Slashdot Mirror


Hardware Hackers Create a Cheaper Bedazzler

ptorrone writes "Hardware hacker extraordinaires Ladyada (Adafruit Industries) and Phil Torrone (of MAKE magazine) have just published an open source 'Homeland Security' project, a non-lethal LED-Based Incapacitator: THE BEDAZZLER. After attending a conference where the $1 million 'sea-sick flashlight' (THE DAZZLER) was demoed by Homeland Security, the duo decided to created an under-$250 version, and just released the source code, schematics and PCB files. The team also released a 5 minute video describing the 'official version' as well as how they created the 'open source hardware' version."

282 comments

  1. That's ... by ei4anb · · Score: 3, Funny

    brilliant !

    1. Re:That's ... by hughk · · Score: 1

      Yes but it needs to be +1 Redundant.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    2. Re:That's ... by noundi · · Score: 1

      brilliant !

      Watch the movie. It didn't really work, to my disappointment as well.

      --
      I am the lawn!
    3. Re:That's ... by ladyada · · Score: 2, Informative

      It works great for the flashblindness, nausea, dizziness, disorientation. The occasional vomiting? Maybe not ;)

    4. Re:That's ... by noundi · · Score: 2, Informative

      It works great for the flashblindness, nausea, dizziness, disorientation. The occasional vomiting? Maybe not ;)

      Really? Cool! You should cut out that last comment though because it sounded like the whole project didn't work.

      --
      I am the lawn!
    5. Re:That's ... by Me!+Me!+42 · · Score: 1

      I imagine a good bit of the $1 Million went into research and subsequent software adjustment to optimize the nausea inducing effects. Given more time and experimentation, I'm sure the open source version can be equally effective at inducing people to puke.

      --
      -- My apologies if the above facts contain any opinions, or vice versa! --
    6. Re:That's ... by diskofish · · Score: 1

      How far away do you think this would be useful? Would it work if someone had sunglasses on or closed their eyes?

    7. Re:That's ... by GoodNicksAreTaken · · Score: 2, Insightful

      $250 doesn't leave you much money left over to siphon to the NSA or conflicts in Central America.

    8. Re:That's ... by PylonHead · · Score: 1

      I've been feeling queasy for the last hour or so after just watching the you tube videos of the effect. It took about 15 minutes to start up.

      Definitely not a personal defense tool, but it seems like it would be very effective at dispersing mobs of people.

      --
      # (/.);;
      - : float -> float -> float =
    9. Re:That's ... by brilanon · · Score: 1

      What? Oh please. I don't accept that toy could have any physiological effects whatsoever in person much less encoded in a tiny FLV. How about looking away, shutting your eyes, or just ignoring the stupid thing? Or have I been trolled by the article itself

    10. Re:That's ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno if this works as advertised or not, and $1 million certainly seems excessive for a strobing LED flashlight. But if you can get an assailant to close their eyes or turn away, then that greatly reduces their ability to harm you. You can't really aim a gun with your eyes closed, or even just turned away.

  2. Nice! by Stratoukos · · Score: 5, Funny

    Next project: under-$250 LHC.

    --
    It may be 7 digits, but at least it's a semiprime
    1. Re:Nice! by Icegryphon · · Score: 1

      After that can we have a 1500$ Space Shuttle?
      I got to get out of here.

    2. Re:Nice! by olsmeister · · Score: 1

      Or OLHCPC

    3. Re:Nice! by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1
      I work on the LHC you insensitive clod!

      Seriously though, it would rock to get a collider for that kinda price =)

    4. Re:Nice! by Molochi · · Score: 2, Informative

      They did that on Top Gear already, well sorta. It was pretty awesome though.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b4WzWFKQ20

      --
      "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
    5. Re:Nice! by newcastlejon · · Score: 2, Funny

      I work on the LHC you insensitive clod!

      Your U/N seems very apt.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    6. Re:Nice! by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Funny

      You have no idea =)

    7. Re:Nice! by a.deity · · Score: 1

      That's not gone well! Brilliant episode, if only to show the viability of a Reliant Robin as a re-entry capable craft.

      --
      Option-Shift-K.
    8. Re:Nice! by Translation+Error · · Score: 1

      It will be called the SHC.

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    9. Re:Nice! by siddesu · · Score: 1

      For that kind of cash, I'll even hook a one-time warp drive to it. Just be careful when you use it.

  3. If you ever needed a proof... by junglee_iitk · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... this it for the First Contact with women :)

  4. Seems kinda pricy still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    $250, huh? This:

    https://www.mybedazzler.com/

    certainly nauseates me for a lot less!

    1. Re:Seems kinda pricy still by eln · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was kind of wondering why we would be interested in a cheaper device to cover our clothing with cheap plastic "jewels", but to each their own I guess.

    2. Re:Seems kinda pricy still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey you... Shut it!

                                    Daft Punk

    3. Re:Seems kinda pricy still by hey! · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of when I was an MIT student and the Reagan administration came in. It turned the place upside down. Suddenly all those ONR grants were being scrutinized. The catch phrase of the day was "Deaths per Dollar." So we sat around thinking of various things that might have high deaths per dollar.

      What about blowing up those huge LNG tanks between the highway and Dorchester Bay? Nope, the Chem-Es informed it it would be almost impossible to get the right stoichiometric mixture to get supersonic burning. Mostly the fuel would drift away.

      Then I realized we were working the wrong end of the puzzle.

      "Go down to the dump and find and old two by four," I said. "Then head over to Mass Ave. and start whacking people. There you go, *infinite* deaths per dollar."

      "That's only true if your time is free," the economist points out.

      "This is *government* work," I reminded him.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  5. Patents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this why patents exist? So that other people can't build a product you've invented for much cheaper and sell it. Research has value, and should be rewarded.

    1. Re:Patents? by notgm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      if homeland security (ostensibly a government entity) spent the money to develop it, is it patentable?

    2. Re:Patents? by reebmmm · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes. Unlike copyrights, the government can (and does) own patent rights. When the government funds the work giving rise to the patents, the contractor (or university) will own the patent, but the government actually get a non-exclusive right to the patent. See Bayh-Dole, 35 U.S.C. Sec. 200 et. seq.

      When Bayh-Dole applies, the owning entity then has an obligation to actually exploit the invention. If they don't the government has "march-in" rights that would let the government take ownership. Not that that's ever happened.

    3. Re:Patents? by megamerican · · Score: 1

      Yes, assuming that they used a private contractor to design and build it which is probably the case.

      --
      If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    4. Re:Patents? by ladyada · · Score: 2, Informative

      Strobe/flashing weapons arent new. The patent is actually for a more specific device that scans while it strobes. There actually isnt a patent for just a strobing weapon, which may be because there was prior art.

    5. Re:Patents? by jittles · · Score: 1

      IANAPL, or any lawyer, but it is my understanding that it's okay to use a patent for personal use. It is only illegal to try and commercialize a patented idea. It's probably not a good idea to run a business to help people take advantage of someone else's patent.

    6. Re:Patents? by TheSeventh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm sorry, I must be an idiot. I RTFA, but I must have missed the part where someone is selling something?

      --
      Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.
    7. Re:Patents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've watched that video and I remember they mentioned referencing the original patent for their project. Aren't they pretty much violating a patent by doing this? The idea seems pretty novel and original to me but I'm not a neuroscientist nor a lawyer. Anyone want to clarify?

      Patents on physical devices are actually fairly logical. All you need to do is change some part of the design in a significant fashion. So for example if you used a different type or color of LED, different number, arrangement, power requirement, wiring design, etc. you would probably not violate it.

      In the IP world of software patents, I can say "I'm patenting some non-existent code that might do X" but in the physical world you have to actually submit a blueprint or a working model. The equivalent in the software world would be if you were required to submit source code or a compiled binary instead of a vague thought experiment.

    8. Re:Patents? by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_exemption
        "very narrow and strictly limited experimental use defense" for "amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry."

      sounds like this is fine, not selling a product, not useful, not competing...
      Is the patent held by a private entity? Because if this is patent held by a US government institution, as far as I can recall their is no recourse for a government body to sue in civil court an individual, which is what would be required for a patent infringement case.

    9. Re:Patents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your understanding is wrong.
      that being said, they dont fall under the claims of this patent so its irrelevant.

    10. Re:Patents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if they were making money out of it (selling the thing/documentation) it would be violation, yes.

  6. Except that... by kuzb · · Score: 5, Informative

    At the end of the video, the creator uses it on a test subject and it doesn't work - which she even admits.

    "Ok, so it turns out it doesn't work so well. But it's great for raves."

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    1. Re:Except that... by ladyada · · Score: 2, Informative

      It works great for the flashblindness, nausea, dizziness, disorientation. The occasional vomiting? Maybe not ;)

    2. Re:Except that... by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm confused what the purpose of this article is. Is it 'Gee Whiz' look what you can build at home? Or is it look how much money was wasted creating the original? Or what?

      Yes, the original version costs $1 Million to create, this was created for $250. Except, you know, she didn't have to come up with the idea, and she didn't have to do any of the original research, and there's no garauntee that hers won't cause permanent blindness, and hers doesn't work. But other than that it is a total bargain.

    3. Re:Except that... by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How well does the million dollar dazzler work? For all we know the dazzler is a useless pork barrel project that's only hyped by Homeland Security to makes us think they are doing something useful.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Except that... by ichthyoboy · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a rave to me!

    5. Re:Except that... by leuk_he · · Score: 1

      They did get the information from the patent of the company. The patent is to share the information. But it seems that the patent is leaving out an essential ingredient. SO the patent is not good described i would think.

    6. Re:Except that... by Theaetetus · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm confused what the purpose of this article is.

      I believe the purpose was "see this patent - here's a picture of it in the video - we just built a device that infringes".

