Slashdot Mirror
Philips Develops Roadside Drug-Testing Device
Al writes "A handheld developed by Philips for law enforcement detects traces of cocaine, heroin, cannabis, and methamphetamine in 90 seconds. The system uses magnetic nanoparticles attached to ligands that bind to traces of these drugs. Once saliva has been placed inside the device, an electromagnet mixes the sample and the nanoparticles. Frustrated total internal reflection (FTIR) — the same phenomenon that underlies fingerprint scanners and multitouch screens — is then used to measure a change to the refractive index. By immobilizing different drug molecules on different parts of a sensor surface, the analyzer is able to identify traces of each different drug. An electronic screen displays instructions and a simple color-coded readout of the results."
Sorry, but slaves don't have rights.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
... so our government can keep being at 'war' with us.
Umm, quite the contrary, actually. One of the excuses I've heard for refusing to decriminalize or flat out legalize various drugs is because they can't be easily detected in a roadside test. See, if you're trying to nail a drunk driver, you've got the breathalizer. It's easy, then, to tell if a person is intoxicated while driving, and it provides solid evidence in a court case. But with recreational drugs, no such test has existed, up until this point. Instead, they had to drag you down to the station and you had to submit to a blood test, at which point the drug may have metabolized, rendering the results useless.
But with this release, suddenly that objection no longer exists. Now, the police have a reliable method for determining if an individual is driving while intoxicated on these other substances.
Frankly, I can't see how this can be anything but a *good* thing. Driving while intoxicated, no matter what the substance, is a dangerous, and frankly really *stupid* fucking thing to do. If the cops have tools to catch the morons who do it, then maybe people will become less concerned with the spectre of people driving stoned and running down their dear old granny down the street.
They should open the code
Oh, please don't tell me you've managed to turn a drug-testing device into a FOSS debate.
"and i also think marijuana should be completely legal, but do i want someone stoned driving? do YOU want someone stoned driving?"
If you will provide ONE, only ONE, just ONE case where it has been proven that a mild dose of pot caused an accident in the ABSENCE of alcohol and other drugs, then Ill agree with what you are saying.
NO SIG
marijuana obviously impairs judgment
you should not drive while stoned
it impairs less than alcohol, certainly, but it still IMPAIRS
do you honestly want to suggest otherwise and sound like a complete moron?
look, i'm being serious: it would help the marijuana legalization effort if complete morons like yourself were hogtied and hid in a basement until it is legalized. because when you open your mouth, you hurt the marijuana legalization effort, because you're an idiot
as someone who would like to marijuana legalized, please shut up
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_driving.shtml
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Did I say that? No. I said that driving with a BAC over the limit should have you thrown in jail. Or are you really arguing that BAC limits qualify as "dumb laws"?
No. You fail at logic. Just because something is against the law does NOT mean that it should be
Actually, I believe it's you that seem to be failing, though in this case at reading comprehension.
Did I say that "because something is against the law does NOT mean that it should be"? No. I didn't. What I said was, if someone is driving with a BAC level over the limit they should be thrown in jail.
Now if you want to argue with that, fine. But quit erecting your straw men. They're impressive and all, but your knocking them down really isn't that persuasive.
We know what the law is, we are questioning why it is what it is.
Funny, I don't see a single thing in your post that questions BAC limits for drivers. Would you care to pose such an argument? Or do you really believe that people should be allowed to drive with arbitrary levels of alcohol in their blood?
Yeah, you sure showed him the errors of his code! Woo! Oh Yeah!
Never again will he program a forum thread incorrectly.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.