Having recently read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
which makes me a member of the cultural elite,
I'm fairly certain that we either live in a golden age of non-violence or that the teleological fantasies of people like Robert Wright are true and our culture really is progressing. I'm not worried about the occasional slip as long as the trend it up.
After we just came off the most brutal century in human history, I'm skeptical.
You know we only killed the majority population of two developed cities that century. None of this "exterminate everyone in Jerusalem" stuff we had going before. Somehow it survived. Don't ask me how.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
WulfDisciple of TzeentchThe Void... (New Jersey)Registered Userregular
So, imagine getting hit with this thing. I wonder if it's targetted enough so that you'll just feel this insane burning in one spot, or if its area of effect will expand over a distance so that your entire body is in agony. How would you react? What if you didn't see it? Could you imagine the kind of fear that would cause if you didn't see it being whipped out but all the sudden you're in the immense, incalculable, intolerable pain?
Weren't they having trouble with an earlier version of this and small metal/conductive things getting superheated... like buttons or buckles? What ever happened with that?
The article doesn't say, but it does note that the weapon has been tested more than 11,000 times over ten years, and out of all those tests they've had a grand total of six cases of targets developing rashes or blisters, with two more who got second-degree burns. Sounds pretty good to me.
Also isn't this ancient news? i heard of this almost a year ago.
It's been around longer than that. The machine hasn't been deployed yet, though. It has very low budget numbers compared to other, lethal systems. The military doesn't really have a large interest in non-lethal crowd control because their job isn't really non-lethal crowd control. They aren't police... but that's going off on a tangent that we could probably do, and have done, another thread on.
I'm not saying that it couldn't or wouldn't be misused. I'm sure it will be misused with great prejudice, but remember that current non-lethal AND lethal weapons are commonly misused, and frankly I'd rather have a few seconds of pain leaving no significant after-effects than be tear-gassed or shot with a rubber bullet.
Rubber bullets can easily kill you if you're hit in the head, and are probably one of the worst non-lethal deterrants available.
New technology demands further study and responsible governance; we can't just drop it because of potential abuses. Otherwise we wouldn't have nuclear reactors or stem cell advancements.
Both of which, ironically enough, we've essentially dropped because of potential abuses.
Nuclear reactors weren't dropped because of potential abuses. They were dropped because of stuff like Three Mile Island and because people thought that if a reactor went into meltdown that it'd be like the Hiroshima bomb. Also, nuclear power is making a comeback in the US. Technology has advanced to the point where waste is being limited and there are a lot of regulated failsafes so that Three Mile and Chernobyl-type incidents can be minimized. It's also helping that there is a whole new generation of voters and politicians out who are more concerned with the long term damage of fossil fuels than of reactors. In Europe and Asia, reactors never really stopped coming up.
Well, each plant needs more than 1 engineer, but maybe it was technicians then. Regardless we're slated to put up a dozen plants over the next decade. I know Texas is going to be one of the first with NRG and I'm pretty sure Com-Ed/Exelon are planning on replacing and adding at least one in Illinois. Which is great, because we only get 50% of our power from nukes at the moment.
We're at 20% with 104 reactors. I don't know where you're getting your numbers from. Regardless, yes, we should definitely be adding more reactors.
Well, each plant needs more than 1 engineer, but maybe it was technicians then. Regardless we're slated to put up a dozen plants over the next decade. I know Texas is going to be one of the first with NRG and I'm pretty sure Com-Ed/Exelon are planning on replacing and adding at least one in Illinois. Which is great, because we only get 50% of our power from nukes at the moment.
We're at 20% with 104 reactors. I don't know where you're getting your numbers from. Regardless, yes, we should definitely be adding more reactors.
Illinois has 49% of its electricity generated by 6 nuclear plants (with a 7th in Zion being dismantled basically now), 49% by coal, and 2% by 'other' and I'm pretty sure Com-Ed/Exelon owns all the nukes. I highly doubt Ameren would have any down south since that's coal country to begin with, and largely a low population density.
Also, the Chicago Tribune, Economist, Wikipedia, and just from living here. Where are you getting yours?
So what if somebody strapped you to a chair with this thing pointed at you and turned it on?
"Oh, it doesn't hurt if you move out of the beam. What's that? You can't move? I guess you'd better tell us what you know, then."
Yeah, should be just fine.
They can strap you to a chair and peel away your skin with a knife, too. Much cheaper. What's your point?
