Heat Ray Gun Fails Final Test; Nixed From War

Final report by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 04:31 · Score: -1, Offtopic

MOAR DAKKA!

Re:Final report by Bryansix · 2010-07-27 04:36 · Score: 1, Interesting

The article was very light on details. Why was the weapon scrapped? Why was it never tested in a real world scenario as a non-lethal measure. The truth is that as much as the military is against non-lethal weapons, they can actually save lives on both sides and help in the winning of the war at the same time because you have less casualties which tend to cause the other side to galvanize against you.
Re:Final report by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 04:40 · Score: 0

Why are you replying to a troll? Just to stay high on the comments page? Tsk, tsk...
Re:Final report by techsoldaten · 2010-07-27 04:49 · Score: 5, Funny

Ultimately, upgrading your units to use the heat ray is not worth the points cost. Despite the superior strength and AP, you need to be within 12 inches to use it. This is assault range, and at most you are going to get one round of shooting before your opponent closes in. There's an excellent chance you will not get to use it except with bike mounted troops.
The heat ray is ultimately a weapon of opportunity, and you would be better off with the plasma gun for 5 more points. It's rapid fire and gives you a couple good rounds of shooting. Another alternative is a combi-gun with a melta attachment, for all intents and purposes you are going to get to use it the same number of times in a game. Even a standard rapid fire rifle is going to result in more shots against infantry, and the probability of a hit...
oh wait...
this isn't a conversation about 40k, and we are not talking about fantasy SF weapons that don't work. We are talking about real world fantasy weapons that don't work. My mistake!
M
Re:Final report by twiddlingbits · 2010-07-27 05:01 · Score: 1

I don't think distance was the deal beaker. The vehicle based one I saw the other night on Discover/NatGeo/Science (I forgot which one) works at quite a distance up to several hundred meters (yards). But it does require a big vehicle with a large flat rotating vertical antenna and a good sized generator to reach that range. That makes it kind of hard to deploy in places like Afghanistan where the terrain can be very rough and enemies are hiding (someone has to be in the open for it to work). I also would wonder if rain/snow/dust would attenuate the beam or spread it reducing effectiveness. I could see a police department finding a use for controlling an unruly crowd but I can't see them being able to find the several millions needed to buy one.. Until it can be made man-portable or on something smaller (like a HUMVEE ) can be fired up quick and doesn't have a huge antenna it's just an interesting toy for the military.
Re:Final report by bluefoxlucid · 2010-07-27 05:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

The truth is that as much as the military is against non-lethal weapons, they can actually save lives on both sides and help in the winning of the war at the same time because you have less casualties which tend to cause the other side to galvanize against you.
Not really.
The truth is "conditioning" pisses people off. Useless missions to touch the edge, raze some troops for non-tactical entertainment, and run off are a good way to show the enemy that we're completely evil and have no respect for life. Defending our borders and encampments is fine; but dipping into enemy lines just to do some damage and run is not.
Unfortunately, any useful military strategy involves penetration. While defending our encampments has obvious tactical advantages, those encampments are worthless if they don't support military motion. Thus, our military is of the predisposition to advance through enemy resistance onto a target.
In any non-lethal strategy, we have problems. If the enemy is allowed to retreat, they will increase resistance further ahead: the 500 troops facing us at the next battle become 1000 troops. If the enemy is left for dead, they trap our troops in a pincer maneuver: the enemy troops immediately behind us don't have to mobilize for interception far ahead, and can prevent our retreat and attack from behind when we encounter more resistance. Alternately, we can take prisoners of war; this is a lot of prisoners to deal with though, quickly mounting to several times the number of active troops.
Thus, the only viable military strategy to win a war is to advance through enemy resistance, inactivating troops we encounter-- that is, killing them or butchering them to uselessness (remove limbs). For those being invaded, a repelling defense eventually wears out the political atmosphere and economics of the invader; but a decapitation exercise is a better strategy for either side. In either case, lethal force is necessary: invaders that don't die will continue to attack until you die for quite a while, without eroding the political atmosphere anywhere near as quickly as casualties.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Final report by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 05:13 · Score: 0

I don't think that's quite right.

Severely burning enemy soldiers with a "heat ray", while great from the standpoint of taxing the enemy infrastructure to care for the wounded, probably won't endear the other side towards you more than killing their troops outright. And it could galvanize them even more.

IIRC there are a number of non-lethal chemical weapons that have the same effect.

Now if we're talking about stun guns or some other weapon that doesn't maim the enemy soldiers, it's a different story.
Re:Final report by TooMuchToDo · 2010-07-27 05:19 · Score: 1

Keep in mind that the diesel fuel to run that generator costs around $400/gallon when you take all the supply chain costs into account.
Re:Final report by toxonix · 2010-07-27 05:20 · Score: 1

It seems like today is a very light on details day. Everyone is probably busy combing over wiki leaks for potential stories.

As for the weapon, I don't think it has any effectiveness in the situation. It has limited range and its difficult to verify its effectiveness. Most of the time soldiers see potential threats momentarily in the distance. A weapon like this is pretty useless I think. Machines are not going to win any hearts and minds.
Re:Final report by blair1q · 2010-07-27 05:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

This isn't an ordinary war. It's a house-to-house search for malefactors. Or at least it should be. Clear an area, leave a presence to prevent it from being taken again and to cap anything that was hiding, then move your main force on to the next one. Tile the country with your wins, and the war ends.
Unless in the process you turn good guys in your pwned sectors into bad guys by acting like the bad guys they once helped you exterminate.
Regardless, in the process you don't allow yourself at any time to fall victim to medieval tactics like pincer moves. Unless you're a stupid cunt.
Re:Final report by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 05:42 · Score: 0

Still cheaper than Sasha. It costs $400,000 to fire that weapon, for twelve seconds...
Re:Final report by bluefoxlucid · 2010-07-27 05:44 · Score: 0, Flamebait

This isn't an ordinary war. It's a house-to-house search for malefactors. Or at least it should be. Clear an area, leave a presence to prevent it from being taken again and to cap anything that was hiding, then move your main force on to the next one.
I would utterly destroy you if you attempted that shit in my neighborhood. Absolutely. Destroy. The term "invasion" is apt in every possible way here.
Medieval tactics are inferior to modern tactics in the same way that Unix is inferior to modern OSes like Windows. We may be more comfortable with "modern" things, but that doesn't make them better, or make the old things any less useful.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Final report by ArcherB · 2010-07-27 05:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

The article was very light on details. Why was the weapon scrapped? Why was it never tested in a real world scenario as a non-lethal measure. The truth is that as much as the military is against non-lethal weapons, they can actually save lives on both sides and help in the winning of the war at the same time because you have less casualties which tend to cause the other side to galvanize against you.
This was not meant to be used against the enemy or anyone else on the "other side". This was intended as a non-lethal crowd control measure.
Shooting into a crowd is bad press and will certainly galvanize a population against you, making them enemies. This "heat ray" eliminates the news story about the 10-yr-old kid who was shot in the head by a ricochet bullet (reported as intentional genocide by the press) with his crying mother screaming over his lifeless body.
So when the angry crowds form over the aid tent that was accidentally bombed, you have three options:
1) Fired into the crowd, dispersing them, but causing more crowds to form all over the world.
2) Hold you position and get torn to little pieces by the angry crowd or the actual enemy who is dispersed among the crowd, encouraging them.
3) Run, encouraging the enemy to stage protests at other strategic locations.
I prefer option four:
4) Utilize something like this heat ray and disperse the crowd in a harmless fashion until the local political leaders get control of the situation.

--
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Re:Final report by Bryansix · 2010-07-27 05:52 · Score: 1

Wow. I don't know how you could possibly be more ignorant. Even a cusory reading of the article would tell you that this weapon causes no permanent damage or even lasting pain.
Re:Final report by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 05:53 · Score: 0

I would utterly destroy you if you attempted that shit in my neighborhood. Absolutely. Destroy.
Yeah, I'm sure you're trained and equipped to handle a military force huh?
They're trying to find hostiles hidden among friendlies. Some of those friendlies are for that, some aren't. It's an awkward situation, and awkward weapons like the ones in the article are the military grasping for ways to do this crap better.
Re:Final report by ctchristmas · 2010-07-27 05:55 · Score: 1

You could just equip all troops with StimPacks that way they can move as quickly as bike mounted troops but without too high of an upgrading cost...

...Sorry starcraft 2 came out today...
Re:Final report by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 06:01 · Score: 0

*whoosh*
It was a joke. He even spelled it out at the end.
Re:Final report by M8e · 2010-07-27 06:05 · Score: 1

Wow. I don't know how you could possibly be more ignorant. Even a cusory reading of the article would tell you that this weapon causes no permanent damage or even lasting pain.

That must be the reason it was scrapped!
Re:Final report by PopeRatzo · 2010-07-27 06:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Tile the country with your wins, and the war ends.
You believe the war in Afghanistan is like a game of Risk?
There might be a little more to it than that.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Final report by blair1q · 2010-07-27 06:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

I would utterly destroy you if you attempted that shit in my neighborhood. Absolutely. Destroy.
I doubt that. You'd have to have numbers, or infinite luck.
The bad guys aren't numerous in most areas, and in most areas the good guys are all too willing to help me out. It's not terribly easy to root out small numbers of them from large populations, but it's doable.
In areas where bad guys are numerous, we switch from house to house picking and choosing to clearing the entire area. This is where war gets messy, but that's why it's war and not something we do for fun on weekends in the Hamptons.
If I bring force and stick to my plan of clearing an area and doing it righteously and keeping it clear, I win. This, on the other hand, is #fail: Insurgents bully bakeries in Marjah, Afghanistan Those guys should be dead, not hassling naan-flippers, or the story should be "U.S. Forces Kill Taliban Thugs Who Harassed Marjah Merchants". Petraeus needs to recognize this and fix what McChrystal didn't.
Medieval tactics are inferior to modern tactics in the same way that Unix is inferior to modern OSes like Windows.
That's cute, but it's wrong. I use both Unix and Windows, precisely because I know their where not to use either of them. Military tactics can be nullified by military strategy, so knowing when not to allow a tactic to come into play means it's me FTW. Like I said. If you're vulnerable to well-studied medieval tactics -- or worse, you're trying to use them on someone who's been through a war college and a few campaigns, then you're a stupid cunt, and he's an even stupider cunt if you succeed.
Re:Final report by cgenman · 2010-07-27 06:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you're conducting a house-to-house search for malefactors, GET OUT OF THAT WAR. That should be a domestic problem to be handled by local authorities (with assistance if necessary, but it shouldn't be). If the population is harboring the resistance, that means you do not have popular support of the local population. If you do not have support of the local population in a war zone, you are the bad guys.
This is Afghanistan we're talking about here. They're a bit of a mess to begin with. We can give the locals the tools to build their society with (education, experience, seed funding), but we can't make them shape their society in the way that we choose.
And for god's sake stop giving guns to Israel. The promise of sweeping in and stomping North Korea if they invade the south has been a sufficient deterrent for years. Israel is seen as the spoiled brat invader of the middle east, and for good reason. We'd achieve our same objectives in the region, with far less hatred from the locals, if we just promised to defend Israel instead of giving them the helicopters that they kill Palestinians with. Everyone comes out of that conflict smelling like ass, and by sticking our nose into it we're just feeding the hatred.
I have relatives on the east side of the middle east, who are shocked how little Americans realize that Israel is a big part of the anti-American hatred. It's not the jewishness, or the western-ness. But the behavior of Israel as a government interacting with their neighbors, their invasions, their annexations of territory, suppressions of the Palestines, etc. Our goals for winning hearts and minds, and therefore getting out of the middle east faster with less likely of further terrorist attacks against the US, would be much better served by cutting all military and other aid to Israel, and simply promising military support in cases of an unprovoked attack against Israeli soil.

--
The ______ Agenda
Re:Final report by CeruleanDragon · 2010-07-27 07:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think the same thought processes went into Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Sure you killed a couple hundred thousand people, but the alternative would be the deaths of millions on both sides.
Non-lethal weapons sounds good on paper, but they don't make an enemy go, "Ouch! You won, but you didn't kill me, thank you!" and it doesn't make others who would fight you as well thank you for saving their friends, either. It allows them the opportunity to get revenge. Dead people don't get vengeance. It is sad, but I think if you really think about it, that is the way it is. Reduced fatalities through applied lethal force. Sounds really contradictory, but it's true.

--
ad astra per alia porci
Re:Final report by ceoyoyo · 2010-07-27 08:14 · Score: 1

Wars very rarely result in a large percentage of combatants being killed or maimed. Successfully prosecuting a war involves removing your opponent's ability to fight, primarily through capturing or destroying his economic and industrial capability, rather than killing all his troops.
Nonlethal weapons are not particularly useful for a military force because they're short range, finicky, unreliable and have very little psychological impact.
Re:Final report by enjerth · 2010-07-27 08:29 · Score: 1

Put your hand in the box.
No, the reason it was scrapped was because they knew what could happen if they use this weapon on a certain kind of person, like an unrealized kwisatz haderach.
Re:Final report by Monchanger · 2010-07-27 08:30 · Score: 0, Flamebait

You obviously don't understand a thing and just decided to butt in to make your stupid anti-zionist rant. Let's point out why people should ignore you, shall we?
Afghanistan, like many Mideastern countries is blessed with neither a homogeneous population, nor a long history of belief in the rule of law. Add to that its society's fierce tribal bonds and your suggestion that Afghani forces can easily handle anti-insurgent operations on their own is clearly idiotic.
Your understanding of Israel is also deeply flawed, not only in the baseless accusations, but because Israel has never, and likely will never "do as America commands". It has its own interests at heart, and it cannot be swayed from the conviction to maintain a safe haven for the Jewish people. Israel has beaten back the Arabs during a US embargo before with far less capacity than it has now (it was behind Arabs in both technology and quantity back then, where today it far surpasses them), so stopping aid won't have an effect for a very long time. What we need less of is the anti-semitic rhetoric used by Palestinian terror organizations and people like yourself who parrot their hateful propaganda and make Israel doubt Palestinians could handle running their own state.
Re:Final report by Scrameustache · 2010-07-27 08:43 · Score: 1

Tile the country with your wins, and the war ends.
You believe the war in Afghanistan is like a game of Risk?
There might be a little more to it than that.
I look at the map, I see Afghanistan to one side, Iraq to the other, and the most talked about "country we should do something about, wink wink" right in between, and I think it hasn't been invaded yet because the US rolled a lot of ones in Afghanistan.

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:Final report by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 08:50 · Score: 0

How many soldiers have you calculated that it would take to "Tile the country with your wins"?
You've obviously got zero experience in these matters. Please stop speaking out of your anus.
Re:Final report by techsoldaten · 2010-07-27 08:51 · Score: 1

Moreover, it was a joke in response to the original joke of MOAR DAKKA. People missed that at so many levels.
I decry the general decline of true geekishness on Slashdot. The fact that only a few people got a rules reference to a tabletop game saddens me.
M
Re:Final report by LifesABeach · 2010-07-27 08:52 · Score: 1

But did the device "flush out" people? From my perspective, a target, standing up and running away is easier to deal with than a target behind a rock with a Smack Light on me. Personally, "dealing with", does not mean letting the enemy run away.

But one question does keep bubbling up, "given that the device was only tested 11,000 times; did anyone check to see if it was plugged in? We are talking about the Military.
Re:Final report by techsoldaten · 2010-07-27 08:59 · Score: 1

Medieval tactics are inferior to modern tactics in the same way that Unix is inferior to modern OSes like Windows. We may be more comfortable with "modern" things, but that doesn't make them better, or make the old things any less useful.
Absolutely, which is why I keep a loaded catapult for personal defense against anyone who crosses my moat. People may think me old fashioned, but flinging cauldrons of boiling oil is never not useful.
M
Re:Final report by Pinky's+Brain · 2010-07-27 09:06 · Score: 1

They already have tear gas, water cannons and rubber bullets ... which can inflict a lot of damage too of course, but still they are not without existing semi non-lethal crowd control weapons.
Water canons and tear gas also have the advantage of visual intimidation ... if the heat gun looked like a giant laser beam swooping through the air it would probably be more effective, unfortunately not physically possible.
Re:Final report by cheesybagel · 2010-07-27 09:11 · Score: 1

The Afghanistan offensive into Taliban territory was won by local forces with US air support. They did not need US army on the ground in any significant quantity to win. So why do all of the sudden people think adding more infantry will make it better?
Re:Final report by f3rret · 2010-07-27 09:36 · Score: 1

The article was very light on details. Why was the weapon scrapped? Why was it never tested in a real world scenario as a non-lethal measure.

I heard it gave some dude superpowers, but unfortunately he was a villainous sort and now the US has an actual supervillain to deal with; he is currently moving into a volcano as we speak.
It's true, it's all in those leaked docs; really go check.

--
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
Re:Final report by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 09:50 · Score: 0

There's an excellent chance you will not get to use it except with bike mounted troops.
For some reason, I immediately thought of bicycle troops, and thought that was the dumbest idea I had ever heard of.
Then I realized you were talking about 40k, and pictured a space marine on a bicycle, and it was good.
Re:Final report by Bryansix · 2010-07-27 10:25 · Score: 1

Nice Dune reference.
Re:Final report by LordLucless · 2010-07-27 10:58 · Score: 1

The bad guys aren't numerous in most areas
If you start conducting house-to-house searches, the number of bad guys will probably multiply, due to resentment. Especially in the grandparent's neighborhood, which I assume to be somewhere in the Western world, were personal privacy and property rights are held sacrosanct. If you generate enough animosity in your methods, even the non-participating members of the community will be willing to shelter your opponents. Guerrillas who can make an attack and then immediately disappear into the native population are very effective. I'd say you probably would get your ass kicked in the grandparent's neighborhood. Especially if house-to-house searches were conducted with heat guns, sonic weapons, tasers, or other forms of pisses-you-off-but-doesn't-kill-you weaponry.
That said, the OPs analysis of tactics is inappropriate to this sort of engagement as well. Which is why the armies in this sort of campaign are bogged down so much. There are no real military tactics for ending the "war" - it's not a valid military goal. It's a political-social one, and trying to apply a military solution to a political problem is akin to using a technological solution to fix a social problem. It tends not to work, and often exacerbates the problem.

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Re:Final report by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 10:59 · Score: 0

"This is assault range, and "
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!
Re:Final report by Concern+Is+A+Faggot · 2010-07-27 11:05 · Score: 0

I have relatives on the east side of the middle east, who are shocked how little Americans realize that Israel is a big part of the anti-American hatred.
Oh, we realize it, all right. But considering all of our politicians are beholden to Jewish money, the Jewish media and Jewish lobbying groups (AIPAC), there really isn't a damn thing we can do about it.
Don't confuse the wishes of the government with the wishes of the people.

--
Help! Help! I've been moded down by a Jewish conspiracy!
Re:Final report by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 11:13 · Score: 0

Ah the old if you disagree with Irael you are anti-semetic. That might of worked for a long time but no more.
No one does hateful propaganda like Israel. They are always going on aout rocket attacks that rarely kill anyone, but nvere metion that hey kill tohusands of civilians with US suppied rockets.
The world is finally waking up to the apartheid neture of Israel, and your tactics are now failing.
Re:Final report by Khyber · 2010-07-27 12:06 · Score: 1

"I doubt that. You'd have to have numbers, or infinite luck."
Wrong. Learn about Asymmetrical warfare sometime. 13 British soldiers against THOUSANDS of African warriors.
Come back when you've finished with your history lesson.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Re:Final report by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 12:36 · Score: 0

So I see you've stopped beating off to your semen encrusted copy of Mein Kampf long enough to come out of your cave and say something stupid. God, you're not even very good at being a troll are you? You do know you're supposed to AC for this sort of shit, right retard?
Re:Final report by hercubus · 2010-07-27 12:37 · Score: 2, Funny

You have got to be trolling...
In case you aren't, you've just tried to critique a concise, insightful summary of what's wrong with Israeli policy (and US) with a bunch of meaningless fluff.
Please, allow me to give you some _real_ anti-Zionist sentiment. Fuck Israel! Fuck those shit-for-brains hardcore fundamentalist asswipes who are still stealing land, shooting protesters, starving children, and crying in public "poor us, poor us." I'm gonna Godwin-by-proxy, but you-know-who with the armbands and the 'stache was a long fucking time ago - there's a lotta dead Palestinians on the roadside leading from now to way back when - that old check has been cashed, spent, shredded, and long forgotten.
So fuck you. Fuck Israel. Fuck sending them money. Fuck sending them military hardware. Fuck backing them at all. Any Arabs wanna invade? Fucking go for it! Not our problem, any more than whenever any random shithole country Alpha invades another random shithole country Zeta. Who gives a fuck? Really?
You know who does deserve our backing? Canada! Heck of a place. Damn decent country. Hardly ever invades anyone. If they do, you know they're gonna say sorry. Not perfect, but who is? We could learn something from them. Like manners.
But Israel? Not so much. Israel, not so friendly. Awfully self-righteous. Smug. Sanctimonious. They don't deserve to be wiped off the map, but still, helping them beat up their snot-nosed neighbors isn't really doing anything for our own interests. Let's bring back Realpolitik, at least it made sense of a sort...

--
-- How I want a drink, alcoholic of course, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics.
Re:Final report by Monchanger · 2010-07-27 12:57 · Score: 1

The post I responded to was a rant written by an ignorant person who thinks they understand war because they watch the news, and who started on topic and veered off very quickly to introduce their personal agenda into the discussion. Yours was just a lot of nonsense mixed into a wall of f-bombs.
If you ever want to have a real discussion, pick up a few history books, then a dictionary, and come back to sit at the adult table.
You and other morons paint a distorted picture where the US only gives and gives and gives to Israel without getting anything in return. America has big interests in Israel- it's not just the nonsense you hear about from idiots on the Internet (AIPAC money, needing a democracy in the mideast, zionists ruling "amerika", etc.). At the same time it's crucial to remember that the Arabs are NOT our friends, or even each others'- they can't agree on anything other than their common hatred for Israel.
Re:Final report by iamwahoo2 · 2010-07-27 13:44 · Score: 1

It may play a roll in crowd dispersion, but its primary purpose is actually in self-defense. A scenario like the one in the movie "Blackhawk Down" is a good example. If you have to secure an urban area and their are numerous buildings from which enemies could fire on you, then you would point these at the buildings creating cones in which any potential attacks would be suppressed. If someone tried to fire on you from a window and you had the face of the building in the code, then it is unlikely that they would even be able to get a shot fired.
Re:Final report by Erikderzweite · 2010-07-27 14:14 · Score: 0, Troll

Anti-anti rant follows:
Oh yes, the famous Israeli genocide against Palestine people. They are killing innocents in scores, destroying whole generations, leaving nothing but burned houses and mutilated corpses in their wake...
Hold on, the Palestinian population has quadrupled in the last few decades?! Now a genocide should be about *decreasing* the population, someone in the Israeli government has clearly got it wrong. What is it they are shooting Palestinians with? Semen-enriched munition?
OK, I get it, it is the economical blockade which lets Palestinian people starve (but still breed and multiply their numbers) and live their lives in poverty and misery. One problem -- according to UN report, the standards of living in Palestine are higher than in Libya, Syria or even Egypt! Do note that there are no Israeli in said countries to oppress local population...
To summarize -- the Palestinians fight against so-called genocide which lets them breed as rabbits, against relative wealth they have from Israel and international help.
They have no industries to speak of, no economy, the biggest employee in Palestine is their corrupt government, tossing political opponents out of windows (or just shooting them) is politics as usual there. Oh, and *every* Arab country with Palestinian refuge camps was forced to conducted military actions against these camp's inhabitants at least once.
What d'ya say folks, should the international community help them even more? I see no reason to say no, they all seem nice fellas...
Re:Final report by Raenex · 2010-07-27 14:24 · Score: 1

America has big interests in Israel
I read your link. What are these "big interests"? It starts out by saying we need Israel's help to stop Iran from getting nukes. Oh, is that why we've been supporting them all these decades?

it's not just the nonsense you hear about from idiots on the Internet (AIPAC money, needing a democracy in the mideast, zionists ruling "amerika", etc.)
Actually it does mention the democracy angle. It also says how America traditionally has believed in a homeland for Jews, going back to John Adams. The Jewish lobby is also strong in America. Is America "run by Jews". No, but they have a significant sway.
Re:Final report by Lunzo · 2010-07-27 16:19 · Score: 1

I thought lasguns were the equivalent of the heatgun. They have a moderate warming effect on the target. Apart from that they are completely ineffectual.
Re:Final report by Monchanger · 2010-07-27 17:00 · Score: 1

America has big interests in Israel
I read your link. What are these "big interests"? It starts out by saying we need Israel's help to stop Iran from getting nukes. Oh, is that why we've been supporting them all these decades?
"Starts out"? That's your counterargument? If you actually "read my link" you would have seen a short list of many technologies the US has been supplied by Israel. Cooperating with Iran is just one example of the potential benefits for which America maintains a strong relationship with Israel. The reason for long-term support is fostering the potential, not just specific partnerships. Of course one needs to be a strategic thinker to understand these things, and you've demonstrated a weakness in that area.

it's not just the nonsense you hear about ... (AIPAC money, needing a democracy in the mideast
Actually it does mention the democracy angle.

Note my use of the word "just". I didn't say there is no basis in truth used for these examples of anti-zionist propaganda, just that none of them have anywhere near the importance ascribed to them. Sorry your silly arguments don't work on me, but you're not dealing with your usual mindless partisan opponent.
Re:Final report by cgenman · 2010-07-27 18:43 · Score: 1

You do note the part about having family in the region? I have friends over multiple borders there. Some are wearing uniforms.
Israel remains locked in an ugly conflict with others in the region. Occupying territory from three neighbor states since the six-day war 43 years ago hasn't helped their case. Invading Lebanon in 2006, the sanctions against Palestine, assassinations with civilian casualties, etc...
Israel is fighting a very dirty conflict, in a very dirty way. That's their choice to make. But that doesn't mean we need to support that choice. And that doesn't mean not supporting that choice means supporting Hamas. Hamas's transgressions are terrible, and they need to be rooted out and stopped. But Israel is a government, not a terrorist group, and needs to be held to higher standards. Unless they're being directly invaded, let Israel deal with their problems.
Again, the refrain I hear over and over again from people in the region is that America is hated not because people hate freedom or democracy or bald eagles. But because people feel like this particularly hated state is being propped up by us. That hatred and lack of trust in us made keeping the peace in Iraq far harder than winning the war. It has made Afghanistan a quagmire. And it makes our apparent role as world police much more difficult.
We are not going to get out of Afghanistan when we kill enough bad guys. We're going to get out of Afghanistan when we convince the population that we're maintaining peace for their sake. We're going to be able to leave Afghanistan only when the population trusts us. We're pouring lives and people's souls into the region. We need to start addressing root causes, and two big causes are the perception of Israel in the middle east, and the perception of our support of Israel. Those are not the most pressing issue for our boys on the ground, but they're huge issues that we can't even talk about in this country without being shut down as racist.
I am not anti-Zionist. I just don't want to see any more of our people come back from the middle east broken.

--
The ______ Agenda
Re:Final report by x_IamSpartacus_x · 2010-07-27 22:09 · Score: 1

I think you underestimate how many houses you're talking about clearing. These aren't little villages of 100 houses. There are 28,000,000 people in Afghanistan, Kabul, the capitol has only 10% of that. Can you fathom how many houses you have to clear to root out all the bad guys? While you are searching impossibly tight clusters of houses the "bad guys" just go around you to the houses you already searched. Or do you have 15 million troops to guard all the houses that you already searched? It's just ridiculous to think you can do that. Afghanistan is huge and has a lot of people. Your "tiles of victory" would have to be negligibly small in light of how many people and provinces are there. Your tactic would maybe work in Rhode Island but there are still 1 million people there and that's A LOT OF PEOPLE!

You've played Star Craft and think that tactics that you used there apply to real war and controlling an entire country? You're pathetically naive or, in your own words, a stupid cunt.
Re:Final report by dave420 · 2010-07-27 22:58 · Score: 1

But it does give the invading force the ability to repel an attack without killing anyone, which is far better for winning the hearts and minds of the local population which does not (yet) want to fight.
Re:Final report by Raenex · 2010-07-28 00:07 · Score: 1

If you actually "read my link" you would have seen a short list of many technologies the US has been supplied by Israel. Cooperating with Iran is just one example of the potential benefits for which America maintains a strong relationship with Israel.
I saw the technology list, and this is not a "big interest" that justifies the billions of dollars spent and interventionist foreign policy of standing up a new country in a hostile region.

Note my use of the word "just". I didn't say there is no basis in truth used for these examples of anti-zionist propaganda, just that none of them have anywhere near the importance ascribed to them.
If they are not important, then why are they mentioned in the link you sent? You called them "non-sense" from "idiots".

