Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Technology

Russian Man Aims To Reinvent "Taser" Technology 131

Posted by timothy
from the hammers-are-cheap-too dept.
Lanxon writes "A Russian man is hoping to overhaul the technology within Taser-type weapons — transforming them from single-shot, short-range devices that stun for a few seconds, into more effective long-range, rapid-fire weapons — by modifying the wires and the type of shock they generate, reports Wired. Non-lethal weapon developer Oleg Nemtyshkin's design uses bare wires, rather than the insulated wires favored by Taser and other stun gun makers. These wires weigh only about one sixteenth as much as insulated wire, providing less drag on the darts and improved accuracy. Nemtyshkin demonstrated his bare wire technology with a prototype – 'Legionary" — in 2001. His latest version is the S5, and a video of the weapon in action shows it firing repeatedly — almost as fast as the trigger can be pulled."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russian Man Aims To Reinvent "Taser" Technology

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 22, 2010 @06:57AM (#32304300)

    ...to humanity.

    • Sarcasm sign UP!

      (right?)

    • Here's the video BTW :

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko2mZsXHKdk [youtube.com]

      Near the end he's tasering pigs.

      On the plus side, it looks a lot less painful than the American version, while still providing non-lethal incapacitation. He also claims it's much less likely to disturb pacemakers (though I doubt it's good for your heart, then again, seems preferable to getting shot). Also it's just about the only weapon where a tinfoil hat (and jacket) would protect you from it's effects.

    • by MBGMorden (803437)

      Sarcasm aside, this is a good thing. These types of weapons can often be used in cases when someone would have otherwise been shot.

      Law enforcement WILL have situations when they have to incapacitate an assailant. That's not going to change outside of fantasy land. With that in mind, I think most people would far rather take a shot from a taser rather than a .40 S&W.

  • Might be beneficial as long as it doesn't fall into the (probably fair large) demographic of not entirely pathological serious criminals (i.e. those who intend only to stun rather than kill, as an end or a means to other crimes). Plus, this would be mostly applicable to users who were at risk of being shot or tasered themselves. The closer range taser would work well enough at close range for the rest. Feels there's a serious risk of this falling into the ASBO crowd for lulz...
  • by Kupfernigk (1190345) on Saturday May 22, 2010 @07:02AM (#32304312)
    That's almost all.

    Mobs will be led by people with carbon fibre jacket liners and helmets. Innocent people will get killed. Given the ability of our own police to shoot innocent electricians, guys carrying chair legs, and kill innocent bystanders in demonstrations, presumably pour decourager les autres, this thing is bad news for civil liberties and brings closer the risk of retaliation against the police. It sounds to me like a perfect "unintended consequences" weapon.

    • by couchslug (175151)

      War has collateral damage, and bystanders should seek cover in combat zones, riots included. It's a sloppy process, it must always be sloppy, and that means a few casualties. Tough shit. Yes, really. The demand for perfect precision cannot be met.

      As for carbon helmets, etc, they may work on Tasers but they identify the wearer and won't stop rubber bullets and other less-lethal ordnance.

      • War requires a declaration by Congress. Police are not authorized to wage war on the citizenry. It boggles that this even needs to be stated.

    • by zmollusc (763634)

      Well, it DOES actually work. I would never hang around a demonstration, carry a chair leg or seek Brazilian citizenship.

  • "His latest version is the S5, and a video of the weapon in action shows it firing repeatedly — almost as fast as the trigger can be pulled."

    I'm half-blind at the moment, could anyone point me to the video?
  • Interesting, but... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Nichotin (794369) on Saturday May 22, 2010 @07:08AM (#32304340)
    Although I think the technology is a bit interesting, I shrug every time I hear about these so-called non lethal weapons. In my head that translates into it is not lethal, so there is less of a barrier before it gets used (and from what I can hear these electroshock weapons are pretty dangerous after all anyway). I know culture is different in the USA, where the police carry guns. I live in Norway though, where law enforcement officers generally don't carry guns (!), except when they move out on criminals that are known to be armed. In the rare cases where they do use pepper spray, it sparks up debate in the newspapers. If they shoot someone, that definitily gets some attention. Electroshock weapons are not used here. The net result seems to be a non-violent society, where people feel they can walk amongst law enorcement officers without feeling alienated because they carry weapons of some sort.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Nichotin (794369)

      In my head that translates into "it is not lethal, so there is less of a barrier before it gets used" (and from what I can hear these electroshock weapons are pretty dangerous after all anyway).

