Slashdot Mirror
Millimeter-Wave Weapon Certified For Use In Iraq
jdray writes "Wired has a story on the certification of the Active Denial System for use in Iraq. The ADS is a millimeter-wave weapon that uses a reportedly non-lethal energy beam to inflict short-term pain on its targets, encouraging them to leave an area. Experimenters call this the 'Goodbye effect.' I can see using this in a wartime situation, but how long before we see these things mounted to the top of S.W.A.T. vans for domestic crowd control? And, is that a bad idea?" From the article: The ADS shoots a beam of millimeters waves, which are longer in wavelength than x-rays but shorter than microwaves — 94 GHz (= 3 mm wavelength) compared to 2.45 GHz (= 12 cm wavelength) in a standard microwave oven... while subjects may feel like they have sustained serious burns, the documents claim effects are not long-lasting. At most, 'some volunteers who tolerate the heat may experience prolonged redness or even small blisters'... There has been no independent checking of the military's claims." Wired use Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain documents on the military's testing program.
Time to don the triple layered Tin foil suit with extra ball protection.
...
The army will have to think harder when civilians start running at them with faraday cages around them.
Additional questions
Would a metal plate reflect the radiation back at them?
How many minutes does it take to cook a human?
Does this device go "ding" when its done?
liqbase
Sounds like the Neronic Whip that Isaac Asmiov described in his Foundation series. Now whether or not its a Good Idea(TM), that is a tough call. Likely it depends on whther you're on the trigger end or muzzle end, so to speak.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
how long before we see these things mounted to the top of S.W.A.T. vans for domestic crowd control? And, is that a bad idea?
Is using a non-lethal device for crowd control a bad idea? I'd guess it would depend on if this can create permanent harm or not. If it has no ill side-effects I'd say it's one hell of a lot better than tear gas that can kill people with some respiratory conditions.
Crowd control in an of itself is not a bad idea if that's what you're getting at.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
"At most, 'some...may experience prolonged redness or even small blisters'"
They slept with Susie too???! That tramp!
That's sooo Osama bin Laden.
They do nothing!!
This is my signature. There are many like it but this one is mine.
The problem is that the people who were tested were told ahead of time to remove glasses, contact lenses, and any metal that could generate "hot spots". I really doubt they're going to extend the same courtesy to dissidents in a war zone. They're also assuming that the average grunt in the field is going to properly operate the equipment.
In every war the army mentions non-lethal weapons in the press to give the population the feeling that they try not to kill so many people.
"how long before we see these things mounted to the top of S.W.A.T. vans for domestic crowd control? And, is that a bad idea?"
It is not a bad idea if you are for the system and the establishment, trying to protect your own interests and the status quo. Fry them hippies.
It is a bad idea if you are not a member of the elite, and you are trying to resist tyranny and fight for freedom and human rights via non-violent civil disobedience. This would only be one more tool for police to potentially abuse, like the tazer which has its good and bad sides.
1 voice in a sea of voices
Crowd control should be about de-escalating the chance for conflict. If you start burning people with microwaves, you radically and abruptly increase the chance for a peaceful protest to turn into a bloody lynching.
During the protest against the invasion of Iraq in New York, just trying to deny all the intersections to protesters with sawhorses and mounted police caused surging to begin in the crowd, and the NYPD came within a hair's breadth of inciting a riot that would have burned out Midtown Manhattan and killed a lot of people.
And if any police department or government agency in the United States gets the bright idea to employ this kind of means here against people exercising their constitutional rights, they should think very carefully and deeply and consider that I and many of my patriotic countrymen are very jealous of our rights and also possess automatic weapons. How far do you want to push us, Mr. Man?
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Because they have never mislead us before.
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
On the one hand, it beats the hell out of using machine guns for crowd dispersal.
On the other, because it doesn't (apparently) kill people, armed forces will be *much* more likely to use it to disperse people, instead of trying to do things that keep people from rioting. Technical solution to non-technical problem isn't a solution, it's a treatment.
Any bets on whether this is already in use for interrogation?
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
The ADS shoots a beam of millimeters waves, which are longer in wavelength than x-rays but shorter than microwaves -- 94 GHz (= 3 mm wavelength) compared to 2.45 GHz (= 12 cm wavelength) in a standard microwave oven..
I wonder how it relates to UV, visible light and IR then? That's mighty big frequency range from 2,4GHz to 30 EHz.
