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!

Surveillance Robot That is Programmed To Hide

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the our-new-clandestine-overlords dept.

Robotics 148

An anonymous reader writes "The folks over at Lockheed Martin have just released information about their new covert robot that can sneak up on buildings, detect and evade sentries, and send reconnaissance information back to the good guys. From the article: 'What makes the robot special is its ability to build a computer model of its surroundings, incorporating information on lines of sight. The robot is fitted with a laser scanner to allow it to covertly map its environment in 3D. It also has a set of acoustic sensors which it uses to distinguish nearby footsteps and their direction.'"

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

I for one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35595372)

... welcome our new hidden overlords

Re:I for one (5, Funny)

Dayze!Confused (717774) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595458)

...that can sneak up on buildings...

Those buildings are so dang hard to sneak up on, but they sure let out quit a yelp when you surprise them!

Re:I for one (4, Funny)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595518)

... welcome our new hidden overlords

I was paranoid before I RTFA now I'm bat shit insane! The tin foil just isn't gonna cut it now.
I wonder if I can modify my tiger repelling rock to repel tiny robot overlords?

Anyone got a firmware update? The last one I Installed was 2.45b which seems slightly buggy and didn't mention anything about robots.

Re:I for one (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595646)

Slightly buggy tiger-repelling rock?

"Three tigers today, thankfully rock working enough to keep the rest away"

Re:I for one (0)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595680)

So.. the tiger repelling rock is as good at repelling tigers as the stimulus was at repelling unemployment?

Re:I for one (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#35596038)

The stimulus wasn't about creating jobs. Its purpose was to [tick ONE box]

  [ ] Give all your money to bankers | the Jews | China
  [ ] Make homosexuality compulsory
  [ ] Institute communism
  [ ] Immunize the escutcheon
  [ ] Other (please specify)
      _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
      _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Yours in teabaggery,

      Kilgore Trout.

Re:I for one (1)

Deep Esophagus (686515) | more than 3 years ago | (#35597188)

"Immunize the escutcheon"? Why would anyone want to prevent a coat of arms from getting diseases?

Perhaps you mean "Immanentize the eschaton [wikipedia.org] ", which means to hasten the end of the world (literally or figuratively). You probably heard it from someone who read The Illuminatus! Trilogy [wikia.com] .

fnord

Re:I for one (1)

Jstlook (1193309) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595742)

Oh c'mon, the good news is they're easily thwarted. Just yell in a loud voice 'Olly Olly Oxen Free', and the tiny robot overlord will come out of hiding.

Re:I for one (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595938)

Oh c'mon, the good news is they're easily thwarted. Just yell in a loud voice 'Olly Olly Oxen Free', and the tiny robot overlord will come out of hiding.

Yes but that puts them into Berserker mode. You never want to see a hoard of tiny Berserk robots let me tell you! or maybe I shouldn't?

MGS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35595382)

What's in the box?

Stalkerbot is for criminal investigations! (4, Insightful)

assemblerex (1275164) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595398)

Clearly it would never be used on students, protestors, political opponents or scornful ex-lovers.

Re:Stalkerbot is for criminal investigations! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35596094)

Well, you seem to misunderstand. "Good guys", in 2011, means "whoever is at the controls", and "bad guys" means "whoever it is used against". So: all those groups are The Enemy, and if you know what's good for you, clearly you don't want to fraternize with the enemy, now do you, Mr. Potential Terrist Sympathizer?

Re:Stalkerbot is for criminal investigations! (2)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 3 years ago | (#35596932)

Hey they just crossed ninjas with robots.

There is no bad here.

Re:Stalkerbot is for criminal investigations! (1)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 3 years ago | (#35597060)

If you have nothing to hide, and you don't even know that you're being spied on, then there is no problem and you have nothing to fear!

[/sarcasm]

Good guys (1)

mescobal (1516701) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595406)

That's a pretty risky assumption (from the southern hemisphere point of view).

better verify that (4, Funny)

clarkn0va (807617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595414)

...and send reconnaissance information back to the good guys

So if I know for sure that I'm the bad guy, I definitely don't want to be using one of these.

Re:better verify that (1)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 3 years ago | (#35597074)

...and send reconnaissance information back to the good guys

So if I know for sure that I'm the bad guy, I definitely don't want to be using one of these.

Or worse: I am not using one of these and I know that Western government like spying on their own citizens, so I must be one of the bad guys!

(I guess that means it's time that I start constructing my underground secret lair!)

doubleplusgood (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35597266)

You have one of these == you are a good guy ... oh wait, you mean you don't want to be a good guy?

Well, in that case for you we have an evil spying robot instead of good reconnaissance one. It is the same model, only in different color and different shape (evil) of painted eyes.

Degrees of definition (2)

naota-kun (705771) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595426)

So, if the "bad guys" have this, does it still transmit information to the "good guys"? I suspect the good guys are simply the fellows with the bigger checkbook. But I'm an optimist.

Re:Degrees of definition (2)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595448)

Ha. They don't spell it out, but obviously it comes with an ideology chip, which makes sure only people with the correct ideology can use it.

Re:Degrees of definition (2)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595490)

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Re:Degrees of definition (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35595506)

0. KILL ALL HUMANS

Re:Degrees of definition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35595674)

I love you!

Re:Degrees of definition (1)

naota-kun (705771) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595516)

Well, if that's the case, then all my fears have been addressed. Nice to know the little critter could never be misused. Carry on creeper bot!

Re:Degrees of definition (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595866)

Of course, how useful these rules are really depends on how 'human' is defined for the robot.

Re:Degrees of definition (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#35596080)

Why do people quote these laws as if they're laws of nature?

I guess you also believe that all kinds of paper, under all conditions, ignite at precisely 505.927778 kelvin.

Re:Degrees of definition (1)

bipedalhominid (1828798) | more than 3 years ago | (#35597590)

So, you are saying the first thing the robot overlords will do is shut down all the fast food restaurants? Eating that crap causes harm, right?

Re:Degrees of definition (3)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595614)

So, if the "bad guys" have this, does it still transmit information to the "good guys"? I suspect the good guys are simply the fellows with the bigger checkbook. But I'm an optimist.

Its robotic relativism.

Re:Degrees of definition (2)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35596498)

To a robot, "The Good Guys" are the ones supplying your electricity!

Re:Degrees of definition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35597810)

No, they are the ones with valid access code.

Re:Degrees of definition (4, Insightful)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595764)

    The "good guys" are the ones with the robots. The "bad guys" are the ones without them.

    It's kind of like, the "good guys" always win the wars, because their side is writing the history books. The "bad guys" are the ones who were bombed to oblivion, either with conventional bombs or nukes.

    Consider World War II. As written by the allied forces. America was not involved in the war. We were innocently sitting by, letting them fight it out. Suddenly out of nowhere, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. No one expected any such thing. We were not involved. Just ignore the fleet of about 100 ships in port, 3 aircraft carriers nearby, about 400 aircraft on the ground, and all the troops.

    If it were written by the Axis forces. America was staging for a strong attack against Axis forces. A pre-emptive strike managed to substantially reduce their strength, which reduced their ability to harm Axis soldiers and civilians.

    And we all know which way it went. Dropping two nukes on Japan ended it. Consider both points of view.

    For the allied forces, it was a strong blow to prove our military superiority, which ended the war.

    For the axis forces, the massacre of about 200,000 civilians forced our surrender, to save countless lives from further attacks.

    That is not to belittle the events of the war, or the tragic loss of life on both sides. It's only to illustrate how the perception of the outcome from such events is totally tainted by those who won. Of course the "good guys" won.

    How about those WMD's now.
   

Re:Degrees of definition (4, Informative)

shmlco (594907) | more than 3 years ago | (#35596366)

"As written by the allied forces. America was not involved in the war. We were innocently sitting by, letting them fight it out. Suddenly out of nowhere, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. No one expected any such thing. We were not involved. Just ignore the fleet of about 100 ships in port, 3 aircraft carriers nearby, about 400 aircraft on the ground, and all the troops."

As I remember it in the US history book that I read, Japan was busy expanding to the south, China, and the Philippines in search of more land and resources. We were telling them that they needed to stop, or we'd be forced to intervene and blockade. They decided that a pre-emptive strike was in order. We didn't expect a conventional attack on Pearl, but were guarding against Japanese sabotage. They thought an attack would give them time they needed. It didn't.

"Dropping two nukes on Japan ended it. ... For the allied forces, it was a strong blow to prove our military superiority, which ended the war."

For the allied forces, it was a bluff made to prove our military superiority in an attempt to quickly end the war. If it didn't work, a long, drawn-out conventional invasion of the Japanese homeland would have killed hundreds of thousands of Allied and Japanese soldiers and Japanese civilians in an operation that would have made all of the earlier Pacific operations look like cakewalks.

And it just so happens that these versions of history tie pretty closely to those espoused by the Japanese, in particular, Fading Victory: The Diary of Admiral Matome Ugaki. There are also several revisionist attempts, including Day of Deceit.

Just goes to show that the presentation of history isn't always as one sided as one might believe.

Re:Degrees of definition (2)

KillaBeave (1037250) | more than 3 years ago | (#35596794)

Mod parent up.

Also to expand on your point about the nuking of Japan being mainly to avoid a long protracted invasion.

We're still using the Purple Hearts that were made in anticipation of hundreds of thousands of casualties that would have arisen from Operation Downfall. From wikipedia ...

Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the sixty years following the end of World War II—including the Korean and Vietnam Wars—have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.

Re:Degrees of definition (0)

hjrnunes (1135957) | more than 3 years ago | (#35597134)

What was wrong with just showing them the bomb?

Besides, hadn't Japan already offered peace before the two detonations? Let's get real here. No one in their sound mind wouldn't surrender to a weapon like the A-Bomb, especially at that time. Almost all the scientists involved in making the bomb preferred to make a demonstration to Japan, before actually deploying the weapons in real targets. The only reason the bombs were detonated was to warn USSR that America (or Harry Truman, as you prefer) had a shiny new apocalipse device, and wouldn't hesitate to use it. Prevent the loss of life, my ass.

It was a moot effort anyway, and the Russians were already working on the same thing, and wouldn't take long for them to showcase their toy as well.
So, in the end, only the Japanese lost with all this. Japanese civilians, women and children got conscientiously and mercilessly slaughtered (not to mention the consequences of radiation which can be seen still today, but I'll concede they might not be understood completely at the time) just for the Russians to see.
That is the truth, whether you like it or not.

Re:Degrees of definition (1)

cavreader (1903280) | more than 3 years ago | (#35597418)

Japan offered a cease-fire but not "unconditional surrender" which the allies were demanding. After all the killing and destruction just a cessation of hostilities was unacceptable. Those of us who did not live through that era have no idea the level suffering all sides endured and looking back now and saying they should have did this or they should have done that from our modern perspective is pointless. More people died in a single day of battles in Europe and the pacific then have been killed in 10 years of war in Afghanistan. The US had 2 bombs and there were concerns one of them may have not worked so wasting one on a demonstration would have been idiotic. We would live in a different world today if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor. That decision has to rank near the top of the biggest war blunders list in human history. Hitlers attack on Russia would also have ended up right underneath it on the list as well. The attack on Pearl Harbor turned on the US war machine and we have not turned it off since then.

