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!

This Robot Collects Fingerprints

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the maybe-autographs-too dept.

Robotics 188

Roland Piquepaille writes "When police officers found suspicious packages today in an airport or a train station, they destroyed them immediately, along with potential fingerprints on them. A new robotic device, dubbed RAFFE (short for "Robot Accessory for Fuming Fingerprint Evidence), developed by scientists from the University of Toronto (U of T) and the University of Calgary, offers a solution to this problem. Mounted on an ordinary robot, it will reveal fingerprints by releasing Super Glue on the object. Then it will take pictures of these fingerprints. The Calgary Police Service is already using RAFFE for field tests. This overview contains more details and extra references."

cancel ×

188 comments

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

Beverly Hillls Cop, too! (0, Interesting)

jrj102 (87650) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932049)

Wow! A robotic Axl Foley [imdb.com] ! (I am surprised to hear that super glue actually works to pick up fingerprints.)

Seriously, though... do we need a robotic fingerprint gatherer? Doesn't it make more sense to use robots in more dangerous assignments, and leave the forensics to human officers?

--- JRJ

Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932084)


Worst attempt at karma whoring ever

Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! (2, Informative)

kewsh (655090) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932089)

the fumes adhere to the oils from the skin left by the finger print. it's also a much better method than "dusting"

Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932115)

I think fingerprinting a live bomb is a dangerous assignment...

Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! (3, Funny)

Luguber123 (203502) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932133)

I have no problem with making a list of people who qualifies for the job!

Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! (1)

jrj102 (87650) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932142)

This assumes it's a bomb (as opposed to a change of underwear and some toiletries) but you're right. My thinking was more along the forensic side (gathering fingerprints) being a fairly benign act, as opposed to actually retrieving a package and ascertaining whether or not it is actually dangerous, which seems like the better job for a bot.

--- JRJ

Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932194)

But if it isn't dangerous you don't need prints. If it is then they would be very helpful, but you can't have humans approaching a package for forensics if a bot has already designated it a probable bomb.

Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! (4, Informative)

Uber Banker (655221) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932393)

Fingerprinting an exploded bomb is commonly done though, and I wouldn't doubt DNA testing also being done. Whatever it is - the casing, schrapnel, components... discrete parts usually remain allowing fingerprinting, even on 1000lb bombs.

Of course figerprinting a live bomb it is great (easier to find parts that may have prints, and reduces the uncertainty 'just in case'), but fingerprinting exploded bombs is done and is very successful.

Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! (4, Insightful)

Neon Spiral Injector (21234) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932119)

It isn't exactly the super glue, it is the cyanoacrylate fumes released from heating the glue. It turns the finger prints white, then they can be photographed.

The reason they don't have a human doing this work, is because it is a dangerous assignment, investigating a suspecious package. Normally the robot would just destroy the package, finger prints and all. Now they can make images of the prints before destroying the package.

Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932212)

It isn't exactly the super glue, it is the cyanoacrylate fumes released from heating the glue. It turns the finger prints white, then they can be photographed.

The reason they don't have a human doing this work, is because it is a dangerous assignment, investigating a suspecious package. Normally the robot would just destroy the package, finger prints and all. Now they can make images of the prints before destroying the package.


I suspect that the other reason is that cyanoacrylate fumes aren't exactly healthy to breathe.

Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932363)

Uh, didn't the slashdot blurb say basically the same thing? The only new explanation here is "fumes" and "white." Everything else is just rephrasing the blurb.

Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932497)

The reason they don't have a human doing this work, is because it is a dangerous assignment, investigating a suspecious package. Normally the robot would just destroy the package, finger prints and all. Now they can make images of the prints before destroying the package.

Lost and Found: Hello sir or ma'am... you left a package at the airport, please claim it.

Passanger: IT WAS ONLY A BUNNY!

Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! (1)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932621)

normally, when you want fingerprints, you have to not only treat them with cyanoacrylate, but you have to dye the print as well in order to get a good photo.

besides, there's more than one way to get fingerprints, each different way being appropriate to various possible situations, surfaces, etc.

you also have to consider how you are going to present the fingerprint evidence in court, should you catch the culprit.

so I'm betting that yes, this robot will be useful, but not in 100% of all situations.

Yergblerghas (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932054)


Mounted on an ordinary robot

Great, the T-1000 series try to extinguish humanity by smothering us with Super Glue fumes.

Christmas presents (5, Funny)

r_glen (679664) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932056)

Squirt gun - age 7
Remote control vehicle - age 10
Camera - age 14

Dammit, I could have invented this thing 10 years ago!

Re:Christmas presents (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932144)

Not without super glue

semen stains (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932058)

Will the semen stains on the robot also be analyzed?

Sweet gibbering Jesus! Now you've done it!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932352)

If I install a Fleshlight in my mobile bomb-fingerprinting robot, does that mean I will end up spending my next vacation in sunny club GITMO?!!!!

And I hear that Ninnle Linux STILL doesn't have FireWire drivers for it!!!!

Isn't there a (2, Funny)

alen (225700) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932061)

right to privately leave unmarked packages in an airport?

Re:Isn't there a (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932159)

No.

That's irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932164)

The police also have the right to test them for fingerprints.

Re:Isn't there a (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932173)

I'm trying to decide if you're joking and the person who modded you up is a complete idiot or if you're both complete idiots.

Re:Isn't there a (4, Insightful)

Frnknstn (663642) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932183)

No. At the very least it is littering.

California v. Greenwood (3, Informative)

David Hume (200499) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932421)


Isn't there a right to privately leave unmarked packages in an airport?


I'm not sure if you are joking, but if you are not you may want to look at the U.S. Supreme Court decision in California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988) [cornell.edu] . The Court stated:

The issue here is whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home. We conclude, in accordance with the vast majority of lower courts that have addressed the issue, that it does not.


I understand that this is not directly on point in that it concerns garbage. However, in this age of terrorism I very much doubt that the Supreme Court is going to hold that the authorities cannot take fingerprints off of a package apparently abandoned at an airport, train station, etc.

Re:California v. Greenwood (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932444)

Excuse me, but I believe that word is spelled "cartilage". HTH.

Cartoon in the making? (4, Funny)

Jaywalk (94910) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932063)

I can just see a Looney Tune scenario in the making when someone touches a bomb covered with Super Glue . . .

(Oh, admit it. You thought the same thing.)

Re:Cartoon in the making? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932478)

"Sticky bomb like-a you!" - Lo Wang (Shadow Warrior)

Just what we need... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932064)

...a glue-sniffing robot. I can already see hordes of them loitering on street corners in dingy Slipknot t-shirts pestering me for change.

It's not a glue sniffing robot. (4, Funny)

Jin Wicked (317953) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932206)

It's a glue dispensing robot, which means that it will be followed where-ever it goes by kids in Slipknot t-shirts pestering you for change.

On the plus side, it will make it rather easy for these rampant glue-junkies to be brought to justice, making the streets safer for us all.

Re:It's not a glue sniffing robot. (3, Funny)

drivelikejehu (601752) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932256)

If by brought to justice you mean being blown to smithereens, I can't agree with you more.

It also (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932066)

Eats old people's medicine! I'm glad I have Old Glory Insurance.

Proud Canadian (4, Informative)

dolo666 (195584) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932070)

I'm Canadian and I'm always really happy when I hear of advances in science from our great nation. I'm tired of hearing Canada being labled as a safe-haven for terrorists, and it makes me proud to know that our universities are continuing to contribute to the capture and conviction of terrorists all over the world. By securing the lives of law enforcement officials everywhere, Canada has contributed to making everyone safer, and in turn, improving the quality of life in America. I also can't wait to see an episode of CSI (or CSI Miami) with this little techno-wonder in action!

Re:Proud Canadian (0, Offtopic)

Thng (457255) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932096)

What about CSI:Moose Jaw?

Re:Proud Canadian (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932113)

This is Canada's first invention.

fuck (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932126)

you

Re:Proud Canadian (1)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932193)

And it [raffinews.com] keeps the children entertained too!

Always?! (1)

scottblascocomposer (697248) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932576)

I don't know why, but when I first glanced at this post, I mentally inserted a period after the seventh word:

I'm Canadian and I'm always really happy.

:)

Super Glue (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932080)

How are you going to take a picture of the prints if they're covered in glue?

Re:Super Glue (4, Informative)

grub (11606) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932116)


The glue is heated up and the fumes adhere to the skin oils in the fingerprint. They don't dunk the object in a tank of glue.

Super (3, Funny)

blackmonday (607916) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932085)

Last time I used Super Glue I glued by thumb and index finger together for an hour. I hope this robot is better at sticking that little pin in the container than I am.

Re:Super (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932269)

Ahhh, you must have had vaseline on your cock, or else you would have mentioned your cock in that sticky situation.

Anyway, acetone (nail polish remover) will dissolve the glue.

Re:Super (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932349)

Hey, what do you mean troll? I was telling him how to get unstuck. Acetone will do it.

Careful with that Acetone, it can burn yer little pecker.

Re:Super (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932545)

ever notice how CA (cyanoacrylate) says that it "BONDS SKIN INSTANTLY" but makes no such promises about anything else?

Super glue? (2, Funny)

SCSi (17797) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932093)

Cue jokes about Johnny-5 super-gluing himself to random objects.

But.. (5, Funny)

BorkBorkBork6000 (769812) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932094)

Wouldn't it be much cheaper to hire the homeless or students to take the prints?

Re:But.. (3, Funny)

MalaclypseTheYounger (726934) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932276)

True story.. a friend of mine used to sell robotic bomb-finding machines. They had a 85% success rate of defusing bombs. They cost about 10 million US to purchase.

A Russian military person was interested in the machines, until he found out that if the robot failed to defuse the bomb, they usually were broken beyond repair.

He said "We'll just stick to using soldiers. They're much cheaper"

Nice. :)

Re:But.. (1)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932449)

In soviet russia, bombs defuse robots!

Counter-Robot (1)

Sv-Manowar (772313) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932120)

Maybe some budding terrorists will create a counterpart "RAFFAEL" that automatically chops off peoples fingerprints ?

Re:Counter-Robot (4, Funny)

kill-hup (120930) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932208)

They already have! It's called a GLOVE ;)

Smart criminals don't assemble packages/leave home without them.

Re:Counter-Robot (2, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932539)

Smart criminals

that is an oxymoron.. or actually in reality is' exceedingly rare to find a smart criminal.

and this, my friends, is a GOOD THING. imagine if the braindead-turds in a gang discovered what a 30-6 hunting rifle and a good scope can do. or the same rifle and some well welded together washers that you lightly machine just right can do to the sound of that rifle.

Criminals are stupid to the extreme... that is why they are criminals.

Will the evidence hold up in court? (4, Interesting)

gevmage (213603) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932125)

I wonder how this is going to hold up in court? Are digital photographs of the fingerprints (I assume that's how the pics are taken) submittable as evidence in a court of law?

I think it's a terrific idea, but the first time it's used, there's going to be a huge fight about the guarantee of authenticity of the prints.

Re:Will the evidence hold up in court? (1)

elmegil (12001) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932168)

I can't imagine making it a film camera really has much more in the way of security for the integrity of the image.... I suppose you could come up with some way to MD5 hash the incoming data stream and digitally sign the hash or something....

Are you kidding me? (1)

hot_Karls_bad_cavern (759797) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932308)

"... I can't imagine making it a film camera really has much more in the way of security for the integrity of the image.."

You have no idea what Photoshop can do have you? And no, i don't mean piecing together little pictures and having fun. Photoshop in the right hands can create a "photo" that will blow your mind and remove any doubt that film is *much* more secure....ever tried to change a negative? Pretty fucking hard since it's already dev'd...prints are another issue though.

Re:Will the evidence hold up in court? (2, Insightful)

The Ultimate Fartkno (756456) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932198)


> Are digital photographs of the fingerprints... submittable as evidence in a court of law?

Under the PATRIOT act, a model of the fingerprints sculpted entirely out of CHEEZ-WHIZ would be admissable.

"...because if we can't use creamy, cheezy goodness to keep this nation safe, then the terrorists have already won." - John Ashcroft

Re:Will the evidence hold up in court? (2, Insightful)

Scrag (137843) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932264)

Why would the authenticity be questioned more than with current methods of taking prints? In the end it comes down to trusting that the police are not fabricating the evidence, and I don't think this system makes it any easier to fabricate fingerprints than it already is.

Re:Will the evidence hold up in court? (3, Insightful)

shystershep (643874) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932372)

It's a good point, but probably moot. Just because it's not admissible in court doesn't mean that the police/FBI can't use it to investigate the crime. And find such fingerprints would be more than sufficient probable cause to issue a search warrant, where (if the suspect is in fact guilty) admissible evidence can be found. At that point, the authenticity of the fingerprints really doesn't matter too much.

Re:Will the evidence hold up in court? (1)

damiangerous (218679) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932426)

I wonder how this is going to hold up in court? Are digital photographs of the fingerprints (I assume that's how the pics are taken) submittable as evidence in a court of law?

Of course, it's the same method used to take fingerprints today. The only difference is the "robot".

Re:Will the evidence hold up in court? (1)

TigerNut (718742) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932472)

They could use a Polaroid type camera as a backup or primary imager, with a continuous video recording for proof of authenticity.

It's a cool idea. I'm sure there are tons of other backyard-science type of solutions, just waiting for someone to have the flash of insight and put the right parts together.

Didn't Eddie Murphy do this? (2, Interesting)

IWantMoreSpamPlease (571972) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932130)

In one of his cop films? And here I thought it was just Hollywood being typical (i.e. getting science and technology incorrect)

Who knew, all these years, that super glue *does* pick up fingerprints?!

Re:Didn't Eddie Murphy do this? (2, Informative)

damiangerous (218679) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932293)

Who knew, all these years, that super glue *does* pick up fingerprints?!

Every forensic scientist, crime scene investigator and police officer? This is an old technique known as "cyanoacrylate fuming" and was invented in, I believe, the late 70's. It was in pretty common use by the time Eddie Murphy was making cop movies, that's for certain.

Re:Didn't Eddie Murphy do this? (1)

Cruciform (42896) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932454)

If anyone is intent on trying out cyanoacrylate fuming at home, do it in a sealed container.
And don't open the container unless you have more than adequate ventilation.

You can kill yourself with the fumes if you're not careful.

Re:Didn't Eddie Murphy do this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932297)

They do it every week on CSI.

Re:Didn't Eddie Murphy do this? (1)

tds67 (670584) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932485)

Didn't Eddie Murphy do this? In one of his cop films?

No, you're thinking of the banana in the tailpipe trick (and I'm presently working on a remote-controlled, banana-stuffing robot)

Damn, (1)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932547)

Dr. Pepper in my nose again..

Damn you sir...

Re:Didn't Eddie Murphy do this? (1)

TigerNut (718742) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932529)

It sure does - in the last twenty years I've used superglue to pick up my fingerprints and leave them on model airplane parts, car parts, electronics assemblies, ...

CSI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932137)

Great, how long before they make an hour long CSI special about it...

mounted on an ordinary robot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932156)

every robot owner will want this!

Wouldn't it be cheaper to use helper monkeys? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932157)

Perhaps feces could be used as a substitute for superglue?

Not to nitpick but... (4, Informative)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932158)

When police officers found suspicious packages today in an airport or a train station, they destroyed them immediately, along with potential fingerprints on them.

This introductory sentence makes it sound like there was some *specific* event today at the airport or bus station involving suspicious packages and police officers.

Though gramatically correct, it is a matter of practice in written/spoken English to use the present tense when generalizing as in: "When police officers find suspicious packages today in an airport or a train station, they destroy them immediately, along with potential fingerprints on them."

I wouldn't even have bothered pointing this out, but that blurb made me scurry over to http://news.google.com for a look-see. Good story though.

Re:Not to nitpick but... (1)

frodo from middle ea (602941) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932377)

It not gramatically correct, and that is why it is confusing as hell.

The reason it is not gramatically correct, is because of the the OR clause.

Lets analize in detail..First part is "When police officeres found sucpicious pakes today", this means the author is talking about a perticular incident , that took place sometime today. But then he goes on to say "in an Airport OR a train station", This does not make gramatical sence. If the author is speaking of a perticular incident, then there should be no ambiguity about where it took place. So the correct use should indeed be as the parent pointed out, in present tense.

Remote Controlled Device not robot (4, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932165)

Why do people keep calling remote controlled devices robots?

A robot is an autonomous object responding to its environment.
A remote controlled device is under direct control.

We call them
Remote Controlled Cars
Remote Controlled Planes
these are clearly not "ROBOTS".

Why are the more esoteric remote controlled devices called robots?

Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot (5, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932181)


Why are the more esoteric remote controlled devices called robots?

I call my RealDoll "Becky".

Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932257)

In Capeks "Rossum Universal Robots" 1920 play, the original use and coining of the word "robot" came from the Czech language word "robota" for "slave", "servitude". Factory robots used in every auto plants are generally not autonomous, nor used any kind of AI or even fuzzy logic. Just sequencers. This fits well with an RC robot. read a little..

Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot (2, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932333)

>> Just sequencers

So traffic lights are now robots?
A pinball machine is now a robot?
An old mechanical telephone exchange is a robot?
My car is now a robot? (the whole car as an electro mechincal system responding to inputs, does it matter if I sit, in it, on it, or 50' away and control it over wires.

I would give it to assembly line robots as electro-mechanical systems responding to programmed code with little more than on/off and sensors for inputs.

Putting humans directly in the control loop stops making it a robot. Having humans direct, a'la slave, would still meet the definition of a robot.

Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932428)

robotist!

Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932565)

Traffic lights are not robots because they do not have moving parts :) Pinball machines became robots when they started to be computer-controlled. A PBX has no moving parts, except maybe relays, which don't count. Your car is not a robot as it is directly controlled, but it does make use of robotics technology.

If you want any more ambiguities cleared up, just let me know.

Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot (1)

UrgleHoth (50415) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932318)

Then what do you call those machines with arms in automobile factories that put the porducts together, lowlevel mechanical employees?

Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932477)

No, "lowlevel mechanical employees" are the 9-fingered, high school drop-outs that punch the buttons that live under the mob-like protection of the UAW.

Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot (1)

RetroGeek (206522) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932484)

Why are the more esoteric remote controlled devices called robots?


It is news bite friendly. Surely you don't want actual FACTS from our news anchors do you?

Film at 11....

Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot (1)

centauri (217890) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932505)

Shuzan rolled out his robot and said, "If you call this a robot, you oppose its reality. If you do not call it a robot, you ignore the fact. Now what do you wish to call this?"

Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot (2, Informative)

flying_monkies (749570) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932520)

dictionary.com: robot ( P ) A mechanical device that sometimes resembles a human and is capable of performing a variety of often complex human tasks on command or by being programmed in advance. A machine or device that operates automatically or by remote control. A person who works mechanically without original thought, especially one who responds automatically to the commands of others. +4 Insightful because he can't use a dictionary? Please.

I can just see it... (4, Funny)

ArbiterOne (715233) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932174)

"Sir..." "What?" "The robot appears to have glued its fingers together, sir..." "Darnit! Do we have any nail polish remover?"

Re:I can just see it... (1)

morcheeba (260908) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932578)

Hookerbot to the rescue! [mweb.co.za]

(from this [mweb.co.za] article)

Homer Simpson moment (3, Insightful)

poptones (653660) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932175)

This is definitely one of those "Doh!" moments. As in "why didn't I think of that?"

With all the crap patents we hear about in this forum, it's great to read about a simple, obvious invention that someone actually invented - an idea that's actually worth some real credit.

But it still makes me wanna kick myself for not thinking of it first.

