Slashdot Mirror


Homeland Security Commissions LED-Based Puke-Saber

E++99 writes "Homeland Security has contracted with Intelligent Optical Systems, Inc. to develop an "LED Incapacitator," a nonlethal weapon consisting of a large flashlight with a cluster of LEDs capable of emitting "super-bright pulses of light at rapidly changing wavelengths." Sounds innocuous enough... until they they shine "the evil color" at you and you start puking! A working prototype has been completed, and they will soon be putting it through its paces. Homeland Security hopes to give it to Border Patrol agents and National Guardsmen by 2010."

378 comments

  1. Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How will people defend themselves against this? I'm sure nobody will think of simply closing one's eyes!

    1. Re:Oh no! by magarity · · Score: 5, Funny

      How will people defend themselves against this?
       
      Use the MAD method: Wear mirror sunglasses.

    2. Re:Oh no! by Skidge · · Score: 2, Funny

      "My eyes! The goggles do nothing!"

    3. Re:Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please, learn to meme properly. Although it is a well-known fact that Rainier Luftwaffe Wolfcastle actually cries "The goggles do nothing" when starring his role as Radioactive Man, the precise Slashdot meme is commonly stated as "The goggles, they do nothing!". Please, report to the men at the door, where you will be asked to hand in your UID, geek card and, should that be the case, mirror goggles.

    4. Re:Oh no! by Skidge · · Score: 3, Funny

      Good point. I was going to say, "The goggles, they do nothing!", but Wikipedia told me not to. Bad Wikipedia!

    5. Re:Oh no! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Brion Gysin and Wilhelm Reich all had similar ideas.

      My father adapted these as part of the defense system that protected his fake Le Corbusier mansion near Normandy...

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    6. Re:Oh no! by Surt · · Score: 1

      Shine a bright flashlight at your eyelids and see if you can guess what will happen when you try this strategy.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    7. Re:Oh no! by insomnyuk · · Score: 1

      Only terrorists wear aviator sunglasses.

    8. Re:Oh no! by UncleTogie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Shine a bright flashlight at your eyelids and see if you can guess what will happen when you try this strategy.

      As you guessed, one of us was bored enough to try. When I tried with either lamp or bright flashlight, even rolling my eyes up, enough light was visible to be easily seen. A few questions came to mind:

      1. Since the wavelength of the beam changes a bit as it filters through your tissue, is that why they had to have shifting frequencies? After all, FTA:

      "There's one wavelength that gets everybody," says IOS President Bob Lieberman. "Vlad [IOS top scientist Vladimir Rubtsov] calls it 'the evil color.'"

      If one color gets everyone, why would they need "rapidly changing wavelengths", or did the reporter get their terminology mixed up?

      2. Y'know that "pretty lights" effect you get when you rub your eyes? Would that be enough to throw off "the evil color"?

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    9. Re:Oh no! by nedaf7 · · Score: 1

      I believe that by "there's one wavelength that gets everybody," he meant that everybody has their own specific color, which explains why they shift frequencies.

    10. Re:Oh no! by UncleTogie · · Score: 1
      ...then I'd ask:

      Using aviator's goggles with some low-intensity RGB LEDs inside the cup, each changing intensity randomly every sec or two or five, could you defeat the puke-saber?

      {Ok, I never said it'd LOOK cool, but would it work?}

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    11. Re:Oh no! by nedaf7 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or better yet, find out what your personal frequency is, and get some custom glasses that selectively filter that frequency!

    12. Re:Oh no! by Meski · · Score: 1

      Like Kevlar body armor, mirror glasses will become illegal, except for police/militia.

    13. Re:Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is crap. I always quote the original script. YOU need to learn to meme properly.

    14. Re:Oh no! by go$$amer · · Score: 2, Funny

      And galoshes...

      --
      STOP. You're being farmed.
    15. Re:Oh no! by Surt · · Score: 1

      I'm sure there are numerous fairly easy ways to defeat this, if you're prepared. I'm just confident that closing your eyes isn't one of them.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    16. Re:Oh no! by fusion9290991 · · Score: 1

      Did anyone else immediately thing "sick-stick"?

      --
      remember to loot and pillage before you burn!
    17. Re:Oh no! by FreakinSyco · · Score: 1

      "Zee goggles! Zey do nossing!!"

    18. Re:Oh no! by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

      Are you saying Kevlar body armor is currently illegal, or that it (as well as mirrored glasses) will become illegal? Most places, body armor is legal. Well, unless you're a felon. But most people can buy Kevlar body armor most places. Are you by chance Australian?

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    19. Re:Oh no! by AgentSmith · · Score: 1

      Voice coach: Up an at'em!

      Rainier Wolfcastle: Up and at them!

      Voice coach: Good enough!

    20. Re:Oh no! by Meski · · Score: 1

      Are you saying Kevlar body armor is currently illegal, or that it (as well as mirrored glasses) will become illegal? Most places, body armor is legal. Well, unless you're a felon. But most people can buy Kevlar body armor most places. Are you by chance Australian? By chance, no, by birth, yes :)
      Ok, didn't realise prohibition of body armor was an Aussie preversion. My bad.
  2. I WANT A SICK-STICK! by scosco62 · · Score: 2, Funny

    If only to pummel Tom Cruise with................

    1. Re:I WANT A SICK-STICK! by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 2, Interesting

      maybe its more a weapon against obesity?

  3. Urgh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Puke sticks? Minority Report?

  4. Other uses... by tectomorph · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wow, wait until the bulimics get hold of this on the black market!

    1. Re:Other uses... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Epilepsy? Too bad.

    2. Re:Other uses... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      I don't think bulimics would like that. It's supposed to make you sick because it makes you dizzy. I bet that before you throw up (or even after) you'll feel an awful headache similar to migraines.

    3. Re:Other uses... by ari+wins · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What about those with Epilepsy? Could this be considered excessive force if they went into a seizure?

      --
      Don't worry if you're a kleptomaniac, you can always take something for it.
    4. Re:Other uses... by wagebo · · Score: 1

      Worse would be an alcoholic... Esophageal varices could burst open with the force of vomiting causing them to bleed out very quickly. Hope the people using these like wearing biohazard gear everywhere they go to use them. Plus can you imagine the smell?

  5. This will work just great... by Qubit · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...as long as the bad guys aren't allowed to have mirrors.

    --

    coding is life /* the rest is */
    1. Re:This will work just great... by veganboyjosh · · Score: 1

      or sunglasses.

    2. Re:This will work just great... by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

      Or tinfoil hats, for that matter. (or mirrored sunglasses!)

    3. Re:This will work just great... by skuzzlebutt · · Score: 1

      flash forward to 2015: "Look at the clean shave on that guy...I smell TERRORIST!!!"

      --
      My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
    4. Re:This will work just great... by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would the bad guys need mirrors? They just invented a puke ray.

    5. Re:This will work just great... by McNihil · · Score: 2, Funny

      I knew there was a reason for a tinfoil hat!

    6. Re:This will work just great... by megaditto · · Score: 1

      Presumably the emetic flashlight would be used indoors, at night, or in the dark. I doubt a lot of people would wear sunglasses just then.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    7. Re:This will work just great... by veganboyjosh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and presumably tear gas would only be used outdoors, where the air is clean, and protesters wouldn't be wearing air filtration devices/gas masks.

    8. Re:This will work just great... by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      For the morning triple-s routine.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    9. Re:This will work just great... by Gaewyn+L+Knight · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wear dark sunglasses at night... so I can ... so I can... cross the border with the supper I ate tonight....... *groans*

      --
      Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
    10. Re:This will work just great... by krakelohm · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sorry had to:

      Sunglasses at night

      I wear my sunglasses at night
      So I can so I can
      Watch you live and breathe your storylines

      (And) I wear my sunglasses at night
      So I can so I can
      Keep track of the visions in my eyes

      While she's deceiving me
      It cuts my security (has)
      She got control of me
      I turn to her and say

      Don't switch the blade on the guy in shades, oh no
      Don't masquerade with the guy in shades, oh no
      I can't believe it
      You got it made with the guy in shades, oh no

      (And) I wear my sunglasses at night
      So I can so I can
      Forget my name while you collect your claim

      And I wear my sunglasses at night
      So I can so I can
      See the light that's right before my eyes

      While she's deceiving me
      She cuts my security (has)
      She got control of me
      I turn to her and say

      Don't switch the blade on the guy in shades, oh no
      Don't masquerade with the guy in shades, oh no
      I can't believe it!
      Don't be afraid of the guy in shades, oh no
      It can't escape you
      'Cause you got it made with the guy in shades, oh no

      I said I wear my sunglasses
      I wear my sunglasses at night
      Wear my sunglasses at night

      --
      You are all a bunch of idots.
    11. Re:This will work just great... by sjames · · Score: 1

      They just invented a puke ray.

      Because making only half the population want to puke just wasn't enough for them!

    12. Re:This will work just great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      According to a guy named Mike Nelson, studies have shown that 93% of white guys can sing like that.

    13. Re:This will work just great... by Brickwall · · Score: 2, Informative

      I prefer Timbuk3's "Future's so bright, I gotta wear shades"

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
    14. Re:This will work just great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's true. Anyways, I look beautiful, so mirrors don't do anything for my attempts to puke.

      - Bad guy

    15. Re:This will work just great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let us hope that, this time, the goggles do something.

    16. Re:This will work just great... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      I doubt a lot of people would wear sunglasses just then.

      Lentes obscuro, marijuano seguro

      --
      What?
    17. Re:This will work just great... by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why would the bad guys need mirrors? They just invented a puke ray.

      I realize that being anti government, especially anti Bush is pretty hip-cool right now, but...

      I don't think you could call these guys "bad" when they just spent an ass-load of time and money to invent a weapon that makes you puke when they could have just said "screw 'em", saved an ass-load of money and simply shot whoever the puke-ray was intended for with a REAL gun. We already invented the 9mm. Why waste the time?

      I think these "Bad Guys", as you like to call them, just did something incredibly humane and you should find a way to give credit where it is due rather than bashing every single chance you get.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    18. Re:This will work just great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I highly doubt it would even work on someone like me. I go clubbing so often and play so many video games that I'm completely accustomed to bright, colour changing lights.

      Bring it on bitches.

    19. Re:This will work just great... by wordsnyc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Aw, that's sweet.

      But if the cops shot everybody, most especially the white children of Middle America, there'd be hell to pay. Better to scare the little shits off with tasers and rubber bullets and puke rays when they try to protest over tossing the quaint Geneva Conventions, that musty old Constitution, or the Magna Fuckin' Carta in the dustbin.

      --
      Sent from the iPad I found in your car.
    20. Re:This will work just great... by StarfishOne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think this is "something incredibly humane", but rather an option which is preferred to shooting at protesters in your own country.

      I really don't think that this is something that has been developed for usage overseas.

    21. Re:This will work just great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe bullets are more expensive than the energy required to make these function

    22. Re:This will work just great... by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      Presumably the emetic flashlight would be used indoors, at night, or in the dark. I doubt a lot of people would wear sunglasses just then.
      --
      Mmm, in L.A. that does seem to be the case. I guess it's to hide the red eyes.

    23. Re:This will work just great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No,no,no!

      Tinfoil GLASSES!

      Man, 70' disco style crapware will make a comeback!

    24. Re:This will work just great... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      or sunglasses. Or worse still, MIRRORED SUNGLASSES!
      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    25. Re:This will work just great... by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      I remember seeing some special on television about weapons, in which a military guy said, for every million-dollar weapon, there's a ten-dollar way around it.

    26. Re:This will work just great... by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 2, Funny
      Great news! With the PukeLight we no longer have to use rubber bullets, tear gas, and firehoses to break up rowdy protests.

      Well, actually we still need the firehoses, but not until afterward.

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
    27. Re:This will work just great... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I see your point and I can imagine siuations where non lethal weapons are more humane, but there's an issue here.

      Imagine if you could surpress demonstrations like Tiananmen square only with non lethal weapons. It seems to me like the Chinese government may have won the battle there, but in the long run I suspect (and hope frankly) that the use of force was so excessive it will lose the war. But if a bunch of goons can break up demonstrations without excessive force, an unpopular government could keep the peace without ever passing that threshold.

      It's not completely hypothetical either - British rule in India could have lasted longer if they could have avoided killing the demontrators at Amritsar.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_Mass acre

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    28. Re:This will work just great... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Presumably the emetic flashlight would be used indoors, at night, or in the dark. I doubt a lot of people would wear sunglasses just then"

      You know? I've always wanted to find some contacts that were 'mirror' contacts...like the guy worn in the Star Trek episode, "Where No Man Has Gone Before".....

      Now...they won't only be interesting to wear, but, functional against puke lights??

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    29. Re:This will work just great... by BalanceOfJudgement · · Score: 1

      blockquote> i>
      Imagine if you could surpress demonstrations like Tiananmen square only with non lethal weapons. It seems to me like the Chinese government may have won the battle there, but in the long run I suspect and hope frankly that the use of force was so excessive it will lose the war. But if a bunch of goons can break up demonstrations without excessive force, an unpopular government could keep the peace without ever passing that threshold.

      It s not completely hypothetical either - British rule in India could have lasted longer if they could have avoided killing the demontrators at Amritsar. /i> /blockquote>

      And this is exactly the point. Throughout history, what has eventually turned the stomachs of the people was the level of violence required to maintain the status quo - either to maintain an occupation, a dictatorship, what have you.

