Slashdot Mirror


Throwable 36-Camera Ball Takes Spherical Panoramas

MrSeb writes "Jonas Pfeil, a student from the Technical University of Berlin, has created a rugged, grapefruit-sized ball that has 36 fixed-focus, 2-megapixel digital camera sensors built in. The user simply throws the ball into the air and photos are simultaneously taken with all 36 cameras to create a full, spherical panorama of the surrounding scene. The ball itself is made with a 3D printer, and the innards (which includes 36 STM VS6724 CMOS camera sensors, an accelerometer, and two microcontrollers to control the cameras) are adequately padded, so presumably it doesn't matter if you're bad at throwing and catching."

140 comments

  1. Not the kind... by neko+the+frog · · Score: 1

    ... of Pokemon Snap I was thinking of.

    --
    -- the opinions stated above aren't those of my employer. in fact, they're probably not even my own. you know what, ju
    1. Re:Not the kind... by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      Still, very cool.

  2. and scream, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    keep your eye on the ball.

  3. Want. by Lord+Lode · · Score: 2

    Really cool man!

  4. Viewing is going to be kind of lame by jandrese · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The only problem with 360 panoramas like this is that viewing it requires you to use some Quicktime-VR sort of setup that always looks bad with the corner distortion and awkward controls. It's hard to map a full spherical image onto a flat display.

    It would be cool if those cameras could be upgrade/modified to take full motion video though. You get to be the ball, and look in any direction you want. Heck, with a bit of work you could almost certainly program something that could take a few snaps from this ball in the air to instantly recreate any space in a virtual environment. The combination of parallax from the movement and multiple (presumably overlapping) cameras should make it quite possible for a computer to figure out exactly what is where and what shape it is.

    You could make spontaneous virtual tours with something like that. A couple of guys go out to a location, one guy throws the ball at the other, uploads the pictures via cell or wifi to some server that then recreates the space and lets people virtually fly around it. You could even do something like that for crime scene photos or anything that needs to document the exact state of a room.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by RingDev · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Think of the military value though. Toss a ball into a bunker, bounce it around the corner, throw it straight up to see what's on the other side of a wall, etc...

      This could be quite the tool for urban combat.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    2. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yea, all you'd have to do is throw it into a bunker, then go into said bunker to retrieve the ball, come back out of the bunker, plug the ball into a computer and look at the pictures. Then you'll know exactly what was in that bunker you were just in. Revolutionary I tell ya.

    3. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by davewoods · · Score: 1

      Oohh! You could take it one step further and just carry the ball around your house, that way it could just completely map everything out, you know, like Google Streetview.

    4. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Yea, all you'd have to do is throw it into a bunker, then go into said bunker to retrieve the ball, come back out of the bunker, plug the ball into a computer and look at the pictures. Then you'll know exactly what was in that bunker you were just in. Revolutionary I tell ya.

      Not to mention, the pictures would be at a measly 2MP resolution...

      So, it would be less knowing "exactly what was in the bunker" and more a fuzzy, pixellated version of what was in the bunker.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by ClioCJS · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yea. This idea obviously needs to be tabled until they develop a method to somehow transmit information across the air. Some sort of... radio waves or wifi or something. Until then, this is a dumb idea, because obviously they would have to go into the bunker and get the ball back. How stupid of them.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    6. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by JorDan+Clock · · Score: 1

      It would be awesome if there were some way to send data without wires. :-/

    7. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

      The only problem with 360 panoramas like this is that viewing it requires you to use some Quicktime-VR sort of setup that always looks bad with the corner distortion and awkward controls. It's hard to map a full spherical image onto a flat display.

      I'm going to have to disagree with that. Plenty of great panoramas on that site and are very clean and clear. Just because the source video was crap doesn't mean they all are.

    8. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by omnichad · · Score: 1

      There's some serious distortion as you move around that image, too. Reminds me of the original DOS version of Tomb Raider. The 3D just wasn't quite right. Takes nothing away from the ball, but the stitching technique needs work.

    9. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Not to mention, the pictures would be at a measly 2MP resolution...

      Sure, if they take the bright green prototype created by a bunch of graduate students and deploy that directly into combat.

      So, it would be less knowing "exactly what was in the bunker" and more a fuzzy, pixellated version of what was in the bunker.

      Or, you know, by the time it was made into something usable by combat troops it would be scaled up to having more megapixels.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    10. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by omnichad · · Score: 1

      2*36 if it's done right...

    11. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 2

      +1

      The ideas just go on - what about fitting it with sensors from a kinect too, so you get a 3D model with your photo. IR cameras too, motion sensors - hook a bunch of them into a network, scatter them around, and you could have an "x-ray vision" HUD that shows you what's going on through walls and ceilings.

      Very, very clever indeed, I love this idea for the sheer simplicity, and I'll bet you can make the basic hardware for under $US500.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    12. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Think of the military value though. Toss a ball into a bunker, bounce it around the corner, throw it straight up to see what's on the other side of a wall, etc...

      Think of the high school teenager value. Toss it into the locker room, bounce it around into the shower, instant 36 counts of manufacturing child porn.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    13. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by Hatta · · Score: 1

      It's hard to map a full spherical image onto a flat display.

