Slashdot Mirror


The Jet Fighter Laser Cannon

fahrbot-bot sends in a Register piece about DARPA issuing the penultimate contract for what is intended to be a jet-mounted laser cannon. The Reg outdoes itself in a BOTEC involving downsizing to shark scale. "The US military will shortly issue a brace of contracts for 'refrigerator sized' laser blaster cannons. One of the deals will see a full-power ground prototype built which will be the final stage prior to America's first raygun-equipped jet fighter. ... If it scales down far enough, this would seem to put handheld HELL-guns within an order of magnitude of the striking power offered by conventional small-arms. A 9mm pistol bullet has about 750 joules muzzle energy: a 5kg portable HELL-ray weapon would put out this much energy in a blast less than a second long. ... A dolphin can carry a human being weighing up to 100kg along for a ride. A thoroughbred shark in good training can surely match this. Thus, we seem to be looking at practicable head-[laser] output in the 20-kilowatt range."

58 of 464 comments (clear)

  1. Tags by Shadyman · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ok, I see the obligatory "sharks" tag, but what about the "pewpewpew" tag?

    1. Re:Tags by nlawalker · · Score: 3, Funny

      I see your uid, but you get an obligatory "you must be new here". All aircraft-mounted laser weaponry stories must be tagged with "realgenius", "ihatepopcorn" or some variant thereof.

    2. Re:Tags by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 4, Funny

      And what the heck are thoroughbred sharks? What? Like a mongrel shark isn't good enough to carry a laser now? Damn discrimination everywhere.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    3. Re:Tags by Genda · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hmmmm... Sharks vs. Jets... I presume this implies a "Westside Story" tag as well...

  2. 9mm? by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why not compare it to a real handgun caliber? ;)

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    1. Re:9mm? by TheKidWho · · Score: 3, Informative

      Fail.

      From you're own link, the bullet performance shows 702J as the highest energy output.

    2. Re:9mm? by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Negligible benefit? Then why have so many police agencies abandoned the 9mm in favor of other calibers? Why did the Federal government settle on the .357 SIG (for the USSS) and .40S&W (for the FBI) instead of the cheaper and more commonly available 9mm? Most law enforcement agencies don't issue .45s but the fact that they've abandoned the 9mm in such large numbers ought to tell you something.

      Personally, I'm not married to the .45. I have one, because I love the 1911 platform, but I'd also trust my life to a .40S&W, .357 magnum or 10mm. I've just read about too many spectacular failures of the 9mm to be willing to trust my life to it. To each their own though.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:9mm? by kalirion · · Score: 4, Funny

      Really? Compare the USP and the Glock pistols in Counter-Strike - which one does more damage?

    4. Re:9mm? by geekoid · · Score: 5, Funny
      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:9mm? by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, the Air Marshals use the .357 SIG, as does the Secret Service. The Coast Guard adopted it as well. I believe the FBI is still using the .40 S&W but I could be mistaken.

      The 9mm is a joke. It's even worse for the military because they aren't allowed to use expanding ammunition. Buddy of mine who deployed in Iraq tells a story of an insurgent whom wasn't stopped in spite of the fact that he had absorbed no less than six center of mass hits from the M9. Makes you question the wisdom of the military abandoning the Model 1911, doesn't it?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:9mm? by confused+one · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you feel you're going to need a .50 cal, then use a 20ga shotgun (0.620" bore) loaded with slugs. At least then you'll be able to control the recoil. You will be able fire it faster. Maybe reload it faster. Use it as an effective club when you're out of ammo. And you'll be able to afford the ammo.

    7. Re:9mm? by Rei · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, it's all irrelevant anyways, because if you want to compare damage, duration is just as important as energy. A one second laser pulse is nothing like a millisecond bullet impact. And furthermore, how the heck are you going to keep the beam on a single spot for a whole second, esp. at any sort of distance? Perhaps if you're talking stationary armor or something and you've got a tripod...

      One of these cells may leave a nasty burn or blind you, but it's not going to kill you.

      (Speaking of blinding: if serious lethal laser weapons ever do become common, that's going to be a new horror of war. Even the tangential reflections from any laser powerful enough to rapidly kill a person -- or worse, cut through armor -- are going to do catastrophic eye damage to everyone around them.)

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    8. Re:9mm? by photon317 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Mostly they did it for stupid reasons, if you really read up the informed sources on these things.

