NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1051114/asp/atleisure/story_5473857.asp

Apparently a man has invented a dog whistle type device that can be heard by people under 20 but rarely for older people. The piont is to deter loitering by youths that affects business.

What do you think? Is it discrimination to broadcast a signal that annoys only certain people? It is important to note that the noise is not deafening just annoying and only really has an effect on teenagers who would stand under the device for an extended amount of time. If you go directly into the store or leave the area you don't hear it anymore.

I think this is definately walking the discrimination line. At the same time I can understand the need for it since the law can do almost nothing to deter minors who insist on loitering outside a store everyday.

*loiters*

It sounds like BS because how can it affect people under twenty but not people over twenty? What physical difference does it expoit?:confused:

Younger people can hear higher frequencies because their ears haven't been damaged as much - I don't know the details. Obviously, there isn't a clear cutoff at age 20, and people who have had different levels of high-decibal noise exposure will experience different different effects, but generally young people will hear the annoying buzzing and old people won't.

Trans-human']It sounds like BS because how can it affect people under twenty but not people over twenty? What physical difference does it expoit?:confused:

I think I remember reading that children and teenagers, due to smaller ear bones etc, are able to hear sounds of a slightly higher pitch than would be heard by an adult. I definately remember hearing things like faint buzzing coming from electronics as a child that I don't do now (as an 18 year old).

I'm afraid to me, this sounds like it would be noise pollution and furthermore that if this kind of sound was used repeatedly it might harm the ears of those who CAN hear it - possibly to the point whereby they wouldn't lose the ability to hear the whistle anymore.

Karidnosen']I'm afraid to me, this sounds like it would be noise pollution and furthermore that if this kind of sound was used repeatedly it might harm the ears of those who CAN hear it - possibly to the point whereby they wouldn't lose the ability to hear the whistle anymore.

:rolleyes: The high-pitched noise is going to damage you in such a way that it prevent you from losing the ability to hear said high-pitched noise? Its noise pollution and they're human pollution. 3 cheers to the guy who invented it.

Trans-human']It sounds like BS because how can it affect people under twenty but not people over twenty? What physical difference does it expoit?:confused:

Look it up and stop being so fucking ignorant and lazy. It is a real invention that is already starting to be used in the UK.

It works because the frequency range of the human ear changes with age. If you want to look that up as well go ahead, but you won't.

Karidnosen']I'm afraid to me, this sounds like it would be noise pollution and furthermore that if this kind of sound was used repeatedly it might harm the ears of those who CAN hear it - possibly to the point whereby they wouldn't lose the ability to hear the whistle anymore.

It isn't loud enough to damage your ears. Just as listening to normal noise doesn't damage your ears.

They will lose the ability to hear it in just a few years, thus the point of the device.

It is only noise pollution for people who can't vote. Think about that one.

first it will be the whistles, then the electric collars

:rolleyes: The high-pitched noise is going to damage you in such a way that it prevent you from losing the ability to hear said high-pitched noise? Its noise pollution and they're human pollution. 3 cheers to the guy who invented it.

Pah there is nothing illegal about standing.

Pah there is nothing illegal about standing.

...loitering(aka standing) on property you don't own, including sidewalks, is illegal. Ever heard of picket lines? They walk in a circle to avoid loitering and thus find a loophole in the law. Standing is illegal.

...loitering(aka standing) on property you don't own, including sidewalks, is illegal. Ever heard of picket lines? They walk in a circle to avoid loitering and thus find a loophole in the law. Standing is illegal.

I stand on sidewalks a lot..... occasionaly I'm tired, occasionaly I'm waiting for a bus.... I havn't been arrested yet. Also these devices are crap, I refuse to shop in a store which is activly trying to drive me away.

:rolleyes: The high-pitched noise is going to damage you in such a way that it prevent you from losing the ability to hear said high-pitched noise? Its noise pollution and they're human pollution. 3 cheers to the guy who invented it.
Hey ****-bag, if I saw you loitering in front of a store I owned I wouldn't use a dog whistle, I'd beat you with a fucking newspaper. Call me human pollution? I say screw the guy who invented it and they had better not start using it in the US.

