Slashdot Mirror


The Invisible Man? Kinda.

A lot of people have written in regarding the announcement from scientists at the University of Texas @ Austin discovering "invisibilty". Well, sort of. What it does do is make small areas of skin (humans have not been tested) transparent for a short amount of time. By transparent, I mean 2 mm of transparency - not exactly enough to make me Inside Out Boy. Yet.

183 comments

  1. Cosmetic surgery by u02sgb · · Score: 2
    Is this going to lead to more advanced cosmetic surgery?

    "Oh darling you have such lovely kidneys"

    1. Re:Cosmetic surgery by John+Napkintosh · · Score: 1

      Who knows, but if it could be adapted for other organs as well, and included in some sort of gene therapy regimen, perhaps complete invisibility isn't an impossibility. Course, it's probably going to be permanent that way.

      --

      Long signatures suck.
    2. Re:Cosmetic surgery by ThomK · · Score: 1

      Well at least you won't have to *ask* your kids if they ate today, anymore.

      --

      TK

  2. As Keanu Reeves would put it ... by Gricey · · Score: 2

    "Whoa".

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.
  3. Well, Hell by SpyceQube · · Score: 4
    This just made my Slim Goodbody suit totally obsolete.

    --
    "Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi"
    1. Re:Well, Hell by yakfacts · · Score: 1

      Hahaha!!

      That's a pretty dated joke. I bet few people around here get that one. As for me, I was a student-worker responsible for taping that show for the district when I was in high school.

  4. I thought this was years old ... by timothy · · Score: 2

    when I went to UT Austin I felt pretty damn invisible, I thought it was just in the water there ... ;)

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    1. Re:I thought this was years old ... by homebru · · Score: 2

      ... I felt pretty damn invisible ...

      Actually, you were. But only to the really cute girls who wouldn't have gone out with you anyway.

      This will be easily remedied when you go IPO.

  5. 10 mm by AntiNorm · · Score: 2

    By transparent, I mean 10 mm of transparency - not exactly enough to make me Inside Out Boy. Yet.

    10 mm = 1 cm. That's enough to see blood vessels, bones (in many places), and all sorts of other fun stuff that lies beneath the skin. You won't be IOB yet, but you'll have a fun time grossing other people out.

    =================================

    --

    I pledge allegiance to the flag...
    of the Corporate States of America...
    1. Re:10 mm by jbarnett · · Score: 4

      Apple is suing for this transparent design, they claim it infinriges on there iMac model.

      --

      "`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
    2. Re:10 mm by Xardion · · Score: 1

      That was 1/10 mm, not 10 mm, not even 1 mm

    3. Re:10 mm by Tiny+Ant · · Score: 1

      If you read the article, you'll find doctors can *currently* see 1/10 of a mm into the skin with lasers and such, but the chemical injection gives them about 2 mm! That's 20x the current distance.

    4. Re:10 mm by stiefvater · · Score: 1

      Hemos' original post said "10mm". Now it says "1/10mm". Neither is true, the article says "a couple mm".

      Shame Hemos.

      -k

    5. Re:10 mm by PiMan · · Score: 1

      Now it says 2.

      Revisionist history anyone? I'm not saying Slashdot is doing it, but man, hypertext makes it easy....

      --
      Windows 2000: Designed for the Internet. The Internet: Designed for UNIX.
  6. The Obvious Application by AdamHaun · · Score: 2

    Put an LCD under the transparent skin in your hand. Put a Linux system in your stomach. Now you're a walking open-source machine!

    --
    Visit the
    1. Re:The Obvious Application by empesey · · Score: 2

      Put an LCD under the transparent skin in your hand. Put a Linux system in your stomach. Now you're a walking open-source machine!

      ...or a Teletubbie.

    2. Re:The Obvious Application by caffeinated_bunsen · · Score: 1

      The military is working on this exact idea. It's a looong way from functionality, though.

      --

      Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
  7. Invisability by beebware · · Score: 1

    Okay, let's just forget about the ability to stand invisable next to a naked hot-grit covered Natalie Portman and think what other usages this technology has.
    Yeah, there's the medical one (which is covered in the article) allowing doctors to see 'below the skin', but there is also the possible military usage. Perfect it to get somebody totally invisable and you've got a damn good killing machine... What other usages (apart from being able to see what you had for dinner) are there?

    Richy C.
    --

    1. Re:Invisability by danderson · · Score: 1

      Other usages? How about a Halloween "costume?"

      --
      This is supposed to be great art. So why does it look like a bunch of decapitated naked people? -- Calvin
    2. Re:Invisability by MsWillow · · Score: 1

      Well, if they can make skin invisible to a depth of 10mm, that would really make laser hair removal a viable thing :) and I'd think that a tattoo, "floating" in the air, would be cool :)

      But then, if they did this to the eyelids, say, in some nasty furrin country's jail, it'd play merry hell with getting to sleep ...

      --

      Lemon curry?
    3. Re:Invisability by gulped · · Score: 1

      uhh... a killing machine? well, if you want to be invisible, having a knife/gun/whatever else weapon is sorta hard, right? though it might scare the hell outta everyone... "look, a floating gun! aaahhhhh!"... ermm... whatever.

    4. Re:Invisability by kkelly · · Score: 2
      "but there is also the possible military usage"

      If I remember correctly, the military is working with a technology known as Active Caomouflage. This system would allow a soldier's uniform or a tactical vehicle's camouflage netting to analyze the light signatures of the surrounding terrain and mimic these signatures thus integrating the soldier or vehicle into the surrounding area. There is an army Submission of Proposal for this technology. Read about it here. From what I understand, the candidate would wear a special suit lined with fiber optic cabling which would dynamically integrage the wearer into his surroundings. There was also a special on the Discovery Channel last year about this technology but I can find no reference to the programme on their website.

      --
      K
    5. Re:Invisability by Jbrecken · · Score: 3

      What other usages (apart from being able to see what you had for dinner) are there?

      Use it on a pregnant woman, and you wouldn't need ultrasound to watch the fetus, who would have the side benefit of getting a womb with a view.

    6. Re:Invisability by notsoanonymouscoward · · Score: 1

      I thought I read something about this in a popular science article (maybe pop mech?) and I believe it was a matter of making objects seem invisible from one direction using plain fiber optical cable to bend light.

      --
      I ate my sig.
  8. Developed for the team by griffjon · · Score: 3

    UT's been working on this technology for years to enhance the performance of the UT football team so we can rule college football even more than we already do. (everything at UT revolves around football, naturally)

    It's being secretly tested on pigskin, as well.

    Hook 'em.

    --
    Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
    1. Re:Developed for the team by big-giant-head · · Score: 1

      You were blown out by NU and Arkansas, geez, -27 yards of rushing ring a bell?? UT did'nt score and offensive touch down in the last 10 quarters of thier season!!!! You guys don't even rule arkansas, let alone college football .......ROFLMAO...........

      --

      So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
    2. Re:Developed for the team by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Gee.. now UT might actually have a chance against A&M! hehehe.. Gig 'Em! WHOOP!

