Slashdot Mirror


Set Free Your Inner Jedi (Or Pyro)

sirgoran writes "We've all thought about being the hero fighting off evil-doers and saving the day ever since we first saw Star Wars. The folks at Wicked Lasers have now brought that a little closer to reality with their latest release: a 1-Watt blue diode laser that can set skin and other things on fire. From an article at Daily Tech, where they talk about the dangers of such a powerful laser: 'And here's the best (or worst) part — it can set people (or things) on fire. Apparently the laser is so high-powered that shining it on fleshy parts will cause them to burst into flames. Of course it's equally capable of blinding people.' The thing that caught my eye was the price: $200. I wonder if they'll be able to meet the demand, since (if it works as advertised) this will be on every geek's Christmas list."

463 comments

  1. 2nd Amendment by dward90 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does the right to bear arms cover arms which are for more awesome than ever conceived of by the writers of the constitution?

    --
    My other sig is clever.
    1. Re:2nd Amendment by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 5, Funny

      Does the right to bear arms cover arms which are for more awesome than ever conceived of by the writers of the constitution?

      I'd suggest you not have bare arms if this thing can set flesh on fire.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    2. Re:2nd Amendment by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      This is 200 times more powerful than what can legally be sold as a laser pointer in the US, so apparently not.

    3. Re:2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      then don't sell it as a laser pointer

    4. Re:2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Do not take them with you if you're going to war. Weapons which can primarily be used to blind people are against the Geneva Convention.

      Regarding the demand for these laser diodes: I am a geek and this is not on my wish list. I can see the use in applications like holography or laser engraving, but I prefer less dangerous gadgets for purely toying around. With that much power, a stray reflection can permanently harm your vision.

    5. Re:2nd Amendment by spinkham · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is a high power laser pointer ban, but the ban is on marketing terms only. Only class 3a or lower lasers (0-5mW) may be marketed as laser pointers. Class 3b and higher lasers (5-500mW) may be sold in a hand-held form, but not marketed as pointers or amusement devices.

      More to the point, there are regulatory requirements for features in high power laser devices that are often ignored.
      All types of laser devices of any power must be registered with the FDA prior to sale in the US. Note this is registration per product type, not per sale. Class 3b and higher lasers must have a key based lockout, a remote interlock connector, and a warning label affixed to the product. Most importers of cheap chinese lasers of class 3b (>5mW) fall afoul of all of these requirements, and they are often confiscated in shipping with no recourse for the buyer.

      http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/HomeBusinessandEntertainment/LaserProductsandInstruments/ucm116373.htm
      http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm?FR=1040.10

      The only class 3b hand-held lasers I've seen recently which meet all the requirements above are sold by wickedlasers.com. In the past year they have added a safety "key" and interlock connector to their class 3b laser products, and they now meet all the legal requirements. Other vendors might also meet the legal requirements, but I have not personally seen any.

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
    6. Re:2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it is a LASER in any case, which is regulated by the FDA.

      Incidentally, by the same argument as OP, would the first amendment cover inconceivable (by the founding fathers) communication methods like the Internet?

    7. Re:2nd Amendment by DeadDecoy · · Score: 2

      Just imagine using this laser to mess with your cat. It'll go nuts chasing the laser dot AND running away from the laser dot after it's fur is set on fire.
      Note: I do not advocate the abuse of animals or the lighting of cats on fire. I just find that scenario incredibly funny.
      Additional note: Sharks with friggen lasers don't sound so audacious any more.

    8. Re:2nd Amendment by Zerth · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I can't wait for the "Assault Laser Restriction Act of 2015".

      Then the UK will ban flashlights with latching buttons, because they are more dangerous than flashlights with momentary buttons.

    9. Re:2nd Amendment by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

      Sure - the nuke in my basement keeps the neighborhood criminals away just fine.

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    10. Re:2nd Amendment by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      The First Amendment covers what the US Government *can* do to limit one's Freedom of Speech.
       
      ...anything not covered under the First Amendment cannot legally be infringed upon by the US government.

      Meaning: The US government, except in cases where a a clear and present danger exists to the rights of others, has no legal authority over the internet. None. Zippo. Zilch.
       
      ...and yet we're trying harder than ever to give them all of that authority and more.

    11. Re:2nd Amendment by Yvan256 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The real question is, does the FDA regulates the sales of freakin' sharks?

    12. Re:2nd Amendment by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Could that 1-watt blue diode be used to make a dirt cheap CNC engraver for wood nameplates?

    13. Re:2nd Amendment by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      On the plus side, you can still use them on civilian rioters...

    14. Re:2nd Amendment by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I'm guessing this blue laser would be quite effective at 'disabling' those pesky stop light/speeding cameras the city has recently been trying to set up, eh?

      BWHAAHAHAHAHAHAHahaa....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    15. Re:2nd Amendment by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      clear and present danger is a depreciated test for free speech.

    16. Re:2nd Amendment by RogL · · Score: 1

      re the "Assault Laser Restriction Act of 2015"

      This will ban lasers painted in camouflage colors (forest, desert AND arctic), lasers with connectors for a shoulder sling, lasers over 36" long (and ironically, sawed-off lasers under 18" in length). Also, the sale of military-style "high-capacity" batteries will be restricted to military and law-enforcement only.

    17. Re:2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the right to bear arms cover arms which are for more awesome than ever conceived of by the writers of the constitution?

      I'd suggest you not have bare arms if this thing can set flesh on fire.

      I wonder if this thing can set bear arms on fire... Might be good to take with you when going camping.

    18. Re:2nd Amendment by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Does the right to bear arms cover arms which are for more awesome than ever conceived of by the writers of the constitution?

      I'd suggest you not have bare arms if this thing can set flesh on fire.

      I imagine it can also set clothes on fire, which begs the question:

      Should you let them set your skin on fire, or let them set the clothes just on top of your skin on fire?

    19. Re:2nd Amendment by Facegarden · · Score: 1

      Could that 1-watt blue diode be used to make a dirt cheap CNC engraver for wood nameplates?

      I think so, though I've heard that normally laser cutters are like 30W minimum. You're not cutting though, just burning, so I feel like it would get the job done. Might have to move slowly though.
      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    20. Re:2nd Amendment by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 1

      The Geneva Convention discusses the treatment of prisoners in armed combat between uniformed foes. You must be thinking of the Hague Accords.

    21. Re:2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [url]http://www.laserglow.com/index.htm[/url]

    22. Re:2nd Amendment by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Does the right to bear arms cover arms which are for more awesome than ever conceived of by the writers of the constitution?

      The 2nd amendment covers arms. If you use, or intend to use, this as a weapon, it's arms. So yes, it's covered.

      At the time, "arms" consisted of the following (and more, and were being developed into new forms every day): All manner of pistols, rifles, muskets, cannons, explosive and solid cannonballs, cannonballs filled with shards, frigates with multiple decks of cannon, wagons with explosives and multiple guns rigged to fire in unison, chain shot, flaming missiles soaked with pitch and other inflammable, easily spread and extremely hard to extinguish compounds, swords, knives, bayonets, fighting canes, brass knuckles, battering rams, catapults, siege towers, caltrops, mines, pits, biologically contaminated materials, glass bottles, garrotes, whips, chains, both fused and mechanically triggered explosives, striking weapons like sticks and poles and pikes and quarterstaffs and maces and war-hammers, spears, bows, axes, arrows and crossbows... I could go on for pages.

      Knowing this, and knowing that arms development and refinement went on all the time, what did they put in the constitution? They put "arms." No more, no less. So it's pretty darned clear they meant: "Tools you use to project violence."

      Not that the USG pays much attention to the actual meaning and intent of the constitution.

      As for "awesome", I don't think this is any more "awesome" than having a flaming arrow fired from a ballista 500 yards (or more) away arrive in your eye socket or your forearm. And that's been an available weapons technology for over 2,000 years.

      Firestorms have always wreaked huge havoc; bio-weapons have been known, and used, for centuries; incoming chain shot, pitch, and barbed weapons, and worse were the rule of the day, and death and maiming has always been death and maiming. Though we do have better medical technology now, so that at least alleviates the previous almost-guarantee of death by peritonitis, gangrene, and similar. Presuming you survive the injury at all.

      Weapons aren't nice. The sudden realization of the panic-stricken that they might be hurt by deployment of a weapon doesn't really change anything except one's state of mind. Before lasers, we could still burn your eyes out from a distance. Before nukes, we could still burn you (and tens of square miles around you) out at thousands of degrees, leaving all manner of chemical poisons lying around in the aftermath, and leaving people on the periphery with all manner of creative types of injuries. Google the Berlin and Tokyo firestorms for examples. Before anthrax, we could still infect you and yours with all kinds of things; see General Jeffery Amherst's letters ca. ~1763 for some bio-weapons history. Before airplanes, we could still deliver explosives and fire by air. And in the end, if your legs terminate at the mid-femur, the question of how it happened - sword, grenade, flying masonary, 50 cal. bullet, infection, weapons shrapnel, mine... that's kind of beside the point. It all sucks about the same.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    23. Re:2nd Amendment by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Also, bear arms aren’t such a good idea. Cheap polyester... burns like tinder.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    24. Re:2nd Amendment by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      clear and present danger is a deprecated test for free speech.

      FTFY.

      depreciated == when a currency loses value
      deprecated == when an idea loses value

      --
      $ make available
    25. Re:2nd Amendment by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Geneva Convention discusses the treatment of prisoners in armed combat between uniformed foes. You must be thinking of the Hague Accords.
      No, according to this these conventions signed in Geneva deal with weapons whose sole function is to blind.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    26. Re:2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      I imagine it can also set clothes on fire, which begs the question:

      No, it does not. See petitio principii.

    27. Re:2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh...

      Interesting statement. Any rationale or reasoning behind it, or did you just throw that out there to show off your grammar prowess?

    28. Re:2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      That is a brilliant idea!

    29. Re:2nd Amendment by lowrydr310 · · Score: 1

      The other alternative, which I have done, is to build your own from individual components. I have various interchangeable diodes that fit into a flashlight enclosure with a custom machined holder/heatsink, which holds batteries and a driver circuit that's adjustable up to 500mW.

      I had my fun when I first got it, mostly using it to burn stuff and light matches, but I now keep it configured as a violet pointer with just a 405nm violet (blu-ray) diode at 5mW. Lasers are very dangerous if not handled properly, and I'd rather not be responsible for permanently damaging anyone's eyes.

      Just this past weekend some fool at a nearby campsite kept shining his green laser at my tent; I guess he forgot that the beam is visible which makes it really easy to identify the source. A quick blast with my 8W tactical flashlight in strobe mode got him to stop.

    30. Re:2nd Amendment by atomic-penguin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The moderator who modded -1 offtopic, must be new here.

      --
      /^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
    31. Re:2nd Amendment by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I stand corrected.

    32. Re:2nd Amendment by Maarx · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. This might be the only new thing I learn today.

    33. Re:2nd Amendment by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Clear and present danger was the the test SCOTUS used to determine if potentially dangerous speech was protected Schneck v. United States in 1919. In 1969 the court heard Brandenburg v. Ohio and held that speech was protected unless it "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." This is the standard that applies today.

      As for grammatical prowess... Thinboy thinks I used the wrong word - I'm trying to figure out if he's right.

    34. Re:2nd Amendment by Surt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Only if sold as a medical device. For example, if you sold a shark as a contraceptive:

      New Sexy(TM) Shark brand contraceptives uses the power of a real shark to prevent pregnancy.*

      * Use of shark for contraceptive purposes may result in successful contraception by your parents.

      Then the FDA will regulate your shark sales.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    35. Re:2nd Amendment by Surt · · Score: 1

      You are going to aim it at the speed camera from your moving vehicle at 30+ mph? Color me impressed.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    36. Re:2nd Amendment by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      It's not a laser pointer, per se. It's a hand-held Class IV laser. You can assemble similar things all on your own if you know what you're doing.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    37. Re:2nd Amendment by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "You are going to aim it at the speed camera from your moving vehicle at 30+ mph? Color me impressed."

      Well, I guess if stopped at the signal could do it then..otherwise, need to either be a passenger when doing it, or having the passenger do it.

      Hmm...if only I could get some kind of automatic tracking system, that would lock onto said stop/speed cameras and blast them at will as you drive by them?!?

      Now THAT would sell like hotcakes...I'd be one of the first people in line for one.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    38. Re:2nd Amendment by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Alright, I've been digging around. It seems that deprecate is widely used in computer science to note obsolete code, but I'm not sure that usage extends to law.

      The closest reference I can find is here Where the author complains that SCOTUS used the word deprecate where they should have said depreciate...

      So now I'm thoroughly confused.

    39. Re:2nd Amendment by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I guess it will probably come as a huge shock to you, but people shooting those cameras with rifles, filling the camera’s body with insulating foam, or dropping gasoline-drenched tires over the cameras and lighting them on fire don’t normally attempt it from a moving vehicle either...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    40. Re:2nd Amendment by ground.zero.612 · · Score: 0

      "You are going to aim it at the speed camera from your moving vehicle at 30+ mph? Color me impressed."

      Well, I guess if stopped at the signal could do it then..otherwise, need to either be a passenger when doing it, or having the passenger do it.

      Hmm...if only I could get some kind of automatic tracking system, that would lock onto said stop/speed cameras and blast them at will as you drive by them?!?

      Now THAT would sell like hotcakes...I'd be one of the first people in line for one.

      What happens when you fail and they capture a nice picture of you trying to zap their system?

      --
      "Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
    41. Re:2nd Amendment by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 4, Informative

      "More recently, "to beg the question" has been used as a synonym for "to raise the question": for example, "This year's budget deficit is half a trillion dollars. This begs the question, How are we ever going to balance the budget?"

      Using the term in this way, although common, is considered incorrect by some usage commentators. Arguments over whether this newer usage should be considered correct or incorrect are an example of debate over linguistic description and prescription of a living language."

      So I guess it really boils down to - are you an absolute stickler for old grammatical rules, or is language constantly evolving to the point where old expressions can take on new meanings?


      Irregardless of your beliefs, the phrase was used in a perfectly crommulent way.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    42. Re:2nd Amendment by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course. All real Jedi build their own lightsabers.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    43. Re:2nd Amendment by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I got a 300 mW laser a bit ago (burned out the diode when I tried it with a new power supply...oops)

      What I found interesting was, shortly after I ordered it, and was waiting for the parts to arrive, I found myself quite preoccupied with the dangerousness of it. Maybe preoccupied is the wrong word but, I found myself frequently getting mental images of myself accidentally shining it on something reflective or allowing the spot and beam to line up (hint: when you see a reflective spot on a surface and shine the beam on that spot, it reflects directly back to your eye, best to try that out with one of the really wimpy lasers that wont damage your eye faster than you can blink).

      It was almost like part of my mind was trying to mentally prepare itself for handling the dangerous item, and got me all loaded up with bad scenarios that would result in me, or someone else, blinded. It reminded me of some of the theories people have about dreams being a test bed for developing and practicing responses to danger in a safe environment.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    44. Re:2nd Amendment by rthille · · Score: 1

      And they called me crazy when I said that a tinfoil hat wasn't nearly enough!

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    45. Re:2nd Amendment by charliemopps11 · · Score: 1

      Yes it does. Unfortunately most people don't understand what the right to bare arms was intended for.

    46. Re:2nd Amendment by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

      Do not take them with you if you're going to war. Weapons which can primarily be used to blind people are against the Geneva Convention.

      It won't be my primary - It will be attached to my M60E4 so I can hit my target with 20+ armor-piercing 30-06 rounds because that's much more humane.

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    47. Re:2nd Amendment by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Wait, LASERs are regulated by the FDA??? How on earth would they fall under their jurisdiction??

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    48. Re:2nd Amendment by srussia · · Score: 1

      The real question is, does the FDA regulates the sales of freakin' sharks?

      "Freakin' sharks" are FDA. "Friggin' sharks" are ATF.

      --
      Set your phasers on "funky"!
    49. Re:2nd Amendment by AhabTheArab · · Score: 5, Funny

      So.. what happened? Does your sig offer insight into that?

    50. Re:2nd Amendment by jbezorg · · Score: 2, Funny

      What happens when you fail and they capture a nice picture of you trying to zap their system?

      Hope the Prosecutor is a nerd too.

      "Your honor, the Defendant created a tracking system and mounted it on his vehicle to aim a one watt laser at traffic....

      This is fricking awesome!... "

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    51. Re:2nd Amendment by operagost · · Score: 1

      Damn. Already used all my mod points today.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    52. Re:2nd Amendment by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Would 1 watt be enough to cut through cardboard?

    53. Re:2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit.

      Never before in history has such a dangerous weapon been available, legally and over the internet, to any schmuck with a credit card for less than a week's wages.

      In the past, those weapons were generally wielded by enemy combatants. I've seen kids with these things.

      Pull your head out of your ass.

    54. Re:2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note to mods - if the parent post is "Offtopic" - so is the grandparent post.

      This post is, without a doubt, off topic, and as such should be modded that way. While we're on the subject of incorrect linguistic usages - "offtopic" isn't correct, either; "off topic", however, is.

    55. Re:2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I can think of here is Lore shooting Dr. Crusher with the phaser near the end of that episode. She ran out with her shoulder on fire.

      This laser is kinda like that.

    56. Re:2nd Amendment by alexborges · · Score: 1

      Not new really, it was documented by Aristotle a while back.

      --
      NO SIG
    57. Re:2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      That's funny because "bear" rhymes with bare! But actually the latter is an animal, while the former means uncovered. That makes this a form of wordplay! But it's even funnier because the GP mentioned the right to "bear arms", which involves another meaning of the word "bear" -- to own. And that's a common expression. So you were both making jokes! And a joke upon a joke is usually funnier. Which is why this is funny.

    58. Re:2nd Amendment by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 1

      Does the right to bear arms cover arms which are for more awesome than ever conceived of by the writers of the constitution?

      I'd suggest you not have bare arms if this thing can set flesh on fire.

      Isn't that why the OP suggested bear arms? Presumably the fur would provide some degree of protection.

    59. Re:2nd Amendment by Rary · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Language does constantly evolve to the point where old expressions can take on new meanings. However, not every proposed evolution has value. Using "to beg the question" to mean "to raise the question" adds nothing to the language, and serves merely to muddle an existing phrase. Therefore, its incorporation into acceptable speech should be fought.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    60. Re:2nd Amendment by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 1

      The real question is, does the FDA regulates the sales of freakin' sharks?

      That would be the EPA. However the cranial mounting hardware is covered by the FDA.

    61. Re:2nd Amendment by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Actually it's even simpler than that. The grandparent's assertion requires the acceptance of the definition of "begging" as dodging or avoiding rather than the current universally accepted dictionary definition.

      If that assertion is accepted then my assertion that "letting" means hindering rather than permitting must also be accepted.

      Both rely on non-dictionary uses of a given word. Saying that something "begs the question" to mean that something "desperately asks the question" is no less grammatically correct than saying that someone "lets him get away with murder" and meaning that they permitted behavior rather than hindered it.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    62. Re:2nd Amendment by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      Yes it does. Unfortunately most people don't understand what the right to bare arms was intended for.

      ...To ensure that Congress never took away our right to wear short-sleeved shirts?

    63. Re:2nd Amendment by jbezorg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Imagine AC's shock and surprise when googling the phrase "1 short faggot" and expecting to see the volume of a bundle of sticks?

      ( Faggot ( volume ) )

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    64. Re:2nd Amendment by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          An impressed prosecutor doesn't mean you'll get away with it. You could stage the coolest bank robbery on record, but when you're caught, even if the prosecutor and judge are both avid movie fans and love bank robbery movies, you'll still go to jail for a long time. "That was the coolest thing we ever heard of! 20 years. Have a nice day."

          Destruction or defacement of government/private property will still land you in trouble, even if you made your own laser from off the shelf and hand-crafted parts. It may as well have been a BB gun you bought at Walmart, except I'd be pretty sure you'd still get some extra charges tacked on by the ATF for building a weapon.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    65. Re:2nd Amendment by ushering05401 · · Score: 1

      So we had the power to censor speeches supporting the Iraq war?