...loitering(aka standing) on property you don't own, including sidewalks, is illegal. Ever heard of picket lines? They walk in a circle to avoid loitering and thus find a loophole in the law. Standing is illegal.

Aren't sidewalks public property?

I stand on sidewalks a lot..... occasionaly I'm tired, occasionaly I'm waiting for a bus.... I havn't been arrested yet. Also these devices are crap, I refuse to shop in a store which is activly trying to drive me away.

And? You said it wasn't illegal. You are wrong. If you want to give me any other useless anecdotes about what you do during your day go ahead. Perhaps what design your dinner plates have on them? Maybe you could tell me if you like cats or dogs better? Loitering is illegal and if someone reports you and you stay there you get removed by the police. Stating all the times you have stood around can't rewrite law, sorry to intrude on your retardation.

What of teenagers that work in these stores? A very large percentage of retail staff are teenagers.

Also, What of parents who must leave their young children unsupervised as a result of not being able to take them shopping?

Not all teenagers and children are criminals. This is incredibly stupid.

And? You said it wasn't illegal. You are wrong. If you want to give me any other useless anecdotes about what you do during your day go ahead. Perhaps what design your dinner plates have on them? Maybe you could tell me if you like cats or dogs better? Loitering is illegal and if someone reports you and you stay there you get removed by the police. Stating all the times you have stood around can't rewrite law, sorry to intrude on your retardation.

You're a very angry man/woman.... I severly doubt police would arrest me for standing somewhere, especialy as as someone else mentioned sidewalks are public property, also where I come from (New Zealand) we have a little thing called freedom. My dinner plates are plain white and I prefer cats, thanks for asking :) .

I would be in support of the idea, if they managed to find a similar method of annoying old people which didn't effect anyone else. Constantly cluttering up the pavement, getting in everyones way and walking at 0.5mph. Just as irritating as loitering teenagers, and I don't see why people should be given preferential treatment for being lucky enough to have had a long life.

Hey ****-bag, if I saw you loitering in front of a store I owned I wouldn't use a dog whistle, I'd beat you with a fucking newspaper. Call me human pollution? I say screw the guy who invented it and they had better not start using it in the US.


Haha, you acctually have laws against standing!? omg what a sick country... :p

And? You said it wasn't illegal. You are wrong. If you want to give me any other useless anecdotes about what you do during your day go ahead. Perhaps what design your dinner plates have on them? Maybe you could tell me if you like cats or dogs better? Loitering is illegal and if someone reports you and you stay there you get removed by the police. Stating all the times you have stood around can't rewrite law, sorry to intrude on your retardation.

Who's really the retard? the guy who accept a stupid law no mather what or someone who's bringing arguments as to show how f-ed up the law is?

The mental age of some of the people posting here is fast becoming apparent.

But on topic, wasn't the person who designed this sort of thing in a neighbourhood who had problems with teenage gangs who harrassed customers and vandalized stuff outside stores? Neccessity being the mother of invention, I can see some cases where this sort of thing could be handy.

You're a very angry man/woman.... I severly doubt police would arrest me for standing somewhere, especialy as as someone else mentioned sidewalks are public property, also where I come from (New Zealand) we have a little thing called freedom. My dinner plates are plain white and I prefer cats, thanks for asking :) .

Oh contraire my friend I am not angry at all. You gave me a cocky response and got one back (to my enjoyment:D ). If you really want to insist loitering is indeed legal why don't you look up the law or if you don't care enough to do that than you might as well assume those who do know the laws are right. I dont live in New Zealand perhaps it isn't a law there(which I highly doubt). You are right about one thing, police don't arrest you for loitering (they usually tell you to leave if you are there long enough to cause a problem and arrest you for refusing). That is the point of the device, the laws apply even less for minors and it is unrealistic they would actually be used against them. It doesn't change the law.

PS - I mentioned they were public property. It would be tresspassing if it was in your yard. You don't have the right to do whatever you want on public property, it's use is a priviledge.

Oh contraire my friend I am not angry at all. You gave me a cocky response and got one back (to my enjoyment:D ). If you really want to insist loitering is indeed legal why don't you look up the law or if you don't care enough to do that than you might as well assume those who do know the laws are right. I dont live in New Zealand perhaps it isn't a law there(which I highly doubt). You are right about one thing, police don't arrest you for loitering (they usually tell you to leave if you are there long enough to cause a problem and arrest you for refusing). That is the point of the device, the laws apply even less for minors and it is unrealistic they would actually be used against them. It doesn't change the law.

