Slashdot Mirror
Invisible Cloaks, Translucent Walls
jd writes "The University of Tokyo has developed the illusion of invisibility, under the name of 'Optical Camouflage.' The system is remarkably simple - you have a mix of light-sensitive and light-emitting devices attached to an adapted reflective surface. The devices are hooked to a computer, which simply projects on each side whatever is on the opposite side. The result is more of a translucent look, than real invisibility, but the potential is there. The inventer's next objective is to make walls that are invisible, using the same technology. Project a real outside image onto an interior wall without windows. This almost sounds more frightening than the cloak, since there's no reason why the sensors would have to be placed outside. Imagine a world where PHBs can turn their office wall into a window onto any cube. Zero privacy. The technology is great, but the potential for abuse is definitely there." Update: 06/15 00:20 GMT by T : You may remember we mentioned this project when it was cloak-only.
This sounds like it's the future of what our soldiers will be wearing. This combined with the movement enhancement devices could create soldiers who could run as fast as animals and be effectively invisible. No longer is this technology limited to sci-fi movies like "Preditor".
Now if only there was a way to get around the infrared as well.
Very cool story. Be even cooler if I hadn't seen it before. Right here. And it's a 'merican whose applied for the patent.
The idea of an "invisibility cloak" has made the leap from science fiction books to an international patent application. Ray Alden of North Carolina is attempting to patent a "three dimensional cloaking process and apparatus" for concealing objects and people (WO 02/067196).
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
This story is a dupe from December 2002, including the link to the University of Japan website about it.
It's still a neat trick, but really old news...
...i can see right thru their work,,,
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Well. I even had this on my blog yesterday. Yay. I feel special. http://chris.coggburn.us/index.php?p=8
FuckTheFuckingFuckers.com - Post your th
While the potential for having windows viewing into cubes is there, it seems like security cameras already do this.
No, I think the positives for this could far outway the negatives. Just think about how great it would be to have a window view of the outside world, even though you're in the middle of the building... sure, it's something that could be done with a monitor, but this sounds like it would give it a more real effect...
... cost however would probably keep this from changing anything.
WANNAWIKI Wannawiki WannaWiki WANNAWIKI!
Almost as good as glass walls for watching birds fly into it!
the story of the emperor's new clothes is not going to make any sense at all to our children.
Cthulu saves... in case he gets hungry later.
::helping geeks get laid since 1983::
what can I say? This is cool as hell. Can you imagine what 10 or 20 years of developement in the "invisibility" field will produce? I have a feeling this is only the tip of the iceberg. kvn
do we get the Infinite Ammo Bandana and
Soliton Radar System to go with it?
anata sekai o kakumei surush ga nai deshou? Anata no susumu michi wa yoi shite arimasu.
i've seen this link pop up a lot over the past 6 mos - same thing i thought, then, i think, now: anyonw with a webcam and a projector has done this before. we shouldn't care about some ghost in the shell fanboy, at tokyo u or not. until it's fiber optic or oled/color e-ink action, big deal.
Realtime chroma key, basically. My 1995 Sony handycam could do this.
Sure, you look real invisible when you have a projector following you around.
Imagine a world where PHBs can turn their office wall into a window onto any cube. Zero privacy. The technology is great, but the potential for abuse is definitely there."
This technology opens us up to all sorts of new privacy abuses--oh, wait, no it doesn't. We've had cameras for years. It's the display that's new.
Wow, my last two posts have been bitter. I suppose Slashdot has finally rubbed off on me.
porno....
I want to be alone with the sandwich
example.
But I think the ultimate abuse example would be having sex in public.
=)
Finally I'll be able to get into the women's locker room undetected!
An activity for two people called sex has been demonstrated by researchers from the University of Phoenix; almost immediately, the ACLU denounced the practice as invasive to privacy. "Somebody can just carry off your DNA, which contains everything about you, and do who knows what with it," stated an unidentified ACLU spokesman. Meanwhile, dork website Slashdot recommended using a version of sex modified for one person.
As long as I get to wear a mickey-mouse costume to work. "Hey, Mickey Mouse sure works hard!"
Who moved my sig?
This works great until you get into three dimensions at which point it all goes sour.
Because light's reflecting off of the coat itself. Plus, the shape of the cloak is not symetrical. I just don't see how it even works. Sure, I could imagine something like a sheet of paper partially working.
As for see-thru wall, it's probably a lot easier then this guy wants it to be...
Just make the wall itself clear. Then use an lcd-like mechanism to act as a 'shutter', allowing the outside light in. Note that each 'pixel' could be quite large (several inches).
In other words, when the wall's off, it's opaque. When current's applied to a section, the liquid inside the wall becomes clear and the wall is see-through. Not sure if the technology's there yet, though....
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
http://projects.star.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/projects/MEDI A/xv/images/oc-wired.mpg
E DI A/xv/images/mirror.mpg
http://projects.star.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/projects/M
quickly discarded it because it would fail as soon as the observer moved or looked at it from a slight angle - the problem being of course the system has no way of knowing where a viewer might be to correctly map the 'camera' to the right 'display cell'.
[)amien
Interesting, this stuff belongs in the internal areas of cars in the so-called blind spots. Probably needs to improve upon the resolution a bit though. Kind of like wearing a digital CCD/CMOS.
That is super crazy!!! *thinks of watching girl next door in bath* w00t!
Pretty neat technology, but what does a new display technology (which is all this ultimately is) have to do with PHBs invading their employees' privacy? I'm all for paranoia, but maybe you could keep it within the realm of halfway relevant technology innovations? Your privacy is invaded whether PHB watches you on his wall or on his CRT, LCD, or OLED computer monitor or TV set.
Slashdot paranoia strikes again!
What does your imagination have to do with this story? If the PHB has a video camera pointed at you, he doesn't need to turn his wall into a video screen, he can use an existing device called a 'monitor.'
Also, I don't think most of us have too much to worry about - what could be more boring than watching a programmer work?
I know - watching a sysadmin work! :-)
Lighting up optical elements is the simple bit. Deciding what to show is the hard bit. To do this you need to know where the observer is standing and what they are looking at. If you have two or more observers then how do you decide which image to show?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
She loves me: 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0 She loves me not: 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688BF
The key development of the cloak, however, was the development of a new material called retro-reflectum.
Anyone else think "retro-reflectum" sounds like some harry potter spell?
Imagine a world where PHBs can turn their office wall into a window onto any cube. Zero privacy. The technology is great, but the potential for abuse is definitely there."
There have been video cameras around for much longer that would do just as well, for probably a fraction of the price...
Why spend all that money when you ccould simply eliminate cubical walls altogether?
Oh, I forgot...the "Open Office Plan" has already been invented.
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
The technology is great, but the potential for abuse is definitely there.
Yes. Thank God somebody else finally realized the awful privacy implications of projectors. Now that I have backup, I'm going to go burn down my local AMC theaters. 30 screens, twenty feet wide! Can you imagine the privacy they've been invading all this time? Well, I'll teach them to spy on me.
> This almost sounds more frightening than the
> cloak, since there's no reason why the sensors
> would have to be placed outside. Imagine a world
> where PHBs can turn their office wall into a
> window onto any cube. Zero privacy. The technology
> is great, but the potential for abuse is
> definitely there."
