Slashdot Mirror


Wicked Lasers Introduces Handheld One-Watt Green Laser

First time accepted submitter (and Slashdot coder) cogent writes "Wicked Lasers, famous for last year's 1000mW handheld blue laser, and infamous for its handling of six-month-long backorders, is now selling a green version. There are three power levels, each priced at $1/mW (300mW, 500mW, 1000mW). Since the eye is far more sensitive to green than to blue, this is pretty much the state of the art in putting-dots-on-stuff technology. Wicked Lasers sent out an email promising to handle backorders much better this time." Adds reader whitedsepdivine: "There is currently no disclaimer that this is not a lightsaber on their site, so we can only assume that this version is."

404 comments

  1. I see your schwartz is as big as mine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see your schwartz is as big as mine.

    1. Re:I see your schwartz is as big as mine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sorry bro, mine is way bigger.

    2. Re:I see your schwartz is as big as mine. by drwho · · Score: 1

      You spelled it wrong, it is 'Schwanz'

    3. Re:I see your schwartz is as big as mine. by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

      I see you've never seen spaceballs...

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    4. Re:I see your schwartz is as big as mine. by gullevek · · Score: 1

      I see you've never seen a joke...

      --
      "Freiheit ist immer auch die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1871 - 1919
    5. Re:I see your schwartz is as big as mine. by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

      I see you're new at making jokes because trying to make a joke by poorly modifying and already great joke is not really a joke, it's just weak trolling.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
    6. Re:I see your schwartz is as big as mine. by gullevek · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I just found this internet yesterday. Someone left it my porch. Dunno. I am still trying to get used to this. Like "Flaming" and "Trolling" and "Internet Jokes" ...

      --
      "Freiheit ist immer auch die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1871 - 1919
    7. Re:I see your schwartz is as big as mine. by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 1

      Ok, that was good. You win sir. Here is your internet.

      --
      I got here through a series of tubes
  2. We will be right back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We will be right back, after this commercial for a $1000 laser submission from one of our sponsors

    1. Re:We will be right back by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Hmm...the green ones are about $1K...the blue one, same power...bargain for $300.

      Aside from color...they'll both do the same amount of damage, right?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:We will be right back by Khyber · · Score: 1

      1W green vs 1W blue - take the blue, much higher photonic damage potential.

      Blues are also more efficient if they're LED-based.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    3. Re:We will be right back by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Nope. Blue photons have more energy...

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:We will be right back by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Per watt?

    5. Re:We will be right back by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      No, per photon.

      The energy of a photon is inversely proportional to its wavelength. The green laser may emit more photons per watt, but the photons coming from a blue laser have greater energy.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    6. Re:We will be right back by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      We're comparing 1W lasers, not individual photons.

    7. Re:We will be right back by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      Indeed, but depending on what you're aiming at, 1W of green light may end up being more damaging then 1W of blue light. That said, if we're talking about something that's insensitive to the wavelength - as I now see the OP said - you are of course right.

      Mea culpa, I seem to have mixed up drunken moderating with drunken posting!

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
  3. Is it powerful enough? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Do these things come with a stun setting?

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    1. Re:Is it powerful enough? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      Do these things come with a stun setting?

      Only if you're a pilot.

    2. Re:Is it powerful enough? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Yes. All pilots of a predisposition to stare into the light...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  4. Might add a warning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Might add a warning that at 1W (1000mW) your eye is 'sensitive' to just about anything in terms of damage from them, whatever color.
    Be sure you get good laser protective glasses with one of these things, and whatever you do *do not* aim it or reflect it into anyone's (or any animal's) eyes... its not a "toy".

    1. Re:Might add a warning... by n5vb · · Score: 4, Informative

      I would add avoiding *scattered* light to the list of warnings. (It has a BRH Class 4 warning label, which does include that wording.) A bit safer perhaps than other wavelengths because your eye responds with very high sensitivity to 532nm green (so you're not in *quite* as much danger as you would be from short-wavelength blue or, far worse, UV), but you definitely want to be wearing 532nm notch filter glasses with side shields as even looking at the beam spot on a white (and non-specularly-reflecting) surface could give cause fairly rapid eye damage. (And you can't control who's staring at the beam spot in most cases.) Note: The beam spot of my 40mW DPSS laser is significantly brighter than I'm comfortable looking at for long..

      (Wicked also has pretty emphatic warnings in the manual about never aiming it at satellites. Me, I wouldn't want to be the guy who gets sued by or faces criminal charges from the operators of a commercial or government LEO satellite whose sensors are damaged by one of these. Goes at least double for whoever tries to show off to the ISS crew .. not a good idea.)

    2. Re:Might add a warning... by mrops · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As power levels of these lasers are getting higher up, it takes a dumb kid living 200 yards away shining this stupid thing on my eye and causing injury.

      IMO, there should be licensing similar to guns. Maybe even training on how to handle these as opposed to Tom the fat wallet idiot ordering it off the internet.

    3. Re:Might add a warning... by Rhywden · · Score: 2

      Old physicist's jokes: "Do not look into laser with remaining eye."
      "You can only test a laser's functionality twice."

    4. Re:Might add a warning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This stuff should not be sold to anyone without training and compulsory insurance. Even semi-glossy surfaces will reflect the beam to an amount that will cause permanent eye damage. The way these lasers are sold is akin to selling fully automatic weapons to people who have never fired a gun and want to make some noise on new year's eve. We don't let just anyone handle nuclear material because of the damage potential. Why this?

    5. Re:Might add a warning... by cayenne8 · · Score: 0

      IMO, there should be licensing similar to guns.

      Err...where do you live?

      I've never had to 'license" a gun I've ever owned. Heck, I've never had to register one in the states I've lived in....and since I buy guns used from private owners, never had to do a background check.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re:Might add a warning... by SomePgmr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm normally the first guy to say, "oh leave people be", but this kind of thing is one where I think I'd be happier with a person having to have some kind of minor license to buy one... if only to just create some token hurdle to ownership.

      The problem with lasers is that, whereas everyone knows how dangerous a firearm can be... people tend to treat lasers like toys with no consequences. "Yeah, yeah, don't shine it in anyones eyes... got it." But I have never seen someone wear eye protection when using one, much less making sure everyone for miles around had eye protection when they're shining it through windows, at passing cars, etc. And they're coming down in price so any goofball can screw around with pretty powerful ones.

      Maybe it's time to make sure people buying these things really understand how bad they can screw up with these devices in just a moment of bad decision making? And I don't mean clicking "I Agree" to a paragraph on a website that they didn't read. Maybe something more like a amateur radio test?

      For me, it's awkward talking favorably about regulation. Maybe I'm overly concerned about something that isn't really an issue.

    7. Re:Might add a warning... by jasno · · Score: 2

      I was going to mod you up but I want to post to this story.

      I'm not sure what the best approach is, but I'm pretty sure 'something must be done'(tm). I'm pretty libertarian, generally, but I think we need to treat lasers capable of causing blindness as firearms - subject to the same constitution-friendly background checks and penalties for misuse.

      People are worried about blindness - yes, that's a big concern. However, living in a fire prone region, I'm also concerned about mass arson attacks. I think we've been lucky so far, but it probably won't be too long before some anti-social asshole gets a hold of one of these and causes trouble.

      --

      http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
    8. Re:Might add a warning... by misexistentialist · · Score: 0

      Kid could throw a rock and gouge out your eye too. Seems what you really need is for kids to be leashed and licensed.

    9. Re:Might add a warning... by ErikZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As opposed to simply using matches?

      I sympathize, I live in Colorado and we have acres and acres of beetle killed trees. But banning lasers to the general public will not stop a single asshole from setting half the state on fire.

      http://www.rogergeorge.com/rentals/items/0rfflt/

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    10. Re:Might add a warning... by black+soap · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Maybe he meant regulated. I guarantee guns are regulated in your state, but maybe not to the point that you noticed the inconvenience.

      Is it legal for you to:

      • Sell handguns to a minor?
      • Be in the business of manufacturing guns without a license?
      • Be in the business of selling guns without keeping records and checking ID?
      • Manufacture guns commercially without serial numbers?
      • Build or buy a new fully-automatic rifle or pistol?
      • Leave a loaded gun where a child could find it?
      • Walk around in public, pointing your gun at people?
      • Fire your gun within city limits?
      • Fire your gun at occupied houses and vehicles?
      • Buy guns over .50 caliber centerfire without extra paperwork?
      • Buy or manufacture tungsten-core handgun bullets?
      • Buy anti-tank rounds?
      • Buy guided munitions? Air burst?
      • Have a 12" barrel on your shotgun without Federal permission?
      • Put a rifle stock on your pistol without government OK?
      • Sell a rifle to a person (private sale) who lives in another state?

      Guns may not be licensed, but gun makers and sellers are, and guns are very heavily regulated (and not in the same sense as used in the 2nd amendment).

    11. Re:Might add a warning... by RichardJenkins · · Score: 4, Insightful

      NO, it's a damn weapon. If you're out walking the streets with this, the police should be about as suspicious as if you're walking around with a kitchen knife in your pocket.

    12. Re:Might add a warning... by NoSleepDemon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm almost certain that someone in my town has something similar to one of these. My apartment's fairly high up overlooking a couple of main roads and residential neighbourhoods, and one afternoon I was watching TV when I was hit by an extremely bright green light that seemed to come from somewhere down the road, and which then briefly filled my whole vision. It wasn't a particularly pleasant affair, luckily whatever dickhead was shining it around didn't keep it in one spot for long. They really ought to be classed as weapons - it only takes one careless turd to wave one of these at a set of flats / office / condo and you've got a good chance of flashing someone in the eyes.

    13. Re:Might add a warning... by SomePgmr · · Score: 1

      No, you're right, you're not really going to stop a wackjob from setting a forest on fire if he wants to. But I try not to overestimate the common sense of the average person, either. Between hurting themselves, other people, setting things on fire, causing accidents, etc., I could see lasers being one of those things you need to make some effort to own... at least such that people are required to understand the risks involved.

      Though again, maybe I'm way too fired up about something that's not likely to be a real problem any time soon.

    14. Re:Might add a warning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Having seen people with green lasers find immense pleasure in aiming them directly into the eyes of various nocturnal creatures, I can only hope they stay so expensive that these people are apt to keep the money for beer.

    15. Re:Might add a warning... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      The potential for accidentally throwing in my eye is pretty slim.

      Also the potential for throwing rocks at aircraft...pretty nonexistant.

      Throwing rocks at passing cars from half a mile away? Extremely difficult.

      I don't normally say stuff like this but I agree with GP, stuff like this shouldn't be sold to the public via mail order. It only takes a fraction of a second to permanently blind somebody with something like this. You wouldn't be happy if people went outside in your neighborhood and randomly fired machine guns at buildings.

      It's a safe bet that most of these will be waved around at night by drunken people who don't quite understand the risks. Even looking at the spot a 1w laser makes on a white wall will probably cause eye damage. Hopefully it'll be the buyers before anybody else.

      --
      No sig today...
    16. Re:Might add a warning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction. It takes a dumb kid living 200 yards away with 1000 dollars to spend on a laser.

    17. Re:Might add a warning... by Maxwell'sSilverLART · · Score: 1

      Very few states require any sort of license or permit to acquire a firearm. Pass the instant background check and in most places you can walk out with your purchase right away.

      --
      Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
    18. Re:Might add a warning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, in Texas and New Mexico I can buy them directly from individuals at a show, while NIMBies in New York have to deal with copious background checks and processing fees?

      Well hell, if you want to spoil your fun...fine by me.

      CAPTCHA: motions

    19. Re:Might add a warning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMO, there should be licensing similar to guns.

      What licensing of guns? I've purchased two firearms and never obtained any license. Just wait ten days and pick it up.

    20. Re:Might add a warning... by ChristopherBurg · · Score: 1

      Personally I believe there are far more common dangers to concern one's self with than lasers. For instance anybody with a credit card in hand can go fill a can with gasoline and honestly gasoline has for more destructive potential than any laser current on the market.

      But the ultimate truth is stupid people will do stupid things and bad people with do bad things regardless of rules and regulations put into place.

    21. Re:Might add a warning... by mmcuh · · Score: 1

      In Sweden (and most of Europe, I think) you need a permit to carry or store any laser pointer stronger than 5 mW outside your own home.

    22. Re:Might add a warning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suggestion:
      Take a whole bunch of household objects and make videos of how they react (which ones that easily catches fire). Include mirrors and glass (reflections of 1W lasers can be dangerous!). Measure the temperature while at it (including on the mirror itself, it can get hot too). Of course it should include flammable objects most people don't think are dangerous.
      Then, to make sure people REALLY get the point, make a "syntetic eye" that reacts to the laser in a very similiar way to a real eye, and show and explain what happens (or if this isn't reasonable/practical, make an animation of what happens to the light sensitive eye cells). Do this for everything else that can be sensitive enough for damage too, like for hair. Show how quickly a person with greasy (maybe wax or hair spray) and/or dry hair can catch fire (in extreme but plausible conditions, like summer time in the sun).
      Make these videos mandatory to watch. And *MAKE THE VIDEOS SCARY*!

    23. Re:Might add a warning... by Natanael_L · · Score: 1

      Suggestion:

      Take a whole bunch of household objects and make videos of how they react (which ones that easily catches fire). Include mirrors and glass (reflections of 1W lasers can be dangerous!). Measure the temperature while at it (including on the mirror itself, it can get hot too). Of course it should include flammable objects most people don't think are dangerous.

      Then, to make sure people REALLY get the point, make a "synthetic eye" that reacts to the laser in a very similiar way to a real eye, and show and explain what happens (or if this isn't reasonable/practical, make an animation of what happens to the light sensitive eye cells). Do this for everything else that can be sensitive enough for damage too, like for hair. Show how quickly a person with greasy (maybe wax or hair spray) and/or dry hair can catch fire (in extreme but plausible conditions, like summer time in the sun).

      Make these videos mandatory to watch. And *MAKE THE VIDEOS SCARY*!

      It would be done together with a mandatory test, identification should be required (I think the same goes for guns), and everything should be monitored to make sure you're paying attention all the time. It should take no less then an hour. If you pass you'll get a license. The terms with the license should state that any abuse/dangerous carelessness will mean revoked license. ABSOLUTELY NO "borrowing" of lasers to people without a license would be allowed (sorry, neither your friends or family can try it out unless they get licenses too), that would also mean revoked license. And you'll need to show the license when buying the lasers. For any and all imports of lasers, the importer (that means either you personally or the import company) would be required to ensure that it never will be given to anybody that does not have a license.

      --
      Geek!
    24. Re:Might add a warning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I Agree.

    25. Re:Might add a warning... by SomePgmr · · Score: 1

      That's not a bad idea, and at the very least, I'd like to see wicked lasers make that a required course to order anything on their site over X mW. If they could self regulate a bit, at least it'd have the appearance of due diligence.

    26. Re:Might add a warning... by Natanael_L · · Score: 1

      (I just reposted this from my account, did some editing too.)

      --
      Geek!
    27. Re:Might add a warning... by smellsofbikes · · Score: 4, Informative

      But I have never seen someone wear eye protection when using one, much less making sure everyone for miles around had eye protection when they're shining it through windows, at passing cars, etc. And they're coming down in price so any goofball can screw around with pretty powerful ones.

      FWIW when I bought the 350mW laser I'm using on my CNC mill to do marking and drill soldermask stencils, I'd already purchased a set of laser goggles designed for that wavelength, and always wear them when it's powered up. The reason I did that is because I've worked in three high-power laser labs, two commercial and one academic, and in all three at least one coworker had partial blindness from an unintended exposure. (In two of those, the person had been wearing laser glasses, and had just gotten unlucky with a specular reflection off a tool sitting on a desk that deflected the beam upwards between the edge of the glasses and the person's cheek, which is why I got against-the-skin-all-the-way-around goggles.) One dubious benefit to high power lasers in private hands is that it'll most likely be the owner's eyes that get fried in the reasonably short term.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    28. Re:Might add a warning... by misexistentialist · · Score: 0

      I'll believe the danger when it makes it into the top 1000 causes of injury or death. Like higher than toothpicks. If the aircraft threat is real cockpits need to harden pilot visual capability immediately, because weakly regulating retail availability of lasers will do nothing to stop terrorists.

    29. Re:Might add a warning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only one problem with that statement. There is no license for guns. At least not in my state, just a background check and a Concealed cary (if you want to conceal).

    30. Re:Might add a warning... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Sell a rifle to a person (private sale) who lives in another state?

      As for a private weapon (rifle or handgun) I don't have to ask who it is, or where they live to sell my firearm to them in a private transaction.

      What they do with it, or where they transport it (across state lines) is no business of mine once they leave me after buying my gun and we go each our own way.

      And no, I don't need to keep any record of who I sold what.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    31. Re:Might add a warning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a normal GLP (5mW, maybe 10mW), which is already extremely bright. Now imagine 200x that.

    32. Re:Might add a warning... by thynk · · Score: 1

      Unless of course one uses the lasers to kill the beetles. I live on about 9 acres of property in Colorado (outside of Estes Park) and was lucky this year that the beetles seem to like my neighbors trees better.

      What part of CO are you in?

      --

      Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
    33. Re:Might add a warning... by robot256 · · Score: 1

      Very good analogy. Both the laser and the kitchen knife were manufactured for specific purposes in specific facilities, but the only thing they could be when carried on the street is a weapon.

    34. Re:Might add a warning... by robot256 · · Score: 1

      At least only very rich idiots will be able to afford a fully automatic weapon just to make noise on new year's eve (and likewise with a $1000 laser pointer). Anyone else has got to have a pretty good reason for getting one, nefarious or otherwise.

    35. Re:Might add a warning... by black+soap · · Score: 1

      Sell a rifle to a person (private sale) who lives in another state?

      As for a private weapon (rifle or handgun) I don't have to ask who it is, or where they live to sell my firearm to them in a private transaction. What they do with it, or where they transport it (across state lines) is no business of mine once they leave me after buying my gun and we go each our own way.

      That's not what the law says. Allow me to quote the ATF FAQ:

      "A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law."

      So it has to be a resident of your state to buy your gun. You don't have to ask if they are a prohibited person, but if they tell you then it is a crime for you to sell it to them.

      And no, I don't need to keep any record of who I sold what.

      Well, you got that one right. Notice I didn't say otherwise. A person in the business of selling guns would have to keep records though.