PS - I mentioned they were public property. It would be tresspassing if it was in your yard. You don't have the right to do whatever you want on public property, it's use is a priviledge.

Loitering is generally only illegal if a curfew is imposed for whatever reason, or if it's coupled with other misdemeanours (begging, public intoxication, shouting abuse at people). Police can't arrest you for waiting somewhere.

Who's really the retard? the guy who accept a stupid law no mather what or someone who's bringing arguments as to show how f-ed up the law is?

A: He didn't raise an argument he just said he stands around.

B: The laws have valid application and aren't strong enough to really cause any problems unless you are looking for a confrontation with police.

Many countries have loitering laws, probably yours as well. You should check before you make foolish statements.

This is a great invention, I hope they start using it on the U.S., imagine going to a few stores without having skateboarders almost run you down and small herds of angst-filled-teenagers blocking the sidewalks, or better yet, a small microchip that shocks the young rabble if they get too close to places like liquor stores, adult theaters, gun shops, etc.

Wonder how they could adapt the mosquito to a mall, it could work by having it placed in the center aisles at a small range, it could have a secondary effect, as the teens can't stand the noise they would have to walk in constantly into stores possibly having them take a look at the merchandise and buying things... nah... they'd probably troll every single store over and over again...

But on topic, wasn't the person who designed this sort of thing in a neighbourhood who had problems with teenage gangs who harrassed customers and vandalized stuff outside stores? Neccessity being the mother of invention, I can see some cases where this sort of thing could be handy.

I understand why some people would think its good.
But consumerism drives the US economy, and if I'm not mistaken (which I may be) teenagers spend more money than any other age group. Why would you try to drive us away from your stores?

As for the gangs, this is like mowing a weed rather than pulling it up at its roots. If you want to get rid of gangs, make it so that kids don't need them.

Personally, I would boycot any store or chain that used such a device, and I'd get all my friends to, as well. This is ridiculous.

Hey ****-bag, if I saw you loitering in front of a store I owned I wouldn't use a dog whistle, I'd beat you with a fucking newspaper. Call me human pollution? I say screw the guy who invented it and they had better not start using it in the US.

Yes I call anyone who sits on their ass in front of a store with no purpose but to sit around and on occasion take fun in annoying people human pollution. If you happen to fit that bill, to bad for you. There is a reason why loitering is illegal, even if unenforced.

I think you Punks should count yourselves lucky that they aren't suggesting Batons.

Hey, this could even work against protestors! Imagine a company buys some acres of land when suddenly a deranged, misguided youth scrambles onto a tree in protest against deforestation (or some other piddly crap), Since the land is now the property of the company they can install some of these devices, kinda like the tactics used against Noriega.

Hey, this could even work against protestors! Imagine a company buys some acres of land when suddenly a deranged, misguided youth scrambles onto a tree in protest against deforestation (or some other piddly crap), Since the land is now the property of the company they can install some of these devices, kinda like the tactics used against Noriega.
I heard they used high pitched noise cannons against Pirates of the coast of Africa.

I heard they used high pitched noise cannons against Pirates of the coast of Africa.

There was an article not too long ago about some kind of high pitched frequency device which had a very narrow field of effect and good range that could be used to disorient people. Although if memory serves its still experimental.

There was an article not too long ago about some kind of high pitched frequency device which had a very narrow field of effect and good range that could be used to disorient people. Although if memory serves its still experimental.
Why disorient people, when you can use the brown note?

Armies of soldiers running around screaming their heads off thanks to diahrreha.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1051114/asp/atleisure/story_5473857.asp

Apparently a man has invented a dog whistle type device that can be heard by people under 20 but rarely for older people. The piont is to deter loitering by youths that affects business.

What do you think? Is it discrimination to broadcast a signal that annoys only certain people? It is important to note that the noise is not deafening just annoying and only really has an effect on teenagers who would stand under the device for an extended amount of time. If you go directly into the store or leave the area you don't hear it anymore.

I think this is definately walking the discrimination line. At the same time I can understand the need for it since the law can do almost nothing to deter minors who insist on loitering outside a store everyday.

Of course it is discrimination, what if a sixteen year-old goes to the store to do his or his parents shopping? They couldn't do that because of the sound. Using this thinf is like saying: we don't want people under 20 near our stores
Damned be the inventor of this product

Of course it is discrimination, what if a sixteen year-old goes to the store to do his or his parents shopping? They couldn't do that because of the sound. Using this thinf is like saying: we don't want people under 20 near our stores
Damned be the inventor of this product

This device is meant to affect teens over a period of time, so it wouldn't affect that 16-year-old unless he spends a good amount of time OUTSIDE the store.

I think you Punks should count yourselves lucky that they aren't suggesting Batons.

You got a problem with punks? *raises his mohawk*

Oh and off topic: what the hell does 'loitering' mean? is it standing around, or what?

...loitering(aka standing) on property you don't own, including sidewalks, is illegal. Ever heard of picket lines? They walk in a circle to avoid loitering and thus find a loophole in the law. Standing is illegal.
no tresspasing is legal so therefor so is loitering

Trans-human']Aren't sidewalks public property?
No. They are only for non-loitering pedestrians. Now get the hell offa that street corner young'un, or I'll chase after ye...Oh my bunions...

Oh contraire my friend I am not angry at all. You gave me a cocky response and got one back (to my enjoyment:D ). If you really want to insist loitering is indeed legal why don't you look up the law or if you don't care enough to do that than you might as well assume those who do know the laws are right. I dont live in New Zealand perhaps it isn't a law there(which I highly doubt). You are right about one thing, police don't arrest you for loitering (they usually tell you to leave if you are there long enough to cause a problem and arrest you for refusing). That is the point of the device, the laws apply even less for minors and it is unrealistic they would actually be used against them. It doesn't change the law.

PS - I mentioned they were public property. It would be tresspassing if it was in your yard. You don't have the right to do whatever you want on public property, it's use is a priviledge.

As far as I know, it isn't actually loitering if you have a certain amount of money in your pockets - I believe it's commonly ten pounds/euros/dollars. I know this is/was the case in Ireland and at least one US state, possibly Nevada.

As far as I know, it isn't actually loitering if you have a certain amount of money in your pockets - I believe it's commonly ten pounds/euros/dollars. I know this is/was the case in Ireland and at least one US state, possibly Nevada.

WTF? that law was ablished in the sixties in Belgium

in britain we don't have any laws against annoying people till they go away

now whats gonna happen is we have to invent a method of preventing people over 20 from getting into certain places......

I think this is the most moronic and sickest nazi-ideo I've ever seen. Instead the initiator should be hung on one of these "dog-line-holders" at shopping malls :P

in britain we don't have any laws against annoying people till they go away

now whats gonna happen is we have to invent a method of preventing people over 20 from getting into certain places......

What about ASBO ? Isn't that exactly the same ?

ASBO!? Thats another great idea that could be implemented in the U.S. against most of these loitering punks (well, at least those that are abusive to customers/store owners), all in all I say that when it comes to teenagers its "Guilty until proven innocent"

read the article people! 'it hurts my teeth' wtf!!! this thing isn't just a minor annoyance, i don't want to be delibarately pissed off by a noise just because i chose to wait for someone outside a particular shop. besides it will most likely damage 'brand loyalty' in young people, who are a huge market. this is very likely to take more business away from the shops that use it than it will encourage.

Trans-human']It sounds like BS because how can it affect people under twenty but not people over twenty? What physical difference does it expoit?:confused:

Young people are able to hear higher piched sounds than older people. As We age we loose the ability to hear higher piched sounds. It is really actually very interesting.
Honestly if it is used were it should be used then it isn't discrimination. But if it is abused then it is.

I definately remember hearing things like faint buzzing coming from electronics as a child that I don't do now (as an 18 year old).
I'm 22 and can still hear buzzing from most electrical equipment. It's strange because I can walk into our house and instantly tell if anyone's home.

Look it up and stop being so fucking ignorant and lazy. It is a real invention that is already starting to be used in the UK.
In the UK, eh? I will hunt them down with my acute hearing and then destory them.