The fact that the weapon could potentially be misused is irrelevant. What ought to be considered is whether it would lend itself to misuse to a much greater degree than other weapons. Since this thing is big and mounted on a humvee, it's not exactly convenient for illicit interrogations.
FunkyWaltDogg on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
So what if somebody strapped you to a chair with this thing pointed at you and turned it on?
"Oh, it doesn't hurt if you move out of the beam. What's that? You can't move? I guess you'd better tell us what you know, then."
Yeah, should be just fine.
They can strap you to a chair and peel away your skin with a knife, too. Much cheaper. What's your point?
The fact that the weapon could potentially be misused is irrelevant. What ought to be considered is whether it would lend itself to misuse to a much greater degree than other weapons. Since this thing is big and mounted on a humvee, it's not exactly convenient for illicit interrogations.
Especially not compared with a bucket and some saran wrap.
Yeah, these points about upgrading it to lethal potential or using it for torture are unoriginal. We've already got more tools for torture and death than brown people to use them on.
The system itself is a pretty neat idea, and it certainly seems more useful than a lot of the other "non-lethal" weapons out there.
The Wiki article is a pretty decent read on it, too. Though I think the first time I saw the weapon was on that god-awful TV show "Future Weapons". Ignore the host, but this clip shows how it works, and how it affects people. It doesn't appear all that "painful" per se, it just seems to give the brain enough pain signals to kick in the "get the hell out of here" response.
Yes obviously, like anything else in the world, it's totally up for abuse. But it looks like it's a much better solution to certain problems than anything else that exists these days.
Cycophant on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Yeah, these points about upgrading it to lethal potential or using it for torture are unoriginal. We've already got more tools for torture and death than brown people to use them on.
A directed energy weapon definitely has advantages over conventional techniques. Not to say it is without disadvantages, which would include prohibitive cost and power use right now.
But again, leaving only the scorched remains of targets instead of a bunch of depleted uranium can't be a bad thing.
Well, each plant needs more than 1 engineer, but maybe it was technicians then. Regardless we're slated to put up a dozen plants over the next decade. I know Texas is going to be one of the first with NRG and I'm pretty sure Com-Ed/Exelon are planning on replacing and adding at least one in Illinois. Which is great, because we only get 50% of our power from nukes at the moment.
We're at 20% with 104 reactors. I don't know where you're getting your numbers from. Regardless, yes, we should definitely be adding more reactors.
Illinois has 49% of its electricity generated by 6 nuclear plants (with a 7th in Zion being dismantled basically now), 49% by coal, and 2% by 'other' and I'm pretty sure Com-Ed/Exelon owns all the nukes. I highly doubt Ameren would have any down south since that's coal country to begin with, and largely a low population density.
Also, the Chicago Tribune, Economist, Wikipedia, and just from living here. Where are you getting yours?
Oh, you're talking about Illinois. I thought you were talking about The United States.
You people are missing the important question, which is ," Does it come in 'Box' form?"
"Put your hand in the box".
"What's in the box?"
Pain.
I almost made a "Fear is the mindkiller" joke at the start of the thread. Anyway, someone earlier linked a desktop version of the device, which I think has multitude of potential uses for the office.
So what if somebody strapped you to a chair with this thing pointed at you and turned it on?
"Oh, it doesn't hurt if you move out of the beam. What's that? You can't move? I guess you'd better tell us what you know, then."
Yeah, should be just fine.
They can strap you to a chair and peel away your skin with a knife, too. Much cheaper. What's your point?
Well, for one, it's easier to prove that "hey, that guy removed all my skin with that knife which has my blood all over it" than "hey, that guy put me in his magic agony booth" in a court.
They can strap you to a chair and peel away your skin with a knife, too. Much cheaper. What's your point?
Well, for one, it's easier to prove that "hey, that guy removed all my skin with that knife which has my blood all over it" than "hey, that guy put me in his magic agony booth" in a court.
They can strap you to a chair and peel away your skin with a knife, too. Much cheaper. What's your point?
Well, for one, it's easier to prove that "hey, that guy removed all my skin with that knife which has my blood all over it" than "hey, that guy put me in his magic agony booth" in a court.
They can strap you to a chair and peel away your skin with a knife, too. Much cheaper. What's your point?
Well, for one, it's easier to prove that "hey, that guy removed all my skin with that knife which has my blood all over it" than "hey, that guy put me in his magic agony booth" in a court.