      My retinas seem to handle it just fine. Yes, you'll have to use some special software to render the image, but there's no reason you can't render a viewpoint into the image without distortion.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    14. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have the X-ray vision. Like the gun scopes in the movie Eraser. Dude I knew was to read the expiration date off a milk jug from 200 yards away... Through 10 inches of concrete.

      And they had these back in '83 (according to him).

    15. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by houghi · · Score: 4, Funny

      This would be a bad idea for the US military as everybody else in the world is better at soccer.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    16. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      So, it would be less knowing "exactly what was in the bunker" and more a fuzzy, pixellated version of what was in the bunker.

      Or, you know, by the time it was made into something usable by combat troops it would be scaled up to having more megapixels.

      My bad for not ending my post with a /sarc.

      Heck, why not fill the little bugger with explosives while we're at it?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    17. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Because you'd like to look and see if the "bunker" aka urban bulding has enemy combatants or school children in it first?

    18. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by pspahn · · Score: 1

      Except that in much of the world, there are more females than males, and the US Women's team is pretty damn solid.

      So much for "everybody else" huh?

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    19. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by The+Creator · · Score: 3, Funny

      Heck, why not fill the little bugger with explosives while we're at it?

      Bad idea, it would make retrieving it dangerous.

      --

      FRA: STFU GTFO
    20. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      I'm confused, he wanted to check if the milk was expired before he shot his way in to an overly thick but poorly insulated refrigerator? Is this because the door weighted too much?

    21. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

      Regarding urban combat you don't want that toy. You want the M32 which can shoot 40mm grenade shells, a video camera and an infrared flare. This thing can put 6 40mm grenades on target in less than 10 seconds. Check it out http://youtu.be/aX-99a1JCc4

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    22. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by RingDev · · Score: 1

      Heck, why not fill the little bugger with explosives while we're at it?

      Urban combat is a nasty process with exceptionally high casualty rates. The last MOUT training I did as a defender (ie: local irregular militia vs significantly larger organized military assault) we inflicted over 70% casualties.

      That was a 10+ years ago though, and maybe we've started learning from the Israelis.

      But even with flash bangs and grenades, the advantage is in the defender's hands. Especially when you have to be concerned about collateral damage.

      Given the assaulter's position, I'd much rather know that I'm about to stack and charge into a room of a family huddling in the corner than toss a grenade in and find out as we're turning over corpses.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    23. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      There's some serious distortion as you move around that image, too.

      This is induced by projection and can't be avoided. Your screen isn't the curved inward like a sphere, so when a spherical image is projected onto it you'll always get edge distortion. Note that when they crop in on the image, the distortion goes away because the image becomes flatter for smaller crops of the sphere, thus the projection becomes less distorted, in the same way that a mercator projection of the Earth is very distorting, but a mercator projection of Seattle will have relatively high fidelity for shapes and sizes. If your central vision could sweep out a 180 degree arc, and your visual cortex, which reinterprets the edges, could be switched off, you would see distorted edges as well.

      The reason you don't see distortion in modern videogames is because the developers intentionally select a narrow enough camera frustum that restricts your viewing angle. The reason you see the distortion here is because the developers of the viewer want to give you a wide enough overview that you can navigate the image without regard to fidelity.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    24. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by davewoods · · Score: 1

      No no no... The guns from the movie Eraser do not work through a refrigerator... Did you even WATCH the movie?

    25. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, but bear in mind that I was suggesting full colour, real time video x-ray vision, without the problems of actually using x-rays. You're right though, you might want some sort of long-wavelength transmitter to get through metal or solid stone walls, wifi ain't up to the job.
      (Although on that note, my dad was stopped with a present in his bag at an airport in the 80s. The security guy was able to read the Victorinox logo. It's quite impressive.)

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    26. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Heck, why not fill the little bugger with explosives while we're at it?

      Bad idea, it would make retrieving it dangerous.

      Why would you want to retrieve an active grenade?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    27. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention, last I checked, the US won their group last World Cup, beating even England... soooo........

    28. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by panikfan · · Score: 0

      Yea, all you'd have to do is throw it into a bunker, then go into said bunker to retrieve the ball, come back out of the bunker, plug the ball into a computer and look at the pictures. Then you'll know exactly what was in that bunker you were just in. Revolutionary I tell ya.

      Yup, no way they could put a wireless transmitter that shot the image instantly back to a handheld device... absolutely no way that technology exists. Just like how NASA had to fly someone out to Mars to retrieve the images from the rovers they landed there. Man, you are smart.

    29. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Aww, you guys are no fun!

      Seriously, though, I get where you're coming from... what about a non-lethal alternative? That way, in the case that the room is filled with bad guys, you can disable them, instead of just giving away your own position.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    30. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      To see what pictures it took. Duh.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    31. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by RingDev · · Score: 1

      And what, you're going to go building to building and fill each one with impact grenades? I'm sure that will do tons to motivate the locals to help the US.

      Not to mention that the M32 is a defensive weapon, full gear and ammo load requires 3 Marines to carry. It is an impressive weapon, but it's use in offensive urban combat and room by room clearing is near nil.

      Although, I did have a buddy take an M240-G, clip the carrying strap to the heat shield, forward hand on the barrel swap handle and rear hand on the butterfly, going full Rambo with it. That was at OCS, he scared the crap out of so many cadets...

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    32. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by Amouth · · Score: 1

      don't discredit it yet - we just have to teach the bad guys how to play tetherball

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    33. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Actually, a better solution might be a bit lower tech - a long wire. It doesn't matter if it's a single-use thing. Just fire it out, unspool the wire, and stream back (and record) videos until the wire snaps. The military doesn't tend to care much about equipment being reusable after it's been in combat. There's a reason they're the only people using LiS batteries - a drone typically gets blown up long before the 30 recharge cycle limit is reached.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    34. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      beating even England

      You say that like it's an achievement. I was dragged to the pub for that game. I sat with my back to the screen, and managed to look around for the only exciting bits of the match. It contained a hilarious goal. The English keeper stopped the ball, put it on the ground, and then watched as it rolled slowly across the line...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    35. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      What, no wireless???

      Weaksauce!

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    36. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by pz · · Score: 1

      Actually, a better solution might be a bit lower tech - a long wire. It doesn't matter if it's a single-use thing. Just fire it out, unspool the wire, and stream back (and record) videos until the wire snaps.

      That's how many missiles are guided already, so doing the same thing for a maybe-recoverable camera seems reasonable.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    37. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      High number of video streams, megapixels, battery life, re-projection, data management....

      It's not a easy problem.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    38. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The combination of parallax from the movement and multiple (presumably overlapping) cameras should make it quite possible for a computer to figure out exactly what is where and what shape it is."
      Motion tracking technology isn't that great yet sorry. If it is I've been missing out with all my vfx work. You kinda need like bright markers, or very well defined corners that are then pointed out to the computer for it to track them.

      As for mapping a spherical image onto a flat display, this isn't a huge issue while it's technically impossible to do it without any distortion, the more zoomed you are the less visible the distortion. A mild zoom makes for more comfortable viewing it's not really a huge issue.

    39. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by iroll · · Score: 1

      Your retinas aren't flat, and your display (the image your brain has processed) isn't projected on a flat surface. Try again!

      --
      Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
    40. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Put a countdown led on it and the bad guys might feel like throwing it back out

    41. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I don't think there's any non-lethal alternative that can't cause long-term injury. E.g. you see flashbangs used all the time in video games as a universal weapon that lets you clear the room full of both bad guys and hostages with not a scratch to the latter, but it can cause permanent blindness/deafness in practice, and if exploded close enough, some real (and even potentially lethal) injuries. Sure, it beats being accidentally shot, but you're not going to win hearts and minds by throwing one in every apartment in the block you need to clear.

    42. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by crossmr · · Score: 1

      Not at all. Enemies will know it's a camera and try to destroy it. Booby trap it so that if they try to crush it, it explodes, or fill it with explosives and have a remote trigger.
      Throw it in, grab a few pictures, then detonate if there are no friendlies in range.

    43. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Canada. Those puckheads bring their hockey sticks to soccer games.

    44. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      The only problem with 360 panoramas like this is that viewing it requires you to use some Quicktime-VR sort of setup that always looks bad with the corner distortion and awkward controls.

      I imagine the "real" intended use of this is for oppressive police/military units to toss into an area to map the room and identify potential threats easily. Things like where people are in relation to windows, any exits, how many have we wounded so far, etc.... I really doubt this will be a successful consumer product but as a product to make killing consumers easier, safer and more efficient I think it'll sell quite well.

      Just toss it in a room and you've got the picture. Toss a grenade first and you get to see how effective it was without potentially gaining a third nostril in the process. Who cares about "corner distortion" and such in this situation. I imagine a modern dual or quadcore laptop would be potent enough to stitch the panorama together incredibly rapidly.

      A neat toy I guess but I'm rapidly understanding the luddite mentality after the last few years and several spooky tech advances.

    45. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      Ummm.... with 36 CCD sensors and the CPU to process the stream of images from them.... I seriously doubt the engineer was dumb enough NOT to at least make provisions for placing an 802.11 chipset in there.

    46. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by fastest+fascist · · Score: 1

      You mainly get distortion when you view a spherical panorama with the "wrong" field of vision. If you keep the FOV low enough, around the amount of degrees of the viewer's vision your display covers, you should be fine.

    47. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by perpenso · · Score: 1

      High number of video streams, megapixels, battery life, re-projection, data management.... It's not a easy problem.

      And its something the military has already built and is evaluating. Fewer camera though. The device only needs to be on for a limited time, when its thrown somewhere of interest and for a few minutes thereafter. A sensor can determine which was is up and turn off cameras pointing into the immediate ground, the laptop with the troops could give priority to the cameras pointing horizontally or slightly upwards, etc.

    48. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by Rhodri+Mawr · · Score: 1

      I don't think there's any non-lethal alternative that can't cause long-term injury.

      Quite simply you'd fill it with a canister of tear gas or similar non-lethal gas that temporarily renders your victim blind, paralysed or otherwise unable to defend himself.

    49. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Using wireless makes sure that even if they step on it, you'll still get pictures of the layout. And it could be designed with a cavity in the center, and a motorized weight, so it could move around -- so you don't have to go in and retrieve it. And perhaps "spikes" that it could extend, if it needs to get over a larger obstruction. Which makes me think of Snow Crash (the motorcycle).

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    50. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Prolonged tear gas exposure can similarly have long-lasting or permanent effect.

      Even when it doesn't, it's still quite painful. Suppose you have an apartment building in a block that you need to clear. Somewhere inside are a few combatants, and lots of terrified civilians. Are you suggesting throwing a tear gas grenade in every apartment before entering? That's an easy way of getting a lot of people hating you for a very good reason.