So it's a device meant to annoy a group of people who, according to a recent study i read about in the newspaper, are incapable of making rational decisions? Anger, unrational, it sounds like a perfect environment for rioting in.

(hops on a plane to the UK.)

Been discussed before in the forums

But I hope people vote with their money on this situation ... I will NOT shop in a place that makes me uncomfortable

The inherent flaw is that it will not affect your average hobo.

Being a teenager myself I'd love to experiance what its like it actually sounds interesting. Anyone else been thinking that or do I just sound masocistic :confused:

Hey ****-bag, if I saw you loitering in front of a store I owned I wouldn't use a dog whistle, I'd beat you with a fucking newspaper. Call me human pollution? I say screw the guy who invented it and they had better not start using it in the US.Continuing Revolution: Official Warning - Flaming and threatening.

iForumban - 3 days.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

Hmmm... I'm not sure I like this. I can still hear the whistling of capacitors in electronics (I'm 31) and I don't look forward to a device being employed that emulates such effects. I do think store owners should be allowed to deter loitering. It often affects their business. As far as descrimination is concerned, store owners often have signs that disallow more than a certain number of minors in their store at any given time. This type of discrimination has been occurring for years.

As far as I know, it isn't actually loitering if you have a certain amount of money in your pockets - I believe it's commonly ten pounds/euros/dollars. I know this is/was the case in Ireland and at least one US state, possibly Nevada.

You're thinking of vagrancy.

its already been done. in wales, no less :)

all in all I say that when it comes to teenagers its "Guilty until proven innocent"

This is a dangerous and offensive line of thought. Just because we are less than 20 years old doesn't mean we deserve lesser rights than anyone else. It doesn't mean we are gang members or shoplifters either, or stupid for that matter.

This is a dangerous and offensive line of thought. Just because we are less than 20 years old doesn't mean we deserve lesser rights than anyone else. It doesn't mean we are gang members or shoplifters either, or stupid for that matter.

C'mon, its not dangerous nor is it offensive, I don't believe teenagers should have lesser rights, I just believe they should have stricter rules/laws, people go through a hectic phase during their teens, they become defiant, anti-social (in most cases) they have this notion that they are right and everyone else is wrong, this is a time where they need guidance and structure. The main problem is that many countries have been softened by whiners that cry "human rights" againsts every little policy that promotes some form of control, which is also why there is such a huge inflow of drugs in virtually all U.S. prisions.

C'mon, its not dangerous nor is it offensive, I don't believe teenagers should have lesser rights, I just believe they should have stricter rules/laws, people go through a hectic phase during their teens, they become defiant, anti-social (in most cases) they have this notion that they are right and everyone else is wrong, this is a time where they need guidance and structure. The main problem is that many countries have been softened by whiners that cry "human rights" againsts every little policy that promotes some form of control, which is also why there is such a huge inflow of drugs in virtually all U.S. prisions.

Don't you feel that you're being pretty anti-social by calling teenagers 'guilty until proven innocent'? And isn't that an arrogant attitude which assumes that you are 'always right' and that teenagers are wrong?

You are an arrogant fool for looking down on those younger than you while being blind to your own hypocrisy.

You're thinking of vagrancy.
Ah. That's right. I think it's still applicable for loitering in Ireland though - I could be wrong, and getting that confused with vagrancy too, it's something I can't really remember.

Oh, and Me = Hugging Randomlittleisland

Continuing Revolution: Official Warning - Flaming and threatening.

iForumban - 3 days.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator
I thought it was hilarious.

What is it with people over 30? I think they honestly forget that they were ever teenagers. I'm 19 now, but what about kids like me who would've wanted to patronise a store with one of these devices and it drives me away, making them lose business? You know, those kids that old folks think don't exist: decent people who don't do stupid shit. Nice job, buddy, you can't think past the end of your nose. Idiots.

I think I remember reading that children and teenagers, due to smaller ear bones etc, are able to hear sounds of a slightly higher pitch than would be heard by an adult. I definately remember hearing things like faint buzzing coming from electronics as a child that I don't do now (as an 18 year old).

This is why people use the same sing-song high-pitched squealy voice when talking to infants all over the world. Even cultures that have been in isolation for, essentially, forever. Babies respond better to high-pitched squeals. The more you grow, the lower the pitch that you can hear.