    7. Re:Except that... by ladyada · · Score: 1

      There's no missing information. The flashblinding effect was documented over 100 years ago by scientists like Bruke and Broca. There's really nothing very complex going on, its a green flashing light at about 8-10 Hz.

    8. Re:Except that... by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Infringes and doesn't work. That's a fail cake with an extra thick layer of fail frosting on top.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    9. Re:Except that... by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      there's no garauntee that hers won't cause permanent blindness

      And there's a guarantee that the original one won't cause permanent blindness? Ever? To just one person?

    10. Re:Except that... by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      I'm confused what the purpose of this article is.

      I believe the purpose was "see this patent - here's a picture of it in the video - we just built a device that infringes".

      Never mind... The patent requires a spatial scanning element that directs the beam around. They don't have one.

    11. Re:Except that... by goodmanj · · Score: 5, Informative

      From what Ladyada has posted here and elsewhere, I'm convinced that it's as effective as the Homeland Security version. Which is, not very.

      The basic problem with nonlethal weapons is that they assume there's a range in which a weapon is more than annoying, but less than dangerous:
      |====annoying===| sweet spot |====dangerous====|

      But because people vary in their responses, it looks more like this:
      |====annoying===|
                        |====dangerous===|
      In short, until you deal with the fact that a weapon that will kill Grandma will only make an enraged 250-pound meth addict even angrier, you're wasting your time.

    12. Re:Except that... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      If it were a rave, I would definiterly be vomiting.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    13. Re:Except that... by goodmanj · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Replying to my own post ... actually, the problem is not just that what's dangerous to one person in a crowd is merely annoying to another. The overlap occurs in individuals too.

      If a person is sufficiently motivated, especially if they're well-trained or on drugs, even *lethal* force can be inadequate to stop them.

    14. Re:Except that... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's not such a tall order. For example the Mosquito device deters teenagers, but Grandma (and indeed most adults) aren't even aware of it.

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

      Yes, it too varies in effect on person to person. But not enough that it detracts much from the devices fitness for purpose.

    15. Re:Except that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How well does the million dollar dazzler work? For all we know the dazzler is a useless pork barrel project that's only hyped by Homeland Security to makes us think they are doing something useful

      After removing redundancy in your text, I suspect the truth is:

      the dazzler is a useless pork barrel project

    16. Re:Except that... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Um, yeah.. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the *parts* that cost $1M, but the salaries of a small R&D team that actually bothered to test and modify their concept until they had a working model, then a small-run production to demo the working prototypes, which probably had to meet little standards like environmental, shock, and anti-corrosive metrics.

      The first of anything always costs a lot -- it's the economies of scale that bring the cost down in the long run, the same way these clowns could buy LEDs for $.25 online instead of setting up a lab and clean room to experiment with the semiconductor properties of various materials.

    17. Re:Except that... by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      there's no guarantee that hers won't cause permanent blindness

      Since it outputs less than 35 watts of incoherent light, I can pretty much guarantee that it won't cause permanent blindness in anything short of a Ludovico treatment. I'd be like being blinded by a 100 watt lightbulb.

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    18. Re:Except that... by b0bby · · Score: 1

      Yet that would also affect my daughter, who is not a teenager and has quite sensitive hearing. So it would certainly annoy individuals who are not in the target group.

    19. Re:Except that... by izomiac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While the majority can't, lots of older folk can still hear high frequency noise. In face, age related hearing loss isn't really related to age at all, simply noise exposure (folks in really rural areas don't suffer from it nearly as badly if at all). For those who can't, it may very well still be damaging their hearing in small (but long term) ways, and will definitely kill high frequency hearing if you haven't lost it yet. Beyond that, there's also a point where you can't hear the noise, it just gives you a headache. Who knows how much business those establishments have lost simply because some patrons have subconsciously associated shopping there with pain.

    20. Re:Except that... by Mattsson · · Score: 1

      The biggest difference would be that the kind of device used to annoy people with good hearing is so low effect that it is still harmless even to the people who are most affected by it.
      If the supposedly "non-lethal" torture weapons was also harmless to 100% of the population, they'd be useless against lots of people.
      If you're going to construct a useful torture weapon, it will have to be made to permanently harm, or possibly kill, a fair percentage of the victims.

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    21. Re:Except that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... even *lethal* force can be inadequate to stop them.

      Yeah, especially if they've been injected with the T virus.

    22. Re:Except that... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm 27 and I can hear the frequency emitted by that device very clearly. Of the friends I asked, age ranges from 25-35, only two couldn't hear it (ages 28 and 34). One of my friends is an audiologist and apparently that frequency range is often inaudible to teenagers if they spend a lot of time listening to loud music. So, it's works really well at deterring the quiet teenagers and young to middle-aged adults...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    23. Re:Except that... by kimvette · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A weapon like that which can induce migraines will only piss some people off enough to beat the asshole wielding the thing into a bloody pulp - and the great thing is a weapon like that is assault so a physical response inducing pain or even maiming the asshole shining that thing in your eyes would only be self defense - and it would help the victim's migraine go away thanks to the adrenaline and endorphine rush. :) Violent responses shouldn't be limited to meth addicts because normal people occasionally want to take pleasure in hurting jackasses who deserve it.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    24. Re:Except that... by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      It's not about constructing torture weapons. HTH.

    25. Re:Except that... by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      It would? If she'd actually experienced it, presumably you'd be saying "It did". I'm not sure a guess at the superior abilities of your daughter means much.

      Certainly there are some young adults older than 19 that can hear it. But doubtless less well than the target age range does. If she's not loitering outside the premises, then she won't hear it long enough to get annoyed. If she *IS* loitering outside the premises, then maybe the proprietor would be happy enough for her to move on too.

      Grandma however, as per the original post, is not affected, and can sit on the bench nearby in peace.

    26. Re:Except that... by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      People pride themselves at still being able to hear such things. Even if it's at such a low level that they are not sure whether they are imagining it.

      There's a big difference between that and the annoyance it gives to teens.

      I can hear a pin drop in a quiet room. It;s not going to deter me from being there though.

    27. Re:Except that... by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Proves my point. The Mosquito is a device *designed* to land in the "annoying" range of my graph. It's not going to deter anyone with motivation -- in fact, it's specifically targeted at *unmotivated* people.

      Ramp it up 30 dB, and you've got a serious teenager deterrent ... but you're also going to hurt innocent little kids.

    28. Re:Except that... by BasilBrush · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      ...And maybe mobile phones fry your brain.

      We're talking about a noise from a small horn speaker that is annoying through being repetitive, not the noise from a heavy rock band's speaker stack or a jumbo jet. Get a grip.

    29. Re:Except that... by mikael · · Score: 1

      There are some similar ideas for camouflage

      Razzle Dazzle or just plain ugly? . The idea was that while you couldn't hide the existence of a ship visible to the periscope of a submariner, you could give him a blinding headache while he squinted through the eyeglass trying to see past the mist, fog, icebergs and waves to determine which end of the ship was which.

      Jasper Maskelyne used searchlights combined with an inverted rotating cone of mirrors to create 9 mile radius rotating pinwheels of light that would disorient pilots.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    30. Re:Except that... by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      It annoying means "Stops people doing the thing they are doing but is not dangerous", then both the Mosquito and the LED device in the article deliver exactly that. Very useful.

    31. Re:Except that... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      That device is just wrong. I wonder what would happen if someone discovered a chemical or electromagnetic signal that only irritates dark skin? Would it be OK to use a device that exploits the effect? It's the same thing IMO.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    32. Re:Except that... by izomiac · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sorry for writing an essay, but you basically are demonstratively wrong in 3 of the 4 assertions you just made. Mobile phones are essentially innocuous and to liken the two raises questions about your understanding unless you can clarify. You're right that the mosquito isn't as loud as a rock concert (assuming you're very close to the speaker), although you're wrong about the jumbo jet part. I won't bother with the "repetitive" bit beyond stating that it's more just a loud noise.

      It's 108 decibels, so it's actually over six times louder than a jet taking off 305 meters away (100 decibels). 100 decibels causes "serious hearing damage" after 8 hours, so, if damage is a linear function of power (it's not, this underestimates damage) then it causes that same "serious hearing damage" after only 75 minutes.

      The reason this isn't obvious is because teenagers can hear it and get away. Infants can't, but the parents probably won't associate their child's hearing impairment to something they didn't even know was there. Most adults have lost most of the pili which would receive the highest level of damage, but it wouldn't surprise me if there's some damage to other pili with such an intense sound.

      But hey, I'm just a random person on the internet with easily verifiable conversions of decibles to watts and simplified explainations of noise related hearing loss. You'd be wise to not take what I say at face value. So, take note that neither the UK nor Germany (check Wikipedia for links) were willing to define the safe exposure limits to these devices. It's known that it affects quite a bit more than high frequency hearing (e.g. vestibular system). Part of the problem likely lies in the fact that hearing damage is generally assessed in the lower frequencies that human voices use, so other types of damage are less conventional to assess.

      Non-ionizing EM radiation and loud sound waves are quite different. It's unlikely (albeit possible given that there are biologically organized magnetite crystals in our brains) that we can even detect the former, and diamagnetic levitation of frogs and spiders seems to have no ill effects (not to mention MRI). The latter causes people to naturally want to escape it. If that weren't the case the device wouldn't be effective. How can you possibly compare the two as far as safety is concerned???

      You may be right in that the mosquito isn't deadly but is still effective. OTOH, it's not a weapon and it can be ignored, thus making it useless for dazzler-type purposes. If you increase the volume it's no longer "safe" nor specific for younger folk (anyone can hear high frequency sound, just not at the same volume levels). And I'd argue that the device has too many false positives (i.e. older people that hear it or just get headaches) for it to even be effective at its intended purpose.

