Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

James Bond Gadgets

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the gimme-more-science-please-q dept.

157

whencanistop writes "Given that the new James Bond film is just about to be released, this is quite a nice summary of James Bond gadgets from past films. Tomorrow Never Dies was on telly last night and I was commenting on how the mobile phone that controlled the BMW was awesome, why they haven't done it in real life is beyond me (although there would probably be a few accidents if they ever did). Ridiculous to think that in 1963 the gadget of choice for Bond was a pager though." Of course, the best gadget in the Bond universe wasn't even 007's ... Jaws' teeth were the envy of every kid with braces.

cancel ×

157 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No problem (5, Interesting)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#25556545)

Myth Busters build a remote controlled car every other episode (they always seem to build it from scratch... odd).

Here's a toy car retrofitted to be controlled by an iPhone: http://www.walyou.com/blog/2008/09/10/how-to-remote-control-rc-cars-using-the-iphone/ [walyou.com]

Put the two together (no problem), stick in a camera (also no problem) and you've got your own accident waiting to happen.

Why does nobody do it? Most people have enough trouble driving a car with pedals and a big wheel while sitting in the driver's seat looking out the window, never mind trying to drive it with little buttons and a tiny screen from outside.

It's cool that Bond films at least partially stick close enough to the near future that the gadgets are cool but we can look back 40 years and yawn.

Re:No problem (5, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25556585)

When I watched the original Bond films I never noticed all the gadgetry as I was too busy looking at all the Pussy Galore.

Re:No problem (2, Insightful)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557121)

Honor Blackman was my least favorite of all the Bond girls. Now, her Flying Circus pilots were another story!

Re:No problem (1)

OldFish (1229566) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558861)

Careful, Dude! I think one of Pussy's team was a guy in another life!

Re:No problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25557915)

If we're talking original Bond films, as in the first 4, only one had any gadgets to begin with, being the suitcase in From Russia With Love.

They all had girls, though.

Re:No problem (1)

danwesnor (896499) | more than 5 years ago | (#25556981)

Myth Busters build a remote controlled car every other episode (they always seem to build it from scratch... odd).

Have you never noticed that everything they build on the show is completely destroyed at the end?

Re:No problem (1)

mr_josh (1001605) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557379)

It's not so much that it's destroyed, it just falls apart. :)

Re:No problem (3, Insightful)

gnick (1211984) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557131)

Myth Busters build a remote controlled car every other episode (they always seem to build it from scratch... odd).

Here's something that's bugged me for years (morbid though alert). You can easily add a couple of servos to a car's control system and control it via remote (although long range trips would be tricky even with long-range communications and a camera).

Servos and remotes are cheaper than people. Why do we still have suicide bombers?

Re:No problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25557181)

Suicide bombers require significantly less technical expertise.

Re:No problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25557325)

Perhaps, but 1 RC nerd could potentially replace 100's of suicide bombers.

Re:No problem (1)

interstellar_donkey (200782) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558049)

Or just use small RC cars rigged with explosives. Perhaps none of the terrorfolk have seen The Dead Pool.

Re:No problem (1)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557339)

You only need one guy with the right expertise......

Layne

Re:No problem (3, Interesting)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557395)

Servos and remotes are cheaper than people. Why do we still have suicide bombers?

The minor reason would be that a car driven by a dummy (or no driver at all) is likely to be noticed.

The major reason is probably that your premise is false, at least where we have suicide bombers. Getting a car rigged to run by remote costs more than getting a <strike>sucker</strike>martyr to drive it there.

Re:No problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25557401)

Seriously check the prices!

Re:No problem (2, Insightful)

xaxa (988988) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557873)

Why do we still have suicide bombers?

For the glory of Islam? Anyway, why would they want to wait around here before collecting the virgins?

Re:No problem (0, Offtopic)

gnick (1211984) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559479)

Virgins? You want virgins? Log into slashdot - This place is full of them! I'm hoping that for my 30th birthday, mom will send a friendly prostitute down to the basement with a cake.

Re:No problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25558249)

Technology divide.

In the US or UK your average high school geek could build a guided missile or remote controlled car. My 8th grade science class did both.

However, I'm sure that in other parts of the world, the knowledge, and more importantly the component parts aren't available easily. Besides, there is an ideological problem too. You don't get to go to heaven and get a pile of virgins if you use a remote bomb.

Re:No problem (0, Flamebait)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559239)

IslamAfterlife::IslamAfterlife:Afterlife() {
virgins reward=new virgins[72];
....
}
....or something like that, anyhow =p

Re:No problem (1)

sdsucks (1161899) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558295)

Servos and remotes are cheaper than people.

That may not be true in some parts of the world.

Re:No problem (5, Insightful)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558477)

Here's something that's bugged me for years (morbid though alert). You can easily add a couple of servos to a car's control system and control it via remote (although long range trips would be tricky even with long-range communications and a camera).

Servos and remotes are cheaper than people. Why do we still have suicide bombers?

Because a driverless car downtown might draw some attention? No, seriously. Aside from the difficulty of a remote driver having good situational awareness in crappy Iraqi traffic, there's also the matter of camouflaging intent. Some suicide missions involve multiple people. Understandable if there's three separate bombers hitting one location but why have two people with one bomb? Why not have the second guy drive another bomb vehicle or hold back for another mission? Camouflage.

Two guys are driving a delivery truck. You wouldn't think suicide bomber, that's only a loner. Now you've got a delivery driver arguing with the compound guard. C'mon, I got a delivery, I need inside. The guard would already be shooting at a driverless truck coming at him but this delivery looks like every other delivery coming through the gate.

Right before we went into Afghanistan, a popular leader of the Northern Alliance gave an interview to a foreign television crew. This was a multi-man crew, the journalist, cameraman, and soundman. The bomb was in the camera. Interview starts, the television crew, their target, and several bystanders are killed. No single person could have gotten that close but several people posing as a film crew? That seems reasonable.

I've also heard stories about kids included in suicide vehicles. They're probably not the driver's kids, who knows how they were abducted. But they're in the car making it look eminently civilian when the driver pulls up and hits the detonator.

This sort of thing has two benefits for the terrorist. One, he gets to destroy his target. Two, now the GI's are all jumpy and no longer willing to discount kids as a sign the car is safe, they'll end up shooting up more innocent civilians, raising the terror level, and making the people more enraged with America.

Reliability And Press (1)

maz2331 (1104901) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558777)

Humans are used because "true believers" are easily recruited and highly reliable, whereas electronics and the expertise to build a reliable remote control system isn't. Plus, any remote is subject to jamming and easily rendered ineffective. Plus, buying the servos and motion-control gear does leave a bit of a paper trail.

Plus, the press picks up far more readily on a suicide attack rather than a remote-controlled one. Suicide attacks give the impression of a "fighter" dying for a cause, wheras a remote attack is easily spun as "cowardly murdering bastards." (Note: even the suicide attackers are murdering bastards.) It's really hard to "spin" a remote-controlled attack on civillians as anything but cowardly murdering bastard type asshattery.

Re:No problem (1)

konigstein (966024) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559611)

Well for one their bombers have been at it for quite a few years, and so making simple effective bombs are straightforward. Next is that that way of jihad would have to be signed off by an imam (religious leader), and if the choice was letting a good muslim into heaven by way of jihad or blowing up some infidels, it's no easy choice. Finally, remote control requires using some sort of transmission. Any jamming device or malfunctioning transmitter just rendered your bomb ineffective except by local detonation. Also, jamming cell phones, radio frequencies, and all other means of communication is pretty rude and tends to piss off the locals.

Re:No problem (1)

laddiebuck (868690) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557545)

Top Gear have done it a few times now too (and probably also from scratch, but they never dwell on it for more than a sentence).

Re:No problem (1)

ChrisA90278 (905188) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557623)

"It's cool that Bond films at least partially stick close enough to the near future that the gadgets are cool but we can look back 40 years and yawn."

From a story/plot point of view the trchnology has to be very close to what we have but just a little bit past it. Because the viewers do have to understand what the gadget does and also if the gadget was to "powerful" then 007's job would be to easy. For example we can't give hiom a gadget that can read minds that are on the other side of the earth and then teleport the bad guys into jail. No, the gadgets can only operate within a small range or it kind of ruins the story.

Re:No problem (1)

Gulthek (12570) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558207)

It's cool that Bond films at least partially stick close enough to the near future that the gadgets are coolâ¦

Like cars that bend light around them?

Re:No problem (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558921)

Google this: invisibility suit wiki

It works, but not nearly as well as in the Bond movie. But, that's the point, isn't it?

Re:No problem (1)

symes (835608) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558943)

This [youtube.com] is posibly some of the best fun I've seen people having with remote controlled cars.