C'mon, its not dangerous nor is it offensive, I don't believe teenagers should have lesser rights, I just believe they should have stricter rules/laws, people go through a hectic phase during their teens, they become defiant, anti-social (in most cases) they have this notion that they are right and everyone else is wrong, this is a time where they need guidance and structure. The main problem is that many countries have been softened by whiners that cry "human rights" againsts every little policy that promotes some form of control, which is also why there is such a huge inflow of drugs in virtually all U.S. prisions.

Teenagers should be punished along the same lines as adults for crimes they commit. However, they should never be assumed to be criminals, and should not be discriminated against, not by people and not by use of a device. Also your assumption that most people become antisocial in there teens is stupid. I am a teenager and yes there are some idiots but most of us are decent people.

This is ridiculous! Just because I'm under 20 doesn't automatically make me a criminal. Sad to say it, but I'm a total goody-goody when it comes to rules. (Except those involving doodling in notebooks...and on your backpack...and your shoes...and your skin...:P whatever I'm just crazy.) I would never dream of 'making trouble'. Case by case, people, case by case!

And what if the said teenager just wants to buy something from the shop? Is that a crime? I would also like to agree with the others before me, this is noise pollution, if only to one generation...

And also, I have the ability to hear extremely high frequencies (higher than thsoe who hear the buzz of electronics) very, very loudly. Who's to say I won't still be hearing it when I'm 20? 25? This whole idea is totally ludicrous, and unfair.

This is ridiculous! Just because I'm under 20 doesn't automatically make me a criminal. Sad to say it, but I'm a total goody-goody when it comes to rules. (Except those involving doodling in notebooks...and on your backpack...and your shoes...and your skin...:P whatever I'm just crazy.) I would never dream of 'making trouble'. Case by case, people, case by case!

And what if the said teenager just wants to buy something from the shop? Is that a crime? I would also like to agree with the others before me, this is noise pollution, if only to one generation...

And also, I have the ability to hear extremely high frequencies (higher than thsoe who hear the buzz of electronics) very, very loudly. Who's to say I won't still be hearing it when I'm 20? 25? This whole idea is totally ludicrous, and unfair.
If he isn't to use this, what then can he do about groups of teenagers that hang around outside his shop, smoking, swearing at customers and occasionally nicking things?
This is probably the best, safest way to stop them. The noise is irritating only, not dangerous. It'll just annoy you if you hang wround there. Going in to shop to shop shouldn't matter.
BTW, here's an article on it:
http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/1128teenbuzz-ON.html

"It's loud and squeaky and it just goes through you," said Jodie Evans, 15, who was shopping at the store even though she was supposed to be in school. "It gets inside you."

Miss Evans and a 12-year-old friend who did not want to be interviewed were once part of a regular gang of loiterers, said Gough's father, Philip. "That little girl used to be a right pain, shouting abuse and bad language," he said of the 12-year-old. "Now she'll just come in, do her shopping and go."

Robert Gough, who said he could hear the noise even though he is 34, described it as "a pulsating chirp," the sort you might hear if you suffered from tinnitus. By way of demonstration, he emitted a batlike squeak that was indeed bothersome.

Stapleton, a security consultant whose experience in installing store alarms and the like alerted him to the gravity of the loitering problem, studied other teenage-repellents as part of his research. Some shops, for example, use "zit lamps," which drive teenagers away by casting a blue light onto their spotty skin, accentuating any whiteheads and other blemishes.

Using his children as guinea pigs, he tried a number of different noise and frequency levels, testing a single-toned unit before settling on a pulsating tone which, he said, is more unbearable, and which can be broadcast at 75 decibels, within government auditory-safety limits. "I didn't want to make it hurt," Stapleton said. "It just has to nag at them."

I dont think the stores are worried about the teenagers being criminals. If that was the worry, they would install cameras instead. The worry is that their presence drives off potential customers.

