Slashdot Mirror


Throwable WiFi Camera

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."

198 comments

  1. not like back in the day by joe+155 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    *''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
    1. Re:not like back in the day by sterno · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

      --
      This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
    2. Re:not like back in the day by Meagermanx · · Score: 4, Funny

      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?

    3. Re:not like back in the day by shotgunefx · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --

      -William Shatner can be neither created nor destroyed.
    4. Re:not like back in the day by Brain_Recall · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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.

    5. Re:not like back in the day by k31bang · · Score: 3, Funny

      where it landed and mostly saw her legs.

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

      --
      -+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ *** http://www.mountainfort.com *** +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-
    6. Re:not like back in the day by wed128 · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    7. Re:not like back in the day by shotgunefx · · Score: 1

      It is unless you're a calf man.

      --

      -William Shatner can be neither created nor destroyed.
    8. Re:not like back in the day by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    9. Re:not like back in the day by coleblak · · Score: 1

      IF they were to add some counterweights to the bottom connected to internal track mechanism with a self-rightening camera, you wouldn't have to throw it. it could be moved in via a key-fob sized remote.

      --
      77 HITS
      Really Long Off Topic Combo
    10. Re:not like back in the day by QuickFox · · Score: 1

      back in my day when we wanted to see round corners we held up a little mirror and looked,

      That's nothing! Back in my day when we wanted to see round corners we tore out an eyeball and held it out to look!

      -- --
        War can make fundamentalists give up like 9/11 could make the US give up.

      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    11. Re:not like back in the day by Z34107 · · Score: 1

      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.

      Yes, but then you could just use a mirror, because there'd be nobody to see the glint and shoot at you. :D

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    12. Re:not like back in the day by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2, Interesting

      but then you could just use a mirror

      I did most of my firefighting in underground mining and industrial teams. Mirrors are sometimes used, but then you need to be both close to the mirror and close to the line of sight. When you're wearing BA or BG equipment, or when the hazard is unpredictable (ie, rocks spalling because of the heat), something like this beats mirrors hands down.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    13. Re:not like back in the day by blincoln · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      Thermal imaging equipment is incredibly expensive. A non-hardened camera is generally $10k-$15k, although I've seen used models for as "low" as $5000. I would expect that an Eye Ball equipped with one would cost about ten times what the standard ones do.

      The military could still afford them, but police? And even military purchasing departments would (I hope) be a little hesitant to hand close to twenty thousand dollars in hardware to a soldier with the intent of them pitching it into a dangerous area.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    14. Re:not like back in the day by AVIDJockey · · Score: 1

      What ever happened to using wall hacks with an AWP?

    15. Re:not like back in the day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're expensive why, now? Oh yeah, that's right. They don't make very many, and they're almost all customly designed in one way or the next. Find someone who is willing to make a few tens of thousands, and they won't be so expensive... Unless the government somehow gets involved.

    16. Re:not like back in the day by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Well they're pretty tricky to make. If it's really IR, of the see through walls variety and not just "near" IR of the TV-remote variety, you need to chill the entire system from the optics to the CCD to eliminate "dark" noise. Liquid nitrogen temperatures are probably good enough, and relatively convenient.. but not all that convenient. You still need to design optics that survive temperature stresses without defocusing, and that gets exotic and expensive right quick.

      The "early adopters" for infrared tech are astronomers, not the military. Even amateur astronomers. They are also the majority market.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    17. Re:not like back in the day by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I saw a demonstration today on tv. It rotates horizontally after it rights itself

      Bugger - I thought maybe they'd use a fisheye camera and do the proper projection in software to make the unit more rugged (fewer moving parts in an impact-required instrument).

      But then IPIX would probably have sued them.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    18. Re:not like back in the day by shotgunefx · · Score: 1

      They didn't show it long, but it did look like it had a little bit of fisheye at the edges so I'm assuming the FOV is a bit wide but not too much. It seemed little less than my backup camera (which is around ~150 degrees horizontal), but like I said, they didn't show it too long.

      It was funny as the woman made some comment to the effect of needing a taller camera and that was all that was said about it. Just seems like an obvious problem in tight quarters.

      Though for all I know, you might be able to adjust the pitch. I'm assuming it's just a weight in the housing, seems like it would be easy enough to give you an adjustment screw to set the angle.

      --

      -William Shatner can be neither created nor destroyed.
    19. Re:not like back in the day by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      It was funny as the woman made some comment to the effect of needing a taller camera and that was all that was said about it. Just seems like an obvious problem in tight quarters.

      Sure does - a full-hemisphere lens ought to work perfectly for this appplication. Here's a link to info about the patent controversy.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    20. Re:not like back in the day by blincoln · · Score: 1

      If it's really IR, of the see through walls variety and not just "near" IR of the TV-remote variety, you need to chill the entire system from the optics to the CCD to eliminate "dark" noise. Liquid nitrogen temperatures are probably good enough, and relatively convenient.

