Slashdot Mirror
Man Who Pointed Laser At Aircraft Gets 30-Month Sentence
coondoggie writes "In a move federal prosecutors hope sends a strong message to the knuckleheads who point lasers at aircraft for fun, a California man was sentenced to 30 months in prison for shining one at two aircraft. According to the FBI Adam Gardenhire, 19, was arrested on March 29, 2012 and named in a two-count indictment filed in United States District Court in Los Angeles that said he pointed the beam of a laser at a private plane and a police helicopter that responded to the report."
It's because of idiots like this that we can't have nice toys. Laser pointers get banned and people who buy them get looked on with suspicion. All because some morons think pointing them at aircraft is a good idea.
How about we punish the idiots, and let the rest of us have our toys?
Authorities may seek to regulate or prohibit the use of laser pointers, but there is a horse that has left the barn long ago: the lasers used in CD/DVD/game players are much, much more powerful than laser pointers. Hardware hackers can collect several dozen old boom boxes, hook up their laser emitters, and thus create very formidable weaponry.
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
"let's give pilots kevlar body suits in a suitcase, if someone sprays the cockpit with bullets they can open the suitcase and put the suits on"
People like him are making things difficult on all of us laser enthusiasts with their completely asinine behavior.
How about we put the onus for not being an asshole on the people who could cause the damage in the first place, not on those who might (in addition to their passengers) become victims of it?
Lasers can cause eye damage or blind a pilot pretty immediately, without time to put on goggles.
This is a good verdict. Society works if people are not assholes to each other; when they start being assholes, you need laws and enforcement to motivate them not to be.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
I am perfectly okay with this.
Because it's been found that if the laser hits the windshield at the right angle, the glass lights up and you can't see out of it. Come on, most of these lasers don't have the power to actually do eye damage and it'd be incredible luck to actually hit somebodies eye, it's the visibility that's the problem.
Let's put an EMS team on every plan in case a pilot gets blinded and crashes the plane there will be help immediately available.
There is a problem with your proposal: The time they grab their eyewear, the beam will be in their eyes :/ They should wear them all time to be effective. And these eyewear generally reduce incoming light and thus what the pilot can see :(
This is not very far from blaming the victim here.
"WARNING: Do not look into laser beam with remaining eye."
...oh, no remaining eye? Sucks to be you. Or your passengers...
Koans and fables for the software engineer
We are tossing a 19 year old kid into the system for 2 and 1/2 years over shining a light. Without a doubt he could have caused more harm than he did, but to take away the beginning of his adult life... just seems wrong. Make him do a few thousand hours of community service while on probation will do more good for everyone than teaching him to be a professional convict at this point in his life.
FTFA:
Gardenhire deliberately aimed a commercial-grade green laser at multiple aircraft on that March evening
Also:
The FAA says the increase in annual laser reports is likely due to a number of factors, including the availability of inexpensive laser devices on the Internet; increased power levels that enable lasers to reach aircraft at higher altitudes; more pilot reporting of laser strikes; and the introduction of green and blue lasers, which are more easily seen than red lasers.
People are buying commercial/scientific lasers and using those. Those may be regulated, unfortunately, because of the asshats and ignoramuses out there.
The only issue I have is that this kid, probably non-violent dumb-ass, will come out of prison where he will experience many bad things, and probably learn many many bad things. When he comes out he probably won't be as non-violent any more.
you can buy old used guns for around $25 (e.g. little .32acp and .22LR pistols, old bolt action .22 short rifles)....what's your point?
Get a powerful laser. Mount it with a spinning set of mirrors. Put it into a "grenade" form with a time delayed trigger. After spinning it around a room for say 5 seconds, everyone should be either sufficiently blind or at least keeping their eyes closed to prevent blindness.
A 5mW green laser can blind you for some time. I was pointing my laser to the other side of the room but somehow forgot about the mirror on the other side :( Get it back directly in one of my eyes. I did have a dark spot for some minutes (~10min) like when you look at very bright light.
Sentencing should be for punishment/rehabilitation and not to "send messages."
That kind of shit needs to go away. That's why we have "hackers" getting put away longer than rapists, or issues like Aaron Schwartz.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's just like legalizing weed.
No, really its not.
We have a huge chunk of the population that are drug addicts
"Huge Chunk" is a rather subjective term, and misleading as well.
and instead of finding a way to treat them and help them, we are legalizing weed to keep them enslaved and create even more addicts.
Actually we are legalizing weed because it has real medicinal benefits, despite what they taught you in your 6th grade D.A.R.E. class.
It really isn't. I'm not suggesting that people *shouldn't* get in trouble for it, I'm just suggesting that there will always be people who either won't know or won't care that it's dangerous and they could get in trouble for it, so if it's a real concern, those affected might also want to take precaution. How is that different from suggesting that people put on their seatbelts or wear bike helmets, because they might get hit? Yes, it would be nice if nobody ever hit anyone else with their car, but that's not likely to happen, at least not until cars are all self-driving. So until then, I will continue to wear a seatbelt, to protect me from serious injury in accidents, even those that I had no fault in.
(I do understand, though, that you wouldn't want to wear protective glasses all the time while piloting a long commercial flight, so it would only help if you could see that a laser was being shone on your plane *before* it got into the cockpit and into your eye. This is admittedly a more serious flaw in that plan.)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Ok this guy did something monumentally stupid which, most certainly should serve as example for others. Done. Now whats with the 30 months in prison? Why must this guy be a felon? Now unable to leave the country, unable to vote in most places, unable to own a firearm.... all for something stupid that, he is unlikely to ever do again.
The punishment fetish in this country really needs to be checked, punishments are totally out of whack with crimes when we have people losing their rights indefinitely over something which, while it could have been disasterous wasn't, and more would have been served (and just as useful an example set) by using it as a teaching moment than by ruining this guys life and making crime one of his best options going forward.
