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."

65 of 282 comments (clear)

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

    brilliant !

    1. Re:That's ... by ladyada · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    2. 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!
    3. 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.

  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 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?"
    2. 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.
    3. Re:Nice! by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Funny

      You have no idea =)

  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!

  5. 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 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".

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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
    9. 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
    10. 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.

    11. 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
  6. 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.

  7. 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 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.
  8. Re:Patents? by notgm · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  9. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. 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 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?

  12. 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
  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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 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"
    4. Re:The purpose of the article by ladyada · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    5. 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!"
    6. 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.

  16. 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
  17. 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 /.
  18. 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?
  19. 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! :)

  20. 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.

  21. 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!"

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

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

  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.

  27. 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?
  28. 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".

  29. 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

  30. 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!
  31. 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
  32. 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!

  33. 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.

  34. 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!

  35. 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.
  36. 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.