/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4132471]

fellow britfags of /sci/

basically i just read this on the BBC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/16137543

"Police test for riot laser that can temporarily blind"

"Being targeted by the beam has been compared to staring into the sun before being forced to turn away.

Although the blinding effect is only temporary part of the trial will see scientists carry out further research on any potential side-effects."


WHAT THE FUCK

seriously I know not to make assumptions before results are in but using a fucking concentrated beam of light and shooting it directly at peoples Retina seems,

well FUCKING RETARDED.

seriously hope this is some kind of joke.

what are your opinions on shooting rioters/ protesters with concentrated beams of light

[Anonymous No.4132510]

Grab shades before riot.
Now we can riot - in style.

[Anonymous No.4132529]

>>4132471
>what are your opinions on shooting rioters/ protesters with concentrated beams of light

If you're doing nothing wrong, then you have nothing to fear from being blinded by anonymous riot police

[Anonymous No.4132530]

Something about blinding people mid-riot seems a bit dangerous.

[Cunt !rdCUNTjJsk No.4132577]

better than a shotgun to the chest surely

[Anonymous No.4132623]

As long as their is extensive testing about the long term effects, maximum use per person etc, I couldn't care less. Like someone else said, as long as we abstain from deadly force.

[Anonymous No.4132647]

Protip OP: This type of tactic has been used in all types of situations.

In riot situation, it disorients the rioter so they'll be disabled long enough to be subdued by police.

In wartime/hostile situations, it disorients the target long enough for you to shoot them.

This is not something new or bad, you do it on rioters who are threatening those around them.

[Anonymous No.4132651]

This is what the establishment pushes for in advancement in technology. Ways to quell those who would voice argument against it.

[Anonymous No.4132671]

>>4132651
>the establishment
>ways to quell those who would voice argument against it

Okay, so when I start a riot with a large group of supporters because of race diversity and mixing in my city, if you try to stop me, you're the one quelling my voice, and you're keeping me down, and you're censoring my media, and I'm being put down by the man, and everything you do is unjustified and "the world is watching", and so on.

I'll bet you argue that these type of nonlethal tools are important when someone with a different agenda than you starts rioting, but when you and people with your agenda start rioting, all of a sudden you're the victim and everything is cruel and unjust.

I can't stand when people try to use this argument.

[Anonymous No.4132698]

>>4132671
You're putting words in my mouth. Definitely the way to go about proving a point.
You're a bigot, the people you're "rioting because of" are backwards idiots, and the cops who beat the shit out of you because of it have insecurity issues. I really can't expect someone with that black and white mentality to understand the main point I was getting at.

[Anonymous No.4132730]

>>4132698
Oh, I'm sorry, what was your point then? Was it about how this technology was being pushed out by "the establishment" because they want to put down your movements (whatever it may be), or is it about how you feel everyone is trying to put you and your group down, or is it about how this technology isn't even necessary?

Maybe instead of petty name calling, you can state your point, rather than acting on a high horse stating that others simply wouldn't understand the point you were getting at.

[Anonymous No.4132776]

>>4132730
Oh you haven't guessed my "group" yet? I figured you had me pegged. I'm a part of the group thats sick of those who have lived off of implied superiority through generations on this planet hanging some god damn carrots on sticks in front of the faces of the masses. The ones who use divide and conquer tactics to keep the people fighting amongst themselves. Technology will either be the shackles for most of us or the stepping stones to becoming a truly great species. Right now, some of the brightest minds are completely engorging themselves in the former because thats where the profit is. Nobody wants real world peace, it would mean the end of greed. And as for you, and your "cause", you're a fucking puppet and you don't even know it.

[Anonymous No.4132787]

Well, the US Military came up with it first. They called it a Personnel Halting and Stimulation Response rifle or PHASR. It's still better than the Active Denial System aka The Pain Ray IMO, which basically causes a painful sensation akin to being set on fire by using microwaves to heat up the water in your skin.

[Anonymous No.4132833]

The tasers of the future.
Why doesn't the U.S. military simply install a shock collar on every person on Earth that delivers pain when someone thinks unpatriotic thoughts? Or is it too costly?

[Anonymous No.4132844]

>>4132529
>dat rhetoric
the problem is 'wrong' is a subjective term used by the guy with the weapon. If you were in front of me and I had a gun then you'd be wrong because I say so.

Anyways before you respond back just think about what I'll say to you next.. probably something about due-process.. you know, just think about how wrong YOU really are for saying that bullshit.

[Anonymous No.4132861]

Too much margin for abuse. I imagine that it'll stop being used after people go blind from it. Not because the equipment was at fault but because trigger happy cops hit people with for 500% longer than they're suppose to.

[Anonymous No.4132870]

>>4132861
>Too much margin for abuse. I imagine that shotguns will stop being used after people go dead from it. Not because the equipment was at fault but because trigger happy cops hit people with 500% more accuracy than they're suppose to.

[Anonymous No.4132874]

>>4132870
Non lethal weapons are not intended to cause permanent harm, shotguns are.

[Anonymous No.4132888]

>>4132471
>Acting like bring lasers to a riot are a new thing.

