Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Robotics Science

Beware The Rotundus Rover 221

Posted by Hemos from the where-is-the-prisoner dept.
EasyTarget writes "Originally developed as a Mars Rover, the Swedish developers of the Rotundus are now pitching their all-terrain pendulum powered sphere as a robotic Security Guard. I'm sure I have seen this in action already."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Beware The Rotundus Rover More

Beware The Rotundus Rover

Comments Filter:
  • Already /.ed !

  • Welcome (Score:1, Funny)

    by buxton4 ( 849144 )
    I for one welcome our new robotic security overlords

  • Dijjer links to movies (Score:5, Informative)

    by Sanity ( 1431 ) * on Monday February 14, 2005 @10:23AM (#11667719) Homepage Journal
    There are a couple of cool movies on the site, but they are pretty big. To save the servers, here are some Dijjer [dijjer.org] links to them (be patient, Dijjer can take a while to get going, but then it speeds up):

    • Re:Dijjer links to movies (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DarKry ( 847943 ) <darkry@darkr[ ]et ['y.n' in gap]> on Monday February 14, 2005 @10:41AM (#11667911) Homepage Journal
      What better way to spread a trojan than make it a requirement for a link on slashdot... :)

      Not saying thats the case, just a thought.
      • Dijjer [dijjer.org] (rhymes, apparently, with "fridge"-er) is a SourceForge project [sourceforge.net]. It claims to be open source and free software, but I'll be darned if I can find any source code for it!

        I will wait until the source is available before installing this one, thanks.
        • The source is in the CVS [sourceforge.net]. When I was browsing the mailarchive I saw that Ian Clarke (of Freenet fame) seems to behind this as well. Seems like they aim to target it as smaller files than BT, such as blog updates.

          Too bad that the Uni through which I'm hooked up doesn't allow P2P, it would be fun to try otherwise. They even have a Firefox extention, that's gotta count for something.

          After browsing the "how it works" files is seems to be quite a lot of though behind it. (It's quite a bit more complex than BT
    • Whatever happened to using something like BT for this. I guess most of the users here already have BT installed, as opposed to Diijer - I know I do.
    • Wow Dijjer seems to be a revolutionary concept. I cant beleive I never heard of it before. Their web site is self explanatory. But notice the little text box in the right hand corner to really approeciate what makes Dijjer special.

      The obvious question on everyone's mind is "hey isn't this bit torrent?". the answer is no. It has the same effect (cooperative downloading) but the cool thing is that ANYTHING on the web is ready to download this way. That's right it's like someone created an torrent tracke

      • Dijjer requires a known "root" node for the p2p network to which clients initially connect. The current client connects by default to a root node run by the makers of Dijjer.

        Bittorrent requires someone to run a tracker, Dijjer requires someone to run a root node. I don't see any big breakthroughs here. Dijjer might have a slightly more userfriendly way for the publisher to seed his file but thats about it.

        /greger

        • Dijjer does not require the content provider to do ANYTHING. No torrent to set up. Dijjer essentially provides clinet requested just-in-time torrent trackker. Big difference.

          Content providers could also use Dijjer to serve webapges--cant do that with bit-torrent. To give an example, imagine slashdot was served off of say a commodore 64 but required dijjer to access. it would probabbly work except for the dynamic personalized content. But you could not even think about doing that with bit torrent since

          • Content providers could also use Dijjer to serve webapges--cant do that with bit-torrent.

            You could, but there isn't much of a point since BT isn't very effective for small files.

            Dijjer seems to be a neat pice of code though. GPL as well!

        • Bittorrent requires someone to run a tracker, Dijjer requires someone to run a root node. I don't see any big breakthroughs here.

          Then you really aren't looking very hard.

          The point with Dijjer is that the content distributor doesn't have to do anything to publish their content. The only purpose of the seed node is to bootstrap peers into the Dijjer network, once your peer starts up it doesn't need the seed node any more, irrespective of how many files you download. With BitTorrent, the tracker must

  • Run away from the Swedish Ch... Security Robot!

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @10:24AM (#11667738)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Other uses? (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "I have trouble believing that something that makes a good security guard also makes a good children's toy..."

      Just so long as you dont taunt the happy funball.
    • Oh yeah, and what the hell is a robotball?

      Where all the robots come together and have a well-dressed robot social.

    • Re:Other uses? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Quiet_Desperation ( 858215 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @10:38AM (#11667872)
      I have trouble believing that something that makes a good security guard also makes a good children's toy...

      Dogs?

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • You made a good point, but I sincerely hope you don't see a dog as a toy... dogs take a fair bit of dedication to take care of and train, not something I'd trust a child with. At least not a small child, anyway.
        • Only if you're totally anal about it. Teach a dog not to bite as a puppy, and get one big enough that the kids can't torture it, and that's about it. Unless you're one of those wierdos that lets dogs into your house.

    • Re:Other uses? (Score:3, Funny)

      by British ( 51765 )
      I have trouble believing that something that makes a good security guard also makes a good children's toy...

      Just attatch a giant weasel to it, and let it go in random directions. Bet that toy will get some attention in the Kay Bee Toys display.

  • What can it do? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bigtallmofo ( 695287 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @10:25AM (#11667742)
    Based on the pictures and description on the site, it sure looks like it can go a lot of places. I'm not sure what it can do once it gets there (since it's really just a sphere with notches to act like treads).

    When are robots like Rosie on the Jetsons going to be easily affordable?
  • Step 1, build the rover.

    Step 3, Profit.
  • This reminds me of the spherical robot in The Incredibles.

    I'm not sure I agree with their marketing talk though: they claim that a single security officer can cost op to $200k for 24 hours. That seems rather steep...

    • Here's [80snostalgia.com] a group of them out on patrol.

    • Re:Seen it before? (Score:2, Informative)

      by PixelThis ( 690303 )
      It would be hard to employ a single person for a 24hour shift, at least for more than 3 days in a row. In general to efficiently cover 24 hours you need three or four people. Assuming $20k plus additional employer contributions of $10k. You'd be talking $90k - $120k for minimum wage security. If you want well trained people, the cost could easily double. Plus all the additional insurance you'd want if your security force is armed.
    • Or more.

      Think about it, you need at least four guards to have 100% coverage 24/7, and that's not including restroom breaks, training, vacation, or sick time.

      That gives you $50k per guard, per year. That's not enough in the USA for armed security, that's barely enough for a guard who's marginally less likely to steal stuff than somebody else.

      More realisticly you'll need at least 6-8 guards (once you get 4-5 guards you're going to need a supervisor). Then you're getting into minimum wage territory.
      • 8 guards, each making 50k/year = 400k/year. That comes out a bit different then 200k/24 hour period.

        Unless the grandparent post misquoted - the article is /.'d so I am going by his " can cost op to 200k for 24 hours"

  • Another article (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 14, 2005 @10:27AM (#11667769)
    http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6932 [newscientist.com] Another article which might be useful since their site is slashdotted now...
  • slashdotted already? since it took about 60 seconds to load the main page, perhaps they're using that Rotundus robot as a web server...

  • Best error ever (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BearJ ( 783382 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @10:29AM (#11667795)
    530 Sorry, the maximum number of allowed clients (10) already connected Man, what a massive client limit. Ironically, it's probably what will keep their server from grinding to a total halt...though I shudder to think how many 530's it's spewing out at the moment.
    • 10 clients is the limit for IIS running from anything but a $$$ installation of windows server 2000/2003
      • Yes, because $350-$400 for a copy of Windows Server 2003 web edition is SO expensive for a company that makes expensive robots. Not. If you want to have a presence on the web for your company don't do it by using a workstation as your information disemination device.

        • Re:Best error ever (Score:2, Informative)

          by spleck ( 312109 )
          Yes, because $350-$400 for a copy of Windows Server 2003 web edition is SO expensive for a company that makes expensive robots.

          You mean CalTech? Did you notice the link is to a picture from the Prisoner? Did you notice its on an edu? Not related to the company OR the robot?

  • 24 hour security (Score:5, Funny)

    by FluffyPanda ( 821763 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @10:31AM (#11667807)
    In the security business as a whole there is a strong pressure to replace humans with technology in order to reduce costs and increase security. Substantial savings are possible because a single security officer can cost up to $200 000 for a 24 hour service.

    Wages: $20,000
    Perks: $10,000
    Employer contributions: $15,000
    Caffeine required for continuous operation: $155,000
    • I can't remember the name of the movie, but it was about a kid who breaks into a research center and fakes out the motion sensors with a couple of frisbees.