      Actually, Raytheon introduced a non-cooled thermal imaging sensor awhile ago. I believe it's called a microbolometer, and you can buy the bare circuit board and sensor for something like $5000. It's what's made the $5k-$15k devices possible, as opposed to $25k+ like they used to be.

      Still way out of the "reasonable" price range though. It's too bad, because I'd *love* to have one.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    21. Re:not like back in the day by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I give it about one day before it's hacked to point upward...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. The first post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ... precedes the second.

    1. Re:The first post... by ppff · · Score: 0

      Funny!

      --
      x
  3. Likely buyers by katana · · Score: 5, Funny

    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."

    1. Re:Likely buyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not for $4800 a pop they won't.

    2. Re:Likely buyers by cruelworld · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ya, 2000$ for an upskirt? What, you expect they'll give you the camera back after you toss it into the change room?

    3. Re:Likely buyers by HD+Webdev · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ya, 2000$ for an upskirt? What, you expect they'll give you the camera back after you toss it into the change room?

      There are organizations that will pay much more than $2000 USD for a good nekkid picture of a celebrity.

      --
      This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
    4. Re:Likely buyers by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      At last, a camera so easy, even a monkey boy could operate it!

  4. Pork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    1. Re:Pork by smchris · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Pork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL! You're on. Show me!

  5. more great editing by lseltzer · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:more great editing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > 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.

    2. Re:more great editing by Saven+Marek · · Score: 1, Informative

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

      Wrong.

    3. Re:more great editing by kafka47 · · Score: 2, Informative
      > > I think that's "...precede police into areas..."

      > Wrong.

      Wrong.

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

    4. Re:more great editing by hunterx11 · · Score: 1, Informative

      RTFL. "Proceed" in that sense is intransitive.

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    5. Re:more great editing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Unless the plural is really a possessive.

    6. Re:more great editing by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 0, Offtopic

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

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    7. Re:more great editing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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."

    8. Re:more great editing by Nqdiddles · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      And that kids is how I met your mother.
    9. Re:more great editing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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...

    10. Re:more great editing by Quobobo · · Score: 1

      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.

    11. Re:more great editing by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    12. Re:more great editing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Hey! Mouth-breathing inbred retarded asshole hick moron shitbrain fuckstick! Yeah, you! Why did you use an apostrophe for Nazi's, huh?

      If you could stop masturbating that tiny shriveled dick of yours for just 5 seconds a day, oh, I'm sorry, 5 SECOND'S (just so you understand), it would have been crystal-fucking clear to any average idiot that "teacher's" was singular possessive.

      Fuck, I hope you come back and read this just so you know I hate you.

    13. Re:more great editing by castlec · · Score: 1

      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.

      Sorry buddy but you're wrong. I don't like it but it's accepted. See here

      Compliments of a quick google of 'pluralizing abbreviations.'

      --
      When I tell an object to delete this, am I killing it or telling it to kill me?
    14. Re:more great editing by marktwen0 · · Score: 1

      Fowles, and by that I mean the preceding edition, not the current one, which Mr. Fowles's death preceded, concurs: "two CD's" is acceptable, as is "two CDs." Alas.

    15. Re:more great editing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that had been my kid, I'd have demanded to have her fired, and then demanded to know what the school were going to do about their hiring policies so that nobody like that is hired again. If my demands weren't met, I would withdraw my kid from that school and go to the press. I'd also follow up with an official complaint to whichever authority accredited that teacher.

      It may seem harsh, but reading and writing is a fundamental life skill. If kids don't even get taught how to read and write properly, what's the point in sending them to school in the first place?

    16. Re:more great editing by Quobobo · · Score: 1

      From the first link on that Google search:

      The major proponent of this incorrect method is 'The New York Times,' even though all publishing houses and computer magazines agree that it is wrong. I don't see why this is such an issue. Using apostrophes complicates things and goes against some pretty fundamental rules of English; just because people use it doesn't mean it's right.

    17. Re:more great editing by castlec · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, you were only looking for evidence to refute me rather than taking the whole issue into context. Your initial statement was 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.
      Here, you are saying that, no matter what, in all cases, pluralization with an apostrophe is wrong.
      The first article, here, directly states conditions where it is acceptable to use an apostrophe for pluralization. Consider this line, not more than a few lines below where you cited.
      The only time we accept an 's is when the acronym is separated with periods. For example, Ph.D.'s."
      So, as you can see, your all encompasing case is wrong. Additionally, you make the mistake of believing that language is static and what is in the books must be correct. We could be in the middle of a change and the next generation's books would say the exact opposite. A language is defined by its users, not some group of scholars.

      --
      When I tell an object to delete this, am I killing it or telling it to kill me?
    18. Re:more great editing by Quobobo · · Score: 1

      *sigh* Yeah, I didn't quote that part because I can't say I agree with it. However, it does state that most usage with apostrophes is wrong.

      Maybe I should just become French, I'd like it if there was something like the Academie Francaise to keep English in line.

      Also, yes, languages are defined by their users, but I'd prefer that it wasn't the users who can't write properly. I see errors like "photo's" and "book's" all the time now, and I don't doubt that those will become accepted English sooner or later.

    19. Re:more great editing by castlec · · Score: 1

      I can't say I disagree with you. We live an unfortunate reality.
      I've had a lot of fun with my English recently. After living in Prague for a while I started picking up all of their mistakes and oftentimes I doubt myself :o)

      --
      When I tell an object to delete this, am I killing it or telling it to kill me?
  6. Orientation by rossdee · · Score: 0, Redundant

    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.

    1. Re:Orientation by peculiarmethod · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      ** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
    2. Re:Orientation by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      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

    3. Re:Orientation by peculiarmethod · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      ** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
    4. Re:Orientation by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      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

    5. Re:Orientation by peculiarmethod · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      ** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
    6. Re:Orientation by yincrash · · Score: 1

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

    7. Re:Orientation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what about the fobots?!?!?

  7. Erm.. by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

    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".

    --
    I like muppets.
  8. Very good idea, but by AutopsyReport · · Score: 3, Informative
    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 which explained this. I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned first.

    --

    For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.

    1. Re:Very good idea, but by peculiarmethod · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      ** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
    2. Re:Very good idea, but by Black+Cardinal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Very good idea, but by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:Very good idea, but by Krach42 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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".

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    5. Re:Very good idea, but by xigxag · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
    6. Re:Very good idea, but by MoogMan · · Score: 1

      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 :)

    7. Re:Very good idea, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    8. Re:Very good idea, but by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      I currently have an illuminated ball which has flashing LEDs on the top.
      The counterweight is the battery itself and it is difficult to invert it.

      These cameras cost $2400 each, the ball I own cost £1.00
      Even adding full wifi and webcam makes me wonder where the expense comes from.

      If the market is willing to bear it though, then so be it.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    9. Re:Very good idea, but by TCQuad · · Score: 1

      Not to worry... It uses the most advanced weeble technology.

    10. Re:Very good idea, but by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      But this assumes there is nothing obstructing the rolling of the ball. If you throw it, and it ends up beside something else, there is a good chance that it won't be right side up. I think that in practice, you'd probably get about 20% of throws giving a picture that is acutally useful. Now, if they had 6 cameras in the thing, each placed at 90 degrees to eachother, then they would have a much better chance of getting a good shot.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    11. Re:Very good idea, but by orthogonal · · Score: 0

      But what if you toss the camera and it lands upside down?

      My cheap-ass $30 web cam (got it free when I got DSL) has a driver that allows the image to be flipped vertically or mirrored horizontally.

      Arbitrary rotation is a bit harder, but plenty of freeware graphic apps do it; doing it in real-time just means a fast enough processor.

      Forget rotating the camera: rotate the output.

      Now aiming the camera, that's something the camera has to do. But rather than pay $4800 for a camera that rotates and aims itself, why not construct a ball with a camera at every 90 degrees along its circumference.

      That would be six cheap-ass web cam cameras, and whatever wifi you needed for the bandwidth of 6 times camera resolution. And no moving parts, which means cheaper to manufacture and less maintenance problems.

      I imagine you could make these for less than $200, and still make a profit at far less than $4800. And with six cameras, you'd more information for the viewer.

    12. Re:Very good idea, but by Ringl · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, camera tosses you!

  9. $4800?!?! by sulli · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
    1. Re:$4800?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I gotta agree. This is way over-priced. Small, low-power camera, hardened, $500. WiFi, $70. Battery, $50. Plastic case, $100. Motor, $150. Control board, $100. Remote playback screen, $300. Playback WiFi, $70. Playback board, $100. Total, using very conservative estimate with built-in profit-margin prices, for two: under $2,500 easily, even for a prototype.

      That leaves over $2,000 to pay for a bounty hunter or two. (I guess on the war field they're called merceneries.)

    2. Re:$4800?!?! by NanoGator · · Score: 1

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

      Um, if you throw the x10 camera and it doesn't orient properly (which it likely won't...), you've completely wasted your money. Yeah, you're much wiser with your money.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    3. Re:$4800?!?! by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      So tape 6 of them together. I'll bet a roll of duct tape *and* 6 X10 cameras would be enough less than $5K that they could be considered disposable. :)

  10. Strong Encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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!

    1. Re:Strong Encryption by jcuffe · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Strong Encryption by smsiebe · · Score: 1

      I was thinking along the same lines, as well. Encryption for real-time video, however, always comes at a cost of increased bandwidth, more equipment (COMSEC modules), and of course, more cost. Not to mention the added points of failure.

      Another thing I was thinking about was how easy it would be to become overdependent on technology such as this. Lets look at it like military arms. Country A designs and deploys this new fancy aircraft that is capable of higher altitude flight than Country B's ARCFT and surface to air missiles (SAMs). That aircraft costs $5mil. Country B is able to create a SAM or look-up missile from an interceptor at a cost of $20k. What is to say that if these cameras see large-scale deployment that crooks (smart ones) won't buy some WiFi noise jammers and completly destroy that spectrum. If the police rely on this too much (ie train on it to a point where they are ineffective or severly debilitated without it) than the crooks would have the upper hand.

      We should be careful releasing technical information, especially limitations, to our military and law enforcement equipment.

  11. Law Enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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 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.

    1. Re:Law Enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    2. Re:Law Enforcement by dajak · · Score: 1

      Using a power and communication cable from the command unit to the eyeball instead of wireless makes sense.

  12. $4800?? by Jeff+Benjamin · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:$4800?? by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

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

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    2. Re:$4800?? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:$4800?? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    4. Re:$4800?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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...

    5. Re:$4800?? by nephridium · · Score: 1

      You forgot about the cost for all the laywers you'll need to protect your ingenious little idea. ;)

      --


      And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
    6. Re:$4800?? by 808140 · · Score: 1
      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.

      Oh, come on. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics knows that large scale collusion never really works, precisely because there's too much money to be made by cutting prices assuming everyone else doesn't (and assuming that prices are artificially high to begin with). It's like the prisoner's dilema from game theory: if both of you declines to tell on the other, you do reduced sentences, because they can't prove anything without your testimony: but if one of you tattles on the other, the tattler does reduced time and the tattlee does more. So the question is, do you keep mum and hope the other person does too, or do you try to be the first one to tattle?

      Any game theorist will tell you that the odds get worse for the no-tattle scenario the larger the number of prisoners gets, and this is true for collusive oligopolies as well. There's simply too much money to be made by cutting the price (because the law of demand will have all your customers preferencially buying from you).

      Of course, in the military/law enforcement world, private contractors classically try to get the government to accept only their products at whatever price they set, and so what you say is true, but not for the reasons you stated it.

      Although I do admit that your "incentive to spend more to be seen as protecting the people" scenario is intriguing and possibly even true. If that's the case, then it stands to reason that the law of demand doesn't really hold, because to a government money is free (up to a point) and higher prices are better. But I'm not sure it's the case (anyone know of any studies?)

    7. Re:$4800?? by listen · · Score: 1

      This is a new one. Are you seriously suggesting that complex monopolies and cartels are economically impossible and have never existed?

      Amazing, even for a throat-stamping free market fundamentalist.

    8. Re:$4800?? by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      This is a new one. Are you seriously suggesting that complex monopolies and cartels are economically impossible and have never existed? Amazing, even for a throat-stamping free market fundamentalist.

      The GP was correct

      Remove the tinfoil and come out of your bunker and checkout the real world. Observe the non-binary state of things. While it is theoretically possible for a cartel to hold, in practice they usually fail and failure is more likely as membership grows. 10 member cartel, you get 10% of cartel price times quantity demanded. You might consider cheating and go for 100% of 95% of cartel price time quantity, or you might fear that some other member may try. This presumes monitoring is lagged. If monitoring is instant then other member simply match price. The net result is that cartel prices are generally unstable and tend to fall towards the market equilibrium price. For cartels to work there usually needs to be some strong enforcement method. To return to the prisoner's dilema theme, this would be knowing something bad would happen to your family.

      And yes, I really did have microeconomics last quarter. ;-)

    9. Re:$4800?? by 808140 · · Score: 1

      First of all, I am not a free market fundamentalist, a libertarian, or whatever. I'm actually closer to a socialist, but that doesn't mean that I don't read economics textbooks.

      We aren't talking about "complex monopolies", whatever that means, we're talking about "oligopolies", in which a small number of suppliers control the market. In a monopoly, only one supplier effectively controls the market and is able to set prices.

      I also said nothing about them being impossible, I said that the incentives structure is such that the larger the number of organizations belonging to a cartel, the more difficult it becomes to enforce collusive price setting, because any one member stands to gain a lot if he cheats. Small cartels (with say, 4-5 organizations) can set prices quite effectively and often do, but this becomes more difficult when the numbers get high. Take a look at OPEC's spotty collusion record (hint: they're constantly stabbing each other in the back).

      The problem with the OP's statement, simply put, is that what he is describing is not an oligopoly with high entry barriers where a small number of established players are operating a collusive cartel (this is where cartels tend to work). Rather, it is a market with relatively low entry barriers (develop a product with military/law enforcement/anti-terrorist uses, and try to sell it to governments around the world, anyone can do that) and as a result there is absolutely no incentive whatsoever for a new player to jack their prices above the optimum rate, because they can sell more at a lower price (and make more money). While this market isn't purely competitive (ie, they aren't trading a commodity like oil that is purely substitutable) there are substitutes that perform the same function and barring a contract (which is how the military at least normally ensures that it can waste as much money as possible) there is no reason whatsoever that law enforcement would buy the "EyeBall" and not the somewhat different but functionally equivalent "EyeSlinky" or whatever (it's an example, it doesn't exist.)

      Your knee-jerk response is really upsetting, because it's completely illogical. There's a great deal of very hard evidence for what I'm saying, it's not libertarian hand-waving about how great the world would be if the highway system were privatized. There have been a lot of oligopolies in the world, and many of them have broken down, and there are good reasons as to why that happens (and explanations for why it doesn't when it does not).