I smell sitcom! (4, Funny)

ArmenTanzarian (210418) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932192)

Two members of the bomb squad, like a modern day odd couple and their lovable sarcastic robot friend who squirts super glue on them. Hijinx... ready.... GO!!!1

Re:I smell sitcom! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932418)

Two members of the bomb squad, like a modern day odd couple and their lovable sarcastic robot friend who squirts super glue on them. Hijinx... ready.... GO!!!

You mean like Mac and Cheese [thecfsi.com] ?

Re:I smell sitcom! (2, Insightful)

frodo from middle ea (602941) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932422)

better yet, I smell a reality TV show, hot semi nude chicks , competing against robots, to defuse live bombs. And to add, shocking surprising elements , make some bombs irreversible. kick a55.

In other news... (2, Funny)

Saeger (456549) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932223)

In other news, the Bomb Squad labor union is threatening to strike if management decides to replace their jobs with cheaper, more productive robots. [blogspot.com]

Also, loss of life doesn't seem to be an issue here... apparently being on the bomb squad gets you laid almost as much as being a post-9/11 fireman.

--

Re: finger prints (4, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932230)

This Robot Collects Fingerprints
So does my monitor, my TV screen, the fridge, windows, etc. Can I have my grant now?

(Yeah, I RTFA. It's a joke :-)

Why? (3, Insightful)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932262)

Wouldn't any self-respecting bomb maker wear gloves, or superglue his/her own fingerprints to make them illegible?

Or better yet, involve someone to handle the package for him/her, throwing the trail off?

This is only going to catch the dummies, who most likely have already blown themselves up.

Re:Why? (1)

zakezuke (229119) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932650)

Wouldn't any self-respecting bomb maker wear gloves, or superglue his/her own fingerprints to make them illegible?

You're assuming the fingerprints would be by the people involved with the bomb. The packaging may have the finger prints by someone who sold the goods in question, or shopped at the store. While they may not be a suspect, they might be able to ID the person who bought the stuff.

Mounted on an ordinary robot... (2, Funny)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932284)

Where do I get an ordinary robot?

What is an "ordinary" robot? It's not like I can go to the local robot dealer and look at base model "ordinary" robots vs the sports package or "pleasure model" AWESOM-O 4000.

Please define "ordinary robot". Most of the robots I see in cartoons or movies are quite extraordinary. Thanks in advance, bitches.

Journalism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932286)

When police officers found a suspicious package today...

Did the police actually find a noteworthy suspicious package? While I suppose that it may be a safe bet that somewhere, some police DID find such a package, it's still a suspicious way to couch a rhetorical (and marketroid-y) introduction.

Mounted on an ordinary robot (2, Insightful)

Wiseazz (267052) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932288)

That's just vague enough to work.

An ordinary "bomb disposal" robot would be better. I might also take exception to the term "robot", if I wanted to be a jerk about it.

Good idea, though. I'm sure if they thought about it, they could add a whole swiss-army knife's worth of gadgets to the arms on those things.

Wait, no, hold on a minute. (0, Redundant)

labratuk (204918) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932309)

Mounted on an ordinary robot...

What do you mean 'an ordinary robot'?

Re:Wait, no, hold on a minute. (0)

manazeal (721306) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932364)

like pete?!

Oh no! My $250,000 finger print robot (5, Funny)

blueZ3 (744446) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932316)

glued itself to the bomb!

This is stupid! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8932326)

Why do we have the robots gluing our lost packages? The robots should be gluing the terrorists! If we had glued together the hijackers, they would have never fit into the cockpits and 9/11 would never have happened. It also makes the war on terrorism less intrusive to our civil liberties, as the military and law enforcement could focus solely on people that have been glued together, leaving the innocent travels unhindered.

New challange for bomb makers (1)

Remlik (654872) | more than 10 years ago | (#8932458)

Now we might see some slimy bomb makers rigging detonators with chemical detectors. As soon as the robot fumagates the package it detonates....no more robot.

I always wondered why bombers leave these things behind in rather conspicious places for long periods of time. Its almost as if they want the bombs to be found before they detonate...seems like a short fuse and a decent hiding place would serve them better.
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>