Why couldn't they just say "EHF" if they needed to specify the frequency area where 94 GHz resides. I hate these articles that try to sound technical with some babble but in reality just betray that the writer does not know what's he talking about.
I'm all for nonlethal weapons when the other choice is killing people en masse. But in the current Iraq situation, all I can see in a device that causes pain without killing is a lot of hurt people wanting payback big time. Something like this could be perverted into a horrible torture device. To ever use something like this against a civilian population would be dubious at best. Doesn't the world hate the U.S. enough already?
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
While this weapon certainly could be more human for crowd dispersal than some curently available (Tear gas that can cause death in athmatics, rubber-coated steel bullets [you didn't think they were just rubber, did you?] which can kill, being hit with sticks, ect.), there's the follow-up possibility of other places to consider. After the interrogation techniques seen at Abu Ghraib and Guantanama Bay, the ability to make someone feel like they're on fire, say while blindfolded, might be too juicy a plum not to be picking.
I see nothing wrong with five meals a day
Probably has effects like other microwaves. The military found out long ago that exposure to microwaves increases the incidence of cataracts. That's why there are rather low exposure limits-- a few milliwatts per cm^2.
But by the article's admission, we don't know the long lasting effects yet. The burning rays are supposed to be absorbed by the top layer of your skin. But what happens if there's nerve damage that becomes apparent in ten years? Or an increased risk of skin cancer later on in life?
Unless it is absolutely necessary, we probably shouldn't use this weapon yet. The US has the unenviable distinction of being the only country to use large-scale nuclear weapons in war, and that event and it's reasons are debated and discussed to no end. I wouldn't want another weapon used that, although smaller scale, still ends up killing people decades later because they are put at an increased risk for other factors. Especially if the "intent" is non-lethal. But if we can be almost certain that it's truly non-lethal with no long lasting effects, this would be a good tool to use, for both military and riot police.
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
Better than getting worked over with a club, I suppose.
Sounds like a good idea in principle, but someone, sooner or later, is bound to abuse it. Who will be responsible for determining when it can/can not be used? For a soldier to kill someone with a gun, they have to have a damn good reason to do it. To use something that inflicts pain with no long term effects? Very high danger of abuse.
biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
I'm not saying I like the idea of this thing, I don't, but you're confusing nuclear radiation with mm wave RF. Light is radition, too.
I am not a crackpot.
Then later:
Do you know anyone that can run half a kilometre in 5 seconds?
Light of god ftw..
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
1) Develop new weapon.
2) Deploy weapon during a civil war.
3) Watch insurgents develop counter measures via trial and error.
4) Insurgents publish counter measure globally.
5) Return to step 1.
S.W.A.T. vans aren't my concern, what about the poor children swimming?
Question is, how long before people are tortured with this device?
:-(
In fact, given the current administration's apparent view that coercion which causes non-permanent harm is not torture (e.g. waterboarding), this seems ideal.
I wish I was kidding
Here are the options to clear a group of protesters:
Non-lethal area denial weapon
The usual water cannon/rubber bullet/tear gas in-your-face personal approach.
One of those will put a lot of riot cops in close contact with rioters. The other will not. Given the choice, I'd rather keep the riot cops far away, so they don't get hurt. Why? Because an angry riot cop is more likely to seriously injure/kill someone than a non-angry riot cop. Both approaches are equally likely to cause a stampede problem and trampling death. The nice thing about the "at-a-distance" approach is the beam could be focused near the exit points first, and then swept towards the front of the riot, hopefully reducing the problem. The only way to use the in-your-face method is to start at the end away from the exit and "push" the rioters.
That's just one use for these. Let's look at another application that you're not thinking of.
Consider for another moment a need for a more permanently installed area denial weapon. The standard choice for this, for decades:
Land mines.
This could be a very nice replacement for large minefields, or at least a supplement to anti-personnel mines (I think you'd probably still need anti-tank mines, but this would help reduce the number of the far-more-dangerous-to-children anti-personnel land mines). This could be less expensive over the long run, easier to deploy and maintain, so it's a very attractive military alternative to anti-personnel mines. Accidentally zapping a kid with one of these weapons is much less permanent than having the kid step on a land mine.
There are ways this could be used in torture. But guess what: Just about anything can be used for torture. Rubber hoses are far cheaper. I don't think "ooh, you can torture people with this" is a valid argument, or we'd be looking at wanting to ban rubber hoses also.