      Furthermore, if you'll go back and read my response, you'll notice that I'm not actually disagreeing with the poster's central thesis, but rather with the logic he uses to get there (no one wants to cut prices because they're all making so much money with prices high completely ignores demand -- of course suppliers are happier the higher they can set the price, but unfortunately, people buy less of things when prices are high).

      In the last paragraph of my post I suggested that perhaps dealings with the government (which has a ton of money that it arguably has incentives to spend, rather than save) may make the law of demand behave somewhat differently, at least locally (I mean this in a mathematical sense).

      I'd rather hope that someone named "listen", especially with such a low id, would at least try to read a little bit more carefully, and barring that, be a little more courteous.

  13. the reason why they sell you two "eye" balls... by wisebabo · · Score: 1

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

    1. Re:the reason why they sell you two "eye" balls... by saskboy · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  14. Future designs will include... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...sharp gripping forks and a drill bit.

    1. Re:Future designs will include... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The option to print to Buckyball film.

  15. Moving cameras by lastberserker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's why you use cameras on wheels. 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 :-)

    --
    My other Beowulf cluster is... er...
    1. Re:Moving cameras by Myself · · Score: 1

      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 or two in their arsenal as well.

  16. Is 'proceed' a transitive verb now? by Darius+Jedburgh · · Score: 1

    I am so behind the times.

    1. Re:Is 'proceed' a transitive verb now? by dotgain · · Score: 1
      Sort of. Remember when you were thirteen, and the paper was edited by 30 year-olds?

      Well now, like me, you're 30, and the paper is edited by thirteen year-olds.

    2. Re:Is 'proceed' a transitive verb now? by CameronGary · · Score: 1

      Thanks - It took me a second to catch that, but now it's bugging me. Can someone fix it to say 'precede' ?

  17. What if it lands wrong? by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  18. Hey coppers! by east+coast · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    1. Re:Hey coppers! by Daedalus-Ubergeek · · Score: 1

      For those of you who don't get it, this is a reference to the Thief game series (Thief 2 in particular.) The main character's eye was plucked out in the original Thief and eventually recieved a bionic replacement from a friend. Thief 2 let you use a throwable camera that lets you see through the camera with your eye. I think Thief 3 (Deadly Shadows) didn't include the camera but instead just let you zoom in/out with it.

    2. Re:Hey coppers! by Jafar00 · · Score: 1

      lol. That was the first thing that came into my head. This is just like the game "Thief". Video games are good. Video games help create advancements in society!

      --
      RebateFX.com - Spread rebates for Forex traders
    3. Re:Hey coppers! by springbox · · Score: 1
      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.

      Police are hesitant because he keeps asking to meet them in dark alleyways.

  19. Cheap camera? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    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?

    1. Re:Cheap camera? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

      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...

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:Cheap camera? by Cheapy · · Score: 1

      Only if you didn't share the video.

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
  20. Don't forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  21. please READ the fucking article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  22. I know who... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    (Don't tell RIAA.)

  23. I suppose this means by datatrash · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  24. Not so hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  25. Vernor Vinge's Peace War by RalphBNumbers · · Score: 1

    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...

    --
    "The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
    1. Re:Vernor Vinge's Peace War by georgewilliamherbert · · Score: 1
      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.

  26. Worked in Thief by Hsien · · Score: 1

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

  27. In other news... by spacefight · · Score: 1

    ... 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...

    1. Re:In other news... by zlogic · · Score: 1

      Two eyes, actually, as they come in pairs =)

  28. Who would want just one? by craXORjack · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    The cost is about $4,800 for two EyeBalls (who would want just one?)

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

    --
    Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
    1. Re:Who would want just one? by jrockway · · Score: 1

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

      --
      My other car is first.
    2. Re:Who would want just one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Offtopic? Well it proves that slashdot really is the great melting pot. Even neo-nazis get mod points!

  29. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Mad Eye Moody wants his eye back.

  30. That's freaking expensive by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    1. Re:That's freaking expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

    2. Re:That's freaking expensive by ThomaMelas · · Score: 1

      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?

    3. Re:That's freaking expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Riiight... So because I can make you a system with a 386 in it on the cheap that means that buying a new PC is a total waste of money, right?

      Here's a quick clue for you: Good Components Cost Money. That money makes it so your equipment works better.

      Next up -- you've obviously never worked in a regulated industry before. Do you have any idea what it costs to get a component certified? A whole assembly?

    4. Re:That's freaking expensive by theborg1of4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.:

      You can throw it thirty or forty feet? You can roll it like a bowling ball for ten or twenty yards? I really doubt that's true. Web cams aren't well known for their ability to take a lot of abuse. My old Logitech Quickcam Web survived a few minutes in my dishwasher (wrapped in plastic so I could diagnose a problem with the lower spray arm) but I wouldn't be too happy about dropping it off a table into a concrete floor, let alone pitching it into the air; the EyeBall can apparently survive a two-story drop.

