Slashdot Mirror


Laser Pointers Classed as Weapons in Australia

An anonymous reader was the first to point to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald which says that New South Wales (of which Sydney is the capital) will prohibit the possession of certain types of laser pointers, defining them as weapons, and make it an offense to carry any laser pointer "without a lawful reason." (Similar coverage at news.com.au) Western Australia apparently beat NSW to the punch, and the federal government of Australia announced earlier this month it will treat laser pointers much like firearms, which, in Australia, is really saying something. The restrictions come as a reaction to incidents (not confined to Australia) in which the lasers were trained on planes, distracting pilots.

491 comments

  1. While we're at it.. by micksam7 · · Score: 0

    While we're at it, let's ban bright beams so drivers can't be blinded either!

    1. Re:While we're at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We must not impose our own moral standards - indeed, we must make allowances for the cultural sensitivities of other peoples, who after all, haven't had our fortunate standards of living and history of ethical struggle to shape their values.

    2. Re:While we're at it.. by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 0, Troll

      Better idea: let's implement draconian wire tap and search & seizure laws, then create a massive database of where and when our citizens are calling. Heck, while we are about it, why don't we setup free speech zones and ignore any pretense at privacy for the individual citzen. That'll show those terrorists!

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    3. Re:While we're at it.. by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Here we're not talking "blinded as I cannot see the road for 5 seconds", we are talking "blinded as my retina is gone"

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    4. Re:While we're at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oooh yes baby, piss in my mouth, talk Republican to me again!

    5. Re:While we're at it.. by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fuck that shit. America in its entirety is a free speech zone. Anyone who doesn't believe that, with no exceptions or reservations, can line up so I, and the rest of us who believe in the Constitution exactly as written, can piss in your mouth. Trying to silence the people who disagree? Sounds like a typical supporter of free speech to me.

      I'd just like to point out that this article is about Australia, don't bring America into this. Not everything is about America.
    6. Re:While we're at it.. by jandersen · · Score: 1, Insightful

      While we're at it, let's ban bright beams so drivers can't be blinded either! Most countries have clear restrictions on how bright your headlights can be, as a matter of fact. But quite apart from that, a laser pen can inflict permanent damage on a person's eyes, making them blind, which is why there is good reason to put restrictions on them. Seeing how you Americans are paranoid about terrorist getting into the country, you shouldn't have any qualms about this one - a laserpen is small enough to pose as a normal pen and can potentially cause trafic accidents, plane crashes etc.

      So even if you don't care that irresponsible idiots could intentionally or accidentally blind people - including you - you should be able to see the sense in this.
    7. Re:While we're at it.. by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      It is about America if said American debater either feels defensive of/morally superior to the other person's point of view.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    8. Re:While we're at it.. by Clay+Pigeon+-TPF-VS- · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh please, big government, save us from ourselves by outlawing more things! We don't need to be personally accountable for our own actions!

      --
      Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
    9. Re:While we're at it.. by Ross+D+Anderson · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zones
      Do some basic research before you act like a prick in future

    10. Re:While we're at it.. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I really have no idea what they want to find out about me, they know I don't like them and that I like their recent predecesors even less (mainly because I'd rather be re-Neducated than incarcerated).

      We had an "ideas summit" here on the weekend that "drew together the county's best and brightest". There was a sound bite from one of these people who looked remarkably like a 30 something bonghead, "We are here to imagine a better life for everyone.". A shudder went down my spine as the words fell out of his mouth like mollases, but then I thought...hmmm...maybe he is talking about free pot?

      In reality amoungst the bongheads and myopic activists there were some pretty smart people attending, but predictably the ideas that got the most press were not new: "clean coal", "ditching the Queen", and "a bill of rights". Pity nobody came up with the idea of replacing Mick Keelty.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    11. Re:While we're at it.. by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      Do you have a list of ideas from the 2020 Summit that the rest of is not aware of? If so, could you point me to it? Thanks.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    12. Re:While we're at it.. by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I'm driving at 110km/h down the Pacific Hwy and I lose eyesight for 5 seconds, I'm probably good as dead.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    13. Re:While we're at it.. by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      The summary doesnt make it clear but laser pointers have become a real problem.
      Many idiots think its funny to shine them at pilots and its started to occur frighteningly often.
      There have been a number of close calls when pilots have been blinded.

      They arent banning your regular laser pointers.
      Just the stupidly powerful ones which most people do not need.
      Cool for popping a balloon, not so cool when its in a pilot's face with hundreds of people's lives in the balance.

    14. Re:While we're at it.. by BlackSabbath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not about saving us from ourselves. Its specifically about saving a couple of hundred other people (mainly in flying metal cylinders) from idiots who think doing this is clever. Remember, your right to flail your arms around like a madman end where my face begins.

      I don't know the prevalence of this "point laser at pilot" behaviour, but assuming that its not ludicrously small (there sure have been a lot of incidents hit the news down here recently, any pilots reading /. ?), and also assuming that its well nigh impossible to find the little fuckers who are doing it, then banning laser pointers powerful enough (or with a beam coherent enough over long distances), is possibly a valid thing.

      Personally, I say "meh". I can't recall the last presentation where someone actually used one as anything other than a fidget-widget.

    15. Re:While we're at it.. by electrictroy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ironically, that is the tactic the Southern "slave power" used to silence Abolitionists in the 1840s-60s. They even passed a resolution in the U.S. Congress forbidding the introduction of anti-slavery laws, much to the chagrin of John Quincy Adams who insisted he has a right to free speech. Mr. Adams kept trying to introduce new laws, but the Southern Congressmen would shout him down, and accuse him of violating Congressional rules.

      What better way to maintain slavery than to silence the critics.

      The issue was ultimately resolved with a war. The Abolitionists may have lost their right to free speech, but they won the final battle. Are we repeating the same mistakes as our ancestors by forbidding people from expressing their views?

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    16. Re:While we're at it.. by electrictroy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But is it necessary to BAN the pointers? Punish 99.99% of the population, because of the misbehavior of a few? That seems out-of-bounds.

      The more logical course would be to locate the criminal with a pointer in his hand, and then shoot him dead. Punish that ONE person, not everybody.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    17. Re:While we're at it.. by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      Did you not read the parent poster? He says that it's "also assuming that its well nigh impossible to find the little fuckers who are doing it", then the "banning [of] laser pointers powerful enough (or with a beam coherent enough over long distances), is possibly a valid thing."

      It's almost impossible to find the buggers, let alone catch them in the act.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    18. Re:While we're at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Start with ALL your elected represenatives.

      Oh wait you are too much of a PUSSY to stand up for your rights. you cowardly yanks.

      you cower in your 4500 sq foot homes and hide in your Giant SUV's afraid.... hiding and afraid. and you dont have the BALLS to stand up to your own government.

      a bunch of weak pussies you are.

    19. Re:While we're at it.. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      They even passed a resolution in the U.S. Congress forbidding the introduction of anti-slavery laws, much to the chagrin of John Quincy Adams who insisted he has a right to free speech. Mr. Adams kept trying to introduce new laws, but the Southern Congressmen would shout him down, and accuse him of violating Congressional rules.

      Sounds like politics to me.

      Also sounds pointless, since the President isn't bound by Congressional Resolutions. For that matter, if the Congress had made it against the law to introduce anti-slavery laws, it'd still be meaningless, since a later law automagically supersedes an earlier law (which is why balanced budget laws are meaningless - the budget is a law also, and supersedes the balanced budget law).

      And the Southern Congressmen had every right to shout JQ Adams down. They had Free Speech too, and could use it to shout down people they disagree with, just like anyone else.\

      Adams might have been better served by vetoing any legislation that hit his desk that would do anything helpful for the South. At least until the Southern Congressmen took the hint (which might have been never - they were a stubborn lot back then).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    20. Re:While we're at it.. by rjames13 · · Score: 1

      "drew together the county's best and brightest" That line right there sums up our county's most serious educational deficiencies :)
    21. Re:While we're at it.. by rjames13 · · Score: 1

      The more logical course would be to locate the criminal with a pointer in his hand, and then shoot him dead. Punish that ONE person, not everybody.

      Very logical but highly flawed.

      Pilot: OMG someone just shot me in the eye with a laser pointer.
      Flight Tower: that's ok because from your current coordinates we can calculate the area where the evil terrorist possibly is.
      Pilot: ARRGH I'm coming in too hard.
      Flight Tower: Shit what was that big bang?

      No point in stopping the evil terrorist after he has killed people is there?

    22. Re:While we're at it.. by BigDogCH · · Score: 1

      So, because of a few drunk drivers we are getting rid of automobiles and beer? Because of a few pedophiles we are banning children? Because of a few sick first-posters we are going to ban porn? Nice.

    23. Re:While we're at it.. by rjames13 · · Score: 1

      yes as Dr Karl says.

    24. Re:While we're at it.. by Comboman · · Score: 1
      Remember, your right to flail your arms around like a madman end where my face begins.

      And the legal solution to that is not to ban people from having arms, but to make hitting someone's face illegal.

      --
      Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    25. Re:While we're at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please, big government, save us from ourselves by outlawing more things! We don't need to be personally accountable for our own actions! Small condolence that will be to you when your loved ones die from a laser attack on the plane they're flying in.

      "Oh, don't worry sir, your family's killer will be held very accountable once we find him and the obscenely powerful laser he was using."

      Not all of us would accept this.

      Why does everyone need access to extremely high-powered lasers? It seems the only use they could have to the general population is as weapons. What's the advantage to society if we do NOT ban them?
    26. Re:While we're at it.. by electrictroy · · Score: 2, Informative

      >>>"Also sounds pointless, since the President isn't bound by Congressional Resolutions."

      You know that saying about "assuming" things? Yeah, well you're guilty of it. (wink). John Quincy Adams was a Congressman at the time (not president), and therefore forbidden from introducing legislation to curb or lesson slavery. The Southern "slave power" had effectively taken control of Congress and forbidden free speech.

      >>>"They had Free Speech too, and could use it to shout down people they disagree with"

      Disagree. In a civil society, you show people the same courtesy you expect to receive. i.e. You shut your mouth and listen, just as they patiently listened to your ideas one hour earlier. To allow yourself freedom to speak, while denying others, is dishonorable.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    27. Re:While we're at it.. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I don't know that one has been released, try google news? My post was just a personal observation on how it's been reported so far.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    28. Re:While we're at it.. by electrictroy · · Score: 1

      Yes. "It is difficult to find them" is not reason to burn the Bill of Rights and start searching homes for terrorists, or wire-tapping phones to catch grafters, or outlaw alcohol to stop drunk driving.

      Hire more police, monitor the airport terminals for suspicious persons, and take them down when you see the flashing lasers toward airplanes.

      As for "why do people need powerful lasers"? Well, I use them in my model-making to quickly & easily slice wood into pieces. If I lived in Australia, I'd probably get arrested for that act.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    29. Re:While we're at it.. by electrictroy · · Score: 1

      Good point.

      And don't forget to ban those safety razors (after all, they might be used by a terrorist to puncture airplane tires & cause an accident). Let's turn Australia into a police state like 1984, where people are not allowed to own anything (for they might be misused by terrorists). Good solution. Bravo.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    30. Re:While we're at it.. by tylernt · · Score: 1

      Remember, your right to flail your arms around like a madman end where my face begins.
      So... ban the shining of laser pointers at planes, not laser pointers themselves.
      --
      DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
    31. Re:While we're at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm an American idiot, you insensitive clod!

    32. Re:While we're at it.. by dougmc · · Score: 1

      No point in stopping the evil terrorist after he has killed people is there?
      Well, there's a few points ...
      • If you fail to stop him now, he may kill again, and
      • Being stopped may help deter people who would do the same thing.
      • The fear of being stopped (punished, killed) may prevent him from doing it in the first place.
      Granted, I think that banning laser pointers is downright stupid, but there certainly is value in finding and punishing criminals (I realize that you said terrorists, but terrorists are generally criminals as well, and I'd rather not limit this to terrorists.)


      I guess the ideal justice system would use magic to stop people before they committed their crimes, but since we don't have precognition that works quite that well (and even if we did, that would be a serious minefield of issues) we'll have to stick with our reactive (instead of proactive) justice system.

    33. Re:While we're at it.. by rjames13 · · Score: 1

      Sorry but can I have the other solution that would actually work?

    34. Re:While we're at it.. by BigDogCH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe take some of the useless "luggage screeners" and send them out to grab the laser felons.

      We sealed the cockpit doors, so now they come through the windows.

      Maybe we should put bigger lasers on the planes, and fire back. It shouldn't be hard to hit the person....they are giving us a beacon.

    35. Re:While we're at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it makes you feel better, Green Day wrote a song about you.

    36. Re:While we're at it.. by Hojima · · Score: 2, Insightful

      according to their mindset, that is actually a perfects solution. What they don't get is that making something illegal will not stop the problem. It hasn't worked for drugs, guns, prostitution, and it will certainly not stop any terrorist from obtaining a laser pointer. It will just make it hard to get. There is however a solution that's so simple, they might pee their pants because how ignorant they were. Make the pilots navigate based on the video feed of a camera rather than their windows. That way, they wont only be (nearly) impervious to blinding, but they will also have the advantage of the superior sight that the camera can give.

    37. Re:While we're at it.. by Clockwork+Apple · · Score: 1

      Tell ya what, why don't you come over here and stand up to our government. Show us how it's done. But have a look at the Waco Texas stand off from the 90s first.

      Your government doesn't seem to have the balls to stand up to our government either by the way.

      --
      "Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."
    38. Re:While we're at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent is clearly Bandit Keith. ... in America!

    39. Re:While we're at it.. by Clockwork+Apple · · Score: 1

      "Because of a few pedophiles we are banning children?"

      Actually a better analogy there would probably be banning genetalia, to fight pedophiles.

      --
      "Doctor, it's not the voices I hear in MY head, but the voices I hear in YOUR head that really frighten me."
    40. Re:While we're at it.. by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      I can't say for certain that the parent was just being insightful not ignorant, but free speech zones are a travesty and anyone who cares about their rights ignores them completely. This country is my free speech zone and I refuse to acknowledge limitations placed on that to keep unpopular politicians from having to deal with the commoners.

    41. Re:While we're at it.. by Ross+D+Anderson · · Score: 1

      Oh I didn't mean to come across ignorant, I disagree with them completely too. Luckily for me I live in the UK and the majority of protests in recent years have been let be as long as they remain peaceful. (Note I didn't say *all*)

    42. Re:While we're at it.. by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      A laser pen won't cause permanent damage to anyone's eyes. That's all tied to the energy level of the laser. A typical laser pen doesn't put out much energy -- certainly not enough to harm your eyes. At all. That warning? Superfluous. SOME lasers can blind you, but not the one you spent 5-10 bucks for that takes a single teeny tiny little battery. That thing couldn't melt an ice cube if it tried.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    43. Re:While we're at it.. by Skynyrd · · Score: 1

      It's not about saving us from ourselves. Its specifically about saving a couple of hundred other people (mainly in flying metal cylinders) from idiots who think doing this is clever. Remember, your right to flail your arms around like a madman end where my face begins.

      It's against the law to point a laser into a pilots eyes/window of a plane. What they are doing is against the law already. How is adding another law going to change anything?

    44. Re:While we're at it.. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      >>>"Also sounds pointless, since the President isn't bound by Congressional Resolutions."

      You know that saying about "assuming" things? Yeah, well you're guilty of it. (wink). John Quincy Adams was a Congressman at the time (not president), and therefore forbidden from introducing legislation to curb or lesson slavery. The Southern "slave power" had effectively taken control of Congress and forbidden free speech.

      You nailed me good! Yah, I'd assumed that JQ's Presidency was the time period in question, since noone ever talks about his time in Congress. My bad.

      >>>"They had Free Speech too, and could use it to shout down people they disagree with"

      Disagree. In a civil society, you show people the same courtesy you expect to receive. i.e. You shut your mouth and listen, just as they patiently listened to your ideas one hour earlier. To allow yourself freedom to speak, while denying others, is dishonorable.

      Two things:

      1) This is Congress you're talking about, NOT "a civil society". A Congressman beat another one to death with his walking stick on the Floor. Another was killed by a (are you ready for this?) thrown chair, when one of his congressional rivals got carried away.

      2) I've never actually heard anyone suggest that "honourable" and "Congressman" belong in the same sentence. With the exception, of course, of Congressmen. Who seem to think that we actually believe their excuses for behaving like slime-lizards....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    45. Re:While we're at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That about sums this up. Address a symptom and not the real issue (whatever the real issue is...).

    46. Re:While we're at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll say. I was FURIOUS when the coverage kept cutting to actor after actor - what a sorry state our country is in that our "best and brightest" are a bunch of celebrities. Either that, or smart people are so highly disliked that the media won't dare show them at an event that was essentially a collection of all our smart people.

    47. Re:While we're at it.. by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Let's turn Australia into a police state like 1984 How about just into a prison? That should have much the same effect, yes?
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    48. Re:While we're at it.. by NewsWatcher · · Score: 1

      They are not actually banned if you have a lawful reason for having one. So if a university lecturer needed one to point to a diagram during a lecture, he/she would still be able to. If you are a raver wanting to flash one around at a party, that could arguably be a lawful reason for having one too.

      What this law really means, as far as I can ascertain, is that it is illegal to use a laser pointer for nefarious purposes, like shining into pilots' eyes to annoy them, possibly endangering those on board.

      As an Australian I would like to say this sounds pretty reasonable. We don't have a bill of rights, and if we did I doubt the right to put a planeload of people in danger would be in there.

      --
      If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
    49. Re:While we're at it.. by stor · · Score: 1

      As for "why do people need powerful lasers"? Well, I use them in my model-making to quickly & easily slice wood into pieces. If I lived in Australia, I'd probably get arrested for that act.

      I can't say for sure but you probably wouldn't. I'm an Australian and I wouldn't expect to get arrested for using a powerful laser in my own home (if I *had* a powerful laser that is).

      The gun laws in Australia seem to have the spirit of "If you can justify using it (e.g. you own a farm, enjoy game shooting and/or are part of a gun club) and are willing to do the paperwork etc. then you can have one (just not an automatic kthxbai)"

      It rarely pleases me to hear of further restrictions/control on what we can possess but when there's an opportunity for some drunk moron (of which we have plenty here in Oz) to put a bunch of people in danger we tend to be cautious.

      -Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    50. Re:While we're at it.. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Considering you can do far more damage with mirrors and sunlight they you can with any publicly available laser pointers. This just looks likes public showboating, politicians trying to show they are doing something for their salaries and perks. By the way, exactly how many accidents have been caused by errant laser pointers, thousands, hundreds, 'er' one ?

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    51. Re:While we're at it.. by Technician · · Score: 1

      I can't recall the last presentation where someone actually used one as anything other than a fidget-widget.


      Get out of the classroom more often and hang with some engineers. Pointing out the corrosion on a sprinkler head, AC water drip source, cable chafing in the over head tray, etc are everyday uses for me. It's easier to point with a pocket pointer than carry a 12 foot pointer. Other uses include measuring cable tray sag and checking the slope on the drain lines on the AC units. There is a reason one leaks all the time, and it can be fixed, but you need to document it first.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    52. Re:While we're at it.. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should get your events into the proper order so you can keep the in perspective.

      The free speech zones where put up by democrats well before the terrorist threat became what they are played as today. The draconian wire tap laws have the premise that you are talking to a known or suspected terrorist or someone giving aid to one and at least one party of the call it to outside the country so that leave 99% of everyone out of the mix. The rest of what your saying is more or less ramblings based off misinterpretations of other events so unless your thinking of starting them in another country, I would say your off a little there.

      And if you are saying lets start doing it in another country, you should mirror the premise in America just so only the uninformed wackos who think they got some inside scoop into nothing will object and not the really informed people.

    53. Re:While we're at it.. by jandersen · · Score: 1

      So, you wouldn't mind turning one towards your eye and giving yourself a blast, right?

      Your comment about melting ice-cubes is of course nonsense. The energy required for the phase-change from ice to water is quite surprisingly high, as you ought to know - I'm sure they teach that in school even nowadays. And the damage to the eyes is not because of the heat energy deposited, but because the nerve cells in your retina can't take the overload; same as with looking at the sun - the sun's light doesn't burn or overheat the nerve cells, but they make you blind none the less.

    54. Re:While we're at it.. by superlee · · Score: 1

      I agree. Satan knows why there is such stuff as 5mw Federal restriction on lasers exists in our country. Privately-owned guns allowed here, why over-5mw lasers prohibited on sale. China, such a non-liberal and old-fashioned country, even allow over 500mw lasers passing in and out! Of course, this regulation is fake. You can see hundreds of people toying with 150mw or 200mw laser pointers in the street.They just play it for fun. Who cares?! Forgive me for my bushtit. Because I have a bad experience from 5mw Federal restriction, though it may never happen to you in your lifetime. I bought a 150mw laser pointer from highlasers.com during the 3-15 period, and it was unfortunately held by our honored government. It freaked me out. It tortured me 3 days. I had even thought of killing myself for the money loss. So i asked highlasers.com for help. They are just great. They contacted the UPS at once and asked them to open a import license for me. you know, I was thus bailed out. I 'm carrying this over-5mw federal restriction laser every day, and never in trouble. By the way, this laser from highlasers.com is such a good tool, and i use it for cutting tapes and even lighting matches. I believe you will never be troubled by using it in a legal way, no matter what you're holding is 400mw green laser or other powerful ones.

    55. Re:While we're at it.. by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      Looks like you are upset that I might be prejudging an entire nation on the actions of it's government. Or perhaps you are just annoyed that I'm viewing your culture through the lens of my own?

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    56. Re:While we're at it.. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I don't mind you having the view, just get it in the proper order. All too often I see people who are educated to the point that they think G.W. Bush started the free speech zones and the democrats will fix it when it was the democrats who actually started them. I see people who think the so called domestic spying is done on everyone in order to find out aunt betty's cookie recipe when the fact is that you have to be part of a relatively specific subset of people doing specific actions to even fly on their radar let alone be listened in one without a warrant.

      These educated people go ape shit when I bring up simple things like the democrats started the free speech zones in 1988 and so on. Your rant made me assume that you where one of these educated people who are more or less brainwashed into ignorance for someone else's ulterior goals. My point was really to find out if you were outraged at the right people or if you were another clueless bat pimping the lines spouted by their controllers. If that is your idea of prejudging or viewing through your own lens, then you are blindly becoming a fool that is more or less a tool of the very machines your disliking.

    57. Re:While we're at it.. by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Punish 99.99% of the population, because of the misbehavior of a few?
      I'm pretty sure that 99.99% of the population don't own, and have no use for, laser pointers. That fad died in the late 90s I think. The only use for them nowadays is to distract drivers and blind cats.

      So we have a device with little to no legitimate uses, and is used almost exclusively to commit crimes. Sounds like a good candidate for banning.
    58. Re:While we're at it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the problem is the difficulty of locating and identifying said individuals pointing lasers at aircraft before they leave the area.

      Maybe these http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/paveway/ could be adapted to seek to the source of the laser light rather than the sparkle. Dropping a few of these on the offenders would provide a quick response which would undoubtedly deter others and I'm sure give affected pilots a warm fuzzy feeling.

    59. Re:While we're at it.. by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I don't really care if it was the Democrats or the Republicans who brought it domestic spying, warrantless wiretaps or even something like extraordinary rendition. However, this does rather leave viewing things in the "proper order" a bit of a moot point. I have a more nuanced view than you might realise, and I'm not actually all that ill informed about American politics. For instance, I think I might well be in that small minority of people who have actually read the entirety of the USA PATRIOT Act and have a reasonable grasp of what it does.

      I notice that you try to address the issues I noted. With regards to the free speech zones: again I say - who cares what political party brought them in! They are pretty obviously unconstitutional. As others have pointed out - the whole damn United States is a free speech zone! I'm sure there are better ways of protecting your President than silencing criticism. You believe that wiretaps laws are reasonable. That's fine, but in my opinion aspects of the provisions of Title II of the Patriot Act are fairly draconian. I don't think it's right to the FBI to access voicemail through a title III wiretap order as I tend to agree with James Dempsey & co. of EPIC that it violates the 4th Amendment's expectation that authorities can give probable cause before the search and seizure of a citizens property. There are other problems, which I don't really have the time or inclination to address as a response to your comment. You can look them up if you like, I documented many of the controversies in the Wikipedia USA PATRIOT Act article.

      You haven't addressed my other points, instead you wave them off to be rambling. OK, but I fear my observations stand. I do think that you are missing the bigger points, which was that I was sarcastically responding to this comment, which I acknowledge was in itself made by a shit-stirring AC.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    60. Re:While we're at it.. by electrictroy · · Score: 1

      You joke, but some idiots have seriously proposed castrating pedophiles.

      Personally, I don't see what the big deal is. If she has breasts and the ability to produce babies, she's not a child anymore, is she? (runs away from the Chris Hansen fan club).

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    61. Re:While we're at it.. by msim · · Score: 1

      to use the /. "easy steps" method:
      1) be a pilot
      2) get the shits about being blinded by idiots messing around with lasers.
      3) report it to the media
      4) wait for them to whip up a frenzy and goad the government until they have to be seen to do *something*
      5) profit!

      In all seriousness this is of a deterrent value, and one that i do not like whatsoever. I may or may not have a laser, and if i did, there is no f*#&#ing way i would ever point it at a plane. I'm just not stupid or sadistic enough to try it out.

      --

      Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
    62. Re:While we're at it.. by msim · · Score: 1

      Thats assuming you can find a 110km/h zone. 110 zones are like hens teeth on that stretch of bitumen. If your not in a 110 zone when doing 110, you've got bigger problems, like say your head exploding for going 3km/h over the limit.... Oh wait, this isn't Victoria, so it's a lesser evil, barely...

      --

      Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
    63. Re:While we're at it.. by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I don't really care if it was the Democrats or the Republicans who brought it domestic spying, warrantless wiretaps or even something like extraordinary rendition. However, this does rather leave viewing things in the "proper order" a bit of a moot point. I have a more nuanced view than you might realise, and I'm not actually all that ill informed about American politics. For instance, I think I might well be in that small minority of people who have actually read the entirety of the USA PATRIOT Act and have a reasonable grasp of what it does.

      It isn't as much of who as much as it is when and by who. And I don't remember the government endorsing the rendition programs. From my recollection, they were pretty pissed about it. It is just that one side wasn't going to throw the people who thought they were saving lives(and they might have been) out with the bath water in a mad attempt to get voted and play politics with the nations security.

      Also, reading the patriot act doesn't necessarily mean that you understand it. As I can see, you got some stuff wrong about the Free Speech in your next paragraph which leads me to believe that you got some stuff wrong when reading the patriot act.

      I notice that you try to address the issues I noted. With regards to the free speech zones: again I say - who cares what political party brought them in! They are pretty obviously unconstitutional. As others have pointed out - the whole damn United States is a free speech zone! I'm sure there are better ways of protecting your President than silencing criticism.

      Your rights don't give you the right to impose on my rights. And yes, the constitution says that specifically. You are guaranteed free speech not a platform to launch your speech. You are guaranteed the ability to peaceably assemble to redress your grievances which stops being peaceful when you rob me of my time or money or ability to have the same free speech or break a law in your attempts to be heard. The courts already said so way back when Clinton was in office and pulled first free speech zone stunts.

      . You believe that wiretaps laws are reasonable. That's fine, but in my opinion aspects of the provisions of Title II of the Patriot Act are fairly draconian. I don't think it's right to the FBI to access voicemail through a title III wiretap order as I tend to agree with James Dempsey & co. of EPIC that it violates the 4th Amendment's expectation that authorities can give probable cause before the search and seizure of a citizens property

      Have you read the forth amendment? Is says your protected against unreasonable search and seizures. The laws and courts define what is and isn't reasonable. In this particular situation, they have said it is reasonable for the government to act a certain way with regard to certain people exhibiting certain behaviors and actions. If this was a uniform blanket no body is safe, I would agree. But we both know it isn't and we both know the limits apply the same as any tittle 3 tap.

      There are other problems, which I don't really have the time or inclination to address as a response to your comment. You can look them up if you like, I documented many of the controversies in the Wikipedia USA PATRIOT Act article.

      I'm not to impressed with Wikipedia's coverage of the patriot act. It spouts opinions as facts and gives a slanted interpretation in the process. I'm not going to bother looking up which parts you are directly responsible for because it just isn't worth the time. I'm sure that there are some issues. Most of them, especially after looking at Wiki's rendition, are based out of ignorance and the inability to put two and two together. I find this fixated in news articles as well as sites like wikipedia but mostly on Internet forums.

      It gets old after a while. I ran into a friend I haven't seen in a couple of years. He annoyed the hell

    64. Re:While we're at it.. by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

      How exactly are they aiming this at pilots? It sounds like someone using something fairly sophisticated to have that accurate of an attack, unless they are right next to an airport or something. I mean, first, the pilots have a very minimal frontal view of the ground when they are way up in the air at cruising speeds, yes? Second, is it more a problem in Australia b/c there are less clouds (as in the problem people wouldn't be able to shoot it at jets hidden in clouds for various reasons). But if people are really doing this, I'd like them stopped in their tracks. Idea. Maybe they could equip laser guided missles to find the jerkies shooting the laser up. ;)

  2. Lawful reason by H0D_G · · Score: 1

    This is a little excessive, and I challenge the govenrment in NSW to define a lawful reason. this law seeks to punish everyone for the actions of a few idiots. personally, popping balloons with the things is a lawful reason to carry :)

    --
    Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home!
    1. Re:Lawful reason by scum-e-bag · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is a little excessive, and I challenge the govenrment in NSW to define a lawful reason. I can think of a logical reason (if you can call it logical).

      This whole exercise is not much more than a political diversion. Sydney has some major water/traffic/infrastructure/social/political problems. Rather than deal with them and have everyone talking about how bad the public transport is to the outer suburbs (for example), get everyone talking about laser pointers!!! The lower classes lap it up. It's exactly the same tactic as the Tasmanian governments tactic to push for a state bogan-ball team in the national competition, while avoiding the more pressing issue of two deputy leaders being sacked for corruption within a very short space of time.

      It's got very little to do with safety and much more to do with politics and power.
      --
      Does it go on forever?
    2. Re:Lawful reason by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Informative
      I really hate idiots who play with laser pointers. The ones being banned in Australia are Class III and Class IV ones which can easily blind someone.

      personally, popping balloons with the things is a lawful reason to carry :) It seems like if it can pop balloons, it's not the sort of thing you want drunken kids playing with. My right not to be blinded trumps your right to burst balloons when drunk.

      Here's what a 5mW laser looks like to a pilot.

      http://www.pangolin.com/faa/laser-aircraft-animation-and-explanation.htm
      --
      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;
    3. Re:Lawful reason by Spasemunki · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If we're going to ban everything that isn't safe for use by drunken children, we're not going to be left with much that's legal.

    4. Re:Lawful reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My right not to be blinded trumps your right to burst balloons when drunk.

      No it doesn't. Your right to not be blinded can only trump someone's right to point a fucking laser pointer at your eyes.

      What you are saying is equivalent to "nobody should be allowed to carry a knife because they *might* stab me with it". Pure idiocy.

    5. Re:Lawful reason by Eth1csGrad1ent · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I really hate idiots who play with laser pointers.

      I'm with you. I'm an Aussie and I'm fine with the law.

      Recent personal experience: I was the first to pull up to a stop light on a 4-lane road, with my wife beside me and my two year old daughter in the back seat. As I put my foot on the brake approaching the intersection I suddenly suffered a complete loss of vision (As IN - WHAT THE F..K??? I CANT SEE. MY EYES? WTF IS WRONG WITH MY EYES!?!?). In the confusion I somehow managed to come to my senses enough to lock the brakes before going through the intersection.

      As my eyesight returned and I sat there trying to work out what just happened, I turned to see a 15-16 year old sitting in a car beside me with his mates, laughing their arses off.

      I nearly wiped out my whole family - and they thought it was the funniest thing in the world.

      The problem was - at the time I had NO IDEA what was happening to me - I didnt know it was a laser pointer until afterwards. At a critical moment I blinked and my eyes didnt work - it FREAKED me out, and this wasnt even one of the lasers that they're banning.

      BTW - Yes I got out of the car..and YES, I still have the laser pointer the kid used.

    6. Re:Lawful reason by loraksus · · Score: 1

      The majority of - and I mean virtually all, except the perhaps the ones sold at the dollar store (end even then) - laser pointers fall into class 3a - for these lasers "eye protection is afforded by the "blink aversion response" to class 3a lasers, except when the laser is viewed using optical aids (telescopes, binoculars)" (http://www.bccdc.org/content.php?item=54)

      Clearly, some people - people who actually have, you know, some actual knowledge of the subject - contradict your statement that these lasers can "easily blind someone."

      And your link is... remarkably shitty and dishonest.
      It claims that "A typical flash from a hand-held laser at 1000 feet lasts about 1/50 of a second" and then, for their sample pics, use a camera at f/2.8 and 1/6th of a second long - and then tie it to a slowed down .gif
      FAIL.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    7. Re:Lawful reason by kestasjk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's right! First they'll take laser pointers from stupid vandals, then they'll take away our right to free speech, then they'll enslave us and treat us like beasts of burden!

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    8. Re:Lawful reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thanks for the commentary Mr. Armchair Aviation Security Expert.
      I am an Australia Flight Instructor rated for night flying. The fuckwits target us at least once a week around Melbourne especially on approach (Usually Essendon and Moorabbin too).
      How the fuck am I suppose to fucking land when I have some asshole trying blind me? As another pilot here said (Is that you Rob?) "If I'm flying VFR and I can't fucking see then I am going I'm going to have an accident".
      And what possible political purpose in your dimwit mind of yours could there be to ban high powered laser pointers? A distraction for more serious issues? Are you saying that the possibility of an aircraft crashing into built areas is not serious?

    9. Re:Lawful reason by MrNaz · · Score: 5, Funny

      Will my tank full of sharks count as a "lawful reason"?

      --
      I hate printers.
    10. Re:Lawful reason by loraksus · · Score: 1

      And to continue on this for a bit...
      150 knots (more or less average approach speed for larger aircraft) translates to about 250 feet per second.
      On the 4th pic, they "show" you what a 1/6th of a second exposure would look like at 350 feet.

      I'm not going to do the math, but I'd wager money that;

      1. It it possible for a human to physically move the pointer fast enough to follow the cockpit as it passes overhead at that speed (you're talking about a fairly significant arc)
      2. It is possible for someone on the ground to even "see" the pilot's eyes during that time for 1/6th of a second - given the design of the cockpits, elevation of the aircraft, etc.
      3. It is possible to track an eyeball sized target for that time.

      And even then, due to the lack of dispersion of the beam, it would only affect one eye of a single pilot.

      I also hate idiots who screw around with laser pointers as much as anyone else and think people who try to pull this kind of shit need to get the shit beaten out of them, but I hate bad pseudo-science a bit more.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    11. Re:Lawful reason by Pc_Madness · · Score: 1

      Err.. isn't carrying knives illegal?

    12. Re:Lawful reason by BazilBBrush · · Score: 3, Insightful
      This whole exercise is not much more than a political diversion. Sydney has some major water/traffic/infrastructure/social/political problems. Rather than deal with them and have everyone talking about how bad the public transport is...

      Crapola to you and the previous post.

      Have you seen the view out of a cockpit when a laser pointer is trained on it? A. There is none...

      Pilots don't like losing their view by these things. They do have a bit of responsibility to land the big paraffin budgie with all on board safe and well.

      What happened was that the pilots raised attention to the issue after a few too many incidents, the media played it up, and now every little twit with access to one is tracking planes.

      In this case the govt is left with no choice and has to act - or would you rather see a bit of carnage???

    13. Re:Lawful reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I propose drunks, lawyers and politicians are required to wear this.

      It'll keep us safe from their stupidity.

    14. Re:Lawful reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in any of the places I have lived. In many countries it is perfectly legal to carry a concealed pocket knife of various blade length restrictions depending on the local laws (larger blades need to be carried exposed). In some places it's even legal to carry switchblades.

      For the past 15 years I have regularly carried my trusty, serrated lockblade knife. It's been all around the world with me and never once has it caused a problem with any of the local authorities who have seen it.

    15. Re:Lawful reason by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 3, Informative
      Flamebait? which genius modded that comment to this? I can definitely imagine that a pilot might say this, given that the United States Congressional Research Service found that:

      These higher powered laser devices can incapacitate pilots and inflict eye injuries when viewed at closer ranges. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) documented two such cases in which pilots sustained eye injuries and were incapacitated
      during critical phases of flight. In one of these events, the pilot experienced a burning sensation and tearing. A subsequent eye examination revealed "multiple flash burns" in the pilot's cornea. In a few other documented incidents, pilots provided safety reports indicating that injuries were sustained from exposure to laser lights. In one case, a copilot received burns on the outer coating of the eye and broken blood vessels.6 In another incident, a pilot was struck several times by a laser beam and was diagnosed as having a "burned retina." In about a dozen other cases, pilots reported short term visual impairment that did not require further medical attention.

      FAA researchers have compiled a database of more than 400 incidents since 1990 in which pilots have been startled, distracted, temporarily blinded, or disoriented by laser exposure. To date no aviation accidents have been attributed to laser lights, although there have been crashes caused by similarly debilitating glare and flashblinding from natural sunlight. Flight simulator studies conducted by the FAA found that exposure to bright lasers can result in unacceptable levels of visual and operational problems, but concluded that enforcing already established limits to protect pilots from laser exposure when operating near airports provides an adequate margin of safety.


      Flamebait? Sounds like he's being positively reasonable to me!
      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    16. Re:Lawful reason by Pc_Madness · · Score: 1

      Well, I believe carrying a concealed weapon is illegal in Australia... Victoria atleast. I spose its a law that differs per state. Why wouldn't it be illegal? Theres no good reason to be carrying a knife.

    17. Re:Lawful reason by gweihir · · Score: 1

      If we're going to ban everything that isn't safe for use by drunken children, we're not going to be left with much that's legal.

      Sad, but rue. What about saws? I hear they can be used to cut rails. Or cars? You can drive them through a crowded mall after all. Or matches, since you can light up buildings (committing mass murder) with them.

      The sensible approach is to try to get these idiots pointing these things at airplanes and to hit them hard. Anubody whio has ever used a class 2 pointer with a bright beamer knows that they do not cut it. Class 3a is fine, when green.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    18. Re:Lawful reason by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      Withot knowing where you've lived, it's hard not to call "bullshit" on this statement.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    19. Re:Lawful reason by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      Awesome... I would have thrashed the kid. Or called the cops.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    20. Re:Lawful reason by gweihir · · Score: 1

      The problem here is the kids, not the laser pointer.

      Recently a young mother was kuilled in germany because somebody threw a large block of wood form a bridge. Ban wooden blocks or bridges as response? No. But try to get the people that did this as the (potential) murderers that they are.

      Laser pointers are not toys and they do not belong into the hands of the under-age. Now that limitation I could well understand.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    21. Re:Lawful reason by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      I'm a bit unsure where you're going with this. Firstly, I thought that you didn't like the new law. Then you said that they should catch those shining the laser into the pilot's eyes. But what are they going to "hit them hard" with? Isn't that the point of the legislation?

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    22. Re:Lawful reason by Lyrael · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for anywhere else, but it's illegal in England.

    23. Re:Lawful reason by gweihir · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between owning a potentially dangerous object and using such an object as a weapon.

      In Europe, shining a laser at an airplane is a criminal offense, just because endangering airplanes is a crimninal offense. Similarly, owning a large kitchen knife is perfectly legal. Trying to stab someone is not at all. It is intent that makes all the difference.

      So, yes, I think this law is completely stupid. A law against intentionally endangering the lifes of others (with a side note by the courts that shining a laser at an airpolane certainly is an instance of this) is not.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    24. Re:Lawful reason by Technician · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I really hate idiots who play with laser pointers. The ones being banned in Australia are Class III and Class IV ones which can easily blind someone.

      I just checked my stock of laser pointers. I don't have any of the super power stuff, just common red classroom pointers. They are all class IIIa devices. Can you even buy a class II pointer? The only class II laser I could find nearby is a bar code scanner. I could see a ban on class 4 lasers and maybe IIIb, but banning IIIa, would eliminate almost all laser pointers. Check your stock.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    25. Re:Lawful reason by Hal_Porter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "They" won't "ban" everything that is misused by drunken children. What they will do to some extent is license things where the risk of people carrying them outweighs the benefit.

      Ultra high power laser pointers are a special category - they can blind someone permanently from a distance but there is no legitimate reason to carry one in your pocket. Thus carrying them without a license should be illegal and people that break the law should be punished. The rationale for that is the otherwise kids will shine them in people's eyes either deliberately or accidentally (maybe they were aiming at balloons) permanently blind them.

      From what I've read, there are people that need these things for their jobs, and they will get a license to have one and training on how to use it.

      In the UK there is similar legislation recommended
      http://www.liv.ac.uk/radiation/pdf/laserpointers.pdf
      The HPA considers the professional use of a Class 1 or Class 2 laser pointer as a training aid in the workplace to be justified, and regards these Classes of laser product as being generally adequate for such use. The use of Class 3R laser pointers up to 5 mW may be justified for some applications in the workplace where the user has received adequate training.

      The HPA advises that the sale of laser products to the general public for use as laser pointers should be restricted to Class 1 or Class 2 devices which should be classified in accordance with the requirements of the current British Standard and should be sold with sufficient accompanying information to enable the user to operate the product in a safe manner. Toys should be Class 1 or of such low output that they do not need to be classified.

      After seeking advice from NRPB (now the Radiation Protection Division of the HPA) the Department of Trade and Industry urged Trading Standards Authorities to use their existing powers under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 5 to remove laser pointers of a Class higher than Class 2 (as defined in the British Standard) from the general market. Such devices are too powerful for general use as laser pointers and present an unacceptable risk in the hands of the consumer because they may cause eye injury in normal reasonably foreseeable use.


      Now lots of other things are potentially lethal but are mostly used legitimately. Cars for example. And at least in America guns are protected by the Second Amendment.

      High power laser pointers seem to be popular with idiots who use them for tricks in an unsafe way - other posters have talked about kids zapping drivers at stop lights and TFA talks about people shining them at pilots in planes. I once went to a computer user group meeting at a pub where someone had a HeNe laser and was shining out at people on the street. Later on he actually said it would cause blindness if you looked into it. Unbelievable.

      I think for that reason they should be controlled by a license. If you need one for your job, apply for a license. If not, expect a prison term if you carry one around in most countries.

      --
      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;
    26. Re:Lawful reason by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's where you and I differ. If the device is dangerous and not really useful for no other reason than to cause mischief or a crime, it should be illegal. Why would you need to carry around a class IV laser again?

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    27. Re:Lawful reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's been a lot of stories in the news lately about pilots being blinded by lasers when coming in for landing - that's where this knee-jerk law came from.

    28. Re:Lawful reason by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      That's right! First they'll take laser pointers from stupid vandals, then they'll take away our right to free speech, then they'll enslave us and treat us like beasts of burden! That's excellent. I'm going to use that in future.
      --
      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;
    29. Re:Lawful reason by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of good reasons to be carrying a knife, it is a useful tool. But then, around here almost literally everyone has a pocketknife, so it may just be a l.

    30. Re:Lawful reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you just made a pseudo-scientific rebuttal.

    31. Re:Lawful reason by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      Have to agree, i think they've been illegal in the UK for some time, and we dont have to put up with that crap any more!

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    32. Re:Lawful reason by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      Right so you end up in jail,
      or the give the cops a description of some kids for an offence like that and they....oh right, they have serious crime to deal with, like children getting attacked by grown men.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    33. Re:Lawful reason by kklein · · Score: 1

      Good on ya.

    34. Re:Lawful reason by dintech · · Score: 1

      That's like saying it should be legal to carry around as much morphine or heroin as you like. It's got practical uses in medicine after all. How about explosives? Useful in mining, right?

      The law is there to prevent idiots in Phase I - carrying it around, moving deliberately or accidentally to Phase II - actually using it. The same applies (in the UK) to drugs, alcohol (if you're under age), guns, explosives, knifes and other dangerous weapons. Laser pointers should be in there too.

      I understand the point you are trying to make about potentially dangerous objects but in my view there just aren't enough legitimate uses for laser pointers of this kind to allow the negative points to be overlooked.

    35. Re:Lawful reason by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I'm a goddamn American, so they can have my laser pointer when they wrest it from my cold, dead fingers.

      If they criminalize laser pointers, then only criminals will have laser pointers.

      Laser pointers don't point, people point.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    36. Re:Lawful reason by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      True. I probably would have done neither.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    37. Re:Lawful reason by Hal_Porter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My right not to be blinded trumps your right to burst balloons when drunk.

      No it doesn't. Your right to not be blinded can only trump someone's right to point a fucking laser pointer at your eyes.

      What you are saying is equivalent to "nobody should be allowed to carry a knife because they *might* stab me with it". Pure idiocy. If we all lived in a nice libertarian utopia full of moderately intelligent people that would work well. They could be trusted to carry a weapon but not use it unless they were under mortal danger since they wouldn't want to harm anyone or go to prison. But we don't. In Australia and the UK there are packs of chavs that dazzle drivers with lasers as they pull up to stop signs to amuse their friends. Sometimes those drivers get out of the car. Then if they're lucky they beat the shit out of the chavs, and if they're unlucky the chavs beat the shit out of them. Basically the chavs want to pick a fight with people to kill time.

      When you're dealing with people like that, it's unfortunately necessary to take away people's right to carry lasers that could actually cause eye damage. And come to think of it, pretty much any weapon. The problem is that the chav scum basically have nothing to do other than pick fights with random passers by. They have absolutely no ability to see that in the long run this will land them in prison. If you let them have low power lasers they will dazzle people to try to start some drama. If you give them high power lasers they will blind someone and if you let them have knives or guns they will kill someone. In both cases they will be very surprised that they get sent to prison for life for doing this since they are too stupid to see the inevitable progression from picking fights with strangers to killing or maiming someone to serious jail time. This makes them very unlike the moderately intelligent citizens of a hypothetical libertarian utopia and that is why libertarian rules are not applied to them.

      In the UK if you want to carry a knife, expect the police to ask for a good reason if they search you and find it. Which if you're a chav they will do if you hang around causing trouble. If you don't provide one, you'll get done for carrying an offensive weapon. So carrying kitchen knives is out unless you're a chef on your way to work for example. Actually, if you're chav vermin, then expect to get done for carrying anything at all that could possibly harm someone, regardless of whether you're a chef or not.
      --
      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;
    38. Re:Lawful reason by Kartoffel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, since it's acceptable for you to ban laser pointers on behalf of the 0.001% of users who use them inappropriately, let's also ban airplanes. Here in the US, we've had a problem with a very small portion of airplanes crashing into large buildings.

      You're probably the type of driver who stares directly into oncoming headlamps at night, then bitches that it's hard to see the road. Don't stare. It's a miracle you haven't blinded yourself looking at the sun already.

    39. Re:Lawful reason by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Maybe they have a pack of say 10 kids all shining their laser pointers up the descent path of the aircraft. That way you just need to hold it steady, not track an arc.

