Slashdot Mirror


James Bond Gadgets

whencanistop writes "Given that the new James Bond film is just about to be released, this is quite a nice summary of James Bond gadgets from past films. Tomorrow Never Dies was on telly last night and I was commenting on how the mobile phone that controlled the BMW was awesome, why they haven't done it in real life is beyond me (although there would probably be a few accidents if they ever did). Ridiculous to think that in 1963 the gadget of choice for Bond was a pager though." Of course, the best gadget in the Bond universe wasn't even 007's ... Jaws' teeth were the envy of every kid with braces.

14 of 157 comments (clear)

  1. No problem by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Myth Busters build a remote controlled car every other episode (they always seem to build it from scratch... odd).

    Here's a toy car retrofitted to be controlled by an iPhone: http://www.walyou.com/blog/2008/09/10/how-to-remote-control-rc-cars-using-the-iphone/

    Put the two together (no problem), stick in a camera (also no problem) and you've got your own accident waiting to happen.

    Why does nobody do it? Most people have enough trouble driving a car with pedals and a big wheel while sitting in the driver's seat looking out the window, never mind trying to drive it with little buttons and a tiny screen from outside.

    It's cool that Bond films at least partially stick close enough to the near future that the gadgets are cool but we can look back 40 years and yawn.

    1. Re:No problem by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Funny

      When I watched the original Bond films I never noticed all the gadgetry as I was too busy looking at all the Pussy Galore.

    2. Re:No problem by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Here's something that's bugged me for years (morbid though alert). You can easily add a couple of servos to a car's control system and control it via remote (although long range trips would be tricky even with long-range communications and a camera).

      Servos and remotes are cheaper than people. Why do we still have suicide bombers?

      Because a driverless car downtown might draw some attention? No, seriously. Aside from the difficulty of a remote driver having good situational awareness in crappy Iraqi traffic, there's also the matter of camouflaging intent. Some suicide missions involve multiple people. Understandable if there's three separate bombers hitting one location but why have two people with one bomb? Why not have the second guy drive another bomb vehicle or hold back for another mission? Camouflage.

      Two guys are driving a delivery truck. You wouldn't think suicide bomber, that's only a loner. Now you've got a delivery driver arguing with the compound guard. C'mon, I got a delivery, I need inside. The guard would already be shooting at a driverless truck coming at him but this delivery looks like every other delivery coming through the gate.

      Right before we went into Afghanistan, a popular leader of the Northern Alliance gave an interview to a foreign television crew. This was a multi-man crew, the journalist, cameraman, and soundman. The bomb was in the camera. Interview starts, the television crew, their target, and several bystanders are killed. No single person could have gotten that close but several people posing as a film crew? That seems reasonable.

      I've also heard stories about kids included in suicide vehicles. They're probably not the driver's kids, who knows how they were abducted. But they're in the car making it look eminently civilian when the driver pulls up and hits the detonator.

      This sort of thing has two benefits for the terrorist. One, he gets to destroy his target. Two, now the GI's are all jumpy and no longer willing to discount kids as a sign the car is safe, they'll end up shooting up more innocent civilians, raising the terror level, and making the people more enraged with America.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  2. The modern bond films by sakdoctor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    are just car/gadget ads.

  3. Best of the bunch by Smivs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Two words...Little Nellie! Can I have one please?

  4. If you're interested... by sc4ry4nt · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... there is a more (er, very!) comprehensive list on Wikipedia (of course, where else!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_gadgets

  5. If you are smart, phone control of a car works by pimpsoftcom · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know this because I designed/created a system to do it a few years back.

    Its actually not very hard, I did this with a app on my then-new smart phone, using its internet access to connect car based computer I also gave internet access and configured to use a static host name using a dy-dns like setup on the car based computer system.

    The hardest problem I had was calibration of the electronics to interface with the actual driving of the car; I never realized how much we as humans compensate for a slight directional drift on the steering wheel, or how refined our ability to break slowly is. Also, the brakes are an issue as the correct leverage for the breaks can be broken easily if you don't set it up correctly; Get it wrong and you cant actually use the car outside of the remote control because the assembly to drive it is in the way.

    In general, The older the car, the more issues you will have. Also, the power and electrical systems are the picture of inadequacy if you are looking to build your own 'Kit'. I actually may try to dig out my old notes, many of my ideas for additions may be possible now.

    --
    - d
  6. Eddie Izzard's view by icke · · Score: 4, Funny

    Of course there is the Eddie Izzard sketch brilliantly animated without the help of Daniel Craig.

  7. Re:how is a pager ridiculous? by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Then the Matrix sequels came out and the world actually ended.

    This will blow your mind, but there are no Matrix sequels...

  8. Re:Car-sub! by netsavior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    yes, yes they have had a sub-car
    Rinspeed sQuba

  9. I had Jaws' teeth by Inda · · Score: 4, Funny

    Short story as I want to go home in a minute...

    Broke both my jaws 20 years ago, two metal gumshields were glued to my teeth, both of these had little hooks pointing up/down away from my mouth, on these hooks were elastic bands, these bands kept my nouth in the correct possition (and had to be cut if ever I puked).

    When I'd healed, the elastic bands were removed and I looked just like Jaws. No white teeth, just metal.

    If it wasn't for all the other metalwork screwed into my skull, I'd have been chewing through cables. :)

    Liquid food for ten weeks... No pictures but I promise you it did happen.

    --
    This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
  10. Not from Q ... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Funny

    Least known, but most used, Bond gadget: penis

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  11. Your "nouth"? by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I guess it didn't heal so well then?

  12. Re:Car-sub! by steveha · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Fascinating. Here's a link to the text explaining the car:

    http://www.rinspeed.com/pages/cars/squba/pre-squba.htm

    This is an actual car, but the Bond version remains sheer fantasy. The Rinspeed's passenger compartment is not pressurized; it's designed to let the water in. According to the above cited text:

    With an enclosed volume of just two cubic meters of air the vehicle weight would have to increase by two tons (!) to counteract the unwanted buoyancy, giving the "sQuba" the land mobility of a turtle.

    The James Bond movie car drove fast on land, and shot wet cement onto the windscreen of a pursuing car, before driving into the sea and then firing a missile to shoot down a helicopter. This is cooler, though, because it actually exists.

    steveha

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely