Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Technology

The Vortex Gun Coming Soon To a Protest Near You 295

Posted by samzenpus
from the don't-vortex-me-bro dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Vortex technology has been used in everything from rocket-powered fire extinguishers to Nerf guns, but neither of those things are capable of giving the beat-down to hapless protesters. By giving spinning vortices an electric charge, though, pepper spray can be sent over 150 feet at between 60 and 90 mph. A vortex gun uses a pressure wave and a carefully designed barrel to fire donut-shaped rings of air that can hold themselves together over long distances. The military (starting with the German military during World War II) has been running experiments with using vortex canons to knock things over, but it's not a particularly efficient or effective way to go. What the gas rings can be used for is transporting other gasses (like pepper spray or tear gas or pesticide) long distances with a decent amount of accuracy, holding their cargo inside the calm center spinning vortex."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Vortex Gun Coming Soon To a Protest Near You

Comments Filter:
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Sunday March 04, 2012 @12:13PM (#39239465)

    Another gun that lowers the inhibition of police to shoot at protesters.

    • "The Israeli military used a suppressed .22 LR rifle in the 1990s for riot control and to "eliminate disturbing dogs prior to operations", though it is now used less often as it has been shown to be more lethal than previously suspected."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22#Usage [wikipedia.org]

      It's just a matter of perspective.

  • free speech (Score:5, Insightful)

    by girlintraining (1395911) on Sunday March 04, 2012 @12:15PM (#39239483)
    They're coming up with ever-more creative ways to hurt peaceful protesters -- and let's be honest: Most of the time, they provoke, prod, cajoule, and taunt these people until one of them out of the dozen, hundred, or thousand there snaps, then they point and say "See! See! We're justified" and open up unholy horror on everyone nearby, including journalists, children, and anyone else, then seize or destroy the evidence of what went down, counting on their purchases media contacts to portray their victims as all manner of bad. But whether it's rubber bullets or real ones, the fact is this is a business of causing pain and misery... and it is because the people its being inflicted upon had the audacity to say "I think we can do better than this."

    I am the last person to suggest violence as a response to improper government action: I live in a democracy, and one of our main pressure valves to prevent violence is peaceful protest. They're busy stuffing that up now, and just like every other country that has tried it in the past, eventually public sentiment is going to shift. It'll be fine one day, and the next shit will be on fire and they'll be declaring martial law, and the bought-off press will be busy with headlines like "How did this happen?" ... Well, it happened because you stupid bastards didn't do your job and report the truth. It happened because people don't like being silenced.

    It happened... because human nature isn't all that different from an animal: Keep poking it with a stick and eventually it will stop hiding in the corner and come sink its claws and teeth into you. And why? Because it didn't have a choice.
    • Re:free speech (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Entropius (188861) on Sunday March 04, 2012 @12:24PM (#39239565)

      Nonviolence comes from all sides acknowledging a non-aggression principle: you don't use violence against me or my property, I won't against you. The traditional role of police is to respond to violence with overwhelming violence (or the threat of such): you punch me or smash my shit, they'll arrest you, and if you punch them too they'll come with guns.

      But using weapons like this against peaceful protesters isn't what the police are for -- it's using violence against the nonviolent, and the victims (like any other victim of unprovoked aggression) have the right to respond in kind. Bullets, microwave-oven HERF guns, take your pick.

      • Re:free speech (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 04, 2012 @12:32PM (#39239643)

        Recent videos show that no excuse is needed, any longer, for completely unprovoked pepper spray attacks (as well as bludgeoning) by senior police officers on completely peaceful protestors.

        I too believe in peaceful protest. THAT SHIP IS SINKING OR SUNK. Our political power, at this point, is limited to refusing paychecks (not following unethical orders.) The police, themselves, must stop using violence in their daily jobs. The use of pepper spray to hurt people who are not hurting you, is wrong. The use of a vortex cannon to squirt that pepper spray is no more, nor less, wrong.