The youth in Northern Ireland always take laser pointers to the riots to *blind* the police.

[Anonymous No.4132918]

>>4132776
>And as for you, and your "cause"
What? I have no cause, that example was merely that, an example. I have no cause, I was just pointing out how one sided your argument, I could care less about what your cause is, or what group you stand for, as long as you didn't have the blinds on to see one way. However, judging from some of your statements in that post, it's pretty plain to see what side you're standing on.

>sick of those who have lived off of implied superiority
>The ones who use divide and conquer tactics to keep the people fighting amongst themselves
>you're a fucking puppet and you don't even know it
>a fucking puppet and you don't even know it
>a fucking puppet

Right, you're totally free thinking and you came to those conclusions all on your own.

Now repeat after me:

"I will not be a victim of brainwashing"

[Anonymous No.4132919]

>>4132787
>>4132787
The chinese built the nightmare version over a deacade ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZM-87

The development of this particularly nasty piece of work is the reason for the 1995 ban on permanent laser blinders.
Seriously niggers, this shit could cause blindness at several kilometers of range.
Think of what a high powered version using 2010 laser technology could do, say a military helicopter-mounted scaled up one.

[Anonymous No.4132948]

>4132919
Doing some reading, the weapon OP linked isn't a permanent laser blinder. Just because something is made newer doesn't necessarily mean it is made stronger.

[Anonymous No.4132957]

>>4132948
i was talking hypotethically if we never bothered to blind permanent laser blinders and allow them to be widely developed for military.

[Anonymous No.4132977]

>>4132957
>blind permanent laser blinders
We must go deeper.

[Anonymous No.4132980]

>>4132957
Oh, alright alright, my bad.

But would it really be that bad if it was developed for the military? Would something that blinded someone attached to a helicopter be so much worse than a M230 attached to an Apache or a nuclear warhead launched from a submarine?

I mean, it's a lot easier to develop and use special eyewear to protect against this sort of thing than to protect against bullets, radiation, fire, or other weapons.

[Anonymous No.4133007]

You remember those faggots in your childhood that pointed those red lasers in your face to annoy you.

This just seems to be the equivalent.

[Anonymous No.4133031]

>>4132919
How can you blind someone with 15mW 5km away??

[Anonymous No.4133249]

>Invest in a weapon that all ready exist commercially.

[Anonymous No.4133255]

[Anonymous No.4133270]

I like this, though it's easy enough to work around this with a welder's mask.

[Anonymous No.4133287]

>>4133255
>>4133249
>cheating with exposure times

[Anonymous No.4133282]

>>4133255
>>4133249
>>4132888

>implying a wall of light designed to work effectively up to 500m is comparable to a piddly laser pointer.

[Anonymous No.4133303]

[Anonymous No.4133323]

At a wild guess, it seems that roughly 15% of 4chan has strong fascist leanings and will basically respond to ANY question involving police brutality with, "They're the police, and are therefore the ones doing the right thing no matter what the situation was." I think it's mainly an American thing. So many people are brought up under strict religious upbringing where they're taught to simply worship authority instead of developing their moral intelligence and trying to determine for themselves what's right and wrong.

There is a frightening parallel to your typical Christfag's responses about, "Why did God allow rape in the old testament?" Typical response: "He's God, and therefore whatever he allows is morality, including rape, murder, etc."

Compare: "Why should police be allowed to use such extreme and violent measures against non-violent protesters?" "They're the police, and therefore whoever is against them in any way is the one who is wrong."

[Anonymous No.4133332]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1294675/Belfast-riots-Protesters-use-high-powered-laser-ligh
ts-blind-police.html

[Anonymous No.4133338]

>>4133323

What? No, fuck the police.

We just hate everybody, and if people bitch about getting blinded instead of being shot we will make fun of them for it.

4chan could never be possibly construed as having any kind of political leaning.

We are fucking flock of geese man, we don't stand for jack shit.

[Anonymous No.4133360]

>>4132510
>This video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2LTL8KgKv8&ob=av3e

[Anonymous No.4133376]

>>4133323
Actually, it's mainly an anglo think to have no respect for the police and blame them for doing their jobs.

[Anonymous No.4133382]

>>4133332
Dailyfail GTFO

[Cunt !rdCUNTjJsk No.4133396]

>>4133323

god you should go on /k/ they love their guns and army but universally hate the po-lice

[Anonymous No.4133397]

>>4133376

That and hating banks while using banks a lot.

[Anonymous No.4133429]

>>4133376
>doing their job
That bit isn't relevant in my opinion. Getting paid for something doesn't make it more moral, though sometimes it makes it less. For instance, I think the people who gave out shady loans and eventually crashed the economy should be punished, even though most of what they were doing was technically legal.

[Anonymous No.4133458]

>>4133429
> implying it's immoral

[Anonymous No.4133488]

>>4133458
>2011
>still thinking that greentext is a valid argument and not just trolling

[Anonymous No.4133809]

>>4132787
Well, I think the active denial system would be better. At least the pain is temporary and doesn't have any potentially lasting effects.

See it in action here:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmuyLIrSjxI