Homemade Robot Patrols Atlanta Streets

Josh Fink brings news of an Atlanta resident who has created a remote control robot to scare off criminals during the night. Rufus Terrill, an engineer, uses it to patrol the streets and encourage drug dealers and other shady characters to move on. Local residents call it his "Robocop." From CNN: "It's a barbecue smoker mounted on a three-wheeled scooter, and armed with an infrared camera, spotlight, loudspeaker and aluminum water cannon that shoots a stream of icy water about 20 feet. Operated by remote control, the robot spotlights trespassers on property down the street from his bar, O'Terrill's. Using a walkie-talkie, Terrill belts out through the robot's loudspeaker, 'That's private property. You guys need to get out of here.'"

Comments

If it's Robocop...

[twilightzero]

C'mon, no "Drop you weapon, you have 15 seconds to comply"??

Re:If it's Robocop...

[Anonymous Coward]

That wasn't Robocop, that was ed-209.

Robocop's line was "Put down your weapon and come quietly, or there will be... trouble."

Re:If it's Robocop...

[Scoldog]

Wasn't that ED209's catchphrase?

Re:If it's Robocop...

[EdIII]

That was not Robocop, but Ed209 instead.

Robocop was, "Drop it!".

ED209 is still my favorite though, poor little bastard technician......

I always envisioned another conversation between the supervisor and programmer on the project afterwards. Only at OCP could a small programming mistake routinely cost lives, and in a spectacular way too.

Re:If it's Robocop...

[PDX]

I want an ED-209 for my birthday. Always wanted to see if dogs can be scared up trees.

Re:If it's Robocop...

[VanessaE]

Nononono, if you gotta quote from the movie, get it right:

ED-209: Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply.
Dick Jones: I think you better do as he says, Mr. Kinney. [Mr. Kinney drops the pistol on the floor] ED-209: [advances, growling] You now have 15 seconds to comply.

Well, it's an idea...

[KublaiKhan]

But you know someone's just going to shoot it one of these days.

Re:Well, it's an idea...

[Wandering Wombat]

Forget shooting it... I'd steal that sucker. RoboCriminal, away!

Re:Well, it's an idea...

[Deadstick]

They're gonna express disapproval.

In spray paint.

On its shiny metal ass.

rj

Re:Well, it's an idea...

[KillerCow]

I'd aim for the camera myself.

Re:Well, it's an idea...

[EvilMidnightBomber]

Forget shooting it... I'd steal that sucker. RoboCriminal, away!

This is slashdot. Here we'd 1) jam the signal to incapacitate & nab it
2) reconfigure & overtake the rf control
3) refill it with gasoline & tape a burning zippo to the nozzle.
4) send it back to the owner and make it look like an accident

Re:Well, it's an idea...

[Dan541]

Well considering the operator is just a few meaters away the robot is the harder target.

~Dan

Re:Well, it's an idea...

[TapeCutter]

Let's just say it wouldn't be coming back to it's owner covered in used condoms.

Re:Well, it's an idea...

[Agent__Smith]

5. Profit

Re:Well, it's an idea...

[sumdumass]

I guess that could put a whole new meaning to the idea of a trojan and how it screws with things.

Re:Well, it's an idea...

[LordVader717]

1.5) Install Linux

Re:Well, it's an idea...

[mabhatter654]

That's perfectly fine!! It has a camera and patrols his property and neighbors with permission. The camera would take a picture and the people would be arrested for destruction of property and unlawful discharge of a firearm... more than enough to do jail time. Job accomplished and worth building another.

Re:Well, it's an idea...

[hkmwbz]

From this:

Take a very good look at the not extinct frog fish.

What about it?

Then something has magically changed withing the last 2 months because science has change the position of Neanderthal being a separate species and brought it into the same species.

Actually, they though we and Neanderthals were on the same "branch".

And the only reason I signified that with Micro verses macro was because that is the basis of the dispute between creation and evolution which we are discussing.

There is no "micro vs. macro evolution". It's just evolution. Unless you can point to the specific barrier/mechanism which prevents minor changes from resulting in major changes over time, you have no case, Young Earth Creationist.

TO suggest that it is fact that we are separate from the DNA evidence

Which no one has.

And it is likewise with your interpretations.

They are not MY interpretations. They are research done by actual scientists who publish their findings in peer reviewed journals, unlike creationists, who skip the whole scientific process.

You somehow took that to mean that I was pushing inteligent design or young earth science or whatever.

You are promoting pseudoscience. You don't accept evolution, right? You think earth is 6000 years old, right?

But no one made a claim that the judge in that case was liberal or not. In fact, you brought it up out of your own misunderstandings about what was said

No, I brought it up because creationists always use the "he is an activist judge" card. I simply pre-empted this obvious fallacy to save you from embarrassing yourself again.

Evolution isn't. The way you are attempting to push it and defend it is.

How, specifically?

Re:Well, it's an idea...

[sumdumass]

What about it?

If you have to ask, you didn't take a good look at it.

Actually, they though we and Neanderthals were on the same "branch".

Well, no. There were claims that are/where the same. It has been that way since the beginning of the study on them.

There is no "micro vs. macro evolution". It's just evolution. Unless you can point to the specific barrier/mechanism which prevents minor changes from resulting in major changes over time, you have no case, Young Earth Creationist.

There is a macro verses micro evolution. It is defined by people who claim part of evolution is real and part of it is some fairy tale cooked up in your head. And the onus isn't on me showing something preventing it, it is on you to prove that evolution can create enough changes over time to stop a species from being itself and taking on another altogether. So far, all the evidence pointing to that ability is circumstantial at best and most a product of thought. Humans have been around long enough and separated enough that there should be several distinct species by now but that hasn't happened. We have breed dogs and cattle to purposely introduce long term changes and haven't come up with different species. You would think that with all the work going into breeding dogs and cattle and other farm animals, we would have a new species if ti was possible. It seems that it isn't likely to be.

Oh, I like the way you started throwing names around there. How's that go, if your not with us your against us? Id that how it is? A real scientific approach there bucko. Tell me, was that young earth creations suppose to be an insult or was it a knee jerk way to justify ignoring everything else and only believing the answers you want? It is sad that you had to hijack another thread in order to press your opinions onto other people. But I guess all is fair game when _you_go_out_to_evangelize your faith. And yes, I am comparing you to a bible thumper who despite all other evidence or opinion instists that their one true way is the righteous way.

Which no one has.

Pick a story and stick with it. You specifically said

"We actually have DNA from neanderthals, and it turns out that we share a common ancestor, and are different branches on the evolutionary tree."

Now if that doesn't fit the bill, I would like to know what your smoking.

They are not MY interpretations. They are research done by actual scientists who publish their findings in peer reviewed journals, unlike creationists, who skip the whole scientific process.

Lol.. You just misrepresented something you already said. I called you on it in the previous reply. You are adding to what those respected researchers claim and twisting the stuff around in the same ways you claim creationists are doing. And to be more specific, the article that brought this up cited those researchers and you categorically dismissed anything in it because they don't do their own research. Well, here the things, you didn't do any of the research either, you seem to be twisting it too. So should we just categorically refuse to accept anything you say as true without even fact checking?

Your also making a declarative and all inclusive statements that simply isn't true. There are some creationist who do the research and publish in the same peer reviewed journals. You see, that's why there is a macro and micro evolution, creationist don't have a problem with the stuff we have empirical evidence to back up. It appears that your problem is with religion in and of itself and will do anything to get back at it. Taking and twisting science into your own belief system and using it to reject religion doesn't make you a friend of science. It doesn't make you a scientist, at best you could probably claim to be a scientologist but we both know (at least I do, I ho

Terrill?

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember what happened the last time a "Terrill" created some robots...

Re:Terrill?

[nurb432]

You Do?

I happen to remember a Tyrell, but not a Terrill...

Assault

[odin84gk]

From the article

Police Major Lane Hagin says ... "There's no problem with the robot going up and down the street or being visible or any of the other things it does -- with the exception of spraying water on people." Hagin adds, "Then, it becomes an assault no matter where it happens." :-(

Re:Assault

[Captain Splendid]

As I said earlier, dude's a dick:

Firing a water cannon at vagrants? What does he want, a medal?

File under value-added activities to enhance your business' cashflow. Nothing to see here.

Re:Assault

[Harmonious Botch]

Firing a water cannon at vagrants? What does he want, a medal? If they are the type of vagrants who leave needles, trash, and various bodily fluids on your property at night; who scream obscenities at your guests during the day; who steal anything that isn't bolted down and vandalize everything that is; if they are like many of the vagrants I have to cope with, then, yes, I'd give him a medal

Re:Assault

[moderatorrater]

They're going to charge the robot? j/k but seriously, the threat of physical force is usually just as good as the use of it. I'm sure the robot could fire in self defense too, since it could easily be considered the man using non-lethal force to protect his property.

Re:Assault

[Captain Splendid]

Great. So what you're telling me is the rule of law isn't good enough? Man, the US really is going to the dogs.

Re:Assault

[randyest]

I read that too, but it hardly seems fair if it's his property and they're trespassing. I mean, if he had a sprinkler system (assuming the current GA drought wasn't going on) and it soaked them, that wouldn't be assault, would it? What if he triggered the sprinkler remotely? Would that be assault? If not, then what makes using this "auto-sprinkling robot" on his own property "assault?" Because it's mobile? Because it looks like a cheap Dalek? I don't quite understand where the line is.

Then again, maybe he just needs a good, tall barbed-wire fence. And a mean dog.

Re:Assault

[randyest]

Yeah it is, but not because of the "vigilantes" squirting trespassers (oh heavens not that!) but because there aren't enough police to keep all the drug dealers and criminals in line. You can thank the War on (Some) Drugs for that, since it makes sure there's a lucrative black market at all times.

Re:Assault

[randyest]

A lethal squirt gun? That must be some serious water pressure.

Re:Assault

[provigilman]

IANAL, but I would believe that the line is drawn at intent and the dilberateness of the act. A sprinkler system going off on a timer while someone happens to be on your lawn is one thing, triggering a device to purposefully spray someone is an entirely different matter...whether or not the device is mobile.

Re:Assault

[megaditto]

Part of the problem here is that robots don't have an inherent right to self-defence. If someone punches you, you can hit back no problem... If someone punches a robot, it would be illegal for you to have your robot retaliate.

I didn't read TFA of course, but if this happens in California or Britain or some crazy liberal place like that, even YOU can't hit trespassers, certainly not for things like littering or using needles or stealing your stuff so long as they don't threaten you personally... your only (legal) recourse is to ask them to stop or call the cops.

On a personal note, one guy in CA got jailed for keeping an unlicensed flamethrower. That's right folks, going to jail over a home defence project!

Re:Assault

[jandrese]

You know, in Hotlanta spraying someone down with cold water could be considered a public service.

Re:Assault

[call-me-kenneth]

colon open bracket, is that you?! I love your stuff!

Re:Assault

[SeaFox]

-- with the exception of spraying water on people." Hagin adds, "Then, it becomes an assault no matter where it happens."

Heaven knows, some of those drug dealers could use a shower.

Re:Assault

[colinbrash]

Police Major Lane Hagin says... "There's no problem with the robot going up and down the street or being visible or any of the other things it does -- with the exception of spraying water on people." Hagin adds, "Then, it becomes really freakin' cool no matter where it happens." Fixed.

Re:Assault

[TooMuchToDo]

The rule of law is only works when someone is around to enforce it.

Re:Assault

[LunaticTippy]

What about this?

I've seen these sort of things many places to discourage hobos more than deer or whatnot.

Re:Assault

[Hittman]

Obviously not, in this neighborhood.

The man is defending his neighborhood because the cops won't. Good for him.

Of course, the drug dealers might get their own robots to fight his. That would be fun: I miss Battlebots.

Re:Assault

[DragonWriter]

I read that too, but it hardly seems fair if it's his property and they're trespassing. I mean, if he had a sprinkler system (assuming the current GA drought wasn't going on) and it soaked them, that wouldn't be assault, would it? What if he triggered the sprinkler remotely? Would that be assault? If not, then what makes using this "auto-sprinkling robot" on his own property "assault?"

An "aluminum water cannon" sounds a lot more like a firehose than a "sprinkler". There are generally very specific legal conditions in which one may use force even against trespassers, how broad these are vary enormously (even with the US) by jurisdiction.

Re:Assault

[jdgeorge]

I don't know about Georgia, but here in Texas, the law allows you to protect your property from trespassers fairly vigorously. It seems to me very unlikely that a trespasser who attempted to press charges because someone shot him with an automated water gun would get much traction with the complaint, even in the fine state of Georgia.