What I meant to say is that they believe they are right ALL THE TIME, most never seem to consider the possibility that older people actually know best (I am not saying older people are right all the time)

"Its just to nag them"

See, thats what I like about this, it's just a nuisance to those who loiter about and should have real effect on actual shoppers, I like this device and can't wait for a variant of it to enter the States, I would prefer if it was like the old days, back in the 1920's-50's when you could got at 'em with a broom, turn a waterhose on them and such :D

There was a scene in a movie (Maybe it was Oliver Twist) where this kid notices an old man accidentaly dropping some coins, the kid picks them up and hands them back to the old man, the old man in turn calls a constable and has the kid locked up for stealing! Aaah.... those were the days...

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1051114/asp/atleisure/story_5473857.asp

Apparently a man has invented a dog whistle type device that can be heard by people under 20 but rarely for older people. The piont is to deter loitering by youths that affects business.

IPods and ear buds will surely undo this physical difference.

I should have awful hearing, but I'm the sort of person who can hear the high pitched squell of a a faulty CRT monitor when others are deaf to it.

:rolleyes: The high-pitched noise is going to damage you in such a way that it prevent you from losing the ability to hear said high-pitched noise? Its noise pollution and they're human pollution. 3 cheers to the guy who invented it.

Actually it's the volume that will damage hearing not the pitch. They are not useing a very high volume. I think it is like background music.

Actually it's the volume that will damage hearing not the pitch. They are not useing a very high volume. I think it is like background music.
Kinda reminds me of the horns that the Coast Guard would set out in Monterey Bay to keep the sea lions away from the docked and anchored boats.

Ok, how about a compromise:

1.) We allow shops to use these devices to produce high pitched noise that annoys teenagers.
2.) In the interests of fairness we allow teenagers to carry stereos around while shopping in any store that use one of the devices, blasting out RnB music at an annoyingly loud volume.

;)

Have i understood this correctly: you have to be 20+ to loiter outside stores?

It reminds me of the Whistle Song... if I could remember the rap artist who made it.

Sounds like big BS :rolleyes:
I'd even say it is clear discrimination.

So, if standing is illegal, what happens to stand up comics?

So, if standing is illegal, what happens to stand up comics?

(Ba dum chh)

I should have awful hearing, but I'm the sort of person who can hear the high pitched squell of a a faulty CRT monitor when others are deaf to it.
Me too
Sucks in IT too ... I deal with so many machines that I catch them all the time

Me too
Sucks in IT too ... I deal with so many machines that I catch them all the time

Yeah, when I used to work on electronics equipment I could usually narrow down the problem by listening the capacitors as they warmed up (as I powered up the system). It used to creep people out. Imagine having someone cover their ears and telling you to shut off the friggin' reciever and remove the RF modulator card because it's bad. I also used to have people smell the cards (because you could smell blown resistors). It's so funny how reluctant people are to use all of their senses in trouble shooting a radio. "You think the card's blown. Pull it and take a look. Why spend an hour troubleshooting to find a problem you can see in thirty seconds?" My dad could do the same things until he was about fifty. He still works on electronics equipment and loves it.

Discrimination? No.

Whether or not the person using it will get punched? Yes.

All they'd have to do is throw on a set of headphones and they wouldn't hear the noise.

Have you heard the music people under twenty (And many that are older) Listen to these days? You prbably have because they listen to it on their iPods and Cd Players and whatnot witht he volume cranked up so loud it sounds more like a stereo than a pair of head phones, I doubt the people this device is targetted against (The kids who loiter) could even hear it, even if they weren't listening to obnoxiously loud music listening to anythign that loud that close to your ear (Espescially the popular earbud headphones) is pretty damaging.

Loitering isn't illegal in the U.S. there are a few very specific circumstances where 'loitering' may be considered a misdemeanor but they all have to do with obstructing movement (To a storefront or over a sidewalk, only applicable if youa re actually physically in the way and not moving, not if you're just leaning against the wall or soemthing) Vagrancy (Storefronts may be entitled to damages if the owner feels that your presence deters customers. mostly for homeless people or gangstesque people that may appear threatening) or innaproproate behaviour (Lewd/laviscious conduct, public drunkeness, threatening manner, and what not)

Under U.S. law such a device could be considered noise polution if it was audible on the sidewalk and may be considered a business impediment if it is audible to customers attempting to visit a neighboring store. It could also be considered a health hazard even if it takes prolonged exposure to do even minor damage.