      By eliminating that as a factor, you empower yourselves to never cross the line of people's sensibilities - giving you limitless ability to forever hold onto that power.

      Non-lethal weapons are merely an attempt to disguise the true nature of violence. In alot of ways, I don't think this is a good thing.

      --

      We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
    30. Re:This will work just great... by shambalagoon · · Score: 1

      So this is how the robots are going to take over the world.

    31. Re:This will work just great... by AgentSmith · · Score: 1

      By eliminating that as a factor, you empower yourselves to never cross the line of people's sensibilities - giving you limitless ability to forever hold onto that power.

      So people find other ways to protest than directly marching in the street, but
      at least if they do they aren't going TO DIE to get their message out.
      Boo Hoo! I didn't become a selfless martyr for my cause. I get to live and keep protesting.

      These days any time a protest is interrupted, peoples' sensibilities get ruffled.
      From shootings to tear gas and rubber bullets to bean bags shots, goo guns and puke sabers.
      I think people will still get pissed.

    32. Re:This will work just great... by BalanceOfJudgement · · Score: 1

      So people find other ways to protest than directly marching in the street, but
      at least if they do they aren't going TO DIE to get their message out.
      Boo Hoo! I didn't become a selfless martyr for my cause. I get to live and keep protesting.


      It's their right to march in the street without the police jumping the gun and shooting teargas and rubber bullets into a peaceful crowd.

      Thing is, nobody cares about that stuff OR those people's causes unless someone dies. It's unfortunate, but it's true. There's a threshold that has to be crossed to get most people to pay attention to anything.
      --

      We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
  6. Sweet! by Daverd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How long till you can get this in a Java applet?

    1. Re:Sweet! by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      How long till you can get this in a Java applet?

      No need to wait, its already in standard HTML: blink. ;)

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    2. Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just browse a few pages on myspace...you'll get a similar nauseating effect.

    3. Re:Sweet! by mikael · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not Java, but here are some of the world's worst websites:

      A full background rainbow color cycle going on: Accept Jesus Forever Forgotten

      This site has a scrolling polka dot pattern: SoulWax

      How not to make a website: The World's Worst Website?

      Or just a really bad color scheme: Lubees Pump and Irrigation

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    4. Re:Sweet! by Propaganda13 · · Score: 0, Troll

      I prefer http://www.seizurerobots.com/

      I've used their flashing background on a multi monitor setup and my co-worker wouldn't stop talking about it. Of course, most of the things they said weren't very nice.

    5. Re:Sweet! by jdogalt · · Score: 1

      +1

    6. Re:Sweet! by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 5, Funny

      They have a prototype of such an application at goatse.cx and there is an alternative competing version found at tubgirl.com

    7. Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I the only one that beleive that the 'Puke Saber' should emit the South Park 'Brown Noise' ?

    8. Re:Sweet! by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      Aha, the hai2u.com girl must have been a victim!

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    9. Re:Sweet! by X0563511 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Thanks for the NSFW warning, dipshit. Luckily nobody was behind me and I'm a fast ALT-F4 user.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    10. Re:Sweet! by Darth+Liberus · · Score: 4, Funny

      What's your name and address? I'd like to... um... thank you for getting me fired. Asshole.

      --
      Beauty is just a light switch away.
    11. Re:Sweet! by domatic · · Score: 1

      Max Hardcore called and wants to talk about his copyright!

    12. Re:Sweet! by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry, but I would think that saying it gets people to want to close their eyes and puke, and that one guy tried to change his wallpaper with his eyes closed, would clue most people.

      You've got to admit, it sure out-does the goat guy or tubgirl ...

    13. Re:Sweet! by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Sure beats goatse.cx and tubgirl, don't it?

      So why not use your free time to try to get the Department of Homeland Security to give you a grant for making a flashlight that projects that picture? Show them the pic, and tell them you won't remove it until they sign a contract.

      Or put it on T-Shirts as "cop repellent" for protesters. After all, who's going to want to try to cuff someone wearing THAT?

      I can just the the all-points bulletin: "Be on the lookout for a suspect wearing a dickhead t-shirt. But don't look TOO hard, because you'll be scarred for life."

    14. Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmm, tubgirl is worse than any I have seen, but I guess the fluids make the difference.

    15. Re:Sweet! by m85476585 · · Score: 1

      Actually I made a page that does just what the text describes (rapidly changing wavelengths) with Javascript.
      http://matt13.com/random_stuff/color_wild.html
      Just move your mouse quickly around the page.

    16. Re:Sweet! by Grimbleton · · Score: 1

      I have no idea why, but that page made me really hungry. I wonder if this is a documented reaction to fast-changing colors...

    17. Re:Sweet! by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      Your link is broken... Not that I advise anyone to follow it.... Not a good idea.

    18. Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously dude - goatse.cx was moved to goatse.cz a while ago, and tubgirl's just a 404. Psh

    19. Re:Sweet! by stuntpope · · Score: 1

      The question should be - how long until the Java applet loads?

    20. Re:Sweet! by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      There are videos on YouTube made expressly for this purpose. They consist of various patterns of colors and flashing lights. You are warned right in the beginning that these videos will likely give you a seizure if you're epileptic.

    21. Re:Sweet! by BalanceOfJudgement · · Score: 1

      Just browse a few pages on myspace...you'll get a similar nauseating effect.


      When I tell people I don't use MySpace, I get the most god awful looks, like I've committed some sort of high crime. But this is exactly the reason I don't use it.. I much prefer to NOT throw up when I surf the web.
      --

      We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
    22. Re:Sweet! by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 1

      I loved that page back before they plastered it with ads.

    23. Re:Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I noticed. I have no idea why slashcode requires an 'http://' in the url "tag". I doubt many people are aware that it defaults to linking relative to slashdot.org/, let alone take advantage of that behavior.

    24. Re:Sweet! by Aleksej · · Score: 1

      (EPILEPSY WARNING) http://www.ibch.ru/hscool/guru/AtH/index.html http://www.ibch.ru/hscool/guru/AtH/files/HYPNOICE. ZIP A 119 byte COM file... Very strong. Works best in DOS, though (not good in dosbox on Debian).

  7. Cover your eyes? by Arakageeta · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...not that you'd be an effective terrorist with your eyes closed. BTW, is it wrong of me to want to see this used on large crowds?

    1. Re:Cover your eyes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have fun in Gitmo you terrorist scum!

    2. Re:Cover your eyes? by gbobeck · · Score: 1

      BTW, is it wrong of me to want to see this used on large crowds?

      Not at all. I think it would be a hellova show, doubly so if the brown note is played at the same time too.
      --
      Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
  8. dupe by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 4, Funny

    Does it also work against editors who relentlessly post the same stories over and over again?

    1. Re:dupe by Walpurgiss · · Score: 1

      Sadly; other than a couple sigs; only your post mentions dupe.
      Other article here: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/27/051823 6&threshold=-1
      And I could swear I had read about it here even earlier than last week. In the editors' defense, at least the dupe was not by the same editor.

  9. Changing wavelengths... by phekno · · Score: 0

    So similar to the "brown note" but with puke. The orange-yellow-red-black-green-blue note (light)?

    1. Re:Changing wavelengths... by freakmn · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think you are referring to the technicolor yawn wavelength.

      --
      warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
    2. Re:Changing wavelengths... by cashman73 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I thought Adam & Jamie busted the whole "brown note" myth?

    3. Re:Changing wavelengths... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you give much credence to that horrible show, I truly pity you. Even a child can point out the ridiculous flaws in their "experiments".

    4. Re:Changing wavelengths... by therufus · · Score: 1

      I promise I won't make any tubgirl references...

      oh shit, too late ;)

      --
      You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
    5. Re:Changing wavelengths... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      u're sooo smart. Thwap thwap thwap........

    6. Re:Changing wavelengths... by Matimus · · Score: 1

      No, they showed that a general sampling of low frequency high amplitude sound waves didn't make Adam poop his pants. Entertaining show, but they have never proven or disproven anything. Actually, science in general never proves or disproves either, just correlates.

      --
      GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
  10. Version 2.0 by Reason58 · · Score: 1

    This version is only a slight improvement over the original prototype, which could beam scenes from Gigli directly into a person's retina from up to 2 miles.

    1. Re:Version 2.0 by JimboFBX · · Score: 2, Funny

      This version is only a slight improvement over the original prototype, which could beam scenes from Gigli directly into a person's retina from up to 2 miles. Apparently a new design requirement came up: "Make sure it works on Jennifer Lopez"
    2. Re:Version 2.0 by MorpheousMarty · · Score: 1

      This version is only a slight improvement over the original prototype, which could beam scenes from Gigli directly into a person's retina from up to 2 miles.
      Thank god the supreme court ruled that the use of that was cruel and unusual, the Gigli 2 prototype could have cause permanent damage to the nation's... nay, the world's gag reflex.
    3. Re:Version 2.0 by fireman+sam · · Score: 1

      No, that would be the taco version

      --
      it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
  11. Minority Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Much like the Sick Sticks used in the movie?

  12. A What Saber? by sickmtbnutcase · · Score: 5, Funny

    Puke, I am your father.

    1. Re:A What Saber? by HangingChad · · Score: 1

      It's your father's puke saber. This is the weapon of the Homeland Security Jedi. Not as clumsy or as random as a taser, but an elegant weapon for a more civilized age.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    2. Re:A What Saber? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Touch your tongue to mine

    3. Re:A What Saber? by glittalogik · · Score: 1

      Even funnier given that I actually know a dude who changed his name to Puke by deed poll.

    4. Re:A What Saber? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Barf Vader is my father?!?

  13. Not interested . . . yet by KalElOfJorEl · · Score: 1

    When will this be available in key-chain form?

  14. from the article by wizardforce · · Score: 1
    from the link in the article:

    "There are often confrontations at border crossings with suspected illegal aliens or drug runners," Lieberman says. "You don't want to hurt or kill them, just take them into custody. With this," he smiles, "they don't need to know English to comply."
    and This fall, in Phase 2, researchers at Pennsylvania State University will test the LED Incapacitator on volunteers at the school's Institute of Nonlethal Defense Technology. Intelligent Optical Systems will use the test results to evaluate design features and tweak the strobe's pattern and colors. "There's one wavelength that gets everybody," says Lieberman. "Vlad calls it the evil color." Further tests are scheduled for the fall, and production could begin by December. By 2010, the LED Incapacitator could be in the hands of thousands of policemen, border agents, and National Guardsmen.
    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    1. Re:from the article by ultracool · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "There are often confrontations at border crossings with suspected illegal aliens or drug runners," Lieberman says. "You don't want to hurt or kill them, just take them into custody. With this," he smiles, "they don't need to know English to comply."

      Wouldn't it be easier to just have border officials who spoke Spanish?

    2. Re:from the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes but that would require people to view people from Mexico as something other than "a wetback." this whole anti-foreigner sentiment has been around for like all of human history and that is basically what it boils down to. it is a lot easier to make a weapon to do the job where diplomacy/communication would also work.

    3. Re:from the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit, PSU has something interesting for once? Wow, finally a reason to hate the university I attend slightly less.

      Posting as an AC not because I'm massively trolling, but because I'm embarrassed to admit I go to that McUniversity.

    4. Re:from the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never understood why people hate the college they go to so much. Go elsewhere, then. Why did you pick it in the first place?

    5. Re:from the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is far easier to hate something you are intimately familiar with.

    6. Re:from the article by ksheff · · Score: 1

      that's assuming the people crossing the borders illegally can understand Spanish.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    7. Re:from the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did you pick it in the first place? Money
    8. Re:from the article by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      We have them.
      They are protecting us from Canada (the border patrol a governmental agency after all).
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    9. Re:from the article by amccaf1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "There are often confrontations at border crossings with suspected illegal aliens or drug runners," Lieberman says. "You don't want to hurt or kill them, just take them into custody. With this," he smiles, "they don't need to know English to comply."


      Er, so you've got a confrontation between a border agent and an illegal alien. Neither one can understand the language of the other. One of them suddenly feeling violently ill improves the situation... how?
      --
      "Flag on the moon. How did it get there?"
    10. Re:from the article by ultracool · · Score: 1
      that's assuming the people crossing the borders illegally can understand Spanish.

      Given the geography of the area, it's highly likely that they can.

    11. Re:from the article by Doonga2007 · · Score: 0

      Yea, but this is much more fun!

    12. Re:from the article by fredklein · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who's against foreigners?

      We're against ILLEGAL immigrants, which is not the same thing.

    13. Re:from the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Bullshit! As far as I remember, document named "Visa" was not required before World War I.

      this whole anti-foreigner sentiment has been around for like all of human history...

      That is because for all human history people had no knowledge about anything outside a very small area where they lived. When you meet someone who does not speak your language and you don't speak his, add to this the fear of "there is Satan out there", the resultant situation cannot be compared to current one by any means!

      it is a lot easier to make a weapon to do the job where diplomacy/communication would also work.

      Diplomacy/communication will work when the problematic country has got no problems of its own so that it can help solving yours.
    14. Re:from the article by ohsoot · · Score: 3, Funny

      They do, but their job is to mop up the puke.