On the other hand if you get your head out of your FUD, you can think of a lot of cool things to do with this.
Sounds like something James Bond could use.
Oh, wait...
I remember this about 2 years ago...has anything changed since then?
In low light conditions. Of course, all it will take is the first geek to find a relatively quiet and dark corner of the girl's locker room to get this technology effectively banned.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I can see how this might be nice in a house, making it like living in a glass house without the actual windows... But I think I'd rather have real windows that I don't have to worry about running into.
It's not really that new, i believe we have seen it on slashdot before. Unless this is somehow new (sorry couldn't get the bbc site to load for me)
What is the point of having the token paranoia tagged onto the end of the submission? For this to work there _has_ to be a sensor on the other side of the wall. How does this guy think this system works if there are only sensors on "inside" part of the wall. Sounds like the submitter just really wanted a front page slashdot.
That would make the most awesome Halloween costume... No need to dress up as a ghost, be one instead. =)
Audioscrobbler
The problem with having stuff that projects an image is that you need to be able to project different images depending on the angle you're looking at it from. It might look nice when looking at it at a 90 degree angle, but what about at a 45 degree angle? Is there even technology that exists today that can do that?
Invisibility is only the beginning with technology like this. Optical camouflage could just as easily be used to make something insignificant appear fantastic, or the very significant to appear innocuous. Organized crime, the military, just about anyone with an interest in concealment or misdirection would have a huge interest in something like that.
With this technology is that it is very difficult to get a good refresh rate on the item of clothing to make the background seem to move fluidly.
If the cloak is moving with a low refresh rate, it will take an image of the background with it until the next refresh, making the wearer look silly, stupid amd more than just a bit conspicuous.
I couldn't think of a sig.
Why is it that people concentrate so much on this stuff which really serve absolutely no purpose besides geek-factor?
Has anyone ever considered spending time working on the worlds existing problems before creating others? Or has the whole world gone completely insane? How about feeding the hungry, curing diseases, instead of blowing time & money on invisibility cloaks?
I really see absolutely no real purpose in this technology, and it really goes to show where priorities are in some scientific communities. I'm not some tree hugging hippy, I love tech, but I believe it to be a tool to enable people to better themselves and enrich lives. You'd think with the problems people face today, personal invisiblity and making transparent walls would be the last on ones "to do" list.
the garnment isn't even generating any of the camoflage process, it's merely a reflective surface. If you look at the picture you'll notice that it's just a projection trick. I think the enemy would see any soldier equiped with this thing coming for miles, especially since an AV crew came in earlier to set up the projection rig...
See thru walls? Wow, oh wait, thats what windows are...
Then again, Microsoft has the trademark on those.
Someone is always freaking out about potential abuses. If your boss wants to see what you do in private, there is nothing stopping him but the ethics committee at your company. He could already have a camera hidden behind a vent cover, aimed at your little cubicle. This technology has nothing to do with your privacy or paranoia. There are plenty of technologies around that can potentially be abused by people who wish to do you harm. Take the high power rifle for example. I can see much potential for abuse there.
TallGreen CMS hosting
This seems even more practical.
Of course, this is a repeat of an old story. To help stave off the inevitable "this is useless!" crap, I seem to recall they thought it would be helpful in some kind of medical situations. What those might be, now, I can't imagine... or recall.
Hrm. Guess that was helpful, huh? Expect this to get modded insightful.
aw crap, my cover's blown!
Cthulu saves... in case he gets hungry later.
::helping geeks get laid since 1983::
"But I think the ultimate abuse example would be having sex in public."
You must be knew here.
First, what you speak of already exists. They are called either automatic or active windows. However they wouldn't work to well for walls because LCD exists in two states. Black and transparent. I don't know about you, but I don't like the idea of a black wall. A heavily shaded window is okay, but a black wall is horrid!
How about putting the sensors only on the outside and the emitters only on the inside? A one way window. Or what about sending the sensor input over to a different display? Look out a "window" on the front of your house and see your backyard or something. Or, most impressively, look at a "mirror" in front of you and see the back of your head!
In other words, when the wall's off, it's opaque. When current's applied to a section, the liquid inside the wall becomes clear and the wall is see-through. Not sure if the technology's there yet, though....
Yeah, it has been around for quite some time, here is just one of many articles on it: Smart Glass
One of my client's has their entire NOC done up with this kind of glass. Just one of the excesses of the dot-com era.
This stuff ain't cheap, but there is even more expensive versions that go black instead of translucent white (and default to clear when there is no current). I desperately want some of that for my car's windows. Alas it is so expensive that the people selling it don't even talk to small fry like I.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
There are some fantastic movies. Don't want to kill their server so I've set up a mirror here and the original page is at http://projects.star.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/projects/MEDI A/xv/oc.html.
:o)
Bernie
foo mane padme hum
Only on Slashdot can the poster mention a completely ridiculous privacy abuse issue, while missing the point that an invisibility cloak could be used for theft.
It was even in the article!
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
That cloak doesn't do anything that a good bottle of scotch wouldn't.
Oh wait... After drinking scotch I only think I'm invisible... Never mind...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
If you want to visually spy on people, you can just use miniature cameras which are available today. No need for funky walls that copy one side to the other. You can hide these cameras in conventional surroundings.
Heck, we already have devices that allow light to pass through in one direction, but not in the other (or very little).
They are called one-way mirrors!
You could be put into a box made of one-way mirrors pointed toward you, and there is your no-privacy cube.
Man, people and their silly reactions to new stuff.
As for see-thru wall, it's probably a lot easier then this guy wants it to be...
:)
I've got one... it's called a *window*
In other words, when the wall's off, it's opaque
Yup, got one of those too... it's called a *window blind*.
Not sure if the technology's there yet, though....
Well actually, no I don't, but I'm sure this type of technology can be used in novel ways that might be good. A red hat that runs a Linux display maybe?
Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
Well, yeah it's cool now, but how cool is it when everyone here can afford it? If everyone has it, it really becomes more of an annoyance. Or on the other hand, if these things gets perfected and becomes really expensive. They will turn into todays bullet proof vests. A nightmare for law-enforcement. And one idea, why not make the clothes rigid, for better invisibility. If they are rigid (e.g. sylinders for arms), the possible angles becomes fewer. Oh well.
Like PHBs need material like this to look in peoples' cubes. Cameras would be SO much better for that anyway, I bet.
/. where technology is either 'So cool!' or 'OMGWTFBBQ this is so open to abuse!!!!11!one!'
I don't see potential for privacy abuse here. I see possible potential for abuse by criminals using this gear, though I doubt cops will really be hindred by a guy wearing a 'cloaking anorak.' or such. I can definitely see the government geting antsy about this tech simply because they would. But outside of that, this isn't going to let a random pickpocket lift off the wallets of everyone in a city, or a terrorist to get to some foundationstone in a building or even through a city street.
Welcome to
"I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
...for all those poor people being hunted by Predators.
This sound to me to be most usefull when you want to disappear against a wall or something, as you'd never pull the invisibiliy-trick off if there are multiple angles you're being viewed from.