The summary said this was between microwaves and x-rays. Both of which have been considered cancer concerns. Of course, visible light, approximately between 350 and 700 nm is also in that range. Much of the cancer worry has to do with intensity and duration of exposure. Higher frequency light only reduces the amount needed to cause problems. I would think that if exposure to this weapon caused blisters and pain, the beam would have to be fairly intense.
First off, x-rays aren't a cancer *concern*, they are absolutely known to cause cancer. So there's that. However, for sub-visible wavelengths, the case for cancer is a bit weak. Cancer is caused when DNA molecular bonds are broken. This happens when the molecule absorbs a photon which excites a bonded electron temporarily, long enough for it to change the chemistry of the molecule. One problem with the cancer theory - this process requires visible-uv light at a minimum, and the process depends solely on the frequency of the light, not the intensity. Microwaves won't do the trick, nor will radio waves.
For microwaves or radio waves to cause cancer, they'd have to result in some pretty serious localized heating to your tissue, probably for a rather extended time period, and even then it's rather doubtful since you'd probably simply die first from being cooked.
Intentionally inflicting intense pain on a person to illicite a response is torture. Saying the pain is non-damaging and short term, doesn't change the fact that it's torture. This is a mass torture device.
In crowd control situations, I can't think of a scenario where this wouldn't also be collective punishment. It's like two Geneva Convention violations wrapped in one. Go USA!
"You never know when some crazed rodent with cold feet might be running loose in your pants."
-Calvin
Here is a companion article from Wired with some of the documents: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72236-0.htm l?tw=rss.index
I am not a crackpot.
Joking aside, how easy would it be to make protective armor against this kind of attack? You can buy rolls of steel or aluminum window screening at any hardware store for under $50.
Causing them to fall back to "Plan B," also known as rubber bullets (or real ones). I'm not sure that's an improvement.
Plus, at least if I was going to deploy this, I'd probably use a mix of denial devices; tear gas, smoke, ultrasonics, psychological deterrents (recordings of people screaming, etc.), and the giant Radarange. If one particular method doesn't make you want to leave, chances are one of the other ones will.
It just adds to the would-be rioter's load of stuff they have to bring. Gas mask, earplugs, roll of window screen, padded suit (don't want to get trampled by the less prepared)...joining a mob and burning stuff just becomes less fun-sounding in a hurry, when you have to go home and get your "riot kit" first.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
At least in my experience, Tasers replaced nightsticks and billy clubs because they're more photogenic and have less of a stigma. Most of the situations you see Tasers being used in, would in the "bad old days" probably have engendered use of the club. Only that's not quite acceptable anymore, so instead they've found a method that looks better from a distance, and leaves fewer marks. (No awkward explanations of how somebody 'fell down the stairs,' etc.)
I'm not at all convinced that the level of police brutality has increased in recent years, if anything I think it's probably at its lowest level in this country historically. Arguing with people who consider themselves to be in a position of power has never been a safe sport, and depending on where and when you did it (and who you were), you might have been lucky to get out with the equivalent of a Tasering.
I'm not defending the practice per se, I'm just suggesting that I think you're wrong to assume that the technology actually causes brutality; the brutality has always been there, and always finds an outlet. That the Taser seems to be the choice du jour for causing pain doesn't really make it unique.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Come into my country and torture me with experimental technology, I'll be forgiving.
Quack, quack.
i doubt many are objecting to the use of this on the battlefield
the problem is it WILL be used against protestors
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
I think people are confusing "protest" with "mob." A planned protest with people who know what they're getting into, and have protection, is a very different entity from a spontaneous street riot.
Sometimes people who want to crack down on a protest will term it a 'mob' or 'riot,' but they're different. A riot, and what this machine is designed to disperse, is a situation where you have a whole lot of people just getting together spontaneously for the purposes of causing violence. Since spontaneity implies lack of preparedness, this would be effective there.
Even if you have something that starts off as a protest and then becomes a mob or riot, say by virtue of people joining up with the protest whose ends are violent rather than peaceful, then the deterrent system is most effective against the violent hangers-on, rather than the core protesters. So again, it's not ineffective.
"Professional protesters" and the other people likely to bring protective gear are not the real concern, because they're the ones least likely to be causing violence. (And if they are, you can't really call it a 'protest' anymore, it's a battle, and time to bring out the real weapons.) In many ways, a good crowd 'discourager' should have some form of protective gear that's effective against it, because this allows you to drive off violent spontaneous rioters but have minimal effect on core protesters.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Do you have any idea what goes on when a prisoner is tortured for information? This weapon system is the Disney-ified G-rated version of even the mildest "information extraction" techniques, divided by a thousand.