But hey, the harsh punishment crowd can go stroke themselves over it, so someone benefits.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
How about we put the onus for not being an asshole on the people
Hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
The second part of his suggestion, that they put it on after a laser strike, was silly, but the first is spot-on. Pilots and their aircraft employ all sorts of safety devices against potential hazards, both natural and manmade; if "laser strikes" are now a potential hazard, why not respond with a practical solution? Why is yet another overbearing law always the "solution" some people propose?
Liberty in your lifetime
Why not public stockades for 10 days and allow the public to throw old food at him, totrure him, humiliate him, and even give him some corporal punishment?
Why the hell dont we do this anymore to people so they actually learn?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
federal prosecutors hope sends a strong message
I've never understood this message sending that prosecutors/judges/etc go on about.
If I'm going to aim a laser pointer at a plane, I'm not first googling the punishment for it. Nor for any other (potential) crimes.
Who is this message being sent to exactly?
By "sending a message" they are by their own admission, using an unusual punishment.
Sure, this is an interpretive call on the meaning of "unusual" and judges are extremely unlikely to limit their own power by using a broad definition, just as they are unlikely to limit their power by using a narrow definition.
Apparently, California's prison lobby has not been deterred by the budget problems and overcrowding. We have the technology, house arrest for 30 months would be more reasonable.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Except.
1. Kevlar takes time to put on and takes up a lot of space, glasses are small and can be put on quickly.
2. A person with a gun at short/medium range is much more likely to hit you in a meaningful way than a moron on the ground with a laser. I would bet that the pilot would have plenty of time to see the dot and grab the protection after he sees it, are there even any documented cases of a pilot being blinded by a laser? How many compared to reports of beams on aircraft? (also of note, passengers being blinded, while not life threatening to the whole plane, is still bad and unconscionable)
3. Embrace the power of AND. Is it perfect? No. However, when you have several hundred $ to transfer across town, you put it in a pocket or wallet, right? You don't, walk down the road with it clenched in your fist, do you? Do you lock the doors on your house? You know, people aren't supposed to break in (its illegal).
Quite simply, there are lots of things we "shouldn't have to do" that we accept we need to do because we know that there are and always will be people out there who are either not too bright, or not terribly morally oriented. Taking precautions against them, especially small, cheap precautions (like door locks and protective glasses) which are effective against some of the more common problems, makes sense.... more sense than doing nothing and dealing with the fallout.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Thank you, with how many people seem to think that it is the responsibility of the victim to make sure that they are properly protected against idiots, it is nice to hear some sanity.
I personally think 30 months is too short. And the man should have been charged with attempted murder once for every person in each aircraft.
People need to become more conscious of their actions. If you know something "fun" that can kill people, you should still be charged with attempted murder, even if you were too stupid to realize your actions could have resulted in death.
But, you do end up in a grey area of what is a stupid attempt, and what is an honest mistake. However, in this case, it was obviously not a mistake, it was just stupid "fun".
As for his statement that he didn't know it was dangerous only leads to the fact that people are continuously using things without understanding what it is that they use. All laser pointers come with warnings. Even if his friend removed the label before letting his friend use it, the friend should also be responsible for notifying his friend of the dangers.
There is also the fact that this kid was not aware of the fact that it was illegal.
Now I know I am getting old, but the repeated use of the "I didn't know" defense sickens me every time I hear it in the news. What level of stupidity is required for people to do something they have no idea what they are doing?
I have been slowly getting my niece into astronomy, and now I have to deal with keeping up with these idiots causing new laws getting created, so I then have to research them, so that I can continue to teach her how to look at the stars responsibly, and while, it is obvious to keep pointers out of flight paths, now, before going to a new place I need to make sure I am more than 10 miles away from any registered airport.
Or... y'know... just don't point lasers in peoples eyes. That *is* assault you know. If the laser is powerful enough, it's capable of grievous bodily harm in the form of quite permanent blinding. So yeah, I'd say the sentence is quite good, maybe even a little light.
Picture it another way - guy standing next to a road at night pointing it into the windshield of oncoming cars. What exactly does that guy *think* will happen?
+1 Disagree
Why is the law "overbearing?" It's the same as any crime. Trying to blind pilots with high-powered laser pointers is illegal. Is it so hard to not try and do that? Is it a natural right to do it? Why should the airlines have to spend millions, maybe even billions depending on the solution, to upgrade its entire fleet just so you can aim laser pointers at the plane? Why not just don't try and blind the pilot? That's all the law says, but you act like if you want to buy a laser pointer you have to trade a child or something.
The law says Do X and face the penalty. Don't do X and nobody cares. You say that's overbearing. Your solution is to force the airlines to retrofit all their planes. That's not overbearing?
What kind of accuracy would be required to hit a pilot in the eye from 100m away? The pupil has a radius of probably 5 mm. Using some simple trig, that's .03 degrees. You'd have to be pretty precise to hit a pilot in the eye. Expecially if the plane is moving, which it most certainly is.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
It might be more practical to place graveyards underneath all flight paths to save on funeral fees.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
> It's just like legalizing weed. We have a huge chunk of the population that are drug addicts,
Not even close. We don't Have anything, those people are human beings who have every right to be addicts if they want to. Their body, their choice. Nobody is enslaved, and most of the serious issues around that.... the fact that they are exposed to a violent criminal underground.... is actually a result of prohibition not weed.
If weed were perfectly legal, people would buy it at the store, and if anyone came to their house with a gun and robbed them for their money and weed, they would have police to call who would investigate the crime and arrest the actual violent criminal. This is not the case now, so all you have done is take addicts, and hand them over to violent criminals to use and abuse.
