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."

Comments

Instant Blindness

[VidEdit]

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.

Re:Set up instructions

[harrkev]

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.

How can this be a general consumer product?

[LordZardoz]

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

Re:How can this be a general consumer product?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:2nd Amendment

[fyngyrz]

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.

Re:2nd Amendment

[Hatta]

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?