    3. Re:Developed for the team by ethereal · · Score: 1

      Yeah! Go Toledo! Go Rockets!

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

  9. This could be a great mugger deterent by bob_jordan · · Score: 5

    if you could somehow do it to order.

    Mugger jumps out and demands money, you say something scary in Latin, then say "Your soul is mine mortal", add a cackly laugh, give your self a quick injection and your skin turns transparent.

    You wouldn't get the aformentioned mugger out of a church with crowbars.

    Bob.

    1. Re:This could be a great mugger deterent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Usually this works pretty well for me, even without the transparency.

  10. Sounds cool, but not too usefule by tylerh · · Score: 3
    This seems to be of limited use.
    Thus far, the transparency extends only a couple of millimeters deep...transparent human skin would allow optical devices to penetrate further and illuminate tissue properties... "It's really a simple idea," said Welch. "To make it useful will be the more difficult task."
    So, if want you want to see is in first 3 millimeters of skin, this might help. But it seems a really invasive procedure (saturating with Glycerol) for such a small benefit.
    --
    "one treats others with courtesy not because they are gentlemen or gentlewomen, but because you are" --G. Henrichs
    1. Re:Sounds cool, but not too usefule by DCookie · · Score: 1
      What about finding veins to pull blood from?

      My sister has leukemia and I was her bone marrow donor. Both of us had blood test after blood test. I'm lucky to have very defined veins in my arm, but she is not so lucky. Misplacing the needle in the arm can be a very painful thing. If the Glycerol is applied above the vein, nurses would have no problem in placing the needle.

      -DCookie

      --
      My SIG is a SG-552 Commando
  11. an invisible person would be blind by geckoFeet · · Score: 2
    same reason you can't build a camera out of glass

    see ya!

    1. Re:an invisible person would be blind by skoda · · Score: 1

      Your point is on target, (one of my minor nitpicks with Hollow Man), but to be an annoying scientist, I'll suggest there's no fundamental reason you couldn't build a camera out of glass.

      You just need to make sure that you use the right combination of glass materials so that the film is not exposed until photo time, and that the lens performs adequately. (to help out your design - look to catadioptric lenses: they are solid glass lenses).

      Of course, now, the camera is probably no longer transparent :). So which is better, an invisible blind with a visible camera, or a visible man with a non-functional invisible camera?
      -----
      http://movies.shoutingman.com

    2. Re: an invisible person would be blind by SilentTristero · · Score: 1

      One way to be invisible without being blind (or even transparent) would be to have cameras all over you and flexible LCD screens as well. Then transmit what each camera sees to the opposite screen. It would have to track the person to whom you want to appear invisible so as to render the world properly on your body, but within the usual limits (limited fidelity of LCD screens, time lag, etc.) you would seem invisible. And as long as the LCD screens covering your eyes had some transparency to them, you could see out. Eating might be harder.

    3. Re: an invisible person would be blind by Ravagin · · Score: 1

      I think that might be problem...it works with fish, but that's a different amount of dimensions. With a human, it would probably look like a huge wavering blob rather than true invisibility. My resoning is thus: to accurately represent the space behind you from every perspective, you would need one camera for every pixel - which, as far as I know, is impossible.
      -J

      --

      Karma: T-rexcellent.

    4. Re:an invisible person would be blind by esper · · Score: 1
      That is, of course, assuming that the person is 100% transparent. If you were, say, 95% transparent, people would be unlikely to notice you, but you would be able to (darkly) see them. 75% transparency would probably be sufficient to make you effectively invisible to most people without dimming your view as badly.

      Similar to the principle that one-way mirrors work, but not quite the same.

    5. Re:an invisible person would be blind by OldHorton · · Score: 1

      Have you by any chance read a nice little series of books by R.A. Salvatore about Drizzt Do'Urden? Same thing with the retinas there.

  12. Am I the ONLY one? by Grimster · · Score: 4

    Who wants to see PICTURES and not just a couple, of this in ACTION?

    This sounds neat as hell but without pictures it just lacks something.

    --
    --- www.f-theocean.com
    1. Re:Am I the ONLY one? by linzeal · · Score: 1

      I thought you said a PICTURES of a COUPLE in ACTION and I'm like the porn industry has got a new fetish already?

  13. The visible man... by ackthpt · · Score: 2

    This would be a great gag to put in a suntan lotion tube.

    "Hey, Jenny McCarthy, I see you like the model B45XL, also."

    Vote Naked 2000

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  14. Myth dispelled by froz · · Score: 1

    I knew it was only a matter of time before scientific research yielded the answer...

    We are more than 6 degrees away from Kevin Bacon.

    1. Re:Myth dispelled by ackthpt · · Score: 3

      We are more than 6 degrees away from Kevin Bacon.

      Centigrade or Fahrenheit?


      Vote Naked 2000

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Myth dispelled by Delphis · · Score: 1

      You mean you've never played that game? .. and I think he means it in reference to Hollowman ...
      --

      --
      Delphis
  15. This technology is useless... by PimpBot · · Score: 1

    until it lets me look at naked women in the shower. :-)
    --------------------------

    1. Re:This technology is useless... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I think it's more likely to help you look through naked women, which is not so very useful.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:This technology is useless... by PimpBot · · Score: 1

      "look at those breasts! they're so....clear...."
      --------------------------

  16. Drug users by funk_phenomenon · · Score: 2
    I bet drug users would love to get their hands on this. Sounds kinda sick, but it would make it a lot easier to find that vein. Kinda the darker side of the new technology.

    Even the samurai
    have teddy bears,
    and even the teddy bears

    --

    Even the samurai
    have teddy bears,
    and even the teddy bears
    get drunk

  17. Yeah, sure by dmccarty · · Score: 1

    We might be tricked once, but this time we all know that this just another lie! Most likely just some over-zealous PR guy at the university hyped up the release. Two weeks from now Slashback will report that Professor Welch was actually performing experiments with sunless tanning products on rat skin.
    --

    --
    Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
  18. Duh... by Alternity · · Score: 1

    Of course such serums exists! And they are at a much more advanced state than that! I saw it in a documentary called Hollow Man or something like that... seems like it also makes you undestructible even if you get burned, electrocuted, hammered with a crowbar and lots of other things!

    --


    "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"
    1. Re:Duh... by Mr.+Sketch · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, you must be refering to the historical documents about the hollow man project of the early twenty first century. I wonder if these scientists have even looked at their research, I'm sure it could definatly help them out.

    2. Re:Duh... by DUBIOUSLYsane · · Score: 1

      Oh my word! I did see that Documentary too! And here I thought I was hallucinating...again.

  19. Let's read the article before we post it by SolipsistX · · Score: 2

    Thus far, the transparency extends only a couple of millimeters deep, but that's at least five times and as much as 20 times deeper into the body than doctors can currently see with optical devices such as lasers. Doctors can now see only about a tenth of a millimeter deep with light.

    I know this has been discussed many times before, but do they even read the articles they post? It's just a couple millimeters, not 10. Where the hell did 10 millimeters come from anyways? Slashdot has been pretty bad on getting the facts right recently. I expect better that this.