Good job.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
And what exactly is the "practical solution" for keeping laser light out of windows which are designed to give pilots the best possible view outside? Any new materials I don't know of that keep laser light out but let other light through so pilots can still see the ground at night?
I don't think it's "overbearing" to make it illegal to shine lasers at aircraft.
I do think the punishment is a bit harsh for a 19 year old first offender who probably had no idea that what he was doing was so dangerous.
If he had played football and raped somebody, he would have received a far more lenient sentence.
Lets dedicate the first 8 rows to a S.W.A.T. team or teams.
Whenever a player quits EVE to go play WoW, the Average IQ of both games increase.
come up with practical solutions that actually mitigate the hazard
And what might be an example of a 'practical solution' for preventing a visible light laser beam from entering the cockpit?
I have never seen a real gun for that cheap. The cheapest I typically see are Mosin-Nagent rifles for around $90 or a Nagent revolver for around $125. At $25 that puts you at the low end of BB guns. Even non functional CMP guns are more than that. Are you sure you aren't shopping at Billy Bob's Hot Gun shop?
Time to offend someone
How did they catch him? It seems unlikely the pilot had such good eyesight as to recognize him from above..
Did he spell his name on the cockpit ceiling or something?
'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
Yeah, that'll show him and everyone else! Cause we all know every moron out in the sticks, in the city, living in bunkers, all of 'em will hear of this story, read about the consequences and drop their laser pointers in FEAR of the repercussions. Right. Does anyone honestly believe that by "making an example" of this person that all the other semi-literate (or not) morons will be 1)Aware of this or 2)Changed people because of this? Don't get me wrong, I think the strong sentence is fine for such behavior but expecting this to be some proxy for "preaching the good word of the law" is hopelessly naive in this case. Why not draft an awesome 12 page EULA that all purchasers must check a powerful I ACCEPT box before purchasing? Cause that works so well already...
Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
Drunk driving
Smoking indoors in public spaces
Leaded gasoline
Lead paint
Asbestos home insulation
All banned and and no longer socially acceptable.
Yes, indeed, we should all drive tanks, wear breathing equipment, and install lockable trap-door mouth pieces on our toddlers. Won't anyone think of the casual laser user???
I would bet that the pilot would have plenty of time to see the dot and grab the protection after he sees it, are there even any documented cases of a pilot being blinded by a laser? How many compared to reports of beams on aircraft? (also of note, passengers being blinded, while not life threatening to the whole plane, is still bad and unconscionable)
I have flown with colleagues who have been hit by a laser and who were blinded for a few minutes, having to transfer control to the other pilot but fortunately without permanent eye damage. It's a very sudden flash without warning. Laser light is very focused, so you don't see any "dot" until it's pointed directly at you.
Even worse, I have heard of at least one pilot who has actually lost his license due to permanent eye damage after a laser strike. What a fun game, isn't it?
Taking precautions against them, especially small, cheap precautions (like door locks and protective glasses) which are effective against some of the more common problems, makes sense....
If only there was a way of keeping laser light out and letting other light in so the pilots can still see the runway at night... Yes, even with all the modern electronic guidance systems, being able to look outside is still one of the very basic safety features of any aircraft.
Do you really want to restrict the visibility that your pilots have by forcing them to constantly wear protective gear? Because that's what's going to happen.
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
What kind of accuracy would be required to hit a pilot in the eye from 100m away?
It's not necessarily hitting the pupil, but rather the scattering of the light. Cockpit glass is not a perfect surface. All the dust and microscratches scatter the light across the surface, and the pilot can no longer see out. And looking out the window is pretty much required when you are trying to land.
We've had this problem here locally, with Navy jets coming over the oceanfront hotels on final approach. Beer fueled idiots on a hotel balcony, shining their toys at the jets.
I know of at least one pilot who got permanent eye damage after a laser strike, and who can no longer fly. The beam becomes pretty wide at that distance but is still strong enough to cause serious damage.
You might very occasionally manage to kill someone with a laser, but illegal driving kills tens of thousands each and every year (just in the US).
The law is stupid because the idea that laws serve as an effective deterrent is stupid.
No it isn't.
Remember when they passed that law against __________, and now no one does __________ anymore?
smoking in indoor public places
driving without a seatbelt
leaving dog poop on the pavement
corporal punishment in schools
child labour
If "laser strikes" are now a potential safety hazard, and the government wants to "do something" about them, they should start requiring pilots to wear appropriate safety gear to protect themselves against laser strikes.
So, your answer to the problem of, say, graffiti would be to coat every wall with teflon, instead of punishing those responsible? How about mandatory burkas instead of those silly anti-rape laws?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Yes, there are documented instances of pilots being blinded, at least temporarily, by lasers--Google is your friend. Usually, the first indication a pilot has that his aircraft is under attack, yes, attack, by a laser is when the beam enters the cockpit.
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
If it was that close, I'd try to play Frisbee with it... With a frying pan...
+1 Disagree
WARNING: Pointing at eyes will cause blindness, Pointing at Land, Sea or Air vehicles will get you jail time.
- I stole your sig.
Actually we are legalizing weed because it has real medicinal benefits, despite what they taught you in your 6th grade D.A.R.E. class.
So why not require a prescription for using it? Oh wait... Most Doctors don't think there are enough medical benefits to using or there would be derivative medications sprouting up like, um... Weeds out there so big drug makers could make a buck or two...
I'm sorry, what they told you in DARE classes about weed was and is generally true and the medical use of it is vanishingly small dispute what you think.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
In a move federal prosecutors hope sends a strong message to the knuckleheads who point lasers at aircraft for fun...
Knucklehead isn't really the right term here. A knucklehead might give you a wedgie, dip your hand in warm water when you're sleeping, give you a noogie, or at worst cooties.