    36. Re:Might add a warning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with lasers is that, whereas everyone knows how dangerous a firearm can be... people tend to treat lasers like toys with no consequences. "Yeah, yeah, don't shine it in anyones eyes... got it." But I have never seen someone wear eye protection when using one, much less making sure everyone for miles around had eye protection when they're shining it through windows, at passing cars, etc. And they're coming down in price so any goofball can screw around with pretty powerful ones.

      Maybe it's time to make sure people buying these things really understand how bad they can screw up with these devices in just a moment of bad decision making? And I don't mean clicking "I Agree" to a paragraph on a website that they didn't read. Maybe something more like a amateur radio test?

      Bah. Of course they don't use eye protection. It is the same with guns. How many wear bulletproof vests and helmets when doing some target shooting? Very few! And even the smallest gun do much more damage to eyes than an 1W laser. OR a 10W laser, for that matter.

      Some responsibility is needed - not goggles. People who shine a laser into a crowd should be treated similiar to those who fire guns carelessly among people. Throw them in jail. Use self-defense against them.

    37. Re:Might add a warning... by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Personally I believe there are far more common dangers to concern one's self with than lasers. For instance anybody with a credit card in hand can go fill a can with gasoline and honestly gasoline has for more destructive potential than any laser current on the market.

      The difference is, most people are more aware of the destructive potential of a can of gasoline and/or a match. Yes, stupid people will do stupid things, but a great deal of it can be prevented just by making clear how serious something really is. It won't stop everyone, but nothing ever stops everyone. The fact that measures are never 100% effective is not a good argument for having none. If it was, we'd simply eliminate police from the city budget, since why waste all that money when they don't stop all crime? Not a good argument.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    38. Re:Might add a warning... by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      I'll believe the danger when it makes it into the top 1000 causes of injury or death. Like higher than toothpicks. If the aircraft threat is real cockpits need to harden pilot visual capability immediately, because weakly regulating retail availability of lasers will do nothing to stop terrorists.

      My local police department has never done anything to stop terrorists, and indeed has very little capability to do so if it ever even came up. We should eliminate them as well. /eyeroll

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    39. Re:Might add a warning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh great, just what we needed, a handheld green laser strong enough to melt the retina's of drivers. I had a green laser pointed at my windshield once while on the highway at night, not a pleasant thing when you're going 120KPH, with this one it'll be even worse

    40. Re:Might add a warning... by RichardJenkins · · Score: 1

      Except kitchen knives aren't sold on the basis that they're cool.

      From wickedlasers.com:

      "If you enjoyed wielding the awesome power of the S3 Arctic, then you'll want the S3 Krypton the most visible handheld laser on Earth, in your hands."

      then

      "The S3 Krypton is too powerful to be used as a laser pointer or a gunsight. Never point it at another person, an animal or a vehicle."

      It's unequivocally being sold as fucking toy. This business is disgusting.

    41. Re:Might add a warning... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Why not just make them take a safety course before allowing someone to own one? Then you are not taking any of their rights away but just making sure they see first hand that these can be quite dangerous and aren't a toy. Sometimes all one needs is a good example of the danger to make sure they respect the device.

      I know seeing my dad blow a hole in a concrete block and being told 'you know your head is thinner than that, right?" was all it took to get me to respect firearms. I did the same trick with my boys when they were old enough and sure enough they wouldn't touch a gun without adult supervision.

      So I'd say a safety course with a few demonstrations of how powerful these lasers are would be appropriate before simply handing one out.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    42. Re:Might add a warning... by Goaway · · Score: 1

      From two hundred yards away? That's some arm on that kid.

    43. Re:Might add a warning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, that is exactly what people who buy this thing will be doing- aiming it at aircraft, distant people, just because they think they can get away with it.

      I hope the FBI track every one of them sold.

    44. Re:Might add a warning... by Spunkee · · Score: 0

      Good points. I'd consider these lasers from this company to be far worse instruments than firearms with regard to how dangerous they are. Lasers maim. They can maim entire crowds of people at the speed of light. Bullets don't go that fast. As you pointed out, lasers can start fires. Bullet firing guns have various limitations regarding firing speed and spread. Guns go boom. Lasers don't. Guns typically hold a finite amount of ammo. These lasers can be considered to have virtually unlimited ammo (yea, I know they have batteries but a battery lasting an hour continuously is like a truck of bullets on one long belt being feed into a gun). Guns leave a projectile behind with ballistics info and maybe a shell casing with finger prints. Lasers don't. Finally, I would bet that people in general consider firearms more dangerous than these lasers. That in itself is a big problem.

      Regulation of these lasers should be nothing like firearms. These lasers should never exist outside of a lab. If you have a lab, you should require a license to own a laser of this power. It's use should be strictly regulated. I'm assuming there are regulations on possessing certain types and amounts of nuclear material (if there aren't, there should be), and these lasers should be regulated like that.

      I'll extinguish cigarettes into the eyes of the asshole that blinds me or a friend or family member with one of these (if they even get caught). And it will most likely be an ignorant, stupid teenager or young adult who can be considered luckier and luckier every second he goes without blinding himself from the moment he turns it on for the first time.

    45. Re:Might add a warning... by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Westminster, N of Denver.

      Would have loved to live more in the mountains, but IT jobs are Urban.

      It's good to hear your trees are doing fine. Went up to Lake Granby a few weeks ago, and some of the mountainsides are just...dead trees.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    46. Re:Might add a warning... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I'm normally the first guy to say, "oh leave people be", but this kind of thing is one where I think I'd be happier with a person having to have some kind of minor license to buy one... if only to just create some token hurdle to ownership.

      These are every bit as dangerous to people's vision as a gun, and they're just as likely to cause serious damage in the wrong hands.

      I would say that hand-held portable lasers that integrate a power supply and are stronger than 40mW should be classified as firearms.

      And integrated lasers greater than 40mW that are not part of a 'closed' tamper-resistant system (such as a CD-ROM drive), should be classified as industrial equipment, and require a permit to own or operate, requiring mandatory training and safety standards.

      Yes, that includes certain powerful lasers used in fiber optic cable applications such as CWDM / long-haul fiber runs, and fiber amplifiers, and potentially yes -- it does mean that everyone who steps in an area in a corporate datacenter where such fiber cables/transceivers are present might be required to have taken a 8 hour training program on the subject of lasers, laser safety, their employer's applications of laser technology, and passed a state-administered test.

    47. Re:Might add a warning... by Spunkee · · Score: 0

      Why not just make them take a safety course before allowing someone to own one? Then you are not taking any of their rights away but just making sure they see first hand that these can be quite dangerous and aren't a toy.

      A safety course? See my post above. These things aren't guns. They're laboratory tools (if that - I doubt the laser light is clean enough to be useful in a lab) and there is no safety course to teach other than what is already taught regarding laser safety in a controlled laboratory.

      No one needs one of these any more than they need a ball of plutonium and two hemispheres of beryllium. "Oh, but I've got my radiation shielding coat (laser safety goggles) and I've got my safety course and certification, so I should most certainly be able to buy a ball of plutonium from this Russian company... Even though I have no use for it at all other than it's cool and geeky."

    48. Re:Might add a warning... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I can only hope they stay so expensive that these people are apt to keep the money for beer.

      This is why high beer prices are a good idea. If beer were cheap, those people could buy both lasers and beer.

      I'm still hardly convinced though that they won't partkae of a 5-fingered discount on the beer and use the money saved to buy the lasers :/

    49. Re:Might add a warning... by thelamecamel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here in Australia, laser pointers above 1mW are considered prohibited weapons - in the same category as crossbows and knuckledusters. You need to get a prohibited weapons permit to own one (and keep it in a safe), and you need to get two more permits to buy one from overseas. I had to go through all this paperwork and police checks - and I was a scientist getting them delivered to my university office! Let's not tell the politicians about the CO2 lasers sitting in the labs downstairs eh.

    50. Re:Might add a warning... by SomePgmr · · Score: 1

      I guess that's the slippery-slope in action, huh? I wouldn't want it to be difficult for anyone that has a legitimate use (even hobby work) if they're clearly aware of all safe operating procedures. I guess that's the risk we'd run.

    51. Re:Might add a warning... by spauldo · · Score: 1

      Sorry about that, I was trying to burn down Kansas, but I forgot to check the wind direction.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    52. Re:Might add a warning... by spauldo · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine in Illinois had a license to own a gun. It wasn't concealed carry or anything (I'm not sure if Illinois has those), but he had to have it to keep a handgun in his home, apparently.

      Of course, he lived in the same city where you had to have a permit to live in the city limits, and all houses had to meet insane inspection standards for anyone to live in them.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    53. Re:Might add a warning... by TheGoodNamesWereGone · · Score: 2

      Yes. It's called freedom.

    54. Re:Might add a warning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was zapped in the left eye, peripherally, with at least a 20mw green laser from a passing car. I was very lucky, they were about 50 feet away, and the light didn't dwell long enough to do any damage. (I've had a field test, so I know my visions OK.)

      I was blind for about 90 minutes before I could see. The police took it very seriously, too. Unfortunately, I was too blind and fortunately too far away to read the licence plate. If I'd been much closer, I'd probably have permanent damage.

    55. Re:Might add a warning... by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

      How the hell is this thing legal to own without a license? The university I work at has to get a crappy ol' 200mW nitrogen laser certified by the state every year.

    56. Re:Might add a warning... by CalSolt · · Score: 1

      Damnit, I just read through the whole manual and there was nothing about satellites. You have disappointed me sir.

    57. Re:Might add a warning... by Zeroko · · Score: 1

      ...unless you have a head-mounted display & a supply of webcams.

    58. Re:Might add a warning... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Industrial production is among the very few legit civilian uses of high-powered lasers. Too bad you'll eventually have to deal with the legal fallout from morons playing with them.

      It is to be hoped "recreational" idiot buyers only blind themselves, but we know there will eventually be innocent victims.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    59. Re:Might add a warning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The range matters. With that kitchen knife you can possibly hurt people people that are within a few meters. A higher powered laser can possibly hurt the eyesight of people at a much greater distance. You can't potentially blind an airplane pilot in the air with a kitchen knife.

    60. Re:Might add a warning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're not exactly selling the concept.

    61. Re:Might add a warning... by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      In Sweden (and most of Europe, I think) you need a permit to carry or store any laser pointer stronger than 5 mW outside your own home.

      Is that right? I've never heard of that rule.

      Makes sense though, these things are pretty dangerous.

    62. Re:Might add a warning... by Evtim · · Score: 1

      Longer wavelengths are more dangerous for eyes because of their greater penetration depth. UV will be absorbed by the outmost laying layer of the eye. Certainly very painful but naturally repairable in most cases. Infrared laser will hit the back of the eyeball and do permanent damage.

    63. Re:Might add a warning... by Evtim · · Score: 1

      Actually, longer wavelengths are more dangerous for the eyes, because of their longer penetration depth. UV hitting the eye destroys the outermost laying layer that is naturally replaceable. Very painful experience no doubt but in most cases the outcome is positive. Infrared laser, however, will hit the back of the eyeball doing permanent damage.

      Disclaimer: this info is from safety regulations and medical advices I received when starting my PhD in a university laser center were we had virtually every type of laser that exists.

    64. Re:Might add a warning... by Atraxen · · Score: 1

      In the US at least, this is largely a moot point. Lasers of this power are typically used for medical technologies, and can result in health issues (as pointed out throughout the page.) For these reasons, the FDA has the authority to regulate the import of lasers - and they're not too happy with Wicked Lasers (for good reasons, imo).
      http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2010/ucm234938.htm
      I'm having a hard enough time getting a 40lb dye laser through for my research lab (missing line on some paperwork, nearly solved I hope), so the FDA _is_ checking on this stuff. Not saying that none will slip through, but as a matter of course WL's products are now sort of like powdered rhino tusk - illegal to import, pointless to pay for, and sent in hunted shipments.

      --
      Be careful of your thoughts; they could become words at any minute...
    65. Re:Might add a warning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "One dubious benefit to high power lasers in private hands is that it'll most likely be the owner's eyes that get fried in the reasonably short term." ...which only makes it easier to blind those around them, because they'll be less able to see/aim and often less caring (it happen to me, what'll I care a la misery loves company).

      This is similar to those morons who play massive vehicle bass around town. They go deaf first of course, usually unaware of it, but because they're deaf, they turn their already too loud shit up even more, increasing their deafness, and the likelihood of annoyance and hearing damage to those around them.

    66. Re:Might add a warning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you're out walking the streets with this, the police should be about as suspicious as if you're walking around with a kitchen knife in your pocket."

      I'm all for licensing the lasers, but your example is stupid. Most weapons don't require licensing (bats, metal bars, chains, knives, bricks). Even those that do like massive kinetic mauling devices like nearly all vehicles have been used to wipe out a multitude of people. Worse, how this is +5 insightful is moronic on so many levels. On the kitchen knife carrying, the police wouldn't know, wouldn't be suspicious, and in most places, that knife carrying isn't illegal whatsoever, and more so, wouldn't require licensing. Even if searched, the police usually can't do crap.

      I know, I carry 2 folders on me. Knife carrying isn't illegal and shouldn't be. Not sure where people are going with this. What next, you going to ban belts (strangulation weapon) and pens (stabbing weapon)?

      The reason the lasers are dangerous is because like a gun, it can be hidden _and_ remotely harm people at great distance. Shine one of these into a plane and it goes down, we've got problems. Shine these into a mall or apartment complex and take out the eyesight of dozens permanently. These are issues.

      They should be advocating licensing NOW and getting something plain and worthwhile in effect. It'll save the eyesight of the individuals singularly effect over the long haul which can add up greater than one bad event. As well, it'll prevent the knee jerk banning that'll come when a bad event occurs and the politicians and public go batshit.

    67. Re:Might add a warning... by Xacid · · Score: 1

      "California Pyro 1 Card Required"

    68. Re:Might add a warning... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      So it has to be a resident of your state to buy your gun. You don't have to ask if they are a prohibited person, but if they tell you then it is a crime for you to sell it to them.

      Interesting..that you for that, I learn something new every day.

      :)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    69. Re:Might add a warning... by Yamioni · · Score: 1

      Haha, I can just see some dumbass trying to use one as a gun sight. "Why the hell these deer keep running away as soon as I target them? This thing sucks!"

      That second quote though pretty much supports the argument for requiring a license to own one of these things all by its lonesome. Seriously, if you can't (safely) use it for pointing at things, what the fuck use is it to random Joe Schlub? None.

      --
      Cool post bro, highfive \o
    70. Re:Might add a warning... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately it will be used as a toy. Having 1 watt lasers outside of a laboratory is verging on criminal

      Waiting for all the Youtube videos "1 Watt Laser hitting my stupid neighbor", and other oh-so-much fun things.

      And no one will be wearing eye protection because then you can't see the kewl things you are doing with the laser.

      Having worked with lasers - and been injured by them, there is simply nothing good that cam come from this.

      This quote from Wicked Lasers site got me laughing:

      "With it's intergalactic range of 85 miles, the S3 Krypton is the first and only handheld laser visible from outer space."

      They are obviously trying to appeal to the scientific types.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    71. Re:Might add a warning... by jcoy42 · · Score: 1

      "California Pyro 1 Card Required"

      Yes. Do want.

      --
      Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
    72. Re:Might add a warning... by jcoy42 · · Score: 1

      On this page you'll find the following text just above the video:

      Warning: This laser's brightness is potentially hazardous to pilots' vision and satellite sensors. NEVER point it at an aircraft or a satellite. The S3 Krypton is too powerful to be used as a laser pointer or a gunsight. Never point it at another person, an animal or a vehicle.

      So it's there. But not in the manual.

      --
      Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
    73. Re:Might add a warning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bud guys will buy this AND USE IT

    74. Re:Might add a warning... by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Here in Australia, laser pointers above 1mW are considered prohibited weapons [...]

      Wow. Where I am (NYS), 5mW key-ring combination laser/white LEDs the size of a pen cap sell for US$2-3 on the counter of most convenience stores and service stations I frequent.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  5. well okay... by bmo · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    At least it costs a kilobuck, so that the idiots who buy these things can also lose a bit of dosh while losing an eye.

    And since green also shows up in the atmosphere better, the cops can better locate you when you shine it on their helicopter.

    "Do not look into laser aperture with remaining good eye"

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:well okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flamebait? Really?

    2. Re:well okay... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Flamebait? Really?

      Yes, lasers tend to be that, kinda by definition.

  6. Stepped up their game by chill · · Score: 1

    Warning: This laser's brightness is potentially hazardous to pilots' vision and satellite sensors. NEVER point it at an aircraft or a satellite.

    Wow. Nothing like fucking with the guys on the ISS for lulz. Maybe spot that new Air Force mini spy shuttle, or whatever it is.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:Stepped up their game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, time to start blinding those spy sats!

    2. Re:Stepped up their game by djdanlib · · Score: 1

      Yes! Let us amateurs attempt to damage a satellite that was specifically designed to provide fast high-resolution mapping and targeting, and was probably designed to withstand "enemy" sabotage attempts! What could possibly go wrong? :)

    3. Re:Stepped up their game by black+soap · · Score: 2

      Yes! Let us amateurs attempt to damage a satellite that was specifically designed to provide fast high-resolution mapping and targeting, and was probably designed to withstand "enemy" sabotage attempts! What could possibly go wrong? :)

      Succeeding?

  7. I have a blue one by kurt555gs · · Score: 1, Informative

    It took forever to get. Then the charger didn't work, I emailed and got one in 3 days. (The repair department is much better than the order department where you wait and wait)

    Anyway, it's awesome. It burns things, It's fun. I love it.

    I also bought a Torch flashlight from them and waited months, actually given up ever seeing it, then it finally arrived. It's cool too.

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
    1. Re:I have a blue one by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      Burns things how? Pics or it didn't happen. Video is even better.

      Can I use this to kill bugs on my ceiling. Will it work on asian stink bugs?

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    2. Re:I have a blue one by ZankerH · · Score: 1

      Burns things how? Pics or it didn't happen. Video is even better.

      Search youtube for "1000mW laser". There's a ton of videos of people burning stuff with them.

    3. Re:I have a blue one by jcoy42 · · Score: 2

      I have one. It'll pop a dark balloon in about 2 seconds. It will light a cigarette.

      As for burning things, I pointed it at a piece of 3/4" oak plywood and left it there. After about 5 minutes, it had charred it about 1~2mm deep.

      I expect it could have done more but it's not a very focused point. The actual "point" is about 1mm by 4mm at around 50cm. They have a lens kit which has a "Focusing Effect Lens", but I waited about 5 months before cancelling that order so no idea how well it works.

      The more obvious issue with it is you can't really show it off to your friends. It comes with one pair of (not very good) glasses, and you really don't want to accidentally ruin someone's eyesight. I ordered 2 pairs of Laser Glasses from dragon lasers, but it's still generally too much of a pain to mess with very often.

      --
      Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
    4. Re:I have a blue one by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      it's still generally too much of a pain to mess with very often.

      I wondered about this...

      If you're a responsible sort of a person ... how often would you even dare to switch it on?

      I bought some *really* strong magnets a while back but they're no fun to play with. They pinch/nip your fingers the whole time. It hurts. They've been stuck to a shelf for the last six months where the occasionally surprise my by dragging stuff out of my hand when I go to put it on the shelf.

      --
      No sig today...
    5. Re:I have a blue one by Lucas123 · · Score: 1

      You bought a $300 flashlight that lasts 15 minutes per charge? Why pray tell? To light newspaper on fire and impress friends and family?

    6. Re:I have a blue one by nugatory78 · · Score: 1

      Lucky you. Mine was seized by customs. They said they would send another one, but then stopped returning messages.

      --
      The beginning of knowledge is the discovery of something we do not understand. - Frank Herbert
    7. Re:I have a blue one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It took forever to get. . . actually given up ever seeing it

      So, avoid looking or give up seeing.

    8. Re:I have a blue one by Caffinated · · Score: 1

      I have one and agree with this. It's really cool, but it's so dangerous that I don't break it out much at all. I went to the beach earlier this year and it was pretty cool to use it over the water. Back home, there's a non-trivial risk that I'll hit someone/something if I use it much outdoors.

    9. Re:I have a blue one by Yamioni · · Score: 1

      Why do people buy $100K cars that get 5 MPG? Hint: Most are compensating for something. If you can't make friends on your own merits, buy flashy crap to do it for you.

      The flashlight is actually more effective than an expensive car at getting you laid. You just shine it in the woman's eyes and have sex with her while she's disoriented. Kind of like those camera flash-bulbs you see in those old merry melodies cartoons.

      --
      Cool post bro, highfive \o
  8. you don't want this by vijayiyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As cool as this is, you really don't want one. Specular reflections off other surfaces can blind you instantly. There's no way to actually hand hold it with it powered in any remotely safe manner. If it doesn't terrify you, you don't know what you're dealing with, and if it does, you probably don't want one.

    1. Re:you don't want this by Tim524 · · Score: 1

      Agreed +++ Sadder than the idiots that foolishly blind themselves, will be the idiots that blind innocents. :/

    2. Re:you don't want this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Anyone still thinking of light sabers deserves whatever happens. Honestly, Star Wars went to shit with ROTJ. Anyone still a fan after that needs a complete psychiatric evaluation.

    3. Re:you don't want this by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      No worries, anyone that stupid will have long ago blinded themselves with cheap moonshine anyway.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:you don't want this by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Informative

      The goggles they do something. I am pretty sure they come with proper eye protection.

    5. Re:you don't want this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no way to actually hand hold it with it powered in any remotely safe manner. If it doesn't terrify you, you don't know what you're dealing with, and if it does, you probably don't want one.

      I would say you're the one who doesn't know what we're dealing with here. You buy safety goggles to protect your eyes, they make goggles that can protect you against much stronger lasers than this. Yes, it is not a toy, and if you use it like a toy and without adequate safety measures, you will hurt yourself or someone else. But to say it's impossible to use a 1W laser safely is ridiculous.

    6. Re:you don't want this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      "If it doesn't terrify you, you don't know what you're dealing with, and if it does, you probably don't want one."

      Well, I actually have a 2.5W blue laser, but yes - it terrifies me and I treat it with the respect it deserves, wear proper eye protection, keep body parts away from it, and only operate it in a safe/controlled environment with no 'random people' around. The people calling it a 'light saber' scare the bloody crap out of me, as if its some 'cool toy'. A 1W laser is about as much of a 'toy' as an AK47 or a flamethrower, and deserves every bit of proper training and handling as those do.

    7. Re:you don't want this by kimvette · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have wanted one for the longest time but have resisted for precisely the reasons you cited. All it takes is one bystander to glance at the reflection even from a distance, and they're injured for life. It's not worth it even for such a fantastically fun toy.

      I've been thinking about a 70mW-90mW laser for a while but even that poses a high risk of injury even at a significant distance.

      (obligatory WARNING: DO NOT STARE INTO LASER WITH REMAINING EYE.)

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    8. Re:you don't want this by Alef · · Score: 5, Informative

      I work lasers on a daily basis. At 1000 mW, I would avoid looking even at a diffuse reflex at any reasonably close distance. I would never handle one of those without protective glasses and it mounted towards a beam stop.

    9. Re:you don't want this by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      Proper eye protection would include goggles for all persons within the maximum dangerous range of the laser as drunken idiots and teenagers (and drunken teenage idiots) will be waving them around and bouncing them off shiny surfaces.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    10. Re:you don't want this by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Funny

      A 1W laser is about as much of a 'toy' as an AK47 or a flamethrower

      So, you mean it's not a toy, it's a really fun toy?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    11. Re:you don't want this by TheLink · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah it's like an easily concealed fully-automatic machine gun that can fire continuously for one to two hours till the battery runs out, with an "effective range" of up to 149 metres (see NOHD).

      AND any idiot/scum with 1000 bucks can buy it and use it, no need for a license or training.

      It doesn't actually do direct lethal damage but anyone who thinks this is fine is either stupid or ignorant (or is already blind and has no nonblind entities he/she cares about).

      There are already idiots/scum with high powered lasers. In one case, some spectators were shining high powered lasers at the opposing team's players in football match. I'm not sure how high powered they were, but those players certainly noticed and complained. They eventually lost the match, but I don't blame them, I would refuse to play in such conditions. I would actually recommend that the match be called off or boycotted. Not worth permanent eye damage.

      --
    12. Re:you don't want this by QuasiSteve · · Score: 2

      The goggles they do something. I am pretty sure they come with proper eye protection

      I didn't realize they came with a pair for everybody else that might get hit by the same beam. Does the laser pointer come with a 30 second advance warning, too?

      Or should we all just start wearing them by default - http://www.stltoday.com/suburban-journals/stcharles/news/article_1e221000-e502-56f6-b5e5-90530677a8c2.html - just because some people are irresponsible and some companies are irresponsible enough to sell to irresponsible people?
      ( yes, I am suggesting that Wicked Lasers, and other companies making a mint on their main market of people abusing lasers for teh lulz, are acting irresponsibly no matter how many warning labels they put up, disclaimers they list, and safety products they sell. )

      The general public has no use case for a 1W laser - or even many energy levels well below that. Those who do can go fill in paperwork and registration forms - no different from guns (not that that is working out particularly well in a market that's flooded with the things).

    13. Re:you don't want this by will381796 · · Score: 1

      Given the technical specifications provided by the manufacturer, the NOHD for the 1W 532nm laser is 149 meters (~488 feet). Anyone that is closer than 488 feet from you, if they were to have intrabeam viewing of the beam or a specular reflection would exceed the MPE for this laser and would experience a very severe retinal burn. There's absolutely no reason for anyone other than a researcher to own a laser like this. If you were foolish enough to purchase this laser, make sure whatever goggles you purchase have an OD of at least 4.

    14. Re:you don't want this by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      Yeah I had a friend that had a 35mW green laser (from Wicked Lasers, IIRC). It was mildly dangerous, but only if you looked at the beam directly (apparently, it could blind, but so long as you were careful the effects wouldn't be permanent). That is the brightest I would ever want a hand-held laser to be. The reflections were almost painfully bright, but not enough to blind, and the beam was very clearly visible. Also, it could light dark objects on fire with some time, making it just about perfect. Oh and it was waterproof. That would be about what I would recommend unless you have a valid reason to get a more powerful one.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    15. Re:you don't want this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The comment about proper eye protection is naive. Eye protection for a 1W green laser would only protect against attenuated reflections. Such a laser should only be operated inside an appropriate enclosure, or in a closed room while mounted in a fixed position below eye level with now reflective surfaces in the room. There would need to be appropriate signage on the doors to the room.

      No one who cannot calculate Nominal Hazard Zones should be making decisions about operating the laser.

    16. Re:you don't want this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people calling it a 'light saber' scare the bloody crap out of me, as if its some 'cool toy'.

      While fictional, a light saber is a lethal weapon and sadly most movies don't show proper handling of lethal weapons.

    17. Re:you don't want this by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah it's like an easily concealed fully-automatic machine gun that can fire continuously for one to two hours till the battery runs out, with an "effective range" of up to 149 metres....

      ...It doesn't actually do direct lethal damage

      Sooo...not like a machine gun at all then?

    18. Re:you don't want this by djdanlib · · Score: 1

      At that distance in a populated area, you can't be reasonably sure that you won't have reflected beams hit something that refocuses them. So there's really no safe way to use this other than in a controlled laboratory, where you should probably be purchasing different lasers anyway.

    19. Re:you don't want this by kimvette · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've lusted after 1000mW diodes for a long time with the idea of programming beam splitters, mirrors and the like to produce laser shows for parties and family events but it's just too dangerous for close quarters. Kids will insist on playing with them, or if I goof, or anything fails, the idea of blinding someone is scary.

      I do need a brighter pointer for astronomy (easier aiming of telescopes and cameras, pointing objects out to others, etc) and 1000mW would be perfect for that (a nice bright clear beam even in low-dust conditions) but the risk of dropping it or a chance reflection off an insect, bat, bird, etc. is just too great because at that level a close range reflection would mean near instant blindness. Even the 70mW-90mW (WL has a 75mW model) is a bit much, but 25mW might not be enough and if you go 50mW, why not go for 75mW for $10 more?

      I'd love to play with a 1000mW laser, but since you can't look at the specular reflections, or objects you aim it at without protection, what's the point? What can you safely do with it once you pop a balloon with it, or light a book of matches or burn a wasps' nest? The fun would die out pretty quickly. You can't cut steel with it, you can't weld with it, or really do anything practical with it, and it'd be a boring toy once you've experienced the novelty of popping a balloon or two from across a field using nothing but a beam of light and find there isn't anything you can safely use it for.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    20. Re:you don't want this by djdanlib · · Score: 1

      1W is a frightening amount of power for something marketed like this.

      Warning: Do not stare at neighboring town with remaining eye.

    21. Re:you don't want this by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So use it indoors.
      Seems pretty simple.

      I own a gun, that could kill people. So far I manage to use that responsibly, no reason a laser could not be used in the same controller manner.

    22. Re:you don't want this by vux984 · · Score: 1

      More like a machine gun that only shoots you in the arm or leg. That's would be ok to carry around right?

    23. Re:you don't want this by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      The vendor is not responsible anymore than a hammer maker is responsible when someone kills his spouse with a hammer.

      I don't have to fill out registration forms for guns. All I needed was a drivers license and a simple call to the police. Only handguns have those restrictions.

    24. Re:you don't want this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always dreamed of having a laser on a track that would shoot across the lawn at another track and cut the grass in 10 seconds. What wattage do I need to make that happen?

    25. Re:you don't want this by h4rr4r · · Score: 0

      So no one would ever want to use one as part of a hobby?
      No one would ever find a use you do not know of?

      I am glad you are not in charge of what free people can purchase. I bet amazon would have half its stock removed.

    26. Re:you don't want this by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      A 1W laser is about as much of a 'toy' as an AK47 or a flamethrower

      So, you mean it's not a toy, it's a really fun toy?

      The more I read, the more I agree with you.

      I definitely shouldn't have one.

    27. Re:you don't want this by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      A gun is pretty limited by the noise it makes, and by the fact that you have to aim it. Aim the laser at a prism (or basically anything semi-reflective-- white paint on the side of a house?) and watch as everyone around you gets eye damage, silently, immediately. Guns also have a very limited range at which they are effective-- handguns are well under a kilometer i believe. Im sure this laser is effective at well over a mile.

      And unlike gunshot wounds, im pretty sure eye damage from lasers is generally permenant.

    28. Re:you don't want this by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Its significantly harder and messier to kill someone with a hammer than it is to blind someone with a laser.

    29. Re:you don't want this by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      I've lusted after 1000mW diodes for a long time with the idea of programming beam splitters, mirrors and the like to produce laser shows for parties and family events but it's just too dangerous for close quarters. Kids will insist on playing with them, or if I goof, or anything fails, the idea of blinding someone is scary.

      Arent laser-light shows-- especially homemade ones-- also spectacularly dangerous?

    30. Re:you don't want this by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      I really hate things like this. Nitwits at a local beach vacation spot buy the lower powered versions ($30-$130, don't recall the wattage) and shine them EVERYWHERE. I know kids who have had them shined in their eyes, though briefly and without any damage. At night stretches of hotels are nothing but roaming green dots.

      The difference between these and guns is that guns go BOOM, kick, and are well known to produce devastating damage to humans. Laser pointers are silent, have no recoil, and just make bright spots on things. So yeah, somebody's going to end up blinded by this, held by some moron a football field away, lost in a crowd of similar idiots waving less dangerous lasers at buildings full of people.

    31. Re:you don't want this by SoCalChris · · Score: 1

      A 1W laser is about as much of a 'toy' as an AK47 or a flamethrower, and deserves every bit of proper training and handling as those do.

      The Wicked Laser 1KW Green Laser, the very best there is. When you absolutely, positively, got to blind every motherfucker in the room; accept no substitutes.

    32. Re:you don't want this by Amouth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Those who do can go fill in paperwork and registration forms - no different from guns (not that that is working out particularly well in a market that's flooded with the things).

      i think the part that is different here is that the average Joe views a gun as a dangerous weapon - one that if i pull the trigger i have the chance to alter someones life and i'm responsible for it.

      the average Joe views a laser pointer as a toy.

      this product is anything but a toy - and anyone who teats it as such will pay the consequences (along with the people around them).

      While i'm against laws preventing me from owning something like this (or a gun, which i don't currently), I'm all for mandatory safety training & certification. If there was a machine that had something like this on it in Industry - there would be safety training, and that is for people who deal with them on a daily basis (same as cops and guns). The fact that we let the average Joe with no training go wild with it is just irresponsible, and sadly it is more likely the people around this person who will pay for it.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    33. Re:you don't want this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to kill someone with a hammer, all i have to do is spend an hour working a minimum wage job and then take a quick trip to home depot (assuming my code of ethics prevents me from just grabbing one off the shelf).
      to blind someone with this laser, i have to spend a week or two working full time and then wait six months for them to ship me one.
      i'd argue that the hammer route is much easier.

    34. Re:you don't want this by mr1911 · · Score: 1

      Not even handguns are registered, if you live in one of the few states that is still almost free. Yes, they do run a background check, but that doesn't usually take more than a few minutes. Some states even bypass the fed background check if you have a concealed carry permit.

      But none of that is registration yet. The FFL still retains the form with the s/n recorded, so a database of owners isn't too far off.

      The longest part of buying a gun is waiting on the dealer to complete the 4473. Most are overly cautious, since the BATFE has nothing better to do than go after dealers when a customer fills in the state as TX instead of TEXAS. Oh yeah, that and encouraging thousands of illegal purchases to stream into Mexico, in an attempt to turn the political tide such that there are enough votes for more infringements on the 2nd Amendment. Never mind that those guns turn up at places where a border patrol officer was murdered. That is government bureaucracy keeping you safe right there, folks.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    35. Re:you don't want this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.. I think gunshot wounds to your eye are also permanent.

    36. Re:you don't want this by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's kind of my point. There really isn't any purpose to the 1000mW laser unless you want to present a high risk of blinding people. :-(

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    37. Re:you don't want this by drolli · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I fully agree. I (being a physicist) can not imagine any purpose for this laser outside a firmly mounted case inside a lab or workshop.

      If you write on the lase: don't point it to aircrafts, then this is exactly what some asshats are going to do.

    38. Re:you don't want this by phatStrat · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I can't think of one good reason a regular consumer would want one or how they'd even use it. Far be it the day that we have to wear shades in public out of fear that kids are running amuck with these thing. Although I have a really strong urge to affix one of these on top of my pet shark...

    39. Re:you don't want this by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Gunshot wounds from many firearms are permanent in the sense that dead men don't heal.

      Not sure about a mile, but .300 win mag is good out beyond 1000 meters, 1500 meters should be doable . You would not hear it at all that far away. The bullet gets to the target before the sound.

    40. Re:you don't want this by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      briefly and without any damage

      There's no proof of that without a proper opthalmic examination. The thing about retinal damage, is you can't see it. Your vision routes around blind spots - you already have one in each eye, the fovea, that you are unaware of unless you make an effort to detect it.

    41. Re:you don't want this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think getting shot in the arm or leg isn't direct lethal damage, then that's a sure sign that everything you know about firearms was learned from television.

    42. Re:you don't want this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what hobby requires the use of 1W laser??

      These lasers are more dangerous than guns. Anyone misusing these (ie. not using a laser in 100% enclosed environment) should be put in jail for a long long time.

    43. Re:you don't want this by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 2

      Yup - worse, by reckoning of the Geneva Conventions. Weapons designed to blind are banned, whereas machines guns are totally ok.

    44. Re:you don't want this by lgarner · · Score: 1

      I've no problem with that, it's the other people that get blinded that I'm concerned about. Kind of like the innocent victims of a gang shootout, or the other drivers killed by the drunk- we're better off without the perpetrators, if only the victims weren't involved.

    45. Re:you don't want this by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Emergency signal when stranded.
      Fire it up into the clouds, everyone will see you and it'll be like a arrow to your location.

      Maybe you need a better imagination.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    46. Re:you don't want this by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      More like a machine gun that only shoots you in the arm or leg. That's would be ok to carry around right?