    1. Re: Let's read the article before we post it by wedg · · Score: 1

      Never-the-less, a few millimeters is enough to make a large difference. And there are some fun applications. A beneath-skin watch (presuming you could keep the skin above the watch alive.) A flexible, forearm LCD panel. All sorts of things. That is, of course, provided that your body doesn't instantly reject anything you put in it. But it brings some of those nifty devices from Cyberpunk and Neuromancer a little closer.
      - W

      --
      Jake
      Dating: while( 1 ){ call_girl(); get_rejected(); drink_40(); } return 0;
    2. Re: Let's read the article before we post it by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      If it's not biological, your body won't reject it.

    3. Re: Let's read the article before we post it by piku · · Score: 1

      What the hell is the point of putting the panel below your skin when you could put it on top of your skin? Then you could acctaully remove it for when you need flexibility in your arm :P

    4. Re: Let's read the article before we post it by Saige · · Score: 1

      If it's not biological, your body won't reject it.

      Untrue. When your body rejects something it means it's recognizing it as a foreign body an attacks it. It doesn't matter if it's a transplanted organ, a bacterium, or an LCD screen. If the body's immune system can react with it, then it can detect it and start attacking it.

      Slightly off topic, this is why diamondoid is going to be so popular should molecular nanotechnology yield things you can inject into the human body. Diamondoid is completly unreactive to the human body - the immune system will never realize it's there.
      ---

      --
      "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
    5. Re:Let's read the article before we post it by cowens · · Score: 2

      Thats funny, I read it as binary (10 = 2). Are you sure your a geek?

    6. Re:Let's read the article before we post it by tcollier · · Score: 1

      The post says 1/10mm and the article says a couple mm. So now you're both wrong... naaaaaaaah

    7. Re: Let's read the article before we post it by QuoteMstr · · Score: 2

      Ok. Fine. How is the body supposed to damage something like that? The immune system is designed to fight things made of either cells or protien-coated RNA strands, not vast (relatively) expandes of smooth metal.

  20. Fabulous Business Future by tylerh · · Score: 3

    Tatoo Removal

    20 years from, all these inked Gen Y'ers are going to pay big bucks to make their tattos go away, and these guys are going to rake it in 8)

    --
    "one treats others with courtesy not because they are gentlemen or gentlewomen, but because you are" --G. Henrichs
  21. ahhh well by linuxci · · Score: 2

    So now all we have to do is find a way to make bones tranparent and all the internal organs transparent and then we'll be able to make people invisible ;)
    Ahh well we can only imagine!

    1. Re:ahhh well by Ravagin · · Score: 1

      Or at least, we'll be able to see what they had for lunch. ;)
      -J

      --

      Karma: T-rexcellent.

    2. Re:ahhh well by linuxci · · Score: 2

      Yeah but the thought of seeing a half digested McDonald's is enough to make anyone feel sick ;)

    3. Re:ahhh well by Ravagin · · Score: 1

      Yah...I posted that right after my lunch and then wished I hadn't. ;)
      -J

      --

      Karma: T-rexcellent.

    4. Re:ahhh well by disenfranchised · · Score: 1

      Finally Crystal Pepsi will receive the attention and popularity it so richly deserved. Of course, I'll have to switch from Guiness to Zima.

      --
      Wait... you mean you still haven't joined the ACLU?
  22. Just like all new technology... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 5

    this is first going to be used by the adult entertainment industry.

    Remember the first DVDs you saw on display at your local computer show? I'd bet that they were all pornos.

    This is going to be used to make a new level of disgustingly graphic porno.

    "New from 'Wet Spot' entertainment a new exclusive, 'Inside Ron Jeremy's ballsack", it's sure to educate while it entertains"

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    1. Re:Just like all new technology... by cmeans · · Score: 1

      I think the whole point of porno is being: only skin deep. Getting any further kind of defeats the purpose...

    2. Re:Just like all new technology... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      At this adult store that I was browsing through once, I saw the box of a porno video that was done with one of those tiny medical cameras. Apparently one could watch a coital act from the other side.

      I can't say that I'd find it terribly erotic to watch some guy pounding a chick's cervix from .5 inches away.

      But, to each his own.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  23. And when this goes mainstream.... by TBHiX · · Score: 3

    ...as it certainly must, because it doesn't sound as if it requires much in the way of expensive equipment or specialized expertise, then I can see some interesting developments:

    • Can you imagine what the body-art and tattoo people would be able to do with this stuff? Particularly in light of the fact that it is non-permanent? Raves featuring people displaying "invisible motifs" suddenly come to mind. Or how about a "floating tattoo", regular ink on invisible skin?
    • Akin to the above, how about courier intelligence? A message could be tattooed in flesh tones on someone. It's entirely undetectable under normal circumstances, but fade the flesh and... (does this sort of low-tech communication still have a place in today's espionage?)

    Just a couple of thoughts.

    -TBHiX-

    1. Re:And when this goes mainstream.... by ackthpt · · Score: 3

      Can you imagine what the body-art and tattoo people would be able to do with this stuff? Particularly in light of the fact that it is non-permanent? Raves featuring people displaying "invisible motifs" suddenly come to mind. Or how about a "floating tattoo", regular ink on invisible skin?

      Because it'd probably be reckless without adequate testing
      Because it'd be likely to cause all kinds of nasty infections
      Because it could possibly result in sunburn in usual internal locations
      Mostly for all of these reasons and more it's gonna be a hit and everyone will be doing it!

      Our skin is actually a big bag that God gave us to keep all of our stuff in.

      Vote Naked 2000

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:And when this goes mainstream.... by jovlinger · · Score: 1

      I've always thought that either bio-reactive or ust UV-reactive tats (to borrow from Sterling) would be neat. Esp bio-reactive. I'd love to have some horns that only became visible when I was pissed off.

    3. Re:And when this goes mainstream.... by interiot · · Score: 2
      • (does this sort of low-tech communication still have a place in today's espionage?)

      IANASA, but there's an infinite number of covert channels available via the internet that would allow for instant communication that's almost undetectable, so I don't know why they wouldn't use something in meatspace that's slow and more detectable.

    4. Re:And when this goes mainstream.... by interiot · · Score: 2
      Or, perhaps more mainstream...


      Set up an email account in norway that forwards everything to Russia. Send encrypted emails to the bouncer.


      Or hide a message in some cutesy pictures and send them with a message that says "Here's some pictures from my trip, I'm having so much fun, I miss you".


      Or send some perl code that, when run with the "I'm a silly goose" piped to STDIN, prints out the message via some many weird calls between subroutines. The email it's attached to says "Here's the code update you asked for. Sorry it took so long, Vlachko's module had some weirdness in it."


      Disclaimer: I realize that not all spies are Russian.

  24. Side Effects by sandidge · · Score: 2
    One really had to wonder what fun side effects we'll find with this.

    "Well, Bob. It looks like we won't need to make your skin invisible to check in on that tumor anymore. The patch above the area in question appears to have fallen off this morning."

    Sandidge

  25. Aha! by TrumpetPower! · · Score: 1

    $ cat glycerol > /dev/mouse

    So that's what Joanie's been crying about all morning, chasing her tail, trying to get into the cupboards....

    b&

    --
    All but God can prove this sentence true.
  26. Just think... by kill+-9+$$ · · Score: 1
    ...of all the fun you can now have at Halloween. You can go as the faceless man and gross out your neighbors.

    It could revolutionize the movie making industry as well. Think of the money they can save on expensive makeup for some characters as well as some of those CGI effects like you see in Hollowman....

    --

    -- A computer without COBOL and Fortran is like a piece of chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard
    1. Re:Just think... by wedg · · Score: 1

      Paying an actor is more expensive than CG most of the time. Let's see. $20 million for Kevin Bacon, or $500,000 for a CG image. More importantly, how much do you think you'd have to pay an actor to be constantly injected with glycerol?
      Though, it doesn't mean it wouldn't be fun.
      - W

      --
      Jake
      Dating: while( 1 ){ call_girl(); get_rejected(); drink_40(); } return 0;
  27. This is not a new discovery by Riplakish · · Score: 5

    There is a product that does about the same thing that has been around for a long time. Actually after you apply it to something, the longer you leave it on the more invisible the object gets. I don't know the trade name for it, but the scientific name is H2SO4.

    1. Re:This is not a new discovery by Keeper · · Score: 1

      For those who don't know what H2SO4 is....it is Sulfuric Acid.

  28. wonders of science by konstant · · Score: 3

    Thank god for this. With transparent skin I will no longer need to perform surgery upon myself with my kitchen knives to locate and extract the implants and baby aliens implanted in me on my last abduction to the mothership. If this advances to transparency of bone structure, then even exploratory work in my head with a drill may become unecessary!

    Perhaps the aliens will no longer resort to anal probes quite so often now that they can see what they need from the outside. You would not even want to see one of their "medical devices". Ouch, and I mean OUCH! Sometimes I think there might be something wrong with those aliens IN THE HEAD!

    -konstant
    Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!

    --
    -konstant
    Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
  29. Implications for cryonics by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3

    Cryonic suspension includes reducing freezing damage by injecting large amounts of ice-crystal inhibiting chemicals. (Think "antifreeze".) Glycerol is one that is popular.

    But explicit cryonic research tends to be done on a shoestring - because it isn't all that popular, and many of the suspendees need to put the resources they allocated for it into funding the suspension.

    So (like most technologies) cryonics tries to get as much of a boost as it can from research done for other purposes.

    This skin-transparency research has obvious medical applications, and the researchers are already talking about testing the toxicity of glycerol. This will no doubt lead to a lot of research into that, and a search for other, less toxic, chemicals that can infiltrate cells and smooth the refractive index to increase transparency.

    Some of these are likely to be good candidates for cryonic preservatve agents, and thus this research should lead lower-damage preservatives, both for tissue banks and for the cryonic life-extension movement.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Implications for cryonics by John+Napkintosh · · Score: 1

      Are you thinking ot Ethelyne Glycol?

      --

      Long signatures suck.
  30. Simple technology by skoda · · Score: 5

    At first, I said, "Whoa!" in my best Keanu Reeves voice. After reading the article, it seemed like a rather simple technique.

    I think they are just doing index matching. Glycerol has an index of refraction close to that of water. Since cells are mostly water, filling all the inter-celluar areas with something of similar index will allow rudimentary index matching to be accomplished. With the index of refraction much closer throughout the volume, scattering will be much reduced, allowing better light propagation, and consequently, better imaging results.

    This process is commonly used to test moderately polished glass optics, by immersing them in an oil of equivalent index. Since it's usually bad form to inject living things with mineral oils, a different substance was needed: hence glycerol.

    To observe the effect:
    - Take a clear piece of hard plastic
    - Rough one or both surfaces (sandpaper is good)
    - It should now be translucent or even opaque depending on how much you damaged the surface.
    - Immerse in water. You should be able to see through it much better.

    Anyhow - that's my guess on the basics of this technique.
    -----
    http://movies.shoutingman.com

    1. Re:Simple technology by scott@b · · Score: 3
      Glycerol's refractive index is 1.47 or so, plain water or even salt water is 1.3X - however all the organics making up celluar material are higher. Glycerol has been used for a long time for tissue preparation for microscope viewing, making the tissue more transparent.

      Note that glycerol (glycerin) is relatively non-toxic (it's been used in food for decades) and fairly quickly metabolised by the body (the effect is short-lived, provided you're alive).

    2. Re:Simple technology by gughunter · · Score: 1

      > To observe the effect:
      > - Take a clear piece of hard plastic
      > - Rough one or both surfaces (sandpaper is good)
      > - It should now be translucent or even opaque depending on how much you damaged the surface.
      > - Immerse in water. You should be able to see through it much better.

      I tested this by submerging my DVD player in the bathtub and playing a scratched disc. It didn't work.

      (Just kidding, of course. I may actually try the experiment to "edutain" my sister's kids!)

    3. Re:Simple technology by skoda · · Score: 1

      It's interesting you mention that. I've read that you can repair minor CD scratches using car-polish. I tried it without success, though. I have polished out small scratches with toothpaste, though :)
      -----
      http://movies.shoutingman.com

    4. Re:Simple technology by skoda · · Score: 1

      I thought glycerol was closer than that to water, but gettind a dn (delta-index) of 0.3 (air to water). That difference is probably one of the limiting factors in the transparency depth. I hope they describe better what's going on. I want to see if my theory is right :)

      On a different note: while this is pretty cool, I would think you'd lose a lot of info - if it's transparent, you can't see it. Unless it's a way to see below the layer. So, if you could dynamically control the transparency depth, you'd be in fat-city!

      Of course, this has to compete with other technolgies, such as OCT (Optical Coherent Technology), which has the potential to allow full-body scanning using visible or IR light and relatively low cost equipment. (no radiation from X-rays; no magnetic fields and huge, claustraphopic machines like MRI and Catscans)
      -----
      http://movies.shoutingman.com

    5. Re:Simple technology by skoda · · Score: 1

      Ugh. Meant to say that dn0.3. Not sure what happened.
      -----
      http://movies.shoutingman.com

    6. Re:Simple technology by Taco+Prophet · · Score: 1

      Never heard the car polish one myself, but I did try the toothpaste trick once... ruined my poor CD. How'd you pull it off?

  31. You know you're a geek... by generic-man · · Score: 1

    You know you're a geek when you read this story and the first thing that pops into your head is "Unreal Tournament Football? Where can I get the mod for that?"

    OK, I'll crawl back into my little hole now.

    --
    For more information, click here.
  32. New Moderation Functionality Request by cgifool · · Score: 1
    How about letting us folks moderate dumb articles off the front of the site?

    I vote this one "overrated", "offtopic", and "stupid."

  33. less need for voluntary radiation by Calimus · · Score: 2

    I mean X-ray's of course. This sounds like a good way for surgens to operate on area's with less need of X-rays first which could give the doc's just enough extra time to save a life or two. Could also be good for other medical inspections, rather then take a biopsy of you stomache, lets inject it with this and peer right into it and have a look-see. "ahh, had the tuna plate huh"

    --
    Trying to be different, just like everyone else.
    1. Re:less need for voluntary radiation by Errtu · · Score: 1

      Now your body's internal organs can be exposed to the UV rays of the sun.
      Oh well, at least skin cancer would be reduced, right?

      --
      Power corrupts... absolute power is kinda neat!
  34. Birthday suit by Spudley · · Score: 1

    So now I can go out without even my birthday suit showing?

    This will bring a whole new realm of weirdness to your average nudist colony.

    --
    (Spudley Strikes Again!)
  35. it gives a whole new meaning... by sabine · · Score: 1

    ...to the phrse "clear skin" (that's funny! gimme 2 points!!)

  36. The Nude Bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    What it does do is make small areas of skin (humans have not been tested) transparent for a short amount of time.

    What we really need is a substance that can make 10mm of clothing invisible for short periods of time.

    1. Re:The Nude Bomb by Bastiaan · · Score: 1

      Rumours go that this already been invented. Supposedly there are several test sites in Europe where secret experiminents are conducted based on a huge radiation source. For safety these sites are mostly located near large water resources to facilitate rapid cool down of the subjects. The project has been code named 'FKK', as indicated by the signs near the entry and exit points of the sites.
      Last week I was able to infiltrate in one of these areas, and I must say the results so far are very promising.

    2. Re:The Nude Bomb by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      No, we need Maxwell Smart to circumvent the plans of CHAOS in their attempt to release this nude bomb.

  37. Pfft by webrunner · · Score: 2

    Wake me up when they invent prismic sheilding.
    ----
    Oh my god, Bear is driving! How can this be?

    --
    ADVENTURERS! - ANTIHERO FOR HIRE - CARDMASTER CONFLICT
    1. Re:Pfft by skoda · · Score: 1

      Rumor has it that my advisor had a grant from the army some years ago to research just that. Of course, it's prety much impossible, so we all have a good laugh about the army :)
      -----
      http://movies.shoutingman.com

  38. You mean a TRANSPARENT person would be blind by FascDot+Killed+My+Pr · · Score: 3

    If you are transparent, light passes through you with no effect. If you are invisible people just can't see you. All transparent people are invisible, but not all invisible people are transparent. For instance, if I don my camo-wear and hid under some leaves I'm (theoretically) invisible. But I'm not transparent.

    How does this apply in this case? One example: Make my entire body except my retinas transparent. Who's going to notice a couple of dime-sized disks floating in the air, especially if the background is patterned?
    --

    --
    Linux MAPI Server!
    http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
    (Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
    1. Re:You mean a TRANSPARENT person would be blind by El+Huevo+Anales · · Score: 1
      Wrong. If you're wearing camo you look like a leaf. Distinguishing between two objects is different then then being invisible.

      EHA

      --
      Viva Anales!
    2. Re:You mean a TRANSPARENT person would be blind by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

      If we're going to talk about ultra-sci-fi here, why not just make retinas that are transparent to visible light and see using ultraviolet light?

      --
      The cake is a pie
    3. Re:You mean a TRANSPARENT person would be blind by technos · · Score: 1

      invisible (n-vz-bl)
      adj.

      Impossible to see; not visible.
      Not accessible to view; hidden.
      Not easily noticed or detected; inconspicuous.

      I don't see anything in there about the method that must be employed, nor the relative difficulty. If you don't have a cognitive process going that says 'Gee, there's a geek over there', whether it is because your mind thinks I'm a leaf or because light passes through me with no resistance, I am invisible.

      --
      .sig: Now legally binding!
    4. Re:You mean a TRANSPARENT person would be blind by knife_in_winter · · Score: 1

      Actually, you would have to make every part of your body transparent except your retinas and your lenses. What good are your retinas if they are hit by unfocused light? :)

      In fact, you really would have to have your whole eyeball be non-transparent. Otherwise the ambiant light would interfere with image quality. Everything you would end up seeing, if you could distinguish images at all, would be really washed out.

      So who's gonna notice a couple of detached, floating eyeballs moving around?

      Nothing can possiblai go wrong. Er...possibly go wrong.
      Strange, that's the first thing that's ever gone wrong.

      --

      Tyler's words coming out of my mouth.
    5. Re:You mean a TRANSPARENT person would be blind by corbettw · · Score: 2
      So who's gonna notice a couple of detached, floating eyeballs moving around?

      Veteran Quake players, of course.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    6. Re:You mean a TRANSPARENT person would be blind by Zagadka · · Score: 3

      Make my entire body except my retinas transparent. Who's going to notice a couple of dime-sized disks floating in the air, especially if the background is patterned?

      Two problems: First, you'll need to make the lenses an cornea non-invisible (ie: maintain the refractive index they currently have) or you won't be able to focus. Second, you'll need to have significantly more of your eye be opaque, or you'll go blind from all of the stray light. (plus, you wouldn't be able to see clearly, since far more light would be hitting your retinas from the sides and back, than through the lens) An added disadvantage is that with invisible eyelids and hands, it'll be somewhat difficult to block your eyes from bright lights.

    7. Re:You mean a TRANSPARENT person would be blind by Rudolfo · · Score: 1

      But even if the retinas were visible, the lenses of the eyes would be invisible and unable to refract light and focus a image on the retinas. You'd be able to detect light and dark, but that's about it.
      ===

    8. Re:You mean a TRANSPARENT person would be blind by spondylus · · Score: 2
      If you are transparent, light passes through you with no effect

      Wrong. It means that light is not absorbed as it passes through you. If you need a demonstration, look at a glass of water. If you can't see it, you need to turn the lights on. Transparent != invisible. To be invisible, you need 1) not to absorb any light, and 2) to match the refractive index of your immediate environment.

      This whole "invisible man" thread came up on sci.optics recently. The best response to "is an invisible man possible" was "Yes: cremation" (I'm paraphrasing.)

    9. Re:You mean a TRANSPARENT person would be blind by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 1

      That be especially sci-fi ish because than invisible people would be able to see each other (or at least each other's retinas), while mundanes could not.

      Care about freedom?

      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    10. Re:You mean a TRANSPARENT person would be blind by CrimsonDeath · · Score: 1

      Whether or not a lens is visible has nothing to do with its focussing capacity ... it's all about its refractive index, or what the speed of light is in the substance. This only has to do with the physical composition.

    11. Re:You mean a TRANSPARENT person would be blind by Kiffer · · Score: 1

      The key word here is TRANSPARENT ... my lenses are trnsparent, at least the seem to be ... hum well i can see so light must be going though them ... i could be wrong though ... wrong like a fox! .

    12. Re:You mean a TRANSPARENT person would be blind by F'Nok · · Score: 1

      Pick up the Ring of Invisibility in Quake, your eyes are still visible! Atleast someone got it right!!

  39. Sort of the opposite of invisible then.. by pallex · · Score: 1

    Surely?!

  40. Now introducing!!!! by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

    Jelly man!

    Ewwww....

    --
    "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
  41. slashdot effect by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

    Most people can't!

    Damn you Slashdot! Damn you Slashdot!