      There, fixed my own post with corrent quotes.

      Another thing is that civilian ownership of such devices is not allowed here in Norway. I know that many people from other countries have another view on the right to defend themselves, but coming from this cold country with only five million inhabitants, I'd say "defend yourself from what?" We probably have some of the worlds highest rates of civilian firearm ownership, but having a police force that generally don't carry guns send a strong signal to the popul

      • by sznupi (719324)

        And why this is so at your place...
        Sure, "current societal realities" - but most importantly what has led to those?.

        It almost seems like the answer is...cold, that you sort of mention. Because it does seem to a be a common feature of many places with cold (not the same as "harsh") climates. Not only working together to have means of surviving the long winter; also managing to not hate, not kill each other while being stuck through this winter in the same place with too many people? ;)
        Well, at least after mo

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by ascari (1400977)

          Nice theory dude, but: The list of really cold places where you also have to fear the cops include Russia, most of China, Tibet, North Korea, many of the former Eastern block countries, many mountainous countries of central Asia, many countries in the Andes and so on.

          Also, I'd venture that "being stuck with irritating people" is way down there on the list of reasons why people kill each other, behind more common motives such as financial gains, passion/jealousy, drugs, politics and so on.

          • by hitmark (640295)

            the cops in tibet are basically chinese military thugs.

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by sznupi (719324)

            That was mostly tongue in cheek, after all.

            But you go a bit too far. Many of those examples actually sort of support what I said. Certainly Russia (yes!), the country - places where it's really cold had native and apparently rather peaceful populations, subdued by influx of...Russians, the ethnicity. People forget that "Russia" is a fairly recent construct, spanning very diverse geographic areas and many ethnicities (at least originally). Likewise Tibet, if Dalai Lama is to be believed. Andes, too, I guess.

            • by Kijori (897770)

              People forget that "Russia" is a fairly recent construct, spanning very diverse geographic areas and many ethnicities (at least originally).

              Russia as a country, yes - but the area that is now Russia has been inhabited for a very long time and has not been peaceful for much of it.

              • by sznupi (719324)

                Ahh, but when you at really (and remote, so the populations were mostly left alone) cold, not merely harsh / continental, areas... ;p (those which were basically "unexplored" until XIX & late XIX century). That includes even firmly European parts such as Karelia.

          • by Cylix (55374)

            Don't forget people sometimes kill each other as a source of food.

            I would like to see a thread of the strangest reasons why people kill each other.

        • by hitmark (640295)

          heh, the defense basically consisted of exporting christianity northwards, resulting in a civil war...

          and i do wonder how long the police will remain unarmed, as armed violence seems to be on the rise (unless its the press making mountains out of molehills again).

        • Coincidentally, these "cold" places you speak of also have fairly homogeneous populations. Perhaps this is due to the climate which makes that geography less appealing to people from other climates? Regardless, I think homogeneity of the populace is the better predictor of low crime rates and non-violent societies. Of course I have no hard data to back this up; it's just something that I have noticed. If you think about it, this makes sense since most people are usually more tolerant of others who are like
          • by hitmark (640295)

            unless its the media making hot air (not unknown) you may be onto something, as there may be a rise in unrest as the population have a increasing percentage of "distant foreigners". That is, people you can visually say have their biological roots in a different nation.

        • by rtb61 (674572)

          A example of error in your thinking would be a comparison of Canada and Australia versus the US. One is hotter and the other is colder than the US but both are more socially advanced with lower crime rates and a more effective social welfare net.

          It is a generational thing. Each succeeding generation either tilts social development one way or the other and it does take generations to either work to a less stressful more socially aware society were people try to work together or to a more violent reactive

      • most murders here are affection murders (in lack of a good translation)

        This sort of thing translates best as a country song:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbVFbvePbD8 [youtube.com]

        (Even if you don't normally like country music, this one's hilarious.)

      • by hedwards (940851)
        This seems strange to me, no Tasers, but firearms? That strikes me as a bit odd, as common sense would dictate that since firearms are for the distinct purpose of killing and destroying only and that Tasers are meant to try and avoid that, that you've got it backwards in your country.
        • by ArsonSmith (13997)

          Not really, if everyone caries guns then eventually the violent people will get weeded out. Sure you'll lose some good people on the way.