    15. Re:from the article by vuffi_raa · · Score: 1

      no, puke is the universal language- I guess

    16. Re:from the article by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No, if you understand someone, the risk is too high that you treat him as a human being.

    17. Re:from the article by Dannon · · Score: 1

      Nausea counts as a "universal language" under these circumstances, I think.

      --
      Good judgment comes from experience.
      Experience comes from bad judgment.
    18. Re:from the article by ksheff · · Score: 1

      this way the agents won't have to care if the people they are apprehending speak Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, French, etc.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    19. Re:from the article by Bohiti · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points. Funniest thing I've read all day. Thanks.

    20. Re:from the article by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Who's against foreigners?
      Tennessee.
      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
  15. Legal liability? by Coopjust · · Score: 3, Insightful

    IANAL, but doesn't this device create some legal liability for security?
    -Someone gets this device used on them. They have damage from stomach acid in their esophagus. They sue.
    -They use this on someone who is sick (from another cause). They puke up blood/get sicker/die.
    -(This is BS, but lawyers will sue for anything these days) "Psychological trauma" caused by the device.

    Is it a reasonable expectation that the device may be used on you if you go to airport/border?

    1. Re:Legal liability? by badlikeacobra · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the one you rightly call BS is the one most likely to happen.

    2. Re:Legal liability? by jdigriz · · Score: 1

      *Anything* creates legal liability, including doing nothing (negligence). Lawyers and plaintiffs will sue anywhere they think they can make a buck. Redistributing capital is much easier than actually creating value.

    3. Re:Legal liability? by AlexBirch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How would this device differ from tasers, tear gas, or rubber bullets?

      People have won lawsuits after the egregious/lethal application of tasers.

    4. Re:Legal liability? by E++99 · · Score: 2, Informative

      How would this device differ from tasers, tear gas, or rubber bullets?

      People have won lawsuits after the egregious/lethal application of tasers.

      This sounds a whole lot less likely (especially than tasers) to be lethal. The exception would be with epileptics, but I think those would be very rare cases.

      I'm sure that egregious applications of ANYTHING could still result in lawsuits. But if you're talking about liability for using the device when the sufficient cause to use it is being challenged, I think the devices you mentioned are a lot more problematic, because they are all much more traumatic for the subject than a device that causes dizziness or disorientation (even if it leads to puking) without pain.
    5. Re:Legal liability? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "how would this device differ from tasers, tear gas, or rubber bullets?"

      It would be far less likely to cause physical damage.
      Rubber bullets can kill and maim if they strike the skull or eye, Tasers have killed ~70 people (granted, they are much safer than billy clubs), and tear gas can be dangerous depending on concentration.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    6. Re:Legal liability? by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      You missed the most likely injury from this device - photosensitive epilepsy.

      I hope the agencies considering this device have deep pockets, 'cause it's highly likely that someone will suffer a seizure as a result of having rapidly pulsating lights flashed at them.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    7. Re:Legal liability? by mzs · · Score: 1

      Actually if this induces vomiting (unlikely probably it is simply nauseating) then choking is a concern.

    8. Re:Legal liability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAL, but doesn't this device create some legal liability for security?
      -Someone gets this device used on them. They have damage from stomach acid in their esophagus. They sue.


      Hahaha! How quaint. Nope, it's not an issue. People can't sue the police for smashing the bridge of their noses into pulp with the butt end of a Beretta 9mm or tasering them multiple times until they stop breathing and die with three cops sitting on them in the back of an ambulance, so, no, there's zero chance of someones family trying to sue for wrongful death using some overly complicated and impossible-to-prove story about stomach acid.

  16. Construct plans and make them public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch http://youtube.com/watch?v=a_sJAKq799s if you need to be convinced. We need to duplicate this technology and distribute plans to activist groups so that they can be turned on the police the instant they're turned on us. Any patriots that work for the commission on Slashdot? Post any specs anonymously under this post.

    1. Re:Construct plans and make them public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with the sentiment, but here are a couple of issues that you'll have to address.

      1) You open yourself to the minimum charge of assaulting a police officer. Of course, you're not likely to get the minimum charge in this case. The state doesn't take too kindly to having weapons used against it. You're far more likely of getting convicted ( for whatever they charge you with ) if you use weapons against them, no matter who was attacking and who was defending. Sad but true. I agree this situation is incredibly one-sided in their favour - allowing them to use weapons against us when we can't use these same weapons - but I simply don't see our use of weapons to ever be 'allowed' against the state. And they will enforce this ruthlessly.

      2) If you're caught in action with any type of weapon, they're far more likely to use whatever weapons they've got against you. You don't want that.

      3) Once people start arming themselves, you get a typical escalation situation. More of them will be armed with better weapons as a response.

      4) Use of weapons against police is never going to make you particularly popular, once seen through the eyes of the media. The 'violent protester' image has been pushed particularly hard leading up to the APEC meeting in Sydney in September. And one of the biggest problems we've had in getting unions, community groups and Labor Party support is that they don't want to be seen to be associating with the all-feared 'violent protester'. Admittedly the main reason I've had difficulty convincing individuals to go to the rally is that they fear getting the shit beaten out of them by violent police. One good example of this was the use of marbles against mounted police recently ( was it in Melbourne? ). This didn't go down well with the majority of people. Of course people would have had a softer opinion if they weren't endangering innocent horses. But anyway as a result of this tactic, they've specifically targeted the use of marbles in the APEC security act.

      Overall, at least in our current climate, use of weapons by protesters is only going to be counter-productive. What we need to do at the moment is convince more people of our point of view, and not scare them off. We are in conservative times. We still have the same 3 governments of the Axis of Evil - US, British and Australian - that took us into Afghanistan and Iraq. Arm yourself, and they will smash you.

      I must admit that I was deeply outraged when I found out that the police could use chemical weapons such as capsicum spray or ground up chillies or whatever against peaceful protesters. But this current article is taking my outrage to new limits.

  17. Short on details, long on imagination by mcrbids · · Score: 1

    So, let me get this straight...

    Some vendor comes up with an implausible-sounding "weapon" based on what is little more than a glorified LED flashlight, now available online for about $20. They describe how it's a "non-lethal weapon", and need bajillions of BUXORZ to "ensure adequate performance".

    Forgive me if I'm a bit the skeptic... but what really makes we want to puke about this is just what an incredibly OBVIOUS waste of money this is! How much money are we going to pay to have somebody put together a blinky-circuit and some $0.05 LED lights together with a soldering iron to make a flashlight to let their kids play with?

    Perhaps the most dazzling display of 'tardedness I've seen this month!

    OHZZ NOES! THEY ST0RM TRUOPORZ COMING WITH DE LITES!@!!@!@!@# CLOSE YER EYEZ!!!

    sigh...

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:Short on details, long on imagination by DogDude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd rather see my tax money wasted on something like this instead of wasted on new ways to slaughter more people even faster.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    2. Re:Short on details, long on imagination by AoT · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, they have slaughtering people faster covered

    3. Re:Short on details, long on imagination by nebaz · · Score: 2

      I don't know...One of the issues with non-lethal weapons it they make it a lot easier to break up a protest. If you actually had to kill people to settle them down, media and conscience could more easily affect change.

      --
      Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    4. Re:Short on details, long on imagination by E++99 · · Score: 1

      I don't know...One of the issues with non-lethal weapons it they make it a lot easier to break up a protest. If you actually had to kill people to settle them down, media and conscience could more easily affect change.

      I don't think so. If a protest gets out of hand, and starts turning over cars and smashing windows, and the police start firing real bullets into the crowd to disperse them, I don't think the protesters are going to gain or lose any supporters.
  18. do not want by MonorailCat · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why do I feel its only a matter of time till the design leaks out and dick teenagers start buying them on ebay and carrying them around. I hope this doesn't work as advertised.

  19. How will we protect ourselves? by El+Icaro · · Score: 5, Funny

    We definitely need some kind of device to shield our eyes from this "light". As I understand a practical way would be just covering our eyes, we could shape them as glasses! Not only that, but it could protect us from the suns blinding rays... I suggest we call this device "sunglasses" to deceive others of its true purpose!

    Now if someone just invented these "sunglasses"...

    1. Re:How will we protect ourselves? by dontgetaol · · Score: 1

      woah! hey you're talking about some complicated stuff there. Don't you think these 'glasses' are a bit beyond our time?

    2. Re:How will we protect ourselves? by Associate · · Score: 1

      No! I think he's on to something! I was reading something in a beyond tomorrow mag about this new technology called 'polarization'. Apparently you can filter the amount of sunlight using it. I don't know exactly how it works, but it has something to do with really headdy physics. Something about light being a particle AND a wave. I bet you could not only cut the amount of light, but filter certain colors. But that all is of course theoretical.

      --
      Someone hates these cans.
    3. Re:How will we protect ourselves? by MrLint · · Score: 2, Funny

      Perhaps a better solution would be Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses?

    4. Re:How will we protect ourselves? by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > Perhaps a better solution would be Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses?

      Done.

      From Infocom's Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, released in (when else?) 1984.

    5. Re:How will we protect ourselves? by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Automatic welding goggles would be a good shield.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    6. Re:How will we protect ourselves? by Photonic+Shadow · · Score: 1

      There's nothing odd or so forth about filtering light at certain wavelengths. If as stated it the article there is a specific color, i.e. wavelength, that is particularly effective then it would be no stretch to fabricate optical filters and incorporate those filters into glass, goggles, etc. to defeat the barf wavelength.

      PS

    7. Re:How will we protect ourselves? by glittalogik · · Score: 1

      Knight Visions, Snow Crash-style. Something that can block out specific wavelengths/frequencies, or just switch over to millimetre-wave radar when necessary.

    8. Re:How will we protect ourselves? by rvalles · · Score: 1

      What we need is a way to reproduce it ourselves so that we can get properly insensitivized.

    9. Re:How will we protect ourselves? by Magada · · Score: 1

      LCD shutter glasses should do nicely. It's existing tech and all you need to add is a sensor, for it to know when you're being flashed. But seriously, between retina projectors for ads and these things, shutter glasses might just be the next decade's "must have" accessory.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    10. Re:How will we protect ourselves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but if you don't happen to have these "sun glasses" with you you're vulnerable.
      SO, it's still a pretty devastating weapon!
      I mean... unless you get really devious and decide to not look directly at it or something. But of course, that would require a complicated and highly skilled manuver called 'turning away'. This involves neck muscles and possibly eye muscles and I'd go into more detail here except It's really so advanvced it'd be impractical in this forum.
      So YES! BEWARE THE DEVASTATING PUKE RAY!

  20. My future's so bright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I gotta wear shades. (Timbuk3 IIRC)

  21. hmmm... I wonder who they will hire... by cez · · Score: 5, Funny

    to clean up all the puke at the borders?

    --
    Walk with Music;
    1. Re:hmmm... I wonder who they will hire... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the same illegal immigrants they're trying to repress?

    2. Re:hmmm... I wonder who they will hire... by techamed · · Score: 2, Funny

      Canadians

    3. Re:hmmm... I wonder who they will hire... by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      As a comedian said: FEMA (Find Every Mexican Available) He was on HBO a while back, don't remember his name. And yes for the PC crowd he was in fact Mexican.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  22. Real source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
    1. Re:Real source by buswolley · · Score: 1
      Can we sue for stealing my lunch?

      ha I'd love to give a starving bum one of these.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    2. Re:Real source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The description makes me wonder if they borrowed from this idea.

  23. I wear my sunglasses at night... by Oyume · · Score: 1

    So, I suppose that mirrored sunglasses are about to make a comeback...

  24. Nail in the coffin by acidrain69 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And if anyone still believes this stuff is all about stopping terrorism, you are an idiot. This is all about controlling the domestic herd.

    --
    -- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
    1. Re:Nail in the coffin by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not about terrorism. That's what lethal weapons are for. This is for destructive rioters, mobs, criminals, ect. Maybe I'm just misinformed, and if that's the case please tell me what, where, and when I missed the government going truely totalitarian on someone, and give me a link to the story, but I don't recall anytime in recent memory when something like this was used to subdue a peaceful crowd, or as you put it, 'control the domestic herd.'

      Of course, this can, at some point, will be misused, just as any law enforcement tool will eventually be misused, but would you rather have them misuse something lethal?

    2. Re:Nail in the coffin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They didn't use puke-rays because they didn't have them. Just batons, muscle, and color of authority.

      over 400 arrested during the Republican Convention

    3. Re:Nail in the coffin by paltemalte · · Score: 2, Interesting

      NYPD Officer Is 'Not A Public Servant'
      Cop Refuses to Show Badge Number, Admits Automatic Weapon is "Meant to Intimidate You"

      I don't know about you, but with the Patriot Act I & II, presidential directive 51 where the president generously grants himself dictator powers in case of an emergency - oh btw, the president gets to define what an emergency is - it does not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling to know that the very same cops that stops lawful and calm demonstrators soon may get a new public suppression pukestick to play with.

      --
      Sam has one liberty, which he sacrifices for one security. Can you tell me what Sam has now?
    4. Re:Nail in the coffin by JambisJubilee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      [...] I don't recall anytime in recent memory when something like this was used to subdue a peaceful crowd [...]

      You must have an awfully short memory. How about non-lethal foam-rubber projectiles?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Los_Angeles_May_D ay_melee
    5. Re:Nail in the coffin by lessthan · · Score: 1

      I have a problem with the article you sited. Four paragraphs long and no background. Why was there a police officer in riot gear? Who was doing the asking? Why would an officer randomly tell a passer-by that he was trying to be intimidating? This reads like FUD to me. It sounds like the unnamed "reporter" was harassing a police officer. It also sounds like the officer was kind of an idiot. Sometimes people can be stupid. It isn't always malevolence.

      --
      Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
    6. Re:Nail in the coffin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At about 17:15 a few protesters began blocking the street, which the rally permit expressly prohibited. When several people began pelting Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers with rocks, bottles, and other debris, police commanders declared the gathering an unlawful assembly and gave an order to disperse The LAPD were being jackasses nonetheless, but the rally wasn't entirely peaceful.
    7. Re:Nail in the coffin by fredklein · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can prove anything with selective quoting.

      Let's see a slightly larger selection of quotes...

      several people began pelting Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers with rocks, bottles, and other debris ...
      the LAPD had approximately 600 officers on the scene ...
      police fired 146 foam-rubber projectiles ...
      27 marchers and 9 members of the media were injured, ...
      Video footage shows police striking with their batons at apparently non-combative protesters ...
      many reporters were also pushed and beaten ...
      Police Chief William J. Bratton ... state[d] that "the vast majority of people who were [at MacArthur Park] were behaving appropriately."

      So, we have the cops, who heavily outnumber the "several" violent protesters, firing about 150 times at the crowd, injuring almost 40 people. They pushed and beat reporters and other non-combative protesters. The police Chief himself said most of the people there were not misbehaving.

      I think that goes a little beyond 'being jackasses'.

    8. Re:Nail in the coffin by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      Your of course totally correct, devices like this and other mostly sometimes some what non-lethal long range torture devices are not used to control people, they are used to specifically punish people, for the most troublesome crime of publicly supporting views that are counter to the mass media and the currently governing political parties views.

      Personally I believe that if your are assaulted with one of these weapons and are not charged with and convicted of a crime, than the person who comitted the assault should be charged and convicted for that assault. Every abuse of law enforcement powers is a crime, and that criminal should be pursued and convicted for that crime.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    9. Re:Nail in the coffin by KudyardRipling · · Score: 1

      My best guess at when the gov't 'wen't totalitarian' was with the firing of the PATCO workers in 1981. That put the nail in the coffin of organized labor, at least. As for the issue of people control as much as it can get away with it, the gov't views the domestic herd pretty much in the same way as the foreign herd. The rest of the world follows the French model of government organization: A foreign ministry is in charge of dealing with those outside its borders and an interior ministry is in charge of dealing with those inside its borders. Both posts view its target (pun not necessarily unintended) crowd in much the same way with just enough exceptions to not make the people on the inside revolt. In the USA it is called the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State, respectively. No crowd that is opposed to government policies is ever thought of as peaceful.

      --
      Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
    10. Re:Nail in the coffin by quincunx55555 · · Score: 1

      but I don't recall anytime in recent memory when something like this was used to subdue a peaceful crowd, or as you put it, 'control the domestic herd.'

      That's because when it happens, only the local media mention it. During the last Presidential race, peaceful protesters in Jacksonville Oregon were shot with gas bullets when Bush arrived. Of course, non of the Bush supporters were asked to leave, or attacked. It started with an officer assaulting a woman who was standing holding her 3-5 year old daughter. An old man, "wasn't moving fast enough" for the officers when they decided the we could not peacefully protest, and hit him with multiple gas bullets at point-blank range. The other people around him were trying to help him and pleading with the cops to stop so they could help the man off the ground. There were other moments of straight-up, unprovoked assault, by officers on peaceful protesters (that had quit protesting by that point and were attempting to walk back to their cars. The only video of this I could find was this crappy one. I know better ones are out there that are more "tv news reporting" style, with less artistic footage, that show everything I've described here. They were on some independent news sites back when this happened.

      The real point of this post, though, is that this even was not reported anywhere outside of the Rogue Valley. Even Eugene and Portland had no mention of it in the nightly news, papers, etc. And I've heard of many similar events, seen footage of them as well, but the news never talks about it.
    11. Re:Nail in the coffin by quincunx55555 · · Score: 1

      Ah, I think this site is where I found the better videos, don't know if they're still up (if I surf too many non-work related sites it's not good). In the search field, check the "video" checkbox and type "jacksonville".

    12. Re:Nail in the coffin by paltemalte · · Score: 1

      The article could have been more revealing I agree. The guy is not just a passer-by though, he's a journalist from wtprn, a radio and blog news site.
      The cop is obviously an idiot, and that proves my point. I get worried when a nation arms idiots with badges and automatic rifles (and now soon probably also puke-sticks, non-lethal weapons that even idiots will understand will be easier to get away with using than the rifles).
      The fact that he says he wants to intimidate people, and the fact that he has forgotten the oath all police men swear (to serve the public) should worry anyone.

      --
      Sam has one liberty, which he sacrifices for one security. Can you tell me what Sam has now?
  25. Two Words.... by Danse · · Score: 5, Funny

    Superbowl. Jumbotron.

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    1. Re:Two Words.... by Lehk228 · · Score: 4, Funny

      that would be epic

      new years eve in NYC would be more epic, mount the light emitters ON THE BALL instead of normal lights

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    2. Re:Two Words.... by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 4, Funny

      Redundant. Most of that crowd is puking shortly thereafter anyway.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    3. Re:Two Words.... by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

      "Superbowl. Jumbotron."

      I bow thrice in thy honored direction, Master.

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    4. Re:Two Words.... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Can we use it at Defcon to advertize a site with "latest root exploits"? Then watch where the clean-up staff go to find the rooms for the narcs and the script-kiddies, or at least stay away from anyone with that unfortunate smell on them?

  26. The good and the bad by Chairboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While non-lethal technology has the potential to be fantastic, there's a downside to be considered too.

    With a gun, there's a certain level of commitment before it's used. An officer of the law must make a determination that he or she is really certain about before shooting, because hitting an innocent person is absolutely unacceptable. As a result, the tendency is to, unless there's no option, NOT shoot someone if you can hold them at bay with the THREAT of shooting. A side effect of this is that an officer given a bad order to shoot is much more likely to abstain, because once he pulls the trigger, it's all over.

    As a result, innocent folks are often held at gunpoint until their identity/non-criminalness is confirmed. While traumatic and stressful, this is better than an alternative that's growing increasingly common:

    Enter, the taser. Potentially a wonderful tool for stopping an attacker without permanently injuring them, doctrine has instead developed in many police and security departments to 'Zap first, ask questions later'. The 'non-injurious' aspect of the tool means that the bar is that much lower on whether or not to shoot, because "after all, if they're innocent, then it's just a bit of discomfort".

    The growing number of non-lethal tools is on the surface a good, even GREAT thing. The real danger though, is a long term one. With the bar set so low, more and more people will be subject to excruciating pain, and eventually, this technology may evolve into a tool of even greater oppression of liberty than anything we have now.

    Imagine if a protest can be casually broken up by making everyone vomit or crap themselves uncontrollably. If the government has the ability to casually stop groups of people from coming together or otherwise detaining them while being able to argue "it's not fatal, it's just uncomfortable", then the bar on violating our rights as citizens drops too.

    So I'm interested and optimistic about the technologies, but I desperately hope that better effort is invested in making them a net positive for all of humanity and not the boot that might otherwise grind our faces into the dirt.

    1. Re:The good and the bad by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 4, Informative

      Police in the US have been using lights as weapons for a long time, and the military before them. The intent hasn't been to make suspects puke or crap or anything, just disoriented. Flashbangs are an example, weaponlights, etc. Light is generally an effective way to gain an upper hand and apart from a few sympathetic finger responses from guys using the Surefire/Rogers technique there is little physical collateral damage.

      You are correct in that non-lethal control measures are 'easier' to implement. But I think that once the decision is made to bring a situation under control, it is going to happen regardless. Maybe I just don't trust cops, but it seems like once things go bad they go the whole way. If firehoses are at hand, they bring out the firehoses. Tasers, clubs, rubber bullets, PIT maneuvers, etc etc.

      Whatever it takes.

      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    2. Re:The good and the bad by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Well vomiting isn't entirely without risk.. there's a significant choke hazard, along with unavoidable damage to the esophagus, teeth, and anything else it comes in contact with. People with existing problems like acid reflux could be especially susceptible to serious damage. Naturally it's only a matter of time until someone sues over the technology, at which point (if recklessness had been a problem before) policies will become much more strict. Of course, the time to write restrictive policy is before these incidents happen, but color me skeptical that that will occur. At any rate, there's a potential for abuse with any tool, but as long as people (or their lawyers, at least) can hit the cities where it hurts, in the purse, I think we'll be okay in the long run.

    3. Re:The good and the bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just close your eyes or look away from the light. problem solved.

    4. Re:The good and the bad by mi · · Score: 1

      this technology may evolve into a tool of even greater oppression of liberty than anything we have now.

      The entire Law Enforcement profession is dedicated to "oppressing the liberty" of the law-breakers...

      The real question to ponder is whether 100% efficiency is even desired in the law-enforcement field, or whether we want to leave out an option for some people to slip through — because what's going to be used by criminals today, may some day be needed by "freedom-fighters".

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    5. Re:The good and the bad by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are correct in that non-lethal control measures are 'easier' to implement. But I think that once the decision is made to bring a situation under control, it is going to happen regardless. Maybe I just don't trust cops, but it seems like once things go bad they go the whole way. If firehoses are at hand, they bring out the firehoses. Tasers, clubs, rubber bullets, PIT maneuvers, etc etc.

      Yes, that's true, and in riot-type situations that is exactly what happens.

      In this particular case I'm more worried about the potential for abuse in encounters with a single suspect. While truncheons and rubber bullets leave marks, presumably this device will leave no indication that it was used other than a case of foul breath. It would be easy for a lawyer to argue that person did not beat themselves between the shoulder blades with a club, could they prove that the suspect did actually throw up, and that it wasn't a case where they vomited from anxiety (from their guilt, of course) then decided to blame the puke ray?

      Basically I worry about any tool that can be used unaccountably, and yeah the lesser barrier to usage that "non-lethal"* weapons imply. Accountability means a lot -- for example it's why the police are more likely to prevent you from hitting your head as you get into the squad car rather than ensuring that you hit your head, because those kinds of bruises became easy lawsuit fodder. So now the good cops have to make sure the suspect doesn't hit their head on purpose, but that's the price that must be paid for the actions of bad cops.

      * Oh yeah, and remember back when that innocent bystander to a protest in NYC was shot through her eye and killed by a rubber bullet? Remember that for a while the press was referring to the pellet guns as "less-lethal weapons"? Can we go back to using that term? Because I'd like for us to keep that in mind before some cop decides to stick this in the face of some suspect with a condition for five minutes just to teach them a lesson.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:The good and the bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Police in the US have been using lights as weapons for a long time,
      ...and now Homeland Security will outlaw mirror-reflective sunglasses and tinfoil hats. Can't be having someone reflect light back to them!! :-)
    7. Re:The good and the bad by carou · · Score: 4, Funny

      look away from the light

      I can't help it, it's so beautiful...

      BLLLLEEEUUUGGHHH!!
    8. Re:The good and the bad by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From your post I can infer: You're not Brazilian. You never lived in Rio de Janeiro. You also have no much knowledge about Rio de Janeiro's police. "As a result, the tendency is to, unless there's no option, NOT shoot someone if you can hold them at bay with the THREAT of shooting" Sorry, but for me, a "carioca", this is an absurdly funny statement.

      --
      Your ad could be here!
    9. Re:The good and the bad by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Enter, the taser. Potentially a wonderful tool for stopping an attacker without permanently injuring them

      Except, of course, for those who get killed by tasers.

      But I agree with your point. It's amazing that in many places less-lethal weapons are more regulated than firearms. (I can't legally buy a stungun, but I have a revolver and a rifle. Huh?)

      I'd say the only way to ensure against misuse is to make these less-lethal weapons available to everyone; if they're so safe, let citizens use them to control rogue cops, rather than having to throw stones or, worse, shoot back.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    10. Re:The good and the bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Light is generally an effective way to gain an upper hand and apart from a few sympathetic finger responses from guys using the Surefire/Rogers technique there is little physical collateral damage."

      I have been a lighting designer/director for musical (using the term loosely) artists (again, loosely) for over twenty years.
      Sir, you obviously have never seen any of my work.

      Nor that of Jim Chapman, whose design (and "show flash") for the Nelsons in the 1990's was aptly described as "Dali, on a tilt-a-whirl 2 minutes after ingesting a 64-pack of crayolas and a pint of epicac".

      In a side note, humheads (audio engineers, if you prefer) have often bragged about the 'brown note', a frequency that makes one lose control of one's bowels. I have never seen (or heard) them put up or shut up. However, in a a heroic scientific experiment, a fellow squint (lighting technician) and I secured a mirror ball atop a power drill. Lit with one 1k leko, spinning at high rpm, in a darkened room... I claim prior art for the puke-light.

    11. Re:The good and the bad by slartibart · · Score: 1

      While non-lethal technology has the potential to be fantastic, there's a downside to be considered too.

      With a gun, there's a certain level of commitment before it's used. An officer of the law must make a determination that he or she is really certain about before shooting, because hitting an innocent person is absolutely unacceptable. As a result, the tendency is to, unless there's no option, NOT shoot someone if you can hold them at bay with the THREAT of shooting. A side effect of this is that an officer given a bad order to shoot is much more likely to abstain, because once he pulls the trigger, it's all over.

      As a result, innocent folks are often held at gunpoint until their identity/non-criminalness is confirmed. While traumatic and stressful, this is better than an alternative that's growing increasingly common:

      Enter, the taser. Potentially a wonderful tool for stopping an attacker without permanently injuring them, doctrine has instead developed in many police and security departments to 'Zap first, ask questions later'. The 'non-injurious' aspect of the tool means that the bar is that much lower on whether or not to shoot, because "after all, if they're innocent, then it's just a bit of discomfort".

      The growing number of non-lethal tools is on the surface a good, even GREAT thing. The real danger though, is a long term one. With the bar set so low, more and more people will be subject to excruciating pain, and eventually, this technology may evolve into a tool of even greater oppression of liberty than anything we have now.

      Imagine if a protest can be casually broken up by making everyone vomit or crap themselves uncontrollably. If the government has the ability to casually stop groups of people from coming together or otherwise detaining them while being able to argue "it's not fatal, it's just uncomfortable", then the bar on violating our rights as citizens drops too.

      So I'm interested and optimistic about the technologies, but I desperately hope that better effort is invested in making them a net positive for all of humanity and not the boot that might otherwise grind our faces into the dirt. I think you make a good point overall, but the particular device discussed here wouldn't be of much use against non-violent protesters. Since shielding or closing your eyes would render this device useless, I don't see how it can be used to violate our constitutional rights. I'm sure if it fell into the wrong hands (and it would), there'd be some hilarious or dangerous way to abuse it, by using it against people who are moving and/or whose hands are occupied.
    12. Re:The good and the bad by martin-boundary · · Score: 1
      There's a simple answer: paperwork. You make law enforcement officers jump through hoops with paperwork, accounting for every casual use of a weapon, having complicated (and rather pointless) procedures to sign out the weapon and sign it back in, increase their personal liability in case a member of the public sues the police station etc.

      The point is if there's a serious annoyance factor that comes with using a nonlethal weapon (or any weapon really) then police officers will think twice about using them for every little problem just because they can.

      The problem of abuse only happens when it's "cheap" to use a weapon, ie "cheap" for the person using the weapon.

    13. Re:The good and the bad by toby · · Score: 1

      has the potential to be fantastic ...and that's right where I stopped reading. Pity I blew my mod points on this thread saying this.

      --
      you had me at #!
    14. Re:The good and the bad by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Remember that for a while the press was referring to the pellet guns as "less-lethal weapons"? Can we go back to using that term? Because I'd like for us to keep that in mind before some cop decides to stick this in the face of some suspect with a condition for five minutes just to teach them a lesson.

      Weapons manufacturers and police departments have been using the terms "less-than-lethal" and "less-lethal" as standard practice for a while now.

    15. Re:The good and the bad by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Weapons manufacturers and police departments have been using the terms "less-than-lethal" and "less-lethal" as standard practice for a while now.

      Ah! I'm very glad to hear that, it's certainly most important for the police to remember the difference. I guess then it's just the media that has forgotten. Not surprising, really.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    16. Re:The good and the bad by Glendale2x · · Score: 1

      Imagine if a protest can be casually broken up by making everyone vomit or crap themselves uncontrollably.

      Oh my, that's gonna give me some horrible nightmares now. Thanks.

      --
      this is my sig
    17. Re:The good and the bad by durin · · Score: 1

      because hitting an innocent person is absolutely unacceptable

      Unless, of course, you're referring to officers in the USofA...

      --
      Why, yes! I AM new here.
    18. Re:The good and the bad by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      The entire Law Enforcement profession is dedicated to "oppressing the liberty" of the law-breakers...
      The problem is that they will redefine at will the meaning of "law-breaker" in order to suit their agenda...
    19. Re:The good and the bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      * Oh yeah, and remember back when that innocent bystander to a protest in NYC was shot through her eye and killed by a rubber bullet?

      A) It wasn't a protest, it was a street celebration of a Red Sox ALCS victory over the Yankees.
      B) As such, it was in Boston, and not in NYC.
      C) It wasn't a rubber bullet, it was a blunt trauma/pepper spray projectile.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Snelgrove

      I'm not trying to be a dick about this, but just letting you know about the actual details of the event. If there was a similar incident (remarkably similar) that actually happened in NYC, during a protest, with a rubber bullet, please let me know.

    20. Re:The good and the bad by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      So, make the trigger use get recorded onto flash, along with a 640x480 fish-eye snapshot of the user?

    21. Re:The good and the bad by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Nope, that's the one. Thanks. I get those east coast cities confused. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    22. Re:The good and the bad by RealErmine · · Score: 1

      could they prove that the suspect did actually throw up

      It is rather well known that you can't really dust for vomit.

      --
      Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
    23. Re:The good and the bad by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      Flashbangs are an example, I don't think beating someone with a flashlight counts as non-lethal.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  27. Puke Saber? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    this makes me sick

  28. The epilepsy gun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somehow, I REALLY doubt that this thing will work. It might have some effect on a test subject in a lab, who is being paid to look into the beam until he pukes, but in the field, people are going to shield their eyes or look away (or wear mirror sunglasses).

    Personally, I'd suggest sticking with pepper spray...

  29. details are emerging by nuzak · · Score: 1

    An anonymous source with details on the "puke saber", which incapacitates its victims with displays of color, was quoted, "Our maximum setting is called apache.slashdot.org"

    --
    Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    1. Re:details are emerging by FutureDomain · · Score: 1

      Are you sure it's not omgponies.slashdot.org?

      --
      Hydraulic pizza oven!! Guided missile! Herring sandwich! Styrofoam! Jayne Mansfield! Aluminum siding! Borax!
    2. Re:details are emerging by ericferris · · Score: 1

      Noo! NOT TEH PURPELLL! PLEASE!

      Ye gods, these weapon designers have minds of pure evil.

      --
      Fantasy: http://ferrisfantasy.blogspot.com/
  30. Morality of this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There has to be a real question here of morality and the rules of engagement for such a device. There seems to be a growing tide of opinion that as long as a weapon is "non-lethal", i.e. it won't kill you or leave behind long-term effects then it is magically fine to use in a very wide range of situations. Real questions have to be asked at some stage as to the *morality* of allowing widespread use of something that makes you sick/shocks you/blinds you purely on the basis that "it has no long term effects and allows us to subdue people" - so does a kick in the face, but I don't see officers doing that (unless they are caught on camera in which case the get suspended then eventually let off).

  31. LED grow lights by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    I can see how this will work although I'm not sure what will happen to the victims eyes with long expsures. I work in a hydroponics store and I brought in a LED light array (eqivelant to 400W) just to see how it worked. Looking straight onto the led's is soo bright that you cant look at it for more then a few seconds with out getting blured vision. But if you look at it at a slight angle the light intensity is diminished quite a bit.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:LED grow lights by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      I get the same with the LED spotlights on my desk... only they run off a 2W power brick and aren't equivalent to 40W, let alone 400. Good for keeping unwanted visitors out though.

  32. non-lethal != A-OK by rastoboy29 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Somehow these non-lethal weapons scare me more than more lethal ones. Because they are perceived as "lesser" weapons, they get used more often.

    And we don't need to be using weapons on each other more often, but less.

    1. Re:non-lethal != A-OK by Reaperducer · · Score: 1

      Because they are perceived as "lesser" weapons, they get used more often.
      Any references on this, or are you just turning your paranoia into FUD?
      In my line of work I see A LOT of police reports for major cities. I see a lot more officers using guns than tasers or beanbag guns.
      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
  33. The Stomach is Strong in this one! by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    Search your gut feelings, you know this feeling of queasyness to be true.

    Give in to the White side of the Toilet.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  34. Laws by bobcat7677 · · Score: 1

    Well, if there is going to be a proliferation of "non-lethal weapons", I say we level the playing field by passing a law that removes any legal distinction between "lethal" and "non-lethal" weapons. Therefore, if I shoot someone with a "non-lethal" weapon, I am charged the same as if I had shot them with a conventional weapon. And if someone shoots at me with a "non-lethal" weapon, I can legally shoot back with a conventional weapon to defend myself. Thats fair right?

    1. Re:Laws by Wog · · Score: 1

      So now next time some drunk shoves a police officer, the officer can respond by shooting said drunk until he expires?

      You'd also have to tweak it so that I can draw my pistol from concealment and shoot the guy who just shoved me. Sounds great, don't it? You do realize that it would have to work both ways, right?

      Because that's why I carry my non-lethal OC spray: I'd hate to have to shoot some idiot just because he wanted to get into a fistfight and make me an unwilling participant.

      Here's a tidbit about that "tilted" playing field you perceive: In most places, assault with a non-lethal weapon is still assault. There is and very well should be a special distinction for "assault with a deadly weapon."

    2. Re:Laws by surprise_audit · · Score: 1

      How about simply making these "non lethal" weapons generally available?? A crap-ray or puke-saber would be so much more humane to an intruder than a shotgun... Imagine - the burglar crosses into your yard, tries to kick the door down and immediately gushes at both ends. It would leave plenty of DNA evidence... :)

    3. Re:Laws by bobcat7677 · · Score: 1

      Sounds messy. I think I would rather clean up blood then puke and poop.

  35. Visual equivalent of the "brown note"? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

    So is this the visual equivalent of the Brown note? Let's hope it works better.

    Other comments regarding mirrors and sunglasses (and presumably, sunglasses with mirror lenses) would seem to be equivalent of those pictures of Daleks encountering staircases.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:Visual equivalent of the "brown note"? by db32 · · Score: 1

      I was hoping someone had noticed the similarities. There was a wonderful South Park episode featuring this.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  36. if only they were INTERESTING stories by Quadraginta · · Score: 4, Funny

    Coming up next, Slashdot follows the troubling development of a nonlethal technological device for "controlling" troublesome individuals, consisting of two small metal or plastic bracelets joined by a short chain that can be "locked" around the suspect's hands, entirely preventing him from using them until someone "unlocks" the device with a special key.

    On whom will this fiendish device be used? Are YRO at risk if this nasty little tool falls into the hands of border guards and police? What if someone immobilized by this device falls and hits his head because he can't break his fall with his hands? Will he sue? Doesn't this violate the Constitution somehow?

    1. Re:if only they were INTERESTING stories by bean123456789 · · Score: 1

      This really begs the question that if handcuffs are used for sexual purposes, will the puke ray be used for fettish as well? "Oh yeah baby, I love it when you make me puke..."

  37. Or by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    sunglasses.

    Some people really don't think these things through very well.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Or by Rick17JJ · · Score: 1

      The article says that there is one wavelength that gets everybody. Perhaps criminals will soon probably be wearing special sunglasses or contact lenses with a special coating that totally blocks that particular frequency. The sunglasses might even block everything except for a narrow limited range of frequencies. If a criminal was not already wearing the special sunglasses he will probably be running with his eyes closed and swearing as he pulls them out of his pocket and puts them on.

      However, if a policeman were to see someone walking around late at night wearing the special sunglasses, they might be inclined to ask a few questions. If they were to have a problem with anyone wearing sunglasses late at night they would probably also choose a different weapon.

    2. Re:Or by Predius · · Score: 1

      I suspect the 'evil frequency' isn't referring to the wavelength of light emitted, but instead to the pulse pattern.

    3. Re:Or by javaman235 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But you've got to love the lingo. Another big PR victory for homeland security, they now have hand held mind devices that emit "evil" colors to manipulate the mind to puke. Now, lets ask ourselves: If this was in a movie, would it be:
      a) something the good guys have?
      b) something the bad guys have?

      --
      -The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
    4. Re:Or by StarfishOne · · Score: 1

      Soon evil doers will start the warrr on evil colors! :D

    5. Re:Or by mpe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I suspect the 'evil frequency' isn't referring to the wavelength of light emitted, but instead to the pulse pattern.

      Maybe Mythbusters can test this out as a followup to "Brown Note".

  38. heck with INS, I want one for mobile phone drivers by Locutus · · Score: 1

    Keeping it locked and loaded the next time I cross the street. When another mobile phone using driver turns the corner and starts toward me, there'll be puke on her/his steering wheel and dashboard.

    Gotta head over to MakeZine.com to see if there's already a kit for this.

    LoB

    --
    "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  39. They'll never give it to border patrol agents by Proudrooster · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    There is no way border patrol agents are going to get these LED weapons. In the USA the government prosecutes and locks up any Border Patrol agents who defend our country from drug smugglers and the hordes that are entering illegally. This reasoning is just smoke and mirrors to spend money on a new toy developed by a "friend" of the current administration. It's time to spend our money to fix the national infrastructure (bridges) and give the border patrol agents rifles with scopes and land mines.

    1. Re:They'll never give it to border patrol agents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, shooting someone who's running AWAY is completely justified. If you pull out a gun, anyone who runs is a perfectly legitimate target.

      In summary: I watch the news and am heavily influenced by what they tell me. Bridges and aliens will destroy our land. All praise Nancy Grace. Amen.

