Slashdot Mirror


This Robot Collects Fingerprints

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."

188 comments

  1. Beverly Hillls Cop, too! by jrj102 · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Wow! A robotic Axl Foley! (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

    1. Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Worst attempt at karma whoring ever

    2. Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! by kewsh · · Score: 1, Informative

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

    3. Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    4. Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! by Luguber123 · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    6. Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! by jrj102 · · Score: 1

      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

    7. Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      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.

    8. Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    9. Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    10. Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! by Uber+Banker · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    11. Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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!

    12. Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      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.

    13. Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Methinks this one watches too much CSI.

    14. Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So what happens when it comes across a suspicious white package? Are we going to see white packing paper and boxes outlawed?

    15. Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! by jrj102 · · Score: 1

      > But if it isn't dangerous you don't need prints.

      Point taken.

      --- JRJ

    16. Re:Beverly Hillls Cop, too! by dnahelix · · Score: 1

      I think you're OK using white paper on your boxes, just don't leave them unattended in an airport terminal.

      --
      Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
      They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
      I Hate \.
  2. Yergblerghas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny


    Mounted on an ordinary robot

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

  3. Christmas presents by r_glen · · Score: 5, Funny

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

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

    1. Re:Christmas presents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Not without super glue

    2. Re:Christmas presents by DebianRcksLindowsLie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So just exactly how does one put super glue into a squirt gun without gumming it up?

  4. Isn't there a by alen · · Score: 2, Funny

    right to privately leave unmarked packages in an airport?

    1. Re:Isn't there a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

    2. Re:Isn't there a by Frnknstn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. At the very least it is littering.

      --
      If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
    3. Re:Isn't there a by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      Nothing wrong with leaving an unmarked package at an airport.... But if it is done on purpose (and given the current level of paranoia around airoports), it could easily ammount to a 'mischeif' charge.

      But, if your package contains 10KG of plastique, then you can expect a long, undocumented, 'vacation' in Cuba.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    4. Re:Isn't there a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      right to privately leave unmarked packages in an airport?

      Only if it is your private airport.

  5. Cartoon in the making? by Jaywalk · · Score: 4, Funny
    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.)

    --
    ===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
    1. Re:Cartoon in the making? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  6. Just what we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  7. Proud Canadian by dolo666 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!

    1. Re:Proud Canadian by Thng · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What about CSI:Moose Jaw?

    2. Re:Proud Canadian by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      And it keeps the children entertained too!

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    3. Re:Proud Canadian by EaterOfDog · · Score: 0

      When I think of Canada creating something, I think beer and mountain bikes.

      --

      Crushing my karma one post at a time.
    4. Re:Proud Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about those cute little round pieces of meat that go on breakfast sandwiches? Thank you Cananda. Thank you

    5. Re:Proud Canadian by saforrest · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm tired of hearing Canada being labled as a safe-haven for terrorists...

      Well, you could just stop watching Fox News. :)

    6. Re:Proud Canadian by saforrest · · Score: 1

      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.

      You seem pretty quick to ascribe credit to your nation for this. Why? It's not like Canada is really a haven for terrorists, like all the right-wing American T.V. stations claim. Canada has nothing to prove to the States.

    7. Re:Proud Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It IS though. Ever heard of the Khadrs? You don't want to know how many times we replaced "lost" passports for them. We let a kid who was injured in a fight with Pakistani forces come back for free medicare. Our gov't isn't serious about stopping terrorism, Canada is quite vulnerable to attack.

    8. Re:Proud Canadian by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      If you have some evidence that the Khadr's committed a terrorist act, or broke any Canadian laws, I encourage you to report it to your local police department, or branch of the RCMP (or, if you're really uppity, CSIS). The son was injured while tagging alongside his fanatical father in a suicidal battle in Afghanistan, but that isn't in and of itself a crime. The mother said some unpleasant things about our nation, but again that isn't a crime.

      I may be brutally offended by some of the things the mother has said, and some of the people who this family have consorted with, however these people are citizens (hell I believe the kids were born here), and one of the core tenets of our society is freedom of speech: They have every right to criticize the "gays and drugs" in our society as anyone (well, until bill c250 goes through...).

      Saying that a failure to deport these citizens makes us a harborer of terrorists is insipid and misinformed mob talk.

    9. Re:Proud Canadian by ergo98 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As a fellow Canadian, I find your post grovelling, pandering, and embarrasing. As another poster said: We have nothing to prove. This is just another academic advance from another of the world's research institutes, and it's rather pathetic to "see! We matter!" with it.

      In any case, do you really think the far-right in the US, the people who will say and do whatever they want to support their pet projects, care about facts (this'll make em see the light)? Of course they don't. They care about promoting xenophobia, paranoia, and the illusion of safety. All to get some funding for the local military base, or the local tech center that's developing a massive big brother database, or whatever other number of slush fund contributors they need to appease. If that means creating an illusion of a complacent Canada because we don't jump everytime their narrowsighted, politically charged so-called-intelligence agencies uncreatively imagine a threat (usually be imagining the prior threat repeating), then that's a price they're will to make someone else pay.

    10. Re:Proud Canadian by saforrest · · Score: 1

      It IS though. Ever heard of the Khadrs? You don't want to know how many times we replaced "lost" passports for them. We let a kid who was injured in a fight with Pakistani forces come back for free medicare. Our gov't isn't serious about stopping terrorism, Canada is quite vulnerable to attack.

      Yes, of course I've heard of the Khadrs. Two points:

      The fact that Abdul Karim Khadr was shot by Pakistanis does not convince me that he is or was intent on committing an act of terrorism, or even of shooting a gun. For that matter, there are plenty of quite innocent people shot by Pakistani soldiers in recent years, most of them Pakistani.

      Yeah, I'm not particularly happy that we replaced all those passports either, or that Chretien intervened personally to help the elder Khadr. But, aside from bringing the Khadrs home, all that was all before 9/11.

      I think letting them back home was the right decision, but that we ought not to do them any more favours. If any of the Khadrs ever lose their passport again, tough shit, time to brave those Canadian winters with the lot of us.

      Stockwell Day's arguments on the Khadr issue piss me right off. He isn't arguing that the Khadrs are a security threat or that they're guilty of terrorist crimes, because he's got no evidence for these. He simply says, straight out, that the Khadrs don't deserve to come back because they happen to be acquainted with someone we don't like (Osama bin Laden) and they happen to agree with his political aims. Perhaps there was a 'political orthodoxy' bit in the fine print on that passport application that I didn't get around to reading?

      I'm quite proud of the government, and the public generally, for ignoring Day on this.

  8. Super Glue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

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

    1. Re:Super Glue by grub · · Score: 4, Informative


      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.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
  9. Super by blackmonday · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Super by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    2. Re:Super by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

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

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Super by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      That's because it was developed during the Vietnam war as a quick way of stitching a wound.

  10. Super glue? by SCSi · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  11. But.. by BorkBorkBork6000 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:But.. by MalaclypseTheYounger · · Score: 3, Funny

      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. :)

      --
      Check out the best P2P sharing website: MEDIACHEST.COM
    2. Re:But.. by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      In soviet russia, bombs defuse robots!

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    3. Re:But.. by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      No, no, you don't use your own soldiers to defuse bombs - you use captured enemy soldiers to do that...

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    4. Re:But.. by G-funk · · Score: 1

      That's what soldiers are for. To die to get "the leader"'s point across, so he doesn't have to.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    5. Re:But.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make the homeless fight in the ME for their glue. We could rotate the troops out and the homeless in and kick some real goals at the election.

  12. Counter-Robot by Sv-Manowar · · Score: 0

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

    1. Re:Counter-Robot by kill-hup · · Score: 4, Funny

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

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

      --
      Sinepaw.org: Grape Winos
    2. Re:Counter-Robot by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Counter-Robot by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      IIRC isnt that how the Madrid train bombers were caught, ie from fingerprints on one unexploded bomb?

    4. Re:Counter-Robot by mangu · · Score: 1
      Criminals are stupid to the extreme... that is why they are criminals.


      Funny, I always say that, and people ask me if I believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny...

    5. Re:Counter-Robot by weileong · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking that it's hard enough catching terrorists. it's plausible that when they are planning this they don't actually *think* their bombs won't go off, but if news that fingerprints can be lifted off it with machines like this etc. etc. they'll get less careless, and one less piece of evidence will be afvailable in the future.

    6. Re:Counter-Robot by reinard · · Score: 1

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

      That's not an oxymoron.

      If they were easy to find, they wouldn't be smart criminals. You don't hear / find / see many smart criminals because they don't brag about it, have careful planning, and often don't get cought.

      --
      Reinard
  13. Will the evidence hold up in court? by gevmage · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Craig Steffen
    http://www.craigsteffen.net
    1. Re:Will the evidence hold up in court? by elmegil · · Score: 1

      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....

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    2. Re:Will the evidence hold up in court? by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 2, Insightful


      > 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

    3. Re:Will the evidence hold up in court? by Scrag · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Will the evidence hold up in court? by shystershep · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
    5. Re:Will the evidence hold up in court? by damiangerous · · Score: 1
      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".

    6. Re:Will the evidence hold up in court? by TigerNut · · Score: 1
      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.

      --

      Less is more.

    7. Re:Will the evidence hold up in court? by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      the medium (digital, negative, lifting, etc) is not the issue, it's how the prints are analysed and compared.

      the lawyers tend to question the fingerprint examiner's ability more than the chain of evidence in these cases.

    8. Re:Will the evidence hold up in court? by pla · · Score: 0

      I wonder how this is going to hold up in court?

      Better question - What do they plan to charge people with, since they conveniently destroy all the available evidence?

      Sure, they may occasionally save people from a bomb. But 99% of the time when you hear about a "suspicious package", it turns out as something like lunchmeat or talcum powder for a baby.

      Call me paranoid, but I consider this pretty damned scary...

      "We found your fingerprints on an unmarked package at a bus station. We have decided to charge you as a terrorist"
      "But that just had my dirty clothes in it"
      "Oh yeah? Prove it!"
      "Umm... You blew it into a million bits"
      "Gotcha - The bits tested positive for explosives"
      "I repeat, you blew it up. Of course it tested positive for explosives, the same ones you used on it!"
      "Oh, convenient story, you goddamned terrorist! Say 'hi' to Bubba for me, scum."
      "???"

      Of course, any such case should get thrown out of court (under the once-upon-a-time idea of "innocent until proven guilty"). I, however, wouldn't want to bet my anal virginity on that.

    9. Re:Will the evidence hold up in court? by jackbird · · Score: 1

      That's why the legal system has discovery. The scenario you describe assumes you have no ability to test the explosive residue yourself, and/or that any such test would give a simple yes/no result, and couldn't distinguish between types or quantities of explosive. Neither of these assumptions are true.

    10. Re:Will the evidence hold up in court? by Alter+Relationship · · Score: 2

      At that point, the authenticity of the fingerprints really doesn't matter too much.
      Enemy of the State, anyone? Go 2-3 levels up: plant some "evidence" in the target's home, make him look like a mafia-man/drug-dealer/child-molester, then it doesn't really matter if the fingerprints were real - people will know he's lying even before he opens his mouth.
      Scary stuff (and best-of-what-I-remember-now quote)

      .

  14. Didn't Eddie Murphy do this? by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?!

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    1. Re:Didn't Eddie Murphy do this? by damiangerous · · Score: 2, Informative
      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.

    2. Re:Didn't Eddie Murphy do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do it every week on CSI.

    3. Re:Didn't Eddie Murphy do this? by Cruciform · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:Didn't Eddie Murphy do this? by tds67 · · Score: 1
      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)

    5. Re:Didn't Eddie Murphy do this? by TigerNut · · Score: 1

      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, ...

      --

      Less is more.

    6. Re:Didn't Eddie Murphy do this? by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, but I'm willing to wager the *average* person on the street had no clue about this.

      And seeing as how I'm neither a forensic scientist, crime scene investigator or police officer, it was news to me.

      --
      So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    7. Re:Didn't Eddie Murphy do this? by sjames · · Score: 1

      You mean other than anyone who watches CSI?

    8. Re:Didn't Eddie Murphy do this? by karnal · · Score: 1

      I can't decide if you're talking about cars or humans....

      --
      Karnal
    9. Re:Didn't Eddie Murphy do this? by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

      I haven't had a TV since 1989, so no, I don't watch CSI, or any other show for that matter.

      --
      So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
  15. CSI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  16. mounted on an ordinary robot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    every robot owner will want this!

    1. Re:Mounted on an ordinary robot by Jaywalk · · Score: 1
      they could add a whole swiss-army knife's worth of gadgets to the arms on those things.
      It's been done. The Andros Wolverine has an intechangeable tool set. It has a generic gripper and this link documents it using stuff like wire cutters, laser targeting and a shotgun.
      --
      ===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
    2. Re:Mounted on an ordinary robot by Wiseazz · · Score: 1

      That thing is sweet! It's like a Mars Rover, only badass.

      --
      My sig sucks.
    3. Re:Mounted on an ordinary robot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "An ordinary "bomb disposal" robot would be better."

      And a heck of a lot more expensive. You loose more equiptment if the thing goes boom.

      Simplicity.

  17. Not to nitpick but... by GillBates0 · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
    1. Re:Not to nitpick but... by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 1
      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.

      --
      for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
    2. Re:Not to nitpick but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      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.

      Like this one, you mean?

  18. That's irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  19. Remote Controlled Device not robot by RichMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


      Why are the more esoteric remote controlled devices called robots?

      I call my RealDoll "Becky".

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    2. Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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..

    3. Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot by UrgleHoth · · Score: 1

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

      --

      Dogma - "let's just say we'd like to avoid any empirical entanglements."
    4. Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot by RichMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >> 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.

    5. Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      robotist!

    6. Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot by RetroGeek · · Score: 1

      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....

      --

      - - - - - - - - - - -
      I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
    7. Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot by centauri · · Score: 1

      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?"

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Durga.
    8. Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot by flying_monkies · · Score: 2, Informative

      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 disagree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it to the death - Voltaire
    9. Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot by coyote_oww · · Score: 1

      If "Becky" doesn't have a remote control, it must be responding autonomously to it's envirnment - ergo, she's a robot... :-)

    11. Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot by davandhol · · Score: 1

      Outsourced?

    12. Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot by Feanturi · · Score: 1

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


      This is because, clearly we have drifted away from the strict definition of a robot as an autonomous machine. Instead what we do, as soon as you've given a machine the facility to pick something up and manipulate that something, that defines it as a robot. Take an RC car for example, and mount a, um, robot arm (what else can we call it?) on top. Voila, you have a robot car. It's not technically correct, but this is normal practice for the bastardization of a language, it's been going on for millenia so we'd best get used to it.

    13. Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot by RichMan · · Score: 1

      I have a big problem with this simple definition and the expansion to include general "remote controlled devices".

      A ceiling light (or fan if you want mechanical systems) is a robot by this definition as it is switched by a remote control. The switch is not in the same place as the device it controls.

      Most of these so called police devices (many are cable controlled, although replaceing the cable with a digital radio link is not much of a complication) are no more complicated than a bunch of switches and motors. Essentially no more complicated than a bunch of kitchen ceiling fans. Yet they end up being "robots".

      Those battle "robots" are the same thing, nothing more than a bunch of remote switched relays.

      Does your car become a "robot" if you have remote lock contol? We are getting to many devices for everything to be a "robot".

    14. Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot by Gorphrim · · Score: 1

      "Mounted on an ordinary robot..."

      Indeed, and furthermore what, pray tell, is an "ordinary" robot? Perhaps they are invisible and all around me every day. Perhaps they look like those Stormtrooper-meets-the-military-robot-from-A.I. mannequins in the "I, Robot" movie... Perhaps the Rhoomba qualifies?

      Sorry, the "ordinary robot" line just cracked me up.

      --

      Queens of the Stone Age - they rule
    15. Re:Remote Controlled Device not robot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your ceiling fan is "capable of performing a variety of often complex human tasks?" You latched on to one small part of the definition, and in so doing you missed out on the difference between a robot and a remote-control car. Spraying glue on an object and then identifying and photographing fingerprints is a complex task. Spinning around to make air move is not, nor is simply moving from one place to another. I will admit that determining what counts as "performing a variety of often complex human tasks" is mostly subjective, but it's not as bad as you're making it out to be.

  20. I can just see it... by ArbiterOne · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  21. Homer Simpson moment by poptones · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

  22. I smell sitcom! by ArmenTanzarian · · Score: 4, Funny

    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

    1. Re:I smell sitcom! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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?

    2. Re:I smell sitcom! by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
    3. Re:I smell sitcom! by biobogonics · · Score: 1

      Two members of the bomb squad, like a modern day odd couple and their lovable sarcastic robot friend

      How about the movie "Runaway" with Tom Sellick?

      http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0088024/

  23. It's not a glue sniffing robot. by Jin+Wicked · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    My Webcomic: Asylum on 5th Street
    1. Re:It's not a glue sniffing robot. by drivelikejehu · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  24. In other news... by Saeger · · Score: 2, Funny
    In other news, the Bomb Squad labor union is threatening to strike if management decides to replace their jobs with cheaper, more productive robots.

    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.

    --

    --
    Power to the Peaceful
    1. Re:In other news... by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

      Plus you get to wear those kick-ass t-shirts that say "If you see me running, you should be following me!"

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
  25. Re: finger prints by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Funny
    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 :-)

  26. Why? by teamhasnoi · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    1. Re:Why? by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    2. Re:Why? by JUSTONEMORELATTE · · Score: 1

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

      If at first you don't succeed, maybe bombmaking isn't for you.
      I had always heard it as 'Skydiving' but it kinda works.

      --

  27. Mounted on an ordinary robot... by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:Mounted on an ordinary robot... by LoP_XTC · · Score: 1

      Let me know if you find the Cherry-2000 model :) ... mine broke, and I need to fix it.

      Aaron

      --
      "Curiouser and Curiouser...." -Alice
    2. Re:Mounted on an ordinary robot... by Barbarian · · Score: 1

      mod parent up, +1 Funny for the southpark reference (AWESOM-O)

  28. Journalism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  29. Mounted on an ordinary robot by Wiseazz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    My sig sucks.
  30. Are you kidding me? by hot_Karls_bad_cavern · · Score: 1

    "... 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.

    1. Re:Are you kidding me? by jackbird · · Score: 1

      ...and you have no idea what a film recorder can do.

    2. Re:Are you kidding me? by elmegil · · Score: 1

      Which was my point. Yes, I know exactly what Photoshop can do, I've been using it for about 8 years. While I'm no fark photoshopper, that's mostly due to time constraints, not familiarity. My point was not that digital was secure, but that film is NOT particularly more secure, just more difficult to work with.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
  31. Wait, no, hold on a minute. by labratuk · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Mounted on an ordinary robot...

    What do you mean 'an ordinary robot'?

    --
    Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
    1. Re:Wait, no, hold on a minute. by manazeal · · Score: 0

      like pete?!

      --
      Poopy
  32. Oh no! My $250,000 finger print robot by blueZ3 · · Score: 5, Funny

    glued itself to the bomb!

    --
    Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
  33. "Brillo" my ass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  34. California v. Greenwood by David+Hume · · Score: 3, Informative

    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). 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.

    1. Re:California v. Greenwood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    2. Re:California v. Greenwood by Ra5pu7in · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nope, "curtilage" is the correct term as quoted and means:

      a piece of ground (as a yard or courtyard) within the fence surrounding a house

      *from good ol' Merriam-Webster

      --
      I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
    3. Re:California v. Greenwood by SmackCrackandPot · · Score: 1

      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.

      Doesn't trash that is left outside become the property of the council or the collecting agency? I remember a big fuss being made about unscrupulous paper recyclers who were driving around the streets in the early morning and picking up bundles of newspapers that were meant to be recycled by the city.

  35. New challange for bomb makers by Remlik · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Apple free since 1990!
    1. Re:New challange for bomb makers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It would be simpler to build a bomb which has a magnetic switch so that it can detect metal nearby. Detecting chemical fumes could be pricey, but magnets and microswitches are cheap.

  36. Damn, by way2trivial · · Score: 1
    Dr. Pepper in my nose again..

    Damn you sir...

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    1. Re:Damn, by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      Evidently Dr. Pepper has grown tired of coming in cans, and now comes in your nose. >:-D

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    2. Re:Damn, by Alranor · · Score: 1

      Somehow I doubt Mrs. Pepper is particularly happy with this :)

  37. Always?! by scottblascocomposer · · Score: 1

    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.

    :)

    --
    To reign is to serve.
  38. An anecdote... by CPM+User · · Score: 3, Funny
    Many years ago now, we had a job to do in Belfast, and after work we got very drunk in a pub. We left the car parked directly outside the pub and when we returned for it in the morning, the army had blown it up after someone had phoned in some car bomb threat. It later turned out that our insurance did not cover this sort of thing.

    Fortunately, it wasn't me that had to explain what had happened to the shiny new company car.

  39. Ordinary Robot by Sloppy · · Score: 2, Funny
    Mounted on an ordinary robot..
    I guess it really is the 21st century, when people start using phrases like "ordinary robot." Now where's my suitcase-car?
    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:Ordinary Robot by nova20 · · Score: 1
      Now where's my suitcase-car?

      A suitcase car would be useless. Who wants to carry around a 2000lb suitcase... or even a 100lb suitcase for that matter?

      /nova20

    2. Re:Ordinary Robot by Xaleth+Nuada · · Score: 1

      Where's my jet pack?

      --

      I read Slashdot for the .sigs
    3. Re:Ordinary Robot by Chris+Hodges · · Score: 1

      What, this jet pack?

  40. what if.. by gphinch · · Score: 1

    ..they build a bomb that is set off by super-glue fumes? ruh-roh.

    --
    in bed.
  41. Obligatory AYB Reference by MrNonchalant · · Score: 1

    Captain, we get signal. What! Main screen turn on. Somebody set us up the bomb.

  42. Sample from listening in on the police radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    CrackleOfficer Bob, Officer Bob, please respond!

    CrackleI'm here.CrackleI need you to explain to me again how it is that I'm supposed to get the fingerprints off of this suspicious pack#@taGFEW#@r32fwa4 [NO CARRIER]

  43. Engrish Grammar Nazi by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1
    How dare you post to /. with that kind of grammar. I believe you meant to say

    Captain, we get signal. What! Main screen turn on. Someone set up us the bomb.

    --
    Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
  44. Summation by Ra5pu7in · · Score: 1

    This is a bomb disposal robot enhanced with the ability to attempt to pick up fingerprints from the packaging prior to the destruction thereof. Yes, prints can still be gotten from the contents - even if a bomb explodes - but the package may have been left by someone else. Also, prints from shrapnel are less likely to be whole and distinct. A logical addition to the features of this robot. Unfortunately, the counter-measure taken by terrorists is easy - wear gloves or have the box handled by so many people prior that a clear print is impossible.

    --
    I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
  45. Ordinary Robot? by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 1

    Perhaps I missed something epochal sitting deep in my computerized kitchen. Where can I get that ORDINARY robot, please? PLEASE!??

    --
    There you are, staring at me again.
  46. I am nitpicking.... by hopemafia · · Score: 2, Informative

    Never before have I seen a Grammar Nazi with worse grammar.

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

    Is is a small word, but it is necessary after "It" in this case.

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

    No comma is needed in this sentence and "the" is repeated.

    Lets analize in detail..

    I think you must mean analyse...I don't even want to think about detailed analizing. It's also a sentence fragment (no subject) and is followed by "..". If this was supposed to be a sentence it should end ". " or it could be linked to the following sentence with an "..." or a ":" could also be used.

    First part is "When police officeres found sucpicious pakes today",

    This is the worst, since it is a quote. Why not just copy and paste? Officers, suspicious, and packages are all misspelled. And the sentence should be started with "The", and end with a period since the comma make it a run-on sentence.

    this means the author is talking about a perticular incident , that took place sometime today.

    In this sentence "This" should be capitalized, "that" is needed after "means", particular should be spelled with an "a", and there should be no space before the comma that shouldn't be there in the first place.

    But then he goes on to say "in an Airport OR a train station", This does not make gramatical sence.

    Beginning a sentence with "But", while technically legal, is redundant in this case since "then" implies the continuation of the previous thought. This is also two sentences, not one, thus the comma should be a period, and sense does not have a "c".

    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.

    This is pretty good, aside from the aforementioned misspelling of particular, and the need for a "the" in front of "present tense".

    Please stop tarnishing the noble profession of Grammar Nazi with your drivel.

    (It's funny...so laugh already...and feel free to pick apart my grammar because I'm sure I messed something up in all that.)

    --
    If God had had a computer it would have taken him 7 months to create the earth...if he even bothered to do it at all.
    1. Re:I am nitpicking.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      with "The",
      front of "present tense".
      ...

      Punctuation should be inside the quote marks. So, for example, instead of "The", you should use "The," . And when a quote is at the end of a sentence, you should put the period "inside the quotes."

      Yes, I realize that I broke the rule in my own post here, but it was necessary to preserve the integrity of the quote from your post.

      -- Grammar Nazi Extraordinaire

    2. Re:I am nitpicking.... by hopemafia · · Score: 1

      Hmmm...yes, good point. I was thinking of the exception when puncuation is not part of the quote, but after further review that only applies to question marks and exclaimation points, not periods and commas.

      --
      If God had had a computer it would have taken him 7 months to create the earth...if he even bothered to do it at all.
  47. Less Useful Outdoors? by Lattitude · · Score: 1

    I suspect it is challenging to direct the glue vapour on to the object when it is windy...

  48. Thank goodness! by Kludge · · Score: 1

    Thank you, Canada, I feel so much safer now we have a finger-print robot. I'm sure it will save the 10's of thousands of lives lost every year to suspicious packages. No wait, that's automobiles. Never mind.

  49. I think that's the hallmark of a good invention by mbessey · · Score: 1

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

    That's how you know it's a really good idea. I think there's a hierarchy, from good to bad:

    Initial reactions to new inventions:
    1) How the hell did someone come up with that? It's brilliant!
    2) Why didn't I think of that?
    3) I don't get it.
    4) Who thought that was a good idea?

    -Mark

  50. Psychology of Bombers by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    Remlik wrote 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.

    From what I understand, bombers are a criminal class unto themselves - Theodore Kaczynski (the Unabomber) actually fit the "profile" quite closely. They are generally very timid and afraid of confrontation (which is why they leave bombs) and if anything happens that makes them nervous, they tend to drop the bombs where they are and run. One of the things that make them nervous is the unstable nature of their bombs - many of them are built from match heads or other pyrotechnics that can be found in hardware stores and can't be traced back to them.

    The meticulous planner with access to military grade hardware in fiction is just that; most bombers are paranoid loners that put bombs together out of a variety of random pieces.

    myke

  51. Think by dolo666 · · Score: 1, Troll

    Don't be a photard, dude, and think for a second about what you're saying before looking stupid. What if we had one of these robots sniff a bomb from the mid-90s, and this fingerprint evidence cracked open a terrorist cell in the USA? And just what if it was the terrorist cell that spearheaded 9/11? Thousands of families would be safe and the two towers would be standing today, and all because of a few geeks from Toronto and Calgary.

    Even the smallest things like finger prints can prevent thousands of deaths.

    1. Re:Think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, don't be a photard. Just think - if we hadn't invented airplanes, then we would have never had the 9/11 incident.

      You're the tard.

  52. A most unfortunate name... by marquis111 · · Score: 1

    Isn't its name also an... umm... human anatomical word?
    People should think about these things beforehand.

  53. oh yeah? by trb · · Score: 1

    my laptop screen collects fingerprints, and i bet it's cheaper than this fancy robot.

  54. a traveller's delight... by dR.fuZZo · · Score: 1

    So now if you lose your luggage you can look forward to being held in jail indefinitely as a suspected terrorist. Sweet.

    --
    -- dR.fuZZo
    1. Re:a traveller's delight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .....with no clean underwear to boot, as it was already blown up!

  55. Um...no, the evidence found would be tossed by SuperBanana · · Score: 1
    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.

    Um, no. If the search warrant was issued based on invalid evidence, the product of the search can be thrown out.

    1. Re:Um...no, the evidence found would be tossed by shystershep · · Score: 1

      You're right up to a point, but you're missing a critical distinction between inadmissible and "invalid." The police don't have to have admissible evidence in order to have probable cause and get a search warrant, just a reasonable basis for more than a mere suspicion.

      If the evidence is "invalid," by which I'm assuming you mean that it is false or doctored in some way, you're right that the warrant might be invalidated -- BUT there's a world of difference between the police having to prove that a technique is sufficiently certain/secure to be admissible as evidence on it's own right, and the defendant having to cast enough doubt on the basis of the probable cause (and showing that the police officer knew about the problem) in order to have evidence suppressed. It depends on the judge, of course, but if the (further) evidence was found without a gross violation of the suspect's rights it is probably going to be seen by the jury.

      --
      The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
  56. Super Glue by Insomnia · · Score: 1

    I believe that should be "...releasing Super Glue FUMES on the object. ..." - eh?

  57. Won't be real to me... by ctaylor · · Score: 1

    ...until I see it on CSI.

    :)

  58. Erotic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Mounted on an ordinary robot, it will reveal fingerprints by releasing Super Glue on the object. Then it will take pictures of these fingerprints.

    Tee hee! My uncle does this to me too!
  59. This only underlines the importance... by TheTranceFan · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...of taking pictures of things before you blow the shit out of them.

  60. Canadian robot eh? by xRelisH · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is it made out of wood and will it play hockey?

  61. I was really excited.... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

    ... because at first I thought it said they were using Raffi to defuse suspicious packages.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  62. Sometime in the future... by Jade+E.+2 · · Score: 2, Funny
    The technicians watch the screen closely as the hot fumes settle over the bomb, 2 blocks away. They're looking for any sign of fingerprints, ready to aim and snap a shot with the remote unit's secondary, high-res camera as soon as they show up. Faint areas start to stand out in a strange pattern... And soon they realize it's a word... "B"... "BO"... "BOO"... "BOOM"... "BOOM!"...

    As the fumes adhere to the drop of oil on the small light sensor in the dot of the exlamation point, covering it in an opaque white coating, there's a faint click deep inside the bomb.

    "Damnit, that robot was expensive!" the squad captain says to his lieutenant, as they huddle behind their van, debris raining down around them.