Of course one needs to be a strategic thinker to understand these things, and you've demonstrated a weakness in that area.
You have yet to demonstrate what the clear strategy is.
Re:Final report by Monchanger · 2010-07-28 00:40 · Score: 1

Either learn to read or to not twist my words around to suit your narrative. I didn't say "not important", nor am I in the position to define the US' actual long-term strategy beyond examples for you. I pointed out your mistakes, no more. I'm not here to educate you, certainly not if you won't listen. Good day.
Re:Final report by bluefoxlucid · 2010-07-28 00:56 · Score: 1

Assuredly, your opponent would concentrate defensive troops somewhere along the intersection of the path between your troops and your target. Thus, you have to plow through warm bodies at some point; typically the enemy takes this lying down if you have enough guns and tanks.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Final report by Raenex · 2010-07-28 01:42 · Score: 1

I didn't say "not important"
You said: "none of them have anywhere near the importance ascribed to them"
Yet they were mentioned in the link you provided from the State Department as to why we are committed to Israel.

nor am I in the position to define the US' actual long-term strategy beyond examples for you.
Yet you claimed we have "big interests" in Israel, a country we have been supporting for decades. So far, the examples are to stop Iran from getting nukes, and a science research partner.

I'm not here to educate you, certainly not if you won't listen.
I read your link. I've responded to your arguments. You are now ignoring my arguments and won't provide the "big interests" that you claim exist and tried to bolster by a weak document.
Re:Final report by Monchanger · 2010-07-28 02:03 · Score: 1

You do note the part about having family in the region? I have friends over multiple borders there.
Yes I noted that and it doesn't change the fact you went completely off topic to discuss what your interest was. Thing is, I actually served in Israel's military, and I was not impressed by what you had to say. I was also about as liberal as they get over there and was politically active over a decade ago, even getting to serve as a voting member at one convention. I have advocated for a state for Palestinians long before the right wing stopped calling us traitors for that belief (they still do for plenty of reasons including "allowing" Arabs into "our" party), the abandonment of settlements, and refraining from useless military actions which would serve mostly to piss off the Arabs. Plenty of us exist, we're just tired of arguing with those idiots from Likud. So please don't assume as the more vocal Arabs on the Internet tend to that all Israelis would love nothing more than to send the palestinians packing.
Blaming Israel isn't necessarily racist though the narrative often stems there, especially on those occasions when American Jews are blamed only by association through religion. I had no intention of calling you a racist and apologize if offense was taken. Alongside its religious fanatics who actually want to try to conquer Jordan (*rolls eyes*), Israel has its share of Jewish racists, both groups I'm eager to denounce as a deplorable bunch of asshats.
The key thing is that Israel is used as a convenient excuse for anything Arabs dislike. When they despise their dictators, it's because of American support for their "zionist-controlled leaders" (where the support is actually meant for the country, and even if it's actually helping the people). They don't take political responsibility and actually stand up and vote out incompetent generals who have no place in government. Instead, taking Egypt for an example, the uneducated either tow the nationalist line and actually believe nonsense such as the ridiculous "Egypt won in 1967" lie, or they turn to the religious Muslim Brotherhood which preaches exactly the same "need" for religious majority that Israeli right-wingers do and that Arabs hate about Israel.
So yes- it's disheartening to hear someone, who I'm sure is reasonable, parrot the same nonsense that Al Queada does about the "reasons" it's in an extremist crusade (speaking of which, they're still pissed off at *Americans* because of the crusades, though of course have no problem with Muslim-based military expansion- go figure). If Bin Laden truly believed Israel was the source of his imagined grievance, don't you think he'd actually try to fight there rather than Iraq, which was on its way to becoming a stable democracy? The truth is AQ's mission and selected targets have absolutely nothing to do with the political cooperation we have with Israel. It's instead relegated to a tool for recruitment among a wide population of uneducated boys who have been told the lies for decades.
Again- Israel only an excuse and by continuing to declare it as tantamount to fact, one serves no cause but the terrorists'. Abandoning ties with Israel won't do anything to chance perception of the US- we'll neither be believed that we did (because now we're "supporting them secretly- muhahaha"), nor stop being accused that "Amerika" is still "run by the Jews". We could *try* it and witness how epicly fail the idea was, but that would only serve to stress American-Israeli relations, which of course runs counter to the American desire to have what meager influence it can have on Israel and won't help our economy either.
Generally speaking, you're right about Afghanistan. But Israel is certainly not the root of the problem we're tied down with there. Ignorance and extremism are reasons why Afghan men, who despite having real problems to worry about, would join the insurgency. Education can't be stressed enough, and while the example ensuring girls can
Re:Final report by Monchanger · 2010-07-28 02:20 · Score: 1

They're called e-x-a-m-p-l-e-s, dickhead, because I'm not your fucking research assistant. If you want an exhaustive course on our benefits from US-Israel relations you're in the wrong place.
Re:Final report by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-28 02:55 · Score: 0

That's great that you know one of the letters in the English alphabet. Thanks for showing off your skills to everyone. Up next, techsoldate figures out numerical digits, like so:
5
Re:Final report by Raenex · 2010-07-28 03:06 · Score: 1

In other words, despite your claims of "big interests", the best you can do is point to a weak document where your number 2 example are some minor research technologies. A document which also lists pufferies such as democracy and a long desire for a Jewish homeland.
Re:Final report by randyleepublic · 2010-07-28 08:32 · Score: 0

Duh! But it will never happen. Jewish people are just as much selfish, stupid, short-sighted, religious bigots as the rest of our jackass citizenry. That we do what we do vis-a-vis Israel is the proof of the preceding statement.

--
Social Credit would solve everything...
Re:Final report by mjwx · 2010-07-28 15:28 · Score: 1

So when the angry crowds form over the aid tent that was accidentally bombed, you have three options:
1) Fired into the crowd, dispersing them, but causing more crowds to form all over the world.
2) Hold you position and get torn to little pieces by the angry crowd or the actual enemy who is dispersed among the crowd, encouraging them.
3) Run, encouraging the enemy to stage protests at other strategic locations.

I prefer option four:
4) Utilize something like this heat ray and disperse the crowd in a harmless fashion until the local political leaders get control of the situation.
I much prefer options five and six.
5) Don't bomb the bloody aid tent.
6) Better yet don't even get into a position where you could even bomb the bloody aid tent, like starting a war where you invade an unpopular but sovereign nation for resources.

An ounce of prevention saves a pound of cure.

In the end, if you want to stop a violent protest, find out why the protesters are violent or better yet why they are protesting and fix that. Protesters are a symptom of the problem, not a cause so treat the cause of the problem. This weapon will not work in Iraq and Afghanistan because the population is already galvanised against the invaders, force of arms will not fix this and attempting to do so will only galvanise more people against you.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:Final report by blair1q · 2010-07-29 07:59 · Score: 1

I and my buddies are the 13 soldiers in this scenario.
So it turns out you'd need both the numbers and the infinite luck, Mr. Ngumba.
And I'm not falling for any pincer moves, so think up something new.
Re:Final report by blair1q · 2010-07-29 08:15 · Score: 1

I've never played Star Craft. I couldn't even tell what they were advertising yesterday until the logo came on the screen.
I have, however, played war, for large values of "played."
We leave behind enough of a presence as we move through, and we gain the assistance of the local authorities. In the end the plan is to have them governing and protecting themselves instead of rolling over when the Taliban come in over the border from Pakistan.
Some areas need repeat visits from a full-strength force. Some need it several times. But that's to be expected as long as we leave the areas bordering our cleared areas uncleared. It's also to be expected that some of our presumed friends turn out to be enemies; rooting them out by iteration is part of the process as well. That's why this takes time and diligence and the willingness to suffer casualties, and isn't resolved by rearing up and making ourselves look big and hoping the enemy has a distaste for the obvious endgame.
Now go back to your video games. And tell me how that Star Craft II looks on a PC. The commercial was pretty good.
Re:Final report by blair1q · 2010-07-29 08:39 · Score: 1

If you're conducting a house-to-house search for malefactors, GET OUT OF THAT WAR.
No.
We're winning.
Unless it turns out the enemy are being supplied from other enemy countries -- or worse, from supposed ally countries.
Then we've just got a bigger war to win. And if we're not honest about it, we'll lose it, like Viet Nam.
But this time, unlike Viet Nam, losing won't end our involvement. Because the enemy we'd leave behind this time are not merely interested in having a homeland with a different political system, but in developing and exporting an ideology of violent extremism through extremely violent means.
That's my analogy.
Yours, Israel and North Korea, is distorted. If someone doesn't supply Israel continuously it will be overrun by its vast enemy before the world has time to respond, while North Korea doesn't have the resources to invade South Korea, much less deal with our response; besides which, we maintain a significant active presence in South Korea, and have little in Israel. I'm not shocked at all that Palestinians and Arabs blame America for Israel's actions; they blame everyone but themselves. Israel's taking of territory was a defensive measure to create a defensible border. Its putative excesses in responding to cross-border attacks have been twisted into fodder for terrorist rants, guaranteeing we haven't seen the last of the conflict. Israel doesn't go on the offensive. And I think the Palestinians, Lebanese, et al will find that if they stop going on the offensive, Israel won't be doing so much shooting back, if any.

toast / bake / broil by Gothmolly · 2010-07-27 04:31 · Score: 3, Funny

I guess it didn't have enough settings - I'm sure they were looking for a 'Death Star' setting, for the truly pesky insurgents.

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.

Re:toast / bake / broil by Mr.+Spontaneous · 2010-07-27 04:44 · Score: 1

They probably couldn't figure out a way to switch it to "Blow".

--
Its all fun and games until someone loses an eye... then its just fun.
Re:toast / bake / broil by camperslo · 2010-07-27 04:49 · Score: 2, Funny

Perhaps they realized the enemy would come out wearing tin foil hats, and bounce signal back at them with pizza pans?
Re:toast / bake / broil by interkin3tic · 2010-07-27 05:03 · Score: 1

Perhaps they realized the enemy would come out wearing tin foil hats, and bounce signal back at them with pizza pans?
Tinfoil hats you say? Aha, clear proof that this death heat ray was developed specifically to be used against the slashdot protest crowd when ACTA is signed into law!
Re:toast / bake / broil by technosaurus · 2010-07-27 05:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Have you ever looked inside of a microwave? Most of us have, but that annoying grid pattern serves an actual purpose. It effectively shunts away the microwaves so that our eyes don't explode while we are watching the popcorn bag burst into growth. Since ADS works on a similar principle the same type of "shield" in ones clothing would act similarly. Forming a phalanx of mirrors (like the other sides of the microwave) would be even worse - allowing the energy to be redirected. Fortunately neither wearing hijabs fashioned from screen doors, nor carrying a giant reflective shield is terrorist chic. (or is that sheik?)
Re:toast / bake / broil by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 06:29 · Score: 0

Jebus! Do you know what happens to tin foil in a microwave beam?
I know some terrorists wouldn't mind turning themselves into buzzing, sparking crispy critters,
but I don't think the odds of shorting out the microwave emitter will be worth the cost even to them.
Re:toast / bake / broil by camperslo · 2010-07-27 09:12 · Score: 1

That's something of an urban legend.
Foil generally reflects microwave signals instead of absorbing them. In an oven if the energy absorbing material (food) is excessively shielded by foil higher R.F. voltages can build up possibly causing arcing and/or damaging the magnetron (signal source). Some ovens have a "stirrer" which is basically a slowly spinning aluminum fan blade. Like foil, it reflects the microwave energy. Having the energy hit the food from varying directions makes cooking more even. If you heat a big frozen burrito and find it coming out with the ends overcooked before the middle is heated enough, you can stop part-way and cover the ends with foil and continue. Nothing terrible will happen. So foil in a microwave can be good or bad. A chicken pot pie in an aluminum tin probably won't cook well being only exposed at the top.
But yes, you can bounce the microwaves outdoors. In the case of the weapon, a suitable reflector can bounce the signal elsewhere.
They didn't say what the damage was in that .1% of cases where the studies showed harm. I'd guess something nasty like eye damage can occur. Not a good way to become popular with the locals...
If the aliens are spying on you through the walls and roof of your house using microwave reflections to "see", perhaps you'll be happier with the entire surface of your room covered in foil (metal screen on windows should work).
A tin-foil hat is nothing new, so do something more. Let's see ya cook with it!
Re:toast / bake / broil by CubicleView · 2010-07-27 20:52 · Score: 1

In theory yes, but the shield would have to be complete for it to be effective. If for example your hands were unprotected you'd stand out like a sore thumb (yes, pun intended..) and probably get shot at.

Proving once again by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 04:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

That we should have been investing in either freeze or death rays.

Re:Proving once again by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 04:49 · Score: 0

You mean "freeze" as in it stops time, not an ice beam?
Re:Proving once again by angelwolf71885 · 2010-07-27 05:01 · Score: 1

or maybe just some sharks with freaking lazier beams on there freaking heads.. hell maybe even ill tempered sea bass
Re:Proving once again by WaroDaBeast · 2010-07-27 05:06 · Score: 1

or maybe just some sharks with freaking lazier beams on there freaking heads..
You probably meant "more energetic."

--
"The body may heal, but the mind is not always so resilient." -- Deus Ex: Human Revolution
Re:Proving once again by 6ULDV8 · 2010-07-27 05:13 · Score: 1

No, no, no...he meant lazier, but they're not really beams. More like a bonfire with a bale of weed.

--
Pull my finger for my public key.
Re:Proving once again by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 05:27 · Score: 0

Yes, but Johnny Snow's been working on an Ice Beam anyway.
Re:Proving once again by Fast+Thick+Pants · 2010-07-27 05:37 · Score: 1

Certainly worth taking another look at shrink rays, for that matter.
Re:Proving once again by darkfire5252 · 2010-07-27 05:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

I know this was intended as a joke, but it does prove something about the 'heat ray' that is rather important: the military-industrial PR machine is operational and effective. This weapon is not a 'heat ray' at all; it is a _pain_ ray. The microwaves emitted by this device may cause some incidental heating of the skin, but that is not the intent at all. The microwaves emitted are of the precise frequency used by pain-emitting neurons. The goal is to have to pain neuron fire at full capacity regardless of the actual level of damage being caused. An article from 2007 ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-482560/Run-away-ray-gun-coming--We-test-US-armys-new-secret-weapon.html ) describes this and introduces the idea of a pain ray... 3 years later the military is celebrating its 'heat ray,' a term which is less associated with the evils that can be caused by a 'pain ray.'
Re:Proving once again by cgenman · 2010-07-27 06:10 · Score: 5, Funny

I'm sure the ice beam will be ready for the invasion of the arctic. And the death ray will surely repel the zombie hordes.
Seriously, a heat ray against a desert people? That's like throwing sand and large ocean waves at Hawaii. You might as well invite them back for warm tea in a room without air conditioning.

--
The ______ Agenda
Re:Proving once again by dkleinsc · 2010-07-27 07:03 · Score: 1

You know you've been playing too much Nethack when your first response to this is: Why should we use wands of fire, cold, or death when we've got a bunch of wands of striking and sleep handy?

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:Proving once again by spongman · 2010-07-27 07:26 · Score: 1

it's probably a little better than the alternative: the 'high-velocity exploding lead shrapnel to the head'-ray. that inflicts pain, too. but it's a little harder to turn off.
Re:Proving once again by Scrameustache · 2010-07-27 08:48 · Score: 1

Seriously, a heat ray against a desert people?
They talk a lot about millimeters of skin, but does anyone know how deep through a burka can this beam go?

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:Proving once again by evilviper · 2010-07-27 09:03 · Score: 1

Seriously, a heat ray against a desert people? That's like throwing sand and large ocean waves at Hawaii. You might as well invite them back for warm tea in a room without air conditioning.
What, as opposed to a COLD RAY in the desert, where everyone routinely taunts the military forces in hopes of getting some relief from the heat?

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Proving once again by exoir · 2010-07-27 11:30 · Score: -1

Maybe they should also call riles "human murder tools".
Re:Proving once again by ejasons · 2010-07-27 11:58 · Score: 1

it's probably a little better than the alternative: the 'high-velocity exploding lead shrapnel to the head'-ray. that inflicts pain, too. but it's a little harder to turn off.

Yes, but the big difference is that, like tasers, this is "non-lethal" (even if people might die from its application), meaning that authorities may use it with impunity in pretty much any situation, where they wouldn't otherwise be able to use those lead projectiles.
And, the fact that it doesn't leave any evidence as to its application ... means free torture!
Re:Proving once again by The_mad_linguist · 2010-07-27 13:28 · Score: 1

That's exactly why we're doing it, Kif.
Those Sandesertian bastards will never see it coming.
Re:Proving once again by sp0tter · 2010-07-28 01:17 · Score: 1

nah, that's all Johnny Snow

--
you don't eat crackers in the bed of your future--or else you'll get all scratchy
Re:Proving once again by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-29 06:22 · Score: 0

A black box that inflicts a burning pain on your hand when it is near it... sounds a lot like something I read in Dune. All we need is the Gom Jabbar and we are set to find the Kwisatz Haderach.

Is it on? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 04:32 · Score: 0

If each volunteer could withstand this thing 15 times it probably isn't doing its job.

Re:Is it on? by treeves · 2010-07-27 07:26 · Score: 1

"Poke her again with the soft cushions!"
"It doesn't seem to be doing anything, m'lud."
"Have you got all the stuffing up one end?"

--
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.

Translation by nacturation · 2010-07-27 04:33 · Score: 1

"We were going for that District 9 weapon effect, but couldn't achieve it so this ray gun is scrapped for now."

--
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.

Re:Translation by socz · 2010-07-27 04:35 · Score: 1

It didn't work because they didn't have the 'hand!'

--
My abilities are only limited by my imagination

First by ae1294 · 2010-07-27 04:33 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I for one, welcome our money spending, heat ray developing, yet strangely not "deploying" overlords.

WTF! by ILuvRamen · 2010-07-27 04:34 · Score: 1, Troll

They need to find whoever made that stupid decision and hit them with it. Then maybe they'll think it's effective. I mean seriously, when I first heard about this, I thought it's the PERFECT WEAPON! It still is. Someone has seriously got their head up their ass on this one.

--
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'

Re:WTF! by eldavojohn · 2010-07-27 04:38 · Score: 2, Informative

They need to find whoever made that stupid decision and hit them with it.
Who knows? I mean, there was a very interesting thread on the last story about how to circumvent it. Perhaps the first thing they did with it was turn it on their own soldiers only to find out that a resourceful individual could easily bypass it with shielding or simple armor? If that's the case, what's the point of deploying more expensive bulky power consuming equipment when you're most likely going to end up using lethal force anyway? They could have identified this as one ineffective step in a cat-and-mouse game ... the details were thin as I submitted this I looked for more sources than the BBC but came up short.

--
My work here is dung.

Not in Afghanistan... by MachDelta · 2010-07-27 04:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

So does that mean they're bringing them home and will be using them domestically? /tinfoilhat

Re:Not in Afghanistan... by LarrySDonald · 2010-07-27 04:53 · Score: 1

It would probably make more sense for breaking up crowds/riots domestically (similar situations to where a water cannon, pepper spray, etc might be used). A tinfoil hat/bodysuit would indeed block it though (or any other metallic cover such as conductive fabric paint) so a prepared protester wouldn't have to work that terribly hard to counter it.
Re:Not in Afghanistan... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 05:10 · Score: 1, Insightful

Yeah, because causing a panic from invisible burning sensations is so much better. At least with water cannons people can see it coming so they know the gloves have come off and its time to run.
It simply isn't practical, unless you want to cause a panic.
Re:Not in Afghanistan... by PinkyGigglebrain · 2010-07-27 08:33 · Score: 1

I give it two, maybe three, years tops before some metropolitan police force gets one of these or a "domestic variant", and about 6 months or less before they use it on some crowd.

Probably sooner.

After all the money the company spent developing these they are going to want to get something out of it.

And the Geneva Conventions don't apply to country's using weapons like these on their own citizens.

I wonder what would happen if you covered your exposed skin with powdered aluminum?
Re:Not in Afghanistan... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 10:44 · Score: 0

I wonder what would happen if you covered your exposed skin with powdered aluminum?
Fun fact: The active ingredient in most anti-perspirant deodorants is (one of a few) aluminium compound(s). I'm not sure if it's in sufficient concentrations to matter, but I bet we're in for some interesting protests..
Re:Not in Afghanistan... by tftp · 2010-07-27 11:27 · Score: 1

At least with water cannons people can see it coming so they know the gloves have come off and its time to run.
And most importantly people can see where the water is coming from, and run away. But microwaves are invisible, and it might be hard for some people to tell the difference between "insanely painful" and "intolerably painful" - since that's the only way to figure out in which direction to NOT run.
Besides, it is well known that microwaves affect eyes before the skin even feels anything. So what are the effects of this weapon on eyesight?
Re:Not in Afghanistan... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 14:33 · Score: 0

I don't know if I'd be wearing a tinfoil hat in this day and age of heat ray guns... Ever see jiffy pop?
Re:Not in Afghanistan... by dr00g911 · 2010-07-27 15:45 · Score: 1

Dunno if you were in Toronto, part of the G20 festivities this year, but... ...it's already *been* deployed.

Failed to achieve satisfaction... by Chris+Burke · 2010-07-27 04:34 · Score: 5, Funny

I'm kinda baffled why anyone in the military thought a heat ray pain gun would help them achieve satisfaction... but who am I to judge someone's kink?

--

The enemies of Democracy are

Re:Failed to achieve satisfaction... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 05:04 · Score: 0

I'm kinda baffled why anyone in the military thought a heat ray pain gun would help them achieve satisfaction... but who am I to judge someone's kink?
Yea the main problem is that they wanted a heat ray with 'full release'... tack that on to the requirements list.. sponsored by Carl's Jr.
Re:Failed to achieve satisfaction... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 06:39 · Score: 0

Some like it hot.
Re:Failed to achieve satisfaction... by elrous0 · 2010-07-27 06:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

It turns out their REAL kink is being cuckolded by powerful military contractors. And, on that front, this project was a stunning success.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:Failed to achieve satisfaction... by PinkyGigglebrain · 2010-07-27 08:34 · Score: 1

The sales rep probably told them it would cause any in women range to get hot for them.
Re:Failed to achieve satisfaction... by Chris+Burke · 2010-07-27 10:16 · Score: 1

It turns out their REAL kink is being cuckolded by powerful military contractors.
Aw man, that is nasty.

--

The enemies of Democracy are

Not to worry! by Cornwallis · 2010-07-27 04:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm sure these things will start showing up in U.S. police departments soon enough.

Re:Not to worry! by Wonko+the+Sane · 2010-07-27 04:44 · Score: 0, Redundant

Unfortunately you're probably right.
Re:Not to worry! by Nadaka · 2010-07-27 04:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

They already have the sound cannons that cause instantaneous and permanent hearing damage, and can rapidly cause permanent deafness.
They were used against protesters to the G20 meeting.
Re:Not to worry! by BForrester · 2010-07-27 05:05 · Score: 1

I'm sure these things will start showing up in U.S. police departments soon enough.
...and in grocery stores next to the Jiffy Pop.
Re:Not to worry! by 644bd346996 · 2010-07-27 05:18 · Score: 1

I really don't think one of these would be good for a Jiffy Pop. Those things are wrapped in foil, so if any of the RF energy did make it to the corn, it wouldn't be evenly distributed and would probably burn anything that got hot enough to pop. If, however, you aimed it up and put your corn and butter on top of the output RF window, you could have a very large-scale popcorn maker with no moving parts (except in the coolant system for your klystron).
Re:Not to worry! by ground.zero.612 · 2010-07-27 05:31 · Score: 0, Troll

They already have the sound cannons that cause instantaneous and permanent hearing damage, and can rapidly cause permanent deafness.
They were used against protesters to the G20 meeting.
Citation needed. I thought we had laws here in the US about using weapons that maim? I am fairly certain we have at least signed an international treaty that prevents us from using weapons that blind people...

--
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
Re:Not to worry! by Warll · 2010-07-27 05:50 · Score: 2, Informative

The G20 meeting was in Canada this year. To clarify, Canada is not a part of the "US".

Now with that said I too doubt such a weapon was really used. Although considering how much the cops messed up, I wouldn't put it past them.
Re:Not to worry! by feepness · 2010-07-27 05:58 · Score: 1

They already have the sound cannons that cause instantaneous and permanent hearing damage, and can rapidly cause permanent deafness.

They were used against protesters to the G20 meeting.
Toronto is not in the US.
Re:Not to worry! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 06:01 · Score: 3, Informative
They already have the sound cannons that cause instantaneous and permanent hearing damage, and can rapidly cause permanent deafness.
They were used against protesters to the G20 meeting.
Just to protect against your comment being skewed as "police were causing permanent damage to protesters", the Toronto police were approved to use the LRAD in voice mode but blocked from using alert mode. Used as per their instructions and judge's orders, the devices are unlikely to cause permanent damage. Similarly, being authorized to carry guns isn't the same as shooting protesters dead.
Sources:
- http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontog20summit/article/828473--toronto-police-can-use-sound-cannons-but-at-lower-range
- http://open.salon.com/blog/gordon_wagner/2010/05/27/lrads_--_sound_cannon_for_crowd_control
- http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html
Re:Not to worry! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 06:10 · Score: 0

Meh. I was too busy doing things like taking showers and going to work to attend any G20 protests...
Re:Not to worry! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 06:15 · Score: 1, Insightful

The population won't about sound cannons in the US when they are all too concerned about vuvuzelas at a soccer match, far away.
Re:Not to worry! by cgenman · 2010-07-27 06:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Don't forget the woman who was bean-bag gunned to death at a Red Socks victory rally.
I liked lethal force. Either it got used, or it didn't. Generally it didn't. All non-lethal force has done is change situations that would have been deflated peacefully into situations where people start firing non-lethal guns at each other. Or, rather, police start firing "non-lethal" guns at unarmed civilians, sometimes maiming and sometimes killing them.

--
The ______ Agenda
Re:Not to worry! by mmaniaci · 2010-07-27 06:32 · Score: 4, Informative

It was last year's G20 in Pittsburgh. Heres a Guardian article (first one I could find, too lazy to find a better one) with a video attached. Youtube will also lead you to some horrifying videos.

Now I'm not sure about a case of instantaneous and permanent hearing damage, but from the videos you can tell how terribly inhumane this weapon is.
Re:Not to worry! by couchslug · 2010-07-27 06:38 · Score: 1

The trouble with that is there would be no way to control crowds short of shooting them. The "Kent State" method has all sorts of drawbacks. I'd rather deal with "stray noise" or "stray pain waves" than stray rifle bullets any day.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:Not to worry! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 06:41 · Score: 0

woooosh!
Re:Not to worry! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 07:45 · Score: 0

That only applies in war against enemy soldiers. Your own civilians are fair game.
Re:Not to worry! by Monchanger · 2010-07-27 07:57 · Score: 1, Flamebait

In the videos I've watched, most people directly in front of the device aren't doing anything other than covering their ears. Only a few are actually moving away, which is the device's intended effect.
Looks more like a device with mediocre performance to me, and isn't going to help the police do their job to disband unruly protests. I'm thinking those protesters are crybabies who were coddled. If they prefer tear gas and batons, no problem- those are tried and true methods of getting people to do what the police want. Hearing damage? Ha! I'm a liberal but I gotta say: grow a pair, hippies.
Re:Not to worry! by DocSavage64109 · 2010-07-27 08:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

Try having some tinnitus before you mock hearing damage. It's like listening to squealing crt tubes 24 hours a day for the rest of your life.
Re:Not to worry! by PinkyGigglebrain · 2010-07-27 08:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

I liked lethal force. Either it got used, or it didn't. Generally it didn't.
That is a really good point.

Before all this "non-lethal" crap was deployed the police had two alternative, defuse a situation peacefully without the use of force or use force to hurt/kill people and fuck with their public approval rating. By selling all these gizmos (Tazer, ADS, sonic canon, etc.) as "non-lethal" the police have less reason to NOT escalate a situation and use these devices against unarmed groups. When someone gets maimed or killed the police can say that it was an "unfortunate accident" because they didn't intend to hurt anyone and that they only used $NONLETHAL_DEVICE to ensure the safety of the officers involved and the general public.

Yeah, now pull the other one.

Problem is the harder they push the more likely people will start pushing back, and since the public doesn't have all these "non lethal" devices they will have to go straight to lethal force.
Re:Not to worry! by Scrameustache · 2010-07-27 08:59 · Score: 1

Don't forget the woman who was bean-bag gunned to death at a Red Socks victory rally.
I liked lethal force. Either it got used, or it didn't. Generally it didn't. All non-lethal force has done is change situations that would have been deflated peacefully into situations where people start firing non-lethal guns at each other. Or, rather, police start firing "non-lethal" guns at unarmed civilians, sometimes maiming and sometimes killing them.
Ian Tomlinson was pushed to death by a cop (shoved to the ground, from the back, while his hands were in his pockets; hit his head on the pavement).