Actually I do, and I think you are wrong (especially if I take your "even the mildest" phrase as anything but gross exaggeration for effect). This basically creates the sensation of being burned alive, and burning is one of the most horrible pains one can experience. The physical effect is of a mild burn, but the sensation is of being severely burned. Nobody tested was able to withstand more than 5 seconds of the beam, and these were military tests so your average wimp probably wasn't invited. If 5 seconds is too excruciating for anyone to bear, then what does 30 seconds or a minute feel like?
I'll agree with you on the rape thing... Though it might make more sense to ask the question again after a minute of being under this device's effect.
The enemies of Democracy are
Otherwise, we have 3k+ dead soldiers who died for nothing at all.
We do.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I oppose nonlethal weapons, and I am a pacifist.
Let me tell you why. Lethal weapons have consequences. If you shoot someone, it's undeniable that you shot them, and you will have to answer. If you're the police, facing off a crowd, and the only enforcement tool you have is a gun, you're MUCH more likely to do the proper thing, and talk the situation down or handle it in such a way that it stays in control.
If you have a magic ray gun, you're much more likely to shoot as soon as you bloody well feel like it, without trying to properly address the situation. Not only does this give you a crowd of angry, hurt people, it also fails to address the underlying cause of the disturbance in the first place.
Additionally, the media treats them so much differently. If the police shoot into a crowd of protesters, there is instant, full coverage, and possible society-changing events (Kent State?). If the police shoot tear gas into a crowd, or now shoot them with the magic ray gun, the story is always "An unruly crowd of protesters was dispersed by police. We'll tell you how they were bad people at 11". And nothing else happens. If someone tries to sue for the force being used without cause, the response is usually "it was just tear gas, ya big baby, get over it". So, nothing changes.
And while I do agree that society is becoming a bit more violent, it's also true and documented that police in many countries have taken to instigating violence at large protests in order to have an excuse to disperse the entire event. There are videos of plainclothes officers getting out of police vehicles, mingling with the crowd, and then starting vandalism or violence in an effort to encourage others. So it's no longer a fair measuring stick to say "we'll only use it on violent crowds", because the police are making the violent crowds.
A respect for life is about the only thing we have left going (and it's marginal at that), so it's for that reason that I say we use it to our advantage, and I discourage the use of nonlethal weapons for crowd control. Make the police do their job, not just hit a button every time they think it's time for a coffee break.
(this is also the reason I oppose the use of unmanned combat vehicles, but that's a discussion for another thread.)
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
Maybe this would be a humane and cost-effective way to guard the US-Mexican border against illegal invaders. Establish a DMZ just inside the US. As you cross the border and enter the DMZ, the pain level would increase the farther into the DMZ you go.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
It's a recruitment tool. This is going to be used to recruit more "terrorists" etc.
...
Also, if it causes a net increase in trouble and violence I guess the _weapons_ companies are going to be a bit bothered about that aren't they?
1) Sell something to the US military that's supposed to make people pissed off with them "move away" by using something that will piss them off.
2)
3) Profit!
There's actually plenty of info out there on how to actually reduce terrorism, win people to your side, lots of actual real life cases etc.
But it actually seems the people controlling the USA are not interested in reducing the threats to the USA. Just look at the US actions after 9/11 - many Islamic nations were on the US side immediately after 9/11, but what did the USA do instead?
It's not Iraq or Iran or North Korea that's the greatest threat to the USA or the world (it never was Saddam Hussein or even Osama), it's the people ruling the USA. And that's been true for many decades.
Funny the USA spends billions on weapons and wars, and can't even afford to make and use voting machines that work. Makes you wonder what the real priorities and motives are eh?
Sone WTO protestors showed up planning to riot some did not. The quality of their information in this regard was dubious. The events in both Seattle, Miami, and Italy were marked in large measure by an unwillingness on the part of police to draw the distinction or to wait until there was actual evidence of crimes being committed before "swooping in". In some cases the justification for tear-gassing an otherwize nonviolent and legal group was the claim that they had 'intended to' commit crimes. This is not a legal justification. Similarly the claim was made that such groups were, like Iraqi houses, harbouring would-be attackers. This is also a dubious claim given that many of the nonviolent groups (e.g. United Auto Workers) drew a clear policy of *not* harbouring any of the destructive crowd.
