Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sound Generator Lethal From 10 Meters

Posted by Soulskill on from the can-you-hear-me-now dept.

penguinrecorder writes "The Thunder Generator uses a mixture of liquefied petroleum, cooking gas, and air to create explosions, which in turn generate shock waves capable of stunning people from 30 to 100 meters away. At that range, the weapon is relatively harmless, making people run in panic when they feel the sonic blast hitting their bodies. However, at less than ten meters, the Thunder Generator is capable of causing permanent damage or killing people."

68 of 314 comments (clear)

  1. Re:The A-Team by Barny · · 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
  2. Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by TerranFury · · 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.

    1. Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by RemoWilliams84 · · 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
    2. Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by j00r0m4nc3r · · 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..

    3. Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by GiveBenADollar · · 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.

    4. Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by Ephemeriis · · 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
    5. Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by precariousgray · · 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
    6. Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by GiveBenADollar · · 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.

    7. Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by JWSmythe · · 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.
    8. Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by Firethorn · · 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
    9. Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by TerranFury · · 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?

    10. Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by BranMan · · 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.

    11. Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by brainboyz · · 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.

    12. Re:Permanent damage at 100 meters too... by fprintf · · 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.
  3. When 11 Just Isn't Loud Enough... by jaminJay · · 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."
  4. Top news as it happens on Slashdot! by Viol8 · · 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.

  5. Upcoming Headline: by Cornwallis · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Don't Boom Me Bro!"

  6. Lamest comment today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    THAT'S JUST STUNNING!

  7. Yet Another Oops by Jane+Q.+Public · · 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.

    1. Re:Yet Another Oops by shadowrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i think it goes without saying that a weapon is designed to be a disaster, for somebody.

    2. Re:Yet Another Oops by Reziac · · 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?
    3. Re:Yet Another Oops by ColdWetDog · · 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!
  8. Fuel-air explosion by Aceticon · · 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?

  9. Pacifist by neoform · · 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!
    1. Re:Pacifist by Duradin · · 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.

    2. Re:Pacifist by radtea · · 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.
  10. Interesting by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  11. Jon-Erik Hexum by BenEnglishAtHome · · 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.

    1. Re:Jon-Erik Hexum by swillden · · 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.
    2. Re:Jon-Erik Hexum by RogL · · 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.

    3. Re:Jon-Erik Hexum by Lord+Ender · · 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.
    4. Re:Jon-Erik Hexum by TheLink · · 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.

      --
    5. Re:Jon-Erik Hexum by srleffler · · 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.

    6. Re:Jon-Erik Hexum by Draek · · 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.
  12. IAF Sound Devices by smitty777 · · 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
    1. Re:IAF Sound Devices by pongo000 · · 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.

  13. It is as a mosquito's whine.. by byrdfl3w · · Score: 2, Funny

    ..compared to my Darth Farts.

  14. First Dune Post by Ukab+the+Great · · 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."

    1. Re:First Dune Post by jayspec462 · · 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;
  15. How fast? by zenopus · · 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.

    1. Re:How fast? by zenopus · · 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.

  16. Kate Bush! by chub_mackerel · · 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."

    1. Re:Kate Bush! by aquila.solo · · 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).

  17. Re:TFA SAID, "RELATIVELY HARMLESS"!!! by confused+one · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In military parlance, "relatively harmless" means something different than what it does in the civilian world.

  18. Potato Cannons by WED+Fan · · 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.
    1. Re:Potato Cannons by operagost · · Score: 3, Funny

      potatoe

      Dan Quayle, is that you?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:Potato Cannons by Reziac · · 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?
    3. Re:Potato Cannons by gyrogeerloose · · 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.
    4. Re:Potato Cannons by WED+Fan · · 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.
  19. Know what else is lethal at 10 meters? by Zantac69 · · 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.
  20. Kate Bush did it! by RevWaldo · · 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!
  21. Sound Generator? by tjstork · · 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.
  22. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  23. Want this in my car! by yog · · 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.
    1. Re:Want this in my car! by jgardia · · 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.

    2. Re:Want this in my car! by s122604 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or respond with their own laser-pointer, that happens to be attached to a .357 magnum...

    3. Re:Want this in my car! by GungaDan · · 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!
    4. Re:Want this in my car! by Locke2005 · · 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.
    5. Re:Want this in my car! by groslyunderpaid · · 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

    6. Re:Want this in my car! by spathi-wa · · 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...

    7. Re:Want this in my car! by pclminion · · 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.

  24. Re:I prefer a cannon by GargamelSpaceman · · 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.

    --
    ...
  25. Re:TFA SAID, "RELATIVELY HARMLESS"!!! by GiveBenADollar · · 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.

  26. Yeah music to die for by TheLink · · 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."

    --
  27. Re:TFA SAID, "RELATIVELY HARMLESS"!!! by confused+one · · 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

  28. Non-lethal is perhaps a greater threat by mariox19 · · 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.

  29. Re:The A-Team by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah. This one goes to 11.

    --
    I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  30. It's a misdemeanor in California... by drkim · · 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...