Despite the fact that the Air Force's
Active Denial System has yet to be deployed against unruly domestic mobs as Secretary Michael Wynn
would have liked -- seems like they missed their opportunity
prior to the PS3 launch --
Wired is reporting that the branch's so-called "pain gun" has been certified as "safe" by scientists and "excruciating" by the soldiers and monkeys it was tested on. For those of you who don't follow the latest developments in non-lethal weaponry, the ADS -- which has been in development for over ten years -- shoots a 94GHz millimeter wave that triggers an immediate flight response from anyone in its path within 500 meters; although the majority of military test results are classified, it's said that even the toughest subjects can only endure five seconds of the intense burning before running like hell in the opposite direction. Just because the weapon has been green lit for combat, however, doesn't mean that we'll see ADS-equipped Hummers rolling around the streets of Baghdad anytime soon: as Secretary Wynn suggested, international backlash could be significant once photos of beet red, blistered victims start hitting the internet and 24-hour news networks. Still, with the military stuffing this technology into weapons of all shapes and sizes (plane-mounted versions will soon bring the pain from above), it probably won't be too long before these devices become so mainstream that you'll be able to pick one up at Wal-Mart bundled with a free tube of burn cream.
posted December 5th 2006 1:21PM
Brent said: "There will always be a select few who cannot live in civilizied society, and I don't have a real answer for that either, again, people smarter than I, but my vote certainly favors the more lethal side for those people. Whatever the means we can and should remove them from society."
I agree. The violently anti-social should be removed from society; however...
What if the society itself is anti-social, and those that engage in violence are doing so to reform it. Good examples would be Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, communist China. Some might say Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is another good example.
Furthermore, where do you draw the line? Sure, murder is a good place to start, but let's say you get you way, and murder is eliminated. Do you stop there, or do you move on to lesser crimes? History - and most recent history is rife with examples - has shown that you'll invariably move on to tyranny.
I'm not saying I disagree with you, merely that a policy, carried-out with your sentiment as a basis, must be executed within the right context and right understanding if it is not to become corrupted and tyrannical.
"as Secretary Wynn suggested, international backlash could be significant once photos of beet red, blistered victims start hitting the internet and 24-hour news networks."
Ummm, when was the last time anyone saw a gun shot, mortar, or grenade victim on the "24-hour news networks"? Let's face it, our "Regime" does a good job of covering up all evidence of a war so citizens like us won't think it's wrong to kill, maim, or cripple others. PROPAGANDA? OK!
incidentally, millimeter waves are currently being used in that funky x-ray screening system that lets you see what's under someone's clothes.
Yes, Dave. It would be much better to hit the mob with a .50 BMG. Although chunks tend to complain less than scalded cats.
Some people don't understand what the military is or what it's for. It's something you unleash after careful deliberation and rein in when it's accomplished it's goals. If you can do that by making the enemy uncomfortable in certain specific situations instead of killing them, so much the better.
Prove me wrong.
Here's how you're wrong.
"As an example, uneven heating in frozen foods is a particular problem, since ice absorbs microwave energy much less well than liquid water, leading to defrosted sections of food warming faster due to more rapid heat deposition there. Due to this phenomenon, microwave ovens set at too-high power levels may even start to cook the edges of the frozen food, while the inside of the food remains frozen."
It's not about the water, love. It's about the state.
Nerds
Take the frozen cucumber and stick it ........
You people are a bunch of dumb asses that think you know every thing about the world. Get off your damn computer, pop your zits and go in to the world!
Far from contradicting me, your quote however completes the explanation.
Nevertheless, microwaves cook the outside and then the inside, the same way a knife will cut your burrito, first outside, then inside.
Oh yeah, superficial blistered skin is totally going to make EVERYONE hate America. Cause, you know, bullets only make small holes, so on the whole, your corpse looks fine except for all those red spots in your torso. But here, your tan is RUINED, and to add insult to injury you're still alive to be mad about it! Worst idea ever, eh?
What's so great about this tech is that it can be made by anyone with the knowledge of how it works. /me heads towards the shop...
I've just had it with the snide references to your own snide references that include addendum stating how the above snide reference may be taken out of context by the 40 previous websites used as a solid 'reference.'
You are not a news site I know but I've just noticed this sort of thing too many times lately. Bias is unavoidable but it can be tiring for readers that spot this sort of slag more easily than others.
Do us a favor and throttle back on the overt spin. We just come here to see the latest cool stuff, not to bathe in your personal leanings.
Gotta go, The Daily Show is on...
I prefer the 'Kent State' method of crowd dispersal. Can't write hit songs about microwaving mobs.
Seriously - surely some sort of garment could be made to block or absorb these waves. Like the mesh on a microwave oven's window.
Well this is the bit I said was for people that are smarter than I am. My thoughts though, are that it must be the society which decides, and not an entity on behalf of. Corruption and tyranny are traits of a few, by nature a society will not institute a tyrannical rule over itself. If the day comes that all smart and well meaning people come to the rational agreement that jaywalking is a crime punishable by death then so be it. If tomorrow in a unanimous vote the senate and house pass that law, and the president signs it then I will rejoice because our revolution will be here. We cannot assume the government to be the sole source of virtue and sense, it has shown time and time again to fail badly in these. A new forum is necessary.
To your question I draw the line mostly where it's drawn now in the American legal system, at least in terms of justifiable acts of violence to protect oneself or others, and the extent of violence which is available as punishment. The death penalty for the unredeemable is still a part of me that cringes, but I can't help but see it's justification. I'm with Engadget on today's comment on the one strike and you're out rule. More intelligent laws are necessary to truly begin to define where the line goes exactly. The founding fathers came up with 10 good ones, but they only sought to establish the laws governing the government. I think we could come up with 10 laws that govern the actions of men as well as the bill of rights did the government. Take the rest off the books and I can pick which couple are worthy of violence and which must be subject to a nonviolent restitution. Punishment is by nature tyrannical.
Brent said: "Corruption and tyranny are traits of a few, by nature a society will not institute a tyrannical rule over itself."
Society will and does tyrannize minorities or individuals. More than that, however, I question your premise: I say a society tyrannizes itself when it ventures down a path that ultimately leads to its own demise or, at the very least, corrupts its values.
Brent said: "If the day comes that all smart and well meaning people come to the rational agreement that jaywalking is a crime punishable by death then so be it."
Yeah, um... You're absolutely right: It's better that you leave the heavy lifting to others...
Congratulations USA! You got a new highscore on the list of worlds most evil countries. Keep up the hard work on executing your own citizens, killing people in other countries and sometimes just cooking them a little. Good luck and hope you can come up with more nifty ways on how to make this world a better place in the future!
Best regards /UK (your very own hijo de puta)
My old professor a couple of years ago at Trinity University was doing the LD50 and LD100 tests for this very machine. When he did a small presentation on its capabilities for our department he mentioned that he thought it was funny that the Army only requested the data on its lethality. I'm hoping they performed additional research of their own, because so far their definition of "safe" is "we know what kills a person, so we won't do that."
Oh, and they can easily just turn the knob up and make it lethal. With an increased power supply, the unit could make a person pass out within a minute to 90 seconds, and would probably die within 5 minutes under prolonged exposure. Considering that the unit has a massive coverage area, this thing could turn into a bad-day pretty fast.
Furthermore, because society is an entity comprised of human beings (as opposed to , say, rocks) which ARE corruptible and prone to tyranny, then yes: society can tyrannize itself, just like one human being can tyrannize another.
"Society will and does tyrannize minorities or individuals. More than that, however, I question your premise: I say a society tyrannizes itself when it ventures down a path that ultimately leads to its own demise or, at the very least, corrupts its values"
We're both guilty of generalizing society far too much as a single moving mass. If enough voices were given real power, and from them the very best of the ideas were selected and melded together in a realistic logical way we would have a very civilizied society to lay out real changes. In the current system far far too few voices are heard. The tyranny of minorities is not perpetrated by society but by another minority group, and one which represents a much smaller percentage than any so called victim group of societial tyranny on a long enough time scale.
It's a delicate subject to dance around, and examples are so plentiful it always feels like singling out one group or another. I'll take myself then so as not to offend, but paint the portrait you can easily fill with whatever more prominent example fits my point better.
Atheists are the least trusted group in America according to well at least Morgan Spurlock citing something. We represent less than 10% of the population. We suffer only a tiny amount of tyranny from less than 1% of the population. Even though society may not particularly like us, or any group different from a majority it does not institute a policy of tyranny, it is limited to small groups. (Read: KKK)
My point in the jaywalking bit is nothing but a cheap philosophy trick. Can you really judge all cultures that practiced cannibalism as without strong societial values? Values must change to reflect the changing times. If a time ever came that all people could come to agree that jaywalking being a capital case was necessary than it should be accepted as what was right at the time. At that time jaywalking must represent a significant danger to the good of many in order for it to be worthy of execution, and is compounded by the fact that it is certainly something which is so easily avoidable. Certainly though if the 500 like minded people in Washington now decided to make jaywalking a capital offense and the rest of the world still views it as insane it's cause for revolution.
This example is the reason that government cannot be allowed to set itself on a course which cannot be checked by the populance. A 'weapon' that simply pacified protestors would garauntee it could remain unchecked.
My dad goes to the war college in Alabama. He just took a course on this weapon. It in no way has the ability to burn skin, tissue, or nerves. It uses a special light and wave to emit the burning sensation in your skin. "BUT CAUTION" Being hit by the beam for long periods of time can result in pyschological, and nerve damge. Which is for at least a couple minutes which there is no record of. They actually tested the device on a bridge at Maxwell Air Force base in Montgomery, Alabama. They aligned a few volunteers (they had no clue) and shot the light at them at they either dropped for cover or ran. I got to watch a unclassified video.
"Pain gun" gets FCC green light
For those of you arguing about kitchen microwaves - They work by sending microwave radiation at the item, which causes the water molecules to spin rapidly, causing friction. They do not cook from the inside out, but they are supposed to cook the entire item (inside and outside) at the same time. This rarely happens, but it's the intent. Now, if you have something that is mostly liquid on the inside (like, say, a person) then yes, you could theoreticly cook it from the inside out.
Anyway, as for the gun, since the alternitive is shooting bullets, I think I'll take the pain gun