        The US government system is so corrupt that the corruption is "trickle down" and I, for one, am having more trouble with corrupt corporations at the personal level. And hearing stories about corruption.

        A stolen credit card number? "No problem, provide us a list of suspicious charges. Oh, this suspicious charge on your list...you actually made."

        "I did? Sorry, they're hard to understand, these cryptic entries."

        "Too bad. Our policy is to force you to pay for all the fraudulent charges, if even one of those charges is mis-identified."

        "Fuck!" (My honest friend's story.)

      • Re:free speech (Score:5, Insightful)

        by girlintraining (1395911) on Sunday March 04, 2012 @12:45PM (#39239739)
        The police are outnumbered by the citizens they protect a thousand to 1 at least and they can only be effective if the majority of those citizens trust them and cooperate with them. The social contract that all officers of the law have with its citizens is this: "We trust you, you protect us." It's a simple, straight-forward principle that depends on the officer's ethical conduct being at all times impeccable. Any unethical behavior observed and the officer should be quickly stripped of rank and authority to maintain public trust.

        That isn't happening anymore. Our country now has mock trials where they declare the officers innocent, or that the protesters were engaged in vague-sounding crimes like "resisting without violence"... which in most of those cases can be rightly called, "speaking one's mind." Officers seize and destroy evidence of their own misconduct. They preferentially attack people on the basis of race, sexual orientation, ethnicity (perceived or actual), or on social class. These are not isolated cases: They are widespread issues that regularly receive attention in the press, though heavily edited, redacted, and spun to appear less severe than it is. It does not take anyone long on google to find a current, relevant case of significant police misconduct involving many officers, often an entire department or city of them.

        The social contract of "We trust you, you protect us" is broken. And that's a problem. That's a big problem. That is in fact a super huge democracy-threatening problem... because if people don't assemble to protect out of fear, then that anger with the status quo isn't visible. We (as a society) don't know there's a problem, can't address it, and so the anger builds and builds until we start getting gunman in the bell towers, people marching into classrooms and blowing away everyone they see... We get sporatic acts of seemingly random violence because these individuals feel they cannot be heard. And then we have a society living in fear, more fear, terrible amounts of fear.

        And protracted anxiety and fear destroys economies, governments, and institutions. Democracy depends on freedom, and freedom depends on the confidence to use those freedoms. I cannot find anyone above the age of 21 who thinks they have the freedom of speech they were told they had in school. I have trouble finding anyone who's willing to attend a protest for something they believe in and support out of fear of "getting a record" or "getting on a list". They well and truly believe their livelihoods would be threatened by engaging in activities protected by the highest law in the land, activities that our founding fathers and every reputable scholar on the subject of civil liberty and democracy says are essential for the functioning of this society.

        F*ck terrorists: We've got a much bigger problem. We're rotting from the inside out.
        • by houghi (78078)

          we start getting gunman in the bell towers, people marching into classrooms and blowing away everyone they see... We get sporatic acts of seemingly random violence

          This is what the police andf politics will read. Yes, it is edited like a boss (or a /. editor, you decide) and their answer is to give MORE power to the police and tell all that want to listen: Doi you want to have terrorists in the towers? Do you want your kids killed in school?

          I do not agree with that. Unfortunately that is how things are at t

        • I have trouble finding anyone who's willing to attend a protest for something they believe in and support out of fear of "getting a record" or "getting on a list".

          People fear this because it can and does happen. The economy is tough enough for young people who've worked hard and kept their noses clean. They don't call the occupy crowd "unemployable" for nothing you know.

        • I cannot find anyone above the age of 21 who thinks they have the freedom of speech they were told they had in school. I have trouble finding anyone who's willing to attend a protest for something they believe in and support out of fear of "getting a record" or "getting on a list". They well and truly believe their livelihoods would be threatened by engaging in activities protected by the highest law in the land, activities that our founding fathers and every reputable scholar on the subject of civil libert
      • Re:free speech (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 04, 2012 @01:19PM (#39240017)

        It is only going to get worse. Europe had life very cheap for over a millennium from the fall of Rome and the tiny dukedoms and duchies. A starving person stealing a loaf of bread? It was likely they would get beheaded, hanged, or just hacked to death. Just being homeless was grounds for being thrown in the clink, shipped off to a penal colony, or perhaps just killed outright. Peasant results were always unsuccessful, and resulted in a ton of people being burned at the stake if they were leaders, or just run through and left where they were.

        The only reason that this brutal way of life isn't with us now is because of the plague. With the Black Plague taking out the backs for nobles to flail, they actually had to make concessions (Magna Carta) in order to keep order (this after they realized that they were running out of peasants to kill.)

        Same thing is happening now. Higher populations end up with brutal police states. I'm not going to be surprised if our kids are living in one room places like the main character out of Fifth Element, with the spots on the wall to put your hands during the random shakedowns, with permits required to ever leave a city, and with long prison terms being the norm (because there is a whole industry around locking people up.)

        People talk about revolution? In reality, revolution as we know it is impossible. What ends up happening is that there is a crackdown, a lot of people tortured and killed, the regime in power tightening its grip making life harder for everyone else, and things going on. A crowd protesting in the streets? A helicopter gunship full of napalm or high rpm chain guns is inexpensive, will take care of the job, and there will be no successive protests afterwards. Libya was overthrown not because of internal politics, but because the US invaded and bumped off its leader. Without external influence, what will happen in most countries is what is happening in Syria -- towns and villages turned into craters, and actually more stability for the people in charge since all the revolutionaries showed themselves and were killed.

        With the advent of social media, it is trivial for governments to take out would-be firebrands. Someone becoming popular with their speeches? A quick overnight disappearance takes care of that.

        One can credit the black plague for the Western Renaissance, but future generations won't be that lucky.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by PeeAitchPee (712652)

      Most of the time, they provoke, prod, cajoule, and taunt these people until one of them out of the dozen, hundred, or thousand there snaps

      Not that I agree with deploying this type of technology against peaceful protesters, but what you're describing sounds * exactly* like the Occupy movement's tactics to provoke the police to assault them, thereby ensuring the incident ends up all over the news. Just sayin'.

      • by Web Goddess (133348) on Sunday March 04, 2012 @12:39PM (#39239707)

        Police are supposed to be trained officers. They are being provoked by taunts? Throw those goddamn police out of their jobs, with a black mark on their records. What you say is (trolling?) bullshit. I have seen numerous videos of peaceful people blindsided by police with pepper spray and bludgeons. Overwhelming force, yet the police are provoked by taunts? You live in a world of hypocrisy and denial, previous poster.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by PeeAitchPee (712652)
          Wow, such vitriol directed towards someone that might have a different perspective than you. Yeah, I've seen the UC YouTube video, and I've also read stories about Occupy camps rigging booby-traps when threatened with eviction, throwing human shit at police, cursing at them, daring them to attack, threatening lawsuits, etc. As with most things, the truth is most likely somewhere in the middle, unless we choose to wear blinders that let us think one side can do nothing but good and the other is always wron
          • I'm sure it's true that at least some of the Occupyers weren't completely innocent, but the same applies to the police. And frankly, I expect far more restraint out of them than I do out of the (mostly) peaceful protesters.

          • by tqk (413719) <s.keeling@mail.com> on Sunday March 04, 2012 @01:19PM (#39240013)

            Wow, such vitriol directed towards someone that might have a different perspective than you. Yeah, I've seen the UC YouTube video, and I've also read stories about Occupy camps rigging booby-traps when threatened with eviction, throwing human shit at police, cursing at them, daring them to attack, threatening lawsuits, etc.

            The protesters are civilians. Police are supposed to be trained professionals. If you're a cop at a protest, you're wearing a face shield and helmet, you're armed and dangerous, and you can change out of your uniform at the end of your shift. Why care about what's thrown at you by civilians? It's your job to take it and react reasonably. It's what you were hired for. If you can't handle that, you're in the wrong job.

            Why any policeman would think it's reasonable conduct to pepper spray a line of kneeling civilians is beyond me. I'd be looking around for a rifle if I saw that happening.

            • Why any policeman would think it's reasonable conduct to pepper spray a line of kneeling civilians is beyond me.

              Probably feelings of disgust, frustruation and anger

              I'd be looking around for a rifle if I saw that happening.

              They would respect that. They would kill you, but they would have more respect for you.
               
              Just saying... this is their brain.

              • by gman003 (1693318) on Sunday March 04, 2012 @02:48PM (#39240801)

                Have you *seen* the stuff they're packing? Kevlar body armor, riot shields, fall face masks... anything short of a rifle or a molotov cocktail isn't going to significantly hurt them.

                If your job is cashier at McDonalds, you're expected to be able to handle some irate customer yelling at you without flipping out. If your job is programmer at Ubersoft, you're expected to be able to handle a moronic boss yelling at you without losing your shit. And if your job is police officer armed up and suited for a riot, you're expected to be able to handle people yelling at you and tossing rocks without bringing out the shotguns and chemical weapons.

                The police don't need better weapons. They need better brains. Problem is, between shitty funding, politics, and a fundamentally broken sense of justice in America, most of the police don't actually know how to handle this sort of thing. They're just as scared as the protesters are, but hey, they've got a badge, and someone handed them a billy club and a can of OC, so they're going to use it the same way any undertrained, terrified person would.

                • by kanto (1851816)

                  Have you *seen* the stuff they're packing? Kevlar body armor, riot shields, fall face masks... anything short of a rifle or a molotov cocktail isn't going to significantly hurt them.

                  If your job is cashier at McDonalds, you're expected to be able to handle some irate customer yelling at you without flipping out. If your job is programmer at Ubersoft, you're expected to be able to handle a moronic boss yelling at you without losing your shit. And if your job is police officer armed up and suited for a riot, you're expected to be able to handle people yelling at you and tossing rocks without bringing out the shotguns and chemical weapons.

                  The police don't need better weapons. They need better brains. Problem is, between shitty funding, politics, and a fundamentally broken sense of justice in America, most of the police don't actually know how to handle this sort of thing. They're just as scared as the protesters are, but hey, they've got a badge, and someone handed them a billy club and a can of OC, so they're going to use it the same way any undertrained, terrified person would.

                  Just because police wear body armor it doesn't mean that the crowds should be allowed to ramp up their offence accordingly, it's not a fricking peaceful protest when people are throwing rocks around.

            • Why care about what's thrown at you by civilians? It's your job to take it and react reasonably.

              Arresting people who throw things at police is quite reasonable. Just because you are protesting doesn't give you the right to assault police officers. (That's what throwing things at them is.) Just because you are a citizen who happens to be a police officer doesn't give other citizens the right to assault you without consequences. Or are you thinking, what's a brick in the head between citizens?

              Why any policeman would think it's reasonable conduct to pepper spray a line of kneeling civilians is beyond me.

              If the protesters, the kneeling civilians, are refusing to comply with a lawful order to vacate the area, th

              • by tqk (413719)

                Why care about what's thrown at you by civilians? It's your job to take it and react reasonably.

                Arresting people who throw things at police is quite reasonable. Just because you are protesting doesn't give you the right to assault police officers.

                I agree, and that's a perfectly reasonable reaction on the part of the police.

                Why any policeman would think it's reasonable conduct to pepper spray a line of kneeling civilians is beyond me.

                If the protesters, the kneeling civilians, are refusing to comply with a lawful order to vacate the area, the police can generally use force of some kind.

                Certainly, and I'd expect them to know what the meaning of the phrase "excessive force" is. Pepper spray used on non-violent, unresisting protesters is excessive.

                I'd be looking around for a rifle if I saw that happening.

                So, you threaten to use lethal force against law enforcement officers using generally non-lethal means that nearly everyone recovers from ...

                Given yourself enough weasel room there? Cops don't get a pass just because they're cops. If they act as bad as the tyrants who hired them, they are as bad as the tyrants who hired them. Civilization exists for civilians. Authoritarians go to the back of the bus.

            • by girlintraining (1395911) on Sunday March 04, 2012 @03:26PM (#39241125)

              I'd be looking around for a rifle if I saw that happening.

              I hope you consider a camera first. Whether it is justified or not, shooting or threatening another person with a gun over a threat or use of violence doesn't make you any better than they are. You shoot that officer and your life is over, he's elevated to martyrdom by Homeland, and thousands more will suffer under 'enhanced' police powers to keep that from happening. If you want to make a difference, you take a good picture of him. You make sure that picture of what he's doing gets in front of every person in his community. Everyone he's supposed to be responsible for protecting. You make sure they know that man cannot be trusted. You make sure his personal, home mailbox is so choked with letters from concerned citizens he has to pay to keep a special PO box just so he can get mail. You make sure the police department is spending more than his salary paying off journalists to paint him in a good light, paying more to squelch the letters to the editor, and still more because every person in that community files a complaint for every single thing he does. You make him ineffective, gimp, useless -- a liability to the department he works for.

              You make it so bad even his coworkers groan whenever they have to work with him. That's how you fight back: You don't pickup a damn weapon, you bury the bastards in their own bureauacracy. You make them beg to have everyone who sends a letter put on a special rectal exam at the airport list -- and each time they cross the line to protect this jerk, you're right there with a camera. You're right there with a letter, a pen, a microphone, a megaphone. You stay peaceful, you stay civil.

              And after you've done all of this... Then you sit down with 3 other people who feel the same way you do and you say, "Okay, here's what we're going to do..."

              • by gknoy (899301)

                This is the best comment I've read on a topic like this in a VERY long time. Thank you.

              • by tqk (413719)

                I'd be looking around for a rifle if I saw that happening.

                I hope you consider a camera first. Whether it is justified or not, shooting or threatening another person with a gun over a threat or use of violence doesn't make you any better than they are.

                Very, very good point, thanks. As I just mentioned to another poster, I wouldn't have been shooting to harm, but to warn. Still, a cellphone camera plus the web is the smarter weapon for everyone concerned. It's too damned easy these days to believe you're back in 1939 on the streets of Berlin.

                I actually like cops and look up to them. I've met about two in my life that I didn't respect as individuals, but I still respected them for just having put on the uniform. I'm pretty much the least of their worr

              • by russotto (537200)

                I hope you consider a camera first.

                Why bother? None of the "good citizens" of this country cares what the cops do to protesters or anyone else they want to go after.

                Cops doing bad things are filmed all the time. Nothing really comes of it, except maybe the charges against their victim are dismissed.

                You want something to happen to cops who do bad things? So far, the only proven way is to burn down part of the city, Los Angeles style. Then maybe a few cops will get some sort of punishment. That's what it

              • If you want to make a difference, you take a good picture of him.

                That's exactly what was done. [youtube.com] The result? A lot of badge-lickers log onto Slashdot and post messages justifying the actions of the police.

                When your advice to use cameras to address the problem fails, as it has here, what's your next recommendation for dealing with these steroid-addled Wehrmacht wannabees? Strongly-worded letters?

        • by Mashiki (184564)

          Here's the problem. Can you name one police college off the top of your head that trains using debasement? That's physical and verbal attacks. I doubt it, all of the ones that I know are in Canada. The ones in the US that used to removed that part of the program because of leftie hand-wringing that it was too "mean" and might "provoke a response". So to be honest, I'm not surprise that newer cops are being provoked by taunts. They're not being trained to ignore them.

          And yes debasement works. I've gon

      • Re:free speech (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Entropius (188861) on Sunday March 04, 2012 @12:45PM (#39239745)

        If you're going to trust your police with guns then you need to be able to trust them not to use them in response to provocation. If you can't find someone that you can trust not to start shooting at people taunting them, then you should just take the guns away from them -- or arrest them for assault.

        The Arizona Criminal Code says, plain as day: "the use of force or deadly force is not justified in response to verbal provocation alone".

        I'm no fan of some of the shit Occupy has pulled -- in particular, squatting on public land in such a way that it reduces the value the public can get out of it. (I think a lot of their demands are naive and silly, too, but that's neither here nor there, since if being wrong negated the right to free speech we'd have to close all the churches -- and the Capitol, for that matter.) But the police get trigger-happy when provoked then you need some better police.

        (NB: Provoking them in a manner that makes them unable to do legitimate police work is a different story.)

        • in particular, squatting on public land in such a way that it reduces the value the public can get out of it

          What does that even mean? We can kick anyone out of the public lands as long as most people don't want them there (because of some arbitrary, imaginary value people get out of the land)?

          There might be laws regarding doing certain things on supposedly "public" lands, but I take issue with this particular sentence.

        • by celle (906675)

          "I'm no fan of some of the shit Occupy has pulled -- in particular, squatting on public land in such a way that it reduces the value the public can get out of it."

              Hate to tell you but Occupy is the public. So they have every right to squat on public land. This is part of the value the public gets out of it.

      • Re:free speech (Score:5, Interesting)

        by girlintraining (1395911) on Sunday March 04, 2012 @12:59PM (#39239849)
        There's so much I could say to this, but I'll try to be brief: There has never been a case of a political movement who's platform ended with "... and to achieve this, let's piss off a bunch of people with shotguns while we remain unarmed." The Occupy protests were creative and (when started) legal. They later had what they were doing declared illegal at the behest of the Department of Homeland Security, who whispered "terrorist" into the ears of dozens of municipal leaders, who then closed and locked the doors to city hall and passed all manner of legislation in any way they could to give the DHS the ability to coordinate directly with local law enforcement, who then turned hostile. When the protests started, the police didn't interfere. They didn't really have much to say beyond making sure the protesters and the general public near them were safe and living in sanitary conditions... a few arrests here and there, but nobody was making a big deal about it. It was just "the cost of doing business" in a democratic society. Then the goddamned gustapo showed up, ordered them to roll in the tanks and start with the mass arrests and surveillance.

        No, there was no provocation from the protesters... in fact, I've never once seen a historically accurate account of any protest who's stated goals were to get tangled with the police, who have a 1,500 win, 0 loss record against protest movements.
    • Re:free speech (Score:5, Informative)

      by clyde_cadiddlehopper (1052112) on Sunday March 04, 2012 @12:46PM (#39239749)

      Keep poking it with a stick and eventually it will stop hiding in the corner and come sink its claws and teeth into you. And why? Because it didn't have a choice.

      "Terror" is the strategy for those with no other options. The best weapon against terror is blind and principled justice for all.

      • by tqk (413719)

        Keep poking it with a stick and eventually it will stop hiding in the corner and come sink its claws and teeth into you. And why? Because it didn't have a choice.

        "Terror" is the strategy for those with no other options. The best weapon against terror is blind and principled justice for all.

        I agree with the latter, but not the former. Terror, or terrorism, is the strategy of assholes (OBL, I'm lookin' at you). Civilized people don't attack unarmed civilians[*]. Full. Stop.

        Anyone wearing a Big Brother uniform, fair game, but beware they're just as armed as you and probably better trained, and their buddies'll get you if they don't. Have fun. :-)

        [* Dresden [wikipedia.org] was an atrocity, as was Coventry [wikipedia.org], and those who perpetrated those crimes knew it at the time. They'd been worried it was eventually goi

    • Re:free speech (Score:5, Interesting)

      by paiute (550198) on Sunday March 04, 2012 @01:16PM (#39239979)

      They're coming up with ever-more creative ways to hurt peaceful protesters -- and let's be honest: Most of the time, they provoke, prod, cajoule, and taunt these people until one of them out of the dozen, hundred, or thousand there snaps, then they point and say "See! See! We're justified" and open up unholy horror on everyone nearby

      "one of them" = police plant in the crowd, you mean

    • unholy horror on everyone nearby, including journalists, children,
      Who the fuck brings children to a protest where there may be arrests or use of force for anything other than using said children as a human shield? That is pretty fucked up
  • by rossjudson (97786) on Sunday March 04, 2012 @12:19PM (#39239519) Homepage

    I've got a 14 month old boy. I need to warm up my fart joke capacity, so it'll be ready when I need it. I wonder if a positively-charged fart would be different from a negatively-charged fart.

    • by Sulphur (1548251)

      I've got a 14 month old boy. I need to warm up my fart joke capacity, so it'll be ready when I need it. I wonder if a positively-charged fart would be different from a negatively-charged fart.

      Farts with a range of 150 feet, what could go wrong?

      • Farts with a range of 150 feet, what could go wrong?

        That would be a biological weapon delivery system. "Fetchez la vache" is so 12 seconds ago. We don't have to launch a whole putrid carcass over the castle walls, just a few puffs of bad air.

        • "I fart in your general... oh ... with extreme precision right in your face from 150 feet away!"

  • by rbrander (73222) on Sunday March 04, 2012 @12:20PM (#39239525) Homepage

    Typical of a certain mindset that sufficient force will stop a demonstration.

    And it will, of course. ONE demonstration. But if you don't want another twice as big, you can't stop it with force.

    Ghaddafi used anti-aircraft ammunition on human bodies. That tidied up the whole street in jig time. But where is he now?

  • Pissing people off (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Omnifarious (11933) * <eric-slash AT omnifarious DOT org> on Sunday March 04, 2012 @12:55PM (#39239813) Homepage Journal

    Getting people to disperse in a matter that will piss them off will only work if they wake up in the morning and think "Gosh, I'm kind of embarrassed I was there at all.". Otherwise, it will just make them angrier. And it may not even get them to disperse and go home like you want them to in the first place.

    The people who work at firms who make stuff like this should be ashamed of themselves for the world they help create.

    But, of course, there are enough people on Slashdot who think that might makes right, and that authority is always correct (most of whome paradoxically are against 'big government') that I suspect these people feel not a glimmer of guilt.

    • by Hentes (2461350)

      How do you suppose to disperse people without pissing them off? Every tool can be used for good and bad. Not all demonstrators are peaceful, and crowd control is necessary during riots, to prevent an aggressive minority from vandalising the city. Letting a mob do whatever they want leads exactly to that might-makes-right anarchistic scenario you seem to be against.

  • Now wondering if you spray an aerosol into the chamber *thinks*
  • by tomhath (637240) on Sunday March 04, 2012 @02:19PM (#39240589)

    The article is basically a press release from a company in Ohio that filed a patent application for delivering electrically charged bubbles of gas with a vortex gun. Somehow Slashdot turned it into a rallying cry for Occupy Someplace for Some Reason protesters.

    You have a right to peaceful protest. You don't have a right to trespass and disrupt businesses or political gatherings. Respect others' rights and yours will be respected too.

  • There was a time, perhaps, when only the government had the shiny, new. Super secret facilities in Nevada or Los Alamos chock full of stolen nazi scientists with equipment only defense budgets could afford.

    But now I'm seeing massive computing power at the fingertips of most Americans, and amazing technologies like additive manufacturing on the brink of hitting the mainstream, and I wonder how long it will be before the people, getting hit with LRADs and vortex cannons for voicing their opinions, will turn

  • Just wait until they challenge Gandalf. He cheats with magic.

"Silent gratitude isn't very much use to anyone." -- G. B. Stearn

Working...