  42. What about dermatoligists? by ackthpt · · Score: 3

    Let's take a look at that mole, shall we?

    Oh, wait, that's a baby alien... cool.

    Vote Naked 2000

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:What about dermatoligists? by funk_phenomenon · · Score: 1
      Let's take a look at that mole, shall we?

      Oh, wait, that's a baby alien... cool.

      Or worse... BEES!

      Even the samurai
      have teddy bears,
      and even the teddy bears

      --

      Even the samurai
      have teddy bears,
      and even the teddy bears
      get drunk

  43. Re:Not tested on humans yet? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

    Actually, your comparison is more apt than you might think.

    Few people know this, but the Crusades were actually tested on animals before being used on people. There test runs involved waging war against an army of mice holed-up in a mouse-size walled city. They found they could defeat the mice (tied to full-size sabres, for the sake of realism) with minimal fatalities, and thus gave the go-ahead for the move to the real Crusades. Though the actual war-waging didn't go as easily as it had in the tests, they found that the "rape and pillage" portion of the Crusade worked much better than it had with the mice.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  44. It's a plot ... by mustermark · · Score: 3

    ... by the administration here to eliminate overcrowding. If you can't see students, you don't have to worry about them. I hear they're going to build invisible dorms. We already have invisible parking lots.

    Shhh, don't tell anyone.

  45. Finally, the first reasonable reply by anticypher · · Score: 1

    It took 44 other replies along the lines of "I can't wait to be invisible" before you posted the logical, scientific analysis of what they are doing. Moderators, do your duty.

    I had a similar thought when I saw this. They've been experimenting with glycerol and some additives to get the refractive index to match the intercellular R.I. Then they can see subcutaneous features with a non-invasive look. Just another tool in the doctors kit.

    the AC

    --
    Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
  46. Why not by BluedemonX · · Score: 1

    work on a spray that makes clothing invisible? I don't want to have to go and work at the airport or walk around with a special video camera in order to be able to see people naked.

    --

    --- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
  47. In other news... by jd · · Score: 2

    The researchers later announced that their invisibility system causes tv execs to go insane and produce crappy IM sequels

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  48. Unreal Tournament Scientists? by kilo · · Score: 1

    Okay, admit it, I'm betting that a lot of people (most non-Texans I'm sure) read "UT Scientists" and thought to themselves "Unreal Tournament has scientists? This game RULES!" ...okay, i'm an idiot, go raiders...

    --
    It's ignorance itself to think you know all the answers. -Miles Comer
  49. New sign of rebellion for adolescents ? by linzeal · · Score: 1

    Is this what kids are going to be doing in 10 years instead of tattoos and peircings ?

  50. Inject it into your dick! See yourself cum! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Then install an LED emitter detector pair on opposite sides of your dick coupled to a CO2 canister on a small sized deflated doughnut shaped baloon. Bang away! Then when the cum interrupts the LED beam, the CO2 canister rapidly inflites the baloon and quickly forces you to "pull out" by blasting you off your partner!

  51. Re:Of whom so dear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Of whom so clear
    The organs appear
    With illuminated Glow
    As intimate -- as 10 millimeters
    Of glycerine-transparent toe.

  52. ouch... by quadong · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who thinks that "pricking holes" in my skin and then smearing some stuff on it sounds worse than an injection?

  53. Finally! by KFury · · Score: 3

    "Your epidermis is showing!"

    "No it's not!!!"

    Kevin Fox

    1. Re:Finally! by tmarzolf · · Score: 1

      "your nose is showing!"

      "no it'snot."

      --

      This Sig has been depreciated.

    2. Re:Finally! by Shaheen · · Score: 2

      The quote is:

      Nelson: "Hey Bart! Your epidermis is showing!"

      *Girls and boys in pool laugh at Bart, who is situated on a tree branch about to dive into the pool*

      Bart: "Wha!? Huh!? Ahhh!"

      *Bart screams as he falls; cut to Nelson talking to Kearney*

      Nelson: "See, your epidermis is your hair. So technically I'm right. Excuse me.."

      *Nelson walks to edge of pool*

      Nelson (pointing at Bart): "Ha Ha!"

      Sorry for the OT post :P

      --
      You should never take life too seriously - You'll never get out of it alive.
    3. Re:Finally! by kerrbear · · Score: 1

      Nelson (pointing at Bart): "Ha Ha!"

      Martin: "Hey, I think he really got hurt."

      Nelson: "I said 'Ha Ha'"

    4. Re:Finally! by KFury · · Score: 1

      There's a quote? I remember this back from 3rd grade (way pre-simpsons)...
      Kevin Fox

  54. We can use it for... by Genie1 · · Score: 1
    Hmmm,

    How we can use it:

    Replace x-ray machines. The doctor can see right through my body, why would I want to get bombarded by x-rays.

    Pimple remover.

  55. Off Topic by kilo · · Score: 1
    How we went from transparent skin to the Alamo is beyond me... but let me be the first Texan to publically thank the courageous Tennessee citizens (who i'm sure are all dead by now) for the work they did to make create Texas. We couldn't have done it without you.

    Oh and thanks for Daniel Boone too.

    --
    It's ignorance itself to think you know all the answers. -Miles Comer
    1. Re:Off Topic by GMontag · · Score: 1

      How we went from transparent skin to the Alamo is beyond me...

      This is Slashdot. You expected something different?

      let me be the first Texan to publically thank the courageous Tennessee citizens (who i'm sure are all dead by now) for the work they did to make create Texas. We couldn't have done it without you.

      Thank you very much, from a graduate of the real UT, Knoxville.

      Visit DC2600

    2. Re:Off Topic by nublord · · Score: 1

      You! nharmon! Out of the gene pool! Now!

  56. Gravity's Rainbow by kbolton · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of a (brief) part in Thomas Pynchon's epic WWII novel Gravity's Rainbow where a filmmaker experiments with Emulsion J filmstock. The fictional filmstock, developed for IG Farben by enigmatic scientist-of-all-trades Laszlo Jamf, allows for the skin to appear transparent. Fake science influencing art influencing real science!!! I love it!

  57. My halloween costume! by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1
    I could go as the visible man.

  58. Would be Good for Tattoo Removal as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Using a laser that vaporizes anything visible it touches, you should be able to remove tattoos much more completely than you can can now.

    I like the floating tattoo idea also, it would be like a transparent GIF.

    1. Re:Would be Good for Tattoo Removal as well by sensate_mass · · Score: 1
      Except that veins, arteries, etc. would still be visible. Unless the person aiming the laser had really good aim and never fired more laser than there was ink for, you could wind up with some interesting injuries.

      --
      --- Submission is feudal.
  59. You mean this? (updated to include Hollow Man!) by ackthpt · · Score: 2
    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  60. Not high-quality science by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2
    From the report, this appears to be high school science fair quality work. They inject a hygroscopic chemical to pull the water out of tissues so that it won't bend light as much. They haven't investigated the toxicity! But it follows that pulling the water out of tissues would damage them. People don't run on anti-freeze.