If you have evidence to the contrary by all means share it with me but the evidence that has been provided in the past has been litte more than post-hoc claims and does nothing to change the fact that in most cases nonviolent groups were attacked not the other way around.
There is also a related strain in this with the "Free Speech Zones" that have eruped around the Presdent lately. Now because of "evidence of likely crimes" protestors (especially those oppositional to the President) have been locked into large steel cages at his events. This same thing was done for both the DNC and RNC events befoee the last election. The claim was that since unspecified evidence existed that some people might do bad things everyone who opposed the star of the show needed to be jailed (in this case jailed en-masse for a fixed period of time) even though they had not committed any crime.
Such actions do nothing to enhanse free speech or protect people. All that they do is futher segregate society and draw a line between the cops and the population. All they do is give meat to the arguments of the violent crowd that, since we will be jailed either way what does it matter?
Since you mention the Million Man March consider this. 40 years ago when similar marches were attempted they were met with the tear gas, the guns, the firehoses, and the senseless attacks. At that time they were being locked up or attacked because the cops 'had information' that some of them were planning violence. Said actions only raised levels of violence on both sides and made the arguments of people who advocated violence seem that much more attractive.
People often forget that Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks, for all their nonviolence, still spent a lot of time in jail, and a lot of time getting attacked by people in uniform.
If a protest is lawful and you have the permits,...
Is it just me or is something horribly wrong with this sentence?
There is a war going on for your mind.
-b.
The problem is, it WILL be used to hack servers.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I think you are talking about a Tasp.
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
The use of firehoses for crowd control is frowned upon if not outright illegal as a human rights violation since their use in the race riots of the 1960's. Those weren't lethal either.
Can anyone explain why weapons that would incense the human rights activists in the US or Canada are being deployed overseas? Aren't people overseas considered human by the administration(s)?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Using these tools against people BEFORE they have broken the law is wrong.
You're confusing the use of a crowd control device before the crowd does some stupid crap with using them as the crowd is doing stupid crap. Freedom of assembly and speech aren't damaged at all if 500 drunk frat boys dancing around a bonfire made up of a flaming police car and all of the books they just stole from the storefront they just trashed are dispersed by some non-lethal mechanism. You could march 100 police officers in, but you risk physical harm if they have to physically handle people to get them to leave, and you can't just call up 100 police officers in some mid-sized college town after you realize that idiots are pouring gasoline on utility poles and lighting them.
But if you position those officers right there, in advance, then you get accused of being Nazis. So, you can't win, if it's your job to keep the main street next door to Enormous State University intact until the next business day after a particularly exciting basketball game. So... things get out of hand, and a small number of crowd control officers could fire teargas cannisters (and risk hitting people in the head, catching clothes on fire, or killing asthmatics), or perhaps they could use some newer technlogy that doesn't involve high speed projectiles, incindiary devices, etc. That's what's being talked about here.
Implying that the only way to save time, injuries, thin municipal budgets, etc., is to use such devices in advance is nonsense. The whole idea is to give the law enforcement people responding to such mayhem something new, safer, and more effective with which to get things back to civilized without having to have the paramilitary-looking guys (who wear that stuff so they don't get cut up with broken glass, etc) there in the first place. And that reduces tensions. And if the twits that like to smash store windows, burn cars, and block streets understand that something passingly unpleasant is one of the tools in the police toolbox, they might even think twice about showing up with that molotov cocktail (or making one out of rum) in the first place. And, thus no mayhem, and thus no need to act in response. Good for everyone involved.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Coming to a library near you!
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
historically the permit process has been abused to deny groups their right to peacfully assemble. Governmental bodies have unreasonably delayed protests, put up unreasonable barriers to protest, disallowed reasonable locations and just about everything else you can think of. I agree with the poster, "must get a permit to protest" is often an oxymoron.
To put it more simply, what do you think would be the best way to protest the permit process?
TW
If you're sane, I'd argue that we're in a frightening environment no matter your place on the multidimensional political spectrum.
I am a fiscal conservative, an environmental conservative (I often think, "that word, it does not mean what you think it means"), and a civil liberties freak. I label myself as a leftist because I believe the first two points of my platform can be accomplished through enlightened application of the third.
But part of the problem is that the political spectrum in the US is distorted almost beyond belief. We can't even talk rationally about our positions without explaining them in detail, because political campaigning has so skewed the meaning of most of our vocabulary. When I say "conservative," I mean something quite close to the accepted dictionary definition of many years. I don't mean that I support the status quo or the prevailing religious viewpoint. But if all I said was that I am conservative, you might think I'm a warmonger and your mistake would be understandable.