      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.:

      How do you know this? Could you perhaps describe the inventory of hardware required to make a wireless interface that's also shock resistant the point of being throwable? And compact enough to fit with the power supply, optics, logic and wi-fi transceiver into a baseball-sized object?

      Note also that this unit has the additional features: it can capture video up to 25 yards away, with 55 degree horizontal and 41 degree vertical fields of view. It also has near infrared capability, making it useful in nighttime exercises. This would I think add to the cost a little.

      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.:

      Please read the article. It will assume an upright position, and it's capable of 360 degree rotation (you can see the seam near the bottom of the device). It even has a simple feature where the picture can be reversed vertically if it lands upside down and doesn't right itself.

      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.

      Did you consider the possibility that it doesn't have to be thrown all the time? You could put it on a pole, lower it on a line, even attach it to a small robot for transport into the site. Consider also the possibility that the same guy throwing the camera isn't the same guy watching the screen. You almost sound like you're considering this as a player in a first person shooter video game, and not real live law enforcement or counter-terror activity. This could easily be used as a last-minute tactical information-gathering device, in preparation for a final assault: throw or roll the thing for a last check to determine target disposition before you attack. Or it can be used quietly for longer periods of reconnaissance. This is a pretty nifty package.

    5. Re:That's freaking expensive by Sir+Homer · · Score: 1

      I thought the exact opposite. It's unusal to see the military buy anything that costs less then $100k a pop.

    6. Re:That's freaking expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now i admit, im not a special ops/SWAT officer etc. But if it were to happen that id be called to a hostage situation id like to know how many hostages there are inside, how many bad guys, are they armed with bats or sub machineguns, is there a barricade of desks or are the bad guys just scattered around the room...

      Although i admit, id love to have a decive which would tell me their exact positions etc but before that little thing is invented, id settle for less.

  31. Life imitates gaming? by Errandboy+of+Doom · · Score: 1

    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? It's just not the future until little copter cameras are buzzing around like mosquitos all over the place.

  32. Not WiFi by paul248 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  33. in relation to the other story on the front page.. by know1 · · Score: 1

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

  34. Are you listening carefully? by weierstrass · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    my password really is 'stinkypants'
  35. It operates on part 15 freqs... by pozar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Anyone with a cordless phone can wipe it out.

  36. Brilliant! by ggvaidya · · Score: 1

    If you don't know what Parent means, you can invoke the Wikipedias.

  37. Give me paper towels, $3000 and some duct tape... by digitaldc · · Score: 1

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

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  38. Brought to you by Tyrell Corp... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  39. I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  40. obligitory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

  41. better than the alternatives by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 1
    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.
  42. Aww man.. by Coolnat2004 · · Score: 1

    I thought they would look like translucent red super balls! Assholes!

  43. Re:Throwable Camera by dotgain · · Score: 1
    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.

  44. "Throwing together" by ModernGeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As someone who works in the public service area (fire department), for appications like these, the county/city/feds aren't going to throw a lot of things together. Public service departments needs things that are guarenteed to work in mission critical enviroments, and are backed by warrenties because these things are going to break. A proven products is almost always better than a thrown together product, and I can attest to that with experiance in my field. Just because you can put something together with cheap parts and duct tape for less than the manufacturer can, doesn't mean it will be better. The manufacturer can order parts in bulk, and service the products if they go bad. This isn't always the case when you put something together, and the main part goes bad. In the long run, a thrown together project in a harsh mission critical enviroment is going to cost more than one backed by a manufacturer.

    --
    Sig: I stole this sig.
  45. Random thought: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Replace the camera with a solar cell and another wifi transmitter -> instant mesh network.

    1. Re:Random thought: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Or you could replace the whole thing with a carrot -> instant carrot!

  46. In the future.... by TripleP · · Score: 1

    This could be the ultimate game of dodgeball in the future? Imagine seeing the look on the fat kids face at the moment of impact?

    Dammit, I'm the fat kid.

  47. At least... by Doc+Squidly · · Score: 4, Funny

    At least the didn't call it the iBall.

    --
    I think I think, therefore I think I am.
    1. Re:At least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because that might infringe on Apple's recent foray into the prosthetic testicle industry.

    2. Re:At least... by justinchudgar · · Score: 1

      because anyone who would buy an iBall doesn't.

      --
      WARNING: Smoking this sig may cause lowered IQ, insanity or short term memory loss. It is also really bad for your monit
  48. This is right out of Stargate SG1 by TheRealDamion · · Score: 3, Interesting

    These look and act exactly like the G'oauld devices used in many episodes of Stargate SG1. I can't believe I'm the first to mention this, maybe it's my threshold setting? Theirs are silver with no obvious camera lens, but otherwise look and are used in the same way.

  49. who would want one? by CaptainPinko · · Score: 1

    if you only had one that would make it an eyeBall and would clearly be infringing Apple's intellectual property.

    --
    Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
  50. Re:First Post by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 1
    Stupid mods. This isn't offtopic.

    In the second and third Thief games Garrett has a "Scouting Orb" that's pretty much exactly what's being described here. He could throw it to an intersection, over a wall, or lean around and chuck it around a corner, and then see everything it does via the artificial eye he received at the end of the first game.

    I wonder if that wasn't the inspiration here.

    --
    And the brethren went away edified.
  51. Re:SlashDarth by chihowa · · Score: 1

    Right on, brother. Pity I had to slum down at -1 to find anything in this vein.

    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  52. typical scenario by SuperBanana · · Score: 1
    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.

    Here's the scenario I envisioned.

    SWAT guy 1 *lobs ball*
    *crash*
    SWAT guy 2: "Hmm, let's see, I see what looks like the barrel..."
    *BAM*
    "Nevermind."

  53. Hi, I golf with baseballs. by TyrelHaveman · · Score: 1

    They're baseball-sized, so: golf swings? Maybe not.

  54. Re:more great editing - parent post is spamming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    muthafscker

  55. Estes Oracle Digital Video Rocket by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This reminds me a bit of something I came across while online holiday-shopping the other day. Basically, it looks like Estes came out with a $80 rocket kit which has a built-in digital video camera. The idea is that you launch it up into the air, recover the rocket, plug a USB cable into it to download the video, and then watch a rocket's-eye-view of the flight. The camera is in the rocket's nose, so you presumably only see the ground on descent. The camera is just 320x240 with 9fps, but it still seems pretty neat.

  56. Attention Terrorists! by raehl · · Score: 1

    Protect yourselves from new government throwabale WiFi camera technology with our new throwable anti-WiFi-Cam Shield!

  57. I'll buy one with a gun. by mnmn · · Score: 1

    Now why dont they also add a small handgun in there with the eye as well? Let them throw the ball in their, and let the geek kid in the van do all the shooting. Come to think of it, why not use the camera and the gun on a 4x4 buggy? OK now I want to be police!

    --
    "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
  58. à la Minority Report (the film) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long until these come with spidery legs... ?

  59. So let them, next ball is a grenade by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1
    This is a recon device. When you want to know what is around a corner but do not want to stick you head around it. Mirrors work but still require you to be close.

    Imagine the following police situation. Shots have been fired in a house and the neighbours call the cops. When they arrive all is silent. So they can just knock on the door but that has the risk of getting a bullet in your chest. Instead of just waiting outside with a full swat team you throw one of these suckers through the window and see what is inside.

    If someone starts shooting then you no longer need to see, it is clear what it happening and you can do your stuff. It is basically an upgrade to the mirror that everyone not wanting to get killed in a combat situation has used. Just check WW1 trench equipent. They even had periscopes to avoid having to stick their head where it could be blown off.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  60. Goes through Doors too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the Article:

    "What's behind a door can get you killed," said Sheriff Sam Page of Rockingham County, N.C.

    Sweet!

  61. Finally!! by CyborgWarrior · · Score: 1

    A camera custom designed for Steve Ballmer!!!

    "Tell me it's not Kodak........" ;)

    --
    If you can't say something nice, make sure you have something heavy to throw.
  62. Hello, Number 6.... by Grandma+Death · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Add some offensive capability to this and you have a passable version 1.0 of "Rover".

    --
    Every living creature on earth dies alone.
  63. Or what about this??? by danhirsch · · Score: 1

    The company could just make a nice shiney ball and when they throw it into a room...all the bad guys will stand around it staring. Just about the time they all think WTF the police/military has had the time to run in and do what they wanted to do in the first place. We could call it the WTFBall. Maybe have it play some crazy Christmas tune or something.

  64. I don't get it by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    Why would an "extortionist" communicate with something other than a cell phone or land line? Using a camera phone tossed in by the cops for communication seems alarmingly stupid... and if the perp is that stupid there is probably a cheaper way to stop him....

  65. Re:Cheap camera? No, you'd be a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "proceeding Tom".

    But, imagine if the bad guys pick these back up and hurl them like the old stick grenades got tossed back? Coppers better not have "shoot on sight" orders slaved to their tracked/wheeled robot sentries... they might shoot the cops (who for some reason might have damaged or even no transponders) or even into a crowd of civilians.

    Tennis/racquet ball anyone? Considering the recent scandal in SF (male cop's home video in make up and bras and such in the police station) the cops might have to show up in sporting outfits and badminton racquets...

    The media would LOVE getting the scoop on that...

  66. Re:That's freaking expensive--back to the drawing by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    boards, you money-grubbing engineers' board of directors...

    Sounds to me like some kind of boondoggling, pork-barrel, bullshit project meant to jumpstart the economy with "new booming technology" that won't pan out as planned...

    What the HELL happened to the idea of using small fly/mosquito-like surveillance drones. They are supposedly light, nearly undetectable, and can send back snapshots or low-bandwidth frames.

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  67. Damn kids by Urusai · · Score: 1

    Splinter Cell? You console whore. Thief 2 did this first--a tossable surveillance eyeball. Yes, a mechanical eyeball, not a "dart". Thief is a "computer" game, not a console game, in case you wonder what else you can do with your PC besides post to Slashdot and download porn.

    1. Re:Damn kids by Errandboy+of+Doom · · Score: 1

      They have Splinter Cell on the consoles now? Didn't realize it, don't own any.

  68. Throw it back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heaven forbid that the bad guys throw this little gadget back either. I mean that would never happen...

  69. OLD News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't I see Gandalf throw a rag over this thing after Sam had grabbed it?

  70. FCC restricts it to Law Enforcement by mtgstuber · · Score: 2, Informative

    Oddly enough I read the FCC filing on this gadget for work earlier this week. It uses the 2.4 Ghz spectrum, but sends an analog signal -- not digital, which is what 2.4 is reserved for. Because it conflicts with the usage plan for 2.4 Ghz the only way the FCC would let them sell it was to specifically restrict it to law enforcement -- not merely government agencies. Personally, I wonder what will happen when these things are obsolete and sold at government surplus auctions, but at least for the next few years the only way you'll get one is if you have a badge.

    Among other things, it'll stomp on your 2.4 Ghz WiFi lan. However, because it is designed for use in life and death situations, the FCC figures the police will have cleared the area, and you won't be hanging out surfing Slashdot.

  71. Science versus common sense - again by BiDi · · Score: 1

    Remember the (not true, but still proves the point) anecdote about space pen that NASA supposedly invested millions in its development? Guess what was the miracle cure to write in space that Russians used? A pencil.

    History repeats itself once again... you throw rubber camera balls at us and they all turn their focus the wrong way. We use a mirror and see where to run.

    1. Re:Science versus common sense - again by mshurpik · · Score: 1

      This is my favorite one from snopes:

      Claim: An episode of the popular kid's TV show Pokemon caused over 600 young children in Japan to have epileptic attacks.

      Origin: After 618 Japanese children reportedly experienced seizures from viewing that December 1997 episode of Pocket Monsters and were rushed to hospital, the TV show was shut down for several months

      Status: False.

      Go figure. I guess the people at Snopes don't read their own copy.

  72. 'throwable' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Eye Ball is a spherical, throwable WiFi camera

    To be honest I think there is a bigger market for 'non throwable' cameras.

    Of course 'non stealable' is the holy grail.

  73. In the nosecone, not looking forward by nietsch · · Score: 1

    There have been other cameras like this one that recorded (photo or film) on regular film instead of digital. They looked sideways or downward with a prism. If you look closely on the pics at amazon, you can see part of the rocket body in the picture, so I guess this one looks down.

    --
    This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
  74. Cheap electronics won't do by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    I remember someone made a tiny wireless camera for a heck of a lot less.

    Cheap electronics won't do. This needs to be a milspec device. It also needs some heft to it. Given it's (para)military application I'd expect that its size/weight matches a grenade. How many homebrew projects can be thrown *through a closed* second floor window and have 99.9% reliability?

    1. Re:Cheap electronics won't do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >How many homebrew projects can be thrown *through a closed* second floor window and have 99.9% reliability?

      Throw a brick first. They're pretty reliable. Or, for $4800 - make that an ingot.

    2. Re:Cheap electronics won't do by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      >"How many homebrew projects can be thrown *through a closed* second floor window and have 99.9% reliability?" Throw a brick first. They're pretty reliable. Or, for $4800 - make that an ingot.

      Bricks don't have the heft and trajectory of a grenade. They'll likely miss, and it's a danger when it bounces off the wall and comes back down even if you are wearing kevlar.

      The brick cannot provide imagery of what was going on in the room before everyone got startled.

      Even if the window is open you still need milspec grade electronics. Homebrew will still be too unreliable, bouncing off walls and floors is often too much, you need weather resistance as well, ...

      These things aren't expensive because of gouging. These things are expensive because R&D was necessary to solve problems we amateurs don't understand, QA is far more rigorous and costly than with consumer electronics, and there is a limitted supply of buyers at this point.

  75. I hate to be a grammer nazi by treebeard77 · · Score: 1

    "The Eye Ball is a spherical, throwable WiFi camera designed to proceed police into areas where there's no direct line of sight". don't you mean "precede"

    1. Re:I hate to be a grammer nazi by ZZfoxELITE · · Score: 1

      You'll hate it even more when you realise you can't spell grammar :P

  76. Thank you! by Darius+Jedburgh · · Score: 1

    Ah! It was just a typo after all.

  77. Fox sports by fleck1974 · · Score: 1

    How long until Fox has one in the World Series. The "home run cam."

  78. expendable eyeballs by philba · · Score: 1

    I won't debate the utility of this gizmo, time will tell. However, expect a high loss rate. No matter how sturdy they are, they will be deployed in a very harsh and chaotic environment. Lots of ways for them to get trashed or stolen or just plain lost. If I were the bad guy and it gave away my position, I'd shoot it. I'd bet the cost to keep a single eyeball active for a year is at least 3-4X the product cost.

  79. Good for lightsaber practice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my early days, studying to become Jedi, I would put on a blindfold and whack away at these things.