    66. Re:2nd Amendment by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      The phrase has obviously already been muddled, as 9 times out of 10 when I see this phrase being used it is in the context of "to raise the question" and not "to dodge the question". It has already been "unofficially" accepted with that meaning by the general public. So the question is how hard do you want to fight an uphill and most likely pointless battle? Hard to put the toothpaste back into the tube once it has already been squeezed out.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    67. Re:2nd Amendment by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      I think it would be more effective at blinding everyone nearby and possibly starting a fire when it hits a reflective surface.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    68. Re:2nd Amendment by ushering05401 · · Score: 1

      "Freakin' Sharks" and the FDA? I don't even want to know what was wrong with the meat.

    69. Re:2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Much like the use of "Irregardless"...

    70. Re:2nd Amendment by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      I am glad someone finally caught that.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    71. Re:2nd Amendment by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The grandparent's assertion requires the acceptance of the definition of "begging" as dodging or avoiding rather than the current universally accepted dictionary definition.

      "begging" in this context does not mean "dodging". "begging the question" means that you are being asked to accept a postulate for the sake of argument, and that postulate is equivalent to the question being debated. You are metaphorically being asked for something, which is the dictionary definition of begging.

      Anyone who says "eh, language evolves" when "begs the question" is misused should consider how they'd react when someone points to their monitor and says "computer" or points to their tower and says "CPU". If enough people use "computer" to mean "monitor", then that's what it really means right?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    72. Re:2nd Amendment by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      9 times out of 10 when the public uses the word "theory" they really mean "hypothesis". Should that stop scientists from using the word "theory" correctly? Should that stop us from educating people about the real definition of the word "theory"? Should scientists have to change their language every time the public warps it beyond recognition?

      Look at the damage the misunderstanding of the word "theory" has done in the context of the "theory of evolution". It's just a theory, right?

      Words mean whatever it's more useful for them to mean. "begs the question" is much more useful as a type of fallacy than as a synonym for "raises the question".

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    73. Re:2nd Amendment by Isaac-1 · · Score: 1

      Wow great use of adding "on the internet" to a concept (buying a weapon) that has probably been around as long as their has been money. Also do you really consider this more dangerous than any modern handgun or rifle? This is just proof that the whole concept of licensing firearms if faulty. If you want to cause injury and blindness to a random crowd of people there are easier, cheaper and lower tech methods, just get a $25 super soaker and a $5 gallon jug of 20 baume (32%) muriatic (Hydrochloric) acid at any hardware store.

    74. Re:2nd Amendment by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 0

      First your argument doesn't actually counter the actual substance of mine: That it's a fallacy to insist that a non-standard definition of a word can be used to claim that using that word in a sentence by it's standard definition is incorrect.

      Second you have effectively just "begged the question" yourself by automatically assuming that your position is correct by the bare assertion that it is correct.

      Third you've ignored my supporting point that it is just as much a fallacy to try and insist that anyone using the word "let" to mean permitting or allowing is incorrect as it is to insist that anyone using the word beg to mean... begging... in terms of desperately raising a question is similarly incorrect.

      Both require the assumption that the non-standard definition of a word is the only possible correct definition. One is an archaic definition from previous versions of a language, the other is non-standard jargon that probably isn't even the most accurate translation of the original latin (see also: split infinitives in a language where infinitives are not a single word like in latin).

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    75. Re:2nd Amendment by Mister+Kay · · Score: 0

      Gentlemen, I present to you, Sir Buzz Killington.

    76. Re:2nd Amendment by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      Sears used to sell Tommy guns for twenty bucks by mail.

    77. Re:2nd Amendment by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 1
      --
      Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    78. Re:2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Before lasers, we could still burn your eyes out from a distance

      No we couldn't, not without using things that were intended to burn your whole face off and kill you, or burn your lungs out and kill you. Going blind was just an occasional side effect in those cases where the flamethrower or the gas didn't quite manage to kill you. And every sane country (and even a few of the crazy ones) has banned the gas.

      Using this new laser as a weapon, it's *only* able to maim. And might ignite things you can get close to. The short range ignite doesn't make it much different from a match, but the long range maiming does. I'm supportive of going back into the writings of the founders for the details of their take on the 2nd amendment (which boils down to "militia means EVERYONE"), but, seriously, a little widget that can permanently blind anyone you don't like, or the pets of anyone you don't like, or random wildlife, or people flying a plane above or driving a car by, or anyone who just happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time... not cool, not a protected use of the 2nd, and the "weapon intended primarily to blind" thing is even banned by treaty.

      tl;dr - classing this as a weapon would get it banned. (Shaping it like a child's toy and then putting a "not for children" sticker on the box will probably also get it banned, heh). Using it in college lab experiments won't get it banned (they already have stuff powerful enough to hurt anyway). The first few blindings, accidental or intentional, will probably get this specific product banned.

    79. Re:2nd Amendment by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      9 times out of 10 when the public uses the word "theory" they really mean "hypothesis". Should that stop scientists from using the word "theory" correctly? Should that stop us from educating people about the real definition of the word "theory"? Should scientists have to change their language every time the public warps it beyond recognition?

      Should we require that everyone use the definition of theory that's accepted within the scientific community? Should we stifle common language and only allow experts to create definitions?

      Also, we're talking about a phrase where "beg" is substituted for "dodge" in the proper representation. I know when I "beg" for something, I'm sure as hell not trying to "avoid" it, but I actively am seeking it.

    80. Re:2nd Amendment by dfn_deux · · Score: 1

      9 times out of 10 when the public uses the word "theory" they really mean "hypothesis". Should that stop scientists from using the word "theory" correctly? Should that stop us from educating people about the real definition of the word "theory"? Should scientists have to change their language every time the public warps it beyond recognition?

      "Correct" is a matter of context. I shouldn't expect that teenagers writing sms messages are going to eschew expediency for accuracy and as such excessive use of acronyms and false contractions can be considered "correct" in the context of an SMS. However that same message when included in a homework assignment can clearly be considered incorrect given the more formal context. Understanding and adjusting your language to suit the context and intended audience is something that is taught in the first week of nearly every first semester speech, writing and critical thinking course. To disregard these principal in favor of picking arguments based on some false premise is pedantic at best...

      And before you jump in with some retort please consider for a moment the formal acceptance of the ideas I've expressed. In an America criminal court an expert recognized by the court is expected to use language that is specific to their expertise in a manner that is both consistent and correct within their claimed/recognized expertise. The same level of expectation is not levied upon an layperson when they are presented as a witness. Such that a layperson could and should be expected to say "theory" when they might actually mean "hypothesis" yet a scientist would be expected to both understand the difference and use the term which is correct within the domain of their meaning.

      --
      -*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
    81. Re:2nd Amendment by Hatta · · Score: 2, Informative

      Should we require that everyone use the definition of theory that's accepted within the scientific community?

      I don't know that we should require it, but we should certainly encourage it.

      Also, we're talking about a phrase where "beg" is substituted for "dodge" in the proper representation

      No, we're not. "begging" in this case means that you're asking to take for granted a proposition. "begging the question" means that that proposition is essentially equivalent to the question under discussion. You are literally asking the other person to give you something, their agreement. This is begging.

      Dodging the question is something else entirely.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    82. Re:2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Main Entry: irregardless
      Pronunciation: \ir-i-gärd-ls\
      Function: adverb
      Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
      Date: circa 1912

      nonstandard : regardless
      usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

    83. Re:2nd Amendment by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      Does the right to bear arms cover arms which are for more awesome than ever conceived of by the writers of the constitution?

      I'd suggest you not have bare arms if this thing can set flesh on fire.

      But what about bear arms? I would think that being all fuzzy, bear arms are in even more danger of bursting into flame...

      Seriously, the framers of the Constitution of The United States of America had just finished a bloody and desperate war against their former lawful government, The British Empire. They did so with the most cutting edge technology of the time, the rifled gun bore. The range and accuracy of a rifle compared to the standard issue musket is just sick and was considered "unfair" by old line solders. Now days the average citizen has no need for weapons that match or exceed the technology of their lawful government. I know this because there are laws in place against all but the most basic of weapons, and my law makers would not lie to me, right? As far as a laser goes, my state already has a law about aiming them at a cop and I'm sure that some unfortunate occurrence will get the new lasers banned or at least regulated... so get yours now!

      I'm still a bit worried about the bears though...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    84. Re:2nd Amendment by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      Should you let them set your skin on fire, or let them set the clothes just on top of your skin on fire?

      Would you rather put out a fire on your arm or your sleeve?

      I'm excited because my line of foil clothing is about to take off... so far all that's been selling is a few hats...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    85. Re:2nd Amendment by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First your argument doesn't actually counter the actual substance of mine: That it's a fallacy to insist that a non-standard definition of a word can be used to claim that using that word in a sentence by it's standard definition is incorrect.

      I don't dispute your argument, it's irrelevant. When we use "begging the question" we mean begging in the actual standard dictionary definition sense.

      Second you have effectively just "begged the question" yourself by automatically assuming that your position is correct by the bare assertion that it is correct.

      I have etymology on my side.

      Third you've ignored my supporting point that it is just as much a fallacy to try and insist that anyone using the word "let" to mean permitting or allowing is incorrect as it is to insist that anyone using the word beg to mean... begging... in terms of desperately raising a question is similarly incorrect.

      I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are arguing here. I suspect it's related to the above irrelevant point.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    86. Re:2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct sir!

    87. Re:2nd Amendment by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Understanding and adjusting your language to suit the context and intended audience is something that is taught in the first week of nearly every first semester speech, writing and critical thinking course.

      This is a good point. You do have to target the language to your audience. I just expect that the /. audience is educated enough, or at least interested enough, about things like logic that they would care about using correct terms.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    88. Re:2nd Amendment by sv_libertarian · · Score: 1

      LOL One thing that the SCOTUS used in making the Heller decision was arms that are in common use. If lasers started being commonly used, one could argue in favor of protecting the right to use them. Of course, one could also argue that the right to access personal defense weapons should not be limited to current conventional norms.

    89. Re:2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new here.

    90. Re:2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are literally asking the other person to give you something, their agreement.

      Wouldn't that be 'begging the agreement'?

    91. Re:2nd Amendment by Montezumaa · · Score: 1

      Yes, it does. This is why I am able to rock it down my street in my M1 Abrams tank, fully loaded, with my Predator B watching my back, in the sky. When I get bored of driving, I just walk down the street with my M4A1 with a M203 launcher, an ACOG sight, and front grip, along with my Sig Sauer P229(.40 caliber, of course), and a few other various small arms.

      When all else fails, I will just whip out my new "light saber" and blind you while I set you on fire.

      It's time to MELT FACES!!!!111 rawr!

      In all seriousness though, kids these days have it so nice. When I was a kid, all we had to cause serious injury and/or burns were wood-burning kits and lawn darts. Kids now have all sorts of awesome shit to end up in the hospital, the morgue, and/or a chance at a Darwin Award.

    92. Re:2nd Amendment by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      Spot on! Hilarious!

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    93. Re:2nd Amendment by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      No we couldn't, not without using things that were intended to burn your whole face off and kill you, or burn your lungs out and kill you.

      Sure we could. Even if you were right (you're not -- there have been many weapons, from slingshots on up, that were accurate enough to put out your eye, flaming or not), still, that means things are *better*, not worse. As in, I'd rather be blind, than be blind *and* have had my face burned off.

      Using this new laser as a weapon, it's *only* able to maim.

      So? You'd be ok with it if it killed? I'm not following you.

      but, seriously, a little widget that can permanently blind anyone you don't like, or the pets of anyone you don't like, or random wildlife, or people flying a plane above or driving a car by, or anyone who just happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time...

      A BB gun can do most of that. So can a 22 short round. Or long, in the case of a flying target, need some velocity there. A 22 long could do all of it. From quite a distance, too.

      not cool, not a protected use of the 2nd, and the "weapon intended primarily to blind" thing is even banned by treaty.

      This can burn the skin, and consequently annoy the hell out of people. That's a perfectly valid use of a weapon. Doesn't have to be used to blind. Burn their hands enough, it'll be hard for *them* to use a weapon. Burn their skin every time they pop their head up, they won't be so willing to pop their head up. You're just not a tactical thinker, that's all. Of course, that whole "weapons that blind are bad..." that's just dimwitted anyway. What if I shoot you though your eye socket at an angle, tear the side of your face off and splatter your eye all over the place with a high velocity round? What if I do it to both sides of your face? You think that's *better*??? Good grief, man, use your head.

      classing this as a weapon would get it banned. (Shaping it like a child's toy and then putting a "not for children" sticker on the box will probably also get it banned, heh). Using it in college lab experiments won't get it banned (they already have stuff powerful enough to hurt anyway). The first few blindings, accidental or intentional, will probably get this specific product banned.

      Oh, no doubt it'll be the subject of legislation at the nanny/moron houses of congress. Heck, I can't buy *cough syrup* more than one bottle at a time, even though one bottle won't last me through a cold. I can't buy chemical glassware. We live in an age of poorly educated people (and by extension, legislators) who can't do critical thinking worth a damn, don't understand freedom (or honor), and shuffle about employing tons of prejudices and classism at the same time they cry for "equality under the law."

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    94. Re:2nd Amendment by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 0

      So in other words not only are you right because you say so, but there can't even be any argument... also because you say so?

      For someone so obsessed with a logical fallacy you seem to have difficulty in not using them yourself.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    95. Re:2nd Amendment by Laser+Dan · · Score: 1


      Does the right to bear arms cover arms which are for more awesome than ever conceived of by the writers of the constitution?

      The 2nd amendment covers arms. If you use, or intend to use, this as a weapon, it's arms. So yes, it's covered.

      If you intend to define this as a weapon, I believe blinding weapons are banned by the Geneva convention.
      There are also laws restricting the operation of high power lasers in public places.
      So either way, it is a bad idea to get one of these for anything except playing around at home in an enclosed area while wearing eye protection.

    96. Re:2nd Amendment by kmoser · · Score: 1

      I could care less.

    97. Re:2nd Amendment by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      As I said in the original post:

      "(burned out the diode when I tried it with a new power supply...oops)"

      Aside from that, it was pretty damned bright. I could focus it and burn pin holes in paper, but, not where the paper was white.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    98. Re:2nd Amendment by achbed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah Slashdot. Where a discussion of a portable laser being used as a weapon can devolve into a grammar and logical fallacy flamewar in 4 posts or less.

    99. Re:2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiwOPc1x7UQ

    100. Re:2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Use regardless instead." (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless)

      And it's "cromulent", not "crommulent". Learn your Simpsons vocabulary.

    101. Re:2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was one of the most rewarding links I have ever followed from Slashdot. While reviewing a book [3rd ed.] by Bryan Garner, David Foster Wallace explains that ultimately the only reason that anyone should use "begging the question" to refer exclusively to the petitio principii fallacy is that otherwise hordes of Privileged White Men (and other initiates of Standard Written English) will be struck by the jarring violation of the rules of SWE and automatically discount the credibility of the writer and the "Ethical" force of the argument.

      Thus, one can confidently use "begging" for "raising" so long as being thereby excluded from the SWE "Discourse Community" will not impair the force of one's argument or undermine one's intent. I contend that--at least on Slashdot--such exclusion is in fact quite detrimental to successful communication, and cite in support the (typical) tens of outraged grammar/syntax comments in this thread.

    102. Re:2nd Amendment by localtoast · · Score: 1

      How do you know Ben Franklin didn't dream about sharks with frickin' lasers?

    103. Re:2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just sick of that boring reference

    104. Re:2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hint: when you see a reflective spot on a surface and shine the beam on that spot, it reflects directly back to your eye

      That's not correct. When you see a 'shiny' reflection, that means that the surface is angled such that light from the EXISTING light source is reflected into your eye. If you see the sun reflecting off of a spot, a laser would have to come from the sun's direction to reflect into your eye; a laser coming from YOUR direction would instead reflect toward the light source, in this case the sun.

    105. Re:2nd Amendment by Zixia · · Score: 1

      Irregardless of your beliefs,

      Uh-huh.

      the phrase was used in a perfectly crommulent way.

      Not really. 'Begging the question': we have answers on Language Log.

    106. Re:2nd Amendment by savethelecture · · Score: 1

      This is why in certain parts of the world the greatest weapon of all, THE BRAIN has been discouraged. Actually, THIS kind of disarmament has worked out pretty well.

      --
      -Neurosis should be taken out in sex instead of politics and IT.
    107. Re:2nd Amendment by ConfusedVorlon · · Score: 1

      legal until some terrorist group realises that they can cause mass blindings in public places with little chance of getting caught.

      -or cause freeway pileups
      -or blind train drivers
      -or politicians as they speak
      -or nascar racers

      tell me again why these are available to the public?

    108. Re:2nd Amendment by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Yes yes, I assumed that part was obvious. Though, unless you exist within a point, thats not correct either. A beam from your eye to a spot caused by another light source would direct the beam back to that source. However, my hand and eye tend to not be in the same point in space.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    109. Re:2nd Amendment by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Funny

      devolve into a grammar and logical fallacy flamewar in 4 posts or less

      Fewer. 4 posts or fewer...

    110. Re:2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Irregardless of your beliefs, the phrase was used in a perfectly crommulent way.

      It's spelt "cromulent", dumbass.

    111. Re:2nd Amendment by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      When bared bear arms are laid bare by scorching the hair off the beary hairy arms, have said arms been borne, bared, or laid bare?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    112. Re:2nd Amendment by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      " Destruction or defacement of government/private property will still land you in trouble, even if you made your own laser from off the shelf and hand-crafted parts. It may as well have been a BB gun you bought at Walmart, except I'd be pretty sure you'd still get some extra charges tacked on by the ATF for building a weapon."

      Maybe not...say if you used a lower powered laser, that just 'blinded' the cameras when you were present, but with no permanent damage?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    113. Re:2nd Amendment by Hatta · · Score: 1

      No, I'm right because historically this is how the term has been used. If you want to be right, you'll have to come up with a better argument than "uh, that's old and no one cares about it anymore".

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    114. Re:2nd Amendment by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 1

      or is language constantly evolving to the point where old expressions can take on new meanings?

      People are generally lazy thinkers and even lazier speakers. What you are describing is not evolution but devolution because lazy, stupid people would rather get their self-important ideas out of their mouth quickly at the cost of linguistic descriptiveness. In essence, they wish to give up some of the language breadth for a little gain in speaking speed, and a little less mental processing power.

      So I guess it boils down to--are you on the side of civilization, of intelligence, or are you a fucking gorilla that would rather all communication were settled with grunts?

    115. Re:2nd Amendment by Leebert · · Score: 1

      Where a discussion of a portable laser being used as a weapon can devolve into a grammar and logical fallacy flamewar in 4 posts or less.

      Four posts or fewer, you nincompoop! :)

    116. Re:2nd Amendment by jbezorg · · Score: 1

      An impressed prosecutor doesn't mean you'll get away with it.

      You are stating the obvious. What was apparently not obvious was that my comment was completely tongue-in-cheek.

      No worries.

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    117. Re:2nd Amendment by fprintf · · Score: 1

      I am a huge gun fan but not much of a historian. But one thing I did learn (at an Appleseed marksmanship event) is that rifled guns were very rarely used during the Revolutionary War, playing a very minor support role due to their incredibly long reloading time. If you read your history you will find the technological advancement that allowed fast enough reloading for effective military use of rifling was the Minie Ball.

      The technology of the day, 1775, was smooth bore muskets and they were quite inaccurate. What won the day was France bankrupting themselves in support of the colonists war against the English. Without French support we would have been a British colony for much longer. As an Englishman myself I often joke about cheese eating surrender monkeys, but I know for a fact that without French military support in the 18th century, my new home country, and perhaps the world, would be a very different place.

      --
      This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    118. Re:2nd Amendment by Magada · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot, sir, sorry to point that out. It is perfectly possible for anyone to buy a crossbow, on the Internet, for $200 or whereabouts. It makes no sound, it is quite unobtrusive and the bolts have enough energy in them for at least one good ricochet. I'll take being a bit burned over being pierced with a crossbow bolt any time thank you very much indeed. Blindness sure beats having a 3-inch serrated bolt tip stuck in your frontal lobe or thereabouts.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    119. Re:2nd Amendment by jbezorg · · Score: 1

      Then I have a question to ask you.

