Talk:The Mosquito

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses.

This is a stub article, how can i make it say so? It needs to be expanded. --User:MPN

Also: this is a real product. I am not making this up, therefore, i have added an external link. --User:MPN

This IS a real product, but if for some reason it doesn't belong here, you can remove it. I am not intending to break any policies. --User:MPN

Have added an article from the BBC on its use in Wales to the External Links section. --Black Butterfly 17:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Who knows how to make a user box I need an ANTI Mosqutio userbox talk or to me in my discussion TrackMonkey 21:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Have added an article from the BBC on its use in Wales to the External Links section. --Black Butterfly 17:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Speedy delete tag removed

Wow this sounds pretty interesting. I removed the speedy delete tag, MPN, so you shouldn’t have to worry about it disappearing right away. I think the user added it before you listed the external link so it just looked like a joke. Right now I don't think it qualifies for speedy deletion. Might go through some dissuasion if someone nominates it as an article for deletion though. I can see the product getting a lot of criticism, which is something you might want to add to the article. I fixed it up a bit. Mrtea 05:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Figured I should mention Mosquito (device) was recently deleted, cited as being a "wild hoax". Note this list of Google News articles, however. Mrtea
Thanks! MPN 03:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


Yes, it's definitely not a hoax. They're being installed in Hinkley, Leicestershire, UK. You can buy them here [1] It did sound like a Deus ex machina product when I heard of it. Unfortunately it looks like they're going to become more common. Rather discriminatory to those who retain youthful features and decent young citizens I feel. I am 27 and can hear the 17.7 kHZ ringtone. There are also to be higher powered ones only available to local authorities and the police. They're not going to make young people feel better about adults, surely. And it is being seen locally in Leicestershire to only shift problems elsewhere and not addressing the root cause of young people having limited social facilities.

[edit] Liverpool Street Station, London?

I noticed an annoying high pitched sound in Liverpool Street train station when I first started commuting through it (December 2005). It's still there every morning and every evening when I go through. Had wondered if it was (i) anti-vermin or (ii) designed to discourage crowds from forming (it seems to be most noticable in the central areas). Wondering if it could be this. There was a report in this morning's Metro that Welsh schoolkids have sampled the 'Mosquito sound' and are using it in school as a ringtone which is not audible to teachers. Not sure if that's technically feasible but interesting to hear (ho ho).


Here is my question how do they know that these students started using it if teachers can't hear it TrackMonkey 21:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it became comericially available, regardless of if before hand it was being down it started to be done. Wolfmankurd 20:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Backfire?

I've found a bit about the concept backfiring:

http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=14031&in_page_id=2

(Synopsis: teens use the recorded sound on cell-phones to get a cell phone signal inaudible to teachers)

I don't have a clue on how to fact-check that.

Noobs, just use something like y = 30000 sin 44100t or something. No need to record... Besides I'm sure that a simple sinusoid can't be as annoying as a compound wave DESIGNED to annoy. --Marco 17:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad idea

Just wanted to leave this comment to the device is question. Telling your future custumers to buzz off does not sound like a good idea to me. --81.216.186.73 11:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Anti Anti "the Mosquito"

ya, who likes the box joinTrackMonkey 21:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


Is there any easier (=not so much code) to add these boxes? --Marco 21:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPR Coverage

There was recently coverage of this device on National Public Radio in the U.S. The inventor was interviewed along with his teen-aged daughter. He claimed that he has sold "about 1000" of these devices. I think the statement that it has only been tested at one place is out of date. --rogerd 00:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be interesting to find out where else the device had been tested as Howard Stapleton is from Merthyr Tydfil in Wales and the device was first tested in Newport. Bridgend comes to mind, the safety aspects have not been fully investigated. This device is similar to sonic insect repellents, it's not pleasant to think that society treats it's young people like insects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnritchie (talk • contribs) 15:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The "freemosquitoringtones" thing

A comment I added in the "Teen Buzz" talk page, which is relevant here too.

The MP3 versions of high pitch sounds are simply misleading. First of all, MP3 encoded with 44100 sampled per second simply cannot encode pitch higher than 22050 Hz. I triple checked the "22.4khz Tone" using GoldWave. Second thing, what you DO mostly hear in those sound files is the MP3 psychoacoustics encoding error, as MP3 encoders reduce inaudible sounds such as high-pitch sounds. I made some examinations, and even with 192kbps, high-pitch sounds are reduces and resampled. Therefore, most MP3 files cannot be used for those tests.

– Fuzzy 15:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Device Illegal?

I removed the paragraph that said that this device was illegal, as there really was not justification for this assertion, and certainly no links backing this up. However the user appears to have reinstated it. This appears to me to be purely the users POV that the device "should" be illegal, rather than it actually being illegal. Trying to make out that a law to stop torture is contravened by this device is a little naive. Anyone else care to comment? Awheewall 20:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You removed it stating that a car alarm etc with the same reasoning should be illegal but everyone can hear it however the mosquito only people in the age range of 13 - 31 approx can hear it. It does break EU/UK Human Rights Artilce 3. And if it was just down to me why are there users correcting spelling and gammar. And the inventer could the noble price for peace who f**king voted for it it is assult as i manage to get the mosquito tone at 8Mhz (everyone can hear) and it pissed off everyone in my study. the age range was 13 to 65. Out of 40 people 5 complainted of headaches.

Above paragraph was entered by Legalrights101, who didn't sign their name.

The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which is what I assume you refer to states in article 3 that: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

There has been no evidence put forward, nor can I find any myself, that this device breaks that convention. Logic would dictate that if that were true then this device would be outlawed and thus not available for sale. However as you can see from the external link to the manufacturer of this device on the main page, these are freely available for sale. I am not trying to get into a tit-for-tat argument with you regarding this, I just think you should re-think your position, and realise that your section on human rights seems to be your POV. Wikipedia policy is quite clear that no part of any article should be a personal POV. If you still believe that this device is illegal and/or breaks article 3 of the previously mentioned convention, then please supply the evidence to back up your claim. I will resist editing the page this time, however if not such evidence is forthcoming then I will reinstate my edit. Also please refrain from using foul and abusive language on this or any other page, and also please sign your contributions on the talk pages. Awheewall 19:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. I am from the UK and I can (just) hear the tone, although for how many more years is another matter. Whilst I appreciate your view on this matter, the fact remains that this device IS legal in the UK currently. I'm afraid that a TV programme even on the BBC doesn't constitue fact or the law. Although I did not see the programme, I would guess that it was an investigation of the device and the possible implications of it should a case be brought under the Human Rights Act, or any other suitable law. British law is based on case law, i.e. for something like this device to be outlawed, someone, like yourself maybe, would have to bring a successful case to court. Prior to this happening, no such law will exist. This is the current situation as I see it. Had you been able to give references aside from the TV programme, this may have been a different matter. So I'm sorry to say that until you or someone else tests this matter in court, it is quite wrong to claim that it does break the law or is illegal. I'm sure you can understand that Wikipedia should only contain facts that can be proved with external references. As you haven't managed to provide any, this section really should be deleted. I'll give you the opportunity to respond with evidence before I choose this course of action. And many thanks for engaging in this debate. Awheewall 20:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


URL for Human Rights Article 3 : http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--d.htm Craig7006 19:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence relating to breaching Article 3 should be removed - from a legal perspective anyway a product or sound cannot possibly itself violate a law. It would be the use of it which was illegal. More to the point though, the European Convention on Human Rights does not itself provide enforceable rights as between private citizens. A teenager could not, therefore, bring a legal action against the owner of a shopping centre using this device alleging a "breach of human rights". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.158.228.186 (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Liberty on the mosquito device

Would add this myself but am not very confident of how to do it properly-- http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news-and-events/mosquito-device.shtml this is the briefing from Human Rights group Liberty on the Mosquito device. It includes what Liberty sees as 3 potential ways the use of the device could be challenged, including 2 ECHR sections it could be challenged under. Surely the fact that the major British Human Rights and Civil Liberties group is suggesting the device could be illegal is relevant, and perhaps a good way to resolve this dispute would be to have a section entitled "possible legal issues" or suchlike, and cite this article. Would do it myself but both rushed for time and not very familiar with wikipedia conventions. --Ian

Not at all. Liberty is only expressing an opinion. Wikipedia deals in verifiable facts. Until such time as a case against the mosquito is won, it is not factual to say that it is illegal, or even that it might be illegal. Harry was a white dog with black spots 15:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

which is why i suggested heading the section "possible legal issues". I realise that the "mosquito" has not as yet been found to be illegal. But as i said i think the fact that the largest civil liberties group in the UK is concerned about the legality of the device under human rights legislation is significant - and is a "verifiable fact" - see the weblink. 12.215.65.5 18:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Ian

That is why I added the link the article. But I am sorry, it comes under the category of "they would say that wouldn't they?". The fact that Liberty has a predictable opinion does not make their opinion fact. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of The Mosquito in a new KFC Commercial

Not sure if this is related to this specific article, but I've seen a new KFC commercial targeted at kids (it's about a kids meal or something... I'll have to see it a 3rd time to refresh my memory), however, BOTH times I saw it, about 5 seconds into the commercial this high frequency buzz kicks in right before they mention the kids meal portion. I just thought this would be relevant enough to include in this, (or another article, if there is one, concerning this noise). If it is, I'll try to grab more information to get some sources. geoff 02:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

here is one potentially credible source... http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=32243 geoff 02:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] M and S

Uses one in Blackheath, not sure how effective it is I spent 45mins with it at the source to see the effect. Noting that it only works for people who arnt intentionally loitering IE if they want to stay they will. So it is really an anti loitering deviceWolfmankurd 20:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the approximate age when people stop being able to hear this device?

It would be useful if this was included in the article. Anyone got any idea or citation? I'm curious myself as well.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

An NPR article says that it is inaudible to most 30-year-olds, and offers a short MP3 of the sound to download: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5434687 I downloaded the MP3 and was able to hear it (I'm 28). --65.6.65.184 (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)