    33. Re:Except that... by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      The wording I remember from the video wasn't "it doesn't work so well", but rather "it doesn't work that well". That may seem subtle but there is a difference. Using the word "that" gives another possible meaning to the statement. You took it to mean that it doesn't work. I took it to mean "ok...although it works, the puking was just for show...it doesn't work that well."

    34. Re:Except that... by evilviper · · Score: 2, Funny

      If a person is sufficiently motivated, especially if they're well-trained or on drugs, even *lethal* force can be inadequate to stop them.

      Where are these training programs, and what are in these drugs, which allow a dead person to keep going? I'll take two!

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    35. Re:Except that... by kuzb · · Score: 1

      Well, judging from the people who were exposed to the million dollar variant, I would say it works well, or at least, well enough to cause the symptoms they're saying it will cause.

      Of course, one could dawn their tinfoil hat and say it was all staged - I myself have never been exposed to the million dollar bedazzler personally.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    36. Re:Except that... by calavicci · · Score: 1

      In the meantime, it's still better to adjust "non-lethal" weapons to the "dangerous" end of the spectrum (to get the 250-pound meth addict) than to shun them and revert to conventionally lethal weapons like firearms.

    37. Re:Except that... by Craig+Davison · · Score: 1

      A 100W LED light bulb, maybe. That would be very bright.

    38. Re:Except that... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I wasn't able to find any first hand experiences with the Dazzler. Most search results end up at this thing. Seems like there would be a demo on youtube or something if this actually worked.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    39. Re:Except that... by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      It's 108 decibels, so it's actually over six times louder than a jet taking off 305 meters away (100 decibels).

      ...and a pin dropping next to your ear is louder than a car 10 miles away. That doesn't mean a pin dropping is louder than a car.

      Clearly the 108dB figure for the Mosquito isn't measured 305 meters away. There is no point in comparing the dB figures without the distance in BOTH instances.

      Clearly The Mosquito is NOT louder than a jumbo jet, let alone 6 times louder.

      Mobile phones are essentially innocuous and to liken the two raises questions about your understanding unless you can clarify.

      It was just a sarcastic comment about people with irrational fears of technology. Indeed mobile phones are innocuous. So's the Mosquito.

    40. Re:Except that... by izomiac · · Score: 1

      It's a bit of an improper comparison, sure, but you also didn't specify during takeoff. But I couldn't find the figures for noise during cruising, so I just used a comparison that's actually useful. I.e. you're unlikely to ever be less than 300 m away from a jet that's taking off unless you're inside it. The mosquito, OTOH, you could walk right by/under it fairly easily. If you were that close to a jet engine during take off you'd be deafened, then probably killed by being sucked in. 108 dB is also a manufacturer claim that could very well have been tested with the detector they sale on their site and they don't specify the range (I'd guess they tested it after mounting).

      Worrying about hearing loss from a loud noise emitter is as irrational as worrying about something that has essentially no known biological effect? I remain unconvinced. Doubly so since the manufacturer brags about almost being banned. Their safety testing also leaves a bit to be desired: "it doesn't seem to bother [dogs]" (emphasis added).

      Here's the decibel chart that I'm getting figures from. Looks like a live rock concert is about the same as the mosquito (I misread it earlier). It's also suspiciously close to the human pain threshold. It's definitely in the damage-causing range.

    41. Re:Except that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      In the two wars that we've fought in Asia there were tactics that indeed made this possible.

      The Japanese would tie off their pressure points (to prevent bleeding out and to numb themselves) and rush the lines with several live grenades or other suitable explosives strapped to them. When they got to the line they were usually very dead or close to dying, but they delivered their devastating payload. As a side note this is why large caliber weapons were preferred on the line, small caliber high power rifles (30-06, etc) with mandated Full Metal Jacket ammunition would punch right thru the kamakaze attacker whilst large caliber lower velocity weapons (12ga shotguns or the venerable 45cal) would knock the kamakaze down, slowing the rush.

      other enemy combatants have achieved the same results with drugs. Police officers routinely run into people souped up on PCP that don't respond to normal force. The FBI decided to change weapons when a disgruntled perp shot up an office and took a full clip of 9mm and still kept going. They decided the kinetic energy of a 10mm round was better suited to the suppression of threats. The army is currently thinking about a change from 9mm pistols back to 45's for the same reasons, most spec ops forces have already made the switch.

      so the parents assessment is true, there are varying degrees of effectiveness for lethal and less-than-lethal force. However i believe that the only intended effect is crowd control, i.e. incapacitation a percentage of the crowd and hoping that it deters the rest, and physically retrain the outliers.

    42. Re:Except that... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      The deeper question is, is age discrimination as unacceptable as racial discrimination?

      Of course not. For example the law discriminates based on age all the time. Younger than certain ages you aren't allowed to drink, drive, smoke, have sex, gamble. And it's not just the law, parents do to, quite reasonably. Until you're old enough, you're not allowed to use the kettle or oven, you will probably have different pocket money to your differently aged sibling, and a different bed time. You must accept the dictatorship of your parent.

      And it's not just at the child end that age discrimination happens. Older people are allowed (or are required to) retire. Younger people are not. The age varies from country to country, and is fuzzy within countries, but there is certainly an overriding age requirement on whether you can get retirement.

      The fact is that The Mosquito is used outside shops where there is a problem with youths loitering, and causing trouble or frightening other customers away. Old and middle aged people are not causing this problem, and are needed by the shop in order to survive.

      The Mosquito is a perfectly reasonable solution to a problem, for particular premises where gangs of youths are a nuisance.

    43. Re:Except that... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I can agree that racial discrimination isn't comparable to age discrimination for the reasons you pointed out, except using the Mosquito also affects youths who aren't causing a problem and just want to shop. In this case I'd say it IS comparable to racial discrimination - it would be like using the hypothetical device I mentioned because some black dudes are hanging out in front of your shop and causing problems. Other vulnerable customers or passers-by who aren't causing a problem would also be affected just by being in the same area. And what happens when some white dudes start causing trouble in front of your shop? (or older people to go back to the actual situation, which is a real possibility - most hobos who stake out in front of stores to panhandle or just be shitfaced drunk are 30+ in my experience).

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    44. Re:Except that... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      If Mosquitos became used generally outside shops, it would indeed become a problem. But I don't think that'll happen because most shops ideally don't want to annoy any of their potential customers. This is a device for particular shops where anti-social youths congregating outside are causing a problem. Whilst the device will also annoy people who aren't causing a problem, so with those gangs of youths. In fact the gangs of youths will make them fearful. In certain situations the Mosquito becomes the lesser of two evils.

      What other solutions does the shopkeeper have? They can call the cops, but after a few occasions the cops will stop coming. Any other do-it-yourself solutions to the problem will tend to be more dangerous or illegal!

    45. Re:Except that... by parens · · Score: 1

      I disagree quite strongly with that statement. When equipped with "less-lethal" devices, Law Enforcement is MUCH more willing to use them to subdue more people, for a much wider range of perceived offenses, as compared to only having Lethal force as an option. It's perceived as "just" a taze, or "just" a dazzle, so what's the harm if it turns out that you just dazzled an innocent man ?

    46. Re:Except that... by calavicci · · Score: 1

      That's just a matter of training responsible law enforcement.

  7. Re:Pigs will like this by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Stop saying stuff like Pigs. It's dumb.

  8. Fun with.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I thought lasers in movie theaters were annoying!

  9. You can always make it cheaper. by Yaos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When you look up how to make something you can always make it cheaper and easier than if you had to figure it out on your own. A large part of the cost was paying the people that make and test the device without knowing how it should be made.

    1. Re:You can always make it cheaper. by Jaysyn · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And don't forget kickbacks from the military-industrial complex.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    2. Re:You can always make it cheaper. by Comboman · · Score: 1

      ...and since I'm fairly sure the hackers making this had absolutely no access to the original device or it's schematics and documentation, your point is what exactly?

      --
      Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    3. Re:You can always make it cheaper. by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      They did have access to the patent, according to the video.

    4. Re:You can always make it cheaper. by gtbritishskull · · Score: 1

      It was patented. To get a patent, you are supposed to document completely enough that a person in that field could recreate it.

    5. Re:You can always make it cheaper. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "or it's schematics"

      That should be "its." No apostrophe!

  10. who's Ladyada? by corbettw · · Score: 1

    Sounds like Lady Gaga's nerdy sister.

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    1. Re:who's Ladyada? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like Lady Gaga's nerdy sister.

      That's hot.

    2. Re:who's Ladyada? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      saying "That's hot."

      isn't.

    3. Re:who's Ladyada? by mandark1967 · · Score: 2

      let's have some fun, this makes me sick
      I wanna take a ride on your throw up stick
      (2x)

      (2x)
      I wanna kiss you
      but if I do then I might hurl on you, babe
      it's complicated and stupid
      got my ass queazey and spewing
      guess he wants to play, wants to play
      Throw up game, Throw up game

      hold me and love me
      just wanna spew lunch for a minute
      maybe three seconds is enough
      for my stomach to quit it

      let's have some fun, this makes me sick
      I wanna take a ride on your throw up stick
      don't think too much, just bust that kick
      I wanna take a ride on your throw up stick

      let's play a lovegame, play a lovegame
      do you want love, or you want fame
      are you in the game
      dans the lovegame
      (2x)

      I'm on a mission
      and it involves some Pepto Bismal, yeah
      you've indicated you're queasiness
      I'm educated in puke, yes
      and now I want it bad, want it bad
      throw up game, throw up game

      hold me and love me
      just wanna spew lunch for a minute
      maybe three seconds is enough
      for my stomach to quit it

      let's have some fun, this makes me sick
      I wanna take a ride on your throw up stick
      don't think too much, just bust that kick
      I wanna take a ride on your throw up stick

      on and on, ad nauseum

      --
      Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
    4. Re:who's Ladyada? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      You should really get yourself one of those fancy 80-columns displays.

