Slashdot Mirror
Holograms Help Protect Super Bowl
Apache4857 writes to tell us CNet is reporting that Homeland Security agents monitoring the Superbowl will be doing so in 3D. Using streams from two cameras, the LifeVision 3D system is able to project images onto a 20-inch screen that is equipped with a depth tube. This depth tube makes images appear to rise 30 inches off the screen and sink 30 inches into the screen allowing real world volumes and distances to be displayed accurately. Using this system security officials will be able to search sidewalks, monitor faces, and even peer under vehicles.
If there's a terrorist attack like the Bush Administration expects, how will it get reported? Last I checked the news was still in HDTV and not Holovision.
Do you Gentoo?
Jem and the Holograms will perform at the half-time show.
We've all been waiting for this for a long time. I've heard of speakers like kurzeil using similiar technology to give speeches across the world. Now how long till this replaces standard tv?
this isnt a hologram.
(i know hologram sounds cool, but you cannot call any crap that has some stereoscopic view that way)
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Maybe the agents just want to view the wardrobe malfunctions in 3-D.
I'd still prefer it if they had a couple of battalions of actual human beings out there. I doubt that the cost / benefit analysis has been done for this. Probably just makes people think they are being watched which will either make them feel secure or vindicated about their Orwellian nightmares. They'll all be checking out womens cleavages anyway...
I think this is a really good use of funds. Well, at least I would if I too were feeding at the trough.
Best,
Paul
The two-dimensional thing called offensive line protects Roethlisberger well enough. Who needs 3D?
www.weberseite.at
This is massively cool and all, but how is it helpful to peer under vehicles? You don't need 3D for that, and 3D won't help if the cameras are too high above ground... Anyway, they'll just use it to peer under skirts, like we would.
What the hell is this technology doing being deployed in a security role? The rule is : ALL COOL TECH IS DEVELOPED FOR PORN! It then trickles down into other mundane uses, like saving our lives.
Nothing is too elaborate to protect us from Janet's Terror-Boobs!
I only skimmed the article, so maybe I missed it, but what are taxpayers paying for this system that still will not stop someone from strapping a ring of explosives under their coat?
Even if they can "pear under vehicles", they won't have any additional information that is available on the video screen. The advantage with a 3D environment is have a better perception of what the 2D image is recording. It doesn't provide any additional information (unless one of those cameras is infrared or better yet, baggage scanner from an airport).
-?-
Net result in security: nil.
Bruce Schneier has some excellent things to say about "security" measures that defend against movie-plot threats. If you don't read Crypto-Gram yet, go sign yourself up, and learn how counter-intuitive reality can be.
(You might also think about how little you should trust your own intuition, and then deduce things about people who boast of theirs... but I don't want to interfere with domestic political matters :)
The Super Bowl is a game played by privately owned teams. It brings in hundreds of millions in revenue for the NFL from advertising.
Tell me again... why do taxpayer dollars have to pay for security at this game? Let the NFL pay for their own damn security. Or is the NFL technically a "foreign country"?
The article makes this technology look like some otherwordly system for perception; they specifically cite Star Wars. My first question was how effective this could be. The article was very scant on technical details: When you're constructing 3D images from multiple view points, you aren't probably doing too much to improve the overall resolution of the image. And, unless you are starting with very high resolution cameras to begin with (and ones with coordinated zoom capabilities), I suspect that what you get is a very expensive and cool looking toy without enough detail to actually be of any help.
Best
Paul
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you need LASERs to make a Hologram? IIRC, you need a laser or two for making the Hologram and another to show it.
It is a fucking high porfile ball game with tens of thousands of people attending it and being watched by hundreds millions of people. If you want to kill a lot of people and have it seen live on TV around the world, the Super Bowl is the place to do it. You couldn't pick a better target in terms of mass death and live coverage. They are not protecting it because they love football. They are protecting it because it is a big gleeming target with a bulls eye on it.
Sort of.. You need a light source, and that can be a laser, but I don't believe it has to be.
Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
because we think it is important. So we pour millions of dollars in taxpayer funded security when the terrorists might as well go to the basketball game next door (or a mall) to do their dirty work. Not only is it easier but we end up buying useless 3D remote cameras to look under cars. I swear the government has been watching too much TV about govt. super agents.
...that an icon of the engine of the mass entertainment and distraction that has rendered public discourse pureile is being monitored by the kinds of devices that public discourse, if it existed, would profoundly reject.
You think if the average person knew that they were using hologram like TVs to moniter the Super Bowl they would reject its use? That is down right silly. The Super Bowl is a big and obvious target. It is a target being attended by thousands and watched by hundreds of millions. Any terrorist worth his salt would hit the Super Bowl if they had the ability.
We accept cameras in banks because they are obvious targets for criminals. You honestly believe that people would not accept monitoring an even larger target with a significantly higher capacity for the loss of human life?
Really people. Just think before you post something silly like this. I imagine that everyone walking into the Super Bowl realizes that they are going to be on a camera, and I imagine that a super majority of them are glad that police, cameras, and all other manner of monitoring devices are trying to pick through the crowd to find the one crazy nut job with a bomb and a need to get some air time. If you believe otherwise, you are deeply out of touch with reality.
or a new niche of Up Skirts.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Looking at the rather skimpy article, it doesnt appear to be a hologram, any more then the special effects were in the movie it references.
holograms *require* interferrence patterns.. i dont see that happening with this product.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I'll have to trash my business plan for a security firm that specializes in "Politics on Ice" shows.
So all those cameras are just there for the normal surveillance and not to actually compare faces to pictures of bad-guys.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Require everyone to eat a strip of bacon before they're allowed in
I imagine that everyone walking into the Super Bowl realizes that they are going to be on a camera, and I imagine that a super majority of them are glad that police, cameras, and all other manner of monitoring devices are trying to pick through the crowd to find the one crazy nut job with a bomb
Then they're idiots, because that one crazy nut job with the bomb would be hiding in plain sight with a bomb in his jacket and looking indistinguishable to a camera because it's January. And even if someone finds him or stops him to look under his jacket, no matter where he goes, he's always surrounded by dozens of people. When the cop puts his hand on him, they're all gone.
If you haven't caught him by the time he gets to the building, you lose.
Obviously I'm not discouraging security, 'cause you need that there anyway, but if anyone feels that the security presence has any hope of actually saving a life, they're just being silly.
You bring up a good point. When they say peer under, I suspect they mean look straight through as if laying on the ground twenty feet away. Now, that's not exciting.
You are not going to see the undercarriage of a car, or of a skirt-donning femme. As Stevie Wonder put it, you can't turn nothing into something... Without some vantage point from a camera actually on the ground looking up, you can infer nothing and cannot create the image of the underside of the target.
This sounds like a severe case of security theater (or budding fascism depending on how you see it).
Nahh, just reading too much Tom Clancy
Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
But there will be more wealthy people at the super bowl than at that basketball game or mall. Who else pays those ticket prices?
A cost/benefit analysis was done and we found that this project is very wortwhile (to us)!
James Fischbach,
CEO of Intrepid Defense & Security Systems
"When an event is designated a National Special Security Event, the Secret Service assumes its mandated role as the lead agency for the design and implementation of the operational security plan."
details here
I believe this rote is called Virtual Holography.
I dont accept cameras in banks, kmart, walmart, on the interstate, or any other place. Period.
Which is why I don't patronize any of those places. And I sure as heck am not going to the superbowl.
Sir, uh, we need $150,000 for a holographic 3D TV to watch the Superbowl on. For uh, national security.
Oh yeah, and... we need $1,000 for a large order of chicken wings. Those bad guys might try to poison those. We want to be the first to know.
And some beer. No reason for that one, just thought I'd ask.
--
A security presence DOES have an effect on saving lives. If they just threw the doors open I would bet money some idiot with a bomb (domestic or foriegn) would go blow something up. Bomb sniffing dogs, security check points, bag searchers, all of these things absolutely decrease the risk of a bomb going off.
As to cameras, they serve two roles. First, they do serve as an extra set of eyes. If someone drops a bag and a camera spots a bag just sitting there, they can send security over to investigate.
