Sound Generator Lethal From 10 Meters

Re:The A-Team by Barny · 2010-01-20 01:57 · Score: 3, Funny

I was thinking more Unreal Tournament: MMMmmmmm MULTI KILL!

Eta till this is in some PC game where it works as tested?

--
...
/me sighs

Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by TerranFury · 2010-01-20 01:59 · Score: 4, Informative

Just firing a handgun without hearing protection is enough to rip out the hair cells in your ears (which don't grow back) and cause permanent hearing loss. I'm pretty sure that if this thing is capable of "stunning" people it's doing lasting damage to your auditory system. That damage may be small, but it remains that the ringing you hear in your ears afterward is still a set of frequencies you'll never hear again.

Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by RemoWilliams84 · 2010-01-20 02:02 · Score: 4, Funny

Which is why these things would be perfect for a rock concert. Set a few throughout the crowd and time them to the bass drum. Hardcore!

--
"I don't have to think. I only have to do it. The results are always perfect, but that's old news." - Meat Puppets
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by j00r0m4nc3r · 2010-01-20 02:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't see the big news here. At close range it's easy to kill. Even something like a $5 potato cannon can kill people at close range. Being in close proximity to exploding things has never really been good for your health..
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by GiveBenADollar · 2010-01-20 02:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

Article doesn't give too many details, but if it's a vortex cannon it could be capable stunning people without causing hearing loss. The question is whether you get stunned by a wall of air or very loud sound. I don't trust reporters to be able to distinguish the two.
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by Ephemeriis · 2010-01-20 02:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't see the big news here. At close range it's easy to kill. Even something like a $5 potato cannon can kill people at close range. Being in close proximity to exploding things has never really been good for your health..
I dunno... 10 meters isn't really what I would personally call "close range." That's 30ish feet... Roughly the height of a three-story building. That's a good amount of distance between you and the target.
And I wonder what the area of affect is like... Is this a single-target thing, or a crowd-dispersal thing? Because if it's designed for crowd control, I'm imagining it's got a pretty big area of effect... And you can fit an awful lot of people in a 30' cone... All of which would be permanently injured or killed.
If you look at the article...

According to company data, the system generates 60 to 100 bursts per minute, each traveling at about 2,000 meters per second and lasting up to 300 milliseconds.

One standard 12-kilogram LPG gas canister (retail cost: about $25) can produce up to 5,000 shock bursts.
"That's more than enough for hours of continuous operation,"
Imagine the potential for misuse.

--
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by mindbrane · 2010-01-20 02:28 · Score: 1

I grew up hunting and fishing. I had to pass what was then the bronze, silver and gold small calibre standards. A 20 gauge over and under and a colt 45 remain my favourite weapons although I no longer own guns or hunt. I'm unaware of any permanent damage to hearing caused by handguns, unless you're specifically speaking to indoor ranges. My hearing tests out excellent and I'd hate to see the carnage and spent rounds my years of hunting and target shooting would amount to.

--
ideopath @ play
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by Majik+Sheff · 2010-01-20 02:28 · Score: 1, Insightful

wall of air = pressure wave
sound = pressure wave
therefore:
wall of air = sound
Please explain to this simpleton where I'm misinformed?

--
Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by DJRumpy · 2010-01-20 02:33 · Score: 1

According to TFA:
"Anyone within 30 to 50 meters from the cannon will feel like he's standing in front of a firing squad," he said. "He'll feel and hear the blast, but he won't be hurled to the ground. He'll be able to run away unharmed and that's the point of this application."
It seems this will not have much physical force, but will indeed have potential for causing hearing loss.
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by precariousgray · 2010-01-20 02:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Five dollars? At close range, I could kill somebody for free!

--
not much, just being forced to manually insert line breaks into my comment
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by GerardAtJob · 2010-01-20 02:48 · Score: 1

Damn... just patent that and create a device that remove body hair with sonic blast! :)

--
I can't call that English ;-)
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by GiveBenADollar · 2010-01-20 02:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

You have to see it to understand it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am12NZwr3Fk Vortex cannons send out a spiraling ring of air. They can hit people and things with some serious force, but it's not due to sound.
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by JWSmythe · 2010-01-20 02:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

In other news, a concussion can be dangerous.
Ya, it's not news. It sounds like a potato cannon without the potato, firing at 100 pulses per minute. Pretty interesting that they're getting that kind of rate, but still, obviously dangerous.
There's a reason a concussion grenade works, and it's not always shrapnel. I'm guessing the 10m deadly zone is directly downrange of the cannon, not beside or behind it. It's still a contained explosion, so all the force goes one direction, rather than disbursing in all directions.
Rapid sequence concussions can effect the action of the heart (induced arrhythmia), or a variety of other problems similar to being hit by something. So it's a concussion, not a projectile. Still obviously deadly. Folks know, don't shoot at people unless you want them dead, and that includes firing blanks.

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by Moryath · 2010-01-20 02:52 · Score: 1

Nope. Wall of Air = Card.
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by swillden · 2010-01-20 03:02 · Score: 1

You got lucky, somehow. Nearly everyone who does a significant amount of shooting without hearing protection ends up with permanent hearing damage. You can probably get away with firing a lot of .22 shells through a rifle without too much concern, but shorten the barrel or increase the powder charge, or both, and if you don't wear some protection you will probably be sorry. Well, not YOU, I guess, but the rest of us.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by Trailer+Trash · 2010-01-20 03:07 · Score: 1

The problem is that it's being pushed as "non-lethal", yet it clearly can be lethal. Like tasers. Around 350 people have died in the US in the last 10 years from supposedly non-lethal tasers.
The other issue is that if it's not lethal and causes no permanent damage, it's a new tool for torture. Again, like tasers.

--
Do you have ESP?
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by TapeCutter · 2010-01-20 03:16 · Score: 1

"Please explain to this simpleton where I'm misinformed?

No need to call yourself a simpleton, you simply forget about oscillation and velocity.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by Duradin · 2010-01-20 03:23 · Score: 1

A .22 derringer will leave most people's ears ringing. So with a short enough barrel it doesn't even take much powder.
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by mindbrane · 2010-01-20 03:29 · Score: 1

Thanks, did not know that, although I'd like to know if damage is more likely from a a weapon fired from someone standing next to you, like when two or more people are walking a field bird hunting. I always found the report of a weapon fired by someone nearby was more forceful than from a weapon I fired. My dad once got hold of a 10 gauge goose gun and we took it out for an afternoon, that was an impressive, if niche, weapon. Unfortunately he wouldn't let me fire it because he was afraid the recoil would do permanent damage to my shoulder.
cheers

--
ideopath @ play
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by VorpalRodent · 2010-01-20 03:39 · Score: 1

This is offtopic, but it depends upon what end of the potato cannon one is on. As a younger man, I had built a number of these. One summer on vacation, my uncle, who does HVAC, decided that we should build one to shoot out over a lake.
Other than the PVC for the barrel and chamber, he chose the fittings he was familiar with: expandable rubberized ones (turn the screw, it expands to seal the gap). If you are familiar with these fittings, you understand that they are not exactly designed for internal combustion.
Well, upon ignition, the end cap flew off and struck me squarely in the groin. To bring this back around to your statement - it did not kill me, nor did it render me incapable of reproducing. It did, however, provide much entertainment to everyone else, as there was enough force to put me on the ground for a while.
I sure wish we had taped that...

--
Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by bickerdyke · 2010-01-20 03:39 · Score: 1

Hi Majik!
I'd like to inform you that the energy of a wave also depends on the frequency.

--
bickerdyke
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by Firethorn · 2010-01-20 04:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't really have problems with them using it when they would have used 'other' less lethal weapons anyways, such as tear gas and water hoses.
This probably won't replace shotgun bean bags or tasers, they're individual weapons while this is a mass weapon.
The problem comes from proper usage - potentially violent crowds are often led by 'professional' exciters, and they'd be smart enough to know that if you can get people within that 10 meter unsafe zone the operators are a lot less likely to set it off, and it's not like they can have cops standing in the same area to prevent them. They need a clear line. A country/force that willing to kill has more traditional and brutal choices available to it.
My concern is that there's a lot of overlap between 'disabling that fit young man' and 'killing grandma'. An attack that will kill grandma might not even faze a fit young adult.

--
I don't read AC A human right
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by TerranFury · 2010-01-20 04:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yes and no -- and no in this case -- as far as I understand. (I'd appreciate clarification/correction/confirmation from others on the points I make below.)
In most contexts -- and I assume sound falls into this category -- the energy of a signal is its squared L2 norm. (This is certainly true for the power dissipated in a resistive load by a voltage or current signal.) Anyway, the L2 norm is invariant under the Fourier transform. And you'll notice that a Dirac delta has the same L2 norm whether it's as 2 Hz or 2000 Hz.
Yet in quantum mechanics, we have such expressions as "E = h f." This is because the kinetic energy operator involves a derivative of the wave function; from a signal-processing point of view the derivative is a linear filter whose gain is linearly proportional to frequency. This explains the superficial "disconnect" between "energy is independent of frequency" and "E = h f."
So my question for others is: What's the energy operator for a pressure wave?
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by pha3r0 · 2010-01-20 04:33 · Score: 1

I'd like to know if damage is more likely from a a weapon fired from someone standing next to you
Depends does he like you or not?
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by BranMan · 2010-01-20 04:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think that the idea here is for this to act as a barrier - an invisible fence if you will. As long as you start it up with no one near it, people will not want to GET near it. The nearer they get, the more it affects them.
Seems like it would be workable. Plus, I bet there is a way to ramp up the effects over, say a minute? That would help to clear everyone out from the destructive zone before it hits full power.
All in all, could be quite effective - though not subtle.
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by brainboyz · 2010-01-20 04:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

Given the population of the US is around 330M or so, you want me to get upset about a generally safe tool that has a track record of killing 0.0000001% of the population a year and accounting for a whole 0.00001% of deaths a year? The lethality rate for them is 1.5 or so per 100k uses and is, for the most part, easily attributed to pre-existing health conditions.
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by putnondritz · 2010-01-20 04:48 · Score: 1

"I don't see the big news here". Perhaps to keep in the forefront the fact that the militarized police in the USA have these weapons at the ready for crowd control, if not crowd decimation.
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by fprintf · 2010-01-20 04:50 · Score: 2, Informative

Same circumstances, different results here. I grew up hunting and fishing, often shooting a .22LR rifle or 12guage shotgun in the afternoon after classes were finished (gotta love going to college in upstate NY) without any hearing protection. I have noticeable hearing loss in my right ear, and measurable hearing loss in my left ear. It wasn't enough hearing loss at the time to keep me out of the service, but as I have gotten older it has perhaps compounded with age-related hearing loss to make it noticeable.
I do shoot now, but I always double up on my hearing protection. Foam ear canal inserts combined with over the ear muffs.

--
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by dkleinsc · 2010-01-20 05:30 · Score: 1

I think the big issue here is that some government(s) will no doubt be using this to break up protests or at any time when other less-than-lethal weapons would have been used in the past.
Well I'm absolutely positively sure that nothing like that would ever happen in the Land of the Free.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by mindbrane · 2010-01-20 05:30 · Score: 1

Depends does he like you or not?
Well common sense dictates some care be taken in choosing your hunting partners.