    51. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      except the ball doesn't record a spherical image. It records an image that is best described by a 36 sided polyhedron. The areas of the image where these sides meet is the source of the distortion. But yes, it is basically due to projecting this image onto a flat screen for viewing. That is unless the cameras have optics that account for this. Then I'm talking out of my ass and you are correct.

    52. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is still a (possibly easily) solvable problem. Change the FOV of the lenses (make it narrower with less overlap) and do the rest in software, and that distortion goes away. If a DSLR camera with variable zoom can almost completely eliminate the barrel effect within it's own firmware, I'm sure the makers of photographic-happy-fun-ball can figure out how to fix a closely related problem with fixed focus lenses. There's also image stitching software that deals with the same exact issue, and it does a rather good job of it without that Quicktime VR fisheye lens look. Thus figuring out how to do a synthetic projection into a known image plane with a known aspect ratio from multiple overlapping views correctly isn't exactly something that hasn't been done before.

      From what I can tell, a lot of the funkiness in the images is because it's still in the prototype stage, and hardware for something like this is still easier to figure out than the software.

    53. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by mikael · · Score: 1
      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    54. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by gabebear · · Score: 1

      The distortion could be improved drastically with fisheye lenses or very wide angle lenses. The sensors they used have a narrow field of view (52 degrees). They have very very little overlap on their images even with 36 sensors

      I think it would be awesome to also incorporate some kind of 3D scanner into a sphere like this. With enough overlap and a large sphere stereovision could work. An infrared flash would work for inside shots(the intensity of the infrared would tell you how far away from the ball it is).

      Fucking patents... They are planning on patenting this and Sony has the patents for stitching together fisheye images...

      http://www.panoguide.com/howto/panoramas/spherical.jsp (explaining about fisheye panorama) http://www1.futureelectronics.com/doc/STMICROELECTRONICS/VS6724Q0FB.pdf (specs for sensors used in ball)

    55. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by gabebear · · Score: 1

      Oooh, actually if they capture video on the way up and nothing is moving they could do a 3d model like this http://www.cs.unc.edu/Research/urbanscape/

    56. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are dumb.

      How about being behind cover in a tight, urban area and throwing it up in the air to see over walls, on roofs, etc.

      Stay on the keyboard.

    57. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      It's a good thing no engineer has ever been able to improve on a hacked-together prototype built in some guy's garage with improved/new components, otherwise you'd look really stupid.

    58. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Protip: "Non-lethal" does NOT mean safe to use indiscriminately.

      Alcohol (at low enough doses) is non-lethal to consume. Long term non-lethal consumption will still kill you though.
      Tear-gas and similar have the same problem. These are not zero-impact systems, and they CAN be lethal.

    59. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      I imagine the "real" intended use of this is for oppressive police/military units to toss into an area to map the room and identify potential threats easily.

      It's also usable by non-oppressive police/military units.

      In fact, this technology will likely cut down on accidental shootings of civilians, because the police/military will be better able to determine what sort of threat they face before exposing themselves. Fewer split-second shoot/don't-shoot decisions means fewer wrong shoot/don't-shoot decisions. (the oppressive police/military, OTOH, won't use this because they don't care who's in the room; they'll just blow up the room immediately and sort out the corpses later)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    60. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by GNious · · Score: 1

      Text above pictures says to click-drag mouse on pictures - tried, but except cursor changings to some stange arrow'y thingy, nothing happens.

    61. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by bcmm · · Score: 1

      But does it have more space than a Nomad?

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    62. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

      That's really not a building to building kind of weapon and I'm sure the army and marines have better tools for that. I was mostly commenting on the effectiveness of that weapons platform VS. the squishy ball with the 32 or so sensors mounted to it. The previous poster made some allusion to it's use as a tool for the military and I was just pointing out that they had a better tool for such things. RE: the size of the weapon I think we are talking about two different things. The one I saw on Futureweapons is the size of a rifle but has 6 chambers for various grenades, a micro uav and an IR flare. It's a damn fine weapon.

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    63. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by mcswell · · Score: 1

      Stargate (the movie)

    64. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by dorre · · Score: 1

      It would be really cool if it put pictures together realtime and sent it to a display like this: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/benko/projects/sphere/

    65. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by SRChiP · · Score: 1

      What if you attach a fishing rod to it, like Wile E. Coyote?

      --
      [sic]
    66. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

      And what, you're going to go building to building and fill each one with impact grenades? I'm sure that will do tons to motivate the locals to help the US.

      ...no. I think you are missing the point. The idea is not to motivate the locals to help the US -- that was the so-called "hearts and minds" doctrine that failed so spectacularly in Vietnam. Rather, you want to motivate the locals not to help the terrorists. If the locals begin to understand that their non-combatant status isn't going to prevent them from being mowed down along side the terrorists, they will stop associating with the terrorists, and will in fact start actively cooperating with the occupation to remove that threat.

    67. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it would be too fun. Imagine if the other side had these balls, and were also having fun. Pretty soon, grown men realize they'd rather be throwing balls around than playing war, and you would have an era of international peace and sports, much like you do among the several states of the United States. What would you propose generals spend their time doing? Playing counterstrike?

    68. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by RingDev · · Score: 1

      Because obviously, if some foreign nationals invaded the US and destroyed our military, leaving only "freedom fighters" (aka "terrorist") to attempt to repell them, and in an effort to kill those terrorist, the foreign nationals killed your wife and kids, the first thing you would think is, "huh, I guess I should do exactly what they want me to do so they don't kill me too."

      That style of occupation has been working for the Israelis so well for the last 60 years too! I'm sure their constent state of war will come to an end any day now when the Palestinians realise that it's best just to go along with the Israeli demands.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    69. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

      Police could do that. But the military is prohibited from deploying chemical weapons, including tear gas, believe it or not.

    70. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a pretty tenuous defense since I'm pretty sure the gender split is 50-50 plus or minus 1%. But hey continue with the macho posturing since it's not like pretending to be world beaters at everything (especially warfare) is damaging the economy or anything. Come to think of it if the US military were to adopt the ladies soccer team to put balls into bunkers I'm sure they'd dress them up like strippers and have them use ping pong balls.

    71. Re:Viewing is going to be kind of lame by slim · · Score: 1

      The only problem with 360 panoramas like this is that viewing it requires you to use some Quicktime-VR sort of setup that always looks bad with the corner distortion and awkward controls. It's hard to map a full spherical image onto a flat display.

      That's the "only problem" with *any* photography, with the edge distortion getting more pronounced the wider angle you try to project. A traditional lens makes straight lines curve - most noticeable with fisheye lenses. A pinhole keeps the lines straight, but angles get distorted.

      The solution in a scrollable view, is to zoom into the scene a bit more. Try it with Google Streetview -- zoom out and the edges look odd (although they maintain a rectilinear projection); zoom in a couple of steps and it's not a problem.

      The more general solution is to embrace the distortion. Learn to see past it, or learn to enjoy it. Fisheye is widely used as an artistic effect. The "panorama" groups on Flickr etc. create 360 degree images in which straight objects become sweeping curves.

  5. Hmmm... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hmmm so now I can take photos WITH my balls.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on if your pitching, or catching

    2. Re:Hmmm... by need4mospd · · Score: 1

      That's certainly better than taking photos without them!

    3. Re:Hmmm... by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      If there was justice in this world, your comment would be Score:5, and his Score:2, and not the other way around.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  6. Parallax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can see parallax in the panoramas and I think it's a design flaw. To eliminate parallax all pictures of the panorama must be taken from the same focal point. Since each camera on this ball has its focal point in a different location, all panorama's taken with it will have parallax and the images won't line up perfectly.

    1. Re:Parallax by camperdave · · Score: 2

      I can see parallax in the panoramas and I think it's a design flaw. To eliminate parallax all pictures of the panorama must be taken from the same focal point. Since each camera on this ball has its focal point in a different location, all panorama's taken with it will have parallax and the images won't line up perfectly.

      However, with parallax data it is possible to extract depth information, enabling 3D images.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:Parallax by omnichad · · Score: 1

      And the data should be there - they just need a much more advanced image stitching system.

    3. Re:Parallax by spazdor · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's the impression i got. With better processing this could look way better than it does in the video. It's probably not hard to infer the ball's angular velocity from the motion blur present in all the source images, which *ought* to enable some sort of deconvolution to make it all sharper.

      Also, where camera areas overlap, you have "luminance comparisons" from one camera to the next. If the same surface looks darker from one camera than from another, that probably means that a light source has forced one of the cameras to auto-compensate by darkening the whole image. Account for that, the way they do in HDR photography.

      If that was all done with some feature-recognition processing, the stitching could be made seamless.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    4. Re:Parallax by slim · · Score: 1

      For all the cameras to have the same focal point, the focal point would need to be in the centre of the ball. I don't think that's impossible to achieve, but it boggles my mind a bit trying to visualise how it would fit together.

  7. wrong by wjh31 · · Score: 1

    this has come on a long way since you last saw it clearly. Mostly it's done with flash these days using the mouse to drag around or arrows if you prefer. Additionlly HTML5 viewers are starting to appear and mobile/tablet friendly viewers. See e.g http://360cities.net/

  8. Stereoscopic? by mspring · · Score: 1

    Should be stereoscopic. And there should be an immersive stereoscopic viewer.
    -Max

  9. Re:Quality looks like shit by hawguy · · Score: 1

    Why not actually put a decent camera in there?

    No reason at all -- you can buy sensors and lenses of nearly any quality off the shelf.

    Looking forward to seeing your new and improved pictures! Let us know when you're done.

  10. In soviet russia... by oneplus999 · · Score: 0

    balls take photo of YOU!

  11. Smile! NO DUCK!!!!! by syousef · · Score: 2

    ...but seriously, neat idea but hardly for everyday use. The seams are horrible in the resulting panorama. I presume each camera is using it's own auto exposure. What you need to overcome this is for all the cameras to communicate and decide upon a single exposure. Also might be difficult for the photographer to look natural when the shot is taken, but still catch the ball.

    Good to see people trying different things.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Smile! NO DUCK!!!!! by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Disagree; there is likely to be very different levels of illumination around the sphere (starting with sky vs ground) so I call independent exposure for each camera a feature, not a bug. If the camera registration or exposure looks bad in the output, it should be fixed in postprocessing software.