      I'm confused as to whether you're drastically underestimating the danger of a firearm or wildly overestimating the danger of a laser. Getting shot in the leg is not equivalent to a burn from holding your leg perfectly still while someone points a laser at you. You can not negate the danger of a firearm by closing your eyes or wearing protective glasses. Perhaps a more apt analogy would be a BB gun with a great range and fire rate, but extremely small and light projectiles. If they hit someone's eye they are going to do damage, and if you keep shooting something in exactly the same spot it'll do damage. Not a perfect analogy mind you, but a lot closer to the real danger presented here.

    47. Re:you don't want this by SleazyRidr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the issue is that everyone knows that guns are dangerous, so they get treated with respect. People think of laser pointers as especially cool flashlights, while they are as dangerous as a gun to someone's eyesight. Sure, they do have the small warning box near the bottom of the product page, but the title reads "Green Laser Pointer...", so you know these'll get bought by people who don't realise what they can do.

    48. Re:you don't want this by Zan+Lynx · · Score: 1

      Lethal weapon. Heck yes.

      I suspect most people trying to use an actual light saber would lose a limb or cut themselves in half pretty quickly. Lose control of the grip for just a second and ...

    49. Re:you don't want this by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      the average Joe views a laser pointer as a toy.

      So, a laser pointer is like a BB gun, and this is like a .308.

      The fact that we let the average Joe with no training go wild with it is just irresponsible, and sadly it is more likely the people around this person who will pay for it.

      Evidence doesn't point to people being that dumb. Vermont has essentially no gun laws, and there aren't accidental shootings in the news every day.

      I'd be shocked if Wicked Lasers didn't include a 52-page warning manual with these units. I'll stop before I make a car analogy.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    50. Re:you don't want this by Taty'sEyes · · Score: 1

      I don't need eyes, I use The Force.

      --
      We show geeks how to get their dream girl at EyesOfOdessa.com
    51. Re:you don't want this by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Yup - worse, by reckoning of the Geneva Conventions. Weapons designed to blind are banned, whereas machines guns are totally ok.

      I guess a dead solider only costs $5K to bury but a blinded soldier will rack up millions of dollars of costs over his lifetime. I can't think of another reason to prefer killing.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    52. Re:you don't want this by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      Yep, no reason it couldn't be used this way. The question is will they be used that way? It is a lot easier to accidentally f?!k up with a hand held laser than a gun and the fact that no significant consequences may occur the 1st few times it is misused, including discovery, will lead to dangerous attitudes. I think if you start firing off random shots at the sides of house, cars etc. then you will get noticed, and stopped, pretty quickly but the same isn't nearly as likely with a laser. You might also note my reference to teenagers and drunken idiots.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    53. Re:you don't want this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed!

      As much as I love lasers and technology in general, the thought of some random childish ass-hat kid or adult going around and blinding people with one of these scares me more than keeping them legal. Yes yes, you can argue it's a risk we're going to have to take, but seeing as you can't get your eyesight back after you've been blinded, this isn't a scenario to be taken lightly.

      Sorry, but these shouldn't be accessible to 90% of the population outside of the educational or corporate lab, or home lab if you've been properly trained.

    54. Re:you don't want this by vux984 · · Score: 1

      If you think getting shot in the arm or leg isn't direct lethal damage, then that's a sure sign that everything you know about firearms was learned from television.

      Lol, well said. That's a fair comment... I should have specifically said non-lethal even non-life-threatening gunshot wound to the arm or leg.

      You are absolutely right that, for example, opening a large artery could very rapidly and easily be fatal.

    55. Re:you don't want this by Kagura · · Score: 2

      I do need a brighter pointer for astronomy (easier aiming of telescopes and cameras, pointing objects out to others, etc) and 1000mW would be perfect for that (a nice bright clear beam even in low-dust conditions)

      I have a 5mW basic cheap green laser pointer and it is MORE than bright enough. You don't need a 10 or 50 or 1000mW laser to point telescopes and cameras. The beam is clear enough, even before but especially after your eyes become attenuated to the dark!

    56. Re:you don't want this by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      The average Joe does not buy a $1000 laser. "Training" does not cure irresponsibility, so what you really advocate is a ban, so that no one needs to be responsible. (Of course police will be able to buy expensive "non-lethal" crowd control lasers)

    57. Re:you don't want this by black+soap · · Score: 1

      Holding down the on-switch on this laser might have the capacity to simultaneously damage more eyes (and more stealthily) than holding down the trigger of a handgun.

    58. Re:you don't want this by black+soap · · Score: 1

      Yes, but can you purchase a handgun by mail? Because this laser can be shipped to any kid with his mommy's credit card handy.

    59. Re:you don't want this by black+soap · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, flame throwers are not regulated in most states.

      At all.

    60. Re:you don't want this by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      No.. I think gunshot wounds to your eye are also permanent.

      But will guns very feasibly blind a person standing 200 feet behind the user while the user aims the other way? Specular reflections make lasers, even lasers 20x less intense than this, incredibly dangerous. The vast majority of >10 mW laser users have their lasers held in a fixed position. Whenever they want to change that position, even by a couple degrees, they close the room and wear goggles because specular reflections are very hard to predict, even in a controlled lab environment. This 1 W laser, used outside, will blind a lot of people who aren't anywhere near the intended target.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    61. Re:you don't want this by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      The vendor is not responsible anymore than a hammer maker is responsible when someone kills his spouse with a hammer.

      Unlike a hammer, I can't think of a single legitimate use case for a *hand held* laser this powerful.

    62. Re:you don't want this by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 2

      There's no way to actually hand hold it with it powered in any remotely safe manner. If it doesn't terrify you, you don't know what you're dealing with, and if it does, you probably don't want one.

      I would say you're the one who doesn't know what we're dealing with here. You buy safety goggles to protect your eyes, they make goggles that can protect you against much stronger lasers than this. Yes, it is not a toy, and if you use it like a toy and without adequate safety measures, you will hurt yourself or someone else. But to say it's impossible to use a 1W laser safely is ridiculous.

      R E F L E C T I O N S

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    63. Re:you don't want this by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      You can't cut steel with it, you can't weld with it, or really do anything practical with it

      Exactly. They need to sell more powerful lasers!!!!

    64. Re:you don't want this by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      All it would take would be one moron bringing one to a school auditorium or movie theater and shining it at the audience while standing in front of the screen, thinking the thing's a toy.

      You wouldn't even have to do it yourself, you could just give it to some idiot to do it for you.

      This laser is a disaster waiting to happen. Like giving a bottle of nitroglycerine to someone without experience in explosives.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    65. Re:you don't want this by vux984 · · Score: 1

      I'm confused as to whether you're drastically underestimating the danger of a firearm or wildly overestimating the danger of a laser.

      As I replied to the AC, I was significantly understating the danger of a firearm.

      Getting shot in the leg is not equivalent to a burn from holding your leg perfectly still while someone points a laser at you.

      The assumption is that the laser goes in the eye, not the leg.

      You can not negate the danger of a firearm by closing your eyes or wearing protective glasses.

      That's not really the point. The public doesn't generally walk around with their eyes closed or with protective goggles on so the the threat from a laser shouldn't be minimized that way.

      These are high enough power to do INSTANT permanent damage to your eye at long range... so if your thinking "ow, that's bright, i should close my eyes... its way to too late".

      Perhaps a more apt analogy would be a BB gun with a great range and fire rate, but extremely small and light projectiles. If they hit someone's eye they are going to do damage, and if you keep shooting something in exactly the same spot it'll do damage. Not a perfect analogy mind you, but a lot closer to the real danger presented here.

      Yeah, that's better. Thanks.

      Still I think I'd rather be at a football game with jerk firing a bb gun randomly accross the field at the other spectators than a laser.

      BB guns might be understating though... you can't realistically take out the driver of a car with a bb gun, or blind a pilot... or wreck a satellite...

    66. Re:you don't want this by NoSleepDemon · · Score: 1

      Dear retard, while it certainly is CHEAPER to kill someone with a $1 hammer from Dollarama, it's infinitely EASIER to blind someone with a laser, you know, because of the way light tends to reflect unpredictably off surfaces, and how people tend not to deliberately kill each other with hammers...

    67. Re:you don't want this by St.Creed · · Score: 2

      My hobby is "shooting down helicopters that disturb my sleep". I'm pretty sure this will come in handy.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    68. Re:you don't want this by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Holography, for one. The stronger the laser you use, the shorter the required exposure time will be and the easier it will be to produce a decent image. Having said that, the coherence length of most diode lasers isn't long enough to make really good holograms. The green handheld DPSS lasers are a bit better in that regard, but still not ideal.

      My response to the question of "who needs a 1W laser?" would probably be along the lines of "the same person that needs a 200 mph Hayabusa or Corvette".

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    69. Re:you don't want this by whyde · · Score: 1

      This comment reminded me of Derek Lowe's chemistry blog, Things I Won't Work With.

      You'd need to be sufficiently stupid to want one of these, and almost recklessly negligent to sell them without vetting the customers thoroughly.

    70. Re:you don't want this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The general public has no use case for a 1W laser - or even many energy levels well below that.

      You mean aside from things like:

      • Building a handy-dandy home fusion generator.
      • Self-laser liposuction.
      • Curing warts. Permanently. Possibly by removing the fingers they are attached to and instantly cauterizing the wound.
      • Zombies. Enough said.
      • Sharks with frickin' laser beams.
      • Revenge (don't ask).
      • Killing flies in mid-air from across the room. Or across the city.
      • Making full-color holograms (along with your red and blue 1 W lasers) with fast film.

      I mean, I probably had you with Zombies. Didn't think of that, huh? Sure, a baseball bat is good too, but a green laser? That's as good as a Barbie baseball bat for Zombies...

    71. Re:you don't want this by Amouth · · Score: 1

      the average Joe views a laser pointer as a toy.

      So, a laser pointer is like a BB gun, and this is like a .308.

      The fact that we let the average Joe with no training go wild with it is just irresponsible, and sadly it is more likely the people around this person who will pay for it.

      Evidence doesn't point to people being that dumb. Vermont has essentially no gun laws, and there aren't accidental shootings in the news every day.

      I'd be shocked if Wicked Lasers didn't include a 52-page warning manual with these units. I'll stop before I make a car analogy.

      first comment i agree

      if people in Vermont looked and treated their gun as a toy rather than a weapon i'm sure there would be more... also should point out that they have ~0.2 % of the US population, and are below average on population density for the US, and from what i can see by stats average to below average # of gun owners per population.

      and if you think that all we need is documentation and disclaimers, then explain to me what went wrong with lawn darts.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    72. Re:you don't want this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the wattage you'd need, it's both cheaper and safer to just go with the flamethrower.

    73. Re:you don't want this by rthille · · Score: 1

      1KW? 'blind every motherfucker in the room'? What room, rooms don't have smoking holes throughout the walls...

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    74. Re:you don't want this by justsayin · · Score: 2

      Have your buddy pop those annoying balloons at the fair. You know the ones where the balloon is tougher than the blunted dart tip?

    75. Re:you don't want this by Amouth · · Score: 1

      no i do not advocate a ban.. people need to clearly understand what they are using and the effects their actions take. i'm sick of people not being responsible.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    76. Re:you don't want this by SomePgmr · · Score: 1

      You, me and every other gun owner knows that they're potentially dangerous and illegal to use in public. Well, aside from self defense purposes in areas where you're legally allowed to defend yourself (not in IL, where I live).

      But people treat lasers like toys. I'm not sure why... maybe because they don't usually go "bang". I've never seen a neighborhood kid waving a loaded gun around, pointing it at passing cars, into buildings, etc.

      In short, different things are different. Lasers just might be one of those things where you should have a minor (read as, easy to obtain) license to buy one... hard as it is for me to say.

    77. Re:you don't want this by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      > Evidence doesn't point to people being that dumb
      That your newspaper's front page does not report a new shooting accident each day in no way proves that people are not "dumb" enough to have shooting accidents, much less laser-pointer accidents.

    78. Re:you don't want this by mr1911 · · Score: 1

      can you purchase a handgun by mail?

      Unfortunately not. I wish it were possible. Centralized order processing and warehousing has reduced prices on a great variety of items that can be bought online or by mail, but due to hoplophobia we are forced to buy handguns at brick and mortar storefronts at prices that can be described as predatory in some locations.

      I realize folks are very concerned that kids can buy 1W lasers on the internet without any government regulation. Did you know that teenagers all over the country are buying incendiaries/explosives and traveling our roadways with it in their vehicles? This stuff is volatile -- it is extremely flammable, and when vaporized it can explode. Not only does our government let kids buy this stuff at will, but the government stores vast quantities of the precursor material and will release these stores to keep the prices low. This stuff can be had on the street for $3-$4/gallon, and is sold at convenience stores all over the country.

      It is a crazy world.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    79. Re:you don't want this by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Aside from legitimate industrial or scientific research purposes, I can't see any reason for the average (or even above-average) citizen to own a laser this powerful. In the hands of the average person it's at best a public hazard, and at worst a weapon. I'm no big fan of the government getting involved in what we can and can't own, but I also can see some very irresponsible people buying something like this because they think it's "cool", then carelessly blinding or seriously injuring themselves or others.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    80. Re:you don't want this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed--I have a 200 mW red, a 65 mW green, and a 5 mW violet (405 nm) and the violet is, by far, my favorite! True, the 200 mW red can burn things--but I have to wear goggles, and no one else can be around when I do it unless -they- have goggles... it's really not as fun as it sounds. Now the violet, OTOH, I don't have to worry about blinding anyone with, the color is quite beautiful (and rare in terms of laser pointers), plus the most fascinating things fluoresce when you least expect it. Get a $20 5 mW violet--they're cheaper and more fun.

    81. Re:you don't want this by xMrFishx · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, but your 200 mph car does not always drive at 200 mph. If it did I'd consider the danger similar. The 1W laser will, I figure operate at 1W for the large portion of it's operational charge, and is thus always dangerous. Though you did say "who needs" so I digress a little.

    82. Re:you don't want this by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Curios and relics are available by mail. That should mean a whole host of handguns are available by mail.

    83. Re:you don't want this by Zenicetus · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's the point about lasers used as "sky pointers" and scope aiming devices in amateur astronomy: It's self-limiting, because at a dark observing site, everyone wants to keep their night vision intact. So lasers don't need to be very bright, unless someone just geeks out (as astronomy nerds often do), and insists on having the most bad-ass laser pointer at the event. Hopefully, saner minds would prevail and shut it down.

    84. Re:you don't want this by xMrFishx · · Score: 1

      Luckily they operate over a relatively short range, comparative to firearms or lasers anyway and in a controllable manner, such as fireproof suits for the user in-case of wind direction change. There's also the ability to check the area of use prior to operation for unwanted recipients (checking a few acres for hiding people only takes a few minutes, checking a few miles is nearly impossible).

    85. Re:you don't want this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But to say it's impossible to use a 1W laser safely is ridiculous."

      Its totally possible to use a 1W laser safely... if its bolted to a bench, aimed at a beamstop, with no reflective/scattering surfaces around, and you are wearing proper wavelength laser safety glasses/goggles, preferably in a contained environment, etc... reasonably safe, *if you take proper precautions*.

      Now a *handheld* 1KW laser is another story... unless you bolt it to a bench, with the above precautions, its quite likely *virtually* impossible to use it safely - all you have to do is drop it, put it on a table and let it roll off, get bumped into, faint, etc... and it instantly is uncontrolled and a huge safety issue.

    86. Re:you don't want this by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I figured somebody would come up with the usual "guns don't kill people", "should we outlaw hammers, too?" rhetoric. Go bounce a hammer off a shiny surface and hit somebody with it without you even being aware of it and get back to me.

      Re: guns - yeahhh.

      That said, just to address the 'responsible' thing - there are two forms of that word. You're thinking of legal responsibility. And no, I don't think that Wicked Lasers et al should be legally responsible for what people do with the lasers they sell. The other form is in the action or inaction one takes in a matter -before- legal responsibility even becomes an issue.

      For example, if a bar owner here lets a guest leave drunk with car keys in hand, they're not responsible for the theoretical death of the guest / some other as a result of the drunk driving (depends on jurisdiction, though). But a bar owner that shows responsibility will still stop that guest, check for friends to take the guest / call the guest a cab instead.

      The companies that sell these high power laser pointers are like the bar owner that just puts up a sign "don't drink and drive" and think they've done a good job. As far as the law goes, they have. But that's a pathetically minimal effort.

      Just my opinion - I can see the other side of the argument and the slippery slope, I just disagree with it and think the slope isn't nearly as slippery as those quipping about hammers believe it to be :)

    87. Re:you don't want this by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I guess a dead solider only costs $5K to bury but a blinded soldier will rack up millions of dollars of costs over his lifetime. I can't think of another reason to prefer killing.

      Dead people don't suffer. In short, you can incapacitate someone or kill them, but the conventions ban weapons designed to permanently maim or cripple the enemy forces. The primary reason is humanitarian, not economic. The irony of claiming some ways to injure people are ethical and some aren't is not lost on me, neither was in on the people making the conventions. But it's the idea that even if we are at war, there are acceptable and less acceptable ways to wage war. Like for example slaughtering civilians, prisoners of wars, rape, torture, land mines, weapons to kill rescue workers and so on. That even if there's no war without suffering, that there is an obligation for everyone to minimize it - even among the enemy.

      Also in any but the two cases where you're either exterminating or being exterminated, you will have to live with these people afterwards. That kind of memories can burn bright and long, should ever the opportunity for revenge come.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    88. Re:you don't want this by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      and if you think that all we need is documentation and disclaimers, then explain to me what went wrong with lawn darts.

      If you mean to ensure perfect safety, then no amount of documentation will suffice. See Darwin Awards. I bought a lawnmower once that said not to use it to trim a hedge, and it had a pictogram of two men standing on either side of the hedge, holding the lawnmower by its deck.

      But, I had lots of fun with lawn darts as a kid and nothing went wrong. We were shown how not to throw them, just like I've drilled gun safety into my kids' heads. But a box of lawn darts were $9.99 and a 1W laser is $1000.

      I actually tried building a burning laser when I was 12, but ran out of money.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    89. Re:you don't want this by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2

      I'd love to play with a 1000mW laser, but since you can't look at the specular reflections, or objects you aim it at without protection, what's the point? What can you safely do with it once you pop a balloon with it, or light a book of matches or burn a wasps' nest? The fun would die out pretty quickly. You can't cut steel with it, you can't weld with it, or really do anything practical with it, and it'd be a boring toy once you've experienced the novelty of popping a balloon or two from across a field using nothing but a beam of light and find there isn't anything you can safely use it for.