      --
      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;
    40. Re:Lawful reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, since it's acceptable for you to ban laser pointers on behalf of the 0.001% of users who use them inappropriately, let's also ban airplanes. Here in the US, we've had a problem with a very small portion of airplanes crashing into large buildings. At least aircraft have a legitimate purpose. The ban is for certain classes of high powered lasers without lawful excuse, that no ordinary person needs anyway only industry and commercial interests. Tell me one legitimate and lawful purpose that an ordinary person needs these types of high powered lasers?
    41. Re:Lawful reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a 13 year old wonder executive and I need my laser pointer for executive presentations, you insensitive clod!

    42. Re:Lawful reason by Technician · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How the explitive deleted am I suppose to explicitive deleted land when I have some asshole trying blind me?

      Most issues is with green pointers. Have you considered picking up a pair of laser safety goggles for green lasers? Many narrow band goggles will almost completely block the wavelength so you don't even see it. Demo here;

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gagEdCVgRhY

      They work well.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    43. Re:Lawful reason by hedleyroos · · Score: 1

      Your analogy is flawed.

      I can go and buy a laser pointer right now and start blinding people. I cannot go and buy a plane and crash into a building easily.

    44. Re:Lawful reason by Muad'Dave · · Score: 3, Interesting
      As an Amateur Radio operator, I use (admittedly low power) laser pointers as point-to-point communications links. I am mindful of the exposure limits, and pre-spread the beam if necessary to comply. By using higher power, I could increase not only the distance over which the link were useful, but also the data rate for existing links.


      Is that legitimate and lawful enough for you?

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    45. Re:Lawful reason by Talchas · · Score: 1

      This law according to TFA would regulate class 3 and 4 lasers. I agree that people generally don't have a personal use for class 4 lasers. The weaker class 3 lasers though have plenty of legitimate uses no matter who you are.

      --
      As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century,free flow of information is the only safeguard against...
    46. Re:Lawful reason by Kartoffel · · Score: 1

      So your qualm isn't so much that laser pointers might be misused, but that poor people have access to them? I didn't realize crime was a privilege of the wealthy.

    47. Re:Lawful reason by One+Childish+N00b · · Score: 1

      If someone deliberately endangers my family, whether they're a child or not, I'm going to put my foot up their ass and never mind the law. If you think I'm wrong, that's up to you, but I for one am not going to criticise someone for giving a good shoeing to someone who thinks it's hilarious to put their kids in danger.

      --
      Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
    48. Re:Lawful reason by Kartoffel · · Score: 1

      Thank you. Finally, someone with common sense is writing here.

    49. Re:Lawful reason by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that. Many laser points are level II lasers. What applications were you thinking of?

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    50. Re:Lawful reason by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      Yes you are a goddamn American, the article is about laserpointers in Australia, you know, the ex-convict colony :P

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    51. Re:Lawful reason by Kartoffel · · Score: 1

      If you want to live in a nanny state, do it on your own private property. The nation as a whole, however, will not have its liberties infringed.

    52. Re:Lawful reason by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1
      And even then, due to the lack of dispersion of the beam, it would only affect one eye of a single pilot.


      A good Helium-Neon (HeNe) laser tube has a divergence half-angle of 1 mR (milliRadian). At 100 feet, that's a beam diameter of 2.4 inches. (For you metric folk, at 30m the beam is 6 cm in diameter). That's hardly a one-eye beam, and that's from a very well collimated HeNe laser. A diode pointer will have far worse collimation, hence a much larger diameter beam. Laser diodes have intrinsic beam divergences on the order of several tens of degrees. With their crappy lenses to correct it, it might get down to 5 mR, which results in a 12" beam diameter at 100 feet.


      [ beam diameter = 2 * x * tan div_angle, where x is the distance from the pointer ].

      I recommend Sam's Laser FAQ; it is an incredible source of information on lasers: http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    53. Re:Lawful reason by Kartoffel · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No. It's perfectly legal in civilized countries. If your government doesn't trust you with a pocketknife, you ought to do something about it.

    54. Re:Lawful reason by Kartoffel · · Score: 1

      Theres no good reason to be carrying a knife.
      Sorry. Gonna have to call bullshit on that one.

    55. Re:Lawful reason by BigDogCH · · Score: 1

      "Why wouldn't it be illegal? Theres no good reason to be carrying a knife."

      I don't know many guys who don't carry a knife of some sort. They are usually small, and folded, but a knife nonetheless. I use mine multiple times per day. Hell, my wife has a little knife in her purse (in one of her high-maintenance lifestyle kits, I think it is for cleaning or scraping or scratching, I dunno).

      Seriously, why would it be illegal? I assume there is some archaic rule about the length or intended purpose then......because if carrying something is illegal because it is sharp then half of the tools in my toolbox should be illegal.

    56. Re:Lawful reason by rjames13 · · Score: 1

      If you want to live in a nanny state, do it on your own private property. The nation as a whole, however, will not have its liberties infringed. Why that is so patriotic I can just see the stars and stripes flapping in the wind behind you as you say that.
    57. Re:Lawful reason by dintech · · Score: 1

      I think that should be the other way round.

      If you want to live in some chaotic dystopia where you live in constant danger from someone enforcing their 'rights' on you then do it in your crazy militia ranch. I want to be safe when I go outside, thanks. It's definitely a better place with the rule of law protecting the general public from survival-of the-fittest nuts.

      There are certainly nanny-state laws in existence but this clearly isn't one of them. If you want to convince every day people that government interference is bad, then this is clearly the wrong issue to go against.

    58. Re:Lawful reason by TheGreatHegemon · · Score: 1

      It's not so much the laser point as the reason behind removing it.
      It is, in essence, a "protecting us from ourselves" reasoning that was used by the Great Grandparent.
      "not the sort of thing you want drunken kids playing with" is a very dangerous justification, and one that could EASILY be bent to a lot of other things (If it was the U.S., for example, the same could be said of firearms).

    59. Re:Lawful reason by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      Have you ever done physical work? Does wire get stripped, do packages get opened, does rope get cut where you live?

      A pocket knife is one of the most useful tools I can think of.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    60. Re:Lawful reason by harrkev · · Score: 1

      As an Amateur Radio operator, I use (admittedly low power) laser pointers as point-to-point communications links. I am mindful of the exposure limits, and pre-spread the beam if necessary to comply. By using higher power, I could increase not only the distance over which the link were useful, but also the data rate for existing links.

      Is that legitimate and lawful enough for you?
      That is exactly what a terrorist might say. You should be locked up in Gitmo for the rest of your life, you menace to public safety.

      "What do we do with witches?"
      "Burn them! Burn them!"
      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    61. Re:Lawful reason by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      This law according to TFA would regulate class 3 and 4 lasers. I agree that people generally don't have a personal use for class 4 lasers. The weaker class 3 lasers though have plenty of legitimate uses no matter who you are.

      I agree. I have a 5mw green pointer I use for astronomy. its handy to point out an area of the sky to others when you're trying to bring their attention to where the scope is pointing, or perhaps even something they can see with the naked eye, but aren't sure where in the sky you're talking about.

      To me, it's kind of like banning rocks, because a rock could be used to bash someone in the head.
      How many people need a laser than can burn through paper? Well, some actually might though I suspect few need that kind of power - but I still think the law is an overreaction. Just how many pilots has this happened to? Why must everyone always be punished for the actions of a few idiots?
      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    62. Re:Lawful reason by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      There are certainly nanny-state laws in existence but this clearly isn't one of them. If you want to convince every day people that government interference is bad, then this is clearly the wrong issue to go against.
      Well said Mr. boiled frog.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    63. Re:Lawful reason by harrkev · · Score: 1

      I carry a leatherman with me everyplace I go. I suppose it is a knife, which could be used as a weapon. But it is also a set of screwdrivers, pliers, saw, file, scissors, and bottle opener. That puts it firmly in the "tool" category.

      For that matter, a sharpened pencil could easily be used as a weapon. So, the definition of "weapon" is incredibly subjective.

      Even a 30-06 rifle could be considered a "food-gathering tool" rather than a weapon.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    64. Re:Lawful reason by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      In addition, a good knife is one of the most (if not the most) important basic survival tools.

      If dumped out in the middle of the wilderness and with no expectation of rescue w/i 1 month and given the choice of 1 simple tool to bring, I'm not sure exactly what I'd want, but a good knife would be in my top 3.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    65. Re:Lawful reason by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Flamebait? which genius modded that comment to this? The ones that think flamebait means "a comment with bad words in it".
      There should be a test thread to test a users' moderation abilities before allowing them to wield real points.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    66. Re:Lawful reason by Dylan2000 · · Score: 1

      when? let us know.

      --
      Build your own website - full service homepage system your m
    67. Re:Lawful reason by GarryFre · · Score: 1

      Yeah I agree that its not right to punish everyone for the lunacy of a few but unfortunately it's hard to distinguish between the lunatic with a high power laser and the person who knows about lasers and how to avoid accidents and is determined to never cause harm.

      If there were a program where I could take a test, and apply for a license to have one I'd get one, but unlike cars I don't think there is enough money in it to do it.

      This is how freedom is lost by the actions of a few.

      We can't just go into certain places in the wilderness, we all have a lot of restrictions because there are always a few fools.

      Oh well I expect that some day I will be told to yield up my laser and I'll do it, b/c it's not worth fines and imprisonment to keep it, but till then I'll do the best thing I can and that is by being sure it isn't used to frighten or endanger others and never letting anyone else operate it even in my presence unless all nearby have one of the laser goggles that I got for that purpose.

      --
      www.Migrainesoft.com - Computer giving you a headache? We can fix that!
    68. Re:Lawful reason by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      It seems like if it can pop balloons, it's not the sort of thing you want drunken kids playing with. Pins
      Knives
      Matches
      Hunting rifles
      Broken glass
      Lit cigarettes

      Yup, I don't want drunken kids playing with any of those.
      I don't want to ban sober grown ups from having them, though.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    69. Re:Lawful reason by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      but there is no legitimate reason to carry one in your pocket. Who makes that call?
      Who's the authoritarian bureaucrat who gets to decide what is legitimate for me to carry around in my pocket?
      Who gave them that power, and by what criteria do they evaluate legitimacy?

      Thus carrying them without a license should be illegal and people that break the law should be punished. You don't think they should be allowed, and you want people who have them punished, regardless of the use they make of it.
      You threw in an appeal to the authority of the law in there, but your "thus" was not preceded by actual conclusive logic.

      The rationale for that is the otherwise kids will shine them in people's eyes Rational people would conclude that IF the problem is when they are in kid hands, THEN the solution is to ban them from kid hands, not every hand.
      I'm not a kid, I know not to shine a laser in people's eyes.
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    70. Re:Lawful reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Does he still have your shoe lodged in a sensitive part of his anatomy? I mean, that'd only be a fair exchange.

    71. Re:Lawful reason by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1
      I've always wanted to see Cuba, but more than what I'd see from a 1 foot by 1 foot window covered with iron bars.


      Actually, when the travel/commerce ban is lifted, I want to be one of the first people over there to buy up their classic cars!

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    72. Re:Lawful reason by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      I really hate idiots who play with laser pointers.

      I'm with you. I'm an Aussie and I'm fine with the law.
      [...]
      this wasnt even one of the lasers that they're banning. Remind me why you're fine with this law?
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    73. Re:Lawful reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4 cities in North America (San Francisco, New York, St. Louis and Raleigh), 2 cities in Europe (Berlin and Prague) and 3 cities in Asia (Osan, Taichung and Fussa). For further reference my knife is entirely 440 stainless, manual open with a 3 inch serrated locking blade.

      It is legal to carry a knife in every state in the USA. Different restrictions on size and type apply by state, but my particular pocketknife is legal everywhere.

      The laws on carrying knives in Germany are very similar to the USA, except when I lived there it was actually legal to carry an automatically opening knife (in the USA automatic knives are illegal except for very specific circumstances and individuals).

      The knife laws in the Czech Republic aren't really set in stone since, overall, their laws tend to be more sensible and handled on case-by-case basis. Basically have what you want as long as you leave other people alone. Bother anyone else and you'll get beaten and jailed, courtesy of the police. Korea and Taiwan are similar in this regard.

      In Japan the knife laws are similar to those in the USA, except I think it is also legal to carry a katana (but you might get questioned about that).

      Call all of the bullshit you want. If you don't believe me, contact the respective authorities and find out for yourself.

    74. Re:Lawful reason by Fizzog · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Tell me one legitimate and lawful purpose that an ordinary person needs these types of high powered lasers?"

      Green lasers (which are the ones at issue here) are used by astronomers and astronomy teachers/students to point out constellations and stars at night. The green beam is visible in air while red beams are not.

      Are you telling us that astronomy should be illegal?

    75. Re:Lawful reason by genner · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you're chav vermin, then expect to get done for carrying anything at all that could possibly harm someone, regardless of whether you're a chef or not.
      Ah, I'm sure you feel much safier knowing that the police can lock any way anyone they want for no reason as long as their "Chav Vermin".

    76. Re:Lawful reason by intheshelter · · Score: 1

      This poster has a valid point. I mean once the new law is passed against laser pointers I'm sure the law abiding citizens who currently shine lasers in a pilots eyes on approach will see the new government directive and comply.

      Did you dig the Aussie Flight Instructor poo out of your brain before you wrote this post? Whoever is currently painting you with a laser is probably not part of the demographic who will obey the new law, thus you have solved nothing.

    77. Re:Lawful reason by intheshelter · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry about your experience, but do you really think the new law would have prevented this? The kids probably don't give a d*** about the law or common sense anyway, so you're not really accomplishing your goal, are you?

    78. Re:Lawful reason by intheshelter · · Score: 1

      I hate to be the voice of common sense here, but since these "chav's" (not familiar with the term, but I expect it's Aussie for dumba$$) seem to respect the law so much that they'd be detered by the ban, why not just pass a law that bans shining lasers in someone's eyes?

    79. Re:Lawful reason by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      Well, since it's acceptable for you to ban laser pointers on behalf of the 0.001% of users who use them inappropriately, let's also ban airplanes. Here in the US, we've had a problem with a very small portion of airplanes crashing into large buildings. The flaw in your analogy is that you need proper training and acquire a licence in order to fly an aeroplane; any idiot can buy a laser pointer.
      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    80. Re:Lawful reason by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      Not quite; it's perfectly legal to carry folding blades under 3 inches as per the the criminal justice act 1988

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    81. Re:Lawful reason by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      And cats! Are cats a "lawful reason"? For Finnagle sake think of the cats!

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    82. Re:Lawful reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      St. Louis, Missouri?

      Heck even if you carry a grenade you are likely outgunned by the average criminal!

    83. Re:Lawful reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Theres no good reason to be carrying a knife.
      You must be either a troll or a complete moron.

    84. Re:Lawful reason by ross.w · · Score: 1

      Actually in NSW it is not technically legal to carry said kitchen knife home from where you bought it. It's called "going armed in public" or something. Even having a pocket knife or swiss army knife in your pocket to peel your orange is illegal if you are in a public place. Completely ridiculous and rather selectively enforced.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    85. Re:Lawful reason by SJ2000 · · Score: 1

      Well obviously but now if they catch someone with one of these laser then can arrest them, they don't just have to catch them in the act.

    86. Re:Lawful reason by ross.w · · Score: 1

      Yes. In NSW it is. It is also illegal to sell anything with a blade to someone under 16. It is also illegal to carry that kitchen knife you bought at the Chef supply store to your car to take it home. It is illegal to have a pocket knife in your possession in a public place. Doesn't stop people doing these things and is rarely enforced, but it gives police an excuse to arrest people they don't like the look of, in addition to the "trifecta" non charge they seem to use so much (offensive language, resisting arrest, assaulting police) Then it's "Oh, and look what we found in this little bag in your pocket."

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    87. Re:Lawful reason by ross.w · · Score: 1

      Peeling the orange in your lunchbox perhaps? Using one of the myriad other attachments for their various purposes? What's needed in Australia is a kind of "Swiss army not-a-knife" that has all the other attachments, but won't get you arrested.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    88. Re:Lawful reason by stor · · Score: 1

      If someone deliberately endangers my family, whether they're a child or not, I'm going to put my foot up their ass and never mind the law.

      Fair enough. I just hope you're not caught. Getting arrested for assaulting a child would really add insult to injury when that child has just put your family's life in danger.

      -Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    89. Re:Lawful reason by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Those 532nm greenies are brilliant (no pun intended) for astronomy. However anything over 10mW is overkill and won't give you a visibly brighter beam when pointing to Rigel. Kids can buy 200mW green lasers these days for $100, which would easily burn a retina with a minimal (10ms) exposure at a reasonable distance.

      There are legitimate reasons for these high-powered lasers, such as signalling and experiments, but astronomy isn't one of them.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    90. Re:Lawful reason by syousef · · Score: 1

      Would you ban rocks and bricks as well? If those kids didn't have a laser pointer they could just as easily thrown a rock or brick as some Australian teenage idiots have and you wouldn't have recovered from that.

      There ARE legitimate uses for these lasers. Astronomy being a key one.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    91. Re:Lawful reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truely sir, you are the Gordon Ramsay of the skies.

    92. Re:Lawful reason by syousef · · Score: 1

      In Australia and the UK there are packs of chavs that dazzle drivers with lasers as they pull up to stop signs to amuse their friends. Sometimes those drivers get out of the car. Then if they're lucky they beat the shit out of the chavs, and if they're unlucky the chavs beat the shit out of them.

      Here's a thought. Enforce the existing laws and bring these teenagers to justice. If you ban these things, they'll still be around for years and these kids won't care that there are harsh penalties. If these kids were throwing bricks at passing cars, you wouldn't try to ban or license the ownership of bricks.

      There are legitimate uses for laser pointers, at least up to 5mW (class IIIa).

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    93. Re:Lawful reason by CRC'99 · · Score: 1

      I agree with the parent 100%. As a pilot myself, I know the number of idiots targeting planes (both light G/A aircraft and airliners) is on the rise. The reason us pilots see this in such a bad way is that in the case of the airline pilot, he has accepted responsibility for a few hundred lives while flying his aircraft. If some moron points a laser at him and impairs his judgement for a second, then that is enough time to put every one of those lives in danger.

      I also agree with other posts further up - when you are driving a car and someone blinds you with their high beams because they forget to dim them... Usually, the first reaction is something like "Turns those fucking headlights down moron!". This is because you find it much harder to see where you are going - therefore your safety is being compromised. If you get annoyed at this when it's just you in a car, spare a thought for the pilot who feels this 200+ times worse.

      This ban has come from serial offenders - who on a single night, around 15 separate morons with high powered green laser pointers - all in different locations - were targeting airliners on approach to Sydney International Airport. This caused the diversion of multiple flights (6-7 IIRC). Assume average passenger loads of 200 per aircraft and that's 1200 - 1400 peoples lives that these morons were toying with. This is also the reason that the punishment for pointing lasers at aircraft has jumped to 2 years in jail and a massive fine.

      --
      Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
    94. Re:Lawful reason by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Spend some time in the UK in a poor area and see how you feel about whether these people should have the right to carry weapons. Or any rights at all for that matter.

      --
      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;
    95. Re:Lawful reason by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      Oh, I don't know, you'd probably be able to get away by the fact you were directly provoked and you provided an immediate response.

      As a copper said to me once when discussing this area of the law in Australia :

      "If someone comes up to you and says deliberate,provoking,fighting words to you about your missus, then he can't come crying to us when he gets beaten up. But if you let it slide, then get steamed up about it 10 minutes later go back and punch him out, then you've got a problem."

      So, if a person in the next car seriously provokes you with a laser pointer - being unable to see while driving is a pretty serious provocation - then immediately getting out and causing some mayhem to the provoking person is something the law will overlook. There are limits, of course - if you shot him, or put them into a coma, well, you're likely to be asked to explain your actions. But if you give the little shit a black eye and they complain to the law about it, well they've an uphill battle to make anything stick.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    96. Re:Lawful reason by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      It's not really that they respect the law. What happens is that the police continually harass them with random SUS searches. Since the law prohibits them carrying anything which can used as a weapon, if they caught carrying one they get busted. News spreads and the other chavs realise that carrying weapons is a bad idea. I lived in High Wycombe in a bad area a few years ago and the police decided to have a crackdown on chavs carrying CS gas by prosecuting a few people they caught carrying it under the draconian Firearms act. The net effect is that a fashion for CS gassing people in night clubs died down.

      It would be possible to make it illegal just to shine the laser in someone's eyes, and it probably already is. The problem with that is that a few non chavs will get blinded. Making the lasers illegal avoids this.

      --
      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;
    97. Re:Lawful reason by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1
      No, because bricks have other legitimate uses.

      There are legitimate uses for laser pointers, at least up to 5mW (class IIIa). As I said, if you need one for your job you should be able to get a license.
      --
      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;
    98. Re:Lawful reason by syousef · · Score: 1

      No, because bricks have other legitimate uses.

      There are legitimate uses for laser pointers too!

      As I said, if you need one for your job you should be able to get a license.

      What if I don't NEED it for my job, but do need it to enjoy my hobby? (I have an Astronomy degree, but I'm not a professional Astronomer).

      Should we require a builder's permit if you wish to buy or keep a bricks at your house? How expensive might that make do it yourself landscaping? What about the fact that if we ban bricks, large rocks will do just as well? (Lasers may be particularly easy to use to distract pilots but a mirror and sunlight might do the job in the daytime too.)

      It's the ACT that you need to ban. Shining any light in the eyes of a driver/pilot with the aim of distracting them should carry a 14 year jail term, not having a damn laser pointer.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    99. Re:Lawful reason by cg152394 · · Score: 1

      I have a 200mW laser as well as a 5mW laser and I live in Australia -- I am all for this ban. Why? The 200mW laser is extremely powerful -- we did a test of it and it to see how far it travelled. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgSYCY1rxnk As seen in the above video, I am holding my phone while recording (hence the poor quality) but the laser is being shone ~5km away. When you get eye contact directly with the beam (FIVE KILOMETRES AWAY) it still hurts your eyes and you can't see anything else for that moment. Planes coming in to land are not 5km away -- they're only a few hundred metres -- take that, with trying to land the plane, while being blinded. Because laser pointers are the size of pens, it's far too easy to point it at a plane to distract / disorient the pilot, then run off without getting caught. That's why this ban has been put in place, they cannot police the current batch of lasers, so what else are the police supposed to do besides a blanket ban?

    100. Re:Lawful reason by Domino2020 · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that this is going to be treated similarly to the way we treat guns in Australia. If you have a legitimate reason to use lasers, you can apply for a permit.

      The point is that the general public wont be able to use lasers as toys.

    101. Re:Lawful reason by Domino2020 · · Score: 1

      Actually, in Australia carrying knives over a particular size is illegal. So is selling knives to children under 16. (obviously if you buy a kitchen knife from the supermarket and are on the way home, the cops aren't going to arrest you, this has more to do with weapon style knives).

      I think this became law in 1996.

      You might get the impression that in Australia, we don't like the public having weapons. You'd be right.

    102. Re:Lawful reason by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      I bet that you don't use any laser stronger than 5mW visible.

      The "high power" lasers that we're talking about are in the class IIIb (under the old system) range, some around 100mW visible. The only non-scientific use for those that I can think of is an outdoor laser light show, which should arguably be regulated with about the same level of stringency that you'd apply to pyrotechnics.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    103. Re:Lawful reason by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It is trivial to place filtered lenses on the windows making the laser pointers obsolete. You have very few wavelengths that are powerful enough to make to cause the type of incident this article is describing. It can be done in ways that don't alter the natural colors when peering through them too. We need to block what, polarized green and blue light?

      In a plane, it could be as simple as attaching a pull down blind type filter in the direct line of site of the pilot or better yet, simply attach it to a wide view helmet with a flip down lens like fighter pilots use. Or better yet, they could just install cameras with a forward looking hud display that gives instrument readings and all in the corners.