      It shows the security guard watching the sensors freak out and and saying something like "Damn technology. I wish I had just one good right now".

      Seriously by the time you get done paying for the hardware + 'upgrades' (bug fixes for the software) + power costs + connsultants and technicians it would probably be cheaper to hire some rotweilers + handlers
  • Scientists noted that if the whole "robot security guard" thing doesn't pan out, the rover is also available to do children's parties.
    • I wouldn't want my kid playing with something originally intended to be a security guard
    • If the thing can't hack it as a security guard, it's DOOMED as a kids' party chaperone/herdsman. All the cleverness of adults with none of their awareness of "but you can't do that". Kids will think of angles no adult would ever come across. Toughest audience imaginable for a security device...
      • Bullshit, I had an eighth grade teacher who took a group of supposedly gifted kids on an overnight trip every year. To keep everyone in their room after lights out, she'd put a piece of tape over the room doors. Every year, somebody got busted the next morning for having left their room, and every year, nobody ever figured out the solution that would be obvious to you or me.

        It was a hell of a lot of fun watching the ones that caught finally get it while viewing "Spartacus" in history the next year.

    • Timmy Step Away from the Birthday cake.

      You have 20 seconds to comply.

      15.

      10.

      5.
      4.
      3.
      2.
      1.

      I am now authorized to use force.
      [gunshots]

  • Looks Kind like.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Nashirak ( 533418 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @10:36AM (#11667853) Homepage
    "And now Princess you will tell me the location of the rebel base." (Just missing the two shots on the side)

  • The robot guard... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Gorffy ( 763399 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @10:36AM (#11667858) Journal
    It can not be talked to. It can not be reasoned with. It has no mercy, no sympathy. It will not stop until it has carried out it's tasks. It will kill without feeling... So where can I get one?

  • Here's the linked image in the submission [rightbrainnetworks.com]

    (This is probably the dumbest mirror ever, but oh well...)

  • Oh no! (Score:1, Funny)

    by thenetbox ( 809459 )
    Nerds and Geeks beware... It's a weight training medicine ball! Run.
  • Robot rolls up to an Intruder and shouts out "Halt! Who goes there!". Intruder gives it a nudge and replies "Seeya around" :)

  • simple to defeat? (Score:1, Funny)

    by torpor ( 458 )
    all you gotta do is drape a canvas bag over it, and oila.. no more rolly polly.

    which is why i am in favour of robobally-cop havin' frickin' lazer beams on its head^H^H^H^Houter circumference, somewhere ...
  • Isn't there some kind of robot floor duster that looks like this?
  • I propose a better marketing program.

    1. Make rotundus smaller, of a size and weight of a bowling ball
    2. Sell it to thoose guys which are trying picking up chicks from Bowling Arena.
    3. Profit

  • Beware The Rotundus Rover (Score:3, Funny)

    by BossMC ( 696762 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @10:44AM (#11667934) Homepage
    "Beware The Rotundus Rover"

    Beware of the British Leyland Rover as well.
  • The Daily Telegraph [telegraph.co.uk] had a front-page piece about this today. Slow news day, obviously! The idea that it could be trained to corner burglars seems a bit far-fetched (staircase, anyone?) but the idea of it chasing after intruders while phoning the police, taking photos and, presumably, shouting "EXTERMINATE!" is pretty cool...

  • Note to self (Score:3, Funny)

    by GuyZero ( 303599 ) * on Monday February 14, 2005 @10:49AM (#11667988)
    1) not a number, free man
    2) find out who is #1?
    3) plug the fucking keyhole on front door
  • At least they don't look like jumped-up salt shakers.

  • "pendulum power"? (Score:3, Informative)

    by FooAtWFU ( 699187 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @10:49AM (#11667995) Homepage
    Pendulum power? Been there, done that. [wikipedia.org]
    SMITH & TINKER'S Patent Double-Action, Extra-Responsive, Thought-Creating, Perfect-Talking MECHANICAL MAN Fitted with our Special Clock-Work Attachment. Thinks, Speaks, Acts, and Does Everything but Live. Manufactured only at our Works at Evna, Land of Ev. All infringements will be promptly Prosecuted according to Law.
    You'll be hearing from our lawyers.