Trying to blind a piot of a commercial aircraft is something entirely different. "Attempted mass murderer" comes to mind.
What kind of accuracy would be required to hit a pilot in the eye from 100m away? The pupil has a radius of probably 5 mm.
Simple trig fails because a laser doesn't project an infinitesimal point, especially at 100m. And even if it did, you only need to hit your target for a moment to cause temporary blinding. Just the dazzle of a powerful laser as it reflects off various surfaces (or refracts through the glass) within the cockpit is probably enough to disorientate a pilot, so you don't even need to aim anywhere near their eyes.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
1: By the time you realize that you've looked at a laser, it's already to late.
2: How about you wear cutting goggles while you're out driving at night? Not just shades, but nice, dark, ANSI approved cutting goggles. Think it might impair your vision, just a little?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
This guy pleaded guilty for repeatedly lighting up Navy jets. 18 months and $4k fine.
He was pissed at all the noise. The base was there before he was born.
Clearly we should set up prisons for birds that damage airplanes instead of hardening the aircraft structure... I'll agree with your point that the guy is old enough to know better (though "attempted murder" is a little extreme when the probability of taking down an airliner with a laser appears to be 0), but airlines also have a responsibility to their crews and passengers to take defensive safety precautions.
With our prisons so overcrowded and so expensive to maintain (comes out of all of our taxes), I think situations like these would be better handled with a stiff fine (payable in installments, since the guy is only 19).
I do think the punishment is a bit harsh for a 19 year old first offender who probably had no idea that what he was doing was so dangerous.
I find it hard to believe that he didn't think this was dangerous. WTF did he think would happen?
At 19, that means he's graduated high school (or should have), he can vote, he can join the military, he can drive a car by himself and a whole bunch of other 'adult things.' Society trusts him with all this once he hits 18, but he can claim ignorance that shining something that can blind a person at a pilot flying a plane might be dangerous?
Coat the windows in a layer of nonlinear optic material that only significantly attenuates light above a certain radiant density. It'd potentially make flying towards the sun less unpleasant as well. Then again I don't know if anyone has developed directional nonlinear optics, so it might simply mean that any time sunlight hit the window from any direction it would turn opaque, a somewhat suboptimal situation. Plus it'd probably be quite expensive. Glasses/goggles of the same material would likely be far cheaper and more effective.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
True, assuming such equipment is practical, but you still don't want to give the message that's it's OK to fire these lasers at people. Small aircraft might still be unprotected, and when the idiot gets bored of planes he might shine this thing at cars or in his neighbors' windows.
Or we could just give the pilots their own lasers, and they could fight back.
Remember kids, an eye for an eye... something something... don't shine your fucking lasers at planes.
I'd like to see Mythbusters try this one one. Obviously not with a real pilot in a real plane, but set up a similar scenario and see if this is even possible. Even if you don't need as much acccuracy as I pointed out, you probably need still quite a bit as to make it reasonably dangerous. It's like charging somebody with attempted murder for sticking their victim with a thumbtack. Sure there's scenarios one could think up that would cause death by pushpin, but in almost all cases it would not.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
A good point - if this is a real problem (how does it compare to say, sudden sneezing fits?) it would make sense to take reasonable precautions. Perhaps wearing protective eyewear during take-off and landing, since there's not much risk of laser attacks at altitude. At least when in particularly problematic areas. Of course that assumes the eyewear doesn't inhibit visibility enough to increase the net risks, which is probably not the case, though high-end non-linear optics might change that.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
You're close, but not quite there.
The main reason it's illegal is big pharma. Those doctors you mention work for companies that spend billions on inventing new ailments that require expensive medication. Never mind the litany of side effects. (May cause anal leakage, suicidal thoughts, hives or death)
How many medical conditions could be either treated, or at least managed, with an occasional blunt. Arthritis? This will help ease the pain. Antisocial? Have a it of this and you'll start talking people's ears off. Depressed? Replaced with a case of the giggles. All for cheap, and something you can grow in your backyard.
If nothing else, it's significantly less dangerous than our current recreational substance of choice : alcohol.
This signature is false.
No Mythbusters needed. This is what it looks like from the air. And this guy was prepared for it, having been notified by a previous aircraft. They went looking for this guy.
And here is another one.
And for an airliner, you're looking at a 9 sq/ft window, instead of a 5mm pupil.
In their native applications, CD/DVD lasers are incredibly weak; usually under 1mW. While the diodes can be brought up to higher power by ripping them out and supplying them with proper cooling, laser pointers (especially poorly-regulated imports) are dangerous right out of the box; no hacking needed. If you ripped the cover off a boombox and held down the interlock switch, it's doubtful you could even see it more than a couple of feet away unless the holder had REALLY good aim.
"For doing something dumb (not intending to harm anybody)"
What, precisely, do you think he had in mind when aiming a laser pointer in the cockpit of an airplane lining up for a landing? "Harmless", my a$$.
This was a serious violent crime. Period. End of story. The fact that his crime failed to have the intended result doesn't mean he gets a slap on the wrist.
Remember when they passed that law against __________, and now no one does __________ anymore?
smoking in indoor public places
driving without a seatbelt
leaving dog poop on the pavement
corporal punishment in schools
child labour
If those are the best examples you can come up with then you should give up now as you've only proven J'raxis' point.
All the dust and microscratches scatter the light across the surface, and the pilot can no longer see out.
Yeah, for about 2 milliseconds. Are pilots also not allowed to blink?
With the first link, the chain is forged.
You're not going to like this, but here it is: multi-year sentences for being a douchebag are a *good* thing, because they protect our right to do fun stuff. If we take it as a given that high-powered lasers are a real danger to aircraft, the government has three possible solutions:
1) Laser-proof all aircraft, which is enormously expensive even if it's technically possible. And who pays for it? You do, either through taxes or airline ticket price increases.
2) Ban all sales of high-powered lasers to the public. No fun science experiments for you!
3) Throw the book at a couple of offenders to discourage people from being douchebags in this regard.
In practice, 1) isn't going to happen. By going with solution 3), we reduce the pressure to do 2), which protects your right to screw around with lasers and have safe, responsible science fun.
A mythbusters episode would be cool but isn't needed. Just google the videos. It quickly becomes apparent that accuracy isn't really needed. Just keep pointing the laser at the aircraft and you'll eventually hit the cockpit.
Nothing they told me about drug use in DARE class was true.
The medical use is actually fairly large, as an appetite stimulant for chemotherapy patients, as a general pain medicine and glaucoma help are not vanishingly small, not matter how much your puritan morals might want it to be so.
There are many more active ingredients in Weed than just THC, which is why there are not huge amounts of synthetic derivatives, they are not easily extracted or synthesized, and their interactions are not all understood.
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
I am hoping your list was in jest, as you can see each and every one of those daily including the last two.
Somehow, I don't think the idiots who do this kind of thing read /. much.
This verdict would have a better chance of having its intended effect if the knuckleheads who think it might be a good idea to point a laser at someone got a flyer with their purchase that said "Point it at someone - go to jail."
We are tossing a 19 year old kid into the system for 2 and 1/2 years over shining a light. Without a doubt he could have caused more harm than he did, but to take away the beginning of his adult life... just seems wrong. Make him do a few thousand hours of community service while on probation will do more good for everyone than teaching him to be a professional convict at this point in his life.
Ok, let's put this into perspective. You're driving down the freeway, approaching an overpass, when suddenly you have a burning sensation in the back of your eye and you can't see. As you blink and turn your head, your car goes out of lane and nearly hits another car that honks loudly at you. Thankfully for your kid in the back seat, you weren't going that fast and recovered, but one of your eyes really hurt and has a blind spot that won't go away. Carefully, you work your way off the freeway, wonder if you have to call a doctor.
Now, imagine you are coming in for your first landing as a pilot-in-training. Nervous, but everything's going great, you're in control, when... you get the picture.
Now, imagine you're on that overpass with this 19-year-old you know. You're bored, had some beers. "Check this out," the 19-year-old goes, pulling something out of his pack. "Hi-powered laser."
"What you gonna do with it?" you ask over the sound of cars speeding past, below.
"I'm gonna shine it at cars and planes. You get 'em in the eyes, it fucks 'em up!"
"Uh, really? Does it hurt?"
"If it goes in your eyes, fuck yeah it hurts! Blinds you some, too! I looked at it real quick once and I couldn't see right for hours."
"Uh, dude, you gonna do this on the freeway? People could crash, man."
"Stop being such a punk-ass bitch. Man up and have some balls! Here, watch me fuck up that little plane up there. Yeah, see, I'm gettin' him!" as the plane violently yaws to one side.
The Previous Poster seems to forget that this guy didn't do it once and then come to his senses, like "oh, shit, this has gotta stop". He did it again and again. Either too stupid to understand the real harm/danger he was causing, or knew precisely what he was doing and didn't care, and no thousand hours of service is gonna set that straight (if he was 14, maybe; but he's 19! if he don't know better by then...) Either way, YOU don't want someone around like this wherever you drive, fly or live. Throw away the damn key.
Seriously, Steve O is a "knucklehead" who does some crazy shit. This is something else entirely.
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
From what I've read, drugs are expensive because Big Pharma sees that a plant has certain desirable properties, isolates the chemical(s) responsible, tests them, then sells them. That's very expensive. Smoking a blunt may have desirable effects but it also does many things that aren't desirable in many cases. Wouldn't you rather have a drug that eases your arthritis pain without impairing your judgement or giving you cancer? Surely the side effects of such a drug wouldn't be so significant. I've only experienced a side effect once in my life and only for a very brief time. Medicine is very complicated and there is no "one size fits all" solution.
Hate to break it to you, but there are derivative medications sprouting up like weeds.
Also pot is not addictive.
DARE class information regarding pot is pure bullshit.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Pointing a laser at an aircraft, particular one taking off or landing, or at a helicopter is more dangerous than shooting at it with a handgun (you will likely not hit, with a laser it is easy). Even if the pilot is only incapacitated for a few seconds, that can be enough for a fatal crash. And if the laser is strong enough, it may cause permanent blindness and the pilot will lose his/her job.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
At just 5 feet a big net would be more effective, as would a baseball bat.
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
I've always been a bit curious about how exactly that phrase should be interpreted in the context of period language. It seems to usually be interpreted as cruel punishments and unusual punishments are banned, but I would have thought such an intent would have been better phrased as "cruel or unusual punishments". The alternative, which makes far more sense to me, is that it's the combination that's banned. Cruel punishments are okay so long as they are not unusual, and likewise unusual punishments are okay so long as they are not cruel. After all I challenge you to name any common punishment which is *not* cruel.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I wish airplane technology was anywhere near that level. Even the most recent planes are still using relatively old but proven technology, they are nowhere near approving the replacement of windows with displays. The resolution would have to be huge, as well, to approximate the level of detail we can see through a window.
Not to mention older airplanes, some of which still use floppy disks to perform updates to the navigation database. Head up displays do exist (as an option, and one that is relatively rarely picked by airlines), but they are a lot more basic than what you are suggesting. It would be impossible to retrofit all existing planes with the kind of system you are describing.
And no matter what, there would have to be a way of quickly stowing those displays in case of a malfunction, so we can look outside through the window again. There's no way an aircraft would be approved for flight if there was no way of flying visually if everything else fails. Sure, it can all be solved, but I don't see it happening in the near future.
Commercial, instrumented-rated, flight instructor here
last thing you do before trying to put it on the ground, even when flying by instruments, is confirm that you can actually see the ground.
According to http://www.uni-duesseldorf.de/WWW/MedFak/LaserMedizin/hering/laserpointer/Laserpointer_endanger_retina.pdf blink response time is 250 ms, which is probably longer than the laser can be held on-target. The damage is already done. The pilot's dark-adapted eyes, even if not damaged, will not again be dark-adapted for at least a minute. Scattering may well assure that both the pilot and co-pilot (if any) are effectively blinded.
It's easiest to do this on landing approach, precisely when it's most dangerous.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Except on an ILS Cat. III C automatic landing with no minimum visibility requirement. But only very few airplanes are equipped for those, the vast majority are only approved for landing with some mimimum visibility, even on autopilot. And you still have to be able to leave the runway and taxi to the parking position.
A possible approach is some variation of a welding helmet. Those things can respond in 50 microseconds, and go clear again as soon as the dangerous light stops.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
It might cost the airlines $10/plane, and we can't have private industry paying for their own protection, can we? The taxpayers have to carry that burden! That's the American Capitalist Way!
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Are you aware of any material that reacts quickly enough that it will prevent injury? And also such that it only reacts to the exact wavelength of the incoming light? It's just as much a problem if the pilots are temporarily blinded because they are, effectively, wearing blindfolds as if they are temporarily blinded by laser light.
if "laser strikes" are now a potential hazard, why not respond with a practical solution?
Yeah, let's do something so that visible light can't reach the pilot's eyes!
No sig today...
People already shine lasers into cars. From sidewalks, overpasses and even from other cars.
I have a crazy idea... how about airlines give pilots protective eyewear, and if some bored kid starts shining a laser around, the pilot grabs said eyewear and puts it on?
It only takes a millisecond to dazzle somebody with a laser.
No sig today...
You're right - that's a crazy idea. The pilot's first indication that there is a beam in the vicinity may be when it hits his eye. Then what?
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
I do think the punishment is a bit harsh for a 19 year old first offender who probably had no idea that what he was doing was so dangerous.
You know how I can tell you didn't read the article...?
FTA: "The US Attorney prosecuting the case said: "Gardenhire basically argued that it wasn't dangerous, that he couldn't have known it was dangerous - that basically he was just bored and entertaining himself. The judge found the facts didn't bear that out and his behavior was reckless and very dangerous."
We aren't told what the "facts" are but apparently he was given that sentence because he *did* know what he was doing.
No sig today...
He shouldn't have gone to jail. It's a waste of time and money.
He should have been given a hefty fine and community service.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Remember when they passed that law against __________, and now no one does __________ anymore? Hmm? Yeah, neither do I.
So we should have no laws? I mean, they're useless, right?
What would you replace them with? Lynch mobs?
No sig today...
The law is stupid because the idea that laws serve as an effective deterrent is stupid.
Remember when they passed that law against __________, and now no one does __________ anymore? Hmm? Yeah, neither do I.
Yeah, you're right - laws are such a pain in the ass. We should just get rid of them and save ourselves the bother.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Coat the windows in a layer of nonlinear optic material that only significantly attenuates light above a certain radiant density. It'd potentially make flying towards the sun less unpleasant as well.
Um, given this, don't you think that planes/pilots would already be equipped with this if it already existed?
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
19 year old kid points a laser pointer at a plane. You pay $50,000. If we looked at it this way our prisons wouldn't be so full.
by lasers every year? less then 5.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Pupil size/movement is irrelevant.
eg. Can you shine a flashlight in somebody's eyes from 100m away? What about if they're walking?
No sig today...
My admittedly limited understanding is that many nonlinear materials react virtually instantaneously, hence their usage in optical processing systems. It wouldn't really matter if they reacted only at the frequency of incoming light, because the beam itself is actually quite small, the problem is when that narrow beam intersects the pilot's eye or reflects within the glass to create a wide-area dazzle effect. An opaque patch darting around the window would be distracting, but wouldn't actually impair visibility significantly.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I am hoping your list was in jest, as you can see each and every one of those daily including the last two.
To the same extent as if they weren't illegal? (Where they are illegal, that is.) You really think that the laws against these things have no deterrent value whatsoever?
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
most of these lasers don't have the power to actually do eye damage
They can leave you blinded for several minutes even without permanent damage.
and it'd be incredible luck to actually hit somebodies eye.
Nope, it's easy. That's why lasers are useful for aiming guns.
No sig today...
While many (most?) commercial aircraft do indeed have Autoland system, they are rarely actually used. Ask any actual airline pilot about this.
And he was shining a laser pointer, not a flashlight. And shining at the cockpit, not some easier target.
And obviously it was bright enough to notice, as the pilot called it in.
And I doubt it was a mile or two away.
And at night, the micro-scratches in the plexiglass plane windshields, make a laser-pointer hit very dangerous indeed. The pilot isn't going to have burns on his retina, but he isn't going to be able to see out the thing either.
Then I assume you are investing in medical research and working to fund proper testing using proper scientific methods to *verify* your claims. No?
The problem here is that big Pharma is out literally beating the bushes looking all over the world for new drugs they can patent and profit from. If there is any significant medical uses here, you can bet they'd be out isolating the active agents so they can produce a useful drug to sell. Funny thing here is they are NOT doing anything with all this.. Could it be that there is not enough benefit to justify the development costs? Could that be because your claims are not exactly true, or perhaps of so little medical value as to be no more useful than sugar pills?
Oh that's right.... It's a conspiracy... They won't look into it because they don't want to let out the truth... I suppose that might make sense to someone who is not in right mind and under the influence of THC or in the self justifying mood who wants to justify something they want to do.
I'm not buying that logic. It is very clear that the medical benefits are indeed limited or doctors and big Pharma would be out in droves trying to make a buck on it. So far, nobody has any real science to support what you are contending, so I'm left with no choice but to not support this.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Holy crap that is an awful idea. How many new points of failure are you adding to the system? What's the failsafe? If one of those cameras goes out? if one of the screens goes black? Dead battery/alternator/engine failure or otherwise no power to the screens nor cameras? Gloves, AC. Gloves. If you're going to add a filter to the windscreen, fine, but your failure mode better be "the filter doesn't work" and not "the windscreen is opaque."
Then there is no need for legalization of the primary source... Let pharma go out and get their drug approved for sale and if it is safe and effective you can bet doctors will prescribe it.
So what argument do you have left for legalization if somebody is producing a drug that will likely be safer and more effective?
Oh that's right.... You want to use it.... That's what this really boils down to in the end.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I work with laser daily that have far greater power and focus than the average 5mW laser you can buy in a store. And this report just makes me sad. Sending a guy to jail for something stupid. The pilots could never have been blinded (permanently or even for a short while) with laser of these low power unfocused types. Its basically more dangerous to your retina to look into the sun. The IEC 60601-2-22 for example defines a way to calculate the NOHD http://www.laserpointersafety.com/safetyinfo/safetyinfo/calcs.html Basically this a method of calculating the chance of damage to the eye, based on distance, divergence of the beam, power and wavelength.
Example:EXAMPLE 1: In the U.S., lasers sold as pointers must be less than 5 mW. A typical divergence is 1 milliradian. What is the Nominal Ocular Hazard Distance? The 50/50 injury chance distance?
NOHD (Nominal Ocular Hazard Distance) in feet = (32.8 / 1) * (square root of (0.5 * 5)) = 32.8 * (square root of 2.5) = 32.8 * 1.58 = 51.9 feet ED50 distance in feet = 51.9 / 3.16 = 16.4 feet
Answer: The Nominal Ocular Hazard Distance of a 5 mW laser pointer with 1 mrad divergence is 51.9 feet. The ED50 distance means that if a person is 16.4 feet from the laser and is exposed under laboratory conditions (the laser and eye are fixed relative to each other), there is a 50/50 chance of causing a minimally detectable retinal lesion.
In short, unless the guy was sitting within 16 feet of the plane/helicopter, he has a 50% change of inducing ANY form of damage to the retina. On the other hand, could the laser pointer pose a distraction to the pilot and the pilot could make a fatal error. Sure, but a ringing cellphone might do the same.
What implies that we can't do both? Though I was under the impression (I had read it somewhere, as I recall, from a commenter on this site or Fark) that pilots wore the special laser safety glasses when landing or taking off now because of this. Maybe it was them personally or they were lying. Either way, it is possible to take precautions and still have the act be illegal because sometimes equipment fails and sometimes people make mistakes so the act can still be illegal.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
laser struck the pilot of the airplane in the eye multiple times and caused him to suffer vision impairment that continued through the following day.
That's consistent with what I know from having three lasers of various power levels. In some areas, readily available lasers are limited to 1mw. Online, you can easily order 50mw lasers, if you live in an area they'll ship to. So some readily available lasers are 50 times as powerful than what you might think of as readily available in your area.
Additionally, green lasers are about 4X as bright optically than red lasers of the same power. So his green laser may well be 200X as bright as your red laser.
Depends on where the attacker is. If the attacker is withing 15 degrees of the runway then the planes movement will have little effect. They will have several minutes to paint the front of the aircraft with the pointer. By wiggling the beam they can paint a larger area of the cockpit with the beam over those minutes. Multiply that by the fact the attacker is targeting aircraft as a hobby over the course of the year.
Umm, no. Marijuana is not addictive. They've known that since the 1930s, if not before. Oxycontin is addictive, methamphetamine is addictive, ambien is addictive, caffeine is addictive. Marijuana, psilocybin mushrooms, LSD, or khat are not addictive.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
I was under the impression (I had read it somewhere, as I recall, from a commenter on this site or Fark) that pilots wore the special laser safety glasses when landing or taking off now because of this.
Um, no.
Laser light is just visible light. Blocking visible light from entering a pilot's eyes isn't a good idea.
No sig today...
Most of these trivial activities are don't fall under federal law and none carry punishment that match what this guy got.
They're not supposed to match it. I was just giving examples, as asked, of laws which (in the UK at least) have had exactly the effect they were implemented to produce.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I have an even crazier idea. Obey the FUCKING LAW!
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
How? All of those laws worked in the UK. No-one* smokes indoors now. No-one* drives without a seatbelt. And so on.
*Yes, of course some will flout a new law (or an old one). The majority, if the law is a good one, don't. But just because a new law may not reach that - what? - 10% is no reason to declare it a non-starter.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
There are actually materials which filter out laser light. Had to wear such glasses myself when working with a higher power green laser.
However, the filtering aspect obviously only works in a narrow part of the spectrum.
The problem isn't laser lights. The problem is asshats putting people's lives at risk. Safety devices might prevent disaster, but it doesn't address the problem.
Billiions of dollars for aircraft that are vulnerable to a laser pointer that costs a few bucks. It's a disgrace.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Not necessarily - firstly nonlinear optical materials can be expensive, and secondly there's the problem alluded to in the next sentence - the response would have to be *directional* to be useful, which probably implies micro-scale engineering and drastically increased costs. Think of looking through a window from which the sun is visible - you only want the area of the window directly between your eyes and the sun to be almost opaque, but the entire window is being exposed to the same light. That means you need a material that becomes opaque along the line of intense light while remaining transparent to light passing through the exact same spot on a different vector. Such materials may exist, but if they were cheap we'd be seeing them in windows everywhere.
Semispherical goggles on the other hand might have potential since the geometry could provide directionality rather than the material.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Pot smoke is significantly less carcinogenic than tobacco smoke. In fact, lab studies have shown THC to inhibit carcinogens in mice, while nicotine drastically increases carcinogens.
Secondly, it's a matter of cost to reward. If I can pay $5 for a joint (or just grow my own), compared to billions spent on research and hundreds levied against my insurance company for a few pills that have the same effect but with less drowsiness... I'd pick the joint any day. Shouldn't we at least have that choice, or is the billion dollar pharma industry the only group that knows what's good for me?
This signature is false.
No but if shoot laser pointers at the drivers of school busses near a school then I might expect 30 months of prison.
*Daffy Duck voice* ;-)
"You're despicable...."
I'm still imagining the chaos in the package sorting/routing facility!
All that machinery, and two "Extremely Dangerous Magnets"....hilarity ensues.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
1: By the time you realize that you've looked at a laser, it's already to late.
2: How about you wear cutting goggles while you're out driving at night? Not just shades, but nice, dark, ANSI approved cutting goggles. Think it might impair your vision, just a little?
"Do not look at laser with remaining eye" ?
It boggles my ever loving mind how people here are making excuses for this nitwit. HE COULD HAVE KILLED SOMEONE. How hard is that to understand?
Yes it is a crazy idea. Laser safety glasses are wavelength specific. Protection for green lasers won't work on blue, or red. The helicopter pilot was responding to a call, so he knew ahead of time what color to protect against.
So basically, nothing like this exists yet.
Not directly, but one of these can keep the problem from recurring: http://bit.ly/10Navr9
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
A bit of ricin could cause death by push pin. It's been implicated in at least one murder by umbrella. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_umbrella
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Wait a minute... you are arguing that he intended to "shock the pilots" while they were landing the plane but thought that that action wouldn't have any consequences?
Unless he went with a "diminished mental capacity" defense, indicating he is a certified moron, I don't see how you can argue that "shocking the pilots" landing a plane isn't meant to be harmful.
If he were driving a car, we'd call it reckless endangerment... the sentence seems about right. Not a specific intention to kill, but also an utter disregard for the possibly deadly consequences of his actions.
Excessive punishments do prevent crime. Vlad The Impaler used placed a golden cup on display in the central square of Tirgoviste. Because his legal code meant that every crime was punished by being brutally tortured to death - the only reason for any punishment not being "Impaling" was that it made the legal code sound a bit monotonous when read out - the golden cup was never stolen. So it proved that the crime rate was literally zero.
I'm sure liberals said some shit about how he should try to understand the thieves too. Maybe they said the thieves were Turks or Gypsies or some such shit and it was societal alienation and racial discrimination that made them do it. But guess what? The punishment for being a liberal was impaling too just like it was for being a thief, gypsy, Turk, jaywalker etc.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Err.... I won't take the low hanging fruit and I'll assume that you're trolling. You simply have to be.
https://www.google.com/search?q=laser+safety+glasses&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
They have to be trolling. I simply don't want to believe anyone at /. is that dumb. Hell, I'm often dumb so I make it a point to phrase it in the form of a question and am very happy with the frequency of quality answers here, it's one of the reasons I've been here this long and why I keep coming back. (I don't mind not knowing, I just ask or state what I believe to be true.)
Anyhow, I found out some more information. There's a Wikipedia page about it. It appears that they're not required or anything though that is under consideration. If you're interested the link is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasers_and_aviation_safety
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
This punishment is way over the top, bordering on cruel and unusual.
First of all, the pilots are not in danger. Unless we're talking about a new type of laser with a beam that can zig-zag and go around corners, it is never ever going to hit the pilots in the eyes. Helicopters are different of course as most have some kind of downfacing windows.
A bit of green light reflecting around the cockpit is not going to pose any danger either, both because there's a lot of other light sources in the cockpit that's also bouncing light around, and second because most landings today are mostly automated, either completely or as an assistance. Besides, the pilots are probably half asleep anyway due to the horrendous long hours the commercial airlines force them to work these days.
So please relax. This laser-thing is not a big deal. I guess the pilots are bored since they overreact this way. Think about it. A much more potent light source bounce much more powerful light around the cockpit daily, including directly into the eyes of the pilots, but you don't hear them whine about that. It is of course also rather hard putting the Sun in jail for 30 months...
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Reading the article, arguing that he didn't think it would be harmful was indeed tried in court. The court didn't buy it... it would indeed be hard to argue that without a diminished capacity defense
They in no way limit your vision in any significant way, certainly no worse than sunglasses and which pilot isn't usally rockin a set of aviator shades?
I don't know any pilots who wear aviator shades at night
And why do you think it's normal and acceptable that airlines would have to spend shitloads of money to apply expensive coatings to airplane windows just because some idiots like to shine lasers onto them? What's next? Bullet proof windows so people can fire guns at aircraft? Surely, a prohibition on firing guns at aircraft would be overbearing, right?
You don't sentence people to life for being an asshole. He was caught and today he probably gets the message.
Let's say he exits jail and do the very same thing again. Now we can talk about ill intent and actually wanting to bring the plane down. Now we can talk of attempted murder.
There is a difference of bumping into a bicyclist by accident and aiming for them at 80mph. A law treating them equally will only give incentive for leaving the accident, endangering the bicyclist's life further.
Defining Statistics and Social Research
do you really want your pilot navigating by looking out the window?
Yes, certainly, I want the pilot flying the plane I'm in flying half blind because they are wearing glasses that, be definition, MUST restrict visibility. NOT. If you've never seen the goggles that technicians wear when working on high power laser equipment, then you have no knowledge to make statements like you just did. Pilots need unrestricted visibility. Period. Protective gear that would work, especially against lasers of varying wavelengths, would greatly restrict visibility.
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
Comment removed based on user account deletion