Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Speech-Jamming Gun Silences From 30 Meters

Posted by samzenpus on 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."

16 of 370 comments (clear)

  1. Let me say this about it ... by Barbara,+not+Barbie · · Score: 5, Funny

    "This is totally ....."

    --
    Let's call it what it is, Anti-Social Media.
    1. Re:Let me say this about it ... by Phreakiture · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Having read how it works, I can tell you that being focused is enough to overcome this. It doesn't drown you out; it doesn't mute you. What it does is return your words to you about 200ms later so that you are dealing with a terribly strong reverse echo. This has a psychological effect on the speaker.

      By focusing, you can overcome it. I know this for a fact, because, as an A/V tech and DJ, I have spoken into a PA system that had a compressor on it, which compressor introduced about the same amount of delay. Even as I watched other people struggle with it when it was their turn to speak, I had no problems taking the mic and speaking, as long as I focused on what I was saying and ignored the feedback. (For the record, I used that compressor exactly once. It wasn't intended for PA use, but for broadcast, where the latency wouldn't have mattered.)

      If you can keep yourself focused on what it is you have to say, you can overcome this quite easily.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
  2. Is this new? by drooling-dog · · Score: 5, Funny

    Conventional firearms have been effective at silencing speakers for centuries. Do we really need this?

  3. see, here's the fatal flaw with this idea... by Thud457 · · 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 · · 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 Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    3. Re:see, here's the fatal flaw with this idea... by iamgnat · · 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...

    4. Re:see, here's the fatal flaw with this idea... by Yetihehe · · Score: 5, Funny

      Silencing guns don't silence people. People silence people.</sarcasm>

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    5. Re:see, here's the fatal flaw with this idea... by AngryDeuce · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

      - John F. Kennedy, 1962

    6. Re:see, here's the fatal flaw with this idea... by next_ghost · · Score: 5, Informative

      Except that sticking fingers into your ears while speaking will render that gun useless.

    7. Re:see, here's the fatal flaw with this idea... by kubernet3s · · Score: 5, Funny

      Useless as the weird dystopian weapon you are trying to make it out to be. Useful for moderating debates and designated quiet areas? Yes. If you wear earplugs into a library just so you can talk loudly, you're a jackass, not the inventors

  4. Three hurras for the STFUgun! by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hip! hip! H....

  5. Not as cool as hyped... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was disappointed to see that it doesn't create some kind of actual interference, but rather just gives them a local echo of themselves and creates a psychological effect. This can easily be overcome with practice. If you've ever announced in a gym or a stadium, you get the same effect and get used to it quickly.

  6. The Obligatory XKCD by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Funny

    http://xkcd.com/368/

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  7. Re:Umm by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Having worked with different types of audio equipment my entire life I can assure you that this effect is real.

    However, depending on the delay it might not "shut you up" completely. It can make you slur or not be able to form words. You can get stuck on a single syllable because your brain says you haven't finished it.

    So, no, it doesn't sound just like simple feedback or echo.

  8. Japanese conversation style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I remember reading an article a few years ago called "Conversational Ballgames" by an english-speaking woman who became fluent in Japanese while in residence there. She describes her difficulty fitting in to conversation patterns even after she was "fluent" until she learned that social expectations of the conversation differed across cultures. She compares western-style conversation to volleyball or tennis, a match where you bat back and forth the same ball with a partner -- whereas Japanese conversation reflects more a game of bowling. She explains the game:

    "A Japanese-style conversation, however, is not at all like tennis or volleyball, it’s like bowling. You wait for your turn, and you always know your place in line. It depends on such things as whether you are older or younger, a close friend or a relative stranger to the previous speaker, in a senior or junior position, and so on.

    The first thing is to wait for your turn, patiently and politely. When your moment comes, you step up to the starting line with your bowling ball, and carefully bowl it. Everyone else stands back, making sounds of polite encouragement. Everyone waits until your ball has reached the end of the lane, and watches to see if it knocks down all the pins, or only some of them, or none of them. Then there is a pause, while everyone registers your score.

    Then, after everyone is sure that you are done, the next person in line steps up to the same startling line, with a different ball. He doesn’t return your ball. There is no back and forth at all. And there is always a suitable pause between turns. There is no rush, no impatience."

    Here's a link to the essay: http://books.google.com/books?id=EhAYIyaeuz8C&pg=PA454&lpg=PA454#v=onepage&q&f=false

    The reasoning given by the researchers for the need to silence someone (while still chilling) comes into context for me when I think of them trying to harmonize a game of bowling. I can see them pointing their silence gun at rowdy american-like bowlers butting into the lane when it isn't their turn, distracting the bowler on deck, and scooping the ball off the lane before it reaches the pins!