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.
|
There are biological signatures when people are getting excited, angry or generally dangerous. Some of the signs can be read like flushing face, dilated pupil, cold sweat, and changing heart beat and breathing pattern.
I think we can make a device to look for these signatures and detect if there
is hostility around you without direct physical contact with the suspect. Something like directional microphone to pick up breathing pattern or heart beat, air chemical analysis to detect cold sweat and telescopic CCD camera for the visual signs.
It can also work as a covert lie detector.
[link]
|
| |
Seems to me that there are dogs that can serve as a hostility sensor, no? Of course, carrying around a chihuahua and properly interpreting the results could be a pain. |
|
| |
[bristolz] is right, just get a dog, they have this uncanny sense already. And a 140 pound Rottie does wonders for anti-mugging protection, then you don't even have to worry if anyone has hostile intentions. They will keep their distance just fine. |
|
| |
"flashing face, dilated pupil, cold sweat, and changing heart beat and breathing pattern" Sounds like your device would be a heart attack detector, sex detector, and would go off continuously at sporting events. |
|
| |
There will be situations electronics are more appropriated than dogs. Like hostage negotiation, airport security screening or prisoner monitors. |
|
| |
How exactly does one flash a face? |
|
| |
Dogs are better for prisoner monitors for the intimidation factor. Same with airport security, unless it's the automatic stuff hidden from view. |
|
| |
Of course, the whole advantage of an electronic device would be that suspect will not know that you are monitoring them. Carrying lethal weapon in plain view is also deterrent enough but you wouldn't know if someone are hidding something. |
|
| |
I agree. The dog idea was just a lame response on my part. |
|
| |
Debate surrounds which method, covert (your idea) or overt (dogs and guns), is better for detection and deterrence. It usually ends up to be a blend of the two depending on the application. |
|
| |
Your idea is used, to an extent already for interrogations, but would not be practical for public random screening. Too many people in airports are already under stress and it would be very difficult to screen those stressed by being late or whatever and those being stressed by deceptive intentions. |
|
| |
As far as hostage negotiations go, the hostage taker is probably already near or at maximum stress levels and your detector won't do much good. |
|
| |
Prisoner monitoring would be a good application, but civil rights groups would, of course, be adamantly opposed to anything that infringes on the prisoner's rights. |
|
| |
And [bristolz], you are right about the dogs. My pooch as been through advanced training and is a very well mannered and collective beast. But a few times he has 'focused' on an individual and in each case rightfully so. In all three cases the individual meant to harm me. O.K., so one individual was a bear, but the other two were crackheads. |
|
| |
If I'm talking to them, I can usually tell if they are getting upset....if they get dangerous, I've usually caused them to get upset in the first place...so not sure I need any assistance in identifying the angry people. I know who they are...and if I'm causing it, usually have trouble avoiding them... |
|
| |
my dog wouldn't do anything. too friendly. |
|
| |