×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hardware Hackers Create a Cheaper Bedazzler

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the just-in-time-for-trick-or-treaters dept.

Hardware Hacking 282

ptorrone writes "Hardware hacker extraordinaires Ladyada (Adafruit Industries) and Phil Torrone (of MAKE magazine) have just published an open source 'Homeland Security' project, a non-lethal LED-Based Incapacitator: THE BEDAZZLER. After attending a conference where the $1 million 'sea-sick flashlight' (THE DAZZLER) was demoed by Homeland Security, the duo decided to created an under-$250 version, and just released the source code, schematics and PCB files. The team also released a 5 minute video describing the 'official version' as well as how they created the 'open source hardware' version."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

282 comments

That's ... (3, Funny)

ei4anb (625481) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580565)

brilliant !

Odd name (5, Funny)

Shrike82 (1471633) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580773)

When I hear BEDAZZLER, in my head I hear a Infotainment show host voice. He continues by telling me how easy it is to attach colourful rhinestones to my own clothes and fabrics at home, for only $19.99 plus postage and packing.

Re:Odd name (4, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580843)

When I hear BEDAZZLER, I think of superheroes.

But my problem with the name of this device is that it doesn't bedazzle at all. It causes motion sickness.

They should call it BENAUSEATOR or BEPUKINGTHEIRGUTSOUT or something along those lines, more accurate.

Re:Odd name (4, Funny)

cgenman (325138) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581179)

But my problem with the name of this device is that it doesn't bedazzle at all. It causes motion sickness.

They should call it BENAUSEATOR or BEPUKINGTHEIRGUTSOUT or something along those lines, more accurate.

Are you talking about the military device, or the $19.99 infotainment device?

Re:Odd name (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581203)

When I hear BEDAZZLER, I think of superheroes.

Haha. Just to be clear though -- "Dazzler" is the lame-ass mutant with the amazing ability to make shiny sparkles, while the "Bedazzler" is what her she used to make her disco ass even more lame.

Re:Odd name (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581207)

BEDAZZLER is easier to say than BECALLINGRALPHONTHEBIGWHITEPHONE.

(caps filter appeasement text) Le Lorem Ipsum est simplement du faux texte employé dans la composition et la mise en page avant impression. Le Lorem Ipsum est le faux texte standard de l'imprimerie depuis les années 1500, quand un peintre anonyme assembla ensemble des morceaux de texte pour réaliser un livre spécimen de polices de texte. Il n'a pas fait que survivre cinq siÃcles, mais s'est aussi adapté à la bureautique informatique, sans que son contenu n'en soit modifié. Il a été popularisé dans les années 1960 grÃce à la vente de feuilles Letraset contenant des passages du Lorem Ipsum, et, plus récemment, par son inclusion dans des applications de mise en page de texte, comme Aldus PageMaker.

Re:Odd name (1)

bosef1 (208943) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580873)

It looks like we're going to have to take away Artie's Bedazzler.

Re:Odd name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29581391)

Woo-hoo! Warehouse 13 for the win!

(Also, that comment makes me sad, but whether that's because I can't have one or for some other reason... Let's leave that unknown, lest here be spoilers.)

Re:Odd name (1)

gid (5195) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581039)

I though the same thing, I was scanning headlines for interesting ones, I see BEDAZZLER, Hardware, Hack. I'm thinking really? Slashdot usually doesn't post stories on mechanical hardware hacks... especially ones from the 80's.

I can't believe someone named an LED Motion sickness thing the BEDAZZLER, maybe a tribute perhaps?

Re:Odd name (1)

dpilot (134227) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581227)

No, no...

Think of Peter Cook and Dudley Moore. And certainly not Brendan Fraser and what's-her-name that Hugh Grant was attached to when he got caught. (in Vegas? in a taxi cab?)

Re:Odd name (1)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581245)

When I RTFS my heart went out to all the poor Japanese-American would-be burglars, and how ill-prepared they are for the AMERICAN SEIZURE SECURITY ALARM!

Re:That's ... (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581049)

brilliant !

Watch the movie. It didn't really work, to my disappointment as well.

Re:That's ... (2, Informative)

ladyada (850297) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581157)

It works great for the flashblindness, nausea, dizziness, disorientation. The occasional vomiting? Maybe not ;)

Re:That's ... (2, Informative)

noundi (1044080) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581287)

It works great for the flashblindness, nausea, dizziness, disorientation. The occasional vomiting? Maybe not ;)

Really? Cool! You should cut out that last comment though because it sounded like the whole project didn't work.

Pigs will like this (-1, Troll)

madfilipino (557839) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580625)

The perfect weapon for the pigs... fucks with the subject, can be easily denied ("bright lights? You taking drugs again?"), and it leaves no trace of "torture" even when used multiple times.

Re:Pigs will like this (0, Redundant)

Saint Stephen (19450) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580667)

Stop saying stuff like Pigs. It's dumb.

Re:Pigs will like this (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29580723)

Tell the pigs to stop being dicks and letting the power go to their heads and we'll have reason to show respect.

Until then, they're dirty, dirty, corrupted pigs.

Re:Pigs will like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29580853)

Funny, round here they just like swill and rolling in mud. They're actually kinda cute.

Re:Pigs will like this (2, Insightful)

kuzb (724081) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580747)

What would you call police who abuse their power? Nice men who beat me to death?

Re:Pigs will like this (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580803)

What would you call police who abuse their power? Nice men who beat me to death?

I'd call them "dirty cops". Sadly there are far too many, but not all cops are.

Re:Pigs will like this (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29580907)

Yeah, you're absolutely right. The retired cops can be pretty nice people, can't they?

Fuck every living police officer on the face of the fucking earth, they're all undeserving pigs who have been given more power than is their due and they take more and more for themselves each day.

Re:Pigs will like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29581525)

You're just mad because they won't let you be a criminal like you want to be.

Re:Pigs will like this (4, Insightful)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581029)

There are some dirty cops. The problem is not really how many dirty cops there are. The problem is the cops that aren't really dirty but will back up the dirty cops. If the "Honest Cops" would get real honest and bust the dirty bastards then things would be much better. Till that happens ALL FUCKING COPS SUCK ASS! If you aren't turning in bad cops you are one. PERIOD!

Re:Pigs will like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29581091)

They should be charged "accessory to bad policing", just like someone can be charged "accessory to murder".

Re:Pigs will like this (3, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581149)

To a cop there are three kinds of people: Cops, cops' families, and suspects.

Re:Pigs will like this (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580761)

Now I understand what the GP was saying; he meant cops. I thought he was talking about swine. Someone should mod you up.

Wait... maybe the GP was a woman talking about men? Some people have a hard time using language effectively, I guess. Either way, you're right.

Re:Pigs will like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29581147)

I'm the cream of the crop, I rise to the top
I never eat a pig cause a pig is a cop
Or better yet a terminator
Like Arnold Schwarzenegger

Re:Pigs will like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29581023)

The perfect weapon for the pigs

you're totally right! it's gonna be way harder to get them to slaughter now.

expect the cost of bacon to soar!

Seems kinda pricy still (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29580629)

$250, huh? This:

https://www.mybedazzler.com/

certainly nauseates me for a lot less!

Re:Seems kinda pricy still (1)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580775)

Yeah, I was kind of wondering why we would be interested in a cheaper device to cover our clothing with cheap plastic "jewels", but to each their own I guess.

Re:Seems kinda pricy still (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29581151)

Hey you... Shut it!

                              Daft Punk

Patents? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29580657)

Isn't this why patents exist? So that other people can't build a product you've invented for much cheaper and sell it. Research has value, and should be rewarded.

Re:Patents? (3, Insightful)

notgm (1069012) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580717)

if homeland security (ostensibly a government entity) spent the money to develop it, is it patentable?

Re:Patents? (3, Informative)

reebmmm (939463) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580821)

Yes. Unlike copyrights, the government can (and does) own patent rights. When the government funds the work giving rise to the patents, the contractor (or university) will own the patent, but the government actually get a non-exclusive right to the patent. See Bayh-Dole, 35 U.S.C. Sec. 200 et. seq.

When Bayh-Dole applies, the owning entity then has an obligation to actually exploit the invention. If they don't the government has "march-in" rights that would let the government take ownership. Not that that's ever happened.

Re:Patents? (2, Interesting)

TheSeventh (824276) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581409)

I'm sorry, I must be an idiot. I RTFA, but I must have missed the part where someone is selling something?

Except that... (5, Informative)

kuzb (724081) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580661)

At the end of the video, the creator uses it on a test subject and it doesn't work - which she even admits.

"Ok, so it turns out it doesn't work so well. But it's great for raves."

Re:Except that... (5, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580757)

I'm confused what the purpose of this article is. Is it 'Gee Whiz' look what you can build at home? Or is it look how much money was wasted creating the original? Or what?