It's more like a Tolkienesque Elvish Cloak than an invisibility-garment.
Bah, wake me up when someone comes up with an Douglas Adamsesque SEP-field.
"Programming is like sex: one mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life."
Exactly what I was thinking. Also, you only look "invisible" from a specific viewpoint -- and then what's the difference between this and real Chroma Keying, other than that it doesn't work as well?
I submit that this is lame, and hereby call SHENANIGANS!
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
#34893 Winston, please no more slacking.
Sorry, prior art. Its called a window.
Ghost in the Shell: Thermoptic camo.
Just kidding. How do they come up with this stuff?
Are they going to start building fuchikomas (tachikomas?) next?
No, seriously, I just come here for the articles.
Cap'n Archer's Enterprise doesn't have a cloaking device and thats 150 odd years into the future! Pfft. I hate it when TV lies to me.
There is one obvious problem with the "invisibility cloak" that nobody has mentioned. In fact, the demonstrations of the device take advantage of the flaw and use it to make the device look like it will work.
The problem is, this device will make you "invisible" only to ONE PERSON. Or more correctly, the image projected on the cloak will only work for one point of view. So when the device is demoed to a camera, the camera is placed at the spot where the illusion works. If you place another camera 10 feet to the left, it would show that the image doesn't match the background, so the illusion of "invisibility" doesn't work. It's a parallax thing.
So everyone just knock of the stupid theorizing about how this is going to be battlefield camoflauge, it just isn't going to happen. It might be useful for limited circumstances, for a single viewer, for example, a surgeon might be able to see a computer-graphic overlay of the surgical operating field right through his hands. But it's not going to be a magic invisibility cloak.
Otherwise, how would a block in front of you show the static background behind you.
Or more ludicrously, how would a block in front of you show your skeleton? Especially when the skeleton doesn't move with your motions?
Please, we've had bluescreen technology for decades. And we've even upgraded to greenscreen.
You guys are seeing this as all-negative. I think this certainly has potential for positive aspects besides spying.
Imagine a world where banks can make their safe walls half-invisible. All that would have to happen is random occasional checks to see if anything had been stolen. Certinaly easier than opening each time.
For people: the potential invisible security guards acts as a huge deterrent to crime. Unless they purchase IR devices, casual stealing becomes next-to-impossible knowing that a guard could be right there.
And for large LCD's you can control the opacity by trottling the current.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
The new uniforms won't be worth a DAMN if the urban warfare enemies get ahold of paint guns and manage to hit their marks or set off non-leathal booby-trapped paint cylinders disguised as transformers or telco boxes. One painter for every attacking squad.... Pelletize one or more new-uniform-wearing guys. Any number of parked vehicles on the procession/line of advance can do the trick. Or, unruly, unwelcoming citizens atop the buildings will paint an UGLY picture. Even just pouring paint on the ground will force troops to detour. DAMN! Wonder what RAND and others in Pentagon (Pin-tu-guhn) are thinking about THAT!
...men and men or men and women or women and women
4 06 14/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/army_new_uniform_3
But, with a twist: Put UV/day-glo/night-glo paint balls in the gun. Fire away! For even more twist, if I were the enemy, I'd place urban Geiger counters about the place in advance of being invaded. Then, after painting the "enemy" wearing so-called new/valuable uniforms, I'd paint and roentgen their asses. Of course, they could drop Geiger-confusing isotopes to dampen or mask their own relative positions, but...
Seems to me the new uniforms are NOT going to get the mileage the taxpayer is being fed to believe...
Other information regarding replacing the zippers with velcro..
Replacing the zippers with velcro means that...
soliders, ummm, soldiers in the field cannot "covertly" or quietly undress and fondle each other and get away with it, too.
I know, personally, because when I was in Navy ROTC (1983-1984), our uniforms had buttons and zippers. At Monterey, (Fort Ord) during "Boot Camp Week", we were out at night on a SERE (survival/escape/resistance/evasion) maneuver, to see how long we could forage along in the woods without being caught by real Army guys. (We were pretty good... one Active-Duty Army squad walked RIGHT OVER us. They were inches from stepping on me, but missed us all (the squad I was in, at least, but later--HOURS later, near the end, we eventually were caught, but HOURS later). SHIT! We were GOOD. And, at least they didnt' cheat with NVG (night vision goggles) or the like, but they did use flares and other stuff to try to flush us out.) Some of us regularly on the weekends played 'wargames' in the woods of Ed Levin Park in Milpitas, often making the senior citizens there think "Red Dawn" was happening for real....
Anyway, a squad leader (male high school student) and another cadet/student (female) from two diff h/s had a "thing" for each other. The squad leader had the rest of us move along, and they fell back to have some private time. They were screwing only some 8 to 15 feet away from me... I was jealous, but I didn't report them.
So, I thought of all that when I read about the
zippers being replaced... Velcro might make it easier to undress people in medical emergencies, but in the woods, it destroys privacy for same-squad sex/booty buddies...
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/200
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
At the San Francisco Wired Tech fest, the coat was demoed and to be honest, it didn't appear (to me) to work very well.
I'm sure it is in its infancy but you've got to be looking at the subject DEAD ON and with perfect lighting.
This is one technology that looks much better in photos than it does in real life.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
Oh, to be able to get women's clothes to become invisible at will!...
Imagine a world where PHBs can turn their office wall into a window onto any cube.
while perhaps this particular technology isnt useful for this yet, its already quite possible (and increasingly common) for cameras to be placed strategically in offices to watch employees. Watching employees internet use is also becoming common. This fear is nothing new, its simply a new way of doing something that is already being done.
as for abuses in general, any new technology poses abuse problems. it becomes the governments job to regulate usage to protect our rights, and it is the citizens job to elect a government that will do that. Posting this on slashdot is becoming old, as every new technology comes up there is an increasingly common disclaimer: "warning, may errode civil liberties". Instead of simply posting this, go out and vote ppl, make the difference that way. Simply posting pessimistically on potential abuse of technology doesnt do all that much.
--Aaron
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
I remember seeing a Discovery channel special roughly 4 years ago that showed a vehicle (I believe it was a tank) that did this. It used fiber optics. The scenario was terrorists holding a house full of hostages. The vehicle creeped up slowly and was impressively hard to detect visually.
"There are no such things as mutual fantasies. Yours bore us and ours offend you."
- Bill Maher
WTF if Preditor? Is that short for Previous Editor?
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
Forget military applications...Those cloaks make even those dorks look cool.
check out the last line on the page :
/.'ers didnt catch it earlier. Really, the thing is kinda reminiscent of GITS.
References
M. Shiro, Ghost in the Shell, Kodansya, 1991
I am surprised more
The article mentions Shirow under the references section! Wow. Using whats in GitS as a base, how long till it becomes thermoptic-camo, masking the ir and thermal signtaure as well?
Yay me!
...you just change your perspective and they'll stand out like a sore thumb.
This was posted almost a year ago.
I had thought about how something like this would be possible; imagine how much you could save on heating and air-conditioning if you replaced windows with something like this. yes, it would look wierd, but cost in energy saving might make it practical. Think of what it could do to bill-boards, just drive down a road and see some words apparently floating in mid-air. Creepy, but cool.
sig?