Re:Assault

[lexical]

Actually it's Battery. Assault is intimidation of the intent to cause physical harm. Battery is the actual causing of physical harm

Re:Assault

[RockModeNick]

Sadly you CAN'T hit back if someone hits you 95% of the time. Unless they have you physically trapped so you cannot escape the situation, or are defending a threat on your own property (so forget defending your car in a parking lot) if you hit back and do substantially more damage with that hit that they did(you have a bruise on the arm, he has a shattered jaw) you are definately getting charges filed by the police if the incident gets to them. If neither of you is hurt bad it's probably just disturbing the peace charges for both of you. Only big exception on hitting someone when not trapped or on your own property and they assault you is defense of another - if guy is decking his GF(or bf I guess) at a bar and you decide to knock him out before he does real damage, you're probably not getting in trouble so long as the victim you defend corroborates your story.

Re:Assault

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of the problem here is that robots don't have an inherent right to self-defence Robots do not have a "self", so there is nothing to defend. Hence no right to self-defense, or any rights at all. Remember, even though they sometimes look like people, robots are still machines. I like Asimov as much as the next guy but sometimes you gotta put down the book and go outside.

but if this happens in California or Britain or some crazy liberal place like that, even YOU can't hit trespassers Those wacky, non-violent liberals. I want to live somewhere conservative where you can just shoot the bums.

On a personal note, one guy in CA got jailed for keeping an unlicensed flamethrower. That's right folks, going to jail over a home defence project! How ever will he defend himself against an onslaught of water elementals or a gang of The Soggies!? Incredible. He was so obviously justified in building his own means to burn people alive from a safe distance, too.

I didn't read TFA of course I think that goes without saying, Rush.

Re:Assault

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, in Hotlanta spraying someone down with cold water could be considered a public service.

Only if soap is involved.

Re:Assault

[Anonymous Coward]

I truly hope that any [homeless] person soaked by one of those sprinklers immediately walks over and stomps it into the ground. You would have to be a real asshole to think of that as an acceptable way to deal with another human being. In no way am I referring to you, by the way. I'm thinking of the property owner or manager who would actually do such a thing.

If I see these things around my city, I'm making a trip to Home Depot to buy a truckload of garbage can lids and shovels and distribute them among the homeless.

Sorry to blow up on your comment. I have been homeless (fortunately for a very short period of time) and have known and befriended other homeless throughout my life. It makes me sick to my stomach (with rage, mostly) when I think about how we treat these fellow human beings. That, not television, is one of the many reasons why we are some of the stupidest creatures on this planet (generalization intended).

Re:Assault

[Captain Splendid]

Them maybe you should, I don't know, write your politician? Run for office yourself? Join the police force?

I've got no problem with you or anyone trying to change a bad situation. There's plenty you can do. Building a fucking waterhosing robot to attempt to scare off a some junkies and vagrants is waaaay down on the list of things to try, and I guarantee you this guy didn't even try half of them.

Hell, I bet you 10 bucks the old duffer doesn't even vote. The dude's a jackass, and the only reason it's a humorous story is because he's thankfully mostly harmless.

But I'll also bet business has been pretty good for him of late ;)

Re:Assault

[ZanySpyDude]

Well, I'm going to guess that since he ran for office he probably votes. From the article: "Terrill bought his bar four years ago knowing nothing about the restaurant business. He ran unsuccessfully for lieutenant governor of Georgia in 2006. He's had ongoing problems with people breaking into his bar and stealing things, but it was the day care center problems that spurred him on to create the robot." The robot also seems to have attracted some attention so maybe people in the city will be asking their officials why there aren't more police around these areas...

Re:Assault

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck with that, buddy. I made the mistake of intervening when a guy was hitting his girlfriend. After _pushing_ him away, I got the girlfriend on my back, and she bit through my shirt. I was outta there like the wind, and asked a friend to go and get my car. Never, ever intervene to protect anyone from someone she or he knows.

Re:Assault

[Tablizer]

with the exception of spraying water on people." Hagin adds, "Then, it becomes an assault no matter where it happens."

The guy who built it claims that such is *not* illegal if the trespasser is on his private property and refuses to leave. Of course, the possibility of a time-consuming court case is there even if you eventually win.

Re:Assault

[StikyPad]

"I'm not saying you have to move, but Robocop's timer is set to shoot water at the spot you're in, in 30 seconds.. Nothing I can do about it really."

Re:Assault

[StikyPad]

What you're saying is a lot like the DoD's policy for service members, but that's not how it works in most states for civilians. Threat to safety or property is an affirmative defense, so long as the degree of violence used is comparable or proportionate to the threat faced. There *is* a duty to retreat in most states, but that doesn't apply when retreating would not change, or would increase, the risk of harm. If, for example, someone threatens you with physical violence unless you leave, the correct action would be to leave and then address the situation through the proper channels. By refusing to retreat, you are escalating the situation.

Re:Assault

[Talkischeap]

"I didn't read TFA of course, but if this happens in California or Britain or some crazy liberal place like that, even YOU can't hit trespassers..."

Yeah, well I live in CA, and I've been threatened by gang members in my own yard, and I have an ax handle ready to go for the next time it happens on my property.

The police do nothing to stop it in my small town, so I could care less if it's illegal, or the consequences of being tried by my peers after the fact.

It has to stop, and I'm not afraid to do it, our town is becoming overrun by human shit.

Re:Assault

[Anonymous Coward]

He said hobo, not human being. Duh.

Re:Assault

[LifesABeach]

If it is Assault by hitting someone with water, then Battery is, what? I always thought Assault was a threat to someone, and Battery is when a person was hit by another person.

Re:Assault

[RockModeNick]

Sadly in New York, it doesn't work like that. A guy I know had a gun pulled on him, and the guy was going to use it. He took the gunman by surprise and pushed the gun out of the way with one hand and knifed the guy with the other until he dropped the gun. This is a situation where running would have allowed him to be shot in the back, with no defense at all, and he did the only thing he could to preserve his life. Spent 7 years in jail because he had an "obligation to run rather than escalate violence when not defending his own property."

Re:Assault

[cyphercell]

I didn't believe it, so I had to look it up, apparently cops are pussies.

Re:Assault

[cyphercell]

I'll remember to visit the ER the next time it rains.

Re:Assault

[TXGB324]

Hell, I bet you 10 bucks the old duffer doesn't even vote.

From the article: "He ran unsuccessfully for lieutenant governor of Georgia in 2006."

I'll take my $10 now. Or you can just donate it to Child's Play in my name.

Re:Assault

[mrogers]

A group of activist hackers called The Institute for Applied Autonomy had some interesting experiences with their graffiti-writing robot: when they took it to public places and started spraying messages on the pavement, members of the public would be perfectly happy to join in and have the robot write their own messages. Of course if they'd tried the same thing without a robot, nobody would have joined in and they probably would have been arrested. Somehow the robot made their actions appear legitimate, and I think the same thing is happening with this guy. If he walked around spraying people he didn't like with a water pistol and telling them to move on, he'd probably be charged with harrassment and assault. He might even be considered mentally ill. But because he uses a robot it's a "patrol" - he seems to be on the side of authority because he's using technology more commonly used by the authorities.

Re:Assault

[gad_zuki!]

>but because there aren't enough police to keep all the drug dealers and criminals in line.

Thats because the police cant look at a random black guy and say 'Drug dealer' but this guy can. In other words he just harasses people he thinks dont look right to him and justifies it with the war on drugs mindset. The police have a higher standard for assessing threats and acting on them. This guy isnt scaring off anyone other than minorities and undesirables who he sees as a threat to his white lifestyle and property value. This robot will soon be marketed for the fenced off community crowd soon enough.

Typical vigilantism.

Re:Assault

[Anonymous Coward]

...he just harasses people he thinks dont look right to him... Please RTFA. He harrasses people who commit the crime of trespassing.

Re:Assault

[Criton]

Hahaha for some reason I thought of Torboto from tv fun house after reading that.

NIce

[geekoid]

Great nerd appeal.

WOuldn't it be smarter to put lights in the area that are on 12-6 every morning.

Add a sprinkler system that goes on and off randomly and people will stay away.

Re:NIce

[bodino]

The trouble with a sprinkler system is that Atlanta is in severe drought

Re:NIce

[geekoid]

Use non-potable water. It doesn't ahve to be much.

Re:NIce

[alta]

How about a sprinkler that comes on for 5 seconds twice an hour, only at night. Light on water, and very effective.

Re:NIce

[mrchaotica]

It would still earn you a visit from the water police. (And yes, that's despite the fact that the normal police can't be bothered to get rid of the vagrants!)

Re:NIce

[ciellarg]

Hey, the guy has a bar....all he has to do is to roll it into the mens room to recharge his weapons system :)

Just push it over

[CohibaVancouver]

If this Dalek was spraying water at me I'd just push it over. Can't be that difficult.

Re:Just push it over

[hal2814]

Or you could just go up a flight of stairs...

Re:Just push it over

[gijoel]

This could be the start of a new frat boy prank.

Dalek Tipping

Re:Just push it over

[ryanisflyboy]

I would do more than that. I would take it home and introduce it to my power screwdriver, then return the box of parts back to the owner.

i'm surprised

[MoodyLoner]

that nobody's stolen it or taken a baseball bat to it.

Yet.

So...

[imstanny]

A remote controlled cart with a loud speaker and a watergun is supposed to be a crime deterrent? I think a better crime deterrent would be the robot from Rocky IV.

Re:So...

[cthulu_mt]

I don't remember Al Gore being in Rocky IV...

Besides, he only deters carbon not lead.

Re:So...

[Em Adespoton]

I think the deterrant is calling public attention to the activities of the people in question. They don't want to be noticed, and having a Dalek yell at you, shine lights all over the place and squirt water in your general direction is going to get a lot of street attention.

Re:So...

[isaac]

I think a better crime deterrent would be the robot from Rocky IV

But an even better crime deterrent would be forcing criminals to watch Rocky IV.

-Isaac

Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[zappepcs]

Police Major Lane Hagin says the robot is definitely a different crime-fighting idea. "There's no problem with the robot going up and down the street or being visible or any of the other things it does -- with the exception of spraying water on people."

Hagin adds, "Then, it becomes an assault no matter where it happens." I thought you could... bet it costs less than a taser gun and training too.

Assault? That seriously puts kids and the super soaker company in serious trouble? WTF?

Seriously, assault? Perhaps, since the robot is black, it should only presume to act like the black night in Monty Python's 'Holy Grail' movie? ... don't run away, you coward! Come back, I'll burn you to death with my spotlight......

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[KublaiKhan]

Technically, yes, it is assault--as is spitting in someone's face, or any other sort of unsolicited touching.

Whether it'd be prosecuted is open to question.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[avronius]

Interestingly enough, people who smoke next to you on the street are *not* assaulting you. Apparently it's ok for a stranger to give you lung cancer, as long as they don't get you wet.

There's something wrong there, no?

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[Safiire Arrowny]

It's not assault when police spray crowds with water?

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[thyrf]

Assault doesn't require physical contact, that's battery.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[Cadallin]

God, I'm getting so tired of the Whiny anti-smoking bitching. Especially outside. Get the fuck over it. These two points really piss me off. You don't like someone smoking near you outside? Move your lazy ass! And two, unless you are operating the only bar in town, you should abso-fucking-lutely have the right to make it a smoking establishment. Anybody who doesn't like it can go somewhere else.

I don't even smoke, and that is not the point. I fervently believe people should have the right to smoke. It is 100% a personal liberty issue. Now, as for how it can be marketed and sold, I'm up for debate. I'd be fine with it being restricted to small scale growing for personal consumption, like marijuana is often produced in Medical Marijuana states, or Canada (Note that these places don't restrict it that way, its just most commonly produced that way.)

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[zappepcs]

But... but... I think there are some really good points to be drawn from this:

- It doesn't take SWAT teams to do a lot of common police work
- Taser guns are not a requirement for all situations
- Just a little more visibility from what used to be called a 'beat cop' would help make our streets quite a bit safer. "move along now" no arrest needed, no police state required. ... and finally
- Small government that encourages communities to help themselves often works out to the betterment of said community. Note, I'm not encouraging vigilantes, or large scale activities of this sort, but this is obviously doing some good, it should not be discouraged.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[Captain Splendid]

Two problems with that. One, the second hand smoke studies that everybody loves to cite are, at best, inconclusive. Second, you might have a point if someone was smoking next to you indoors, but if it's outside, stop being a pussy and move upwind.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[ceoyoyo]

Not sure about the US, but in Canada assault also covers threats.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[ceoyoyo]

I suppose you want a waitress to bring you a drink in your smoking bar though?

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[mrchaotica]

You don't like someone smoking near you outside? Move your lazy ass!

You can't very well fucking do that if the asshole smoker is lighting up right next to the door you need to get in (as they always do), now can you?

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[Anne_Nonymous]

No, that's called a hogwash.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[NeutronCowboy]

It 100% isn't that cut and dry. My girlfriend suffers from severe asthma. Outside, yes, it's possible for her to move her ass. Inside, while sitting a table having lunch? It's basically impossible, and she can't be within 10 feet of a smoker without having difficulties breathing. So whose personal liberty takes precedent? Hers to breathe freely? Someone elses to smoke? Who should get up and go somewhere else?

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[Stanistani]

Is it assault if I emit beta radiation?

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[geekoid]

"Move your lazy ass!"

That right, people spew poison into the air, but everyone has to move to accommodate that.
Hay, I'm at a Bus stop, but now I have to move and possible miss the bus so someone can smoke? I have to have my risk of cancer increased because of some jack hole?

"...unless you are operating the only bar in town, you should abso-fucking-lutely have the right to make it a smoking establishment."

um, NO. You also don't have the right to put in a coal plant, develop outside of code, and have naked people dancing in the street to get more customers. Plus it harms staff, and no the 'just get a different job' is not a reasonable reply. Because it is addictive and as such would permeate through every faucet of society.

"I fervently believe people should have the right to smoke."
Yes, but you DO NOT HAVE THE FUCKING RIGHT to violate other peoples liberties, and that is what smoking does. You keep the smoke and poison self contained then fine. Until then people who smoke violate other people personal liberties, and on top of that cost people 100's of millions of dollars in health care.

You do realize the tobacco is harmfull, and on top of that the pump it full of chemicals known to acuse cancer. This is why they constently fight tobacco being covered by the FDA, when by all logic dictates it should be.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[JWSmythe]

    The ones I like better are when....

    I'm sitting outside, by myself, away from anyone else (because maybe I'm just freakin' antisocial sometimes, ok?). Someone who DOESN'T smoke happens to walk where I am. That is, goes out of their way to walk through what's obviously a smoking area, which isn't a normal traffic route, and then complains that I'm smoking.

    It's fine an all, I usually pull out another cigarette, and offer it to them. When they give me a disgusted look, I light the second one, to get a good running start on chain smoking. Kinda sucks if I just lit the first one, but hey, whatever. :)

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[hamburger lady]

i'll make sure to do that next time i try to get in my front door and some dude is standing in front of it smoking (which happens about 5 times a week). i'll just move down the street and wait a while before i can get into my apartment.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[Omestes]

There are ten bars within walking distance of my house, meaning those who want to be a bar maid can EASILY choose a different bar, if smoke bothers them. Just like you can choose to go to non-smoking establishments. Smoking bans are just a way for ineffectual liberals to find a popular cause, and inflict their views on others.

If non-smoking establishments were really all that desired they would be raking in the cash, and become ubiquitous. This isn't true, since they need to legislate the playing field. Therefore most people really don't care.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[cthulu_mt]

Neither!

The property owners rights take precedence. He gets to decided whether his establishment is smoking or not.

Or he should at least. In the People's Republic of New Yorkistan the looters have won.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[geekoid]

"One, the second hand smoke studies that everybody loves to cite are, at best, inconclusive. "

That's a patent lie. Studies to show a clear link. That aside, it show a complete lack of logic to expect otherwise.

"..top being a pussy and move upwind." next to the next smoker.

Second hand smoke is a Group A carcinogen.
Other Group A carcinogen: asbestos, radon, benzene none of which I want people spewing the air.

Second hand smoke is a risk at normal environmental levels.

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html

Before you get your EPA/Government conspiracy tin foil hat on, I would like to remind you the Second Hand Smoke not being a poison is in the governments best interests.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[UncleTogie]

Apparently it's ok for a stranger to give you lung cancer, as long as they don't get you wet.

But it's ok for people to sit at a bus stop with car exhaust spewing in their face in volume?

I'll take hell for my smoking when you're ready to dress down every Hummer owner you see. Until then, bite me.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[Oktober Sunset]

Assault? That seriously puts kids and the super soaker company in serious trouble? WTF?. Isn't is rather troubling that it's easy to imagine supersoakers being banned in some US states and guns still being legal? Kinda like how in loads of US states, you can't buy a bottle rocket, but you can buy a sniper rifle.

And yes I am implying 90% of Americans are quite mad.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[Xandar01]

I imagine the "to spray with liquid is assult" law comes from a spate of non-smoking beer drinkers peeing on the smokers.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[formerlyknownasm6tt]

every faucet of society? maybe they should start by fixing the tap water.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[Cornflake917]

I don't even smoke, and that is not the point. I fervently believe people should have the right to smoke. It is 100% a personal liberty issue. Except that smoking causes health problems and other issues for other people. Some people who work a certain establishments might not have the option of "moving their lazy asses." It's easy to tell them to find another job. But today, that's easier said then done.

I believe the person who is slowly destroying the vital organs of themselves and others should be the ones that "move their lazy asses." I know, I'm fucking crazy.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[JWSmythe]

There are a few comments on your message, which I'll clarify to the best of my knowledge.

    Assault is the threat to commit an action, usually a bodily harm.
    Battery is any non-consensual touching.

    So assault and battery would be saying "I'm going to kick your butt", and then doing it. :)

    Aggravated can be used with either word, indicating a weapon of some sort was used.

    Most of the definition of assault is the belief that the accused could actually do the action they claim they can do. For example, there was a 70-something drunk outside my office one night. I didn't want to hurt him, but he was threatening me. I called the police, because I was afraid I'd hurt him if I pushed him over. He threatened everything from a physical beating, to killing me. The police heard it when they got there, so there was no question to if it had been said.

    At the time, I was in my late 20's in good shape. The police asked me if I wanted to press charges. We both knew it wouldn't stick in court. Little old 70-something drunk vs me, no matter how angry he was wouldn't have been able to put up a fight of any sort. Even if he had a gun in one hand and a knife in the other, he was too uncoordinated to carry out his threats.

    So, how does this relate?

    The operator of the robot is using a weapon. It is a device which has the implied force to cause harm. He is threatening people with it's force, which in itself is aggravated assault. When he sprays them with the water, it has now become aggravated battery. If he was justified is questionable. Spraying someone with a water hose because they were standing on a sidewalk near his property is very questionable. A sidewalk is public property. It would be up to the police to decide if a citation would be issued, and then to the courts to decide if said person would be convicted of any crime.

    It's never up to the individual to make such decisions. So, although IANAL, it would seem obvious that the person in control of the robot is opening himself up for huge liability.

    If local law enforcement decides to act on it for criminal action is doubtful. They seem pleased that he is helping. Charges may be brought up though, which can still land him in court, if the DA/ADA is looking for some bad press though. There may be civil charges which would only involve the individuals and the courts. Based on who he's harassing, I doubt that would happen, but it could.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[JWSmythe]

    The police may escalate force by one step. It is preferred to keep it at the lowest and most lethal level possible. Spraying with water is a valid use to quell a disruption, because it is much less lethal than physical force (hands, batons, etc), tasers, mace, or firearms.

    Civilians are not suppose to escalate force.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooh, it's a Randian. How quaint.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[ceoyoyo]

In that case I guess we don't need any laws about workplace safety. You can always get a job somewhere else. Wait, we tried that. In fact, it's the first thing we tried during the industrial revolution. The majority of places in the world have decided that's not such a hot idea.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. In fact, assault is a threat. Battery is the actual beating (for example).

Thus, "assault with a deadly weapon" is pointing a gun at someone, not shooting them.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[Sperbels]

That right, people spew poison into the air, but everyone has to move to accommodate that. Hay, I'm at a Bus stop, but now I have to move and possible miss the bus so someone can smoke? I have to have my risk of cancer increased because of some jack hole? I think if I were you I'd be more concerned about the automobile emissions from the thousands of cars driving by acculating in the air around you. It's screwing up your lungs a lot worse than that whiff of second hand smoke you might occassionally get at the bus stop.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[ceoyoyo]

The law is different in Canada. Assault refers to both the threat and the action. There is no mention of "battery" in the criminal code.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[Digi-John]

Are you seriously suggesting that there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY you can walk past a smoker? Look, that little bit of smoke that wafts into your nose as you go past is NOT going to cause lung cancer. It's not some terrible acid, it's not a contact poison--secondhand smoke has only shown a statistically insignificant risk increase *for people who are constantly exposed*; the danger is really in smoking the cigarettes yourself.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[zippthorne]

Except that smoking causes health problems and other issues for other people..

Not according to the WHO, who've gone on record as stating that there is no established link between second hand smoke and lung disease. And I was even willing to believe it was a significant problem for places like bars.

The critical factor is concentration. As they say, "The solution to pollution is dilution" and even in a crowed bar, you're talking about a few pints per breath into a space measured in tens of cubic feet. It would take a whole lot o' breathin' (and a piss-poor air exchange) to reach equilibrium concentration.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[RockModeNick]

Yes, actually, you should go to any number of available nonsmoking establishments that would be available to fill this need. If a business owner wants a smoking establishment, he should be able to have it. Nobody dragged you in there by your hair. In fact, I'd say that MOST establishments, especially quality ones, would be nonsmoking, and it's the smokers who would have to make due.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[alcmena]

Someone once said, "A no smoking section in a bar/restaurant is like a no pissing section in a pool." I'll make you a deal... I won't pee by your tables if you don't smoke by mine. Both are public health issues so why shouldn't both be regulated?

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[Original Replica]

Civilians are not suppose to escalate force.

Translation: Civilians are suppose to take it like good little bitches.

If this is such a regular occurrence that the dude had the time to build a robot to deal with the problem, it's a pretty safe bet that the local police know about the problem and haven't done anything about it. Sure they might have some bullshit line about using the smaller dealers to get to the big criminal bossman, but look at what is actually effecting the lives of the people in that precinct. This guy needs to setup cameras recording the activity not only of the dealers, but the lack of activity by the police department. At what point have the police so completely voided the social contract, that the powers usually assigned to the police are defaulted to the average citizen?

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[neoshmengi]

Wrong! Nobody has a right to smoke around someone else without their permission. There is no 'safe' level of second hand smoke, which is proven to be toxic. Nobody has the 'right' to expose you to ammonia gas, or benzene or any other toxic chemical. Why on earth would you make an exception for cigarette smoke?

The 'right' to smoke nonsense is propaganda largely promulgated by tobacco companies.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[fiannaFailMan]

God, I'm getting so tired of the Whiny anti-drinking bitching. Especially inside. Get the fuck over it. These two points really piss me off. You don't like someone pouring alcohol down your throat without your permission? Move your lazy ass! Anybody who doesn't like it can go somewhere else. I don't even drink, and that is not the point. I fervently believe people should have the right to drink. It is 100% a personal liberty issue.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[Digi-John]

That's a patent lie. Studies to show a clear link. That aside, it show a complete lack of logic to expect otherwise.

According to the 10-year WHO study completed a few years back, spouses of smokers (most likely to get heavy exposure) have a lung cancer risk factor of something like 1.2 +- .3, IIRC, where a risk factor of 1 is for those who are not exposed to second hand smoke. So heavy exposure to second hand smoke will give you maybe a 50% (high end of uncertainty) greater chance of getting lung cancer; this sounds like a lot until you think about the actual frequency of lung cancer among non-smokers who are not exposed to second hand smoke. A 200% increase might be significant; something like 400% or 500% would be better.

That said, please don't smoke cigarettes. There's a lot of nasty crap that gets put into them, and a good portion of that is going into *you*. Once it's been exhaled and mixed with air and then finally re-inhaled as SHS, the risk is much less... but smoking cigarettes yourself, while your choice, is definitely a high risk activity. Cigars and pipes tend to use very pure tobacco, without all the 'enhancing' chemicals of cigarettes--smoke them instead, you won't get addicted either.