    2. Re:They'll never give it to border patrol agents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, bridges and aliens aren't the problem. The problem put in a single word is "GREED". Greedy companies that hire people illegally to save a buck. Greedy corrupt governments like in Mexico where the 40 richest people (yes people) control 30 percent of the wealth, thus forcing their citizens to risk their lives to try to scratch out a living elsewhere. Greedy Americans who want everything cheap at Wal*Mart but don't realize that it comes at a high global cost (pollution, substandard or poisoned products like food and toys from China, and the loss of jobs to cheaper labor markets).

      As for this specific case, the person shot was a DRUG SMUGGLER and they believed he was going for a weapon. I'd like to see you make this same split second decision. Sure we have the luxury now of playing the "what-if" game. However, I thought we were trying to win the "WAR ON DRUGS" but I guess it is better to give drug smugglers a free pass and put guys protecting the borders in jail with an unreasonable jail sentence. We want to send a clear message to other border patrol agents (courtesy of the Mexican Government) which is don't impede the flow of drugs or illegal workers or you will end up in jail (for a really long time).

      As for the border in general. What would you do if someone was breaking and entering your house? Would they get one warning shot or would you leave them alone if they were running away with your stuff? In this age of terrorism that the president is always warning us about shouldn't we be protecting our borders seriously. Shouldn't we track who is here, and make sure they leave when their VISAs expire.

      As for Nancy Grace, I don't watch her. In fact I had to look her up on Google and vaguely recognize her. My list is Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Riely, Jon Stewart, and Colbert. I guess for you it is ALL HAIL "FAIR AND BALANCED" FOX NEWS. I encourage you NOT to lose your ability to think and reason. Neither Fox news and the Republicans nor CNN and the Liberals have a monopoly on truth, justice, and/or the American way.

      I now consider myself an independent and long for a third party which stands for the people of America instead of special interests. It is sad to think that countries like Mexico and China are dictating to us how to control our borders and our imports. So far China has killed our pets, sent us poison food, and now toys with lead paint to our children. Why doesn't our president act? He can't, because China is financing the war in Iraq by buying our debt. He encourages us to give China more time while he negotiates away our sovereignty through trade agreements.

      As for the President's love affair with Mexico, I don't understand it. Is it simply rooted in NAFTA and el'cheapo labor. I understand the Dems love for Mexico, they want the votes and are willing to sign up everyone here legally or illegally for voter registration cards.

      No matter how you slice it, it's a huge mess.

    3. Re:They'll never give it to border patrol agents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is best those two guys remain locked up. The mexicans have sworn blood revenge over the burning image of Jesus and Mary. If those border agents are ever freed, they will be hunted down and shot in the back of head, together with family. The dead was godson of big time mexican godfather, that doesn't sound good. Safest to stay behind the bars.

  40. That's really sick.... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    ...Go ahead and shine it at me and I fire back with puke,,,,

    Who si the loser here?

  41. The Puke Saber by Timberwolf0122 · · Score: 1

    A graceful weapon from a more civilised age. Not as random or clumsy as a puke blaster

    --
    In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
    1. Re:The Puke Saber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, the "puke blaster"? Does it blast puke/vomit on the victim? :-)

  42. Plan B: Brown Noise by MacDork · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sure, you can close your eyes, but you'd better hold your ears too. One of their elite researchers has discovered the brown noise

    ;-)

    1. Re:Plan B: Brown Noise by 10bellies · · Score: 1

      Flashing lights that make you puke, sounds that make you shit yourself... ...just like any nightclub around here, really.

  43. Sounds More Like... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    Sounds more like something for amusement park thrill rides.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  44. What makes me want to puke by Cracked+Pottery · · Score: 1

    is that we have people at responsible levels in our government who are either stupid enough to get sucked in by this sort of fraud, or are just plain corrupt. I have a copper bracelet for them that just works wonders on arthritis.

  45. So I'm confused here... by dyslexicbunny · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "There's one wavelength that gets everybody," says IOS President Bob Lieberman. "Vlad [IOS top scientist Vladimir Rubtsov] calls it 'the evil color.'" Perhaps I misunderstand the functionality of the device because the article says earlier that the device works as:

    The handheld device using light-emitting diodes to emit super-bright pulses of light at rapidly changing wavelengths, causing disorientation, nausea and even vomiting in whomever it's pointed at. Bob claims that Vlad says there's an "evil" color that gets everyone. But the description of the device uses pulses of light at varying wavelengths to cause the effect. So if there's only one wavelength, then why do they need to change the light?

    Couldn't I just pull up into Home Depot's color center and have them make paint in the "evil" color and use it for whatever (pranks, revenge, robbery)?
    1. Re:So I'm confused here... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Maybe he meant that there is a different "evil color" for each person, so you have to run through the whole range to make sure everyone's own color is covered.

    2. Re:So I'm confused here... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Informative

      They're probably referring to pulse repetition rate (1/frequency) when they say "wavelength".

      Right after a neuron fires it "rearms" the membrane by pumping ions across it. In time sequence its sensitivity varies smoothly through:
        - The absolute refractory period: Nothing can fire it.
        - The negative afterpotential: It can be fired but it takes extra stimulus.
        - The positive afterpotential: It takes LESS than the usual amount of stimulus to fire it.
      Then it returns to its normal, resting, sensitivity.

      The sensitivity slope may be an artifact of the ion pumps and channels, but it appears to function as a mechanism for encoding the strength of a stimulus as a pulse rate.

      This has a side effect: If a nerve is given short pulses of stimulation with a spacing corresponding to the length of time between a stimulus that fires it and the peak of the positive afterpotential, once it fires once it will tend to continue to fire in synchrony with the pulses from then on. If you have a bundle of such nerves with similar timing and all affected by the stimulus, each additional pulse picks up additional nerves and phase-locks them to the stimulus. Within a few pulses most of the fibers in the bundle tend to be firing rapidly and in unison.

      You can see this with a strobe light with a variable repetition rate. Run it slow and you see distinct pulses - a flicker. Run it fast and you see a continuous light - the pulses have fused into a continuous response. But run it near the "flicker fusion rate" boundary and you get a lot of weird visual effects - notably flickering rainbow colors across the neighboring (or entire) visual field that tend to enhance and obscure the actual image with a flickering, undecipherable, psychedelic-poster version of itself.

      You get colors other than those of the actual source (if it is colored rather than white) and effects in other parts of the visual field than the actual strobing light and things it is illuminating. This is because nerves for parts of the eye that would not normally be stimulated enough to trigger by this light (if it were non-strobing) still become entrained when they happen to be in a positive afterpotential period when a blink occurs.

      (By the way: Don't try this if you're epileptic. It can produce a seizure. Indeed: Some people discover they're epileptic when they are exposed to such flickering lights.)

      One speculation about the hypothetical "brown note" was that infrasound at a positive-afterpotential repetition rate matching that of nerves controlling the intestines might force peristalsis in the colon or trigger the appropriate reflexes for defecation. (It might be interesting to retry the debunking experiments with a train of narrow high-pressure pulses, approximating impulses, rather than a sine wave. B-) )

      This flashlight appears to be attempting a variation of the same effect. By entraining the nerves of the visual processing responsible for locating onself in space and/or ones motion, it could create a visual illusion of movement that doesn't match the signals from the inner ear and the muscle-position sensors. A mismatch among these three systems produces motion sickness, nausea, and vomiting.

      This reflex appears to be a defense against ingestion of neurotoxic poisons (such as those in some mushrooms and food-poisoning bacteria), using their disruption of the complex navigation system as an early warning and attempting to eliminate them from the digestive system before enough are absorbed to disable a critical system and kill the victim.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    3. Re:So I'm confused here... by E++99 · · Score: 1

      Bob claims that Vlad says there's an "evil" color that gets everyone. But the description of the device uses pulses of light at varying wavelengths to cause the effect. So if there's only one wavelength, then why do they need to change the light?


      Who knows -- they're not exactly spewing the details. It could be rapidly varying wavelengths within a narrow range, that narrow range constituting the "evil color."
    4. Re:So I'm confused here... by slartibart · · Score: 1

      Carl: According to the map, the cabin should be right here.

      Lenny: Hey, maybe there is no cabin. Maybe it's one of them metaphorical things.

      Carl: Oh yeah, yeah... Like maybe the cabin is the place inside each of us, created by our goodwill and teamwork.

      Lenny: Oh! ...Nah, they said there would be sandwiches.


      Or in this case, Vlad said "evil color".

    5. Re:So I'm confused here... by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Also, how can they change wavelength without using some really exotic devices? Sure, you can put red, green, and blue LEDs together and vary their relative intensities, but this doesn't actually change the wavelength, just the apparent color to us trichromats. A spectrometer, for example, wouldn't be fooled. Basically, apparent color doesn't tell you the wavelength(s) of the light.

    6. Re:So I'm confused here... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      No it's marketing speak. He is full of the brown stuff that seems to be prevalent in americas CEO's lately.

      SOME people will react that way, I know of many that do not and if you go to most concerts you will also notice that most people do not react the way he claims. At a concert you typically get blasted in the face with way more light at different patterns colors and intensities and SOME puke, most do not.

      Now the police will do things to exacerbate it, Like hold your head still while they shine it directly in your eyes until you confess, maybe have a couple of officers hold your eyelids open. Leaves far less marks on the body for you to claim they tortured you.

      Ask anyone how it feels to have intense light shined directly in their eyes for extended periods of time, it makes waterboarding a kids prank.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:So I'm confused here... by ShiNoKaze · · Score: 1

      This explaination makes the most sense I've seen yet. I can't help but wonder however if there might be a frequency which your body might respond with a reward instead of punishment... Can't think of an evolutionary reason off hand, but it could be interesting to find out.

    8. Re:So I'm confused here... by Phoenix666 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your post. It's one of the finest I've read in a long time.

      --
      Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    9. Re:So I'm confused here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At a concert you typically get blasted in the face with way more light at different patterns colors and intensities and SOME puke, most do not.
      Probably because they chose to imbibe in some sort of chemical refreshment. I highly doubt that concert lighting alone would cause many, if anyone, to puke. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know strobes can cause seizures.
    10. Re:So I'm confused here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... who were the test "dummies" is all I have left to question...?

    11. Re:So I'm confused here... by alexo · · Score: 1

      Evil color...
      Brown note...

      Why don't they invent a Tasp already and be done with it?

  46. Brown Note by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    The pukesaber's Ipod jack lets it project the Brown Note that causes an equal and opposite reaction in its targets.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  47. Probably those same people ... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    I wonder who they will hire...to clean up all the puke at the borders?

    Probably those same people who put up the friendly warnings when somebody PISOs on the MOHADO.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Probably those same people ... by freewaybear · · Score: 0

      when somebody PISOs on the MOHADO.

      When somebody floors on the wet?

      --
      Registered Linux User #404114 [url=http://www.punkoiska.com][img]http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/4379/posbannercf5.g
  48. I assume by tfoss · · Score: 1

    that the people who make this aren't idiots, but....sunglasses?

    -Ted

    --
    -=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
    1. Re:I assume by surprise_audit · · Score: 1

      What if you're color-blind??

  49. Is there a way.. by MrSteveSD · · Score: 1

    To rig this technology up to George Bush's autocue? That would be fun :)

    1. Re:Is there a way.. by Entropius · · Score: 1

      How could you tell the results apart from his normal standard of public speaking?

  50. obligiatory by sirknz · · Score: 1

    Don't go into the light Carrol Anne.

  51. What about epilepsy ? by aepervius · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Would not that be quite dangerous for epileptic ? What about an epileptic, getting a crisis AND omitting at the same time. Guaranteed drowning in one own puke, followed by a civil lawsuit against the government? What about other condition which could threaten life if you start puking (I am not a biologist/doctor so there might be none but I ask) ?

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:What about epilepsy ? by westlake · · Score: 1
      Would not that be quite dangerous for epileptic ?

      More dangerous than running the Tex-Mex border in the blast-furnace heat of midsummer? More dangerous than a gun shot wound?

    2. Re:What about epilepsy ? by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      What about an epileptic, getting a crisis AND omitting at the same time. Guaranteed drowning in one own puke, followed by a civil lawsuit against the government? And to add salt to the injury, possibly also losing the suit due to the "we thought s/he was a terrorist so it was ok to use it on them" argument?

      - RG>
      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    3. Re:What about epilepsy ? by AmPz · · Score: 1


      Would not that be quite dangerous for epileptic ?

      More dangerous than running the Tex-Mex border in the blast-furnace heat of midsummer? More dangerous than a gun shot wound?


      Yes. An epileptic attack combined with puking is likely to be more dangerous than that.

    4. Re:What about epilepsy ? by Error27 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah. I completely agree.

      I've seen interview where police were talking about tazors and they said they were only dangerous in rare cases if the victim was on drugs. The official tazor policy is that it is always the drugs that kill them not the tazors. I believe that like I believe the cigarette advertising from the 50s. If you think about it, police are _most_ likely to use tazors in drugs situations.

      I read an article about a cop who killed a person accidentally with a tazor and he clearly seemed to feel bad about killing the dude. But he should have thought ahead of time. If someone is naked: A) He's not hiding a gun. B) He is probably on drugs.