We are dealing with a terrible dearth of honesty and clarity in public discourse.
[|]
The right to free assembly just means that you're free to gather with like-minded individuals somewhere. If you gather on private property, 'nuff said.
But if you gather on public property, your gathering will prevent your fellow citizens from using that property themselves. Since your fellow citizens have an equal privilege to use public property, and since your desire to use it doesn't trump their desire to use it, some kind of arbitration is needed.
And that arbitration is carried out by exactly the people you'd want to carry it out: elected representatives of the citizenry or their appointed public servants. That is, the arbitration is carried out by you and me, as citizens, via our constitutionally-defined agents.
How else should our conflicting claims on our joint property be decided?
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Protesting in the streets is a lazy man's solution to avoiding the proper legal and political process, and gives them a good excuse to kick back a few cold ones with 100,000 of their closest friends and make a mess. Society would be much better served if everyone just stayed home and just 1 out of 100 of the protesters participated in the political process with meaningful and substantive support for their position.
Historically?
History is full of permitted protests.
But what is your alternative? Obviously, an anything goes, first come first serve approach to competing claims on the public space isn't going to work. There needs to be some kind of oversight, and some kind of arbitration. You can't just co-opt a public space for a protest, without regard to how you may be disrupting the lives of your fellow citizens.
And who else is going to provide oversight and arbitration of the use of public spaces, except you and I, as fellow citizens, via our constitutioanlly-defined elected and appointed agents?
Did you have some better idea for managing competing claims on public spaces, except through the same democratic system we use to manage all of our competing claims with our fellow citizens?
But I get your point. If you're having trouble protesting the protest permit process, there are really only two options available to you: Mahatma Ghandi or Che Guevara.
I recommend protesting anyway, publically, non-violently, a la Ghandi. When the world sees your moral superiority and the mistreatment you are receiving at the hands of your government, perhaps your government will be shamed into recognizing your rights. It worked for Ghandi, it could work for you.
If it doesn't work for you, though, there's always the last resort: violent revolution. Good luck with that, but better to die fighting for freedom than live peacefully as a slave, right? Besides, you might win anyway.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Do you know why pain exists? It's so you have some motivation to move away from the source of said pain. When something is causing you extreme pain, you are going to move until it stops, not sit around until it causes you serious harm. (This applies to the above too.)
Additionally, to quote the article:
It's unlikely it'd even penetrate far enough to be any more of a worry to pregnant women than to anyone else.
Yes, I'm sure that they, with their 10 years and $40 million, never thought of that; it's remarkable that you, with a few minutes, $0, and no experience whatsoever with the weapon, could so easily spot such a flaw.
Jherico
What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"
It isn't as if it "could be perverted into" a horrible torture device. It IS a torture device. It causes excruciating pain, and leaves no marks. It will be used (if it isn't already) for interrogation. In Iraq first, and eventually it will be purchased by police departments stateside.
6 &did=110, and time and time again I read of police torturing confessions out of people. Police do this. In every country. Every police officer? No, but that distinction won't matter when it's you feeling as if your arm is being cooked.
Then you'll hear from suspects that it was used on them, and the police departments will deny it. Eventually it'll happen to a telegenic white person, and there'll be a congressional hearing (assuming the Democrats are still in office) and they'll discover that US police departments are using them to torture confessions out of people. Everyone will act shocked, condemn the "few bad apples" and it'll continue as before after a brief pause.
Understanding of this issue is divided starkly into two camps--those who understand that power is abused, and those who think power is only abused by that other political party, the one they don't like. I know that humans are who they are. I spent part of my morning reading http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=
It isn't that particular police officers are "bad people" but that people can't be trusted with this much power. Give any population of human beings the power to inflict great pain without being caught, make it convenient for them to use it because doing so will get results, and the results will always be the same--people will do the wrong thing if doing so is in their best interests. Call it original sin, whatever, but power corrupts. It's part of our nature, and can't be negated by optimism or indignant "cops are good people!" responses. People invariably take it as an insult to good cops they know, because they think that evil in this world is due to a few bad apples, not to an innate, insurmountable flaw in our nature. It's that naive optimism that prevents us from acknowledging the limitations to what we can trust people with, and leads us to keep inventiing torture devices like this. This is one of those cases where optimism causes more harm than good, and a bit of cynicism would result in a lot less human suffering.
That's not true. They died to make your country less safe.
meh