Yes, the original version costs $1 Million to create, this was created for $250. Except, you know, she didn't have to come up with the idea, and she didn't have to do any of the original research, and there's no garauntee that hers won't cause permanent blindness, and hers doesn't work. But other than that it is a total bargain.

The purpose of the article (3, Insightful)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580833)

I think the idea was, "It doesn't work, but it's still pretty neat."

Keep in mind that she never said, "This is as effective as the DAZZLER." That was the nominal goal, and at the end, she clearly states that they didn't get there. But I really don't think they expected to replicate a million-dollar device.

Sometimes, the cool stuff that comes out of making something like this isn't whether or not in the end it actually works or is as effective as you want it to be, but what you learn along the way and what you do end up with. (In this case, a device that is cool at raves.)

The submitted did submit it under a somewhat misleading title, though, in implying that the thing actually works.

Re:The purpose of the article (3, Interesting)

ladyada (850297) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580927)

Actually, it does precisely the same thing as any other 'flashing weapon', gives you a headache and makes your eyes hurt

Intellectual Property?! (1)

mi (197448) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580875)

Except, you know, she didn't have to come up with the idea, and she didn't have to do any of the original research

Wait just a cotton-picking minute, here, buster! Are you implying, ideas can have value like some kind of property (spit)? That anybody doing research should be paid on top of the altruistic joy they ought to be having from a discovery?

No! Everybody on Slashdot knows, that scientists (just like artists) aren't the selfish greedy bastards, and it is only the Big Corporations (TM), who insist on collecting money under the pretense of having to pay these creators of Intellectual Property...

Re:Except that... (1)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580941)

They did get the information from the patent of the company. The patent is to share the information. But it seems that the patent is leaving out an essential ingredient. SO the patent is not good described i would think.

Re:Except that... (1)

ladyada (850297) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581015)

There's no missing information. The flashblinding effect was documented over 100 years ago by scientists like Bruke and Broca. There's really nothing very complex going on, its a green flashing light at about 8-10 Hz.

Re:Except that... (2, Funny)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581009)

I'm confused what the purpose of this article is.

I believe the purpose was "see this patent - here's a picture of it in the video - we just built a device that infringes".

Re:Except that... (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581069)

Infringes and doesn't work. That's a fail cake with an extra thick layer of fail frosting on top.

Re:Except that... (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581113)

I'm confused what the purpose of this article is.

I believe the purpose was "see this patent - here's a picture of it in the video - we just built a device that infringes".

Never mind... The patent requires a spatial scanning element that directs the beam around. They don't have one.

Re:Except that... (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581089)

there's no garauntee that hers won't cause permanent blindness

And there's a guarantee that the original one won't cause permanent blindness? Ever? To just one person?

Re:Except that... (5, Informative)

goodmanj (234846) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581471)

From what Ladyada has posted here and elsewhere, I'm convinced that it's as effective as the Homeland Security version. Which is, not very.

The basic problem with nonlethal weapons is that they assume there's a range in which a weapon is more than annoying, but less than dangerous:
|====annoying===| sweet spot |====dangerous====|

But because people vary in their responses, it looks more like this:
|====annoying===|
                  |====dangerous===|
In short, until you deal with the fact that a weapon that will kill Grandma will only make an enraged 250-pound meth addict even angrier, you're wasting your time.

Re:Except that... (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580795)

How well does the million dollar dazzler work? For all we know the dazzler is a useless pork barrel project that's only hyped by Homeland Security to makes us think they are doing something useful.

Fun with.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29580679)

And I thought lasers in movie theaters were annoying!

You can always make it cheaper. (5, Insightful)

Yaos (804128) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580695)

When you look up how to make something you can always make it cheaper and easier than if you had to figure it out on your own. A large part of the cost was paying the people that make and test the device without knowing how it should be made.

Re:You can always make it cheaper. (1, Insightful)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580713)

And don't forget kickbacks from the military-industrial complex.

Re:You can always make it cheaper. (1)

Comboman (895500) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581507)

...and since I'm fairly sure the hackers making this had absolutely no access to the original device or it's schematics and documentation, your point is what exactly?

Congratulations Tacky Americans! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29580697)

Just when the rest of the world seems to be getting as fat and lazy as you are, American enginuity kicks it up an notch and the rest of the world can only watch in awe and disgust.

Cheaper Bedazzeler? No wonder America is a country of bankrupt trailer trash.

who's Ladyada? (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580699)

Sounds like Lady Gaga's nerdy sister.

Re:who's Ladyada? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29580863)

Sounds like Lady Gaga's nerdy sister.

That's hot.

Re:who's Ladyada? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29580923)

saying "That's hot."

isn't.