      I mean this isn't exactly rocket science here. low cost measures can be employed that would cost less then the enforcement of a laser ban. So why don't the governments grow a pair and just pay the airlines to use filters and shut up.

    104. Re:Lawful reason by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Do you find that acceptable? I mean I wouldn't like my government taking something of the market unless I can justify to them that I have some need outside a simply desire to be free and do something because in a free world, I can.

      I know there are limits to freedom. Even in my overly hyped country. But seriously, requiring a warning label and a signature or something seems more reasonable then banning them unless someone can beg hard enough to get through the ban.

    105. Re:Lawful reason by Domino2020 · · Score: 1

      It would depend how difficult it was to actually get a permit.

      For instance, you need a permit to drive a car, but few people would argue that this is an unreasonable restriction on freedom - anyone who can demonstrate a reasonable competence is given a permit.

      In the case of these particular types of lasers, if anyone who requested a permit through a company involved in industries which use this tool was granted a permit within a day or so, I don't see it as a big problem.

      Similarly, if a 16 year old who had no business involvement was denied a permit pending a more rigorous application, I still wouldn't have a problem. Remember, this is only a particular type of laser - the type you'd want to use as a lecture pointer or toy is not covered by this law.

      I appreciate your position as a good starting point - that you don't restrict the market without a strong reason to do so. But in this case, I think there is a decent reason to do it, and not much cost.

    106. Re:Lawful reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Here's what a 5mW laser looks like to a pilot.

      BFD -- don't you understand that modern airliners are pretty much capable of landing themselves without pilot intervention?

    107. Re:Lawful reason by Lyrael · · Score: 1

      aye, but he said a lockblade. Any folding knife that is lockable is illegal to carry in public, whether it's over 3 inches or not.

    108. Re:Lawful reason by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      Ummm... maybe governments are banning them because it's not just pilots who are in danger of being blinded by the lasers?

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    109. Re:Lawful reason by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Then why are they bringing up the airplane stories to press their cases? That is what the thread we are running in right now is aiming at. I mean my comment was a reply to a reply confirming a post on airplane safety.

      The point is, things can be done to curb the problem besides banning them. We should be living in a free world and unilateral banns on devices that only a tiny fraction of are being misused seems a little ridiculous and unfree to me. More cars are misused causing injury on a daily basis then a laser is. More kitchen knives are misused causing harm on a daily basis then a laser is. It's a bit idiotic to apply the same principles and ban them too.

    110. Re:Lawful reason by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      Your analogy of a kitchen knife is a little flawed. You don't use a machette to chop carrots. Similarly, you don't need a class IV laser to host a presentation. Similarly, cars mostly injure people because of accidents, not deliberate attacks like the spate that have been happening around airports.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    111. Re:Lawful reason by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1
      You are correct - I am currently using only 5mW lasers. As I stated, if I wanted to deal with the regulatory hassle and liability, I could benefit from using much higher power. For example, with an MPE of 1 mW/cm2, a 5mW HeNe laser beam expanded to a 1.26 cm radius circle is 'eye-safe' (that's what I do now). By increasing the power to 500mW, I'd only have to increase the circle radius to 12.6cm to be eye-safe. I can handle that on the transmit side with a large plastic lens and on the receive side with a somewhat larger lens focusing onto the sensor. I'd experience a 100x (20dB) power gain, with a gain of only 12x in beam radius.

      Note that we're talking at cross-purposes a little bit. I'm using lasers with keen adherence to the MPE limits outside of the equipment. You're concerned with uses that exceed the MPE outside the equipment. I agree that lasers used in such a way to that exceeds the MPE should be regulated, but the devices themselves should not be banned outright.

      Even though I am allowed to emit 1500W of RF on various frequencies including 2.45GHz (think two small microwave ovens on at the same time with their doors wide open), I am also tasked with using that power responsibly (exposure limits, interference limits, etc).

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    112. Re:Lawful reason by Evil+Pete · · Score: 1

      Then you would be exempt. Since astronomers are one of the groups who are considered to have a legitimate use.

      Myself, I wonder if the low power ones are really worth banning. Maybe an overreaction, I don't know since I'm not sure of the bean spread at distances of several km too long since I've done those calculations. But the high power ones: restrict them only to those with a specific need otherwise you'll get loonies who will use them to cause an accident.

      --
      Bitter and proud of it.
    113. Re:Lawful reason by nobuddy · · Score: 1

      I am light sensitive. Not to the point of debilitation, but a bright light is painful. A set of high beams to the face on a dark night is a lot like ramming heated needles in to my eyeball. I can squint away regular beams, but high blind me. High beam halogens blind me initially, and obscure my vision with spots for 10 minutes after.

      Why, exactly, are you so adamantly defending bright beams? They are useless in every sense of the word, improve nothing in the driver's visual path, and only serve to blind other drivers. They are intended for the RARE occasion that you need a wider peripheral view, such as a twisting mountain road. Not when you are headed down a 4 lane highway.

      You're that guy that likes to cruise directly behind another car with the brights on, aren't you? I bet your fog lamps are on when there is no fog, too.

    114. Re:Lawful reason by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You don't need a machete to injure a person, misuse of a normal everyday kitchen knife will work fine. similarly, the accidents are caused by misuse of the vehicles. Almost all accidents have a situation where someone did something they weren't supposed to do and ended up being cited for the accident. Those analogies are perfectly applicable because you can't determine intent to harm anyone who doesn't admit to it when a laser is misused around an airport.

      Don't substitute ytour own conclusions for reality. You will find that you are not wrong as often.

    115. Re:Lawful reason by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Just as a footnote, the green laser pointers are a subject of controversy in amateur astronomy. There have been some minor injuries, and getting flased with even a legal green laser is painful with dark adapted eyes. Pennsylvania's Dark sky park at Cherry Springs has banned them for many events. As for the illegal green pointers, which a lot of them are, serious damage can result.

      --
      Why is this even on SlashDot?... Why is this even on Slashdot?...Why is this even on Slashdot?
    116. Re:Lawful reason by jeephistorian · · Score: 1

      Okay, so a group of lawbreakers will be deterred from behaving poorly by a new law....hmmmm....there seems to be a problem with this idea...

      The problem with these laws (all of them, guns, drugs, etc) is that the people who cause harm are people who ignore laws. This is no different than DRM. People who can break the law will get what they want while law abiding people get punished for doing the right thing.

      --
      Huh?
    117. Re:Lawful reason by Pseudonym · · Score: 1
      I agree that lasers used in such a way to that exceeds the MPE should be regulated, but the devices themselves should not be banned outright.

      Yes, I agree. Given that you're an AR operator, you're probably not against getting a licence, for example.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    118. Re:Lawful reason by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1
      I have no problem with requiring a license for uses that exceed the MPE where the public may be exposed, but not for experimentation or use in an enclosed (Class I) project (like a home-brew DVD burner, yeah right).


      I generally despise proactive regulation designed to protect people from theoretical dangers. I'd rather see more freedom of choice, but also stiff, sure penalties for abuse. In cases where rooting out the abuser is difficult (as in the case of someone lasering a plane), then proactive regulation might be a necessary evil.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    119. Re:Lawful reason by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between malicious intent and accidental injury.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    120. Re:Lawful reason by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      And you will find that malicious intent is involved in very little of the incidents.

  3. Fricking laser beams by wallyhall · · Score: 1
    One government clearly watches too much Austin Powers.

    Fricking sharks with fricking laserbeams attached to their fricking heads.

    --
    I think therefore I am... a Linux geek.
  4. Think of the sharks! by JoltCola · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I would make laser pointers illegal too with all those willing and able sharks out in the surrounding waters!

  5. It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by _merlin · · Score: 4, Informative

    They aren't banning class 1 laser pointers (won't cause eye damage) or class 2 laser pointers (your natural blink reflex should be sufficient to protect you from eye damage). They're only banning high powered class 3 and 4 laser pointers (may cause eye damage and need to use eye protection). Most laser pointers are class 2. To be honest, I think this is a good thing. The less idiots with potentially dangerous lasers, the better. A class 2 laser is good enough for most people, and if you really need a bigger one (i.e. not just to compensate for your small breasts/penis), you can get a permit.

    1. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      Sure. Let's outlaw arc welders too. They can blind people. And screwdrivers, because you could stab someone. And metal forks, because you might try to use them to get stuff out of the toaster and electrocute yourself.

      Or maybe some tools are dangerous, but everyone needs to accept that it's not the role of government to protect people from every little danger.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    2. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by More_Cowbell · · Score: 5, Informative
      Well, I RTFAs (the whole two paragraphs of each). It certainly seems like you've hit the nail on the head and I would have to agree - at least without having heard an argument for the other side.

      That said, I would wonder a few things:
      1. How hard would it be to get a permit? (For instance I have no need for (nor do I own) a class 3 or 4... but I always thought it sounded fun, and I consider myself responsible enough to own one - the same as I feel about guns.
      2. Punishable by up to 14 years in jail. Um, Wtf?

      --
      Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
    3. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Digestromath · · Score: 1
      Sure, lets take that approach. Lets make a law prohibiting anything that could blind someone. Better round off anything pointy or get rid of caustic materials. It makes alot of sense to require everyone have a permit for thier laser pointer, or fork, or elastic band.

      Wait... I have an idea. We could instead just make it against the law to blind people. Temporary blinding, not causing permanent damage, could be treated like assault. Permanent blinding could be up there with murder. No wait, silly idea. Better just ban everything, much more enforcable and logical.

      Now I've never been to Australia. I'm not sure how big of a problem it is. Yes I can understand the consequences of a blinded pilot or driver. But are there roving bands of laser wielding mauraders? Is it hip for kids to get into a school yard fight and blind one another with lasers? Is that what's going on nowadays in Australia?

      I feel so old. Damn these teenagers and thier beams of coherent light, get off my lawn!

    4. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by propanol · · Score: 5, Informative

      For people who're not up to speed on laser classifications, a level 3 laser is one that outputs between 5-500 mW and a level 4 goes beyond 500 mW. Already at 100 mW the laser is strong enough to make you blind in less than a millisecond. These laser pointers are not like the ones you'll find in common shops, these can inflict serious damage on people and should be handled with the same care as you'd handle a weapon (which they arguably could be classified as).

    5. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But a screwdriver in a garage can't bring down an aeroplane.. Sure - they could if you took it on a plane - but likewise, good luck with that too..

    6. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by loraksus · · Score: 2, Informative

      FAIL
      1-5mW lasers are rated class 3a according to ANSI Z136.1 - and most - hell, virtually all - pen lasers are class 3a.
      But, hey, feel free to continue making idiotic comments that include statements like "good enough for most people" and "can get a permit".

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    7. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      1. Getting a permit is as simple as providing a practical application that you require one for.
      2. All this talk about lasers being capable of bringing down planes, while serious, is at this stage theoretical. While that gives plenty of people the excuse to keep saying "see, it's harmless" right up until a plane crash is caused by it (at which stage they'll switch to "it's virtually always harmless, just like using forks!"), if you're the poor joe who manages to achieve this feat, expect a 14-year jail sentence (a backup for if the mass-manslaughter charge doesn't stick). If you get caught carrying one without a good reason (seriously, who's going to buy a $900 laser without a good reason.. although I guess some idiots do) you can expect a fine or 3 months in jail. More if you actually use it on an aircraft.

    8. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by marcushnk · · Score: 3, Informative

      No offense mate, but that is such a classic American response... wouldn't be a yank you ya?

      You need a lic for anything larger than an air rifle over here... and you can't just carry one of them around either...

      We like it that way.

      --
      "Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far
    9. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen.

    10. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But are there roving bands of laser wielding mauraders? Yes, actually. That's what's driving this legislation. A couple of weeks ago there were a bunch of lasers aimed at an aircraft, emanating from a local Hungry Jacks restaurant. The media's blowing it out of proportion, naturally, and the government is suggesting a legislative solution because it can't catch the people who actually did it (again, naturally). The proposed solutions are a bunch of hot air, but the problem is real enough.

    11. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      so what's your argument there chump? that all pen lasers are dangerous so lets just leave it that way?

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    12. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by syousef · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In other words YOU don't need one so YOU think it's fine.

      I own a few telescopes, and have a laser pointer. I don't use the telescopes or the pointer as much as I'd like to but now I have to go home and check if it's class 2 or 3, and then work out if I have to get rid of it if it's class 3.

      Astronomy education? Who needs it! Never mind that the criminal fucks that were trying to blind pilots were using more powerful lasers, lets ban the 5mW ones as well. Oh and lets classify it as a weapon so you need to store it in a locked cabinet and pay fees to get a permit.

      Idiotic. As others have pointed out there are many many dangerous things in this world that could cause damage to a large number of people. Banning their legitimate use or regulating it such that it may as well be banned is yet another example of being too afraid to maintain our own freedoms.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    13. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by syousef · · Score: 1

      It's a goddamn laser pointer, not a fucking rifle. Classifying it as a weapon is to say the least an extreme thing. You could do as much damage blinding pilots with a large searchlight, and if you're trying to blind pilots it isn't like you're going to give a shit that your laser has been classified as a weapon.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    14. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      1. Getting a permit is as simple as providing a practical application that you require one for.

      Except in Victoria, where you need a special exemption from the governor in council and $120.

    15. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by puggsincyberspace · · Score: 1

      Sure. Let's outlaw arc welders too. They can blind people. And screwdrivers, because you could stab someone I have not heard of someone aiming a arc welder or screwdriver at the cockpit of an aircraft with 200+ people on board. What we have seen here is organised people aiming these high-powered lasers at aircraft from different locations all at the same time, while the aircraft was on approch to the airport. This is one of the most dangerous time of a flight and have resulted in a number of go arounds. Puggs

      --
      Access Point Live Mapping Access Points with Google
    16. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just out of interest, why exactly does someone need to carry around a class 4 laser anyway? Oh noes, they are infringing my freedoms!

    17. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just out of interest, why should you be the arbiter of what I "need?"

      Who appointed you King Shit of Turd Mountain?

    18. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by cranos · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      But then I guess that's the difference between a country of free people who had to earn that freedom by force, versus a country full of quavering subjects who've been taught, as a culture, that they're not to be trusted.

      You have looked at the US government lately haven't you? Just wanted to make sure you weren't looking into some sort of alternate universe US, where things like imprisonment without trial and warrantless phone tapping are considered "bad things" by the government.

      As to the cultural difference, it's not about whether we can be trusted or not, it's about not glorifying the great holy handgun.

    19. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Ok, so let the free market sort it...laser-guided rocket launchers on all commercial airliners!

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    20. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by vilain · · Score: 1

      I bought a "extra bright" laser pointer from Edmond Scientific. It turns out it's a Class IIIa with about 5mWatts of output. Most others have substantially less. I'm still vary careful about using it around reflective surfaces and no matter how fun it is, I won't harrass my cats with it.

      Then there's case of the dillweed on the bus playing with a laser pointer. I approach him and point out that such things could damage people's eyes. He was very apologetic, apologized, and immediately put the thing away. I don't recall the last time anyone called me "sir". At least someone taught this guy manners...

      But outlaying them? Come on. Australia and Russia are turning in to jokes when it comes to Internet technology. Why add another log to the fire?

    21. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by syousef · · Score: 1

      5-10mW lasers are often used in astronomy as the beam can be seen against even suburban skies and can be used to point out features in the night sky. You are very very careful not to shine one in a person's eye, but unless you're being an idiot about it, it's not something that's hard to avoid. Only point it up.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    22. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Don't change the subject.

    23. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a worthless human being.

      If you really think the government should be "protecting" us with new laws, you don't deserve it.

    24. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, a classical American response would be to point out that if you own a DVD burner, you already have a more-powerful laser than many of the banned devices.

      But then I guess that's the difference between a country of free people who had to earn that freedom by force, versus a country full of quavering subjects who've been taught, as a culture, that they're not to be trusted.


      Yeah, which explains why it took an American to use a seemingly innocent material like ammonium nitrate fertilizer to kill 170 people in Oklahoma City.

      Give me a break - you can make all of the bullshit Revolutionary analogies you want, the fact is if a US single pilot were blinded by a DVD-homebrew-laser we'd all be forced to get permits for our DVD burners. For fucks sake, every air traveler in the country has to remove their shoes because one wacko thought he could put a bomb in his loafers.

    25. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Give me a break - you can make all of the bullshit Revolutionary analogies you want, the fact is if a US single pilot were blinded by a DVD-homebrew-laser we'd all be forced to get permits for our DVD burners. For fucks sake, every air traveler in the country has to remove their shoes because one wacko thought he could put a bomb in his loafers.

      Funny, I can still buy ammonium nitrate here in the admittedly-far-from-perfect US.

      What is the government of Australia going to do when someone burns down a nightclub, killing a hundred people in ten minutes with a can of gasoline? Ban gasoline?

      It reminds me of the bumper stickers I see every once in awhile, the ones with the photo of Osama bin Laden. "I'm still free, how about you?" The US isn't perfect, but Australia treats its people like infants. Apparently, no Australian adult is allowed to own anything that would be dangerous in the hands of a lunatic or a drunken retard. (How's that working out for you, anyway?)

    26. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by G-funk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Erm, no, we don't. Speak for yourself buddy. An unarmed population is an oppressed population.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    27. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      A class 2 laser is good enough for most people, and if you really need a bigger one Probably you need a class 3 or 4 to prove your mahood or whatever is that you aussies need to prove.
      And while you are at it, have you thought about classifying led-light flashlights as weapons? They too are bright, shiny and powerful enough.
      Also metal forks and metal spoons: They can used as deadly weapons in an assault by kids at home.
      Also the plastic carrybags that Coles and Woolworths sooo love to hand out: They are deadly too. One kid can choke another. Have you seen Urban Legends movie?
      Also sharp pencils man! You need to ban them too, and not just at home. At schools and planes too. After all a sharply pointed pencil can poke the eyes out for REAL.

      Also ban water: Oh i forgot, you guys don't have any. Anyway still ban it: After all the pesky US uses it for waterboarding.

      Ban heavy books too: I could use it to beat you to death for your incredible stupidity and incredible reasoning.

      I always thought Australia is where the Empire sent its criminals. I never thought that is where failed Darwin Award winners also ended up.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    28. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      pay fees to get a permit.

      And there you have it -- it's a revenue enhancement scheme, just like the red light cameras where the vendor gets a cut of the take. So, instead of putting them at intersections where they have a high accident count, they're sited where they get the most revenue. i.e. multi-lane intersections with heavy traffic, preferably where there's a downhill slope, making it harder to stop in time. Then put a ribbon on the package by shortening the yellow light period.

      And of course, a permit is something a bureaucrat can deny. Then he gets to rub himself off in the loo. That really makes him feel like a stallion with the little lady when he gets home in the evening.

    29. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Digestromath · · Score: 5, Interesting
      No, I'm actually a Canadian. I also realise that a requiring a license for something doesn't stop it from being used illegally

      What is this all for may I ask? A knee jerk reaction to a vague, potential threat? Because of a "potential to cause mass murder"? How many serial laser pointer killers have there been? In Australia? In the world?

      5000$ fines for possesion of non prohibited laser by a unlicensed individual. A possible 14 years in prison for a prohibited laser.

      You potentially could spend more time in jail and pay a heavier fine for a laser pointer than heroin, an unlicensed firearm or a hand grenade? That doesn't strike you as... illogical?

      That would be a great news story in itself. Man's home searched, found in possession of home made high power laser pointer, gets 14 years in jail. In other news, man convicted of involuntary manslaughter to get 10, parole in 7 and half.

    30. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by ColaMan · · Score: 5, Funny

      Only point it up.

      I believe that's the problem they're trying to address.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    31. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Digestromath · · Score: 1
      Let's hope nobody is watching MacGyver in syndication. He could bring down an airplane with all sorts of stuff that make it through security.

      The next time you go through security it could be like this:

      Please remove any liquids, gels, weak acids, weak bases, rubber bands, duct tape, tin foil, paper clips, conductive wire, batteries, magnifying lenses, anything that can burn, mullets... basically get on the plane naked and keep your hands where I can see them.

    32. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Only point it up. Thanks, you've just made their point. Guess in whose eyes you (risk to) shine it when you point it up?

    33. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could do as much damage blinding pilots with a large searchlight

      No, you couldn't. This isn't about "blinded" as in "someone looking into the light might have difficulties seeing well immediately afterwards", it's about "blinded" as in "permanent damage to the eye".

    34. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While classifying them as a weapon is perhaps a bit overboard, overall I don't really see the issue with this.

      What practical purpose does a person have for needing a laser pointer? And particularly for carrying it around with them in public.

      Unless they're prone to giving impromptu university lectures to total strangers on random building walls, I fail to see any practical need for having one. So once you take away practical uses, and ignore their gimmick use since that's irrelevent (noobs pointing them at cinema screens and so forth), all you're left with is their use as a possible weapon to temporarily (or even permanently) blind someone.

    35. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Ahem, this has already been mostly the case here, at-least in Victoria, for some time.

      "The Control of Weapons (Amendment) Regulations 1998 came into effect on 23 November 1998.
      Under these regulations it is prohibited to import, sell, manufacture, possess and use laser
      pointers which emit a laser beam with an accessible emission limit greater than 1mW, i.e. Class
      3R. Laser pointers are not commercially available in Class 3B or 4.
      Any laser pointers of Class 3R should be handed in to your nearest police station. Penalty for
      possession and use is $6000 or 6 months imprisonment."

      http://www.adm.monash.edu/ohse/assets/docs/information-sheets/lasers.pdf
      with reference to
      http://www.dms.dpc.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubStatbook.nsf/0/AEB69CB670D335CDCA256E5B0021A5D7/$FILE/98-105sr.pdf

      But there has always been some exception to Scientific uses:
      http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/rsr1983337/s53b.html
      As outlined by Dan,

      http://www.dansdata.com/nexus.htm
      I expect Dan to have something to say about this on his blog soon.

    36. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So what if a DVD burner has a more powerful laser. The laser in the DVD burner wasn't built with the explicit intent of being pointed at distant objects. Sure, someone can pull it out and use it for nefarious purposes, but that's not the point (pun not intended).

      While I'm sure laser pointers are great for showing off that latest Powerpoint spreadsheet the marketing guys whipped up, for the most part they're a toy that have little practical use other than as a potential weapon.

    37. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by bm_luethke · · Score: 1

      Not that I particularly agree with the ban but it isn't anything new. As said the issue is only with lasers strong enough to reasonably blind people. Even as someone who regularly shoots firearms I fear said lasers more than a firearm - the laser is "on" or "off" and the "on" state lasts until the laser looses power. It is *immediately* dangerous through the whole process and is deceptively so (after all it is only a small dot). For various reasons people do not give it the necessary respect, if they did then I wouldn't mind so much.

      The Red Cross has been trying to ban the blinding ones as weapons since the early 90's (and they explicitly state terrorist use even back then). A simple google search turned up a few articles on the front page, I'm sure there are better, yet since the first page results are good enough:

      http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14419521.100-ban-cruel-laser-weapons-says-red-cross.html
      http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/315/7120/1392
      http://www.iht.com/articles/1995/12/18/edmol.t.php

      and finally what they actually passed: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/49de65e1b0a201a7c125641f002d57af?OpenDocument

      So, yea, not really anything new and is pretty much in line with international law. I don't know if Australia is a signatory to the law, however as we know from the US detractors that is irrelevant as it is an "international law".

      Can't say as I agree with it (even as used as a weapon - better to be blinded than the alternatives) and I would really like one of the things that could pop a balloon, but for most of what the posters here who want to enforce this it *should* be a triumph of international law and the logical progression of said law. If you want your country to follow "international law" then kiss these thing good buy as you cant have them since the early 90's, Bush's term and the current so called "War on Terror" have nothing to do with said laws. We can't simply pick and choose which laws we observe (as is rightly said by Bush detractor's - it is pretty much all or nothing).

      --
      ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
    38. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank goodness. Someone talking sense for once. Good luck though --- I hope your karma survives the hundreds of yanks screaming "If I can't carry a tool that is ridiculously more powerful than necessary and liable to ruin people's lives if misused, then I ain't free!"

    39. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with you needing a class 4 laser. However if you need something that has a hugely limited use potential (we're not talking about something as commonly necessary as a screwdriver or a hammer here) and at the same time has the ability to cause grievous harm very easily if even slightly negligently used, then yes, I (speaking on behalf of any rational human being) would want you to demonstrate need and responsibility in order to have it.

      These lasers are powerful enough to cause serious injury, and are of very limited use outside of niche industrial or commercial applications.

      So, given a) high harm potential and b) very uncommon use case I don't think this law is unreasonable. In fact, I think that the capacity to cause harm with these things carelessly is about on par with the harm that can be caused by a negligent driver, yet the device being used is infintely less commonly useful. So I find this law to be even more approprite than requiring cars and drivers to be registered.

      Yours truly,
      King Shit
      c/o Turd Mountain.

      --
      I hate printers.
    40. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are very very careful not to shine one in a person's eye, but unless you're being an idiot about it, it's not something that's hard to avoid. Only point it up.

      As long as no one's flying any complicated machinery up there...

    41. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by SJ2000 · · Score: 1

      Ordinary personal lasers such as those are not the type being banned, the more powerful classes are the ones being banned unless you have a lawful excuse.

    42. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by SJ2000 · · Score: 1

      The problem with lasers and aircraft is not that it directly 'brings down the aircraft' but it blinds the pilots, and if they can't fly the aircraft, then it isn't going to stay in the air for long. It's a well know fact lasers can blind so it's not theoretical.

    43. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well u better grab these before there gone!! http://jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=ST3117

    44. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by moosesocks · · Score: 3, Informative

      DOUBLE-FAIL.

      ANSI (American National Standards Institute) laser classifications are not used in Australia, and are indicated by roman numerals instead of digits (eg. Class IIIa). There is no class 3a in the international system.

      A 5-500mW visible HeNe laser would be classified as 3b under the international system, and can be extremely dangerous if placed in the wrong hands.
      Class 3R lasers are still potentially hazardous, although consdierably less so without the proper optics. I'm not sure if Australia are considering an exemption for 3R devices....
      Most "laser pointers" should fall under Class 1 and 2.

      (However, you were correct in stating that most laser pointers are ANSI Class IIIa)

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    45. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by gweihir · · Score: 1

      What about class 3a (5mW)? I have a green class 3a, since a class 2 does not cut it with a bright beamer in a large lecture hall. In Europe, up to 3a is legal for everybody.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    46. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5-10mW lasers are often used in astronomy

      Astronomy? No serious astronomer would use a device that further increases light pollution. They should be banned for this reason alone.
    47. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Working out quite well when the homicide rate per 100,000 people is a quarter of the US - enjoy your automatic weapon

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

    48. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Lyrael · · Score: 1

      Funny. I don't feel oppressed. But I'm shit scared of going anywhere near America.

    49. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Skynet? We don't want to piss that off.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    50. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do I meet these awesome girls who buy lasers to compensate for their small breasts?

    51. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So who should protect pilots then? Armed militia around airports? Explain your fucked up reasoning, please.

    52. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      You need a lic for anything larger than an air rifle over here... and you can't just carry one of them around either...
      We like it that way.
      Speak for yourself:

      "Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls for a decade - and its lowest arrest rate ever. The growing number of planned, ambush murders this year has put added pressure on the homicide squad."
      Herald Sun - Melbourne - 12/11/99

      Fatal shootings in Victoria have increased despite the introduction of tighter gun laws in 1996, a (AIC) study has found.
      "State's gun deaths rise" - Herald Sun - Victoria - 3/6/99

      The Federal Government will crack down on the availability of illegal knives after figures released yesterday showed they were the most common weapon used in homicides.
      AIC Report - Sydney Morning Herald - 12/3/99

      Murders by firearms have actually increased (in Victoria) since the buyback scheme which removed 225,000 registered and un-registered firearms from circuation. There were 18 shooting murders in 1996-97 after the buyback scheme had been introduced compared with only six in 1995-96 before the scheme started.
      "Killing rise in gun hunt" - Herald Sun - Melbourne - 23/12/98

      Queensland Police Commissioner Jim O'Sullivan yesterday expressed "grave concern" as the number of armed robberies across the state took a big jump for the second year running.
      Sunshine Coast Daily - 13/11/98

      The numbers of armed robberies which included a knife are now increasing at a much slower rate that those that involved a firearm."
      Trevor Griffin - 5/11/98 - South Australia Attorney-General - The Advertiser

      Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997 while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%. (ABS figures)
      "Gun crime soars.." - Sydney Morning Herald - 28/10/98

      Crime involving guns has soared despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre...the number of robberies involving guns leapt 39% (ABS Report)...assaults involving guns jumped 28%.
      Armed Crime on rise - The Sunday Mail - Brisbane - 18/10/98

      What exactly is it that you like about it?
    53. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Sigvatr · · Score: 1

      I think you might get at LEAST 14 years for crashing a commercial airplane because of your gay laser.

    54. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (How's that working out for you, anyway?) Its working out quite well, thanks for asking.
      P.S. Enjoy your recession.
    55. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Perseid · · Score: 1

      Here's a random thought. What about rifles with laser sights? Are those WMDs now?

    56. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself indeed!

      I'm sorry, but I don't need saving from my oppression. Please leave us alone to our gun-free lifestyle. Thanks.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    57. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Punishable by up to 14 years in jail.


      I love it. Now just carrying an item that can be bought easily in many places will potentially put you in jail for longer than most people are in jail for murder, rape, aggravated assault, bank robbery, etc. Well, I certainly feel much safer now...
    58. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by GorgarWillEatYou · · Score: 1

      Do you have any references from this Century?

    59. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by ruin20 · · Score: 1

      The less idiots with potentially dangerous lasers, the better I completely agree. Lets weed out all the idiots. Has anyone seen my crossbow?
      --
      Oh honey look... How cute... an angry slashdotter!
    60. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by cammoblammo · · Score: 1

      Nice articles. Got any from, you know, this century?

      --

      Cogito, ergo sig.

    61. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      Every one of those articles is getting close to 10 years old. Don't you have any more recent articles? It sounds a bit...dated.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    62. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      I don't believe he did. You wrote "But then I guess that's the difference between a country of free people who had to earn that freedom by force, versus a country full of quavering subjects who've been taught, as a culture, that they're not to be trusted."

      I mean, I don't know why you have that opinion (note I say opinion as there is very little that is factually accurate about that statement), but you started straying off-topic with that sentence, and he just responded to what you said. Hardly off-topic.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    63. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      Finally I can agree with you on something.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    64. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      When you say "gay" do you mean the laser is very happy or do mean that the boy laser likes other boy lasers? If the laser is very happy, how can that be a laser is an inanimate object and if the laser likes other boy lasers then thats stupid because a laser isn't a person. I like lasers they are cool and I like pointing them at the wall while my cat tries to catch it but can't hahahaha stupid cat its only a laser

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    65. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are the people (and the laws) the Australians voted for. But I suppose you and your tin-foil hat kin don't actually agree with democracy unless it shares your point of view. :)

    66. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Shag · · Score: 1

      To be a little more specific... 5-10mW green lasers (the wavelength is more visible to the eye) are often used in amateur astronomy for "star and constellation tours."

      Lasers are also used as part of the adaptive optics systems at large professional observatories, but those tend to be a different wavelength (589nm) and 5-20W with - no "m" before the "W" ;)

      I do occasional laser safety work at a couple such observatories (here's a picture), where "safety" involves making sure we don't beam any of the Qantas flights that fly over our general vicinity nightly. (Fortunately, they usually have the sense to miss us by 100km to one side or the other. ANZ, on the other hand, have been known to fly right over us.)

      --
      Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
    67. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by bug1 · · Score: 1

      "Please leave us alone to our gun-free lifestyle."

      If you really want a gun free society then take guns away from police and the military, is that the society you want ?

      We should all want to live in a society where people are responsible, but how do we get to that state.

      Do we make a responsible society by making laws that attempt to punish and forced to be responsible, or is a contradiction to describe someone as being responsible only when they are forced ?

      Perhaps we should give people enough freedom to allow them to be responsible of their own accord, only that way can they set a good example.

      Its wrong to punish the innocent to protect them from the guilty.

      People should be given the option of being responsible for themselves, how else can they learn responsibility ?

      A government should empower its people, not impair them.

      etc etc

    68. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by rjames13 · · Score: 1

      but if you classify them as WMD how will we ever find them?

    69. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by wazza · · Score: 1

      Just out of interest, any reason why you're only quoting 9 and 10 year old news stories?

      Anyways, even a 39% increase (assuming the Brisbane Sunday Mail is using the stats right - I'll give you 50-50 on that one) over a low gun crime rate isn't as bad as it would be if guns were freely available.

      There are just too many nutjobs out there - people who don't give a damn about others. I'd go so far as to say people who don't actually appreciate civilisation, and what it's done for them. There's more to being a modern human being, in a world with 6.7 billion people, than "OMG I want my xxx, I want my yyy, I want my zzz, and damn you all, I want..."

      Rant endeth :>

    70. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by rjames13 · · Score: 1

      An unarmed population is an oppressed population.

      You think that by gaining freedom you are freer than those that choose to be responsible instead, but you fail to weigh in how much freedom you actually lose by ignoring responsibility.

      As your people say

      "But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." Do you truly have any liberty if you have to be afraid? Have you lost the plot and assumed that weapons=liberty? Therefore you have replaced one oppressor with another.
    71. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by rjames13 · · Score: 1

      Man's home searched, found in possession of home made high power laser pointer home made?
    72. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      note to self: do not look directly with remaining eye..

    73. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      blah blah blah

      Your society (by which I mean the United States of America) doesn't have it perfect. I don't see why you should be lecturing to me how to create a safe society, when I can safely say that we have quite a free and non-violent society.

      We don't need guns. We aren't really in all that much danger. There is still a dangerous element in our society, so our police force have guns. Big deal?

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    74. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      Indeed, there's nothing quite so infantile as needing a weapon to feel safe... oh wait. Wrong country.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    75. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by I)_MaLaClYpSe_(I · · Score: 1
    76. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by bug1 · · Score: 1

      As much as i hate to admit it, i live in australia. The fact that you assumed i must be a foreigner because i disagree with you shows your bias.

      You contradict yourself, you say we dont need guns then you imply its ok for police to have guns.

      Is it harder for you to express your "opinion" without a script ?

    77. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      I apologise for mistaking you for a yank. I never denied my bias. I'm not speaking from a script - not sure where you got that assumption. Guess I'm not the only one making assumptions here!

      But I ask you, have you ever been threatened by a gun in Australia? Genuinely interested.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    78. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Random5 · · Score: 1

      Actually the regular cops in the UK don't carry guns at all. The guns aren't even present unless the situation requires them which it doesn't most of the time. I'm (Aussie) perfectly happy with my nearly gun free society and no amount of wingeing by people who want to make themselves feel tough by owning a lethal weapon is going to make me think otherwise. I don't know anyone who has a gun except a cop, I've never even touched a real gun. Don't give me all your 'only criminals will have guns' crap, they'd have them anyway and adding someone else with a gun into the equation only increases the odds someone is going to get shot. Everybody has some limit on what they think should be legal in private ownership (nukes, artillery, grenades, machineguns, semi-auto handguns, single shot rifles...) don't pretend you're making perfect sense demanding your own handgun while you'd recoil in horror at the thought of criminals with a machinegun/artillery piece.

    79. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by phyrz · · Score: 1

      http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gay

      Specifically:

      3. often used to describe something stupid or unfortunate. originating from homophobia. quite preferable among many teenage males in order to buff up their "masculinity"

      and

      3. "Man, these seats are gay. I can't even see what's going on!"

      Welcome to the Internet!

      --
      Don't point that gun at him, he's an unpaid intern!
    80. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could do as much damage blinding pilots with a large searchlight
      Idiot.
    81. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by CoolHnd30 · · Score: 1

      Apparently, no Australian adult is allowed to own anything that would be dangerous in the hands of a lunatic or a drunken retard You mean Crocodile Dundee couldn't really have had that foot long knife, or was he just an outlaw?
    82. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "For fucks sake, every air traveler in the country has to remove their shoes because one wacko thought he could put a bomb in his loafers."

      What?! We don't _have_ to. We still have liberties, even if our overlords don't afford them to us.

      This whole "the terrorists ruined it for us" is bullshit. They're not the ones passing the laws, they're not the ones strip searching you, they're those guys who the government tells us about, and that we're being kept safe from them.

      I call bullshit.

      That aside, at some point, common sense needs to trump these stupid, stupid, STUPID laws.

    83. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Hatta · · Score: 1

      There are Class III lasers in every DVD burner. There are instructions easily available for making a pointer out of it.

      Banning Class III lasers pointers is not going to keep them out of the hands of anyone who wants one.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    84. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by darkgreen · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think it's his whole point - these are the articles and stats that closely followed the tightening of restrictions on legal gun ownership - essentially not solving the problem, and only restricting the rights of the people that weren't the source of problems in the first place.

      I got the message clearly - don't punish based on the object, punish based on the behaviour, be it guns, knives, cars, or lasers.

      --
      You don't need Geeksintraining if you're on Slashdot.
    85. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We like it that way.

      That's a pretty mild way of saying you've come to love the feel of the jackboot on your neck.

      Once you've let them take your gun, you may as well let them finish the job by sawing off your dick.

    86. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if some of the citizens who were present at the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 were armed, they could have stopped him early. You know before he left, before the police could even be alerted. The point is, the police aren't everywhere, and they are best left at sorting things out after the fact, unless they happen to arrive before an incident is over. Unarmed citizens are sitting ducks, its as simple as that.

    87. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by bug1 · · Score: 1

      "But I ask you, have you ever been threatened by a gun in Australia? "

      No, but i was trained to use one whilst in the military.

      Still, we both should be objective enough to see outside our own experiences.

    88. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by bug1 · · Score: 1

      The point i was trying to make is that a weapon is a tool.

      We are comfortable with cops having weapons because we trust them, weapons are seen to be used responsible by cops (by most people).

      So is it the tool or the person that should be controled ?

      Im with you in saying that _some_ people shouldnt be allowed to have guns, but do you honestly think that responsible people should not be trusted with guns... do you think there arent any responsible people ?

    89. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are comfortable with cops having weapons because we trust them, weapons are seen to be used responsible by cops

      Well, cops outside of Victoria anyway.

    90. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, in America we would issue our pilots really expensive high end laser proof goggles developed by a big contractor with ties to the White House all on a no-bid contract.

    91. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by syousef · · Score: 1

      No it's not about permanent eye damage, it's about bringing down the plane by distracting or blinding a pilot on final.

      Class IIIa lasers aren't to be pointed into people's eyes but permanent damage from a quick flash is rare

      http://ehs.uky.edu/radiation/laser_fs.html

      IIIb is s a different story.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    92. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by syousef · · Score: 1

      Point it up at the stars, not at planes.

      Have you looked above you lately? Unless you live near a major airport I think you'll find the skies aren't that crowded that you're going to hit a random plane cockpit at 5km by accident.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    93. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by dropbearsrus · · Score: 1

      Erm, yes, we do. Especially since Port Arthur, there are high levels of public support in Australia for tighter gun controls. You, as an individual Australian might not agree with gun controls but We, as in the majority, want these laws.
      "An unarmed population is an oppressed population". Who exactly is oppressing you, that you need a firearm to protect your freedom? The fact is that in a properly functioning democracy, with appropriate civil policing, the population does not need firearms.
      If you want to use guns, fine. Join a rifle club and leave your weapon locked up there. Or join the Army Reserves where they pay you to shoot, and defend our freedoms. You could even use the argument 'I live in the bush and I want to be able to go pig shooting'.
      But don't try and tell me you as a citizen need to keep a gun to protect yourself from 'oppression'. You live in Australia, not Sudan.

    94. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by syousef · · Score: 1

      Astronomy? No serious astronomer would use a device that further increases light pollution. They should be banned for this reason alone.

      Shows how much you know. Green laser pointers are tool commonly used by astronomers to point out astronomical objects in the sky. The beam can be seen at night as it reflects off particles in the air.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    95. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by syousef · · Score: 1

      Completely wrong. A class IIIa laser outputs no more than 5mW. Class 2 tops out at 1mW. Some red laser pointers are class 2, but a lot of lasers are class IIIa.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    96. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, just a fictional character in a stupid film.

    97. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      I am being objective. I've never needed to use a gun to defend myself, and I hope that the current state of affairs remains that way. Objectively, if only the military and law enforcement (who are fully audited and internally policed in such a way that it's difficult for them to use a gun on the civilian population) have guns, then I'm not likely to get shot by one.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    98. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...because one wacko thought he could put a bomb in his loafers.

      Did you just refer to shoes as "loafters"? That's it, I'm taking away your American citizenship, get back over the Atlantic with those crumpet eating red coats, you limey bastard!
    99. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by bug1 · · Score: 1

      So maybe its the auditing and internal checks that are helping you to feel secure.

      If civilian organisations/individuals had the same procedures that the police do to make sure they dont abuse their power would you still think they shouldnt have guns ?

    100. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      The gun restrictions came in last century. The point is that there was an immediate increase in violent crime.

      Since you ask though: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2007/facts_and_figures_2007.pdf
      According to the Australian Institute of Criminology report "Australian crime: facts and figures 2007" (linked pdf) page 23:
      Homicide, type of weapon, 2005-6
      Knife 33%
      Physical force (hands and feet) 18%
      Blunt instrument 14%
      Other unknown 21%
      Firearm 14%

      So people are being killed with knives or hands and feet more than 3 times as often as with guns. Great step forward. Colour me unimpressed.

      On page 33, knives are used in 33% of armed robberies, firearms in 16%. Yay, at least we don't have guns!

    101. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      The laws came in last century. It isnt' 100 years ago you know. The point is there was an immediate increase in violent crime, but you can see the info from this century in my other comment.

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=528966&cid=23155338

    102. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      darkgreen got it right. You can see a link (and my comments) on the 2007 report from the Australian Institute of Criminology in my other comment.

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=528966&cid=23155338

    103. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      Just out of interest, any reason why you're only quoting 9 and 10 year old news stories?
      The gun laws were introduced in 1996. These articles give a picture of the immediate effect.

      Anyways, even a 39% increase ... over a low gun crime rate isn't as bad as it would be if guns were freely available.
      You've got it wrong. It's a 39% increase over when they were freely available. When I was a teenager, I bought my ammunition in Toyworld. When I left school, you could still buy firearms over the counter in QLD. Even military rifles (but not fully automatic). As far as I remember, they didn't even do an ID check.

      And a word on nutjobs: my experience is that violent nutjobs almost exclusively get violent on people they are sure they can beat. Just let a few football players antagonise them and you'll see how self-controlled they can be. These are the people that society benefits greatly if they think that they will encounter an armed response.
    104. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I thought that the argument was that Australia doesn't allow guns and is infringing on the rights of citizens. I thought that we all had our shorts in an uproar about the Aussie nanny state!

      I'd like to see what sort of reaction there would be in the U.S. if we added the same checks and audits that the military and police have to those private individuals who own guns.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    105. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Random5 · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of responsible people who could be trusted with guns. There's also no real way to tell them from the idiots who shouldn't be let within eyesight of a gun though, you may screen some out but others will get through.

    106. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Jarik_Tentsu · · Score: 1

      Oshi! Must hide that class 3 laser rave lighting thingy we ordered from China... >_>

      It looks cool at parties though. =P

      ~Jarik

    107. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On page 33, knives are used in 33% of armed robberies, firearms in 16%. Yay, at least we don't have guns!
      Correcting myself: knives are used in 49% of armed robberies
    108. Re:It's only class 3 and 4 lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Already at 100 mW the laser is strong enough to make you blind in less than a millisecond

      Then what's to stop someone putting 20, legal, 5mW lasers together with a lens? No individual laser is over the legal threshold, but it would certainly have the power to blind.

      How difficult is it to modify a 5mW laser to output more than its rated power?

  6. Croc Dundee by Middle+-+Adopter · · Score: 0

    I thought the Aussies were all like, "Mate, that's not a knife. Now *this* (pulls out a massive machete), this right here is a knife."

    I wonder if they'll start confiscating boomerangs next.

    1. Re:Croc Dundee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Giant knives are fine. It's guns and concentrated light that we don't like to see around here.

    2. Re:Croc Dundee by BrunoBigfoot · · Score: 1

      That's not a knife, that's a spoon!

      Alright, you win. I see you've played knifey-spooney before.

  7. Not entirely true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The summary states that "certain types" of laser pointers would be banned, and the article explicitly states that only "the most powerful" of the devices would fall into this category. I don't think it's applicable to hand-held pointers or laser/pen combos (ie, most of what you can actually buy anyway). Granted, that green laser that can burn paper would probably be banned, but that's no great loss.

    1. Re:Not entirely true by Technician · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's applicable to hand-held pointers or laser/pen combos (ie, most of what you can actually buy anyway).

      Check your pocket. I have a couple $3 pen pointer sets collecting dust. They are all IIIa devices. I don't have a single class II pointer.. Do they really have a class II laser pointer? I don't have any.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    2. Re:Not entirely true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIIa is ANSI, not the international standard.

  8. HAW HAW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine that - an article about Australians & an American mentions Crocadile Dundee

    NOONE's EVER DONE THAT BEFORE.

    we bow before your awesome humour.

  9. Is it ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if my pet shark carries my laser pointer for me?

  10. While we're at it... by fremean · · Score: 1

    I dunno...

    Ban guns because guns kill people.
    Ban lasers because lasers blind/distract/kill people.

    Can we ban cars? Cars kill more people then both here...
    How about trains? Been a few people killed by them...
    Hospitals? Lots of people die/get killed in hospitals...

    1. Re:While we're at it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ban is only for those without a lawful reason. People have a lawful reason to use cars, trains and hospitals. Try again.

    2. Re:While we're at it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lots of people were quick to jump on the "let's ban X and Y every-day items as well" bandwagon. But seriously, for what legitimate reason might someone carry around a class 3 or 4 laser? If they have a reason to have that equipment (researchers, etc), then it's considered lawful use, and the authorities won't hassle you. Why is it important that the rest of us have access to powerful lasers?

      Cars are an essential tool in most peoples' lives. We realize they kill more people than lasers, but we couldn't exactly give them up. Powerful lasers serve no useful purpose in the hands of someone who doesn't depend on them for work-related reasons, and so it seems like a smart move to take them away.

      Of course, I don't think this will stop anyone from trying to bring down planes. It's just like banning guns in Australia - the people who want them to cause mischief aren't inconvenienced in the slightest by the lack of legal avenues through which they can obtain one. If you want to cause trouble, the black market will ALWAYS be there.

    3. Re:While we're at it... by Sobrique · · Score: 5, Insightful
      When I found out that it was legal to own and buy a 300mW laser pointer, I was actually quite suprised. Those are really quite hazardous without 'sensitive' handling. No one really cares about burning through paper or popping balloons, but the 'and might blind bystanders, even with just beam scatter' is IMO a good enough reason to restrict their usage.

      Unlike arcwelders, or cars, I can't think of a lot of good reasons for a high intensity laser.

      Having them available to 'everyone' in my opinion vastly increases the probabilty of a random fool doing something foolish.

      But then, I think the same about firearms too, except even there there's 'real' self defense possibilities.

    4. Re:While we're at it... by RuBLed · · Score: 1

      Heck, we don't have to go through all of that. Just ban dying without lawful reason.

