What is Digg?Sponsored by Norton 2010
80's metal band Dokken vs. a chicken. Who would win? view!
everyclickmatters.com - The question has finally been answered, and we've got it on tape. See the showdown.
77 Comments
- JesseJ, on 10/12/2007, -9/+39I always thought racist were really confused by default... But sure, if this helps prevent abusive chants, fine!
- Xanin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19It's going to get used for other things though, such as protestors and the like
- VeritasAequitas, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19There is a difference between your right to say that you don't agree with the government or something of that nature, but it is totally different when some Jackass at a baseball game is calling a player a dirty n*$^r next to your 5 year old son. Sporting events and other similar events and event owners have the "RIGHT" to remove said jackass from the premises if they like. It's not taking away a "Right" to freedom of speech used in its proper context. Slander is against the law and you have no right to go to a public place and start swearing and being obscene. You do however have a right to go to a park or some legitimately "public" (not privately owned) place and get up on your soapbox about something you don't like. just keep it clean. That is your right. Stop whining when you think a right is being taken away whithout actually knowing what your rights are and what the rights of those around you are in the same context. think about it and go retake your high school civics class. If you want to cheer then cheer thats great, but there's nothing I hate more is listening to vulgar mouths at a game.
- pope7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13It's been used for years in an in-ear device for stutterers that delays the sound in one ear a bit and raises the pitch, so they can trick their brain and speak fluently. Cool tech, but really annoying to wear.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+121. This isn't happening in U.S. stadiums even with freedom of speech.
2. In the U.S., we don't have nazi mobs chanting "Die Jew!", for example, during sporting events.
3. Chants like that may not be subject to free speech protection if directly threatening to other spectators.
4. They're protesting the existence of PEOPLE, not ideas. Come on.
5. You'd want to shut them up too if your two kids were sitting right next to you scared that someone wanted to hurt or kill them.
6. It's just pretty damn hilarious picturing these rascist freaks confused into quieter non-sensical uncoordinated individual ranting. - SoccerBoy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Remember it takes one pissed off person complaining to the right person(s) to take away everyone else's rights...
- tzmguitarist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Chanting relies on timing; and, of course, if you throw off the timing then it makes it difficult to chant. We used a delay when compensating in large outdoor venues for speakers placed in the rear of a crowd. These delay stacks are used to "line up" with the slow-traveling sound from the front-of-house arrays. If they weren't aligned properly then you get this ugly slap-back echo effect and it throws off the vibe of the music.
I wouldn't say this is a new technology, but an ingenious use of existing tech. Bravo! - t0dd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8To the source: http://www.newscientisttech.com/channel/tech/dn9158.html
- CosmicJustice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8You have the right to say (almost) anything you please. You do not have a right to be heard or listened to.
- MrGeneric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5After a few beers stadium crowds find it difficult to chant coherently anyway.
- phrak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Freedom of Speech does not apply in a stadium because it is a privately owned business. That is why they can kick you out for being obscene.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Freedom.. of.. Hmmmm?
It doesn't matter if you like or agree with what's said.. They can say it. - audiocollective, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This isn't "Sound Neutralzing Technology", and it doesn’t even pertain to Abusive/Racist Chants only. It would be great to have at you local stadium just in case the fans for the other team start a chant though ;-)
- pingwax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I believe this technology is directed at gangs who use this type of chanting to incite violence. In this case, these chants are similar to yelling fire in a crowded theater and are more than a public nuisance: its hate speech and an attempt to start a riot. In this context, it is not protected speech. This all seems to be beside the point though; this technology is not preventing anybody from yelling whatever they want. It is a non-violent and relatively non-disruptive (as opposed to police in riot gear hauling people out of the stands) way to discourage dangerous and potentially illegal behavior...it seems a lot like an auditory speed bump.
- Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Rights?
How does this infringe on people's rights? Because they can't chant in time with one another?
If you see a protest march with pickets and banners, does it really diminish the "speech" if you can't hear them *singing* properly? Does it stop you walking up and asking what they are protesting about? Does it stop you reading the banners? Does it stop you getting the leaflets?