INVISIBLE NINJAS.
wooo
Researcher 1: My arms are getting tired, can we take a break?
Researcher 2: Sure, hang up your cloak on that wall.
Researcher 1: Hey why don't we just leave the cloak on the wall?
Researcher 2: We could just project onto the wall!
Researcher 1: THAT'S BRILLIANT!
sarcasm mode off... seriously... this merited another post because they changed surface from a stationary person wearing a special cloak to a stationary wall???
I browse Slashdot at +3, Funny
I can't believe you're the only one to notice this - All these other posters freaking about privacy, too. :-P
Hasn't it occurred to anyone that we don't have the technology to make a cloth that can display a coherent image and still flutter as the wearer moves about?
As another check - what physics or computer science department would list "Ghost in the Shell" as a reference?
Clear, Dark Skies
At first I thought this was incredible - thought it was a self-contained garment coated with an array of tiny cameras interspersed with color display elements or something neat like that. The technical problems with something like that seemed almost insurmountable to my tiny mind. Then I read the .pdf brochure and realized how silly this actually is. I guess you could use it to see through the floor of an airplane or something, but as camoflage it seems totally useless.
Velcro makes more noise when un fastening.
And how does your straps being easy to undo destroy privacy?
From what I could tell neither of the two of them cared about privacy in the first place or otherwise that wouldn't have happened.
And why care about paintball guns when you can simply shoot them with REAL guns without all the crazy mousetrap like action of shooting them once and then running away to set an ambush up later.
...we had mirror glass.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
You still need a camera, a projector, and a half-mirror.
E DI A/xv/images/oc-e.png
/. entourage.
http://projects.star.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/projects/M
So, no playing Harry Potter, unless you have a
At least for real 'invisibility'. I saw it in person at NextFest in San Francisco. It's a neat gimmick, but you're only *invisible* if your enemy is carrying a video projector and a video camera and projecting camouflage onto you. On the other hand you could watch TV on J.Lo's butt. Now that's useful.
Hideo Kojima did this years before they got to it, he just never got out of the VR planning phase.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Imagine a world where PHBs can turn their office wall into a window onto any cube. Zero privacy.
I cannot believe that's your biggest worry.
Dude, if you're spending so much time on Slashdot that your PHB has to put a half a billion dollars worth of tech in your cube just to get an honest day's work outta you, then you have some serious issues.
Just do your job, man. And then your PHB won't have to have an entire Romulan Warbird keep a friggin eye on you.
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
They got a fix for that.. From the brochure: (4) Peephole. Seeing from here you will see as if the cloak is transparent!
BTW, it looks like they use some off-the-shelf raincoats, all those reflective cloathing use retro-reflection (sends incoming light back in the direction it came from). If they had made it themselves, I guess they would have made tighter cloathing, the wrinkles really mess up the projected image.
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
This almost sounds more frightening than the cloak, since there's no reason why the sensors would have to be placed outside. Imagine a world where PHBs can turn their office wall into a window onto any cube. Zero privacy.
How would this be any different than using video cameras, privacy wise? and we've had those for years.
Result of having a brain the size of an M&M, perhaps? In any case, once they finally start selling those flying cars, you'll see that people aren't much smarter....
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Imagine a world where PHBs can turn their office wall into a window onto any cube. Just takes a camera kit from that site with all the pop-up ads and an off-the-shelf LCD mounted on the wall...
"How Can You Be In Two Places At Once When You're Really Nowhere At All?"
I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
There are no light-sensitive or light-emitting devices in the cloak. The cloak is made of retroflective material similar to that used to make road signs more reflective. The system actually uses a regular camera and a regular projector and some half-mirrored glass to create the illusion. It only works from a single vantage point and viewing direction. This is a far cry from the 'Predator'-type cloaking most people seem to have taken it for (including the poster!), but it's still pretty cool.
A lot can be told about your personality from this question: which superpower would you choose? Invisibility or flight? Something makes me think /.ers will generally pick invisibility.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Would this not be awesome for a case window?
If you want to see into your case, you just turn it on. When you decide your parts and wiring look too ugly for you, turn it off!
This sounds like it's the future of what our soldiers will be wearing.
No, it sounds like what future peeping toms will be wearing.
The problem with the above plan is that you're limited to clear materials when you're building the wall. The translucent wall tech described in the article could be applied to a wall of any thickness and made of any material- even a load-bearing brick or concrete wall.
Of course, you caould always just use Tansparent concrete, but that's still a ways off.
Picture
;-)
Whoa!! Where's the person on the picture? I can't see him! it's truly magic!
I hope that's not your only trick
As in 1970s. Its very old tech and completely useless because you need a projector to project whats behind you. This is just a slightly enhanced version of the same thing. Nothing new, nothing to see here, move along.
Anyone else think of Ghost in the Shell when they saw the guy in the rain coat cloaked?
I still don't understand how this works.
Nothing new. Harry Potter already has a blanket that does this.
-tom
In a related story, the IRS has recently ruled that the cost of Windows upgrades can NOT be deducted as a gambling loss.
Gambling losses aren't really tax deductible anyway. The only time they even impact your taxes is in the event that you have large gambling winnings (to the point that the casino or track had to file a form W-2G about your big wins...) AND you're not taking the standard deduction. At that point, you can report losses as offseting factors to counterbalance your reported winnings, but only to the point that they bring you back to even.
Really, it's not that you get to deduct your losses so much as you get to show them to prove that despite forms saying you won a lot, you didn't really win that much because you had to play so many times to get to that payout.
How exactly would this cloak help you? If you're wearing the cloak, wouldn't the cloak appear invisible instead of the wearer?
It's an invisible cloak, not an invisibility cloak... there go my Marvel Universe dreams again =/
I've used welding helmets very much like you describe. They're triggered by very bright light to become extremely (you can only see the arc) dark. As soon as you turn the welder off, the helmet goes clear (well, actually, green). My impression is that this isn't too novel.
Wow! Invisible walls! Next we'll have submarine screen doors and forum software that squelches stupi
I can't wait to get one of those suits for my girl friend. Cindy Crawford here I come!
... most just call it glass.
Douglas Adams' "Somebody Else's Problem" field? It sounds much cheaper and just as effective. :-)
Why would bosses abuse this for privacy invasion when security cameras will always be cheaper?
Do the ENTIRE office ceiling with the camera side.
Then the bosses can sit at thier desks and scroll around the office looking down on everything.
Kinda like Dungeon Keeper in real life!!!!
Just be thankful that they cannot pick you up and feed you to some beasties.
Or even, why can't I just use this to coat my cubicle walls and use them as my monitor, I'm seeing other uses for this fabric.
Just hope the trench coat market doesnt get ahold of this, then flashers wont even need to open their coats, just flick the switch and you get a view of whats on the inside, INVISIBLE CLOTHING!!!! hey wait, why not just go nekkid.
moo.
When I was interested in invisibility, for some reason, at about the age of 10, I thought about this possibility, to transfer the light electronically from one side of the object to the other. Of course I would have prefered a suit, but trying to be realistic, I thought a sphere would be the easiest to make.
So, after thinking it all over again, my hopes sank, since each light point on the sphere would have to emit different light in all directions. If you look at it from the left, the lights on the front, left side should show what's on the right side of the sphere, while if you look at it from the front, then the same points on the sphere should display what's behind it. I did think about having small spherical light-sources, emitting different light in different directions, but even then I concluded that any real invisibility would be impossible. It would at least throw some sort of shaddow. The best possible result would be an object which is able to show you what's behind it.
Having settled the matter of invisibility, I forgot about it, and began pondering about how to know which card is the next in the deck....I'm still working on that.
Is it just my complete incomprehension of optics, or does it seem like this would only work at an absolute viewing distance.
I mean, look at any object in front of you -- pull your head back, and it covers up less of the background; lean forward, and it covers up more of the background.
Look at the photoshopped representation in the article. Imagine taking a few steps back. It wouldn't match any more
How do we compensate for multiple viewers at different distances?
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
I'm less concerned about privacy than I am that invisible walls will make irritating street performers socially acceptable in the workplace.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
By my take on the diagram of how it works, the system requires itself to have a static copy of the background to be mimmiced. In all the demos, you never see the camera move, because that would change the background that is being mimmiced, and would probably give the hardware an aneurism trying to keep up with the updates. They most likely had to take a shot of the background before the demonstrator and his "stealth object" came into view, to use for the projection part of the process. That, and they're probably using a visual comparison system to determine how to mask off the projector so it doesn't project light of any sort anywhere except where the cloaked item is.
This means it's not really possible to cloak something that's in front of a changing backdrop, at least not with this implementation of the technology.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Keeping in mind that PHBs are considerably less sophisticated than the supervised, the possibilities are endless to mess with their heads. I'm reminded of the "laughing man" story arc from "Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex". Everybody is dependent upon internet mediated perception, resulting in a hacker who simply inserts some code to mask his face with an animated logo.
With the use of image loops, and other tricks the PHB could never be sure that his X-Ray vision wasn't on the fritz.
Oh, by the way. THIS IS A DUPE, DAMN IT.
Google it
almost sounds more frightening than the cloak, since there's no reason why the sensors would have to be placed outside.
Everyone is talking like he's got some brand new technology here or something.
It's just a camera and a video projector. With a cloak or wall made out of some highly reflective material. That's it. You have to setup the camera ahead of time, and setup the video projector ahead of time. You have to have power to run it all. You have to stand in exactly the right spot, and it only works as an invisibility cloak if the other guy is standing near line of sight with the projector. Which is itself obviously pretty visible.
Before this guy put all this stuff together, bosses were putting cameras in the workplace. This "innovation" (and believe me I use the term loosely) doesn't really add anything to that equation.
I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
Before I read one of the later comments, I had this thought: This would be camoflage for snipers. I mean, the ghillie suit is already pretty darned good, but if you could match your surrounding optically (instead of a bush/pile of something), especially when there isn't good cover, then that would be a good use for this system. Of course, there are many issues that need to be resolved. IR signature, the point of view, etc. What would the 'reaction time' for the computer be? One foreseeable counter-system would be something like a strobe light or a camera flash; create a pulse of light that's extremely bright for an extremely short period of light, and then wait for the system to mimic the change. Of course, the people doing the light flashing need to adjust for the brightness flare. An interesting piece of technology. I remember seeing something like this in a magazine (PopSci, perhaps), and it showed a building and fence with this, as well as a shirt that made the wearer's torso look transparent. Pretty cool, if you ask me.
Read that again:
"The inventer's next objective is to make walls that are invisible, using the same technology. Project a real outside image onto an interior wall without windows."
Mr. Barclay, report to the bridge.
If someone was wearing a suit with this technology, wouldn't there be some angles that if you looked at them they wouldn't be invisible? Also, what if they move their arm or something? How would the display on their arm know where to get the image from?
we could have a computer setup to feed it images from any source, not just the other side. Imagine your new wall sized TV, with proper DRM of course(HA!) and the outdoor simulator for those rainy days when you'd like sun. or if you want it sunny and cool, not blazing hot wire it to your AC thermostat!
/welcomes our new multispecies religious-fanatic overlords...
#define CLUE 0
The photo shows a guy standing in front of a truck, and the logo on the truck continues through the back of the person wearing the cloak.
This image is going to remain the same size on the back of the cloak wearer. If the observer walks away from the cloak wearer, the truck image will look smaller, while the image on the cloak wearer stays the same size. No good.
Unless the image on the cloak is different to whoever is viewing it, at whatever distance they are at, then this technology is inherently flawed.
Next.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The story is a dupe, the topic is boring, the facts weren't checked. WE GET IT!!
Video cameras - fucking video cameras we've had for decades - have the same "potential for abuse," the same ability to usher in a new zero-privacy, post-apocalyptic distopian future.
Every new technology of any substance whatsoever has the "potential" for some kind of abuse, guess we'll have to live in fear for the rest of our lives.
sic transit gloria mundi
You utter imbecile!
Go read the fucking research and complain only after you have accomplished better.
Watch this, read this, plus go at least read the fucking article:
"'This material allows you to see a three-dimensional image,' Professor Tachi said."
And also read this.
Holy Schitt, you might be right... I heard of this evil technology that's available right now, as we speak, to PHBs, the CIA, and other evil entities. It permits them to see things located in another place, live, or they can store the collected images as a motion picture of sorts and refer back to it later. This evil invention is called the video camera, and I have a feeling that these things will soon pop up all over the place. Zero privacy. Oh well.
I just don't see how it even works.
Which is why you've gone and made a bunch of stupid statements about it. You don't understand it, so you assume it's bogus?
Not only are they working on making you invisible, they're also working on your cyborg/holo-bot. The pictures up right now got a right laugh out of me, but personally I can't wait until the day I can assasinate my enemies invisibly from a rooftop with my own Fonzie (from Happy Days) holo-bot. Ayyyy.
The technology will also only work when you know
where the person/camera is whom you are trying to
be tansparent too..
eg. The wall and floor examples are good because
it will look like a picture to the viewer.
The cloak example will not work as well unless
you specify the direction of the viewer,
or the background is resonable uniform (eg. Forrest)
It may be worse, as it could pickup moving
object behind you (in a different direction)
and cause the wearer to stand out due to the
unexpected movement to the viewer!
so it is a description of a sensor, ie camera, and emitter, LCD or plasma panel? sure the cloak sounds good, but to make a window in a wall requires? a camera and a plasma display? Wooot I've done, I made a breakthrough!!! wake up ppl!
There was an unknown error in the submission.
Bill Gibson strikes again... gee, could this be a lift from NeuroMancer?
meh
We had invisible walls made out of glass. That we had to carry uphill both ways to and from the store to the house. In the snow, barefoot, with glass splinters in our eyes!
Actually, they are already working on this in a way with planes. In order to prevent visual detection, the bottom of of the plane radiates light, so as to replace the light that it would normally block from the sky. (the tops of the planes are painted to resemble the ground). The same could be true of a soldier wearing this material... No matter what color you're wearing, in the desert during the day you pretty much block out the light. Add some additional luminescence of the proper color and viola! Slightly less visible.
The ______ Agenda
I submitted this this morning, got rejected .. life is not fair! ;)
anyways, here are the videos, it does look pretty cool:
Video 1
Video 2
[alk]
I thought of this idea years ago and thought to myself it was a stupid idea. It's nice to see someone go ahead and implement the concept and then admit it's impractical. ;-D
as it only works from a fixed viewpoint may want to consider security cameras, which generally have a fixed viewpoint.
If you/your van are invisible to cameras covering an area, you're invisible to the guards watching the screens.
In cases where there are multiple cameras monitoring a single area, this would be a little tricker (however, this becomes easier to deal with, the greater the difference between their angle of observation (i.e., present a different fake image on the other side).
So everyone says this is obviously useless, since you are only invisible to one point of view per projector.
What if the intended point of view to be invisible to is from the sky?
In the cold war a lot of time was spent playing cat and mouse moving armored divisions around, and setting up camo nets to hide the tanks from sattelites, this is just the next step in camo netting.
It's useless to the individual soldier, but it's very useful for command posts, or anything that is mostly stationary, but you want to be sure noone knows where it is.
It's also trivial to set this up with more than one projector. Yes the projectors are obvious, but then it becomes a shell game. You know the command center is cloaked, but which cloaked location is the command center?
I thought up a suit that used this same idea to "cloak" the wearer when I was in 9th grade. I eventually decided that it wouldn't work. No matter how well the illusion can be done, the object is still going to cast a shadow.
Iesus Christus magnus est.
Or transparent aluminum..
Though the technology may not be ready for a lot of real world applications (though I would love to have it in my car) I think it's ready to be in the movies!
Hell, after people read this comment we probably will see this in movies. Now the trick is to get them not to abuse it and just sort of sneak a shot or two of it being used in there so we'll be like, "Wow! That was fucking cool!" instead of trying to make a whole movie about it.
Question everything
Yes, velcro does make more noise when unfastening. Considering today's "integrated" (US) units (and our often exposed gender-immaturity when it comes to certain organizations being forced to deal with the issue), it is tempting (and probably underscores the concerns of some in the upper echelons) that mixing males and females in situations where they can get a little quick groin action is not good for morale. I personally don't mind, as long as the rest of the involved UNIT is mature and not pimping or sharing each other due to inadequate pay or such....
But, when I was in the bushes at Fort Ord, envying that pair, yes, back then we had buttons, and belts, and one zipper. Of course, I guess those fanny-zippers or U-shaped slats (yes, with an "a") must be comical AND worrisome...
You're right: they could care less about privacy. Likely thing is, tho, the squad leader probably had so much blood rushing thru his ears he didn't hear me *not* move forward. I was already covered/concealed and I think he lost track of me. I guess I wanted to vicariously savor the moment under moonlight juxtaposed with being hunted down by trained search teams.
As for paintball guns, my point is not to KILL the incoming/invading occupiers, but to put the fear of HELL into them that they COULD have been struck lethally. I generally prefer non-denigrating, non-violent, non-lethal, less-than-lethal interaction. I think that for a nation being invaded that wants help, but not full-on occupation, paintballing the excess occupation would send a clear signal that less-than-lethal is on the minds of the paintballers. But, it makes it so inconvenient for those struck, since they are not likely to be carrying an extra pair of uniforms with which to swap.
Alternatively, a deceptive and unwelcoming set of city dwellers could use this type of ruse to disorient, delude, and demoralize by following up with, as you suggest (and which I also earlier implied or stated) REAL guns. The "crazy moustrap like action" serves a useful purpose of extra training for the indigenous, non-lethal target practice at the expense of the excess troop body/head count.
Dropping/pouring paint from the rooftops is hellaciously messy and environmentally-unfriendly, but it sure as hell would make it inconvenient and dangerous for nice and dry troops to venture in too deep. My kind of "assymetric" wafare is a David-style of PsyOps, counter-ops. I don't need to use (or even suggest) lethal, bruising, or puncturing/burning implements. Anyone resorting to such barbary is lower than scum and deserves the most brutal of punishments, lingering and to the bring of death. Torture really is abused and used on too many who don't merit it. Most people presented with it probably don't merit it.
(I am wondering if a little bit of Hollyweird slipped into the minds of the clothiers and generals in the Pentagon... Sure, urban warfare is a legit concern, but indigenous people expecting to be invaded can also passively nullify the uniforms by changing the ground and next 4 floors's walls' colors. Psychologically, the generals must feel a need to show decorum by taking the "jungle" look and "city-boying" it. I do admit it looks "kinda dumb" to be traipsing around a concrete, glass and steel city in jungle cammo...)
Anyway, I mainly wanted to suggest that if the uniforms are supposed to be some sort of solution or panacea, the locals almost ALWAYS have the least expensive, near-term (and maybe long-term) home advantage.... Well, unless satellites, laser designators, and defectors root out the home defenses. I advocate defensive posture, and not offensive on other's soil unless a majority world vote OK's it. Unilateral action is for pushovers. Pushovers usually get pushed out. VN is a good example of the homefield advantage. Afghanistan is another. One was wet, mushy, filled with boobytraps, tics, leeches, and brutally capable, tho greatly less technical forces. The second is a set of people who don't need to acclimatize in Denver or the Appalachians o
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
I really don't get why this is receiving so much coverage.
The "invisibility cloak" is an old idea (and, no, it's not just this guy's old idea); the difficult part is making it work well, and the guys from U. Tokyo haven't done that. They have done a little to improve things by using different materials to project on ("retro-reflectium"), but that is not sufficient.
And their approach to making "walls invisible" amounts to hooking up a web cam to a projector.
Geez, the threshold for calling something a "new technology" seems to be getting lower and lower.
Wow, George Takei really saw this one coming (the sneak suit).
Or you willl end up with a cuncussion on the floor. You will end up bashing yourself into invisible walls. Sounds like the only application ot invisible walls is to fuck with people's heads. Good luck!
411 Y0UR 8453 4R3 8310NG 70 U5!! -NSA
You may want to try this minus the mirror.
Yes, you could, in principle. And people are working on those kinds of display technologies, not for making invisibility cloaks, but for general purpose 3D displays. Once you have a good 3D display technology that can be applied to flexible surfaces, you can start doing these kinds of things.
However, such displays are not practical yet, so all you get for now is people playing around with projectors. You can be that as soon as the display technology is there, however, it will be applied to "invisibility cloaks" right away. Give it another decade or two.
If that patent gets granted, it only goes to show that the USPTO doesn't know what they are doing. The idea itself is old and that "inventor" has contributed nothing to the hard part of making it work.
In about 10-20 years, the hardware to make real invisibility cloaks will be ready, as part of better camera and 3D display technologies. Then, people will be able to build these things with satisfactory performance.
The only benefit of having the patent issued to that guy is that if the development of that display technology takes about 20 years, then his patent will have expired and nobody else will be able to patent the same stupid, obvious, and old idea. But in a well-run patent office, such applications should be rejected as soon as they are submitted.
While the potential for having windows viewing into cubes is there, it seems like security cameras already do this.
Right. A nosy PHB, police or anybody else can already spy on people wherever there are cameras in place. Viewing the pictures on a fake window instead of a normal video monitor has no scary privacy implications.
"The key development of the cloak, however, was the development of a new material called retro-reflectum."
In order to get rid of that dumb joke once and for all, we changed its name to retro-refanus.
"Derp de derp."
No one has mentioned how the military would use such a system. Near invisible aircraft perhaps?
Dude -- it's because the camera is behind his HEAD, not behind the block. It's not a blue-screen, it's not a hoax, it's just a fabric that reflects light right back at the projector. In 10 years it might do something cool, right now it's just a cute demo.
Isn't that how the monster in Predator worked?
You don't specifically need "six stereoscopic camera pairs" or "180 x 180 LED arrays". What you need is some kind of camera that can model the 3D scene reasonably well (there are many different designs known), and some kind of decent 3D display (it doesn't have to be 180 x 180 LED arrays behind a hemispherical lens, and probably won't be).
In different words, you just need improvements that people are already making any way in 3D cameras and 3D displays. Give it another 10-20 years, and making an "invisibility cloak" or "invisible wall" will be as simple as hooking about a 3D camera to a 3D display, just like today, you may hook up a 2D camera to a 2D display.
Q: What's the difference between a tyre and a nigger?
A: Tyre's don't sing when you put chains on them.
Q: How do you stop a gang of niggers from raping a white girl?
A: Throw them a basketball.
Actually, there is a tilted 2-way mirror between the viewer and the viewed. The viewer sees through the mirror. The projector is shown on the mirror from an angle, which reflects onto the object.
As long as the viwer didnt notice that he was looking through a pane of glass, it might just work...:P
What exactly does camoflauge help you do? Why do soliders put camo paint on their faces? If you break up the pattern of a face with camo, its harder to recognize. You'll wear differnt colors of camo in different environments to help you blend in. You won't see soliders in the middle of winter wearing their greens for example.
But they'll need a separate set of fatigues if they are operating in an urban environment.
Now imagine that this technology was adapted not to make you invisible, but to dynamically change your fatigues using colors from your surroundings. IANAS but I would say that during some missions your environments may change dynamically. This could really help soldiers blend in without having to worry that their winter whites are going to get them killed when they move into some buildings.
Anyways, i'm tired, bedtime.. This probably didn't make any sense.
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
I can't believe no one else has mentioned that this is the exact same thing that the James Bond car used in the last James Bond movie.
The technology is great, but the potential for abuse is definitely there
You can say this about any technology under the sun. One of the secrets of the universe is that it can be used, every single bit of it, to destroy life. Every single thing in the universe can kill.
Technology has its lures. So does Luddism.
"Camoflage" seems to be a mistranslation from the Japanese original. Would someone who reads Japanese well please read the Japanese version of the site and try to clear this up?
...but in oc-s.mpg, when the sphere is in front of the person demonstrating it, presumably with the light sensors also in front of the individual, why does eir face disappear?
These invisibility technologies are the perfect complement to Japanese "force field" technology. Just as Euramerican ceramics research focused on semiconductors, while Soviet ceramicists followed superconductors, Japanese "laser" and video physicists have pursued energy absorbtion/dissipation rather than projection. So Euramericans developed have more obvious technologies, like TV and laserguns. While Japanese have the more subtle,like defensive forcefields and invisibility cloaks. Guess whose missile shield actually works? Where'd they go?
--
make install -not war
I'm just afraid that if I put the cloak on, it shows whats on the either side: My very mangy cold naked butt!
Karma whoring
i think, this might be a better solution for a translucent wall:0 /1
http://cf5.optics.org/articles/news/10/3/1
while it uses a projector now, not to far in the future i guess this will be one of the uses of digital color "paper". just needs some high rez digital cameras (we are allready starting to see that) hooked to a dedicated computer that again is hooked to the clothing. sure movement will be a problem but for the sniper it will close to the effectiveness of a guilie suit unless up close and less bulky so it will be easyer to move (alltho slow so the comp have time to compensate)...
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
(President Scroob is having a pee when the wall in front of him becomes a video screen)
Officer: "President Scroob"
President Scroob: "Aargh. I told you never to call me on this wall."
(He gets his pecker caught in his zip)
Listen to it!
Other Spaceballs quotes
The Awful Truth
How is the wall thing a privacy issue?? its just like having a camera pointing at your cube and the boss watching on a monitor!? I don't see how the wall bit changes anything?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Arg i thought this was the single coolest thing in the world ever, but no its a projector. I saw a programme (Science Shack or something) where this team of people were given a day to camoflage a Mini, they hitched a big video screen to the side and a camera on the other side and from a fair distance it looked ok, but even thats more impressive than pointing a projector at someone, hey i can even do that without the cloak.. just by standing infront of a projector wearing white!
Damnit i want my wrap-around fiber-optic invisible cloak!
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
This technology has been around since the latest James Bond film - Die Another Day, it was attached to his car.
Am I the only person around here that watched it? being as it disn't have the word 'star' in the title.
FGD 135
...usually requires a review of ethics.
If it's not 3D, and does not shift the view with the movements of the viewer, it doesn't work.
-----
Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.
If they'll start making toilet cabin doors translucent, it will be really easy to tell when it is occupied!
Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
Also I believe this trick to be a lot harder than they say. The problem is, every "pixel" on the cloak has to display a 180 image, because it can be seen from different angles, and has to show a different image to them. On the other side you have to scan a surround-picture on every individual point of the cloak. I would go so far as to say that this is impossible on a cloak. Not because we don't have the tech, but because it's conceptualy impossible. What do you think?
All the best,
rob
The picture looks like its a guy standing in a white raincoat infront of a movie projector.
Hummingbirds are attracted to the color red.
If your copper wire were clean enough, it might have been red enough to attract the bird's attention.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
First, it uses by projecting light onto something. So it doesn't work at night. Second, looking at the cloak, there's still shadows and all. And now they want to apply the same technology to make invisible walls? They'll have a tough job beating the ancient technology called 'glass'.
Reminds me of the old joke:
Q: What do you call a device to listen to the heart?
A: A stethoscope.
Q: What do you call a device to see far?
A: A telescope.
Q: What do you call a device to see very small things?
A: A microscope.
Q: What do you call a device that allows you to see through walls?
A: A window.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
Maybe now Wiley Coyote will catch that damn road runner.
I solved this a few years ago. One of these days, I'll submit a patent application for it. Or does this posting invalidate that?
There's a simple way to do all this. Imagine a thin layer of some special molecule (yet to be developed, but that's just an implementation issue), completely coating an object. That layer has two interesting properties:
- Whenever a photon strikes the molecule, it (the molecule) emits a neutrino of a particular energy level at the same angle of the incoming photon. Basically, it converts a (say) blue photon to a "blue" neutrino.
- Whenever the molecule is hit by a neutrino, it performs the reverse. A neutrino of level X gets turned back into a visible photonn of the appropriate energy level.
This has the effect of guaranteeing that all photons, of all colors, of all incoming angles, are properly processed through the object. But how does the information get from one side of the object to the other?Simple!
We're using neutrinos! They go through EVERYTHING!