    5. Re:While we're at it... by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      Ummm... not sure how to break it to you, but euthenasia is illegal and so is suicide.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    6. Re:While we're at it... by cranos · · Score: 1

      Ummm... not sure how to break it to you, but euthenasia is illegal and so is suicide.

      Umm yes and no. Euthenasia is illegal, but suicide isn't. At least in Australia it isn't.

    7. Re:While we're at it... by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    8. Re:While we're at it... by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      These kind of lasers are used for a lot of things almost everywhere and you don't realise its power or let alone how common they are.
      Lasers are used in almost all woodworking power tools like drills, jigsaws, circular saws, cut off saws or anything that needs a pencil mark to cut or drill.
      Then there are laser levels - the cheap ones (around $30) and the more expensive ones that can cast a line around 3 sides of a room. These are used in the building trades.
      Then there are lasers used in surveying, rangefinding and measurement, security and so on.
      Then there is the entertainment industry and you can get quite a powerful laser setup cheap if you want to set one up for a band.
      Lasers are common place and this new law will be difficult to police. It's better to restrict sales to under 18 than to ban them altogether.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    9. Re:While we're at it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realise that 400-500mW red lasers ARE available to everyone, assuming everyone has a screwdriver and a dead DVD/RW drive?

      I've stripped out quite a few of the things, and the measured power level of the diodes has been as low as 250mW and as high as 550mW. They can easily be retrofitted into an existing low-powered laser pointer as well, as the diodes are all the same size with the same pinout.

    10. Re:While we're at it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about capital punishment for (attempted) euthenasia and suicide? :D

    11. Re:While we're at it... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Heck, we don't have to go through all of that. Just ban dying without lawful reason.

      Didn't a town in France do that recently?

      Seems they couldn't get a permit to expand their local cemetery (which was full), so they banned dying within town limits.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    12. Re:While we're at it... by Wavebreak · · Score: 1

      Yes, there are legitimate uses. Hence the need for a license.

      --
      Nobody expects the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.
    13. Re:While we're at it... by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      I'm not arguing with the overall thrust of your discussion. However, I can think of some good reasons for having a high intensity laser -- just like an arcwelder, it can be used as a tool. I'm in the process of rebuilding an old X/Y plotter to use a 250mW laser diode instead of a pen, so I can cut stuff out very precisely and very quickly. Now, that doesn't mean I'm running down the street with my 250mW laser diodes, any more than I'm running down the street with my TIG welder. But high-power lasers are useful.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    14. Re:While we're at it... by Sobrique · · Score: 1

      Most of those applications don't _require_ high intensity lasers though. A Restricting the ones that can actually burn out eyeballs, doesn't strike me as a particularly stupid move.

    15. Re:While we're at it... by Sobrique · · Score: 1
      Yes, I can vandalise some hardware, and make something dangerous out of it.

      And yes, DVD drives do use higher power lasers. But then, that's a sealed unit, which there is NO chance of accidental exposure to the light.

      Or a host bus adaptor, for speaking to a fiber channel switch.

      The fact that real applications exist for really bright light, doesn't change the fact that UK law has laserpointers restricted to Class II. E.g. Some places restrict to Class IIIa, which is These restrictions are because whilst getting one of those in the face is annoying, it's not actually likely to cause damage to the eye, or temporarily blind the target. And vandalising your DVD player in order to get a laser to show off with, is as illegal as walking around with a class IV laser in your back pocket.

      I really don't see a problem with this. Class II lasers are fine for almost anything you need a little laser dot for.

      Legitimate applications are almost exclusively something that can be done in a relatively controlled environment, and having the legal restriction to back this up, means you're not faced with idiots with a class 4 laser thinking it's funny after they've had a beer or two, to shine it across a road.

    16. Re:While we're at it... by Sobrique · · Score: 1
      Hmm, that's an interesting idea, and not one that had crossed my mind.

      I suppose that brighter lasers are also in use in some stuff like DVD players too, as mentioned by another poster.

      But generally speaking, I think the difference between 'and in my garage I ...' and 'portable device that's hazardous' is perhaps worthy of the additional legislation to control it.

    17. Re:While we're at it... by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 1
      Cars have to be registered, & their drivers licensed. There are also additional restrictions based on the jurisdiction (speed limits, must use a hands-free device, teens can't drive after a certain time, etc).


      Trains have to be certified & their operators/engineers licensed.


      Hospitals have to be accredited, & the doctors & nurses working at them have to be licensed.


      Given the above facts, why would it be a surprise to license/regulate a hazardous device?

    18. Re:While we're at it... by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      I have a lot of trouble making the argument that high-power lasers shouldn't be regulated because they can do a *lot* of damage, instantaneously, anonymously, and if you're a pilot (I am) who is flying for money (I'm not) your career is suddenly, irrevocably screwed for something you had no control over and the person who did isn't going to be held responsible.
      With all that said, this is an example of nanny-state legislation. We're outlawing something that *could* be misused for the greater social good. I think there are times when that makes sense: I don't think my neighbor should be doing above-ground nuclear weapons testing in his back yard. But at the same time, once you *start* banning things for the safety of all mankind, it's easier to keep banning more and more things, and you end up in a Harrison Bergeron sort of future, where everyone is walking around encased in foam armor using speech recognition to interface to everything so nobody can be hurt by actually touching things. And that would suck.
      To sum up: yeah, ligh-power lasers are dangerous, and some people who use them are damn fools. But banning them moves us one step further along the path of complete blandness and the remanufacture of society as passive consumers rather than innovators, and I think the long-term danger of that to humanity as a whole is greater than the cumulative damage caused by being on the receiving end of a laser diode. But that's probably largely because I A: have high-power lasers and B: haven't been blinded by some idiot.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    19. Re:While we're at it... by fremean · · Score: 1

      They're not.

      I can have one!

      And I only have a modest $2k investment in astronomy gear :)

    20. Re:While we're at it... by Iowan41 · · Score: 1

      Australia apparently believes that the people are property of the State, and may only have and do what the State declares. In America, we have/had this thing called 'freedom' and 'liberty'. The civil government was the creation of the people and the several States. It was strictly limited and defined. All rights came from God, so the civil government had no authority to remove or over-ride them, and you'd have no nonsense of 'what legitimate reason do you have for x' What authority do you have to even ask the question??

  11. makes no sense by nguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These incidents are, overall, extremely rare. In-flight they are not an issue at all. Furthermore, pilots better be able to deal with them, since there are lots of other sources of bright light that may cause them to be temporarily blinded (or experience the "photic sneeze").

    If lawmakers are just itching to make a new law, make it a specific law that says that it's illegal to carry a laser pointer on your person, outdoors, within 2 miles of the runway, where it could be pointed at planes taking off or landing.

    1. Re:makes no sense by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      A lot of Laws in NSW that don't make sense! It is one of the more draconian states of Australia.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    2. Re:makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1: Instrument approaches start much further from the runway
      2: The law only affects Class III and IV lasers, which can cause blindness.
      3: The laser pointers used in classrooms are Class II lasers; you should be able to blink before it damages you
      4: Dazzling pilots in most likely to occur when the aircraft is in the least recoverable state. Just exactly how do you think the pilot should fly when flashblinded? These things are a whole lot brighter then any lights in the cockpit or on the runway.
      5: whlie extremely rare, this stand a serious chance of killing 500 people at a time. risk is the product of probability and consequence. 500 people burnt alive at one time is an extremely high consequence.

      Your arguments, sir, are complete and utter bullshit.

    3. Re:makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As an Australian Commercial pilot I have been victim to these laser attacks before around the Melbourne area. How the fuck are we meant to deal with them? What the hell do you suggest? Put up a fucking mirror? We're either concentrating on approach or gaining altitude, we shouldn't have to worry about some fuckwit with a laser.
      If I'm flying VFR and I can't fucking see then I am going I'm going to have an accident.
      To be honest this law isn't going to change much, because the problem is they don't know who these morons are, however this should at least stop the sale of the types of lasers which are capable of being used offensively.

    4. Re:makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Six times in a week is a bit more than extremely rare...

    5. Re:makes no sense by Whiteox · · Score: 0, Troll

      You're an idiot again.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    6. Re:makes no sense by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Ignore that. It was meant for a different post..... my bad.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    7. Re:makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you #23139952?

    8. Re:makes no sense by jamesh · · Score: 1

      temporarily blinded

      I'm not sure how much the effect diminishes with range, but the sort of blinding caused by the lasers covered by this sort of legislation can be anything but temporary...
    9. Re:makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, forget to click Post Anonymously this time? ;-)

    10. Re:makes no sense by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Yeah sure. But don't tell anyone :)

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    11. Re:makes no sense by nguy · · Score: 1

      To be honest this law isn't going to change much, because the problem is they don't know who these morons are

      So, you agree it's an ineffective law.

      however this should at least stop the sale of the types of lasers which are capable of being used offensively.

      No, if it were to stop the sale, then it would say so. It won't stop the sale because people have legitimate reasons for using them.

      As an Australian Commercial pilot I have been victim to these laser attacks before around the Melbourne area. How the fuck are we meant to deal with them?

      I think you shouldn't deal with them at all. You evidently have a problem with self control and foul language and you have no business sitting in the cockpit of a plane.

    12. Re:makes no sense by SJ2000 · · Score: 1

      Since when was pretty language a prerequisite for self-control? I'd be annoyed too if some idiot was doing the same thing to me as him. And it will stop the sale to the sorts of people who use them offensively because they don't have a lawful excuse. Only industrial and commercial interests do. What legitimate reason does an ordinary person have for owning one of these powerful lasers?

    13. Re:makes no sense by nguy · · Score: 1

      Since when was pretty language a prerequisite for self-control?

      No, it's just that lack of the former is an indication of lack of the latter. Is he going to get angry and lose his control if someone actually shines a light in his cockpit? Because it's pilot reaction, not the light or flash blindness itself that would cause the crash. You can be sure that if he "vents" like this in a forum where his employer can identify him, he would be in trouble. And if he vents like this on the plane, you can be sure I would file a complaint about it with his employer and follow up on it. His reaction is unacceptable in a commercial pilot.

      And it will stop the sale to the sorts of people who use them offensively because they don't have a lawful excuse. Only industrial and commercial interests do. What legitimate reason does an ordinary person have for owning one of these powerful lasers?

      First, the Australian law classes 1-5 mW lasers as "weapons": standard laser pointers that cause no damage and are used in lectures and amateur astronomy. Second, it's the vague manner in which these things are being prohibited ("unless there is a legitimate reason") that's the problem.

    14. Re:makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I have a question (from a real pilot). When you fly you are under the rules for IFR [instrument flight rules]. No commercial aircraft flies under VFR [visual flight rules]. You fly nearly 100% by instrument unless taking off an landing. On landing you may NOT go to VFR unless you have the runway in sight. Now here is my question, during flight the only way to get a laser into my eyes is for the the shooter to be above my flight path. On approach he must still be above my flight path for a direct shot into my eyes. On landing the aircraft is flaring and the cockpit angle is even higher. Think about it. Look up at an airplane next time your are on the ground and tell me if you see the cockpit windows, or the pilot. Hell, go the airport and look at the planes when they are landing. So where are these laser shooters coming from?

  12. Hmmm... by DiSKiLLeR · · Score: 1

    Somewhat stupid, sure, like the first post talking about banning headlights so we can't blind other drivers.

    But then after stories like this on salshdot: http://slashdot.org/articles/07/08/09/0412215.shtml, I'm not the least bit surprised?

    --
    You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
  13. The reason they're banning them is .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. because a number of idiots have been flashing planes on landing approach to the airport.

    Apparently whatever lasers they're using are powerful enough to work from several suburbs away, so catching them is quite problematic. They just sit there and flash for 15 minutes and then drive away. By the time the police get there they're long gone, so it's not really feasible to catch the loons.

    Luckily no plane's crashed yet, but there's certainly enough danger to warrant the ban. As per usual a few idiots spoil it for the rest of us ..

  14. The laser pointers will look harmless by antifoidulus · · Score: 5, Funny

    compared to the chaos that will ensue after the cats of Australia have found out what lawmakers have done with their favorite toy and rise up as one to slay them.

    1. Re:The laser pointers will look harmless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that may be, but if you're playing with a 500mW laser with your cat, he'll end up looking like mr bigglesworth, no fur.

    2. Re:The laser pointers will look harmless by cryptodan · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is what the new war will look like: Lazer Cat is firing his lazer - http://www.olivepixel.com/misc/lj/lc.jpg

  15. First they disarmed the wookies by The+Famous+Druid · · Score: 3, Funny

    and I stayed silent.

    Then they disarmed the ewoks, and I stayed silent.

    Then they came to disarm me, and there was no-one left to speak up.

    --
    Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
    1. Re:First they disarmed the wookies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, since the unintelligible furries were gone, I was happy.

    2. Re:First they disarmed the wookies by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Then they came to disarm me ...
      ... so I shone a class 3 laser pointer into their eyes and blinded the bastards!
  16. The U.S. does already by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's illegal to have headlights above a certain brightness level, or perhaps it's above a certain number of lights - but there are light configurations you can put on a car that will get you pulled over if you have them on for street driving.

    Now it's not illegal to have said lights mounted, so that's the point where the car analogy breaks (as they always do). But it does show your point is not as ridiculous as you had thought, because having really bright beams pointed at traffic is in fact a valid safety issue.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:The U.S. does already by dandenoth · · Score: 2, Informative

      It might very from state to state, but in my state both can get you pulled over or ticketed, and I should know since I've been pulled over for excessively bright lights(mine were 100w bulbs, max is 65) as well as an excessive number, which in my state is apparently more that four forward beams(I had six, although four of them were foglights). Also, certain colors of lights are also prohibited, such as black lights, blue lights, or pretty much anything that isn't white or amber in color. On topic now! Realistically, this shouldn't really affect people, as the laser for your PowerPoint presentation will still be legal, as well as the one you use to torment your cat. I'd rather enjoy not going blind thanks to some dirtbag with a high powered laser.

    2. Re:The U.S. does already by woods01 · · Score: 1

      Maybe where you live in the US. But where I live in the US, there is no headlight enforcement. The higher-end cars all use those HID lights that are brighter the anything on the road, blind you whenever the slightest dip in the road is hit by them coming at you, and these light configurations are stock on vehicles. It is illegal however for me to put those same lights on a car I already own that didn't come with it. Cops probably wouldn't pull you over for it, but if an inspection garage in my state discovers them not to be original equipment, the inspection can fail. I've been against these brighter headlights since day one, and industry does whatever it wants to. The .au is weak, a softball bat is a weapon to those people.

    3. Re:The U.S. does already by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      The higher-end cars all use those HID lights that are brighter the anything on the road, blind you whenever the slightest dip in the road is hit by them coming at you, and these light configurations are stock on vehicles. It is illegal however for me to put those same lights on a car I already own that didn't come with it.
      No. The "higher end cars" have HID done right - with projector lamps which focus the beam in order to increase effectiveness and decrease the likelihood of blinding oncoming traffic. The idiots who blind you are the ones who buy a $300 "conversion kit" for their 1983 Honda Civic, and then stick the HID lamps in regular reflector housings.

      The funny (ok, not funny at all) thing is that while these ass-clowns will swear that their new HID lights are the coolest thing ever, the extra glare reflecting off everything around them actually decreases their own ability to see at night time. So not only are they blinding you, they're also endangering themselves.

      I for one wish the cops WOULD start enforcing those laws. If you're going to put in HID, get projectors, otherwise you deserve to be arrested.
    4. Re:The U.S. does already by electrictroy · · Score: 1

      Whenever I encounter these drivers, I do a quick Lo-Hi-Lo switch with my headlights to say, "Hey bud; turn down your headlights." Most get the message and drop their lights from Hi to Lo. Some are idiots and continue blinding everybody.

      Idiots should be banned from driving.

      The other day I was literally run-off I-295 by an idiot (he tried to squeeze between me and the car in front; but there was no room; so I ended-up in the gutter). I called the Maryland Police and they claimed there's nothing they can do. Makes me wonder why I'm paying taxes if my gov't employees refuse to do anything.

      Laws have no meaning if you don't enforce them.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    5. Re:The U.S. does already by deKernel · · Score: 1

      The reason they can't do anything is because an officer did not see the event.

      You don't want the police to be giving out tickets because any Tom, Dick or Harry called the police to complain about a driver since or I you could be on the receiving end of those tickets.

    6. Re:The U.S. does already by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Most murderers don't commit their crimes with a police officer in their presence either. That doesn't stop the police from arresting them. Sure, it's a much more serious offence, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be charged for smaller offenses just because the police didn't actually see you. Sure there might be a small number of situations where somebody reports a traffic offence against someone, just because they don't like them, but I think that you could resolve that in court, if you could prove that you weren't in the area, or that the guy had some kind of personal vendetta against you.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    7. Re:The U.S. does already by electrictroy · · Score: 1

      They could have issued a warning, which has no legal effect, but would at least make the driver aware that such behavior is unacceptable.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    8. Re:The U.S. does already by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      It's illegal to have headlights above a certain brightness level, or perhaps it's above a certain number of lights - but there are light configurations you can put on a car that will get you pulled over if you have them on for street driving.

      Strangely enough the Xenon lights are still allowed. They are so bright, that it is almost as if the other car has the head-lights on.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    9. Re:The U.S. does already by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      "Idiots should be banned from driving."

      This would remove 80% of the drivers from the road, and bring the economy to it's knees. There is also the problem that many of the biggest complainers are idiot drivers themselves. Public transportation is not an answer. Moving closer to jobs is not an answer. The only real solution to the death and carnage that is the automobile is automatically driven cars. I don't see that happening soon.

    10. Re:The U.S. does already by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Whenever I encounter these drivers, I do a quick Lo-Hi-Lo switch with my headlights to say, "Hey bud; turn down your headlights." Most get the message and drop their lights from Hi to Lo. Some are idiots and continue blinding everybody.
      That's a separate issue entirely. HID conversions are generally done on low-beam lamps, so flashing your high-beams at them is pointless since they've already got their low-beams turned on. About all they can do at that point to avoid blinding you is to shut off their lights entirely.
    11. Re:The U.S. does already by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      As someone who has the privilege of knowing any number of very poor drivers, I can tell you that the angriest (and thus most likely to call in complaints) people I have ever met are also the ones who believe that they can do no wrong when driving. If they run a stop sign, you should have stopped. If they speed up to stop you from merging you're rude and aggressive for trying to get ahead. They drive five under the speed limit until you try to pass them then it's off to the races. Murder works because they can investigate the crime and find evidence not of of it having actually been committed, but of who committed it and furthermore doing so is worthwhile. The analogous driving situation is an accident, having the police issue tickets based on other drivers phone calls is probably the worst idea I've heard today.

    12. Re:The U.S. does already by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      The point was that we can't trust the judgment of other drivers most of the time. Beyond that, most people who speed, or tailgate, or cut people off, or drive drunk for that matter (and there is a line to call those in) know that they're doing it and probably don't care in the slightest about tickets, let alone warnings.. The last thing we need is the devotion of resources to send out meaningless warning letters that may or may not have any basis in reality.

    13. Re:The U.S. does already by stuff+and+such · · Score: 1

      As far as the "low-high-low", my car is old enough to have 4 sealed beam headlights. If the idiot coming at me won't turn off his high beams after a quick flash, he gets all 4, and I know at night he can't see jack with that.

      --
      my UID occurs in pi starting at the 384,199 digit after the decimal point.
    14. Re:The U.S. does already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most murderers don't commit their crimes with a police officer in their presence either. That doesn't stop the police from arresting them.
      Most murderers leave a corpse behind.

      A driver who almost causes an accident leaves no physical evidence.
    15. Re:The U.S. does already by PachmanP · · Score: 1

      Most murderers don't commit their crimes with a police officer in their presence either. That doesn't stop the police from arresting them. Sure, it's a much more serious offence, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be charged for smaller offenses just because the police didn't actually see you. Sure there might be a small number of situations where somebody reports a traffic offence against someone, just because they don't like them, but I think that you could resolve that in court, if you could prove that you weren't in the area, or that the guy had some kind of personal vendetta against you. I dunno about you, but I would prefer not to treat traffic offenses the same as criminal offenses. At least until they become criminal like vehicular manslaughter or assult or whatever.
      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    16. Re:The U.S. does already by PopeGumby · · Score: 1

      so some guy made up some event abuot me, because he didnt like the colour of my car, and now i have to go to court to prove i wasnt there, or that the guy has a personal vendetta? no thanks.

    17. Re:The U.S. does already by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You probably reported it improperly. What you need to do is inflate the severity of the situation and use buzz words popular in the media at the time.

      You call and say someone cut you off. They say you can't do anything about it. You call and say you think the guy is drunk, he almost killed you by swerving and erratically changing lanes forcing you off the road momentarily- you where in fear of bodily harm. You had to swerve in your "hybird" car at the last second to avoid the accident. You then say that you think you saw him flip you off as you sounded the horn to warn that he almost hit you then took a drink of something that looked like a beer bottle but you couldn't tell for sure. Now, if there wasn't enough room between you and the car in front of you, you then add that he almost hit the car in front of you to boot. It almost looks as if he is mad or something maybe suffering from road rage. Make sure you give them his license number.

      Lets see, we got DUI complaint which will get MADD on their ass if he is in an accident whether he had been drinking or not, the soccer moms will go crazy over the road rage if someone is injured by his aggressive driving after a report had been made, the environmental wackos will cry foul because your green lifestyle is being singled out and you aren't being afforded equal protection of the law. They pretty much have to do almost anything to check this guy out or whoever is on watch will suffer severely if that ass hole is in an accident before the night is over.

      It's a matter of CYOA. You didn't get in a wreck, no body was injured, there was no damage to your vehicle or private property so your ass is already covered. There is no need for the police to get upset. But when you inflate the situation (be truthfully elaborative, don't outright lie), they have to cover their own asses now.

    18. Re:The U.S. does already by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      This happens quite a bit of the time. Most misdemeanors are sworn out as complaints made by citizens. Disturbing, the peace is one example. Following too close, Failure to stop at a traffic control device, going left of center, failure to control are all offenses that are generally written on the statements of others without the cops seeing it. The deal usually is that if someone reports something that is unlawful but no one was injured (nothing damaged), then they don't press the issue. But when there is damage, whether the other person was involved in the physical damage or not, they tend to press the issues.

    19. Re:The U.S. does already by electrictroy · · Score: 1

      Good point.

      Better that I get forced into the gutter and bang my head against the steering wheel (with blood running down my forehead) while the guilty driver gets off. Yeah, much better.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
  17. I've been injured by one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    FWIW, I'm one of those who've been injured with a laser pointer. It took a momentary glance up the street after leaving a Newtown bar with friends for me to be left with a blind wiggle across my right eye, from the lower right to the upper left, running right through my fovea. I'm unable to read unless I use my left eye, because with my right there just aren't any words there. I can see the big picture, but no details. That was July 2006, and two years of partial blindness makes a hell of a difference to life. Forget watching fast paced movies and having a clue what's going on, get ready to read 1/3 the speed you used to, and forget being able to look at code and tell the difference between { and ( without using a 20 point font.

    And perl... it's all but incomprehensible.. oh wait, I learned that after being blinded. I kid I kid.

    The thing about the tools who use laser pointers like this is they can be so far away nobody has any idea who they are, where they are, the beam is silent, and about all you can tell is it's over-that-way-somewhere. The bouncers around that night said they'd seen a laser pointer dot bouncing over guests through the evening, but thought nothing of it.

    Whether or not they should be banned is one question, but comparing them to screwdrivers, knives, or axes is being a git who doesn't turn their brain on. At least if some bastard had come at me with a knife they'd have been caught, and at the very least been beaten into a pulp by either my friends, or the bouncers.