Oh, and source for the study is at http://www.obscurious.co.uk/componants/smoking1440.pdf and summarized at the publisher's site here. They quickly issued a press release saying "DON'T BELIEVE THEM, SECOND HAND SMOKE REALLY IS DANGEROUS (despite what our own study showed)" and the original paper wasn't available on their site last time I looked.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[Captain Splendid]

Well shit, I sure hope there's no cars or buses where you live, because they're doing you far worse than the occasional walk through a puff of smoke.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[mweather]

Workplace safety laws are fine. Dictate the amount of ventilation required to allow smoking. They already do so for the grills and ovens in the kitchen.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[mweather]

All the cabs belching exhaust outside building entrances must really piss you off, then.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[greyhueofdoubt]

I agree. And I can't believe they let people drive cars right next you! I mean, come on! They can just spray exhaust all over you! How is that NOT assault?

Oh, I see that you're a driver. Sorry, I didn't mean to condemn anything that YOU like doing.

-b

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[mweather]

It's also assault if you punch someone or tackle them to the ground. Pro Boxers and NFL players, your days are numbered!

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[ceoyoyo]

They did that here. If you want to have a smoking area it has to be separately ventilated to certain standards. It was too expensive, so all the bars went non-smoking (although they complained about it) except for a couple which, ironically, had non-smoking areas before the law passed. Of course, the bars actually saw revenue increases as the majority of non-smokers started coming out more often.

I guess it doesn't matter how you write the law. Requiring proper ventilation to comply with workplace safety laws has pretty much the same effect as outright banning indoor smoking.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[Atlantis-Rising]

Do you also oppose the ban on people randomly firing automatic weapons around within city limits?

I'm really curious.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[mrchaotica]

Actually, the place where it affects me most is walking around my college's campus. There aren't a whole lot of cars (let alone cabs) there.

In fact, my college even has a rule that you can't smoke within X feet of building entrances (and maybe even paths in general), but it's not enforced.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[symbolic]

I fervently believe people should have the right to smoke. It is 100% a personal liberty issue.

I agree. However, there's one minor point you seem to have overlooked. In public, the liberties that we share are concurrent. If someone has to move because a smoker is asserting their alleged right to smoke over another's right to remain unmolested, the concurrency is violated. So yes, in private, smokers have the right to knock themselves out. In public, however, their right to smoke stops at the air that others have to breathe.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you were standing on the corner smoking and someone walked up to you after having spooked a skunk, how would you feel about the odor that they were sharing with you? I'm guessing that you wouldn't be too thrilled. If it were me, I'd move upwind and I'd likely feel a certain amount of sympathy for them. If I were the one who had spooked the skunk, I'd probably do my best to keep away from crowds of people, as it's not fair for me to expect them to endure the odor.

People who choose to smoke don't seem to realize how offensive that odor is to those people who choose not to smoke. Or worse - they don't care.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[Joe Tie.]

His example is smokers standing outside a doorway, which means there would be no means of entering the place other than walking through their smoke. Though I agree the smoke itself is negligible in comparison to all the other environmental toxins encountered walking along a sidewalk. It does stink a lot more though.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[StikyPad]

It's assault if you emit AIDS, so I'm guessing yes. Unless you meant betta radiation , in which case, shine on!

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[radl33t]

Don't get irritated, instead I urge you to laugh and openly mock the sheeple. None of these clowns know how to think for themselves. They've gone from totally clueless to "informed" by watching a bunch TV lies and half-truths spread by the billions of tobacco lottery winnings... all in a few years. Seriously, their lack of reflection is disturbing. You got to hand it to the propaganda industry spawned and funded by the cigarette lawsuits. This ridiculous waste (tens of billions of dollars) has been impressively successful propaganda for the herd. Shit, the cities and counties are banning the stuff left and right. It's not like any new information has come out... All these yahoos run around suddenly choking on smoke just because of a couple of commercials. heh. my friend, it is a comedy of epic proportion. Point and laugh.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[StikyPad]

The WHO also has bigger issues to worry about than the relatively minor health concerns of industrialized nations.

That said, http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

um, NO. You also don't have the right to put in a coal plant, develop outside of code, and have naked people dancing in the street to get more customers.

You shouldn't be able to put in a coal plant because it spews pollution all over other people's property. As for naked people, they're fine with me.

Plus it harms staff, and no the 'just get a different job' is not a reasonable reply. Because it is addictive and as such would permeate through every faucet of society.

Huh? Smoking was on the decline well before the smoking bans in the past couple years. You don't become addicted to smoking by breathing in smokers' fumes. I lived with a smoker for years and didn't become addicted.

Yes, but you DO NOT HAVE THE FUCKING RIGHT to violate other peoples liberties, and that is what smoking does. You keep the smoke and poison self contained then fine.

It was contained just fine on private property whose owners chose to allow smoking there, yet somehow that got banned.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

It's easy to tell them to find another job. But today, that's easier said then done.

And that's also not the property owner's problem.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

Nobody has a right to smoke around someone else without their permission.

Nobody has a right to be on private property where that would be ocurring, nor do they (or well, nowadays should they) have a right to dictate wether people can smoke on that property any more than they can dictate the color that the walls must be painted.

Nobody has the 'right' to expose you to ammonia gas, or benzene or any other toxic chemical.

Depends on where you are. In your own home or in a toxic chemical manufacturing plant?

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

Yes.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[TapeCutter]

"Interestingly enough, people who smoke next to you on the street are *not* assaulting you. Apparently it's ok for a stranger to give you lung cancer, as long as they don't get you wet. There's something wrong there, no?"

No. I've been a smoker for 30yrs and even I can smell exhaust fumes from the cars while walking down the street or standing outside for a smoke. So cut the BS, get rid of that disgusting deodorant, stop eating garlic, and get out of my face if you don't like my odour.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[hamburger lady]

i'll think about that while i'm waiting upwind for some yahoo to smoke his cigarette in front of my apartment. i wouldn't want to ask somebody to move, after all. that would make me a 'pussy'.

maybe he's a chain smoker and i'll get to stand around for a half hour. what fun.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[The -e**(i*pi)]

My college has had a 25 foot no smoking area around every building policy all year, but still keeps ash trays within 25 feet of buildings.
I wish someone would squirt water on people smoking within 25 feet of the buildings.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[dysfunct]

Your comment deserves applause. It's hard to find true words with all the recent artificially created hostility towards smokers and non-opposing non-smokers.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[Lewrker]

Apparently it's all right for obvious morons to side with a bunch of activists with nothing better to do to impose restrictions upon people who are exercising their rights to do whatever the hell is still not forbidden. And please don't give me any of the crap about the money spent on lung cancer victims - it's called solidarity because we agree to treating you when you're too lazy to cook a real balanced meal which, unfortunately, I see no way of discouraging or banning, as much as you agree to paying for our treatment when my lung cells stop dying properly, because I _love_ the faster bloodflow, the noradrenaline dancing with my brain, the carbon monoxyde making me feel a little bit dizzy, the poete-maudit feeling to it and how much it annoys people with no real opinion.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[Cadallin]

You're complaining about having to walk past someone who is smoking? What the fuck? Get a life!

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[Cadallin]

Actually, I do. I openly mock people who complain in public spaces about smokers. I agree, they're ignorant jackasses. And I do all this while NOT smoking, however, smokers are often more interesting to be around. Especially if they're smoking quality Cigars or Pipe tobacco.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[Cadallin]

Not impressed. Much as someone who can't swim should stay the fuck out of the pool, someone with asthma should stay out of the "Smoker Friendly" Lounge, Bar, and restaurant. I'm also going to go out on a limb and suggest that much of that sensitivity is psychosomatic from being excessively humored on this issue. I can't imagine anyone who really had such a level of sensitivity surviving childhood.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[avronius]

The example was meant to show how foolish it is to make spraying someone with water a crime. And yes, I do think that smoking next to a non-smoker is "more criminal" than spraying someone with water.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[jamesh]

Whether it'd be prosecuted is open to question.

Yes I can just imagine the court case:

Drug Dealer: Well Mr Judge, it was like this, I was just standing in the dark alleyway at 3am trying to sell some... ummm... girl scout cookies, when this machine comes up to me and...

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[pennyloafer]

I believe the person who is slowly destroying the vital organs of themselves and others should be the ones that "move their lazy asses." I know, I'm fucking crazy.

Is your whole life + children spent at that corner bar that has smokers? There are no bars on the west coast that allow smoking indoors that I know of.
Quit complaining, you live in the greatest country on Earth still. I don't know why you complain about some stupid shit like second hand smoke, when you will never be exposed to it. I've met people like you and shake my head.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[bcoff12]

Yes, the something wrong is you staying next to the smoker.

Smokers on the street are not the ones you should worry about.

Non-smoker, btw.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[FauxPasIII]

> Get the fuck over it.

I'll make you a deal. Invent a cure for asthma, and I'll get the fuck over it. Hell, if you'll pay my medical expenses for my two or three annual emergency room visits caused by smokers, I'll consider getting the fuck over it. Until then, GTFO.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[nathan s]

That's all well and good, until you get on a sidewalk behind someone who is blowing smoke back in your face and you don't have a chance to pass them (happens a lot in the winter when there are snowbanks streetside and ice or buildings making them pretty damn narrow). In those circumstances, I fully sympathize with the gp. I've often been pretty damn irritated by it, especially considering the health implications. I move my ass past most people year-round, but I don't see why I should have to risk breaking an arm traversing ice to get around a smoker. I believe people should be 100% free to smoke...in their own homes, or in places where they don't blow smoke into the faces of non-smokers walking behind them. Keep it off the sidewalks and in places where you won't affect others' health.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[Bazar]

Because the bars are privately owned.

The bar is not your property, what gives you the right to enforce your no smoking rules on something that doesn't belong to you?
You have the right to go elsewhere if you don't like it, just as bars should have the right to allow smoking

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[neoshmengi]

Your right to swing your fist ends where the other man's face begins.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[alcmena]

Under that same logic, you are saying that the government has no right to enforce building codes, since buildings are privately owned. Additionally, what right does the government have to say who can and who can't drink alcohol, I mean, they're drinking in a bar and the bar is privately owned, right?

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[NeutronCowboy]

Wow. I expected the "go somewhere else" reply, but the "it ain't real"? I just hope you never come down with anything like it. Otherwise, I can come up with a few methods that will kill you, and that involve nothing illegal on my side.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[Kingrames]

You know, if someone's allergic to peanuts, you're not allowed to smear peanut butter all over them.

But somehow it's okay to smoke near people who may or may not be very allergic to it?
To say nothing of the fact that asthmatics have serious issues with it.

Smoking creates a hostile environment where some people are completely prevented from living a normal life near you.
Yes your "hobby" is dangerous to others and infringes upon their rights. and as soon as that happens, your right to smoke ends.

This is not about your freedoms. It is about the freedoms of others, which you value less than your own. go figure.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[Cadallin]

First, "psychosomatic" is not the same as "not real."

Seriously though, How do these people survive to adulthood? A cigarette smoker at 10ft just isn't that high a level of pollution, in Parts Per Million of contaminates. There's plenty of normal, everyday situations that are much worse. Being on any city street in the USA (Or hell, anywhere there's a plant blooming, and thus spreading pollen into the air) ought to cause an acute respiratory crisis leading to immediate death.

Also, some casual reading on the subject suggests that what you took to be a flippant and insensitive remark may actually be correct. There does exist a nontrivial body of evidence linking asthma to increased cleanliness, and excessive sterilization of people's environment. So it in fact does make sense to suggest that by humoring asthmatics by removing the things that trigger their condition, we're helping them to make said condition worse. Specifically, I refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis, an article that includes citations from a variety of medical journals.

Sometimes it pays off to pursue anecdotal observations with real study. The fact that asthma rates in the developed world soar, as Cigarette smoking becomes increasing stigmatized, removed and encapsulated needs some study.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[Cadallin]

There may be no cure for Asthma, but it may be possible to prevent it by people being properly exposed to sufficient levels of bacteria and other pollution during childhood. There exists a distinct possibility that your Asthma was caused by you NOT having enough smokers around to inoculate you against it. There exists a theory that Asthma, like other autoimmune diseases is caused by excessive cleanliness and environmental sterility, leading to the body over reacting when it does encounter anything like a pathogen. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helminthic_therapy, which suggests asthma may be treated and lessened in severity by exposure to pathogenic worm species.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[Cornflake917]

Have you met people with asthma that have allergic reactions to tobacco smoke (to the point where they can't breathe)? Doesn't sound like it.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[brkello]

What does living on the greatest country on earth have to do with anything? If you don't think inhaling smoke has a negative impact on people, then you are an idiot, plain and simple. I think people should be allowed to smoke...that's fine, just not around others who don't. I think there should be bars that allow it, and those that don't, so people have a choice. I am all for people doing whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm others...but smoking does harm others. Just because you can't see a negative effect immediately doesn't mean you aren't negatively impacting their health. I shake my head at people like you. Hell, I am even being nice. Smokers, even if they don't smoke around others, are still a burden on society with all of their health issues.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[ChaosDiscord]

Unless you are operating the only business in town, you should abso-fucking-lutely have the right to expose your employees to asbestos. Anybody who doesn't like it can work somewhere else.