    This is translucency, not invisibility. It might win the high school science fair, but it's not worthy of an announcement on Slashdot, IMO. I wonder if this is just spoofing the press.

    Thanks

    Bruce

    1. Re:Not high-quality science by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1
      You've got a right to your opinion - I don't consider that flame-bait.

      What I'd like to see then, in cases like this, is a science reporter who can actually interpret the story to the less-informed masses reading Slashdot. Some readers will think this will lead in short time to invisible people lurking in the corner of the powder room, etc. :-) That's pretty clearly not the case. We've also not heard from someone authorative explaining what would happen if you had an invisible retina :-)

      Thanks

      Bruce

  61. Already done it... by Shotgun · · Score: 2

    a few thousand years from now. It's called an SEP (Somebody Else's Problem). Every BistroMatic has one.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    1. Re:Already done it... by skoda · · Score: 1

      This is simpler. SEP usually requires a large amount of pink paint, and a couple of batteries. Now, all you need is sufficient glycerol.
      -----
      http://movies.shoutingman.com

  62. Other ways to become transparent by RisingSon · · Score: 2

    Why don't they make clothing out of fiber-optic cables? The cables would run around the body with small signal loss. Light would go in one side and out the other, making the wearer fairly transparent. I've heard this from other sources, I can't say I thought it up.

    I'd rather be able to take a shirt off than be stuck with transparent skin.
    "Uhh...so is this going to wear off?"

    1. Re:Other ways to become transparent by skoda · · Score: 3

      While it sides like a great idea, I think it would be extremely difficult to implement:

      1) How to arrange the fibers to cover the body? You need to capture any light incident light with a certain position and angle and route it to where it would propagate had there not been a body in the way.

      2) There would likely be significant signal loss problems. High efficient fiber coupling, such as used for telecom requires good optics and precision positioning. This is because
      2a) A small portion of light incident on the front glass surface is reflected away (think glare on a monitor screen) so you want make efforts to reduce that.
      2b) Fibers have a maximum input angle for incident light, above which the light is lost during propagation through the fiber. This angle is ballpark 30.
      2c) Finally, ray orientation will be lost during propagation through the fiber. Thus, output direction != input direction. That may be a problem.
      2d) Transmission properties are wavelength dependent. Not a huge deal, but another minor factor.

      3) Finally, optical fiber bundles used for imaging, such as in endoscopes, are known for their mediocre image quality. Fibers are not generally a good tool for analog image transmission.

      Ok, class over :)

      -----
      http://movies.shoutingman.com

  63. What's the big deal? by memph1st0 · · Score: 1

    I wanna see through clothes, not through skin! What's the use of this stuff? Wasted technology I tell you, we need more pr0n tools like that "feeling" mouse! just kiddin...

    -=MeMpHiStO=-
  64. Not invisible, just transparent. by MythoBeast · · Score: 1

    It is a common myth that if you make something pass light cleanly that you wind up with something invisible. If that were the case, then glass and plastic would be really tough to find when you set it on a table, and diamonds would be considerably less pretty. You also have to adjust the defraction index of the substance to equal that of air.

    One of the ways to demonstrate this is to submerse diamonds in water. Diamonds and water have the same defraction index, so the diamonds literally vanish. You can use this trick on an engagement ring to tell a real diamond from a cubic zirconia or cut glass.

    Mythological Beast

    --
    Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
    1. Re:Not invisible, just transparent. by havardi · · Score: 1

      air is roughly 1.0
      water is about 1.3
      diamonds are 2.4
      why do you say they have the same ior? just curious, maybe your diamond test really does work, but i doubt it.

  65. Hungry McCoward by phish+junkie · · Score: 1

    I hope this doesn't mean someone could use this to see how many chicken mcnuggets I just had for lunch...

  66. Other potential agents besides glycerol? by Guppy · · Score: 2

    I've been wondering about other potential agents could be used instead of or together with glycerol to possibly improve the effect. DMSO is one possibility. Nontoxic, diffuses through tissues easily, and has an index of refraction of 1.477. Biologically inert sugars such as trehalose might also be added to the mix.

    BTW, all of these agents also happen to be cryoprotectants.

  67. Imagine the possibilities by WinDoze · · Score: 1

    I want this so that I can inject it into my cat, then stick the cat in bed with my mother-in-law when she "drops by" for her two-week visits. Perhaps if she thinks my house is haunted by a cat she'll stay the hell away.

  68. When I want to see someone's insides... by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 1

    I'll stick to using a rocket launcher!

    UT forever!

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:When I want to see someone's insides... by radja · · Score: 1

      I prefer a more hands-on approach. stick to a kukri.

      //rdj

      --

      No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
      --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
  69. double your trouble? by twitter · · Score: 1

    The method is to inject glycerin under the skin, and it wears off in 20 minutes or so. I'm afraid your sister would have to get 2 jabs, one random, for this to work.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:double your trouble? by DCookie · · Score: 1

      That's a lot better than the 15 or so it sometimes takes to hit the right spot. -DCookie

      --
      My SIG is a SG-552 Commando
  70. Antifreeze by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

    Are you thinking ot Ethelyne Glycol?

    Nope. That's for cars, and it's neurotoxic. Preserving the brain is the most important part of Cryonic suspension. Indeed, most suspendees are head-only, hoping for a replacement body or a fully-regrown body with brain downloaded with data extracted from the old brain.

    Glycerol is one of the chemicals that has been used for tissue. (I don't know if it's part of the current protocol, or of the one that they've used to freeze rat hearts to liquid nitrogen temperatures and get them to beat when rewarmed.)

    See the back issues of Cryonics magazine to track the technology.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  71. Re:Actually, i think you can see uv light. by anotherone · · Score: 1

    This was an experiment in Nazi Germany, it was one of those things they did to captured Jews for fun. Supposedly it worked pretty well, but the people died of infection pretty quickly. It might be able to work today, though.

    -----

    --
    Username taken, please choose another one.
  72. I have a great idea for a prank... by Badmovies · · Score: 1

    Let's steal a gallon of this, sneak onto Kevin Bacon's estate, and then inject him with it. Him or Rodney Dangerfield, though I don't think Rodney would notice the difference.


    Andrew Borntreger

    --


    Andrew Borntreger
    Champion of cinematic disasters
  73. Invisibility problems by pyth · · Score: 1

    Of course, if you were invisible, you could not see anything as the light passes through your eyeballs as well, without making contact with the receptors. If you did want to see, you would have to look like a pair of floating retinas and lenses. :)

  74. Does this mean... by fish500 · · Score: 2

    we'll all be one degree closer to Kevin Bacon?

    --




    "It's all right, it's ok. There's something to live for" - Uncle Bill
  75. hmmph by AndyChrist · · Score: 1

    It'll probably cause cancer :P

  76. Re:how the fuck did this get moderated up? by stiefvater · · Score: 1

    I think Hemos changed his original article.

    I remember it said 10mm, but now it says 1/10mm. Shame, Hemos.

    Neither is true. The article says "a couple millimeters".