First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25556555)

Woot

The modern bond films (4, Insightful)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#25556579)

are just car/gadget ads.

Re:The modern bond films (2, Insightful)

sc4ry4nt (1331937) | more than 5 years ago | (#25556803)

I agree, though the last two (of the new revolution) contain considerably fewer gadgets and of those that are found, they're far from the "creative" gagets that came before...

Re:The modern bond films (2, Informative)

UncleWilly (1128141) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559083)

In the first Bond book, Casino Royal, the only high tech is that J Bond has oversized headlights on his car. He is more a international detective, smoking two packs a day, and drinking hard liquor.

Re:The modern bond films (1)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557805)

>>> Ridiculous to think that in 1963 the gadget of choice for Bond was a pager

Not really. I was watching an old 60s "The Avengers" episode where some businessman was bragging about his new "electronic secretary" that went beep. That's all it did; just beep. So seeing Bond carrying a pager that not only beeps, but gives a little message on top of that is utterly amazing.

Remember this was in the age of 0.1 kbit/s modems. Sloooow. Primitive. Barely-worked.

Re:The modern bond films (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558991)

I used that exact model of pager in the article. Actually we shared a pager for whoever was on call.

Scott had the pager when he headed to the rest room. It had a small two line text display. We TM'd him Don't Forget To Wipe.

He was quite embarrassed when the pager went off in the bathroom. (pagers and cell phones ringing were total attention getters back then, no matter where, because almost nobody had them)

Re:The modern bond films (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25557887)

You clearly haven't seen the latest ones. Clearly neither have the people who modded you insightful.

Villains have the best toys (2, Interesting)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 5 years ago | (#25556629)

What about Oddjob's razor-brimmed bowler hat? That's the one I always wanted! Mythbusters tried to make one, and managed to knock off the head of a concrete statue (with Kari throwing no less) even though it was a hollow core molded statue. Still, that hat put a new spin on the old "dressed to kill" standard!

Re:Villains have the best toys (3, Informative)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 5 years ago | (#25556775)

What about Oddjob's razor-brimmed bowler hat?

What about it? It's #9. [computerweekly.com]

Re:Villains have the best toys (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 5 years ago | (#25556855)

Eh, that'll teach me to let myself be distracted by the outside world before I make it to the end of an article! Still, that one rates far higher than #9 in my book.

frickin laser... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25556643)

... to strap to his noggin in case he ever comes up against any similarly equipped sharks.

Re:frickin laser... (1)

Quantos (1327889) | more than 5 years ago | (#25556709)

There was the wrist watch with a laser... My favorite was the wrist watch with the electro magnet.

Re:frickin laser... (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557013)

There was the wrist watch with a laser...

My favorite was the wrist watch with the electro magnet.

There was also the garrote wire watch used in From Russia With Love... and also used by George H. W. Bush in the Simpsons!

Best of the bunch (4, Interesting)

Smivs (1197859) | more than 5 years ago | (#25556683)

Two words...Little Nellie! [jamesbondmm.co.uk] Can I have one please?

Sure you can .... (2, Informative)

Fallen Andy (795676) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557263)

See the wikipedia entries here [wikipedia.org] and here [wikipedia.org] .

Andy

There's my flying car! (3, Interesting)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557271)

For all the talk of roadable planes etc, Little Nellie style flying machines are pretty close.

Small autogyros are very maneuverable, have short take off/landing and are potentially a lot safer too. A small auto gyro gives reasonable speed and mileage. Landed, the rotor can be folded away quite easily and the autogyro could be easily powered by its own engine (as a simple motor trike).

Re:Best of the bunch (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559087)

If it's good enough for the world of Mad Max, it's good enough for Bond.

If you are smart, phone control of a car works (5, Interesting)

pimpsoftcom (877143) | more than 5 years ago | (#25556711)

I know this because I designed/created a system to do it a few years back.

Its actually not very hard, I did this with a app on my then-new smart phone, using its internet access to connect car based computer I also gave internet access and configured to use a static host name using a dy-dns like setup on the car based computer system.

The hardest problem I had was calibration of the electronics to interface with the actual driving of the car; I never realized how much we as humans compensate for a slight directional drift on the steering wheel, or how refined our ability to break slowly is. Also, the brakes are an issue as the correct leverage for the breaks can be broken easily if you don't set it up correctly; Get it wrong and you cant actually use the car outside of the remote control because the assembly to drive it is in the way.

In general, The older the car, the more issues you will have. Also, the power and electrical systems are the picture of inadequacy if you are looking to build your own 'Kit'. I actually may try to dig out my old notes, many of my ideas for additions may be possible now.

Re:If you are smart, phone control of a car works (3, Funny)

Janeshat (1388077) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558151)

Yes, Dr. Horrible had a little issue with the stopping of the van as well. Of course Captain Hammer had smashed his magnetic control transciever.

how is a pager ridiculous? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25556729)

Back then a pager was a big thing. Consumer electronics of that type were still kind of new back then.

Honestly, some people seem to think the world began with episode 1 of star wars.

Re:how is a pager ridiculous? (2, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25556781)

Honestly, some people seem to think the world began with episode 1 of star wars.

No, that was the beginning of the end of the world.

Re:how is a pager ridiculous? (1)

genner (694963) | more than 5 years ago | (#25556917)

Honestly, some people seem to think the world began with episode 1 of star wars.

No, that was the beginning of the end of the world.

Then the Matrix sequels came out and the world actually ended.

Welcome to Earth 2.0

Re:how is a pager ridiculous? (2, Funny)

peragrin (659227) | more than 5 years ago | (#25556997)

earth 2 came out and bombed. Personally I want earth 3. SP 2

Re:how is a pager ridiculous? (1)

halcyon1234 (834388) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557443)

Since none of us will ever agree on which version of Earth we want, how about we just go the Slider's method? Fork the Earth, and to each their own!

Re:how is a pager ridiculous? (1)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557559)

Langly: "You look down, Mulder. Tell you what, you're welcome to come over Saturday night. We're all hopping on the Internet to nitpick the scientific inaccuracies of Earth 2."

Oh how times have changed.

Re:how is a pager ridiculous? (4, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557187)

Then the Matrix sequels came out and the world actually ended.

This will blow your mind, but there are no Matrix sequels...

Re:how is a pager ridiculous? (1)

Drooling Iguana (61479) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557439)

Do not try to enjoy the sequels, that's impossible. Instead, only try to know the truth.

Re:how is a pager ridiculous? (1)

SimonGhent (57578) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557531)

This will blow your mind, but there are no Matrix sequels...

I keep telling myself that. Generally it works, but sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night and I know the truth.

Re:how is a pager ridiculous? (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557927)

This will blow your mind, but there are no Matrix sequels...

I keep telling myself that. Generally it works, but sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night and I know the truth.

For me, the truth generally comes the morning after.

Re:how is a pager ridiculous? (1)

Loibisch (964797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559015)

This will blow your mind, but there are no Matrix sequels...

Don't we all wish that were true...

Ahem (1)

RiffRafff (234408) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557199)

I work for a WELL-known IT hardware/software giant that goes by a TLA. They just issued me a new 1-way pager.

So there, ha!

Re:how is a pager ridiculous? (3, Informative)

homer_ca (144738) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557233)

It was a different world of communications back then. Most homes didn't even have answering machines until the late 70's/early 80's. Businesses paid for answering services with live operators. If you weren't home to answer the phone, you didn't get the message.

The Bensen Gyrocopter (3, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 5 years ago | (#25556795)

They didn't mention the Bensen Gyrocopter [msgyro.com] from "You Only Live Twice". That was a real, flyable aircraft, although the version that came in four big suitcases (a scene stolen from "Thief of Baghdad") was a dummy.

Re:The Bensen Gyrocopter (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25557609)

The Wallis Autogyro you mean surely? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wallis [wikipedia.org] Bit of a local hero round these parts.

Bra with machine gun? (1)

Qwrk (760868) | more than 5 years ago | (#25556859)

Err..., or was that Austin Powers?

Re:Bra with machine gun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25556971)

Machine gun jublies! How did I miss those?

Re:Bra with machine gun? (1)

AJWM (19027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559743)

Ursula Andress did it first (single shot, not machine gun) in The Tenth Victim.

Eddie Izzard's view (4, Funny)

icke (661710) | more than 5 years ago | (#25556865)

Of course there is the Eddie Izzard sketch [youtube.com] brilliantly animated without the help of Daniel Craig.

Pictures (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 5 years ago | (#25556889)

Can someone tell me from which server the pictures in the fine article come? I seem to have adblocked them or something, because I don't see them.

Re:Pictures (2, Informative)

Kandenshi (832555) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557135)

Re:Pictures (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557251)

Thanks! Weird that I don't see them on the site.

Re:Pictures (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25557603)

Maximize your browser and you might see a portion of the left side of the image on the right-middle side of the page. Something about the page is completely screwed up. It doesn't render correctly for me either.

Re:Pictures (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558757)

I didn't see any on my side too.

I reported the problem to AdBlock Plus people in http://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=21432 [adblockplus.org] ... Other ComputerWeekly's image galleries have the same problem from http://www.computerweekly.com/Home/GalleryListingPage.aspx [computerweekly.com] ...

Cell phone (1)

hypersql (954649) | more than 5 years ago | (#25556901)

From what I read, the only gadget in the next 007 movie will be a cell phone. Could have been at least a Swiss army knife :-)

Aston Martin + Champagne refrigerator (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 5 years ago | (#25556909)

May I direct you attention to the one gadget we all really want: the Aston Martin with champagne refrigerator. You might want some of the other features http://www.aston-martin.us/007/goldfinger.html [aston-martin.us] but I submit that the combination of the two were the most useful for defeating the other side. Really, how often will you ever "retractable tyre slashers" to impress a woman? And even for guys here on Slashdot, you're 1000 times more likely to need an advantage when dealing with women than ever have to douse flame throwing motorcycles.

Car-sub! (1)

Candid88 (1292486) | more than 5 years ago | (#25556927)

The underwater car, gadget 2 in TFA, was the one I always wanted. Unfortunately I do not know of such a car ever being made, there's been a few amphibious cars but I've never heard of a car which can actually turn into a mini-sub underwater.

I guess the lack of oxygen would be a slight problem for any combustion-based vehicle, maybe Bond's car was electric?

Re:Car-sub! (1)

internerdj (1319281) | more than 5 years ago | (#25556983)

Agreed and good luck ever getting an electric car in the US...

Re:Car-sub! (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557113)

The tested one on a British car show on here a year or so ago. It's not an enclosed sub - you need to wear diving gear to use it underwater, but it does work as a submarine and can move from land, into water then submerge itself when you're in a suitable place.

Re:Car-sub! (5, Interesting)

netsavior (627338) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557205)

yes, yes they have had a sub-car
Rinspeed sQuba [rinspeed.com]

Re:Car-sub! (1)

Candid88 (1292486) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557561)

That car is crazy!

Re:Car-sub! (4, Interesting)

steveha (103154) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559139)

Fascinating. Here's a link to the text explaining the car:

http://www.rinspeed.com/pages/cars/squba/pre-squba.htm [rinspeed.com]

This is an actual car, but the Bond version remains sheer fantasy. The Rinspeed's passenger compartment is not pressurized; it's designed to let the water in. According to the above cited text:

With an enclosed volume of just two cubic meters of air the vehicle weight would have to increase by two tons (!) to counteract the unwanted buoyancy, giving the "sQuba" the land mobility of a turtle.

The James Bond movie car drove fast on land, and shot wet cement onto the windscreen of a pursuing car, before driving into the sea and then firing a missile to shoot down a helicopter. This is cooler, though, because it actually exists.

steveha

My favorite... the knife in the KGB woman's shoe (2, Funny)

fprintf (82740) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557159)

My favorite, I think perhaps from one of the Roger Moore Bond films, was the Soviet agents knife in the shoe. It was hilarious watching her try to kick Bond, swinging the leg around trying to 'git im'

Re:My favorite... the knife in the KGB woman's sho (1)

gregg (42218) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557319)

Actually, that was Sean Connery in 'From Russia with Love'.

Re:My favorite... the knife in the KGB woman's sho (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558149)

Yeah, that was in "From Russia With Love". It always seemed to me to be the most stupid "hidden" weapon I've seen. Good if you're in a crowd, massively ineffective in a 1on1 situation.

Re:My favorite... the knife in the KGB woman's sho (1)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558283)

The blades were poisoned. All she had to do was knick Bond and "that's all folks".

In the novel though its poisoned knitting needles.

remote control car? (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557305)

The reason a remote control car is a bad idea is because there's no way for you to get any feedback on your steering and acceleration/braking decisions. When you're in a car, you can feel what it is doing and know where the limits are. A joystick doesn't have that kind of responsiveness and it's inevitable that you'll lose control of the vehicle when doing much more than driving it in an oval or in a straight line. And you'd need more than 1 camera to effectively navigate; I'm sorry, but the idea of using an iPhone, with it's limited screen size, to display several video feeds, is not practical. That said, having invoked the "that's impossible!" phrase with a bunch of engineers... I've pretty much doomed the world to having one created...

Re:remote control car? (1)

SimonGhent (57578) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557629)

Top Gear did a feature a couple of years back with real r/c cars. Three of them in a quarry. James May and Richard Hammond vs. a 14 year old girl who was the national junior r/c car racing champion (or something similar).

She did a pretty good job.

just don't stop to ask where the energy comes from (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557343)

super-strong electromagnets built into wristwatches, finger-sized lasers that can cut through metal, electric saws in you watch (again). If we had the technology to supply these things with the power they need, we'd never need to switch off our laptops, as the batteries would never run out. However, they'd have far too much stored energy to ever be let through airport security.

I had Jaws' teeth (4, Funny)

Inda (580031) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557437)

Short story as I want to go home in a minute...

Broke both my jaws 20 years ago, two metal gumshields were glued to my teeth, both of these had little hooks pointing up/down away from my mouth, on these hooks were elastic bands, these bands kept my nouth in the correct possition (and had to be cut if ever I puked).

When I'd healed, the elastic bands were removed and I looked just like Jaws. No white teeth, just metal.

If it wasn't for all the other metalwork screwed into my skull, I'd have been chewing through cables. :)

Liquid food for ten weeks... No pictures but I promise you it did happen.

Your "nouth"? (4, Funny)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557837)

I guess it didn't heal so well then?

Re:I had Jaws' teeth (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25557957)

'Broke both my jaws ...'

So, you're an Alien?

Re:I had Jaws' teeth (1)

elysiana (1152995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558329)

Why, how many do YOU have? Most of the humans I've known haven't been missing their maxilla or mandible. Maybe you're the alien?? :tinfoil:

Re:I had Jaws' teeth (1)

sam0737 (648914) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558391)

Looks like 20 years later the medic technology is improved...?

I have intentionally broken my jaw 3 years ago, or actually I was having my malocclusions conditions treated. 6 weeks of liquid food (if you still call that food...)

Besides the titanium screws that were blot on the jaw bone which were taken out in another operation later, there were a metal wrapping wires which wrap around the teeth. The hooks are glued to the teeth just like normal braces though, which is removable once done...

The metalwork used was just very similar to normal brace...nothing really special.

Not from Q ... (5, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557551)

Least known, but most used, Bond gadget: penis

Re:Not from Q ... (2, Funny)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558703)

It also breaks down from all that use so they have to keep replacing the actor.

nope (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559209)

James Bond is a virgin!

Re:Not from Q ... (1)

Haoie (1277294) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559821)

Are you implying that particular gadget has been enhanced by the tech guys?

DARPA challenge (1)

languagehacker (1317999) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557659)

Anything harder-core than driving on the highway is a non-trivial problem for current neural network models used to automatically drive a car. That being said, the phone interface would be easy to implement once a car can navigate the side streets of Budapest by itself.

Jaws' teeth where the only cool thing about him as (0)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25557863)

Jaws' teeth where the only cool thing about him as he is very hard to kill as me was a space station crashing back to earth did not kill him.

The one we need... (1)

Troll14 (1395683) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558577)

The Bond gadget that us geeks need the most, is the power to get women at our fingertips. On a Friday night when were all alone, it would help to have a little more excitement then programming ;)

L-pills always the scariest gadgets (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558641)

Suicide pills I've always found to be scary, even scarier are the people who employ them. There's just something unsettling to Western sensibilities when someone is willing to give their lives for a cause, not just in the "might not come back from this mission" context but "I'm biting down on a cyanide ampule and there's no coming back from--ACK!" To the western mind, the slight chance of survival from an apparently suicidal mission is completely different from an intentionally suicidal mission where success must include your death.

The first one of these scenes I ever saw as a kid was Dr. No where Bond is chasing the guy down from the airport and he kills himself with poisoned cigarettes. Really messed with my mind as a kid but now I think it could be hysterical if done with a bit of an Austin Powers mirth. Bond chases the guy down, he takes the L-pill and gives a look of defiance that gives way to shock when Bond says "Good man, I was just going to ask you the time, there was no need to run away." Then he croaks.

The "other" kind of parachute. (1)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558847)

"Mini speedboat - The World is Not Enough (1999) Pierce Brosnan

I'm not sure that Pierce Brosnan's mini speedboat really qualifies as a gadget, but it was an electric opening sequence, and its bijou size means its almost small enough to fit in your pocket and qualify as a gadget.
"

Maybe with todays fashion you could fit them in your pants.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>