      Well, mine's not 1W, just 350mW, but it, in combination with a CNC mill, or even my previous setup where I had swapped it in place of a pen in an old HP x/y plotter, did a fine job of: drawing fancy graphics on wood, precisely and rapidly cutting paper (my girlfriend is a collage artist), precisely and rapidly cutting fabric for sewing projects, and I'm currently working on making really inexpensive PCB soldermask stencils using it. I do have some really nice laser goggles, and when it's running, I'm the only one in the room. One of these days it'll get an enclosure, but with a bit of care with the optics, it is focussed to a fine point across a working distance of about 3mm, about 2 cm from the front optic, and at any distance over about 4cm it's a big fat sub-mW/mm beam that couldn't burn anything. At 20 meters the beam is almost a meter wide. I can crank it out so it has a tight beam, but that's dangerous and not very useful, so I leave it tightened down where it is both useful and not particularly dangerous.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    90. Re:you don't want this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not a very imaginative physicist.

      Anyhow: cars, guns, matches; there's lots of extremely dangerous things accessible to asshats. Teach the ignorant and punish the malicious. That's all that can be done, and all that should be done.

    91. Re:you don't want this by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      It's simply false to bother comparing them. I don't want to be shot. I -also- don't want to be blinded, and the fact that blinding won't kill me isn't really much consolation. I'm not much concerned with people owning guns because, while I've been around them a LOT, I've never witnessed unsafe handling or firing of them. In contrast, I've seen mass groups of idiots waving lasers around haphazardly in areas with large crowds.

    92. Re:you don't want this by mr1911 · · Score: 1

      Let's apply that to other things:
      No lasers available via mail - only incandescent bulbs.
      No modern computing products via mail - only semiconductors built in 1.0um or greater geometries.
      No car parts via mail - only horse and buggy accessories.
      No modern documents printed in the mail - typeset copy only.

      It is all making sense now.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    93. Re:you don't want this by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      The 1W laser will, I figure operate at 1W for the large portion of it's operational charge, and is thus always dangerous.

      I can't speak to Wicked's product line, but diode lasers can quite easily have their average power reduced by using them in a pulsed mode in the same manner that LEDs can be dimmed via pulse width modulation. Pulsing doesn't lower the instantaneous power when the laser is actually on, but it most definitely lowers the amount of energy available to be absorbed by whatever it hits. The same is true of DPSS lasers, but unlike most diode lasers, one can also *increase* the instantaneous power level substantially by careful selection of the pulse frequency and duty cycle.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    94. Re:you don't want this by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Curios and Relics are not that old. 50 years ago lots of modern handguns were available.

      For instance:
      http://www.aimsurplus.com/product.aspx?item=F3WALP1&name=German+Walther+P1+9mm+Pistol+with+one+mag&groupid=254

    95. Re:you don't want this by black+soap · · Score: 1

      Curios and relics are available by mail. That should mean a whole host of handguns are available by mail.

      Curios and relics are available by mail with a C&R license from the .gov

    96. Re:you don't want this by DangerOnTheRanger · · Score: 1

      You mean +++Agreed.

    97. Re:you don't want this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would find using an *aluminum* beam stop, painted black or not, foolish. "It just sat there and smoked" - yeah, burning off the 1500F black engine paint to eventually get to the shiny metal underneath (most mirrors are coated with aluminum for reflectivity).

      I think I'd swap out the cinder block for a high-temp refractory brick or block of high-temp (2000F+) castable refractory cement before I'd use a block of highly reflective metal, painted or not.

    98. Re:you don't want this by robot256 · · Score: 1

      This particular model has only two settings, 1000mW and 500mW. I would have expected a 100mW setting as well. As it stands, neither of the two power levels are particularly safe.

    99. Re:you don't want this by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      And what hobby requires the use of 1W laser??

      Taking out down Chinese communication satellites?

    100. Re:you don't want this by mr1911 · · Score: 1

      Yes, and many 1911's that are perfectly functional are more than 50 years old.

      What is your point? Are you seriously arguing the C&R firearms do not artificially inflate the price of new handguns because you can get C&Rs via mail? You casually omit the fact that one must still possess a C&R FFL and that doing anything to the C&R firearm, such as sporterizing a Mauser can be interpreted by the BAFTE as altering the gun and land you in serious legal trouble.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    101. Re:you don't want this by Amouth · · Score: 1

      i agree that the 1k price tag puts this above the average Joe to be stupid with but there are a lot of lower priced lasers that can have the same blinding effect, and a lot of idiots have them, check YouTube.

      you say you drill gun safety into your kids' heads.. good for you.. I'm glad you do.. but there is a guy right now buying a gun and not getting that - in fact not getting anything other than ammo to go with it..

      I'm not saying you stop the guy buying the gun - but shouldn't he be required to show that he is able to exercise basic gun safety to buy one?

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    102. Re:you don't want this by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      That your newspaper's front page does not report a new shooting accident each day in no way proves that people are not "dumb" enough to have shooting accidents, much less laser-pointer accidents.

      Indeed. There are two reasons why things aren't in the news. One is that they don't happen. The other is that they happen often enough that it's not "news". Had a friend from LA once laugh at my local TV news because they reported a murder, with nothing particularly spectacular about it. Hey, it doesn't happen every day here!

      That said, Vermont is, well, Vermont... it probably doesn't happen too often there, simply because nothing much ever happens there. Given that nobody lives there, there aren't too many people having gun accidents.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    103. Re:you don't want this by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying you stop the guy buying the gun - but shouldn't he be required to show that he is able to exercise basic gun safety to buy one?

      What makes guns or lasers special? How about swords, or kitchen knives, pocket knives, propane tanks, gasoline, industrial chemicals, plumbing pipe, glass, farm equipment, chainsaws, automobiles? I think you see where I'm going with that.

      What's the end you're trying to achieve here? Remember, any of these restrictions impinges on personal liberties, so it's not like there's no downside.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    104. Re:you don't want this by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously arguing the C&R firearms do not artificially inflate the price of new handguns because you can get C&Rs via mail?
      I would argue they neither inflate nor deflate the value of new firearms.

      You casually omit the fact that one must still possess a C&R FFL and that doing anything to the C&R firearm, such as sporterizing a Mauser can be interpreted by the BAFTE as altering the gun and land you in serious legal trouble.
      That has nothing to do with getting a gun in the mail.

    105. Re:you don't want this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go bounce a hammer off a shiny surface and hit somebody with it without you even being aware of it and get back to me.

      You can, in fact, quite easily injure someone with a hammer by accident if you're not careful. For instance, you can lose your grip on the backswing and have it go flying right out of your hand. That you can't duplicate the "ricochet" scenario you set up as a strawman is irrelevant.

    106. Re:you don't want this by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      that doing anything to the C&R firearm, such as sporterizing a Mauser can be interpreted by the BAFTE as altering the gun and land you in serious legal trouble.

      There should be severe punishments for those who do bubba jobs on Mausers.

    107. Re:you don't want this by mysidia · · Score: 1

      This thing terrifies the hell out of me. And, while my view might not be popular... I feel the regulators should exercise eminent domain and force wicked lasers to stop selling these 500mW plus units to consumers.

      The "warning" just is not good enough. There is a lack of informed consent from the people in public places persons with this laser will go to.

      Their own marketing material admits these are too powerful to use as laser pointers at any time, and for god sakes... even capable of damaging satellites in orbit.

      Frankly... these are seriously dangerous pieces of equipment. It seems like the equivalent to a high-powered machine gun is being marketed as if it was some sort of harmless water gun.

      Instead... these lasers should be treated as munitions, such as C4 or high powered machine guns. Any highly portable device that can cause instant blindness, start fires, and burn flesh, from a substantial distance, that can be easily moved out quickly, should be subject to at least the most basic of distribution and use controls.

    108. Re:you don't want this by mysidia · · Score: 1

      So no one would ever want to use one as part of a hobby? No one would ever find a use you do not know of?

      Their own documentation shows this thing is too powerful to safely be used as a pointer.

      There's really no substantive legal use for this thing that has been documented. If its only uses are "to have fun with" and criminal uses, then there is not much to redeem it there.

      There might be some ways to use this as part of a hobby, I suppose. I wait an explanation of what that is, and why the laser is required to be handheld and easily portable for that use.

      Most lasers of this strength are not highly mobile. If the thing didn't have an integrated power supply, or it wasn't otherwise so portable, it would not be such a huge issue.

      Being handheld is such a problem, because it means someone could use it to wreak havok from a hiding place, and then get out of the area quickly, evading any consequences or identification of the perpetrator... since its distance is so long, they could probably escape just as easily as if they were wreaking havoc with a long range sniper rifle; a long range sniper rifle that happened to be a full-auto machine gun as well, with an added advantage of making NO noise when in use.

    109. Re:you don't want this by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Handheld lasers are not required to make holograms. You can utilize mounted lasers with separate external power supply modules and hard wiring for the hobby of holography.

      Not that there are many (any?) people doing holography anymore...

    110. Re:you don't want this by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right - you don't need a handheld laser, and a larger unit of the same power is almost always a better choice due to the longer coherence length and more stable wavelength (color). Having said that, a 1 watt green or blue (even if it's a cheap argon-ion unit) laser will almost certainly cost more than the $400.00 these little handhelds cost, and the average 15 amp wall outlet won't provide enough power to run the laser, water pump, and other required gear.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    111. Re:you don't want this by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      And many of those personal liberties impinge on societal liberties. Should the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many? I say no. Should the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? Again no - but there must be careful balance between them. I would argue that sacrificing the right to own a device that if pointed at an office building window could potentially blind everyone in a large open plan area but has near zero practical application in favour of the many's right to not be blinded is a fair trade-off.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    112. Re:you don't want this by black+soap · · Score: 1

      But none of that is registration yet. The FFL still retains the form with the s/n recorded, so a database of owners isn't too far off.

      And, I might point out, even though it is currently against the law for the ATF to put those records into a computerized database, the hard copy of your 4473 must be preserved at the dealer's expense, and if the dealer ever closes/gives up license, all those records become ATF property.

    113. Re:you don't want this by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      You have to aim that gun, however, and as has been pointed out can feasibly injure or kill much fewer people in a given period of time with the gun; additionally, with the gun you basically need rather good aim and an intention to harm (or youre foolish enough to play with a loaded gun with the safety off in public). With the laser, even "normal" use outside can instantly (speed of light) and silently (no clue as to what is happening unless you see the laser, and then, whoops, youre blind) injure a large number of people.

      I think you will also find that the laser's ability to injure diminishes FAR less with distance than the handgun.

    114. Re:you don't want this by MokuMokuRyoushi · · Score: 1

      No. Laser pointers are to BB guns as this is to a frag grenade, because the damage will not be contained to a single point - if it touches off anything reflective(white paint, a chrome car bumper, anything really) it will cause retinal damage to anyone not wearing proper protection. There's no reason for Average Joe to even have one of these, what the hell do you need a laser that stupidly powerful for outside of a controlled lab setting? Seriously.
      The real problem though is that Joe isn't going to read or care about the manual("Yeah yeah, I accept the terms, *click*"), and when he gets careless, someone else's eyes are fucked. There's no way around it, this is a retarded product to be selling to the general public.

      --
      Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
    115. Re:you don't want this by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      And what hobby requires the use of 1W laser??

      Amateur astronomy for use as a guide laser. Despite the price, I may have to pick one of these up for aiming my radiotelescope. It also might work for killing bugs. Might not be powerful enough for that though.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    116. Re:you don't want this by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm curious as to the use of this 'toy'. What can an amateur 'maker' do with a 1W laser ? Can you use it to cut paper / leather / plastic sheets / thin metals ? Can you use it to engrave stone ? Can you use it to sculpt object ? I guess you could build you own homemade Lidar with quite a bit of extra electronics and optics, but that'll keep you busy for a while.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    117. Re:you don't want this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just plain foolish. Both the gun and the laser are only going to hit the thing they're aimed at. If you wave a gun around at random and fire it while you're doing it, you're no more or less dangerous than someone waving one of these lasers around, Probably more so; that gun is deadly at a much longer range than the laser is.

    118. Re:you don't want this by Shrike82 · · Score: 1

      Depends, he may have wanted you to evaluate his agreement before he increased it.

      --
      You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
    119. Re:you don't want this by John+Courtland · · Score: 1
      You should read up on Illinois' castle doctrine. It's actually pretty permissive as far as your ability to defend yourself / family in your domicile. Cribbed from wikipedia:

      (720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 1961 Section 7. Justifiable use of force. Use of deadly force justified if the person reasonably believes they are in danger of death or great physical harm. Use of deadly force justified if the unlawful entry is violent, or the person believes the attacker will commit a felony upon gaining entry. Section 7-2(b). Prevents the aggressor from filing any claim against the defender unless the use of force involved "willful or wanton misconduct". Illinois has no requirement of retreat. (People v. Bush, 111 N.E.2d 326 Ill. 1953).

      That said, the lack of CCW and the bullshit FOID are another story all together...

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    120. Re:you don't want this by mr1911 · · Score: 1

      That has nothing to do with getting a gun in the mail.

      Actually it does. You must become a FFL to get a handgun in the mail. Even a C&R.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    121. Re:you don't want this by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Yes. That's my point. In practice it can be worse than a machine gun which runs out of bullets.

      Go ask around and most people would rather get shot than get permanently blinded.

      The Norway attack guy managed to kill 69 people but he tricked many of them to gather around him.

      In contrast it's much easier to blind hundreds of people with a high powered laser. I'm not going to say how given the numbers of idiots and scum about.

      --
    122. Re:you don't want this by Amouth · · Score: 1

      well lets look at the differences between what you pointed out.

      Group A) Guns & Lasers
      Group B) Swords/Knives/Piping/chainsaws
      Group C) Propane takes/Gasoline/industrial chemicals
      Group D) Farm Equipment/Automobiles

      Group A) Ranged weapons - a person can be shot/blinded/burned without even knowing the attacker or having a chance to, also the person can easily harm someone they did not intend to harm for a rather large range.
      Group B) Close range weapons - while an attacker could harm someone without them knowing it almost has to be intentional - sure there are accidents and most of that is a lack of respect of blood range on both the person with the weapon and the other party
      Group C) chemicals - most of these are regulated - if there is legit home use (aka propane tanks) then it is easy to come by - but a lot of industrial chemicals are restricted to trained personal with an established use.
      Group D) Large motorized equipment that requires training and usually some type of licence/cert to operate.

      to come pare any of theses groups to each other you have to label them correctly - you have to weight the usage benefits with the potential dangers.

      Again at no point am i advocating that you should not be allowed to own one of theses lasers, but just as you are required to have a licence to operate a motor vehicle outside your on property - i feel you should have at a requirement at bare minimum to be able to demonstrate the ability to safely carry and operate a ranged weapon out side your own property.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    123. Re:you don't want this by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I would actually prefer to be shot in the leg than be permanently blinded by a 1 watt laser. I can still do my job without a leg, it's lot harder if I'm blind. Same goes for much recreation.

      There is also a high chance the leg injury would heal. It won't be complete but I would likely be able to still walk. Retinas don't heal as well.

      It's not hard to blind people with such a laser. You don't need to be very accurate: at 50 metres the beam diameter is 7.7cm. 100 metres = 15.2 cm. It is easy to conceal, makes no noise, there is little warning - your targets may not notice the misses till they get blinded.

      A gun has a more limited supply of bullets. The Norway guy got 69 people because he dressed in a police uniform and tricked people into surrounding him before he started shooting them.

      You can not negate the danger of a firearm by closing your eyes or wearing protective glasses.

      You can be blinded before you close your eyes.

      If you're in the habit of walking around with your eyes closed, getting blinded isn't going to affect your lifestyle so much. The rest of us prefer being able to see stuff.

      Which protective glasses are you going to wear all the time? There are blue 1 watt lasers out there and now there are green ones. There are 300mW red green and purple ones already. Going around viewing stuff via video cameras is not practical for the rest of us.

      The FAA says the number of incidents where people point lasers at aircraft has nearly doubled from 2009 to 2010: http://fastlane.dot.gov/2011/06/civil-penalties-for-laser-strikes.html

      There are already idiots/scum with high powered lasers - this is one more weapon for them.

      --
    124. Re:you don't want this by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      When lasers hit imperfectly reflective surfaces, they scatter high intensity light.

      The point everyone is trying to make to you is that when you shine that laser at a brick or concrete wall (which has shiney, irregular bits in it), and 10 people look at that dot, those 10 people are all now blind. If the light glances into someones eye from an angle, they now have eye damage.

      And even if you HAD to aim the light at someone's eye, the laser is continuous, and the trigger can be held for at least a second or two, and swept in a direction with a casual wave of the hand. Anyone along that path can have serious eye damage done.

    125. Re:you don't want this by Yamioni · · Score: 1

      The .300 Winchester Magnum is a special case among handguns in that it bears a rifled barrel. That is why it is accurate at that range. Traditional handguns do not have rifled barrels and as such the bullet begins to tumble and alter its trajectory after only a few hundred feet (could be a bit longer, but not much more than a quarter mile; I'm having trouble finding a good source.) If someone manages to so much as hit you with a 9mm at a mile away let alone takes out an eye, they got extremely lucky.

      I'll grant you that on the small scale a firearm can be just as permanently damaging as a high powered laser beam. But on a larger scale, bullets don't reflect off of surfaces with the same velocity as they had before impact, and they also don't split into infinite pieces capable of harming everyone around. Firearms are arguably more deadly than a laser, but lasers are far more dangerous in nearly all situations.

      --
      Cool post bro, highfive \o
    126. Re:you don't want this by SomePgmr · · Score: 1

      Oh sure, we've had a few very high profile cases of people defending themselves inside their homes lately, including one that helped get the illegal Chicago gun bans repealed.

      I specifically meant carry, which keeps getting kicked around and then thrown out in trade for something else. It's horrible.

      Hopefully some day we'll get it straightened out. But it's Illinois, one of the most corrupt states in the country. Things like that are hard to do.

