Silence Gun: Strange weapon of the future immediately quiets you...

Ron Czapala · 2012-03-02 07:37

Silence Gun: Strange weapon of the future immediately quiets you, whether you like it or not

The gun operates based on the concept of delayed auditory feedback.

Full article here: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/weird-gun-future-attacks-words-not-people-193050045.html

ElectricAye · 2012-03-02 07:57

Can you overcome this jamming mechanism by speaking very slowly? In that case, the jammer would provide you with a free megaphone, I would think.
Said fast or slow, some things still ring true around the world.

Weeeeeee....

thuuuuuuu.....

peeeeeee....

pullllllllll.........

potatohead · 2012-03-02 08:06

Yes.

Feedback systems can be defeated with discipline and concentration on the part of the speaker. Doing it is very difficult though. Try it with headphones, or an old telephone handset. OMSI, here in Portland, had a feedback system setup that way. It was a lot of fun! You could pick up the handset and say what you wanted to say, make noises, or read the sample text they provided. There was a dial where you could change the delay, and another for the volume. Great stuff for a kid to play with.

The skill needed to do this happens to be a similar "talk over the other person" skill. It's related in that the tension created by our impulse to understand the other, while also talking causes a breakdown, or interruption. Intense fixation on just speech punches through. Dealing with this gun would be a very similar thing. Speaking slowly and loudly enough to impact your own hearing helps considerably, though it isn't recommended without practice first, or one will wake up hoarse in the morning.

Seems to me, raising a hand in the direction of the gun would alter it's reception of one's voice, leading to a much less effective feedback.

I also wonder about a coordinated set of speakers. When the gun is applied, several people in the room raise the noise floor with a hiss, or something. Obviously, speaking in unison works too, but would require pre-planned speech.

Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) · 2012-03-02 08:08

'Interesting concept and probably easy to replicate with a Propeller.

Ron, it's not a good idea to copy an entire article verbatim, though, even when properly cited. That's a copyright violation. Just the link would've been sufficient.

-Phil

Dave Hein · 2012-03-02 08:12

You could just cover your ears.

potatohead · 2012-03-02 08:14

Yep.

Or better yet, have a hand-held trigger to control incoming sound. A little practice speaking while using attenuators on one's own ears would work out very nicely.

mindrobots · 2012-03-02 08:16

How about anti-noise canceling headphones?

The speaker, who doesn't want to be silenced wears headphones which 1) isolate their hearing from ambient noise completely, so clarity of thought and delivery of speech can be maintained *OR* 2) the headphones have microphones to collect ambient sound and identify the delayed voice feedback as part of the ambient noise (since they have the ability to sample the original speech also) and mask it out of the ambient sounds.

...and since when isn't "messing with someone's head" physical harm???

On a less serious note, perhaps the device could be marketed as a form of marital aid?

Oldbitcollector (Jeff) · 2012-03-02 08:16

I'd have to have some proof on this one..

This sounds as strangely bogus as the infamous "brown note" tone.

OBC

ElectricAye · 2012-03-02 08:20

Yeah, it looks like something dictators and billionaires would buy to show their friends, but in reality the hackers would have a field day with it. Anytime you have such a delayed feedback, such a system is just begging to be abused. It might even spawn a whole new kind of music for crowds of protesters to party to.

Dave Hein · 2012-03-02 08:24

I wonder if it would work on people that announce at sporting events. They routounely hear their voice delayed by .2 to .5 seconds.

Ron Czapala · 2012-03-02 08:31

Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) wrote: »

Ron, it's not a good idea to copy an entire article verbatim, though, even when properly cited. That's a copyright violation. Just the link would've been sufficient.

-Phil

There are laws pertaining to "Fair Use" that covers copyright material in the Public Domain but from the first link below:

Although the law does provide guidelines for making this assessment, determining fair use is not always easy since it is a grey area of the law. Consequently, courts make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/copyright/copyright-using/fair-use.html

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/17/1/107

potatohead · 2012-03-02 08:33

You will see them wearing headsets quite often. .5 seconds is long enough to be discarded. .2 is rough though. I remember .1 being a real friction point. Was a long time ago that I played with this. (using the device above)

I've done that announcing in the past. Headsets help where the delay is in the ugly spot. Really short delays are as ok as longer ones are. There is a specific window of time where it breaks down for most people, who have not attempted to deal with it otherwise.

To me, the device looks conceptual. I'll bet it works under basic, controlled conditions, but it would not be so effective in many cases.

Martin_H · 2012-03-02 08:45

I think the audio conferencing at my job uses this technology. I know from personal experience that it works initially, but you can train yourself to ignore the delayed sound of your own voice

Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) · 2012-03-02 09:21

Ron,

That article is not in the public domain. At the bottom of the page, there appear these two notices:

Also, fair use provides for short quotations, not wholesale copying. Your post could subject Parallax to a DMCA takedown notice and further legal action. As members of the Parallax Forum, we need to be good netizens and not subject our host to liability for the stuff we post here. Please do the right thing and edit your post.

Thanks,
-Phil

Ron Czapala · 2012-03-02 09:33

Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) wrote: »

Ron,

That article is not in the public domain. At the bottom of the page, there appear these two notices:
Copyright 2012 Today in Tech
Copyright © 2012 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

Also, fair use provides for short quotations, not wholesale copying. Your post could subject Parallax to a DMCA takedown notice and further legal action. As members of the Parallax Forum, we need to be good netizens and not subject our host to liability for the stuff we post here. Please do the right thing and edit your post.

Thanks,
-Phil

I used to have thousands of articles acrhived as PDFs and indexed on one of my web sites, but found out that newspapers, in particular, were being more aggressive on copyright infringement, so I removed them. Who needs the hassle?

I am not a lawyer but I doubt that Parallax would be liable for what a forum member posts, but you are right - there is no reason to risk a problem.

I will truncate the original post.

Thanks,
Ron

Duane Degn · 2012-03-02 09:44

Ron Czapala wrote: »

There are laws pertaining to "Fair Use" that covers copyright material in the Public Domain but from the first link below:

http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/copyright/copyright-using/fair-use.html

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/17/1/107

Ron,

I've got to agree with Phil on this one. From the first link:

These uses do not grant the right to use the copyrighted work in its entirety. Rather, the use should be limited to quoting, excerpting, summarizing, and making educational copies of the material.

I also agree a person could make one of these with a Propeller. This reminds me of the thread where someone wanted to delay a paging system so there wouldn't be feedback. I don't know off the top of my head how much delay the Prop could handle without some sort of external memory. I'd think 0.2 seconds might be doable without external memory if the quality of was low, but don't quote me on that (unless covered by "fair-use"

(oh, I crack myself up sometimes)).

Edit: I hadn't seen Ron's last post when I posted the above.

xanadu · 2012-03-02 10:19

Ever since the advent of cheesy VoIP on cheesy DSL I have gotten extremely well at talking with a few different types of echo. In fact I bet I can beat this thing no problem

Ron Czapala · 2012-03-02 10:35

xanadu wrote: »

Ever since the advent of cheesy VoIP on cheesy DSL I have gotten extremely well at talking with a few different types of echo. In fact I bet I can beat this thing no problem

I used to experience an echo when I had Vonage and it was very disconcerting but I didn't try to overcome it, I just switched phone service providers...

I think the quality of the directional microphone and speakers would make a big difference on how well this work (and of course, distance from the subject, background noise, etc)

skylight · 2012-03-02 13:26

I only suggested that it could be the answer to my dreams, and then my missus hit me!!

Silence Gun: Strange weapon of the future immediately quiets you...

Comments