_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial)
URI Visit Hacker News on the Web
COMMENT PAGE FOR:
URI RuBee
Lio wrote 3 min ago:
> Long ago I wrote about ANT+, for example, a failed personal area
network standard designed mostly around fitness applications.
I didnât know ANT+ was âfailedâ, I use it all the time with my
Garmin products. Itâs cheap and it works better than Bluetooth.
I have ANT+ cadence and heart rate sensors. Lights, camera, Varia radar
and power meter.
Some of that can be done with Bluetooth but realistically not all at
the same time.
Apple refuse to support ANT+ so I need a dongle for my Mac and itâs
the reason I donât have an Apple Watch. No biggie.
drewlesueur wrote 11 min ago:
I like the Univers-like font on this page.
petesergeant wrote 59 min ago:
> the firearms lobby is very influential on police departments, as are
police unions which generally oppose technical accountability measures
A lot of whatâs wrong in surprisingly few words
macleginn wrote 1 hour 57 min ago:
Any idea where the name came from?
DeathArrow wrote 2 hours 25 min ago:
Can someone explain how communication can take place using only
magnetic fields? I thought that communication requires electro magnetic
waves which require an oscillating electro magnetic field.
johncolanduoni wrote 59 min ago:
A changing magnetic field will always induce an electrical field and
vice-versa. Even just moving a magnet with your hand will generate an
electrical field. Near-field effects of an antenna still involve this
interaction.
The key to the resistance of very long wavelengths of EM radiation
(or equivalently, very slowly varying electric/magnetic fields) to
attenuation when traveling through a metal is the nature of the way
metals expel electric fields (they donât generally block magnetic
fields). When you apply a static electric field to a thin conductor,
electrons will be pulled away from one side and toward the other such
that the field inside is zero. However this migration of charges will
actually result in the electric field on the far side of the metal
being nearly the same as the field on the side closer to the source!
If the wavelength of some EM radiation is much longer than a metal
obstacle is thick, the fact that the electric field is excluded from
the interior of the metal wonât matter much. Even if the metal
wasnât there, the electric field strength wouldnât vary much over
that distance, and on the other side of the metal the induced charges
will restore the roughly âcorrectâ field. Since the magnetic
component wonât vary much over that distance either, the fact that
thereâs no varying electric field inside the conductor to reinforce
the magnetic field wonât significantly attenuate it.
If youâre familiar with Faraday cages, this will sound all wrong.
Isnât it long wavelengths they can block, and short wavelengths
they canât? This true when dealing with EM radiation in the
ânormalâ radio bands and higher, but it turns out their ability
to attenuate radiation falls off in the other direction too (once
wavelengths get extremely long). When dealing with EM properties of
materials, there are a huge number of different effects that apply in
different circumstances, and itâs easy to forget one and confuse
yourself.
1116574 wrote 2 hours 5 min ago:
I went into a slight hunt for more knowledge after reading this, and
long story short you need to search NFMI (near field magnetic
induction)[1]. As far as I can see from my limited reading the main
use case of the tech is nfc (near field comm) and true wireless
earbuds.
URI [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-field_magnetic_induction_...
DeathArrow wrote 1 hour 57 min ago:
Thanks, this will be an interesting read.
Antibabelic wrote 3 hours 9 min ago:
Why can't the manufacturers market "smart guns" outside the US? Surely,
the NRA's grip isn't world-spanning.
atemerev wrote 36 min ago:
There are barely any civilian gun markets outside the US. US is
really really unique in their relationship to guns.
setopt wrote 6 min ago:
This. Thereâs many countries that allow civilians firearms (e.g.
Canada and much of Europe), but generally for hunting purposes and
thus more likely to be rifles and shotguns than concealable
handguns.
tonyhart7 wrote 43 min ago:
smart guns is future dystopian
actionfromafar wrote 9 min ago:
regular guns is current dystopian
skinkestek wrote 1 hour 3 min ago:
Because itâs just a bad idea.
Most of the world doesnât need that whole setup because:
- Our cultural baseline around firearms is completely different.
Countries like Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Austria, and
the Czech Republic have plenty of guns at home - and historically, a
lot of them were actual assault rifles, not âlooks-spicyâ
semiautos.
- We treat guns like weapons. They live in safes, not nightstands,
and kids get taught safety early, the same way youâd teach them not
to put a fork in a power supply.
atemerev wrote 33 min ago:
The Swiss do have a lot of guns at home. However, you cannot carry
(or even transport guns that are not discharged). Just take them at
a shooting range - a popular pastime for Swiss people.
xixixao wrote 2 hours 2 min ago:
I see at least two problems with smart guns though:
1. Temper resistance is not temper impossibility
2. If a tag allows tracking, bad actors might track good actors?
aloha2436 wrote 2 hours 42 min ago:
The US is the largest market for firearms, so the NRA can use the
threat of boycotting a manufacturer within the states to prevent the
technology gaining traction elsewhere.
Antibabelic wrote 2 hours 30 min ago:
Aren't there manufacturers that only really target local markets
that could profit from this technology, e.g. in China, ex-USSR or
South America?
anonymous908213 wrote 2 hours 6 min ago:
To profit, they would first have to sell the goods. Who is
actually in the market for a smart gun? Consumers aren't, surely.
There is virtually no upside to your gun tracking you, at your
own expense of buying a more complex piece of tech to boot. So
that leaves something like (apparently) New Jersey where the
government would compel purchases of smart guns because they were
interested in the tracking. But eg. China simply don't allow
citizens to purchase guns period. There may be some application
to applying it to state-owned firearms to track military and
police usage, but deploying that at Chinese scale would be an
extremely expensive endeavour for what appears to be a solution
in search of a problem. Not to mention the biometric lock
concept, if implemented, is introducing an entire new axis of
unreliability to a life-or-death tool.
pabs3 wrote 1 hour 42 min ago:
Gun owners in the US probably wouldn't want their gun to be
used against them in a home invasion, or by their child at a
school. Seems like that could be a large-ish market. Especially
if you can lobby regulators in favor of making it a requirement
for all or some people.
xixixao wrote 2 hours 6 min ago:
I could not locate credible evidence of a major firearm
manufacturer that completely refrains from selling into the U.S.
civilian market. (ChatGPT)
Glock, Koch, Taurus, even Czech Zbrojovka all sell to US.
Kalashnikov canât atm, but also probably doesnât share the
safety concern.
rhinoceraptor wrote 2 hours 56 min ago:
I would imagine that any manufacturer being seen doing so, would face
US consumer boycotts.
jjmarr wrote 5 hours 23 min ago:
> I have at least a few readers for which the sound of a man's voice
saying "government cell phone detected" will elicit a palpable
reaction.
Can this be recreated as an audio clip for jumpscaring former govt
employees?
quamserena wrote 3 hours 49 min ago:
Why not just rip the audio file off? Would make for a funny DC
request
Edit: On second thought this could be an OPSEC problem. Sorry but I
donât know if anyone can help you :(
jjmarr wrote 3 hours 25 min ago:
I bet the tts voice is public and something made by AT&T in the 80s
or 90s.
DIR <- back to front page