    2. Re:Smile! NO DUCK!!!!! by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      I don't think the problem is exposure, as my understanding is that these are just sensors all controlled by the controller, so I'm fairly sure that's not the issue (as it would be if you had just jammed 36 off-the-shelf digi-cams in there. But even if that were the problem, it would be trivial to solve. Even if you can't force them all to use the same fixed exposure and white balance settings, that can be corrected after the fact by reading the settings out of the exif and compensating in software.

      The bigger issue is that the lenses are aligned differently geometrically, so when you get things like glare from the sun or another bright source, each lens suffers a different level of glare, and rather than a gradual transition, you end up with drastic changes where the image switches from one lens to another. You can somewhat compensate for this by doing a gradual transition from lens to lens in the overlapping area, but even that's only going to partially fix the problem.

      You also see a problem similar to this if you try to stitch together multiple images that were taken through a polarizing lens, as the polarizer's effect is dependent upon it's angle to the sun.

    3. Re:Smile! NO DUCK!!!!! by he-sk · · Score: 1

      The seams and exposure differences can be fixed with a little automatic processing. I sometimes take panoramas with my cellphone camera, a 4-year-old Sony Ericsson W570i with a 2MP sensor. Even if the source pictures are differently exposed, as in the image in the article, stitching them together with Hygins normalizes the exposure levels and the seams are unnoticeable. I believe Hygins uses enblend internally. (Of course, the panoramas still look somewhat cheap, due to JPEG artifacts and crappy optics, but sometimes a cellphone camera is all you have.)

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    4. Re:Smile! NO DUCK!!!!! by n6mod · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'd love to get my hands on a set of the source images, since the stitching quality in the samples they showed was *horrible* compared to what Hugin can do. They clearly aren't trying to do seam blending or photometric correction, and I think one of the images is just plain registered wrong.

      --
      You have violated Robot's Rules of Order and will be asked to leave the future immediately.
    5. Re:Smile! NO DUCK!!!!! by ajs · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. This was a tech demonstration, not an end-user finished product, you can see that in the end credits (VTFV replaces RTFA, I guess). Yes, the stitching is hackish, but that doesn't matter. The proof of concept is brilliant, and I could easily see this kind of thing taking off. Even without stitching, it gives you the ability to take pictures of the surrounding area from a reasonable height, anywhere. I could see this being really useful at concerts and events where you want a picture over the heads of the crowd. You could just stitch together the forward-facing three views to get a nice, standard-looking panorama without having to orient the device to "face" in that direction.

    6. Re:Smile! NO DUCK!!!!! by slim · · Score: 1

      ...but seriously, neat idea but hardly for everyday use.

      Or, perfect for everyday, low-end use.

      Remember when digital cameras were expensive? Remember when those really cheap ones started showing up -- tiny, toy lens, 640x480 resolution -- yet they were fun.

      TFA suggests these balls will sell for $100. I'd buy one, and I wouldn't care about the odd stitching artefact.

  12. HDR? by mad_minstrel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As long as this takes HDR photos, this would be immensely useful for 3d graphics work. And no, I don't mean the useless bad-HDR-lookalike postprocessing found in phones. I mean real, honest to goodness 16-bit, not-viewable-on-most-screens HDR.

    --
    May the source be with you.
    1. Re:HDR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SOMEONE MOD THIS UP!

      This was my first though on seeing the title. Probably the same for all the other Blender/3DSMax/Maya junkies out there!

      Captcha: Lonely (what too many late nights modeling makes you?)

    2. Re:HDR? by tirerim · · Score: 1

      It's pretty hard to take high dynamic range photos with (or of) something that's moving -- it relies on taking multiple exposures at different exposure levels (either shutter speed or sensitivity) to overcome the limited dynamic range of digital sensors.

    3. Re:HDR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you meant to say 32 bit floating point (per color channel) HDR.
      Fixed point with HDR is just wrong.

    4. Re:HDR? by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      Looks like the camera images have a fair bit of overlap - they could probably assign at least a low/high exposure patterning that would give additional exposure data beyond whatever the sensors can provide (I presume they used consumer sensors at 10bit at best but probably already coming out processed to 8bit).

    5. Re:HDR? by mad_minstrel · · Score: 1

      I actually meant half precision 16-bit float per channel. More is always nice, but the kind of sensors you can put 36 of in a throw ball are not precise enough anyway. And you're just going to be using this for lighting anyway.

      --
      May the source be with you.
    6. Re:HDR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Impossible . . . true HDR requires multiple exposures, which you wouldn't have enough time to take while this thing is in the air. Fake HDR created from adjusting parameters of a RAW image would be doable though.

    7. Re:HDR? by mad_minstrel · · Score: 1
      --
      May the source be with you.
    8. Re:HDR? by slim · · Score: 1

      "True HDR" requires a sensor that can distinguish between a high range of brightnesses. That's all.

      Film is one example. There's a huge amount of detail in a negative, that you throw away when you print, because neither paper nor eyes have the same range.

      There are certainly electronic sensors that are equally able to capture a wide dynamic range.

      Achieving it with multiple exposures is a hack (quite a cool hack, of course).

  13. Re:Quality looks like shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not actually put a decent camera in there?

    Gee, good thing critics like you weren't around when the caveman was hammering out the first wheel...

    In other words, cut the guy a break and acknowledge that it's a fucking cool concept that will likely be improved upon.

  14. That feature... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is reserved for the Zorb edition.

  15. Is it canine-tested? by mbstone · · Score: 2

    Except for small, hard rubber spheres, they haven't made a ball that my dog can't tear to shreds.

    1. Re:Is it canine-tested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your dog is into photography?

      What camera do you currently give to your dog to play with?

      I once had a bear try to eat a 1970s era Pentax K1000, I was surprised to find it still worked for a while (though the prism was misaligned)...

    2. Re:Is it canine-tested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for small, hard rubber spheres, they haven't made a ball that my dog can't tear to shreds.

      Outside of a dog, a ball is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to take pictures.

  16. Juggling Festival by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd love to take a set of 5 or 6 of these to my next juggling festival.
    Where can I get one, and how much do they cost?

  17. Nothing to really add.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just wanted to say, "How cool is this?" The creativity of humankind never ceases to amaze me. Things like this make me grateful and glad to be alive during this period of time. :-)

  18. Not the first ball camera. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There have been ball cameras before, but they were used mainly on chatroulette.

  19. hey! by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    They could fire these at protesters!

  20. But does it come with a GPS? by goruka · · Score: 1

    It may get lost in the woods, fall from a cliff, eaten by an elephant or stolen by some poor kids when visiting a third world country.. It obviously needs a GPS too.

    1. Re:But does it come with a GPS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no need for it to deploy its own GPS, there's already one in orbit.

    2. Re:But does it come with a GPS? by pkinetics · · Score: 1

      It needs MMS so that it can send the photos of it getting eaten by the elephant so that we can see the inside of it.

  21. what would impress me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is if the ball kept track of its own momentum, by comparing accelerometers with G, and when it reaches the apex of its curve (being thrown upward), only then takes its photo. To reduce blur, of course. (I hereby put the above thoughts into the public domain: screw you patent system.)

    1. Re:what would impress me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      RTFA. They measure acceleration and compute the apex from that. Easy peasy and it works really well. Unless the planet you're on has wildly varying gravity, of course.

    2. Re:what would impress me by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      "I hereby put the above thoughts into the public domain: screw you patent system."

      You are assuming that you own this idea. You would have to patent it before anyone else does for that to be the case.

    3. Re:what would impress me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, prior publication is enough. no one can patent something someone else published (specifically enough, i.e. with similar language as the patent would have to hav) and disclaimed rights to. (regardless of whether they built it).

      of course, I could be wrong on the above points: after all I'm just guessing.

  22. Very Useful Little Gadget by sehlat · · Score: 1

    I can see the military and police going ape over this. Toss a ball, get a quick survey of hostile territory BEFORE going in. Even with distortion, it will be very useful without needing VR glasses.

      It's also cheap(comparatively speaking) and light, so several can be carried.

    For civilians, just think what it will do for paintball! Just make sure the lenses are easy to clean. :)

    1. Re:Very Useful Little Gadget by blair1q · · Score: 1

      They have camera-carrying UAVs for that already. And satellites. This would be better for if you're in a space you can't see from the air.

      Throw one of these into a cave or building, see if there are any bad guys around the corner, etc.

      And as for what I've seen of high-zoot paintball matches, it consists primarily of hiding behind something and lobbing thousands of paintballs into the air trying to get lucky when the enemy peeks out from the thing it's hiding behind lobbing thousands of paintballs at you. A camera tells you little more than what you know from where the constant tik-tik-tik of the paintball gun is coming from.

    2. Re:Very Useful Little Gadget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A space you can't see from the air." is exactly what I was referring to. I know iRobot makes an expensive robot to do the job, but when you need a quick-and-dirty look, an el-cheapo ball makes a lot more sense.

  23. Clever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At its highest point, it isn't moving so motion blur isn't a huge issue (unless it's spinning i'm sure they've delt with that somehow, I don't know much about cameras.)

  24. literally by pkinetics · · Score: 1

    A new way to throw up a ball... for the literal majors...

  25. The Japanese ball is much better. by Animats · · Score: 1

    Much better surveillance and pursuit ball from Japan. It would be easy enough to add more cameras to that thing.

  26. Next, do this: by blair1q · · Score: 1

    Use 36 video cameras and an attitude sensor, and combine the images and stabilize them to a particular attitude in realtime.

    Now you can toss this thing at random and always see a 4-pi steradial view of the area no matter how it's tumbling.

  27. This I would buy by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

    Absolutely cool. I like it and I would buy it.

    I'd expect different types of balls. For instance one that's nearly unbreakable. Or a bigger one which you can roll down a slope.

    Imagine tossing the ball from one cabrio to another. Or taking a birds eye picture of a sport your buddy is playing. Or a ball fixed on a helmet.

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
  28. Great for hobby/sport rocketry or kites by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 1

    If you could modify it to take continuous pictures (stills would be fine), I'd *love* to send one of these up in a rocket! You could either use it for a nosecone, or eject it with the parachute. Let it come down either with the rocket or under its own chute. Another neat thing would be to fly one under a kite.

    --
    Chaos maximizes locally around me.
  29. Air cannon ammo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I imagine this would make a cool video if stuffed in a sabot and shot from an air cannon...

  30. http://www.monclercoat4u.com by pttrade999 · · Score: 0

    People often misunderstand that moncler company only sale moncler jackets, because moncler jackets is the most famous brand in the world, people ignore their coats, which first open the domestic market.

    Unlike other brands that first famous of its jackets, moncler first product moncler coats for people. As the first model of moncler jackets, moncler coats stress more about warmth and comfort instead of style.

    moncler coats use the fluffy coating on the inner side which helps in keeping the body temperature normal. On the outer side, deep and cozy pockets have been stitched for putting in the hands. The stitching of these coats is done strongly so as to avoid any kind of breaking in case of wearing them roughly. Consider the situation in Europea that winter always with heavy snow and wind, their coats are not ordinary coats. The purpose of designing moncler coats is that keep people away from severe cold. No matter how cold it is outside, people can also wear the coats in that place where heavy snow falls often.

    Warmth as well as comfort, moncler coatshelp people enjoy the happy life while snow outside. With moncler coats, people can do extreme activity and try their best to hiking, skiing and running. But the heavy weight then becomes the problem. After long-term practice, people often feel tired. Varied by people who favour moncler coats, they demands a new product that lightweight. This promote the process of manufacture moncler jackets.

    Continues the way of moncler coats. Moncler jackets also ensure people warmth and comfort, with 3 down gram design, people only feel sleeping in bad instead of walking in snow. Using environmentally friend materials, this jacket ensure people health as well as warmth. Not need to worry about snow, its waterproof design adapt to all conditions. No matter you are hiking, skiing and running, lightweight design moncler jackets fit for long term practice. For example, moncler jackets for women use high technology lightweight. Feeling gentle and keeping warm,a lightest down garment is as light as 90 gram,but the longest one isn't heavier than 230 gram.The products are limited to sell as 2400 pieces around the world.

    As soon as its jackets outlet, people all consider the style of moncler jackets. There are so many jackets in the world that all of them look the same. In order to make their jacket different, designer of moncler jackets pay more attention to style and colors. After using highlight colors to attractive people, it is difficult to find orange and yellow moncler jackets online.

    Since moncler jackets become more and more popular, moncler jackets sale to the International market. Since it stand out of the competitors, people will never regret purchase money on such stylish ones. Moncler is famour for its down jacket and is a unified fashion brand, personality rather than obvious.Simple moncler jacken and moncler coats brings infinite taste and connotation.Moncler product in 1954 was selected as the Italian explorer of ancient Mongolian Empire site equipment.
    In 1955 they supply the French expedition to Makale. Moncler is your better choice to keep cold from you,besides,it can also bring you fashion and beauty. Here we offer moncler clothing,Moncler Jackets,Moncler Coats,Moncler Down,Moncler vest,Moncler Kids, Moncler Boots and Bags.All of which are made from original material,which is recognized by all the world and is safe but reliable. Now sports apparel category for the fashion circle finally achieved the greatest impact.
    You can find more color and style in Moncler store now.Adrienne Ma,Joyce Ma`s daughter,bring Moncler to HongKong,Moncler sell out in few weeks.
    It is happy to wear Moncler down jacket in winter,cold weather,which is the must thing in winter,bring you not on

  31. Enemies run from potatoes when thrown at them by perpenso · · Score: 2

    Enemies will know it's a camera and try to destroy it.

    Nope. They will assume it is a grenade and act accordingly. During WW2 a US destroyer and a Japanese submarine nearly collided. The sub was so close the destroyer could not lower its guns far enough, of course the sub crew had no such problem with its deck gun. As the sub's deck gun was being manned sailors on the destroyer noticed a bucket of potatoes that had been brought up to be peeled. They grabbed the bucket and tossed potatoes at the deck gun crew. The guys on the sub immediately began chasing the potatoes around and kicking them overboard, obviously thinking they were grenades.

    Keep in mind that the brain *interprets* what you see. It sometimes "interprets" things in the image to be what would be most relevant or important. A grenade at your feet being more important than a potato.

    A spherical camera in the baseball to softball size is highly likely to be interpreted as a grenade when it lands unexpectedly in your bunker.

  32. Military already doing this via wireless by perpenso · · Score: 1

    Yea, all you'd have to do is throw it into a bunker, then go into said bunker to retrieve the ball, come back out of the bunker, plug the ball into a computer and look at the pictures. Then you'll know exactly what was in that bunker you were just in. Revolutionary I tell ya.

    Years ago a cable tv documentary on robotics was showing a softball sized spherical device with multiple cameras (far fewer than the student's device though) that the military was developing. The idea was to just throw it over an obstacle, into a window or door, etc in an area of interest. The imagery was wirelessly transmitted to a laptop the troops were carrying. Of course this ball was not maneuverable. There were other small robots being testing that could be thrown, tossed onto a roof, through a window or door, and then driven via the cameras by one of the troops.

  33. Baseball/softball sized by perpenso · · Score: 1

    This would be a bad idea for the US military as everybody else in the world is better at soccer.

    Humor aside, I think the US military has considered this line of thought and their prototype is baseball/softball sized. As a special bonus this size can be easily mistaken for a grenade so its likely to generate some activity in the area it lands.

  34. Beautiful Red by Epsillon · · Score: 1

    And Wehm's micro-recorders. I thought I'd heard of these from some contemporary cyberpunk, just pinning down which story.

    --
    Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
  35. Crap.. sure, six years ago by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    hell, my local county Sherrifs department has one of these

    I've played with it at a police function....

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  36. Man... by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    I miss Stargate Universe.