Re:who's Ladyada? (2)

mandark1967 (630856) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580949)

let's have some fun, this makes me sick
I wanna take a ride on your throw up stick
(2x)

(2x)
I wanna kiss you
but if I do then I might hurl on you, babe
it's complicated and stupid
got my ass queazey and spewing
guess he wants to play, wants to play
Throw up game, Throw up game

hold me and love me
just wanna spew lunch for a minute
maybe three seconds is enough
for my stomach to quit it

let's have some fun, this makes me sick
I wanna take a ride on your throw up stick
don't think too much, just bust that kick
I wanna take a ride on your throw up stick

let's play a lovegame, play a lovegame
do you want love, or you want fame
are you in the game
dans the lovegame
(2x)

I'm on a mission
and it involves some Pepto Bismal, yeah
you've indicated you're queasiness
I'm educated in puke, yes
and now I want it bad, want it bad
throw up game, throw up game

hold me and love me
just wanna spew lunch for a minute
maybe three seconds is enough
for my stomach to quit it

let's have some fun, this makes me sick
I wanna take a ride on your throw up stick
don't think too much, just bust that kick
I wanna take a ride on your throw up stick

on and on, ad nauseum

NOT a "cheaper Bedazzler." (5, Informative)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580707)

Watching the video, at the end of their demonstration, she says, "Well, turns out it doesn't work that well, but it is great for raves." I'm not accusing them of shenanigans, because they're not misrepresenting that it actually works. However, I am accusing the submitter of exaggerating the effectiveness of this thing by calling it a "cheaper Bedazzler."

It's not like they have recreated for $250 what the DHS did for a million. I don't doubt that what they've created is irritating to look at, but the thing is five times the size of what the DHS had created for them, and would be totally ineffective in an actual situation in which it would be needed.

But she's right, it probably would be kind of fun at a party, and it does look like a neat project to play around with.

Re:NOT a "cheaper Bedazzler." (4, Insightful)

Yaos (804128) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580743)

The project cost $1 million, not each device. That includes paying the people that put their time into figuring out how to make it work which was probably greater than 50% of the project cost.

Re:NOT a "cheaper Bedazzler." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29580767)

Does the original Bedazzler work either though?

The what? (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580737)

The "Sea Sick Flashlight"? That's the best they could come up with?

What's wrong with its proper name, the Chunder-Gat [theregister.co.uk]? I'd settle for Chunderbuss if Rankin/Bass objected.

Re:The what? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29581111)

What's wrong with its proper name, the Chunder-Gat?

Because that prompts every nerd to shout "Chunder! Chunder! CHUNDER! Chunder-Gats, HOOOOOO!"

HOLY CRAP!! (4, Funny)

Zaphod Beeblibrox (1641369) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580779)

IT REALLY WORKS!!! I actually felt nausea when I realized that they spent a million of our tax dollars designing a fucking party favor!

Re:HOLY CRAP!! (3, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581131)

So I guess that's the future of crowd control? The riot police will just read lists of ways in which our tax money is being spent. The real clincher is when they read off the cost of creating and providing copies to all law enforcement of a list of ways in which our tax money is being spent...

Private innovations vs. government (1)

mi (197448) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580783)

A perfect example of how much better private entrepreneurs can be, than whoever, who is government-paid... Yes, I know, that DHS bought their design from a private company, but they are spending other people's money and so care more for how attractive each bidder's saleswoman was, than about the cost of the device...

Re:Private innovations vs. government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29580823)

Uh, no, it's not a perfect example. As other posters have pointed out, the knock-off doesn't actually work.

Frequency range (1)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580799)

I noticed on the adafruit site that the original Dazzler used a low Hz pulse like 9Hz - 15Hz or somewhere around there. It reminded me of back in high school in our electronics class when we hooked up a speaker to a frequency generator. One of us had read somewhere that a loud pulse at 9Hz - 11Hz or so would produce sickness in people so we set the freq at 11Hz and cranked it up. After a few seconds people started complaining about headaches and not feeling well so we turned it off.

Now if you consider the stories about military equipment that is connected to either the back or the tongue and is able to put sound or vision into your head by using the correct frequencies...

That'd mean the low frequency sound effects and the strobe effects are really setting off the same thing by getting the same basic frequency into the brain via different channels. The brain doesn't care how a signal gets in there, so you can see hear or feel certain sensations through electrical impulses anywhere on you.

I wonder if there's a frequency for gullibility, aggression, fear, etc...

Dang where'd I'd put my tinfoil hat?

Re:Frequency range (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580975)

I wonder if there's a frequency for gullibility, aggression, fear, etc...

I don't know about that, but I bet there's a frequency for the placebo effect. Your anecdote reminds me of the people that are 'alergic' to WiFi, but only when they know it's around. I'm not necissarily saying that there's nothing to it, but I'd require some pretty significant double blind tests before I buy into the idea of a nauseating sound. If nothing else I would think there would be plenty of times when such a frequency would be prodeced in industry, leading to everyone that works there beign constantly nauseous.

Re:Frequency range (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29581061)

What's the frequency for arousal?

Re:Frequency range (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29581301)

69

Rhinestones? (4, Informative)

zztong (36596) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580805)

I thought a Bedazzler was one of those things sold on TV that lets girls add rhinestones to clothing, so when I read the summary I was really curious what the Dept of Homeland Security was doing with them.

Even if it worked (1)

Terwin (412356) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580867)

Even if their cheaper version worked like the original, it was still the development cost that was a million bucks, not the production cost.
Since they used the schematics that were generated out of the development, all they reproduced was the production, not the development.

Car analogy: its more like taking the owners manual of an old VW beetle and building one from that, as opposed to inventing the internal combustion engine and then building a car to use it.

Re:Even if it worked (5, Informative)

ladyada (850297) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581047)

Theres no schematics in the patent. The flashblinding effect was documented over 100 years ago by scientists like Bruke and Broca. There's really nothing very complex going on, its a green flashing light at about 8-10 Hz...which makes it a great intro-to-Arduino project! :)

DHS - Your Tax Dollars At Work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29580883)

for themilitary-industrial complex [wikipedia.org].

Keep spending. You're about 3/4 the way to China.

Yours In Baku,
Kilgore Trout

Who will sue them first? (1)

jsimon12 (207119) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580893)

Will it be:

a. The company that makes the Dazzler
b. The company that makes the BeDazzler (that rhinestone pressing gadget)

Patents? (2, Interesting)

Comatose51 (687974) | more than 4 years ago | (#29580951)

I've watched that video and I remember they mentioned referencing the original patent for their project. Aren't they pretty much violating a patent by doing this? The idea seems pretty novel and original to me but I'm not a neuroscientist nor a lawyer. Anyone want to clarify?

Re:Patents? (2, Informative)

ladyada (850297) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581107)

Strobe/flashing weapons arent new. The patent is actually for a more specific device that scans while it strobes. There actually isnt a patent for just a strobing weapon, which may be because there was prior art.

Re:Patents? (1)

jittles (1613415) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581329)

IANAPL, or any lawyer, but it is my understanding that it's okay to use a patent for personal use. It is only illegal to try and commercialize a patented idea. It's probably not a good idea to run a business to help people take advantage of someone else's patent.

Re:Patents? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29581521)

I've watched that video and I remember they mentioned referencing the original patent for their project. Aren't they pretty much violating a patent by doing this? The idea seems pretty novel and original to me but I'm not a neuroscientist nor a lawyer. Anyone want to clarify?

Patents on physical devices are actually fairly logical. All you need to do is change some part of the design in a significant fashion. So for example if you used a different type or color of LED, different number, arrangement, power requirement, wiring design, etc. you would probably not violate it.

In the IP world of software patents, I can say "I'm patenting some non-existent code that might do X" but in the physical world you have to actually submit a blueprint or a working model. The equivalent in the software world would be if you were required to submit source code or a compiled binary instead of a vague thought experiment.

Hardware hacker extraordinares?? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29580969)

Could we stop sucking up to women just because they're a bit techy? All the projects on her site have all been done before, she seems to have repackaged them and made a glitzier site.
Big deal. I've seen Nixie tube clocks and propeller clocks since years, no one ever called going to Radio Shack hardware hacking.
Get back to me when she designs and builds a 20GHz diode sampler and has a lab with time and voltage standards, more than one spectrum analyzer and a boat anchor scope for looking at GHz+ signals.
This is arts and crafts, not hardware hacking.

Under $250 huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29581019)

OBPC (One bedazzler per child)! discount if you buy a telescope to see it with...

Anyone else remember X-Men's Dazzler? (2, Interesting)

mejesster (813444) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581385)

I get a huge kick out of the fact that the name is a likely play on the X-Men hero "Dazzler", who used light to disorient people.

I think these would be great to use against police (2, Interesting)

maillemaker (924053) | more than 4 years ago | (#29581421)

I think these devices would be great to use against riot police by protesters.

I wonder how long before they will be illegal?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...