      Do you accept the Merriam-Webster & Oxford English Dictionaries definition of the verb "google" as meaning "to use the Google search engine to obtain information"?

      Did you use that meaning prior to 2006? Because if so, that meaning was not added to Merriam-Webster & Oxford English Dictionaries until that year.

      That "official" change in definition was in reaction to the meaning of the word changing in society. Not the other way around. Now someone may argue the point that the meaning of the verb "google" was clear, but not to someone who plays the game of cricket where it means "to bowl a googly".

      To accept the change in the meaning of the verb "google", you have to accept the eventual change in the meaning of "begs the question" because preexisting definitions of words and phrases mean nothing when restricted to a small segment of society.

      Or you could spend millions of dollars in ad campaigns to educate a larger portion of society in the proper meaning of the phrase "begs the question".

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    120. Re:2nd Amendment by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      I will go with - I am a civilized fucking gorilla communicating with intelligent grunts.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    121. Re:2nd Amendment by jbezorg · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but Antipon kept modding his posts as "Troll"

      --
      I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
    122. Re:2nd Amendment by aminorex · · Score: 1

      I suggest building a well in Mali is a more suitable use of your energies.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    123. Re:2nd Amendment by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Second you have effectively just "begged the question" yourself by automatically assuming that your position is correct by the bare assertion that it is correct.

      Ah ha! So what you are saying is...

      Anyone who says "eh, language evolves" when "begs the question" is misused should consider how they'd react when someone points to their monitor and says "computer" or points to their tower and says "CPU" ... which begs the question: If enough people use "computer" to mean "monitor", is that what it really means?

      I can foresee a possible new Slashdot trolling technique... presenting a statement which begs the question, explicitly then stating that it does beg the question, then stating the question which the statement had begged. Then, sit back and wait for the over-zealous grammar Nazis to strike!

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    124. Re:2nd Amendment by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      Mod Parent Up Plz!

      i should have an alt so i'm more likely to have karma to give in situations like this.

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    125. Re:2nd Amendment by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      Well, it's true I could have phrased that better. I do agree they were not used in large volume. But where they were used, it was to strategic advantage. Line Officers and critical support functions were decimated or worse. Forming ranks and firing muskets had little effect on the men hiding far out of range, killing at will. Yes, they were slower to load and took more maintenance. An attack helicopter takes more maintenance than a basic artillery piece, but the total overall benefit is obvious.

      My main point was that the men drafting our core laws knew that the people were entitled to modern weapons and that the civilian long guns (rifles) used in the war far surpassed the technology of the newly minted army. The framers did not assure the right to bear old, ineffective arms... just the right to bear arms as defined by the usage of arms in context of the current state of the art.

      Oh, the Minié ball, also French. What happened to those guys, they used to have so many great inventors and scientists. Did they behead their gene pool?

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    126. Re:2nd Amendment by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Wow, a grammatical error in a sentence that starts off with a non-word in a discussion about incorrect grammar. I am sure there is no way that could have been intentional. I am also sure there is no way I am being sarcastic right now.

      WHOOSH!

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    127. Re:2nd Amendment by alexborges · · Score: 1

      I stand before your comment in awe.

      --
      NO SIG
    128. Re:2nd Amendment by sjames · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that be ye olde grammatical rules?

    129. Re:2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like your argument - "that's the way it has always been done and I fear any change". If the world was full of people like you we would all still be living in caves and thinking the world was flat.

    130. Re:2nd Amendment by Hazelfield · · Score: 1

      You know who else couldn't tolerate poor grammar? Adolf Hitler. In Nazi Germany, people were brainwashed with nationalistic propaganda from an early age. The schools teached the importance of learning absolutely correct language, the true and pure German tounge.

      Every time you're picking on someone's grammar, you're promoting nazism.

    131. Re:2nd Amendment by Ibiwan · · Score: 1

      Irregardless of your beliefs, the phrase was used in a perfectly crommulent way.

      ...you mispelled "cromulent"

      --
      -- //no comment
    132. Re:2nd Amendment by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1
      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    133. Re:2nd Amendment by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          I know. Some of my replies are for the larger audience who may not understand that I'm replying to a humor. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    134. Re:2nd Amendment by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      And historically "let" has been used to mean hindering, and is still used that way in a specific subset of academia.

      You're trying to argue that it's "wrong" in some way to use the phrase "begs the question" to mean what it says on it's face just because it's also the nickname for something else based on an approximate latin translation. That doesn't work, if that logic held true then it would be virtually impossible to say ANYTHING because, as with my example based on the word "let", just about everything has meant something else at some point to at least some group or another.

      And if YOU want to be right you need to actually present an argument to begin with instead of just saying "Well I'm right because I say I'm right, and therefore nobody else's arguments are relevant because I can't be wrong". That's not only a logical fallacy, it's also arrogance bordering on being a living example of the downsides of solipsism.

      So again I say: For someone who seems so obsessed with this particular logical fallacy's name I would expect you to be able to actually make an argument rather than apparently going down wikipedia's list of fallacies and trying out anything that sounds like it might work.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
  2. Set up instructions by halcyon1234 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The thing that caught my eye was

    The label that read "do not look at laser with remaining eye"?

    1. Re:Set up instructions by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 1

      A common joke among laser enthusiasts. BTW, I want two of those. Plus the driver required.

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    2. Re:Set up instructions by mikael_j · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not that hard to find, here in Sweden it's next to the label that points out that using high-powered lasers in public without a permit is illegal. Not that teenagers care, apparently there are lots of them who have figured out that lasers are a lot better weapons than knives when you want to hurt some other kid or just slow down the cops (by causing permanent eye damage) after you did something stupid...

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    3. Re:Set up instructions by harrkev · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I absolutely do NOT want one of those things. Call me old-fashioned, but I like stereoscopic vision. I would really rather have both of my eyes working just fine, thank you.

      The good thing about guns is that they do not constantly spew out a continuous stream of dangerous projectiles for minutes at a time. Even a full-auto machine gun will run out of bullets after a dozen seconds or so. A laser can emit dangerous projectiles for minutes as a time, and the projectiles can bounce off any reflective surface. This thing is very likely to blind somebody unless rigorous safety procedures are used.

      Anybody who buys one of these without the appropriate safety glasses is a complete idiot and deserves what they get. I just hope they do not blind anybody else in the process.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    4. Re:Set up instructions by skids · · Score: 1

      Yeah it's down there at the very bottom of my list along with "a pair of 4-inch-cube rare earth magnets". More trouble to worry about safety than fun to use.

    5. Re:Set up instructions by DarkSabreLord · · Score: 1

      If you visit the website in question, you'll find that these laser pointers DO in fact come with the appropriate safety glasses to protect your vision. That being said, they won't protect anyone else's in the area...

    6. Re:Set up instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anybody who buys one of these without the appropriate safety glasses is a complete idiot and deserves what they get. I just hope they do not blind anybody else in the process.

      "Gets what they deserve" is always a slippery slope. One could also say that "anyone standing next to an idiot with a powerful laser gets what they deserve!" too, thus negating the second part of your statement.

      Personally, I find it best to refrain from being he "what they deserve" judge.

    7. Re:Set up instructions by mikiN · · Score: 1

      Queue newsflash of skyrocketing sales of protective eyewear disguised as fashionable sunglasses accompanied by similarly impressive sales of fireproof full-body garments...

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
    8. Re:Set up instructions by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      I would have said:

      The thing that caught my eye was...

      FIRE!

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    9. Re:Set up instructions by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Which is actually why a pair of the appropriate safety goggles is included in the price of the laser.

    10. Re:Set up instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> The thing that caught my eye was the price: $200

      Do not look at price with remaining eye.

    11. Re:Set up instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I absolutely do NOT want one of those things. Call me old-fashioned, but I like stereoscopic vision. I would really rather have both of my eyes working just fine, thank you.

      The good thing about guns is that they do not constantly spew out a continuous stream of dangerous projectiles for minutes at a time. Even a full-auto machine gun will run out of bullets after a dozen seconds or so. A laser can emit dangerous projectiles for minutes as a time, and the projectiles can bounce off any reflective surface. This thing is very likely to blind somebody unless rigorous safety procedures are used.

      Anybody who buys one of these without the appropriate safety glasses is a complete idiot and deserves what they get. I just hope they do not blind anybody else in the process.

      Dude, it's called an off button, and it's there for a reason.

    12. Re:Set up instructions by irving47 · · Score: 1

      I agree with most of what you've said. To be fair, though, the price, amazingly, includes safety goggles.

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    13. Re:Set up instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few years back I bought green a 100mW laser, from Wicked Lasers. One night, while I was home for some holiday I was showing it off to a few of my younger brother's friends. After lighting a few matches and cutting up a trash bag, I put it back away, and we went back outside for some beers. A few days latter I got home from my trip and can't find the laser or its case.

      Turns out that my brother's shit-head friend had stolen it. That wasn't the really upsetting part. What he had stolen it for was to show it off at one of those multi-day drug-fueled outdoor concerts. Who knows how many people's artificially dilated pupils he fucked up.

    14. Re:Set up instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of safety glasses allow you to see while blocking out sudden bursts of light?

      The only fool proof method I can think of is sealing off all light to your eyes, except for an LCD connected to a digital camera. That way the laser can damage the camera but not your eyes.

    15. Re:Set up instructions by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      ... or a momentary contact switch. It would be a less than good idea to give it a switch that could be left in the "on" position.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    16. Re:Set up instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anybody who buys one of these without the appropriate safety glasses is a complete idiot and deserves what they get.

      Funny you should say that. The checkout screen gives you two options: to buy the the laser with safety glasses, or to buy it with two pairs of safety glasses.

    17. Re:Set up instructions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, how about: Do not point out retroreflective devices

  3. OMG Lazers by negRo_slim · · Score: 3, Informative

    You can get a lasers and related materials off of ebay, United Nuclear and Sparkfun at much better values.

    --
    On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    1. Re:OMG Lazers by EdZ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Even buying the raw laser diode and making the driver (and heatsink) yourself, you'd be hard pressed to get 1-watt output for under $200.

    2. Re:OMG Lazers by EdZ · · Score: 1

      1-watt blue, I mean. IR laser diodes are much, much cheaper.

    3. Re:OMG Lazers by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      You're going to have to be more specific for the dummies like me. Take the United Nuclear link that has a laser but it's $30 for 30mW. The one this article is about is 1000mW. So on a per-watt basis it's 1/5th the price, which seems the better value really if what you care about is the setting things on fire part.

    4. Re:OMG Lazers by negRo_slim · · Score: 2, Informative

      Although by value I was not necessarily referring to dollars here is a 1 watt diode currently listed at $43 bucks for a lot of 5.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    5. Re:OMG Lazers by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Aren't these high powered lasers illegal in the US? I thought the maximum power laser you could buy in the US was 5mW.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:OMG Lazers by negRo_slim · · Score: 1

      You're going to have to be more specific for the dummies like me. Take the United Nuclear link that has a laser but it's $30 for 30mW. The one this article is about is 1000mW. So on a per-watt basis it's 1/5th the price, which seems the better value really if what you care about is the setting things on fire part.

      First of all if your interested in playing with more powerful lasers it's important you understand safety and basic laser theory.

      There are plenty of resources out there.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    7. Re:OMG Lazers by Unequivocal · · Score: 1

      They can't be illegal b/c they have (and are used in) valid industrial processes. They may be restricted, and I'm sure there are regulations that limit how they are sold (for example, an earlier poster cited a rule that prevents high mW lasers from being sold as "laser pointers").

    8. Re:OMG Lazers by Zerth · · Score: 1

      Only if you sell them as a "laser pointer", a device presumed to be eye-safe.

      I've got a 40-watt CO2 laser handy that would not only set your skin on fire, it'd tattoo your bones. No licensing needed, but I'm not likely to hurt anyone with it because I'd have to lug it and a generator around on a cart.

    9. Re:OMG Lazers by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Which has exactly what to do with one source being cheaper than another?

    10. Re:OMG Lazers by makomk · · Score: 1

      Those are red or infrared laser diodes - they're much cheaper and easier to obtain than blue ones.

    11. Re:OMG Lazers by Facegarden · · Score: 1

      1-watt blue, I mean. IR laser diodes are much, much cheaper.

      And require a DPSS setup to make visible light, which is more complicated. They're also more dangerous, because they can leak invisible light that can blind you without warning.

      This is a true blue laser, not an IR laser pumped down, so its much simpler. That explains the cost.

      Plus, they're selling it with a nice housing, batteries, a warranty, etc.

      Its a killer deal.

      I'm just worried some stupid kid is going to blind 15 people in some restaurant by trying to show his friends how he can pop the kids balloons stuck in the ceiling and accidentally reflecting it off of something.

      This laser will blind a person in a MILLISECOND.
      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    12. Re:OMG Lazers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SOLD!!!

    13. Re:OMG Lazers by jythie · · Score: 1

      The only regulations in the US cover how you market the device and what saftey features it must have if installed in the workplace. In the past, the manufacturers of high powered lasers generally would not sell to average people, but that was voluntary regulation.

  4. Homemade Alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw this on another tech site, the url of which escapes me, and I recall hearing laser enthusiasts mentioning that this company has a reputation for not always exceeding homebuilt lasers - certainly on the pricing angle. Can someone comment on how feasible it would be to make one of these for less than the $200 they ask?

    1. Re:Homemade Alternative by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 2, Informative

      Can someone comment on how feasible it would be to make one of these for less than the $200 they ask?

      Source the parts better. It sounds like they have pulled this diode from a display projector, I'm sure that you might be able to buy a broken projector for a few dollars and pull the part yourself.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  5. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Local pet stores sell sharks in record numbers.

    1. Re:In other news by Montezumaa · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but the store was out of sharks. We do have some very ill-tempered, mutilated Sea Bass. I will give you a discount for purchasing over 20.

  6. 1 watt isn't enough to set skin on fire by smellsofbikes · · Score: 5, Informative
    Unless you hold it there for a *long* time. I've been hit by a 40 watt (CO2) laser and it left me with a burn that was like a bad sunburn. I have a 400mW (red) laser that I've been using to shoot down wasps in my workshop (it's a tall building and I can't get anything up to where they want to build a nest -- but let me warn you that a flaming wasp is a fire hazard) and it takes several seconds of exposure before the wasp dies.

    With that said, I might be trying to get one of these because you can do some pretty cool stuff if you mount a laser this powerful in a plotter. It gets even better if you gut the plotter and add a Z axis so you can melt the top layer of material selectively, then lower the z stage, add a bit more material, and again melt it selectively: a relatively inexpensive, relatively high-precision 3d printer.

    --
    Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    1. Re:1 watt isn't enough to set skin on fire by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 1

      I like how you think, however the lack of depth control on a laser would be problematic. Personally, I would much rather do that sort of work with a CNC Router. Obviously it does have limitations - materials, item design features, etc - but it is a mature, well proven platform.

      --
      I call it 'The Aristocrats'
    2. Re:1 watt isn't enough to set skin on fire by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      WTF? 40 watt CO2 laser will instantly make a hole in you.

      Unless it was VERY unfocused.

    3. Re:1 watt isn't enough to set skin on fire by samkass · · Score: 1

      Does it make a difference that it's 1W of blue light as opposed to red light? I'm not exactly sure how laser power is measured... I assume 1W of blue would require fewer but more energetic photons than 1W of red.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    4. Re:1 watt isn't enough to set skin on fire by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Could it be used in projects such as RepRap?

    5. Re:1 watt isn't enough to set skin on fire by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      I have a 400mW (red) laser that I've been using to shoot down wasps in my workshop (it's a tall building and I can't get anything up to where they want to build a nest -- but let me warn you that a flaming wasp is a fire hazard) and it takes several seconds of exposure before the wasp dies.

                Same with WD-40 and a lighter.

    6. Re:1 watt isn't enough to set skin on fire by vlm · · Score: 1

      With that said, I might be trying to get one of these because you can do some pretty cool stuff if you mount a laser this powerful in a plotter.

      Yes, I already have a nice numerically controlled milling machine. I can rig up a light tight CNC cabinet without much effort. I already have the software for CNC engraving using an itty bitty endmill or a carbide burr. Bolt one of these lasers on the side of the milling machine headstock, plug it in place of the headstock motor control outlet, and I've got an instant laser engraver for about $200.

      Note that I already own the CNC mill, steppers, stepper drivers, power supply, and semi-dedicated PC. That would cost at least $1K to replicate. Still, starting from scratch a laser engraver now would seem possible around $1500, used to sell for ten times that a couple years ago.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    7. Re:1 watt isn't enough to set skin on fire by unkiereamus · · Score: 1

      Except for how it wouldn't.

      I used to work in a CNC shop that ran CO2 lasers to do 2 dimensional cutting of sheet metal. We had two machines, one was about 2kW, the other was 3.6kW. One of my co-workers (and friend [and dumbass]), accidentally put his thumb a couple of inches under the focal point while the beam was running, and it cooked the flesh, but there was no hole. (I can't remember off hand which of the machines it was, I'm tempted to say it was the 3.6kW, but I could be wrong.)

      --
      I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.
    8. Re:1 watt isn't enough to set skin on fire by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      That is an example of a very unfocused laser :)

    9. Re:1 watt isn't enough to set skin on fire by gclef · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What he's thinking of is a variant of Selective laser sintering. If you can turn the laser on and off rapidly (or redirect the beam somewhere harmless rapidly), you can selectively melt/fuse materials to 3-d print some really fascinating things.

      I'm not aware of any open source (a-la RepRap or the like) SLS systems, but I'd be happy to have the slashdot crowd prove me wrong on that point.

    10. Re:1 watt isn't enough to set skin on fire by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      A cnc router is subtractive. What I'm talking about is additive machining, which is useful if you want to build parts that have stuff inside them. Consider this object made out of sugar by a similar process -- while it may be possible to mill that out of aluminum on a good 5 axis mill, it's certainly not something you can do with a CNC router. I've built CNC milling equipment and it's awesome stuff, but additive fabrication gives you wholly different capabilities.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    11. Re:1 watt isn't enough to set skin on fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Duh, blue is Jedi, red is Sith. Turn in your geek card.

    12. Re:1 watt isn't enough to set skin on fire by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It wasn't particularly well-focussed: I wasn't right at the focal point. But I've yet to see an inexpensive diode laser sold with quality fast/slow axis collimation optics, and as a result their focus is lousy, too, so I'm guessing while you'd get burnt by this thing, it's not like there would be flames.

      My creepiest exposure ever was working on an excimer laser that was running in the kilowatt range, where I found out that skin fluoresces and phosphoresces if you hit it with enough UV photons. That burn sucked, too, but at least I didn't get one in the eye like a coworker did.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    13. Re:1 watt isn't enough to set skin on fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "I have a 400mW (red) laser that I've been using to shoot down wasps in my workshop"

      Please please please post a video of this somewhere. I'd 3 to see this.

    14. Re:1 watt isn't enough to set skin on fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the wavelength of the light has something to do with that, though. Blue laser probably burns you much better than lower wavelengths, right?

    15. Re:1 watt isn't enough to set skin on fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In our lab we've been testing a laser with 30W 532nm green and 10W 1064nm IR components. It will instantly set paper, credit cards, clothes, and many other objects on fire, not to mention give you a burn faster than you can take your hand away. If all you got was a minor burn, the laser that hit you was no where near 40W of IR (which is the dominant wavelength of CO2 lasers) and was probably closer to 5W.

    16. Re:1 watt isn't enough to set skin on fire by LatencyKills · · Score: 1
      Depends on how the beam is delivered (CW or pulsed), the wavelength (some are absorbed quite strongly in the skin, others not so much), the power density at point of impact. A 40W CO2 laser in long pulse mode might well not burn you - the peak energies are too low and the wavelength is off. In grad school I leaned and arm into a 5W Argon ion laser running CW at 514nm that left a blister on my arm 2mm wide and 10 inches long faster than I could say ouch. I also knew a girl working on a 2W short pulse YAG at 1064 that blew two 0.02mm holes in the center of her retina in one pulse per hole (left blank spots in the center of her visual field). Visible lasers are bad in general, both from a skin damage and an eye damage perspective, and given how many people wave laser pointers around carelessly, I'm less than thrilled at the prospect of this laser getting out cheaply into the public.

      BTW, that 400mW red laser is a pretty unique animal - I've only seen one HeNe (I'm assuming it's a HeNe - a ruby laser would be too big and complicated to move) over 10mW in 25 years in laser work. It was a 600mW large frame unit used in holography and was over four feet long and weighed about 75 pounds. Surely there's an easier way to deal with wasps?

      --
      Jealously hoarding mod points since 2007.
  7. I need one for my car by bonkeydcow · · Score: 1

    Cut me off and burst into flames!

  8. superhero by kai_hiwatari · · Score: 1

    one step closer to my dream of becoming a superhero.

  9. powerful laser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would like a laser that can disable a street light from a hundred feet away. Our city decided to place a street light in our back laneway and it shines in the bedroom window. I prefer darkness. They won't move it... what kind of laser would I need to deal with this?

    1. Re:powerful laser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A laser pointer for presentations will do the job, if you can hit it right on the light sensor.

    2. Re:powerful laser by Jeng · · Score: 1

      You need black out curtains.

      I doubt you can burn out a streetlight with one of these lasers, maybe if the bulb was exposed but its not.

      Either that or a sling shot or above if you don't mind them knowing it was purposely destroyed. And that would only be temporary until it gets replaced and then you'll have to shoot it again, etc etc.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    3. Re:powerful laser by tthomas48 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      An interior designer, Realtor or a politician is the correct tool for the job.

    4. Re:powerful laser by Zediker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      what kind of laser would I need to deal with this?

      You would need the Remington 870 Pump-Action

      --
      I love to slaughter the english language.
    5. Re:powerful laser by datapharmer · · Score: 1

      why don't you request they add a shield on it? That's what they do around here. It blocks 180 degrees and still allows the light to go down where it is needed without lighting up your room. The laser isn't going to do you much good, as the sensors are often on top of the lights.

      --
      Get a web developer
    6. Re:powerful laser by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      Well done, you beat me to this answer.

    7. Re:powerful laser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in the days before the world was Nerfed, any kid could tell you a Daisy was the correct tool for your dilemma.

      (Oblig: You'll shoot your eye out!)

    8. Re:powerful laser by Zerth · · Score: 1

      Have you considered a paint-ball gun?

    9. Re:powerful laser by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I doubt you can burn out a streetlight with one of these lasers, maybe if the bulb was exposed but its not.

      Have you ever noticed that glass blocks very little blue light? Your objection would only apply if we were talking about a UV laser.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:powerful laser by mustafap · · Score: 1

      >what kind of laser would I need to deal with this?

      A 12bore shotgun type laser will work just fine

      --
      Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
    11. Re:powerful laser by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Yes, glass may not block much blue, but the bulb is behind a diffuser to help spread the light.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    12. Re:powerful laser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the OP was referring to was the technique (however trivial) of turning off street lights by saturating the daylight sensor on top of the lamp with a laser beam. The light will stay off for a few minutes as the lamp cools down and restarts, but it certainly is not a long term solution unless you are prepared to keep the laser shining on the sensor all night long.

    13. Re:powerful laser by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Wrong approach. Get a big crescent wrench, remove the access plate at the bottom of the light pole, and cut the wires. Then superglue the bolts back in.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    14. Re:powerful laser by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I once 'knew a guy' when I was younger who did this exact thing. Heres how it went down.

      Said 'guy' had a newtonian telescope on a very professional mount. Now usually, the purpose of the telescope is to take in light at the large opening and focus it into a small diameter at the eyepiece. However, the reverse also seems to work.

      By sighting up the telescope first to the light sensor at the top of the assembly, one would then take out the eyepiece and replace it with a light source, preferably halogen. You could easily leave this on all night, to keep the light off, and turn it off in the day. At 1/4 mile, the beam is about 10ft across, and will still work to turn off the sensor, depending on the wattage of the source light.

      But, thats just what I heard, as interfering with municipal/business fixtures you do not own is usually frowned upon by the police. It also becomes rather obvious who is doing it when there is a bright light coming from the line of sight from your house.

    15. Re:powerful laser by cusco · · Score: 1

      A spray can full of black matte paint on the plastic weather shield works pretty well. Put it on the outside and inside both, preferably a couple of layers. Don't bother to put it on the bulb, it will just burn off. If you can't reach it from a ladder you should be able to jerry-rig a long pole and trigger mechanism to do it. Just don't be looking up still when the overspray reaches ground, spray paint in the eyes burns.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    16. Re:powerful laser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blowing it up with a laser is way more fun... I don't want to just trick the sensor I want to utterly destroy the bulb.

    17. Re:powerful laser by JustNilt · · Score: 1

      what kind of laser would I need to deal with this?

      You would need the Remington 870 Pump-Action

      Or a frickin' rock.

      --
      You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.
    18. Re:powerful laser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get a big crescent wrench, remove the access plate at the bottom of the light pole, and cut the wires

      ElectroCuteBunny

  10. How soon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...until somebody tests one out on a busy hornets nest?... and then finds themselves with a nice attic fire.

    (Still, I'd enjoy watching such footage on YouTube. That would be more entertaining than what's on TV.)

    1. Re:How soon... by natehoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and then finds themselves with a nice attic fire.

      I think the part about being swarmed by VERY angry hornets who are on fire would rate pretty high on the suck-o-meter as well.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    2. Re:How soon... by ircmaxell · · Score: 1

      A swarm of flaming hornets would ran slightly under a wall of flaming alligators on the list of ridiculous-dangerous-yet-awesome-meter (So long as you are not in the path of either, then it would be the suck-o-meter instead)...

      --
      If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
    3. Re:How soon... by natehoy · · Score: 1

      I have that one on my cubicle wall.

      "An Alligator-Filled Wall Of Flame" is now part of my normal daily vocabulary.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    4. Re:How soon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and then finds themselves with a nice attic fire.

      I think the part about being swarmed by VERY angry hornets who are on fire would rate pretty high on the suck-o-meter as well.

      Maybe, but it would increase the YouTube hits by a factor of 10 at least.

    5. Re:How soon... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Well, that's the nice thing about a laser. You can set the nest on fire from quite a distance as long as you have line-of-sight or some very good mirrors. So no stings.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    6. Re:How soon... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I’d imagine that it would be pretty hard for hornets to fly very far after their wings have been vapourised by a 1W laser. More of a ballistic trajectory based on their motion at the instant you hit them, I suspect.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    7. Re:How soon... by natehoy · · Score: 1

      It all depends. If you set the nest on fire instead of vaporizing specific hornets, the hornets might have a decent bit flight time left when they leave the nest in flames, and they'll have a WHOLE LOT of pissed-off.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    8. Re:How soon... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I figured as well, but their wings are pretty fragile and gonna be one of the first things to go...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  11. Laser Steak by Cwix · · Score: 1

    I plan on cooking my steak with one of these from now on.

    --
    You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
  12. sounds cool by KernelMuncher · · Score: 1

    but I'll wait to buy one until it can cut off someone's arm

  13. Another trademark problem by Xamusk · · Score: 1

    The name of the technology should be blueray of death.

  14. Instant Blindness by VidEdit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not sure if people get how crazy dangerous even a low end class 4 laser is to people's eyesight. Even diffuse reflections can cause blindness. And blindness from a direct beam or specular reflection is virtually instant, literally before you can blink. This laser is not a toy. Not something you can casually show off safely to your friends. You can blind people, forever, accidentally, in an instant. Just keep it in mind.

    --
    1. Re:Instant Blindness by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Pussy! You call that a laser?

      THIS is a laser!

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    2. Re:Instant Blindness by misexistentialist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It would have been more succinct to say, "You'll shoot your eye out, kid."

    3. Re:Instant Blindness by irving47 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Frankly, I think slashdot should have avoided this posting. If one less person gets blinded, because a /.er buys one, and blinds his sibling or himself, it would have been worth it. Eyesight is too precious to lose and these things are just waaay too easy to screw up with.

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    4. Re:Instant Blindness by cusco · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, the 'flaming hornets nest' portion of this thread alone made it worth the risk.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    5. Re:Instant Blindness by joe_frisch · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Class IV is serious. Not only can a direct hit or specular reflection blind you, but you can get eye damage from a diffuse reflection. That means that if you point it at a sheet of paper and stare at the paper, the spot can do damage. This happens faster than you can blink.

      I used to work with class IV lasers in my lab - required goggles, interlocks, and vast amounts of paper work. Set my shirt on fire once with a similarly powered laser.

      I think its OK for these to be available to the public but they should require some form of licensing and training of the sort used for firearms. Because of its range and lack of traceability, I think this is every bit as dangerous as a gun.

      I don't even want to suggest in an open forum the sort of things you could do with this to cause serious injury and death - but if you have some imagination you can figure out what I might be thinking of.

    6. Re:Instant Blindness by Kijori · · Score: 1

      This laser is not a toy

      And yet it's being marketed as a toy - the company that sells it is called "wicked lasers", it's styled like a lightsaber, they've sent samples to magazines like MAXIM and their marketing push is basically "look how cool it is when you can burn stuff!". I find it very difficult to imagine someone buying one of these and using it safely - if only because with a laser this powerful, and designed in this way, there are so few safe uses. You can't use it inside, because it'll set fire to your house; you can't use it outside because it might reflect off something or hit someone/something and end up blinding someone.

      If this becomes at all popular people are going to be blinded, maimed or killed by it. If that happens, I for one would like to see the company held responsible for its creation; making something this dangerous and then making it look like a toy is irresponsible, and they should have to take responsibility if their marketing works.

    7. Re:Instant Blindness by GarryFre · · Score: 1

      Jedi don't need no stinking eyes! Just use the farce! ... Opps! Force. Sorry I'm no Jedi! As for the price of this laser being $200, I bet it's a typo and if not, you get what you pay for and I would not be surprised to see it go dark side (burn out) pretty quickly. Let me save you a bit of money. Lasers like anything else folks buy for toys, get old fast... I too was once fascinated by high power lasers and got a few in the 100-300mw range. I got the goggles, and I showed a few friends and you see those neat videos of matches being lit by them? I could burn paper and pop balloons but as for the matches sold in California I never got a single one to light or even smoke. I could cut black tape. Now I'll see how many idiots will ask me if I put a black dot on them with a marker before trying. I was fascinated with the lasers, but now they just gather dust. There was a time when I would have been upset if the police came to take them away, now I would hand em over with no problem at all. I worry some times that if I were burglarized, what some idiot would do with them so I'd be glad to hand em over. The only thing really lastingly fun is watching cats and dogs chase the laser pointer. I don't even have to dust the floor, I just get a fuzzy cat to chase it around, the cat cleans up the dust as it slides along the floor. So let me save the wise reader a bit of money. Don't buy them, you'll be bored with them before you know it. If you want a high tech mop, get a cat and a 5mw laser pointer. They'll last far longer and if you lose it, you won't worry who finds it and blinds someone.

      --
      www.Migrainesoft.com - Computer giving you a headache? We can fix that!
    8. Re:Instant Blindness by Mad-Bassist · · Score: 1

      Yes, this product seems useless to me. The only way I'd consider it is if it had a "dimmer" function or better yet: 5mW output if the interlock isn't engaged.

      I once tried to purchase a 50mW laser from them, only to have an empty case arrive with a customs notice attached. It was confiscated on the way from China. The only good thing was they refunded my money after offering to try shipping it again. Great, now I'm probably on someone's "kook list."

      Later, I bought the 50mW model from optotronics.com which ships domestically. They have a better reputation, and mine was tested as 57mW output at the factory. Very, very nice pointer which I hardly use now.

      Yes, the novelty factor does wear off, but it still finds use as a cat toy - with old alkaline batteries to keep it dim. Even so, "Da Bird" is much better, since cats appreciate a simulated wounded parakeet flying around the apartment!

      --
      "The only legitimate use of a computer is to play games." - Eugene Jarvis
  15. How can this be a general consumer product? by LordZardoz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even the most ardent advocates of gun ownership being available to any and everyone will probably agree that selling a gun to someone who has no idea how to use and store it safely is a bad idea.

    So other then what I imagine to be the joy of setting things on fire with a laser, what purpose can this thing serve? This kind of product should be sold with the same level of precaution as explosives and firearms.

    END COMMUNICATION

    1. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by Jeng · · Score: 1

      You should check out United Nuclear sometime.

      You can buy Thermite, Lasers, Uranium, and all sorts of FUN stuff without a license.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by smoothnorman · · Score: 0, Troll

      Damn straight! ban all them ant vaporizing magnifying glasses and cool Fresnel lenses from Edmund Scientific. next up: sharp edges can cut you if you aim them at your fleshy bits.

    3. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Thermite

      Fancy rust.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    4. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by rotide · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seems to me that being able to blind anyone you see from a long distance is quite different than holding a magnifying glass up to a stick or even wielding a knife.

    5. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's a difference between stuff that can be dangerous if you very carefully try to make it dangerous and stuff that is dangerous unless you very carefully try to make it safe.

    6. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      As one of those ardent advocates I agree, bad idea, but on the same note, that shouldn't preclude responsible ownership. People should be taught proper gun safety, but until they handle a weapon improperly it should be assumed that they can take care of themselves.

      After looking at the product page for this it seems that people have to sign some kind of liability waiver that tells them all the bad things it can do, so if they don't pay attention it's their own damn fault and the company is legally off the hook.

      Though I do think the company is being irresponsible for portraying them like toys for lighting cigarettes and such. That would be like Ruger making an advertisement where somebody shoots a can off of a person's head. Yeah, technically an expert shooter could do that, but it's so insanely irresponsible that nobody should do it except maybe a stunt man and an exhibition shooter with decades of experience and daily practice.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    7. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by mustafap · · Score: 1

      Good god, someone talking sense. You must be new around here...

      --
      Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
    8. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by Jeng · · Score: 1

      You got rust in my aluminum powder.

      You got aluminum powder in my rust.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    9. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Even the most ardent advocates of gun ownership being available to any and everyone will probably agree that selling a gun to someone who has no idea how to use and store it safely is a bad idea.

      Sure, but the question becomes when is something a bad enough idea to regulate or forbid it?

    10. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by vlm · · Score: 1

      Take this guy to the electrical components aisle at Home Depot...
      His head will probably detonate when he sees all the exciting ways to electrocute your family and burn the house down.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    11. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      This laser has an awful lot more chance of doing permanent harm to an innocent bystander than anything on United Nuclear.

      The most dangerous thing they sell is probably the enormous magnets, and even they are most likely to just leave the owner with a broken bone or two. Sure, if you eat a chunk of uranium or light thermite in the kitchen sink you're going to do yourself some harm, but the chances of injuring others are relatively slim. I have little interest in protecting people from themselves. It's much easier, however, to accidentally reflect a 1W laser off a bit of shiny metal and leave someone down the road with serious, permanent eye damage.

      I'm not going as far as to say these should be banned - I'm very much of the opinion that there are too many restrictions on what we can and can't do already, but I'd place "instant, near invisible blinding hazard at significant distance" as something to be a lot more cautious of than most.

    12. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      parent has a good point. There is a long and glorious tradition of firearms ownership and well-established handling practices that are drilled into gun owners by other gun owners who don't want to die. I doubt there is even any standard set of laser-handling rules out there, similar to the 4 rules of gun safety. I don't think lasers need to be more heavily regulated because I hate the government, but they do need to be heavily self-regulated or it WILL happen.

    13. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by Kijori · · Score: 1

      This was exactly my thought. I'm not a laser expert, but according to some of the comments on this article even a diffuse reflection can instantly blind - this seems like exactly the sort of product that should not be sold by a responsible company, and I would even go so far as to say should be banned or heavily regulated by the government. All it would take is one accident and someone could blind their friends, family or self - or a deliberate user could permanently blind people as "prank".

      As the summary suggest, a laser of this power is a weapon. I would like to see it accompanied by the same conditions of sale and use as a gun, since the risks are, if not the same, at least comparable - as with guns it would seem to me reasonable to prohibit its use within a city, since just as with a gun a misplaced "shot" is dangerous in a densely populated area.

      Reading the safety warnings my reaction turned from "wow" to "this is horrible" - the name "wicked lasers", the marketing focused around burning things, the lightsaber styling - this is a weapon that is being marketed as a cool toy. It's incredibly irresponsible.

    14. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      <yoda voice>If treating people like idiots you do, idiots they will become.</yoda voice>
      I said it already, and I’ll say it again:
      Let’s pull the warning labels off of everything, and let the problem solve itself. Before it’s too late.

      If you buy a laset, it says that “it can burn skin and shit, man”, and you still go and point it at your face, or are careless enought not to take use precautions... then you fuckin’ deserve your Darwin award! ^^
      Really. Put away the padding and let them grow up!

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    15. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is that the stupid person and the victim are likely not the same person.

      I'm reasonably sympathetic to the idea that people should not be overly protected from themselves, but I do believe that people should be protected from others.

      Lasers of this class can blind somebody else permanently if used stupidly. It's really hard to cut off somebody else's fingers when using a lawn mower as a hedge trimmer. There's a difference here.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    16. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      While your point about marketing it as a toy being irresponsible and dangerous is a valid point, I think that saying a responsible company wouldn't sell one of these at all is taking it a bit too far. There are plenty of potential commercial and industrial applications which could benefit from a one-watt laser (people here are talking about putting it in a plotter and using it for some sort of etching). As for the regulations, they already exist. You need things like warning labels and a removable safety key. Regulations can only do so much to save us from ourselves, you know?

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    17. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I don't disagree that it's dangerous, it's about as lethal as a kitchen knife, and probably safer than a BB gun. I'd say that it's somewhere between a toy and a weapon, though it is clearly not either.

      dom

    18. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Products have warning labels. That is enough for an adult human being. Even dynamite used to be available, and while there probably were accidents just like with every object that exists, terrible unspeakable things didn't happen. If you are going to restrict objects by usefulness, what is truly useful and beneficial? Dynamite is more useful than television, guns are more useful than spoons, and lasers are more useful than neckties.

    19. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      I firmly believe there should be no regulation, at all, on adult ownership of firearms - but lasers like this should be extensively regulated. You have to be actively doing something obviously stupid to hurt someone with a firearm - like pointing it at them and pulling the trigger. You can blind people with this thing without even knowing they are there.

      Self-defense isn't even a rational use for this - you would likely sustain permanent vision damage simply from seeing the person you aim it at get hit.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    20. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not so much worried about keeping us safe from ourselves, rather I am worried about keeping us safe from doofus teens who think it is cool to shine lasers at people. I don't think that they should be banned (as there are many legitimate purposes for such a laser), but a company putting this in a lightsaber-shaped portable holder and selling for an amount almost any working teen can afford is just asking for trouble.

      Almost everyone knows and respects the power of guns, and only an idiot or criminal would willfully point one at someone else. Something like this, which looks like a toy and runs on (presumably) AA batteries looks deceptively simple and not nearly as dangerous.

    21. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by hitmark · · Score: 1

      are you willing to allow the same kind of thinking for cars? that is, assume that someone can handle it responsibly until proven otherwise?

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    22. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      The thing with lasers is that the precautions needed depend heavilly on the particular laser. Some lasers don't really need any precautions at all. Others will cause blindness unless handled very carefully.

      We have the laser classification system which is supposed to tell users roughly how dangerous a laser is. The higher the class the higher the precautions needed from basically none at all for classes I and II to careful planning of where the beam will end up, special protective gear for those working with the laser and interlocks so that if the laser area is voilated things get cut off instantly for class IV

      This development does concern me. Essentially they are marketing a class 4 laser as a "big boys toy". Yes there are warnings on their site but i'm not cinvinced their warnings are sufficiant.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    23. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stray crapping dog, feral cats, squirrels and possums.
      At last a solution to encourage them to go away.