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:Not to worry! by Seraphim1982 · 2010-07-27 10:36 · Score: 1

They already have the sound cannons that cause instantaneous and permanent hearing damage, and can rapidly cause permanent deafness.
They were used against protesters to the G20 meeting.
Just to protect against your comment being skewed as "police were causing permanent damage to protesters", the Toronto police were approved to use the LRAD in voice mode but blocked from using alert mode. Used as per their instructions and judge's orders, the devices are unlikely to cause permanent damage. Similarly, being authorized to carry guns isn't the same as shooting protesters dead.
Sources:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontog20summit/article/828473--toronto-police-can-use-sound-cannons-but-at-lower-range
http://open.salon.com/blog/gordon_wagner/2010/05/27/lrads_--_sound_cannon_for_crowd_control
http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html

I like how you take the time to do all that research but you don't bother doing something as simple as typing "Sonic Cannon G20" into Google. If you had you might have realized that he was probably referring to the 2009 meeting in Pittsburgh, not the 2010 meeting in Toronto.
The first link to said search:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2009/sep/25/sonic-cannon-g20-pittsburgh/
Re:Not to worry! by Diantre · 2010-07-27 11:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

Your run-of-the-mill night club or rock show already causes permanent hearing damage, it's not that hard to do.
Re:Not to worry! by Diantre · 2010-07-27 11:13 · Score: 2

Amen, brother. Amen. Once I was working the sound system for a DJs night and one of them kept calling me a pussy for wearing earplugs. I blasted a 15 kHz sine in his monitoring headphones and told him that's what I heard 24/7 because I wasn't a pussy before. He stopped doing it :)
Re:Not to worry! by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2010-07-27 11:45 · Score: 1

The "Kent State" method has all sorts of drawbacks
Yes, such as encouraging citizens to hold the state accountable for its actions. That's a huge drawback from the state's point of view.
I agree 100% with what you're saying -- lethal force used rarely and only when appropriate is far preferable to 'less lethal' force used every time a cop gets nervous or bored.
Re:Not to worry! by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2010-07-27 11:48 · Score: 1

I agree 100% with what you're saying
(Actually I conflated your post with the other tongue-in-cheek one that said he 'liked' lethal force, so apologies if you don't in fact agree with cgenman's sentiment.)
Re:Not to worry! by luther349 · 2010-07-27 12:22 · Score: 1

i dunno what you mean a lrad whepion is hardly a danger. its just loud and annoying. now a flashbang can make you def.
Re:Not to worry! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 13:04 · Score: 0

What you want is better training, better "rules of engagement", and consequences for abuse. (And I agree).
That said, having a middle ground between "kill" and "talk" is an entirely different matter, and a very valuable tool for de-escalating a situation (*when used correctly*). We have no shortage of situations that got out of control BEFORE tazers were invented and ended in beatings and shootings of civilians or officers, individually or in crowds or in full scale riots. In particular, plenty of cases of individuals or crowds that specifically want to cause problems; in the old days that meant they got shot, and in modern civilized society it means they get tazed and arrested and get trials.
Re:Not to worry! by Raenex · 2010-07-27 13:38 · Score: 1

Yeah, I was going to say, there's always been non-lethal force. Before there were tazers, there were batons and beefy cops wrestling you to the ground.
Re:Not to worry! by BitZtream · 2010-07-27 14:53 · Score: 1

terribly inhumane this weapon is.
I'm sorry, I don't think you fully understand the point of a weapon, especially in this case.
A quick painless death isn't the goal, preferably no death and enough pain to stop them from being a problem is what you want.
Its supposed to hurt, cause thats way better than death.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:Not to worry! by cgenman · 2010-07-27 19:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

It also means a man who was lying on the ground cooperating with police in Oakland got shot in the back, when the police officer only meant to taze the cooperating gentleman in question. Or when a loudmouth jerk, instead of just getting dragged out of an auditorium, gets tazed before getting dragged out of an auditorium.
I would love to see these weapons get used in the originally intended way. And sometimes they seem to. But there is a very human side of us that seems to equate "non-lethal weapon" with "instant compliance button" rather than "some countries consider these torture."
I do hope that better training, rules of engagement, and consequences for abuse will help counteract that aspect of human nature. Considering that several states have criminalized filming police officers doing their duties, that hope is going to be grounded with a continued cynicism.

--
The ______ Agenda
Re:Not to worry! by manicb · 2010-07-27 20:25 · Score: 1

Did you have a test oscillator in the rig or something?
Re:Not to worry! by hellop2 · 2010-07-27 20:33 · Score: 1

I saw one of these sound weapons mounted on a black police vehicle here in my small hometown of 40,000 people. The vehicle was like an armored military APC and the large circular device was mounted on a rotating turret on top. The vehicle had wheels and was driving down the street one day.

Well, there won't be any riots in my town... but if there is, the new federal building, I've been told had three floors underground of holding cells.

--
How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
Re:Not to worry! by hitmark · 2010-07-27 21:07 · Score: 1

anywhere is US once a US representative puts his foot on the ground there.

--
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Re:Not to worry! by LBt1st · 2010-07-27 21:17 · Score: 1

This is the first I've heard of these weapons causing permanent damage. Got a link?
Re:Not to worry! by Nadaka · 2010-07-27 23:58 · Score: 1

That is really easy. Look at the decibel level it puts out, at least 150. Then go read about hearing loss from loud sound.
Re:Not to worry! by LBt1st · 2010-07-28 05:03 · Score: 1

Well sure if you stick your ear right up to the thing then I'm sure you'll get the full 150db. At range though, I doubt it's any louder then a typical metal show.
Re:Not to worry! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-28 08:52 · Score: 0
Dear Jack Ass,
Thank you for your idiotic reply. Please see the below comments:

I like how you take the time to do all that research but you don't bother doing something as simple as typing "Sonic Cannon G20" into Google. ...
I too appreciate your taking the time to reply, but without wasting time paying attention to the words used. Grandparent poster had written "sound cannon", not "sonic cannon". Googling "g20 sound cannon" returns Toronto, not Pittsburg, in the first result. If you really want to google "sonic" cannons, please try the phrase "shove a sonic cannon up my fucking ass g20".
In case you are again stuck with just enough time to write a retort but not enough time to do anything meaningful with your life, I have also researched several other searches that will return Toronto in the first result:
1. g20 noise cannon
2. g20 loud fucking cannon
3. g20 really loud gun
4. g20 gnarly noisy machine
5. -Seraphim1982 is an asshat sound cannon g20
... If you had you might have realized that he was probably referring to the 2009 meeting in Pittsburgh, not the 2010 meeting in Toronto.
I regret to inform you that we have no way of confirming your assumption. You chose to ignore the preponderance of links indicating G20 Toronto as the more likely match which is your prerogative. Indeed, I've also favored the "measure once cut twice" approach to life.
Want to take another wack at it? Or have you been enough of a jack-ass already?
Sincerely yours,
The Anonymous Coward from the previous post
Re:Not to worry! by Nadaka · 2010-07-28 08:59 · Score: 1

No...
It is a directed sound weapon. Its power does not fade along the inverse square law along its projected path. It is supposed to stay at >150 decibels over its most of its effective range.
And yes, a metal show is also sufficient to cause permanent hearing damage.
Re:Not to worry! by Diantre · 2010-08-01 03:31 · Score: 1

Yeah, coming out my laptop.

the military doesn't understand psychological war? by circletimessquare · 2010-07-27 04:36 · Score: 3, Funny

say it simply gave you an itchy feeling, no more

ok: then the military should have acted like it was an anthrax ray or something horribly nasty. and then let simple fear in the people it was pointed at do the rest of the work: "get the hell out of here, the americans have some scary new technology that causes your eyes to glow/ flesh to fall off in a month/ all your female relatives to lose their virginity!"

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Another misleading /. summary by timholman · 2010-07-27 04:38 · Score: 5, Informative

RTFA. There's nothing in the linked story about it "failing" any test. What happened is that the military decided that no operational need for the weapon existed in Afghanistan.

The ADS does work for crowd control, but generally the military isn't dealing with crowds of rioting civilians attacking their outposts. They're dealing with insurgents fighting with guerilla tactics and IEDs. The ADS is the wrong tool for the job.

Re:Another misleading /. summary by Minwee · 2010-07-27 04:43 · Score: -1, Redundant

What happened is that the military decided that no operational need for the weapon existed in Afghanistan.
That still doesn't explain why it isn't being deployed.
Re:Another misleading /. summary by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 04:46 · Score: 0

Why would you deploy it if you don't have an operational need for it?
Re:Another misleading /. summary by quax · 2010-07-27 04:48 · Score: 2, Informative

Civilian cars are often shot up at military check points because the drivers don't understand that they are supposed to stop. Since soldiers have to assume these could be car bombs they shoot to disable the vehicle but in real life that means people get killed. Often times children are involved or like it happened in Iraq pregnant women who the husband tried to rush to the hospital. A non-lethal weapon system that'll get a car to stop would be great but obviously microwaves can not penetrate a car so this weapon system is useless to help with this pressing problem.
Re:Another misleading /. summary by Lumpy · 2010-07-27 04:58 · Score: 0

Civilian cars are often shot up at military check points because the drivers don't understand that they are supposed to stop.
I know giant STOP signs in their native language with army men pointing guns at you are far too ambiguous....

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Another misleading /. summary by chronosan · 2010-07-27 05:14 · Score: 1

Literacy is not 100% in that area in the world, and I doubt many people driving vehicles are tested and licensed before being allowed access to a vehicle.
Re:Another misleading /. summary by couchslug · 2010-07-27 05:17 · Score: 4, Informative

"Civilian cars are often shot up at military check points because the drivers don't understand that they are supposed to stop."
Military checkpoints often lacked APPROACH BARRIERS and SIGNAGE. Even if someone is shooting at you from a distance, if you don't SEE the muzzle flash or SEE/HEAR the IMPACTs you may keep driving or even speed up to get (what you assume is) "away".

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:Another misleading /. summary by denobug · 2010-07-27 05:27 · Score: 1

Literacy is not 100% in that area in the world, and I doubt many people driving vehicles are tested and licensed before being allowed access to a vehicle.
Most people in the world outside of United States understand to STOP when a group of soilders with guns standing by the side of the road. Especially when barricades are involved. They can at least read the body language.
Re:Another misleading /. summary by NotYours · 2010-07-27 05:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

Here is a scenario for you.

It's 1 am and your mother goes into labor. Your father is not around because he was killed recently in a random act of violence. You get her into your beat up, barely functioning, pickup truck and start driving to the nearest hospital. As you round a corner you see an odd flash from a dark alleyway but don't pay any attention to it. Your focused on taking care of your hysteric mother. For your failure to stop a soldier in the dark alleyway opens up with a 240B Machine Guns.

Why didn't the soldiers have big flashing lights and large obvious signs that they were conducting an operation there? The soldiers were currently on a raid to capture a high level insurgent member who was personally responsible for importing and deploying EFPs.EFPs responsible for killing soldiers from their unit . The raid was being conducted as covertly as possible to minimize any early warning for the insurgents. This is also why the soldiers engaged with the minimal warning. The only people fleeing from soldiers conducting a raid at 1 am are most likely insurgents.

The end result was mother lived, baby died, son died. Insurgent was not captured. Did they deserve to be shot because the driver did not know that the ROE for the soldiers was to have signs visible (black out, no lights to see them with), verbal warning (could not be heard over engine), and to signal with a light to stop (a single flash of a light in the dense urban city in the middle of the nigth)? I'd say those are pretty ambiguous.
Re:Another misleading /. summary by gary_7vn · 2010-07-27 07:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

No, it was the soldier, or more precisely, his superiours, who did not understand how to properly signal them to stop. In Iraq, putting out your hand in the "halt/stop" gesture means "come forward/here". You don't need heat rays, you need brains and cultural awareness. A even better way to stop killing civilians to leave their countries entirely. “As an American, you just put your hand up with your palm towards somebody and your fingers pointing to the sky,” said Sergeant Jefferies, who was responsible for supplying fixed checkpoints in Diyala twice a day. “That means stop to most Americans, and that’s a military hand signal that soldiers are taught that means stop. Closed fist, please freeze, but an open hand means stop. That’s a sign you make at a checkpoint. To an Iraqi person, that means, Hello, come here. So you can see the problem that develops real quick. So you get on a checkpoint, and the soldiers think they’re saying stop, stop, and the Iraqis think they’re saying come here, come here. And the soldiers start hollering, so they try to come there faster. So soldiers holler more, and pretty soon you’re shooting pregnant women.” as quoted by Chris Hedges in The Nation
Re:Another misleading /. summary by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 09:26 · Score: 1, Interesting

Civilian cars are often shot up at military check points because the drivers don't understand that they are supposed to stop.
Source, please? My information is about Iraq, since I've been here for the past four months, and have driven all around Baghdad and the outskirts. It's certainly a different situation in Afghanistan, but the way we tend do things like checkpoints is fairly standard.
Even if drivers didn't spot the soldiers standing around, the guard towers, and the big stop signs in Arabic, and were oblivious to the bone-jarring speed bumps, they'd crash into the massive concrete barriers that you have to slow down to around 5 mph to swerve around.
But, generally, given that they've been putting up with us for almost 10 years, I'd hope you'd give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they've figured out what a checkpoint looks like by now.

Since soldiers have to assume these could be car bombs they shoot to disable the vehicle but in real life that means people get killed.
If you had to set up a hasty TCP (traffic control point) and had no portable barriers (big plastic mamba jambas, just add sand!), you could still set up signs and markers for escalation of force (EOF). The idea is that you use various signals to slow a vehicle down, from sirens to lights to lasing (very effective) to warning shots and only then to a disabling shot. If a vehicle is going so fast that you're forced to do a disabling shot right away, it probably is a VBIED.
And, just in case you're wondering, yes, all EOF incidents are investigated.
Re:Another misleading /. summary by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 11:43 · Score: 0

In Iraq, putting out your hand in the "halt/stop" gesture means "come forward/here".

Nonsense, the socialist liberal elite in America are simply coddling terrorists with their continual complaints that we don't "understand" the Iraqis enough. It's ridiculous!
What's there to understand!? They attacked us on September the 11th and we're defending themselves. There's nothing we need to learn here except how to find and stop those responsible.
[Sarcasm. Really.]
Re:Another misleading /. summary by Minwee · 2010-07-27 13:32 · Score: 1

I see you haven't met the US Military yet.
Re:Another misleading /. summary by chrb · 2010-07-27 23:26 · Score: 1

I know giant STOP signs in their native language with army men pointing guns at you are far too ambiguous.
They are when 26% of the population can't read or write...
"We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat... We really ask a lot of our young service people out on the checkpoints because there's danger, they're asked to make very rapid decisions in often very unclear situations. However, to my knowledge, in the nine-plus months I've been here, not a single case where we have engaged in an escalation of force incident and hurt someone has it turned out that the vehicle had a suicide bomb or weapons in it and, in many cases, had families in it." - General McChrystal (transcript)
Re:Another misleading /. summary by chrb · 2010-07-27 23:39 · Score: 1

Most people in the world outside of United States understand to STOP when a group of soilders with guns standing by the side of the road.

Not really - there are many scenarios in other countries where a group of soldiers by the roadside would consider it very suspicious that a car slow down or stop near them.
Civilians in cars do not want to be shot and killed, especially when they have their families with them. And yet, this exact situation occurred thousands of times in Iraq. Something was clearly going very wrong. "Blame the victim" is not a good answer - you would not accept military/police at a roadblock in the United States shooting and killing thousands of unarmed civilians who posed no threat, so why should the same actions be acceptable in another country?
"We really ask a lot of our young service people out on the checkpoints because there's danger, they're asked to make very rapid decisions in often very unclear situations. However, to my knowledge, in the nine-plus months I've been here, not a single case where we have engaged in an escalation of force incident and hurt someone has it turned out that the vehicle had a suicide bomb or weapons in it" - General McChrystal. Does it sound reasonable to shoot hundreds of people, sometimes killing whole families, in response to a low-level threat of carbombing?
Re:Another misleading /. summary by Lumpy · 2010-07-27 23:57 · Score: 1

you would not accept military/police at a roadblock in the United States shooting and killing thousands of unarmed civilians who posed no threat, so why should the same actions be acceptable in another country?
Actually I do expect that. During katrina the troops sent to the area were talking about the possibility of having to kill americans. They are fully ready to drop a minivan full civilians here in the states. And you are a fool if you believe that they wont. Military training does not include "Unless they are americans" clause.
If the situation looks like a threat, you take action.
They killed a bunch of students at Ohio State and they KNEW that they were americans and kids.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Another misleading /. summary by strikethree · 2010-07-28 20:51 · Score: 1

"Military checkpoints often lacked APPROACH BARRIERS and SIGNAGE."
Bullshit. I am over here (well, in Kuwait now) and every single checkpoint has at least one Humvee with a HUGE sign on it that says to stay back 100m or you will be shot. Now, approaching somewhere that one of these is parked should surely bring on the feeling of "um, these are guys with guns, perhaps I should approach cautiously.". This is just for informal checkpoints. For actual full time checkpoints, there are signs in half a dozen languages warning you. Sure, you are an ignorant peasant who was never taught to read. Guess what? Too bad. It is not like people are hiding in ditches waiting to ambush these people. Even a moron SHOULD be able to tell that there are armed men ahead. I am sorry, but if you do not comprehend that you might be in danger, then you will die because the men with guns will feel like they are in danger. It is not like the people manning these checkpoints just want target practice... well, perhaps there are a couple psychos out there, but I can guarantee you that most of the people who feel they have to shoot someone else who is approaching relives that moment over and over in their head, wondering if they could have done things differently.
I find myself wondering if you would feel as sorry for these people if you knew that they pushed their children in front of the convoys to stop them so they could destroy the convoy once it stopped. So a soldier is forced to run over a child or stop and get slaughtered. Hm. You do not think that fucks with a soldiers mind? So now, they have run over several children and a car is approaching them, ignoring all signs and warnings. Do they shoot or not? Well, they feel bad about running over a child 2 months ago, so they decide they do not want to kill anymore... and the car blows up when it hits the checkpoint, killing the soldier and everyone around him.
Ok, I will grant you that maybe there should not be a war over there now; however, there is. Everything is so easy, so black and white, when you are not the one over here. In your world, suicide bombers are easy to spot. They are the ones in cars filled with explosives. Well, this is not a movie, you do not get a scene with a shot panning through the back seat of the car. A soldier actually has to walk up to the car and look inside. I bet you can find a video or two showing just exactly that... and then a moment later, there is no sign of the soldier because his body was blown half a kilometer away. This shit is NOT easy and some innocent people WILL get hurt, maimed, or outright killed. Blaming the soldier is fucking stupid and hateful. Take your problems up with the politicians. The soldiers are already suffering enough.
strike

--
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Re:Another misleading /. summary by quax · 2010-07-29 05:20 · Score: 1

I was thinking of one of these incidents in Iraq.
My comment was not meant to denigrate the troops. Clearly it is an established fact that suicide car bombings are a real threat (don't need to supply links to support that notion, do I?) but unfortunately the fact that a large amount of civilians get killed at checkpoints is an established fact as well. Hence, I understand the desire to find a non-lethal technical approach to disable vehicles.
For your sake I hope that Iraq calmed down enough so you won't end up in a situation where you have to make split second life and death decisions.
And, just in case you're wondering, yes, all EOF incidents are investigated.
I expect nothing less.
Be safe.

What failed it? by Reilaos · 2010-07-27 04:39 · Score: 1

Was it not effective enough? Was it -too- effective? Did they decide that this 'non-harmful' weapon wasn't harmful enough? Was it too expensive to use/move?

I think I know what. They were pissed because they realized the very principle of the thing wouldn't heat their burritos any more evenly than their microwaves.

Re:What failed it? by natehoy · 2010-07-27 04:48 · Score: 3, Funny

Actually, it failed because they were firing a heat ray at a bunch of desert-dwellers. It's not like these guys are going to go, "oh, ow, it burns!" They live in the goddamned DESERT. Burning isn't a sensation, it's a lifestyle.
It's kinda like using pepper spray on a true spice lover. They're just gonna smile and ask you for the recipe before they kill you.

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Re:What failed it? by tftp · 2010-07-27 11:54 · Score: 1

Actually, it failed because they were firing a heat ray at a bunch of desert-dwellers
It probably also matters that those attackers aren't forming an obvious, convenient marching band and march toward the protected installation making sure they are all exposed to those rays.
Far more likely the attackers are approaching unseen, then using mortars from behind the hills, or shooting rifles while under cover. Earth is conductive and absorbs / reflects microwaves. At those frequencies there isn't much difference between this "heat ray" and visible light. So as long as the attacker stays hidden he is not risking pain. And even if he does, big deal - he is risking death.
Add to that the fact that the heat ray's effective range is about 500 meters, which is about the minimum engagement distance in Afghanistan. It gets closer if troops on foot get into an ambush, but that's hardly relevant here. Stationary installations, as I read, are shot at from larger distances, and this heat ray is not suitable to cover a single sniper even if it could reach that far. The sniper is probably gone before the sound of the shot reaches the target.
Re:What failed it? by natehoy · 2010-07-28 00:53 · Score: 1

Absolutely.
The heat ray appears to work fine - for crowd control. Where you have a peaceful demonstration going on. In other words, it works great in every circumstance where it is not necessary.
If you have an unruly crowd who is hell-bent on violence, this will hurt a few of them, but may not even slow the crowd down. High-pressure water doesn't have the range, but is at least capable of repelling larger numbers of people for longer so you can get the hell out. Tear gas debilitates large numbers. This unit appears to be basically a long-range taser with fewer capabilities.
But, to your point...
For guerrilla warfare in an urban environment with people who are geared up to live in the desert and (in many cases) willing to blow themselves up to reach a target?
umm, not so much.
For remote/rural guerrilla warfare? Not at all.
However, the technology behind this could be useful.
I don't know the technical feasibility, but ramping it up so it can disable a car without running the risk of killing the occupants, and now we're talking. Bullets have a nasty habit of not disabling engines and (even with a good shot) ricocheting around the engine compartment and entering the cabin. And shots to disable moving targets where the driver/passenger and the engine aren't that many degrees apart aren't terribly accurate even for shooters not concerned about imminent death.

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Re:What failed it? by tftp · 2010-07-28 05:57 · Score: 1

I don't know the technical feasibility, but ramping it up so it can disable a car without running the risk of killing the occupants, and now we're talking.
An EMI/EMP attack against an older carburetor engine or a diesel engine is most likely hopeless. Those engines have no computers, and an attack against whatever little they have will be not effective. Most likely majority of vehicles in 3rd world are like that. A diesel engine will keep running even after an EMP produced by a nuclear blast.
If I am tasked with solving this, I'd build a physical barrier that must be moved by guards to allow the vehicle to proceed. Nobody is stupid enough to drive through a concrete block (or an armored vehicle,) and even if they try they won't get through. This way you don't need to do anything to stop incoming vehicles - they either are stopped by their drivers, or they blow up at a designated location.
Re:What failed it? by natehoy · 2010-07-28 06:24 · Score: 1

An old-school solution to an old-school problem. I like it. :)

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."

The summary's wrong. by ravenshrike · 2010-07-27 04:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

It didn't fail any tests at all, it was merely not deployed. I can think of multiple reasons not to deploy this. The biggest being that it is really only useful as crowd control during riots, and even then could be relatively easily taken out. There's also the fact that leaving enemies angry enough to shoot at you alive would seem to be a bad idea. Since the US military, the only people using the tech, would not have enough manpower to roundup all the people they used this against, all it would do is cause greater US casualties in the long run.

Re:The summary's wrong. by $RANDOMLUSER · 2010-07-27 04:47 · Score: 1

Exactly. Bad summary. FAIL != NOT DEPLOYED

Meanwhile, with it being about 1650 AD in that part of the world, I can see why commanders aren't keen on using this on civilian crowds.

--
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Re:The summary's wrong. by mea37 · 2010-07-27 05:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

I suspect the submitter is trying to be clever by implying that the final test was whether commanders in the field would accept and use it - which for whatever reason they have elected not to do at this time.
Re:The summary's wrong. by MozeeToby · 2010-07-27 06:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think that's fair enough, if the soldiers in the field don't want it I would call that failing the final test. And besides that, it isn't really that great of a deterrence weapon, especially during a riot. Imagine you've got a thousand people, 20 rows deep moving in on an embassy and you shoot this off. Only the first row is going to get the full force of the weapon, people farther back might get little to none. Now you've got a bunch of people getting hit, probably trying to turn and run but can't because the people behind them keep pushing forward. If nothing else, the weapon has never been safety tested for such a scenario. It would be more useful to keep a small group of apparently unarmed people from approaching a location, but it seems overkill for that situation, especially because it doubtless takes time and effort to deploy. So you end up only using it in situations (rare situations to boot, when was the last time a mob attacked a US military base or embassy?) where it is practically guaranteed to be ineffective.
Re:The summary's wrong. by dave420 · 2010-07-28 01:24 · Score: 1

If someone is rioting in front of US troops, I doubt making them uncomfortably hot will suddenly make them homicidal. Not killing someone, however, does tend to not turn that person's relatives homicidal, which surely is better. For every insurgent killed, more than one will take his shoes. Families in that part of the world are not exactly small. It's worrying that folks don't seem to realise that. The only way to win this war is to either kill everyone, and become the devil in the process, or to talk.
Re:The summary's wrong. by mjwx · 2010-07-28 15:15 · Score: 1

I think that's fair enough, if the soldiers in the field don't want it I would call that failing the final test. And besides that, it isn't really that great of a deterrence weapon, especially during a riot. Imagine you've got a thousand people, 20 rows deep moving in on an embassy and you shoot this off. Only the first row is going to get the full force of the weapon, people farther back might get little to none. Now you've got a bunch of people getting hit, probably trying to turn and run but can't because the people behind them keep pushing forward.
Exactly,

Besides being ineffective, it's expensive, difficult to maintain and inferior to current weapons that perform the same job such as CS gas and water cannons. Why deploy an expensive and large microwave device that has a not insignificant possibility of breaking down when you need it.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.

Re:the military doesn't understand psychological w by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 04:40 · Score: 5, Funny

"get the hell out of here, the americans have some scary new technology that causes your eyes to glow/ flesh to fall off in a month/ all your female relatives to lose their virginity!"

What, they are going to introduce beer in large quantities?

Ditto by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 04:40 · Score: 0

Exactly, the article I read about this (not this one, too lazy to look for a link) said they were being redeployed to the US.

They'll look pretty kickass beside those sound cannons they've been using in the US and Canada

It didnt go "ding" when it was done. by bwayne314 · 2010-07-27 04:41 · Score: 2, Funny

The "popcorn" setting was ineffective ... everyone knows you cant have a war without popcorn!

Re:It didnt go "ding" when it was done. by natehoy · 2010-07-27 04:49 · Score: 1

I love the smell of Jiffy Pop in the morning. Smells like VICTORY!

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Re:It didnt go "ding" when it was done. by circletimessquare · 2010-07-27 04:52 · Score: 1

talib don't surf!

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Re:the military doesn't understand psychological w by tacroy · 2010-07-27 04:42 · Score: 1

I imagine that would work against "winning hearts and minds" and probably add to the "the USA hates us all, kill them."

No, the BBC Changed the Story by eldavojohn · 2010-07-27 04:48 · Score: 4, Informative

If you look at the right side of the page, the second most popular article is titled

"US 'heat ray' gun fails final test"

This morning, when I read this article and submitted it to Slashdot, that was the title. The words "fails final test" were all over the article. Unfortunately Google doesn't seem to offer a cache for it but those words are all over.

The summary isn't wrong, it's just that the BBC changed their story. In the original version the final test was actually putting it to use in Afghanistan. And the US Military Leaders decided ADS doesn't work in that war scenario.

The ADS is the wrong tool for the job.

So if you use the wrong tool for the job and it doesn't work wouldn't you call that failing?

--
My work here is dung.

Re:No, the BBC Changed the Story by Cynonamous+Anoward · 2010-07-27 05:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you use the wrong tool for the job, I call that failing. But it's not the tool that failed. It's you.

--
"The GPL is viral by design, like any good religion."
Re:No, the BBC Changed the Story by timholman · 2010-07-27 05:01 · Score: 1

So if you use the wrong tool for the job and it doesn't work wouldn't you call that failing?
No, I'd call it "using the wrong tool for the job". If you need a screwdriver, and I offer you a hammer, that hammer didn't "fail". It's a perfectly good hammer, it does what it's supposed to do, but it is the wrong tool for the task you require.
Right now the U.S. military is looking for new weapons to deal with the Taliban insurgency on the Pakistan border. They're not dealing with massive crowds of civilian rioters in Kabul. If they were, there would be an operational need for the ADS, and it would be deployed.
I do expect that we'll be seeing more of the ADS in the future, but more likely in urban environments where crowd control and perimeter defense are required.
Re:No, the BBC Changed the Story by Some.Net(Guy) · 2010-07-27 05:02 · Score: 1

So if you use the wrong tool for the job and it doesn't work wouldn't you call that failing?
No. Failing would be if the tool didn't work. Using it for the incorrect application does not mean the tool has failed, it means the user has failed to correctly use the tool.
Re:No, the BBC Changed the Story by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 05:06 · Score: 0

So if you use the wrong tool for the job and it doesn't work wouldn't you call that failing?
So if I try to use a screwdriver to drive a nail into a wall, did the screwdriver fail or did I? I certainly wouldn't call that a failure on the part of the screwdriver, it still performs its essential function well.
Re:No, the BBC Changed the Story by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 05:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you use the wrong tool for the job, I call that failing. But it's not the tool that failed. It's you.
Perhaps you should speak to the company that sells the tool and advertises its use in military combat:

Raytheon's Active Denial System 2 provides military, civilian law enforcement, and security organizations with a truly non-lethal system that is optimized for situations where the use of lethal force may not be appropriate or warranted.
You know as well as I do what happened. The military took our tax dollars and dumped it into the development of this project under the guise that they wouldn't have to kill as many people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And now who is it going to end up being used on? Only you and me. No military value, surprise surprise.

