1. Re #1: I don't see this as an issue. For one thing, they seem to have already figured it out without our help. Also, if the only goal is a one-off "detonate now" sort of trigger, there are much simpler and more obvious ways than building this kind of interface. Wiring to the phone's vibrate motor is one that immediately came to mind.

Posted at 1:09PM on May 28th 2008 by Orv

2. Nicely done. Only problem that I see, is that this is very similar to devices being used to detonate IED's in Afghanistan and Iraq. Whatever your position on the conflicts there are, I personally would be very uncomfortable at the idea of lending technical assistance to those involved with terrorist activities. Just a though.

Posted at 2:08PM on May 28th 2008 by varient6

3. whether or not it is an issue is exactly why I brought the matter up. It is true that "they" seem to have figured it out. not only have "they" figured it out, but "they" have countered the defensive counter-measures used by the military with devices similar to this and others. the larger question however, is whether it is reasonable to ask how the things we make will be used and who will use them. somehow I think Alfred Nobel and Robert Oppenheimer would approve.

Posted at 2:09PM on May 28th 2008 by varient6

4. Oh Geeze! It takes INTENT in order for information to be dangerous. By itself, it is just knowledge.

By your logic, Varient6, we shouldn't be driving cars for fear they can be made into car bombs.

Posted at 4:00PM on May 28th 2008 by Alexander

5. Ethics and logic are entirely compatible. In fact, is is logical to be ethical. This device is not an example of "new" knowledge. Nor is it dangerous in and of itself; but it's possible misuse is entirely foreseeable. I saw it, therefore it is foreseeable.

It is no secret either that devices like this have consistently been applied for intentionally deadly purposes.

The inventors intent is likely not to cause death and destruction; no more so than White Star line intended death and destruction when it built and launched the SS Titanic.

To the naval engineers I'm sure that coffer dam bulkheads sounded like an idea that would make "unsinkable" ships a reality.

Ooopps!

Posted at 7:23PM on May 28th 2008 by varient6

6. You are implying that by not knowing something, makes you safer. That is not the case.

"Ethics and logic are entirely compatible. In fact, is is logical to be ethical."

Ethics is a personal rationalization. You use your logic to come up with what you rationalize would be a good use of your knowledge. The suidide bombers think it is perfectly logical and ethical to kill the elitist americans--because this is what they know to be true.

"This device is not an example of "new" knowledge. Nor is it dangerous in and of itself; but it's possible misuse is entirely foreseeable. I saw it, therefore it is foreseeable."

Again, your rationalization says that if you can see a misuse of something, then something should be done about it to prevent said misuse. That is simply not possible in the real world. Otherwise, we would not be able to do anything--as anything can become a blunt weapon, when held above the head and brought down swiftly onto a body part.

"It is no secret either that devices like this have consistently been applied for intentionally deadly purposes."

So have cars, buses, women and children, envelopes, packages, rocks, pencils, trees, and just about everything else.

But those objects--just as this design--require SOMEONE to physically use those objects in a way that will harm others. They do nothing by themselves to otherwise harm people.

"The inventors intent is likely not to cause death and destruction; no more so than White Star line intended death and destruction when it built and launched the SS Titanic.

To the naval engineers I'm sure that coffer dam bulkheads sounded like an idea that would make "unsinkable" ships a reality."

Ah, okay. So they didn't foresee the death and destruction then? Oh, right. They didn't know that they would run alongside the iceburg flooding the first ones sending the bow down into the water while the aft of the ship was sent into the sky--to break in half and then come crashing down into the water.

So, by your logic/rationalization, they should have foreseen that the cold water would kill the passengers--a known way to die at the time--and therefore prevented the titanic from sinking by never letting people set foot on an obvious death trap.

I will reiterate: Knowledge is not evil. People have the choice to use knowledge for good or for evil.

Posted at 8:09AM on May 29th 2008 by Alexander