    24. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by Kijori · · Score: 1

      Again I'm no expert, but I don't think this does have so many uses - according to comments above you can already get laser diodes of comparable power for rather less, which would probably be more useful for a plotter than this. What this adds is the styling as a toy and as a weapon and the ability for people to buy one without any interest in making something.

    25. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      There is reason to be a bit more squeamish about cars. They are actually more dangerous and more complex.

      More Dangerous:
      a) A car can do more damage than a gun. They both can kill people, even multiple people, but a gun cannot significantly damage a structure in the way a vehicle can. An out of control vehicle can, depending on its size and velocity, do tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage to structures, even collapsing them entirely.

      b) People use cars more frequently than guns. There is a reason why children are statistically 20 times more likely to die in a car accident than a shooting. There are more people operating vehicles more often. Guns are something of an expensive luxury to use. A good day at a range can cost around $100 in fees and ammo costs. Few people can afford to do that very often. Cars on the other hand, while to certain degree expensive, are an absolute necessity to most people, without daily use of which they would have no income.

      More Complex:
      a) Cars are more complex than guns, they have thousands of parts, a myriad of different fluids, electrical systems, now even computerized monitoring and controls. Guns are still purely mechanical, and the best ones are as simple as possible to use and clean.

      b) Driving is more complex than shooting. There are only three things you need to learn to properly use a gun: trigger discipline, sight discipline (don't point it at valuable things and treat it as though it is loaded at all times), and storage discipline. Everything else is just developing accuracy. However with driving you have to learn how to back around corners, handle ice and snow, handle a sudden tire blow-out with crashing into things, parallel park, check blindspots as a reflex before properly merging, learn braking distances for different speeds and road conditions, etc. etc. And many of these things need to be done every day, and the consequences of improper execution can not only be injury or death but ten times as much financial property damage as a gun could ever do.

      c) This is perhaps a subjective opinion, but I think laws related to driving and vehicle licensing/registration/insurance are more complex than laws related to the (common) use and ownership of guns.

      All this aside, there is also the fact that gun ownership is a civil right enshrined in the Constitution in a way that cars and driving are not.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    26. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I don't think lasers need to be more heavily regulated because I hate the government, but they do need to be heavily self-regulated or it WILL happen.

      I'm sure that self-regulation by fourteen year old psychopaths will work out really well.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    27. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by hitmark · · Score: 1

      the last point makes no sense, as the car didnt exist when said "enshrinement" took place.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    28. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I guess you're okay with me pointing this thing through your window so long as I'm wearing appropriate safety equipment. You go blind, but, well, what the fuck, you obviously deserve it because you should've known it might happen and taken precautions.

    29. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by Mad-Bassist · · Score: 1

      Two great tastes that burn great together!

      --
      "The only legitimate use of a computer is to play games." - Eugene Jarvis
    30. Re:How can this be a general consumer product? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      If automotive transportation/ownership is equivalently valuable, then the Constitution could be amended. Plenty of things have been added since the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not least of which was end of slavery and the enfranchisement of women. So whether or not something existed at the time the Constitution and its original amendments were drafted is irrelevant and immaterial, as the Constitution clearly outlines the method by which it can be modified to meet future needs and conditions.

      It has taken all of my self control not to insult your intelligence any more than the implication of this sentence having had to spell that out for you.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  16. GOING OUT OF BUSINESS SALE!!! by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

    After all the lawsuits. Remember lawn darts?

    1. Re:GOING OUT OF BUSINESS SALE!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were I a more anarchy-inclined person, I would say that these would be perfect for anti-riot-police weaponry... stay well out of the fray, aim with a scope, pop the stormtroopers in the eye. The one downside is they could trace the ray back to your location, but hey. If you're stupid enough to fight the pow#@$^W$%

      DISREGARD THAT. DO NOT ASSEMBLE UNLAWFULLY AND ALWAYS TREAT THE POLICE WITH THE UTMOST RESPECT.

    2. Re:GOING OUT OF BUSINESS SALE!!! by mikiN · · Score: 1

      Avoiding detection is just a matter of smoke and mirrors (applied at the appropriate locations).

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
    3. Re:GOING OUT OF BUSINESS SALE!!! by Kijori · · Score: 1

      That would seem to me fair. This isn't even on the same scale as lawn darts, it's a product that is almost impossible to use without the possibility of serious harm to yourself or others, but which is being marketed as a cool gadget and sold as a consumer-grade toy. To shamelessly quote from myself:

      Using a blue laser this powerful can apparently (according to their own explanation):

      -Cause blindness based only on diffuse scattering, eg off a wall, and at a considerable distance
      -Cause cancer from direct contact or diffuse scattering
      -Cause temporary or permanent damage to vision based on even more diffuse scattering, eg an inability to perceive the colour green
      -Burn skin or clothes on contact

      The marketing encourages people to burn things and play with their "lightsaber", despite the fact that by their own admission doing so is likely to cause burns, vision damage and cancer. I find it incredibly irresponsible for a company to market something like this as a "cool toy". (and this is what they are doing - everything from the styling of the laser as a lightsaber, to the name "WickedLasers", to the samples sent to magazines like MAXIM and the emphasis on its awesome burning power is designed to market this as a toy, whatever they claim).

      (PS I've just noticed that they claim that safety goggles with an optical density of 3+ are required to protect against accidental exposure to this laser, and that they suggest goggles with an optical density of 4.4+ to offer sufficient protection. But the goggles they supply (http://www.wickedlasers.com/lasers/Green_532nm_LaserShields_Goggles-20-16.html) only seem to offer a density of 2+ at the wavelength of this laser. So the safety equipment they supply is, by their own admission, not adequate. Are they trying to behave as irresponsibly as possible? This company is trying to turn a profit on a product is likely blind or maim people trying to use it, especially if they rely on the provided "protective" gear. How is that even legal?)

    4. Re:GOING OUT OF BUSINESS SALE!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe this will revive them:

      LAWN DARTS - Now with Laser Targeting System!

  17. Still waiting for Amazin Laser by xleeko · · Score: 1

    Phhht, pass. Get back to me when you have something as good as Amazin Laser

  18. Practical uses and registration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) simply put it under the same laws as a rifle or pistol (i.e. should already be covered anyhow)...would require waiting periods, felony checks, age requirements.
    2) would make a great soldering tool and welding torch for plastics and metals if it actually works and lasts a while. Would beat butane hands down. Been looking for a good tool to cut thick plexiglass, etc. If it is what it says, it should be good for that purpose.

    1. Re:Practical uses and registration by mikiN · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and wear safety goggles, blanket all windows in your workshop while you're working, disable the doorbell, bolt down doors etc.
      Corollary: "Did anyone order pizzaAAaaargh!! My eyes!"

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
    2. Re:Practical uses and registration by mikiN · · Score: 1

      hint: molten solder + high-powered laser = (probably) NOT good

      (probably: depending on whether solder evaporates before getting really...shineyyyyy!)

      About as good as coming up with the idea that it'd be cool to rig up a bowling ball made of a lump of clay with some C4 for a core, adding a pressure sensitive igniter, topping it up with some beer-bottle necks for good measure.
      You'll probably score strikes on all lanes simultaneously, but your celebration party will be full of sirens and stretchers.

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
    3. Re:Practical uses and registration by mikiN · · Score: 1

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

      Keywords: DIVERGENCE, SPOT SIZE

      Better not use this puppy as a soldering pistol.

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
    4. Re:Practical uses and registration by Montezumaa · · Score: 1

      I do not know what backwards state or country(if outside of the United States) you live in, but there is no longer a "waiting period" to purchase a firearm. Also, many states(including the one I live in, Georgia) does not require, or even allow the registration of firearms.

      You see, there are many states that respect its citizens and do not attempt to monitor how I exercise my Constitutional rights.

  19. Slashdot already bought one by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Funny

    And apparently pointed it at the wickedlasers.com server...

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  20. It's just a matter of time before some bozo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    tries to blind a political figure from a distance with one of these things. The government should regulate them - the laser may not kill, but blindness is permanent.

    1. Re:It's just a matter of time before some bozo by Ron+Bennett · · Score: 1

      Protective eye glasses may become the new fashion, especially for celebrities and sports athletes, who, in my view, are more at risk from laser attacks than politicians.

      Ron

    2. Re:It's just a matter of time before some bozo by Arimus · · Score: 1

      Yup; the governments should really get round to regulating political figures - the world might not end up going to hell in a handcart quite as fast ,)

      --
      --- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
    3. Re:It's just a matter of time before some bozo by pipedwho · · Score: 1

      The kind of eyewear required to protect you from this is the kind that is very hard to see through even in direct sunlight on a bright sunny day. Think welding masks.

      And LCD shutters aren't fast enough to protect you from an on-axis beam in the eye with a 1W laser. If the shutter closed in 1 millisecond it would still be like looking continuously into the beam of a 1mW laser pointer for a whole second. It might help you avoid total blindness, but definitely a situation you would want to avoid.

      You'd really need something like a camera/monitor built into your 'goggles' to be sure. And if that kind of technology gets small enough to be fashionable and wearable, there are many other much more useful things you could do with it than just 'protect' your eyes.

    4. Re:It's just a matter of time before some bozo by mbessey · · Score: 1

      Well, in the case that you know the specific wavelength you want to protect against, you can notch-filter just that frequency. Unfortunately, there's quite a range of wavelengths in high-power portable lasers these days - at least red, green, blue, violet, IR, and UV. Anything that protects against all of those at the same time is probably going to look like welding shades.

  21. In short by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

    Yes.

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  22. The one time I e-mailed the FBI. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was driving at night, and saw someone playing with a fairly powerful green laser, shining it on traffic signs, etc, on I-5, south Seattle, including passing Boeing field.

    The next day there was a news report about a cockpit laser detector going off about that time, and anyone with info to contact the FBI.

  23. Interesting by Taibhsear · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What is the target purpose for this? Research experiments that could be done? What kind of safety goggles are used with this (material/wavelength tint/etc) and what kind of clothing/protective gear will NOT set on fire if accidental exposure should occur? Also, what kind of battery life are we looking at? (or is this a plug in stationary laser?)

    1. Re:Interesting by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      If the laser is 1 Watt, it probably draws a relatively low power (1.5 Watts? Not sure what the efficiency on this thing is). Seeing as there are multi-watt handheld flashlights, which are battery operated, why not this laser?

    2. Re:Interesting by vlm · · Score: 1

      What is the target purpose for this?

      I have a CNC milling machine. Completely enclosed milling cabinets are an off the shelf item, and I can make it light tight fairly easily. So, rather than pay $15K for a laser engraver, I'll pay about $200 or whatever. Not bad, not bad at all.

      Research experiments that could be done?

      How attractive of an artwork can I engrave on the back of ipods, laptops, etc. Can I lasercut wood and plexi? How long until the smoke and fumes from laser engraving kill me and/or set off the smoke alarm? How long until I F up and engrave into my mills table, much like the mechanical mill guys occasionally drill into their tables?

      What kind of safety goggles are used with this (material/wavelength tint/etc) and what kind of clothing/protective gear will NOT set on fire if accidental exposure should occur?

      I don't think any goggles could save your eyes from a watt or so. I'm told charcoal works pretty well as a beam dump, it takes 1500 watts about 15 minutes to start a charcoal grill, so I think a watt or two for a minute or two should be quite safe.'

      or is this a plug in stationary laser

      I'm going to be plugging mine in, one way or another. Probably by unplugging the milling machine motor and plugging the laser in its place, so as to use the SSR (solid state relay) to turn the laser on and off.

      This neatly works with your typical CNC machining enclosure which has door open interlocks to shut off the "motor" (or laser, in my case).

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:Interesting by Facegarden · · Score: 1

      What is the target purpose for this? Research experiments that could be done? What kind of safety goggles are used with this (material/wavelength tint/etc) and what kind of clothing/protective gear will NOT set on fire if accidental exposure should occur? Also, what kind of battery life are we looking at? (or is this a plug in stationary laser?)

      Well, assuming it draws around the 1W power that the laser puts out, and assuming a modest 2200mAH 3.3v battery, it would run for about 7 hours continually. And this thing is BIG (like, maglite big), so it could probably stand to pack more batteries than that!
      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    4. Re:Interesting by ArbitraryDescriptor · · Score: 2, Informative
      Specs from TFA:

      Name: Spyder III Pro Arctic Series
      Size: 228mm x 35.8mm
      Weight: 378g
      Wavelength: 445nm
      Laser Body: 6061-T6 Aircraft-Grade Aluminum
      Laser Finish: Mil-Spec Type III hard anodized in black
      Transverse Mode: TEM00
      Output Power: Beam Divergence: Beam Diameter: 1.5mm @ aperture
      NOHD* 211 meters
      Required Eyewear O.D. 4.4+
      Power Consumption: 3.7V @ 1A
      Power supply: Rechargeable Lithium Ion Battery Type 18650 (batteries and charger included)
      Battery Lifetime: 120 mins
      Switch: Push Button Constant On / Off, Lock-Out Tail Cap
      Duty Cycle: Continuous
      Expected lifetime: >5,000 hours
      Warranty: 3 months
      *The NOHDs were calculated based on a 0.25 second accidental (unaided eye) exposure.

    5. Re:Interesting by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Let’s say it like this: If a SUV and a iPhone are your balls, then this laser is the penis. Just as pointless. Just as much made for bragging. (Smug or retarded. Doesn’t matter.) Just as useful... for compensation. ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    6. Re:Interesting by w0mprat · · Score: 1

      ... and what kind of clothing/protective gear will NOT set on fire if accidental exposure should occur?

      Why, tinfoil of course! Make yourself a hat.

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    7. Re:Interesting by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Welding mask should save your eyes from any backscatter. Not sure about a direct beam hit though.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    8. Re:Interesting by Kijori · · Score: 0, Troll

      What is the target purpose for this? Research experiments that could be done? What kind of safety goggles are used with this (material/wavelength tint/etc) and what kind of clothing/protective gear will NOT set on fire if accidental exposure should occur? Also, what kind of battery life are we looking at? (or is this a plug in stationary laser?)

      As far as I can tell (and as I've pointed out a few times, notably here) the target purpose is making money for wickedlasers while harming consumers. I can't see what research would require a comparatively expensive laser that's been styled as a lightsaber. I can, however, see the possibility for causing extreme harm by selling a laser that is designed to look like a toy, but which can (and, if you use it as they suggest, almost certainly will) cause blindness, permanent vision problems, cancer and serious burns and which is supplied with what seem to be totally inadequate safety goggles.

      This product is awful.

    9. Re:Interesting by Agripa · · Score: 1

      I draws about 1 amp at 5 volts so 20% efficient.

    10. Re:Interesting by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Well, assuming it draws around the 1W power that the laser puts out, and assuming a modest 2200mAH 3.3v battery, it would run for about 7 hours continually. And this thing is BIG (like, maglite big), so it could probably stand to pack more batteries than that!

      From the laser diode specifications, it draws about 1 amp at 5 volts.

  24. 1 Watt Can Be Bad... by BoRegardless · · Score: 3, Interesting

    But only if it stays trained on one spot for enough time and is close to the laser as opposed to 50 feet where the energy per square centimeter is less. Of course, some jerk will try it on his arm.

    I accidentally found out what a 25 watt CO2 laser will do to the palm of your hand when a coworker left one on with no warning signs up and it burnt a branding iron across my palm as my hand quickly went into the beam. When I heard the sizzling, instead of keeping my hand moving through the beam, I pulled back and in the tens of milliseconds stopped before pulling back it vaporized (not burned) a hole about 1/8" deep in my hand.

    Don't screw with this stuff you are not trained and careful or you'll wind up paying doctors and lawyers.

    1. Re:1 Watt Can Be Bad... by amorsen · · Score: 1

      At least this one is visible light. I'm somewhat paranoid when I'm playing with fiber optics because it's all infrared. You probably wouldn't have stuck your hand into a 25W visible-light laser beam.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    2. Re:1 Watt Can Be Bad... by swilver · · Score: 1

      Well, the light is all travelling in one direction, you wouldn't be able to see a visible light beam either unless it travels through dust/smoke...

    3. Re:1 Watt Can Be Bad... by irving47 · · Score: 1

      This is one time I'm both glad I'm not reading this post on fark and with a picture included, and sorry that there isn't one to dissuade people from buying one of these things.

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    4. Re:1 Watt Can Be Bad... by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Air isn't all that clean in general, you should have a good chance at seeing a 25W beam from the side. Just look at all the dust in a "ray" of sunlight. The eye is really good at spotting flickers of light like that.

      Maybe I just don't clean enough, of course.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    5. Re:1 Watt Can Be Bad... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      There are a few reasons that invisible is nastier than visible.

      Firstly while the bulk of the light does go in one direction dust in the air, imperfect surfaces on optical components and so on will generally make you aware that a powerful visible laser is on.

      Secondly there is the blink reflex, this limits the length of an exposure to hazardous levels of visible light. With invisible light that won't happen.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  25. No problem... except. by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    Since this thing is technically a weapon, I don't don't mind assholes having these.... As long as I can return fire with bullets.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    1. Re:No problem... except. by psyque · · Score: 1

      You need to be able to see your target.

    2. Re:No problem... except. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As they don't get both your eyes you can.

  26. SharkTech. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny
    From TFA:

    The retailer warns: "Customers will be required to completely read and agree to our Class IV Laser Hazard Acknowledgment Form."

    Dorsal or tail fin prints are acceptable.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  27. WTF? United Nuclear? by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    The story's about LASERs , not La za rs One's a source of coherent photons and one's got a record for pandering to alienz.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  28. New Bionic Initiative by BEATSIE · · Score: 0

    Maybe if enough people start using these lasers and modding them then the end result would be The 6 Million dollar man bionic arms and legs! WOOT good fun!

  29. TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It is legal to board a plane with one of these things but not with a bottle of Evian. I feel sooo protected.

    1. Re:TSA by JockTroll · · Score: 0

      As long as no-one on the planes wears individual shields. Firing one of those lasers at a shielded person would cause an explosive pyrotechnic (subatomic fusion) and vaporize the plane.
      Bring your kindjal or crysknife and practice the slow strike.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
  30. Joy! by Xyrus · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Sharks with lasers attached to their forehead. The future is NOW!

    --
    ~X~
  31. BarberCut cheat by t0qer · · Score: 1

    I walked past this arcade machine a few weeks ago at a local movie theater. Object of the game was to cut a string with scissors on a robotic arm, the prize attatched to the string falls down, you win. The prizes were really nice, things like Nintendo DSI's and Ipods.

    I thought to myself, "Gee, if I had a laser, I could win." For $200 I could clean out a few barbercut machines for ipod touches, sell them and make my money back fast.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF7kqi5VbPY

    1. Re:BarberCut cheat by vlm · · Score: 1

      I thought to myself, "Gee, if I had a laser, I could win." For $200 I could clean out a few barbercut machines

      Sure, a $500 pentagon mil-spec hammer isn't going to work, but how about a $20 hardware store sledgehammer?

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:BarberCut cheat by MoonBuggy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just be careful of how reflective that glass is - blinding everyone standing behind you might not go down so well...

    3. Re:BarberCut cheat by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I walked past this arcade machine a few weeks ago at a local movie theater. Object of the game was to cut a string with scissors on a robotic arm, the prize attatched to the string falls down, you win. The prizes were really nice, things like Nintendo DSI's and Ipods. I thought to myself, "Gee, if I had a laser, I could win." For $200 I could clean out a few barbercut machines for ipod touches, sell them and make my money back fast.

      Let me guess, the backs of the machines are mirrored, and the fronts are (plexi)glass? Be sure to send in the video to failblog after you're done.
      .) - one eyed smiley.

    4. Re:BarberCut cheat by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Wear the dark glasses, and hit them sideways. If you’re really worried, close the eye that you’d prefer to keep... ,) - one eyed winking smiley.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  32. Eye + Laser by ZirbMonkey · · Score: 2, Funny

    "The thing that caught my eye was the price: $200"

    The other eye? Fried by a friggin laser

  33. Just in time for the World Cup!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They already confiscated a green laser in Johannesburg. Look for blue flashes now before penalty kicks.