Having recently read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
which makes me a member of the cultural elite,
I'm fairly certain that we either live in a golden age of non-violence or that the teleological fantasies of people like Robert Wright are true and our culture really is progressing. I'm not worried about the occasional slip as long as the trend it up.
After we just came off the most brutal century in human history, I'm skeptical.
Whoa. I don't think it was the most brutal. The historical record suggests that no one even argued about torture 400 years ago. But you're right. Things look a bit messy right now.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
Having recently read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
which makes me a member of the cultural elite,
I'm fairly certain that we either live in a golden age of non-violence or that the teleological fantasies of people like Robert Wright are true and our culture really is progressing. I'm not worried about the occasional slip as long as the trend it up.
After we just came off the most brutal century in human history, I'm skeptical.
Whoa. I don't think it was the most brutal. The historical record suggests that no one even argued about torture 400 years ago. But you're right. Things look a bit messy right now.
For my money, I go with the 13th century. Fourth through 9th Crusades, Genghis Khan's prime, Baghdad gets burned to the ground, couple Chinese dynasties go by, rockets, landmines and handguns come into use... it was pretty bad.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
They can strap you to a chair and peel away your skin with a knife, too. Much cheaper. What's your point?
Well, for one, it's easier to prove that "hey, that guy removed all my skin with that knife which has my blood all over it" than "hey, that guy put me in his magic agony booth" in a court.
This seems like a good problem to have.
I do not disagree.
However, it is hard to put the skin back on.
Plus cutting off someones skin leaves evidence.
I think the point is that you're unlikely to be saying, "Well, I'm being tortured. But at least they don't have a harmless pain ray!"
They can strap you to a chair and peel away your skin with a knife, too. Much cheaper. What's your point?
Well, for one, it's easier to prove that "hey, that guy removed all my skin with that knife which has my blood all over it" than "hey, that guy put me in his magic agony booth" in a court.
This seems like a good problem to have.
I do not disagree.
However, it is hard to put the skin back on.
Plus cutting off someones skin leaves evidence.
I think the point is that you're unlikely to be saying, "Well, I'm being tortured. But at least they don't have a harmless pain ray!"
That's certainly one aspect, because if I had to be tortured and could choose the method, something that's pure pain with theoretically no physical detriment would be my easy choice. As well, we already have plenty of torture techniques that are difficult to impossible to prove (seriously, prove you were waterboarded), and worrying about proving torture only matters anyway when the people we're torturing are allowed to state their case, which is certainly not what's happening now.
Having recently read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
which makes me a member of the cultural elite,
I'm fairly certain that we either live in a golden age of non-violence or that the teleological fantasies of people like Robert Wright are true and our culture really is progressing. I'm not worried about the occasional slip as long as the trend it up.
After we just came off the most brutal century in human history, I'm skeptical.
Whoa. I don't think it was the most brutal. The historical record suggests that no one even argued about torture 400 years ago. But you're right. Things look a bit messy right now.
For my money, I go with the 13th century. Fourth through 9th Crusades, Genghis Khan's prime, Baghdad gets burned to the ground, couple Chinese dynasties go by, rockets, landmines and handguns come into use... it was pretty bad.
Okay, this is supposed too be non-lethal but let me ask a question: Could this thing cause long-term damage to a person? What about if it's used multiple times against that person?
I hope that's not really stupid question.
Can't say if you don't try.
Time to unleash these things on Guantanamo, and see how the reports are.
Ignore the host, but this clip shows how it works, and how it affects people. It doesn't appear all that "painful" per se, it just seems to give the brain enough pain signals to kick in the "get the hell out of here" response.
42 seconds in, is the guy controlling a unmanned aircraft with an Xbox 360 controller?
Then you weren't paying attention. Read the article I posted a link to. Democracies are the innovators of torture, as they always have to stay one step ahead of the free press and public perception (no marks, no outrage, generally).
So we're all in agreement this is a fine non-lethal weapon for crowd control, but the fear is that it'll be used for torture?
Man, I recall in my lifetime thinking that worrying about American use of torture was ridiculous and would never happen.
Sigh.
I'm really much more worried about the possibility for some jackass to make one out of Radio Shack parts. As long as they keep using words like "superconducting", I'm not too concerned.
Posts
Man, everything is better with a "zappy-ray gun"!
"This is where I say something profound and you bow, so lets just skip to your part."
