StunRay Incapacitates With a Flash of Light

Hugh Pickens writes "Scientific American reports that a newly patented method of non-lethal incapacitation can render an assailant helpless for several minutes by overloading the neural networks connected to the retina with a brief flash of high-intensity light. 'It's the inverse of blindness—the technical term is a loss of contrast sensitivity,' says Todd Eisenberg, the engineer who invented the device. The device consists of a 75-watt lamp, combined with optics that collect and focus the visible light into a targeted beam, which can be aimed like a flashlight to project a controlled beam of white light more than 10 times more intense than an aircraft landing light with a range as far away as 150 feet. Recovery time ranges from 'seconds to 20 minutes,' says Eisenberg. 'It's very analogous to walking from a very bright room into a very dark room.'"

Comments

...liabilities

[SpiralSpirit]

...and I'm sure the long term effects of overloading your sensitive, incredibly difficult and costly to regrow optic nerves to this degree are well known, and this represents no long term danger. right?

Re:...liabilities

[rubycodez]

no problem, look at how Taser International's massive legal team can get all the maimings and deaths by electrocution swept under the run by buying off judges and doctors and county coroners. The military-industrial complex can steam-roll over peons, it's just operating costs and part of the business plan.

Re:...liabilities

[vlm]

...and I'm sure the long term effects of overloading your sensitive, incredibly difficult and costly to regrow optic nerves to this degree are well known, and this represents no long term danger. right?

I'd worry more about the short term danger, as it sounds conceptually an unholy heck of a lot simpler and cheaper than an IR guided surface to air missile, yet probably equally effective... So cheap you could use it against tank drivers... or police car drivers... or just random civillian / citizen / consumer (whatever we are?) car drivers...

Re:...liabilities

[RoFLKOPTr]

all the maimings and deaths by electrocution

[citation needed]

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you think of a better name for it shit head? In this case the shoe fits.

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

As a child I developed a bit of an addiction to firing an electronic camera flash directly into my eyes from about 1 inch away, just because I used to enjoy watching the entire room turn purple for about 10 minutes. Didn't really think about the health consequences

about 25 years later... no side effects that I know about.

Not saying it's good, or healthy, but I don't think it's automatically bad.

Re:...liabilities

[arun84h]

...and what about the "liabilities" that come with using lethal force (aka your sidearm) to incapacitate a criminal? Isn't this much better than say, firing off a round into someones leg?

The only thing that worries me is what the target may do when all of a sudden he's disoriented. What if his gun is drawn at the officers (or civilians) when he's disabled? TFA says most victims "freeze", but I don't see how inverse-of-blinding light would make your entire body stop working. What if the victim starts blindly firing his weapon?

Re:...liabilities

[kelemvor4]

Yes, it's generally known as "The man". The man is always trying to bring a brother down.

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be knew here. Citations are only needed if you're *defending* corporations or the government.

Re:...liabilities

[Unoriginal_Nickname]

"Excited delirium."

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

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

"Isn't this much better than say, firing off a round into someones leg?"

Yes, but when the cops use it as a substitute for EVERYTHING else in their arsenal it becomes quite dangerous. Suddenly 10 year old girls and 90 year old grannies are getting tased/blinded because either the cop had a chip on his/her shoulder or he/she was under duress because he/she didn't have 100000% control of the situation. (exaggerated for emphasis)

I remember a time when a cop had to use patience and discussion to diffuse rough situations. Now the taser is the first thing he/she goes for, and people have died from it.

Re:...liabilities

[countertrolling]

So cheap you could use it against tank drivers...

What, is that a problem?

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

Fewer people die from tasers than die from bullets. It's not perfect, but it's better than the alternative.

Re:...liabilities

[pushing-robot]

I understand the pitfalls of anecdotal evidence as much as anyone, but it turned me into a newt.

Re:...liabilities

[Charliemopps]

When you're a psychotic PCP crazed naked guy running down main street with a samurai sword, and the police chose to tazer you or flash you with a bright light, it's a whole new level of irony that you can then turn around and sue them for any negative side affects of the procedure they chose to use instead of shooting you in the head. I think we might all be better off if the police just went back to the old, much more lethal methods of threat mitigation.

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

...and what about the "liabilities" that come with using lethal force (aka your sidearm) to incapacitate a criminal? Isn't this much better than say, firing off a round into someones leg?

The only thing that worries me is what the target may do when all of a sudden he's disoriented. What if his gun is drawn at the officers (or civilians) when he's disabled? TFA says most victims "freeze", but I don't see how inverse-of-blinding light would make your entire body stop working. What if the victim starts blindly firing his weapon?

The problem is police often seem to use tasers as a way to shut people up or avoid running, instead of as an alternative to a firearm. That's why we frequently hear about little old ladies being tased, or people who are unarmed.

Re:...liabilities

[peragrin]

you are using a computer so you must have gotten better.

unless you are telling me there are newt who twit tweets.

Re:...liabilities

[pushing-robot]

"Berserker."

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

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

BURN HER!!!

Re:...liabilities

[clang_jangle]

{citation needed]

Only by uninformed basement dwellers, anyone who's been even casually following "the news" for the past five years would know it's true.

Re:...liabilities

[PopeRatzo]

You had me until "military-industrial complex"

I know, right? I mean, what kind of commie, hippie loser came up with the name "military-industrial complex" anyway?

Probably some leftist liberal trying to assert his homosexual agenda on the rest of us.

What a concept: "military-industrial complex". Sheesh!

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember a time when a cop had to use patience and discussion to diffuse rough situations.

I'm 60 years old and I remember those days. These days cops are just out of control. I have absolutely no respect for any of them any more. The number of 'bad' cops far outnumbers the 'good' cops these days. Big bad asshats who taze 10 year old girls and 90 year old grannies is now the norm.

Re:...liabilities

[PopeRatzo]

So cheap you could use it against tank drivers

Considering these weapons are meant to be used against us, or at least those of us who are so unpatriotic as to not be rich and powerful, I don't think the "tank drivers" have anything to worry about.

These are weapons for domestic use. Not for foreign entanglements.

Re:...liabilities

[clang_jangle]

Nice troll. You might be singing a different tune of you'd been an innocent bystander who got tased for "being in the wrong place at the wrong time" (in my case, Seattle 1999 WTO protests). This is a tool for repressing dissent, not for maintaining legitimate law and order.

Re:...liabilities

[Unoriginal_Nickname]

Good idea. Let me know when the bullet salesmen aren't training the sharpshooters.

Re:...liabilities

[spud603]

Troll?
The whole point is that police use tazers as if they were non-lethal, not as a substitute for shooting in the head. As in: "This guy's not enough of a threat to assassinate him, so let's just taze him to get things under control. Oh shit, we just assassinated him."

Re:...liabilities

[MoonBuggy]

Only valid on the assumption that a gun would have been used in place of the Taser. Unless you're telling me that the police would shoot someone for refusing to promptly follow an order (while posing no direct threat), that's demonstrably not the case.

I don't actually object to tasers per se, but I do object to police guidelines which allow their use against people who pose no threat to either the officers or the public around them. Most of the pro-taser arguments revolve around their use as a defensive weapon, but their actual use is not limited strictly to defence. I know such policies would be imperfectly applied, but it would still be better than the current system in which they can be legitimately used as immediate 'punishment' for failing to comply with police commands.

Re:...liabilities

[gd2shoe]

I hope you're being sarcastic. There's no reason to bring race into this.

Re:...liabilities

[clang_jangle]

The post I replied to was attempting to conflate being tased with being a dangerous, drug-crazed, public buisance. IOW. troll.

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be knew here.

I don't know him. I don't think he's a local celebrity. You would think that someone well known here would know the varied (and often contradictory) rules that get batted around. I just don't follow what you're getting at.

Re:...liabilities

[MoonBuggy]

I think we might all be better off if the police just went back to the old, much more lethal methods of threat mitigation.

I pretty much agree, although probably for different reasons to you. As I mentioned in another post, most arguments in favour of the use of tasers revolve around the assumption that they're being used in place of guns - while that is sometimes true, it is absolutely no always the case. Even the worst officer is going to think twice about putting a bullet in someone, but the relative safety and moderate clinical detachment of using a taser invites them to be used much more freely.

If police restrictions treated the use of a taser as equivalent to the use of a gun, I would absolutely applaud them for making people safer. As it stands, their overall affect is to drastically increase the total number of people on the receiving end of a weapon of some kind, and that is not something that most people who support their use seem to take into account.

Re:...liabilities

[stonewallred]

If tasers were used to prevent someone from harming themselves or others, then I would be AOK with them.

But they are used as offensive weapons to enforce compliance by most police departments.

And it is so much less paperwork to fill out if you enforce compliance with a taser, as opposed to if you actually had to beat the fucktard's as with your billy club, ASP or baton.

I personally have seen an inmate hit with a taser, and then get beat because he refused to lay stils ordered.

Ignoring the fact that the CO with the taser kept jolting him, which lead to muscle contractions, which lead to four other COs hitting him with 4' long hickory riot batons.

This went on for almost 5 minutes until a Lt showed up, seen me and a co-worker obviously writing down the names of the officers involved.

Re:...liabilities

[innerweb]

I know, right? I mean, what kind of commie, hippie loser came up with the name "military-industrial complex" anyway?

For all those who do not know, this is a good place to start. His fears are neither unfounded, nor unfullilled.

Re:...liabilities

[girlintraining]

The problem with all this kind of technology is that edge cases are ignored because it's viewed as always superior to existing options. It's a logical fallacy that's been reinforced by an ignorant judiciary and public officials that don't understand statistics, science, medicine, technology, etc. How well will a person who's eyes have been dilated at the doctor's fare against this? How about people that are prone to seizures or taking certain medications that increase light sensitivity? How about people prone to migraines? Also, an 'incapacitated' person is unable to defend themselves from natural or man-made threats. For example, blinding someone and (in a panic, shock, or severe pain) they run into traffic and are struck and killed. In each and every case, these tragic outcomes are justified because it is assumed that the use of the non-lethal device would have caused less damage than the alternative. In cases where the use of the "non-lethal" option resulted in death or permanent injury, it is never considered that a more violent option (such as a handgun) might have resulted in less harm because the devices are viewed as intrinsically non-lethal. And none of this takes into account that non-lethal (or now, the more politically correct but still misleading term 'less lethal') weapons are not substitutes for lethal weapons, contrary to many public statements about their use. In fact, non-lethal weapons are used in many situations where no weapon would have been used now. For example, to "gain compliance". New laws have been passed to justify causing massive amounts of pain and potentially permanent injury -- "resisting without violence", for example, which can be something as simple as not getting out of your car fast enough. People are charged with these classes of crimes because when they're found guilty, that retroactively "proves" that the actions taken against them were correct. The entire system is corrupt -- non-lethal weapons aren't any different than a bar of soap in a bag. It might not leave any marks, but the victim still has lasting physical or emotional damage that isn't visible. Many of these devices, or variants thereof, are used to torture people.

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

Your links are neither working, nor well-done.

Re:...liabilities

[RoFLKOPTr]

{citation needed]

Only by uninformed basement dwellers, anyone who's been even casually following "the news" for the past five years would know it's true.

That's the problem. "The news" broadcasts controversial events and propaganda and anecdotal evidence and videos of stupid hippies yelling at cops because they hate cops and unruly college students refusing to comply with peace officer demands at public speaking events and then whining when they get tazed. That's all I've ever seen on "the news". How about some actual data? How about some real statistics? Here's an irl scientific study which stated that out of the nearly 1000 cases of Taser use studied, 99.7% resulted in minor to no injury (as in, fall and scratch yourself on the concrete or similar), three hospitalizations, and two deaths which were found to not have been the result of Taser use: Taser Medical Safety: the state of the science - William P. Bozeman, MD, FACEP, FAAEM (PDF of a slideshow presentation made at University of Florida), Study: Tasers are safe to use - Physorg, Independent studies could answer questions about Tasers. I can't seem to locate a published record of that particular study, but here is another paper by Dr Bozeman that compares Tasers to other methods of incapacitation: Medical Aspects of Less Lethal Weapons.

Your turn.

Re:...liabilities

[RoFLKOPTr]

I can't seem to locate a published record of that particular study

Obviously, I posted three links that were published records of that study. I mean an actual paper published in an actual medical journal. All that I can find in Google are the thousands of articles from "the news" about the study that have better PageRank than the actual text of the actual medical paper.

Re:...liabilities

[RoFLKOPTr]

Good idea. Let me know when the bullet salesmen aren't training the sharpshooters.

..... what?

Re:...liabilities

[RoFLKOPTr]

I hope you're being sarcastic. There's no reason to bring race into this.

Who's bringing race into this?

brother (plural brothers or (archaic) brethren)
Noun
1. Son of the same parents as another person.
My parents love me and my younger brother equally, even though he is adopted.
2. A male child descended from the same parents.
He's not a real brother. He's adopted.
3. A male having at least one parent in common with another (see half-brother, stepbrother).
4. A male fellow member of a religious community or church.
5. Someone who is a peer, whether male or female.

Re:...liabilities

[Unoriginal_Nickname]

....you are aware that the company that makes the weapons and ammunition is also the company that sets the standard for proper training and handling, right?

Re:...liabilities

[Blymie]

Bah.

The problem is that almost every police force in the world uses tasers *improperly*.

This is because of the lobbying, and the lies, all claiming that tasers are not dangerous. As a result, police do not assume there are risks with tasers. They use them indiscriminately, and in fact, many forces use them instead of physical restraint!

For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dzieka%C5%84ski_Taser_incident

Five RCMP officers, and a slightly agitated man... tasered TO DEATH. Hell, one of those officers, with their training, should have been able to 'take down' that man.

I've seen videos of people with traffic violations, who are perhaps a bit 'lippy' to police, being tasered. Absurd. That is the real issue. That is why the public dislikes tasers.

Tasers need to be labelled a dangerous weapon. They should only be used when an officer would normally use a gun. I'll say again, the ONLY time a taser should be used, is when an officer would use a handgun instead.

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

I sense a *whoosh* here...

Re:...liabilities

[jvillain]

Tasers are often used as a form of punishment with out all that nasty proof and judgement nonsense, rather than the objectives they were purchased for. BTW my laser pointer has been doing the same thing this "new invention" does for years.

Re:...liabilities

[Charliemopps]

Perhaps, but the cops are in a bad position. They are usually out numbered and have no idea what level of threat you are. I went to college... I did all sorts of stupid shit that got me in trouble all the time. I was charged with bullshit stuff by the police and hated them for it. But the one thing I didn't screw around with was: When I got pulled over, or was at a party that got busted, etc... When the cops showed up and told me to show my hands, I showed my god damned hands. Sure there are examples of abuse, you can find that with anything... but in almost all cases the person getting tazed could have avoided it at multiple points in the evening, the very last chance being when they decided not to do what the cops were telling them to do.

Re:...liabilities

[RoFLKOPTr]

I'll say again, the ONLY time a taser should be used, is when an officer would use a handgun instead.

I disagree. An officer should ONLY use a handgun when the suspect is pointing a handgun at an innocent person. Tasers need to be more versatile than that. But I do agree with the general principle that Tasers should not be used as frequently as they are. But I would also like to point out that nearly every incident of improper (and often proper on a slow news day) garners tons of media attention, making a lot of people think that Tasers are misused a lot more often than they are. Your average police officer is not ever going to consider wielding his Taser against someone who's being 'lippy' during a traffic stop.

Re:...liabilities

[Lord_of_the_nerf]

...and I'm sure the long term effects of overloading your sensitive, incredibly difficult and costly to regrow optic nerves to this degree are well known, and this represents no long term danger. right?

I'd rather go blind the traditional way - standing too close to the TV and touching myself (apparently).

Re:...liabilities

[sjames]

Same thing with Tasers. We can accept the very small risk of death or injury to people who are quite possibly dangerous criminals (and whether or not they're dangerous criminals, they are in every case of proper Taser use acting stupid and refusing to comply with very reasonable demands made by police in dangerous situations), or we can instead accept a much GREATER risk of death or injury to public safety personnel, innocent bystanders, and the suspects who we're trying to "protect" by banning the use of Tasers. I know which risk I'm willing to accept.

The problem is, the taser seems to invite improper use. Too many cases have come up where an officer uses the taser against merely unruly people or uses it like a cattle prod against someone who doesn't comply with an order fast enough for their taste. For one example, a woman was tased several times because she "refused" to get out of her car. It turned out she was severely hypoglycemic and minimally conscious at the time. That is, a woman was in need of immediate emergency medical attention and Bozo was lighting her up to get her out of her car. It's not medically possible for her to have been behaving in a way to warrant tasing at the time.

If officers can not or will not treat the use of a taser as an act of violence to be used only in a case where the baton would otherwise be appropriate, then they can not have them. It's not a cattle prod and the people are not cattle.

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

Well technically it's not just Taser International, the Americans are sweeping maimings and death (often by electrical torture) under the rug. You people have made an industry out of mutilating and torturing people, you voted the men into power who are responsible for it.

Maybe it's time to stop pointing fingers at Evil Corporation of the Day and take a good, long look in the mirror. If you can handle it.

Re:...liabilities

[Blymie]

I'll say again, the ONLY time a taser should be used, is when an officer would use a handgun instead.

I disagree. An officer should ONLY use a handgun when the suspect is pointing a handgun at an innocent person. Tasers need to be more versatile than that. But I do agree with the general principle that Tasers should not be used as frequently as they are. But I would also like to point out that nearly every incident of improper (and often proper on a slow news day) garners tons of media attention, making a lot of people think that Tasers are misused a lot more often than they are. Your average police officer is not ever going to consider wielding his Taser against someone who's being 'lippy' during a traffic stop.

I disagree with your disagreement. ;P

Seriously, however, there are reasonable times for an officer to use a gun, outside of what you've listed above. For example, when it is reasonable that the officer was threatened in a manner warranting it. EG .. one officer, two large assailants, refusals to back down by the same assailants, etc.

Or, officer is a 5'2, 100lb woman (we have those here), and she is being approached by a 6'2, 250lb man.

So, when I look at it in that context, I think that tasers should only be used, when an officer would pull a gun, too. That is, there is reason to expect that a physical confrontation may go very wrong for the officer... and the officer has attempted to defuse the situation otherwise.

Re:...liabilities

[gd2shoe]

1. n. a black person's male, black friend. : Another brother took a fall last night.
(Dictionary of American Slang and Colloquial Expressions by Richard A. Spears.Fourth Edition. Copyright 2007. Published by McGraw Hill.)

"A brother" (without greater specificity) is almost always the description of one black guy by another. Inner city racist use it to segregate themselves from the rest of society. It doesn't even need to identify friendship, only perceived similarity in station due to skin color.

Re:...liabilities

[gd2shoe]

On second thought, you already knew that (at least subconsciously). Specifically, you knew I was referring to "a brother" and not to "the man".

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

What? You think cops aren't justified in shooting when somebody comes at them with a knife? Think about what you're saying before saying it.

Re:...liabilities

[markass530]

MIlitary Industrial Complex? Are you retarded? You know the military uses GUNS right? Like real guns?

Re:...liabilities

[markass530]

the retard Doesn't realize the Military uses guns, not Tasers, so yea he's a fucking idiot

Re:...liabilities

[markass530]

Dead link, and they are both. The military doesn't give a shit about tasers. They use bullets and rockets.

Re:...liabilities

[markass530]

I can think of the fact that the military uses guns, not tasers

Re:...liabilities

[trapnest]

How is that a problem? They know the most about how the devices operate.

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

with proper training and handling, a Taser device, when used in its intended setting against a deserving individual, is far safer to innocent bystanders, the environment, public safety personnel, and in most cases the suspects themselves than any other incapacitation method that I've ever heard of. So what if there's a slight risk of cardiac arrest if you're tasing a dangerous individual that's urinating in public

I fully understand your point, and even agreed with it, until a friend's brother, who is a total pussy BTW, was tased when the gang unit mistook him for a gang member (you'd have to kn ow him to kn ow how silly that comparison really is) and he refused to drop his "manhood" (not actually making that part up) after a bartender wouldn't let him use the restroom and he (stupidly) decided to urinate outside. When he went to court and the judge asked him what he was there for, the judge laughed him out of court and dismissed the charges.

And his brother has trained officers in martial arts (a while back) and they told him they consider a taser to be a primary means to handling anyone "difficult". Not meth heads, because it often doesn't work on them (they move too much and the barbs get pulled out, or don't make good contact, etc) but on anyone who might struggle. Note, the word "might". They consider it a preemptive tool, not a less often lethal weapon.

The problem is human nature, and police officers are human. They have all the same weaknesses the rest of us have, meaning they are just as lazy and self-righteous as the rest of us.

Re:...liabilities

[Entropius]

TBH, incidents like this make me wish there were a special entry in the criminal code for abuse of violence by a peace officer.

Tasering someone who clearly poses no threat of violence ought to be an instant ten years in prison.

Re:...liabilities

[taktoa]

If police restrictions treated the use of a taser as equivalent to the use of a gun, I would absolutely applaud them for making people safer.

You mean "laud". One lauds an effort (metaphorical). One applauds a performance (literally, clapping).

Re:...liabilities

[sjames]

The problem is, while police understand you can't just shoot someone's kneecaps off if they call you a pig, they don't seem to show the same restraint with weapons that don't leave a mark.

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

Try the defense contractors instead. Does Lockheed-Martin really need to have a commercial during prime-time talking about how they're protecting America ::salutes:: from it's enemies around the world. It's used to make people fear the unknown and so the lobbyist have an easier time getting their message to the politicians about the new toys they have to offer.

Re:...liabilities

[Entropius]

They are usually out numbered and have no idea what level of threat you are.

Then they ought to treat you like a responsible nonviolent citizen until they figure it out. I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for police if they did this.

when they decided not to do what the cops were telling them to do.

This should never be justification for initiation of violence.

Re:...liabilities

[Unoriginal_Nickname]

Because Taser International is extremely litigious, going so far as to sue the government of B.C. for even studying ESW safety. Because Taser makes more money if the weapons are misused, and microeconomics therefore predicts that they will recommend overuse as a rational agent. Because they aggressively market their weapons as a non-lethal* general-purpose alternative and prove it with bait-and-switch like product demonstrations on physically fit, passive police officers.

There's nothing inherently wrong with tasers, as long as people understand what they are, how they work and how they should be used safely. Taser International is a god-awful company of evil people and their products will continue to be misused as long as they have a say in how they should be.

Re:...liabilities

[harrytuttle777]

Maybe not, but the alternative to less than lethal weapons (tasers, and the flashlights, LRADs (sound) , and Microwaves) is a gun. Guns have a well documented history of causing large amounts of damage to the soft tissue of the body.

Personally I would rather risk a case of blindness than risk a bullet to the head. However you mileage may vary.

Speaking of blindness, did you know that Teddy Roosevelt was blinded in the left eye. Apparently he fought a good natured boxing match while serving as president of the U.S.A.. A lucky blow struck his head, and his retina became detached. They don't make men like that anymore.

Re:...liabilities

[six11]

You had me until "military-industrial complex"

I know, right? I mean, what kind of commie, hippie loser came up with the name "military-industrial complex" anyway? Probably some leftist liberal trying to assert his homosexual agenda on the rest of us.

In case the reference is lost to some of you, here's what the parent is talking about. The pinko usually given credit for popularizing the phrase "military-industrial" complex is none other than the former five-star general in charge of the allied European theater of WW2 and later a Republican President of the United States. You may call him Ike... and he knew something about the military and its supporting industrial base.

Admittedly, the phrase is bandied about really loosely (some may say liberally) so it has unfortunately been diluted by misuse.

Re:...liabilities

[couchslug]

"no problem, look at how Taser International's massive legal team can get all the maimings and deaths by electrocution swept under the run by buying off judges and doctors and county coroners. The military-industrial complex can steam-roll over peons, it's just operating costs and part of the business plan."

Let's go back to good old-fashioned clubs for the close work and bullets for the determined adversaries.

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

Three 9v batteries and a blinker bulb from an ol' incandescent mini-light Xmas tree set. (A regular one will burn out, but the blinker strobes.) I'm sure you can figure out the rest on your own. And people think a camera-flash after-image is bad.

Re:...liabilities

[MoonBuggy]

You mean "laud".

No, actually, I don't.

applaud /plôd/ Verb
1. Show approval or praise by clapping: "the crowd whistled and applauded"; "his speech was loudly applauded".
2. Show strong approval of (a person or action); praise: "Jill applauded the decision".

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

all the maimings and deaths by electrocution

[citation needed]

One.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZOt4xYvLSk

Two
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=701569n

Three
http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/further-investigation-in-stun-gun-death

Sources Cited. Tasers kill.

Re:...liabilities

[circletimessquare]

i'm confused

this is either a whoosh on my part or people don't know about eisenhower's famous speech

everyone should read eisenhower's farewell speech

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html

here's an excerpt, but the whole thing is extraordinary and prescient and should be mandatory slashdot nerd reading

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States cooperations -- corporations.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.

eisenhower, on the flip side, was the guy who put "in god we trust" as the motto of the usa and "under god" into the pledge. boooooo. i understand he was a religious guy, but he completely screwed up the whole separation of church and state. like any man, brilliant and some respects, moron in others

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-eisenhower-signs-in-god-we-trust-into-law

Re:...liabilities

[cffrost]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military&%238364;

Steps for improving this link:

1. Replace "Military&%238364;" with an actual article.

2. Replace "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/" with "https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/"

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't read the memorandum? The usage of military-industrial complex is to cause an emotional effect in contexts of non-military-industrial complexes. There, a deconstruction.

Re:...liabilities

[cffrost]

I personally have seen an inmate hit with a taser, and then get beat because he refused to lay stils ordered.

Ignoring the fact that the CO with the taser kept jolting him, which lead to muscle contractions, which lead to four other COs hitting him with 4' long hickory riot batons.

This went on for almost 5 minutes until a Lt showed up, seen me and a co-worker obviously writing down the names of the officers involved.

Don't the COs you witnessed have to be exposed to a Taser shock as part of their training? It seems insane/deplorable that a person with the authority to tase people, (or a schoolchild, for that matter), would be oblivious to the reality of electrically-induced convulsions... Or are these COs (and LEOs) being willfully ignorant, making a false accusation of "resisting" in order to realize some sadistic desire, etc.?

In the experience you described, you didn't mention attempting to stop or discourage the incident... (I'm not trying to be judgmental; I wasn't there, obviously, and I applaud you for writing up the perps). Are you not a CO, or were there a professional/cultural factor at play, that you can elaborate on?

Re:...liabilities

[gandhi_2]

"A brother" (without greater specificity) is almost always the description of one mormon guy by another.

Maybe you are thinking of Brotha?

Kind of like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty3SArUjgvQ

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a tool for repressing dissent, not for maintaining legitimate law and order.

A screwdriver is a tool for loosening screws, not for tightening them.

Wow, I can do that too! And it's just as valid as what you said!

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

While I don't disagree with your premise, being at a public protest such as that is not the same as "being in the wrong place at the wrong time".

Re:...liabilities

[gandhi_2]

If the alternative is a policeman beating me into submission with wooden club, I will take the tazer any day.

i know you and your friends sit around bitching about the evil corporations and oppressive government (while voting democrat, ironically), worried about contrails while self-medicating with a hooka, but please explain to the group which judges and doctors have been bought off.

what is the statistical difference between "maimings and deaths" caused by the tazer as apposed to a manual police-issued ass-kicking?

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I was the one who tased you bro! You're the guy that peed all over himself, right?

Re:...liabilities

[clang_jangle]

I'm a middle-aged woman who was leaving a university lecture and had four blocks to walk to get home. They acted like I had a weapon or something, because I had the nerve to ask "how can I get around this, I live one block that way?" instead of just saying, "oh ok officer, I don't really need to go home". So yes, I was most definitely an innocent bystander in the wrong place at the wrong time and AFAIC the police had absolutely no excuse to behave as they did. Furthermore, I was far from the only innocent party wronged by Seattle PD that day. Do some reading about it, there's plenty of info online about how poorly the police behaved during that entire event. It was truly shameful, and I'm afraid also quite representative of how US police forces have changed.

Re:...liabilities

[rubycodez]

you don't believe we have one, with lawmakers in their pockets?

Re:...liabilities

[hairyfeet]

Where have you been? The new hotness is "non lethal weapons" because after all it is hard to beat the shit out of someone later if you kill them up front. Plus it sounds better to the press, you just leave out those pesky blindness and/or electrocution issues.

You see that way you can say "and then they were brought down with a taser/phazelight" and leave off the "and it killed him" and it sounds like you were just trying to stop them! Whereas "and then we whomped the shit out of them with a rubber hose" just doesn't give it the whole "Star Trek" vibe. I'm sure the main street media will be making star wars/ star trek comparisons so the public thinks you are using a phaser on stun not a torture device which looks MUCH better in the papers.

It is all about spin now my boy, didn't you get the memo?

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people always leave out the other power Eisenhower warns against (which he just so happens to mention in the sentence following the end of your excerpt)?

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

Re:...liabilities

[markass530]

Because I was actually at war, and none of that actually happens. I'm sure you being the keyboard warrior you are have much better intel

Re:...liabilities

[hairyfeet]

Riiiight, because your "choices" of corporate cock sucking sellout A or B REALLY makes a difference. How's that hope and change? See in the USA it is "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" and has been as long as anyone can remember because that's the way the corps like it and they are the ones writing the checks for the ads and TV time.

When it takes something like 50 million just to run for congress? The odds of being able to get anyone that hasn't already sold out is pretty much zipola.

Re:...liabilities

[gd2shoe]

Only amongst brethren (and in certain geographical locales). It makes no sense in context of railing against "the man". (yes, I'm lds - aka mormon) Frankly, I almost never hear this usage. It's almost always an appellation as opposed to a noun.

Maybe you are thinking of Brotha?

"You say poe-tae-toe, I and say poe-tah-toe." Besides, not everyone intentionally misspells words which are intentionally mispronounced.

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that should make you even more angry that some evidence exists of government organized provocateurs at the Seattle WTO protests.
It's been a while since I read about this, so I no longer have the references, but it should be easy to dig up.

Re:...liabilities

[ceoyoyo]

Only if you're (a) American and (b) have no knowledge of history.

Actually, you should be able to figure it out from recent pop culture too. Or were all the guys in "Band of Brothers" black?

Re:...liabilities

[LongearedBat]

And you'd be singing a different tune if you were an innocent bystander who got hit with a bullet for "being in the wrong place at the wrong time" (that is, if you'd be singing at all).
As you can see on the news daily, live ammunition is also used as a tool for repressing dissent, not for maintaining legitimate law and order.

Re:...liabilities

[Truth is life]

Then they ought to treat you like a responsible nonviolent citizen until they figure it out. I'd have a hell of a lot more respect for police if they did this.

However, there is a very strong reason why they won't do this, which is that they're police, and so have to deal with irresponsible violent citizens a lot, including those who appeared to be responsible nonviolent ones. So doing that gets police officers killed, or at least injured, and their fellows stop doing that--at the very least, they start treating everyone like a potential threat--and then they inculcate that attitude in new officers. The only way to get around it would be to either have angels for police, which is obviously not very likely, or angels for the policed, which isn't really very likely either.

Re:...liabilities

[Kreigaffe]

While there are cases in which tasers are used inappropriately -- and I fully support any investigation into those incidents -- those are cases in which any level of force is not justified. The simple use of the taser is the problem in that situation, not the performance of the taser.. even if the taser is used on someone with a pacemaker and they die, that would not be because the taser is bad, that would be because the taser was misused.

When you're talking about the justified uses of tasers, well, who the fuck expects them to NEVER, EVER, EVER DO ANYTHING BAD EVER? An idiot, that's who.

Here's the thing -- tasers are safer than the alternative. The alternative is, if you're lucky, getting physically beaten to submission. Or shot. Those are the cases where tasers are supposed to be used, that is what they're designed for. It's not a cattle prod, to get people to just do what you want, it's a tool so that when the occasion arises that police are facing a threat that doesn't require lethal force but DOES require SOME degree of force, they can deploy a taser and decrease the risk both to themselves AND to the suspect.

A taser is not a phaser. You can't set it to stun and knock someone out for a plot-convenient length of time after which they come to, rub their head and squint and then carry on as if nothing happened. If that existed, that'd be in use, but that's make-believe.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong. What do YOU suggest is used in lieu of a taser when people start fighting with cops? I'd REALLY love to hear this. I mean, hey, if tasers are so terrible, COME UP WITH SOMETHING BETTER!

protip: sheer physical restraint is much more dangerous to *all* involved, not just the cops.

Tasers are safe. They are not 100% won't-ever-kill-anyone safe, but absolutely nothing at all is 100% won't-ever-kill-anyone safe. GW Bush, if you recall laughing at it, was nearly killed by a pretzel. We must cease production of these allegedly delicious snacks AT ALL COSTS! Wait, no? You disagree? YOUR LOGIC IS, THEN, INCONSISTENT AND HENCE INCONSEQUENTIAL.
so tired of this boring and ill-thought-out argument.

Re:...liabilities

[clang_jangle]

It was very obvious to those of living in affected areas during that event that extraordinary measures were taken by the police to ensure they had the excuses necessary to engage in a violent free-for-all. They were macing people who were in cars stuck in traffic! It was the most horrifying thing, I never thought I'd live to see the day that the police in a major US city would be used as a terrorist organization with the sole goal of violently intimidating peaceful dissenters on such a vast scale. This is not the same USA I grew up in...

Re:...liabilities

[clang_jangle]

False dichotomy. Thanks for playing but you lose.

Re:...liabilities

[DamienNightbane]

Taser, gas, pepper spray, wooden blocks, bean bags, all the fun shit. It's not a case of sadistic desire though. I'd be willing to bet that the little fucker had done a lot of shit to deserve it that was all coming back to haunt him now that they had an excuse.

Don't ever think for a second that the inmates are the victims. They've all done something to get themselves into prison, and then do even worse shit once they get there.

Re:...liabilities

[sycodon]

Personally,. I prefer they use batons. It makes for much more entertaining video.\

Better yet, they should carry around an 8x10 glossy of Helen Thomas. The suspect would drop to the ground writhing in horror. Though, I bet the U.N. and ACLU would call it cruel.

Re:...liabilities

[sycodon]

So you were just hanging out and decided to go down and see the riots and got tased eh?

Uh huh.

Re:...liabilities

[easyTree]

...and I'm sure the long term effects of overloading your sensitive, incredibly difficult and costly to regrow optic nerves to this degree are well known, and this represents no long term danger. right?