        • firearms are for the distinct purpose of killing and destroying only

          Firearms are for the distinct purpose of throwing small bits of metal very fast.

          The purpose to which those bits of metal are thrown, is solely at the discretion of the operator. They can be thrown at marked pieces of paper or other inanimate targets for fun; at animals, for the thrill of killing or in order to eat the corpses; at innocent people, for the thrill of killing or in order to take their stuff (or, rarely, in order to eat the co

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Sowelu (713889)
      Theoretically (and according to regulations), in most places in the US, tasers are to be considered a direct replacement for standard firearms--that is, you ONLY get to taser someone if the alternative would have been actually shooting them in the shoulder or the leg to drop them. Period. The idea is that tasers are still a potentially lethal weapon...they're just LESS lethal than shooting someone in a non-vital spot.

      I'm sure most departments and most officers follow those regs...but from all the news
      • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Officers always shoot for center mass. NEVER for an arm or leg. If they did aim for something other than center mass, they sure as hell wouldn't admit it. You shoot to "stop" and that means center mass. You also keep shooting till they comply (if you put 15 rounds in them and they are still standing and coming towards you, reload and put another 15 rounds into them). The one exception might be a hostage situation where the head was the only available target. If every body follows this policy it works
      • There's a show on now that follows Oregon police. I don't remember its name or the channel, but they show regular taser use. The police use the tasers to force compliance to their orders, not to defend themselves. Often the citizen isn't being agressive. So much for being a replacement to the firearm.

        • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

          by rubycodez (864176)

          also, there are cases where police use it as instrument of torture, sometimes just for amusement.

          Notice how very many kinds of police we have nowadays, and how we're being conditioned to accept their abuse, violation of body and privacy, and submission to their will without question.

      • by Paxtez (948813)

        I would doubt that is the case, I seriously doubt any cop would take a taser to a gun-fight, the range is limited, it is not as accurate, limited reload speed, etc. Tasers are normally used on the level below deadly force, the same level where bean-bag shotguns, batons or certain physical attacks might be. In theory these devices shouldn't kill, but they might. Theoretically, they are used when 'this person is actively trying to hurt someone'. But some areas might have tasers on the 'person is doing stu

      • by Lifyre (960576) on Saturday May 22, 2010 @01:37PM (#32306686)

        I'm not sure where you're from but on most places I've been to in the USA the TASER is one of the earliest steps in the force continuum because when it works it immediately deescalates a confrontation.

        After all of the non-physical options are exhausted (yelling, pointing, etc..) your options are fairly limited. You can hit them with pepper spray which can maim and kill in similar fashion to the TASER but doesn't necessarily stop a suspect and frequently just pisses them off. You can grab, punch, or kick the suspect putting yourself in harms way and escalating the confrontation into a brawl. You can shoot the suspect (and you ONLY shoot to kill, there is no such thing as a shoulder of leg shot) thus invoking lethal force, and if you don't get him on the first shot expect him to respond in kind potentially escalating into a shootout with potential for collateral damage.

        Or you can shoot them with a TASER. If it works (TASER claims 99.7% effectiveness with minor injuries) it immediately stops a suspect, puts him on the ground, and effectively ends the confrontation. That said I have seen abuse of the TASER, I've read about the beating deaths, heck I've read about the NYPD shooting an unarmed suspect 47 times... Abuse happens, mistakes happen, that is why there needs to be civilian oversight and proper training of our protective forces but it doesn't mean we should take their tools away.

        • by Zerth (26112)

          A taser might put someone down, but it doesn't mean they won't stop fighting when the jolt stops.

          It took this guy [google.com] at least 4 before he stopped trying to get up. Some people can even sleep through it [google.com]. Although that was a civvy unit.

    • by Zumbs (1241138) on Saturday May 22, 2010 @08:10AM (#32304570) Homepage
      I live just south of Norway (in Denmark), and here the police carry guns. In the last decade, the Danish police have been shooting and killing a few citizens in questionable circumstances, but police officers have managed to get off the hook every time. A few years back this state of affairs were used to argue that the police should be equipped with pepper spray. The argument were that if the police had something between the nightstick and the gun, they might use that instead of the gun. That, however, did not happen. Police usage of guns have not decreased, but usage of pepper spray has exploded, and we have police officers spraying pepper spray into the faces of citizens who are sitting on their asses. The point here is that giving the police extra tools of this sort, as you guessed, means that the tool will often to be used in place of a less dangerous tool. I urge you (and your fellow countrymen/women) to fight hard to keep the police unarmed. It does not help much in fighting crime, it clears the field for adding more weapons to the police, and it is difficult to disarm the police at a later time. Not to mention that an armed police force breeds distrust among the *police* towards the dangerous citizens - why else would they have guns in the first place?
    • They are considered "less then lethal" since even a punch can kill you in the wrong situation.