    5. Re:What about epilepsy ? by Nalgas+D.+Lemur · · Score: 1

      Speaking as someone who's lucky enough to have photosensitive epilepsy, yeah, that could potentially suck. I have it mostly but not entirely under control at the moment, but there have been times when a wide variety of flashing or flickering things made me either feel pretty funny or have seizures: the stereotypical strobe lights, riding in a car on the highway with the sun low in the sky and flickering through the trees, hanging around in Times Square, and so on. That last one was quite an adventure, and not a terribly fun one; I had to turn towards a wall with my eyes closed while waiting to meet someone who was running a bit late.

      Anyway, I'm not really looking forward to ever finding out what one of these things would do to me. It's already enough fun having your brain flip out on you without throwing up all over yourself at the same time.

      Coincidentally, I was just reading articles a few days ago about inappropriate use by police of force/tasers/etc. on people either in the middle of seizures or shortly after, while they were disoriented or irritable. It doesn't happen too often, but it's just often enough to make me uncomfortable and a little worried.

  52. A Real Use by aphxtwn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This might be good for poison control as an emetic with no side-effects. Combined with activated charcoal, this could save lives.

  53. Anti-accessibility by Valdrax · · Score: 4, Funny

    You could use it as some sort of anti-captcha for a social networking sight meant to be only used by blind people. If you can make it through the sign-in form, you get to join.

    Take THAT all you people that don't put alt tags on your images!

    (By the way, does the "evil color" work on colorblind people?)

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re:Anti-accessibility by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      ...for a social networking sight...

      Gah! Typo-pun totally not intended. I swear.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    2. Re:Anti-accessibility by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      No, no. Use it as a security policy test panel, to remind your ocmpatriots that they should leave Javascript turned off.

    3. Re:Anti-accessibility by caluml · · Score: 1

      a social networking sight meant to be only used by blind people
      I see what you did there...

  54. The puke ray by Bloater · · Score: 2, Funny

    They've been watching too much powerpuff girls.

    1. Re:The puke ray by Manchot · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think they've been watching too much Pokemon.

  55. Headlights by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

    That'll teach those slowpokes not to hog the left lane.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Headlights by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      You are, of course, behind them. I hope your wiper fluid is topped up.

  56. I see a new market here by hacker · · Score: 1

    They have the LED Puke-Saber...

    Shortly afterwards, special contact lenses that filter the "puke color" out are developed, neutralizing the effects.

  57. four words by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

    One-way mirror sunglasses!

    1. Re:four words by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      err two-way mirror? (you know, for lineups/interrogations)

    2. Re:four words by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      A two-way mirror would be reflective on both sides. Is that really what you wanted to say?

      Yes, I'm aware that it's commonly used to refer to a semi-silvered mirror + illumination tricks resulting in a screen that one side can see through and one side cannot, but the whole thing just begs the question of what the hell stupid illogical conventions are doing muddying up perfectly logical phrases. Especially hear on slashdot. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    3. Re:four words by tenco · · Score: 1

      one-way "mirror" sunglasses that will protect you from light reaching your eyes could easily be replaced by a much cheaper blindfold.

    4. Re:four words by fredklein · · Score: 1

      Um, two-way mirror. As in, you can use it in two different ways.:

      1) as a mirror

      2) as a window that allows you to see thru it.

    5. Re:four words by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Argh I wrote 'hear' when I meant 'here.' forty lashings for me.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  58. please to be renaming by SaberTaylor · · Score: 1

    Please to be renaming to Lance-Puke or Javelin-Puke or Dirk-Puke.

    kthx.

    --
    If you need text styles to communicate then you don't have a message.
  59. Scopes and landmines? by msimm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You lost me there. Somehow blowing up poor families seems a bit extreme.

    Welcome to America. Sorry about your mother and the rest of your family. Uh...our bad.

    --
    Quack, quack.
  60. Non-Lethal: Super-cool by writerjosh · · Score: 1

    I think non-lethal weapons are great. How many times have we seen deadly force used to kill a suspect when all that was really needed was a good puking.

    Check out this page that lists the real non-lethal weapons being worked on: http://www.angelfire.com/or/mctrl/nonlethal.html (scroll down the page to where it says: Nonlethal Weapons: Terms and References)

  61. Not really a good idea by KitsuneSoftware · · Score: 1

    These things may be hard to design the first time, but I bet they'd be a doddle to reverse-engineer. Do you really want someone to be able to stop the police car trailing them by shinging a torch backwards? At least with a laser-pointer it's hard to keep the aim!

  62. Lovecraft already discovered this by GeekAlpha · · Score: 1

    The rapidly changing wavelengths are due to the non-euclidean nature of the "color." The only negative side-effect of the Puke Saber(tm) is that overuse of "the evil color" will result in the user's soul being consumed by eldrich horrors from out of time.

  63. Escalation by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    In the future, people will end up having to wear "Smart Defensive Clothing Networks." After all, its not like these aren't going to get stolen by crooks and used to rob people.

    So you wear your SDCN, and a cop tries the "light sabre" trick - your SDCN counter-attacks with an invisible particle beam pulse that fries the light sabre. Now extend this to the cop trying this in a crowd, and 100 people's SDCNs counter-attack. Result - one Kentucky-Fried Cop.

    So what are they going to do - ban SDCNs? That'll be hard to do, since they'll look just like other clothing, and trying to take one away could be interpreted as a deadly assault, with the SDCN responding appropriately.

    This might have been a pipe dream a couple of decades ago, but we're within 20 years of this sort of engineered clothing, and you can be darned sure there will be a HUGE demand for it.

    1. Re:Escalation by G-funk · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah I bet homeland security is definitely worried about devices that exist within the imagination of your average slashdotter.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    2. Re:Escalation by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Guess you missed one of my points - that soon after the cops have it, so will the crooks. Same as guns, mace, pepper spray, etc.

      So how soon before people start getting held up at "puke-sabre-point"?

      Then there will be people who will want them for "self-defense" - putting even more on the street, and available for the black market.

      It'll eventually end up like laser pointers - a once-esoteric device that you can now pick up at the dollar store. The only difference is, rather than teasing dogs, it'll be used against people for all sorts of reasons. Like disrupting traffic "just for the fun of it". Bank robberies. Install them in your car and "flash" the next asshole who cuts you off in traffic.

      Can you imagine one of these in a movie theatre - it'll be as bad as Gigli. A subway station? A line-up in any enclosed space? (Hey, how about using it against a line-up in front of the men's room at a sporting event?)

      So, does any of this sound more unlikely than the actual weapon itself?

    3. Re:Escalation by G-funk · · Score: 1

      I guess I did. Yes, one of these in the hands of joe q sixpack (aka dickhead) would indeed be unpleasant.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    4. Re:Escalation by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Part of me is wondering what sort of society we're turning into when we feel the need to outfit cops, etc., with tazers, pepper spray, and now "pain rays" and "nausea sabres".

      Between that, and the encroachment of surveillance into our lives, about the only safe place to meet will be cyberspace, "where the men are men, the women are men, and the little girls are FBI agents, and nobody knows you're a dog." At least you won't get pepper-sprayed, tazered, etc. - about the worst you can expect is some trolling, mod-bombing, and links to tubgirl.

    5. Re:Escalation by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

      Result - one Kentucky-Fried Cop.
      Your remark is doubly funny in french because in french slang, one word for "cop" is "poulet", that is, "chicken" (another is "vache"="cow" or "boeuf"="ox" in Québec, wich yields the delightful irony of calling a squad cruiser an "oxcart"...).
    6. Re:Escalation by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Depending on who's doing the talking, they're also called "chiens" (dogs) or (very rare) "flics", as in "Le câlisse de chien sale" (damned dirty dog) - especially around people who are telling you about their most recent "unfair" speeding ticket.

      Which brings us to why "Who let the dogs out?" had a certain resonnance here. BTW - doesn't that make a police station a "dog pound"?

  64. habituation by briglass · · Score: 1

    i wonder if you can habituate to this device. if so, you could slowly build up an immunity.

    --

    ----
    "Those who quote others are more likely to one day be quoted" -Tom Planter
  65. The brown note... by BytePusher · · Score: 1

    Does this remind anyone of "The Brown Note?"
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_note

  66. ya, that'll work by f1055man · · Score: 1

    I'm sure the border patrol agents and police will just be jumping at the chance to put a puke covered collar in the back of their car.

    It'll also work great for crowd control. Protest #1: popo makes the black bloc puke.
    Protest #2: black bloc makes everyone puke.
    Prosecution for unauthorized use would be rather messy as well. I can just imagine a wiseass defendant demanding that they prove it's not just a flashlight.

    Actually, I think I'm kind of looking forward to this.

  67. from the article-Raybands. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Up next, goggles like Riddick wears.

  68. Non-lethal? Bullshit! by Chas · · Score: 1

    It's a less-than-lethal.

    Yeah, they're puking. Great.

    Until someone aspirates their own vomit and then dies of asphyxiation.

    Check this out, each and every one of you. Compilation tape, of my own making. I call this the "Greatest Zooks Album". Featuring artists like, well I got some Hendrix on there, some Joplin, Mama Cass, Belushi... all great artists that asphyxiated on their own vomit! -- Cereal Killer

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  69. And what of the color blind? by fishyfool · · Score: 1

    do they have something equally nauseating for them? (or should I say us?) Will i puke if this is shone at me, being that I can't see red at all, and blue is quite dim?

    --
    Enjoy Every Sandwich
  70. Yeah right by retro128 · · Score: 1

    Flashy lights that trigger the vomit reflex? That's a new one to me. Even if it did work, how close would you have to be to someone to trigger the effect? How can it even be universal? Wouldn't it involve some kind of neural cascade firing effect, like how flashing lights induce an epileptic seizure in some people?

    A sonic burst that disrupts the liquid in the inner ear sounds more feasible. Not only would it make you sick, it'd cause you to lose your balance too. And you don't have to be looking at it.

    Anyway, it sounds to me like these guys made up some BS to tap into federal grant money. They're probably feeding their guinea pigs castor oil or something like that to make the "test" legit. I can see it now: "Whoops, it won't work after all. Sorry Federal Government. But thanks for the cash"

    --
    -R
  71. Mod parent funny! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hahahaha! I like you!

  72. Sunglasses. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Problem solved. ( or filtering contact lenses )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  73. Re:So I'm confused here...[mod parent up] by Thagg · · Score: 1

    Thanks -- I had thought that the entire article was completely bogus (as LEDs really can only emit one frequency of light) but your description of varying the pulse-rate makes perfect sense, and it's exactly what LEDs do best.

    What a lovely device.

    Thad

    --
    I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
  74. Only if.. by KeepQuiet · · Score: 1

    Can you see the potential if they equip this thing with brown note as well?

  75. I call bullshit by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This sounds like yet another nonsense variation of the brown note myth. absolute rubbish. makes me wish i knew some senators i could sell some snake oil to and get me a slice of defence budget pie.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  76. Is that the sun coming up? by kn0tw0rk · · Score: 1

    ... I dont remember eating that... (barf)

    With apologies to Pratchet.

    --
    See my art -> http://herbevore.deviantart.com
  77. HACK THE PLANET! by dave1g · · Score: 1

    HACK THE PLANET!

    1. Re:HACK THE PLANET! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They're Trashing! They're trashing the floor-a-dara!*"

      *wtf does that mean??

  78. They've Had It for Years by ks*nut · · Score: 0

    I'm thinking they've had that "secret weapon" for years at Presidential new conferences cause every time I see that little son of a bitch...

  79. Chis Onstad, way ahead as usual by roban · · Score: 1
  80. Hmm, special filtering contacts by jkinney3 · · Score: 1
    I can see it now. A bit of physics magic in the contacts or sunglasses and no more puking light saber sales.
    • Build puking light saber
    • geeks build better glasses
    • NO PROFITS
    1. Re:Hmm, special filtering contacts by nedaf7 · · Score: 1

      Actually, there's plenty of profit for both the people selling the lightsabers AND the glasses. As long as they don't put each other out of business..

  81. One color to rule them all by mathfeel · · Score: 1

    FTFA: "There's one wavelength that gets everybody," says IOS President Bob Lieberman. "Vlad [IOS top scientist Vladimir Rubtsov] calls it 'the evil color.'" ...must...have...that...precious...precious...colo r!

    --
    The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
  82. What is the "evil color"? by John+Sokol · · Score: 1

    I just did a bunch of google searches, and came up with nothing but reprints of the same dam article.

      I know people have been experimenting for years to see the effects of blinking lights and colors.
      I'm sure you see those relaxation goggles that blink leds to help your reach some theta wave state or some crap like that.

      You'd think there would be something in the patents or medical literature on that colors/frequencies work to have this effect.
      But I can't find much.

      I would really like to know. Also could this be done on a TV or computer screen.

      I remember there was some Japaneses cartoon a few years ago that just happened to flash or do something that sent hundreds of kids into seizures, the parents really freaked out about that and that cartoon disappeared never to be seen again. I'd like to get a hold of that one to so I can see what the heck cause that effect.
            http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/651224.stm Approximately 685 Japanese children suffered the fits after watching a Pokemon television cartoon in 1997.

    --
    I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
    1. Re:What is the "evil color"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real genius of the pokemon-epilepsy event wasn't so much the lessons learned about childhood developmental brain mapping but the lesson that you shouldn't show the same unfiltered clip again on the evening news.

  83. bah! we've had this for years on the internet by grapeape · · Score: 3, Funny

    Its called the blink tag.

  84. Bring back guns!! by failedlogic · · Score: 1

    Bring back the guns, for puke will.....:

    1) Ruin tourist attractions. Seeing the content of someone's stomach on the ground will ruin the nice smell and scenery of my vacation! If I see a pool of blood, I know someone is watching out for my security and well being.
    2) Make me puke. Seeing someone else puke makes me feel like puking. A pool of blood, doesn't make motivate me to start bleeding.

  85. Great Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a fantastic weapon in our fight against terror. I envision a weapon like this being used on a terrorist who is strapped to a board, and between waterboarding sessions, he gets nailed with the light and vomits repeatedly. Perhaps you can alternate them -- near drowning and vomiting -- until he's vomiting underwater, too.

    It would also be a good non-lethal way to teach troublemakers a lesson during gatherings, etc. Perhaps the police could force somebody to stare at it for several minutes, making them wretch and constantly vomit until they can barely breathe or their hearts start skipping beats. The company needs to stress-test this weapon a few times (on criminals, like people on death row, for example) by forcing them to stare at it so we can see how long it takes for somebody to vomit to death. That's important with something like this.

    I'm a Christian, and I thank God every day that we live in a country where He is guiding us with love and wisdom toward safety for all.

    God Bless all and keep fighting the good fight,

    Terry

  86. fox news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The poster links to an article on Fox News - not a very reputable news source. And where is the youtube video?

  87. Mirror Shades by infonography · · Score: 1

    Hello William Gibson.

    The rest is inferred.

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  88. Wow..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

    THAT must have been an interesting focus group.....

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  89. Good reason for that by NEOtaku17 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sadly many times using a less-than-lethal weapon is used even though physical contact with the suspect would cause less damage to them. This isn't because police officers are just lazy or because they like to see people tazered but because it it much more defensible in court if the suspect doesn't have any kind of marks on him where as if the officer would wrestle him to the ground and cuff him he would likely have cuts and bruises(almost always superficial damage). Blame the courts and people's perception before you blame the police officers.

    1. Re:Good reason for that by Politburo · · Score: 1

      That just makes no sense. Read it again. It doesn't make any goddamn sense.

      In your hypothetical, a less-lethal weapon causes more damage than wrestling someone to the ground. Then you say that police don't want to wrestle people to the ground because they're afraid of getting sued. Here's the magical part.. an officer can taser someone, and because that "doesn't leave a mark" (incorrect), the police officer won't have a lawsuit problem? Riiight..

  90. Go ahead, silly american! by billcopc · · Score: 1

    Do your worst, buddy. Having lived half my life in nightclubs, I'm definitely not afraid of a little strobe light.

    If you want a non-lethal weapon to make people puke, just walk around with naked pics of Whoopi Goldberg!

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  91. How about a mirror? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

    Or will mirrors now become illegal terrorist tools?

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  92. What about use by individuals? by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

    It'll be interesting to see how easy it will be for individuals to construct something similar at home. If it ends up being easy to construct at home, I wonder if we'll start seeing weapon/gun-control advocates start trying to campaign to make LEDs illegal or something like that. They've already made personal ownership of tasers illegal in many places.

  93. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  94. Thats just sick... by Splab · · Score: 1

    Well kinda :-)

    Pretty smart idea, I know some types of light can make me feel sick - I once walked into a store and the light there made me feel really weird, legs went wobly and I felt sick until I got out of the store.

  95. If somebody points a barf saber at you... by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

    ... do this: >_

  96. Re:Sorry had to... by djdavetrouble · · Score: 1

    Canadians.........

    --
    music lover since 1969
  97. Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those of us equipped with tin-foil eyeglasses have nothing to worry about. I, for one, welcome our puke-saber-wielding overlords!

  98. Just wait... by 8ball629 · · Score: 1

    You'll see kids running around with a pen-sized device similar to this one in a few years, using it on anyone and everyone.

  99. So easy to reverse engineer it's criminal by mattr · · Score: 1

    Look, if it's just light (and maybe also sound as someone noted) it's going to be really, really easy for people to make these things. Heck I myself can attest to starting to feel sick after using a screen for maybe 8 hours, to the point of getting nauseated, though I think it is more from information overload than flickering lights. The action of this device can be reverse engineered, or even captured on high speed recording device one could imagine. At any rate, you might as well expect the specs for the thing to show up on the Internet quite quickly. At that point you will have everybody from kids to terrorists making the things, making malware that produces it, creating broadly effective weapons that can be used on whole neighborhoods, etc. The good that can come out of this will be quickly negated on the whole. And it is breathtakingly irresponsible for it to be reported that there is an "evil color", just the fact of its existence, if true, will now cause everyone even curious scientists to search for it. One thing to note, the Army apparently used to experiment with low frequency sound but it was impossible to shield against it, whereas this might be more focused and presumably the officers wielding it will be safe from reflection by sunglasses. So the method of defending oneself from it will also quickly be discovered.

    Incidentally I could imagine a big problem if this is used on a big crowd.. you will get a percentage of epileptics and people in serious physical distress, but it will be impossible to get to them or help them. And of course if the crowd is also armed then more trouble.

  100. Oh goodie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another piece of destructive technology that will spread to vandals that should not have it.

    Spam attachment: stare at the screen and click the link.

  101. I wonder... by ItsLenny · · Score: 1

    If a standard computer monitor would be capable of producing the same effect...

    if so it'll be pretty quick that someone just video tapes one of these things and puts it into a new type of virus/even a web site... here you are cruising the internet and next thing u know your puking on your keyboard

    Well the internet had a good run ;-)

    --
    ----------
    Trying to fix or change something only guarantees and perpetuates it's existence
  102. Gee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I knwo where they got the Idea anyone ever see the movie looker ?

    Susan Day

    Some Idiot Plastic surgeon doctor discovered women wanting to be perfect were getting killed.
    This little light ray gun flashed it caused people to seize up in a catatonic state for a few seconds while the bad guy messed around with you.
    The bad guys save the folks image and used them in computer generated commercials after they died so no one would be the wiser..well they could not come up with that gun yet so lets see what they do with this.

    Mr Spock set your ray gun to extra chunky.

    TSS

  103. You are welcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Civil liberties and torture refugees form the US welcome in my country... (Or maybe that is the reason they are being deployed at the border, to keep everyone in)

  104. Let me be the first to yell... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

    CAREBEARSTARE !

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  105. Obvious nonsense - Look at the source by rve · · Score: 1

    The source of this article: Fox news.

    This article is obviously bogus; it is physiologically impossible. If there were a visible wavelength that made everyone puke, everyone would already be puking all day.

    Obviously shining a very bright light into someone's eyes can blind- and disorient them. The rest of the story was obviously invented by a Fox news editor, to make the story sound a little sexier.

    1. Re:Obvious nonsense - Look at the source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's real. The US has been investing heavily in non-lethal / reduced lethality weapons for quite some time. Obviously I can't be bothered reading TFA or finding sources, but IIRC it's the intense and rapidly changing nature of the light that upsets the nervous system somehow.

    2. Re:Obvious nonsense - Look at the source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder what age groups they tested it on. You know the way old farts can't cope with the lights at raves? I wouldn't be surprised if ravers had built up a natural immunity.

    3. Re:Obvious nonsense - Look at the source by rve · · Score: 1

      The website of the manufacturer only mentions the 'Blind and disorient' part.

      I'm telling you, the whole puke-ray angle is a Fox News invention

    4. Re:Obvious nonsense - Look at the source by BalanceOfJudgement · · Score: 1

      This article is obviously bogus; it is physiologically impossible. If there were a visible wavelength that made everyone puke, everyone would already be puking all day.

      Obviously shining a very bright light into someone's eyes can blind- and disorient them. The rest of the story was obviously invented by a Fox news editor, to make the story sound a little sexier.


      Visible daylight is scattered and incoherent. Its actual spectral power is very, very low. What you get from colored LEDs is coherent, monochromatic light that is VERY powerful and VERY directional. It's the difference between hearing a jet engine from 300 miles away and standing right behind the turbine.
      --

      We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
    5. Re:Obvious nonsense - Look at the source by treeves · · Score: 1

      You are confusing LEDs with lasers. The light from LEDs is not monochromatic or spatially coherent.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  106. mirror glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess now mirror sunglasses will make a comeback. In the meantime, I wonder if its projectile vomiting. If so, i wonder what you would be charged with if you aim at the person with the flashlight.

  107. It's FOX News! by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

    You guys, that article is on Fox News, the same people who claimed that the FBI eavesdropped mobsters cell phones while they were turned off without gaining physical access to them, or that the VA Tech shooter was possessed by the devil.

    If this thing isn't snake oil, I'd be curious to know how they create the light pulses and such.

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  108. Is there in truth no beauty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just offering a little meme shift

  109. Bulemics of the wrold rejoice!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No more fingers down the throat. Can't wait to see these on sale at Bed Bath and Beyond!

  110. Thanks,I'll Take My .45 by flyneye · · Score: 1

    I don't give a damn what the developers say this toy does.
    Anything less than deadly force to deal with a severe threat is suicide.
    I'll make em a deal,High Noon,you draw your flashlight and I'll draw my .45 and we'll see which gets the job done.I may puke but it may be from seeing their brains.
    dumb,dumb,dumb.
    Even small caliber weapons aren't a good choice for assault or defense,remember even an old pope took a clip of 9mm and lived.Electronic toys have their place,classrooms and torture chambers,but seriously a stupid move if you ever needed protection.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  111. Resistance by curlynoodle · · Score: 1

    I cannot help but to think that a person could train his/herself to resist the attack from such a device, much more easily than say from a taser or pepper spray.

    Something more like this: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99472, might be more difficult to resist.

  112. The British have a similar but lethal audible one. by karlandtanya · · Score: 1
    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
  113. Bowel disruptor by Tungbo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can they be far behind ?

    Your genius is needed today more than ever, Spider.

  114. Migraine by JBHarris · · Score: 1
    My gut tells me that this light causes a near instantaneous migraine headache which in turns exhibits the usual symptoms.
    • Nausea
    • Sensitivity to light & sound
    • a strong desire to lay down and sleep
    • more at Wiki
    As a club DJ for nearly a decade I can tell you from experience that strong strobe lights can cause a near instant migraine when they hit the proper frequency of pulse. We used a box that connected into the main mixer to 'synchronize' the music with the lights...and a synth hi-hat could cause the strobe to pulse around 1-3 times a second, sometimes on funky beats it would get into a very fast/slow alternating pattern, which would nearly instantly make me feel nauseated. Add JegarMeister to the mix and you'd get a lot of people staring at the floor to keep from feeling sick.
  115. Why give it to the border patrol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'll only be trained to point it in their own eyes while the illegals stroll right on by...

    Hopefully they'll turn it against the nearest DoJ attorney and leave it on.

  116. The Epilepsy Factor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a certain small percentage of the human population, such
    a device would be able to induce bona fide epileptiform seizures,
    and the legal (not to mention the medical) ramifications of this
    fact would certainly be interesting.

    There is always a potential high cost lurking somewhere. What could
    be more innocuous than ordinary peanut butter, for example? But for
    those few individuals with a peanut allergy such a product could
    be deadly.

    A susceptible person that suffers an attack of epilepsy caused
    by one of these devices could reap a handsome settlement from
    the consequent lawsuit.

  117. "They" and "their" by mi · · Score: 1

    The problem is that they will redefine at will the meaning of "law-breaker" in order to suit their agenda...

    Whoever they are, kid, you are joining us just as soon as you grow up :-)

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  118. Plans on the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happens when you can get plans on the internet and build your own? Since it's non lethal enough for the cops to use on law abiding citizens, will it be illegal for law abiding citizens to use on each other ( or the cops )? Great fun at parties, or ball games when your side is down too far or ...

  119. Cool! A Minnie Driver/Anne Hathaway love scene. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > Sounds innocuous enough... until they they shine "the evil color" at you and you start puking!

    Really, now. Was this their first priority? Shouldn't they first have worked on the light pattern that sends women into an uncontrollable sexual frenzy?

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  120. Seizure by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

    What about those with Epilepsy? Could this be considered excessive force if they went into a seizure? I don't know, wouldn't that be a violation of the Fourth Amendment?
    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  121. Long Range and Outdoor Events...? by stoicfaux · · Score: 1

    What's the range on this thing? If it's something excessive, then we might have to move outdoor events, such as political rallies and presidential inaugurations, indoors. Given how important eye contact is, I don't think the people nor the political candidates would take to mirrored sunglasses too well.

    1. Re:Long Range and Outdoor Events...? by ItsLenny · · Score: 1

      oh to make pres. bush puke his brains out on TV from a 100 yards

      ...not that that would even come close to the embarrassment he's brought on himself sans puking

      you know what.. nevermind

      --
      ----------
      Trying to fix or change something only guarantees and perpetuates it's existence
  122. Pavlov's Illegal Immigrant by wsanders · · Score: 1

    Basically it's aversion training. Most of these guys come over time and time again, so by making them puke violently each time they cross the border, you train them to stay in their own country.

    I don't think it will work, between the tequila and "Montezuma's Revenge", a lot more Americans have probably been incapacitated in Mexico than vice versa, and it hasn't really prevented us from going down there.

    --
    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?"
  123. Would somebody please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...think of the color-blind, you insensitive clods?

  124. The poor inventors who stumbled on this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh gee, a really kewl LED flashlight with different colors!