Yes, the tool failed the purpose it was marketed, sold and purchased to fulfill. It worked in all tests and demonstrations except the one that counted.
Re:No, the BBC Changed the Story by interkin3tic · 2010-07-27 05:12 · Score: 1

So if you use the wrong tool for the job and it doesn't work wouldn't you call that failing?
A powerdrill is the wrong tool for hammering a nail, but it doesn't fail at the job. Damages the powerdrill though.
Re:No, the BBC Changed the Story by maxwell+demon · 2010-07-27 05:21 · Score: 1

Well, if I was sold the screwdriver as a tool to put nails in, then yes, I'd consider it a failure.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:No, the BBC Changed the Story by mobby_6kl · 2010-07-27 05:26 · Score: 1

Well, one could say that by not being the right tool for the job and not being deployed, it failed its "final test".
Re:No, the BBC Changed the Story by AnAdventurer · 2010-07-27 05:34 · Score: 1

I use my powerdrill all the time to hammer nails and it shows, it's torn to sherds. It's me who fails to bring a hammer to the fight [sic].
I would also say by the above logic our whole mission is failing in the sandboxes we are in. We bought the whole toolbox, but we keep using the wrong tools for the job.

--
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
Re:No, the BBC Changed the Story by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 09:39 · Score: 0

So if you use the wrong tool for the job and it doesn't work wouldn't you call that failing?
In that case it would not be the tool but the user who has failed.
Re:No, the BBC Changed the Story by Cynonamous+Anoward · 2010-08-04 09:16 · Score: 1

The man who sells a phony vacuum cleaner is a liar. The man who buys one is an idiot.

--
"The GPL is viral by design, like any good religion."

the real question is by butterflysrage · 2010-07-27 04:50 · Score: 1

what the hell are they going to do with all those sharks?

--
the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.

Re:the real question is by Shakrai · 2010-07-27 05:18 · Score: 2, Funny

Send them to law school?

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:the real question is by spartacus_prime · 2010-07-27 07:08 · Score: 1

I am a shark in law school, you insensitive clod!

--
If you can read this, it means that I bothered to log in.

11,000 times on 700 volunteers by Arancaytar · 2010-07-27 04:53 · Score: 5, Funny

That's 15.7 times each. Being shot with that thing must feel awesome. You'd think the military would have caught on once the volunteers started queueing up for the fifth or sixth time.

Re:11,000 times on 700 volunteers by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 04:58 · Score: 1, Funny

Maybe the manufacturer can sell it to carnies?
Re:11,000 times on 700 volunteers by noidentity · 2010-07-27 05:14 · Score: 2, Informative

I figured out a cool way you can experience this in your own home! All you need is a screwdriver (flathead) and a microwave oven. The screwdriver is for pressing the door-closed switch while you have the door open. I'm about to go try...
Re:11,000 times on 700 volunteers by krakround · 2010-07-27 05:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

Really, they needed to invent the orgasmatron ray gun. Then there would be no issues with testing and it would always be declared a success.
Re:11,000 times on 700 volunteers by maxwell+demon · 2010-07-27 05:26 · Score: 1

That's 15.7 times each. Being shot with that thing must feel awesome. You'd think the military would have caught on once the volunteers started queueing up for the fifth or sixth time.
Well, the military obviously used it wrong. They tried to use it to get rid of people being in their way. Instead more and more people came. So they declared it a failure.
The correct solution would have been to give each Taliban one shot, and tell them they only get more of it if they stop fighting. In a few days, no Taliban would fight any more.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:11,000 times on 700 volunteers by Bluesman · 2010-07-27 05:42 · Score: 1

You're assuming they tested it on one person at a time. More realistically, they would fire it on a much larger group to test its crowd control capability.
So really, this paints the picture of a group of 100 people getting hit with the ray, standing up and cheering, "FUCK YEAH! Hit us AGAIN! WOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" about 1000 times.
I'm thinking they tested it on drunk frat boys.

--
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
Re:11,000 times on 700 volunteers by Arancaytar · 2010-07-27 06:13 · Score: 2, Funny

That makes sense. The experiment plan is easier to get past the ethics committee that way.
Re:11,000 times on 700 volunteers by rev_sanchez · 2010-07-27 07:46 · Score: 1

Perhaps they were testing it in winter. Given the choice between riding around Afghanistan in an poorly insulated Humvee in the Afghan winter waiting to get blown up or ambushed or laying out in an weaponized outdoor tanning bed I think I'd put on some trunks and catch up on some light reading.

--
If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'

16 times! by catmistake · 2010-07-27 04:53 · Score: 1

700 volunteers, used 11,000 times.... that's 16 times per volunteer. I kind of wish the police used this instead of tasers. Maybe they should change the name from heat gun to tickle gun.

--
The Admin and the Engineer

Re:16 times! by blackraven14250 · 2010-07-27 05:14 · Score: 1

Just wait until US police start using it on riots during cold weather. Then the system will have failed.
Re:16 times! by cgenman · 2010-07-27 06:21 · Score: 1

It sounds like they could use it on riot police in cold weather. Keep 'em nice and toasty. Put a foil-lined cocoa packet in your back pocket, and have a tasty snack when you're done.

--
The ______ Agenda

Microwaves & Cold War by StCredZero · 2010-07-27 04:54 · Score: 1

My physics PhD ex told me about one of her professors. In the 1950's in Nevada, he was working on DoD projects concerning radar. Well, it gets awful cold in the desert at night, and it's still awful cold in the morning. So my ex's professor and the rest of the crew would stand in front of the RADAR set and let the microwaves warm them up.

Re:Microwaves & Cold War by ekgringo · 2010-07-27 05:26 · Score: 1

I heard that the microwave oven was invented after a person standing in front of a radar device noticed that the chocolate bar in his pocket melted.
Re:Microwaves & Cold War by PinkyGigglebrain · 2010-07-27 08:56 · Score: 1

I remember hearing that, it was long before they found out about how even low level microwaves could cause cataracts. I hear they don't do it anymore.
Re:Microwaves & Cold War by bwayne314 · 2010-07-27 11:30 · Score: 1

One of my ex-military acquaintances once tossed the body of a dead cat through an active radar beam (had to toss it up pretty hard to reach high enough), in the second or so of exposure mid-air the thing turned into a smoking ball reeking of burnt hair.
FUN!

I guess it's too expensive or unreliable by ciaran_o_riordan · 2010-07-27 04:54 · Score: 1

...having read what waterboarding is, I can't see any tool being rejected for being too inhumane.

--
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!

Money by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 04:54 · Score: 0

Not all is lost, the business of government raked at least a few easy million through the military-industrial complex from this investment. A million here, a million there, and pretty soon you're talking about an industry measured in billions.

Oops, you're not part of the military-industrial complex? You lose, so that they may win.

Redeployed by Drakkenmensch · 2010-07-27 04:56 · Score: 3, Funny

To strategic locations across the US to keep Burger King whoppers warm while awaiting to be sold to customers.

Re:Redeployed by sharkey · 2010-07-27 10:26 · Score: 1

Now that IS news! No Burger King I've ever visited has been concerned with serving warm food before.

--

--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.

Not the only failure... by Lumpy · 2010-07-27 04:56 · Score: 4, Funny

The cold ray failed as well.... It seems the troops were firing it at themselves to keep comfortable and keeping beverages cold instead of fighting evil...

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Make / DIY version! by StCredZero · 2010-07-27 04:57 · Score: 1

My money's on the Maker / DIY crowd! Hopefully, it works better than the Arduino powered Bedazzler.

I know why it failed... by divisionbyzero · 2010-07-27 04:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

Bullets are more reliable, effective, and cheaper.

Re:I know why it failed... by blair1q · 2010-07-27 05:28 · Score: 1

There's a stat (this is original research but this isn't the wikipedia so fuck it) that 3,000 bullets are expended for each enemy killed.
This has been fairly constant for all wars since at least the Civil War (don't have data on the Revolution or earlier euro wars that had bullets in them; but the CW and both world wars and Viet Nam followed this model; can't remember if I saw data for the first Gulf War (i mean, it lasted a couple of days and we were cluster-bombing cars and rounding up prisoners more than shooting), but I did see one snippet that suggests the current wars are following suit).
The stat comes from logistical reports, so it includes all the bullets used in training, covering fire, diversion, yada, yada.
You can do the math on whether 3,000 bullets to kill someone to stop them from standing in the wrong place is cheaper than zapping them with a heat ray. Don't forget the cost of the paperwork if you use your weapon on the wrong person.
Re:I know why it failed... by natehoy · 2010-07-27 06:50 · Score: 1

this isn't the wikipedia
[citation needed] :)

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Re:I know why it failed... by ceoyoyo · 2010-07-27 08:29 · Score: 1

I've heard the figure in modern times is actually closer to 250,000. I doubt very much it is anything like constant over time.
Regardless, most of those bullets are used in situations where the enemy isn't standing around in the open waiting to get shot. That is, not in the situations where a heat ray is going to be useful.

bullets cheaper by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 04:58 · Score: -1, Redundant

Bullets are far cheaper and effective nearly 100% of the time.

"Failed test" by kaizendojo · 2010-07-27 05:01 · Score: 1

A euphemism for "test subjects caught fire".

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2010-07-27 05:05 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Put them on Japanese whaling vessels by trybywrench · 2010-07-27 05:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

I was thinking of this heat ray the other day when watching previous for that stupid show Whale Wars. Put them on the whaling ships as a non-lethal, extended range, deterrent to keep people from approaching the boats.

--
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?

Re:Put them on Japanese whaling vessels by Xelios · 2010-07-27 05:24 · Score: 1

Not that I have any sympathy for those yahoos but wouldn't that constitute some kind of assault? Seems like it wouldn't be much different than zapping someone with a taser for getting too close to your car, though maybe I'm wrong and there's actually some maritime law that gives you the right to protect your boat from anyone who gets too close.

Though maybe those Sea Shepard people would be guilty of the same crime, throwing their stinky cheese onto the fishing boats or whatever it is they do. But something tells me if they were the ones with the heat ray, using it on fishing vessels, it wouldn't be considered ok.

--
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
Re:Put them on Japanese whaling vessels by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 05:28 · Score: 3, Funny

Catapulting dead dolphins would be more fun and would better get the point across.
Re:Put them on Japanese whaling vessels by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 05:29 · Score: 0

Or on ships traveling near Somalia.
Re:Put them on Japanese whaling vessels by blair1q · 2010-07-27 05:30 · Score: 1

Back of my mind (low-reliability recollection) says they actually did that.
It also tells me they're using them on boats off the east coast of Africa to deter pirates.
Re:Put them on Japanese whaling vessels by TooMuchToDo · 2010-07-27 05:35 · Score: 1

Give the Japanese the microwave device, and I'll recommend these against the whalers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval
Not many craft in Japan's fleet can outrun a 200+ knot (230+ mph) torpedo.
Re:Put them on Japanese whaling vessels by hkz · 2010-07-27 05:51 · Score: 1

There was talk about installing these devices on ships passing through Somali waters as an anti-piracy measure.
Re:Put them on Japanese whaling vessels by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 06:35 · Score: 0

Let me guess, your a libertarian.
Re:Put them on Japanese whaling vessels by natehoy · 2010-07-27 08:07 · Score: 1

Then the "whale wars" boats get them, too, as a non-lethal extended range deterrent to keep whalers from approaching the whales. Then it becomes an arms race.
"On the next episode of Whale Wars, Captain Dumbass uses his first vX canister. The whalers just got a shipment, and it looks like some sort of missile. This could get interesting. Be sure to watch next week for the next exciting installment of... (dramatic pause) WHALE WARS."
PS: Never seen the show. Never even seen the previews. But if it's anything like the dangerous catch fishing show or that one about the truckers who drive over ice (each of which I have seen once), it's going to be predictable drama queenery. WWE, now with new backdrops.

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Re:Put them on Japanese whaling vessels by Dhalka226 · 2010-07-27 08:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's international waters. Very few laws at all apply.
These anti-whalers are essentially pirates. They have rammed these other boats as well as tried to board them or otherwise sabotage them. If it were me, and these twats tried any of that, I would shoot them. And not with a heat gun.
And you know what? I would sleep fine at night.
Re:Put them on Japanese whaling vessels by Quiet_Desperation · 2010-07-27 08:57 · Score: 1

Y'all are missing the obvious.
Put the heat pain guns on the *whales*.
They can be supported by the laser sharks.
Whale Wars II: The Whales Strike Back
Re:Put them on Japanese whaling vessels by luther349 · 2010-07-27 12:43 · Score: 1

guns and sinking them is more effective and they did take out earth rise hehe. even thow it would be entertaining to see the whalers microwave em. then hear them cry for the next 45 minutes abought no longer being able to throw there butter at them. if you watch the show the Japanese have powned them for the last 2 sessions. so its just watching a bunch of so called pirate protesters fail at everything they do. then a fat lair clame he made any difference. theirs a reason governments leave the Japanese alone.
Re:Put them on Japanese whaling vessels by bill_mcgonigle · 2010-07-27 14:11 · Score: 1

I would shoot them. And not with a heat gun.
pneumatic harpoon, one would presume.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Put them on Japanese whaling vessels by BitZtream · 2010-07-27 14:56 · Score: 1

I'd prefer the whalers just shot the morons that get in their way.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:Put them on Japanese whaling vessels by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 18:43 · Score: 0

So the anti-whalers are pirates for trying to stop whaling which all countries* in the world have decided collectively should stop?
*=yeah a few won't sign the bill, but the Japaneese did agree to stop whaling fro meat.

Failed final (marshmallow) test by Delarth799 · 2010-07-27 05:09 · Score: 0

The final test by the military is to see if it can properly assist in the making of smores. They hoped it would do better than just mildly tingle and warm the marshmallow, but were saddened.

Re:Failed final (marshmallow) test by natehoy · 2010-07-27 06:52 · Score: 1

mildly tingle and warm the marshmallow
I don't know exactly what "tingle and warm the marshmallow" means, but I don't think it belongs in this discussion. :)

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."

insufficient setting (was:toast / bake / broil) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 05:12 · Score: 0

it's obvious the unit they used did not have enough settings. what they need is the Ronco Model 2108 SUX. Unlike the model they have now that only goes up to 10, the Ronco unit goes all the way up to 12. With the Ronco unit, they can roast the insurgents to a nice golden brown, ready to serve, in shorter time while retaining the moisture keeping them juicy and tender...

It doesn't cause large groups of people by nedlohs · 2010-07-27 05:13 · Score: 1

to burst into flames at long range.

Hence useless.

Re:the military doesn't understand psychological w by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2010-07-27 05:16 · Score: 4, Funny

American beer? That is evil. If you are going to introduce them to beer, at least make it a good beer.
Or how about beer with alcohol in it. Introducing the native Americans to alcohol worked out pretty well, for the Europeans. :)

--
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?

Exactly by ThatsNotPudding · 2010-07-27 05:22 · Score: 1

How else will poor little struggling Raytheon recoup their losses? They'll no doubt also create a model that incorparates a ticket cam.

bad marketing by zerocommazero · 2010-07-27 05:24 · Score: 1

They should've went with a better name than the "CharNoble".

Clearly by SteeldrivingJon · 2010-07-27 05:24 · Score: 1

the targets/victims kept falling on their buttered side.

--
September 2011: Looking for Cocoa/iOS work in Boston area Cocoa Programmer Quincy, MA

Volunteers? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 05:25 · Score: 0

At what point do you respond "Yes" when asked, "Hey, Do you want to volunteer to be shot with a top-secret weapon? We call it the Heat Ray Gun."
I mean, I'd volunteer to be shot with a stun-gun...but only once, and only if highly intoxicated. But a heat ray gun? No thanks.

should have gone COTS by snookerhog · 2010-07-27 05:27 · Score: 1

Again, there were billions spent on energy weapons research when they could have just gone to get one of these Death Rays instead.

I know, I know, CO2 laser is not even remotely like a microwave weapon, but it should be useful for other purposes.

Re:should have gone COTS by confused+one · 2010-07-27 05:51 · Score: 1

100W is not enough! The military demands its sharks have head mounted lasers of 25kW or better...

Re:the military doesn't understand psychological w by Wowsers · 2010-07-27 05:33 · Score: 1

You don't need fancy multi-millon Dollar gadgets to make people run away. A loudspeaker with a few tracks from say Britney Spears, Lady Gaga, Beyonce and Katy Perry, will do far more damage.

--
Take Nobody's Word For It.

Re:the military doesn't understand psychological w by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 05:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

You sir, need to start sampling beer from the Pacific Northwest. There's none better on earth.

Amanda Seyfried/Julianne Moore love scene? Check! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2010-07-27 05:42 · Score: 1

"Hey, there's that thing, and it's less than 500m away! Shoot at it!"

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

tested on 700 volunteers, 0.1% injury.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 05:45 · Score: 0

..um which 7/10 of a person was injured? Seriously though, deployment of this is really stupid. I suspect if any REAL testing were properly done they would find that these levels of mmWave energy attack the eyes first and despite the shallow penetration of ~200GHz power, tissue damage will occur in 100% of 'test subjects' after some level of exposure.

Re:tested on 700 volunteers, 0.1% injury.... by omnichad · 2010-07-27 06:59 · Score: 1

Take 700 x 15 trials each, and then see how many people .1% is.

Re:the military doesn't understand psychological w by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 05:45 · Score: 0

all your female relatives to lose their virginity!"

Anonymous Coward already has this technology; it just has to be deployed in person.

Re:the military doesn't understand psychological w by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 05:51 · Score: 0

It didnt turn out that well. It ended turning them into Americans.

Re:the military doesn't understand psychological w by Skye16 · 2010-07-27 05:53 · Score: 1

Eh, any local microbrewery is about the same. Most have high quality.

I spent my honeymoon in the Pac NW, but I've had better beers back at home (and I've had worse ones).

Don't get me wrong, some were worthy of note and I wrote them down, and sometimes I even crave them and wish I could be back there right now, but I do that for local microbrews as well. It probably isn't necessarily indicative of area, just smaller batches and far more interest in making something taste good than something that tastes consistent (which is, according to Budweiser, the only things they really care about - a consistent taste, year after year after year. You'd think someone would tell them "hey, consistency only matters if you start with something that is *good*, being consistently bad isn't anything to aspire to!")

Wish I could find that old cartoon by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 06:06 · Score: 0

Charles Addams, I think. Guy is in the Patent Office. Patent clerk is leaning out the window, pointing a device at the street: "Death Ray, poppycock! It doesn't even slow them up!"

Re:the military doesn't understand psychological w by akeeneye · 2010-07-27 06:10 · Score: 1

Right on, I'm from the east coast & my quaffing experience has vastly improved since coming to the left coast. But in my experience the goodness is not limited to the PNW - CA has some very good breweries too. Lagunitas, Anderson Valley, Stone, Lost Coast. There's something about the hops I think. Mmmm Lost Coast Indica IPA. But yes, our mugs runneth over with primo brew in WA/OR.

--
The man who dies rich dies disgraced. -- Andrew Carnegie

No Pain , no gain. by PDX · 2010-07-27 06:25 · Score: 1

At least we can keep our veggies warm in the early spring.

Re:the military doesn't understand psychological w by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 06:29 · Score: 1, Insightful

Seattle is still the favorite city I've lived in, but the claims about PNW microbrews -- or CA ones -- are distinctly overblown. For some reason, most brewers there are obsessed with hops and distinctly unconcerned with good flavor. It's the hops analog of "bigger is better." I now live next to what may be the best beer store I've ever seen and I usually head straight to the European and Russian side; I'm more tempted by a particular brand coming from Illinois than anything I left behind on the West Coast.

As Fry would say... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 06:29 · Score: 0

"OW! MY SPERM!"

Problems I can see with it. by meerling · 2010-07-27 06:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

I've had serious questions about potential issues with this system since I first heard about it.

"It only penetrates the skin the equivalent of 3 sheets of paper thickness..." So what, your eye is very vulnerable to microwaves, and it's going to be directly exposed. That depth can still do serious damage to your eyes.

"It's been tested numerous times on military and journalist volunteers..." Again, so fricking what! You are talking about a limited quantity of people in an area where movement isn't confined with people who know what's going to happen and from where. Just try that on any average mob of people anywhere in the world in normal real world conditions, and you are going to have a huge mess on your hands! They won't clear the target area efficiently, if they can even figure out where/why it's happening. It won't be even vaguely orderly, people will go different directions, collide, get pushed down or fall down, even get trampled. If panic ensues, a likely occurrence for those unfamiliar with this new weapon, you'll probably even have people moving into the target area since they are in a general panic and are UNABLE TO SEE WHAT IS TARGETED! It's well know to those that study these things, areas that are visibly marked are far more effective in keeping people out than any invisible system.

From the situations I mentioned in the previous paragraph, the weapon proponents entire claim that no serious damage will result since nobody will be exposed more than a few seconds is either utter incompetence, complete misunderstanding of even the most basic of human mob reactions, or they are lying through the teeth to make mint on new weapon system. I know which one I'm voting for.

Re:Problems I can see with it. by natehoy · 2010-07-27 08:15 · Score: 1

since nobody will be exposed more than a few seconds
I'm betting that's not actually in the design, but is covered in the Owner's Manual, in the same area as famously-ignored nonlethal weapon instructions like "continuous application of pepper spray after victim has already clawed their skin off their face is not recommended", "baton is not for anal insertion into suspect", and "Taser should not be used repeatedly on suspect, and especially not until such point that a strong desire for barbecue sauce sets in due to the smell of cooking meat."

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Re:Problems I can see with it. by BitZtream · 2010-07-27 15:07 · Score: 1

You do realize that you can feel which direction its being fired from right? Being that it only effects the skin on one side of your body your mind will automatically react to it just life if a massive heat wave from an explosion hits you.
Contrary to popular belief, just because you thought of something that wasn't specifically mentioned in a poorly written article doesn't mean your thought was actually original.
As far as running into the field of fire ... well, its still better than running into the field of fire from a 50 caliber machine gun isn't it? Also you'll see the people being effected by the weapon and you're probably not going to keep running at them.
I'm fairly certain they do know a little bit more about it than you do or it would have been demonstrated effectively in public on several occasions in crowds ...

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager

Re:the military doesn't understand psychological w by jopsen · 2010-07-27 06:41 · Score: 1

Or how about beer with alcohol in it. Introducing the native Americans to alcohol worked out pretty well, for the Europeans. :)

Well, how about trying their pipe then... I'm sure opium is pretty common around there... I'm sure that'll work out pretty well for the Taliban, they're already stoned... :)

And with my freeze ray I will ... by zen_la · 2010-07-27 06:42 · Score: 1

stop time.

Re:the military doesn't understand psychological w by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 06:47 · Score: 0

Katy Perry herself has the opposite effect.

Any volunteers? by cbytes · 2010-07-27 06:53 · Score: 1

In my humble opinion, if you have developed a weapon that 700 people are willing to volunteer to be shot by it, you have already failed.

Random Guy by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 06:53 · Score: 0

I read Heart Ray Gun Fails.

How sad

Do what now? by mujadaddy · 2010-07-27 07:07 · Score: 1

it failed to achieve satisfaction from the military

There sees you what I did.

--
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac

Re:orgasmatron ray gun by beanluc · 2010-07-27 07:11 · Score: 1

now you got me thinking how the Taliban would react to being hit with that...

Sorry, Malik, I'm all out of my hot man chowder... fucking Americans drained me, heh heh... Maybe Achmed over there has some for ya

--
Say it right: "Nuc-le-ah Powah".

Some of those bullets are freaking expensive too by beanluc · 2010-07-27 07:37 · Score: 1

Start with something like 30 cents per round for (let's say) 5.56x45mm NATO ammo for all the M16's, inflate by 3 times for Government purchasing contract inefficiency, inflate again by 3 more times for Government purchasing contracts which include spec requirements beyond what we see in civilian supplies, pretty soon we're talking about something like $10,000 just in ammo cost alone for each badguy casualty.

Then consider .50 cal sniper ammo, which already starts at $3-$5/round for civvies...

--
Say it right: "Nuc-le-ah Powah".

Let's think this through... by Tisha_AH · 2010-07-27 07:51 · Score: 1

Ok, you are going to use a "heat ray" on a bunch of brain fried wackos who hop around the desert and outlaw kite flying...

This is about as effective as the ice cube repeating rifle as a weapon of war against the swarming hordes of Eskimos.

We would have had much better luck with bacon bombs and hacky-sacks emblazoned with the face of Muhammad.

--
Tisha Hayes

Re:Let's think this through... by Khyber · 2010-07-27 12:10 · Score: 1

"This is about as effective as the ice cube repeating rifle as a weapon of war against the swarming hordes of Eskimos."
A hard piece of ice going about 400+ MPH would do some serious damage.
I have made ice bullets and fired them from a homemade PVC cannon. Even simple rounded balls of ice cause decent damage to trees.
Yay redneck!

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

BREAKING NEWS: by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 07:59 · Score: 0

In yet another wikileaks exclusive, the real reason the ADS got recalled is because it sustained major damage from a single "stray" AK-47 round, requiring state-side repairs.

Just call it Death Ray by future+assassin · 2010-07-27 08:00 · Score: 1

Seriously even with the name who would want to be the first to die by the Death Ray.

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*

And the comfy chair! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 08:03 · Score: 0

And the comfy chair!

No, no, no! by StefanJ · 2010-07-27 08:06 · Score: 1

We need a Sex Change Ray with a setting for Immediate Menstruation.

We can call it the Burqanizer.

Re:No, no, no! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 10:28 · Score: 0

We need a Sex Change Ray with a setting for Immediate Menstruation.
Yeah, that's going to stop the jihadists from being irrational and angry.

/ducks

General Marvin says, by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 08:10 · Score: 0

"Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!"

Re:the military doesn't understand psychological w by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 08:31 · Score: 0

was this comment posted via time tunnel from the 1980's? american beer has been kicking ass for a while now.

check out dogfish head or one of the thousands of other microbrews that are beginning to take over shelf and tap space from the bud/coors hegemony.

Emotionally potent oversimplification FTW by Scrameustache · 2010-07-27 08:46 · Score: 1

how little Americans realize that Israel is a big part of the anti-American hatred. It's not the jewishness, or the western-ness. But the behavior of Israel as a government interacting with their neighbors, their invasions, their annexations of territory, suppressions of the Palestines, etc.

Oh yeah? Well: "Antisemite!" Ah! Totally destroyed your argument.

--

You can't take the sky from me...

Lies by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 08:47 · Score: 0

it worked just fine, it's just going to remain a black project and will be used covertly whenever they damn wish.

Re:the military doesn't understand psychological w by PinkyGigglebrain · 2010-07-27 08:52 · Score: 1

Or sterilize the males/females.

Family is really big in most parts of the world, most people won't risk loosing the ability to have lots of children to take care of them when they get old.

Has a whole new ring to it... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 09:35 · Score: 0

"Don't heat me, bro!"

Obligatory Dr. Horrible's by justinlee37 · 2010-07-27 10:45 · Score: 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfaXt1rC2G0

Laundry day
See you there
Underthings
Tumbling

Want to say
Love your hair
Here I go
Mumbling

With my freeze ray
I will stop the world

With my freeze ray
I will find the time to
Find the words to

Tell you how
How you make
Make me feel
What's the phrase?

Like a fool
Kind of sick
Special needs
Anyways

With my freezeray
I will stop the pain
It's not a death ray or an icebeam
That's all Johnny Snow

I just think you need time to know
That I'm the guy to make it real
The feelings you don't dare to feel
I'll bend the world to our will
And we'll make time stand still

That's the plan
Rule the world
You and me
Anyday

Love your hair
("What?")
"No I . . I, uh . . . love the . . . air"
Anyway

With my freeze ray I will stop -

Re:the military doesn't understand psychological w by Khyber · 2010-07-27 12:15 · Score: 1

"You sir, need to start sampling beer from the Pacific Northwest. There's none better on earth."

Your beers don't have a THC content. Ours do here in California, and you buy them at the dispensaries.

Top that.

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

Re:the military doesn't understand psychological w by Capt.DrumkenBum · 2010-07-27 14:10 · Score: 1

Guys, I live in BC. The home of good pot.
And I know all about micro brews. If you ever see it try any beer from Dead Frog Breweries. (Yummy!!!)

--
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?

Re:the military doesn't understand psychological w by Khyber · 2010-07-27 14:56 · Score: 1

"Guys, I live in BC. The home of good pot."

Please explain why you haven't had a Cannabis Cup when California has already had two, then?

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

Re:the military doesn't understand psychological w by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 18:43 · Score: 0

I dont think you can count beers NOBODY has even heard of, has the average *American* heard of "dogfish head"? I asked friends in Florida and Texas over Skype, they were equally clueless.

Outside of these "microbrews" all the hipsters are into, the international view is that USA beers are as crap as USA cars. Sure, theres the Tesla Roadster, but thats a one off!

Re:the military doesn't understand psychological w by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-27 23:23 · Score: 0

And it's a lotus anyway.

Slashdot Mirror

Heat Ray Gun Fails Final Test; Nixed From War

299 comments