    5. Re:who's Ladyada? by Catiline · · Score: 1

      I think it might be a reference to the first computer programmer, Countess Ada Lovelace.

    6. Re:who's Ladyada? by M8e · · Score: 1

      That's what she said

    7. Re:who's Ladyada? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That, and nerds often like to give themselves arbitrary titles because it makes them feel important. Right, Taco?

    8. Re:who's Ladyada? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then his 120-character sig would not fit.

    9. Re:who's Ladyada? by corbettw · · Score: 1

      You should really learn how to read poetry.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    10. Re:who's Ladyada? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer Haikus,
      But Sometimes They Don't Make Sense,
      Refrigerator.

  11. NOT a "cheaper Bedazzler." by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Informative

    Watching the video, at the end of their demonstration, she says, "Well, turns out it doesn't work that well, but it is great for raves." I'm not accusing them of shenanigans, because they're not misrepresenting that it actually works. However, I am accusing the submitter of exaggerating the effectiveness of this thing by calling it a "cheaper Bedazzler."

    It's not like they have recreated for $250 what the DHS did for a million. I don't doubt that what they've created is irritating to look at, but the thing is five times the size of what the DHS had created for them, and would be totally ineffective in an actual situation in which it would be needed.

    But she's right, it probably would be kind of fun at a party, and it does look like a neat project to play around with.

    1. Re:NOT a "cheaper Bedazzler." by Yaos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The project cost $1 million, not each device. That includes paying the people that put their time into figuring out how to make it work which was probably greater than 50% of the project cost.

    2. Re:NOT a "cheaper Bedazzler." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the original Bedazzler work either though?

    3. Re:NOT a "cheaper Bedazzler." by TheSeventh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not a "Cheaper Bedazzler", it's a cheaper "Dazzler", nicknamed Bedazzler. This is just another misleading headline. The hardware hackers were modding the "Dazzler", but almost nobody knows what that is, and a misleading headline that references '80s annoying tech is sure to draw more attention.

      Look for future headlines that include the terms Lite-Brite and Flowbee.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get you.
    4. Re:NOT a "cheaper Bedazzler." by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      And the most significant questions for the real thing are probably all unit cost related. How much will individual devices cost? Will this get cheap enough that small town police forces will all have one? Will we see 3 dozen of them used simultaneously at the next G-20 protest? Will DHS provide grants so that every county sheriff's office in the nation has one, and what will that cost the taxpayers? We live in strange times that we know the financial situation for the cheap dance party knock off, but have little clue about the original weapon.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    5. Re:NOT a "cheaper Bedazzler." by Beale · · Score: 1

      And perhaps more importantly, is the entire effect countered by wearing tinted glasses?

    6. Re:NOT a "cheaper Bedazzler." by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      Much more important can I build one into my t-shirt so that when annoying drunks bug me I can really screw them up?

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  12. consider me bedazzled. by gandhi_2 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    that ladyada is one funny looking dude.

  13. Re:Pigs will like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Tell the pigs to stop being dicks and letting the power go to their heads and we'll have reason to show respect.

    Until then, they're dirty, dirty, corrupted pigs.

  14. The what? by Minwee · · Score: 1

    The "Sea Sick Flashlight"? That's the best they could come up with?

    What's wrong with its proper name, the Chunder-Gat? I'd settle for Chunderbuss if Rankin/Bass objected.

    1. Re:The what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      What's wrong with its proper name, the Chunder-Gat?

      Because that prompts every nerd to shout "Chunder! Chunder! CHUNDER! Chunder-Gats, HOOOOOO!"

    2. Re:The what? by Minwee · · Score: 1

      And isn't that what it's supposed to do? Or did I misread the spec somehow?

    3. Re:The what? by 3vi1 · · Score: 1

      My kingdom for a mod point. That's the funniest thing I've read on here in a month.

  15. Re:Pigs will like this by kuzb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What would you call police who abuse their power? Nice men who beat me to death?

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
  16. Re:Pigs will like this by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    Now I understand what the GP was saying; he meant cops. I thought he was talking about swine. Someone should mod you up.

    Wait... maybe the GP was a woman talking about men? Some people have a hard time using language effectively, I guess. Either way, you're right.

  17. Odd name by Shrike82 · · Score: 5, Funny

    When I hear BEDAZZLER, in my head I hear a Infotainment show host voice. He continues by telling me how easy it is to attach colourful rhinestones to my own clothes and fabrics at home, for only $19.99 plus postage and packing.

    --
    You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
    1. Re:Odd name by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Funny

      When I hear BEDAZZLER, I think of superheroes.

      But my problem with the name of this device is that it doesn't bedazzle at all. It causes motion sickness.

      They should call it BENAUSEATOR or BEPUKINGTHEIRGUTSOUT or something along those lines, more accurate.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:Odd name by bosef1 · · Score: 1

      It looks like we're going to have to take away Artie's Bedazzler.

    3. Re:Odd name by gid · · Score: 1

      I though the same thing, I was scanning headlines for interesting ones, I see BEDAZZLER, Hardware, Hack. I'm thinking really? Slashdot usually doesn't post stories on mechanical hardware hacks... especially ones from the 80's.

      I can't believe someone named an LED Motion sickness thing the BEDAZZLER, maybe a tribute perhaps?

    4. Re:Odd name by cgenman · · Score: 4, Funny

      But my problem with the name of this device is that it doesn't bedazzle at all. It causes motion sickness.

      They should call it BENAUSEATOR or BEPUKINGTHEIRGUTSOUT or something along those lines, more accurate.

      Are you talking about the military device, or the $19.99 infotainment device?

    5. Re:Odd name by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      When I hear BEDAZZLER, I think of superheroes.

      Haha. Just to be clear though -- "Dazzler" is the lame-ass mutant with the amazing ability to make shiny sparkles, while the "Bedazzler" is what her she used to make her disco ass even more lame.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:Odd name by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      BEDAZZLER is easier to say than BECALLINGRALPHONTHEBIGWHITEPHONE.

      (caps filter appeasement text) Le Lorem Ipsum est simplement du faux texte employé dans la composition et la mise en page avant impression. Le Lorem Ipsum est le faux texte standard de l'imprimerie depuis les années 1500, quand un peintre anonyme assembla ensemble des morceaux de texte pour réaliser un livre spécimen de polices de texte. Il n'a pas fait que survivre cinq siÃcles, mais s'est aussi adapté à la bureautique informatique, sans que son contenu n'en soit modifié. Il a été popularisé dans les années 1960 grÃce à la vente de feuilles Letraset contenant des passages du Lorem Ipsum, et, plus récemment, par son inclusion dans des applications de mise en page de texte, comme Aldus PageMaker.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    7. Re:Odd name by dpilot · · Score: 1

      No, no...

      Think of Peter Cook and Dudley Moore. And certainly not Brendan Fraser and what's-her-name that Hugh Grant was attached to when he got caught. (in Vegas? in a taxi cab?)

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    8. Re:Odd name by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 1

      When I RTFS my heart went out to all the poor Japanese-American would-be burglars, and how ill-prepared they are for the AMERICAN SEIZURE SECURITY ALARM!

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    9. Re:Odd name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woo-hoo! Warehouse 13 for the win!

      (Also, that comment makes me sad, but whether that's because I can't have one or for some other reason... Let's leave that unknown, lest here be spoilers.)

    10. Re:Odd name by hitnrunrambler · · Score: 1

      Let me guess... you used to watch Malcolm in the Middle?

    11. Re:Odd name by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough the attached rhinestones have the same affect as the LEDs.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    12. Re:Odd name by DigitalCrackPipe · · Score: 1

      That was my first though too. I hadn't considered clothing modification "hardware hacking" so I had to read a bit further.

    13. Re:Odd name by hack++slash · · Score: 0, Troll

      Rhinestones.... bling for rednecks.

      --
      To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
    14. Re:Odd name by DigitalPasture · · Score: 1

      The BEDAZZLER you're talking about actually made me sick to my stomach... Of course it was due to bad taste.

    15. Re:Odd name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, I was just thinking it sounded like a gay Batman villain's name.

    16. Re:Odd name by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I imagine the Japanese have the least to fear from this, as they've probably evolved an immunity to any ill effects of bright flashing lights and colors by now. :P

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    17. Re:Odd name by COMON$ · · Score: 1

      I was just thinking that this would make a nice home security device...someone breaks in, strobe starts going, person goes catatonic, police arrive pick up said perp, then cleaning crew comes to clean up perp's spew. Of course this could be thwarted simply with some proper glasses to filter the strobe.

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    18. Re:Odd name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you forgot the finale:
      BUT WAIT ! THERE'S MORE!!!...
      IF YOU THINK THAT'S A GREAT DEAL .. WAIT TILL YOU HEAR THIS: WE'LL THROW IN A FREE SET OF STEAK KNIVES AND A .. (still shouting) .. A TOPICAL SELF HELP BOOK: "How to stop global warming (Pay more tax!)"... ALL AT NO EXTRA COST TO YOU! .. repeat ad nauseum..

    19. Re:Odd name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aldus PageMaker?

    20. Re:Odd name by RoverDaddy · · Score: 1

      Elizabeth Hurley. Maybe that one wasn't as funny (except for the spanish part), but Hurley's princess of darkness was a damn sight easier on the eyes than Peter Cook.

      --
      RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
    21. Re:Odd name by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      I did a search for Ipsum Laurus (yeah, memory's going) and found this French version with that pagemaker part at the bottom. Seeing has how I still have a boxed set (weighs about 12 lbs) of Aldus PM 2 (I think), thought it kinda' funny.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    22. Re:Odd name by VisceralLogic · · Score: 1

      I think this is still a Slashdot post error... I think the GP was attempting to comment on the Windows 7 parties article.