    1. Re:Just in time for the World Cup!!! by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I wanna know what happens if they hit the ball with it... flaming soccer ball going straight for the goalie’s head?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  34. Part sourcing by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    Source the parts better. It sounds like they have pulled this diode from a display projector,

    Yes, they admit they did that. So they just have a prototype.

    There's no big secret about the laser diode. It's a Nichia NDB7352. Any legit company can order those things in bulk from Nichia in Tokyo. No US distributor, including Nichia America, stocks them. WickedLasers probably doesn't buy enough of them to place an order with Nichia.

    1. Re:Part sourcing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To the attention of: Nichia Japan
      Re: Nichia NDB7352 bulk parts order (pending)

                To whom it may concern, I look forward to the receipt of my order of part # NDB7352 (Qty: 1000), as I have always been quite satisfied with the quality of workmanship that is the hallmark of your esteemed company. Please find enclosed my advance payment of $200,000.00 USD plus the usual s/h fee in exchange for prompt delivery at the usual address, which I believe your customer relations department already has on file. Thank you in advance for your greatly appreciated service.

      Sincerely,
                Dr. Octogonapus.

      (disclaimer: All IP named in the preceding humor belong to their respective rightful holders, and should in no way be construed as advocating the aforementioned excerpt. Besides, which, I'm beyond broke, don't sue.)

      Anon Ymous Coward.

  35. Perhaps... by Mantis8 · · Score: 1

    This thing should require a license to use, just like a gun. I can just see urban gangs using these to terrorize citizens, commit acts of vandalism, robberies, etc. What if somebody used 2 or 3 of these things at once?

    What is this world coming to?

    It seems to me that somebody could also use one of these in combination with a fresnel lens or some other photon amplifying device and REALLY crank up the power. Like just about anything else, it could be used for good or evil.

    1. Re:Perhaps... by vlm · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that somebody could also use one of these in combination with a fresnel lens or some other photon amplifying device and REALLY crank up the power.

      I think you're using words, but don't know what they mean?

      If a Fresnel lens made photons out of the thin air, it would make an excellent perpetual motion machine in tandem with a couple mirrors.

      Pointing this thing at a 1-meter Fresnel is only going to illuminate about one millionth the lens, before it makes a hole in it. And I'd assume the beam is already reasonably well focused so there is little point in further focusing?

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  36. ordered one a few days ago by Eric+Smith · · Score: 1
    though I'm rather skeptical that they'll really be able to deliver what they've promised.

    If they really do, the first thing I'll want to do is take it apart and change the current limiting, to get it down to 5mW, so that it can be used safely as a laser pointer.

    I don't need a 1W blue laser, but I haven't found any 5mW blue lasers for under $200.

    1. Re:ordered one a few days ago by Eric+Smith · · Score: 1

      Based on the specs of the closest off-the-shelf laser from Nichia (probably the same laser die in a different package), it appears that the lowest achievable output will be somewhere between 150 and 300mW, still too high to be used safely as a laser pointer. Nichia makes a 455 nm diode that can run at 5-10 mW, but it costs $3000.

  37. One purpose I can see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm into long range shooting and a laser of that wattage would be visible at over a mile in bright sunlight. It's cheap enough to be worth having a gunsmith make a custom mount to hold both a standard scope and the laser. I'd probably add a double dead man set up to prevent accidental discharges as well as a primary power switch. As long as you followed standard safety procedures there shouldn't be any risk. You don't shoot at half mile to mile ranges in areas where there are other humans so you aren't likely to harm others as well. Extreme long range shooters are a rare breed and it's one of the few recreational uses I can think of for a laser of this power. I agree with others the sales should be restricted. The odds are high that most people that buy one will injure themselves or others.

    1. Re:One purpose I can see by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Does it really matter at that distance? wouldn't the trajectory of the bullet be so significantly different due to gravity, wind, optical atmosphereics, etc that it would be no better than a high powered scope?

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  38. Wicked Powered by NotOverHere · · Score: 1

    Is it possible that this laser is so powerful that it could power additional pages of Wicked Powered?
    Could it be used to lase at least one more story arc?

  39. No kidding by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Informative

    They DO have some lasers I'd like. I would like a violet laser pointer if it were cheaper. However I wouldn't want a 1 watt laser. While over all the FDA's classes of laser power may be a bit cautious, it is still something extremely worth noting. Strong lasers are very, very dangerous. The backscatter from one off a normal surface can easily be enough to cause harm. So even if you think you are safe since it isn't pointing at you or anything reflective, you could still screw yourself over.

    Only way I'd want high power lasers were if I was using them for light show applications. In that case, they'd need to be something I could computer control, not a little device like this.

    1. Re:No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ebay. violet laser pointers for around $12 shipped. they are labeled as 5mw or less but frankly, they are probably a lot more powerful than that. I have a few and they're pretty cool.

    2. Re:No kidding by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      My only concern is are they DPSS or direct? I don't know for 405nm lasers. Reason I wonder is that generally one of the things that gets left out in cheap DPSS lasers is the IR filter. That is not a good situation. You have a powerful (and just how powerful you don't know) beam you can't see but that can damage sight.

      So I'm wary of cheap laser pointers.

    3. Re:No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can build a 100mw violet laser for about $30-$100, depending on how nice you want it to be. You could also turn the power down to about 5-15mw for more safety. look around http://laserpointerforums.com/ or google.

      Many laser hobbyists do not like wicked lasers, however.

    4. Re:No kidding by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      I want a 40+ watt Nd:YAG laser. Specifically, I want a laser cutter. They're great for making all sorts of things out of a variety of materials, the clean cuts in anything from acrylic (on low power) through aluminium or thin steel are amazing. That said, laser cutters are fully enclosed. You don't see the laser, and you really don't want to.

      --
      Not a sentence!
  40. hey, this isn't /b ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or an hero.

  41. Great! by Wireless+Joe · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm looking forward to setting the disco ball hanging in the middle of my living room on fire in front of 20-50 of my friends. What could go wrong?

    1. Re:Great! by Cornelius+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Nothing, if your aim is to see 50 blind people in leisure suits clumsily tripping over each other on the disco floor. Sounds like fun. Remember to videotape the experience for your remaining friends.

      --
      Sigs are for losers
  42. Fully Automatic Weapon by TheLink · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, sell and regulate it as a fully automatic weapon.

    Don't they ban fully automatic rifles for civilian use in the USA?

    This laser product is fully automatic weapon in the sense that:
    1) It can continuously cause permanent blindness to people
    2) It can do it at a 200 metre effective range
    3) It does not need a reload after 9 or even 30 shots.

    If you empty a handgun wildly into a crowd, you'd probably hit less than 20 people (and current medical tech might restore a significant number of them near completely). In contrast this laser when used on a crowd can permanently blind far more than 20 people. There are many places where you can find a crowd of hundreds looking at one spot.

    The product in its current form does not appear to have a good utility to danger ratio.

    Yes the laser itself has use in projectors and other stuff, but what good purpose does this product in this form have?

    It's not very good as a defensive weapon: it doesn't really have very good stopping power - even if blinded, a gunman could still kill you (and he might have even higher motivation to do so). It has a very high chance of collateral damage.

    To me if you can justify the banning of fully automatic assault rifles for general civilian use, you should also ban this weapon.

    --
    1. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by AndrewNeo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Setting a gunman's hands on fire isn't a good way of stopping him?

    2. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by Thinboy00 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      RTFS. Existing lasers can already blind. This one is special because it can make things burst into flames.

      --
      $ make available
    3. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by mweather · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't they ban fully automatic rifles for civilian use in the USA?

      Nope. You just need to go through a few more checks than when you're buying a semi-automatic or single shot weapon, and pay a $200 transfer fee. The real barrier to buying a machine gun is the price, which isn't a barrier at all in the case of this pointer. Besides which, this wouldn't qualify as a machine gun as it's not a firearm. Even if it were classified as a firearm, it would be semi-automatic as it only fires once when you press the button. It's more akin to a flame thrower than a machine gun, and flame throwers are not federally regulated.

    4. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 4, Informative
      FTA

      Designed and built for use with machine guns mounted on vehicles, aircraft, or waterborne platforms, the Spyder III is Wicked Laser's most powerful laser. Smaller than the size of a MagLite it generates a focused 500mW beam capable of illuminating a targets several miles away. The Spyder III is also ideal for patrol and checkpoint operations. A tactical ambidextrous constant on/off switch and removable safety key located on the tailcap provides convenient, fail safe operation. The world's only visible Class IV laser designed for tactical operations.

      Its a targeting laser, not a weapon in and of itself.

    5. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      Doh!
      That is the blurb for the older model on the manufacturers website. Not exactly FTA but close enough :D
      I would imagine that the new model has the same purpose anyway.

    6. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Don't they ban fully automatic rifles for civilian use in the USA?

      No. They require you to get a license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms [].

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    7. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fully automatic weapons are legal for civilian ownership in the USA. You will need a $200 tax stamp and a FFL.

    8. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 5, Funny

      > It's not very good as a defensive weapon: it doesn't really have very good
      > stopping power - even if blinded, a gunman could still kill you (and he
      > might have even higher motivation to do so). It has a very high chance
      > of collateral damage.

      You know... I've personally never mugged anyone, nor been shot with a gun that has "stopping power". So I can't really say 100% for sure. But I would imagine that if I were blind and on fire, I wouldn't be able to continue mugging my would-be victim.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    9. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by kumanopuusan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Almost all current weapon regulations define weapons as devices designed to fire projectiles. Lasers do not fire projectiles and are not subject to such regulation.

      --
      Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
    10. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by modecx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't they ban fully automatic rifles for civilian use in the USA?

      The short answer is no.

      The long answer is: Not insofar as an outright ban. They're legal in the vast majority of states, but are regulated at the federal level. The 1934 NFA bill required the federal registration of machine guns, and taxed machine guns (and other title 2 weapon) transfers at a rate of $200 each--for perspective: at that time if you had a little bit over a hundred bucks more you could buy a brand new Ford sedan.

      The authors/supporters thought an outright ban wouldn't pass muster at the supreme court as they successfully recognized it would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment. So, they decided the next best thing would be a tax so steep that it would be tantamount to a ban, effectively pricing out all but the very wealthy... Which hurt especially during the great depression.

      Again in 1986, newly manufactured machine guns were made unavailable to citizens, which drove the prices of previously registered machine guns through the roof. With some patience and a wad of cash, you can get pretty much anything you could want--unless it was developed after 1986.

      What good does it do? I dunno. I guess it can get you off if you're into watt-range lasers.. This laser doesn't really change anything, since comparable devices have been available for years--but what it does is make it easier to access. I say: If/when drive-by laserings become a problem (which was practically never the case with legal machine guns), THEN do something about it. That's how our system is *supposed* to work

      Until then the simple answer is: If someone uses it to assault someone, come down on them like a ton of bricks--just like what happens when some jackass shines a *much* less powerful laser into an aircraft cockpit.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    11. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by modecx · · Score: 1

      You don't need an FFL--you don't even need an FFL/dealer to transfer it to you, unless it's coming from out of state. You just need the tax stamp.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    12. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      You sure about that? I believe flamethrowers are destructive devices under NFA '34, but "brush control devices" are exempted - which look much like flamethrowers.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    13. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Regardless of the intent, though, it IS a weapon at shorter ranges. From what I can see, all you need to do is check the "this shit is dangerous" agreements and checkout with a credit card. That is unacceptable. Sales for this shit needs to be at least as restricted as for firearms or someone WILL get hurt.

      Hell, I would argue that these are even more dangerous than guns. A gun you have to point at someone and pull the trigger (after bypassing whatever safety features are installed). You don't even need to point a laser at someone to permanently disable them. A gun can be fired into a crowd, but a powerful laser can also bounce off of just about anything and still be potent several times over. You couldn't even set up a safe "firing range" for these things. The idea of any stupid schmuck with a credit card owning one is terrifying.

      Have you been to a movie theater recently? Later than midnight? That's the only time I can go and almost every other time, there's a prick with a laser pointer drawing nipples on everybody on the screen. More than once, I've politely asked them to put it away and the fucker shines it in my eyes.

      I can't wait until I'm blinded by some immature shit stain to get a laugh from his friends.

    14. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You forgot to mention that if someone uses it to assault someone then they have already broken the law by the assault. Classifying crimes by the weapon used is pointless. The only regulation of selling, owning and using weapons should be the laws against assault and murder which have always been on the books.
      Just like phishing scams and online fraud, if it is already illegal then there is no need to generate new a bazillion laws to specify this *new* type of crime. Close loop holes that might be present by the new technology, but there is no need to demonize modern crime methods anymore than the traditional form.

    15. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by modecx · · Score: 1

      Well, I thought the idea was basically implicit :) But you're exactly right.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    16. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by Martin+Blank · · Score: 5, Informative

      What you call brush control devices use jets of propane or similar gases. Flamethrowers in the military sense (which are now extremely rare in the US, even in the military) use a gel or liquid fuel that is usually not completely burned by the time it reaches the target, thereby leaving a flaming substance that allows an easier transfer of the heat to the target. Those that use propane stop delivering heat once the flame jet is removed.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    17. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by saider · · Score: 2, Informative

      You need the Class 3 FFL to receive a newly manufactured item, since the manufacture of automatic weapons for civilian use has been banned by executive order (Reagan or Bush 1). This is why a typical Class 3 weapon for sale to a civilian is in the $10k range... they are not being made anymore. The difference in cost between a fully automatic Class 3 weapon and a regular, semi-automatic weapon is trivial at best. In many cases, the full auto weapons are simpler than their semi-automatic counterparts.

      The way you get a new automatic weapon is...

      1) Create a gun business (typically requires a storefront) and get your class 3 FFL.
      2) To avoid running afoul of tax laws, you need to show a profit occasionally. So you need to have some friends buy stuff.
      3) Purchase your Class 3 machinegun as a "sales item".
      4) Send a flyer every so often to a nearby police department, to show you are engaged in the business.
      5) After a year or two, shutter the business. There is paperwork that you can use to transfer your inventory from your company entity to you personally. Having 2,3, and 4 will help document your business so that you are able to do this.

      If you ever want to resell your gun, you'll need to sell it to a Class 3 dealer.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    18. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by Rei · · Score: 1

      The sales pitch for this laser is way overhyped. It's only a 1W laser. Want to see a 1W laser burn things? Here. Underwhelming, no?

      I can just imagine that in a defensive situation -- "Hold your hand still and steady while I try to light it on fire. That'll teach you!"

      The risk from this thing is blinding.

      --
      Leela: "It's like a textbook on evolution!" Fry: "... Except in Kansas."
    19. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by realnrh · · Score: 1

      Amusingly enough, Cracked had an article that included the unregulated state of flamethrowers not too long ago. I followed up, and as best I could find (and IANAL, etc) they were correct. I only checked a couple of states, but neither covered flamethrowers. Reading the definition of 'destructive device' (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00005845----000-.html), I think you might be able to make a decent case that a flamethrower does not in fact qualify as a 'similar device' on the grounds that, unlike everything else in the Act, a flamethrower does not have a projectile component.

      --
      Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
    20. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by Miseph · · Score: 1

      Correct, even here in Massachusetts, widely regarded as downright stifling to gun owners and 2nd amendment rights, civilians are able to own, purchase and sell fully automatic weapons. Anyone who tells you otherwise is quite simply mistaken, and I assure you that there are MANY mistaken people here. Even a lot of gun dealers think you can't, and tell everyone who will listen.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    21. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by AtomicOrange · · Score: 1

      You may see it as a "brush control device", what I see is a pretty awesome weekend given enough flammable objects.

      --
      "What is there a tank on the boat? WHY IS THERE A TANK ON THE BOAT?!?" L4D2
    22. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Regardless of the intent, though, it IS a weapon at shorter ranges.

      So are nail guns, PVC tubing, Drano, elastics and snowmobiles.

      From what I can see, all you need to do is check the "this shit is dangerous" agreements and checkout with a credit card. That is unacceptable. Sales for this shit needs to be at least as restricted as for firearms or someone WILL get hurt.

      By that logic, a good part of what you can find in stores should be restricted.

      But, just like nail guns, PVC tubing, Drano, elastics and snowmobiles, personal lasers have legitimate uses, for which they are used. Teaching photography and hobby astronomy, for example (have you ever tried to point out Mars to someone using your finger?). Or building a fence. Or finding broken glass on the floor. It has lots of valid uses, just like a knife.

      Stop being such a knee-jerk reactionary. If someone uses something to hurt or harm others, prosecute them for that, and don't penalize based on the potential.

    23. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by modecx · · Score: 1

      Still not quite right.

      1) The offending legislation was the Hughes amendment to the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act. It was an 11:30th hour amendment to that bill, that was somehow included very sneakily or fraudulently by NY and NJ representatives--after the HoR denied to include it by vote. The bill including the amendment was passed to Senate, and they in turn passed it to Regan to sign, which he did. It wasn't an executive order--and I don't think a president could get away with something like that.

      It's a wonder it hasn't been challenged. That's the NRA for ya though, and the anti-gunners think they're a big, powerful and competent lobby group. LOL.

      2) You need to get a Type 1 FFL, there is no such animal as a "Class 3" FFL. Class 3 refers to the Special Occupational Tax. It's commonly misapplied to Title II weapons.

      3) Special Occupational Tax: "SOT" as the industry calls it a $500/year tax which enables your FFL to transfer and deal Title II weapons (Short Barrel Rifle , SB Shotguns, AOWs, MGs and suppressors) without any other tax requirements. It gets you around paying the standard taxes required for receiving these weapons. Alcohol and Tobacco (sound familiar) retailers and distributors also pay a Special Occupational Tax to do the analogous activity without paying the tax federal tax--which is what the consumer does. It's not strictly required to deal or receive these items--it's just that the tax adds up very quickly.

      4) Even after you become a dealer and all of that you still generally need a demo letter from a police agency BEFORE you can receive a post 86 machine gun--the ATF won't approve the transfer otherwise. ATF Form 3 is the Application to transfer a Title II weapon tax-free. Even for a FFL/Dealer, you have to APPLY to transfer the above items--for everything except machine guns, it's basically a given. Ostensibly, this is so they can track the movement of EVERY item.

      So, you'll have to become buddies with the local PD Chief/Sheriff who understands the process--generally they have to be interested in purchasing weapons at the very least.. Once you have it you can keep it indefinitely, though.

      5) If you don't want to go the demo letter route, you can get one of the various eligible manufacturer FFLs, pay the yearly Department of State ITAR registration, pay the SOT, and make your machine gun out of a semi-auto (whatever), and register it (ATF form 2) with the ATF yourself.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    24. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's classed as a weapon, it's banned by international treaty already. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons

    25. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by icebrain · · Score: 1

      Don't they ban fully automatic rifles for civilian use in the USA?

      No. Class III weapons (short-barreled rifles and shotguns, full auto/select-fire weapons, suppressors) are legal to own, at least at the federal level. Some states may have further restrictions. Short version is, you need to get federal approval (long and lots of paperwork, but not hard if you have a clean record) and pay a $200 transfer tax. Other posters give more details about this.

      The trick with full-auto/select-fire weapons (all grouped by BATFE as "machine guns") is that manufacture of new ones for private civilian use was prohibited in 1986. Anything made before that is legal, anything made after that can only be for government agencies (police, military, other law enforcement) or as dealer samples. Restricting supply like this naturally raises prices; a full-auto M16 can set you back about $20k or more, where the semiauto clone (AR-15) will run $700-1200.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    26. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just need to go through a few more checks than when you're buying a semi-automatic or single shot weapon, and pay a $200 transfer fee. The real barrier to buying a machine gun is the price, which isn't a barrier at all in the case of this pointer.

      That and the fact that you can't buy newly manufactured fully automatic weapons. Anything manufactured after 1986 (I think it's 1986 anyway) cannot be purchased by civilians in the US. Which is why an MP5 will run you $10,000+.

    27. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It "IS" a weapon at short range regardless of intent in the same way that my set of cooking knives "ARE" weapons at short range.

      In other words: Of course intent matters.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    28. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by jvkjvk · · Score: 1

      Almost all current weapon regulations define weapons as devices designed to fire projectiles. Lasers do not fire projectiles and are not subject to such regulation.

      Oh, sure! I thought that debate was settled already. And here you go claiming that light is "just a wave"! A particle would be a projectile (albeit a very tiny one!). A whole bunch of particles just means a whole lot of projectiles.

      Though I guess if you just fire at double slit experiments (Hey! get your mind out of the gutter!) then it's ok - just don't try to measure a photon's location, or you'll end up with a weapon!

      Perhaps you could even accuse any Officer of the Court of weaponizing you innocent toy by observation, necessitating they jail themselves. "Honestly - It's only a weapon when you look at it!"

    29. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      or someone WILL get hurt.

      That sucks.

      But banning dangerous equipment just because people frequently and predictably get hurt is absurd. Anyone who wants to can go down to any hardware store and every aisle has five things that they could seriously injure you with. Mostly they don't, and if they did you'd file charges.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    30. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's an IR laser in the video. Not the same thing at all.

    31. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      I have exactly such a setup in my lab at home, and I can tell you why it's underwhelming - there are no collimation optics present at the end of the fiber. The beam spreads wildly from the end of the fiber, the spot is about a pencil lead diameter at an inch from the target, but back off 6 inches and the spot size is a good 2". This has hardly enough energy density to do anything beyond the immediate end of the fiber, the target has to be closer than 1 inch away to burn anything.

      The blue laser in question, I'm assuming, is properly collimated and will burn things at a distance and do it much faster than what you see happening in the video, due to all the energy being concentrated into a tight spot.

      BTW the biggest problem with the fiber setup is the smoke given off by burning objects contaminates the end of the fiber and fouls the optical quality of the output. Removal of the smoke by air pressure or vacuum is very important or you'll have to keep re-polishing the end of the fiber. I clamped mine into a cheap mechanical pencil to for a nice hand-held beam delivery wand.

      That said, yeah, it does take a second or two for things to burn so you'd probably react from the initial heat before you actually caught fire. Not so with optical damage - even millisecond exposure can blind.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    32. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by Thomas+Shaddack · · Score: 1
      Everything is a potential weapon. Even a newspaper; look up the "Millwall brick". Or a bottle. Or a chair leg. Or even a half-brick in a sock. According to your logic, sales of EVERYTHING would have to be restricted, including New York Times, bricks, and socks.

      Yes, a laser beam bounces. So do bullets. Ever heard about ricocheting? Also, a bullet fired into the air has to fall down somewhere. Which can be onto (and often through) somebody's head.

    33. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Depending on how those lasers are packaged they could be regarded as automatic weapons too.

      --
    34. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by TheLink · · Score: 1, Interesting

      > Even if it were classified as a firearm, it would be semi-automatic as it only fires once when you press the button.

      Wrong. It is not a one shot pulse laser. It fires continuously and keeps firing as long as you press the button.

      Quote specs: "Switch: Push Button Constant On / Off, Lock-Out Tail Cap"

      Even if fully automatic rifles are not banned they appear to be rather regulated. In my opinion such laser products should be tightly regulated since:
      1) They're not like industrial laser cutting tools, you're only going to destroy stuff that you bring to that tool - the danger radius is typically rather limited. They're in a different form and package.
      2) They don't appear to serve much useful purpose compared to the danger they pose.

      --
    35. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by TheLink · · Score: 0, Troll

      I've no problem with the nonblinding lasers. You can use those for building your fences and finding broken glass on the floor.

      Your suggested uses of "find broken glass", "building fences" seem to show that you really are clueless on what this laser can do and it would be very unsafe in your hands, or that you are using very ill-thought examples[1].

      If you tried to use this laser to find broken glass on the floor you are likely to blind yourself or others within a significant range. The reflected/refracted light of this laser can still cause permanent eye damage and/or blindness in significant ranges - e.g. in "find broken glass on the floor" scenarios.

      Even their lower powered products would be unsuitable for many of your suggested uses.

      The usefulness vs danger ratio of this particular product in its particular form is rather low.

      It's ridiculously unsafe that a random ignorant idiot with USD200 can just click "I agree to all that scary warnings" and legally buy one, instead of having to jump through the sort of hoops required in order to legally buy a fully automatic machine gun. The latter will at least take a very persistent and resourceful ignorant idiot who are far rarer.

      In contrast it'll more likely be someone with more awareness who'd jump through those hoops to own a fully automatic machine gun, someone who is far less likely to fire it randomly into a crowd.

      The entry-barrier is too low for such laser products.

      [1] Your examples in the context of this product are like saying: "there are legitimate uses for personal machine guns, making doughnuts with them in the kitchen for instance".

      --
    36. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by TheLink · · Score: 0, Troll

      You don't need a license for this laser right? That's my point.

      This is a fully automatic weapon, heck it even seems to have a constant on-off switch. At least an M16 requires you to do fancy stuff in order to keep it firing for a full minute.

      It needs to be regulated to reduce the "fools to legitimate users ratio". Very few lives will be negatively impacted by such regulation, and I think it would reduce the amount of harm in the long run.

      Take the example of one person who replied to my OP, who gave the "find broken glass on the floor" example of a legitimate use for personal lasers. It may be a legitimate for a 1mW laser pointer, but it is a totally STUPID suggestion in the context of this product.

      "Oh yeah there's broken glass on that part of the floor, how can I tell? Because me and my friends now have permanent eye damage (or are now blind) from the reflected/scattered laser light."

      That sort of thing is less likely to happen with a workshop 30W cutting tool laser, even though it is far more powerful. That product has a far smaller danger radius in its sold form, and hence poses a far lower risk to others.

      --
    37. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by Kijori · · Score: 1

      Except that that isn't actually the description from the right laser (the article seems to have got itself a bit confused about that). This light is the "Arctic" model, which doesn't seem to be designed for tactical operations so much as for causing permanent and terrible injury while making money for wickedlasers.

      Designing this as a lightsaber (a "wicked" one, no less) and advertising it in magazines like MAXIM seems like a sick joke when you read about the effects it causes. Using a blue laser this powerful can apparently (according to their own explanation):

      -Cause blindness based only on diffuse scattering, eg off a wall, and at a considerable distance
      -Cause cancer from direct contact or diffuse scattering
      -Cause temporary or permanent damage to vision based on even more diffuse scattering, eg an inability to perceive the colour green
      -Burn skin or clothes on contact

      The marketing encourages people to burn things and play with their "lightsaber", despite the fact that by their own admission doing so is likely to cause burns, vision damage and cancer. I find it incredibly irresponsible for a company to market something like this as a "cool toy". (and this is what they are doing - everything from the styling of the laser as a lightsaber, to the name "WickedLasers", to the samples sent to magazines like MAXIM and the emphasis on its awesome burning power is designed to market this as a toy, whatever they claim).

      (PS I've just noticed that they claim that safety goggles with an optical density of 3+ are required to protect against accidental exposure to this laser, and that they suggest goggles with an optical density of 4.4+ to offer sufficient protection. But the goggles they supply (http://www.wickedlasers.com/lasers/Green_532nm_LaserShields_Goggles-20-16.html) only seem to offer a density of 2+ at the wavelength of this laser. So the safety equipment they supply is, by their own admission, not adequate. Are they trying to behave as irresponsibly as possible? This company is trying to turn a profit on a product is likely blind or maim people trying to use it, especially if they rely on the provided "protective" gear. How is that even legal?)

    38. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by imthesponge · · Score: 1

      There'll be tons of fun when some kid decides to bring this "cool-looking laser pointer" that he found to school. Pew pew pew!

    39. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by RichiH · · Score: 1

      So an atomic bomb within a hydrogen bomb is not a weapon? Cool.

    40. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by Kijori · · Score: 1

      Exactly. This is up there with making a gun that looks like a water pistol in terms of responsibility. If (or when?) someone is badly hurt I hope WickedLasers are forced to face the consequences of their decisions. This is one area where I think government regulation would certainly be desirable; companies should not be able to try to make a profit out of something so irresponsible, unethical and downright dangerous.

    41. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      personal lasers have legitimate uses, for which they are used. Teaching photography and hobby astronomy, for example (have you ever tried to point out Mars to someone using your finger?). Or building a fence. Or finding broken glass on the floor. It has lots of valid uses, just like a knife.

      Nuclear power stations have a legitimate use in generating power, however the fact that they can also be used to create material for atomic weapons means that we don't let dangerous terrorist states buy/develop them.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    42. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by jythie · · Score: 1

      The restriction generally tends to be on the manufacture (or conversion) of new automatic weapons. You can buy existing ones, but you generally can not build new ones for civilian use.

    43. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by TheCRAIGGERS · · Score: 1

      Didn't they do an episode on that on Mythbusters and found a bullet's energy at terminal velocity wasn't enough to kill?

    44. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by Mad-Bassist · · Score: 1

      That sort of thing is less likely to happen with a workshop 30W cutting tool laser, even though it is far more powerful.

      As I understand it, CO2 lasers are far-infrared around 10,000nm. They don't penetrate as well and are more likely to cause damage to the cornea than the retina. Near-infrared (800-1000nm) from a typical diode laser is more hazardous in that way, despite being a much lower power output. It goes straight to the retina.

      --
      "The only legitimate use of a computer is to play games." - Eugene Jarvis
    45. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Point taken, and in that context, I completely agree with you.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    46. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by dannys42 · · Score: 1

      Actually a high power laser is quite useful as a projector. Imagine I wanted to use lasers to do a raster scan to act as a display. Then I'm basically splitting my power across the entire surface area of the display and the time it takes to scan the area. I haven't done the calculations, but I imagine you'd need something more than the typical 1-2mW pocket lasers out there.

    47. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by TheLink · · Score: 1

      That's why I wrote:

      > Yes the laser itself has use in projectors and other stuff, but what good purpose does this product in this form have?

      I am well aware that the actual laser itself is already in use in projectors.

      The final form does matter. While slashdotters do disassemble and modify/rebuild stuff, the general public tend to use products "as is".

      --
    48. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by mweather · · Score: 1

      It is a one shot laser that fires continuously and keeps firing as long as you press the button. I.E. One shot with a long duration. A machine gun doesn't fire continuously, it fires repeatedly. I.E. Multiple shots with very short duration. One shot != multiple shots, no matter what the duration of each shot is.

    49. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by mweather · · Score: 1

      You can build all the machine guns you want, you just can't transfer ownership.

    50. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by TheLink · · Score: 1

      It's way closer to a fully automatic weapon than a semi-auto. You can hold the trigger down, wave it around and blind/injure hundreds with your so-called "one shot".

      Try doing that with a semi-automatic handgun.

      Heck I could also say it's firing lots of photons repeatedly in that single shot. But I think my first point is far more important from the perspective of the targets and the wielder. For them it behaves like a fully automatic weapon, and it should be classified and treated similarly for regulatory purposes too.

      --
    51. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by mweather · · Score: 1

      It's way closer to a fully automatic weapon than a semi-auto.

      I agree, but that doesn't make it fully automatic.

      Heck I could also say it's firing lots of photons repeatedly in that single shot.

      A shotgun fires a bunch of individual pellets in a single shot. That doesn't make it fully-automatic.

    52. Re:Fully Automatic Weapon by TheLink · · Score: 1

      > A shotgun fires a bunch of individual pellets in a single shot. That doesn't make it fully-automatic.

      Sure, never said it was. I was mentioning it because of _your_ "multiple shot" example.

      You can stand in front of the a semiautomatic weapon (shotgun, handgun whatever) not long after the trigger is pulled, and not be hit.

      In contrast a fully automatic machine gun, will still be damaging stuff as long as there's ammo and the trigger is still pulled. Same for this laser. Hence it behaves like an automatic weapon.

      You can keep believing what you want, but my classification makes far more sense than yours.

      --
  43. When everyone is special... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    ...then no one is special.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  44. Pandora's Box by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Malicious blinding of unpopular politicians or celebs, musicians, athletes, etc? watch out for aggrieved exes, etc.

    End of horse betting. If anyone can burn a race horse from a hundred meters away and put them off their stride.

    Arson - from a distance and possibly without physical evidence. Imagine someone lighting off a fuel tanker or a tank farm or the local police station, or a rival business, or an aircraft being refuelled or someone in flammable clothing.

    Blackmail based on threat of any of the above.

    Ye olde terrorist could probably hurt more people and cause greater harm to a society by blinding 100 people on a crowded street with one of these than with a bomb or a gun.

    I really won't be surprised in they are heavily licensed or banned outright.

    1. Re:Pandora's Box by cosm · · Score: 1

      Thats what I was thinking. Some asshat psychopath getting one and pointing it at a gas nozzle while somebody fills up their tank. I am all for sweet and responsible use of technology, but something like this makes it too easy to get these in the hands of the people with evil intentions. I understand that you could build something like this in your home, and even distribute them, but mass marketed high power lasers just makes it easier for Joe Blow Psycho to get his hands on something that could really do some harm.

      I guarantee these will be heavily regulated and banned immediately in many states. Hell, in many states it is illegal to be caught with brass knuckles, spring loaded switch-blades, butter-fly knives, cross-bows. These will not be any different; the second legislators start hearing about this, the codification of the laws will begin.

      --
      'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    2. Re:Pandora's Box by Archon-X · · Score: 1

      As they are a point source, lasers adhere to the inverse-square law of decay [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law]
      Previously released lasers from these guys that can light cigarettes etc are only effective within 300mm or so.

      I will make the uneducated guess that [hopefully] these 1W versions will be unable to be used with malicious intent / outcome from a large distance.

    3. Re:Pandora's Box by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, in many states it is illegal to be caught with brass knuckles, spring loaded switch-blades, butter-fly knives, cross-bows. These will not be any different; the second legislators start hearing about this, the codification of the laws will begin.

      And like the brass knuckles and switchblades, said laws will do absolutely fuck-all to keep them out of evil hands.

    4. Re:Pandora's Box by __aagctu1952 · · Score: 1

      As they are a point source, lasers adhere to the inverse-square law of decay [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law]
      Previously released lasers from these guys that can light cigarettes etc are only effective within 300mm or so.

      I will make the uneducated guess that [hopefully] these 1W versions will be unable to be used with malicious intent / outcome from a large distance.

      Argh. The inverse-square law applies to omnidirectional point source radiators. A laser pointer is extremely directional by definition...

    5. Re:Pandora's Box by Archon-X · · Score: 1

      What's the decay rate / algo of a laser then - genuinely curious.

    6. Re:Pandora's Box by mbessey · · Score: 1

      beam shape of a laser is primarily related to the shape and size of the lasing cavity. Since diode lasers are so small, they tend to have fairly high divergence. Interestingly, if you expand the beam at the source, it reduces the spread proportionately. Actually, the wickedlasers folks have a chart on their web site: (doesn't include the laser we're discussing her, probably because it's new, but gives you an idea).
      http://www.wickedlasers.com/laser-tech/laser_beam_comparison.html

    7. Re:Pandora's Box by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no. half the point of laser is that it does not spread (the other half is the wavelength). inverse square law is because normal light source spread out.

  45. Great laser spot for my hunting rifle by jpvlsmv · · Score: 1

    Too bad it doesn't come with a rifle mount, I'd love to replace my regular (crosshairs) scope with something that would light up my target. And catch it on fire.

    Goodbye, squirrel.

    --Joe

  46. Call me stupid but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Call me stupid, but what is the use of this product?

    Just like a gun, it seems it's more likely to cause death/harm than any practical "good use". Even a Taser only has "potential" heart attack as a risk, not "WILL SET YOU ON FIRE" as a risk.

    You can't even say this would make for a good survival product since you will blind yourself using it.

  47. Do you expect me to talk? by iamhassi · · Score: 1
    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  48. yikes by JackSpratts · · Score: 1

    the day of the trifids is at hand.

  49. Can set people on fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What, no videos?

  50. awsome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is great stuff... I am having fanaties right now...

  51. Set up instructions - cover your freakin EYES! by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    The good thing about guns is that they do not constantly spew out a continuous stream of dangerous projectiles for minutes at a time. Even a full-auto machine gun will run out of bullets after a dozen seconds or so.

    To play the devil's advocate, lasers don't make sucking chest wounds (yet?). I found it funny that you are trying to justify how dangerous a small laser is (that can cause small burns or blindness) by comparing it to something that can kill a group of people in within a few seconds. I think that is the point of a machine gun, but probably not the point of a small laser. Nice hysterical POV, though.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Set up instructions - cover your freakin EYES! by Surt · · Score: 1

      OTOH, one, maybe two more orders of magnitude in power output and you'll be able to kill crowds with ease with a device that fits in your pocket, and might not even have enough metal in it to set off a metal detector. How cool will that be!

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:Set up instructions - cover your freakin EYES! by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Well, industrial welding laser may leave sucking chest wounds. I'm not totally sure though. It would seem that it would burn everything in it's path, so bleeding wouldn't be a problem, but the extra holes for air probably wouldn't be all that good for you. :)

          I'm not arguing against you. If I was presented with a choice of an enemy with a machine gun, or one with a laser that may burn my skin a little, I'd choose the one with the laser. A few surface scars aren't all that bad, when you consider the other option.

          For those with no clue, a sucking chest wound can be caused by a bullet passing through the chest of the victim, but not hitting anything that would cause severe blood loss. The lung collapses, and breathing can be difficult to impossible. I believe all the armed forces teach field treatment for sucking chest wounds in basic training, since it is a possibility in combat. A soldier can survive with field treatment, followed up with proper medical attention. Without field treatment, it's likely they won't make it.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    3. Re:Set up instructions - cover your freakin EYES! by RsG · · Score: 1

      Well, industrial welding laser may leave sucking chest wounds. I'm not totally sure though. It would seem that it would burn everything in it's path, so bleeding wouldn't be a problem, but the extra holes for air probably wouldn't be all that good for you. :)

      Nah, that's a common misconception. People have it in their head that a laser powerful enough to be considered a weapon would leave a neat little cauterized hole in a person. Like getting stabbed with a razor sharp superheated stiletto. Crops up in science fiction all the time, especially when the author is trying to get away from the pulpy "Raygun" image. This is probably reinforced by the (mis)use of magnifying glasses at high noon that we all dimly remember from our youth.

      A high powered laser will do a number of things depending on what wavelength it uses, and how tightly focused the beam is. What it won't do is leave the area surrounding the burn untouched. You won't get a burn here, and perfectly undamaged skin an inch to the left. It could happen that way if the laser is tightly focused in order to leave a very small heat affected zone (important in some industrial applications), but I wouldn't bet on it even then. On a laser powerful enough to cut or weld, you'll get a wide circle of flesh damaged to an increasing degree as you near the center, a deep burn at the point of focus, and water at the wound site flash vaporized to steam, which may further aggravate the injury. Bleeding, and more importantly internal bleeding, may be present, and if the damaged area includes a major blood vessel, then you're about as screwed as if the damaged were caused by anything else.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    4. Re:Set up instructions - cover your freakin EYES! by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          You sound like someone who's had the luxury to play with industrial lasers. :)

          Thanks for the input. Before I posted that, I went looking around to see if I could find a pictures or a video of what kind of damage it would do to flesh. I assumed I'd find someone putting a pig or chicken part in front of an industrial laser. I was sadly disappointed.

          I assumed the heat would cauterize the wound, but I guess if it's going across something thick enough (like a major vein or artery) without some physical assistance, it couldn't possibly do it.