    • ...why does this posting have such a useless subject line? Was it so hard to use something like '"Non-lethal" weapons lower barrier to use'?
    • The "result" of unarmed police is a non-violent society?

    • by hedwards (940851)
      They're not non-lethal, they're called "less than lethal" because they're not supposed to kill people when used properly. It does not mean that nobody will die, it just means that it's been designed to avoid that to the extent possible while still putting them down. Rubber bullets for instance are generally not lethal, however people have died as a result of being hit in the wrong spot. Freak accidents do happen, but they're meant for cases where the alternative would be whipping out a firearm or some other
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by clarkkent09 (1104833) *
      You are confusing the cause and effect by stating that police not carrying guns results in more peaceful society. I think it's the other way around.
  • Oh, I KNOW! I'll make it rapid-firing!

    (Needs more dakka.)

  • by BradyB (52090) on Saturday May 22, 2010 @07:24AM (#32304398) Homepage

    Punk : Dials 911
    911 Operator : 911 what is your emergency...
    Punk : Can you forward me to the cop chasing me!?!?!?
    911 Operator : Sure. One moment.. ... Annoying Ring Tone ... boom chicka wah wah ...
    Cop Answers : Wh, who is this?
    Punk : Don't tase me bro!

  • ...Russian sharks with FRICKING TASER BEAMS in their heads!

  • by lena_10326 (1100441) on Saturday May 22, 2010 @07:55AM (#32304506) Homepage

    Of course it will immediately be adopted across police departments because as we all know tasers are perfectly safe [google.com]. It is interesting to note when officers fire their pistols, they continue firing [wikipedia.org] until the ammo is depleted. There is no reason to believe this practice won't continue with semi-automatic taser guns because many taser deaths were due to multiple hits from several officers [jonathanturley.org]. Of course these occurred because the suspect would not stop flailing about on the ground [youtube.com] due to being repeatedly hit with electricity (officers refer to this as resisting). That is merely the unfortunate side effect of electricity causing involuntary muscle contractions [allaboutcircuits.com].

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuXR0F6ZQzc [youtube.com]

    • My tags for this story.

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by nurb432 (527695)

      Id rather be hit with a tazer then a 40cal any day. Nothing is 100% safe, and besides 99.999% of the time you did something to warrant getting hit, so its your own damned fault if you die.

      • by sznupi (719324)

        Especially if you were looking in the wrong way at the wrong person.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by lena_10326 (1100441)

        Id rather be hit with a tazer then a 40cal any day. Nothing is 100% safe

        That is a false dilemma. You have a right not to be assaulted in the first place.

        and besides 99.999% of the time you did something to warrant getting hit, so its your own damned fault if you die.

        You're right. You must have viewed the video I pasted. It was indeed that teenage boy's fault for being tasered. It was his fault that his back and leg were broken and he was in confused daze when officers tased 19 times for not complying. It w

        • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

          by nurb432 (527695)

          First of all, notice i said 99.999%, not 100%. There are always cases of abuse, but its the minority. We are a long way from where most of the cops are picking people at random to harass just for fun.

          Secondly, I have never personally seen a case where the suspect didnt have some hand in instigating, even in cases of the police ( wrongly ) going overboard afterwards. If they didn't do something to attract attention, they wouldn't have been a suspect in the first place.

          But then again, its easier to bash the c

          • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            99.999% of the time you did something to warrant getting hit, so its your own damned fault if you die.

            i'll accept your made up statistics on faith

            I have never personally seen a case where the suspect didnt have some hand in instigating

            as long as we're sharing irrelevant anecdotes, i've never seen someone undergo knee surgery

      • 99.999% (Score:3, Insightful)

        by MRe_nl (306212)

        of everything is bullshit.
        "I'd rather be hit with a tazer then a 40cal any day."
        What's that, a 9mm? Of course you'd rather be hit by a tazer than a 40cal! Bullets: 25% chance/death, 30%/chance perm.damage (Red Cross figures)
        Tazer: "Although the company spins it otherwise, Taser-associated deaths are definitely on the rise. In 2001, Amnesty International documented three Taser-associated deaths. The number has steadily increased each year, peaking at 61 in 2005. So far almost 50 deaths have occurred in 2006,

      • by MRe_nl (306212)

        Sorry.
        Well done.