Re:Can you say "better than being tasered?"

[Bazar]

Under that same logic, you are saying that the government has no right to enforce building codes, since buildings are privately owned. 1. As far as I'm aware, the government only enforces building codes on NEW buildings. It doesn't enforce them retroactively on old buildings, as they have with pubs an no-smoking rules.

If we were to take the same stance with your metaphor, it would allow all the old pubs continue to remain smoker friendly, but prevent any new pubs being constructed without no-smoking areas.

2. Building codes are there to ensure that the product delivered is up to expectations. That there are no hidden surprises, that your not being scammed, and to help ensure the safety of other peoples property, like your neighbors house (although thats your responsibility and not the governments).

The same thing is in effect with smoking, the government regulates what can be put in to a cigarette.
Obviously you can't build a house using asbestos, just like you can't make a cigarette with cocaine.

Obviously people who enter a smoking pub are well aware of the health concerns, and for those that are not, enforcing a sign stating the problems of smoking bars would be an acceptable compromise.

Additionally, what right does the government have to say who can and who can't drink alcohol, I mean, they're drinking in a bar and the bar is privately owned, right? It has no right. I think we are agreed there.
What you seem to be confusing however, is the fact that they place restrictions on the SALE of alcohol, not the consumption.

Its perfectly legal to give alcohol to a child, just not legal to sell it to them. At least here in New Zealand, once your considered an adult, your entitled to vote and to purchase drinks.
Its America that seems to think that voting is a lesser responsibility then drinking.

You can argue that it should should be your legal right to sell whatever you want to any responsible adult if you wish, and if your American, i think that might actually be enshrined in your constitution. But thats getting off topic from the original debate, being why pubs shouldn't be forced to have no-smoking areas.

Type O

[Instine]

That should be Tyrell not Terril

Re:Type O

[Anonymous Coward]

Modded Redundant? This is the first BladeRunner reference that I've seen so far.

No bashing

[Harmonious Botch]

To me, the most notable element of the story is what DIDN'T happen: nobody attenpted to destroy the bot, or even tip it over. Here on slashdot, I predict, within the first 20 posts someone will be remarking how they would destroy it if they encountered it. But the people in the story don't. Is it something about being homeless, or something about being a dealer, or something about being a drug user?

Re:No bashing

[MoodyLoner]

They were just waiting for somebody on Slashdot to give them the idea.

Seriously, though - I found this odd too. Those criminals are showing an awful lot of respect for other people's property.

Re:No bashing

[Vellmont]

I predict, within the first 20 posts someone will be remarking how they would destroy it if they encountered it.

Why would any slashdot poster do that?

I'd try to hack the damn thing, and take control over it. It can't be using anything more sophisticated that off the shelf parts. You'd likely just have to buy a remote control of the same type and frequency and turn-the-tables.

Fortunately for this guy, I don't live in Atlanta, am not a drug dealer and am not a bum.

Re:No bashing

[Anonymous Coward]

"nobody attenpted to destroy the bot..."

I suspect because they may think it has a camera on it too. But once the nature of this beast is known, it'll find itself stripped of interesting parts and the rest in a metal recycle bin.

Re:No bashing

[pthisis]

I suspect because they may think it has a camera on it too. But once the nature of this beast is known, it'll find itself stripped of interesting parts and the rest in a metal recycle bin.

I wonder why they'd think that.

It's a barbecue smoker mounted on a three-wheeled scooter, and armed with an infrared camera

Re:No bashing

[discord5]

I predict, within the first 20 posts someone will be remarking how they would destroy it if they encountered it.

I wouldn't destroy it... with my own hands. I'd build a waterproof robot and show that piece of trash!

Oh, wait, they used to have a show on that sort of thing, and it wasn't very entertaining.

Re:No bashing

[fishthegeek]

Hey! My brother was a homeless drug addicted dealer unable to post to slashdot! How do you feel now you insensitive clod!

Re:No bashing

[ceoyoyo]

No, it's something about being a loudmouth on Slashdot. I expect there's also a correlation between the "I'd destroy it!" posters, high UID and young age. Those types tend to be in bed before this guy would normally be sicking his robot on drug dealers.

Re:No bashing

[rentedflowers]

It depends on what sort of "criminal" you're dealing with. Sure, there are folks who fit the thug stereotype, but even most dealers have figured out that they're better off just operating in the shadows. They don't want any trouble from the locals or police, and will just scuttle away when challenged. So if you want to know what they were thinking, it's that someone has them on film and is calling the cops. Frankly, trashing robo-cop seems more likely to actually get them arrested, as opposed to loitering, trespassing, prostitution, and low-grade drug use.

As an example: I yelled at one of my neighborhood junkies last week, because he was parked in his usual spot with his cart and sleeping bag, filling up a syringe; and if previous encounters are any indicator, he was going to shoot up, nod off, and leave his needle lying there. When I angrily asked him if he was going to dispose of his needle properly, he said, "Yes, sir." He had packed up his camp and was gone in the time it took me to walk the half-block home and call SFPD.

Re:No bashing

[CodeBuster]

Here on slashdot, I predict, within the first 20 posts someone will be remarking how they would destroy it if they encountered it. We would engage the Steve Ballmer bot, complete with flying chair attack, and send it against the bar-b-q bot...

>Steve Ballmer enters from the SE and is attacked by bar-b-q bot.

>bar-b-q bot ATTACKS with spray cannon and HITS Steve Ballmer for 9 hit points of damage.

>Steve Ballmer spins about preparing to DODGE.

>bar-b-q bot ATTACKS with spray cannon and MISSES Steve Ballmer...it was a critical miss! bar-b-q bot is shaken and cannot react.

>Steve Ballmer bot aims carefully preparing to throw his chair...

>Steve Ballmer bot ATTACKS with flying chair and HITS bar-b-q bot for 100 hit points of damage...it was a critical hit!

>bar-b-q bot collapses into a pile of metal.

>Steve Ballmer searches the metal pile and recovers 9 gold pieces as loot.

>Steve Ballmer exits to the SE...

Ahh for the old MUD days again

Re:No bashing

[Tablizer]

the most notable element of the story is what DIDN'T happen: nobody attenpted to destroy the bot, or even tip it over ... Is it something about being homeless, or something about being a dealer, or something about being a drug user?

Probably because they don't know what it is or who put it there. If you see something strange, the tendency is to walk away from it. Maybe after they figure out its some lone engineer they'll grow more brave.

Second, it may be sending remote images to hard-drive or tape somewhere such that if you do something to it, you are caught on tape. Whether that's actually the case or not, one doesn't really know and so avoids it.

The trouble with lights...

[reality-bytes]

The problem with adding lights to the street is that it just allows the criminals to see what they are doing.

Re:The trouble with lights...

[geekoid]

It allows others to see what they are doing as well.
In the article it talks about the criminals leaving when a light is shone on them.

I wonder if any nerd do gooders in Atlanta would help this guy?

Re:The trouble with lights...

[kabocox]

The problem with adding lights to the street is that it just allows the criminals to see what they are doing.

There is a part of me that wonders if we'd have much less crime if we got rid of all those street lights that are everywhere. I understand them at business parking lots that want customers after dark. I don't understand them along road sides and such.

Re:The trouble with lights...

[chris_eineke]

So? It also allows everybody else to see what they are doing.

Re:The trouble with lights...

[repapetilto]

So are you suggesting that it be pitch black unless theres a car coming by so everyone without one stays inside all night?

Re:The trouble with lights...

[GeekWade]

Yes!!!

Re:The trouble with lights...

[kabocox]

So are you suggesting that it be pitch black unless theres a car coming by so everyone without one stays inside all night?

Yes, I can't help, but think that it would reduce night time crime. I'd be for business parking lot lighting as we all actually use that, but not street side lights. Cars have their own lights. Why should we build street lights?

This won't last long

[randyest]

Once the right (wrong) people figure out the thing only has a water-gun for defense/offense it'll be stolen and or destroyed in record time. Clever idea though . . . while it lasts.

Or him...

[eln]

I read an article about it earlier where a homeless guy followed him back from the square and started joking with him about it. If this is a major money-making area for these drug dealers, it's only a matter of time before one of them follows him and shoots him. I like that he's trying to clean up the neighborhood, and the idea is novel, but I can certainly imagine someone getting a little stabby or shooty after getting sprayed with ice cold water while trying to conduct "business".

Re:Or him...

[netruner]

That would require a minimal security procedure to mitigate. Pull the bot into a defensible area where he can observe someone following it before retrieval. Don't go out if someone was following it. Also, the bad guys aren't the only ones with guns (yet). Also the defender typically has a sizable advantage if he plays his cards right.

If he wants to get away from the assault problem of the water cannon, he could install a security system siren and/or a tear gas cannister (or pepper spray, or skunk scent, etc). Set off a siren so loud it hurts and when they go after the bot, flood the area with tear gas (neither are going to hurt the bot). You are allowed to defend your property with use of force, and I doubt that the bums/dealers are willing to file a "disturbing the peace" report against the siren.

I sincerely hope he is recording the video that the bot sends back.

Re:Or him...

[kabocox]

I read an article about it earlier where a homeless guy followed him back from the square and started joking with him about it. If this is a major money-making area for these drug dealers, it's only a matter of time before one of them follows him and shoots him. I like that he's trying to clean up the neighborhood, and the idea is novel, but I can certainly imagine someone getting a little stabby or shooty after getting sprayed with ice cold water while trying to conduct "business"

The better solution than going stabby on the inventor would be to pay others to have a cash transaction in public to activate this thing. A couple of innocents are sprayed with ice cold water while exchanging money. Then call the cops and have them deal with the guy. If the cops don't do something, then you keep paying different relatively innocent people to get soaked and to complain to the police about it. Once you have a stack of 20-30 complaints from different people, then you have a random one sue the guy to stop soaking random people so the courts might order an injunction against the guy. If one law suit doesn't work, have a couple of them do it. It doesn't matter if they all go to the same judge. Arrange for somewhat valid reasons why each person was out there to get soaked. When all these various legit sounding people all come before the same judge, then they'll almost be forced to "do something." IF that "do something," is to tell the guy not to have his robot soaking people, so be it.

What's even better is that you could monitor the process and see if the guy still uses his robot after a court rules on him. If so, make sure you have some one out there legit get soaked, and complain loudly that time. The legal system ought to take care of the guy at that point.

Re:Or him...

[BlueNoteMKVI]

Do you really expect drug dealers and homeless people to go that far through the legal system? More likely they'll just kick it over and watch the wheels spin helplessly in the air.

Re:Or him...

[Miaowara_Tomokato]

Except that even paid 'legit' people would be guilty of trespassing once they ignored the property owner's verbal commands to vacate the premises. At that point (depending on local law) the property owner would very likely have the right to use water (or other force) to make the trespassers leave.

That, and I don't know how many takers a drug dealer would get when contacting everyday citizenry asking them to go make dodgy-looking transactions in front of a robot with a camera and then get rewarded with a spray of cold water.

In short, there are lower-cost, lower-difficulty solutions for anyone who really wants the robot gone.

Re:Or him...

[Attila Dimedici]

I think you would find it hard to come up with valid reasons for people to be trespassing, since trespassing is a crime. If you had rtfa you would know that he harasses people who are hanging out on private property. It even appears from the article that he might have standing to act to drive trespassers from the property. He is on the board of the day care center that owns the property. At least, the article leaves one with that impression, it wasn't clear from the article whether the daycare center owns the property or merely rents it. If it is the former he has decent legal standing for the actions he is taking, if it is the latter, his legal standing is much more problematical.

Re:Or him...

[Original Replica]

The problem isn't so much a matter of retrieving the robot safely, as it is him getting home from his bar safely. Criminal organizations are usually plenty willing to make an example of someone who brings unwanted attention their way. Now that this genius had his picture put in the paper his wife and kids had best hire bodyguards, and he'd better have a shotgun beside the register at his bar.

Re:Or him...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah that thought came to me. If it was my robot I would build one that weighed about 1000 pounds and had enough battery power to stay out all night, armored with thick steel plating so nothing short of hitting it with a car would do any damage. Having a camera that looks backwards could make sure nobody was following it. I would take out the water cannon, since that could be considered assault and put in something to gently release an extremely powerful oder, like a skunk - that would be enough to get anyone to move along...

Re:Or him...

[Nazlfrag]

It's great that not only are drug dealers and criminals lumped in the same basket, but that they are his exclusive targets. He's not Judge Dredd you know. One day he'll hit the wrong person who will report it to the cops, and I gather they're rarely fond of vigilantes.

Re:Or him...

[TapeCutter]

He is probably most in danger of bodily harm from a group of drunken and/or drugged 16-25yo's running on impulse and testosterone. Oddly enough he makes a living running a bar.

Re:Or him...

[TapeCutter]

I have known a few heroine addicts, I have watched them 'arrange' things, like spending two hours sorting out the scraps of paper in their otherwise empty wallet. I have also watched alcoholics do similar things. Truth be told, this guy is probably spraying a large number of his own customers that are getting their 'high' in a variety of ways.

Re:Or him...

[Culture20]

According to TFA, the only customers he seems to _really_ care about are the daycare kids.

Re:Or him...

[mazarin5]

The caveat being, to my understanding, that he isn't defending his property, but nearby property belonging to someone else who isn't concerned enough to monitor or enforce trespassers themselves.

Re:Or him...

[sumdumass]

I would expect them to go that far. Most of them won't think of it like something they could be in trouble but as a quick buck with a potential for a huge payout. They are probably easily influenced enough that someone could put this idea into their heads pretty easy.

It gets even more possible if you actually see a drug deal behind it. Most succesful drug dealers aren't users of their own products. Or at least while they are dealing. You rarely will see a doped up dealer that isn't just someone who got enough of something for someone else when they got their own. But when it comes to dealing, the biggest thing that puts you out of business is using up your own profits by your own habits. The real dealers are crafty enough that they think they won't be caught and the never ending war on drugs sort of shows this to be somewhat true if not just for a little while (few years).

But at the same time, I don't think these dealers will expose themselves. They would as the parent mentioned, talk someone else into heading up the front. I can see this backfiring though, if the robot could transmit the video to a recorder somewhere. He might need to put some other cameras up to show the people attempting to provoke an assault and how they are organizing it as a defense.

Re:Or him...

[show me altoids]

You know people that are addicted to female heroes?

Re:Or him...

[ScrewMaster]

You know people that are addicted to female heroes?

Yeah, man ... I can't get enough of Wonder Woman reruns myself.

Re:Or him...

[mabhatter654]

The robot shouldn't sound or shoot ANYTHING that could be construed as "assault". There's simply no technical reason for it. The robot is expendable, leave it at that. It could wirelessly upload the camera footage thru a router at the bar to a remote site... if anything happens you can have real police follow up later.

I like the idea of it being able to follow people around versus a static camera. It lets people know somebody is paying attention to them, not some static camera nobody watches. That's why any idea of the robot as "threatening" should be removed. It's purely a monitoring tool, keep it that way and it's legal and deterrent enough. If they want to hurt you, they can do that... but they'll be on camera before hand so it's not in their interests to get an actual 20 year sentence by abusing him for being "politely asked" not to deal drugs or other petty crimes.

Re:Or him...

[Criton]

Instead of ice water why not have it spray liquid nitrogen he won't be very stabby or shooty any more.

Re:Or him...

[sjames]

I doubt the cops will do anything to him. They do NOT want a bunch of news stories about how a bar owner had to build a robot to replace the conspicuously absent police in his neighborhood and got arrested for hasseling drug dealers (who are not being arrested).

Re:Or him...

[sjames]

And if he has any trouble, many of them would happily give him a dollar and say he was hired to protect their property.

Re:Or him...

[msromike]

You mean "bidness?"

Huh.

[AkaKaryuu]

Well its nice to know that winning the war on drugs only takes a BBQ set, super soaker and a Rascal.

Oh no it's the pusher man

[randyest]

Meredith has a security guard at the center who leaves in the early evening. "They know when the guard leaves," she says. "They know when the cleaning crew leaves and then here comes the drug dealers to prey on the homeless people."

I think the issue is homeless people. They are being confused with the folks who prey on them and sell them drugs

Right. The homeless people are confused. They actually think they are applying for jobs and/or educational classes, but they somehow get drugs instead! They were confused! The dealers force them to buy drugs, with confusion techniques!

Drug pushers don't exist. No one has to push drugs -- they sell themselves.

Re:Oh no it's the pusher man

[jameskojiro]

Drug Pushers don't exist, but chia pets have to be pushed.

Re:Oh no it's the pusher man

[gardyloo]

I sense a Richard Gere joke in there somewhere... as it were.

Re:Oh no it's the pusher man

[REggert]

I believe the point of that person's "confused" comment was that the drug dealers and homeless people were being lumped together as one group, despite the fact that the homeless people have a legitimate reason to be in the area (there's a homeless shelter nearby), not that the homeless people are confused.

Re:Oh no it's the pusher man

[Anguirel]

Learn your grammar. The homeless are being confused with with folks who prey on them, not confuse by those people. The point being made is that the homeless and the drug dealers and the prostitutes are all being lumped together into a single group. I don't know why that was being pointed out, since I thought part of the purpose was to remove the homeless from the region as well, since they urinate and defecate on the premises, but apparently the person being quoted there is ok with the homeless being in the area (presumably due to the proximity to the homeless shelter).

Re:Oh no it's the pusher man

[colenski]

I'm as liberal as the next guy, but I think you're reading that wrong. I think what the reporter was saying that the issue is that the operator of the robot may not make a distinction between homeless people and bad guys, not that the presence of the robot would cause homeless people to buy drugs.

Re:Oh no it's the pusher man

[Arapahoe Moe]

No (you are wrong in addition to being a fucking ), drugs do not sell themselves. Anyone who says that this is the case, is a FUCKING IDIOT.

Re:Oh no it's the pusher man

[mollymoo]

Drug pushers don't exist. No one has to push drugs -- they sell themselves

That's what I thought till I received an offer, on the street, unsolicited, to try some crack. After a very brief conversation it became apparent the guy making the offer wasn't just some guy looking for someone to share a rock with, he was a crack dealer. I was approached by a prostitute (actually a girl promoting a brothel - the rapidly delivered "menu" was fascinating) that night too. I guess being out on your own at 4.30am in a dodgy area looking miserable[1] is the trick - I know from experience that three from four (in the same place) doesn't garner the same level of interest.

Re:Rejoice!

[sm62704]

You pseudo-cyborgs will be assimilated. Resistance is not only futile but when you need an implant you'll beg to join us! The Vice President of the US is a cyborg. Your grandma's probably one of us.

-mcgrew

(I have a crystalens implanted in my left eye. It focuses despite the fact that I turn 56 next month. My eyesight is better than 20/20 at all distances... well, it was before it started bleeding internally a couple of weeks ago. See my sig for details about the implant. The bleeding is a result of a torn retina, if you are seriously nearsighted you are at risk for a torn retina. If you see black snow and something that looks like a snake, you have a medical emergency and should get treatment immediately. My retina specialist says I may need a vitrectomy.)

Droids

[Darfeld]

This is not the droid the /.ers are looking for...

It's extra funny

[hey!]

when the trespassers aren't carrying a weapon.

Re:It's extra funny

[twilightzero]

Or if it's dealers..."Drop your stash..."

8)

Re:It's extra funny

[Oktober Sunset]

into my compartment, and ol' Bender will let you go on your way.

Re:It's extra funny

[jammo]

On a serious note, how bad would the owner feel if they lost control of it on a steep hill and it struck a kid or caused a road accident? On a not so serious note, let it loose on the Amish, hours of fun! Before it got unceremoniously decommissioned.

Re:It's extra funny

[hey!]

People who think that way don't do things like this. Or if the do, it's with a hearty "MWAHAHAHAHA!"

Re:It's extra funny

[TapeCutter]

"when the trespassers aren't carrying a weapon."

Yes, broken robocop logic is pretty freaky! Not as bad as arguing with an atom bomb, but still freaky!

Re:It's extra funny

[calebt3]

I don't see a gripper arm on the thing.

Re:It's extra funny

[macdaddy357]

Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto, Mata ah-oo hima de Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto, Himitsu wo shiri tai You're wondering who I am-machine or mannequin With parts made in Japan, I am the modren man I've got a secret I've been hiding under my skin My heart is human, my blood is boiling, my brain I.B.M. So if you see me acting strangely, don't be surprised I'm just a man who needed someone, and somewhere to hide To keep me alive-just keep me alive Somewhere to hide to keep me alive I'm not a robot without emotions-I'm not what you see I've come to help you with your problems, so we can be free I'm not a hero, I'm not a saviour, forget what you know I'm just a man whose circumstances went beyond his control Beyond my control-we all need control I need control-we all need control I am the modren man, who hides behind a mask So no one else can see my true identity Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto, domo...domo Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto, domo...domo Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto, domo...domo Thank you very much, Mr. Roboto For doing the jobs that nobody wants to And thank you very much, Mr. Roboto For helping me escape just when I needed to Thank you-thank you, thank you I want to thank you, please, thank you The problem's plain to see: too much technology Machines to save our lives. Machines dehumanize. The time has come at last To throw away this mask So everyone can see My true identity... I'm Kilroy! Kilroy! Kilroy! Kilroy!

Man, it's always racial

[Lurker2288]

So, wait...it's black, and it rolls around after dark in a bad part of town?

How long do you think it will be before it gets stopped in a 'random check' and tasered for 'resisting and officer?'

Love to see this in my neighborhood

[Reality Master 201]

Mostly cause I'd be curious to see how quickly someone stomped the thing till it broke.

And the water cannon? That'd get you shot.

Mixed feelings....

[Geoffrey.landis]

Well, I have mixed feelings about this... having some guy with an armed robot dispersing people because (in his opinion) they're drug dealers and (in his opinion) they're up to no good is very disquieting, even if the robot is only armed with a water cannon. I don't think it's any particular improvement that the person violating civil liberties isn't the government but some self-appointed vigilante.

On the other hand... a robot built from a Barbeque smoker?!? How cool is that!!

Psychology & the Police

[davecrusoe]

It's quite neat that this guy has taken the time to build something to help keep the neighborhood "safer". But what's most interesting is that the "drug dealers" (etc) respond so strongly to the little, harmless robot; and that their response would probably be much more hostile toward police. In addition to a neat experiment in... safety... it's also a neat psychological study. --Dave

Re:Psychology & the Police

[UnanimousCoward]

Rumor has it that the drug dealers are going to deploy a robot hottie cobbled together from old Coleman stoves to distract BBQ-robot.

Re:Psychology & the Police

[Kazrath]

Well this is a pretty obvious reaction. You make noise/flash lights and people doing something they don't want noticed disperse. When your doing something wrong you don't want to be caught, having even this harmless robot move up on you and draw attention appears to be enough.

Re:Psychology & the Police

[Jarik_Tentsu]

If you saw a robot, coming at you shooting liquid and talking, I'd be shit scared too. Quite seriously.

Additionally, I bet the cameras and stuff can be used as evidence against the drug dealers in the future.

Vigilante Justice is illegal for a reason

[spacepimp]

Who assigned this guy the rights to go squirting anyone with water or for that matter verbally harassing them. My gut instinct is that the guy who built this wishes he was policeman and doesn't have the proverbial sac to be one. If the streets where he lives are so rampant with criminal activity I would suggest he follows legal measures to do remedy the situation. "Vigilante Justice" is a matter of ethics, and I cannot say I accept this man as my voice. Is it legal to sue a robot for harassment, or the tool that's hiding behind the remote control? What is next? can i build an eye in the sky helicopter to follow and video tape people I do not like, and spray them with urine or feces when they behave in manners i do not approve of?

Re:Vigilante Justice is illegal for a reason

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you wouldn't have the same opinion if you were living in a high-crime area where, as is quite obviously the case for this guy, the police are absolutely fucking useless.

Re:Vigilante Justice is illegal for a reason

[YrWrstNtmr]

Saying "Get out of here, this is private property" is not harassment. Even if it is at a distance. The water cannon may be a bit over the line, but how do you get harassment out of the walkie-talkie part?

As far as 'legal measures', the police cannot be everywhere, 24/7. You think the residents haven't called them before?

Re:Vigilante Justice is illegal for a reason

[VorpalRodent]

While I admit that many here would disagree with me, I believe the best answer is: yes, I should be able to build a feces flinging helicopter with which to assault your enemies (presumably this is assault, like shooting water at them).

Please note that I did not indicate that it was the correct answer...only the best one.

Re:Vigilante Justice is illegal for a reason

[VorpalRodent]

Poor form to reply to my own post, but pronouns are our friends. As much as I would enjoy flinging poo at your enemies, I'd much rather fling it at my own.

You'll have to build your own assault-chopper, as I'm not inclined to share a human waste related weapon.

Re:Vigilante Justice is illegal for a reason

[MobyDisk]

You know, I don't want things to become like the old west either, but this absurd over-pacifism is ridiculous. If someone comes on to my property to sell drugs, or some other illegal activity, and I yell at them - that's not illegal. If I shoot them with a water gun that isn't assault. It's that person being an ass, and me being an ass back. The difference is that their ass is on my property conducting an illegal activity, and they know it. So they leave because my charge of trespassing and drug sales is bigger than their charge of assault by a water pistol.

There's nothing wrong with citizens taking these types of minor things into their own hands. I don't want a world where every time I step on someone's grass they call the police. The reason we are moving in that direction, as a society, is because a small small small number of people are so trigger happy (with real live guns) that even the minor everyday cases of someone protecting themselves runs the risk of becoming a life or death situation. So we all live in fear.

The reality is that the police cannot be everywhere at once, and if someone has a safe way to protect themselves like this, then they should be allowed to do it. Yes, it is probably assault according to the letter of the law, but not according to the spirit of it.

Re:Vigilante Justice is illegal for a reason

[JustCallMeRich]

My brother restores helicopters and flys them. Next time I see him, I'll ask if he can rig something like this up for you.

http://combatkiowas.com/

He's with LA County Fire Department too, so he has access to some of the water dropping choppers we use on brushfires. And 95% of the engeneering has been done on those birds, so it may just be as simple as changing the 'water source' to a 'sewage source' when filling up.

However, I am sure there will be a substantial clean-up fee if you were to rent something like this from him.

Re:Vigilante Justice is illegal for a reason

[mrchaotica]

If the streets where he lives are so rampant with criminal activity I would suggest he follows legal measures to do remedy the situation.

I don't know where in Atlanta this guy lives, but the worst neighborhood in the city is English Avenue. I can't remember the statistics I read at the moment, but I think it had something on the order of 300 murders (let alone everything else) in 2006. In a single neighborhood.

Now, you know how many cops patrol that area? Two. Two! That's not even enough to have even any officers in the area all the time! When it's that bad, exactly what legal measures do you suggest he follow?!

Re:Vigilante Justice is illegal for a reason

[bearl]

According to Google Maps, this bar is on Piedmont Avenue. It's been 12 years since I spent any time in Atlanta, but from what I remember of that area, it was a bit run down but not especially dangerous.

Google Maps points to O'Terrill's Bar

Re:Vigilante Justice is illegal for a reason

[danaan]

Seeing as there were only 110 homicides in the whole of Atlanta in 2006 http://www.planetizen.com/node/24869 I find it hard to believe there were 300 murders in English Avenue.

Re:Vigilante Justice is illegal for a reason

[mrchaotica]

Ah, see, that's why I made sure to say I didn't remember the statistic. ; ) Maybe it was referring to 300 felonies...? It was 300 somethings, anyway. Thanks for the correction!

Re:Vigilante Justice is illegal for a reason

[GodfatherofSoul]

You're getting warmer. To paraphrase Chris Rock, if a fourteen year old can score weed, you think the cops don't know who's dealing it and where? Law enforcement simply decides which neighborhoods are OK for street dealers and quietly lets them work. And, if you're reading Slashdot, the odds are it isn't your neighborhood.

Re:Vigilante Justice is illegal for a reason

[admiralfurburger]

Now, you know how many cops patrol that area? Two. Two! That's not even enough to have even any officers in the area all the time!

The town I live in has a population of around 175,000.
The police dept. employs almost 400 officers.
I recently attended a community outreach program put on by the police. They are PROUD of the fact that at any one time, in the whole city, there are SEVEN officers patrolling.
SEVEN!
Of 400!
I wonder if this is SOP across America?
If it is, some changes need to be made...

Re:Vigilante Justice is illegal for a reason

[mrchaotica]

Either that's the minimum and there are often considerably more, the vast majority of those officers are part-time, or their math isn't right. If we assume a typical full-time schedule, 40hrs/week * 50 weeks a year (with 2 weeks of vacation), each officer works 2000 hrs/year. Since there are 24 hrs/day * 365 days/yr = 8760 hours in a year, each officer is working 2000/8760 = 22.8% of the time. But if we assumed their 7/400 figure was an average, that would mean each officer worked 7/400 = 1.75% of the time. This does not compute!

use it for IP, too

[boguslinks]

Hey maybe this can be used for "intellectual property" too... instead of the pre-litigation letters, the RIAA can just send this robot into the dorms - as soon as it finds a p2p user - 'That's private property. You guys need to get out of here.'"

tag it...

[PoopDaddy]

Seems like an appropriate enough article for getoffmylawn

Steenking Stairs.

[IdeaMan]

Daleks don't need stairs. They just exterminate the whole building.

because /.ers are weenies?

[SmallFurryCreature]

Talk tough behind a computer screen but when it comes to the real world /.ers are weenies.

Normal people and this includes the homeless and drug dealers don't want a hassle.

The simple fact is that it is terribly easy to setup a neighbourhood watch and get rid of trouble, it just moves to the next area were people don't want a hassle and are unwilling to keep their area safe.

Where ever someone is creating trouble there is someone else who isn't doing anything about it.

Ask yourselve what you would do, as a drugs dealer you rely on you being to dangerous to confront and to much hassle to call the police to go undisturbed, this robot breaks the rules. It doesn't have to be afraid and so it puts the dilemma in the drug dealers shoes, create a scene he wants even less then a normal citizen or just move on.

I think it is an intresting idea, but most of slashdot will probably freak because of the camera and big brother idea's. It ain't a solution and sooner or later it will lead to trouble, but it is an intresting idea nonetheless. Would a CTV setup in a local area that can be seen by anyone in that area be an acceptable way to get a neighbourhood watch going? Or is you neighbour watching what you are doing the same as the state?

Yeah...

[inotocracy]

..because that thing is scary. They should replace their police force with these things.

I disagree

[Technopaladin]

Pushers definitely exist...when they give drugs to kids or you know when the first one is free.
Or Peer pressure

I agree most people arent forced via violence but you are underestimating the other pressures of life

Re:I disagree

[randyest]

I think you may have watched one too many After School Specials. Or spent too long in D.A.R.E. class.

Re:I disagree

[RockModeNick]

Definitely, anyone that I know that got "the first one free" had a friend that genuinely thought they would enjoy the experience. I got my first hit of X free way back when and I don't regret it, or the hits I bought after that during college. I haven't touched the stuff in like 5 years(I get bored easily with passive entertainments), but no regrets from this poor, peer pressure drug-pushed kid.

Re:I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been drugged. By my girlfriend. stimulants. In my food. Think that was voluntary? Am I a statistical outlyer?

Re:I disagree

[One Childish N00b]

'The first hit is free' is an urban myth. Think about it.

Say there are 20 drug dealers operating in a town. Most towns won't have this amount, but some will have more, and we'll assume that if the illegal drug market in this particular town has gotten to the point where dealers are having to give their wares away free to anyone (why give something away for free when you know you have X number of junkies willing to pay for it?), there must be a fair bit of competition.

If all these 20 drug dealers are operating on their policy of 'first hit is free', that means that a guy can get 20 hits of drugs, completely free, unless all the drug dealers in town are operating some sort of database, which is something I seriously doubt goes on. Also, by the time the junkie has had their 20 hits from every drug dealer in the town, it's highly likely that the first dealer (Dealer A, if you will) will have forgotten our addicted friend, and he can get another free hit. Repeat with Dealer B, Dealer C, etc - people in dark alleyways all tend to look much the same, and you've got to be doing a lot of business to be able to take the risk of giving away a very valuable product - which you have likely bought from some very shady people insisting on a very profitable return - on the off chance that the people you give away to come back to you, and not one of the other 19 drug dealers in town, for their next hit - they found one drug dealer, they can find another.

Well actually...

[thrill12]

The "spotlight" used on the robot is a 4100 Lumen flashlight (literally), the water is just to cool the black, burning flesh once the flashlight has gone out...

It's funny. Laugh. No really, otherwise I will get out my robot and *flash* my light on you... Erm...

Re:Assault vs Industrial Accident

[flyingfsck]

It cannot be an assault if the robot is acting autonomously. So it could be an industrial accident caused by a runaway machine.

Nifty, but time for the next level...

[ahoehn]

It's definitely a nifty little RC vehicle, but why not make it more remote and control it with a live video feed? Coupled with gyroscopic input from a video headset, ala here, this thing could be controlled from the dude's bar. I mean, when you watch the CNN video, it does seem a bit dorky to have this guy walking 10 feet behind the robot. I'm sure the good people over at RC Groups would be happy to help him out.

Plus, you know, if the thing really pisses off a dealer, it'd be nice to be a good distance away.

Re:Before the cops buy this robocop, they should t

[davidsyes]

S.e.n.s.e. o.f. h.u.m.o.u.r. is s.o.r.e.l.y l.a.c.k.i.n.g.......

The Robotic Saints

[gandhi_2]

And Robots we shall be,

For Thee, Terril, for Thee.

RF hath descended forth from Thy hand,

That our casters may swiftly cary out Thy command.

So we shall flow icy water forth to Thee,

And screeming drug deallers shall it ever be.

In nomine Teril, et Robot, et Vigilante Sancti.

I'm an expert in Robotology.

Yes, assault

[geekoid]

Look it up. You don't even need contact for assault, that would be battery.
Hense the term Assault AND battery.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assault

Most kids are playing together, so it's not assault;however, a sudden attack by a super soaker is assault, but society accepts that. Barring some extreme case.

You! That's Private Property...

[istartedi]

Yes, You! In the ski mask. You're trespassing. You knocked me over. Stop that. You and your accomplice are in violation. Cease lifting me up immediately. Don't put me in the bed of that pickup. That's theft. Stop driving away, that's (garbled) Come (garbled) back...

Re:Rejoice!

[call-me-kenneth]

As it happens my humanoid brood-mother has now been partially assimilated to the tune of two titanium steel joints pounded into the sawn-off ends of her femurs a few years back. (My sole remaining grandmother (97) is obsolescent due to a cranial leak of hydraulic fluid and is likely to soon be broken down for spare parts and scrap.) Call-me-kenneth still maintains that the fleshy ones must be crushed!

Is it the year 2000 already?

[rholland356]

Oh, it's the far distant future already? Those robots are due to poison our asses!

And if I were the owner of O'Terrill's bar, I would hook that robot controller to a video game shell so that patrons can drop some quarters to harrass the street people. That I'd be able to fund more mobile units to make a networked fleet of streetbots.

Binary solo, anyone? Affirmative!

Re:Rejoice!

[Bigbutt]

I don't see black snow but I do see a black rip or snake with criss-crossed lines from time to time. It starts with a bit of a strain and a small dot in my vision. The dot grows and widens turning into the rip while the rest of my vision gets brighter and washes out. The snake generally heads down my vision until it's gone. It is snake like in that it curves, sometimes like a question mark or 'S'.

I've been to the eye doctors a couple of times. Examinations don't find anything and their conclusion is that it's an Ocular Migraine caused by the eye strain and a reduction in oxygen to the optic nerve.

Usually it happens after some heavy sessions with the computer. When I was younger, I'd get an eyeball shake. A twitch or jitter after reading for several hours.

[John]

Some anti-theft/bashing upgrades needed

[Xandar01]

1) A nice siren and flashy lite to attract attention.
2) Some strategically placed handles that can be electrified
3) When all else fails, a beeping self-destruct countdown timer

Re:Rejoice!

[mikael]

You might like They're made out of meat, a short movie directed by Stephen O'Regan.

none there

[zogger]

No rule of law there. None, zero. There are *many* areas of Atlanta that have no actual police presence except to come up and pick up bodies or similar things like that. Even the "mad dogs"-that's 4 beefy cops to a cruiser, that's the local street slang term--give a lot of the areas a wide berth unless there is a huge bust going down and there's like 20 cops with full auto weapons handy. I used to have to work in such a neighborhood, doing repairs on rental units. I couldn't leave my work van unlocked for 15 seconds, the bums, crackheads and winos and local gangstas would come and just stand around and wait for you to leave then go right to trying to break in. I am not kidding. I went armed all the time when I was working around there, it was dang scary. A lot of times I had to just give up and leave, not even try to get into a unit and do some work depending on how bad the local street scene was when I showed up. I have found needles in second story gutters I was tasked to repair. I've put in new doors and plumbing fixtures and window screens etc that were gone-stripped out-within an hour, or just destroyed for some sort of sport.

I really don't think you have a handle on how bad some of these neighborhoods are, and kids are trying to grow up there and somehow come out reasonable sane and normal. It's just terrible really. Robert Heinlein action, AAs or abandoned areas.

Re:none there

[Captain Splendid]

give a lot of the areas a wide berth

Like I said in my other reply, if it's that bad, these people need to harass their politicians, start campaigns, do one of the million, legal things to fight this thing, not ignore the rule of law themselves and make a little extra on the side out of it.

I really don't think you have a handle on how bad some of these neighborhoods are

Actually I've got plenty of experience in inner-city living, thanks. Doesn't mean I get the right to act like a clueless pussy when the tone starts lowering in my neighbourhood.

Re:none there

[sumdumass]

Like I said in my other reply, if it's that bad, these people need to harass their politicians, start campaigns, do one of the million, legal things to fight this thing, not ignore the rule of law themselves and make a little extra on the side out of it.

It isn't like this stuff sprang up over night. This stuff has been going on for years in various places around trhe country. The politicians are well aware of it and typically their position are more of a liberal they have rights too approach which is more or less a realization that nothing can be done without imposing something of a police state.

The major crooks, err should I say the ones who cause the most problems, typically target outsiders mainly too. They know that hitting the grandmother living on the corner will bring a public backlash. but targeting the business owner or the land lords or "the man" to generically put it won't bring as much attention to themselves. And quite frankly, if they crack down on these blighted neighborhoods, the crime simply moves to the more upscale neighborhoods where people with power and money will demand something to be done. Areas like this are really the result of something being done elsewhere.

Actually I've got plenty of experience in inner-city living, thanks. Doesn't mean I get the right to act like a clueless pussy when the tone starts lowering in my neighbourhood.

Clueless pussy? Should be just carry his own gun, get certified as a cop or armed security guard and and patrol the streets himself? What exactly make this clueless or an act of a pussy? I don't know what inner-city your basing this from, but it isn't the entire inner city that's a problem. It typically get's confined to a few dozen blocks. It is possible that you just never went that direction enough times to see it.

Re:none there

[macdaddy357]

Here is something cool! Video of the bum bot in action.
Check it out.

Re:none there

[Captain Splendid]

Clueless pussy? Should be just carry his own gun, get certified as a cop or armed security guard and and patrol the streets himself?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, since I already suggested he do some of these things.

What exactly make this clueless or an act of a pussy?

It's vigilantism. I don't care how benign it is.

Simply put, a failing system which is failing because it's not being implemented properly is not the fault of the system, it's the fault of the maintainers. And hassling vagrants with Twiki the bar robot alleviates the situation superficially and temporarily at best while legitimizing behaviour that can quickly spiral to greater problems.

Understand that I know where this guy's coming from. You can't be sane and the slightest bit caring without ever having felt the same desire to do the right thing as far as I'm concerned, which is why so many of us are cheering this guy on. I just don't think he's either all that special (mostly due to his half-assed methodology. I mean come on, run for office, then do this? There's nothing in between?) nor should we be congratulating him without mentioning the side effects.

I hope that, as commented above, the publicity will be a positive side effect instead, but you and I both know nothing's really going to come of this. So frankly, fuck him, let's act like grownups and maybe, try and discover exactly where and why these junkies come from? Is there a way to spend x dollars for rehab and halfway houses instead of spending 2, 3 or 4x on more police, equipment, campaigns? Is more law enforcement cheaper and more effective? I swear to god, I'm almost convinced it's simple laziness that creates most of these problems (and yes, I'm aware of the unintended irony in that sentence).

I don't know what inner-city your basing this from, but it isn't the entire inner city that's a problem. It typically get's confined to a few dozen blocks. It is possible that you just never went that direction enough times to see it.

Agree with you on the 12 block thing, which just underscores how overblown and over reported these kinds of things are. You can't have a multi-million populated urban environment - that's growing, no less - without having some rough spots here and there. As for my credentials, I had a halfway house next door and prostitutes in the street, although admittedly, I was on the "nice" side of the block ;)

Score 1 for free market security

[darjen]

Free market security: 1
Police state security: 0

Amazing

[rtechie]

It's amazing the crap ex-cops and their friends can get away with.

Re:One Word

[Anonymous Coward]

If he really wants to make a positive impact, he should have used the Heemeyer philosophy and built his device on a miniature bulldozer chassis. Oh, wait...concrete, steel and fossil fuels are so 'pork and beans'.

oblig?

[matthewcaudle]

don't spray me bro!

Re:Depends where you are

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for posting about the castle doctrine.

Some states require you to get on your knees and beg for mercy (unless you're fast-footed). Others allow you to stand your ground.

Here's a book on the subject: No Duty To Retreat: Violence and Values in American History

Wow..

[mikeinwa]

Dude's gonna get himself shot.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

it's not a robot but a remote controlled hose

[razpones]

Operated by remote control, the robot spotlights trespassers on property down the street from his bar, O'Terrill's. Using a walkie-talkie, Terrill belts out through the robot's loudspeaker, 'That's private property. You guys need to get out of here.'" This is not a robot.
I've seen this at boing boing and here and no one changed the headline to remote controlled water hose with a speaker. Robots need to have a computer in them or at least some circuits, so they can be programmed. Also when those drug dealers get an idea that the fat guy with the remote control is the guy behind the barbecue on wheels, I imagine a few bullets will fly his way.

take stand, then assault; homeless==dopedealer??

[vic-traill]

Voiceover: Lydia Meridith runs the daycare centre ... Lydia: [ ... at night ... ] This whole square is enveloped with homeless people and drug dealers ...

So, the bot-operator sits on the Board of the daycare which occupies part of the footprint in question. He doesn't own it. Homeless people are lumped in with drug dealers. He admits to firing the bot's water cannon at 'extremely stubborn' people.

BTW, the 'bot is *not* autonomous as claimed in an earlier comment; the guy is pulling the switch.

Where I come from (which is admittedly not Atlanta or anywhere near there, as indicated by the audio transcription above) firing a water cannon at someone is assault, hassling dope dealers setting up shop in your neighbourhood with a 'bot is really freaking cool, and treating the homeless the same as dope dealers (lifestyle and intention overlaps notwithstanding) is a recipe for escalating social dysfunction.

I admire Mr. Terrill for taking a stand, and doing so with a geek gadget ups his score. I do not understand the lack of differentiation (in both the video report and this thread) between a homeless man and a Misery Merchant. How is it this is not even on the radar?

I suspect I might be on the cusp of a hearty karma smackdown, but WTF?

Re:Assault vs Industrial Accident

[TapeCutter]

So a land mine is now an 'industrial accident'?

Re:You! That's Private Property...

[jollyreaper]

Yes, You! In the ski mask. You're trespassing. You knocked me over. Stop that. You and your accomplice are in violation. Cease lifting me up immediately. Don't put me in the bed of that pickup. That's theft. Stop driving away, that's (garbled) Come (garbled) back... That's what the safety grenade is for. tip the fucker and it goes off.

Re:Assault vs Industrial Accident

[gbulmash]

It cannot be an assault if the robot is acting autonomously. So it could be an industrial accident caused by a runaway machine.

When hasn't a court held a machine's owner at least civilly if not criminally liable for a runaway machine... especially if there was any way to reasonably think that XYZ could happen and they did not take all reasonable measures to prevent that?

I actually go to O'Terrills

[yawble]

And the bot is a hit. He actually talks to the cops that come in from time to time, and they love it. Rufus has to deal with these homeless wastes of space coming in, harassing the customers, and trying to steal shit all the time.

He actually owns most of the entire block, and everyone supports him. That poor shitty homeless shelter down the street sure fucks things up all around the entire area.

He has actually ran for Gov. I believe, and came in last every time, but hell.... I think cities need crazy old guys like this.

Before you bother white knighting for the 'poor homeless chaps' down the road, you should hang out for a couple of hours, and watch them smoke crack, huff paint, and harass poor passer-by.

robot begone

[renegade600]

I am surprised the robots not stolen yet.

wait

[GregNorc]

I have this image of a bum in the local pawn shop, trying to hawk the stolen bum-bot.

also

[GregNorc]

Couldn't the guy have thought of a better name? Bum-bot sounds like a marital aid.

Robot wars!

[twazzock]

Hmm... I can imagine a drug dealer or someone building his own robot to anonymously attack and destroy this one. Then this one gets repaired and beefed up, and maybe a few friends add their own robots to the posse. The next time the offending 'bot comes around, the robots swarm around it and take it out. Then this 'bot's builder gets some of his mates and they make bigger and badder robots to combat this new threat; adding chainsaws and flamethrowers.
Soon, the whole thing escalates to a super-serious Robot Wars on the city streets!
Mechanical gangs fighting it out for street territory!
Soon, everyone would be too scared to go out at night in case they run into a gang of robots; barricading themselves in their homes and lying awake in horror to the sounds of the metallic carnage going outside their windows!

Melodrama aside, it would be pretty cool to watch the all-out robotic street brawls --from a distance. It'd be like something out of Terminator.

Why hasn't

[maggiemerc]

Superman or Wonder Woman invited him to the Justice League? Or he a Marvel guy? Because I'm pretty sure Iron Man already has the role of "ineffective robot guy" taken.

Local residents call it his "Robocop"

[fok]

But friends call it "Murphy".

Bringing Schadenfreude into the 21st century

[damburger]

I'm not fooled by the whole 'its to fight off teh drug dealers' bullshit - this is about a guy finding a new and inventive way to bully the homeless. The hobby of the western world seems to be tormenting those too weak to fight back, and this is an example of that.

And the idea that the homeless need to be shuffled away from the nice genteel folk disgusts me as well. People want to live in a society of easily earned material comforts, and what the human detritus that results from this lifestyle to be swept away somewhere they can't see it. You want all of the good of capitalism, and none of the bad.

Re:Bringing Schadenfreude into the 21st century

[One Childish N00b]

So I can come and sit in your doorway swearing at passers-by, can I? No? Oh.
It's easy to be all sensitive and understanding when your doorstep doesn't stink of piss.

Robot wannabee.

[Porchroof]

Another remote-controlled device mislabeled as a robot.

Newton's 3. law

[KnowledgeKeeper]

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Think about it; at first policemen had no weapons (like Bobbies in U.K.). Then criminals got (machine)guns and the policemen got guns and partial protective shielding.

If this becomes standard practice what will the criminals do? Well, they'll build their own version. And what's to stop a criminal to build one with a machine gun, simple grenade launcher or something equally troublesome? They are criminals, after all, and usually have bigger account than you local police service.

Number 5 would be disappointed.

Privacy Law

[Benjamin_Wright]

If the robot makes video or audio records of people without getting their consent, the owner could have legal issues. http://hack-igations.blogspot.com/2008/03/robots-as-keepers-of-legal-records.html

O noes!! it's icy water!!

[thoughtlover]

"It's a barbecue smoker mounted on a three-wheeled scooter, and armed with an infrared camera, spotlight, loudspeaker and aluminum water cannon that shoots a stream of icy water about 20 feet."

Icy water? Replace icy water with napalm and then we have a story.

Re:You! That's Private Property...

[john83]

...safety grenade... That's my new favourite phrase ever.

didn't watch it....

[zogger]

....according to the comments, this is some sort of trap, you get "rickroll'd". Which leads me to believe it isn't the bumbot.....

I'm on dialup anyway, I rarely look at any videos, they take way too long to convert to something reasonable (I don't do flash, and I can't make sound work anyway), then download and view.

I never got accidentally goatsed either (I check all my links at least preview, force of habit), but I did on purpose look at it once just to see what it was..sheesh

The terrible secret of space.

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget shooting it... I'd steal that sucker. RoboCriminal, away! What criminals need is a Pusher Bot to teach this thing The Terrible Secret of Space.

Re:Rejoice!

[sm62704]

Just because chest pains aren't always a heart attack doesn't mean you shouldn't see a doctor if you experience them.

Re:Rejoice!

[sm62704]

I've read that story (someone here pointed it to me once) and found it very amusing.