Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

StunRay Incapacitates With a Flash of Light

Posted by timothy on from the taking-blinded-by-science-literally dept.

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.'"

57 of 431 comments (clear)

  1. ...liabilities by SpiralSpirit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...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?

    1. Re:...liabilities by rubycodez · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:...liabilities by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      all the maimings and deaths by electrocution

      [citation needed]

    3. Re:...liabilities by arun84h · · Score: 2

      ...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?

    4. Re:...liabilities by kelemvor4 · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    5. Re:...liabilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    6. Re:...liabilities by Unoriginal_Nickname · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Excited delirium."

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

    7. Re:...liabilities by pushing-robot · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Berserker."

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

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    8. Re:...liabilities by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:...liabilities by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:...liabilities by clang_jangle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    11. Re:...liabilities by MoonBuggy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    12. Re:...liabilities by clang_jangle · · Score: 2

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

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    13. Re:...liabilities by stonewallred · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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.

    14. Re:...liabilities by innerweb · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    15. Re:...liabilities by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      {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.

    16. Re:...liabilities by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 2

      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.

    17. Re:...liabilities by Blymie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    18. Re:...liabilities by Blymie · · Score: 2

      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.

    19. Re:...liabilities by trapnest · · Score: 2

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

    20. Re:...liabilities by Entropius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    21. Re:...liabilities by Unoriginal_Nickname · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    22. Re:...liabilities by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    23. Re:...liabilities by gandhi_2 · · Score: 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

      --
      THL phish sticks
    24. Re:...liabilities by clang_jangle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    25. Re:...liabilities by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    26. Re:...liabilities by markass530 · · Score: 2

      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

    27. Re:...liabilities by clang_jangle · · Score: 3, Informative

      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...

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    28. Re:...liabilities by sycodon · · Score: 2

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

      Uh huh.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    29. Re:...liabilities by Kreigaffe · · Score: 2

      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..

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    30. Re:...liabilities by Israfels · · Score: 2

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

    31. Re:...liabilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

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

      Yes, it is.

    32. Re:...liabilities by Rudisaurus · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      licet differant, aequabitur
    33. Re:...liabilities by davester666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    34. Re:...liabilities by indiechild · · Score: 2

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

    35. Re:...liabilities by michelcolman · · Score: 2

      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.

    36. Re:...liabilities by shaitand · · Score: 2

      "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.

    37. Re:...liabilities by IonOtter · · Score: 2

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

      --
      [End Of Line]
    38. Re:...liabilities by dargaud · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
  2. safety? by CubicleView · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  3. isn't this is an old idea? by volkerdi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:isn't this is an old idea? by pavon · · Score: 2

      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.

  4. can I avoid the stun effect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...by wearing sun glasses?

  5. Clancy? by thynk · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    --

    Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
    1. Re:Clancy? by Chemisor · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Clancy? by bmo · · Score: 3, Informative

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

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

      --
      BMO

    3. Re:Clancy? by cdp0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      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 ?

  6. Re:This is not new... by j_presper_eckert · · Score: 2

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

    --
    Can't stop the Beta? Time to evacuate to ##altslashdot at webchat.freenode.net - Slashcott in effect.
  7. Re:Does not sound safe by pehrs · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  8. In protest of people whining about tasers by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    1. Re:In protest of people whining about tasers by Ltap · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Yet Another Tech Blog
      (but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
      http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
  9. Re:Does not sound safe by Arancaytar · · Score: 2

    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.

  10. What's old is new by Lord_Pall · · Score: 4, Informative

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

  11. Re:Flash blindness by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

    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.

  12. One degree beam width? by petes_PoV · · Score: 2
    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.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  13. They're police, not samurai by jaypifer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three.
  14. The goggles do nothing by subreality · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.