Re:Degrees of definition (1)

KillaBeave (1037250) | more than 3 years ago | (#35597932)

The peace the Japan had offered was not a total and unconditional surrender, and still left the emperor in tact. FDR and the other allied leaders saw this as unacceptable. Japanese soldiers and their leaders were (supposedly) not allowed to be taken prisoner and were to fight to the last man for their emperor. This forced the US and her allies to basically fight a campaign of extermination wherever we needed to remove the Japanese for their conquered territories. This is a very costly in terms of lives lost for both sides (see Iwo Jima, Okinawa, the Phillipenes etc). Why not try and get them to capitulate without risking your own on the ground? A couple hundred thousand is an awful lot less than the estimated casualties.

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

The firebombings of Tokyo and other major cities had caused much more loss of life than the nuclear attacks combined and had not forced the Japanese to unconditionally surrender. (Note: I disagree with the attacking of civilian populations as well ... but it was just "how things were done" in both the European and Pacific theaters.)

A "show and tell session" as you are describing would have been very risky and costly. We only had 2 of these bombs, and weren't positive they would work. We also didn't know what their effectiveness would be when used against a city which is why we left Hiroshima and Nagasaki alone until they were bombed. If I were Truman, knowing what he knew and what the costs would be if we hit the ground and also fearing what the costs of allowing the Soviets to potentially conquer Japan would be ... I would probably make the same decision.

As a side note, after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear war became rightly feared and nearly unthinkable. Ground wars on the scale of a WW1 or WW2 became impossible, as either side capable of projecting that much force would be capable of just nuking the other and vice versa ... making WW3 too costly to contemplate. Sure there were smaller wars like the Korean war and Vietnam, but a showdown between the USSR and the western allies never happened thanks to MADD ... which may not have been possible without seeing the destructive capabilities of these weapons first hand. In that regard, those two bombs may have saved an order of magnitude more lives than they took.

Just my thoughts and my recollections of discussions about these things with my grandpa, who fought on the ground in the Philippines.

Re:Degrees of definition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35597370)

Japan was busy expanding to the south, China, and the Philippines in search of more land and resources. We were telling them that they needed to stop, or we'd be forced to intervene and blockade.

Well, if Commodore Perry didn't force Japan to open their gates and let the world in, those control freaks wouldn't strive for world (well, regional) domination, their stubborn isolationism was good enough for them (and good enough for all of East Asia)! BTW, when US grabbed Hawaii and prior to that Indian territories for more land and resources, there was none to tell you that you need to stop under threat of intervention and blockade, I guess because it was all moral and dandy.

Re:Degrees of definition (1)

JTsyo (1338447) | more than 3 years ago | (#35597822)

Not to mention if the war went on much longer the Russians might have gotten into Japan too. Then we might have ended up with a situation like Germany, with a split state.
The Japanese didn't surrender after the first nuke. Had they known we only had two, they might have not surrendered after the second either.

Re:Degrees of definition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35598092)

Actually, the Japanese plan almost worked. They're intent was not to overpower the US quickly and prevent us from joining the war effort, it was to cripple the US fleet in the Pacific in order to delay our entry long enough so that by the time we did join in (it was inevitable anyway) they would have a strong enough foothold on the South Pacific to withstand any attack we could muster. They also destroyed several British ships and outposts later that day.

The carriers in the Pacific weren't at Pearl like the Japanese expected (the Enterprise was due in Pearl on the 6th but was delayed due to bad weather, the Saratoga had just left San Diego, and the Lexington was delivering planes to Midway). There were also several capital ships in drydock in California that were hurriedly return to service right after the attack. If the Japanese had knocked out a few more capital ships and at least one carrier, then it would have been several months more until the US would have had enough of a fleet in the Pacific to start the counter attack and join the British.

The Japanese might have been able to dig in deeper and establish better air superiority and supply routes if that had happened. As it was, it was a touchy thing at first and we had to learn a lot of lessons quickly (i.e. a lot of sailors, pilots, Soldiers, and Marines died) in order to set up the conditions for the island-hopping campaign.

Re:Degrees of definition (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35596490)

"History is written by the winners." -- Alex Haley

Gee, funny that nobody has had that thought before!

Re:Degrees of definition (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 3 years ago | (#35597098)

"History is written by the winners." -- Alex Haley

Gee, funny that nobody has had that thought before!

Yep, it's "his story", the story of the guy who survived to write it. The dead guy's story (generally) remains untold.

Re:Degrees of definition (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35596578)

Your viewpoint is outrageously stupid.

You pretend as if nobody was "in the wrong" on either side, or more aptly, nobody was "in the right".

How much of a pussy can you possibly be to take such a weak stance in life?

I'm not one to argue moral absolutes, but that doesn't mean that in practice I'll stomach "evil" actions.

If the Axis had won you wouldn't be concerned with who was writing history -- you'd most likely be dead or never born, and the world would be an unimaginably horrifying place. You've completely ignored the doctrine of the Japanese and Nazis -- not the doctrine as it was written by "the winners", but as it was written by them.

You are a coward, and a walking, talking definition of ignorance.

Re:Degrees of definition (1)

biek (1946790) | more than 3 years ago | (#35597826)

If the Axis had won you wouldn't be concerned with who was writing history -- you'd most likely be dead or never born, and the world would be an unimaginably horrifying place.

Good thing The Good Guys won or else there would be horrible things happening to innocent people every day!

Re:Degrees of definition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35597870)

Good post, though unfortunately on slashdot, posts with name-calling and offensive tone are only modded insightful if they adhere to the liberal pov. Do anything else and you're modded troll. Sucks for us brother, but know you're not alone. We'll keep being the voice of reason until these teen geeks grow up, then they'll take our place :)

Re:Degrees of definition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35596718)

Did the 'good guy'/'bad guy' expression really need explaining? Don't you think the GP was being just a bit sarcastic? Were you that starved to bring up old debating points about WW2 and Bush II?

Re:Degrees of definition (1)

donscarletti (569232) | more than 3 years ago | (#35597426)

I'm sitting now in an area that was occupied by Japanese in WWII, all up, they killed about 30,000,000 Chinese civilians. Close to that number of Soviet Citizens were killed during their war with Germany and you are talking about 200,000 as if it was a big number. That's the same as what? Like the body count of a month of Japanese occupation in Nanjing? Unless you want to come out and start denying the holocaust also, you can take your revisionist history and shove it.

You were right about one thing, Americans were just sitting around minding their own business before the Japanese bombed Hawaii, while others were fighting and dying in Europe and Asia, because neither the Germans nor the Japanese had oil. Of course Americans are capable of the same self-serving non-interventionist policies we all know and contempt in the Swiss or imperialism that would make Caesar blush; but when given no other possible option, they will occasionally fight for the good and truth.

Re:Degrees of definition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35595894)

This robot doesn't require payment. So, it will send its data back to its owner or pwner.

cool (1)

mevets (322601) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595436)

I'm glad it has a laser signature to help find it.

Heaven forbid, I assume this is another nightmare weapon made for a world overcrowded with weapons and nobody with a clue about what to do with them.

Surely LHM made this as a hide-and-seek companion for busy couples with lonely kids.

I know it doesn't fit into LHM's business model, but can't somebody stop this insanity and spend 1/10^6 as much money on figuring out how to prevent conflict?

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure", goes the old saying, but it doesn't pay the bills.

Re:cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35595648)

Conflict is a consequence of a percieved incompatability of goals and/or objectives. In the real world this translates to access to material resources and the consequent labor they represent.

The only way anyone has figured out to prevent the above from degrading in to violence is to create interdependency between nations via free trade. If trade barriers and disputes are the catalyst to conflict, you can kill two birds with one stone by eliminating them.

Or so the theory goes. I suspect that this war on sovereignty will end in tears as the cost of shipping makes national specialization decreasingly profitible. Likewise, drawing parallels to biology, I think the lack of "biodiversity" under this economic system allows for anti-competitive practices such as the Chinese manipulation of their currency, as well as leaving humanity in general vulnerable to global scale disruptions to supply chains with no redundancy.

Once you have a worldwide monopoly on critical industries, you gain significant diplomatic leverage. This is where we are beginning to see international corporations having more influence than nations themselves.

How do you tax a company in to submission when their assets are largely liquid and they are more than happy to open their sweatshops elsewhere?

Re:cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35595654)

How to prevent conflict: ensure everyone gets what they want...

Re:cool (1)

Neil Boekend (1854906) | more than 3 years ago | (#35596946)

That's impossible. Imagine two people saying "I want these diamond mines all for myself". Do you really believe this doesn't happen?

Re:cool (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#35596114)

Surely LHM made this as a hide-and-seek companion for busy couples with lonely kids.

I've been intending to get into robotics for some time and I was considering such a thing as a mindstorms project - a kind of automatic toddler tormentor. Of course it could never compare to the natural version - also known as the mark one sibling.

Laser scanners covertly map? (3, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595472)

Just how hard would it be to detect anything using a laser scanner to map its surroundings?

While potentially useful against unaware civilians, use in a combat situations or as a tool for covert operations would probably be easily thwarted by existing technology, using a standard digital camera (even a cell phone) to check for IR lasers (the most common non-eye visible lasers). There is nothing particularly covert about lasers.

Re:Laser scanners covertly map? (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595528)

if it had an optical camera on it, the technology has existed for a long time to map out everything in 3d in the time it takes to shoot and process 2 frames.

hell, LHM could just hack a Kinect into it.

Re:Laser scanners covertly map? (1)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595710)

Haha. No. If this were true, why would we have laser scanners? As I understand it, the parallax effect is only true for a single point focused on by both lens of two optical cameras. Everything else is just an approximation. And parallax must have some big limitations, or we would use it in favor of lasers.

Re:Laser scanners covertly map? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35597384)

There's also things called time-of-flight range imagers. Think of a digital camera, but instead of red, green, and blue channels, you have luminance, range, and accuracy channels. That means for every pixel in every frame of video, you have a range measure, which makes it relatively easy (but still not trivial, mind you) to build a 3D map of your environment. This requires considerably less processing than a typical stereoscopic vision setup, but on the other hand requires an active light source that would be easily detected. Also, it's more reliable than a typical lidar (laser scanner) imager in that there are no moving parts, but the effective range is considerably worse since laser light intensity doesn't significantly attenuate on its way from the diode to the target, whereas the range imager's floodlight does. Also, the single point of light sweeping around from a laser imager is considerably harder to spot than the giant area illuminated by the range imager.

Re:Laser scanners covertly map? (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595632)

Fairly damn easy.

A neat trick to thwart so called night vision security cameras is IR LEDS in a baseball cap. It makes you appear with a big bright ball of light hanging around in front of your face.

If the building has good outside coverage with these types of security cameras (and they are common) it does not take a hugely sophisticated software program to detect these kinds of aberrations.

Granted these are lasers, but that only limits the exposure time of a security camera or sensor to the laser, and it does not eliminate it.

Ohhhh.... yeah... the motion sensor stuff. Let's not forget that :)

Re:Laser scanners covertly map? (1)

Warwick Allison (209388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595652)

Yes, "unaware civilians" is the main US enemy, domestically and, according to body counts, abroad.

Re:Laser scanners covertly map? (1)

Partaolas (1926386) | more than 3 years ago | (#35596082)

The navigation is covert. It is looking to minimize the chances of being spotted by (presumably) looking for shadows, going under tables, avoiding people and whatnot. Mapping is not even mentioned in the system's factsheet.

Personally I doubt that someone would be actively looking for lasers or have laser detection systems installed in a combat, hostage or other similar situation. In any case vision-based mapping is also possible, so I guess they either wanted to minimize processing requirements or it was just easier and faster to get a product out. When they start selling it, it will probably come with different payloads EO/IR, laser scanner, chemical sniffers, etc.

Btw Kinect (which someone suggested as an alternative) would have the same issue.

Important Message from Kremlen (4, Funny)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595484)

In Soviet Russia robots hide from YOU!

Re:Important Message from Kremlen (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35595550)

No, no,no

YOU hide from robot.

Re:Important Message from Grozny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35595586)

In Soviet Chechnya robot hide YOU.

Re:Important Message from Kremlen (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595656)

In Soviet Russia robots hide from YOU!

In Soviet Russia robots pretend to work like you. (Best way to pissadear)

Re:Important Message from Kremlen (1)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595904)

In Soviet USA robots are sent on you.
In Soviet Russia, you were sent on robot.

Ssssssss (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35595500)

Now all they need to do is paint it green and make it blow up when it gets close to one of its surveillance targets.

I for one welcome our robot overlords (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35595534)

Welcome!

It's been done before (4, Funny)

Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595536)

I could prove it if I could just find the stupid thing...

As if my insomnia wasn't bad enough already (2)

WonderingAround (2007742) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595560)

Thank's for making me aware that there are robots out there sneaking around unseen and unheard, heaven forbid someone gets the idea to give them weapons or even voices. WALL-E was kinda cool, you know what's not cool? When he sneaks into your house in the middle of the night, neutralizes your dog and family members, then fulfill's your bittersweet fantasies of a robot style apocalypse!

Re:As if my insomnia wasn't bad enough already (3, Funny)

Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595612)

WALL-E was kinda cool, you know what's not cool? When he sneaks into your house in the middle of the night, neutralizes your dog and family members, then fulfill's your bittersweet fantasies of a robot style apocalypse!

STALK-R?

Re:As if my insomnia wasn't bad enough already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35597694)

Kato?

KaaaaTOOOOOOO???

(for those maybe too young, a reference to one of the Pink Panther movies with Peter Sellers. His character, Inspector Cluseau would come home each night with his chinese servant hiding somewhere in the house to surprise him, resulting in a hilariously destructive martial arts fight of ridiculous proportions. One of the best parts of the movies. You never look at the refrigerator in the same way again.)

Re:As if my insomnia wasn't bad enough already (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595664)

Wait... bittersweet robocalypse? What's the good part?

Secondly.. the robot can sneak up on buildings, which last I checked, were not known for their agility. I'm pretty sure even the greenest new recruit can sneak up on a building...

Re:As if my insomnia wasn't bad enough already (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35596452)

Well, the bitter part is no more robot repair technicians. The sweet part is no more Jersey Shore! -- Bender

Just when you thought (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35595650)

... it was safe to jerk off

Re:Just when you thought (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595924)

Well at least it'll be able to warn you if it hears anyone approach.

Waiting (1)

natewar (1542509) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595690)

Just waiting for the prophecies shown to us by the Governator come true...

SKYNET says (1)

oDDmON oUT (231200) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595746)

TYVM meat.

As long as... (1)

jargonburn (1950578) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595766)

...we don't end up with these [penny-arcade.com] .

Are they blue and white... (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595782)

... with a sort of round dome thing on the front? And little giggle voices?

Re:Are they blue and white... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35595892)

Are you still there?

silent, invisible, deadly... (1)

kop (122772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35595916)

The perfect pet for a NINJA!

Re:silent, invisible, deadly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35597460)

Actually the Ninja Union is complaining that this will lead to further loss of ninja jobs due to robot unfair competition.

Does it fold up into a boombox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35595940)

and talk in the most insanely retarded and annoying squeaks and whimpers?

Good guys? (1)

SomethingOrOther (521702) | more than 3 years ago | (#35596078)

detect and evade sentries, and send reconnaissance information back to the good guys.

......I don't think it means what you think it means.

3D location report 10007 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35596136)

I detect 6 orthogonal intersecting layers of rigid paper-based material in+ve and -ve x, y and z directions cenetered on my current location. I suspect I am in a cardboard box. Help!

Fight fire with fire (2)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#35596152)

I don't know if there's a high-falutin' name for this strategy, but sometimes the best way to defend is to behave like an attacker. For example, if an opponent breaks through behind you in Rugby you run like his support player would in order to block his passing lanes.

In this situation you get your own robot that's programmed to sneak up on you in a similar way. If it doesn't find anything in one place it moves out, wanders around randomly and tries another route. Chances are it'll bump into the attacker at some point.

Re:Fight fire with fire (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35596290)

I don't know if there's a high-falutin' name for this strategy, but sometimes the best way to defend is to behave like an attacker. For example, if an opponent breaks through behind you in Rugby you run like his support player would in order to block his passing lanes.

In this situation you get your own robot that's programmed to sneak up on you in a similar way. If it doesn't find anything in one place it moves out, wanders around randomly and tries another route. Chances are it'll bump into the attacker at some point.

Good security is warning signs, sentries, floodlights, and fences.

Excellent security is where the attacker is unwittingly steered into an ambush. In this case the ambush could be large hole where you keep the parts from which you make your own sneakbots.

Good guys? (1)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 3 years ago | (#35596312)

"...sneak up on buildings, detect and evade sentries, and send reconnaissance information back to the good guys."

Just because someone owns one doesn't make them the "good guys".

Re:Good guys? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35596940)

Just because someone owns one doesn't make them the "good guys".

BS! If everyone always was concerned with having technological superiority instead ruminating too much on moral superiority, the world would, in fact, be a better place. The End.

Deja vu all over again (1)

AssetYoYo (519376) | more than 3 years ago | (#35596760)

Reminiscent of that classic Sci-Fi book _The Adolescence of P-1_

surveiled populations programmed for fear/darkness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35596816)

in fact, it's required that we know 'we're being watched', so we learn how to 'act' better/not afraid. thou shalt not...on & on it goes, unless you happen to be a chosen one?

Laser detector (1)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 3 years ago | (#35596920)

Hide from that.

Creates a business opportunity... (1)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | more than 3 years ago | (#35597002)

Programming water sprinkler heads (probably require an additional misting head) to puff water into the air on a random pattern and then you use readily-available motion detection software to look for the laser scanner beam.

Then, of course, you send your battlebot out...

lollll...sounds like fun. I hope the g'ment/private industry go as nuts as they typically do trying to use these things.

Re:Creates a business opportunity... (1)

Tolkien (664315) | more than 3 years ago | (#35597172)

I first read that as garment industry and I thought: What're they going to do, make sprinker headdresses, sprinkler jackets and sprinkler pants? I suppose the visibility of the sprinklers then would be the only thing keeping people from commenting on how you just wet yourself.

robot pride (2)

georgesdev (1987622) | more than 3 years ago | (#35597048)

It's time for robots to be proud. They should not have to hide anymore. It's the 21st century!

"Good Guys"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35597310)

"Good Guys" is a relative term....

Get Lost ! (1)

Darth_Kedar (527971) | more than 3 years ago | (#35597470)

Does anyone remember the robot who was told to "get lost" and he hid itself (Isaac Asimov's robot novel) ? Can you imagine the testing folks verifying that it works ? Test Case : Main Function Step 1 : Begin Step 2 : Try to find robot. Step 3 : If found, then fail test Step 4 : If not-found, then ... .. umm... . start with a new robot on Step 1 :)

Laser Scanners? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35597578)

How difficult is it to detect a laser scanner? And if it isn't difficult, how can this robot still hide?

Shaken, not stirred (1)

seven of five (578993) | more than 3 years ago | (#35598042)

"The name's Bot. James Bot."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?