--
ideopath @ play
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by Cormacus · 2010-01-20 05:59 · Score: 1

The issue that's being hinted at here is that governments have been looking for "non-lethal" crowd control devices like this - devices that (because of their supposed non-lethality) will be used more frequently by law enforcement (think handguns vs tasers). The fact these "non-lethal" devices turn out later to have serious health repercussions (up to and including death) is all the more reason to worry about it.

--
Mon chien, il n'a pas du nez. Comment scent-il? TrÃs mauvais!
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by jpmorgan · 2010-01-20 06:00 · Score: 1

Yes, in the past governments just used the much safer practice of billy sticks, rubber bullets and blunt force trauma. As we all know, nobody ever died from being beaten by a metal stick, and 'cracking skulls' is simply a jocular expression.
I'm not saying these things are terribly safe, but it seems that when talking about 'less-than lethal' weapons, most people lose all sense of perspective.
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by JerryLove · 2010-01-20 06:23 · Score: 1

The deal is that the *point* of the item is to *not* kill.
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by pha3r0 · 2010-01-20 06:48 · Score: 1

Hah you had to bring it there.
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by swillden · 2010-01-20 07:18 · Score: 1

Sound propagation from a firearm is pretty complex, I'd imagine. Probably depends on a lot of factors. I do know that the majority of the noise is from gases exploding out the end of the barrel behind the bullet, so it might make some sense that more of the sound energy goes downrange and to the sides than comes straight back. Also, you may actually be closer to the end of the barrel when standing near someone who is shooting than when you're doing the shooting, in some cases (not usually).
Short answer: beats me. Gets pretty danged loud either way.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by swillden · 2010-01-20 07:19 · Score: 1

Yeah, that's why I specified a rifle. Even a 3-4 inch barrel on a .22 pistol can get really loud, much less a 1" derringer.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by budgenator · 2010-01-20 07:34 · Score: 1

Do you mean governments like Pittsburgh?

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by raynet · 2010-01-20 08:10 · Score: 1

Wow, didn't know things were so bad in US, the police goes on and tasers everyone once per year.. *sigh*

--
- Raynet --> .
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by TerranFury · 2010-01-20 13:46 · Score: 1

...and it will still be healthier than Nair.
(I'd heard a story about a lawsuit against the makers filed by a man who used the stuff below the belt and ended up with a hole in his scrotum; this got infected and he ended up needing to be castrated. Unfortunately I can't find a source now...)
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by Majik+Sheff · 2010-01-20 18:49 · Score: 1

An excellent excursion into the math of the subject, but still not an answer to my question.
Why is a wave of pressurized air not considered sound?
What is the difference that I'm not seeing? Are we arguing semantics?

--
Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by TerranFury · 2010-01-21 02:27 · Score: 1

Why is a wave of pressurized air not considered sound?
I guess it's considered sound if it rattles the insides of your ear relative to the rest of your head. And I guess that a sufficiently slow change in pressure doesn't do this. An extreme example would be deep-sea diving in an old-style bathysphere: There's a lot of energy in the pressure differential between the air inside and the atmosphere at the surface, and the air inside had to reach that pressure over time, but it happened so slowly that we'd never call it "sound;" the vibrating bits of your ear never moved relative to your head.
That's my understanding, at least. Precisely where the line is drawn I don't know. Human hearing extends down to about 20 Hz, but whether frequencies below this can damage hearing I don't know. (Plus the whole notion of "frequency" is a bit messed up; it requires infinite time, etc...)

When 11 Just Isn't Loud Enough... by jaminJay · 2010-01-20 01:59 · Score: 2, Funny

When 11 just isn't loud enough...

Finally, Disaster Area can live up to their reputation!

Etc...

--
Leela: "Is all the work done by children?" Alien: "No, not the whipping."

Re:When 11 Just Isn't Loud Enough... by Archaemic · 2010-01-20 02:02 · Score: 1

I don't think you understand. If this is a 12, Disaster Area is somewhere hovering around a 400 or so.
Re:When 11 Just Isn't Loud Enough... by MRe_nl · 2010-01-20 02:11 · Score: 1

Large hot pipe organ at Robodock, hard to see but pump up the volume.
The machine in the article sounds a lot like one we built there, only our "cannons" where controlled through Cubase/Fruityloops-style music software. And pointed straight up to minimize lethality, allthough glass still shattered at 50 meters/150 feet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oceb7Uf4ucQ

--
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Re:When 11 Just Isn't Loud Enough... by khallow · 2010-01-20 02:11 · Score: 1

In my view, "Disaster Area" isn't a destination, but a development path. We should work our way up from riot control equipment to WMDs to planet killing gear. A high end concert might involve dropping large black holes into each other so that the galaxy can feel the beat via gravity waves powerful enough to rip stars apart. And since the galaxy is your stage, you'll sell a lot of tickets!
Re:When 11 Just Isn't Loud Enough... by jaminJay · 2010-01-20 02:20 · Score: 1

+1: Innovator

--
Leela: "Is all the work done by children?" Alien: "No, not the whipping."
Re:When 11 Just Isn't Loud Enough... by jameskojiro · 2010-01-20 06:48 · Score: 1

Disaster Area uses rather larger nuclear devices for their bass...

--
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Re:When 11 Just Isn't Loud Enough... by Eli+Gottlieb · 2010-01-20 13:10 · Score: 1

Oh thank God, I was worrying nobody would make a Hitchhiker's Guide reference!

Top news as it happens on Slashdot! by Viol8 · 2010-01-20 02:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

Sufficiently powerful shock waves can kill people!

Coming up next we ask an expert - what exactly is an explosion again?

Weather follows at 11.

Re:Top news as it happens on Slashdot! by AP31R0N · 2010-01-20 02:21 · Score: 1

It's news because /. will rail against this tech as being a tool of oppression that Bush will use on peaceful protesters.

--
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
Re:Top news as it happens on Slashdot! by mister_playboy · 2010-01-20 03:30 · Score: 1

Some people are having trouble remembering it's not 2009 anymore, but you seem to still be stuck on 2008. :)

--
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
Re:Top news as it happens on Slashdot! by AP31R0N · 2010-01-20 04:13 · Score: 1

^But W is all powerful and presidente for life! That or Obama will turn to the dark side. Because the worst is inevitable. ^
Or so the thinking goes.
Sorry for not using sarcastrophes in my previous post.

--
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!

Upcoming Headline: by Cornwallis · 2010-01-20 02:06 · Score: 4, Funny

"Don't Boom Me Bro!"

Re:Upcoming Headline: by Reziac · 2010-01-20 06:42 · Score: 1

As TFA fails to mention -- the portable boom box was a failed prototype.

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?

Lamest comment today by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-20 02:06 · Score: 3, Funny

THAT'S JUST STUNNING!

Re:Lamest comment today by Andorin · 2010-01-20 03:17 · Score: 1

Why "offtopic?" I'd mod it Funny if I had points.

--
That Anonymous Coward guy is pretty annoying. Can we have the government censor him or something?

Sound Gun by nomorecwrd · 2010-01-20 02:07 · Score: 1

It just doesn't sound right.

wait... by MickyTheIdiot · 2010-01-20 02:07 · Score: 1

Does this mean a real Sonic Screwdriver is not far behind?

Re:wait... by ddxexex · 2010-01-20 02:51 · Score: 1

I'm no Time Lord, But I don't see how a sonic boom has enough torque to screw in a screw and be safe enough not end up destroying the screw and/or user. Although screwdrivers do lots of other things too, like killing people in a very short radius by stabbing them. If that's all you need in a screwdriver, then you're set then otherwise keep looking for police boxes for a while.

"liquefied petroleum"? by Rogerborg · 2010-01-20 02:13 · Score: 1

Ah... I've been shoveling solid lumps of petroleum into my tank for years. Did I do an oopsie?

--
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.

Re:"liquefied petroleum"? by nedlohs · 2010-01-20 02:17 · Score: 1

liquefied petroleum gas, not liquefied petroleum solid. It's not like LPG is uncommon.
Of course leaving off the Gas part in the name is pretty uncommon.
Re:"liquefied petroleum"? by bcmm · 2010-01-20 02:28 · Score: 1

Nedlohs has it right: Slashdot editors apparently haven't heard of Autogas.

All I can add is that LPG is not actually the same as the stuff called "petrol" in English and "gasoline" in American. It's a lighter fraction that would be gaseous at RTP but is kept as a liquid in a pressurised tank.

--
# cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
Re:"liquefied petroleum"? by RockClimbingFool · 2010-01-20 02:38 · Score: 1

aka Propane. You know, the stuff used for grilling food in on your back porch that comes in 25lb canisters.
Well, canisters that are capable of holding 25lbs, but are not filled to capacity anymore. But that is another story.
Re:"liquefied petroleum"? by omnichad · 2010-01-20 04:59 · Score: 1

This is called LP Gas in America, and is widely known. It's just that nobody knows what LP stands for. And of course, in other forms, it's called propane.

Yet Another Oops by Jane+Q.+Public · 2010-01-20 02:13 · Score: 5, Informative

Yet again, OP gets it a little bit wrong, but in this case you can't blame the poster because TFA states it wrong as well. LPG is short for for Liquified Petroleum Gas, and it IS "cooking gas", it isn't "mixed with" cooking gas. Jeez. LPG is usually propane or butane or a mixture of them.

Having stated that, I will add my voice to what others have already posted: this device is a disaster waiting to happen. It has no place in "positive" enforcement scenarios. It might be useful as a self-defense weapon, but I question even that.

Re:Yet Another Oops by shadowrat · 2010-01-20 03:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

i think it goes without saying that a weapon is designed to be a disaster, for somebody.
Re:Yet Another Oops by GiveBenADollar · 2010-01-20 04:13 · Score: 1

Depending on the design it could save lives. Sure it could potentially be used to injure/kill people, but if you really wanted to kill people we already have stuff to do that.
The best argument against it is the Taser argument. Cops got Tasers so they would have a way of dealing with resistant people other than their guns or nightsticks. Now we have cops that use Tasers instead of pinning or even reasoning with a resisting suspect. Guy doesn't follow directions, tase him. I think even this argument is failing because police are realizing that Tasers are not their new nightstick to beat people with.
If you are afraid of the military potential using non lethal weapons against people, then remember this: They already use LETHAL weapons against people. Given the choice which do you want them to choose?
Re:Yet Another Oops by Reziac · 2010-01-20 06:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

We already have water cannon, if the object is crowd control/riot control/etc. Why do we need something with what strikes me as considerably more potential for damaging people, since they won't be able to SEE it and get the hell out of its path?
Or maybe that IS the object.

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:Yet Another Oops by ColdWetDog · 2010-01-20 07:44 · Score: 2, Informative

Because water cannon need - wait for it - water. Not always in abundant supply at the volumes we're considering. According to TFA, you can do quite a bit of 'crowd control' with a small, portable tank of LP gas. A tactical improvement over what basically is a fire truck.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Yet Another Oops by Reziac · 2010-01-20 17:14 · Score: 1

I thought of that. Then I thought.. how often do you really need "crowd control" where you don't have a fire hydrant handy?
And then I thought... maybe in a 3rd world country. But we don't have many crowds rioting in cow pastures in the U.S.