      The truth is 9mm is every bit as capable across a broad range of handgun scenarios that LE are likely to face as any other reasonable semi-auto cartridge (.40, .45, .357Sig), assuming one makes the correct ammo choices (on that point I'll concede: correct ammo choices matter more in 9mm than they do in .45, but not by a huge amount). Add to that the 9mm's lower perceived recoil, faster followup shots, and larger round counts in the same physical magazine size, and the 9mm looks quite good. That's why most of the world's militaries, including the US, and all NATO and UN types, have standardized on 9mm. Operator skill and unpredictable situational factors will make far more difference than any you can find between the calibers in any case, so the whole argument is really just a religious debate.

      Back to the point about the fed branches though. The FBI originally tested the 10mm Auto to replace 9mm. The 10mm Auto actually *is* arguably a superior round to everything mentioned above in terms of "incapacitate in as few shots as possible". That is, of course, if you're willing to make the tradeoffs in mag capacity, ammo/gun weight, and extreme recoil. Once they had mostly settled on 10mm Auto, they did some testing with agents, and found that many (mostly females - it's in the reports, I'm not trying to be sexist here) simply could not handle the 10mm recoil and would not use it. So S&W came up with a "10mm short", which became the .40 we know today, as a compromise package that would be "like the 10mm (at least in diameter)" but lower recoil. It's basically a 10mm Auto that's been cut down with a lot less powder behind it.

      And like all irrational "compromise" solutions of that sort, it's a complete practical failure. All objective testing indicates at best it's on par with its 9mm and .45 cousins (certainly nothing like the original 10mm), and arguably you're better off with one of those two. It just takes generations for people to admit those kinds of mistakes and move past them when you've got industry giants and federal government branches involved.

      --
      11*43+456^2
    9. Re:9mm? by photon317 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unfortunately your father in law is misinformed. It's common for even people with a great deal of field experience to be misinformed about these things. Ask a qualified ballistics expert and you'll find the diameter of the entrance wound is a relatively small factor. Proper bullet design, and proper consideration of the correct weight to use for the platform in question, are much bigger factors. A 147gr Winchester RA-9T ("LE" ammo, but civilians can legally buy it if they find nice dealers) out of any full-sized 9mm handgun will vastly outperform a standard "chunk-o-lead" target-shooting round out of a .45, for example. Using that level of ammo in both, the difference between the wounds from the two is negligible.

      --
      11*43+456^2
    10. Re:9mm? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 4, Informative

      Expanding rounds are forbidden from being used in war by the Hague Convention of 1899. Full metal jacket rounds may be better at penatrating armor, but the real reason they are used is because using expanding ammunition (in war) is a war crime.

      [the relevant section of the treaty]

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    11. Re:9mm? by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and with 9mm you get a LOT more practice.

      If that's your metric then the .22LR is the best self-defense round.

      Its not the only metric, but it is a big one. I'd rather have my 9 that I get to put a couple hundred rounds in a month than a 45 that i can fire about half as much. Even a 22 can be deadly if placed well by someone with enough skill/luck. Accuracy and capacity both go down with increasing caliber so there has to be a balance though. I'm much more comfortable with 10+1 of 9mm than I would be with 6+1 of .45 (I know you can get more than that, but mine is a subcompact)

      With good JHP ammo, 9 is plenty on an unarmored target.

    12. Re:9mm? by SETIGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Yes, as an antipersonnel weapon, a 750 watt continuous laser leaves much to be desired, besides as a way for a sniper to blind someone. It would have to be limited to use against stationary targets. For example the control system of a stationary AAA battery would be a suitable target. There it would have significant stealth advantages for the user, assuming it doesn't go "pewpewpew". Anywhere a sniper can put a crosshairs would be fine.... Even then, a stabilization system would be require to keep the beam on a single spot for long enough to do damage.

      The fighter mounted one has 200 times the power, and I assume it is steered to target by computer. It could blind IR sensors on a jet fighter at quite a distance. Blinding the opposing pilot is also an option, since current strategy is to keep your eyes on the enemy. Just do a rapid raster scan across the target. I'd have to do a little math to figure out how long it would take to punch a hole through aircraft skin or detonate incoming ordnance.

      It would be interesting to know the specs in more detail....