    • by sznupi (719324)

      If they are supposedly "non-lethal" - I wonder what it would take to push not only the requirement of experiencing them few times during training, but also...after any use the officer needs to be tasered in exactly the same spot (leaves marks, right?), and in a manner he did (hey, electronic devices, can be easily done)

      Sure, no chance to fly...but they are "non-lethal", right? What's to be afraid?

      • by Stan92057 (737634)
        Why don't they be required to say,shot themselves with there guns too? So they can experience what it feels like to die? If you don't run onto a ballfields like that punk did in phila,then you have no worries about getting tazered, And shit, i would rather be tazered then shot any day. Would YOU rather tazer someone or shoot them? Or would you baton them"cracked skulls,bones and so on?
        • by sznupi (719324)

          Adding to what Anonymous says - you thinking that it's a choice only between being shot, tasered or batoned illustrutes nicely the problem. And really, probably the approach which is part of making the US the worst of industrialised nations as far as violent crime goes.

          And hey, again, tasers are "non-lethal", "safe"...surely no officer would be afraid of them?

    • That the teaser is automatic and has "ammunition" makes it safer. ALL tasers are automatic now. Limiting that to X shots is actually a step in making it a less abusive tool. Range? The lack of insulation makes the weapon stop shocking the target once he or she drops to the ground.
    • I'd have modded you up, but you're already at +5. So, I'll add an anecdote as extension to your "the suspect would not stop flailing about on the ground due to being repeatedly hit with electricity (officers refer to this as resisting)".
      I was watching a video on YouTube of a Taser being used in an arrest (under questionable circumstances, but that's not the point). The person was being uncooperative to the point of becoming dangerous, so the officer Tased him. Naturally, the person falls to the ground. The
  • Don't... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mikerubin (449692) on Saturday May 22, 2010 @08:12AM (#32304580)

    ...tase me, comrade

  • Why would you want to bring them back? Isn't Putin close enough? And besides, I thought the Bolsheviks killed the last one of them.
  • Tasers are also lethal. I can shoot someone in the leg with a firearm and they may or may not die. The bullet might just hit some fat and muscle and do a clean exit, or I could just hit a major artery and they can bleed out. With a taser, I could blast someone and they end up being fine, but if they suffer from something like atrial-fibrillation, I can throw them right into ventricular fibrillation and they die. Tasers might not be as lethal as guns, but calling them "non-lethal" isn't really right also. A
  • Am I the only one? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by OrwellianLurker (1739950) on Saturday May 22, 2010 @08:29AM (#32304646)
    Am I the only one that is seeing a quick progression towards a police state fueled largely by corporate interests and technological advances? I'm predicting a rise in "domestic terrorism" directed towards those in government. Luckily we have all these new laws to stop "domestic terrorism." I mean sure, we're giving up our constitutional rights without pause to be safe from terrorists, but who are the real terrorists? Those who invade and occupy foreign countries with the blood and money of the general population and redirect all profits towards multinational corporations? Those who bring us decades of class warfare in the "War on Drugs?" Those who masquerade as populist reformers who are really just manipulating the perceptions of their actions and doing entirely contrary actions? We have millions in prison, huge debt, legal corruption running rampant, undemocratic elections (I don't consider elections decided by the number of dollars you can get from corporations to be democratic), and so on. :(
    • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

      I'm predicting a rise in "domestic terrorism" directed towards those in government.

      If this progression toward a police state is fueled by corporate interests, why would "domestic terrorism" be aimed at the government?

      Why wouldn't it be aimed at the source, the corporate interests? Maybe that's part of the problem. People are blaming the government when they're just messenger boys for the largest corporations.