So you're looking down at a jet. There's an ambient light ray coming off the ground, and it's green (it reflected off a leaf). It hits the underside of the jet, is transformed magically into a "greenish" neutrino, which continues upwards through the jet, following the same path as the original green photon. Because it's a neutrino, it passes through the jet without bothering anything and without being bothered itself. It reaches the other side of the jet, where it strikes the invisibility layer on the top side of the jet and converts back into a green photon. So, from the perspective of the observer, the green light from the tree below passed right through the jet, as if the jet wasn't even there.
There's some nagging problem with this approach, though, that I can't seem to pinpoint....so it'll probably be a while before you see this in practice.
Hell yeah, some friends of mine and I were thinking along those lines when we were camping in Yellowstone and were thinking of ways for the park to make money, go to some remote part, setup a couple of cameras and stream it to whoever. The best is if you could take time zones into consideration so the sun doesn't rise on my Hawaii view at 11 am in my Wisconsin Office.
Someone please do this so I don't have to keep looking at tan walls!!
0100001001100101011010010110111001100111 0100100001110101011011010110000101101110
Or, for short... rectum
Expect something like *this*? Like soldiers wearing a screen in which an image needs to be projected from the onlookers direction? I hope our army is smarter than that. :) What are we going to do, ask our enemies to hold the projectors for us?
Carbon, made, only wants to be unmade.
I want to be like Randal Flagg and have the ability to become dim.
"Dark Tower Reference BTW"
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
It's called a fucking VIDEO CAMERA.
Christ, we need a new medical term for people who see mind control lasers and Big Brother around every (transparant) corner; like hypochondria is unreasonable fear of disease.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Floating genitalia would be very creepy.
As seen here: Skin Deep Glow in the dark condoms...
I recall an interesting concept from Larry Niven's book Ringworld in which the main characters were traveling through space and turned on a feature that either turned the walls of their vessle invisible or did some form of projection to achieve a similar effect. The end result was that to the travelers, it appeared as though they were cruising through space in just their chairs on a deck, enjoying the starscape.
I can imagine this type of technology eventually being used in some form of tourism or entertainment capacity.
You know, this would be really cool for a jet's cockpit. Remember, in the day, the Concorde had to have a drop-down nose so the pilot can see the runway on landing.
Put this technology in the cockpit to give better visibility. Better yet, putting it in a fighter's cockpit to give 360x360 degree (or close to it) visiblilty would give extreme advantage in a dogfight. Of course, the video updates would have to be faster than, say, moving a transparent window around on your X display...
--Storm
ooooo.
can you say "Linear Seat"?
I can do this.... wait a minute... wait a minute... there Iam now standing in front of a projector, cunningly cloaked in slashdot text.
How can you know this? Everything in the demo looks like a bluescreen. Without seeing a live demonstration, I think it's the only reasonable interpretation of the movies and screenshots.
Been done. Die Another Day. Except that the Aston Martin used what someone else mentioned as the next step-- rather than have the image projected from an outside source, the "skin" of the vehicle displayed an image of what was on the other side.
Now all they need to do is implement blocks covered with the material, and have the blocks able to move with motors and stuff. And we can create something that can do rough scenery and with stuff like intorpolation and other illusions have everything seem to mend together. Purhaps a blowup doll with this material?
This has to be the stupidest bit of hype I have ever seen or heard of. Hey! want to be invisible? Go stand in front of a movie screen. As long as your viewer is absolutely right next to the projector looking at you, well then, you will seem invisible ... at least as long as you cover yourself with projection screen beads!
So what else is new. Any little kid who ever played with a home movie knows this. Yet the story has circulated and recirculated the web for a year now.
Give it up.
"The technology is great, but the potential for abuse is definitely there."
Why is it people whine when there's dupe stories (as though every story they happened to see MUST have been seen by everyone) but nobody finds it odd when this FUDlette gets tacked onto hundreds of stories per year?
Of COURSE it's possible to abuse. ANYTHING is. If you can't figure out a way that, say (just taking from today's headlines) a 400GB ATA drive can be used in a naughty way, you're just not trying.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
This is an unlisted wall!
- President Skroob
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
This doesn't seem to have been covered, but surely it isn't too far outside the realms of possibility judged by how many people are saying this is not very impressive and terribly old technology.
What I want to do is more of a toy application, mount a camera on my roof and project the image onto the ceiling, As far as I can tell I'd need...
Retro-reflective sheeting cut to dimensions of the ceiling.
What's with the half mirror? unclear on this aspect.
Camera mounted on the roof.
Projector set to project the image on the roof.
Any ideas anyone?
...in Half-Life. You know, the fast-running chicks wearing a tight black suit, silenced 9mm handgun, NV goggles and this invention?
What did this guy invent? Wrapping yourself in a projector screen? Standing in front of a projector? This is not just stupid. It's a hoax. There is no invention here, move along.
-Andres.
Clearly, they're trying to imitate William Gibson's Panther Moderns, from Neuromancer. Their cloaking suits not only camoflaged them, but could be programmed to display other images as well -- patterns, textures, primary colors.
So, in about 50 years, we'll all have these suits, probably made by a joint effort between Microsoft and Banana Republic ("Micro Soft Banana"?) and we'll even have "suit saver" graphics we can choose -- like the screen savers of today, but far more public. Can't wait for the "flying windows" suit. Or plug your iPod (or wireless streamed music chip implant) into it and let people watch what you're listening to....
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
I thought up of this a looong time ago. . . .
:(
Patent too expensive to afford. *sigh*
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Maybe this is a dumb question (I'm sure you'll let me know)...
Are the calculations for this cloak similar to the calculations for a ray-tracer like POV-RAY? In other words, wouldn't any calculation for a realistic projection (unless it's analog) be notriously (NP hard?) difficult. Add the fact that you have to create a realistic image for multiple angles, and this could get tricky.
So in reality, you'd need a Beowulf cluster of...
OH FORGET IT!
What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....
Your first sentence starts out with so much promise, and then you had to go and blow it.
why not just a time lapse... 1 shot every minute, with nothing in the forground, so small movements dont do much, just get 24hours of footage and sell the dvd...
project this onto the wall using a projector... fix timezone and you would be right. same size as a 50minute dvd... but you would have the shadows move, etc.?
Why me? Why not!
BACKUP YOUR PARTITIONS
I'm pretty sure someone else had this idea in response to anime based army uniform oh so few months ago. Feeling pretty bad about that mod score, now eh?
"I do not fear computers. I fear lack of them." ~ Isaac Asimov
...wallhack?
Yeah. Do you really need to be able to move your windows around at the push of a button with your extraordinarily expensive wall? Or do you just want a $300 pane of glass with $60 curtains covering the wall? HMMMM? I think some of these inventions are just dumb. Like powdered water. And those little fuzzy things you stick to your dashboard... Weebls, I think there called. Why don't they make Bobs and Monkeys and Donkeys and Kevins and Harry Lees to go with the Weebls?
Carnage Blender
Tahya al-Moqawama al-Iraqiya!
Fuck the American imperialists!
Iraq will not be free until every last one of them is swinging from a bridge like the four in al-Fallujah!
Tahya al-Moqawama al-Iraqiya!
Tahya al-Moqawama al-Iraqiya!
Tahya al-Moqawama al-Iraqiya!