  • The Prisoner (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Zecritic ( 858738 )
    In The Prisoner, their security is a big ball of canvas filled with something and it suffocates people trying to escape. Why don't they try that?
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • ...all-terrain pendulum powered sphere...

    This gives the good old Rock'n'Roll a new dimension.

  • It just wants to be happy. (Score:4, Funny)

    by clambake ( 37702 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @11:17AM (#11668323) Homepage
    I think I will name it Colin.

  • Sad little robot (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CarrionBird ( 589738 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @11:22AM (#11668382) Journal
    So they send a unarmed little ball against all intruders?

    Might as well call it Marvin while you're at it.

  • This robot must be depressed. (Score:4, Funny)

    by ehiris ( 214677 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @12:02PM (#11668780) Homepage
    It aspired to be an astronaut exploring new worlds but became a rent-a-cop replacement.
  • Presumably they will have the ability to play noughts and crosses.
    And come with the perfect security guard voice of Winsdor Davis.
  • "Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball!"

    Meh.

  • ... what a joke ... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ninjagin ( 631183 ) on Monday February 14, 2005 @03:21PM (#11671163)
    Somehow I thought Swedes were brighter than this.

    Granted, a camera that rolls around inside a sealed sphere is a neat idea by itself, but the suggested security applications are just plain poorly-thought-out.

    Consider that anyone with a weighted net or a tube of epoxy could immobilize the thing. A tarp with sandbag corners could both blind and immobilize the unit.

    Consider that even though it can be sealed to eliminate the chance of water dirt or mud getting inside, covering it with mud will make it useless anyway, especially if immobilized.

    One quarter-can of spray paint should be enough to cover the whole ball. Sure its mobile, but if it's blind it's not useful.

    It can't climb stairs or ladders and it can't rattle doorknobs. It can't look into windows at eye-level and it can't shine a flashlight into areas. It can't collar, beat up or shoot trespassers/transgressors. There's no mention of audio monitoring capability, either.

    To quote TFA; "In the security business as a whole there is a strong pressure to replace humans with technology in order to reduce costs and increase security. Substantial savings are possible because a single security officer can cost up to $200,000 for a 24 hour service."

    Sure, hiring real people to do security work is expensive, but you get real people doing the work, and the capabilities of real people are far greater than a camera-in-a-beachball.

    To be fair, I'll also grant that human security guards may be prone to laziness, sleeping on the job, not being observant, etc. However, the idea that a rolling ball has enough capability to replace a real person (eyes and ears, a nightstick, a flashlight, a gun and a loop of keys) is pretty far out. Even patrolling parking lots seem like a stretch to me.

    • Consider that anyone with a weighted net or a tube of epoxy could immobilize the thing

      By which time it has done it's job - there's the perp! The guy with five kilograms of freshly chewed gum! Despite what appears in the movies, real epoxy takes time to set, even if you mix it to set very fast (and get very hot in the process) it will not set in seconds. A net would do the job, by then they guy on the desk is wondering why alarms are going off about mobile camera two not being able to move.

      It can't climb

      • Thank you for highlighting the irregularities.

        The unit can be immobilized easily, and blinded easily.

        Any tourist in London can tell you about how fast the cops came after they were mugged or pick-pocketed in the tube. 10 minutes? 20 minutes?

        I wouldn't leave beachball cameras in charge of an ice cream social.

        Gimme ten seconds with a shovel while I'm wearin' a scarf and you'll have no clue who shut off the pansy digital eyes. One tube of Reynolds Wrap solves the entire problem, if you don't have a sho

        • People are smarter and more mobile than cameras in motorized beachballs.

          It's just a mobile camera that you can program to go where you like - I don't think these guys are really pretending it's anything else.

          I wouldn't leave beachball cameras in charge of an ice cream social.

          You don't leave machines in charge of anything. Fully automated plants still have someone to hit the big red button when something goes wrong - they may be a long distance away, but they still have control.

  • It seems like one of these would do at least half-decently in the DARPA Grand Challenge [wikipedia.org] if you upsized it and stuck on GPS receiver. It'd be able to roll over most obstacles. For those it couldn't roll over, it could use reactive techniques (coupled with IR sensors, cameras, or simple bump sensors) to find its way past.

Slashdot Top Deals

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Close