot, but I can easily see myself being involved in a peaceful protest (in the future) where our government has simply gone too far in taking our rights away. Then, while the protest is entirely peaceful, there are so many of us that the authorities simply stop caring, or even worse, plan to ignore the masses. Weapons like these make it all the more difficult for us to overthrow the governing body, should the majority find it inadequate and not sufficiently capable of fair ruling.

    Its getting easier and easier for the gov't to supress, rather than acknowledge, the problem at hand, whatever it be; and we are the ones giving ground.

    Don't get me wrong, I think stopping violent riots is a good thing. Using this would most likely save more lives than it would take; however this is teatering on the "cruel and unusual" line. I know thats for punishment, but I think the idea ought still apply for contol of the masses. Inducing nausea is simply not humane. Nor is making a person's skin feel like it's on fire. Each law inforcement officer should be subjected to the effects of each weapon they will be using before they are given conrol....say 5 seconds....enough to keep in mind the power they are wielding. Pay them a bit more, I don't care; just make sure they are as sparing as possible in the "non-lethal" weapon's use.

    1. Re:I believe the fear is.... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 2, Insightful
      while the protest is entirely peaceful, there are so many of us that the authorities simply stop caring, or even worse, plan to ignore the masses.

      I saw a quote somewhere that sums it up. To the best of my recollection it was "creating the tools of a fasist state is bad civic hygene". In future, people may look back to this time and wonder "how did it happend here?".

  60. Military Grade DU is not (just) depleted by Savage650 · · Score: 2, Informative
    [on so-called "Depleted Uranium"] It means that the level of uranium 235 (compared to U234/U236) is reduced to below the levels found in nature. ....

    It is not the Uranium content that makes DU ammunitions "hot", but the assorted contaminants. Remember where the military gets the stuff? They cant afford to use "lab-grade" stuff (made from freshly-mined ore), so they buy at the other end of the nuclear fuel processing chain:

    Military-grade DU is actually nuclear waste, mamely the "everything else" part that is left over after you have extracted the few elements/isotopes that can be profitably recycled. Sure, it is "mostly" Uranium (enough so give it the desired pyhsical properties: high density, internal structure, hardness). But on the radiological level the contaminants are very significant (e.g. lots of short-lived (=hot) decay products)

    1. Re:Military Grade DU is not (just) depleted by HardCase · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...on the radiological level the contaminants are very significant (e.g. lots of short-lived (=hot) decay products)

      No, that's wrong. There radiological danger from DU is virtually zero. Its radioactivity is at the level of background radiation or less. Its problem is that it is a heavy metal. It's poisonous when ingested.

      When I was in the Navy we joked around a lot about handling the ammunition for the 30mm CIWS gun until somebody finally brought out a geiger counter. Background radiation.

      The last that I heard, CIWS doesn't use DU anymore. I heard something about tungsten rounds.

      -h-

  61. Still dangerous by uberjoe · · Score: 2, Informative
    DU is not dangerous because because of the radioactivity, but because it's a toxic heavy metal. And when those rounds hit something at high velocity they burn, and put DU particles up into the air around the target. The problem comes from ground troops in the area who would advance on the target which has just been "softened up" by the DU cannon (or civilians in the area) would inhale the particles and get cancer down the road because they cannot exhale the particles.

    Yes its depleted or most radioactivity, but it's still a burning heavy metal regardless.

    --

    The days of the digital watch are numbered.

  62. Mod parent up by no_choice · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Normally on Slashdot, when an inaccurate statement or innuendo is posted, a response citing facts that rebut it will be quickly modded up.

    The exception seems to be that if the statement or innuendo is Anti-American.

    I guess the old chestnut that "America supplied Saddam with his arms" is just too good to give up, no matter what the facts are.

  63. Can you really see the bad guys? by wsanders · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My impression from what I see on the media is that (besides IEDs) our forces are hit by bad guys who fire and then disappear, or blend into the crowd, or who appear to be good guys, and then pull out a weapon or blow themselves up. Is this correct? If so, the the weapon would be have to be used somewhat indiscriminately. Not that there is anything wrong with that IMHO, if you like to hang out on the street corner and watch your insurgent buddies you're asking for trouble.

    Another use for the microwave beam might be to disrupt IEDs. Useful - you could zap a guy and if he's a suicide bomber he blows up, if he's not he just gets a headache.

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  64. Re:OK by Pansy · · Score: 2, Insightful
    That 99.4% of the population doesn't support a movement does not imply that 99.4% of the population opposes it.

    All popular movements start out as minority movements, because the rest of the population isn't sufficiently educated, or has been indoctrinated by the government controlled media. Those other 99.4% of the population that doesn't support you might not even know what's going on.

    Example: Take East Timor, the US funded a state-run genocide by Indonesia. We did it because we wanted to drill for oil off East Timor and Indonesian control facilitated that aim. Now I'm sure 99.4% of the US population doesn't support genocide (there aren't that many neo-cons yet are there?), but I sure as hell never saw 298 million of them protesting with me or otherwise supporting the movement.

    --
    People are the problem, stop procreation now!
  65. Re:Are the Mods on Crack? by Pansy · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Your boss should not overrule your concience. Being a Marine does not absolve him of his moral obligation to act in a manner befitting a member of the human race. The armed forces specifically indoctrinate their members to forget this fact. I wish more of the members of our armed forces had the intestinal fortitude to stand up and refuse to commit acts they believed to be morally reprehensible.

    Some of you will say that this would undermine the effectiveness of the armed forces. I agree, it would undermine their effectiveness as a tool of opression and agression, however it should leave them well positioned to fulfill their original role, as defenders of the people against foreign armies.

    Bring the armed forces home, and keep them here!

    Don't give me any of that "preemptive defensive strike" either, I can't believe the American people fell for that BS.

    --
    People are the problem, stop procreation now!