Re:A ‘Sonic Attack’ on Diplomats in Cuba? Some Scientists Do...
by AliAdams on Tuesday October 10, 2017 @06:39AM
(#15440738)
Take this as a fairly baseless comment but my reading of analyses around the original incident seemed to be saying that it was closer to microwaves than sonic waves. The side effect of the exposure was that targets had the illusion of hearing sound.
Re:A ‘Sonic Attack’ on Diplomats in Cuba? Some Scientists Do...
by dang on Tuesday October 10, 2017 @11:47AM
(#15442748)
> How about "non-dumb cunts know this is mass hysteria".
If you keep doing this we're going to ban you, therefore please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and clean up your act if you want to keep commenting here. It's not as if we haven't warned you repeatedly.
This has nothing to do with the correct interpretation of mysterious events in Cuba. Assuming you're right, that's worse, since in that case you would be discrediting the truth in addition to your HN commenting style.
Re:A ‘Sonic Attack’ on Diplomats in Cuba? Some Scientists Do...
by scandox on Tuesday October 10, 2017 @08:05AM
(#15441077)
Apart from the calling people names, I actually do think that mass hysteria is the most reasonable explanation for this story, at this time, given the information that has been put in the public domain.
Re:A ‘Sonic Attack’ on Diplomats in Cuba? Some Scientists Do...
by vectorEQ on Tuesday October 10, 2017 @10:58AM
(#15442316)
scientists deal in doubt these days and it gets into nytimes. great. scientific method ftw... this comment might be baseless, but it's about as baseless as the article itself.
i'd like to see for once again that scientists 'prove' something with maticulous research and evidence. not some educated guesses based on theories yet to be fully proven.
“I’d say it’s fairly implausible,” <-- is that the only comment? Why does he say that? Really?
“The data is very slim,” said Timothy Leighton <-- what data? enlighten us?
“If you’re talking about a ray-gun rifle knocking out someone with ultrasound they can’t hear at a hundred meters — that’s not going to happen,” said Dr. Leighton. <-- it's not? Why not? What experiments proved this to be ill effective?
These people have degrees ? Bought at wallmart?
If a mysterious high-tech ultrasound weapon were used, it ought to have been easy to get the evidence while the attack was underway, Dr. Garrett said. Cellphone microphones are often sensitive to ultrasonic sound, he noted, and commonly available iPhone apps could have revealed it. <--- kind of depends on what frequency you are emitting doesnt it?? cellphone frequencies are within a specific band.. do all ultrasonic frequencies influence these? i doubt it!
as usual with these scientists, no reference to any research or sources is given. Superb!
breathe
edit:
somewhat sensible scientist, atleast gives a bit of a broad comment which isn't bad, though it adds nothing of value ofcourse!
“I believe those people got something that hurt them,” said Dr. Qin. “But it could be something in the environment.” The possibilities include toxins, or bacterial or viral infections, that can damage hearing.
yay science "something did something and it had some effect".
Re:A ‘Sonic Attack’ on Diplomats in Cuba? Some Scientists Do...
by dang on Tuesday October 10, 2017 @11:43AM
(#15442712)
> These people have degrees ? Bought at wallmart?
The trouble with comments like this is not that you're wrong—there's a chance you're right and really do know better than the people you're criticizing. But when you post like this, you make your comment indistinguishable from random internet detritus. In a way it doesn't matter if you're right, because that would only encourage the internet bullshitters to post more, and lord knows there are 99.9+ of them for every 1 of you.
If you keep doing this we're going to ban you, therefore please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and clean up your act if you want to keep commenting here. It's not as if we haven't warned you repeatedly.
This has nothing to do with the correct interpretation of mysterious events in Cuba. Assuming you're right, that's worse, since in that case you would be discrediting the truth in addition to your HN commenting style.
Seriously?
“I’d say it’s fairly implausible,” <-- is that the only comment? Why does he say that? Really?
“The data is very slim,” said Timothy Leighton <-- what data? enlighten us?
“If you’re talking about a ray-gun rifle knocking out someone with ultrasound they can’t hear at a hundred meters — that’s not going to happen,” said Dr. Leighton. <-- it's not? Why not? What experiments proved this to be ill effective?
These people have degrees ? Bought at wallmart?
If a mysterious high-tech ultrasound weapon were used, it ought to have been easy to get the evidence while the attack was underway, Dr. Garrett said. Cellphone microphones are often sensitive to ultrasonic sound, he noted, and commonly available iPhone apps could have revealed it. <--- kind of depends on what frequency you are emitting doesnt it?? cellphone frequencies are within a specific band.. do all ultrasonic frequencies influence these? i doubt it!
as usual with these scientists, no reference to any research or sources is given. Superb!
breathe
edit: somewhat sensible scientist, atleast gives a bit of a broad comment which isn't bad, though it adds nothing of value ofcourse!
“I believe those people got something that hurt them,” said Dr. Qin. “But it could be something in the environment.” The possibilities include toxins, or bacterial or viral infections, that can damage hearing.
yay science "something did something and it had some effect".
The trouble with comments like this is not that you're wrong—there's a chance you're right and really do know better than the people you're criticizing. But when you post like this, you make your comment indistinguishable from random internet detritus. In a way it doesn't matter if you're right, because that would only encourage the internet bullshitters to post more, and lord knows there are 99.9+ of them for every 1 of you.