      • by hitmark (640295)

        say hello to big media. These so called impartial reporters of events are increasingly acting as propaganda offices for the big corps. And they make sure the message that the government is to blame gets heard. It may also be a frustration with a system supposedly set up to represent "the people". Funny enough tho, corporations are de facto people. People with very deep pockets.

        i dunno, desperate, frustrated people do strange things, like say blow themselves up on a buss full of school children and elderly w

      • Because traditionally, the overlords were individuals, either aristocrats or wealthy capitalists, and they and their (usually private) armies of goons could be fought against on a case-by-case basis; the mine owner could be fought against without bringing the mill operator into it. Today, the overlords are corporations, not a (recent legal findings notwithstanding) person, with no location in space, no conscience, no morality; just a single stated purpose: greed (shareholder value). They're represented by
      • by fnj (64210)

        It is naive to think that any of the components of the corruptocracy (government, bureacracy, megacorporations, and crime) has the other components on a string. That is what makes it so dangerous. It is a synergy and it is in runaway mode with nobody at the controls.

    • by fnj (64210)

      You are not the only one. As you hint, the police state is fueled by a corruptocracy composed of a vast, all encompassing collusion between government, bureaucracy, and megacorporate interests. And it is impossible to say which of these components is in charge because none of them is. That is why it is more dangerous than communism. The synergy has gone wild. The corruptocracy has gone viral and the entire body of society is riddled with the disease. Since corruption is at the root, organized crime ha

  • Another TOY for the police to abuse...

    How unfortunate for citizens of the world

  • How are the physics, will the two (light uninsulated) wires attract or repel each other?
    - electrostatic = attract
    - magnetic ?
    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Sentences: do you form them, motherfucker?
    • by iggymanz (596061)

      two parallel wires carrying current in opposite directions will repel each other

      • <quote><p>two parallel wires carrying current in opposite directions will repel each other</p></quote>

        Thanks.  Maybe this explains how it works, as the wires are pushed apart when they touch each other.

    • Go open up a pair of Sony headset wires, the ones with the ultra-thin, nontangle cord. Not that the two wires inside are seemingly uninsulated? Now try to solder them!

      The "uninsulated wires" are apparently coated in an very thin insulating material. It looks as if the two bare wires are touching each other. They are not bare, but the coating is far thinner and lighter than conventional rubber-based insulation.

  • They have 12 gauge self contained units. " look mom, no wires "

  • Such a lighting whip could not only allow you to cut cars in half, but also the super human strength to throw the cars and protection against injury.

  • by Protoslo (752870) on Saturday May 22, 2010 @11:51AM (#32305926)

    One of the Nautilus men gave me a simple gun, the butt end of which, made of steel, hollow in the centre, was rather large. It served as a reservoir of compressed air, which a valve, worked by a spring, allowed to escape into a metal tube. A box of projectiles in a groove in the thickness of the butt end contained about twenty of these electric balls, which, by means of a spring, were forced into the barrel of the gun. As soon as one shot was fired, another was ready.

    We've been waiting for it much longer than flying cars, but Captain Nemo's pulse rifle is finally coming to market (well, probably).

    Nemtyshkin's next project, the Leyden Gun, will deliver a short shock with lasting effects. The Leyden Gun is the size of a paintball rifle, with a magazine of thirty rounds. The projectiles are simple needles rather than elaborate barbed darts, as they do not stick to the target but administer a single jolt from a high-voltage capacitor.

    On the other hand...

    [A]nd finally, it was he who had killed the convicts with the electric balls, of which he possessed the secret, and which he had employed in the chase of submarine creatures.

    Admittedly, some of the precedents are a bit ominous.

    So, where can I preorder one of these?

  • Interesting to see this pop up on Slashdot on my return from watching Iron Man 2. You wouldn't have a chance to say, "dont tase me bro."
  • I dun saw it in a dream I done have after I wuz probed!

    [consider the source ]

  • by Mana Mana (16072)

    > Non-lethal weapon developer

    Tacit in the text is that a taser is non lethal. Tasers have killed people, thus, this class of weapon is known as less-lethal, a term of art.

  • "In tests on animals they have shown that with the right sort of electrical pulse (frequency appears to be the key), a shock lasting less than a hundredth of a second causes an electroconvulsive reaction that knocks the animal out for 20 seconds."

    Does anybody have any more information on this new type of more incapacitating shock?
  • The other day I had the idea that I'd moved to a foreign country without knowing it, one where it was legitimate, indeed praiseworthy, for the police to carry electrotorture devices and use them on innocent people.

The first version always gets thrown away.

Working...