    -k

  77. FISH by Aazz · · Score: 2

    I once had a girl-friend like that. Her skin was so white she looked like one of those plastic, transparent, circulatory system lab models. I personally know several nerds who, after spending this last winter transfixed before their active screens, looked like the limp milky fish you see laying on the ice in your local market. Their skin looked more like wet roadmap than real flesh, their arteries like interstate highways. Just one question: does this mean that you could get a sun-tan from the inside out?

    --
    "Oblivion is just a click away." -Aazz
  78. The story was changed and they still have it wrong by SolipsistX · · Score: 1

    Well I'm pretty sure that the blurb on slashdot did say 10mm before somebody changed it. I offer into evidence this post from earlier in the comments.

    But this "fix" is wrong too. As you can see from my original quote of the article, this new technique allow for a couple millimeters of transparency. 1/10mm is what doctors can currently do.

  79. World fame for me! by magi · · Score: 1
    Let's see... I have this bottle of glycerol on my shelf... Rub on skin... No wait, must experiment on animals first...

    Hey Mörkö, come here! Mörkööö!! (my pet rat) Let's try this stuff on your tail...

    Wow, INVISIBLE RAT!

    No, I'm not joking, of course I tried it. It's quite safe stuff, sometimes used to warm bodyparts. It's even added in some foods.

    Fortunately, the rat stayed mostly visible. Otherwise I would be now chasing an invisible rat desperately around my apartment. Radar rat race... pip pip pip pipipi pip pip pip, pip pip pip pipipi pip pip pip, pip pip pip pip piiii...

  80. Doesn't this sound like it would hurt? by OldHorton · · Score: 1

    Glycerol changes the degree of diffusion by absorbing water: It shrinks the tissue and modifies the way light is scattered.

    It shrinks the damn tissue! Obviously if this is how it works, any prolonged use of it without proper medical attention could be very harmful. I don't see this particular technology with glycerol going too much further. Maybe some other chemical but it's going to have to work in a whole new way.

    I say just rub some grease on anything. And if you can see through it, eat it!

  81. Invisible Men, Tattoos, and Pigment by DoubleD · · Score: 1

    Read the Invisible Man by HG Wells. Not only is it a good book but the "science" behind the invisible man in the book is very similar to what is detailed in this article as well as making up solutions to other problems that have to be solved to make a person invisible.

    Other replys in this thread suggest this as a method of tattoo removal. One of the problems with making something invisible is pigment, such as what is used to make tattoos. To "remove" a tattoo this process would not help at all. Pigment also exists in your hair, skin, eyes, and blood. To achieve invisibility those pigments would have to be removed (ouch) or modified.
    Again if invisibility intrigues you read The Invisible Man by HG Wells (Hollow Man looks stupid)

    --
    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
  82. (OT) Woo-hoo! I'm at the karma level of majority! by TBHiX · · Score: 1

    Thanks to the response on my comments above, I'm up to the big 21 on the karma scale. I now have enough karma to drink on Slashdot, to believe that my poll votes count for something, and to do anything I want with a goat anywhere in the United States. ;)

    (Sorry for the OT posting. It's been a long day, and I need my little celebration. ;P)

    -TBHiX-

  83. Re:Simpson's quote by Spire · · Score: 1

    See, "epidermis" means your hair -- so technically it's true. That's what makes it so funny.
    --

    --
    begin 644 .sig22&%I;"P@9F5L;&]W(&=E96 LA`end
  84. Contrast enhancement by Animats · · Score: 2

    It's not a big deal, but it might be a way to make some dermatology treatments, like laser hair removal, work on more people. Laser hair removal requires that the skin be much lighter than the hair, so it doesn't work on fair-skinned blondes or dark-skinned people. This might help.

  85. Finally! by geoffeg · · Score: 1

    Its disheartening to see that americans are just catching up. The Klingons have had this technology for years!

    Geoff

  86. OT: FKK explained. Re:The Nude Bomb by theNAM666 · · Score: 1

    For the non-Europeans here:

    FKK= Frei Korper Kulture, literally, "Free Body Culture," and is the German term for the movement behind the (quite large) number of public parks, lakes, etc., which allow, encourage or tolerate what Americans call "nudism." (In practice, the Germans make a whole less of a big deal about the whole thing -- you do to the lake, you take your clothes off, you go swimming...).

    I'm not sure this makes the above comment funny, but it sure helps.

  87. What's eating at you? by whovian · · Score: 1

    Oh.....I see.

    --
    To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
  88. Re:Thare aint NO dang UT in Texas, try UM OT by GMontag · · Score: 2

    I really hate getting this deep into an OT discussion, BUT...

    The things you bring up are nice, cute and whatnot. However, the University of Tennessee began in 1794. When was that college in Austin formed? If it was before UT then it would be UMexico, wouldn't it?

    Why must UM insist on using orange and white? Those are the UT Knoxville colors, that were around ages before Texas was emancipated from Mexico, with the strong assistance from some prominant Tennesseans.

    There is no denying that the University of Mexico, Austin has had some stellar academic achievements, but the initials UT were in use about a century before your 2nd largest state in the union was even thought of.

    Visit DC2600

  89. STUPID MODERATOR by meadowsp · · Score: 1

    Hey moderator, did you even look at the link before marking this as troll?

    Well, guess what, it really is Bruce Perens saying that the story is dumb. A bit like you.

  90. Re:The visible man... (very OT) by CptnHarlock · · Score: 1


    Please: Explain the sign the cat is holding to a non-american.. :)

    --
    "No se rinde el gallo rojo, sólo cuando ya está muerto."

    --
    $HOME is where the .*shrc is
    -- silver_p
  91. Well I DO know Jack... by Sal+Monella · · Score: 1

    Well, actually his name is Jack Schitt! Jack is the only son of Awe Schitt. Awe Schitt, the fertilizer magnate, married Oh Schitt, the owner of Knee-Deep Schitt, Inc. In turn, Jack Schitt married Noe Schitt, and the deeply religious couple produced 6 children: Holie Schitt, the twins Deep Schitt and Dip Schitt, Fulla Schitt, Giva Schitt, and Bull Schitt. Against his parents' objections, Deep Schitt married Dumb Schitt, a high school dropout. Dip Schitt married Loada Schitt, and they produced a timid son, Chicken Schitt. Fulla Schitt and Giva Schitt were inseparable throughout childhood, and consequently married the Happens brothers in a dual ceremony. The Schitt-Happens children are Dawg Schitt, Byrd Schitt, and Hoarse Schitt. Bull Schitt, the prodigal son, left home to tour the world. He recently returned home with his new bride, Pisa Schitt. After being married for 15 years, Jack and Noe divorced. Noe later married Mr. Sherlock, and because her kids were living with them, she wanted to keep her previous name. She was known as Noe Schitt-Sherlock. Well, thats about as much as I can tell you about Jack. So don't YOU go tellin' ME that I don't now Jack Schitt! ;-)

    --
    WHATEVERRR!!! DON'T EVEN GO THERE! Talk to the HAND!
  92. We all are invisible by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 1

    We all are invisible in some band of the spectrum.
    __

    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu
  93. I have a suggestion: by pompousjerk · · Score: 1

    We should all bend over and kiss our butts goodbye.