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:Yet Another Oops by Jane+Q.+Public · 2010-01-20 18:58 · Score: 1

First, even from the beginning Tasers were supposed to be used "in lieu of deadly force". In other words, they were supposed to be used for situations in which their other option is to shoot the person in question. I do agree that they came to be used far too indiscriminately, but you are wrong about the use of them "instead of nightsticks". On the contrary, a nightstick should be used before a Taser. It is "less lethal", not non-lethal. Despite the company's claims to the contrary, Amnesty International has quite a list of people who died shortly after being Tasered, and I know of at least one case that was in my city.

But the main point here is that the weapon described in not an "individual" weapon. From what I understood, it was more for crowd control. I do not understand why we would need a "sometimes lethal" solution for crowd control, when there are already reliable acoustic devices, the Active Denial System, and other truly non-lethal methods that are proven to work.
Re:Yet Another Oops by Jane+Q.+Public · 2010-01-20 19:08 · Score: 1

How often does law enforcement in the U.S. really need violent crowd control anyway? In recent decades instances have been very rare and in most of those, it turned out that the police were over-reacting to what were basically peaceful protests. (The protests outside the WTO meeting in Seattle, for example.)

Pretty close to 9 times out of 10, it was actually the police who incited the protesters to riot. Quite a few times, they have even been caught sending shills into the crowd of protesters to egg them on and encourage them to start a violent confrontation. I have seen them myself on TV... positively identified (later) cops in plain clothes trying to work crowds of protesters into a frenzyin order to cause a confrontation. That is inexcusable.

In one case I even saw it with my own eyes.
Re:Yet Another Oops by Reziac · 2010-01-21 02:43 · Score: 1

I don't know about the cops doing it (tho egging on by shills as you describe is a time-honored technique; I remember reading about it being done during the French Revolution!), but I do know paid professional "protesters" incite both protests and disorderly conduct regularly. From what I've heard, there's considerable doubt as to whether ANY of the "protests" of the past several decades have been anything but professionally incited. Word around at the time was that the WTO protest was wholly astroturfed by pro inciters. I remember someone pointing out that the same faces were to be seen at every protest of anything in the northwest for the past decade, including that one. -- The pay is reputedly pretty good too. The conflict industry is quite profitable. (You don't see Jesse Jackson wearing secondhand suits, do you??)
I expect the cops know this and sometimes react by trying to get those pros to jail themselves. But I also expect the pros know the drill and so it's just ordinary idiots who get inflamed by any police shills. IMO the authorities pushing anyone toward disorderly or criminal conduct is entrapment, regardless of the situation.
But it does occur to me to wonder if the top dogs in the conflict industry are paying the cops to help stir things up -- cuz if there wasn't conflict, these people would be out of a relatively cushy job and might have to actually work for a living. I can't see ordinary beat cops thinking that a riot is a good idea, without someone Way Up Above pushing the concept, who has a vested interest in conflict... the more conflict, the more speaking engagements and the more books sold to those outraged by Whatever, especially if their Outrage became Us vs Authority (ie. was incited to become a riot thus memorable in the public eye -- cheap advertising!!)
So... the notion that we need more and better crowd control is suspect from the gitgo. If you need more than water cannon, maybe you should be looking somewhere other than at the crowd.

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:Yet Another Oops by Jane+Q.+Public · 2010-01-22 01:54 · Score: 1

Certainly there were some large organizations involved with the Seattle WTO protest. Denying that would be silly.

But I have personally witnessed a spontaneous "riot" at a major local festival. Some idiot (only one) threw a rock at a policeman who did something stupid (it isn't important what, but suffice it to say that he did something that pissed off the crowd that was watching).

Next thing you know, this cop called for reinforcements, and they brought in not only the county Sheriff's department, but also state troopers, all in full riot geat. And they started sweeping the streets. The sad thing is that the only people "rioting" were the police. The unfortunates who did not manage to get out of their way fast enough were pepper sprayed and beaten with sticks for being too slow. That is not an exaggeration; I watched it happen.

In any case, all I am saying is that it does happen, and I suspect it happens more often than most people think.
Re:Yet Another Oops by Reziac · 2010-01-22 05:15 · Score: 1

Oh, I don't doubt you at all, and I think you're correct that it's more common than people would like to believe. It's yet another side effect of cops being trained to regard everyone as potential perps, and the Us vs Them mentality that view engenders. So now when an ordinary idiot does something stupid, instead of a calming "Here now, that's enough of that", it's immediately a panicked "Everyone's on the warpath! call SWAT!"

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?

This has existed for years by sjonke · 2010-01-20 02:14 · Score: 1

http://pbskids.org/barney/

--
--- What?

Re:This has existed for years by SlashV · 2010-01-20 03:11 · Score: 1

Indeed it has existed for years: Vavoom!

TFA SAID, "RELATIVELY HARMLESS"!!! by jeffb+(2.718) · 2010-01-20 02:15 · Score: 1

</Garrett_Morris>

Re:TFA SAID, "RELATIVELY HARMLESS"!!! by MadKeithV · 2010-01-20 02:27 · Score: 1

"Mostly harmless"
Re:TFA SAID, "RELATIVELY HARMLESS"!!! by confused+one · 2010-01-20 02:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

In military parlance, "relatively harmless" means something different than what it does in the civilian world.
Re:TFA SAID, "RELATIVELY HARMLESS"!!! by Stupid+McStupidson · 2010-01-20 03:11 · Score: 1

In military parlance, "relatively harmless" means something different than what it does in the civilian world.
Civilian mostly harmless = Burning bag of dog poop on doorstep. Military mostly harmless = 500 gallon burning drum of nitrates, greater than 75% chance of survival.
Re:TFA SAID, "RELATIVELY HARMLESS"!!! by GiveBenADollar · 2010-01-20 03:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

Civilian harmless = You can't possibly hurt yourself with it. Examples include... Nerf bats... nope. Water... nope. Play dough. nope. Hmmm. have to find an example.
Military harmless = You have to be negligent or intentionally trying to hurt someone with it. Examples: Lawn Darts. Nerf Bats. Tear Gas. (Yes tear gas is unpleasant, but it is designed not to cause permanent harm.)
Rubber bullets are in the same category of mostly harmless. They leave bruises, but are not designed to kill. That doesn't mean they can't be intentionally or negligently lethal, just that they are not designed to kill, kinda like lawn darts.
Re:TFA SAID, "RELATIVELY HARMLESS"!!! by pha3r0 · 2010-01-20 04:28 · Score: 1

In military parlance, "relatively harmless" means something different than what it does in the civilian world.
Reminds me of my favourite quotes, from Colonel David Perkins after the US's 'thunder run' into Baghdad: "We have destroyed all of his prepared organic defences, along with his equipment...we destroyed probably in excess of 1000 dismounted infantry"
So yeah 'relatively harmless' in military terms means pretty much it's not _for_sure_ going to kill you.
Re:TFA SAID, "RELATIVELY HARMLESS"!!! by confused+one · 2010-01-20 04:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

I believe rubber bullets are categorized as "Less than lethal" which puts them in a slightly more dangerous category than "mostly harmless". Your point is valid, nonetheless

Fuel-air explosion by Aceticon · 2010-01-20 02:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

So how exactly is it surprising that a fuel-air explosion will scare, hurt and even kill people depending on the distance?

Pacifist by neoform · 2010-01-20 02:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Maybe I'm being a bit too much of a pacifist here, but why are we constantly spending so much time developing newer ways to kill ourselves.. seems like we could better use those resources.

--
MABASPLOOM!

Re:Pacifist by AP31R0N · 2010-01-20 02:49 · Score: 1

It's primary purpose is to end a threat without killing. Which, oddly enough, is the purpose of weapons for non-evil folk.
Generally, even crooks don't want to kill people, they just want to deter you from interfering with their crime. Some bad guys revel in killing, but that's why we dedicate a segment of our society to dealing with them: police and military. It's unfortunate, but the bad guys don't give a shit about what is fair or the resources wasted on deterring, persuing, trying and imprisoning. They are inconsiderate dicks. So we either have to submit to them or resist them. Sometimes the don't stop being mean because "it's wrong" or when we ask them politely. Sometimes resisting them means causing them pain or death. The option of: "live on a planet without bad guys" is not available yet. i think someday it could be.
This system is designed to make non-hardcore but still potentially dangerous folk to drop their molotovs and go away. There are less than lethal systems that seem less destructive than this. However, a blast from this is more survivable than a blast from an AR 15 or AK 47. The US military has rules for escalation of force in dealing with civilians*. If they use sticks and rocks, our soldiers can respond with non-lethal force. If they bring lethal weapons to the party, they become (unlawful) combatants and it's "open fire". i'd like for our soldiers to come home without having shot and killed civilians who got out of hand. i'd like for any place we occupy to have as few civilian deaths as possible, so i think working on systems like this is a good thing.
This particular system needs work. It might be useful only on ships.
* Civilian != innocent

--
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
Re:Pacifist by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-20 03:06 · Score: 1, Insightful

No, it's a weapon designed to lower the barrier of use.
You cannot fire guns into a crowd of protesters at a demonstration but you can use these non-leathal weapons. The dissent is stopped in its track and the majority of people will only say "who cares, it's non-leathal, nothing happened".
It's actually more insidious than leathal weapons because you can suppress protest without generating a lot of public outrage.
Re:Pacifist by cenc · 2010-01-20 03:11 · Score: 1

Stun guns don't kill people, people kill people.
The outbreak of stun guns and pepper spray related crimes is skyrocketing around the World.

--
Living in Chile
Re:Pacifist by Duradin · 2010-01-20 03:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Maybe I'm being a bit too much of a pacifist here, but why are we constantly spending so much time developing newer ways to kill ourselves.. seems like we could better use those resources."
Because then the people who spent their resources on developing new ways to kill use those innovations on the people that didn't.
Also, finding new ways or better ways to kill has been one of the great motivational forces for human innovation since the first caveman figured out a stone attached to a stick will hit harder then just the stone held in his hand. Societies that didn't keep up with metallurgical advances tended to be wiped out by those that did, so to them spending resources on ways to kill meant they had a chance to preserve (and expand) their culture and thus it was a very good use of their resources.
Re:Pacifist by wisdom_brewing · 2010-01-20 03:33 · Score: 1

Unless the "crook" in question is an assassin...

If they didn't want to kill people, I'd advise they see a career advisor...

--
I am very sucseptible to "let's have another drink"
Re:Pacifist by Lord+Ender · 2010-01-20 04:06 · Score: 1

I would like to see your dream made a reality. The reason we build killing machines is so that we can protect ourselves from other peoples' killing machines. If you were to merely conquer the world and make yourself emperor, there would be nobody "else" to defend ourselves against.
So get right on that. Make your vision of peace a reality. You might want to start by building some killing machines.

--
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Re:Pacifist by radtea · 2010-01-20 05:37 · Score: 1

i'd like for any place we occupy to have as few civilian deaths as possible, so i think working on systems like this is a good thing.
One possible means of reducing civilian deaths is to occupy fewer places. It's quite a bit cheaper, too, and fewer Americans get killed in the process as well.

--
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Re:Pacifist by radtea · 2010-01-20 06:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

Because then the people who spent their resources on developing new ways to kill use those innovations on the people that didn't.
Nope.
Genocide is really rare. Invasion, colonization and assimilation is a lot more common.
Killing people is almost entirely pointless. Threatening to kill people is what does the job, because people happen to be wired in ways that let them be controlled up to a point by such threats. When the threat level becomes too high they always fight back, of course, because they happen to be wired that way, too.
Gandhi's big trick was to realize that death threats are not generally credible, and react accordingly, which means not allowing your behaviour to be controlled by threats, and being willing to die rather than submit. There are specific circumstances where that won't work at all--such as the Jews in Nazi Germany--but in almost all cases peaceful, active resistance is far more effective.
These weapons, as others here have pointed out, are aimed at Gandhi-style tactics: by having a non-lethal response to a peaceful, active resistance it tilts the tables back toward the oppressors, who are basically engaging in mass instantaneous public torture-at-a-distance via the use of these weapons.
These weapons are designed to generate compliance with the alpha chimp's wishes by engaging people's pain response rather than their fear response. The latter can be fairly easily subverted, depending as it does on a vague cognitive connection between threat and outcome. The former is much tougher nut to crack, although it'll be interesting to see the first time the cops are on the receiving end of one of these weapons, which will no-doubt be reduced to hand-held form factors in the next couple of years.

--
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Re:Pacifist by CompMD · 2010-01-20 06:30 · Score: 1

Because it means we are constantly deriving useful technologies from what we develop to kill. Note that the largest and most complex weapons platform mankind has ever created (a Nimitz class aircraft carrier) is providing power and desalinated water to people in Haiti right now. We built bombs to devastate Japan which led to the creation of the cleanest, most efficient power generation technology we have ever had. I could go on, but the list of useful technologies developed from weapons and warfare is huge.
Re:Pacifist by aaandre · 2010-01-20 08:01 · Score: 1

Unfortunately the ones excited about inventing ways to kill others are also more likely to end up with the most resources.
What would our budget be like if there was $0 for military spending?
Infinite greed is not the best advisor, no matter how much the 1% ultrarich "aristocracy" tries to brainwash it into the 99% of the population.
Re:Pacifist by BJ_Covert_Action · 2010-01-20 08:23 · Score: 1

Maybe I'm being a bit too much of a pacifist here, but why are we constantly spending so much time developing newer ways to kill ourselves.. seems like we could better use those resources.
Because we absolutely love the phrase, "Watch this!"

--
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Re:Pacifist by N!k0N · 2010-01-20 09:19 · Score: 1

You cannot fire guns into a crowd of protesters at a demonstration ...
Well, you can... but then something like Kent State happens... and that definitely doesn't help the "keep in control" aspect of your local govt...

Interesting by Chrisq · 2010-01-20 02:21 · Score: 4, Funny

I think my friend Hotblack Desiato could do with a few of these for his rock band.

Jon-Erik Hexum by BenEnglishAtHome · 2010-01-20 02:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

Things harmless at range can kill at contact distance. That's why some blind people with licenses to carry concealed handguns use blanks.

Re:Jon-Erik Hexum by L4t3r4lu5 · 2010-01-20 02:46 · Score: 1

You're proposing that they discriminate against someone because of a disability?

You'll be wanting to take away their driving licenses, next!

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:Jon-Erik Hexum by swillden · 2010-01-20 02:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

Umm. Fully blind people can get CCWs? They can fire live rounds? I suppose I can see why the 2nd ammendment allows for that, but still, wtf America.
They're blind, not stupid or irresponsible. Blind people are perfectly capable of understanding the risks and potential consequences of using a firearm for self-defense. Granted that it's much more difficult for them to use a gun safely and effectively, but those obstacles are no more insuperable than many others a blind person faces. Obviously, they would only use their gun on an attacker at contact distance, and the idea of using blanks is to prevent innocents from being injured by overpenetration, since the blind person may not know who or what is on the other side of their target.
Personally, I wouldn't recommend blanks for that application. I'd recommend frangible bullets, or perhaps just a relatively light powder charge in a large caliber cartridge with a reliably-expanding jacketed hollowpoint. Blanks fired into the chest are unlikely to stop a determined attacker. On the other hand, 95% of firearms self-defense incidents don't involve a shot being fired at all -- the attacker sees the gun and runs away -- so blanks would work fine. With blanks, you could even fire a "warning shot" (NOT a good idea with real ammunition) to make the point that you're serious, which would probably raise the likelihood of the bad guy turning tail another percentage point or two.
Oh, and to answer the first question: Yes, in most states. A handful (e.g. Nevada) have range requirements that would be hard for a blind person to meet. Then again, there may be exceptions in the laws, or ways around them for disabled people.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Jon-Erik Hexum by RogL · 2010-01-20 03:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

Re-read the post - he mentions blind people using blanks, so they can point a gun at a nearby attacker & fire, without much risk to anyone further away.
Also, a CCW entitles you to legally carry a weapon, not necessarily a gun - the details vary by state, but that may include a stun-gun, pepper-spray, knife, baton, you get the idea... A weapon that may normally be prohibited but is OK with a CCW permit. Some of those would be useful even if blind.
Re:Jon-Erik Hexum by Lord+Ender · 2010-01-20 04:09 · Score: 2, Funny

Wait... don't blind people have big dogs? Why use guns when you could merely attach a frikin laser...

--
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Re:Jon-Erik Hexum by TheLink · 2010-01-20 04:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

> it's much more difficult for them to use a gun safely and effectively, but those obstacles are no more insuperable than many others a blind person faces.
If it's really dark, some of them might be able to shoot you before you shoot them ;)
There are a fair number of blind people who use echolocation and passive hearing to detect objects.
See: http://www.benunderwood.com/echolocation.html
Even sighted people can notice the "sound shadow" caused by someone blocking ambient sound - so it doesn't matter even if that someone is very quiet - the "soundscape" changes.
Get someone to put move a hand near your ear. You'll be able hear the difference.
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold
Re:Jon-Erik Hexum by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-20 04:55 · Score: 1, Funny

Do they know that they're using blanks?
Re:Jon-Erik Hexum by srleffler · 2010-01-20 06:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Note that he didn't say "fully" blind. Perhaps he meant legally blind. One can be legally blind and still have some vision.
Re:Jon-Erik Hexum by DaFallus · 2010-01-20 06:27 · Score: 1

In Texas (and as far as I know every other state that requires a CCL to legally carry a concealed weapon) you are required to pass not only a written test but also an accuracy test in order to obtain a CCL (Concealed Carry License). I'm pretty sure that would rule out most blind people. I doubt they have the written test in braille either...

--
No one cares what your captcha was

Houston TX, USA
Re:Jon-Erik Hexum by quercus.aeternam · 2010-01-20 06:37 · Score: 1

Legally blind = no better than 20/200 when best corrected (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindness)
Uncorrected, my vision is about twice that bad, and I can function well enough without correction - as long as I don't have to read anything (12 point font at more than 10 inches is too blurry to read).
Re:Jon-Erik Hexum by Draek · 2010-01-20 08:00 · Score: 2, Funny

In the '60s, the NRA spent ten years and $12 million developing a bullet able to be fired by blind people. It's a relatively light powder charge in a large caliber cartdrige with a reliably-expanding jacketed hollowpoint, designed so it can injure attackers at contact distance while being relatively harmless to people at range. Russians, however, just used a knife.

--
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
Re:Jon-Erik Hexum by BenEnglishAtHome · 2010-01-20 13:19 · Score: 1

A note of explanation -
In some states, CCW written tests can be given orally. This exception is meant to accomodate people who don't read or speak the language but blind folks can profit from it.
Shooting requirements are also not necessarily a big deal. If you've never taken a CCW range test, you may not realize just how incredibly easy some are. There's nothing to prevent someone blind from having a helper stand behind them and say "Higher" or "More to the right". I've proved it to myself. I once blindfolded myself and managed to shoot the first two distances of the Texas test without a miss. Only a few more hits are necessary to get a low (but passing) score. However, I must admit that I've only known one blind person who got a concealed carry license. He was "legally blind" and had no problem with the shooting test. He just shot for the center of the fuzzy target and got plenty enough hits to pass.
Finally, I do know one fully blind person confined to a wheelchair who carries a revolver. It's a chopped (almost Fitz-style, for the aficionados in the crowd) large-frame double action loaded with 5-in-1 blanks. He would never try to shoot someone across the room. But if someone were to lay hands on him violently, I feel quite confident that a blank to the chest would be a sufficiently devastating blow as to completely discourage the attacker. For those who fear that someone will just take the gun away from the stupid blind man and use it on him - I'll grant that you have a point. I think it would be hard to sneak up on the guy and the fact that he carries a gun is not something he advertises. He considers the probability of losing the gun to an attacker (who is highly unlikely to know the gun even exists until the first shot is fired) to be so low that he doesn't worry about it. I told him about the MagnaTrigger conversion and I know he considered it but I don't know if he went through with it.
Personally, if I didn't work with computers I'd definitely have at least one revolver with the MagnaTrigger.
Re:Jon-Erik Hexum by beetle496 · 2010-01-21 01:35 · Score: 1

Nice exposition. Thanks!

--
I paid the going retail price for a Windows screen reader and got a free Unix computer!
Re:Jon-Erik Hexum by swillden · 2010-01-21 06:25 · Score: 1

It's never a good idea. Firing a warning shot means the "bad guy" now has a reason to fear for his/her life. And may legally use lethal force on YOU.
That could be true, but I doubt it. It would certainly be an anomaly among state laws. What state are you in? I'd like to read the statutes.
In my state, if the attacker initiated the confrontation or escalated it to the level where I was justified in threatening or using deadly force, then he has no legal justification for using deadly force himself.
"But he started it!", as it turns, out is a valid argument in a court of law ;-)
In addition, in my state a warning shot would constitute a threat with a deadly weapon (which is prosecuted as Aggravated Assault, a second-degree felony), so I was implicitly assuming that the blind person firing the warning shot already had the reasonable fear of death or severe bodily injury that is required to justify it, or he wouldn't have done it.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Jon-Erik Hexum by thickdiick · 2010-01-23 06:04 · Score: 1

Almost all states allow you to use a firearm in self defense, but many, like Florida, do not allow you to fire a warning shot. You will be arrested and charged. If convicted, there's a mandatory 9-year prison term. Dura lex, sed lex.
Re:Jon-Erik Hexum by swillden · 2010-01-23 15:46 · Score: 1

Almost all states allow you to use a firearm in self defense, but many, like Florida, do not allow you to fire a warning shot.
Florida law doesn't say anything at all about warning shots. It DOES say that if you're using a firearm, you'd better have the appropriate legal justification, and that justification is the same whether the you actually hit your target or not. Shooting without justification can land you in jail, but that's not what we're talking about here.
At least, that was my understanding the last time I reviewed Florida law. If they've changes, please point me to the appropriate statute(s).

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.

Re:The A-Team by Lord+Byron+II · 2010-01-20 02:22 · Score: 1

Taking a cue from MythBusters the other day, I want to use this to tenderize meat. How would you like your steak? Oh, 10 meters and medium rare, please!

IAF Sound Devices by smitty777 · 2010-01-20 02:22 · Score: 4, Informative

This is not the only sound based non-lethal weapon used by the IAF. They also use a device called The Scream, which emits a sound that causes disorientation and nausea. This one works at low, inaudible frequencies that vibrate the internal organs of the targets. There is also an high frequency version that is audible, that also produces a burning sensation on the skin (but does not produce any permanent damage).

I think they were also toying with using these types of weapons against the pirates in Somalia.

--
"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish"
Albert Einstein

Re:IAF Sound Devices by pongo000 · 2010-01-20 02:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

This one works at low, inaudible frequencies that vibrate the internal organs of the targets.
Interesting aside to PP: The movie Irreversible used low-frequency sounds in its soundtrack to induce nausea in the viewer.
Re:IAF Sound Devices by celtic_hackr · 2010-01-20 04:17 · Score: 1

This is not the only sound based non-lethal weapon used by the IAF
This is not the only sound based lethal weapon used by the IAF.
There fixed that for you.
Hmm ... sound can kill. Thank you Captain Obvious for pointing that out to us ...
again ...
and again ...
and again ...
Re:IAF Sound Devices by cstacy · 2010-01-20 05:20 · Score: 1

I think they were also toying with using these types of weapons against the pirates in Somalia.
Not sure that would be effective against light sabers.
Re:IAF Sound Devices by smitty777 · 2010-01-20 06:42 · Score: 1

That's really interesting. At first I thought you were joking, but there's a little writeup on Wiki. I wonder if they did this to give the audience an adverse reaction to the rape scene?

--
"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish"
Albert Einstein
Re:IAF Sound Devices by smitty777 · 2010-01-20 08:36 · Score: 1

Jedi Pirates?

--
"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish"
Albert Einstein

Mixture of what? by bcmm · 2010-01-20 02:23 · Score: 1

LPG and cooking gas are both usually ways of saying propane/butane mix. Any ideas as to what they're trying to say here?

--
# cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.

Re:Mixture of what? by Darth+Sdlavrot · 2010-01-20 02:57 · Score: 1

The gas I cook on is natural gas, i.e. methane.
Some people (in this country) who don't have gas company pipes in their street use propane -- they have a big "bottle" and a truck comes to fill it up periodically. I can't say I've ever seen anyone use butane instead of propane, but I suppose anything is possible.
The only time I use propane or butane to cook on is when I go camping.

It is as a mosquito's whine.. by byrdfl3w · 2010-01-20 02:24 · Score: 2, Funny

..compared to my Darth Farts.

First Dune Post by Ukab+the+Great · 2010-01-20 02:26 · Score: 4, Funny

"Through sound and motion, you will be able to paralyze nerves, shatter bones, set fires, suffocate an enemy or burst his organs."

Re:First Dune Post by jayspec462 · 2010-01-20 02:49 · Score: 1

Well thanks for posting that, Ukab the Great... Ukab the Great... Ukab the Great... UKAB THE... *BOOM!!!*
Your name is a killing word...

--
$comment =~ s/($verb)\s+($noun)/IN SOVIET RUSSIA, $2 $1s YOU!/g;
Re:First Dune Post by Airborne-ng · 2010-01-20 03:04 · Score: 1

All the above derived from the abomination that was the 1984 Dune movie and not from the award winning books.
Re:First Dune Post by Hal_Porter · 2010-01-20 03:32 · Score: 1

People always say that but this

It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the juice of sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
is from the film - it was written by David Lynch, not Frank Herbert. Plus there's the wonderfully insane scene where Thufir Hawat has to milk an ugly captive cat every day to get the antidote to his poison.

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Re:First Dune Post by jayspec462 · 2010-01-20 04:47 · Score: 2, Funny

I'm sorry, was my reference not erudite enough for you? Perhaps I've been concealing my knowledge of the books, to make you believe that I knew only of the film...
A feint, within a feint, within a feint...

--
$comment =~ s/($verb)\s+($noun)/IN SOVIET RUSSIA, $2 $1s YOU!/g;
Re:First Dune Post by Airborne-ng · 2010-01-20 06:02 · Score: 1

Redeemed. Methinks you should have wrote the follow-ups and not his own offspring :S such a disgrace to the series
Re:First Dune Post by Cormacus · 2010-01-20 06:12 · Score: 1

Yell at it.

--
Mon chien, il n'a pas du nez. Comment scent-il? TrÃs mauvais!

Disaster Area is okay, but... by No+Grand+Plan · 2010-01-20 02:27 · Score: 1

I prefer the much-more subtle (and slightly less fictional) Kate Bush, with "Experiment IV."

"...and they told us/what they wanted/was a sound that could kill someone"

How fast? by zenopus · 2010-01-20 02:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

According to company data, the system generates 60 to 100 bursts per minute, each traveling at about 2,000 meters per second and lasting up to 300 milliseconds.

It is pretty impressive they can make a burst of sound move at six times the speed of sound.

Re:How fast? by ars · 2010-01-20 02:41 · Score: 1

Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonation super-sonic pressure wave with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflagration sub-sonic pressure wave.
Sound is defined as a pressure wave, so I guess this is sound, but it's really more like a small explosion.

--
-Ariel
Re:How fast? by zenopus · 2010-01-20 03:04 · Score: 3, Informative

Yes, the detonation can be faster than the speed of sound but the resulting sound only propagates at the speed of sound.
To get those bursts to propagate to the target at supersonic rates there would have to be combustible gas all the way from the device to the target.
A jet fighter going at mach 2 carries with it a sonic boom traveling at 6 times the speed of sound.
When it passes overhead at an altitude of 6k feet, you see it pass and you hear it 6 seconds later.
The sonic boom travels at mach 2 only because the fighter goes at mach 2, the sound propagates perpendicular to the fighter only at the speed of sound.
Re:How fast? by TheTurtlesMoves · 2010-01-20 03:24 · Score: 1

Thats what a shock wave is. It moves faster than the local speed of sound of the medium its moving into. Behind the shock wave, the hotter, higher pressure gases has a much higher local speed of sound and the flow is "subsonic".*

* this is for all normal shocks, such as those from explosions. Oblique shock waves have different properties.

--
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
Re:How fast? by fireylord · 2010-01-20 07:29 · Score: 1

A jet fighter going at mach 2 carries with it a sonic boom traveling at 6 times the speed of sound. When it passes overhead at an altitude of 6k feet, you see it pass and you hear it 6 seconds later. The sonic boom travels at mach 2 only because the fighter goes at mach 2, the sound propagates perpendicular to the fighter only at the speed of sound.
Odd that you mention one of the other preferred methods of crowd control of the IDF

Re:The A-Team by postbigbang · 2010-01-20 02:29 · Score: 1

Killer speakers, dude.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.

Wait...what? by Orleron · 2010-01-20 02:30 · Score: 1

Wouldn't the people firing the boomsday device be killed, since they are right next to it pulling the trigger?
If you mount it on top of a humvee, same problem, no?

Re:Wait...what? by Nathrael · 2010-01-20 02:57 · Score: 1

Ear protection.

--
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
Re:Wait...what? by Orleron · 2010-01-20 03:06 · Score: 1

That would probably protect your ears, but what about damage to the rest of your body, if the shockwaves are that powerful?
Re:Wait...what? by Duradin · 2010-01-20 04:28 · Score: 1

If only we could figure out a way to direct the energy of this weapon...
It's not like they call it a cannon 'stun gun' which would it has a barrel or other apparatus that would direct the energy away from the person firing it.
"In addition to the basic single-barrel, cart-mounted design, ArmyTec is offering Thunder Generator in fixed or vehicle-mounted installations, operated manually or via remote control. The firm's proposed multibarrel design simulates a battlefield-like experience, while a three-axis moving barrel allows precise targeting of areas within a wide perimeter. For very-wide-area coverage, the firm recommends synchronized networks of multiple cannons." -from the fine article.
Re:Wait...what? by Nathrael · 2010-01-20 07:58 · Score: 1

In that case, I guess they'd fit the shockwave generator on a remotely controlled metal chassis. We do it with EOD robots, we can do the same for crowd control devices.

--
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.

Blanks can be lethal too by davidwr · 2010-01-20 02:31 · Score: 1

When pointed in the ear or certain other places, some blanks can cause permanent injury or kill.

The point is, most less-than-lethal weapons could kill when used improperly. So treat them with respect, don't use them unless you are trained in their proper use, and don't use them improperly.

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.

Super Villians by GPLDAN · 2010-01-20 02:31 · Score: 1

Turns out a single badass Deltal only known by his codename 'Dutch' (real name: Alan Schaeffer) killed a space alien in the jungle after a protracted stalking, and procured this weapon from the alien armor suit. The alien had managed to kill the rest of Dutch's team but somehow Dutch set off a low yield nuclear weapon and destroy the creature. This report was leaked by the tin foil underground movement, and is the real source of this new weapon.

Kate Bush! by chub_mackerel · 2010-01-20 02:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

Kate Bush's song about this type of thing: "Experiment IV"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6hvNe11r9U

"They told us
All they wanted
Was a sound that could kill someone
From a distance.
So we go ahead,
And the meters are over in the red.
It's a mistake in the making."

Re:Kate Bush! by Lars+T. · 2010-01-20 03:02 · Score: 1

I wouldn't call 30 feet "from a distance".

--
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Re:Kate Bush! by aquila.solo · 2010-01-20 05:18 · Score: 2, Informative

That's meters, cap'n. For the effect, I'd say it is a little more devastating than a grenade, though less practical (for now).
Re:Kate Bush! by BlackSnake112 · 2010-01-20 05:42 · Score: 1

I wouldn't call 30 feet "from a distance".
? It is not a sniper's measure of distance, but is not hand to hand close either.
For example, You have a sword and are 30 feet away from someone trying to kill you. They have a 50 caliber mini gun. Is 30 feet still "from a distance"?
Re:Kate Bush! by Tuidjy · 2010-01-20 06:20 · Score: 1

Actually, no. Not unless the gun has a bullet in chamber, is off safety, and pointed at me. But if all the above are true, then a handgun at one foot is just as good. I fence. 10 meters is not much distance at all.
In my experience, most shooting instructors have 21 feet as the range at which a knife wielding amateur has the drop, if he start acting first, on a trained shooter with a gun in a quick draw holster. Our brains need time to see, process, decide, send the signal to the limbs... Of course, the instructors drill this in the trainee so that they understand that at this point, they need to shoot, as opposed to wait to see what the knife guy will do.
And a fencer with a sword will touch at 10 meters in the time an average person with a knife will cover 7 meters. My personal time under 1.3 seconds for 9 yards. From guard. (No, I am not an Olympic class sprinter. The lunge at the end is what makes a huge difference.)
Thirty meters is a different story.
By the way, look up Tueller's Drill: http://www.google.com/search?q=Tueller+Drill

--
No good deed goes unpunished...
Re:Kate Bush! by haydensdaddy · 2010-01-20 06:47 · Score: 1

10 meters ~= 30 feet (http://www.google.com/search?q=10+meters+in+feet) That's math, cap'n
Re:Kate Bush! by aquila.solo · 2010-01-20 06:58 · Score: 1

Yeah.

I should have RTFS more carefully. I saw the "30 to 100m" and conflated that with the casualty range.
I tried to post a redaction, but /. was playing its "It has been X minutes since you posted successfully" game and I had to get to class.

I'll just get my coat...
Re:Kate Bush! by Monty_Lovering · 2010-01-20 07:07 · Score: 1

At 30ft unless the mini gun user had it aimed at the guy with the sword the guy with the sword would likely win. Even without a lunge or a fleche. Actually in that scenario I'd rather have a proper sword than a fencing weapon as a good cut with a bastard sword will maim, incapacitate or kill. Skewering them might be the last thing you do, even if they bleed out later.

Potato Cannons by WED+Fan · 2010-01-20 02:36 · Score: 4, Funny

Even something like a $5 potato cannon can kill people at close range.

Dude, don't start it up. Those folks in Idaho are a thin skinned bunch.

The Idaho Potatoe Council, through their spokesman, Spuddy Buddy, want to reiterate that, "Potatoes don't kill people, people kill people."

"The potatoe is a non-lethal vegetable. In fact, there is only one tuber that is considered a weapon, but it is grown only in the upper most reaches of the Andeas on the boarders of Chile and Peru," Buddy went on to say.

Did you know millions of potatoes have been shipped around the world as humanitarian relief. Not a single one has been used in military agression. There has only been one instance of a potato being used to kill. That was the aforementioned Peruvian Murder Spud (rough translation) that the CIA used in an assasination attempt on the husband of Evita Peron.

--
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.

Re:Potato Cannons by operagost · 2010-01-20 03:06 · Score: 3, Funny

potatoe

Dan Quayle, is that you?

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:Potato Cannons by dunkelfalke · 2010-01-20 05:02 · Score: 1

Well, potato is potentially lethal - green potatos and potato berries and seeds contain solanine which is a poison.

--
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Re:Potato Cannons by Reziac · 2010-01-20 06:31 · Score: 3, Funny

Potatoes are a gateway to violence. Millions of children are taught to drive pointy objects into Mr.Potatohead. Then they grow up to be punks and drive nails into each other's scalps.
Clearly potatoes are a menace to society, and should be banned.

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:Potato Cannons by gyrogeerloose · 2010-01-20 06:33 · Score: 2, Funny

the aforementioned Peruvian Murder Spud (rough translation) that the CIA used in an assasination attempt on the husband of Evita Peron.
No, you've gotten it all wrong. There's no such thing as the Peruvian Murder Spud. The CIA used the Argentinian
Murder Spud on Juan Peron. He was an Argentinian, after all.

--
This ain't rocket surgery.
Re:Potato Cannons by WED+Fan · 2010-01-20 07:04 · Score: 2, Funny

The CIA was trying to make it look like Chileans were trying to make it look like Peruvians.

--
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Re:Potato Cannons by NotBornYesterday · 2010-01-20 07:22 · Score: 1

Thanks for speaking up on this issue. Some people will always demonize legitimate potato ownership, and seek to take away our right to bear starchy food. It's good to know that others around here don't buy their anti-freedom propaganda.

--
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Re:Potato Cannons by WED+Fan · 2010-01-20 09:02 · Score: 1

I live in the greater Seattle area. Because I lived in Boise (working at HP) for a few years, I have to provide "travel" documents to the police, I'm subject to unannounced inspections and searchs. I was once accused of trying to assemble a potato of mass destruction when they found a few empty McDonalds fry boxes in the back of my car. Talk about an oppressive police state? Western Washington.

--
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.

LHPO + AIBF? by argent · 2010-01-20 02:37 · Score: 1

Cool, I've been a fan of LHPO for years. I used to crew for hot-air balloons so just the thought of MIDI-controlled propane torches is awesome.

You need to do a gig at the Albuquerque International Balloon Fiesta. Seriously.

Re:LHPO + AIBF? by MRe_nl · 2010-01-20 03:28 · Score: 1

I think i can design, produce and operate shows that will leave most people slack-jawed
(think Fusion/Robodock/Burningman/Glastonbury if that means anything to you). But i'm in Holland, and it takes a lot of time, people or money, pick two ; ). In fact, pick three.
I know just the people for a massive midi/torches show, they do basslines on huge freestanding torches ON the dancefloor with overhead flames and explosions, and mid and high on a small fireorgan. They did the dancefloor at Fusion a couple of years ago (on a former russian airforce base in again, former east germany).

--
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"

Know what else is lethal at 10 meters? by Zantac69 · 2010-01-20 02:41 · Score: 3, Funny

American Idol (the 'real competition' portion - not the auditions that are sometimes hilarious), Eurovision Song Contest, and America/Britain's Got Talent. Within 10 meters, all of these can be lethal to people with IQs greater than 75. At distances greater than 10 meters, I am not sure of the lethality...but just hearing it causes me to double over with pain.

--
1331461 is only semiprime *sigh* Alas - I am just short of 1337.

Re:Know what else is lethal at 10 meters? by jgtg32a · 2010-01-20 02:53 · Score: 1

I don't like American Idol but America's Got Talent produce Terry Fator, and well the man's talented.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG6MyTDoZXs
Re:Know what else is lethal at 10 meters? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2010-01-20 06:06 · Score: 1

Eurovision Song Contest
Uhm. I kind of liked the Secret Garden's entry in 1995. (But then again, there was very little opening of the mouth in that piece.)

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:Know what else is lethal at 10 meters? by IndigoDarkwolf · 2010-01-20 07:09 · Score: 1

Don't forget Hillary Clinton.

--
I for one welcome our megacorporate overlords.

Kate Bush did it! by RevWaldo · 2010-01-20 02:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

"Experiment IV" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6hvNe11r9U

Warning - pretentious as hell, even for Kate Bush fans. YMMV. Starring Hugh "the guy from House" Laurie and Dawn "magnificent bosom" French.

--
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!

Sound Generator? by tjstork · 2010-01-20 02:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

A bomb is a sound generator too, and maybe we should this thing for what it is, a bomb. It is very loud when it explodes, and is world renowned for its ability to stun people at safe distances and kill them at closer distances.

--
This is my sig.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2010-01-20 02:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion

If it is tool loud you are too old. by leuk_he · 2010-01-20 02:51 · Score: 1

Or at least such a cannon would give a unexpected meaning to the saying "if it is too loud you are too old". You might even stop aging.

Re:The A-Team by at_slashdot · 2010-01-20 02:56 · Score: 1

MEGA KILL!

--
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore

Re:Potential problems on the implementation stage by virg_mattes · 2010-01-20 02:57 · Score: 1

The places where this sort of thing are valuable are places where you want to control or forbid access to an area without lethal force. An example above described use of sonic weapons against pirate boarding parties. Another would be at exit points to correctional facilities, to control prison riots. Alarm systems that interdict could use such devices to drive back unauthorized entry (for example, in case of a breakin at a nuclear power plant or military facility). They wouldn't be much use for crowd control, though, as you pointed out.

Virg

Squawk Box anyone? by davFr · 2010-01-20 02:58 · Score: 1

I am surprised you don't know the Squawk Box, which was used by the Brits again the Irish demonstrators. This box was a secret weapon used to cause non-lethal injuries, "thanks" to powerful acoustic waves.
And no, it was not Beatles' music.

--
RIP Slashdot. I used to love you. dead account - but slashdot wont let me delete it.

Want this in my car! by yog · 2010-01-20 03:05 · Score: 4, Funny

I would love to mount one of these babies under the hood and use it as a killer car horn for those drivers who JUST. WON'T. MOVE. One blast from this thing and they'll never sit there texting at the green light again. Also handy for those clueless people who drive UNDER THE SPEED LIMIT in the leftmost lane. Can't take a hint? Can't see my lights flashing? Don't realize you're clogging up the expressway? BOOOOMMMMM. Imagine the satisfying feeling as they instinctively floor the accelerator while blood dribbles down from their ears! Ahhh.

--
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.

Re:Want this in my car! by jgardia · 2010-01-20 03:15 · Score: 4, Funny

There is a very nice solution to the slow drivers. Just carry a laser pointer, and carefully point inside his vehicle in a place (s)he can see. Then thanks to Hollywood, they run away as fast as they can.
Re:Want this in my car! by s122604 · 2010-01-20 03:41 · Score: 3, Funny

Or respond with their own laser-pointer, that happens to be attached to a .357 magnum...
Re:Want this in my car! by ZeroExistenZ · 2010-01-20 04:04 · Score: 1

Or respond with their own laser-pointer, that happens to be attached to a .357 magnum...
Ofcourse, if that's the only laserpointer they have laying around to point back with..

--
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
Re:Want this in my car! by 31415926535897 · 2010-01-20 04:26 · Score: 1

While I'm sure it would be effective, I'm sure it could land you an assault charge if the person files a complaint against you or if a cop happens to be nearby.
Re:Want this in my car! by GungaDan · 2010-01-20 04:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

"How about those assholes that honk their horns and flash their highbeams behind me when I'm doing 5 over the speed limit but think I should get out of the left lane anyway?"
You should get out of the left lane unless you're passing someone. The left lane is for passing - you do not drive in that lane for any period of time or at any speed, unless passing. Why don't more people know/respect this law?

--
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
Re:Want this in my car! by Locke2005 · 2010-01-20 04:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

I believe making people think you are pointing a lethal weapon at them with a laser sight attached is an extremely bad idea unless you actually are pointing a lethal weapon at them, since it justifies them shooting first in self defense. And yes, I had coworkers who thought it would be "fun" to shine a laser pointer into the studios across the street -- please don't do that when I'm standing in the window!

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Re:Want this in my car! by groslyunderpaid · 2010-01-20 05:15 · Score: 2, Informative

The left lane is for passing - you do not drive in that lane for any period of time or at any speed, unless passing. Why don't more people know/respect this law?
Probably because it's not a law, at least not in my state(MD).

Check before you rant
Re:Want this in my car! by Dishevel · 2010-01-20 05:30 · Score: 1

If others are going faster than you move to the right.

--
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Re:Want this in my car! by spathi-wa · 2010-01-20 05:56 · Score: 3, Informative

Have you read the page you just quoted? Below the table appears:

The Uniform Vehicle Code states:
Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic ...
Note that this law refers to the "normal" speed of traffic, not the "legal" speed of traffic. The 60 MPH driver in a 55 MPH zone where everybody else is going 65 MPH must move right. Contrast Alaska's rule, 13 AAC 002.50, allowing vehicles driving at the speed limit to use the left lane, and Colorado rev. stat. 42-4-1103, prohibiting blocking the "normal and reasonable" movement of traffic.
Emphasis is mine. It's almost as if the author of that page is responding directly to your GP post...
Re:Want this in my car! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-20 06:17 · Score: 1, Insightful

The left lane is for passing - you do not drive in that lane for any period of time or at any speed, unless passing. Why don't more people know/respect this law?
It isn't a law everywhere.
It is, however, a courtesy everywhere. But many people seem to be injected with a heightened sense of entitlement when they get behind the wheel. "Fuck you, this is my lane."
I treat other drivers the way I wish they would treat me: I don't pull out in front of the only car on the road; I stay in the right lane unless passing; I let faster traffic pass me before moving to the left lane to pass; I use turn signals before braking; I don't tailgate; and I rarely attempt to knock assholes into a concrete barrier.
Re:Want this in my car! by khellendros1984 · 2010-01-20 06:22 · Score: 1

But then there are situations where general traffic flow is going 70, you're going 75 in the left lane, and some guy in a BMW tries to crawl up your exhaust pipe at 80 or 85, then hangs on 1 car length behind you.

--
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Re:Want this in my car! by gyrogeerloose · 2010-01-20 06:27 · Score: 1

Note that this law refers to the "normal" speed of traffic, not the "legal" speed of traffic.
Same deal in southern California. The CHP can (and occasionally does) cite people for "aggressive driving" if they're traveling at the speed limit in the left lane during the commute hours. The 65 MPH legal limit not withstanding, this is simply bowing to the reality of life on the freeways here.

--
This ain't rocket surgery.
Re:Want this in my car! by pclminion · 2010-01-20 06:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Assuming that a visible laser dot means you are being targeted by somebody with a laser sight is Hollywood nonsense. I really doubt any judge/jury would accept that as justification for shooting first. There are assholes all over the place shining lasers in places where they shouldn't, we can't just go around blowing them all away, much as we might wish to.
Re:Want this in my car! by Locke2005 · 2010-01-20 07:02 · Score: 1

And if the FAA catches you shining a laser at the cockpit of an airplane, you WILL do time in federal PITA prison for assault with a deadly weapon -- regardless of whether or not it has a firearm attached. Why shouldn't the same standard of "you are putting lives at risk by potentially blinding the pilot" also apply to people driving automobiles? They kill a lot more people than pilots do, and airplanes have redundant systems to compensate for loss of a pilot, whereas cars simply crash.

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Re:Want this in my car! by pclminion · 2010-01-20 07:23 · Score: 1

Uh, I didn't say it shouldn't be illegal, I said it is not a justification for SHOOTING somebody.
Re:Want this in my car! by penguinchris · 2010-01-20 08:14 · Score: 1

Whether it's a law or not (and others have pointed out the various legal and real-life aspects) it's the safest and best thing to do for keeping traffic flowing, considering the driving habits of many (meaning it's not necessarily the most efficient way that people should drive, but it's reality).
If someone wants to drive faster than you and you won't let them, you may think you have the high ground because you're not breaking the law (though you probably are, just not as much), but think about it - as another poster states - that guy in the M5 riding on your tail is a hugely dangerous situation, where both of you are not paying as much attention to the road as you should because you're agitated by each other, constantly checking the mirror, etc.
The guy in the M5 is an asshole, but the solution to dealing with assholes is not (usually) to be an asshole back, especially if you're creating a dangerous situation for yourself and others. To be clear: you're being just as much of an asshole, and a smug one at that, by not moving over and letting someone pass.
And whether or not it's law in every state, sticking to the right lane except for passing is common courtesy. Not everyone understands that (the grandma in the station wagon going 5 under the limit in the left lane probably isn't trying to be a smug asshole), unfortunately, and that is the biggest cause of stress for me when driving. I drive a little bit aggressively (I am a male in my early 20's, what can I say) but not recklessly, and when I come upon someone going too slow in the left lane I get nervous... and that is the *only* driving situation that makes me particularly nervous, even in Los Angeles and Southern California where I currently live. You're not "supposed" to pass on the right, so even if there is space, it's not a good thing to do because you don't know if the other driver will realize you're behind them and suddenly move over to let you pass, or what... just a completely unknown situation. In states where it isn't covered by law, it really needs to be so that people would understand that they need to move over (possibly the only situation where I would advocate more laws...) or maybe states could invest in "keep right except to pass" signs.
Naturally, this problem would be solved if aggressive drivers slowed down a bit, and you could spin the situation into the aggressive driver being at fault for creating the unknown and dangerous situation, but when there is a generally accepted rule in place (or in some cases an actual law) that you should stick to the right, then the slow driver *is* at fault. Who is at fault according to the insurance company if there's a crash is different, but it's the slow driver who caused the problem in the first place - not because people should be given a free pass to drive aggressively, but because knowing that people will drive aggressively no matter what, you really need to get the heck out of their way. It's stupid not to.
I started trying to come up with a car analogy, but... ;)
Re:Want this in my car! by penguinchris · 2010-01-20 08:16 · Score: 1

I appreciate that you're probably correct about CHP citing people for that, but living in SoCal for a couple years I've never seen most freeways moving anywhere close to the speed limit during commute hours (i.e. almost all day apparently) ;)
Re:Want this in my car! by gyrogeerloose · 2010-01-20 12:25 · Score: 1

I know what you mean, especially if you're living in the L.A. area. Down here in San Diego, things aren't quite as congested and if you're lucky enough to be able to avoid a couple of major choke points (portions of I-5, I-15 and I-805), you're likely to be be rolling at 70-75 MPH even during the rush hour.

--
This ain't rocket surgery.
Re:Want this in my car! by Locke2005 · 2010-01-20 12:59 · Score: 1

And I'm just sayin' you should be careful who you shine a laser at. For example, if you did this to the cop who brought a gun to a snowball fight, you just might wind up getting yourself shot!

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Re:Want this in my car! by sanosuke001 · 2010-01-20 14:08 · Score: 1

I mean when I'm passing someone but the person behind me is being impatient because I'm not passing him at 20 mph over the speed limit.

--
-SaNo

Weirding module by CDS · 2010-01-20 03:09 · Score: 1

It's a Weirding Module!! So do you have to chant "muuuuad-DIB!" to make it fire??

Re:Now Available: Sonic Armor by MattSausage · 2010-01-20 03:10 · Score: 1

I hope they make that soon, I'm having trouble fighting off the mindworms. They get stronger with each attack..

Quiet Riot ... Quiet Explosions by ArundelCastle · 2010-01-20 03:11 · Score: 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudest_band_in_the_world
also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_Area_(fictional_band)#Hotblack_Desiato

Interesting that TFA doesn't mention decibel levels. Can sound and shockwaves be mutually exclusive (inside atmosphere)?

Re:Quiet Riot ... Quiet Explosions by cheftw · 2010-01-20 06:00 · Score: 1

No, unless you define sound to be something you can hear.

--
Always back up, never back down. ---- Think you're cool 'cos your uid is prime? Take mine, modulo the one digit integers

Even more lethal... by jimshatt · 2010-01-20 03:20 · Score: 1

Monty Python invented something even deadlier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gpjk_MaCGM

Just a variation on a carbide cannon by cwills · 2010-01-20 03:24 · Score: 1

Different fuel, but basically the same idea as a carbide cannon which has been around for at least 100 years. In fact there was a patent from the early 1900's (US 874,952) on an improved gas gun.

So, basically all that is new is the recharge time and the decibels.

...a sound that could kill... by bmwloco · 2010-01-20 03:29 · Score: 1

Kate Bush wrote a song about is over 20 years ago. Move on folks..nothing interesting here ;)

--
A defense contractor in Antarctica is a bad idea. Get Raytheon OUT of Antarctica.

Now, that's what I call... by jeffshoaf · 2010-01-20 03:30 · Score: 1

a BOOMbox!

--
Putting the "anal" back into "analyst"...

Re:I prefer a cannon by GargamelSpaceman · 2010-01-20 03:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yeah, I'd prefer a cannon too. I remember reading in a magazine ( maybe Popular Mechanics? ) way back when about some Nazi Death Machines that were supposedly in the works near the end of WWII. They had a machine that worked on natural gas being exploded in a pipe that sounds substantially identical to this. The idea was to repel enemy troops trying to charge. It was one of those things that was just not practical on the battlefield, and never used.

--
...

Here come the force push jokes ... by justinlee37 · 2010-01-20 03:39 · Score: 1

5 .. 4 .. 3 .. 2 . 1 .

Marketing? by Corson · 2010-01-20 03:39 · Score: 1

That's right, publish that information on ./ maybe someone will become "creative" and use that information to new purposes.

Pictures by ijakings · 2010-01-20 03:39 · Score: 1

Pics, or it didnt happen.

2000 meters per second? by mrjb · 2010-01-20 03:50 · Score: 1

FTA:

According to company data, the system generates 60 to 100 bursts per minute, each traveling at about 2,000 meters per second and lasting up to 300 milliseconds

So they have sound travelling at almost 6 times the speed of sound? That's some *serious* abuse of recursive technology there. No doubt, it works by making people's brains hurt.

--
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book

News in 2010 by markov_chain · 2010-01-20 03:57 · Score: 1

Army invents the sonic trap!

--
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!

Oh, the irony of greed by piotru · 2010-01-20 03:59 · Score: 1

Apparently, the Israeli patented the pulse engine, used in V1 rockets by German Army during the WW2. Oh well... Where's the trick? Did the Germans fail to patent pulse engine for non-racial killing, did they limit the lethal direction, or or was their patent invalidated in 1945?

From the linked article:
"Using a patented process involving Pulse Detonation Technology (PDT), the system feeds the gas-air mixture into one or more so-called impulse chambers or cannon barrels, where the burning fuel detonates and intensifies in force as it travels through the chamber, exiting in a rapid-fire succession of high-velocity shock bursts."
V1:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb

really annoying by e-scetic · 2010-01-20 04:05 · Score: 1, Troll

Ugh, I started reading TFA and first thing I see is "An Israeli-developed..." Yet another Israeli developed fancy weapon. Sometimes it seems like they don't know how to do anything else but wage war, it's getting to be really fucking annoying.

Re:really annoying by e-scetic · 2010-01-20 07:25 · Score: 1

I have no idea WTF you just said or meant, I suspect religious (e.g. retard) logic, but the wall hasn't led to 0 suicide bombers, not that that will matter much to the supporters of the wall because their purpose isn't to prevent suicide bombers anyway.

Isnt this by SnarfQuest · 2010-01-20 04:16 · Score: 1

Isn't this just the specs for one of those greasy breakfast burretos, and a bic lighter? I know you're taking a chance eating them, but being able to take out a bunch of other people nearby just makes them that much more impressive. I thought the smell was what made you lose friends, not actually blowing them to bits.

--
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.

Don't test the champion by akirapill · 2010-01-20 04:23 · Score: 1

sound boy gwan die tonight

Re:Weirding module by mister_playboy · 2010-01-20 04:27 · Score: 1

FTFY

--
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will

Yeah music to die for by TheLink · 2010-01-20 04:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2004/09/64829

Reporting in the medical journal Thorax, they describe the cases of four young men who suffered a lung collapse -- technically called pneumothorax -- that appeared to be triggered by loud music. Three of the men were at a concert or club when the pneumothorax occurred, while the fourth was in his car, which was outfitted with a 1,000-watt bass box because he "liked to listen to loud music."

--

Too many replies beneath your current threshold

Re:Yeah music to die for by BarefootClown · 2010-01-20 06:45 · Score: 1

...the fourth was in his car, which was outfitted with a 1,000-watt bass box because he "liked to listen to loud music."
And yet some people still doubt Darwin!

--
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca

This is very primitive by flyneye · 2010-01-20 05:12 · Score: 1

I have studied audio utility for years. High decible + shockwave = damage is not new. Theoretically we have done it with bombs for years, the difference is this is more controlled.
More fascinating is the theory that everything has a fundamental wavelength that will render it to atoms.
Tone not volume as a killer is much more elegant and controlled.
Call me back when the military achieve this.

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!

Right to assemble? by thelonious · 2010-01-20 05:15 · Score: 1

I am sure this will only be used on unruly crowds. And not on crowds that just need a little pushing to become unruly.

Re:Right to assemble? by thelonious · 2010-01-20 05:22 · Score: 1

I mean if this thing has been show to cause people to panic, what better way to get a crowd riled up then to hit a couple of blasts. Later the report will naturally show that the crowd started the whole thing and required some crowd control. Back in my day we just used frost traps and sap

Re:Why? by thelonious · 2010-01-20 05:19 · Score: 1

It would probably help if you had read the article about the "horrible weapon"

Guile says: by Conditioner · 2010-01-20 05:23 · Score: 1

Sonic Boom ! (SB); hold the joystick in the away position for 2 full seconds (Count slowly), then, in one fluid motion, switch the joystick to forward and press any punch button (The speed of the Sonic Boom is determined by the strength of the punch; weaker punches will produce slower sonic booms): Guile whips out an explosive boomerang from his back pocket and throws it horizontally. Certain characters (Dhalsim, Balrog, E. Honda, etc.) can dodge this attack with their own specials). The Sonic Boom is considered one of Guile's most useful weapons, as it can force an opponent into an undesired situation and interfere with his projectiles as well as potentially doing the obvious: hitting the opponent a full contact.

Firing a sound weapon that kills at close range. by Jason+Levine · 2010-01-20 05:27 · Score: 1

They'd better have some good system for targeting that sound or the first person to fire the weapon will kill himself as well as his target!

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.

Next on the drawing board by PPH · 2010-01-20 05:54 · Score: 1

A sonic weapon that goes up to eleven.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

A good reason to re-read and enjoy by glassware · 2010-01-20 06:18 · Score: 1

The Calculus Affair. Absolute classic of the comics genre; one of the best graphic novels ever. While it's not serious the way Batman: The Dark Knight and Watchmen are, it's a masterpiece of cold war skulduggery and Indiana Jones-style hijinks. Clearly as influential as some of the best science fiction stories have been.

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

Vortex Cannon! - Bang Goes the Theory by alanw · 2010-01-20 06:26 · Score: 1

Well how about this then? It can blow down a house of bricks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyAyd4WnvhU

Re:The A-Team by kurzweilfreak · 2010-01-20 06:36 · Score: 1

In the words of Halo 3 players all over, "BOOM HEADSHOT!"

--

kurzweil_freak

5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

Non-lethal is perhaps a greater threat by mariox19 · 2010-01-20 06:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

[G]overnments have been looking for "non-lethal" crowd control devices like this [...]

I actually find this worrisome, from the standpoint of civil liberty. Non-violent protest actually relies on the brutality of governmental response to provoke sympathy and garner support for one's cause. While the so-called "non-lethal" weapons of today are still pretty brutal, I invite people to follow me on a little thought experiment that illustrates my concern.

Let's carry non-lethal crowd control methods to their ultimate conclusion. Imagine a device that lulls people to sleep, whereupon they're carried home, placed in their beds, enjoy a night's rest like the haven't managed in months, and awake to find a chocolate morsel on their nightstands and a terrifically refreshed sense of well-being. If crowds of peaceful protesters are broken up by repressive governments using this device, how much sympathy will that garner? How effective will civil disobedience be?

The scenario I describe is purposefully fanciful and exaggerated. Nevertheless, my point is that non-lethal methods carry the very real threat of keeping bad governments from looking all that bad. Government should hurt; and repressing civil disobedience should carry the risk of looking bad. Otherwise, you can be sure it will be used at the drop of a hat. And that may just pose a problem.

--

quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

Re:Non-lethal is perhaps a greater threat by Cormacus · 2010-01-20 06:50 · Score: 1

I completely agree with the way you articulated that point, and I wish I had mod points to prove it. This is a part of the discussion that I missed in my post.

--
Mon chien, il n'a pas du nez. Comment scent-il? TrÃs mauvais!
Re:Non-lethal is perhaps a greater threat by LongSpleen · 2010-01-20 07:58 · Score: 1

Non-violent protest actually relies on the brutality of governmental response to provoke sympathy and garner support for one's cause.
I would hope that a just cause is capable of getting a following by means other than sympathy.
Re:Non-lethal is perhaps a greater threat by aicrules · 2010-01-20 10:43 · Score: 1

If the government whips out a sonic blaster I'd consider that a few steps above a firehose as far as violence in response. Or are you suggesting that Government needs the opportunity to kill a protester or two so that their is a little sympathy generated in the viewing public? Don't you think the site of a million people suddenly passing out and being carried off by to their homes by gov't agents wouldn't make a huge story that would garner gigantic levels of sympathy for the people involved and for their cause by proxy?
Re:Non-lethal is perhaps a greater threat by BitterOak · 2010-01-20 11:42 · Score: 1

I actually find this worrisome, from the standpoint of civil liberty. Non-violent protest actually relies on the brutality of governmental response to provoke sympathy and garner support for one's cause.
If you rely on police brutality to make your point, perhaps your point isn't such a good one in the first place!

--
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?

Really ?! by feufeu · 2010-01-20 06:53 · Score: 1

"a mixture of liquefied petroleum, cooking gas, and air to create explosions" ...will do pemanent damage to the human body - hear, hear ! (Nothing really new here, move along !)

Economic stimulus by IndigoDarkwolf · 2010-01-20 06:56 · Score: 1

I'll bet this'll sell great in Iran and China.

--
I for one welcome our new megacorporate overlords.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2010-01-20 07:10 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:The A-Team by NotBornYesterday · 2010-01-20 07:11 · Score: 4, Funny

Yeah. This one goes to 11.

--
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.

fuel vapor..... sound like a mini moab by argontechnologies · 2010-01-20 07:16 · Score: 1

Any tool can be misused. If you know the 'safe' limits of the non-lethal technology you are using in a non-combat environment, you should be able to use it safely. It would be this is still much safer than rubber bullets (or lead for that matter). In a combat environment it matters not. Kill em all.

I still got 'em beat by Khyber · 2010-01-20 07:18 · Score: 1

My farts are deadly up to 100 miles away.

How's that for a sonic cannon?

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.

Counter measures by stapedium · 2010-01-20 07:47 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure earplugs, a helmet and a heavy jacket would be an effective counter measure for this thing. Earplugs and an motorcycle helmet can shield your hearing from continurous noise up to around 150 dBA. The mass of a thick jacket should filter out any high frequency components of the impulses. Just add a plexiglass shield for the low frequencies and you should be able to rush this thing and kick it over.

Excellent! by aaandre · 2010-01-20 08:03 · Score: 1

Finally, a *humane* weapon that also kills... If the crowd chooses to come closer or not move away from the advancing vehicle where the weapon is mounted, that's their choice!

Re:Excellent! by rally2xs · 2010-01-20 09:47 · Score: 1

Or if they're pirates chasing commercial shipping off the coast of Africa.

Could it be dangerous at farther distances? by yellekc · 2010-01-20 08:04 · Score: 1

This device was designed for the relatively open space of a farm. In urban environments where this may be used, you will get reflections off large flat surfaces. Constructive interference will create some areas of higher sound pressure than might be predicted by the distance alone.

Re:No, thanks by N!k0N · 2010-01-20 09:14 · Score: 1

A cannon in the battlefield? Call me old fashioned (and it won't be the first time) but I prefer a trebuchet, thank you.

Re:The A-Team by Mister+Whirly · 2010-01-20 09:23 · Score: 1

Damn, damn, damn. You beat me to it. Kudos to you sir.

--
"But this one goes to 11!"

Re:The A-Team by AmberBlackCat · 2010-01-20 09:39 · Score: 1

Does this thing even have speakers? Is it really a sound generator, or does it generate a bunch of explosions?

Re:The A-Team by Anachragnome · 2010-01-20 09:54 · Score: 1

The device is an old technology with many predecessors.

How these people figure they can license something the Germans were launching at England is beyond me. Maybe it is some sort of Israeli entitlement program.

This thing is simply a Pulse Jet engine that has had the combustion chamber tuned to direct the sound pressure at a distance rather then use it for thrust.

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

One thing that the wiki article does not focus on (and it should) is that pulse jet engines derive much of their thrust from propagated sound pressure waves that are directed by the walls of the combustion chamber back at the valve plate, in effect increasing thrust.

The device being discussed simply directs that sound pressure at a focused location, outside of the device rather then inside it.

Humans are such awful creatures by okmijnuhb · 2010-01-20 10:07 · Score: 1

Humans are such awful creatures, we must use all available technologies to stun, maim, and kill these vile beings.

Italian Job by tru3ntropy · 2010-01-20 13:26 · Score: 1

Can it rip a woman's clothes off?

--
In Google we trust.

Re:The A-Team by Meski · 2010-01-20 16:02 · Score: 1

Damn all fear mechanics.

It's a misdemeanor in California... by drkim · 2010-01-20 19:00 · Score: 2, Informative

"California Penal Code Section 417.25

(a) Every person who, except in self-defense, aims or points a laser scope, as defined in subdivision (b), or a laser pointer, as defined in subdivision (c), at another person in a threatening manner with the specific intent to cause a reasonable person fear of bodily harm is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for up to 30 days. For purposes of this section, the laser scope need not be attached to a firearm.

(b) As used in this section, "laser scope" means a portable battery-powered device capable of being attached to a firearm and capable of projecting a laser light on objects at a distance.

(c) As used in this section, "laser pointer" means any hand held laser beam device or demonstration laser product that emits a single point of light amplified by the stimulated emission of radiation that is visible to the human eye."

...the interesting part of this being in sec. a:

"...except in self-defense..." which might imply you can defend yourself with a laser...! Or a laser equipped shark...

Re:The A-Team by hardwarefreak · 2010-01-20 21:51 · Score: 1

Turn in your geek card. Only Monster Kill has the M-stutter preceeding it (and the echo following it). IIRC, the series is:

1. Double Kill
2. Multi Kill
3. Mega Kill
4. Ultra Kill
5. M-M-M Monster Kill Kill Kill

followed by, depending on whether it's UT or UT 2004:

6. Unstoppable! or

6. Ludicrous Kill
7. Holy Shit

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=M-m-m-monster%20Kill

Slashdot Mirror

Sound Generator Lethal From 10 Meters

252 of 314 comments (clear)