    13. Re:9mm? by Zantetsuken · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Personally, this is why the Saiga exists - upscale an AK47 into a 12 gauge semi-automatic (full auto for Gov't/Military) shotgun.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saiga-12
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPI5j3jjqo&feature=player_embedded

      Even with a 10 shell box magazine, load that with slugs. Assuming you're military with authorization to do so, get one with a short barrel, maybe an assault grip, and you'd have a helluva semi-auto hand-cannon or super high caliber smg...

      As to so many people yelping about the Desert Eagle, it has the potential to *occasionally* look kinda cool, but if you're really needing a high caliber pistol, you'd be going with a revolver anyway. A revolver basically can't jam, and can use much higher and uncommon rounds that any other handgun design would not be able to handle the stresses of firing.

    14. Re:9mm? by SETIGuy · · Score: 5, Informative

      As for the size of the wound, that depends on how tightly you focus the beam.

      There are limits to that. The divergence of the beam depends upon the size of the optics. For a man portable weapon system, I'd guess 10 cm is about the maximum optics diameter that would be useful. Assuming a wavelength of 1 micron, 10 cm gives a divergence of 1e-5 radians, so at 100 meters you could focus to a 2 cm diameter spot for an irradiance of 240 watts per square cm. At 1000 meters you're up to a 20cm spot for a fairly insignificant irradiance of 2.4 watts per square cm. If you want something useful at a kilometer, it's not going to be man portable.

      Lets put that into terms every slashdotter will understand. Remember your 5 cm diameter magnifying glass and its 20cm focal length? It projected an image of the sun 1.7 mm in diameter with an irradiance of 122 watts per square centimeter, almost exactly half of our laser gun at 100 meters, and 50 times larger than our gun at 1000 meters.

      So now, lets build a magnifying glass to match our laser gun. We want a 2 cm diameter spot, so we'll need a longer focal length, by the ratio of 20/1.7, which turns out to be 235 cm. We'll also need 750 watts of sunlight or 0.53 square meters of collecting area. That means a lens 82 cm in diameter. Feel free to build one and put a steak in the focus for one second. Please post your results to slashdot. I personally doubt that a second in that spot would be fatal to a human, but it would hurt a hell of a lot.

    15. Re:9mm? by tibman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sounds like they needed to blame something.. then change something to make it look like they're actually making things better.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    16. Re:9mm? by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With good JHP ammo, 9 is plenty on an unarmored target.

      I'll wager that most of the police who died because their 9mm rounds failed the stop the aggressor were using "good JHP ammo" (as if you'd use anything else for self-defense work). Seriously, how do you explain away the numerous stories of the 9mm failing to stop aggressors and the fact that large segments of the law enforcement community have abandoned it?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    17. Re:9mm? by KibibyteBrain · · Score: 5, Interesting

      All it would have to do is heat up the fuel tanks to combustion. It may not even have to do that, the thermals on jet fighter engines are insane. The exhaust leaves at far greater than the melting temperature of the alloy the engines are made out of. Therefore all sorts of tricks like laminar airflow cooling are used. However, an external source of heat into the system could totally mess up those cooling techniques...

    18. Re:9mm? by cyn1c77 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a reason why even the professionals are trained to shoot CoM first.

      Semi-professionals are trained to shoot two-to-three shots CoM and then to reassess the situation. Real professionals put two in the chest and one in the head.

      Of course, I do agree with you that real professionals also do not use 9mm ammunition... or handguns for that matter.

  3. The Future by colmore · · Score: 4, Funny

    When I read the summary I wondered if they'd be putting one of those on flying robot drones and then I realized that yes, it's 2009 and we live in the fucking future.

    --
    In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    1. Re:The Future by evanbd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Give credit where credit is due.

      We live in a world where there are actual fleets of robot assassins patrolling the skies. At some point there, we left the present and entered the future."

    2. Re:The Future by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Flying cars had (and have) two basic flaws that prevent their implementation:

      a) Controlling a vehicle in three dimensions takes more skill than the average person has. Remember the last idiot you saw on the road? Which would have been today if you've driven today, by the way. Now imagine him *flying*.

      b) a vehicle that generally operates with the ground 500 or 1000 feet below it needs better reliability than can be obtained with the way the average car is maintained. Doubly so when you remember you not only have to be worried about the vehicle and its passengers but whatever the vehicle might fall on.

    3. Re:The Future by EdIII · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Basically we can boil your argument down to "people are too fucking cheap and stupid".

      I totally agree. If it were not for concerns about government totalitarianism I would wholly support a 100% public transportation system in which only licensed, heavily regulated, and *REGULARLY TESTED* operators could use any transportation equipment in a public space.

      The average person just does not have the responsibility and skill to be operating motor vehicles next to other average people. The real problem is that you are also mixing the slow, stupid, and inconsiderate with the fast, reckless, and homicidal. Not a good idea.

      Ohh, and I totally include myself in the list of people that should not be driving on the roads. I am easily just a few months away from going Road Warrior on the rest of your asses out there. The moment one of you idiots starts doing 20mph less than the speed limit in the fast lane, I am *severely* tested in my ability to not drive your ass off the road with a well placed "bump".

      I honestly don't know how much longer I can hold out.

  4. Effect on humans? by Singularity42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've never heard an analysis of effects on humans. Bullets are good a disrupting tissue, often causing death. A laser might deliver a cauterized burn, or blindness if in the right spot.

    1. Re:Effect on humans? by mujadaddy · · Score: 2, Funny

      I take it you're volunteering.

      --
      Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
      "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
    2. Re:Effect on humans? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Informative

      A laser might deliver a cauterized burn, or blindness if in the right spot.

      Blinding weapons are a violation of the Geneva Conventions (Protocol IV, if I recall correctly - and no, the USA isn't a signatory to Protocol IV last I looked).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:Effect on humans? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I can tell you from personal experience that high power lasers cause cauterized burns (in fact, if it's a big enough UV laser you get to watch your skin glow briefly: everything fluoresces and phosphoresces if you hit it with enough photons, I think) and causes blindness. Weird corollary: visible lasers are the nasty ones because they blow holes in the back of your eye, where we can't fix things. Most of the visible-wavelength laser PhD's I've worked with have had partial blindness in some area because they've cooked their retinas. However, IR and UV lasers, while seemingly more dangerous (because you can't see them and don't know you're being hit until it hurts/your vision goes fuzzy) are actually nicer since they primarily bake the front part of the eye, and we can repair that, either with corneal transplants or new intraocular lens implants. One of the PhD's I was working with on a massive UV laser had given himself DIY laser keratotomy: he'd flattened one cornea when a laser discharged a single pulse while his right eye was in the beampath. (It was one hell of a laser: we'd warm it up in the morning using a brick, because they're cheap and *anything* in front of a kilowatt laser is disposable so you might as well go with cheap.)

      The fluorescence/phosphorescence was the most interesting thing to me. They're the same effect but different phenomena: you hit something really hard with a bunch of UV, and the surface -- the stuff that didn't get ablated -- is now covered in molecules with electrons blown up into higher orbitals. The ones that fall down immediately (within nanoseconds) are what produce fluorescence. The ones that have absorbed enough energy that they're in an orbital/spin combination that won't allow them to directly drop down to their original orbital, take a long time before they can do something like electron tunnelling to return to their orbital -- where by 'long time' I mean from a millisecond up to maybe six hours. So that's where you get actual glow-in-the-dark. I could put a notecard up in the beam and trigger a shot, and there'd be a nice yellow glow off the piece of paper for maybe half a second, and then the paper itself would be a moderate brown color. Next shot and it'd be gone. The individual shots were on the order of a microsecond long.

      Interesting factoid that I wish I didn't know: fluorine gas smells somewhat like Elmer's Glue. Deep UV lasers often use fluorine as an excimer and when you have to replace the cavity mirrors, no matter how many times you purge it with argon, there's still some fluorine in there when you finally open it up. Gack *cough*.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    4. Re:Effect on humans? by Stray7Xi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Blinding weapons are a violation of the Geneva Conventions (Protocol IV, if I recall correctly - and no, the USA isn't a signatory to Protocol IV last I looked).

      Weapons designed to blind are a violation. Weapons that may inadvertently cause blindness are acceptable. Just about every weapon we have can cause blindness. I suspect this weapon will be designed to burn a hole into their head rather then blind.

      But Law of War also says you limit collateral damage. Will diffuse reflections from these lasers cause collateral blindness. When dealing with highpower lasers in a dynamic environment, there's really no predicting where reflections might end up.

    5. Re:Effect on humans? by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Informative

      Blinding weapons are a violation of the Geneva Conventions (Protocol IV, if I recall correctly - and no, the USA isn't a signatory to Protocol IV last I looked).

      And?

      Weapons designed for the purpose of blinding people would violate the convention. Weapons designed to kill people which may, on occasion, blind someone, are perfectly legal. Soldiers get blinded by bullet fragments and shrapnel too, you know.

  5. Mirrors by HEbGb · · Score: 2, Funny

    Time to get into the mirror business! It's a lot easier to deflect protons than bullets, I'll tell you that.

    1. Re:Mirrors by Orange+Crush · · Score: 3, Informative

      ^photons. These are lasers, not particle guns.

    2. Re:Mirrors by TheBig1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I know this was a joke, but to be pedantic, there are more neutrons than protons in lead... 125 vs 82 respectively. ;-)

      Cheers

    3. Re:Mirrors by Grenamier · · Score: 5, Funny

      How can you guys deflect protons when you're being so negative?

      --
      -- John Truong
  6. over one second? by painandgreed · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We've been down this way back during the star wars days and trying to shoot down missiles. Any sort of energy that is released in the term of a second or so is useless against anything but stationary targets where you can assume you will hit the same point for that entire second. Bullets on the other hand expend their energy in a range of ten thousandths of a second. Until lasers or other beam weapons can deliver enough energy in a short enough amount of time similar to a bullet or supersonic missile, they simply will not make good weapons. Just make your missiles spin and any energy hitting them will be over a very large area. Similarly, the energy given for a 9mm hitting a human target that is moving around will be affected less than the firer of a 9mm who will probably absorb that energy over a shorter time and less area due to recoil.

    1. Re:over one second? by CannonballHead · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But you can keep a laser focused on something a lot easier. Light moves a whole lot faster than a supersonic missile. If you think of it as a "photon machine gun," it's a lot easier to keep the "bullets" hitting the target when your bullets fire rather rapidly and can move at the speed of light. One second of laser-shining-on-a-moving-object can't be TOO hard.

  7. Obligatory by Dripdry · · Score: 2, Funny

    Val Kilmer seen running around MIT hollering with joy.

    --
    -
    1. Re:Obligatory by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Informative

      Val Kilmer seen running around MIT hollering with joy.

      "Pacific Tech" from Real Genius was modelled on (very closely, in many areas) Caltech, not MIT.

  8. Re:Recoil by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Informative

    If the recoil has the energy of the projected laser but in the opposite direction, the way a bullet gun's recoil does, how is it not enough to notice? The lasers in this article, including the hypothesized portable version, pack quite a wallop.

    The recoil has the momentum of the projected laser. Photons, like atoms, have mass-energy which, along with velocity determines momentum. But a lot of energy gives very little mass. So photons have a lot of velocity (C) and hardly any mass, so they have hardly any momentum for a lot of energy.

    The atoms in normal rocket exhaust have less velocity but heaps more mass-energy, most of which is just dead weight.

  9. ...and so does "final stage prior to..." by DragonWriter · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Penultimate" means "second to last" and nothing else.

    Which is exactly the sense in which it is used here, as is indicated by the language from TFA quoted in TFS: "the final stage prior to America's first raygun-equipped jet fighter."

    So, in the series in which the last (or "ultimate") stage is the contract for a laser-armed jet fighter, the contract for the ground-based prototype is the second to last (or "penultimate") stage.

    So, great job of knowing what "penultimate" means, but next time work on reading and understanding the post in which it is used before accusing someone of using it wrong.

  10. Re:Acronym of an acronym? by Drishmung · · Score: 4, Funny

    Then I take it GNU renders you apoplectic.

    --
    Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
  11. Kent... Wake up Kent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    All you'd need is a large spinning mirror and you could vaporize a human target from space. Better go make sure someone didn't steal Kents tracking system.

    Plus sharks with FRICKIN LAZER BEAMS attached to their heads?

    I like the first movie better.

  12. Re:Acronym of an acronym? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2, Funny

    It could be worse. It could stand for the HELL Energetic Liquid Laser.

    Also, I'm wondering when the military brainchidren are going to develop the GREATSATAN weapon. Surely this too will help improve our image among people who already think we're controlled by the devil.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  13. Re:why is this word never used correctly? by Hatta · · Score: 4, Informative

    One of the deals will see a full-power ground prototype built which will be the final stage prior to America's first raygun-equipped jet fighter.

    This prototype is second to last(penultimate) contract in this project. The last one (or ultimate) will be for the actual jet. The use is valid.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  14. Re:Recoil by XSpud · · Score: 2, Informative

    The recoil doesn't have the same energy, but it will have the same momentum.

  15. Re:What about the ultimate contract? by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    OK, so did they also let the ultimate contract

    No, the "ultimate" contract "for what is intended to be a jet-mounted laser cannon" would be the contract for a jet-mounted laser cannon. The contract described here as "penultimate" is for "a full-power ground prototype" intended as to "be the final stage prior to America's first raygun-equipped jet fighter" and which is, therfore, correctly described by TFS as being "the penultimate contract for what is itended to be a jet-mounted laser cannon".

    There is lots of misguided pedantry here ragging on TFS for using "penultimate" correctly.

  16. Re:useless against the enemies of freedom by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not only Godwinned but also... Satan? Surely there's a law for that too...

    Even though this read mostly like a paranoid rant, it contains just enough grains of truth to be uncomfortable. It IS corporate welfare for Boeing and Raytheon, America DOES fund its own enemies, and the deaths of American soldiers DO enrich military contractors.

    The only reason the last paragraph remains a paranoid rant is because I'm worth more to Goldman Sachs as a LIVE victim, rather than a dead one. My taxes justify their bailout.

  17. Re:why is this word never used correctly? by hey! · · Score: 5, Funny

    It begs the question of why people use big sounding words and phrases they obviously don't understand. It literally makes my head explode.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  18. Laser blasters are the weapons of barbarians. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Funny

    I would like an elegant weapon from an more civilized age.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  19. Re:Is a comparison to bullets apt? by esampson · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes and no. The amount of energy isn't a terrible base line of comparison if you are doing "apples to apples". There are really 3 factors involved; the energy, how rapidly and efficiently the energy is transferred to the target and over how much area. Sunlight is a pretty good way of illustrating this. In full sunlight you can assume that 1 square foot (30cm x 30cm) receives about 100 watts of energy. Since 1 Joule is 1 watt per second that means that in about 7.5 seconds an area roughly the size of your chest would receive about as much energy as a 9mm bullet.

    Obviously this has practically no effect on you. However take a magnifying glass a bit over 1 foot across (32 cm) and focus all of the energy into a spot a little under 1/3 of an inch (9 mm) across and all of a sudden you're causing some serious skin trauma. Likewise if the sun were suddenly 7.5 times brighter you would start to peel and blister in a hurry. Combine all the light of 7.5 seconds into a circle 1/3 of an inch across and apply it all in 1/100th of a second and you'll inflict some real damage.

    Unfortunately the laser in their example delivers all its energy about 100 times slower than that. There's also a question of how big the target spot is and of course the fact that just the color of the target can cause a substantial amount of the energy to be reflected (substantial in this case being perhaps a few hundred Joules). So while the total amount of energy isn't a terrible way to compare them that does assume that the beam is focused relatively tightly (probably a safe assumption) and delivers the energy as a sudden single shot (which it clearly doesn't). As it is the comparison is less "apples to apples" and more "apples to orangutans".

  20. Re:why is this word never used correctly? by JStegmaier · · Score: 3, Funny

    Irregardless, I could care less about your head explosions.

  21. Re:Penultimate means "second from last" by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny

    Michelangelo: I've got it! I've got it! We'll call it "The Last But One Supper"!

    Pope: What?

    Michelangelo: Well there must have been one, if there was a last supper there must have been a one before that, so this, is the "Penultimate Supper"! The Bible doesn't say how many people were there now, does it?

    Pope: No, but...

    Michelangelo: Well there you are, then!

    Pope: Look! The last supper is a significant event in the life of our Lord, the penultimate supper was not! Even if they had a conjurer and a mariachi band. Now, a last supper I commissioned from you, and a last supper I want! With twelve disciples and one Christ!

    Michelangelo: One?!

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  22. That does it! This is insane! by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 2

    A dolphin with a laser taped to its head, nailed to an airplane?!!

    THIS IS MADNESS!

  23. The acronym department is failing by ClintBartonWannabe · · Score: 2, Funny

    There has to be some way to put Frickin into an acronym for the shark laser. That way it truly would be sharks with F.R.I.C.K.I.N. lasers on their heads. I guess you could lose the C if needed.