The article doesn't say, but it does note that the weapon has been tested more than 11,000 times over ten years, and out of all those tests they've had a grand total of six cases of targets developing rashes or blisters, with two more who got second-degree burns. Sounds pretty good to me.
Rubber bullets can easily kill you if you're hit in the head, and are probably one of the worst non-lethal deterrants available.
Nuclear reactors weren't dropped because of potential abuses. They were dropped because of stuff like Three Mile Island and because people thought that if a reactor went into meltdown that it'd be like the Hiroshima bomb. Also, nuclear power is making a comeback in the US. Technology has advanced to the point where waste is being limited and there are a lot of regulated failsafes so that Three Mile and Chernobyl-type incidents can be minimized. It's also helping that there is a whole new generation of voters and politicians out who are more concerned with the long term damage of fossil fuels than of reactors. In Europe and Asia, reactors never really stopped coming up.
You should join the British army.
We're next gen:
I mean, an invisible field of pain is one thing, but an invisible beam that leaves only ashes in its wake...
We're at 20% with 104 reactors. I don't know where you're getting your numbers from. Regardless, yes, we should definitely be adding more reactors.
"Oh, it doesn't hurt if you move out of the beam. What's that? You can't move? I guess you'd better tell us what you know, then."
Yeah, should be just fine.
They can strap you to a chair and peel away your skin with a knife, too. Much cheaper. What's your point?
Illinois has 49% of its electricity generated by 6 nuclear plants (with a 7th in Zion being dismantled basically now), 49% by coal, and 2% by 'other' and I'm pretty sure Com-Ed/Exelon owns all the nukes. I highly doubt Ameren would have any down south since that's coal country to begin with, and largely a low population density.
Also, the Chicago Tribune, Economist, Wikipedia, and just from living here. Where are you getting yours?
The fact that the weapon could potentially be misused is irrelevant. What ought to be considered is whether it would lend itself to misuse to a much greater degree than other weapons. Since this thing is big and mounted on a humvee, it's not exactly convenient for illicit interrogations.
Especially not compared with a bucket and some saran wrap.
The Wiki article is a pretty decent read on it, too. Though I think the first time I saw the weapon was on that god-awful TV show "Future Weapons". Ignore the host, but this clip shows how it works, and how it affects people. It doesn't appear all that "painful" per se, it just seems to give the brain enough pain signals to kick in the "get the hell out of here" response.
Yes obviously, like anything else in the world, it's totally up for abuse. But it looks like it's a much better solution to certain problems than anything else that exists these days.
A directed energy weapon definitely has advantages over conventional techniques. Not to say it is without disadvantages, which would include prohibitive cost and power use right now.
But again, leaving only the scorched remains of targets instead of a bunch of depleted uranium can't be a bad thing.
Oh, you're talking about Illinois. I thought you were talking about The United States.
"Put your hand in the box".
"What's in the box?"
I almost made a "Fear is the mindkiller" joke at the start of the thread. Anyway, someone earlier linked a desktop version of the device, which I think has multitude of potential uses for the office.
This seems like a good problem to have.
However, it is hard to put the skin back on.
Plus cutting off someones skin leaves evidence.
Whoa. I don't think it was the most brutal. The historical record suggests that no one even argued about torture 400 years ago. But you're right. Things look a bit messy right now.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
I'd say that's actually a fairly legitimate question.
I think the point is that you're unlikely to be saying, "Well, I'm being tortured. But at least they don't have a harmless pain ray!"
That's certainly one aspect, because if I had to be tortured and could choose the method, something that's pure pain with theoretically no physical detriment would be my easy choice. As well, we already have plenty of torture techniques that are difficult to impossible to prove (seriously, prove you were waterboarded), and worrying about proving torture only matters anyway when the people we're torturing are allowed to state their case, which is certainly not what's happening now.
Fuck yeah, 13th Century.
Can't say if you don't try.
Time to unleash these things on Guantanamo, and see how the reports are.
42 seconds in, is the guy controlling a unmanned aircraft with an Xbox 360 controller?
Oh, and now a magic pain ray.
Man, I recall in my lifetime thinking that worrying about American use of torture was ridiculous and would never happen.
Sigh.
I'm really much more worried about the possibility for some jackass to make one out of Radio Shack parts. As long as they keep using words like "superconducting", I'm not too concerned.
Really? People actually thought that?
Chilling.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck