h a l f b a k e r yStill more entertaining than cricket.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Earascope
listen to the grass grow on the other side of the park, and people talking about it | |
Earascope works like one of those coin activated telescope/binocular devices, except this one features a high-powered directional microphone. (sometimes referred to as a shotgun microphone)
Once your coin drops, the machine turns on for a fixed duration and you can point its microphone to listen to
someone's conversation at a considerable range.
You must of course plug your own headphones into the standard mini-jack connection, but that's about it.
Earascope not responsible for any unfortunate outcomes that may occur as a consequence of unwarranted eavesdropping on private conversations, or accidental pointing at passing aircraft.
What's a PhD good for
http://www.iep.utm....fallacy/#Post%20Hoc
[mouseposture, Jun 19 2010]
[link]
|
| |
It has to be shaped like a large ear trumpet though. |
|
| |
//someone's conversation// ahhhh..... I was imagining more along the lines of listening to birds and stuff... [ ]; bun apart from that. |
|
| |
This is a piece of inspired thinking, and would make a
fortune.
[+] |
|
| |
//would make a fortune// that would depend largely on whose conversations you were listening to. |
|
| |
Max, how are you so sure? This could easily flop on
grounds that people really just don't care about what
strangers are saying. People pay to watch, not listen. I
suspect listening actually takes more energy. I
like the idea, but not as much as you I guess. Anyways, we
don't differentiate between degrees of goodness here.
Zero and ones and so forth. Here's a One, Xen. [+] |
|
| |
//Max, how are you so sure?// |
|
| |
Several things. First, you pay the money before you get to
listen. Second, it doesn't matter what you hear - it's the fact
of being able to hear something private. Third, I have a
piece of paper somewhere that says I'm always right. |
|
| |
PhDs are good for only two things: getting laid and their
nice, slow paper burn. |
|
| |
//PhDs are good for ... getting laid// Wait, what? |
|
| |
Smart is the new sexy, man where have you been?! |
|
| |
Xenzag, this is a great idea. [+] It would make a great piece of playground equipment even without the coin-op feature. Put two of them on opposite ends of a playground, aimed at each other, and kids would definitely have fun being able to whisper to each other despite the distance. I've seen this in a kids museum and it was popular. |
|
| |
EDIT: On second read -- my initial speed-read didn't pick up that this was an electrified listening device, hence the above incongruence. Simple parabolic dishes aimed at each other was my erroneous vision... |
|
| |
I have a PhD and subsequently got laid, and I even have the resulting kid to prove it. And, :) just found out another kid is on the way. |
|
| |
See, mouse!?... Oh, CONGRATS, [swimswim]! Gonna make
'bakers
out of them?? |
|
| |
//Gonna make 'bakers out of them??// |
|
| |
I think it is somehow inevitable. |
|
| |
Mazel tov, [swimswim] <link> |
|
| |
'ts good.
Congrats swimswim. |
|
| |
//Deluded is the new smart// Obamaed is the new dumb |
|
| |
Can we add a regular eyeoscope to the device as
well? That way, we get the benefit of both senses. |
|
| |
On the privacy issue - is it any more of an
intrusion to listen in on someone than it is to
watch them from a distance? Cumulatively of
course, it is more of an invasion if you do both -
fair enough - but which is worse, watching or
hearing? And does it matter if the people you are surveilling are outside, in public? Is it more a case
of what their expectations of privacy might be?
And if invasion of privacy is based on the
subjective view of the person who's privacy is
being invaded, how can we measure their
subjective expectation? So instead, perhaps we
can publish and standardise what people might be
able to expect. |
|
| |
And what about the other senses? Would it be a
privacy issue to smell someone from a distance, or
to feel them? |
|
| |
Ah yes... remote haptics. Now that would require something like a pressure sensitive park bench, where you could feel someone's bum from a remote location. |
|
| |
I guess extending your senses beyond their normal
range will always unsettle people, especially when
that attention is direct at them. |
|
| |
The idea of ranged touch, often mulled over by my
humble self when writing for superhuman role-playing
games, is a rather pithy ethical question. A key issue
with this is would such a means include feedback? |
|
| |
// On the privacy issue - is it any more of an intrusion to listen in on someone than it is to watch them from a distance? |
|
| |
In a word, yes. It's all about expectations. We expect to be seen while in public, even by people we're not aware of; we don't expect to be heard, unless we shout. So, for example, covertly taking pictures of someone in a public location is generally legal, but covertly recording them isn't. (Details vary with location and use of the recordings.) |
|
| |
So, I'm pretty sure this would be illegal, unless prominent warnings are posted at the destination of the eavesdropping. But I'd still like this a lot! |
|
| |
//, covertly taking pictures of someone in a public location is
generally legal, but covertly recording them isn't.// |
|
| |
Bugger. You're sure it's that way round? |
|
| |
I think recording conversations might be illegal, but listening using an enhancing device would be hard to frame in law. I mean a rolled up newspaper can focus and amplify sound. |
|
| |
What about lip-reading through a telescope? |
|
| |
What about sonar through this device? |
|
| |
But you could film their lips moving through a telescopic lens, that would stand up in court surely? |
|
| |
It would be open to interpretation, so it would not stand. |
|
| |
Lip reading evidence is not actually inadmissible, in either
the US or the UK, but "The decision is likely to be highly fact
sensitive ... A judge may well rule on the voir dire that any
lip-reading evidence proffered should not be admitted
before the jury." (Keane, 2008) |
|
| |
So, would Hal have a conspiracy case against Bowman and
Poole? |
|
| |