    The laser pointer tools though - anonymous, quiet, pretty much undetectable, and their weapon leaves absolutely no evidence behind of what it was apart from really fucking bright.

    1. Re:I've been injured by one. by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 0

      Bullshit, for a number of reasons.

      1. If it was powerful enought to cause blindness in a STREAK across the inside of your eye from probably less than half a second of exposure it'd also be bright enough to easily see who was holding it
      2. If they were far enough away you couldn't see who was dicking around with it then the beam would probably be nearly impossible to hold still long enough to cause that level of damage, especially since the damage is in a continuous streak instead of a single spot (which would also be nearly impossible)
      3. If it was powerful enough to cause that level of damage in a massive wiggly line during a quick glance up the street and far enough away you couldn't see who was holding it then it'd have to be so insanely powerful that it would also have scorched the outside of your eyeball as well as your face.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    2. Re:I've been injured by one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      haha. gotta love the internet experts.

      1. Yes, I did see the source of the beam. That's what killed my sight. Unfortunately, you see, when you get one straight in the eyeball you don't see some guy holding a laser pointer a few hundred feet away, you see a massive flash that feels like someone's smacked you one in the face. hard.

      2. Luck of the draw. On a night of how many hundred people in a nightclub, one gets hit. Go fire a gun into a crowd of 100,000 close people. Each one has almost no chance of being hit, yet you're going to hit one.

      3. Here, hold this 10 gram 60C iron ball in your hand. I see you're able to hold it with a little discomfort until you absorb its heat. Now here', stick this second 10 gram 60C iron ball in your eye. What's that, you can't see now?

    3. Re:I've been injured by one. by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      bullshit.

      no handheld laser pointer would do that, i have a modern $100 range green laser, it's unpleasent in the eye, commodity red lasers aren't even unpleasant, just dazzling when your eyes are adjusted to the dark.

      higher power "portable lasers" run in the $2000 range and wouldn't have left you partially blind, they would have left you legally blind in both eyes and if either eye had taken a direct hit that eye would have evned up as light sensitive as your left hand.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  18. Shaky Logic by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Have pilots really been blinded by lasers pointed from the ground? Because the pointer can't get within a thousand feed of a plane, and actually even more at the angles that can reach over the plane's body and into the pilot's windows. At that distance, these laser pointers' beams are spread out pretty wide, so the person pointing them can possibly see the dot from that far away. So the brightness on the tiny fraction of that dot's area that actually falls on the pilot's eye is pretty small. Even more problematic is that your hand shakes. It might be unnoticeable at close range, but tiny angular deflections at the base of an angle extending a quarter mile or more to a plane makes the dot wiggle all over the place. It's hard to aim the laser even close enough to stay anywhere on the whole plane, let alone through the refracting windows and into a pilot's eye, 1/8" across.

    It just seem so unlikely. Is there any proven examples of this happening, or is it just paranoia, and maybe totally unrelated pilot errors they're conveniently blaming on something no one else saw, someone impossible to catch if they did exist?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Shaky Logic by Eth1csGrad1ent · · Score: 1


      It just seem so unlikely. Is there any proven examples of this happening, or is it just paranoia, and maybe totally unrelated pilot errors

      See my other post in this thread... but, this isnt just about planes - I've had this done to me while driving my car (at speed) with a passenger in a car travelling beside me pointing a laser in my face to the point where I nearly drove my family through a red light at a major intersection.

      Some prick had a laser pointer and decided watching me kill my family would be something cool to see. The only thing missing was the video cam on his mobile so he and his mates could chuck it on youtube.

      SO WHAT if the chance of actually permanently blinding a pilot is slim - if you cant prevent it from happening or stop people at the time they do it, then you have to remove the tools - whats your BRIGHT IDEA to stop the bastards among us using them against other people ?

    2. Re:Shaky Logic by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

      Whether you believe it or not, it does happen, and it does jeopardise life. Recent examples

      Military pilots I have worked with have also reported use of lasers to discourage inspection of suspect vessels at sea. This legislation won't do much for this though.

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    3. Re:Shaky Logic by aXis100 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Supposedly at those sorts of instances, the laser has spread out over the windscreen and flashes the entire cockpit.

      As far as I am aware, the pilots themselves have reported this so I assume they think it's bad.

    4. Re:Shaky Logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is not blinding the pilots, it is actually destroying their night vision and causing distraction during a landing. A landing is a very intense situation and to be distracted during this period causes problems in situational awareness. Losing your night vision as well means that you are more likely to bump into things...

    5. Re:Shaky Logic by Eris13 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, there have been numerous examples of this happening: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/11/2214689.htm

      Most incidents take place on landing or takeoff. Green lasers also being notoriously good at remaining focused enough for the several hundred meters needed to completely blind a pilot at night.

    6. Re:Shaky Logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr Armchair Aviation Expert strikes again! I've had personal experience (Australian Commercial Pilot, same one who has posted here before), it's usually on approach when this occurs to us, which is well below 1000ft AGL. The windows are within a line-of-sight angle of structures on the ground, how else are we meant to see? Nothing serious has happened yet so what else would we be 'conveniently' covering up? How do you suppose we prove this is occurring, take photos? How about I take you up with me for my night approaches and you experience it first hand?

    7. Re:Shaky Logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Australian governments are nothing if not reactionary. So yes, it has happened. And now something must be done. This is something. Hence it must be done.

      http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/citys-worst-laser-attacks-on-aircraft/2008/03/29/1206207485440.html

      Note, that it doesn't have to actually blind a pilot to cause major problems. It's aircraft, they don't let you use cell phones because it might interfere with the electronics. So they are going to do things like change flight paths in cases like that which is a huge pain.

    8. Re:Shaky Logic by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, this is indeed about planes, as that is what the Australian government is invoking to justify it.

      But as for using it on cars, which is a much more plausible abuse, I'd make it just as illegal as throwing battery acid between open windows in cars already is, which it probably is - the law probably doesn't specify what substance is thrown between the cars, but rather the effects on the other driver. Throw a few people trying it in jail, make a big stink about it on TV, and you won't see it happen again (any more than people throw battery acid).

      No new laws, and no collective punishment of millions of people because a few dozen are criminals.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    9. Re:Shaky Logic by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      It seems from that report that it "blinds" them more by the surprise of a sudden bright light (briefly) in the cockpit than because the laser actually hits their eyes. The story we're getting is exaggerating by implication.

      There is also already a $30 fine and jailtime for lasering a plane. So the question is one of enforcement. The "frisk anyone because they're suspected of having a laser" isn't going to do anything to catch the tiny fraction of people abusing these lasers with planes, so it's not going to help enforcement.

      What it is going to do is give the cops a pretext to frisk people who the usual excuses don't work on: they're going to frisk geeks, who don't meet the descriptions cops usually keeep handy for frisking people they want to intimidate, which are usually poorer and rougher looking characters. A judge might not believe the geek was suspected of having a knife, but they might believe they were suspected of having a laser.

      There is clearly a need for enforcing the existing laws prohibiting lasering planes. This law doesn't actually do that, but it does give the police much broader arbitary powers and clamp down on many thousands of people for the crimes of maybe a few dozen at most. That sounds like an even bigger problem than a few blinded pilots a year, though neither are acceptable.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    10. Re:Shaky Logic by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Something must be done, but a blanket ban as pretext for frisking anyone the cops "think has a laser" is not what should be done. Unless you just like your government reactionary and your cops arbitrarily powerful, but your pilots still at risk of blinding by the jerks this approach won't stop at all.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    11. Re:Shaky Logic by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      No, Anonymous illiterate Coward, I didn't deny that it could happen, I just pointed out the completely logical reason why I was skeptical. There is also plenty of evidence that some pilots fly drunk, and that some invent excuses blaming others for their bad inflight performance (also guessable logically). And on evidence, I'm perfectly willing to accept that blinding does happen. But that doesn't mean that we should just ban the lasers, or use a few incidents as a pretext for shaking down anyone who looks "suspiciously like they might have a laser".

      I didn't claim any aviation experience. But you clearly shouldn't be practicing logic without a license.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    12. Re:Shaky Logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bad inflight performance What bad in flight performance? Where is this even coming from? The problem is this is happening to a lot of city pilots, are you saying we're all drunken idiots? I'd say our safety record speaks otherwise. I'd don't see any mention of Australian pilots in your "pilot fly drunk" reference either. There is no legitimate reason for ordinary people to own the types of high powered lasers that they are banning. Tell me one lawful excuse reason that an ordinary person needs one of these classes of lasers?
    13. Re:Shaky Logic by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      asshats can cause major damage with anything if they don't care about harming others, dumbass.

      a fishing sinker and some fish wire strung across the road will shatter windshields with no warning, a few cinder blocks in the road after a tight turn will send cars off the road.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  19. Wasted opportunity! by hedleyroos · · Score: 1

    With all the great white sharks surrounding Australia this would have been the perfect opportunity to equip them with lasers and stave off the Indonesian invasion!

  20. So Joe McCarthy had a wookie under his bed.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and the ewoks are all teamsters!

  21. You cat harasser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I bought a "extra bright" laser pointer from Edmond Scientific. It turns out it's a Class IIIa with about 5mWatts of output. Most others have substantially less. I'm still vary careful about using it around reflective surfaces and no matter how fun it is, I won't harrass my cats with it.

    So unless you have in fact harassed your cats with it, how would you know how fun it is to do it? Explain that one, you CAT HARASSER!

    1. Re:You cat harasser by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      It is better to claim you are going to harass your cat, instead of exercise it. That way you won't get in trouble for patent infringement. ;)

      Patent 5,443,036

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  22. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since the police have amply demonstrated that they cannot catch the idiots who misuse the pointers the general public is to be punished.
    The idiots will still have their pointers and will still misuse them with impunity.
    When you can't control what you're supposed to, you control whatever you can.
    Under Australian law any device that projects, casts or shoots anything that is injurious, noxious or noisome is a firearm. We don't need new laws.

  23. Guns don't kill people by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 4, Funny

    Laser pointers do !

  24. Face + palm. by rindeee · · Score: 1, Redundant

    So since a handful of people do something stupid with a laser pointer, AUS outlaws them. I've got to think that far more deaths are caused by car accidents as a result of people being 'brighted'. Will they outlaw high-beams. They should probably outlaw really bright directionally focused light sources altogether. Better outlaw water while they're at it. I mean, look how many people drown every year.

    1. Re:Face + palm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think purposely shining a high powered laser at an aircraft goes beyond stupid, it's malicious and violent, hence the reason why we banned these types of high powered lasers without lawful excuse.
      Same reason we for most intents and purposes, banned guns.

    2. Re:Face + palm. by Llian · · Score: 1

      They are outlawed because morons who /think/ they need them do dumb arse things with them. I'm all for banning them myself. There is no real need for them anyhow IMO. As for the brighted comment, there ARE safety rules regarding high beams I believe, and certain lights would also likely get you pulled over if too bright. Unfortunately the average 'intelligent' human is a moron and there are more average 'intelligence' humans and those at either end of the scale who think dumb shit is funny.

    3. Re:Face + palm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      care to back that up with some stats? i think you'll find you'll need to pull them straight out of your ass, so while your doing so you should pull your head out of there too.

  25. Actually, it's a real problem by caitsith01 · · Score: 5, Informative

    There have been half a dozen or so such incidents in Australia in the last few months, including one which involved coordinated beams from multiple locations directed at the same plane.

    E.g.:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/08/2211257.htm

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/11/2214689.htm

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/29/2202704.htm

    As an Australian who flies quite a lot, I'm extremely happy for them to ban these things if it stops morons from blinding my pilot on final approach. The fact that there have been coordinated attacks is also evidence that it is more than an incidental problem.

    --
    Read Pynchon.
    1. Re:Actually, it's a real problem by gweihir · · Score: 1

      First, koordinated attacks on a plane of this nature allready are higly criminal. No need to make the laser possession criminal as well. What is needed instead is finding these iditots and punishing them as the wanabee murderers they are. The tool is not the issue. There is numberous other dangerous equipment with potentially a similar death toll. (Incidentially the risk is not that high for the airplace scenario.)

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Actually, it's a real problem by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      I can't see any reason at all the average person would have for owning a high powered laser pointing device. That being the case the best solution is to ban them unless you have a licence. If this were the case then those people would not have had access to a device, wouldn't have tried to blind any pilots and wouldn't be criminals.

      Your solution involves a lengthy and costly search for the criminals, arrest, expensive court proceedings and long jail terms also at the taxpayers expense. All the while other groups of people will be able to do exactly the same thing and start the process again.

      Banning them is much the better solution.

    3. Re:Actually, it's a real problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an Australian who flies quite a lot, I'm extremely happy for them to ban these things if it stops morons from blinding my pilot on final approach. The fact that there have been coordinated attacks is also evidence that it is more than an incidental problem.

      I agree, there are lots of morons out there. But can you please explain to me how this law is going to prevent this from occurring? If you have some group that is determined enough to coordinate an attack like this then a law like this isn't going to be effective, although as you've inadvertently pointed out it WILL make people FEEL better.

      I'm not trying to make light of your concerns, and yes, this law will reduce the moron factor but it won't eliminate it. And there's no doubt that most people really have no valid need for devices like this. But why is it that we seem to be more concerned with regulating and legalizing our safety instead of actually making things safer?
    4. Re:Actually, it's a real problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I don't get, is how banning them will prevent people from getting them. People will import them from other countries... it's not hard. If you intend to use it as a weapon, you don't CARE if it's illegal or not. Making something illegal doesn't stop criminals. It only stops upstanding citizens.

      Now, these lasers ARE extremely powerful, and should be handled with care. But goddamn, how about a little education on the dangers of lasers instead of a ban?

      I'm willing to bet money that a well funded public service campaign will do more to prevent injuries from lasers than banning them will.

    5. Re:Actually, it's a real problem by rjames13 · · Score: 1

      legalizing our safety Really great post you had up until the Z. It renders your premise untenable. Since the article is about an Australian law.
    6. Re:Actually, it's a real problem by nguy · · Score: 1

      I'm extremely happy for them to ban these things if it stops morons

      But they aren't banning them.

      The fact that there have been coordinated attacks is also evidence that it is more than an incidental problem.

      And this law isn't addressing that problem.

      from blinding my pilot on final approach.

      Using the word "blinding" is such loaded and inaccurate language. This is at most the same kind of "blinding" that you get when you suddenly step from sunlight into a dark room, nothing more. Sure, it would be better if it didn't happen, but it would take other, exceptional circumstances if that causes a plane to crash.

      I fly a lot, and on my list of things to worry about this is far, far below drunken pilots and bad maintenance.

    7. Re:Actually, it's a real problem by syousef · · Score: 1

      ...because co-ordinated groups of bored teenagers are going to respect the law and stop using them.

      All this will do is prevent legitimate use.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  26. Oblig. by tick-tock-atona · · Score: 4, Funny

    Homer: A high powered laser is not a weapon, Marge, it's a tool. Like a butcher's knife or a harpoon, or... or an alligator.

  27. How about the sharks? by hulye · · Score: 1

    Did they ban the posession of the sharks, too?

  28. Will they ban DVD writers, too? by petes_PoV · · Score: 1
    Hand held lasers are one thing

    but the laser inside a DVD writer is just as powerful (pop balloons, light matches) although less accessible.

    If people were genuinely trying to disable pilots (a feat of aiming that's so close to impossible as to make downing an aircraft by throwing stones at it look credible) they could easily extract these and use them in the same way.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:Will they ban DVD writers, too? by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      Oh, so that means i can't carry my iBook as handbaggage anymore?
      Sweet, just sweet.

      So i have to check it in and have the risk of it stolen (and the government will refund me ZERO dollars, in fact it will charge me for complaints), OR risk being taken away from my cold dead hands at the airport as a bunch of super-protected, M4 carbine armed SWAT team slowly circles around my dead body surrounded by a cloud of gunpowder smoke while the remaining passengers are hastily dismantling their laptops and discarding their DVD drives...

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    2. Re:Will they ban DVD writers, too? by rholland356 · · Score: 1

      If people were genuinely trying to disable pilots (a feat of aiming that's so close to impossible as to make downing an aircraft by throwing stones at it look credible) they could easily extract these and use them in the same way.


      I was thinking the same thing until I realized that pilots do use line of sight and can see the ground over the nose of the plane during final approach. So, a guy who is intent on harming a commercial plane would do so on approach. And that's why they are easily caught--there's only a very limited spot of ground where this has a chance to be effective.

      But what's really at stake here are the aircraft that focus on ground surveillance as their prime objective--police helicopters and traffic aircraft. Many are enhanced with downward-looking night vision devices (or the pilots wear them directly). Hitting this stuff with a laser truly endangers the people in the aircraft, and perhaps some unfortunates on the ground.

      History shows that box cutters are a more effective means of bringing down a plane. Let's make sure we ban those, too.

      huh? Oh, never mind...

  29. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod parent up. This is the real reason.

  30. Laserpointers are weapons? by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

    Cool! That means I'm armed and dangerous.
    Finaly I can start robbing banks. The not-having-enough-money-to-buy-a-gun is no longer a show stopper.

    1. Re:Laserpointers are weapons? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Cool! That means I'm armed and dangerous.
      Finaly I can start robbing banks.


      GIVE ME ALL YOUR MONEY OR I"LL SHINE THIS IN YOUR EYE!

      NOW!!!!!

      It just does not have the impact that a gun does. sorry.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  31. Lets all go surfing!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surfing will be a lot safer now that sharks don't have frigin lasers on there heads!!!!

  32. What about Class 3a? by gweihir · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I carry around a class 3A ( 5mW) laser pointer, which is perfectly legal in Europe. From Class 3B onwards, you need to be a ctrained in laser safety. Would the 3a make me a weapons carrier in Australia?

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  33. They just need a warning label by jamesh · · Score: 4, Funny

    They just need a warning label, like 'Warning: Do not point laser at remaining pilot'.

  34. and about frikkin time to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having had laser pointers shone in my eyes several times while riding my motorbike, I feel that if I had broken the bastard's arms, I think that would have counted as taken "appropriate" act of self defense.

    Worst case was a BMW X3 with the kids in the back seat (with out safety belts fastened) the both of them shining a pair of laser pointers in to my eyes while we were traveling at highway speed.

    Dodged out of the way and pulled ahead of said BMW and let them pull up beside me at the next set of lights. dropped my visor to get the driver an ear full about the kids shining the lasers in my eyes only to find that he (their dad no doubt) was actually telling them stuff like " shine it over there at that cyclist" "get that pedestrian over there". nice thing about right hand drive cars is that the ignition keys are in easy grasp from an open drivers side window.... I don't know how long it took him to fish his keys out from the storm water drain - I was long gone by then

    1. Re:and about frikkin time to by The_Sledge · · Score: 1

      I was stopped at a traffic light and was distracted by a red flicker in the corner of my eye. Turned towards it and had a red beam square in the retina. I was NOT impressed. The two little shits who were nonchalantly beaming their laser pointer at traffic at the intersection were totally oblivious to their utter stupidity. I pity the parents of these idiots as they are a testament of the poor genetic material that has been carried over in their progenies. I was tempted to either rush home to fetch the overclocked 10mW eye-fryer and fuse their retinas or stop the car and beat the living shit out of them. Fortunately for them I decided to call the cops and warn them of the potential pile-up about to happen at that intersection.

      --
      HEX offender mugshot ID: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  35. Is this news? by dajak · · Score: 1

    Lasers class 3 and up are already prohibited in many countries, at least the Netherlands, Belgium, and France.

  36. A message from firearms enthusiasts everywhere... by HomerNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Welcome to the club! I would offer you a welcome gift basket, but it's being held up in legal pending approval of the government that all products in it are certified non-lethal.

      We've prepared for you a chair. You'll need something comfortable to sit in while you wait for years and years of court cases, as standing that whole time is just uncomfortable.

    I see you've found our complimentary golf-towels. Oh, no, we don't have a golf course. See, the government doesn't trust us with any small object that travels at anything resembling a high speed. The golf-towel is to dry the nervous sweat from your brow as you sit on the edge of that comfortable chair as the courts decide on cases that could either classify you as the law-abiding citizen simply for doing the things you've always done or declare you a criminal simply for doing the things you've always done.

    Oh, and we have over there our Screech-o-mat(tm), a device that you can pull the lever on to remind you of the pointlessness of arguing your case that you're not a bad guy for simply owning a useful tool, because all you'll get if you DO defend yourself is the screeching and wailing of fear-mongers and politicians who are slowly stripping away your rights and liberties "for the children." Oh, there it goes. Yes, it's normally that loud, and yes, the "arguments" it spouts are all direct quotes from the people who think you're a danger to life, the universe, and everything simply for being Not Them. I guess Bob needed his daily reminder.

    Uh-oh, Phil over there forgot to use the Screech-o-mat again! Don't mind him, he'll wind down in about 10 minutes or so. That's what happens when you don't use the Screech-o-mat, you start to wonder why the world doesn't make sense and wonder if you're living in a madhouse. Yeah, that's why he's shouting that at the top of his lungs...oh, hey, he ran down quicker than usual. He must not have had his morning coffee...oh, no, wait...there it is. His soul just got crushed under the realization that the inmates are running the asylum and there's really not much that can be done about it anymore, as everybody in power seems to have checked their common sense at the door and lost their claim ticket.

    Don't worry, you get used to it after a while. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go use the Screech-o-mat.

    --
    I have no tag line
  37. Why People Do This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People only do this sort of pathetically stupid crap because there are no consiquences for doing it. (Much like being an AC.. hrm)

    Proving that someone pointed a laser at an aircraft/vehicle/monkey is difficult. Proving that someone is in possession of a laser pointer is easy.

    Personally, I recommend beating the crap out of anyone who shines a laser pointer (or even one of those really bright LED flashlights) in your eyes... at least anyone that does so for humor value. (That is to say, if you can't see and you hear the phrase "Do you know why I pulled you over?" don't just come out swinging... I doubt the result will be as desired)

    On the other hand, as many other people have pointed out, going around and banning things because they are potentially unsafe is a slippery slope. Its really dangerous to through fruit off an overpass into traffic below, but I don't recommend that we criminalize everyone that has a watermelon in their pants... er... possession.

    1. Re:Why People Do This by Cinnaman · · Score: 1

      "going around and banning things because they are potentially unsafe is a slippery slope"

      That's why kids in America have the privilege of growing up with fireworks (I haven't fact checked that) and kids in Australia only get to play around with sparklers (which can be turned into a roman candle if you have the patience).

    2. Re:Why People Do This by rholland356 · · Score: 1

      People ban items, even common items, in situations where those items can cause serious injury or even devastation. They do this not from fear so much as after deciding that real losses justify the loss of freedom. Blow up a shuttle from frozen o-rings and you end up banning flights when the weather is too cold.

      Why do we do this? Because people have a tradition of passing along information to avoid harmful items and situations. That's how we came to be here--by passing the word about what berries to avoid and how to keep from taunting a cave bear.

      Thus, you can't buy traditional fireworks in parts of the US where fire is a major concern. You can't take liquids or certain items on a plane. You can't take your lunch pail into the biology lab. You can't take a cigarette or lighter into a coal mine.

      Pilots are an expensive resource that must be protected if we are to continue to fly our fat asses everywhere until oil runs out. It is in the public interest to keep pilots from going blind from lasers or heavy drinking.

      Now, interestingly, Mythbusters showed us you CAN take a bull into a china shop, but I doubt you'll see a move to change zoning laws.

  38. Re:The root of the problem ... by crypticlogic · · Score: 0, Troll

    Australians simply have, being descended from deported criminals, certain inborn criminal tendencies which now reveal themselves in the abuse of laser pointers against trauma helicopters. So it's clearly unsafe to let them get their hands on one.

    I think the real problem is not the inbreeding but the cross-bbreading with sheep that does the real damage.

  39. Where are pilots looking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're near the landing strip, maybe the pilot is looking down.

    If you're on the flight path, he's looking AROUND. Which tends to exclude down because very few aircraft are flying temporarily on the ground.

    Now if the laser were to dazzle off the cockpit and still be able to cause blindness, that's a different kettle of lobster.

    PS How do you get your astronomy pointer working if you can't point it up? There aren't that many objects you can see through the earth...

  40. Re:The root of the problem ... by argent · · Score: 1

    If you don't taste anything in your orange juice tomorrow morning, that's not iocaine, honest.

  41. Australian law-bodies research sharks and fricken by DavidV · · Score: 1

    I hear the population of sharks-with-fricken-lasers-attached-to-their-heads is quite high in Botany Bay which is on the approach to Sydney airport.

    --
    !sig
  42. Re:The root of the problem ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's OK to say that about Sydney or Perth but Melbourne and Adelaide were founded by freemen, even if Melbourne's founders were unauthorised.

  43. Needs a technological solution by maillemaker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sounds to me like we need a technological solution.

    If laser pointers are this dangerous simply banning them is not going to be much of a deterrent against someone who wants to use one to /really/ crash an airplane.

    I wonder if some kind of coating can be applied to the windows of airliners that can reduce the intensity of laser beams without compromising pilot visibility?

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
    1. Re:Needs a technological solution by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1
      Sounds to me like we need a technological solution.

      I have a technological solution in my back pocket. Register the serial number of every laser pointer sold. Have every laser pointer modulate the beam with its serial number. Voila!

      [Tongue lodged firmly in cheek]

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    2. Re:Needs a technological solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm parent, I agree that it isn't very effective against someone who wishes bring down an aircraft but most of the people who are doing this are just assholes, not determined killers. There are much more effective and efficient to take down an aircraft (Don't get me started on the awful security problems we have here... the ASIC is a joke). I like the coating idea but such an item would take years for it to actually be deployed in a working environment.

    3. Re:Needs a technological solution by Detritus · · Score: 1
      The laser safety glasses that I've seen only work at one wavelength, they have to be matched to the laser that's being used.

      The USAF developed special goggles to protect pilots from being blinded by the flash of nuclear weapons.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    4. Re:Needs a technological solution by SparkleMotion88 · · Score: 1

      There are much better technical solutions than that. For starters, we don't really need a human being to land an airliner in most cases.

    5. Re:Needs a technological solution by Korveck · · Score: 1

      Most lasers are within visible spectrum, red to green are especially common. If you have a filter that blocks both red and green, you may as well build a wall.

    6. Re:Needs a technological solution by maillemaker · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more along the lines of a window that is capable of self-darkening in specific regions of the "glass" when struck by a laser. Like instant-dimming welding goggles, except instead of dimming the entire window only the portion struck by the laser would darken.

      --
      A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
  44. Security Cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey /.ers, I have a question. I was thinking about another possible reason to ban the use of class 3 and 4 laser points and it occurred to me that they might be used to damage the security cameras that are popping up everywhere. Is that even possible?

  45. But is it visible? by maillemaker · · Score: 1

    Is the laser inside a DVD writer visible to the naked eye? If not, manual targeting could be more difficult.

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
    1. Re:But is it visible? by petes_PoV · · Score: 1
      It probably doesn't matter if the beam is visible, just that it's collimated and that the wavelength would affect the eye. Manual targeting is impossible anyway. The only way you could dazzle a pilot is pure flook.

      What you're being asked to do is aim at a target (OK, there are 4 targets: 2 pilots) about 5mm across using a hand-held device. While you're doing this, the target is moving towards you (airspeed doesn't matter - you have to be in front of the plane). The plane will either be coming in to land, or taking off. If it's in level flight a ground based user will have no sight of the cockpit.

      Further, the plane will be some distance away - I'd say it would be at leasta mile. Apart from vertical ascent/descent, which in reality contains vibrations from the plane and turbulence - even though it feels smooth, you still get instantaneous movement of *way* more than a pupil's diameter. You also have lateral movement from any wind in the vicinity of the plane.

      Test: get a normal red laser. Draw a 5mm diameter dot on a piece of paper and tack it to a fence or something about 25metres (or yards) away. Now try to aim the laser onto the stationary target, even that close. Now think about multiplying the distance by at least 70. This could only be done in a James Bond movie.

      --
      politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  46. the pointers are blinding weapons. by Frozen+Void · · Score: 1

    should be outlawed as inhumane and cruel weapons(blinding weapons per Geneva convention), not merely a restriction and jail sentence.
    THese things are not "toys". Its on the same level of responsibility as giving kids machineguns.
      direct quote from wikipedia:
    The output of laser pointers is generally limited by ANSI to 1 mW or 5 mW in order to prevent accidental damage to the retina of human eyes. Usually, pen lasers are class 2 or class 3a lasers, which require extended viewing times to damage the retina severely. "The risk to the human eye from transient exposure to light from commercially available class 3A laser pointers having powers of 1, 2, and 5 mW seems negligible."[7] The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that Class 3a lasers could cause injury to the eye if viewed directly for approximately 0.25 seconds, although it has cited evidence that exposure to visible lasers is "usually" limited by the blink reflex of the eye, which they have timed at just under 0.25 seconds.

    in short, you merely have enough time to blink to avoid PERMANNENT DAMAGE to retina. And thousands of kids own these "toys".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_safety
    "Infrared lasers are particularly hazardous, since the body's protective "blink reflex" response is triggered only by visible light. For example, some people exposed to high power Nd:YAG laser emitting invisible 1064 nm radiation, may not feel pain or notice immediate damage to their eyesight. A pop or click noise emanating from the eyeball may be the only indication that retinal damage has occurred i.e. the retina was heated to over 100 C resulting in localized explosive boiling accompanied by the immediate creation of a permanent blind spot.[2]"

    Enjoy your vision, while it lasts.

    1. Re:the pointers are blinding weapons. by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      where does one go about purchasing an IR laser? no particular reason

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  47. Try it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It really is virtually impossible to train the laser on a plane on purpose. Unless, or course, you have some kind of targeting help, such as a scope attached to the laser.

    I played with laser pointer, and I can tell you it is extremely hard to train the pointer onto a moving car (~40km/h) just from a 12th floor.

    With the plane, the only practical way to achieve that (with a plane) is to stand in front of the landing plane, then the plane will apear relatively steady.

    BUT, from even a short distance you won't be able to see your laser's spot. See, the plane has its headlights on... Those will overcome a tiny reflection of the laser.

  48. star wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    do they think that lasers are light sabers?

  49. Quote currently on /. at the bottom by autocracy · · Score: 1

    laser, n.: Failed death ray.

    That's even better than the forum captcha "irony" postings.

    --
    SIG: HUP
  50. Re:The root of the problem ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're thinking of New Zealand - In Oz we hump koalas :-)

  51. Laser importation ban by Cinnaman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Fortunately I bought a green laser pointer from Dealextreme.com (claimed 50mW, probably 30mW) a while back. I was thinking of buying another as they won't be able to be imported again but one is enough considering the limited novelty value.

    I wonder if it will affect the number of incidents of lasers shined into aircraft cabins ,as lasers are everywhere in CD and DVD drives and can be turned into pointers if you know which model to buy and have some basic electronics experience.

    There seems to have been zero investigation as to why people are shining lasers at aircraft at airports, are they local residents angry at noise levels or people looking to (potentially) cause wanton destruction?

  52. Ow! My freakin' ears! by dfm3 · · Score: 1

    I would expect that kind of language at Denny's, but not here.

    1. Re:Ow! My freakin' ears! by Evil+Pete · · Score: 1

      You're new here aren't you?

      --
      Bitter and proud of it.
  53. Terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Throw every laser pointer carrying citizen in jail and let them rot. Actually, let's extradite them to Gitmo so we can torture them like the terrorists they really are. Come on Australia, let's beat America's record of 1 in 100 in jail! Incarceration for all!

  54. Laser Pointer Weapons question? by cryptodan · · Score: 1

    I wonder if business execs and office people have to under go a thorough background check in order to buy laser pointers. After all we do not want lasers bouncing off of white boards and inadvertently bringing down a 757.

  55. Filters over wind-screens? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    Is it possible to have filters over the wind screens to protect against this, without interfering with normal operation of the vehicle?

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  56. Lasers are easy to make. by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are plans on the internet for building CO2 Lasers that can burn a hole in a piece of wood that appear to be easier to build, and with much less equipment and money than would be required for building a gun.

    A CO2 laser would be easy to transport with a van, where someone could wait for their intended target to exit a building.

    Since the ccds used in webcams can see infrared light, a low powered infrared laser could be used to plant a dot on the eyeballs of the target from across the street. The ccd camera mounted on the sights would see the dot, and the nefarious operator could then push a button to send a brief, much more powerful pulse from the CO2 laser to blind the target permanently. Since CO2 lasers output infrared light, the source of the attack would be invisible and silent and not give themselves away. They could wait a minute or so before leisurely driving away.

    I'm suprised technology hasn't been used much before by nutjobs, criminals, and wacko groups to carry out dastardly deeds in furtherance of their evil agendas and schemes.

    Webcams plus wi-fi cards = remote control robots for cheap. How come someone hasn't driven a Dalek like creation into a bank with a companion bot powered by an electric wheelchair motor carrying a large plastic tub to conduct a robbery?

    Here's a possible scenario: The 'Dalek' appears cute and anime-esque to gain entrance to the bank. It's name is Kill-gore. It's followed by a dog-bot ( the one with the big plastic money tub, decorated with 'dog-fur' and likewise cutsey. It's name is Cargo.

    Both Kill-gore and Cargo are equipped with web-cams and are controlled via computers connected to the operator by wireless network cards. Possibly they use a local unsecured connection enabling the operator to sit at home and control them over the internet. More likely, they are set up as a lan, with the operator in a van close by. The bots have webcams to see with, and video appears on the operator's screen.

    Kill-gore can speak. Voice scrambulation is used to disguise the operator's voice and also to give Kill-gore an menacing robotic tone. It's cutesy facial expression turns evil as well. It's 'eyebrows' turn downward and it's 'eyes' glow red. A gun pops out of the top of it's head, it's voice booms: "THIS IS A ROBBERY! I AM KILL-GORE. MY COMPANION IS CARGO. NOBODY MOVE OR YOU'RE ALL GOING TO BE BLOWN TO BITS!"

    Just then two of Kill-gore's panels fall to the floor exposing many pounds of dynamite ringing the bot.

    "I AM ARMED AND VERY DANGEROUS ALLOW ME TO DEMONSTRATE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NONCOMPLIANCE"

    An apple shoots out of the top of Kill-gore's head and the gun tracks it and shoots it. Another ring shaped panel lifts exposing a ring of gun barrels. The barrels spin menacingly. The people notice that just above the gun barrels, on the robot are stationary 'eye shaped things'. The robot can see all around it.

    "IF YOU COMPLY, THEN NOBODY WILL BE HURT. YOU, TELLER, APPROACH MY COMPANION Cargo OR DIE."

    The gun trained on the nervous employee, she approaches Cargo.

    Kill-gore says: "Inside, you will find a collar. If you do not place it around your neck, you will die, and I will select another to wear it. Your only chance to live is to fasten the collar around your neck."

    She retrieves the collar from Cargo's hold and puts it on. A timer begins to count down from twenty minutes.

    "The collar is a bomb. If the robbery goes off without a hitch, then it will not explode. You are now on our side. Please ensure everything goes smoothly."

    Fill Cargo with money. Do not include any dye packs or other devices in the loot. If they go off, then so do you!"

    The teller is assisted to open the big safe and get all the dough. Cargo is filled to the brim.

    "Cargo will now exit with the money. When it reaches it's destination, you will all be free to go. If the money fails to arrive, then you all die!"

    --
    ...
  57. Here's the technical solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Allow private and commercial aircraft to be equipped with rocket launchers and the freedom to fire at the source of the laser beam without being held responsible for any collateral damage. That'll put a quick stop to the laser-wielding idiots.

  58. Outlaws by BJZQ8 · · Score: 1

    When they outlaw laser pointers, only outlaws will have laser pointers.

  59. Solved with three words by Dimitrii · · Score: 1

    Laser Guided Bombs.

  60. fascination with blinding other traffic by chihowa · · Score: 1

    ...excessively bright lights(mine were 100w bulbs, max is 65)...excessive number...(I had six, although four of them were foglights)...

    I'd rather enjoy not going blind thanks to some dirtbag with a high powered laser.

    The oncoming traffic felt the same way, too.
    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  61. one of your possible futures - or an exaggeration? by moxley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wow..they sure have mangled the freedoms and rights of Australians in the past 8 years. Gun rights? Gone. Now laser pointers?

    It's happening everywhere. Well, let's just cut to the chase (or the future):

    The US, UK, and Austrailia are combined into one giant country, locked down like a prison. Everyone is chipped, everything is monitored and tracked. You cannot own a gun or laser pointer, hell - you cannot even own a flashlight without registering it as only cops and burglers need them, and you're not a cop.

    Matter of fact, you can't really own anything.

    So you have applied for ownership of a car, which is a class c restricted motorized device?

    Nope, don't think so Application denied - only criminals and party members use cars, they are quite potent weapons and very dangerous and since we care about keeping YOU safe above all else let me just point out some of the many uses of a 'car" -

    You could run someone over-especially children.

    You could use the car as a bomb and run it into government buildings, and we can't have that.

    You could use it in your garage to gas yourself (that is, if we don't make it there in time to stop you once we've noticed you're spending an inordinate amount of time sitting in the garage in one place with an illegal motorized device running).

    You could use it to try to leave the country; that would be unsafe, you could get in an accident or end up trying to live somewhere where there is no government to protect you, or one that won't protect you enough.

      - So you can see, that we really do care - and we are, above all else: FAIR. DNA does not lie. We genotyped you AND your children and your wife and you all show a high propensity for independent thought, distrust of authority and suseptibility to disease. You children show possible criminal tendencies with a 20% liklihood of un-societal behavior. This is why you have been given a repetitive manufacturing job in the D-5 neighborhood and why your children will be educated at the government happy child camp.

    Remember, safety and security above all else; without it, and without us - you have nothing!

  62. Please Calm Down by kombipom · · Score: 2, Informative

    They are not going to ban all laser pointers. They are going to ban laser pointers above Class 2; unless you have a good reason to have one (which includes astronomy). Lasers over Class 2 can cause permanent damage to your retina faster than your blink response can save you (by definition). Having spoken to police officers who had one shone at them in a helicopter by some dumb kid who didn't know any better I support the ban. There, I've said it. Let the abuse and "freedom" related ranting begin.

  63. How To Turn a Mini Maglite Into a Laser by I)_MaLaClYpSe_(I · · Score: 1
  64. My Mouse has a Laser Pointer in it! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It seems so much... cooler, now that it is a weapon!

    Too bad it can't obliterate assholes who want to lock us all up. :-(

    I preferred the "risky" world we lived in in the 90's. Life was worth the hazard.

    More people STILL die on freeways than any "terrorist" action, but cars are still legal, and I can't bring shampoo on the plane.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  65. "without a lawful reason" by psiphiorg · · Score: 1

    Does "I have a cat" count as a lawful reason? davidh

  66. Re:The root of the problem ... by phyrz · · Score: 1

    Perth was actually founded by free men as well, but due to factors such as the harsh climate and distance between Perth and Albany, the settlers requested convict labour from England, leading to the Swan River Colony (as it was called) becoming a penal colony 20 years after its foundation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Western_Australia#British_settlements

    --
    Don't point that gun at him, he's an unpaid intern!
  67. Make them indoor use only by garylian · · Score: 1

    I can understand to an certain extent the worries that government and police authorities have about laser pointers, as they are often used by crime elements or by people just thinking they are funny.

    Criminals often use them in the drug community, according to police officers I have talked to. It is not unheard of for an undercover agent to end up with a red dot on the side of his head that he cannot see, but the drug dealer CAN see, and is tipped off that it's a cop he is about to sell to.

    And I know that they are used for much mischief in places. In Ocean City, MD, they were (at least back in the late 90's) outlawed, because during the firefighter conventions, the rowdy firefighters would use them on the cops. And ask any cop what he will do if he suddenly sees a red dot on his chest. Yep, dive for cover while pulling their weapon.

    I see no reason to not allow their use indoors, though. When doing seminars on software use, it is VERY useful to point out which field on the screen you are referring to. I used one for that reason for years until someone stole it from a conference.

    They also make the world's greatest cat toy. If you have a cat, buy one, and amuse yourself for hours making your feline chase that red dot everywhere. Some dogs really dig them, too. I had a lot of fun shining mine out the window and getting my neighbor's dog (with the owner's permission) to run in circles in the yard, and jump on the bricks of the garage.

    The only problem with most laser pointers is that their range is insane. The fact that you can hit a cockpit of an airplane that is often more than a mile up makes them dangerous in the hands of the idiot.

  68. needs more lasers by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    How the fuck am I suppose to fucking land when I have some asshole trying blind me? Try to blind them right back?
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  69. I don't like laser pointers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a hard enough time watching a presentation with someone using a red pointer. I was in a SANS presentation this week, where someone was using a green pointer. It hurt my eyes to look at the screen when he was pointing it. Now, I may be more sensitive to light than others, but I predict that within the next 5 to 10 years, (serious) studies will come out providing strong evidence that attending presentations where laser pointers are used causes irreversible damage to your eyes.

    Just my $.0079 (inflation bites)

  70. Cain and David did not need lasers, they had rocks by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    When you're dealing with people like that, it's unfortunately necessary to take away people's right to carry lasers that could actually cause eye damage. And come to think of it, pretty much any weapon. The problem is that the chav scum basically have nothing to do other than pick fights with random passers by. They have absolutely no ability to see that in the long run this will land them in prison. If you let them have low power lasers they will dazzle people to try to start some drama. They can harass drivers with lasers.
    They can harass drivers with rocks.
    They can harass drivers with sticks.
    They can harass drivers with dog shit.
    They can harass drivers with their own feces.
    They can harass drivers with socks full of coins.

    The problem is not the availability of lasers, but the willingness to misuse them.

    You can use a knife as a weapon.
    You can use a wrench as a weapon.
    You can use a cricket bat as a weapon.
    You can use a broom handle with nails innit as a weapon.
    David could use a rock in a sling to kill a giant, you can make a sling out of your clothes.
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  71. scare mongering by nguy · · Score: 2, Informative

    That's bullshit. Laser pointers have a few mW power (more powerful lasers are already regulated); they don't cause blindness even at short range, let alone at a distance of hundreds of feet when pointed at a moving plane with a pilot with normal blink reflexes. You really have to work hard to produce any kind of damage with a laser pointer.

    http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2005-rst/2800.html

    1. Re:scare mongering by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      The fact is, people are importing more powerful (50 to 200mW) lasers and are pointing them in the sky. The fact that they are already regulated doesnt help - the police need a a way to get it off you if they suspect something. Classing them as a weapon if you dont have a good reason is a great way to do that.

    2. Re:scare mongering by nguy · · Score: 1

      The fact is, people are importing more powerful (50 to 200mW) lasers and are pointing them in the sky. The fact that they are already regulated doesnt help - the police need a a way to get it off you if they suspect something. Classing them as a weapon if you dont have a good reason is a great way to do that.

      How does classing laser pointers help protect people against illegally imported 50mW lasers? Class 3a laser pointers are 1-5 mW. They have many legitimate uses and you can't realistically damage people's eyes with them.

      Classing them as a weapon if you dont have a good reason is a great way to do that.

      No, it is not. Anything as vague as "if you don't have a good reason" is not acceptable in laws because it gives way too much power to police and judges. The law should spell out what those legitimate reasons are and means of establishing those reasons.

  72. bogus by beefubermensch · · Score: 1

    My hunch is that most (if not all) of the 'laser pointer distracts pilot' stories are urban legends. The fact that the cite here points to a Wired piece is the first clue. I own several very high-powered lasers of various colors, and I can't imagine how I'd be able to make them visible to pilots in airplanes, either small planes or commercial jets. Certain kinds of helicopters may be an exception. I remember some of these incidents coming out in local news channels... one in Arizona several years back I think. The articles have always struck me a suspect.

    1. Re:bogus by beefubermensch · · Score: 1
      I'm replying to myself! Some quotes from the Wired aricle...

      green beams have a range of two miles, compared to a half mile for the red variety
      Um, no. Range depends on power and beam divergence. Green is more visible at a given power because human eyes are more sensitive to green light than red. However I can easily blind you with an (invisible) IR laser.

      "In January, a green laser was pointed at a Royal Flying Doctor Service ambulance plane in Australia, and the government responded by making pointing at aircraft with a laser punishable by stiff fines and jail time."
      So it was *pointed at* a plane. Ooo, terrible. "And in Albuquerque earlier this year, a police helicopter was nearly brought down after being targeted with two construction-grade lasers." "Nearly brought down" with "construction grade" lasers. Hmm. How come it's only government craft that are having problems? Why haven't any news helicopters been "nearly brought down"? Could it be that the Police love trouble? Nah, that couldn't be it. -Carl
  73. Guess what? by CowboyCapo · · Score: 1

    A lot of level III lasers are used in a common household device. Guess what it is?

    Your common household DVD player. All someone has to do is pop the laser out, get a focusing lens and housing, and you've got that evil, evil weapon for use.

    Gimme a fucking break. All that this will do is to give those pirates an excuse to steal our^Wyour movies over the intarwebs!

    Signed, the MPAA

  74. A fundamentally unsafe product by liegeofmelkor · · Score: 1

    Folks, class 3 and 4 lasers can cause permanent eye injury. I work with lasers on a regular basis, and I observe strict safety precautions around anything marked class 3 or 4. Specifically, you don't freehand any optic (freehand --> jargon for manipulating an optic that isn't firmly mounted/bolted down) in a class 3/4 beam. Sale of these laser pointers, obviously marketed for presentation purposes (i.e. freehanding), is irresponsible and hazardous. You should see the wave of ducking and face-covering by an audience of spectroscopists as an absent-minded lecturer, using a green laser pointer, accidentally gestures across the audience with his finger still on the button.

    I'm glad some government is finally regulating a dangerous product. If spectroscopists can't even use these laser pointers correctly, there's no hope for the technophobes in the business world. Granted, I'd prefer they go after the companies that make unsafe products than the unwitting masses that consume them, but I can't argue with the result.

  75. Re:Cain and David did not need lasers, they had ro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good point! I mean, they can certainly form crude weapons out of everyday objects, so why not simply allow them access to a wider range of more dangerous weapons? I'm with you Scrameustache, let's allow everyone to obtain nuclear weapons and tanks - after all, you can easily do as much damage by poisoning the water supply!

  76. Re:Cain and David did not need lasers, they had ro by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    Lol! The more I read I read this thread, the more I think mockery is the way to deal with gun crazy militia types.

    Until we can ship them off to UN death camps in black helicopters that is. All hail the Jewluminati!

    --
    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;
  77. Obligatory Bill Hicks Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We are free - keep repeating, we are free."

  78. Theater goers rejoice! by nobuddy · · Score: 1

    Now you can beat the crap out of the punk in the movie theater. It's self defense.

  79. I Hate Australia These Days (Lock me up, Rudd) by bandmassa · · Score: 1

    This is the sort of STUPIDITY that Australia has historically always been so brilliant at. I hate this country sometimes. Being Australian in times like these is an embarrassment. A dozen stupid pricks play thoughtless dangerous pranks with a harmless tool and the reaction is, "ooooh! it's a weapon! Ban it."

    About as many people are murdered with household hammers each year as pilots are temporarily blinded by laser pointers, but do they ban hammers as weapons? New Zealand is looking good as a place to move to.

    --
    "I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1