New Laser Makes Pirates Wish They Wore Eye-Patches 645
vieux schnock writes "The New Scientist has an article about a new laser developed by a company in Farnborough, UK, that aims to deter modern high-seas pirates. Devised as a 'warning shot' to 'distract suspected pirates rather than harm them,' the meter-wide beam can scan the pirates' 6-metre skiffs and make it difficult for them to aim their AK-47 or rocket-propelled grenades at the ship."
Foiled (Score:2, Interesting)
This is then foiled when pirates spend $10-20 on a pair of tinted glasses that filter out red light.
I've always thought lasers, while useful, are a very bad countermeasure to human eyesight, being as they are very narrow spectrum.
Next!
Re:Cost and international treaties are why no weap (Score:4, Interesting)
What do you think they're going to do? Invade America with a few marines and machineguns?
Thank you for saying what he should have already known. It won't take crates of weapons to start with, and the only time you need to have anyone armed is in KNOWN dangerous waters. The route between NY and UK? Um, probably don't need it for that route. Going around Somalia? Good time for weapons. You don't need the snipers on guard for the entire journey, or even most of it.
Personally, I say you take a fake cargo ship and roam around the area with a full compliment of trainees and give them some real world experience. I have no moral problem with taking out people who are armed and dangerous and whose only goal is to harm others.
Re:I have a better idea (Score:5, Interesting)
There wouldn't be pirates if it wasn't profitable. Right now you can make a million dollars for 3-6 months worth of work, and you get to shoot a gun off without having to kill someone. Insurance companies are paying 100's of millions of dollars annually into the pirates coffers.
Also the pirates have had to go far from home in order to get around the naval vessels in the area. They are getting violent also because they are having to work harder. The real solution to the problem is to teach them something like fish farming, or other trade, and then pay them top dollar for it for several years. It would be cheaper in the long run, and they would become stabilized at the same time.
Of course because it is the smart thing it is the one thing that no one will do.
Re:You do realize that... (Score:2, Interesting)
I realize that the NRA and a lot of other people seem to think that's the case, but it isn't. It will likely get you out of a murder 1 conviction, but it won't get you out of a possible manslaughter conviction because you weren't thinking straight.
Re:I have a better idea (Score:4, Interesting)
"The religion says that conceal-carry would lead to the Wild West all over again, with gunfights in the streets everywhere. "
The "Wild West" beloved of writers wasn't constantly violent. People were busy working to survive and make money, not engaged in a perpetual Hollywood gunfight.
Well no. It was a heavily armed society and therefore it tended to be a polite society. Most people didn't want to end up in a duel, so most people minded their own business and didn't flagrantly disrespect others for no reason. Those who were belligerent assholes tended to eventually pick the wrong person to screw with, and so long as it was a fair fight, the law left that person alone. That is, in most places two men could fight a duel without the survivor being immediately arrested and imprisoned. If you didn't like that possibility then you didn't own/carry a gun, for it was dishonorable and illegal in the extreme to shoot an unarmed man.
Overall I'd say most people were kinder and more decent than they are now. What you didn't have back then were so many bleeding-heart types who think that all violence is always wrong even when it's against a bully or other aggressor. I don't think that's a coincidence.
In summary, you're nitpicking one metaphor I used while deciding not to respond to my overall point. We can talk about the good old days some more, or you could further tempt me to follow every single metaphor with a line saying "the previous sentence was just a saying, an expression, meant to illustrate a point and not intended as literal historical commentary about the Wild West or other object of metaphor, get over it". I find both to be unnecessary. That latter option definitely should be unnecessary.
Re:I have a better idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I have a better idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally I deal with that by not hanging out with shady people who have homocidal tendencies. I'm also going to guess that the forensics labs are a lot more clever than the average homeowner and can identify manufactured evidence effectively enough that it's still an incredibly risky thing to try. That and .. believe it or not, most homeowners with regular jobs who are not career criminals have no desire to murder the innocent, nor to put their families through all of the trauma caused by doing it where they live.
If you really think you have a point here, reserach states like Texas which have Castle Doctrine. See if they have rates of in-home shootings far higher than states which throw homeowners in prison for not trying hard enough to turn tail when an armed assailant threatens their families.
Things like capable vessels and military hardware cost money. That would certainly destroy the currently accepted theory that the Somalis are resorting to piracy because they are destitute and desperate. If that theory is found invalid, it would be grounds for using more of a military solution against a hostile nation that targets our vessels. I'm guessing that their improved cargo vessels wouldn't stand a chance against the U.S. Navy. Think about it: it's in the pirates' interests not to escalate this conflict.
Do you seriously think a USA ship in waters near Somalia has travelled all that distance in order to pirate a few ragtag Somalian skiffs? Do you know anything about Somalia? I doubt they'd find enough plunder to even recover the cost of going back home. You talk like this is a law-enforcement issue where we have no clue which side is likely to be the perpetrator. That just isn't the case.
To a pirate, it doesn't serve any purpose to risk sinking a ship before it can be plundered. It would mean they risked their lives in a firefight for absolutely nothing. Again I believe you haven't thought this through.
Re:I have a better idea (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Actually... green light. (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow, looking into a laser as part of an experiment for a post definitely deserves a Slashdot achievement!