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!

Throwable WiFi Camera

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the i've-got-my-eye-on-you dept.

Technology 198

Dotnaught writes "The Eye Ball is a spherical, throwable WiFi camera designed to precede police into areas where there's no direct line of sight. It's manufactured by O.D.F. Optronics, Ltd, an Israeli maker of vision-based systems for the defense, security and consumer electronics markets. Remington Arms Co. has won approval from the Federal Communications Commission to sell the Eye Ball domestically, with law enforcement being likely buyers. The cost is about $4,800 for two EyeBalls (who would want just one?), which apparently also includes video monitoring gear."

cancel ×

198 comments

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

not like back in the day (5, Insightful)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230468)

back in my day when we wanted to see round corners we held up a little mirror and looked, these cameras would be very difficult to get somewhere completely useful, and even if you could the person who was going to shoot at you could just move. It seems you would need the ability to move the viewable image to follow them like with.... a mirror?

Re:not like back in the day (3, Interesting)

sterno (16320) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230487)

Camera with thermal imaging in the eye ball and then smoke grenaes. done deal.

Re:not like back in the day (4, Funny)

Meagermanx (768421) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230505)

I was just playing Splinter Cell, so I'm wondering why they don't just use those launchable cameras you can attach to your silenced assault rifle's grenade launcher?

Re:not like back in the day (3, Informative)

shotgunefx (239460) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230577)

I saw a demonstration today on tv. It rotates horizontally after it rights itself. Though the reporter was only a few feet away from where it landed and mostly saw her legs.

Re:not like back in the day (3, Funny)

k31bang (672440) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230711)

where it landed and mostly saw her legs.

Soooo does this mean its a waste of money to throw into the womans locker room?

Re:not like back in the day (2, Funny)

wed128 (722152) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230800)

Depends on how much of a "leg man" you are i guess...

Re:not like back in the day (1)

shotgunefx (239460) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230863)

It is unless you're a calf man.

Re:not like back in the day (3, Interesting)

Brain_Recall (868040) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230642)

A mirror is of course a simple practical solution to the problem. But there are caveats. A mirror allows you to see around a corner, but it could also just as easily let the enemy know where you are (tilt it just wrong and it will be like a beacon). Not to mention a mirror is a tad bit fragile in a combat situation.

The military has used other solutions over the years. The use of a spit-shined combat knife worked extremely well for this (as it was standard issue to all soldiers). Newer technology has allowed the military to mount cameras onto the barrel of their M-16 and a small heads-up display (much like some helicopter head-up gear) is used to view. It allows them to reach the gun around a corner and view the area and even aim and return fire if needed. The camera is multi-purpose since it also could switch to night-vision.

The SWAT would probably like this more, as close combat allows them to bounce the ball around a corner and down a hall a little nicer. The ball itself is probably heavily weighted in one side (probably with the batteries) so that it would right-side-up.

Re:not like back in the day (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230993)

even if you could the person who was going to shoot at you could just move.

The best use of these things will be for rescuing people, not killing them. Being able to throw one of these around a potentially dangerous corner or through windows to see if there are injured or unconcious people inside could be invaluable.

The first post... (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230469)

... precedes the second.

Likely buyers (5, Funny)

katana (122232) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230472)

Law enforcement? Please. These things will be rolling into showers, changing rooms, and bathrooms about five minutes after they hit the market, with DVD sales following right behind (UPSK1RT!!!).

Also, the word is "precede," if you mean "going first."

Re:Likely buyers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230511)

Not for $4800 a pop they won't.

Re:Likely buyers (1)

Kuciwalker (891651) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230522)

Yeah, I'd recommend these balls to any pornographer.

Pork (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230473)

Any hobbyist could make one of these for $300...

Re:Pork (1)

smchris (464899) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230745)

Any hobbyist could make one of these for $300...

You're right. $2400/$300 is a lousy ratio for defense contracting. They should probably be a round $5000 EACH.

Re:Pork (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230964)

LOL! You're on. Show me!

more great editing (1)

lseltzer (311306) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230475)

I think that's "...precede police into areas..."

Re:more great editing (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230506)

> I think that's "...precede police into areas..."

English as we learned it is dead, and a new one has arisen. Six months ago my nephew showed me an english assignment he was quite proud of (92%, third highest mark in the class), with only a couple of spelling mistakes picked out. His teacher had missed marking him down for "asaposed", "loose", "alot", "u" and "ur". It was hard to share in his joy when you know the teacher's english literacy levels don't stretch any further than SMS-speak.

Re:more great editing (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230557)

It was hard to share in his joy when you know the teacher's english literacy levels don't stretch any further than SMS-speak.

This is the thing I love about grammar and spelling nazi's. They have no clue how bad their own efforts are when trying to be all high and mighty.

For what it's worth, "Teachers" does not require an apostrophe. No plural does.

Moron.

Re:more great editing (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230579)

Unless the plural is really a possessive.

Re:more great editing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230615)

You fail it; He used "teacher" possessively. Had he intended to refer to many teachers, he would have needed to write "teachers'" (ie. with an apostrophe after the s).

What's more, it isn't completely clear whether plural forms can have apostrophes. I believe it is acceptable, for example, to write "I got 3 A's on my report card." And you yourself used an apostrophe when pluralising "Nazi."

Re:more great editing (1)

Quobobo (709437) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230758)

it isn't completely clear whether plural forms can have apostrophes

No, it is. Using an apostrophe to pluralize nouns is incorrect and I have no idea why people do it. Yes, this means that things like "CD's" are wrong.

Re:more great editing (1, Informative)

Saven Marek (739395) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230516)

> I think that's "...precede police into areas..."

Wrong. [reference.com]

Re:more great editing (2, Informative)

kafka47 (801886) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230548)

> > I think that's "...precede police into areas..."

> Wrong.

Wrong [reference.com] .

"...designed to precede police into areas where there's no direct line of sight" - to go in before.

Re:more great editing (1, Informative)

hunterx11 (778171) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230555)

RTFL [reference.com] . "Proceed" in that sense is intransitive.

Re:more great editing (0, Offtopic)

BorgCopyeditor (590345) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230581)

Tell me how "proceed" in "designed to proceed police" can possibly be intransitive, given that it's taking a direct object.

Are you listening carefully? (1)

weierstrass (669421) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230793)

Because, it shouldn't be 'proceed'. It's 'precede'.
Now ask yourself what the ancestor thread was about.
Better still, ask yourself why you bothered to throw your $0.02 in.

Re:more great editing (3, Informative)

Nqdiddles (805995) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230636)

Please read your own link. Just for fun, of course.
It's a totally different meaning to the usage in the summary. It could "proceed with police into an area", or "precede thim into an area". They're not the same.

Re:more great editing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230701)

Saven is playing a fool role here -- but hey, I myself do this a lot, so he is human just like me.

Moderators, though, should know better, because they're supposed to do quality work. Gee, must we have metamoderation???

The word is precede. Pro- means "forward", pre- means "before" (-cede is "to go" or something alike).

Unless I'm wrong, which happens now and then... :-/

We really should be using Esperanto, it would be a lot easier...

Re:more great editing (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230816)

OMG it is so obvious. The balls go in before the cops do, so the cops know where they are!

Not like you go around the corner and stick the mirror in to watch where you just came from... the mirrors go first too.

First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230477)

Reminds of the Thief Videogame series...

first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230480)

something about gay niggers and my cock. definetly my cock. - m ilk

Orientation (0, Redundant)

rossdee (243626) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230482)

how do they know its going to end up pointing the right way?

seems to me one of those low profile military fobots might be better.

Re:Orientation (1)

peculiarmethod (301094) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230533)

again..

if there's a counterweight on the camera, and the camera is round and inside a plastic see-through ball, it can't be upside down. besides.. the recieving gear could just flip the image.

Re:Orientation (1)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230547)

The first time you were right, but the question was a little different this time.

What if you throw it into a room and it lands facing a corner?

Maybe that's why they come two to a set?

-Peter

Re:Orientation (1)

peculiarmethod (301094) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230570)

if it has wifi, its cheap and easy enough to add a motor with rubber grip onto the plastic containing ball.. just turn the camera around with a wifi signal. the plastic ball would stay still.

Re:Orientation (1)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230624)

Have you looked at the picture? It has an opaque, rubberized shell with a little round window for the camera to look out through.

-Peter

Re:Orientation (1)

peculiarmethod (301094) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230674)

it was asked how it could be done.. or thats how I took the question. I can remember plenty of instances when a product out of package looked different than press release photos. I imagine tracking on the inside of the casing with mtorized tracking on the inside ball and a counterweight would easily move the ball into sight. no see-through plastic necessary.

please READ the fucking article. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230650)

You will find out how it orients itself. All you have to do is read. It's that simple, moron.

No, I'm not new here. But the parent obviously is, to common sense.

Re:Orientation (1)

yincrash (854885) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230781)

from the manufacturer's site, it self stabilizes, then the recieving unit can rotate the ball 360 degrees.

Erm.. (1)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230485)

From what I get these seem military use.. Surely if these "evil terrorists" have all this uber technology and use the internet for communication it would be extremely easy for them to see this news (here or else where) and start shooting them the second they see them comming..

Maybe I'm just not seeing it but this to me screams "good idea, yet not".

better than the alternatives (1)

j1m+5n0w (749199) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230962)

it would be extremely easy for them to see this news (here or else where) and start shooting them the second they see them comming..
For law enforcement, that is a far better scenario than the alternative, which is to send an actual person in to see what's going on, and have him/her get shot at.

Very good idea, but (3, Informative)

AutopsyReport (856852) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230490)

It's a very good idea. But what if you toss the camera and it lands upside down? Unfortunately, you can't guarantee a good visual of your target. What would really be incredible would be a full 360 field of view with the same object. This was my first thought.

This is where good journalism comes in -- it actually answers these questions for you. I had to search for the pdf [odfopt.com] which explained this. I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned first.

Re:Very good idea, but (1)

peculiarmethod (301094) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230521)

if there's a counterweight on the camera, and the camera is round and inside a plastic see-through ball, it can't be upside down. besides.. the recieving gear could just flip the image.

Re:Very good idea, but (2, Insightful)

Black Cardinal (19996) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230540)

Chances are the ball's center of mass is not in the center of the ball, but offset in such a way as to cause the ball to settle at rest nearly right-side up for the camera. This would be a simple solution that would work on many surfaces, including most floors.

Also, the article doesn't say, but it probably also has more than one camera inside so it can see in multiple directions at once.

Re:Very good idea, but (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230550)

It's a very good idea. But what if you toss the camera and it lands upside down?

I thought about this too, but I realized they could simply make the ball's mass off-balance so it natuarlly sits on its "bottom". That would cause the sphere to roll badly, but they seem to push the idea of throwing it. Since the ball is supposed to be able to rotate from a resting position, perhaps the balance mechanism is part fo this. It rolls fine when you want it, and with a push of a button shifts a weight to right itself.

Moving cameras (2, Interesting)

lastberserker (465707) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230575)

That's why you use cameras on wheels [umn.edu] . They can move, they can jump the stairs, they can be thrown, and better yet, they can be fired from a special cannon. Totally sweet :-)

Re:Moving cameras (1)

Myself (57572) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230690)

Ahh, you beat me to it! The Scout was my first thought when I saw the story. It's a shame those aren't available for just anyone to purchase. I'd love to play with a few. I guess my only option is to go to UMN and get into that research program. Hmm.

Any well-equipped police department or stalker should have a wall-climbing robot [engr.uvic.ca] or two [therobotstore.com] in their arsenal as well.

Re:Very good idea, but (5, Informative)

Krach42 (227798) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230617)

God, it's like the sibling posts didn't even bother RTPDF.

Forget everything you're thinking that it MIGHT do. It has a centrally located motor, which allows for 360 degrees of rotation of the single camera. it doesn't need to counter balance roll to upright, besides, that would be a bad design, suppose the military is throwing it into a rough surface that will not allow it to roll.

better to have the mechanical rotation mechanism that can rotate at 4rpm, and have a software or mechanical rotation mechanism to get the sensor to point "up".

Re:Very good idea, but (1)

xigxag (167441) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230694)

It actually says right in the linked article that "When it comes to a rest, the ball stabilizes itself, then begins transmitting footage and sound," which makes it pretty clear it has some kind of self-orientating mechanism.

Re:Very good idea, but (1)

MoogMan (442253) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230792)

As it's a ball (the clue is in it's name), it could have a small weight at the bottom, or the logic would be placed all at the bottom, so it always would land bottom down. Well, this would be the cheap way of doing it :)

Throwable Camera (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230500)

Somehow throwing a $4,800 pair of cameras around still doesn't seem like a smart idea. What if person you throw them at just decides to steal them, or destroy them?

Re:Throwable Camera (1)

dotgain (630123) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230987)

or shoot them?

This is what I don't understand: You won't be able to lob one of these toward someone without them noticing it. In a combat situation, they'll probably treat the object as if it were a grenade. They'd have evaded it, hidded from it or secured it before the camera has had the chance to "stablise".

At any price, this invention measures pretty high on my WTF-ometer.

$4800?!?! (4, Informative)

sulli (195030) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230504)

For that it had better bring the crooks back wrapped in duct tape. I remember someone made a tiny wireless camera [x10.com] for a heck of a lot less.

Strong Encryption (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230507)

The article makes no mention of any encryption used. I suppose that you wouldn't want to use these for surveillance purposes, as they could potentially be located simply by intercepting and reviewing the perspective of the wireless signal.

Want to locate the police? See things from their perspective and know where they're coming in. Yes, this technology sounds like a brilliant idea!

Re:Strong Encryption (1)

jcuffe (873322) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230973)

All those movies you see of super technoliterate criminals that decided to do some common crime like robbing a bank and taking hostages are just movies. Most people don't pack their rigs with their rifles when they go to commit felonies.

Stargate SG-1 ten years ago (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230509)

the Guaold would throw these through the stargate and get back a holographic image of the other side. That was ten years ago.......

Law Enforcement (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230518)

with law enforcement being likely buyers

Because when one of these comes crashing through the window, the bad guys are just going to say: "Huh, I wonder what that was. Oh well." And then leave it alone. Right.

I think a system like this one [uspto.gov] has a much better chance at successfully spying on the "bad guys."

Posting anonymously because I work at a place that manufactures these, and even though it's patented, they still like to think it's a secret. Also, clearly not everything in the patent is in the actual system. "Interpreter Software" and "Intoxication Meter" in particular are amusing bits of the patent that aren't even possible to implement as described.

Re:Law Enforcement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230630)

I dunno, but if something comes crashing through a window, I would assume its a grenade and would duck down, go for cover. I would not be trying to see what it was that came in.

$4800?? (1)

Jeff Benjamin (528348) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230524)

I'll be willing to bet that these throwable camera eyes, with display hardware and software, can be scrapped togeather for a whole lot less then $4800.

Re:$4800?? (1)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230566)

Yes, this is a concept that appears throughout the world known as 'capitalism'.

Re:$4800?? (4, Insightful)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230622)

Yes, this is a concept that appears throughout the world known as 'capitalism'.

Trouble is, the force that drives the new booming field of security/military/anti-terrorism devices isn't free market, but rather how much it's possible to milk public money from law enforcement agencies before they start to complain. Since they never complain, primarily because they *want* to be seen as spending a lot to "protect" the people, all these companies keep jacking the prices up. And none of them would dare giving the game away by trying to be cheaper than the others, there's just too much money to be made for everybody without having to being normal business competition into play.

In short, the anti-bad-guys market isn't driven by capitalism, and hasn't been since 9/11. Rather, the state and the private sector work together to spend your tax money as fast as they can, making themselves richer and you poorer under the pretext of protecting you.

Re:$4800?? (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230585)

True, but with this there'll be customer service and likely a warrenty package. Scrapping togeather stuff is still scrapping togeather stuff. Although, since alot of agencies have to allow bidding, theres an opportunity there for someone to do this for a lower cost.

Re:$4800?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230704)

Why do you deem it acceptable to post your otherwise intelligent response in such an atrocious english? Man, have a little self-respect and respect for your readers and try to write correctly. Sheesh...

the reason why they sell you two "eye" balls... (1)

wisebabo (638845) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230527)

... is to get stereo! (just kidding but wouldn't it be nice for distance measurements etc.).

Re:the reason why they sell you two "eye" balls... (1)

saskboy (600063) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230737)

It would make more sense to put them into the same ball, so you know the distance between the cameras, otherwise you'd have to determine how far apart the two seperate cameras thrown are to get triangulated distances, right? I suppose some fancy software might make it work, but two cameras a known distance apart makes more sense to me.

Future designs will include... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230539)

...sharp gripping forks and a drill bit.

Is 'proceed' a transitive verb now? (1)

Darius Jedburgh (920018) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230582)

I am so behind the times.

What if it lands wrong? (1)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230591)

For anyone who didn't RTFA and had the same first thought as me: yes it does have some kind of motorisation and weighting to keep it up-right and allow mobility.

Hey coppers! (4, Funny)

east coast (590680) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230597)

Garrett called and he said he can help you with this, including a bionic eye. All he wants is for you to stop calling him taffer and chasing him all the time. Even a thief needs to make a living you know.

Cheap camera? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230600)

I could have sworn that I read "Throwawayable" Wifi camera. I was about to head to Walgreens/Costco/wherever and purchase their entire stock.

On an unrelated note, would I be considered a "peeping tom" if I rolled one of these things into a cheerleader's locker room?

Re:Cheap camera? (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230669)

On an unrelated note, would I be considered a "peeping tom" if I rolled one of these things into a cheerleader's locker room?

Not if the room is empty...

Don't forget (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230611)

Don't forget to put it in a try catch block

mo(8d down (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230649)

I know who... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230655)

... would want just one. Pirates! Yarrr, 'tis for me missing eye, matey!

(Don't tell RIAA.)

spoNge (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230665)

the reaper In a If I Remain to get involved in open platform, Need your help! own agenda - give

I suppose this means (2, Funny)

datatrash (522537) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230667)

the bad guys are going to start practicing their golf swings.

Not so hard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230692)

They probably put the camera on a gyroscope inside the ball so it always faces upright. If they combined that with a counter rotating flywheel and a stepper motor, they could get panning and tilting too. Sounds really cool to me.

Vernor Vinge's Peace War (1)

RalphBNumbers (655475) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230700)

Do these remind anyone else of the camera balls that the Tinkers used for their security systems in The Peace War?

The ones in the book used some fancy optics to capture a 360 degree picture, and then post-processed it to let the user virtually pan-and-scan without the need for moving parts, instead of mechanically rotating the ball like these. And, of course, they were a lot smaller, were tacky instead of bouncy, had better power arrangements, and were deployed ubiquitously.

But, still, this could be seen as a sort of primitive ancestor to the Tinkers' surveillance systems...

Re:Vernor Vinge's Peace War (1)

georgewilliamherbert (211790) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230943)

Do these remind anyone else of the camera balls that the Tinkers used for their security systems in The Peace War?
The general idea of a throwable, usually round camera or sensor ball has been in science fiction and various sci-fi games since the early 80s at least. Vernor didn't originate it, though he was one of the earlier people to use it in writing.

They've been technically feasible for about 10 years now, and have been prototyped here and there. This is the first reasonably affordable production line model.

Worked in Thief (1)

Hsien (864759) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230707)

Well they worked in First Person Sneaker Thief! Oh yeah, reality and all that.. doh.

In other news... (1)

spacefight (577141) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230708)

... sales for WiFi radio frequency jammers gone trough the roof.

Seriously, they rely that the cam lands somewhere still in range for a WiFi connection, sounds like roulette to me. Throw it in a bin by accident and you can write your $4800 off...

Who would want just one? (0, Offtopic)

craXORjack (726120) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230735)

The cost is about $4,800 for two EyeBalls (who would want just one?)

Hitler. He only needed one more to make a set.

Re:Who would want just one? (1)

jrockway (229604) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230860)

I think you're the first person to ever invoke Godwin's law during a discussion on WiFi. Congratulations... I think...

Brilliant! (1)

ggvaidya (747058) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230899)

If you don't know what Parent means, you can invoke the Wikipedias [wikipedia.org] .