    127. Re:you don't want this by Yamioni · · Score: 1

      It really should be illegal to sell something as a 'Laser Pointer' when the manufacturer/merchant explicitly tell you not to point it at people, animals, or cars. So that leaves what? Plants and other inanimate objects? It's not exactly a pointer when you have to be damned careful at what you're pointing. Calling it a laser pointer downplays its dangerousness and to me has the appearance of intentionally misleading the customer to increase sales. If anyone ever gets harmed by one of these things, WickedLasers should be charged with criminal negligence and fined for millions of dollars. I don't have anything against them selling high powered lasers, but selling them irresponsibly and describing them to potential customers in a way one might describe a toy is simply inexcusable.

      --
      Cool post bro, highfive \o
    128. Re:you don't want this by Yamioni · · Score: 1

      Thank nature for that one. Flame throwers are unregulated and fully legal in most of the US due to insect populations. The absolute safest way to combat swarms of insects is a cloud of firey death. As I heard it, flamethrowers were unregulated and legal to help combat bees and their flying stinging cousins, and remain so just in case their populations happen to surge out of control in the future. Lucky for all of us, flamethrowers are relatively short range weapons, and only cause significant damage if used to set homes or forested areas ablaze. Plus humans have a long history of knowledge of 'Fire Bad!' so the people using flamethrowers irresponsibly are few and far between.

      --
      Cool post bro, highfive \o
    129. Re:you don't want this by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      If nothing else, surely it's false advertising to label something as a laser pointer, when the description of the product itself claims that it's too powerful to use as a laser pointer.

    130. Re:you don't want this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do need a brighter pointer for astronomy (easier aiming of telescopes and cameras, pointing objects out to others, etc) and 1000mW would be perfect for that (a nice bright clear beam even in low-dust conditions) but the risk of dropping it or a chance reflection off an insect, bat, bird, etc. is just too great because at that level a close range reflection would mean near instant blindness. Even the 70mW-90mW (WL has a 75mW model) is a bit much, but 25mW might not be enough and if you go 50mW, why not go for 75mW for $10 more?

      I REALLY hope I live in a different country to someone as dangerous and stupid as you thinking they need anything more than a 15mw laser to aim a telescope.

  9. Damn, not powerful enough by hellfire · · Score: 3, Funny

    No popcorn for me :(

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:Damn, not powerful enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you could do your popcorn one kernel at a time:-) Major geek points for popping a bowl of popcorn this way.

    2. Re:Damn, not powerful enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but it's both immoral AND unethical. But it would be a useful topic when discussing Blinding Techniques.

    3. Re:Damn, not powerful enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure it was a reference to Real Genius. Go watch it. Good movie. :)

  10. What's the point? by Animats · · Score: 1

    1 watt lasers have been around for years. You can buy the diodes. This is just cute packaging. It's not powerful enough to be a useful weapon or cutting tool, and it's too powerful in a narrow beam to be a useful illumination source.

    In the CNC laser cutter world, this is viewed as a very weak laser. Commercial laser cutters start around 30 watts (for thin plastic and wood) and go up to about 5KW (sheet steel).

    1. Re:What's the point? by ThorGod · · Score: 1

      So...what's the average price for a 30w commercial laser cutter? How about a comparable 1w laser diode + driver system?

      My laser knowledge is probably outdated since I've read old texts on laser experiments. But, last I knew, laser diodes aren't always 'true lasers' like, say, a gas laser. Something about how the waveform varies too much between exiting photons. What I've read, and please inform me, is that diodes can't be used for all experiments.

      --
      PS: I don't reply to ACs.
    2. Re:What's the point? by djdanlib · · Score: 1

      What's a weapon, though? It causes immediate, permanent damage to your opponent's unprotected eyes. That's pretty weapon-like. If you can rob someone of an entire empirical sense, that's worse than chopping off a finger or something, no?

    3. Re:What's the point? by GNious · · Score: 1

      Wow - handheld 30W-5KW ... seriously, handheld lasers in that handheld category is way cool and handheld and stuff.
      What kind of handheld batteries do they come with?

    4. Re:What's the point? by tibit · · Score: 1

      New CNC engraver units (made in China) with a 30-40W CO2 laser go for less than the price of this 1W green laser. And that's all-inclusive: you get the enclosure, laser, rudimentary water pump, X-Y table with actuators, cover, electronics board to drive motors and control laser.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    5. Re:What's the point? by ThorGod · · Score: 1

      Do you have a link, please? I looked yesterday, but found only places that didn't list prices. (That usually means $$$$.)

      --
      PS: I don't reply to ACs.
    6. Re:What's the point? by tibit · · Score: 1

      See, for example, this eBay listing (I've got nothing to do with the seller) -- cheap at $700. I think that it does require some TLC to get running, but not much. One guy had retrofitted this machine with motor driver board from a Roland DXY plotter. His quality experience was poor, but it's unclear whether he got it from the same seller or not. It certainly is the same machine. A friend got this machine off the eBay listing above and it came, at least, with all screws still in their right places and nothing loose. He also used his own driver board.

      For $700 + some TLC + $300 in parts you can have a beautiful engraver, even if you were to design your own driver board and order it in qty 1. You can of course use the included driver board (it works), but it's not documented and I don't think it's trivial to get your own software to talk to it. It may well be, but I just don't know anyone who got it done.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    7. Re:What's the point? by ThorGod · · Score: 1

      Oddly, ebay's the last place I think to look. I was thinking more like a retail outlet. Wow, that's wild. Thanks!

      --
      PS: I don't reply to ACs.
    8. Re:What's the point? by tibit · · Score: 1

      ebay should be the first place to look. You'll be amazed at how many cool surplus gadgets you can find there.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  11. state of the art by StuffMaster · · Score: 1

    Since the eye is far more sensitive to green than to blue, this is pretty much the state of the art in putting-dots-on-stuff technology.

    So anything green is state of the art?

    1. Re:state of the art by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      So anything green is state of the art?

      If that's the case, I've got a sandwich that's bleeding edge!

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    2. Re:state of the art by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Eat it, and you might start bleeding from something.

  12. Re:Cool... but at the same time pointless by ae1294 · · Score: 1

    Cool... but at the same time pointless. Seriously what is the point of this laser?

    It'll keep those damn kids off of my lawn and in the ER where they belong.

  13. Re:slashvertisement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, the animated Slashdot ad at the page header shows "Wicked Lasers". How appropriate.

    You mean "Wicked Lasers 10% off!"

  14. Re:Cool... but at the same time pointless by kakyoin01 · · Score: 1

    Cool... but at the same time pointless.

    A pointless pointer? Hmm...

    Only a matter of time before some dumb idiot shines it at an airplane or into a person or animals eye.

    If you shine me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine!

    --
    The more you know, the more you have to say and the more you should listen.
  15. "Green Laser Pointer"...but don't use it as one?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    WTF? The title of the page says "Green Laser Pointer" and then in the page itself they have this bit "The S3 Krypton is too powerful to be used as a laser pointer or a gunsight." I'm sure Average Joe is going to still treat this as a powerfule Green Laser pointer to impress and blind his friends with.

    I'm very curious to hear about what people actually do with these lasers. Being around Lasers for several years and currently working in the photonics field, I just don't understand what people are using these lasers for in their homes? Funnily enough, this very laser model made it into our EH&S laser safety training material last week.

  16. Need Sharks by cheezitmike · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nice friggin' lasers. Now we just need some friggin' sharks to go with them.

    1. Re:Need Sharks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like that movie Austin Powers!? Hell yes, that's funny! LOL!!! LOL!!! ROFL

  17. Missing the point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What, exactly, can one do with a hand-held laser of this power? By their own admission it's too powerful to be used as a laser pointer. I understand the utility of powerful bench-mounted lasers. This thing just seems like a novelty... an expensive, dangerous, novelty...

  18. Re:Cool... but at the same time pointless by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    You can combine it with a rotating mirror and a DLP and make monochrome pictures on a wall a long way away? You can fire it at a spinning screen and make Star Wars Holonet-style images?

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  19. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm pretty sure wicked has been selling the 1W green lasers for a while now, certainly before the blue one. Looks like another ad made it to the frontpage...

  20. A bit overhyped. Intergalactic? by Dinghy · · Score: 1

    From TFA: "With it's intergalactic range of 85 miles, the S3 Krypton is the first and only handheld laser visible from outer space." Maybe it's different here but I'd hardly call 85 miles "intergalactic."

  21. Re:"Green Laser Pointer"...but don't use it as one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use a Laser Genetics model on my bow for hog hunting. It is admittedly less powerful than this model, but it is great for illuminating targets.

    Honestly, I can't think of a personal use for one like this.

  22. Obligitory: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Caution! Do not look into laser with remaining eye.

  23. Re:Cool... but at the same time pointless by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    You can combine it with a rotating mirror and a DLP and make monochrome pictures on a wall a long way away? You can fire it at a spinning screen and make Star Wars Holonet-style images?

    A sixty foot image of Princess Lea in the middle of the park?

    What's not to like?

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  24. Green Vs Blue Laser questions by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    I understand longer wavelength light (i.e. -> infra red) but blue photons have higher energy than green ones, so would a blue laser be better or worse than a green laser for burning/meltng stuff?

    Given we know that exposing your eyes to any laser light is a bad idea, and that blue light has more energy but your eyes are way more sensitive to green, which color laser would potentially be a higher risk for damaging your eyes (say from specular reflections)?

    1. Re:Green Vs Blue Laser questions by stillnotelf · · Score: 1

      The most important thing would be, what wavelengths does the material you're cutting absorb? Whatever it absorbs best will heat it for cutting the fastest, I would think. The blue is a greater risk for damaging your eyes, both because the photons are higher energy and because your eye sees it less well so you are less likely to say "damn, that's bright" and look away. For vision, the higher-energy photons matter more than absorption, because the damage done to your eyes is not so much heating damage as bleaching damage - chromophores (and DNA and stuff) in your eyes gets destroyed at the micro level, not the macro level.

    2. Re:Green Vs Blue Laser questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand longer wavelength light (i.e. -> infra red) but blue photons have higher energy than green ones, so would a blue laser be better or worse than a green laser for burning/meltng stuff?

      Given we know that exposing your eyes to any laser light is a bad idea, and that blue light has more energy but your eyes are way more sensitive to green, which color laser would potentially be a higher risk for damaging your eyes (say from specular reflections)?

      Answering your second question first, the eye light sensitivity is not a factor. The problem is the eye lens focuses the beam to a tiny spot on the retina and that spot gets fried before you can blink. Any laser (collimated) beam with a wavelength between about 300 nm (near UV) and 1400 nm (1.4 um, near infrared) has the same damage threshold. The near IR beams are especially insidious, as you don't have a visual response so you don't look away or blink, just continue to accumulate damage. Outside those wavelengths, the beam is absorbed by the lens or cornea. Since it's not focused to a point the damage threshold is much greater, more like what it takes to burn skin. See publications by the Laser Institute of America for details.

      For the first question, it depends on the absorption characteristics. If you shine a blue laser on blue material it will reflect more light energy than will red paper, for instance, so it would heat up more readily. If it doesn't have a well-defined color you won't notice much difference. Back to the other question, the retina, despite the varying light->nerve impulse sensitivity of the cells, is pretty uniformly absorptive to the various colors. I.e., grey.

      SB

    3. Re:Green Vs Blue Laser questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At one watt, as the power of the two is the same, it makes no practical difference. A "Joule" is the energy you get from dropping a 1 kg hammer roughly 10 cm. Imagine that falling on your thumb. Ouch. Now imagine putting a nail over your thumb and dropping the hammer 10 cm onto the nail. WAY ouch as it punches right through. A 1W laser with a beam a mm wide or so is pretty much like a machine pistol shooting brad type nails packing a joule of energy ever second. If it was CW (continuous output) it would pretty much drill right through you if held steady, score you more than skin deep if swept across you slowly, and blind you instantly anywhere the beam actually touches your retina. This is true independent of the color of the laser. The only aspect of color that matters is if the beam interacts with materials that differentially absorb or reflect particular colors -- a "green" object that precisely matched the color of the laser would reflect more of the energy than a black one that absorbed it all.

      To put it in perspective, a 100 W light bulb that produced only visible light (no heat etc) has an intensity of roughly 100/4\pi W/m^2 one meter away (which is pretty bright if you are one meter away staring it it, even brighter if you stare at a 300 Watt actual light bulb that has roughly the same intensity as this imaginary one. 100/4\pi = 8 W/m^2. Now consider 1 W/(1mm)^2 = 1 W/(0.001)^2 = 10^6 W/m^2. That's the brightness of a 1 W laser with a 1 mm^2 beam cross section. That would be like the light of 10^5 100W light bulbs viewed a meter away. Poof. No more retina, optic nerve, leave it on too long it will burn right into your brain.

      I want one.

      rgb

    4. Re:Green Vs Blue Laser questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand longer wavelength light (i.e. -> infra red) but blue photons have higher energy than green ones, so would a blue laser be better or worse than a green laser for burning/meltng stuff?

      They're rated in watts, not photons/second, so that's irrelevant.

      Given we know that exposing your eyes to any laser light is a bad idea, and that blue light has more energy but your eyes are way more sensitive to green, which color laser would potentially be a higher risk for damaging your eyes (say from specular reflections)?

      At the same power level, blue is worse, but specular reflections are high enough power density to burn your retina (which depends almost entirely on power, not wavelength).

  25. Re:Cool... but at the same time pointless by TheCRAIGGERS · · Score: 1

    A sixty foot image of Princess Lea in the middle of the park?

    What's not to like?

    I've heard her beauty can blind a man.

  26. Re:Cool... but at the same time pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oooh, like they did in 1967! How amazing!

  27. Laser Microscope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.teravolt.org/microlaser.php

  28. The first time I used this by Lucas123 · · Score: 2

    When I used this laser for my Power Point presentation, the projection screen ended up looking like a kiddy's scissor class had cut it up for a paper doll!

    1. Re:The first time I used this by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      But it was okay, because noone could see the presentation anyway.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
  29. three power level? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my power level's always hidden.

  30. 1 watt laser that anybody can buy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's plane-crashingly awesome!

  31. what the heck are these for? by craftycoder · · Score: 2

    Can any explain why they want one of these exceedingly dangerous "toys" lying around? This seems like the kind of thing that felony reckless depraved indifference assault charges was designed for.

    1. Re:what the heck are these for? by kirkb · · Score: 1

      Second amendment!

      - pretend to have weapons around for "protection"
      - actually have it because its cool and/or makes you feel like a big shot
      - eventually gets used to [accidentally | deliberately] kill or injure self or others.

      --
      Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
    2. Re:what the heck are these for? by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      No difference than any other exceedingly dangerous "Toy" that the average person owns.

      Stop trying to be everyone's Mommy.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    3. Re:what the heck are these for? by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no legitimate use. I have a 4mW green laser pointer, and that is clearly visible in daylight and quite enough. The only use I see is as an anti-personnel and anti-aircraft weapon. In quite a few countries possession only will land you in jail. And there are quite a few stupid scumbags that point these at airplanes or helicopters for fun. One went down for several years here recently for pointing it at an ambulance helicopter in flight. That is 4 times attempted murder. (pilot, EMT, doctor, patient). Quite even making the pilot unable to fly safely for 15 minutes can kill the patient. You can do that with a much smaller laser already.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:what the heck are these for? by craftycoder · · Score: 1

      I don't care if you have one. I just want to know why you want one? It's so dangerous and also so not obviously dangerous. It's kind of like having land mines in your back yard. Take into account the fact that you could be blinded or blind someone else on accident so easily with a simple reflection.

    5. Re:what the heck are these for? by craftycoder · · Score: 1

      Guns, knives, cars, dynamite, chain saws, and so many other things are not toys. They are tools. Is this a tool or a toy?

    6. Re:what the heck are these for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, you are too young to remember this.

    7. Re:what the heck are these for? by Local+ID10T · · Score: 1

      I just want to know why you want one?

      None of your damn business.

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    8. Re:what the heck are these for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One went down for several years here recently for pointing it at an ambulance helicopter in flight. That is 4 times attempted murder. (pilot, EMT, doctor, patient). Quite even making the pilot unable to fly safely for 15 minutes can kill the patient. You can do that with a much smaller laser already.

      Fuuuuuuck. 15 minutes? Medical helicopters are often flying at an altitude where even a few seconds of blindness and/or disorientation could easily result in an undesirable air/ground interface occurring.

    9. Re:what the heck are these for? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Well, none that you can think of, anyway. Neither can I, actually, my 5mw green laser does the job. I wouldn't mind having a slightly more powerful, but 1W? I just don't need it. But then, who would ever need more than 640k of memory, too? ;)
      I'm reminded of the saying, "With great power comes great responsibility". The growing conundrum is, as technology continues to advance (and outpace our social maturity) it puts ever more powerful tools in the hands of the common man; thus the increased likelihood that we're going to see more abuses and injuries.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    10. Re:what the heck are these for? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      There is no legitimate use.

      DPSS pump for UV lasers for fine-feature photolithography.

      Mount in x/y plotter for cnc marking of wood or papercutting.

      Drilling vias in polyimide for flex PCB's.

      Pump for adjustable-wavelength dye laser.

      I could probably come up with another 20 legitimate uses if I felt like it, but I just mentioned those because I've used 1-10W lasers for all those things.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    11. Re:what the heck are these for? by KonoWatakushi · · Score: 1

      The obvious "home use" would be holography. The next use (at home) is inside of a holographic optical storage device. IIRC, this 1W green laser is the very component that is keeping these devices from the mass market.

    12. Re:what the heck are these for? by geekforhire · · Score: 1

      Break into my house in the middle of the night and see how I "pretend" to have weapons for protection...

    13. Re:what the heck are these for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not going to buy a laser in "laser pointer" form for any of those.

    14. Re:what the heck are these for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Normal laser pointers are pretty harmless. I don't like the fear over those.

      This? This 1W laser is a potential weapon and should be treated as such. There ARE legitimate uses in scientific labs and the like. This should NOT be allowed in the hands of irresponsible people (children or adults) under any circumstances. They will blind people with it. You shouldn't even be able to buy this without having someone approve what you plan to use it for and being able to prove that you can store it securely and that you have proper safety equipment.

      I don't mind it being in someone's home lab or part of a CNC cutting device, but if some jerk buys it to play Star Wars and tries to zap people, they belong in jail.

    15. Re:what the heck are these for? by craftycoder · · Score: 1

      Those are all interesting and compelling reasons, but what does that have to do with it being mounted in a light saber case with a battery and marketed in this way. If you want to source 1w laser diodes at digikey, knock yourself out. What is the purpose for one mounted in a light saber like case though?

    16. Re:what the heck are these for? by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      Duh! It's for mounting on your pet-shark!

      --
      This is blinging
    17. Re:what the heck are these for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taking out speed/red light cameras. I've got about 50-100 fried successfully so far.

    18. Re:what the heck are these for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm using a small 100mW Laser in my self built CNC to expose PCB stock and cut thin black plastic. I would love to upgrade to a more powerfull version, that might be able to cut thin woods or lighter plastic.

      The nice thing about the pointer style diode lasers is, that they are a lot easier to mount on a cnc than the big gas ones.
      Of course i only use my laser facing downward below eye level and while wearing appropriate goggles, so i might notbe the average case for these devices.

    19. Re:what the heck are these for? by Yamioni · · Score: 1

      Exactly what CraftyCoder said. While there are legitimate uses for a 1W laser, there is no fucking reason for a 1W laser to be available as a handheld model. There's no fucking way that being able to point a 1W laser at anything you want on a whim (or a sneeze) is safe or even sane.

      So while you are correct that a laser like this has legitimate uses, this laser does not. You are not going to pay $1000 for a handheld laser if you're planning on mounting it on something for one of the uses you describe. You're going to buy one of the lasers already on the market designed for that exact use case, that probably cost less than $1/W. Selling a product like this is simply irresponsible.

      --
      Cool post bro, highfive \o
    20. Re:what the heck are these for? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      Those are all interesting and compelling reasons, but what does that have to do with it being mounted in a light saber case with a battery and marketed in this way. If you want to source 1w laser diodes at digikey, knock yourself out. What is the purpose for one mounted in a light saber like case though?

      I'm sure 99% of them are going to be misused just as you say. But a lot of the time, consumer packaged laser diodes, in their fancy injection-molded plastic cases, are cheaper than the raw diodes/optics bought one-by-one. I guess it's economy of scale, or maybe that they know people buying the minimalist modules know what they're doing and are willing to pay a lot for it, while consumer-grade stuff simply won't sell unless you sell it at razor-thin margins. (Although $1K is a *lot* to pay for 1W, so in this case I'm guessing there's no bargain to be found by tearing it apart.) By way of comparison, when I got my first blue laser diode, I bought an entire blu-ray optics repair kit for a PS3 (as I recall) because the carrier, slides, and a bunch of fancy mechanical bits were 40% less than just the diode/optics were selling for elsewhere.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    21. Re:what the heck are these for? by WhiteDragon · · Score: 1

      There is no legitimate use.

      DPSS pump for UV lasers for fine-feature photolithography.

      Mount in x/y plotter for cnc marking of wood or papercutting.

      Drilling vias in polyimide for flex PCB's.

      Pump for adjustable-wavelength dye laser.

      I could probably come up with another 20 legitimate uses if I felt like it, but I just mentioned those because I've used 1-10W lasers for all those things.

      but none of the uses you listed would involve a handheld 1W laser. That's the question. What would be a legitimate use of a handheld 1W laser?

      --
      Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
  32. Red? by lazn · · Score: 1

    So with blue and green 1w handheld lasers... are there Red ones available? With that we could get white!

    1. Re:Red? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      White lasers already exist, have some very interesting properties for optic com links.

  33. BMW Working On Laser Headlamps by Culture20 · · Score: 1
  34. Not a gunsight laser... by hedgemage · · Score: 1

    The video mentioned several times that this laser is "too powerful to be used as a gun-sight". I'm not a shooter, so I honestly don't know why... Couldn't having a potentially eye-frying, laser-pointer-of-the-gods be a handy thing to attach to a tool that you intend to utilize for inflicting grievous bodily harm or death?

    1. Re:Not a gunsight laser... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The video mentioned several times that this laser is "too powerful to be used as a gun-sight". I'm not a shooter, so I honestly don't know why... Couldn't having a potentially eye-frying, laser-pointer-of-the-gods be a handy thing to attach to a tool that you intend to utilize for inflicting grievous bodily harm or death?

      Nah, no good. As soon as you point it at a deer, say, it goes YOUCH and takes off running. Or it is blinded and freezes, and you get ticketed for "spotlighting" game, even if it is during the daylight!

      SB

    2. Re:Not a gunsight laser... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a shooter. You probably don't want it on a firearm. Run the laser over somebody's shiny belt buckle and blind yourself in the reflection, oops.

      Besides which, any time lethal force is justified you wouldn't want to waste time dicking around with the laser (intended to be an aim-assist) trying to shine it in somebody's eyes (like its a less-lethal weapon). If lethal force is not justified... leave the firearm in its holster.

      Aaaaaaaaaand... I don't know what kind of housing this thing has, or how hardy its internals are. So they may not be up to the beating a string of fire will inflict. Nor is this thing likely to come in standard weaver or picatinny rail mounts.

    3. Re:Not a gunsight laser... by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Well that would be in violation of the Geneva convention for one thing, so you won't want to be using it in any wars.

    4. Re:Not a gunsight laser... by jockeys · · Score: 1

      Because you can inadvertently blind yourself (temporarily or otherwise) if the beam reflects? Even with very bright weapon mounted lights (think a little flashlight that puts out 100+ lumens) this is a risk, you can easily reduce your night vision or disorient yourself (moreso with the ones that flash, e.g. some SureFire models) if the light sweeps a window or a mirror.

      --

      In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
    5. Re:Not a gunsight laser... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my 50mW green laser sight is barely visible in direct sunlight. 15m visibility max. i'd love something with a bit more juice that comes in a ruggedized package.

    6. Re:Not a gunsight laser... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, if you want to violate the Geneva Conventions. Or, given how many guns are not used for human-killing but for sport, blind everyone else at your gun range.

    7. Re:Not a gunsight laser... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your opponent might not see the little red dot on his forehead. With this laser, the reflection off his forehead will light up the entire trench and possibly blind you through the scope if you're too close. Also, any dust on the field will light up a beam, tipping off the enemy to your location.

    8. Re:Not a gunsight laser... by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      Because any chance object you shine it at might reflect enough of the beam back at you to blind YOU? Or alternately, the goggles you need to protect yourself from it blunt your tactical awareness so much that you get pwned with an entrenchment tool?

    9. Re:Not a gunsight laser... by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      The video mentioned several times that this laser is "too powerful to be used as a gun-sight". I'm not a shooter, so I honestly don't know why... Couldn't having a potentially eye-frying, laser-pointer-of-the-gods be a handy thing to attach to a tool that you intend to utilize for inflicting grievous bodily harm or death?

      You're seriously underestimating how bright these are. It would impede your ability to shoot someone, since you wouldn't be able to look at them while trying to shoot them -- they'd have a spot on them so bright that it would hurt your eyes, which would make it very hard to aim.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    10. Re:Not a gunsight laser... by Yamioni · · Score: 1

      Maybe because simply pointing it at the animal you intend to shoot would be painful and startling to the animal. Unless you're really good at shooting moving targets, using this as an aim assist on a gun is just stupid. (To say nothing of the personal safety issues mentioned by all my sibling posters.)

      --
      Cool post bro, highfive \o
  35. Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Inquiry: what exactly are these things used for? I gather this is far too powerful to simply use as a pointer during a power point presentation.

    So, what are these things used for? Surveying? Interrogating british spies?

    1. Re:Question by egr · · Score: 1

      Lighting up matches and popping balloons

    2. Re:Question by lee1 · · Score: 1
      Well....

      "Do you expect me to talk?"

      "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die."

      (If I recall correctly.)

  36. Cheaper to fly to China... by nobodynoone · · Score: 1

    I was in China a few months back, and these were being sold for 150RMB for a 500mw ($15) 400-500 RMB (about $70-$80) for a 1000mw version, and about 700 RMB for a 2000mw.

    The salesmen in the markets demonstrated them by lighting matches with the 1000mw green ones from several feet away. Amazing. I bought a 100mw blue one for the equivalent of $9, hoping I'd be less likely to blind myself with that.

    1. Re:Cheaper to fly to China... by Yamioni · · Score: 1

      I get the feeling those lasers were mislabeled. The bill of materials for a 1W laser likely comes to over $250 simply due to it being an emergent technology (shot in the dark, don't chide me if I guessed wrong.) If 1W laser diodes were really $30-$40 (expected 40-50% of the price of the unit, the rest being the power supply, driver, casing etc) then we'd be hearing a lot more about holographic storage for mainstream consumer use. Sorry to say but I think you got taken for a ride. I seem to recall some ~100mW laser I saw once as able to light matches at a distance; far less than 1W. Still, even if that 100mW laser was only 1/10th as powerful as stated, $9 is a pretty good deal.

      --
      Cool post bro, highfive \o
    2. Re:Cheaper to fly to China... by nobodynoone · · Score: 1

      Mislabeling was honestly my first thought too - I was stunned that a 1W laser could be had for only $80 or so. Not sure what the threshold is for burning/mw, but I got a decent red mark on my hand from 1-2 sec of exposure to a (supposedly) ~800mw one in the markets. They were lithium-powered, as far as I could tell - standard 123A.

      As for my ~100mw blue one, I'm pretty sure it's the full output (or at least close) - the observed luminance matches pretty close to the specs for a similar laser on the wickedlasers.com site. I was hitting buildings in downtown Shanghai from a river cruise with relative ease.

  37. FDA ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    You can give them Money, but unless the FDA allows them into the country, you would need to buy an airline ticket to get one:

        http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cms_ia/importalert_254.html

    unless they have resolved all the issues, which, I doubt.

    1. Re:FDA ban by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... are these lasers intended to be used as a "food", or a "drug"?

      Fucking government bureaucracy at work.

    2. Re:FDA ban by optimism · · Score: 1

      ^ Mod this up.

      I'm stunned that it took ~300 posts before someone mentioned that the US FDA prohibits sales of laser pointers with more than 5mW output power.

      Extra credit to the AC for linking the FDA import alert that calls out "Wicked Lasers" by name. AND includes their business address in Shanghai, China.

      It's an obvious scam to anyone with 2 brain cells. Slashdot was used as a dumbshit advertising tool. Whatever idiot approved this article should be bitch-slapped, and suspended for a year. :P

    3. Re:FDA ban by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      By the looks of the tail of that import alert, the FDA claims jurisdiction by way of the Department of Health and Human Services, back-dooring via the controls on radiation Mammography devices.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  38. You evil bastard! by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    No, no, no - blinding an opponent is against the Geneva Convention. You're only allowed to humanely kill them by ripping holes in them with supersonic slugs of heavy metal, or burning them alive and violently dismembering them with incendiary devices dropped gently from aerial craft.

    What kind of cruel bastard are you?

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  39. Counts as a weapon and is highly dangerous by gweihir · · Score: 5, Informative

    Take care that this counts as a weapon in many countries and possession without a matching laser-permit can land you in jail. Here you need a permit for any laser class 3 or above, i.e. > 5mW. Also it is very easy to permanently blind someone with this thing by reflection only. If you are stupid enough to point it at a flying airplane or helicopter (quite a few people are), you will go down either as a terrorist or for attempted murder. Or with this thing likely for completed murder as most helicopters and quite a few airplanes do not have a second pilot. Pointing it at a moving car can have the same effect. It is quite amoral to sell these to normal people.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Counts as a weapon and is highly dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is quite amoral to sell these to normal people.

      After reading your comment, I went back to the summary and noticed they're called Wicked Lasers...

    2. Re:Counts as a weapon and is highly dangerous by Taty'sEyes · · Score: 1

      So "normal" people are morons, asshats, and the like?

      --
      We show geeks how to get their dream girl at EyesOfOdessa.com
    3. Re:Counts as a weapon and is highly dangerous by gweihir · · Score: 2

      Normal people do not understand lasers. They seem far to harmless for their destructive potential.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Counts as a weapon and is highly dangerous by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > It is quite amoral to sell these to normal people.

      Hmmm and who exactly is a normal person now? I dare say, I have never met one in my entire life.

      I would say that it is immoral to sell to someone who has stated an intention to do harm, but aside from that, I think you are right, its amoral...as in there is no special morality or immorality going on. It just is what it is. Who exactly should be able to say who is responsible and who isn't? Why should I, or anyone, trust that person so much?

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    5. Re:Counts as a weapon and is highly dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wicked Lasers needs their license revoked, shutdown, and the remaining stockpile blown up with a few JDAMs. Serious shit people are playing with. They will blind themselves and others. The feeling of blindness by a laser is often one of numbness (no pain). By the time you lose sight, it's too late. The retina tissue has been scared for life. If you're lucky replacement with stem cells may be possible down the future. But even then I'm sure 99.9% of the people could not afford it.

    6. Re:Counts as a weapon and is highly dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In America, yes.

    7. Re:Counts as a weapon and is highly dangerous by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      A normal person is not going to spend $1000 on a laser. Normal people do spend that much and more on automobiles, and usually have no idea at the massive amount of destructive energy they are semi-consciously directing. Are car manufacturers morally responsible for the millions of people their products kill?

    8. Re:Counts as a weapon and is highly dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is here?

    9. Re:Counts as a weapon and is highly dangerous by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      Everywhere, yes. Some of them pretend to be morally or intellectually superior to others, too.

    10. Re:Counts as a weapon and is highly dangerous by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Who exactly should be able to say who is responsible and who isn't? Why should I, or anyone, trust that person so much?

      Agreed, I mean, with over 200 "root" certificates there's no way to trust anyone in there. What we need is something like a web of trust. Wait, which thread was this again?

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    11. Re:Counts as a weapon and is highly dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is quite amoral to sell these to normal people.

      amoral = neutral. i think you mean immoral.

    12. Re:Counts as a weapon and is highly dangerous by goosesensor · · Score: 1

      Here's a relatively detailed and interesting discussion about laser laws on the community forum: http://laserpointerforums.com/f44/arrests-64774.html

    13. Re:Counts as a weapon and is highly dangerous by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      They would be, if they sold their cars as toys. But the difference is, the average person understands that cars are dangerous. There's tests and licenses and things that at least attempt to enforce a minimum standard on competency.

      But this is more dangerous than a car. You can't jump out of the way of it, you can't avoid it, and you'll never see it coming. It's more like a bullet that is virtually guaranteed to hit your eyes. But it's fired from something that looks like and is sold as a toy, and continuously.

      No, it won't kill you. Yes, it will blind you. And there's nothing you can do about it without wearing goggles.

      Here's the thing to realize, where this is different from a gun - If I take this to a stadium, turn it on, and scan it around the stadium for a few seconds, I will blind somewhere between *dozens* and *hundreds* of people. Even an automatic rifle won't do that - the fire rate isn't continuous.

      That's what's scary. And people understand that guns are dangerous, for the most part. Only a psychopath would shoot up a stadium like I described, but a stupid drunk idiot might think the second scenario was "really cool".

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    14. Re:Counts as a weapon and is highly dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's the thing to realize, where this is different from a gun - If I take this to a stadium, turn it on, and scan it around the stadium for a few seconds, I will blind somewhere between *dozens* and *hundreds* of people. Even an automatic rifle won't do that - the fire rate isn't continuous.

      That's what's scary. And people understand that guns are dangerous, for the most part. Only a psychopath would shoot up a stadium like I described, but a stupid drunk idiot might think the second scenario was "really cool".

      And of course a gun going off makes a lot of noise - very distinct noise. At the first shot or two people would likely be diving for cover over the 'madman with a gun'. With the laser, its completely silent, and looks 'just like' a simple 5mW laser pointer beam... people won't interpret it as a 'danger' until long after many are blinded permanently...

    15. Re:Counts as a weapon and is highly dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean immoral, I think.

      Amoral means its either moral or immoral...

  40. Re:A bit overhyped. Intergalactic? by Pope · · Score: 1

    *Only applies to very small galaxies.

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  41. Re:A bit overhyped. Intergalactic? by nwf · · Score: 2

    From TFA: "With it's intergalactic range of 85 miles, the S3 Krypton is the first and only handheld laser visible from outer space." Maybe it's different here but I'd hardly call 85 miles "intergalactic."

    Maybe they meant intragalactic. Although a 1mW laser pointer would also qualify.

    --
    I don't know, but it works for me.
  42. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  43. Sooo.... by mj1856 · · Score: 1

    What CAN it be used for?

  44. Re:Cool... but at the same time pointless by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    A sixty foot image of slave girl Princess Lea in the middle of the park?

    TFTFY

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  45. Re:Cool... but at the same time pointless by flimflammer · · Score: 2

    It really is just a novelty. Less practical and more of a collection piece. You could use it to point at stars or signal others at a distance to your location (this apparently comes with a built in SOS flicker mode), but I'd be too afraid to point it at the sky for fear of messing up some satellite or fail to notice some small plane in the sky and blind the pilot and/or passengers.

    To be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about this being readily available to anyone since they are extremely dangerous. They don't carry the same sort of instant concept of danger that say a gun would, and while they won't directly kill anyone, they could certainly destroy someones life very easily with their even innocent misuse. Not that I'm suggesting they be regulated like guns or anything. I definitely don't think children should be able to purchase them or even use them.

  46. Signal 'Flare'? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    I fully agree. I (being a physicist) can not imagine any purpose for this laser outside a firmly mounted case inside a lab or workshop.

    Seems a green 1W laser would be pretty nice to have in a liferaft or if stranded on a mountain top. Signal flares are very time limited and heavy to transport ammo for.

    That's just the first thing that came to mind though, though, there are probably many uses.

    Also, it's best not to shoot a friend in the face with a signal flare. He a) won't be your friends anymore, and b) will probably be blinded.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Signal 'Flare'? by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      Seems a green 1W laser would be pretty nice to have in a liferaft or if stranded on a mountain top. Signal flares are very time limited and heavy to transport ammo for.

      Yeah, it's a really good idea to blind the search-and-rescue crew with your laser.

      And blind it does. During daylight, your best bet is a signal mirror that catches the sun and presents a bright, but relatively harmless flickering light at the crew. At night, the lasers can blind crew (unlike cars, aircrew dim the lights - and that nightvision is destroyed pretty quickly by a bright light suddenly appearing - hence pointing lasers at aircraft is a really bad idea - even the crappy 5mW lasers can light up a cockpit and ruin the night vision). And that's without using NVGs.

    2. Re:Signal 'Flare'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems a green 1W laser would be pretty nice to have in a liferaft or if stranded on a mountain top.

      Why is that? You want to blind your rescuers so they crash their helicopter on the way to get you?
      A 30mW laser would be just fine for this... heck, a 5mW would probably do, and is far cheaper and safer.

    3. Re:Signal 'Flare'? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      You'd shine the laser at the rescue aircraft just as often as you shoot the flare gun at the rescue aircraft (i.e. never). Aim as close to straight up for both cases as possible so you're easy to locate.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Signal 'Flare'? by drolli · · Score: 1

      Me (being a physicist) would prefer the flares. a 1W laser with a bad efficiency will (for the sizes of batteries you can carry) not last very long. And the beam will be so narrow that you essentially have to hit the plan looking for you. Unless you widen it and then i looks like a flare, just less efficient.

    5. Re:Signal 'Flare'? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Ah, you're right - somebody else posted here that the battery was good for 36 hours, but I just looked at the real specs and it's 1-2 hours. That's not useful.

      It was also said that the green laser maximized atmospheric scattering, but perhaps that was wrong as well.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:Signal 'Flare'? by vijayiyer · · Score: 2

      A 406MHz PLB is cheaper and more effective.

    7. Re:Signal 'Flare'? by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      A 406MHz PLB is cheaper and more effective.

      Mod parent up. For those without modpoints and/or wondering what a PLB is: Personal Locator Beacon.

    8. Re:Signal 'Flare'? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Neat. Quite right - less than half the price and more effective. This ACR seems to be well-reviewed in general (though all I know about them I learned in the last 10 minutes).

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  47. What about the other models? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So how about the 300mw version. Is it also able to cause permanent vision damage from the backscatter off of a piece of paper or tv screen or something? Everyone is talking about the 1watt version, which is also $1000. Way out of the toy range for me, and hopefully others. But what about the version that is $300...

    1. Re:What about the other models? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      300mw can still cause permanent eye damage, I still wouldn't recommend it for the 'average person'.
      The average person looking for a 'toy' should buy a little 5mw laser pointer and have 'fun' running around waving it around randomly at things.
      I think a handheld 1W laser is just stupid - anything with this kind of power should be bench mount and come with a pair of laser safety glasses for its wavelength and strict warnings on its proper use.

  48. Re:Cool... but at the same time pointless by bn-7bc · · Score: 0

    Or Seven Of Nine (star-trek:VOY) for that matter Hoshi Sato (Star-trek:ENT) ... Nice

  49. The Future's So Bright ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'll need to get a pair of shades to go with your white cane.

    Should blinding anti-personnel lasers be used in future military conflicts, the casualties could be staggering. Its quite disturbing how cheap and effective such weapons could be.

  50. A better Wicked Lasers product by alexo · · Score: 1

    Or, at the least, more fun.

  51. And it still can't slice bread by kawabago · · Score: 1

    but can it make toast?

  52. Re:Cool... but at the same time pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    signal others at a distance to your location (this apparently comes with a built in SOS flicker mode)

    You know somebody's going to point it right at a town "to get help".

    These things shouldn't even turn on if they're not pointed within 45 degrees of horizontal. On the other hand, some people who claim that that must mean these lasers are safe when pointed down or upward. No, there's no other way to put it: These things are to dangerous to be sold to amateurs.

  53. New type of weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could this be used as an actual weapon ?
    For example, when a presidential candidate gives a speech, could one just point it in his eyes and blind him, and then walk away, while being at a safe distance ?

    If so, sunglasses will be in vogue again :)

  54. The Real Danger Level by oic0 · · Score: 2

    Take it from someone who owns a 1500mw blue hand held laser. The only safe uses are pointing it out in to the night sky (After checking for planes) and using it alone in a room with goggles on. They aren't as instantly eye damaging as they are made out to be though, a lot of it is people playing up the danger to keep people safe. The side affect of them playing up the safety issues so much is people start to think of them as weapons, they are not. Not even close. Most people who play around with them without goggles though end up with slow vision degeneration, even if they screw around and get hit by reflections. Sure, a prolonged reflection will kill some rods and cones, but a momentary flash causes some degeneration. As far as being a weapon though, its about as effective as a long range flash bang, minus the bang, and with law suits following from the people who have dim spots, holes, or otherwise damaged vision. YES it is dangerous, no it is not a weapon that instantly takes someones sight. The most likely scenario is you cost them partial vision in one eye and get sued.

  55. Dont' forget the accessories! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sweet! For $30 more you can also get the "disco-ball" accessory so you can put on a show for all your friends!

  56. Slashvertisement - and a dangerous one by Trogre · · Score: 1

    I'm not usually one to complain about advertising on Slashdot. Hell, I used to enjoy seeing what was new at ThinkGeek every now and then.

    But this is just irresponsible. I like tinkering with 75mW lasers, but am very worried that some 13 year old is going to blind himself or his friends with one of these and our country will get similar restrictive legislation as Australia, Canada, USA, ruining it for the rest of us.

    These "pop a balloon at 30 yards" lasers are extremely dangerous. As someone may have already stated here, a specular reflection from one of these will blind you quicker than your blink reflex.

    Further, if this is a DPSS laser, then there will be a significant amount of undetectable-to-the-naked-eye unfocussed infra-red leakage, unless the IR filter is perfect (unlikely).

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  57. Worse then a gun imho by vinlud · · Score: 2

    I consider these 'toys' much more dangerous then a machinegun. Why? Because while a nut with a machinegun can actually kill people, you cannot hide the fact that you are doing it. With a laser gun like this it is easy to blind people for life without anybody knowing who did it.

    --
    Repeat after me: We are all individuals
    1. Re:Worse then a gun imho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By that same logic, a laser is also more dangerous than a nuclear weapon.

    2. Re:Worse then a gun imho by pclminion · · Score: 1

      With a laser gun like this it is easy to blind people for life without anybody knowing who did it.

      Doesn't the brilliant green beam of light lead directly to the person firing the laser?

    3. Re:Worse then a gun imho by optimism · · Score: 1

      It does...but now you can't see ~anything~. Doh!

  58. MY EYES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THE GOGGLES DO NOTHING

  59. Sad, sad, sad by Anynomous+Coward · · Score: 1

    40 years ago men walked on the moon and 20 years ago a businessman could fly supersonically from Paris to NY on a scheduled airline. Today you can tweet and write on a facebook wall, and weep while reading /. how something that was the stuff of dreams even 5 years ago is now vilified by 278 sissies scared shitless.

    --
    I'm not a coward by any name.
  60. Not a toy, but maybe a legitimate weapon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My first thought was that this would make a great weapon. I do have firearms, but if you could effectively disable an attacker without killing them, why wouldn't you? Personal safety seems like it might be an issue, also in the current environment, one would probably be better off in the courts without a living but blind attacker.

    Seems that the Air Force is actually working on a version of a laser weapon that should incapacitate, but not blind based on the distance to the target.

  61. Re:"Green Laser Pointer"...but don't use it as one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    simple. mount it to your bow, and blind your prey before shooting it. little chance of escape, no issues of wounded game dying a slow death, etc.

  62. Blah Blah Dangerous Blah Blah by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    300 comments of "Waaah this is dangerous waaaah there ought to be a law!" and not one single person planning to pop a giant popper of Jiffy Pop with one? Or indeed, ANY amount of Jiffy pop? Look at what you've become, Slashdot! Look at what you've become!

    Maybe the next story should be on arranging day care while you car pool to the Republican National Convention.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Blah Blah Dangerous Blah Blah by optimism · · Score: 3, Informative

      Usually I would agree with you about rampant fear-mongering, but not in this case.

      Let's look at the numbers.

      Have you ever glanced accidentally at the sun? Your eyeblink reflex protects you in about 100ms, and you probably see some colored spots for a few 10s of seconds afterwards. No big deal.

      Now, this laser is marketed as "8000 times brighter than the sun". Let's pretend they're telling the truth. That means the light energy is equivalent to looking at the sun for 8000*100ms = more than 13 MINUTES before your eyelids close.

      In reality it is even worse, because all of that energy is burning onto your retina in just 100ms.

      But if you want to get a rough idea, just go outside, hold your eyelids open, and stare at the sun for 13 minutes. Let us know how that turns out.

      Not everything is fearmongering.

    2. Re:Blah Blah Dangerous Blah Blah by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      But if you want to get a rough idea, just go outside, hold your eyelids open, and stare at the sun for 13 minutes. Let us know how that turns out.

      To begin with it was fine, if a little dull. Then I turned to page 3, and the blindness you're all worried about kicked in.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    3. Re:Blah Blah Dangerous Blah Blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the next story should be on arranging day care while you car pool to the Republican National Convention.

      Are you confused ??

      Democrats = No guns , tax us more & electric cars
      Republicans = Give us more guns , tax cuts & V8's

      It's fairly simple and I am NOT from the U.S.

  63. Not enough power. by nsushkin · · Score: 1

    Boring! Call me when they sell a handheld 5 Watt ruby laser.

  64. Wow I'm Surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That all of Slashdot seems to want these to be as heavily restricted as firearms. I mean, sure, a 1W laser is certainly dangerous and can certainly blind people if proper protection is not used. And people will probably do dumb things with them (hopefully to themselves before they hurt anyone else). But really, where should we draw the line?

    What about people who need high powered lasers for amateur scientific experiments? Are they going to have to go through an arduous background check and waiting period to obtain a laser? Is the government going to say lasers over a certain power output are "assault lasers" and ban them from civilian use entirely? Is owning over a certain amount of lasers going to put someone on an FBI watchlist? Given our government's complete inability to understand any sort of technical concept, I find it hard to believe that their regulating of something like lasers would be friendly to amateur scientists and experimenters, to say nothing about effectiveness.

    Don't get me wrong, someone who misuses a tool like this and causes injury to another person should be punished. Just as anyone who causes harm to another person either willfully or negligently should be punished. But if we get on the slippery slope and ban everything that could potentially cause harm to someone, then what will be left?

    I grew up in the 80s, and one of the chemistry sets I had contained ferric cyanide as a reagent; I doubt that would be sold in a chemistry set today, even though I was responsible and learned a lot about chemistry at a young age thanks the experiments I did. I used to do a lot model rocketry also; model rockets can certainly cause someone injury if used in an irresponsible way, should those be restricted like firearms as well? What about the tesla coil I built? Should I have to register that with the government? After all, it could cause serious injury to someone if used irresponsibly.

    Yes, I'm surprised that Slashdot would want to jump on this bandwagon of legislating everything to the lowest common denominator (ie. "some idiot could use this irresponsibly, let's ban/regulate it; who cares about the people who use it responsibly for legitimate purposes"), as this train of logic could be used to effectively kill a lot of interesting research that most slashdotters would probably enjoy.

    1. Re:Wow I'm Surprised by Bensam123 · · Score: 1

      For every Timmy at a science fair that had his experiment on quantum mechanics ruined, there is 999 douchebags blinding people. Until lasers are seen as weapons, not toys, there should be laws baring people from using them. Lasers are still not considered weapons.

      Lasers right now is like what radiation used to be seen as before it put a couple mushroom clouds on a island in the pacific. Go into your shoe store and have a x-ray machine to see how a shoe fits... Have a x-ray machine for parties for fun... Drink water out of a radioactive flask because it's good for your health...

      You are in a very small minority, even if you are very intelligent and you benefited greatly from it. You are not the majority. Think what 999 douchebags will do with a 1mW laser. Timmy can build a volcano and if he really is talented enough to use an extremely high powered lasers he should be talking to colleges instead.

      Perhaps in the future when Lasers are actually seen as weapons a law like this will seem 'stupid' as everyone knows how dangerous they are, but for now we don't need douchebags blinding Timmys because they like to make fun of him.

    2. Re:Wow I'm Surprised by optimism · · Score: 1

      Wow I'm Surprised...That all of Slashdot seems to want these to be as heavily restricted as firearms.

      I don't know where you live, but in the USA these lasers are ~already~ MORE heavily restricted than firearms. See above posts re: FDA regulations. I could buy a shotgun at walmart more easily than I could buy a 100mW laser online.

      where should we draw the line?

      Somewhere before "toys that can cause serious permanent physical damage during normal use".

      If you need a high-powered laser for research, even home hobbyist research, you ~can~ buy one. They aren't prohibited, just regulated.

      If you want it as a toy, chances are that you are too lazy to find out what the regulations are and where you can buy it. The comments to this thread clearly prove that point. And that is exactly as it should be. Making >5mW lasers easily available to the casual/lazy/stupid consumer would be reckless, because they have absolutely no idea how dangerous it is.

      Most folks know that cars and guns and bandsaws are dangerous. This is because those objects have practical mainstream uses, so education about their dangers is pervasive. Any teenager can tell you that a gun or car can kill people, and a bandsaw can amputate your hand.

      But practically no adults have a clue how much damage a 1W laser can do to your retina in less than 1 second. And they probably never will, since a 1W laser has zero practical use for most folks. Hence regulation is appropriate.

  65. Parts are even cheaper by DiSKiLLeR · · Score: 1

    You can buy parts for these lasers even cheaper.

    Just the Laser Diode, or with a laser module all prewired ready to go.

    ie: http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/1W-445nm-Blue-Laser-Module-W-Flexdrive-Aixiz-Glass-/180707971676?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a1308d25c#ht_31219wt_1139

    --
    You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
  66. Laser Law by Bensam123 · · Score: 1

    I will fully agree that there should be laws baring the use of lasers without an express permit, as someone else mentioned, class 3 or above. Honestly, no one who can't pass the test to get the permit to use one will need one. The only joyful fun that can be had from lasers this powerful is blinding someone and pointing it at cars close to a mile away. THIS IS VERY DANGEROUS. All kids ever need is a tiny one to try and get the cat to chase it around or use it as a 'ooh and aaah'.

    This is coming from someone who had a laser shined in his eye TWICE while going through school. First when I was 9 when lasers were first becoming available, one of those small keychain types when I was on the bus, then again when I was in my senior year of highschool when my physics teacher had laser displays setup. Another asshole decided it would be a great idea to do exactly what the teacher said NOT TO DO EVER, disregard the laser warning on the side, and poked me in the eye while giggling like a fucking idiot. To this day I'm quite sad I was an adolescent teenager at the time that didn't know my limits or how I should exactly respond to something like that. I really should have walked up, punched him in the face, and made a huge scene out of it. This is coming from someone who is VERY laid back and will talk most everything out. I believe it would''ve been very well justified. I have partial blindness in my right eye, where that laser hit around my focal point. I am now 26, so this was roughly 9 years ago.

    I don't know what the wattage was of the one in the classroom, but it definitely wasn't a small one. I will echo the concern that lasers are VERY DANGEROUS. Everyone hops on the OMG band wagon about terrorists, what if someone gets a high powered laser sits atop a very high point in a well occupied city and shines it into some sort of scattering device, such as a brilliant cut diamond or other jewel for instance? That could very easily blind anyone that it happens to hit and there is almost no way of knowing where it comes from if it is only done for a short instance.

    Lasers are most definitely not toys when they go above a certain mW and should not be available to people without proper training and/or certification.

  67. Banned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These lasers are banned in Australia because idiots point them at the cockpit as planes come in to land.

    http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/04/22/australia_to_ban_laser_pointers/1

  68. Highly spread at any distance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you fearful types aware of how these beams spread out to safe intensity in hundreds of feet?

    The satellite or airplane thing is overwrought to the point of paranoid myth.

    Learn a little Gaussian beam optics before pronouncing things as death rays.

  69. One good use for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can only think of one good use for these 1W lasers. They would significantly reduce the exposure times for multi-colour holograms compared to the low milliwatt lasers most people can afford.

    Of course with a multi-colour setup the usual filter goggles are pretty much useless, so I'd only use them in a suitably interlocked enclosure with a smoke detector system and video monitoring.

  70. what a bunch of pansies - worse than a gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With no chemistry sets, model rockets, lasers, Hey I know, lets mount your surface mount electronics in solid epoxy

    It's a conspiracy of Big Sis bullshit.

    Don't play with the chemistry set it can burn your eyes.
    Don't play with the model rocket it can burn your eyes.
    Don't play with the laser it can burn your eyes

    Or electronics, ham radios, lcds, mostly surface mount throw away crap now all ROHS garbage so cheap it fails under the slightest adverse condition.

    It won't be long and our kids will be trained monkeys who can't think for themselves they can only babble on about their text book, it's like we are being setup for all the lights to be turned off at once, where outlawing everything of use, while destroying everything of value, just like the math which is going to bite the banksters in the ass, this police state of homeland security crap is going to drain the country of responsible thinking people. I look at kids growing up now and they have no clue how to safely build or contain a fire out in the woods. Their cartoons are fluffy bunnies. I see patterns in current actions of children, they just do things because they were brainwashed to behave that way, this isn't a ritual like brushing your teeth, or a moral like folding your hands on a desk, its more brainwashing.

  71. save one for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    george costanza

  72. Laserscope 60 watts 532 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi,
                  I have worked with many types of lasers for over 35 years, Large frame ion lasers were strong enough to be a serious hazard, when the Laserscope ect. freq doubled yags " 532 nm 60 watts plus" came out , the game changed once again, have you HEARD a 60 watt average power laser hitting cini foil ? Just the fire hazard is impressive.
      From my viewpoint the eye hazard really starts kicking in at about 1 watt, at 20 watts cw, eye damage can be faster than you can blink. A reflection from a screw driver will do it. I started using laser goggles religiously after a eyebrow burn. no retina burns for me yet, I was lucky in my early years with lasers.
    I used to think the glasses were for wimps, trust me, they are very helpfull, and may save your eyesight, a unforseen reflection can happen. PUT on the safety glasses when working with high power. You will never regret it.
    Hand held lasers over a 250mw are weapons, the fun hene/diode 5mw laser pointer days are over.

    Laser Light Laser Bright, Let There Be a Beam tonight

    Fred Lord
     

  73. Laser Discount by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can use this link to get 5% off any item at Wicked Lasers: http://zfer.us/NzgdD

  74. They are a complete RIP OFF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They stole my money 2 years ago and continued to play games with saying "oh, we'll ship it to you", over and over and over, and I NEVER got my wicked laser from them, although they took the money, and by the time I finally had enough to file a dispute on the credit card charge, it was too late to get it reversed. I know, my bad. Warning to all: They are frauds and don't waste your money with them. They have one person in the US running their call center operation and I doubt that anyone really ever gets their order.....