No need for concern - there'll be extensive in-the-field trials carried out... at the next G20 summit.

Re:...liabilities

[sycodon]

Options upon wandering into a riot.

1. Go back inside and wait it out.
2. Just go on in because you know you aren't part of it.
3. Go up to a cop who probably has had all manner of human garbage lying to him, assaulting him and otherwise giving him no reason to trust anyone, let alone someone leaving a "University lecture".
4. Break out the Molotov Cocktails Woohoo!

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe that's not as ironic as you think given the number of friendly-fire incidents involving US armed-pawns?

Re:...liabilities

[easyTree]

It seems that an evolving military-industrial-complex business model would look for ways to find more customers. Altering the product slightly so-as to be able to sell to domestic' peace-keepers' appears to meet that goal.

Re:...liabilities

[Kreigaffe]

Yes, we, America, we're the bad guys.

Wait a minute, I'm pretty sure there's been a lot more pure evil in the past 100 years coming out of Europe, Asia, and Africa than America. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, christ, do I need to go on? Compared to all that, AMERICA is the bad guy? So.. how about we kill like 25 million people today, does that mean we get a pass in your book for it 10 years from now? No? Hmm.

Australia..... you guys get a pass.

South America, nobody really cares, sorry..

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's generally known as "The man". The man is always trying to bring a brother down.

And now, he can do it with a beam of light! My, my, ain't progress wonderful?

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

The same thing happened in Pittsburgh in 2009 during the G20 Summit. The police are monsters, and every single one of them that used excessive force should be locked up for life.

I can't wait to leave this country for good.

Re:...liabilities

[easyTree]

It seems that certain police officers are part of the problem. If it were not possible for small-minded bullies to be handed power, most of these problems wouldn't occur.

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

All I really want is to scream at you, using phrases like "military industrial complex", "corporate conspiracy" and "jackbooted thugs"... but I can't seem to work them in. Damn you.

Re:...liabilities

[Israfels]

Why is it my mod point expire right before I find a good comment with useful links?

Re:...liabilities

[BudAaron]

Conversations like this piss me off. My daughter and her husband put their lives on the line every day as officers in the San Diego police. They would MUCH prefer that crimes didn't occur and at the worst of times will use the very minimum force required to take the bad people into custody. I'm sorry - an old saying goes "if you can't do the time don't do the crime!" Makes sense to me - you won't get tasered or shot if you abide by the law. It's really that simple.

Re:...liabilities

[BudAaron]

So let me get this right - you'd prefer to be shot?????

Re:...liabilities

[Unoriginal_Nickname]

False dichotomy. Stay in school, Bud.

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

What, you'd rather be the innocent bystander who was shot instead?

Re:...liabilities

[Kral_Blbec]

This is stupid. Their rules of engagement that they train are very strict. How are they going to make more money when they are misused? That makes no sense.
Tasers are a non-lethal general purpose alternative to going hand to hand with someone or shooting them. The chances of getting hurt, either the officer or the suspect, in a fist fight are much higher than when a taser is used.

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do you live that the poor are under control? I'd like to live there, here they keep whining about how they're owed a living just for being born.

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not the same USA I grew up in...

Yes, it is.

Re:...liabilities

[d7415]

How are they going to make more money when they are misused? That makes no sense..

Just a hunch, but... selling more cartridges?

Re:...liabilities

[hairyfeet]

Oh please! You think you're the new hotness because you're a soldier? You're out of date daddy-o! The new hotness is mercs! The mercs get better toys than you do, better money from your own government than you do (are you on food stamps? Most of the soldiers I met get paid so shitty their families are) and they can get away with more shit than you do!

Now do you think when the shit hits the bladed cooling device they are gonna call on you to crush the peasants, you who may actually believe in quaint terms like "honor" and the constitution? Hell no! It'll be some Blackwater style "Security force" which will take all the dirty work, kinda like....well right now.

Re:...liabilities

[Rudisaurus]

Tasers are a non-lethal general purpose alternative to going hand to hand with someone or shooting them. The chances of getting hurt, either the officer or the suspect, in a fist fight are much higher than when a taser is used.

Tell that to poor old Robert Dziekanski.

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah she should totally have headed back to the university and "waited" it out. Too bad she didn't have you there with your stunning insight. "Wandering" into a riot isn't quite the same as going home through one.

Re:...liabilities

[twebb72]

all the maimings and deaths by electrocution

[citation needed]

Mythbusters Episode 146: Fireball Stun Gun.

Yes, potential maiming and death.. Pepper spray bath + stun gun = good television.

Re:...liabilities

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Violent people always have a long list of why *their* violence is justified.

Re:...liabilities

[davester666]

Yes, everyone who died during or shortly after being tasered [and generally more than once] were all wusses. With weak hearts, small bladders, and obviously in the middle of a cocaine high.

Because if it's been established that for most people without a heart condition can take being tasered a single time without lasting affects [which is what Taser International has established].

Of course, in real life, cops:
1) have no idea if the person they are tasering has a heart problem
2) believe if you can tase them once and they don't die, you can tase them as often and as much as you feel like it

For example, google "vancouver airport taser death" for an example of someone dying because:
-he was elderly
-he didn't understand english
-he didn't comply with instructions in english within 25 seconds [not that he was attacking anybody, he just didn't flop onto the ground immediately]
-he was tased 2-4 times [police claim they only got him twice, witnesses say 4, including twice after he was cuffed and on the ground]

Hell, even the "don't tase me bro" guy, who was a dick, got tased multiple times, despite being held face-down on the ground by 4 cops.

At least there is SOME accountability, in that the device supposedly keeps a record of when it has been triggered, and there is something either physically pressed against you or is shot towards you indicating who fired. I can't wait until they perfect the long-distance heat ray, also a 'compliance' device, which burns your flesh from a significant distance. You can just be wandering around in a crowd, and suddenly your skin [including your eyes] is burning. Not just the sensation, but is actually burning. And you have no idea how or why it is happening. And no way to prove afterwards that any specific individual or group did anything to you [other than yes, you appear to have second degree burns on your face and upper body].

Good times.

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

What a fucking dipshit.

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

I've recently come to the realization that only about 1 out of 1,000 posts which use the phrase "military-industrial complex" are not pure Troll bullshit.

Re:...liabilities

[gl4ss]

it's a shitty device anyways. like being flashed by car lights. seconds to 20 minutes. a lightbulb and a reflector. and they call it a fucking stunray.

not only that, but we got real flashbangs too you know. at least they work, flashing a flashlight is only likely to work on persons who are already confused(maybe intoxicated) beyond this world.

sure, it can be used to check reaction I suppose. but that's just about it. sure, if it's easily aimable enough it can be used to project a light so that it's harder for the person to aim etc. but that's again nothing new. and then there's flashbangs.

BRIGHTLIGHTBRIGHTLIGHTBRIGHTLIGHT.

but again though, it's just a patent. has it even been tested? and really the thing worth patenting here would have been the reflector arrangement for making this magic almost like laserlike beam out of the 75 watts.

Re:...liabilities

[indiechild]

Police agent provocateurs are present at every major protest. It's an open secret, one that the media usually remains silent about.

Re:...liabilities

[indiechild]

You must be immune to flash bangs by now. I want you on my Counter-Assault Team.

Re:...liabilities

[gl4ss]

taser use cases should always go through the same scrutiny as if somebody had discharged a real weapon.

but it's marketed as non-lethal, so pussy ass sec guards and officers use it.. ..just to get out of touching their "clients", it fits too well into human psyche to use it more light heartedly than a gun or even more light heartedly than a baton(it's "cleaner", no blood spills, no bruises, no empathy-"well that guy in the demo took it pretty well").

Re:...liabilities

[Doodlesmcpooh]

I have heart disease so I probably have a greater change of survival from a bullet wound.

Re:...liabilities

[michelcolman]

I prefer to be tasered rather than shot

I prefer to be handcuffed rather than tasered

I prefer to be talked to rather than handcuffed

Tasers are really good in cases where the alternative is shooting or seriously injuring someone (or, in some cases, letting him injure himself). However, they are used far too often in situations where the victim is not violent at all. Where "come with me without violence or I will use this taser" would have avoided any problems, but instead they decided to just use the taser right away. Because it's not lethal, so no big deal. That's the problem with tasers. Because they do kill occasionally.

Re:...liabilities

[Tim C]

This is a tool for repressing dissent, not for maintaining legitimate law and order.

No, it's just a tool; how it's used is down to the person using it. In this case your complaint is with the police officer(s) involved, not with the weapon.

Re:...liabilities

[michelcolman]

Ever seen the "don't tase me bro" video? Tasers are great to replace guns, avoiding actually killing someone. But they should be seen as such, and not as "o, it's not dangerous, let's use the taser instead of getting our hands dirty". Problem is, officers don't seem to get this. The fact that they get their training from the company that makes money from them using the devices, doesn't help.

Re:...liabilities

[shaitand]

Linking to a Penn & Teller video as if it were some sort of actual content appropriate for thinking adults is your first hint your views are extreme.

Re:...liabilities

[shaitand]

A Taser is a potentially lethal weapon and should be treated as such. If the officer is not facing a direct physical threat to himself or another that can't be defused via conventional physical take down it is appropriate to use it.

With a baton there is a risk because a confrontation isn't controlled but it is largely mitigated by training on where it is safe to strike. The risks associated with using a taser have more to do with the other guy and aren't generally visible to the naked eye so training isn't going to mitigate the risks. If the taser is being used with proper restraint and caution then it will be necessary despite assuming every target is going to be a worst case scenario.

Re:...liabilities

[shaitand]

"That's the problem. "The news" broadcasts controversial events and propaganda and anecdotal evidence and videos of stupid hippies yelling at cops because they hate cops and unruly college students refusing to comply with peace officer demands"

You've got to be kidding me. At least here in the US the media is highly biased toward law enforcement, establishment, and the entrenched powers at be. Fox is openly biased and openly broadcasts this sort of propaganda and the other stations like CNN pretend to be fair by giving a line to the opposing point but always make sure to leave you with the impression that the police and establishment are good guys.

Re:...liabilities

[shaitand]

Not at all. Police officers should just be held to the same laws as everyone else. If it wouldn't be okay for any citizen to use the taser on someone then it shouldn't be okay for a police officer. If an officer harms someone they should be subject to the same consequences as an ordinary citizen in the same circumstance. That includes criminal charges for assault and battery.

Re:...liabilities

[shaitand]

Way to take a bunch of people and convert them into some less than human subclass of "they"

Re:...liabilities

[shilly]

But you choice of:
a) accept "very small risk of death or injury to people who are quite possibly dangerous criminals" or
b) accept "much GREATER risk of death or injury to public safety personnel, innocent bystanders, and the suspects"
is a false dichotomy.
It presupposes that Tasers will only be used properly, ie on people who really are quite possibly dangerous criminals. That is patently not the case: there are multiple incidents in which Tasers have been used on people who are not "possibly dangerous criminals", causing them death or injury.

That's a cost which I'm a lot less willing to pay.

Re:...liabilities

[DamienNightbane]

Work with inmates for a while and try to tell me that they're not subhuman. I dare you.

Re:...liabilities

[shilly]

How do you know that "arly every incident of improper (and often proper on a slow news day) garners tons of media attention"?

That's just an assertion.

I'd assert the opposite: that improper Taserings, and the threat of improper Taserings, typically do *not* garner press attention, because they typically happen to people who have a hard time getting anyone to believe in their innocence. Like young black men, for example.

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

Health and Safety police would have a field day with this. I'd just LOVE to see the mandatory risk assessment on this one.

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad that your training in anti-oppressive practice, anti-discriminatory practice and ethics is showing through in your words here.

You're part of the problem, not the solution. But I'm sure you'll just say you're following rules - the typical get out of the weak minded, deontological thinker.

"the little fucker" - how do you know that is the case? Even if they were, shouldn't professional practice dictate humane treatment? There's no excuse at all for people in responsible situations meting out their own 'justice' - justice is meted out by the state. It certainly is not the domain of thuggish sick-minded police or prison officers who get kicks out of doing it like they're some sick character in a Stephen King novel.

Re:...liabilities

[shilly]

It's really *not* that simple. Your daughter and her husband might behave properly, but they've got lots of colleagues who are arseholes, and who have a particular problem distinguishing between "abide by the law" and "do what the police officer tells you". So it's really not that simple. If it was, there wouldn't be a dead Polish guy who had the misfortune to fly into Vancouver one day and encounter fuckwit police officers who were all fired up with power, self-righteousness and Tasers in their pocket.

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

You know how the cops all wear face shields and helmets when they're swinging the batons against women and children?

I bet they don't protect from 445nm, 532nm or 650nm.

If the cops bring out that pain ray from Raytheon, I'm bringing out MY pain ray.

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree with your sentiment in principle, I suspect that further study is not necessary to determine that this causes less long term damage than a gun-shot.

The real place to make a stand is not nit-picking about how damaging the newest less than lethal weapon law enforcement came up with is, but rather to keep law enforcement from trivializing the use of any weapon.

It shouldn't matter that the target will survive the attack, any time a weapon is used it should be treated with the save gravity as if the weapon were deadly. If we can keep to that, than any advance in the area of less than lethal weapons is an improvement for law enforcement, Since a headline reading "man accidentally blinded by police" isn't as unfortunate as "man shot dead by police".

Re:...liabilities

[h4rm0ny]

Why do people always leave out the other power Eisenhower warns against (which he just so happens to mention in the sentence following the end of your excerpt)?

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

Probably because it hasn't happened, so there's no need to use his words to highlight the danger. A rich section of society that exploits scientific and technological knowledge? Yes. But an actual ruling class of scientists and engineers dominating society through their specialist knowledge? Only in isolated areas such as academia which don't translate into general social influence very well.

Re:...liabilities

[IonOtter]

I just looooove how you automagically presume that a protest is a "riot".

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that the taser gun is a vast improvement over pepper spray despite all this.

Re:...liabilities

[IonOtter]

I remember a time when a cop had to use patience and discussion to diffuse rough situations.

When was this time, precisely? Because my father can remember all the way back to the 1930's, when cops used to shoot people all the time. Back then, GUNS were the tools of compliance, and if you didn't comply, you got shot.

Once it became socially unacceptable to leave someone laying in a spreading pool of blood, they started using truncheons to enforce compliance. At least those will take more than a few hits to kill you.

Re:...liabilities

[memnock]

When the summary says incapacitated, is the intended meaning that you're temporarily blind, or like a tazed person, lying on the ground, unable to move? Is it possible that overloading the optic nerve that much would cause some to feel like they were tazed? Temporary blindness I can understand, but not loss of bodily control.

Re:...liabilities

[h4rm0ny]

The fact of the matter is that, with proper training and handling, a Taser device, when used in its intended setting against a deserving individual, is far safer to innocent bystanders, the environment, public safety personnel, and in most cases the suspects themselves than any other incapacitation method that I've ever heard of. So what if there's a slight risk of cardiac arrest if you're tasing a dangerous individual that's whacked out on meth? Would you rather he was shot by a firearm? Would you rather the police wrestle him to the ground by hand?

The primary argument against Tasers isn't that they are as dangerous as guns (which your points stating that properly used the risk of permanent harm is low), but that tasers are used in place of negotiation or other less harmful methods of restraint. I.e. we don't like the question "would you rather he was shot by a firearm" because it's the sales argument that proponents of tasers have repeatedly used to distract from what we consider to be the more apt question: "would you rather a police officer didn't just get to zap people with pain when he felt like it?"

And related to your question about whether we would prefer the police just wrestle him to the ground, there is some basis for this. That basis is not trusting the police. For many of us, tasers change the situation from "there's someone who might beat me up and maybe I can defend myself" to "there's someone who has a weapon that can put me on the ground in agony from a distance and he might use it on me and there's nothing I can do about that without carrying some sort of protection that will cause me to be shot instead". It's a simple matter of power-balance. If you don't trust the police, then granting them extra powers to make people do what they're told under threat of pain, is a big cause of unease.

Re:...liabilities

[tehcyder]

Work with inmates for a while and try to tell me that they're not subhuman. I dare you.

The fact that people like you seem to think it's OK to use them as target practice probably has a bit of a dehumanising effect, don't you think?

Re:...liabilities

[tehcyder]

So you were just hanging out and decided to go down and see the riots and got tased eh?

Uh huh.

So now anyone who happens to be in the vicinity of a public order disturbance is to be treated as a dangerous criminal? I'm trying not to go all Godwin on you, but that really is just fascism.

Re:...liabilities

[tehcyder]

the very last chance being when they decided not to do what the cops were telling them to do

Which is nowhere near the same thing as the cops being in danger of physical attack and using the taser in self defence/as an alternative to shooting someone.

Re:...liabilities

[tehcyder]

MIlitary Industrial Complex? Are you retarded? You know the military uses GUNS right? Like real guns?

LOL you''re the fucking retard mate. They don't use armed soldiers on the streets, it would destroy the picture of freedom and democracy. So you get quasi-military "peace officers" instead.

Re:...liabilities

[tehcyder]

what is the statistical difference between "maimings and deaths" caused by the tazer as apposed to a manual police-issued ass-kicking?

Most human beings aren't physically or psychologically capable of beating someone so badly that they're maimed or killed, whereas any cunt with a tazer can go on zapping you until he get bored of watching you squirm.

Re:...liabilities

[tehcyder]

Here's the thing -- tasers are safer than the alternative. The alternative is, if you're lucky, getting physically beaten to submission. Or shot.

Those are the cases where tasers are supposed to be used, that is what they're designed for.

It's not a cattle prod, to get people to just do what you want, it's a tool so that when the occasion arises that police are facing a threat that doesn't require lethal force but DOES require SOME degree of force, they can deploy a taser and decrease the risk both to themselves AND to the suspect.

You forgot to attribute copyright to the fucking Taser Marketing Department.
We all know how tasers are supposed to be used, no-one has an issue if it's used to subdue the now legendary maniac-on-angel-dust-with-a-machete.

Re:...liabilities

[tehcyder]

...and what about the "liabilities" that come with using lethal force (aka your sidearm) to incapacitate a criminal? Isn't this much better than say, firing off a round into someones leg?

The only thing that worries me is what the target may do when all of a sudden he's disoriented. What if his gun is drawn at the officers (or civilians) when he's disabled? TFA says most victims "freeze", but I don't see how inverse-of-blinding light would make your entire body stop working. What if the victim starts blindly firing his weapon?

Surely in those circumstances the cops would just shoot the guy anyway and not bother about fancy laser pointers? I don't think there's anywhere in the world where the police aren't allowed to shoot an armed suspect who is a clear threat to them or others.

Re:...liabilities

[tehcyder]

Personally I would rather risk a case of blindness than risk a bullet to the head. However you mileage may vary.

If you were doing something that warranted being shot in the head, you would be shot in the head anyway. The police aren't going to abandon firearms entirely.

Re:...liabilities

[psm321]

2. Replace "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/" with "https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/"

This is kinda off-topic, but seems as good a place as any to ask. I've always wondered, why do people often use the secure.wikimedia.org url when linking to wikipedia? Is HTTPS really necessary for reading an encyclopedia page? Or is there something else to it that I'm missing?

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

Maiming from a taser is preferable to death in all situations, unless you want to suicide by cop of course. Don't want to be tasered? Don't farking put yourself in that situation. It is not a random occurrence to be tasered. It is a situation you decided to put yourself in. "Don't tase me bro" guy got tasered for resisting arrest, which wouldn't have been necessary if he would have just left when he was asked to leave after being completely out of line at a speech.

Re:...liabilities

[Kral_Blbec]

The cartridges are multiple use, meaning if the taser is used once, twice, or fifty times on the same suspect there is no difference. Repeated tasering of the same person uses the same lead wires.
In addition, the cost of the litigation against them is more than offsets the value of selling an extra cartridge.

Re:...liabilities

[Kral_Blbec]

Does a slashdotter fail to understand the concept of chance and statistics? There are people who get killed eating gummy bears too. A highly publicized incident of a killer gummy bear doesn't make them lethal.

Re:...liabilities

[rtb61]

Taser the electric whip, it has been used more often than not as a portable torture device to force obedience. All should it be considered assault to knock someone to the ground unconscious when they can take no actions to break their fall and often suffer from broken bones and skull fractures.

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

Fascinating. Werewolves had to come from somewhere.

Re:...liabilities

[Kral_Blbec]

Officers understand that going hand to hand with ANY suspect is a bad idea and always last resort. The chances of someone getting hurt from hand to hand is much, much higher. Having done a lot of tactical training myself, I can tell that most of the people complaing about how dangerous tasers are are talking out of their ass and living in a utopian world of love and peace.
As distances shrink, danger increases proportionately. Reaction times decrease and there is less room for error. As an example, take the Tueller distance. At what point would you consider an individual with a knife/club/screwdriver/ax/fist/bottle dangerous? It's only a melee weapon with a short range, right? No need to get anxious until they are within arms distance to use it, right?
Wrong. An average person can run from a dead stop 25 feet before an average person can respond, approximately 1.5 seconds. That includes drawing their own weapon or moving to dodge the attack. If we are standing 15 feet apart and i have my hands at my side, I can literally have a knife drawn and sticking out of your throat before you so much as blink. Just a little food for thought.
Things happen quickly, and distance is the only way to off set that. Tasers are the only non-lethal means officers have of controlling a situation from a distance, before it gets that close. Sure they are some officers abusing them, but until you go through the training yourself and realize that those officers are indeed violating the training, accusations that its rigged to make money for the company are empty suppositions.

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

...and I'm sure the long term effects of overloading your sensitive, incredibly difficult and costly to regrow optic nerves to this degree are well known, and this represents no long term danger. right?

Compare it to the long term danger of having a bullet pass through you brain, or a billy club cracking open you skull. Non-lethal alternatives do have certain advantages.

Re:...liabilities

[omnichad]

How about adding in speeding and tailgating without their flashy lights on? I can't tell you how many times....

Re:...liabilities

[CompMD]

Rational police departments instruct their officers to use a taser when they would otherwise use a gun. There is no other reason for using a taser.

In the county I spent the last 10 years living in, the sheriffs used a taser maybe once per year. And that county had over 100,000 people living there AND has a college town.

Re:...liabilities

[Clandestine_Blaze]

Makes sense to me - you won't get tasered or shot if you abide by the law.

Can I live in this black & white world that you live in, where every person beaten, tasered, or shot is a hardcore criminal that deserved it? I understand that you're biased, as your daughter and son-in-law are both police officers, but there are many documented cases out there of police using tasers against people when it is absolutely unnecessary and even more dangerous.

The problem is that police officers are now using tasers beyond situations when their lives are in danger. They are using it to shock people into compliance for not following verbal orders. They're using it in cases when they would never even think about using their gun. If your daughter and her husband are two of the few police officers using tasers ONLY when the situation calls for it, then I am happy that they volunteered to be police officers. The force needs more people like them.

But there is a reason why the Federal Court in California limits police use of Tasers.

Re:...liabilities

[vuffi_raa]

personally as I see it, the issue isn't with he weapon but with the policy and the officers. I don't see why officers are not trained to use a taser as an alternative to a gun... let me repeat that an ALTERNATIVE to a gun. That is to say that if you would never pull your gun in that situation, you shouldn't pull out a taser. Cops shouldn't taser people because they are irritating them or to make their job generally easier by tasering anyone that they think may struggle when they arrest them - that is why they have cuffs. If they were to change the policy the weapon ouldn't matter so much.

Re:...liabilities

[Chris Burke]

The fact of the matter is that, with proper training and handling, a Taser device, when used in its intended setting against a deserving individual, is far safer to innocent bystanders, the environment, public safety personnel, and in most cases the suspects themselves than any other incapacitation method that I've ever heard of.

What I don't understand is how the target "deserving" to be tasered affects the safety of the taser in a manner similar to proper training, proper handling, and use in an intended setting which are listed in parallel.

Am I supposed to infer that if the target isn't deserving that it's (somehow) not as safe? That doesn't sound like a plus to me!

Or was the part about "deserving" just thrown in there so that I wouldn't care so much about the cases where tasers are not safer for suspects, because hey, this hypothetical suspect hypothetically deserved it and hey why not just assume that means real suspects harmed by tasers deserved it too?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

taser use cases should always go through the same scrutiny as if somebody had discharged a real weapon.

Are you saying they aren't real weapons?

Re:...liabilities

[Blkdeath]

no problem, look at how Taser International's massive legal team can get all the maimings and deaths by electrocution swept under the run by buying off judges and doctors and county coroners. The military-industrial complex can steam-roll over peons, it's just operating costs and part of the business plan.

The term for the Taser and other similar law enforcement devices is "less lethal". You are much more likely to perish or suffer permanent injury from a high speed lead bullet than a Taser strike.

Re:...liabilities

[ConceptJunkie]

Killer gummi bears?! Thanks for the warning. I just bought a 5-pound bucket and I'll dump them right away. You might have just saved my life, bro!

Re:...liabilities

[Blkdeath]

False dichotomy. Stay in school, Bud.

Ok, should you ever be in the process/act of breaking the law and failing to comply with police officers' demands to comply, which method would you prefer be used to subdue you?

Re:...liabilities

[Blkdeath]

Tasers are a non-lethal general purpose alternative to going hand to hand with someone or shooting them. The chances of getting hurt, either the officer or the suspect, in a fist fight are much higher than when a taser is used.

Tell that to poor old Robert Dziekanski.

Wow. One famous Taser victim. Care for a larger sample size?

Re:...liabilities

[markass530]

yes we would be much safer without cops on the streets.

Re:...liabilities

[ConceptJunkie]

That's the problem: A small number of officers (out of a much larger force that acts responsibly in doing their jobs) will eventually abuse the taser just like humans will eventually abuse every other bit of power they've managed to create or obtain since that monkey dude was whacking a tapir skull with a thigh bone after he touched the Monolith. Unfortunately, ignorance and hype will cause a weapon, or tool, or power source, or whatever that is safe and effective 9999 out of 10000 times will be banned in favor of a lesser weapon, tool, etc, that is only safe and effective 999 out of 1000 times. Or 99 out of 100 times. Or Worse.

As long as the mass media see their jobs as being fomenters of hysteria rather than purveyors of fact this will only get worse. And we're talking about the kinds of people who generally couldn't get the facts right 1 time out of 10 when they _aren't_ intentionally distorting things.

Re:...liabilities

[dargaud]

Police officers should just be held to the same laws as everyone else.

An emphatic NO to that. Knowing the law is THEIR job, not mine, so if I do some minor screwup, maybe I can get a slap on the wrist, but they shouldn't. And a lot more important, if you do something to a cop, you get added sentencing versus doing the same thing to Joe Blow. So a cop doing something illegal to you should get added sentencing. Seems only fair to me.

Re:...liabilities

[ConceptJunkie]

http://twitter.com/newtgingrich?

I bet Newt Minow would be tweeting too, probably about the vast intellectual wasteland that is the Internet, were he still around.

Re:...liabilities

[Sprouticus]

No, I think the GP was just trying to indicate that while the OP may have been innocent, there is a much greater chance that he is minimizing the impact of his actions during said riot to make a point.

Re:...liabilities

[St.Creed]

Actually, no. Merely being in range of police during riots is enough to get you gassed, clubbed and whatnot. Even if just curious as to what's happening. If you think different, you've probably never been to a riot before. I can heartily recommend it, it disabuses you quickly of any naive illusions as to the role of police in our society. Worked wonders for me :)

Re:...liabilities

[Blymie]

I would agree, except that 'rational police departments' were LIED to, and told that tasers were safe, harmless things! There were countless studies, reports, and so forth indicating it was so.

So, don't blame them.. blame the LIARS.

Re:...liabilities

[RoFLKOPTr]

What the fuck are you on about? I said "deserving" to differentiate from the danger to innocents and suspects who are not causing a situation which warrants the use of a Taser. Perhaps I could have used better phrasing, but you're being intentionally difficult or unintentionally stupid.

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

"I can heartily recommend it"

There ya go.

Reasonable people go in the opposite direction of a riot.

If you are running towards to a riot, one can surmise:

a) You're an idiot.
b) You're looking for trouble.
c) Both.

Re:...liabilities

[stonewallred]

Guy below me talking about how inmates are always lying scum etc etc et al, is the problem.

I was working as an SAB counselor within the DOC at the time.

And interfering with COs can be an illegal act, even if they are performing an illegal action at the time.

And they were using the excuse of the prisoner jerking from the shocks as an excuse to beat him, a little get back.

And me and my coworker wrote statements against the officers and for the inmate.

The inmate had disciplinary charges applied and was charged state court for felonious assault and convicted, while the officers had nothing done to them.

Re:...liabilities

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh hey! There's a riot! And Police! And Hey, they have all this cool gear on and batons! I think I'll try to just sneak right on through. Don't mind me! I'm just going home.

Re:...liabilities

[RoFLKOPTr]

but always make sure to leave you with the impression that the police and establishment are good guys.

That's because they are. Would you swear an oath to protect the public by putting others' lives ahead of yours? I didn't think so. There are some stupid cops out there, but they are a vast minority. I know a lot of cops and they are all great guys... I'm sorry you hold a grudge because they tell you to put out the joint and pull you over for driving 90.

Re:...liabilities

[RoFLKOPTr]

Linking to a Penn & Teller video as if it were some sort of actual content appropriate for thinking adults is your first hint your views are extreme.

Completely writing off information simply because it was presented by somebody you don't like is your first hint that there's absolutely no place for you in any kind of relatively serious political discussion. Go outside and play with your friends, grown-ups are talking right now.

Re:...liabilities

[harrytuttle777]

There is a use of force continuum. If you take the less that lethal options out of the equation, they are more likely to use a gun for a situation where they could use a taser now. I would like to believe that all police officers are martial artists, and could manipulate your joints to put you into submission without causing any injury, but I think they would probably just shoot you if they felt threatened. When all you have is a hammer, every pronblem looks like a nail. If you take the less than lethal tools out of the equation because they have not done 'long term studies' you are likely to get more preventable deaths.

Personally, I am all for giving officers more tasers, OC, and any other non lethal tool you can think of.

-Call me gay, but I am afraid of bullets. You are afraid of flashlights.

Re:...liabilities

[kalirion]

Why would they need a change in policy when they're told that tasers are harmless?

Re:...liabilities

[vuffi_raa]

exactly.

Re:...liabilities

[Chris Burke]

That's exactly what I'm on about -- you using "deserving" to take the whole issue of suspects where a taser or other violent takedown isn't required, but the existence of such a less-lethal weapon encourages its use, and sweep it under the rug. Yes, in the context of a situation where it is unambiguously the case that for their own and public safety the police must use one of either a club, taser, or gun, the taser is probably better. That doesn't actually justify the danger of a taser, because in reality the set of situations where that is the case is a small subset of the total uses of tasers, and the set of situations in which each of those options would be used if they were the only tool at hand are not the equivalent. The only question that matters is whether the danger is justifiable in the situations in which it is actually used.

It's similar to talking about contraceptives, and saying that "coitus interruptus" is 96% effective. Under perfect circumstances, when it's one of the hardest methods to use "perfectly". Under typical, real-world circumstances, you should start painting the baby's room if you rely on this method. It's not exactly the same, since we're not talking efficacy, but rather situations in which a taser might be used that aren't ideal and can increase risk to the suspect. But the point is the same: framing the debate in terms of ideal circumstances to say they aren't unsafe is unrealistic and begging the question.

Long story short, it's just a more subtle version of the "It's better than being shot!" argument, which is a terrible argument.

Re:...liabilities

[shaitand]

Anyone with that sort of mentality belongs with the inmates but it sounds like you are on the wrong side of the bars.

Re:...liabilities

[RoFLKOPTr]

The only question that matters is whether the danger is justifiable in the situations in which it is actually used.

What danger? I have yet to see more than one or two instances in which a Taser has actually caused harm to an individual out of the thousands of times they've been used in the past couple decades, and every time it's due to blatant misuse. I wish we could have that kind of safety record with cars, guns, and high school football.

Analogy translation service

[Anonymous Coward]

It's very analogous to walking from a very bright room into a very dark room

It's like you're driving along in your car and the nutter in the car coming the other way left his headlights on full beam.

And...

[Anonymous Coward]

The military has no use for non-leathal weapons, it will be used on civilians, ie you.

Re:And...

[rubycodez]

militaries do a fine job of using their lethal weapons on civilians too, with complete impunity and immunity. Warring for power and money means the civilian body count is of no import

Re:And...

[Anonymous Coward]

They can indeed do that... in other countries, they cant do it at home yet.

Now non-lethal weapons can and will be used against anyone who bother the government in their own backyard, this is why it is dangerous.

Re:And...

[SuricouRaven]

They do now. They used to have no use for non-lethal weapons, but now they have to do a lot of peacekeeping in places like Iraq and Afganistan, which involves angry mobs from turning into a full-blown riot. You can't easily kill them, because then everyone hates you more, so a nonlethal means of crowd dispersal would be useful.

Re:And...

[marcello_dl]

The military already knows.

From wikipedia:
"A stun grenade, also known as a flashbang, is a non-lethal weapon. The first devices like this were created in the 1960s at the order of the British Special Air Service as an incapacitant.

These grenades are designed to temporarily neutralize the combat effectiveness of enemies by disorienting their senses. The flash of light momentarily activates all light sensitive cells in the eye, making vision impossible for approximately five seconds until the eye restores itself to its normal, unstimulated state. The extremely loud blast produced by the grenade adds to its incapacitating properties by disturbing the fluid in the ear."

The incapacitating effects of sensory overload are also known by some user interface designers and their long term effects are obvious: after 2 decades of MTV videos we have justin bieber.

Re:And...

[rubycodez]

The do it at home too, e.g. waco, tx

Oh, boy

[93 Escort Wagon]

I'm sure this will end well...

I hope it's not an incandescent lamp

[countertrolling]

Anyway, I like this one much better..

Brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are the leaked schematics and design specification so I can build my own for pennies?

Re:Brilliant

[rubycodez]

just buy and misuse a photographic strobe, much more light output too

Re:Brilliant

[camperdave]

Here you go!

Re:Brilliant

[Entropius]

The traffic enforcers already do this -- they have massive strobes set up so their traffic cameras can let them turn a profit at night, too. Turns out firing a GN 100m @ ISO 100 flash at drivers is not so good for their night vision.

Re:Brilliant

[Firehed]

Without specialized equipment, strobes throw a relatively wide beam (even when the head is zoomed for strobes that support focusing, which is almost all of them these days). Very effective from five feet away, mostly just annoying from twenty or more. Of course I've seen thirty strobes discharged at full power simultaneously which is only slightly brighter than a nuclear blast (that photo was with them dialed down to probably 1/128, the full power version was solid pure white), but that's not exactly practical for use as a handheld LTL weapon. Sounds like this is far more focused - not to laser precision, but at least on the level of stage spotlight (relative to the actual size of the light source).

Re:Brilliant

[rubycodez]

the only "specialized equipment" needed would be two cheap convex lenses, "annoying" would become "blinding"

safety?

[CubicleView]

Can't be good for the retinas? Second link was busted but the first link is very light (ahem) on details

Re:safety?

[Lord Byron II]

Mod parent +1 Punny.

Re:safety?

[Threni]

It sounds like a very bright light, which is why it's odd/predictable that they're going for the opposite description on the endorsement linked to when they say:

Itâ(TM)s very analogous to walking from a very bright room into a very dark room.
Itâ(TM)s the inverse of blindness

etc

Re:safety?

[oztiks]

My concern is with the fact there is no "Add to Cart" button on their website. Someone needs to fix this ASAP!

Re:safety?

[kauttapiste]

Do no look into the second page with remaining eye.

Re:safety?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny, because I found the article rather illuminating. However, surely someone has tried this already...I find the whole idea of using a bright light to incapacitate to be blindingly obvious

Re:safety?

[St.Creed]

Aaarrrggghhh....

Re:safety?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone should think of a clever
*shades*
defensive technology.

isn't this is an old idea?

[volkerdi]

I remember advertisements in magazines in the years before Tasers for a magic-sounding non-lethal weapon that would instantly incapacitate an attacker. The ads were vague about how the device worked, but I recall hearing (reading?) somewhere that it was a super-bright flashlight. Perhaps a strobe.

Maybe the difference is that it's effective this time.

Re:isn't this is an old idea?

[pavon]

Yeah, the one's I've seen in the past were based on strobing at a specific frequency that made you very disoriented and nauseous. Probably more dangerous for epileptics but they also wore off more quickly. I'd be worried about permanent damage from something that takes 20 minutes to regain your vision.

Re:isn't this is an old idea?

[innerweb]

Ask anyone who grew up in the 70s and 80s. Bright strobe lights in dark dance halls. You couldn't see anything when you first walked in.

Re:isn't this is an old idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

They were called hallucinomats. My buddy used to have a bunch of them mounted on the roof of his fake Le Corbusier castle.

Re:isn't this is an old idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

The first thing I thought of here was Bright Man from Mega Man 4.

His main weapon, the Flash Stopper, stuns and blinds opponents with an intense burst of light for a brief moment.

Game came out in 1991 and I'm pretty sure the idea was from farther back then that.

Re:isn't this is an old idea?

[gl4ss]

I never saw any video of a thing like that working though, but plenty of spots for such things over the years on random science shows and magazines.

like, a consistent result throwing up. if you find epileptics as your test subjects, it's very easy to make such a device and market it to investors. but that doesn't mean you can consistently take random people and make them throw up with it..

oh and the 20 mins to get over this.. that's the MAX time, and the minimum is just seconds, making it as effective as a beautiful woman saying "HI!". if there's something wrong with your vision in the dark to begin with then it's going to work wonders - and if it's used in the dark of the night. because the sun puts out a little more brightness, it would just look like a signal light in daylight..

maybe it's actually an april fools, lifted from some pop sci article from the fifties.

can I avoid the stun effect...

[Anonymous Coward]

...by wearing sun glasses?

Re:can I avoid the stun effect...

[Entropius]

If they're dark enough, yes.

I imagine this weapon would only work at night or in dim illumination, anyway -- the daytime-adapted human eye can take a whole lot of light without temporary blindness.

Re:can I avoid the stun effect...

[Ozymandias_KoK]

[guitar]

YEEAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

(lameness filter is lame, oh yes it is)

This is not new...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tom Clancy wrote about this concept in Debt of Honour.

Re:This is not new...

[ThosLives]

Well, this is a patent for a physical machine, so the patent is probably on the mechanism they used to concentrate the light, rather than the idea "shine light in people's eyes to stun them." "Device" patents tend to be a lot more reasonable than software patents.

Re:This is not new...

[j_presper_eckert]

Faaaaar from new. It was also a key plot point in the 1981 movie "Looker," starring Albert Finney & Susan Dey.

Re:This is not new...

[cstacy]

Faaaaar from new. It was also a key plot point in the 1981 movie "Looker," starring Albert Finney & Susan Dey.

They shine this thing at you, and you can't see anything but Susan Dey? I predict a lot more civil disobedience coming.

Re:This is not new...

[russotto]

They shine this thing at you, and you can't see anything but Susan Dey? I predict a lot more civil disobedience coming.

Sorry, that's why it has been so long in the making. The new model isn't called the "Kathy Bates" without a reason.

Clancy?

[thynk]

Didn't Tom Clancy use this in one of his novels to blind the Japanese pilots like 15 years ago?

Re:Clancy?

[lennier1]

IIRC he got the idea from a military research project the Brits have done back in the late 80's.

Re:Clancy?

[Entropy98]

I believe that was a laser, some of which cause permanent blindness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZM-87

Re:Clancy?

[Chemisor]

In "Debt of Honor", Clark and Chavez blind the pilots of a Japanese AWACS. They also use it several times to incapacitate guards. Their device was a 1kW light flash though, so I suppose this new invention is a bit more efficient.

Re:Clancy?

[bmo]

And the Brits got it from Alfred Hitchcock's "Rear Window"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz06t7PGD-E

--
BMO

Re:Clancy?

[cdp0]

In "Debt of Honor", Clark and Chavez blind the pilots of a Japanese AWACS. They also use it several times to incapacitate guards. Their device was a 1kW light flash though, so I suppose this new invention is a bit more efficient.

Has anyone checked Clancy's recent novels to see how their retinas look like after all this time ?

Re:Clancy?

[gl4ss]

and they lifted the idea from some guy using a shiny surface in 2000 bc.

Better than Tasers

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather be blind than die of a heart attack.

Re:Better than Tasers

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. But I'd rather suffer the minute chance of death than a high chance of vision loss. And I'm legally blind already.

Re:Better than Tasers

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you have someone willing to support you for the rest of your life, then, since you're not going to be doing much to fend for yourself if you're blinded. Not everybody is so lucky.

Does not sound safe

[iinlane]

How is it different from looking into a laser?

Re:Does not sound safe

[pehrs]

A laser is very concentrated light, further focused by the eye, which is why it will cause burning damage to the retina.

This is similar to the flash-bang grenade. A very strong difuse source of light will drain your retina of the signal substance it uses to detect light, and it takes the body considerable time to produce new signal substance. Fire a camera flash in your own face and you can experience a mild form of the effect.

Thereby not said anything about the viability of the product. I doubt something that can be stopped with sunglasses will replace tasers any time soon.

Re:Does not sound safe

[Arancaytar]

Coherent light is focused to a particularly small area on the retina, which increases its local intensity by orders of magnitude. This thing is just bright. Both lasers and extremely bright light can permanently damage your eye, but lasers do it with far less power and far more quickly.

Re:Does not sound safe

[iinlane]

The diffuse part got me puzzled - the beam is one degree wide and works over 50m distance so it can't be diffuse. The camera flash is way more powerful than 75W but due shortness of the pulse not very energetic. The article did not mention anything about flashing light.

Re:Does not sound safe

[Anonymous Coward]

Only criminals wear sunglasses.

Re:Does not sound safe

[Anonymous Coward]

No, coherence makes it easier to collimate, but one does not imply the other. Spatially coherent light remains in phase with respect to its frequencies over long distances; incoherent light's amplitudes and frequencies become random over much shorter distances. Temporally coherent light's irradiance and transverse electric field can be described reasonably well using gaussian functions, even when refracted. Collimated light remains in a tightly focused beam (a column even) over long distances. Incoherent light can be collimated using lenses, just like coherent light; the difference is that coherent light follows a new gaussian distribution for intensity on the output side of the lens, while incoherent light almost certainly does not follow a gaussian distribution for intensity on either side.

Furthermore, coherent light need not be monochromatic, but often is a very very close approximation. Incoherent light can be approximately monochromatic but often isn't.

The retina is unlikely to suffer damage before the cornea, which absorbs some light energy at all frequencies (it is only "very" transparent in the range in which we normally see, and is least absorptive in green; the aqueous humour is similarly least absorptive in green, and also becomes opaque upon heating). With a sufficiently intense light source, your cornea will heat and denature, turning opaque. However, a monochomatic green of sufficient intensity may damage the retina which is highly absorptive in green (our green-detecting photopsins). It turns out that argon lasers emit a green light that can damage the retina before damaging the "transparent" parts of the eye in front of the retina. At high effective radiated power and with good focusing, that's useful for retinal cautery etc. without cutting open the eyeball. However, for *blinding*, with the same ERP, a higher per-photon energy is even more effective for blinding by clouding the cornea and aqueous humour, which is why one should worry about UV protection in sunglasses. Collimation gives a higher ERP per watt from the wall, compared to radiating omnidirectionally. If your goal is to blind permanently, you could keep power constant and narrow the beam and aim well, or you could keep the beam wide and not well aimed and step up the power; you could also keep the power constant and the beam not well aimed but have a longer exposure time. Whatever approach to causing permanent blindness, at distances of several metres or more, you're likely to burn the victim's face a little bit too, and possibly affect other nearby people.

The weaponized light sources under discussion in this slashdot story almost certianly will not have the power to blind anyone permanently even at extremely close range, but is also not likely to affect only the one person at which it is aimed.

Re:Does not sound safe

[ceoyoyo]

Nonsense. Laser light has two properties that are different than normal light: it's monochromatic and it's (often) well collimated so the beam doesn't diverge much.

Provided monochromatic light doesn't have any special effect on the retina (and I can't think why it would), a device that produces a light intensity on the retina greater than a particular value will be capable of causing permanent damage whether it's a laser or not. This thing probably affects a bigger portion of the retina but is also probably much more intense than your garden variety laser pointer.

Laser light is not magic "concentrated" light that can suddenly burn stuff.

Re:Does not sound safe

[pehrs]

Layman explanation, not nonsense.

Your eye protection reflexes does not trigger as well on monochromatic light as it does on light with a broader spectrum, even if the laser happens to be in the visible spectrum. In addition the laser does not have as much chromatic aberration, which significantly increases the risk of damage to the eye. There is a reason we classify lasers for their risk of eye damage but not other sources of light.

If we deliver the same energy to the same area of the retina there will indeed be the same amount of damage, as the damage is primarily from heating. But it is a lot harder to deliver that energy if you use a flashlight compared to a laser.

I recommend reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_safety

Re:Does not sound safe

[ceoyoyo]

You should read that article too.

The only place it mentions the blink reflex being different with laser light is for IR - if you can't see it, you won't blink, and might not notice damage is being done until too late. Chromatic aberration, while probably a small effect, would be similar for lasers and other monochromatic (or nearly so) light sources such as LEDs.

Well collimated lasers CAN produce somewhat higher intensities than you'd otherwise expect due to high spatial coherence, but not magically so.

The reasons we put warning labels on lasers are (a) uninformed paranoia and (b) because many higher powered lasers ARE dangerous, and unexpectedly so because they are small, well collimated sources and don't diverge much.

Read the descriptions of the laser classes, and especially the laser pointers section. 5 mW lasers haven't been recorded causing any permanent damage except in a few rare cases where the person was really going out of his or her way to cause damage (such as staring into the beam for a full minute, and he recovered anyway).

Yes, a half watt laser is more dangerous than a 100 watt light bulb, but primarily because we insist on ridiculously labelling some light sources by their power consumption and that the laser is unidirectional. Note that in this case we're talking about a well collimated non-laser light source, not an omnidirectional one.

Sounds familiar

[Anonymous Coward]

Tom Clancy used one of these in his book Debt of Honour, which came out in the early 1990s. Not sure if it was fictional then and he was just working with the same theory, or if he was basing his light-stun-gun on existed in military circles.

Re:Sounds familiar

[wagnerrp]

In the book, they were just using a generic portable spotlight, rated at a couple million candle power, with a UV filter to prevent permanent damage. Of course that filter was for naught when the people you temporarily blind are pilots on final approach.

Flash blindness

[mbone]

The brief pulse of extremely bright light from a nuclear explosion would cause "flash blindness," which sounds like the same thing.

That's why everyone was always putting on goggles in the old newsreels about nukes.

Re:Flash blindness

[vlm]

That's why everyone was always putting on goggles in the old newsreels about nukes.

I thought it was to prevent permanent damage due to the ultraviolet light, much like staring at an electric arc welder?

Re:Flash blindness

[ceoyoyo]

Probably a little different. The reason everyone put on goggles in the old newsreels was that the UV from the explosion would blind you. The visible light probably wouldn't do you much good either, but the UV was the real killer.

Re:Flash blindness

[mbone]

There was probably some of that, but I know that they were specifically worried about flash blindness, which makes it impossible to function (except blindly) for a while. Retinal scaring (from the UV or the visible) I believe is only a problem if you are looking directly at the fireball, whereas I have heard that you can get flash blindness from a nuke even facing away with your eyes closed and your arm over your eyes. See, e.g., http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects13.shtml for a little more.

Re:Flash blindness

[Anonymous Coward]

Only the UV? There was reports that the could see the bones in theirs when they just used their hands to cover their eyes.

Re:Flash blindness

[tehcyder]

The brief pulse of extremely bright light from a nuclear explosion would cause "flash blindness," which sounds like the same thing.

Oh for fuck's sake don't give them ideas. Cops with nuke grenades is not something I can see being all that great.

Be it microwaves, stun lights, tasers or bullets..

[dogganos]

... you won't be stopping the revolution when it happens...

Am I missing something?

[Zouden]

The summary and article seem to be implying this is more clever than it is.

overloading the neural networks connected to the retina with a brief flash of high-intensity light. 'It's the inverse of blindness

No, I think it's just blindness, albeit temporary. You're not really "overloading the neural networks", you're just flashing a bright light in someone's eyes. Unless you're doing something very clever with that flash of light that makes it more effective than just a normal bright light...

The device consists of a 75-watt lamp, combined with optics that collect and focus the visible light into a targeted beam which can be aimed like a flashlight

Okay, nothing particularly clever there. He's invented a "really bright flashlight". No surprises that it can be aimed like one!

Recovery time ranges from 'seconds to 20 minutes,'

So, it's... unreliable?

Look, I'm no fan of tasers, but at least they do their job pretty effectively. You can't move after being hit by one. This thing doesn't stop you madly swinging your arms about until your eyesight comes back, which I think will be a pretty common response.

Re:Am I missing something?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, I'm no fan of tasers, but at least they do their job pretty effectively. You can't move after being hit by one.

Rodney King managed to.

Re:Am I missing something?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they watched too many sci-fi movies, you know the one with the clones who got their memories uploaded through the eyes ...

Re:Am I missing something?

[vlm]

This thing doesn't stop you madly swinging your arms about until your eyesight comes back, which I think will be a pretty common response.

Infantryman, OK. tank driver or attack heli pilot, not so good. Civilian driver, not good.

I wonder if its been patented? Rednecks have been shooting deer at night from the back of pickup trucks by pointing a floodlight at the deer, which makes it freeze, since... I donno probably about one night after the floodlight and/or pickup truck was invented. Probably the part he is patenting is doing this process while NOT drinking beer and NOT listening to country music.

Re:Am I missing something?

[zippthorne]

Tank driver and heli pilot are going to be safe, though: Neither one of them is looking around using their naked eyes, they're looking through electronic image intensifiers with hardware contrast limits, and which recover much more quickly...

Re:Am I missing something?

[gl4ss]

you're not missing anything.

that's why it's a patent application.

not a product with a "patent pending" sticker.

meaning that it's crap patent for fishing money, from people who might build this.

Don't daze me bro...

[Anonymous Coward]

/topic

great news for soccer!

[L4z4ru5]

that's gonna do great in blinding goalkeepers on a penalty!!

Re:Analogy translation service (REDUX)

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like having the curtains thrown open on an East facing window at 9:00 in the morning after a night of f--ing an extremely hot chick you met last night only to find some toothless, fat, hag lying next to you in the bed and your head is about to split open from all the high-quality spirits^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hshitty tequila you drank last night.

I'm selling a counter measure

[Dyinobal]

I'm selling specially constructed eye protection devices to make your optical nerve, also known as sun glasses for a reasonable price.

Re:I'm selling a counter measure

[Anonymous Coward]

Wear reflective eye glasses so you can "overload the neurons" of your attacker.

Re:I'm selling a counter measure

[reboot246]

If sunglasses aren't enough, then use the kind of lenses used in auto-darkening welding helmets. They can change in about 1/12000 second.

Or how about a combination of mirror lenses with auto-darkening ones?

Re:I'm selling a counter measure

[Anonymous Coward]

Only terrorists wear sunglasses. What? You don't think it could happen?

L.O.O.K.E.R

[Anonymous Coward]

They used one of these in a movie:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082677/

Set phasers to blind!

[atari2600a]

At least we aren't microwaving skin now...

In protest of people whining about tasers

[Fujisawa Sensei]

In protest about people whining about tasers, I propose we take tasers, batons and bean bags away from the police. Also since cops don't wear running shoes, and they're given guns, the guns should be used instead of chasing. So any one resisting or trying to run away, you will be shot and you will be killed.

If force needs to be used, make sure its as lethal as possible.

Re:In protest of people whining about tasers

[Anonymous Coward]

In protest about people whining about tasers, I propose we take tasers, batons and bean bags away from the police. Also since cops don't wear running shoes, and they're given guns, the guns should be used instead of chasing. So any one resisting or trying to run away, you will be shot and you will be killed.

If force needs to be used, make sure its as lethal as possible.

But that's the point. A cop is probably going to think twice about shooting to kill grandma. Tasering her? Well, it's not lethal so it's okay, right?

Re:In protest of people whining about tasers

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, one can argue that when the degree of force is lowered, then the number of situations where force is applied is increased. i.e, some guy is mouthing off to you, you're probably not going to pull out your gun and shoot him, but if you have a taser available you might be attempted to taser him.

Re:In protest of people whining about tasers

[Ltap]

The issue with tasers is not that they exist, but that they are misused -- Taser International has misled police and the public to believe that tasers are more safe than they really are, so police will happily overuse them without making as many judgement calls as if they used live weapons. While trying to ban tasers is misguided, trying to educate people about them (especially when people with financial stakes try as hard as they can to obscure the information) is not.

Re:In protest of people whining about tasers

[Anonymous Coward]

In protest about people whining about tasers, I propose we take tasers, batons and bean bags away from the police. Also since cops don't wear running shoes, and they're given guns, the guns should be used instead of chasing. So any one resisting or trying to run away, you will be shot and you will be killed.

If force needs to be used, make sure its as lethal as possible.

The problem is that when most cops are given a non-lethal (but painful!) alternative to handle any given a situation, they tend to become needlessly violent.

Re:In protest of people whining about tasers

[Antisyzygy]

That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Police think twice about killing someone, since in court killing someone needs justification. However cops have less of a disincentive in their mind to beat someone, or tase someone, or pepper spray someone as long as they recover after. No need to explain that in court "I was just arresting a person who was resisting arrest". The fact of the matter is, humans were not meant to be electrocuted. We can withstand a beating from another human, or some pepper in our eyes, but human beings did not evolve near fields of Tesla coils or in realms of perpetual lightning storms. My friend was tased and charged with resisting arrest when he decided to run out a back window of a house with a party he was invited to when cops knocked on the front door. Mind you, he did not run out of the window when there was cops arresting people, or shouting at people. He was invited to the party by people who rented the house that were over 21. He did not know there would be underage drinkers at the time, but most college kids go to parties like this without incident and without harm to anyone. Without being warned that he was under arrest, a police officer hiding in a bush outside the window shot him with a taser. Later they charged him with resisting arrest and contributing to delinquency of minors. So a police officer can decide you are under arrest, say nothing about it to anyone, and tase you to subdue you, meanwhile charging you with "resisting arrest"? The other charge was bullshit too since he didn't buy alcohol for anyone, but lets leave that alone for the moment. I am ranting now, but Tasers are still bullshit.

Re:In protest of people whining about tasers

[Anonymous Coward]

In protest about stupid fucking arguments, I propose the police shoot you in your empty fucking skull. One less floating turd in the gene pool.

Re:In protest of people whining about tasers

[owlstead]

Don't start your argument with an attack on the people on the other side of the argument. As for your argument, I think police should wear shoes that they are capable of running on. And to complete it, I've never seen a taser used on a running target in any of the cop shows so far. So people running away don't seem to be the target anyway.

Re:In protest of people whining about tasers

[Anonymous Coward]

If force needs to be used, make sure its as lethal as possible.

And to the Capitol hill. The Darwinian approach to criminal policy was passed finally yesterday when the budget makers realized happily that the usage of single bullet in the head plus cleaning costs are significantly cheaper for the nation than a prison sentence of any length.

A special provision for the states not able to pay even for the bullets were made. Swords and blades of all sorts are now carried by the law enforcement rapid executioners in many states. California was one of the first states to equip its officers with 10-folded katanas. The local police officers were seen practising their man halving in the front of the police station this morning.

Re:In protest of people whining about tasers

[Ocker3]

And if he's Really not shutting up, just hit him a few extra times to make sure he gets the message. We've seen quite a few cases where people had significant injuries, but it wasn't from one jolt, it was from several.

Re:In protest of people whining about tasers

[oliverthered]

I propose we give them cyanide pills in their teeth... If they see someone committing a crime they have failed in the line of duty and should kill themselves with honor. That way we may bring crime down, instead of turning it into a living or a way to make more money.

Re:In protest of people whining about tasers

[oliverthered]

obviously if instead they try to hurt or wound or kill someone they will have fallen into the enemy's trap and become the enemy.. we can't have that, they need to learn Honor.

Re:In protest of people whining about tasers

[gl4ss]

batons are useful and it takes a little more effort to use them. they don't work as a panic button, but as a tool, "something longer than your arm".

batons are also BETTER for handling DRUNKS which is what 90% of REAL POLICE WORK is about. which is why you can't just shoot anyone acting a bit hazy.. taser someone and that's your whole night of police work right there, filling the papers up, cleaning shit from the patrol car.

tasering someone is better than putting a knife in his neck though.

Re:In protest of people whining about tasers

[Anonymous Coward]

The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades!

Re:In protest of people whining about tasers

[Anonymous Coward]

The cops would never (okay, only rarely) shoot someone trying to flee who had been caught pickpocketing. The cops have no qualms tasering that same person in the same situation the moment they move a muscle after "STOP RESISTING!".

Cops don't think Tasers are even slightly dangerous. They think Tasers are a replacement for a billy club. The difference is that a cop will control their use of a manual weapon like a billy club to match the aggression of the perp, someone like the pickpocket might end up with a few bruises. The Taser? Hook 'em, and squeeze. The only feedback is the perp shaking about, but since that's expected, the cops just keeps holding the trigger until his thirst for vengeance is satisfied.

It's a terrible tool for the job. With the gun, the cop knows shooting it could kill someone, and, at a minimum, requires a writeup at the station. The Taser don't have enough consequences.

Re:In protest of people whining about tasers

[tehcyder]

In protest about people whining about tasers, I propose we take tasers, batons and bean bags away from the police. Also since cops don't wear running shoes, and they're given guns, the guns should be used instead of chasing. So any one resisting or trying to run away, you will be shot and you will be killed.

If force needs to be used, make sure its as lethal as possible.

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Re:In protest of people whining about tasers

[tehcyder]

tasering someone is better than putting a knife in his neck though.

I think Taser Inc 's new advertising agency have a bit of work to do on their catchy slogans.

Comparisons

[AnotherAnonymousUser]

Man, that is exactly the metric I needed to make that comparison useful to me, an airplane landing light -_-...

Re:Comparisons

[History's Coming To]

OK, like leaving Mom's Basement and going out on a really sunny day. Happy to help ;)

Epileptics?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what this sort of thing will do to people prone to epileptic seizures?

I can just imagine someone saying, "I had $500,000 worth of brain surgery and was cured for 10 years, but this device caused a breakthrough seizure and now I have to do it all over again!"

real sex religious 'training' paralyzes for life

[Anonymous Coward]

stunning. gadgets optional. painful. generational lay teachers emerging everywhere.

previous math discardead; 1+1 extrapolated (Score:mynutswon; no such thing
as one too many here)

deepends on how you interpret it. georgia stone freemason 'math'; the
variables & totals are objective oriented; oranges: 1+1= not enough,
somebody's gotta die. people; 1+1=2, until you get to .5 billion, then
1+1=2 too many, or, unless, & this is what always happens, they breed
uncontrolled, naturally (like monkeys), then, 1+1=could easily result in
millions of non-approved, hoardsplitting spawn. see the dilemma? can
'math', or man'kind' stand even one more League of Smelly Infants being
born?

Like a stun/flash grenade?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

The British SAS and various other counter-terrorist/hostage rescuers and other Secret Squirrels have been using these for years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stun_grenade . When storming some nasty hornet's nest, toss in a couple of these in first. A device that causes permanent blindness is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions.

But this thingy has a longer range, so that you do not have to be in throwing range. But I am afraid that these devices will fall into the wrong hands . . . like the lasers that creeps aim at airplanes.

Re:Like a stun/flash grenade?

[Anonymous Coward]

A device that causes permanent blindness is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions.

Thank God that the government is so well known for abiding to the Geneva Conventions then. I feel so much safer now.

Re:Like a stun/flash grenade?

[Bacon Bits]

I, too, am afraid these devices will fall into the wrong hands: Police officers who use them incorrectly, inappropriately, or abusively. The newspapers are already full of instances of tasers and pepper sprays being used in such ways.

What's old is new

[Lord_Pall]

I saw this as a kid in Looker.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odj86eBenWk&feature=related

Re:What's old is new

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG! I loved that movie as a kid! Totally forgot about it until you mentioned it...getting it now!

Re:What's old is new

[Anonymous Coward]

You are AWESOME! I have been trying to figure out what this movie was called for 20 years! THANK YOU! Heading to the video store to see if they have the DVD!

Re:What's old is new

[Anonymous Coward]

This! I still like that movie. I wonder if this weapon makes that cool noise when it's discharged.

Meh, this is nothing.

[docilespelunker]

Meh, this is nothing. A mere 75W! You should see a 200kA lightning strike from 5m away. Roughly 20MW of actual light output. These guys do it every day - www.culham.com

GoodHum-o-Ray

[wrencherd]

Why go after the eyeballs?

Now a ray that gives a person an ice cream headache for 20 minutes, that would be a real crime-fighter's weapon.

Force against civilians

[rossdee]

countries in africa, asia and the middle east do use their lethal weapons 'at home' to preserve the power of the current regime and have done for a long time. In spite of the success of some of these 'revolutions' in recent months (Egypt, Tunisia) I can't see that changing much.

Re:Be it microwaves, stun lights, tasers or bullet

[ducomputergeek]

Any modern military can easily trample any insurrection if the gloves are allowed to come off. Just look at Libya before the west started air strikes or Iran any time in the past decade when they've had large protests.

The Libyan rebels would have been dead in a trench by now if not for NATO airstrikes.

Nothing new

[freakingme]

The whole idea isn't new at all. I'ts been used for ages by US SWAT teams. They call it: a flash granate. Putting it in an electronic device may be new, the idea behind it certainly isn't.

Re:Nothing new

[Lehk228]

advantage of using an electronic device is that it can't accidentally kill you if you are too close or it's used near fuel.

Re:Nothing new

[tehcyder]

advantage of using an electronic device is that it can't accidentally kill you if you are too close or it's used near fuel.

If you were a cop out on the street and accidentally blinded yourself, I think you'd be in all sorts of trouble. Also, why shouldn't a malfunctioning electronic device cause a spark that starts a fire?

One degree beam width?

[petes_PoV]

From TFA,

The adjustable beam is typically one degree wide

So for this to be effective, you have to aim fairly precisely at someone's eyeball. Presuming they aren't cooperating by standing stock-still with their eyes open and looking at you, the chances of managing a "hit" before they do whatever it is you would prefer they didn't must be quite small.

Although the article doesn't say: the assumption is that this would be a hand-held weapon, much like a taser or revolver, so the operator would need even more luck at hitting their intended target than with (say) a vehicle mounted or sandbagged device. Also, those configurations wouldn't have the flexibility to "control" multiple people in a fast developing situation.

If this ever gets into development, I think I'd invest in a pair of laser-protection goggles and a large mirror if i ever felt tempted to put myself in a location with somehting like this would be used against me.

Re:One degree beam width?

[Anonymous Coward]

use napalm instead - if spread is thin you get 'similar' i.e. non-lethal results.

Re:One degree beam width?

[woolpert]

From TFA,

The adjustable beam is typically one degree wide

So for this to be effective, you have to aim fairly precisely at someone's eyeball. Presuming they aren't cooperating by standing stock-still with their eyes open and looking at you, the chances of managing a "hit" before they do whatever it is you would prefer they didn't must be quite small.

The angular diameter of the full moon (or the sun) is just about half that, and I think you'll find that is plenty large to paint a face quickly and easily.

Re:One degree beam width?

[evanh]

Or just up the wattage and widen the beam. It's a simple matter of intensity.

Re:One degree beam width?

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA,

The adjustable beam is typically one degree wide

So for this to be effective, you have to aim fairly precisely at someone's eyeball.

Really? At 150 feet, one degree is what, 2*Pi*150/360, right? That's about 2.5 feet. That's a pretty big dot of light for me.

Re:One degree beam width?

[Anonymous Coward]

One MOA (minute of angle) is quite sufficient, especially if you can fire in continuous bursts.
For reference: A red dot of an Aimpoint sight is most frequently 2MOA for the medium range sights and the middle dot of an EOTech holographic sight is 1 MOA.

What if you have an active shooter at a known location, but due to nearby civilians you cannot fire at the perp or use a flashbang due to flamables in the area. You shoot his eyes with this and it might give you a few precious seconds of confusion to have SWAT close the gap and shield the civilians.

Other useful scenarios might be PSD, or at least as soon as they get the power up to blind at extended ranges. You're attacked by a sniper, you know where his is, but you're having difficulty taking him out. This weapon has no bullet drop & no penetration requirements. Simply aim directly at your target, and as soon as he looks in your general direction his sight is gone and you're able to get your personnel out of there.

Re:One degree beam width?

[Anonymous Coward]

This will be armament on a robot or a drone. Which will be equipped with an IR camera, insensitive to the frequency of light emitted by the weapon, and capable of aiming at your eyeball with precision accuracy. Faster than you can blink.

Demolished man

[Anonymous Coward]

Tenser said the tensor. Tension, apprehension, and dissension have begun

Rape light

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the unintended consequences can be mitigated by passing new laws.

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

..Bank robbers defeat high-tech non-lethal police weaponry by "keeping one eye closed."

New torture devices

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice. New torture devices. What will they come up with next?

Misread the title

[JoelDB]

I misread the title as "SunRay Incapacitates with a Flash of Light" and I began to understand my problems with Sun thin clients.

What? No MIB Prior Art?

[erroneus]

I am surprised and shocked that there are no comments here about the neuralizer from Men In Black.

Re:What? No MIB Prior Art?

[cstacy]

I am surprised and shocked that there are no comments here about the neuralizer from Men In Black.

We were going to comment about the "Flashy Thing", but ...we forgot. Um, what was I saying again?

Re:What? No MIB Prior Art?

[SuiteSisterMary]

Actually, the prior art would be Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor, which describes a device exactly like this; incredibly bright flash of light, overloads the optic nerves.

light induced seizure?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder to what extent the symptoms of the taser resemble a seizure. Some types of seizures can be induced by rapidly flashing lights.

Engineering for what?

[Anonymous Coward]

How does Todd sleep at night?

Did Todd cash in on this?

What a waste of alleged talent.

Assailant? 150 feet away?

[straponego]

Oh, it will just be used on assailants. Who are up to 150 feet away. Well, I definitely trust that. I mean, nobody would ever use this for crowd control. Or robbery. Or in traffic... oh man, this would be *awesome* for tail gaters! Sorry, where was I... oh yeah, nope, this will be the first ever weapon that can only be used for good!

Possible oversight

[Anonymous Coward]

Will it work if the target is wearing sunglasses?

Prior Art? - Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, but on another fiction related side this was also used in Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor where US forces had a light weapon to blind pilots on take off.

They're police, not samurai

[jaypifer]

I agree, but why stop there, let's take the guns away, too.

Shooting someone for running away or resisting arrest is the stupidest suggestion I've ever heard. Spend a little less time watching Cops and read more about abuse of power, wrongful arrest, and unarmed shootings by police because of "self-defense".

Giving any people that sort of power will guarantee a rash of "necessary force". Dead people can't argue.

Re:They're police, not samurai

[Anonymous Coward]

the difference between a policeman and a random guy is:

(1) police are generally trusted not to be highwaymen
(2) police have the power to arrest people
(3) police carry weapons

Each is essential. Take away any of them and people will resort to violence to handle their disputes.

Re:They're police, not samurai

[Anonymous Coward]

Norwegian police doesnt have guns, and they do just fine.

Re:They're police, not samurai

[nosferatu1001]

So they can shoot people for running away?

Odd, in the UK thats considered murder, generally

Re:They're police, not samurai

[Anonymous Coward]

So how do you suggest police officers will enforce the rule of law?

Without the threat of lethal power our society will soon decay into anarchy. Are you an anarchist?

Re:They're police, not samurai

[KillaBeave]

Norwegian police also don't have to deal with the level of danger that American cops have to. The problem here is centered around our pockets of poverty ... poor folks with nothing to lose can be quite dangerous. An American cop without a gun in the bad parts of any major American city would hunted for sport.

Re:They're police, not samurai

[Anonymous Coward]

"I agree, but why stop there, let's take the guns away, too."

I would prefer the deterrent offered by a lightly armed paramilitary force of police with questionable scruples than be faced by men with no scruples whatsoever and arms obtained illegally with no deterrent from using them.

Re:They're police, not samurai

[AP31R0N]

Stop, or I'll say stop again. Please, Mr. Criminal.

Re:They're police, not samurai

[badkarmadayaccount]

What's wrong with smoking a joint?

Oh, wait...

[hyades1]

Thank god nobody has thought to invent something to counter this. Something like a set of dark lenses that could fit in front of the human eye. Or perhaps even lenses that could darken in a tiny fraction of a second, or allow only light of a certain polarity to enter.

You might even want to attach a catchy name to such devices. Something like "Polaroid" or "Rayban".

Stun Grenade ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this exactly what a Stun Grenade does ? See the entryin wikipedia.

i independantly invented this

[Anonymous Coward]

I invented this (in my mind) a couple of months ago, too bad it never left the vague-idea stage of development. It would work the same as a taser except the capacitor would be connected to a flash bulb. i also thought of twitter before that service came out. i totally need to start patenting this stuff so i can get rich.

Just wait for the next G20 or G8 conference

[Phrogman]

The police will manufacture a way and reason to test this puppy out there without any doubt. Just like they did in Toronto when they gave the police ample opportunity to train in using all the new toys they bought them - without any justifiable reasons required.

We may say we support democracy here in North America (I am Canadian) but we don't really, because when people go out in the streets to protest and make their opinion known, we arrest them without a warrant and treat them worse that we are allowed to treat criminals. There is a reason people protest at those events - they don't like the policies that are being promulgated by their elected representatives.

Now, the anarchists that try to stir up trouble and cause distruction - sure, arrest them, they expect it. But the peaceful protestors? They have a right to protest. Let them. In Toronto the police were using undercover police officers to try to encite a riot, and when that failed they just arrested people without cause anyways. Their justification: violation of a law that the police knew didn't exist - the police chief admitted it after the fact.

Re:Just wait for the next G20 or G8 conference

[Phrogman]

Wikipedia link by way of adding information to my original post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_G-20_Toronto_summit_protests

Re:Just wait for the next G20 or G8 conference

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a citizen, too. And as such, I have rights to use the streets and sidewalks also. So when some idiot like yourself thinks you are being so clever by staging some "protest" (translation: "I'm a loser who couldn't get his way with the vote, so I'll try mob rule!!!!"), I certainly do hope the police drag you away. Would be a nice bonus if you got injured, too. I would certainly get a good laugh out of it.

That's what the protesting is all about: "I can't get the majority to go along with me, so I'll just be a fuckhead and try to make everybody miserable until they HAVE to go along with me!!!!" Idiot.

Ark II

[wallyh010]

They had these on Ark II. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_II

The goggles do nothing

[subreality]

For an example of how this works, go into a mostly dark room with a camera. Have a look around. Turn on the camera, look straight into the flash as you fire it. Have a look around again.... Your wide-open pupils just let the full force of the flash in before you could blink, every receptor on your retina just fired, and it's going to be a few minutes before you can see anything again.

With a high enough power light source, this works just fine in daylight. I know this because I've flashed myself with a MIG welder - It was just a brief flash as I flicked the trigger at an inopportune moment, but the center of my vision was completely blank for several minutes. Simply turning off the machine and finding a safe place to sit down to wait for my vision to return was a challenge. I would have been screwed in a melee.

Anyway, no, goggles won't save you. If it's white light, you can't filter a narrow band like laser goggles. When welding with a shade 10 filter, when the arc is on, you can see what you're working on OK, but the arc itself is just white, completely clipping at the top of your eyes' sensitivity. When you turn the arc off, you're blind if you're indoors unless you have a 150 watt light inches away from what you're looking at. Outdoors you can just barely see what's going on, but at many angles the reflections of light leaking in from behind you overwhelm your forward vision (like with glossy screen laptops used outdoors, but worse). Using those kind of lenses will leave you blind anyway - they wouldn't need to flash you. Anything less and you'll still be vulnerable to the flash.

Re:The goggles do nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

However, wearing an eyepatch over one eye and removing it after you were flashed would work. That is until you looked into the flash with your remaining eye. I for one welcome the upcoming pirate-fashion trend among dissidents.

Re:The goggles do nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

I've found the auto-darkening welding goggles work quite well. The welder I was using wasn't as bright as a mig, but as long as there are no bright lights around you can see fine, then when the welding starts you're protected from the light within milliseconds.
Only downside is the passive ones require a lot of UV light to activate., which this stunner wouldn't emit (some kind of active system would probably work, but you'd have to be careful not to run out of batteries)

Re:The goggles do nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

I could be wrong, but the light from a 75w bulb even focused will probably still not be near the output of a mig.
If you have sunglasses that reduce the light 50%, the device is still 50% less effective in its range. You'd still also be able to see.

Re:The goggles do nothing

[Ihlosi]

> Anyway, no, goggles won't save you. If it's white light, you can't filter a narrow band like laser goggles. Exactly. Also, using white, noncoherent light makes this thing much less likely to cause permanent damage than a laser. The monochromatic, coherent light of the latter is focused on much smaller spots on the retina.

Re:The goggles do nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Having done a lot of welding I was thinking about just using auto darkening welding lens with a leather full head hood which I already own. Got tired of seeing the reflection from my shirt with standard folding helmet. It would look ridicules in public but should prove quite effect. Even If the cops where to keep the light on the reflection would blind them, too. Actually the flash would probably reflect enough that it would blind them for a 1/2 second or more which could give you a split second advantage. If you attached a mirror above and below your welding lens they should be quite effectively be blinded. Actually you might be able to make add a lens to the helmet that's partial reflective like those cell phones with the mirror. so when the lens behind darkness it becomes quite reflective.

But if you want the ultimate in ridiculousness where the helmet with a big mirror on chain round your neck.

Re:The goggles do nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

No, don't do that, you will probably damage your retina. Your iris closes for a reason when your eye is exposed to bright light y'know.

There is a good chance if you do that that you'll have a weird faint purple blob in the middle of your vision that doesn't go away, and I suspect this device could have a similar effect.

I must say, I'm slightly worried that all the incapacitation devices I've seen so far seem to involve some sort of nerve damage (Electrocution, deafening, now blindness...).

I've yet to see anything along the lines of the 'chemical restraint gun' as seen in things such as the book Snowcrash, the webcomic Schlock Mercenary and the film The Incredibles...

Re:The goggles do nothing

[smellsofbikes]

Totally agree with you. However: have you ever used an auto-darkening helmet? (If not, *get one*, it's the single biggest improvement to welding technology in 30 years.) Auto-darkening helmets are made to be fast enough to stop seriously bright flashes before your retinas get bleached. I'm not suggesting wearing a welding helmet when you go out to start a riot. However, at some point in the not too distant future, (geeky) people will be wearing glasses that act like heads-up displays, and adding auto-darkening, or even better, localized auto-darkening will be an obvious application, primarily so people driving at night don't have the same general thing happen to them but it's easily extensible to reducing flash blindness and laser-pointer-airplane problems. My 10 year old welding helmet goes from shade 3 to shade 14 in less than 20 microseconds. If I spend all day running the TIG my eyes start to sting because of those brief 1/50,000 second flashes, but I never lose accommodation. (A weird side-note: the UV attracts bugs when I'm welding after dark. I'll finish a weld and look and there will be a circle of dead bugs, about 10-20 cm away from the item I'm welding, because they flew closer and closer until the UV and heat killed them. I also have a lot of shirts that are faded and falling apart right across chest-height where all the UV is, but are fine below that where they're shielded by the table.)

Re:The goggles do nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Auto-darkening goggles might help. Like this welding helmet (darkens in 1/10000 second) http://www.amazon.com/Auto-Helm-AH88BK-Darkening-Welding-Helmet/dp/B0014ZN62Y

Re:The goggles do nothing

[Geminii]

Sunglasses where incoming photons are slowed and jiggled around inside the lens for the fraction of a millisecond it would take for a materials-based brightness sensor to darken a filter film on the eye side of the lenses. Basically just a smaller/better version of a light-reactive arcwelding helmet.

Re:The goggles do nothing

[subreality]

I don't weld that much but yes, I have discovered the joy of cheater helmets. I miss a lot less now. :)

Re:The goggles do nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Auto-darkening goggles would do it though- they may become a new article of 'gangster' fashion.

However, I have a very serious concern about this:
-> people who routinely flash themselves with mig welders get PERMANANT eye damage
->this has no controlled exposure and could be longer then a single flash

Re:The goggles do nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't that flash from a welder a well-known hazard that can quickly cause permanent eye damage? Intensely bright, and lots of UV?

Sounds like a perfect non-lethal, non-destructive device.

Re:The goggles do nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a materials scientist, but my experience would suggest that developing a material that becomes opaque when exposed to too much light too suddenly would be doable. The dirty way would be a light sensor->C->LC setup. Reaction time on something like that should be on the s order of magnitude.

Everyone that uses this technology has nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

What are people protecting?
If the world as subconcously at war, that social outcomes are met with the deadly force of another group that is hired to do someone elses' attack, then the people should simply arm-up and shoot-down anyone that uses this technology.

Just because someone directs the volume of society in transit or in daily activities doesn't mean everyone abides: some volunteer, others do a task as a way to invent work for themselves to impugn the lives of others: now you have a class of people known as "Government" that holds the people to be inferior and subservient as a creditor to a debtor. If the people are expected a standard Dress and Behavior despite it's inefficiency or impractical nature, then the people are fined or punished as a disobedient domesticated animal.

The people can't push-off such guards, because the people continually subdivide theirselves into a skilled labor that re-creates techniques to hold the people subservient. Every revolutionary war was about the people separating from the peers to conspire against the mass. Now "Government" is a political entity if not a complete country of itself, and it spreads AIDS for the benefit of the people because Studies show that the people can't be expected to do good. What purpose is the people other than a cesspool of genetics that breeds-off new mixes and strains of creatures to indoctrinate into ideologies? It's all a waste of time. If you can't live on your own, you may as well be dead because They Live.

flashlights will fuck you up

[Anonymous Coward]

I carry a small and insanely bright flashlight for personal self-defense. It has an awesome strobe mode. No one expects to suddenly have a blinding flashing white light in their face, they will look into it and they will have several minutes of "sunspots" obscuring their vision.

What will the criminals do now?

[Dedokta]

Guess they're all to dumb to wear sunglasses.

But a taser gives you a larger target

[SilverJets]

I'm assuming here that for this to be effective you'd have to hit the other person in the eyes with the beam of light. So you have to at least get it pointed at their face. That's a much smaller target than what a taser has to hit. I can't see police forces finding this new device practical.

dealing with disrespectful citizen

[0111 1110]

Routine traffic stop in 2015:

Mr. Cop: Let me see your license and registration.
Citizen: Fuck you.

Cop pulls out taser and shoots the suspect in the face. With his other hand he pulls out blinding device and flashes suspect in eyes. Then he pulls out a microwave active denial gun and aims painful millimeter waves at the suspect's face. Cop wishes he had 3 arms so that he could continuously use all 3 torture noncompliance devices at once. After 5 minutes of electrocution, heating, and blinding cop asks again for license and registration feeling very good about himself and all the power of his new toys. Police work is so much easier when you can force compliance with nonlethal torture devices.

And black humor about Lady Di?

[evanh]

I'm not seeing any comments about the death of of Lady Diana either.

Blinding

[Boawk]

Yea, but what if you've got some blind dude coming at you with a knife?

1976

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, Ark II gear ready well ahead of time (nyuk)! Doesn't ANYONE remember how they always dealt with problems on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_II ?

Overloading neural nets--that's cute. Are they really that daft at the USPTO? They've been to a photo studio, haven't they? Wait, don't answer that. We're eff'd.

--AC hiding in corner

No problem

[PPH]

Automatic welding goggles.

Mod parent up!

[TrisexualPuppy]

You heard me! Mod parent up!

wtb

[Anonymous Coward]

helmet mounted retroreflector

um... I'll have to check the patent...

[oliverthered]

I've been carrying a torch for partly this reason for years.. and given pocket torches out to 'worried' friends.

Also use million candle power torches... very handy in protests against people with pork chops.

http://direct.tesco.com/q/R.206-3886.aspx?utm_source=GoogleShopping&utm_medium=GSF_NormalFeed&utm_campaign=GSF_TescoDirect&utm_content=206-3886

"The device consists of a 75-watt lamp, combined with optics that collect and focus the visible light into a targeted beam, which can be aimed like a flashlight. Recovery time ranges from “seconds to 20 minutes,” Eisenberg says. “It’s very analogous to walking from a very bright room into a very dark room.”

Yep... I'd say that's about right!

Re:um... I'll have to check the patent...

[oliverthered]

http://www.householdgoods.com/rechargeable-flashlight.html
(or the 15.56 version)
This is a rechargeable flashlight with 3.5 million candlepower!

Ideal security torch
Used by the UK Ministry of Defence and Police
Fully cordless and rechargeable
Philips quartz halogen 3.5 million candlepower
Fully adjustable swivel stands

Perfect security light to see off intruders, (anyone staring directly at the light will be instantly dazzled and unable to see properly for minutes).

render a *victim* helpless

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientific American reports that a newly patented method of non-lethal incapacitation can render *a victim* helpless for several minutes by overloading the neural networks connected to the retina with a brief flash of high-intensity light.

I fixed that for you.

this is new?

[kinuso kid]

In other words, point a high powered photo flash at them thereby temporarily blinding them. And this is patentable???

Derr +20 years

[Adam Appel]

Yeah, I knew this in 1990. When I was in high school and was snaking about the city dressed in black late at night. I carried a large camera flash charged up and when cornered I would pull it, aim and hit the "test" button. it worked 100% of the time. Down time of cop or other target 30-45 seconds, add on another 60 seconds of time they could not chase me for the huge blind spot in their vision.

Re:Derr +20 years

[kinuso kid]

Try playing tag in a dark space with only the occasional flash to see where people are (were) the persistence of vision effect is awesome>\.

Re:Derr +20 years

[Adam Appel]

I have a party business now, and some of the most fun we have is with strobes and blacklight. Airsoft with strobes and flashes is my favorate.

Re:...liabilities -- Please MOD UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

This post should be a lead article in itself. Really. It is that important.
I listened to Ike's speech then watched it unfold, just like he warned,
over the subsequent decades.

If the slashdot community can not grasp just how deeply systemic and
utterly destructive this pattern is, what are the chances that the "vast majority"
can be motivated to push back?

nothing there to worry about

[circletimessquare]

that's the whole atheist panic that eisenhower and others experienced during the cold war when confronted with the rise of the ussr. its the reason why separation of church and state was ignored and "under god" and "in god we trust" were hastily inserted in our mottos and pledges. that a bunch of atheist engineers were going to take over american society, in a reflection of the atheist communist revolutions sweeping the globe. that's what eisenhower is worried about: godlessness. that's what he means by a scientific-technological elite

but that's a hollow threat form a dead era. since the ussr has fallen, religion has reasserted itself globally, and especially domestically in the usa, religion is as strong as ever, perhaps greatest since the days of the religious pilgrims. the founding fathers were distrustful of religion, bless them (irony intended), but even that is being whitewashed with the more strident members of the american taliban to say the founding fathers founded this country as a christian country. fucking ignorants or liars, take your pick

so frankly, the "scientific-technological elite" eisenhower warns us about never materialized

or at least not here

china is basically a technocracy. china is exactly what eisenhower was worried about the usa becoming: godless technocrats in charge of an autocratic capitalist machine. and since china is going to surpass the usa in terms of economic power and therefore military power in a decade or two, eisenhower's words have resonance yet. we shall see how it all plays out. myself, i'm waiting for the average chinese citizen to wake up from their propaganda cocoon and realize they are basically being treated like slaves. their government certainly doesn't respect them: no right to vote. much of the world's coming history depends upon when the average chinese person wakes up

wake up chinese citizen! you deserve democracy. the rest of the world is tapping our toes waiting for you to demand that you stop being treated like cogs in a machine. chinese people aren't pets. and yet chinese people seem to accept that treatment from beijing. for now, while your economic might rises. when it plateaus, or dips, as it inevitably will, no economy balloons forever, maybe then we will see chinese people demand your simple human dignity, the right to choose your own leaders

Re:nothing there to worry about

[Kreigaffe]

actually, the "scientific-technological elite" uhh kinda. they're here man.

it's called global warming.

no, i am not disagreeing that carbon dioxide levels affect blah blah so on and so forth. that does happen, that is happening, the rate at which it's been happening is fairly clear. the rate at which it'll continue from here.... wweeeeeeelllllllllll not so clear. i'll catch hell for that i'm sure, but fuck it. only a fool would put their faith in predictions of the future when past predictions of the future have never panned out. i'm not saying they're wrong, but the wise position is that they are less right than their makers purport.

on to the scitech elite.

global warming's being used as a big scary boogeyman to push all KINDS of shit at us. Green cars! Green energy! Green gas! Green.. wait. Ethanol from corn is actually a NET DRAIN of resources over simply not using it. Electric cars, after factoring in battery production and expected life, really aren't any more ecologically friendly than a high efficiency IC car. Solar panels still cost a ton to produce and only last a very few decades before they're trash.

What we have here is a group of scientists saying "Here's a problem!" and a group of technicians with products saying "Here's a solution!" and the politicians and media simply latch onto these two handles and hold on for dear life, hoping the rest of us don't catch on that they're really not actually related -- cause, hey, look all these important people who are ostensibly better than you and acting out of pure altruistic intent for all humanity, they SAY so!

There's the problem he was warning us about -- when we make any group of people into paragons of good, shit goes bad. A military-industrial complex can distort and warp shit into nasty things, and this is done because gosh, everybody likes the military, right? They protect us? And industry... they.. MAKE things. Literally make them! That's good for everyone. And suddenly, any questioning of anything from them is bad. Well, seems to me we're in a mighty similar boat right now, but we've learned to distrust -- not hate, but not acquiesce without questioning! -- the military-industrial complex, so we've moved on to the next big thing. scientific-technological complex.

Re:nothing there to worry about

[dbIII]

I agree but you are getting the time scale wrong on everything and could almost be writing in 1990. China probably already exceeds the USA in economic power. I don't think there will be as much of a military buildup as there is in the USA because a lot of that is make-work schemes and China does not need to do that. There have been a lot of recent events where ordinary people have managed to fight back against powerful party officials and win - something like democracy has been building up for some time and it's accelerated since Hong Kong became part of China.

Re:Be it microwaves, stun lights, tasers or bullet

[Truth is life]

This depends on whether or not the army is part of the insurrection. Which was true historically as well; most successful rebellions in history gained support from some or all of the local armed forces, rather than just being angry mobs.

Can you provide evidence?

[Sycraft-fu]

From what I've seen, that is the opposite of the case: Taser seems to make no bones that their devices are in the same category as a baton or something. A device you use when lethal force is not appropriate, but some force is needed. It isn't 100% safe, but then nothing is (if you don't think batons, tackling, etc don't cause injuries and death you just haven't done any looking in to it).

The problem is that because of the ease of use, rather low risk of injury to the suspect, and very low risk to the officer, police overuse the Taser quite badly. They grab it in situations where it is not called for, where force is not appropriate.

Now if you have different information from a reputable source (not a Taser hate site) I'd be genuinely interested in it. However from what I've learned I don't feel Taser are the bad guys. Their product is quite safe when you get down to it. Not completely safe but I'm just not aware of any level of force that is completely safe. It seems to be safer than the alternatives, which is a good thing IMO. We just need to educate police that it is something like a baton: You use it when force is necessary, but lethal force is not. You do not use it in any other situation. If some one is trying to attack you, that is a time for a Taser. If someone won't get out of their car, that is not time for a Taser.

Re:Can you provide evidence?

[Ltap]

There are several high-profile cases where police either used a taser unnecessarily (to incapacitate someone who had already been cuffed to make it more convenient to transport them), or the use of a taser resulted in death (some people with heart problems and/or epilepsy). If you look at the tasers themselves, it is clear that there are potential side-effects from their use, up to and including almost instantaneous death. Rather than working hard to mis-attribute every death to something unrelated to the taser, Taser International should be allowing the facts to come forth, even if it destroys the image they have cultivated of tasers being always non-lethal. Usually non-lethal, maybe, but since there is really no way to tell if someone will react badly to one, the culture of them being entirely non-lethal becomes dangerous.

Re:Can you provide evidence?

[Sycraft-fu]

Sorry but you've shown nothing like what I asked. Nowhere in Taser's literature do I find them saying it is "always non-lethal."

The problem seems to be that you, like many others, assume that Taser alternatives are 100% non-lethal. Batons, physical holds, pepper spray, all can injure and kill (and have in the past). Turns out Tasers are safer than those things. Not perfectly safe, but safer, and that is all you can do.

I mean hell, peanuts have "potential side-effects from their use, up to and including almost instantaneous death." Some people, when exposed to peanuts, have an allergic reaction. For some of them, the reaction is lethal. 10 people per year die from it.

Again I am not interested in general anti-Taser rants, those are a dime a dozen, I am interested in some real information.

Re:Can you provide evidence?

[Ltap]

I'm not assuming that anything is non-lethal. My point is just that Taser International (which has a vested interest in selling tasers) has tried in the past to obstruct any inquiry into whether taser-related deaths were caused primarily by tasers or by other factors. They know that, to gain widespread support, they need to cultivate the image of tasers being "safe". Even though they might not claim they are non-lethal, trying to bury any evidence of them causing deaths is obviously a deliberate action designed to mislead people into believing their product is more safe than it is, which does nothing but encourage overuse.

I also object to you making (poor) guesses about my motivation and knowledge. I have no problems with tasers from a technical standpoint; I simply dislike people being misled about how safe they are. In almost every case of a taser-related death, Taser International has stubbornly tried to pin the death on any cause other than the taser itself. If they can't accept responsibility for the fact that the use of their product can occasionally result in death, there will continue to be little awareness and training aimed at minimizing the chance of permanent harm and death.

why you are wrong:

[circletimessquare]

science is the cure to the scientific-technological complex

you just seem to have a bunch of ludditism

Re:why you are wrong:

[Kreigaffe]

... you completely missed the point and went straight to the personal attack. Nice.

Science, the military, industry, technology.. they're all simply tools.

When you hyphenate and append "complex" to them, the meaning is that instead of us using the tools, we are being used by the tools.

This is a problem because, as tools, they have no real ends. It's simply a cycle of failure spinning down the drain in every case. The tools need to be guided by a hand, not the hand by the tool.

Personally, I think you were just afraid of a little reading and would rather just toss out pithy insults. Whatever, fuckerface, I can do that too. No matter to me.

Re:why you are wrong:

[circletimessquare]

"the meaning is that instead of us using the tools, we are being used by the tools"

far out man, you are a freakin' genius!

pass the doobage on the left hand side

I am wielding my expensive camera.

[lahvak]

a
What do you want to apply?
l
In which direction?
j
The mumak is blinded by the flash! The mumak turns to flee!

Only criminals shine lights at people

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought powerful shining lights at people was illegal and people were arrested for that. Now you want to change your tune and start doing it?

The 1960s called...

[OneAhead]

...they want their flashbangs back. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stun_grenade

Similar to diagnostic test used to map the retina

[Anonymous Coward]

In this particular test they inject dye into your bloodstream, wait a bit then flash your eye with a unbelievably bright white flash... This gives the doctor an image of the blood flow in your retina. Everything is a shade of red for several minutes which is highly disconcerting.

flashbang

[Anonymous Coward]

so... they reinvented the flashbang to use batteries instead of combustibles and why are we excited about that? unless our favourite news anchor people are going to go "volunteer try this one me to prove its safe for the good of the republic" again over and over for our amusement like they did the tazer...

"Helpless" is a relative term

[handy_vandal]

A blind man with a bomb is far from helpless.

You know what would be useful?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about DIY instructions? Not only will this help people like lawful protesters find ways to protect themselves (i.e. develop goggles), but in some places, where "law enforcement" has already stepped far beyond its legal bounds, these sorts of devices, in the hands of protesters, could help protesters, etc... get away before being assaulted with "non-lethal" and lethal attacks (stun the kettling cops or mercenaries before getting unlawfully imprisoned or shot). We keep seeing it lately in the UK and the Middle East... people in those places need this kind of tech right now.

LOOKER was different

[handy_vandal]

The device in Michael Crichton's Looker was a different flashy-light effect -- it triggered a neurological state of extreme passive suggestibility, not actual blindness. You get hit with it, you go into a trance, you're unaware of time passing: one minute you're driving your car, then there's a bright light in the rear view mirror, next thing you know, your car is in a public fountain, and you don't know how you got there.

The underlying plot was not a weapon as such, but a mind-control device that could be broadcast over television to make people passively receptive to political and commercial advertising.

I remember it as a great idea, but kind of a low-budget movie. Now, The Andromeda Strain -- there's a great Crichton novel that made a great movie.

Three days too late...

[Michael_gr]

The date on the article is April 1st.

Can you spell "burnt retinas," boys and girls?

[MoeDumb]

LIke this isn't going to damage in the eye in some way. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not immediately detectable, but . . . Say, where did those spots come from?

Looker movie is future of such a device!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0082677
Looker: Where such a device might go!

We just need a routine retinal scan for our files;

[Trilkk]

Please look into the light.

Abuse ?

[Anonymous Coward]

.. and that same country is crying bloody murder when someone points a few mWatt red laser at a plane a couple of miles away ...

I'm just going to sit back and wait until somone gets his hands on such a gun and uses it "misapropriatily" aimed at motor highways. Easy targets, and with even a "blindness" of less than a minute allmost guaranteed to cause an accident.

And if not its a [i]very[/i] good device to stop a lonesome truckdriver somewhere enabeling an easy robbing.

I claim prior art

[Anonymous Coward]

I wanted to take a photograph of myself against a black background but didn't have a black background available so I thought If I put the camera on a tripod outside in the garden at night with a flash, then stand in three or four feet in front of the camera, the background, being so far away, would turn out black in the final photograph.

I stood there, triggered the shutter and it was only then when the flash went off that I realised that this idea might have unforeseen complications.

Even with my eyes open I could see nothing because all I could see was a bright even light across my whole vision. I thought that I might have permanently blinded myself. I figured that it might only be temporary and decided to stand still until my sight returned. I was there at least five minutes before I was able to make out enough of the silhouette of my surroundings to begin to make my way back to the house.

I learned a couple of things from the experience: firstly I have never stared into a flash at close range again; secondly it was previously sometimes very difficult to get the cat to come in at night and it would run away if it was approached. After my experience I tried using a flash to temporarily blind the cat. I would call it and when it looked my way (and it could not resist) I set the flash off. The cat then stood motionless until I could walk up to it, pick it up and take it inside the house. This was never performed at close range yet still worked.

Using a bright light to temporarily disable a subject is old news.

test

[Anonymous Coward]

test

Billions of Dollars of Research And...

[Anonymous Coward]

We can defeat this with a pair of sunglasses.

God only knows if one introduced a mirror what would happen.

The modern American sucess story

[ThatsNotPudding]

Profiting from the tools of torture.

I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

welcome a use for my Phil Manzanera sunglasses. Back at ya', buddy.

Flash Bang

[Anonymous Coward]

In Clancy novels and in many other contexts we hear of flash bang grenades.

So, what's really new here? Oh yes, no bang. Maybe they can upgrade to stun gun ++ which includes a simulated bang.

I think the old fashioned flash bang still has the advantage until the day that someone offers me a flash bank app for my phone. Now, that would be cool.

Useful...

[Syberz]

... except if the perp is running *away* from you. But that never happens, right?

You've wandered onto the wrong site

[dbIII]

There are some that believe in science and technology instead of the vapid types that just want to take the fruits of technology and pretend they all happened by magic. The former know that worries about global warming ended up on LBJ's desk a long time ago - the latter can be swayed by those that can get some advertising dollars to say that magic is real and science is not.
What is it with all this luddite bullshit turning up here?

Lets See if Hollywood had it right with Looker

[Anonymous Coward]

the movie looker was a future tool like this

Weapons like this are against international law.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they aren't against the law when you only use them against your own peaceful protesters?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weapons

Re: I was actually at war

[DocSavage64109]

These devices aren't for actual wars. They are "non-lethal" alternatives more suitable for population control. Much like tasers, rubber bullets, sonic cannons, etc. Because they are classified as non-lethal, they incur a much lesser political hit when used -- which matters a lot in these days of population uprisings.

First hand experience

[squidflakes]

Obviously, I haven't been hit with the device itself, but I can vouch for the debilitating effects of an intense flash of light. When I first purchased my Alien Bees B800 photography strobe I was very excited to test it out so I rushed to get a photoshoot going with some friends, and while doing so, had some difficulty getting the radio triggers configured properly. I was looking right in to the flash tube when I plugged the correct Part A in to the correct Slot 1 and BAM! 800 watts of light in the face. For the first 20 or so seconds, I was completely stunned. I couldn't breathe, I couldn't see, I couldn't do anything but stand there with my muscles tense and a sharp ringing in my ears. There was a sudden painful spasm in my chest and I must have inhaled sharply because I stared coughing and choking on my own saliva. At some point I fell over, but I never registered the fall or the impact. It took about 3 minutes for my sight to return enough to realize I was face down on bare concrete but I still couldn't get up or concentrate. There was a buzzing prickly feeling in my head which evolved in to a massive ache. I was on the ground for about 20 minutes before I felt like I could stand. My vision slowly returned, my legs felt weak but I could walk. My head hurt, I was slightly nauseous, and for the rest of the day, every time I closed my eyes I could see a huge purple disk for a few moments. /cool story

Re:They've all done something

[DocSavage64109]

Not true. Just read some of the stories at http://www.innocenceproject.org/ and see how in the last few years, 267 convicted felons have been exonerated of crimes they did not commit.

What is new about this?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is new about this?

It even figured in the Princess Diana - Death by accident/murder controversy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1578621/Princess-Diana-could-have-been-killed-by-MI6.html

Archimedes is reputed to have used a more primitive but essentially similar device to blind enemy navy.

===============

Starcraft...

[AscianBound]

Now I understand how MC makes sentries such an effective unit...

Re: I was actually at war

[markass530]

yea those are population uprisings against dictators to bring about democracy.

Rear Window 1954 flash 'em

[Anonymous Coward]

Rear Window -1954
Jimmy Stewart applied this very same newly discovered principle

LOL, you're NOT one to speak about "Hotness"

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject-line above, & these "prime examples" below via links to the originals of WHY hairyfeet shouldn't have gone to "ITT Tech" (because he clearly doesn't even understand how HOSTS files benefit you for added security, speed, and even to a degree extra 'anonymity' online):

---

Static vs. Dynamic (lol, "according to hairyfeet"):

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060

---

Only thing constantly changing's your "math", 3x ++ or more no less:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686444

and

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686566

as well as this:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686630

---

Hairyfeet's single solutions FAILURES? See inside:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690260

---

Your sources vs. mine (AND myself, a source on it):

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690328

---

Lastly, as to your LIBEL of myself (w/ arstech):

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35668740

---

The defeat of hairyfeet by APK videos:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690536

---

They say it all, & usually vs. hairyfeet's own words quoted! I wouldn't pay him too much heed, especially after you read the above b.s., lies, changing figures, & even LIBEL of others that hairyfeet likes to do. After all - he's from "ITT Tech" (student).

APK

P.S.=> Personally though - because hairyfeet is only a "techie"? I suspect he doesn't want people to know about HOSTS files' added LAYERED SECURITY benefits to the end-user: Why? Because if users stop getting so much "malware-in-general" which layered security (and HOSTS) give you, he's out money...apk

Hairyfeet's "GREATEST HITS" (rotflmao - NOT!)

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject-line above, & these "prime examples" below via links to the originals of WHY hairyfeet shouldn't have gone to "ITT Tech" (because he clearly doesn't even understand how HOSTS files benefit you for added security, speed, and even to a degree extra 'anonymity' online):

---

Static vs. Dynamic (lol, "according to hairyfeet"):

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060

---

Hairyfeet's single solutions SECURITY FAILURES? See inside:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690260

---

Your sources on "security" vs. mine (actual security people) (AND myself, a source on it):

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690328

---

Only thing constantly changing's your "math", 3x ++ or more no less:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686444

and

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686566

as well as this:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686630

---

Lastly, as to your LIBEL of myself (w/ arstech):

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35668740

---

The defeat of hairyfeet by APK (video analogy - hilarious, BUT, apt):

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690536

---

They say it all, & usually vs. hairyfeet's own words quoted! I wouldn't pay him too much heed, especially after you read the above b.s., lies, changing figures, & even LIBEL of others that hairyfeet likes to do. After all - he's from "ITT Tech" (student).

APK

P.S.=> Personally though - because hairyfeet is only a "techie"? I suspect he doesn't want people to know about HOSTS files' added LAYERED SECURITY benefits to the end-user: Why? Because if users stop getting so much "malware-in-general" which layered security (and HOSTS) give you added layered protection against, he's out money...apk

Hairyfeet's "GREATEST HITS" (lmao - NOT!)... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject-line above, & these "prime examples" below via links to the originals of WHY hairyfeet shouldn't have gone to "ITT Tech" (because he clearly doesn't even understand how HOSTS files benefit you for added security, speed, and even to a degree extra 'anonymity' online):

---

Static vs. Dynamic (lol, "according to hairyfeet"):

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060

---

Hairyfeet's single solutions SECURITY FAILURES? See inside:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690260

---

Your sources on "security" vs. mine (actual security people) (AND myself, a source on it):

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690328

---

Only thing constantly changing's your "math", 3x ++ or more no less:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686444

and

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686566

as well as this:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686630

---

Lastly, as to your LIBEL of myself (w/ arstech):

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35668740

---

The defeat of hairyfeet by APK (video analogy - hilarious, BUT, apt):

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690536

---

They say it all, & usually vs. hairyfeet's own words quoted! I wouldn't pay him too much heed, especially after you read the above b.s., lies, changing figures, & even LIBEL of others that hairyfeet likes to do. After all - he's from "ITT Tech" (student).

APK

P.S.=> Personally though - because hairyfeet is only a "techie"? I suspect he doesn't want people to know about HOSTS files' added LAYERED SECURITY benefits to the end-user: Why? Because if users stop getting so much "malware-in-general" which layered security (and HOSTS) give you added layered protection against, he's out money...apk

120hz LCD Goggles.

[Anonymous Coward]

A set of nice fast-reacting LCD goggles could protect you against this weapon. Make an LCD glass panel covering your face that is just one big 120Hz pixel. Connect it to a light sensor, battery, and an op amp, and your goggles will turn black when you are exposed to extremely bright light.

It should be faster than the auto-dark welding masks ("cheaters") they make now.

Potential Treats

[MidoriKid]

The figure in the second link states that the "Warning" range in the continuum of response is for "Warning or hailing potential treats." There's a joke in there somewhere.

Seizure Triggerer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone even considered the ramifications of using this device in someone who is susceptible to seizures from bright flashing lights?

I thought not.