      --
      Stop! Dremel time!
    23. Re:Odd name by dpilot · · Score: 1

      Then again, contrast Peter Cook as the prince of darkness, and compare that to him as a priest in "The Princess Bride." He was looking a little worse for the wear in the latter.

      Can't argue with the point about E.H. though.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    24. Re:Odd name by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    25. Re:Odd name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I hear Bedazzler, for some reason I think of Elizabeth Hurley with a boob job, aka Pussycat Agent 69

  18. HOLY CRAP!! by Zaphod+Beeblibrox · · Score: 4, Funny

    IT REALLY WORKS!!! I actually felt nausea when I realized that they spent a million of our tax dollars designing a fucking party favor!

    1. Re:HOLY CRAP!! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Funny

      So I guess that's the future of crowd control? The riot police will just read lists of ways in which our tax money is being spent. The real clincher is when they read off the cost of creating and providing copies to all law enforcement of a list of ways in which our tax money is being spent...

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:HOLY CRAP!! by bberens · · Score: 1

      I believe that would create an infinite recursion which would cause all of humanity to vanish into a singularity.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    3. Re:HOLY CRAP!! by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      At least it would make Kurzweil happy...

    4. Re:HOLY CRAP!! by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      Ought to be as effective as Vogon poetry...

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    5. Re:HOLY CRAP!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately that only works against people with a job, and they don't have the time to be at the riot anyway.

  19. Private innovations vs. government by mi · · Score: 1

    A perfect example of how much better private entrepreneurs can be, than whoever, who is government-paid... Yes, I know, that DHS bought their design from a private company, but they are spending other people's money and so care more for how attractive each bidder's saleswoman was, than about the cost of the device...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Private innovations vs. government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, no, it's not a perfect example. As other posters have pointed out, the knock-off doesn't actually work.

  20. Frequency range by CODiNE · · Score: 1

    I noticed on the adafruit site that the original Dazzler used a low Hz pulse like 9Hz - 15Hz or somewhere around there. It reminded me of back in high school in our electronics class when we hooked up a speaker to a frequency generator. One of us had read somewhere that a loud pulse at 9Hz - 11Hz or so would produce sickness in people so we set the freq at 11Hz and cranked it up. After a few seconds people started complaining about headaches and not feeling well so we turned it off.

    Now if you consider the stories about military equipment that is connected to either the back or the tongue and is able to put sound or vision into your head by using the correct frequencies...

    That'd mean the low frequency sound effects and the strobe effects are really setting off the same thing by getting the same basic frequency into the brain via different channels. The brain doesn't care how a signal gets in there, so you can see hear or feel certain sensations through electrical impulses anywhere on you.

    I wonder if there's a frequency for gullibility, aggression, fear, etc...

    Dang where'd I'd put my tinfoil hat?

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    1. Re:Frequency range by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      I wonder if there's a frequency for gullibility, aggression, fear, etc...

      I don't know about that, but I bet there's a frequency for the placebo effect. Your anecdote reminds me of the people that are 'alergic' to WiFi, but only when they know it's around. I'm not necissarily saying that there's nothing to it, but I'd require some pretty significant double blind tests before I buy into the idea of a nauseating sound. If nothing else I would think there would be plenty of times when such a frequency would be prodeced in industry, leading to everyone that works there beign constantly nauseous.

    2. Re:Frequency range by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the frequency for arousal?

    3. Re:Frequency range by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Screw your tinfoil hat, where are my tinfoil glasses?

    4. Re:Frequency range by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      69

    5. Re:Frequency range by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      You're just lazy dude, at least google something before you go into auto-skeptic mode. And we didn't tell the class what we were doing but the teacher knew what we were up to, but I digress.

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

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    6. Re:Frequency range by eh2o · · Score: 1

      You would have to build a custom speaker to actually reproduce frequencies below 20hz, and you'd need special equipment to verify its actually working since you can't hear anything that low. Chances are if you got anything at all out of your system it would have been overtones from distortion.

      FWIW, the "brown note" hypothesis was tested on Mythbusters and it didn't hold up. It has no scientific basis.

    7. Re:Frequency range by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      True about the Brown Note on Mythbusters, but the study that started the urban legend specifically was the army reporting on verified effects of low frequency sounds on test subjects. People just misunderstood exactly what the effects were and spread an exaggerated version of it.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    8. Re:Frequency range by conspirator57 · · Score: 1

      but in the US it gets drowned into the noise floor by all the 60Hz hum.

      Protip safety lesson: don't touch the humming bars. if you do, someone will have to clean you up with a dustpan.

      --
      "If still these truths be held to be
      Self evident."
      -Edna St. Vincent Millay
  21. Re:Pigs will like this by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    What would you call police who abuse their power? Nice men who beat me to death?

    I'd call them "dirty cops". Sadly there are far too many, but not all cops are.

  22. Rhinestones? by zztong · · Score: 4, Informative

    I thought a Bedazzler was one of those things sold on TV that lets girls add rhinestones to clothing, so when I read the summary I was really curious what the Dept of Homeland Security was doing with them.

    1. Re:Rhinestones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      No shit -- same here. Google confirms it. http://www.google.com/search?q=bedazzler&btnI=I'm+Feeling+Lucky

  23. The purpose of the article by KingSkippus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think the idea was, "It doesn't work, but it's still pretty neat."

    Keep in mind that she never said, "This is as effective as the DAZZLER." That was the nominal goal, and at the end, she clearly states that they didn't get there. But I really don't think they expected to replicate a million-dollar device.

    Sometimes, the cool stuff that comes out of making something like this isn't whether or not in the end it actually works or is as effective as you want it to be, but what you learn along the way and what you do end up with. (In this case, a device that is cool at raves.)

    The submitted did submit it under a somewhat misleading title, though, in implying that the thing actually works.

    1. Re:The purpose of the article by ladyada · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, it does precisely the same thing as any other 'flashing weapon', gives you a headache and makes your eyes hurt

    2. Re:The purpose of the article by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Funny

      So? Getting married gives you a permanent headache. Ask my wife.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    3. Re:The purpose of the article by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      But what are the possible long term effects to your version? How many human subjects did you test? How fast does the subject feel the effects? How long do the effects last? Is it safe to use on the same subject multiple times in a period of time? Stuff like this is why the other group spent $1 million. (Plus I would bet the farm theirs works more effectively.) I don't buy that "one flashing light weapon is the same as all other flashing light weapons" for a second.

      And doesn't the Geneva Convention specifically ban weapons where the primary purpose is blinding people?

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    4. Re:The purpose of the article by Knara · · Score: 1

      And doesn't the Geneva Convention specifically ban weapons where the primary purpose is blinding people?

      Permanent, not temporary. Otherwise flash-bangs could be considered banned weapons, for example... or, really bright spotlights.

    5. Re:The purpose of the article by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      I would imagine just about any light based blinding weapon could cause permanent damage if not used properly (or if purposefully used improperly). Kind of like how people have died from getting tazered by a "non-lethal" device...

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    6. Re:The purpose of the article by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      So no flashing is necessary to induce headaches.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    7. Re:The purpose of the article by ladyada · · Score: 1

      Everyone at the party we went to said "wow that is really fucking bright" and asked us to turn it off. That's all the research I need! *pew* *pew*

    8. Re:The purpose of the article by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the rechargeable spotlight I bought for $19.99 has the same effect. And I paid $130 less and spend 0 minutes building it. I am underwhelmed by your "research". Like you said, I think it may have some use at a rave, but not much otherwise.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    9. Re:The purpose of the article by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And doesn't the Geneva Convention specifically ban weapons where the primary purpose is blinding people?

      Laser weapons. It specifically bans laser weapons where the primary purpose is permanently blinding people.

      Oddly, it doesn't ban laser weapons where the primary purpose is killing people.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    10. Re:The purpose of the article by ladyada · · Score: 3, Funny

      OMG! Don't tell the US DHS! They'll be way bummed!

    11. Re:The purpose of the article by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "So? Getting married gives you a permanent headache. Ask my wife."

      So, tell her to quit flashing you.

      :)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    12. Re:The purpose of the article by Knara · · Score: 1

      You can die from a lot of things, but in this case, the device doesn't meet the criteria of the weapon having a "primary function" of causing permanent blindness for purposes of the Geneva Conventions.

    13. Re:The purpose of the article by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If people are dead, they can't complain about being blind.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    14. Re:The purpose of the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Start packing 2 asprin and a glass of water with you to bed. When the wife says "but I don't have a headache?" ... problem solved :)

    15. Re:The purpose of the article by neo · · Score: 1

      If people are dead, aren't they also technically blind?

      (No, zombies don't count.)

    16. Re:The purpose of the article by Noren · · Score: 1

      That's by design. This is a common thread through treaties at least as far back as the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, in which "the delegates agreed to prohibit the use of less deadly explosives that might merely injure the combatants and thereby create prolonged suffering of such combatants."

      It has long been true that it is much more detrimental to an enemy to cripple a soldier than to kill one, but even by the standards of 19th century warfare it was thought to be immoral to design weapons to do so. Perhaps this seems callous with respect to individual soldiers, but they were not nearly as important to the treaty signers as national economies- large numbers of crippled veterans are not profitable.

    17. Re:The purpose of the article by eh2o · · Score: 3, Informative

      The maximum safe exposure levels of light (as a function of wavelength) is well known and documented, e.g. by OSHA or other occupational standards bodies. Incurring temporary blindness isn't necessarily dangerous and is sometimes used in vision science studies. The procedure is called "bleaching" as it relates to a temporary chemical depletion of the rhodopsin pigment. Its not permanent blindness so I don't think the Geneva ban would apply.

      The choice of green light in the original dazzler is smart because it saves power (green being close to the peak wavelength sensitivity for the human retina), and its also a relatively safe color to look at. Blue is an order of magnitude or so more dangerous. Red is safer but not as visible so the power requirements would be much greater.

      The people who cooked up this $250 hack don't seem to be aware of that fact that light damage is wavelength dependent and have made theirs with full RGB color... so yeah, this is why we give money to the pros.

    18. Re:The purpose of the article by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

      Aka, a really bright flashlight. With a flashlight, the headache inducing effect can be magnified by flipping it around and bonking the target on the head with the handle.

      --
      ...
  24. Re:Pigs will like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny, round here they just like swill and rolling in mud. They're actually kinda cute.

  25. Even if it worked by Terwin · · Score: 1

    Even if their cheaper version worked like the original, it was still the development cost that was a million bucks, not the production cost.
    Since they used the schematics that were generated out of the development, all they reproduced was the production, not the development.

    Car analogy: its more like taking the owners manual of an old VW beetle and building one from that, as opposed to inventing the internal combustion engine and then building a car to use it.

    1. Re:Even if it worked by ladyada · · Score: 5, Informative

      Theres no schematics in the patent. The flashblinding effect was documented over 100 years ago by scientists like Bruke and Broca. There's really nothing very complex going on, its a green flashing light at about 8-10 Hz...which makes it a great intro-to-Arduino project! :)

    2. Re:Even if it worked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, a 555 timer IC with a bit of randomness thrown into the timing circuit (easily done), coupled to some power FETs could do the job - no need for a microprocessor.

  26. Intellectual Property?! by mi · · Score: 1

    Except, you know, she didn't have to come up with the idea, and she didn't have to do any of the original research

    Wait just a cotton-picking minute, here, buster! Are you implying, ideas can have value like some kind of property (spit)? That anybody doing research should be paid on top of the altruistic joy they ought to be having from a discovery?

    No! Everybody on Slashdot knows, that scientists (just like artists) aren't the selfish greedy bastards, and it is only the Big Corporations (TM), who insist on collecting money under the pretense of having to pay these creators of Intellectual Property...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Intellectual Property?! by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If engineers and scientists really were like 'Big Corporations", patents would last for 150 years plus the life of the longest lived member of the originating team. That patents have a nice, reasonable 20 year limit is a great refutation of all your sarcasm.

      Let's see. Your second paragraph is an invalid assertion. Your first paragraph makes another one by implication - patents aren't a means of seeing researchers get paid, only possibly for compensating a percentage of successful ones. I don't think anyone has actually proposed that people doing research shouldn't draw salaries.

      Then you create a straw-man, and descend to personal attacks.

      My conclusion: You need to do more than just temporarily censor your Sig.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    2. Re:Intellectual Property?! by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you implying, ideas can have value like some kind of property (spit)? That anybody doing research should be paid on top of the altruistic joy they ought to be having from a discovery?

      You are conflating three very different ideas:

      1. Ideas have value. Agreed.
      2. Ideas are like property, and the state should use force to prevent unauthorized access to them. Wrong.
      3. Research is productive labor that should be paid. Agreed.
      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    3. Re:Intellectual Property?! by mi · · Score: 1

      If engineers and scientists really were like 'Big Corporations", patents would last for 150 years plus the life of the longest lived member of the originating team.

      And had they been like the Slashdot's creator-wannabes, there would've been no patents, because "information wants to be free".

      patents aren't a means of seeing researchers get paid, only possibly for compensating a percentage of successful ones.

      Successful research pays for all the research. How to run it so that there are enough successes for everyone involved to be paid nicely is up to each outfit, be it a Big Corporation, a genius in his garage, or anything in between...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:Intellectual Property?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have yet to see a research that shows unambiguous gains for the economy as a whole from patents. I have seen a few that show significant losses.

      Your drivel on slashdot will not change that ;)

    5. Re:Intellectual Property?! by node+3 · · Score: 1

      And had they been like the Slashdot's creator-wannabes, there would've been no patents, because "information wants to be free".

      So, how's the weather in False Dichotomyland?

    6. Re:Intellectual Property?! by mi · · Score: 1

      So, how's the weather in False Dichotomyland?

      Khmm, I wonder, why you did not ask Artifakt this question...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  27. DHS - Your Tax Dollars At Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for themilitary-industrial complex.

    Keep spending. You're about 3/4 the way to China.

    Yours In Baku,
    Kilgore Trout

  28. Who will sue them first? by jsimon12 · · Score: 1

    Will it be:

    a. The company that makes the Dazzler
    b. The company that makes the BeDazzler (that rhinestone pressing gadget)

  29. Re:Pigs will like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Yeah, you're absolutely right. The retired cops can be pretty nice people, can't they?

    Fuck every living police officer on the face of the fucking earth, they're all undeserving pigs who have been given more power than is their due and they take more and more for themselves each day.

  30. Patents? by Comatose51 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've watched that video and I remember they mentioned referencing the original patent for their project. Aren't they pretty much violating a patent by doing this? The idea seems pretty novel and original to me but I'm not a neuroscientist nor a lawyer. Anyone want to clarify?

    --
    EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
  31. Oh it's so shiny... by itsybitsy · · Score: 1

    ... bright light... bright light...

  32. Re:Pigs will like this by Scyber · · Score: 1

    Natural selection.

  33. Under $250 huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OBPC (One bedazzler per child)! discount if you buy a telescope to see it with...

  34. Re:Pigs will like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The perfect weapon for the pigs

    you're totally right! it's gonna be way harder to get them to slaughter now.

    expect the cost of bacon to soar!

  35. Re:Pigs will like this by Dishevel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are some dirty cops. The problem is not really how many dirty cops there are. The problem is the cops that aren't really dirty but will back up the dirty cops. If the "Honest Cops" would get real honest and bust the dirty bastards then things would be much better. Till that happens ALL FUCKING COPS SUCK ASS! If you aren't turning in bad cops you are one. PERIOD!

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  36. Re:Pigs will like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should be charged "accessory to bad policing", just like someone can be charged "accessory to murder".

  37. Re:Pigs will like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm the cream of the crop, I rise to the top
    I never eat a pig cause a pig is a cop
    Or better yet a terminator
    Like Arnold Schwarzenegger

  38. Re:Pigs will like this by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To a cop there are three kinds of people: Cops, cops' families, and suspects.

  39. Anyone else remember X-Men's Dazzler? by mejesster · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I get a huge kick out of the fact that the name is a likely play on the X-Men hero "Dazzler", who used light to disorient people.

    --
    MacroHard - Boning you in a big way! (TM)
    1. Re:Anyone else remember X-Men's Dazzler? by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 4, Funny

      I get a huge kick out of the fact that the name is a likely play on the X-Men hero "Dazzler", who used light to disorient people.

      Or it could be that the name is a likely play on the word "dazzle", as in "to lose clear vision especially from looking at bright light", but your guess is good too...

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    2. Re:Anyone else remember X-Men's Dazzler? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Then it could be called "The Razzler", except the word "razzle" is so poorly adapted to lexicographic survival it can only survive as a parasite on "dazzle".

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  40. Re:Pigs will like this by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

    Wow, go to extremes much?

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  41. I think these would be great to use against police by maillemaker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think these devices would be great to use against riot police by protesters.

    I wonder how long before they will be illegal?

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
  42. Re:Pigs will like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're just mad because they won't let you be a criminal like you want to be.

  43. 1960's technology Revisited by Junior+Samples · · Score: 3, Funny

    Back in the late 60's I worked on a program at General Electric, Utica, NY called LAMPS. The technology consisted of very bright strobe lights flashing in the 8 Hz - 10 Hz region. These lights were flown in aircraft and used in the Vietnam war to disorient the enemy. The strobe frequency is unique in that it disrupts brain wave activity that caused the enemy target to loose control of bodily functions (not just vomiting).

    We did our testing at night and the lights could be seen from a nearby highway. This resulted in multiple auto accidents.

    1. Re:1960's technology Revisited by wsanders · · Score: 1

      http://www.laserdazzler.net/standard_laser_dazzler.htm

      This device seems to be flashing rapidly; it's essentially a laser pointer with a lens to make a spot just large enough to focus on a subject's eye area. Of course it's backed up by the proven reliability and effectiveness of an H&K MP5, it appears from the video.

      --
      Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
    2. Re:1960's technology Revisited by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      Hmm, that's a little odd, the military is usually pretty good about not reusing project names, especially not for/with major programs, such as the Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System (LAMPS), for which the original variant (SH-2 Sea Sprite) was deployed in 1959.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    3. Re:1960's technology Revisited by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      We did our testing at night and the lights could be seen from a nearby highway. This resulted in multiple auto accidents.

      And how many UFO reports?

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    4. Re:1960's technology Revisited by Junior+Samples · · Score: 1

      There may be some confusion with the program name, that was 40 years ago, but LAMPS is the name that comes to mind. The equipment may have been used with the same aircraft that you described.

    5. Re:1960's technology Revisited by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There was also the WWII Canal Defence Light program, in which the British put very bright searchlights on tanks, sometimes with shutters for a strobe effect.

      If I remember correctly, they had some dazzling effect in the direction they were pointed, but were basically really visible targets from the side.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  44. It's probably not bright enough. by gmarsh · · Score: 1

    If you've ever been exposed to arc flash from welding or witnessing a large short circuit. you'll know that isn't the most fun thing - you get bad spots and trails in your vision, a bad headache, and eventually nausea - been there, done that. The same symptoms that the real dazzler advertises, and the same things experienced by the news reporter lady.

    If the "bedazzler" doesn't have the same "eye-burning" power as an arc flash or the real dazzler, it's probably just not bright enough. And I suspect that's the case - they've got the green LEDs spread out over a much larger device than the real dazzler, which lessens the 'burn your eyes' effect. Plus, they've basically made a stupidly powerful continuous-light flashlight with sections that blink, and the blinking probably isn't even visible from the glare the device generates. The original 2M-candlepower bulb in their flashlight would probably be more effective at subduing a person.

    I'm thinking a better design would involve increasing the density of the LEDs, using only green ones (best lumens/watt) and operating them at a high pulse discharge current (akin to a flash) instead of at continuous current like they're doing.

    1. Re:It's probably not bright enough. by ladyada · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't worry, its plenty bright! Its bigger only because it has more LEDs, and nice 6 degree lenses. If you RTFA you'll see we suggest going with green LEDs for best effectiveness but this has an RGB rave mode for going to parties. That way we can take it out to raves! Also, please note that LEDs are not driven "continuous current" not sure where you got that from

  45. Re:Hardware hacker extraordinares?? by couchslug · · Score: 1

    'Could we stop sucking up to women just because they're a bit techy?"

    No, but thanks for asking!

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  46. Great Idea.. by jcatana · · Score: 1

    Until they encounter the guy that fights like me who closes his eyes and flails randomly.

    1. Re:Great Idea.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until they encounter the guy that fights like me who closes his eyes and flails randomly.

      So how has that worked out for you?

    2. Re:Great Idea.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fail rate = 0%

  47. The patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Is available here: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7180426.pdf

    1. Re:The patent by adamziegler · · Score: 1

      Seems that "bright flashing light" is not the only thing that makes the real version effective. I could be wrong.... but I think most people have experienced being in a fun house / haunted house where there is a strobe room. It can be disorienting. No imagine the strobe room where the light source was originating from multiple locations.

  48. Re:Pigs will like this by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd call them "dirty cops". Sadly there are far too many, but not all cops are.

    "Dirty" cops are a subset of the problem. They are the corrupt ones who misuse their position as law enforcement for their own gains or play along when officials above them do the same. It is a problem. I agree that not all cops are dirty.

    There are also cops who are not corrupt but still fail to "protect and serve". Some are un-necessarily brutal. This ranges from beating up suspects who offer no resistance (until it became clear they would be beaten up), perhaps for a minor technical infraction. In some cases, people who have done nothing wrong at all (however minor) end up on the wrong side of a beat down.

    Others don't cross that line but have obviously forgotten that their job is to "protect and serve" not to be treated with the sort of deference that used to be reserved for Chinese emperors. They are the ones who seem to take personal offense if they can't find something you did wrong so they can write you a ticket. They "thought they saw a beer" and when proven wrong, keep looking for something else. They ooze the attitude that you serve them and they will GET you one way or another. If there's actually nothing at all, even a technicality, they can write you up on, they will "let you off with a verbal warning" rather than just apologize for the inconvenience. Yes, I know it's awkward to accuse someone and then find that your wrong. That's WHY an apology is in order. Your best hope is that the other person will accept it graciously. It would be a lot less awkward for them if they hadn't subvocally appended "you dirty little sack of shit" to everything they said to you before being proven wrong.

    Next on the list we have those who somehow enable the above categories. They treat what would otherwise be considered a brutal assault worth not less than a year in prison as "some kind of mis-understanding" (yeah, the mother of two didn't understand that she might get yanked out of the car by her hair and kicked in the ribs if she pulled over like the law says she must for a minor traffic stop) and do nothing significant about it. They missed the part of kindergarten where we learned about saying you're sorry. They might reluctantly admit that some officer's actions were out of line but you can actually tell from the attitude they project that in their minds they're sure the victim was guilty of something and somehow managed to put one over on the bleeding hearts.

    While only one category above is "dirty cops", all are unambiguously "pigs". They are the ones that make cops unwelcome in a neighborhood. They are NOT by any means 100% of the police force, but the odds that any particular cop approaching you is one of those are high enough to tempt even the most law abiding citizen attempt to avoid the encounter. They make parents think twice before advising their children to go to a cop if there's a problem. Some of them are decent enough when they're NOT on duty (to the point that friends and family would be shocked to see their on duty behaviour).

    The remainder are "police officers". They are what 100% of the police force needs to be made up of. They are, of course, imperfect human beings like the rest of us but they acknowledge that and try to get it right anyway (just like most of us). Because they can acknowledge that they are imperfect human beings, they are able to understand that the rest of us are as well and act accordingly. They can even understand the concept of "no harm, no foul" in spite of laws written in black and white (by imperfect human beings).

    The big problem they face is that it doesn't take many "pigs" amongst the "police officers" to make it in an honest citizen's best interest to assume the worst. It takes even fewer to be a problem for honest citizens legally doing things that are politically inconvenient (like protesting). When the problems are higher up the chain of command there may be little or nothing a proper "police officer" can do about it.

    It is because of all of that that cops as a whole come to be regarded as "the pigs".

  49. Re:Pigs will like this by zippyspringboard · · Score: 1

    No, actually he is mad because they wouldn't let him be a police officer....

  50. Do you violate the patent if it doesn't work? by wsanders · · Score: 1

    That's an interesting question for all the /. armchair lawyers. Is something a patent violation if it doesn't actually work the way the patent says?

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  51. Chasing what kind of light again? by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

    So instead of chasing taillights, we're chasing nausea and vomit inducing blinky lights? Nice.

  52. Re:Pigs will like this by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

    ...ALL FUCKING COPS SUCK ASS! I

    And yet, when you get in trouble, your first call will be to 911 and the first responder will most likely be a police officer who will try and help you or your family in any way he can.

    Who modded this as "insightful"?

    --
    Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
  53. Misleading Title by camperdave · · Score: 2, Funny

    Reading the title and a quick scan of the summary lead me to believe that someone had developed BEDAZZLER stones with LEDs in them. You could make some cool stuff with LED Bedazzler stones: patterns that flashed, little animated scenes, etc. Alas! All they did was make a weapon.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Misleading Title by mikael · · Score: 1

      Those $16 visi-glo LED light dog collars have an instruction leaflet that has a hazard warning label: "flashing LED's may induce epileptic seizures"

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  54. Re:Hardware hacker extraordinares?? by ladyada · · Score: 1

    Oh we have a spectrum analyzer here, thats what we used to debug the DIY cellphone jammer project http://www.ladyada.net/make/wavebubble

  55. Re:I think these would be great to use against pol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What you suggest would be a really, really, REALLY bad idea. It would not end well. At all. You're talking about average people with glorified flashlights trying to take on organized, well-trained, and well-equipped specialists who have the legal right to use force. It would result in violence against the protesters (well, more than the usual amount anyway) and while I am not a lawyer, I believe they'd be charged with assaulting police officers as well, which is a serious charge. No, the proper way to deal with abusive police is for the citizens to put legal political pressure on the local and state politicians who control the police.

  56. Re:Hardware hacker extraordinares?? by miniver · · Score: 1

    Next time you want to bitch about someone, try doing with a real user id, with a real resume of accomplishments.

    --
    We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
  57. Re:Pigs will like this by M8e · · Score: 1

    I think most of us would call a relative, friend or neighbor in most cases that you actually could call 911. Some times people even call a relative/friend and make them call 911, that way you don't waste "your" time when you could do something important.

  58. OMG OMG OMG by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

    Now I want to get this thing pointed at me and see what it's like! I'll make my own this weekend!

    --
    "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
  59. Re:Hardware hacker extraordinares?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From her site for the rf bubble thing
    "Much of the RF gain-stage design and layout was done in collaboration with Adam J. O'Donnell and the Cult of the Dead Cow"

    Real hardware hacker extraordinaires don't need help like that. "Collaboration" is a weasel word if I ever heard one.

    Like I said, arts and crafts with a good web site design, probably done by someone else too. Great self promotion, little substance.

    I tried putting my resume in here, but there's not enough space in the margin.

  60. Re:Hardware hacker extraordinares?? by ladyada · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wow you are really paranoid! Adam helped me pick out the best amplifier and looked over the RF gain stage layout to make sure it was nice and clean, since he did this for a living. Sure I could have done everything without any extra eyes but then the jammer might not have been as effective and that would be so sad :~( If you check back, next week, I'll have project on how to build your own 4 layer boards with popsicle sticks and glitter!

  61. Great combination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That and a bottle of liquid ass would be a great combination to bring to a party!

  62. Rise and Fall Time by adamziegler · · Score: 1

    What is the rise and fall time (on/off)of a typical LED?

  63. They risk a lot by Sam+Lowry · · Score: 1

    I am now at the edge of being fired atter I rewrote a library of 57 000 SLOCS within 1000 SLOCS.

    These guys should be really crasy to risk wastedumping so much other people's work.

  64. Re:Pigs will like this by Sebilrazen · · Score: 1

    But now Everlast doesn't eat pig cause it's not halal.

    --
    "There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
  65. Hardware hacker extraordinaires? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Hardware hacker extraordinaires" -- Shouldn't that be a title bestowed upon you by someone other than yourself, ptorrone? A little humility goes a long way.

  66. Mod parent up. by Shandalar · · Score: 2, Informative

    So they looked at the patent and created a version of the invention. Big deal. This is a sort of abuse of the term "open source", isn't it? It's burdened by the patent. Anyone marketing these things would be sueable - and for treble damages because they infringed on the patent willfully.

  67. Bedazzled by AlpineR · · Score: 1

    But it's not cheap plastic. It's genuine authentic 100% imported faux space-age thermopolymers!

  68. Mr and Mrs Smith by westlake · · Score: 1

    If a person is sufficiently motivated, especially if they're well-trained or on drugs, even *lethal* force can be inadequate to stop them.

    It doesn't play out like in the movies.

    There is always a weapon - and always a shot - that will get the job done.

    The SWAT team goes home for supper. You make your exit in a body bag.

    1. Re:Mr and Mrs Smith by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Replying to both westlake and evilviper, below:

      I'm not saying that motivation can overcome *any* lethal force... I'm saying that *some* forms of force might be insufficient even if they prove lethal.

      Classic case in point: raving lunatic is charging at you with a baseball bat. You shoot him in the arm with a .22 pistol. He might eventually bleed to death, but by god he's going to beat you to a pulp first.

    2. Re:Mr and Mrs Smith by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      if the lunatic is strong enough you could hoot him through the heart and still get brained before he succumbs to the bullet wound.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    3. Re:Mr and Mrs Smith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we shouldn't use the dazzler or guns because they might let the attacker beat you to a pulp. Good thinking.

    4. Re:Mr and Mrs Smith by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      I know of a situation in which a guy took a 9mm to the heart and continued to run for nearly 50 metres before he dropped.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  69. Blackhawk Gladius by rhook · · Score: 1

    For that price I could just get a Blackhawk Gladius which has a field proven strobe mode that will disorient and cause balance loss. http://www.blackhawk.com/product/Night-Ops-Gladius-Maximis-Illumination-Tool,994,40.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obi3n3OVwHw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MezgQicq5bw

  70. Re:Pigs will like this by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    To a cop there are three kinds of people: Cops, cops' families, and suspects.

    To Infernal Affairs, there is one kind of person: suspects. This includes themselves!

  71. Re:Hardware hacker extraordinares?? by ptorrone · · Score: 1

    hey "Anonymous" - you're right, i don't know how you figured it out, but you are clearly on to something big.

    limor didn't do *any* of the web site or "real coding".

    if you're really interested, here's the mastermind behind most of what you see at adafruit and ladyada...

    http://bit.ly/sscsd

    please keep this to yourself, thanks.

  72. Dazzler? Nothing new. by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 1

    We had those way back in 1977! Two circuit boards, lots of TTL chips.

  73. miltary grade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of course, the BEDAZZLER will be functional in a desert sand storm in the persian gulf. In 120deg weather, on a hummer vibrating heavily,and be reliable for 125days 24/7 while there's dust everywhere, and gunfire all around.

    Sure $1mil maybe a bit too expensive for a device such as dazzle, but comparing a $1mil device to a $250 device is truly apple to oranges.

  74. A Mirror ? by Gim+Tom · · Score: 1

    Cool hack of what I think is a pretty useless DHS gadget. What is to prevent someone from holding up a mirror and bedazzling the bedazzler?

  75. Re:Pigs will like this by lgw · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And yet, when you get in trouble, your first call will be to 911 and the first responder will most likely be a police officer who will try and help you or your family in any way he can.

    I'll order a pizza instead. The pizza guy will show up sooner, might actually help, and is less likely to hassle me instead. Cops are good for providing paperwork required by insurance companies, and little else.

    Pardom me if I have nothing but contempt for cops, but I have seriously been in a situation where I (as a pizza guy) had just been robbed, was still bleeding, and the cop hassled me for consuming his valuable time with my problems, called me stupid for delivering pizza to that neighborhood, and then gave me a ticket for some some expired sticker. Oh, and made sure to get free pizza from the restaurant.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  76. aaah tax dollars at work by awoodby · · Score: 1

    a frickin million dollars for something that can make you a little dizzy or nauseas???? Wow, great crowd control.

    can't we just start voting NO on ALL these morons that allow this stuff?

    --
    People make me pro-nuclear.
  77. Doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "but it's great for raves..." why even post?

  78. Re:Pigs will like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To a cop there are three kinds of people: Cops, cops' families, and suspects.

    You are exaggerating.

    I read an interview with a cop, and he said that cops mainly categorize people into two categories: citizen, and dirtbag. The goal is to protect the citizens from the dirtbags.

    If you meet a cop on the street, he or she is likely to categorize you as a "citizen" (rather than a "suspect" and immediately start looking for ways to lock you up). There must be cops out there who will consider long hair and a rock-n-roll T-shirt as sufficient evidence that you are a dirtbag, but they are a distinct minority in the places I have visited.

    I'm not sure I could be a good police officer. They have to deal with so much. So far I have gone my whole life without having to look at a messy dead body, or having to interact closely with people screaming insults at me, or having to take an abused child away from abusive parent(s).

    I'm sure there are jerks out there who became cops because they want to be able to legally push people around, but I'm also sure they are outnumbered by people who just want to do a good job.

  79. Good luck with that. by maillemaker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    >No, the proper way to deal with abusive police is for the citizens to put legal
    >political pressure on the local and state politicians who control the police.

    Good luck with that.

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
  80. Re:Pigs will like this by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

    I think there's another effect in play. Do you know any of your town's police officers? Do you have beat cops? Or do they only seem to be present when something has gone wrong? For all my life it's been only the second. Seeing a policeman means something bad happened. This causes nervousness, and that feeling seems to apply to most people. Police = bad things happening.
    The problem, of course, is that the police are there to fix problems. Seeing them should cause a feeling of relief: the police have come to help you. Instead the ingrained feeling of nervousness is far more important. The police are uniforms that appear when something goes wrong, not any kind of regular presence. You don't know them, they have power over you, and thus their effectiveness at calming the populace after an incident is decreased.

    --
    Not a sentence!
  81. Re:Hardware hacker extraordinares?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I tried putting my resume in here, but there's not enough space in the margin.

    I bet you did, you l33t h4x0r j00. was it a picture of you playing with legos on the living room floor? or did you make a moisture detector with your 101 circuits to detect that mess you left in your pants? or maybe it was a picture of your enormous schlong, 'cause your such a big dick. is that the joke?

    come on.

    impress us, mr. anonymous troll. let's see your resume, so fucking huge it's visible from space. show us your two-ton engineering balls. ...or is it just that you're hiding there in the shadows because ladyada's got a track record a mile long and decade deep and you got frustrated trying to get your arduino powered cocksucker to work?

  82. The rape community by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would like to thank LadyAda and her cohorts for this very useful device.

  83. To be fair, by Naznarreb · · Score: 1

    the first of almost anything costs a lot more to make than the second. The million dollar price tag includes research into what colors, wavelengths and patterns (or lack of patterns) are the most effective, studies into the way that light interacts with the eye and brain, a few development models as the product is refined, some cash to pay the guinea people as you test it, money spent ensuring that the product meets whatever guidelines the government set forth (weight/portability, sourcing and type of materials, waterproofing, durability, etc) and a host of other costs associated with developing a brand new product. All that's assuming they started with the idea of "a flash light that makes people puke;" If their mandate was "make us a new kind of less-lethal weapon" then there are even more costs incurred as they research, weigh and evaluate competing ideas. To make fun of the company for spending $1m on the device is a little naive; to praise this group for being so much more clever than the contractors in making it cheaply is likewise.

  84. Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't bedazzle me bro'

  85. Re:Pigs will like this by kklein · · Score: 1

    Perfectly put.

    I also think that because so many of them are pigs, it drives the real police officers out. I think a lot of people join up with good intentions and then either succumb to the terrible attitudes or change careers.

  86. Re:Hardware hacker extraordinares?? by alters · · Score: 1

    Collaboration is how the industry works in the real world. Anyone with an *actual* resume worth reading would know that. We can only surmise you're not only hiding behind anonymity, but also ignorance. Well, I guess you're not doing a good job of hiding *that*...

  87. The Future's So Bright by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

    I gotta wear shades!

    --
    ...
  88. what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So a million dollars for a device that can be defeated just by closing your eyes? Are you serious? And no one recognizes this?

  89. Re:Pigs will like this by sjames · · Score: 1

    Agreed. It can't be easy for a real police officer to watch all of that going on and be able to do nothing about it.

  90. Re:Pigs will like this by sjames · · Score: 1

    There probably is something to that. At the least, the lack of beat cops reduces the chances for a casual low pressure (and much more pleasant) interaction with police.

    Happily, I have had more pleasant than unpleasant interactions with police, but it's hard not to let the few unpleasant ones vastly outweigh the pleasant ones in my mind.

    Interestingly, in the two most unpleasant interactions that stand out so strongly I had done nothing at all wrong. OTOH, when I forgot to put my new car tag on, the officer that reminded me was quite nice about the whole thing. Then he gave me directions to the place I was trying to find at the time.

  91. Re:Pigs will like this by Dishevel · · Score: 1

    I do not think that you are correct. Cops are mostly useful for solving crime after it has happened. If I need to protect my family or my property right now from someone it would be up to me to do that. Ill call 911 later to get an ambulance for the guy I just shot.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  92. Re:Pigs will like this by Orbijx · · Score: 1

    I actually know a(n admittedly small) number of my local officers by name and face, and through decent, normal means. I've never been in any trouble that requires an officer to visit me in a negative light.

    Granted, we've had the police come over a couple of times, but these were for deaths in the family (of which this appears to be a normal thing to do in my town -- if you call and report that someone has passed away, a police officer will swing by and visit, and I guess this goes in the record as official proof that a person is now deceased).
    Even then, these officers were professional, and compassionate. They were there for us for nearly an hour, while the funeral home sent their people to carry my people home.
    Hell, when I lost my mother, one of the officers (one I know by name, surprisingly, and long before my mother's passing) actually offered me a hug, which I gratefully accepted.

    As for beat cops, I guess you could say we have them in some places. I used to work in a shopping plaza here. Instead of a rent-a-cop (security officer), we actually had a city police officer sitting in the plaza, and a cellphone that we can directly reach him on (our store kept the phone, and probably paid the monthly bill for it, too), should we, or any other shopkeep in the mall need to reach him. Everyone knew the officers that worked that plaza. They'd work a six hour shift there, then trade off with another officer, so we had twelve hours of coverage, five days a week.

    --
    One of these days, I am going to flip out. When I flip out, I'll be back in five minutes.