In other news... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230738)

Mad Eye Moody wants his eye back.

That's freaking expensive (2, Insightful)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230749)

I have a $20 camera here by my computer. It's made out of plastic and I can throw it pretty damn hard and it won't experience anything more than a couple scratches.
Now granted, it's wired to my computer by a 20 foot cable, but making it wireless wouldn't take a lot of money. I'd say $50 ish tops.
I certainly wouldn't want to spend more than $70 for a camera that I would use to throw around corners that might not even end up pointing in the right direction.

And with these new suggested cameras, you still have to view the output from said camera. In order to use this camera you have to:
- Throw camera
- Look at screen displaying camera output
- Put away the screen displaying camera output
- Go around corner.

Between steps 2 and 4 there is a huge amount of time that people could use to change their position, thus negating effects of having a camera at all.

Re:That's freaking expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230914)

Right.. try throwing your cheap camera a hundred feet. It'll be in pieces.

And $50 tops.. what the hell? Look at the average price of wireless cameras, they're hardly close to 50 dollars. And these cameras don't bounce off walls, self-adjust, or have internals designed for constant impact.

Re:That's freaking expensive (1)

ThomaMelas (631856) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230954)

Your twenty dollar webcam is a piece of crap. It's at best a third of the balls resolution and it's lens is focused for about three feet away. And perhaps you should read spec sheet to see why it might cost more?

Life imitates gaming? (1)

Errandboy of Doom (917941) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230764)

Anyone else think this is similar to the visibility gadgetry in some FPSs, like the camera darts in Splinter Cell?

It'd be interesting to see grenade cameras exactly like these in FPSs, hopefully we'll get that soon. Then we can test out all the mad sp10itz so the government doesn't have to. :)

I'd vouch for the tactical usefulness short range visibility tech, but IRL I'd probably just run in to clear a room of terrorists, accidentally cycle to my cam-nade, bean a terrorist in the head with one, then die by a headshot while circle-strafing him and waiting for my damn handgun to autoload.

Also, any chance we can combine this invention with this one [yankodesign.com] ? It's just not the future until little copter cameras are buzzing around like mosquitos all over the place.

Not WiFi (2, Insightful)

paul248 (536459) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230780)

I see nothing in the article or the datasheet to indicate that this is a WiFi camera. 802.11* isn't the only way to send stuff through the air.

in relation to the other story on the front page.. (1)

know1 (854868) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230787)

..imagine a swarm of those "boinking" robots with cameras in. would that be like a beow..oh nevermind

SlashDarth (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230848)

If all the slashdot people grew up with Star Wars, they must have been on Darth Vader's side.

I've never seen slashdot cover technology from a real rebel's perspective. It's always, new tech for cops, new tech for imperial Usaian troops so they can kill more Ahmed Skywalkers. The best slashdot gets is the lame "tactical media" stuff (bluesnarfing) that rich imperial kids come up with to get cred. Brothers over in Iraq are hot-wiring mobile phones to tank-gun shells and stuff to repel an invading imerial army and we never hear about these amazing hacks. This overpriced wi-fi baseball cam was developed in Israel to help kill Palestinian kids, and it's all praises. Where's your conscience?

Did you loosers all want to be Moff Tarkin when you were 7?
"No, I want to be Veers! You be Piett!"

Or maybe your inner Han Solo has died.

It operates on part 15 freqs... (2, Insightful)

pozar (54229) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230898)

Anyone with a cordless phone can wipe it out.

Give me paper towels, $3000 and some duct tape... (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230912)

...and I will build you one for much less.

Brought to you by Tyrell Corp... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230926)

I just do eyes. Just - just eyes. Just genetic design. Just eyes.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Blade_Runner [wikiquote.org]

I disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230940)

All cameras are throwable. Even that $10,000 Sinar you've got there. *Especially* that $10,000 Sinar.

obligitory... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14230961)

Do not throw around corner into laser beam with remaining eye ball.

Aww man.. (1)

Coolnat2004 (830862) | more than 8 years ago | (#14230971)

I thought they would look like translucent red super balls! Assholes!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>