Speech-Jamming Gun Silences From 30 Meters

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Speech-Jamming Gun Silences From 30 Meters

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday March 1, 2012 @03:57AM from the shut-up-cannon dept.

MrSeb writes "Japanese researchers have created a hand-held gun that can jam the words of speakers who are more than 30 meters (100ft) away. The gun has two purposes, according to the researchers: At its most basic, this gun could be used in libraries and other quiet spaces to stop people from speaking — but its second application is a lot more chilling. The researchers were looking for a way to stop 'louder, stronger' voices from saying more than their fair share in conversation. The paper reads: 'We have to establish and obey rules for proper turn-taking when speaking. However, some people tend to lengthen their turns or deliberately interrupt other people when it is their turn in order to establish their presence rather than achieve more fruitful discussions. Furthermore, some people tend to jeer at speakers to invalidate their speech.' In other words, this speech-jamming gun was built to enforce 'proper' conversations."

12 of 370 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Big Brother is speaking by sandytaru · 2012-03-01 03:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

Silence, peon. Your must wait your turn. And not yell. If you speak out of turn or too loudly, you will be muted.

--
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
see, here's the fatal flaw with this idea... by Thud457 · 2012-03-01 04:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

If conversation fails, people escalate to violence.
If bigbro wields this against the masses, a riot's going to erupt. Might as well go straight for the teargas and flashbangs.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
1. Re:see, here's the fatal flaw with this idea... by geekoid · 2012-03-01 04:06 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Except this isn't about the conversation, this is about people trying to drowned out the conversation.
  Screaming at someone while they are trying to talk is not a conversation.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
2. Re:see, here's the fatal flaw with this idea... by Hatta · 2012-03-01 04:13 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  That's exactly what they want. They want to drown out legitimate debate. When the people involved in that debate revolt, they get to bring down the hammer on them. And then they get to smear their political enemies as lawless.
  This is exactly what we saw them do with OWS last fall. But this time the muting is literal, instead of using a media blitz to drown out the real message with confused ones.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
3. Re:see, here's the fatal flaw with this idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-01 04:18 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Not really.
  If you've ever been in a discussion where, lets see, say, part of the group was motivated by political or personal interests and ... oh lets just make something up... maybe the rest of the team was ummmm technical in nature, and just wanted to solve the problem... and didn't care if Johhny's cousin sponsors a great product that we could hack into our system vs actually chosing the correct technology...
  very often when logic and actual reason fail, people resort to loud repetition... see the concept of branding (a marketing concept) if you don't believe me, its a billion dollar industry based around brainwashing people by loud repetitive messages.... with no bearing on you know... reality.
  This is a tool.
  The same way a SWAT team is a tool.
  both can silence voices.
  both have appropriate uses.
  its up to us to be responsible, and if we can't then we deserve to burn.
4. Re:see, here's the fatal flaw with this idea... by iamgnat · 2012-03-01 04:18 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Except this isn't about the conversation, this is about people trying to drowned out the conversation.
  Do you really think this technology won't be abused to silence disenting opinions in a conversation even if it is being delivered in a calm and well thought out manner? I don't buy into the "big brother" mass usage, but stuff like this is ALWAYS abused.
  Hell, the RIAA will probably want to use it at concerts to prevent people from "violating their IP" by singing along...
5. Re:see, here's the fatal flaw with this idea... by Archangel+Michael · 2012-03-01 04:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  very often when logic and actual reason fail, people resort to loud repetition
  Sounds like every protest group I've ever seen, and their cute sloganeering.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
6. Re:see, here's the fatal flaw with this idea... by AngryDeuce · 2012-03-01 04:48 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
  - John F. Kennedy, 1962
7. Re:see, here's the fatal flaw with this idea... by pavon · 2012-03-01 05:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Screaming at someone while they are trying to talk is not a conversation.
  But that is exactly what this device does. It literally interrupts and screams down someone who is trying to speak by repeating their own words back at them. It is just a technical implementation of what the conversation abusers were already doing.
8. Re:see, here's the fatal flaw with this idea... by MarkvW · 2012-03-01 05:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That's exactly what they want. They want to drown out legitimate debate. When the people involved in that debate revolt, they get to bring down the hammer on them. And then they get to smear their political enemies as lawless.
  This is exactly what we saw them do with OWS last fall. But this time the muting is literal, instead of using a media blitz to drown out the real message with confused ones.
  "They" are bad and must be stopped. We can blame all the world's problems on "them." Gosh, if we could only figure out who "they" and "them" are we could solve all of the world's problems.
  Sounds too much like a child wailing about his all-powerful parents.
9. Re:see, here's the fatal flaw with this idea... by phiwum · 2012-03-01 08:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I have no doubt that non-racists can dislike Obama, and I reckon the majority of Tea Party members are not racist.
  Now, how about some evidence for your claims that:
  (1) Some or many of the racist signs at Tea Party events were the product of liberals trying to discredit the movement and
  (2) The media has removed black people from images of Tea Party rallies.
  Just 'cause, you know, anyone can say anything.
  
  --
  Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-01 05:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Having worked with different types of audio equipment my entire life I can assure you that this effect is real.
Having once worn earplugs, I can tell you that it this technology is very easily defeated.