This wouldn't be censorship even if a government did use it. But hang on a sec, no government has used it. So you're actually complaining about something that hasn't happened! - ear1grey, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8This is a solution in search of a problem if ever I saw one. There is nothing wrong with singing and chanting. It's racism and intolerance that is a problem, and that's an education issue *not* a technological challenge.
Every time technology is used to solve a social issue, other technology can be used to bypass it. No doubt the more determined crowds will just arrive with FM radios and an iPod-to-FM broadcast unit that emits a time signal for vocal synchronization... or maybe they'll just get a conductor. - mage1129, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@ Solidcube
Quit being so paranoid. I think protestors should be worrying more about tear gas and nightsticks then about disruption of their chant. Their are plenty of worse things that are used then this technology, which would offer a great benefit for that situation outlined.
And in today's modern protest I think there would be enough signs and at least one person with a megaphone that could get the protestors' point across without a chant being necessary. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Or, the incoherent chanting would start to make sense.
- joesnow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3i honestly don't remember the last time I chanted in a crowd, and I doubt i'll ever do it in my lifetime, there are better more effective ways of making yourself be heard, that don't involve spewing my mouth off with some clever chant that only makes the people who make the real decision shake their heads and label u an extremist.
- bantamw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Norweed
They already get around this. You only have to go to a soccer (football) match in the UK to hear offensive language / mocking / swearing / terrace chanting every game. "Referee's a ******" etc.. Yet you never hear it on the TV playback - due to the fact that they mix all the different crowd noises together and use a delay to edit out all the unruly comments. - JoshuaWood, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This happens on my cell phone, where I'll get a echo effect, it makes it almost impossible to speak.
- rnelsonee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Big Brother? We're talking about private property, not some overbearing government. Look, I'll stick up for anyone's right to express themselves in an appropriate manner (1st amendment fanboy, if you will), but we're talking about stadiums here. If the stadium owner doesn't want people yelling racist slurs on his/her property, then the owner has every right to try to try to minimize/eliminte it. If I came onto your lawn one morning and started calling you an ***** at the top of my lungs, you'd probably try to get me to leave instead of telling me to keep it up because I'm expressing myself.
- mage1129, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think there is a big difference between using a non-lethal sonic weapon and this device that muddles chanting.
- rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3While playing World of Warcraft, if you are in Teamspeak and someone is using speakers and is broadcasting, when you broadcast you can hear yourself through their mic, with a lag of about half a second. It makes it difficult to be coherent because you are listening to what you just said as you are trying to think of what to say next.
- fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Free speech includes objectionable speech. JR, Savage, Limbaugh, David Duke, Bush, Gore, Barney, and all the others have the right to say what they want, and simply being offensive or stupid isn't a valid reason to impinge on their rights.
- Norweed, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4This isn't messing with freedom of speech at all. Think about a big football game where people want to start chanting the N word or something on National TV. Obviously ESPN doesn't want that on their stations so they stop the chanting. Not a big deal and it's def. not trampling on anyone's rights. You have the right to say what you want, but everyone else has the right to disagree with you and if you happen to be somewhere where they can get a mic on your voice and pound back at you, I guess you're SOL.
If they start using this at say war protest rallies in DC then it's a big deal, but stopping ignorant sports goers so they don't ruin a game for everyone else (on private property) Go for it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3LOL. They'll still block your traffic. This isn't a traffic block neutralizer let alone a crowd or protest neutralizer. It's a chant neutralizer.
- kob102186, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5He didn't say it had been abused; he said it could be EASILY abused. Big difference!
- zarex, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Read the article carefully, folks. This has nothing to do with "sound neutralizing" per se, nor does it have any chance of being abused by the evil oppressive governments.
All it does is play back a delayed version of the crowds chants, which confuses people, and prevents them from chanting simultaneously. It's clever, but of limited applicability, and there's no way this is going to silence protests or any crap like that. - olympuscoder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4This has been common knowlege for a while (several decades). Play back what someone is trying to say (them selves or someone else they are speaking along with) on about a .2 second delay and they loose their ability to speak. There were many psychology studies on the subject....
You still have to decide when/who you want to interrupt... - willistg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1this is the reason why vocals should always be recorded dry if melody and rhythm are important to the song.
I bet someone filed a patent on this too. How ***** lame. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@mage, EXACTLY. Thanks.
Also, here's an idea for protestors: SIGNS. [gasps heard around the world.] - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Left leaning peopel drive me made, they just dont trust their government absolutly enough... just because something can be abused doesnt mean anyone ever would I mean really didnt we do away with evil in this country years ago?
I wouldnt vote for someone if they were evil. Noone would be come a cop if they would abuse stuff. No small town would ever ever use this against protesters. Just remember you can trust everyone in government more than your neighbours. You can trust the government just as much as you would trust a relative after all they are our peers and we know them oh so well. (heavy sacasism)
I DONT TRUST ANYONE BUT MY DOG. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1if this could only work when people regugitate the parties latest talking points..
and too those people incase you never cheated in english it is much more effective rather than repeat the talking pioints verbadim, is to use your own words. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2They're not denying you the right to protest. They're denying you the opportunity to use a public forum for threatening other people.
Protesters aren't the problem. Protests aren't the problem. Chants aren't even the problem. It's not even hating an idea that's the problem. It's hating a people or peoples that is the problem. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2it'll never work for "GO FLAMES GO!!!!!!!!!!"
- aposter, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Organized hooligans? Never.
- mercatfat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You can't yell "fire" in a crowded senate.
- vesperado, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1would'nt this cause a terrible feedback loop?
also gives a new meaning to the commonly used "stadium" algorithms in reverbs and delays. - jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Your car is a good traffic block neutralizer. Take off your back plate, and keep some towels and peroxide handy.
- G20NYK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1which is also part of the fun anyways
- dhughes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1 Next to be invented is a device to prevent unruly mobs from breaking out into a dance routine.
- jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"If they stop chanting but start rioting out of frustration, then you're worse off."
Surprising that they thought of this. Usually insanely stupid stop gap measures have fun to watch anarchy level side effects. - 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I know a great application for this tech...now I have a reason to spend money on a high-powered audio system for my car...when some clown drives by with their stereo rocking their world (and everyone else's), mine will kick in and feed it right back to them at some offset that makes it sound horrible.
- philipkd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Reminds me of people at concerts that intentionally clap asynchronosly when people start doing synchronized clapping, and it does throw people off.
- quakefiend, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1you can't very well hear other people chanting in order to synchronize with them with earplugs in.
- Shodokan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@bantamw
A lower tech version of that idea was implemented in some shopping centres in Australia, instead of using the high frequency audio that only under-20's could hear, they played classical music that didn't meld with the tough-guy personalities that were causing problems. - sbassi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I am also anti-racist as most of you, but there is something to point out regarding chanting in football (or soccer) stadiums: In Argentina, during last dictatorship (from 76 to 83) stadiums were the only place that people could protest against "de facto" government and was a uncensored way to take the pulse of current issues, since you could not trust on censored TV. Even under democracy, without human rights violations, chants of the crowd in stadiums gives you a clue of actual people problems, like when a photographer was shoot to death, chants point to the police, that was something that some people was thinking but was afraid to say.
I think you should arrest the person who incite violence or make racial expressions, but AFTER the fact, and not to make a pre-emptive action. - ddales, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This would be very very bad for Soccer. Half the time the crowds at EU soccer matches are chanting or singing something or other. If there were no chanting and singing the atmosphere just wouldn't be the same and not as enjoyable. Since I don't see how the system could tell the difference between "positive" and "negative" chanting or singing, it sucks.
Besides, who gets to decide what's positive and negative? - delinka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0IMO, vocals should always be recorded dry. You can add effects later - it's hard to remove them. Unless, of course, it's a live recording.
But what's this have to do with messing up people's chanting? -
Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is