          Either way, the original discussion was for a much lower power laser, that would only cause surface burns. I've had surface burns from other sources, so I'd prefer it to a real firearm. For now, I'll just avoid being in the dangerous direction of industrial lasers. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  52. Not as cool as they seem... by ManicMechanic · · Score: 1

    I have used some of the high power(readily cuts electrical tape, pops balloons etc) hand held laser devices for tactical purposes. Some thoughts. They dont work in daylight as a weapon sight. I dont care what you think, you aint gonna acquire a tennis ball sized faded blue spot at 200m while shooting/getting shot at/flying/driving/running, its a lot easier and faster to walk rounds on target. At night you dont need high power. You really dont want to shine one thru your windshield, cause when it hits a scratch or a bug (at night) it tends to blind (temporarily) everyone in the cockpit and light up said cockpit really well (kinda defeats the purpose of blackout lights). Using them as a weapon will get you thrown in the brig when you are caught because of all the blind guys that come to the clinic on the FOB to get treated (law of war and all). Red or IR are ideal lasers, blue and green suck as most NVGs attenuate these wavelengths. The Chinese and North Koreans have weaponized Lasers, the North Koreans have blinded US pilots with them. I fly with filters for the some of the most common wavelengths used during daylight.

  53. Cheap polyester by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

    Cheap polyester... burns like tinder.

    Even worse. It MELTS.

    --
    There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    1. Re:Cheap polyester by AtomicOrange · · Score: 1

      Synthetic materials will melt into the skin when they come into contact with fire or other extreme heat. This is why the US military sends firefighters/combat troops/and others going "outside the wire" with cotton (doesn't melt into the skin) or flame retardant materials like nomex.

      Unfortunate how after truckloads of money, and years of design the Air Force still creates a uniform that can't be worn outside the wire. So it then had to be manufactured with a cotton version just to satisfy that requirement for when people leave a base. (IMHO).

      --
      "What is there a tank on the boat? WHY IS THERE A TANK ON THE BOAT?!?" L4D2
    2. Re:Cheap polyester by triffid_98 · · Score: 1
      Wool is the traditional choice for this application. Cotton is a lot more flammable albeit far more comfortable. Anything really flammable means nomex these days, though I'm unfamiliar with it's resistance to laser attack.

      his is why the US military sends firefighters/combat troops/and others going "outside the wire" with cotton (doesn't melt into the skin) or flame retardant materials like nomex.

    3. Re:Cheap polyester by AtomicOrange · · Score: 1

      I'd be curious to see how Nomex stands up to laser attack as well. Though by the time weapons become more weaponized (ie legal to use via the geneva convention as a destructive weapon rather than maiming), I'm sure protective materials will have been improved and innovated as well.

      --
      "What is there a tank on the boat? WHY IS THERE A TANK ON THE BOAT?!?" L4D2
  54. 1W Handheld Lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For a long time, Wicked Lasers has been known to several laser enthusiast communities to provide poor quality products at ridiculous prices to people who know very little about lasers but apparently have lots of money to burn. $200, though, is a reasonable price because laser enthusiasts who build their own lasers by using scrap diodes from dvd-or blu-ray burners, or in the case of the recent blue diode, projectors, have been able to obtain the diodes for around $50. It seems as though Wicked Lasers has also tried to improve their quality quite a bit.

    However, I am quite worried about this product. As a laser enthusiast for quite some time, I value safety very highly. Once, despite the many precautions I take to ensure the safety of myself and others, I obtained a small blind spot from an accident while conducting some tests. That laser was 50mW, that is 0.05W. Furthermore, that laser was 532nm (green). The lower down toward UV you go, the more most materials burn. 405nm lasers (from blu-ray diodes), for example, burn white paper fairly easily because many materials absorb lower wavelengths better. The laser diode they are using is 445nm IIRC. It is also important to note that higher power lasers do far more serious damage to the eye and they have a much higher probability of creating degenerative effects such that whatever eyesight you have left following a burn will slowly disappear.

    The prohibitive cost of high-powered turnkey laser systems has always kept the market centered around professionals and enthusiasts with a strong background in lasers. $200 is not prohibitive at all and 1W is an enormous amount of power. Personally, I have strong reservations of handheld laser systems with an output power of anything more than around 200mW and I wouldn't recommend any lasers above 50mW to anyone without a good deal of experience in lasers. Putting a 1W diode into a handheld system is absolutely unthinkable in my mind and I worry greatly about two things:.
    1. People will hurt themselves and those around them.
    2. Incidents will lead to even stricter regulations on lasers.

    The former is bad for obvious reasons. The latter will only make it harder for professionals and enthusiasts who have already invested a good deal of time and money on their hobby.

  55. Not that useful really... by RedMage · · Score: 1

    Except as a tool of mischief, this type of laser isn't that useful. Think it through:
    . Laser display - not so good, as you'd have to mount it behind some scanners, etc. and the beam probably isn't that great in quality.
    . Laser pointer - not so good either, unless you want to point out things pretty far away. Perhaps as an astronomy pointer, but green works just as fine here at much lower powers.
    . Cat toy - no, unless you like blind cats
    . Cutting tool - not nearly enough power to be useful here.

    What's left? Nothing I can think of besides the "Hey George, see how bright this sucker is!" I certainly wouldn't want a 1W laser that I couldn't absolutely control where the beam was, and hand-held would be right out. I like my eyes.

    (Yes, I own several lasers in the 500mW-1W range and operate them safely, with interlocks and keys, etc. They're not toys, but you can do fun things with them if you know how to do them safely.)

    --
    }#q NO CARRIER
    1. Re:Not that useful really... by nblender · · Score: 1

      diy mosquito hunting.

  56. Its all fun and games... by orlanz · · Score: 3, Funny

    Its all fun and games until the geeks realize that the lasers don't stop each other in midswing and version 2 lops off limbs.

    1. Re:Its all fun and games... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then it's just fun.

  57. on/off button.... by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

    from their website:

    Switch: Push Button Constant On / Off, Lock-Out Tail Cap

    If I'm reading this right, it's like a flashlight button (click on, click again off). If that's true, this thing goes from really dangerous to absurdly dangerous since it'll stay on if you drop it (or turn on accidentally if you drop it "just right"). I can't imagine putting a control on something like this that doesn't require constant, intentional pressure to keep it on, so that as soon as you let go it shuts off.
    If I'm wrong, please correct me. I really hope I'm wrong.

    --
    Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
  58. To my evil nemesis Dr. Balloon by LostAlaska · · Score: 1

    With this tech I'll finally be able to stand on even ground with my evil nemesis Dr. Balloon. Those balloon animals don't stand a chance now!

  59. Discount Code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    5% discount with the code = WLSurvey

  60. Can I hunt deer with this? by Last_Available_Usern · · Score: 1

    Be on the lookout for new, highly reflective hunting outfits instead of the current standard of blaze orange.

  61. Donor Hardware = Casio XJ-A240 Projector. by ammorris · · Score: 1

    The donor hardware pictured in the "How We Made It" Section appears to be a Casio XJ-A240 DLP Projector - Retailing for a cool $999.99. Seems like an expensive piece of donor hardware to be breaking down to build these! Also - I wonder how many diodes they're getting out of each projector to get their final cost down to only $200 per pointer??

    1. Re:Donor Hardware = Casio XJ-A240 Projector. by mbessey · · Score: 1

      From the pictures on the website, it looks like the projector has an array of 8x3 laser diodes. Not sure whether 8 of those are the blue ones, or more, or less. So figure between $100 and $4 per laser, depending. I'me sure they have that enclosure down to a few bucks by now, considering how many models they make that are nearly the same...

    2. Re:Donor Hardware = Casio XJ-A240 Projector. by AWeishaupt · · Score: 1

      http://www.da-entertainment.de/casio%20beamer/thumb.html
      About 24 of them per projector.
      Anyway...
      I really don't like the fact that this device exists at all. I'm a laser fan, but I think Wicked Lasers has crossed the line this time.
      They continue to market these things like they're toys - it is even styled, deliberately, to look like a lightsaber. I think they're being reckless, and they have to start self-regulating.
      If you used a 1 W Class IV laser in a lab, you would have it bolted to an optical bench with the beam plane fixed well below head height, automatically interlocked to the door of the laser room, with laser safety signs and an illuminated laser-in-use warning lamp posted outside the door, with a lockout keyswitch on the power supply, which only authorised trained persons are allowed access to the key for, with the beam path enclosed, with a proper beam dump to terminate the beam, with proper goggles mandatory for everyone in the room, and everyone trained properly.... and on and on and on to make sure that it's used safely.
      But anyone can simply buy this laser pointer, which is an order of magnitude more dangerous and an order of magnitude cheaper than most other comparable laser pointers on the market, and wave it around freely with no engineered controls at all.

  62. Phased Plasma Rifle.. by tekrat · · Score: 2, Funny

    In the 40 watt range.

    "Hey, just what you see here pal."

    Uzi 9 millimeter.

    "You really know your guns. This baby's perfect for home defense...."

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  63. A serious answer by Mr+44 · · Score: 1

    If you are interested in a serious answer to your question, The Hasting Law Journal covered this in their post-Heller special issue:
    http://www.uchastings.edu/hlj/archive/vol60/Lerner-Lund_60-HLJ-1387.pdf (pdf)
    There they discuss Tasers, "super-Tasers" and "phasers" (which do not yet exist). The unfortunate answer is "it depends".

  64. Accessories by Obble · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know if it comes with a Shark accessory?

  65. And they thought I was paranoid all these years. by Platinumrat · · Score: 1

    Now who's laughing at me; sitting in my moms basement wearing my tinfoil hat. Better get more foil for the rest of my body.

  66. so..... by WillgasM · · Score: 1

    you're saying this isn't a cat toy?

  67. Add me to the list... by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Even looking at the dot this thing projects on a wall could damage your eyes. It might sound cool but I do NOT want one of these in my house. Ever.

    --
    No sig today...
  68. Get some "curtains" by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    It's a radical new technology for blocking light. Google for it.

    --
    No sig today...
  69. Irregardless, you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  70. hrmf... by hitmark · · Score: 1

    there are a lot of talk about how this is a weapon, specifically compared to firearms.

    while the concept may seem right at first, there are some very specific differences.

    a firearm, unless its the fully automatic kind, will fire only one bullet for each trigger pull. And only if someone is in its direct line of fire at that moment, do they risk getting hurt or killed. A laser on the other hand shines for as long as the button is pressed, until the power source have run out.

    this means that one can shine at some point down range, and have someone walk into the beam. A somewhat different risk scenario, imo.

    --
    comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
  71. laser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From a utilitarian standpoint, such a thing would be an excellent survival tool - especially with a solar powered rechargeable power source.
    Good for making fire and possibly small game hunting.

  72. frickin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now all someone needs to do is stick one of these on Greg Norman's hat!

  73. It's $3000 for 500mW, not $200 for 1W by jurgen · · Score: 1

    The /. post said $200 for a 1W laser... dunno where he got that idea, the wicked lasers site has the Spyder III for $200 for the 50 mW version, a 500 mW version, which seems to be the max they are selling, is $3000! I'd love to have one, but it will have to wait for Christmas, I guess.

    1. Re:It's $3000 for 500mW, not $200 for 1W by Eric+Smith · · Score: 1

      You're apparently looking at the wrong one. The 1W blue for $198 is the Spider III Pro Arctic. It's the headline item on their top page, and is listed under "Blue Lasers" under "2010 Pro Series" in the left pane.

  74. Serve the Computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Attention Citizens!

    Effective immediately, all those with less than Blue Level clearance have been promoted to Blue Level.

    It is in the interest of the Alpha Complex that experiments in Self Regulation commence immediately.

    Failure to sign your mandatory release forms is treason and you all know what to do with traitors.

    Serve the Computer!

  75. I'm glad lasers are illegal where I live by trawg · · Score: 1

    The potential for getting stricken with blindness by some idiot kid waving something like this around terrifies me.

  76. deprecate vs depreciate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not quite.

    to deprecate is a transitive verb - A deprecates B.

    to depreciate can be both transitive - accountants depreciate assets over time for tax purposes; or intransitive, as it was used above: B depreciates (as in loses value).

    You cannot use deprecate intransitively, so your definition does not hold.

  77. Check this out by sea4ever · · Score: 1

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14310?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news5_head_dn14310
    An article about a rave where somehow the lasers were turned on/reflected at the crowd, partially blinding a few people.
    There are probably dozens of people that want revenge on someone else in some way, now for only $200.00 they can permanently blind whoever they want!
    I for one am now paranoid about wearing my shades in public.
    Shades will protect people's eyes, right? Some people need eyesight to earn a living!

  78. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  79. Mpph! by derfy · · Score: 1

    Hudda hudda mpph!

  80. Airplanes? by Amlothi · · Score: 1

    The real question is, will it be banned by the TSA?

    --
    ~A~
  81. Here.... by kernel+panic+attack · · Score: 1

    kitty, kitty, kitty....

  82. Re:A perfect weapon? by triffid_98 · · Score: 1
    Shotguns already have that capability, their projectiles are untraceable. Even when fired from a rifled barrel, forensics can only classify the type of weapon with 100% accuracy, regardless of what you saw on CSI:Miami last night.

    A 1W laser is not a blinding device at long range, it's only useful for that purpose at fairly close range. At longer ranges it may dazzle a target, which may be hazardous in of itself, but it will not cause blindness.

    You can buy a 12 gauge shotgun at Walmart for around $250. It is a lot more effective than this. In most states there is neither a waiting period or a license required.

    Or on cops without leaving any sort of forensic trail?

  83. Test by jprupp · · Score: 1

    How is it exactly that they found subjects for the burning flesh tests?

  84. My gear acquisition lust is excited by this one by Whuffo · · Score: 1

    I can actually see some use for this thing. Those wasp nests won't stand a chance; a whole watt should be enough to ignite the nest and do it from a safe distance. You'll have to hold the beam on one spot for a while, though - one watt isn't exactly industrial cutting laser stuff.

    All through this thread I see people posting who vaguely understand that it's dangerous - but they don't seem to have a good idea of how dangerous. First thing to consider are eyes. Yours and also anyone else's eyes that the beam could reach. This power level will instantly destroy the retinal tissue - the damage is done much faster than you can blink. If you use one of these you MUST wear the protective goggles and you NEED to be aware of what the beam can reach. If there's any reflective surfaces (they don't have to be mirrors, just reflective) then the beam can go just about anywhere. You MUST wear the protective goggles if you light this thing up - even if you're smart enough to never look into the beam, the reflected beam from a glass window, shiny beer can, etc. will get you - sooner or later. The eye damage is permanent and it accumulates as more of the retina is destroyed.

    Here's how it usually goes: step one - play with your new laser in the living room, spraying photons everywhere. Step two is when you have a "wow, that was really bright" moment. Step three is the trip to the doctor who gives you the bad news. Wear the goggles! And consider carefully where you are operating this thing. There's a reason laser labs don't have windows or shiny things of any kind and the lasers are bolted down - this allows them to guarantee that the beam is under control. There will also be a beam stop that is capable of blocking the full output of the laser. Do you have a place like this to light up your new laser?

    OK, let's step away from the "you'll put your eye out with that thing" talk for a moment and consider the destructive power of this one watt laser. You're not going to be able to wave it in front of a piece of paper and expect the paper to fall into two pieces. It'll cut electrical tape and black garbage bags pretty well and popping balloons can be fun. But actually setting something on fire will require the beam to be on the same spot for many, many seconds before enough heat is built up to ignite what you're burning. If you want to use this thing as a weapon you'd be well advised to stick to burning out retinas. It'll do that real well.

    This laser comes with a set of protective goggles - if you want to show it off to your friends, be sure to get some extra goggles for them to use and don't light the laser until everyone has their goggles on. And always know where the beam is going - even if you and your friends are wearing goggles there's none on the innocent bystanders outside and they're not expecting you to have the beam take a bad bounce and nail them through a window.

  85. Tempting but no by jprupp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As tempting as it seems to get one of these devices, their destructive power seems too great. I have a 7-year-old daughter I'd rather keep far away from this thing. I don't think hiding it somewhere she isn't supposed to find it is good enough. There are usually accidents involving children and concealed firearms. Respect this laser. Handle it with utmost care if you get it, seriously. After you take this into account, have LOADS of FUN!.

  86. No ballistics check with lazers by VShael · · Score: 1

    If these things become common place, there is no way to check who shot a lazer at someone.

    Hypothetically speaking, say, at a public event some minor politician is making a speech. And someone from the crowd blinds him.
    Or a mentally disturbed stalker burns his victim by shining the lazer through her window at night. Or an arsonist who doesn't have to enter the building or leave any chemical traces to set his fire.

    There are far too many ways this could be used to aid illegal activities, with no way for the perp to be tracked down afterwards.

    I don't have sufficient faith in the goodness of my fellow man, to want to see these lazers in mass production.

  87. THIS IS NOT GOOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >_

    Like giving guns to babies!

    GRRR

  88. This would work great by hellop2 · · Score: 1

    for the mosquito laser defense system.

    --
    How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
  89. The Important Question by Bugamn · · Score: 1

    I haven't seen yet someone asking: does it make those cool laser firing sounds?

  90. You REALLY need to RTFA, AND the ad... by Stone2065 · · Score: 1

    Wow... am I the only one that actually went to the site to read their ad? The ad states that the device comes with it's own set of eye ware for protection. Plus, battery life, via lithium Ion batteries, is 120 minutes. it's around 255mm long, and nearly 40mm wide, so it's NOT small. I DID think that it was amusing that they alluded to it's possible self defense use. Tell me, if someone were mugging you, if you waved this in their face, that it wouldn't almost be worth it to tell the cops "yeh, officer, the guy you're looking for is around 5' 10", white, brown hair, and a burnt "W" in his face. No, I'm not joking..."

    --
    Stone
  91. Setting people on fire is illegal. by edfardos · · Score: 1

    I looked it up.... sorry.

  92. Possibly the best/worst idea ever by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Couple this with:
    http://www.physorg.com/news156423566.html "Physicists build new anti-mosquito laser"

    I think our house will soon be wasp-free. And maybe we'll all be blinded, but dammit we won't have to worry about wasps.

    --
    -Styopa
  93. Ryan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are not accepting coupons on this laser, but order with this link to save 5%
    http://www.wickedlasers.com/index.php?refer=61027

  94. useful for self-defense? by czarangelus · · Score: 0

    does anyone have any comments on the potential usefulness of this item as a self-defense weapon? I've been considering a gun, but if this can really blind in seconds it might do the same job without all the pesky hoops and carry laws. How long would it take to blind an assailant with this item?

    --
    When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
    1. Re:useful for self-defense? by ^_^x · · Score: 1

      Purely speculation, but having read about high powered laser safety, I'm betting that:
      As self-defense it'll be useless on skin. It'll hit clothing and super heat it, but not what's below until it burns through. If your target is moving at all, it'll just make a slightly warmed line.
      For blinding? If you hit an eye, probably a matter of miliseconds, though you may just take out part of their field of view.

      If you think blinding someone in self defense is viable, I recommend a high power tactical flashlight like you'd mount on a gun. The blindness may be temporary, but it should be well more than enough to get away (if they don't shoot/swing blindly and kill you...) and should blind them quite effectively AND draw a ton of attention to them as they light up.

  95. Re:2nd Amendment - what about Nukes? by thaig · · Score: 1

    Are citizens allowed to buy nuclear weapons as a result of this?

    --
    This is all just my personal opinion.
  96. Well, they do require ID... by mbessey · · Score: 1

    They ask you to upload a copy of your state-issued Id before they'll sell you one, and they make you click a bunch of checkboxes on a form. I suspect that's a CYA move on their part - if someone buys one of these and then blinds themselves or someone else, the wickedlasers guys can say "look, he agreed it was dangerous, and he even went to the effort of scanning his drivers license".

  97. Oh Look... A Beowulf Cluster!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HA! That doesn't look dangerous at all !!

    http://www.da-entertainment.de/casio%20beamer/thumb/t_000_0039.jpg

    (from )

    http://www.da-entertainment.de/casio%20beamer/original/100_2474.html

  98. Not good by ^_^x · · Score: 1

    Holy crap, that's way too cheap!
    This is bad... I think many people won't wear goggles, and many more will use these for pranks on unprotected people. Blue light is more energetic and potentially harmful in secondary ways (though lasers are pretty tight color-wise so I wouldn't expect other frequencies unless it's a frequency doubled type like the common greens and their powerful IR leakage on cheap unfiltered models.) The big problem I see is that lasers that powerful can often give you blind spots if you catch a glint reflecting off of something without goggles... before you can even blink.