Tell me again... why do taxpayer dollars have to pay for security at this game? Let the NFL pay for their own damn security. Or is the NFL technically a "foreign country"?
To the extent that the government shouldn't be involved in doing special favors for various private interests, I agree with you. However, the job of Homeland Security isn't just to protect public buildings (the White House, Capitol, etc.); it's to protect the *public*, no matter where the public is. The police provide security for political party conventions, for example, because some of the public is there, and they are definitely a target. The federal government provides security at airports because a lot of the public flies, even though everyone flies on private airlines. Today, the government provides security for lots of skyscrapers in cities, even though most of them house private, corporate offices (the World Trade Center did).
The government will provide security, at least in theory (and the public should make sure it happens in practice), to whoever needs it, whether it's the NFL or anyone else. If you decide to have a large gathering of people that should be considered a terrorist target, Homeland Security is supposed to be there to protect you, even though your gathering may not be a public function, because A) terrorists do not only want to attack government targets (as 9/11 demonstrated) and B) it is good for society if large gatherings of people can happen without being completely vulnerable to attack.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.
There is a real danger for people watching this, both in the dome as on TV. People will be dying from boredom.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I'm sure the security team did not buy it. Instead this Press release was given out, using the NFL and Superbowl as some sort of legitimizing example of in the field use.
I'm almost certain that it is sitting there, turned off... with 3 beers sitting on it.
> You think if the average person knew that they were using hologram like TVs to
> moniter the Super Bowl they would reject its use? That is down right silly.
You're taking my comment too literally.
I'm thinking of centralised, computerized State survillience in general and the lack of meaningful public discourse caused by television.
The analogy should read: "Why should police, technology, and the media focus on the safety of one stadium(say 25k+ people) versus another of the odd 100-1000's of other stadium(25k+ people)? " It seems like the superbowl is given a lot more public attention than other another 25k grouping of people. Could this be just a way to guarantee that the football game goes as planned-so all television commercial slots will be seen as planned. Imagine the horror of a scare/bomb going off and then losing all the commercial spots. There is a lot of money riding on those commercials. I might be crazy, but it can *almost* see there viewpoint. Do you think any of this 'works'?
Your description of the Superbowl as a 'target' belies the extent to which you have swallowed hook line and sinker the philosophy of defensive fear. If "terrorists" want to do the Superbowl then they will do the Superbowl, and it will happen by some hideously clever, unexpected and audacious method that no amount of vigillance could have prevented. You and I and every other intelligent man and woman alive know this to be a truth.
Your description of the Superbowl as a 'target' belies the extent to which you have swallowed hook line and sinker the philosophy of defensive fear. If "terrorists" want to do the Superbowl then they will do the Superbowl, and it will happen by some hideously clever, unexpected and audacious method that no amount of vigillance could have prevented. You and I and every other intelligent man and woman alive know this to be a truth.
This same argument could be used to point to all policing as being worthless. Why bother having police when you and I both know to be truth that the criminals will find some way to avoid the police?
It is a bullshit argument.
There is a will out there by someone to blow something up in the Super Bowl. If you think your average Iraq insurgent who is more then willing to blow himself up in a crowd of Iraqi Shiites praying in a Mosque wouldn't think twice about blowing himself up in the middle of the Super Bowl, you are delusional. This isn't paranoia, this is a simple reality. There are those out there that would inflict harm upon US civilians (rightly or wrongly) if they had the means. The point is that they don't have the means. Simply crossing from Iraq to the US undetected with explosives enough to do damage puts this well out of the capacity of most insurgents. If there was no security set up to prevent such things, they would simply send a crate of explosives, jump in an air plane, and fly over. It isn't good morality that keeps these people from doing so. They just simply don't have the means to cross between countries armed without raising red flags.
In order to prevent such attacks, you need to make the means of attacking as difficult as possible. Certainly you can't stop everything, but you can set the bar so high as to turn off all but the most dedicated and will organized. The means of making such an attack improbable starts at monitering the people and material that enter the nation. The final obstacle of course is Super Bowl security.
Now, that isn't to say that there is NO means of attack, simply that the means of attack has been made exponentially harder. Instead of shipping over explosive via freight and people via airplane, loading everyone up with a suicide vest, and simply walking in, they need to devise an increasingly more complex and risky plan. They need to some how illicitly get people and materials into the nation. Once inside the nation, they need to find a method of delivery to get it past security. At each barrier erected, they need to take more extreme actions to achieve their ends. In this case, they probably would not ship explosives in as the barrier to shipping in explosives is too high, to traceable, and too risky. They might try and make a homemade bomb. For that they would need to ship in a bomb expert and potentially raise red flags buying materials. They would then need a delivery method. Simply walking in is a near impossibility, especially if they want live television coverage. They might instead opt to rent a light plain to deliver the explosives. In doing this they need to forge identities, learn to fly, load the explosives, take off without arousing suspicion, and enter restricted air space. Finally, they need to devise some method of detonation that might or might not work. Further, this attack would be less effective because of the limited amount of explosives they could deliver. If they were simply allowed to ship people from wherever they wanted and enter into the stadium as they pleased, they could merrily bring over dozens of armed people.
This is something I haven't been able to confirm myself, but I know someone who said among the best times to do something criminal would be during the Superbowl, outside the Superbowl. Eye witnesses at a minimum as so many is inside/there watching, and possibly even police forces being somewhat fewer, especially in the vicinity.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Did anyone else other than myself first read the title as "Hooligans Help Protect Super Bowl"? I could see DHS temporarily importing some hard core football fans from the U.K. to handle security. At the least sign of trouble, they would be all over the terrorists with beer bottles, hot dogs, stadium seating, and whatever else they could use as improvised weapons.
...
Just an idea
Right, because TV never takes a cue from reality, and fact and fiction never overlap or coincide. It's impossible that the largest annually televised event in the world would be a target, because it's so obvious. We should be securing pee wee league games instead.
Also, as I said in another post, it's doubtful the technology was developed exclusively for the Super Bowl, but rather it's a publicity opportunity for the companies/government to showcase new technology. Whether it's effective or not is another thing.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
And of course.... a tank big enough for the two friggin' sharks.
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
I believe me I'd rather NOT be here. It's not a pretty place, I'm 6000 miles away from everything and everyone I love, and I've been within blast range of indirect fire on more than one occasion. Not cool. There is, however, a mission that needs to be completed and I'm going to do my job until my duties are over. Overall though, I feel we're doing the right things...just perhaps we do them in the wrong way. The start of the war in Iraq had it's reasons but we should've been out of here a long time ago.
I am an open minded person and I do not start fights - I just finish them when I have to. It's not like we go around just pulling the trigger at a whim, there's a little thing called Rules Of Engagement we have to follow. The people who get killed by Americans are either considered hostiles (clearly defined in RoE) or very unfortunate collateral damage.
Violence is not always the answer, but sometimes it is the only answer your adversaries will understand. How do you explain to a Jihadist who is willing to kill himself, because he believes unshakably that he will go to paradise, not to fight against you? "Oh we're sorry, we won't be a big mean antagonist anymore." ? You say that, he levels his AK-47 at your face, and you tell me...what is YOUR course of action? I agree with your point being anti-war when there is no need for war - but I will defend my family and friends tooth and nail. Thou Shalt Not Murder.
One reason to hate us, we're the richest and we're the superpower. People hate the popular. Jealousy rears its ugly head. Sure America has its flaws, there is no question there.
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
Peering under cars from cameras that are above head level, and presumably much higher up than that? I must say, that is some pretty impressive technology there.
Funny how the article linked says NOTHING AT ALL about peering under cars. So, is it a sensationalist submitted headline? Something the editor made up and added? A line from a different article? What?
Huh? There are plenty of examples of terrorists striking civilian targets; just last year, for example, you had the attack on the Sharm el-Sheik resort in Egypt. In 2002 there were also some notable attacks in Bali and Kenya, also at civilian resorts, etc.
"3D holographic imaging! Take our word for it: it looks cool!"
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Do I sell a whole new niche of 3D Up Skirts.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Hmm looks like my first comment was posted earlier even though Slashdot said there was an error.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Depth tube? How long does that take to warm up?
It appears Ockham lost his razor and grew a beard.
J-Lo takes 3 shares...
"Gratuitous complexity is akin to chaos" - True Vox
How about selling your computer and giving the money to charity? You don't really _need_ it to survive, not like the food all those poor Eithiopian kids don't have. Sure, if we all lived like Spartans and correctly appropriated resources, we could solve all the problems in the world. But no one is about to do that. Or, since everyone cares so much about money, save yourself the approximately $100000 it cost to raise a kid by not having them and give half to charity. Couple of bucks in condoms for a $50k return on inverstment, now that's money well spent. At the very least ADOPT one instead of ADDING TO THE PROBLEM. Ah, if only - outlaw babies and allow only adoptions from the third world! Or genetically engineer a biological weapon that makes people sterile instead of killing them, then release it evenly (though not too much) throughout the world - perhaps as an STD? What could be more fair and humane, but still effective? Certainly not any current population control methods.
The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it. - William Gibson
There were quite a few dodgy referee decisions in that game. I can't believe they gave Pittsburgh that first touchdown. The ball never even touched the line. And no, I'm not a Seattle fan, I'm not even from the States.
I searched around and came up with nothing useful. Can someone explain what a "Depth Tube" is and how it works? Call me skeptical, but a CRT capable of displaying 3D images without glasses sounds very novel to me.
This company (LifeVision) does not seem to have an obvious web presence, either.
Something seems pretty fishy here...
I have had a little experience and agree with you and with the parent.
Let me explain.
I had a house that seemed to be a burglar magnet. It had lots of windows and outbuildings and was on a couple of acres, and there were open fields across the road and behind me, and on one side there was a church (on the corner). So there was relatively little chance any neighbors would see and report suspicious activity. Anyway, first most of the easily pawned tools and equipment was stolen out of the garage, and the back door into the house was busted, but nothing stolen from inside. Later a window frame and all was pried off the house, still there was not much worth stealing.
I did get paranoid and considered alarm systems, survelliance, traps, beefing up all the doors and windows, etc. I did put some lights and a stereo on timers, and did make sure that the easiest ways in had locks and latches as much as possible. I had a couple of girls living with me at the time and they were somewhat scared that someone would break in while they were there and rape or kidnap them. I even missed some work trying to mix up the pattern of visible vehicles in the driveway.
Realizing that the over reaction to the perceived threat was becoming worse than the actual risk I did go two weeks without locking the front door when I was at work. In my mind I had to imagine that the cost of replacing another door and frame was more than the value of anything left to steal. That two weeks was weird, but had the desired effect on me to get back into a more realistic mode of thinking, keeping me from getting into a pathologically paranoid pattern of behavior. End result there was no more burglaries, the burglars were either never coming back anyway, or came back without damaging or stealing anything.
Another time I was working on a ragtop convertible for a friend of my mother. The guy that owned it was afraid someone would steal his radio and locked the doors, but that only resulted in the top being cut adding to the cost of replacing the radio. While I was working on it I had the radio out anyway, but left a couple of old junk 8-track tape players sitting inside, first one, then another when the first one disappeared. Nothing else was stolen, and no need to replace the top.
Anyway, when analyzing the utility of a response to a percieved threat, one needs to rationally determine whether the obvious reaction, has any real benefit. Often enough what seems like the most apparent solution can easily become part of the problem.
One more example that I have heard of, but not from personal experience. Wireless cameras. You know, the one X10 promotes, and similar, also baby monitors. Seems like if you can monitor the hallway, side of the house, other rooms, without getting up that you might somehow be more secure by being aware of something you ordinarily would not be able to see, right? No! Apparently there are lots of burglars that use portable receivers, and when they pick up a signal from one of those cameras they get first of all the information that here lives someone with something worth protecting. Second, they get at the least a camera to steal and take to the pawnshop. Third, they can monitor whether any one is home. And best of all, they know that if you have money to waste on cameras, then you probably have lots of other stuff that they can steal.
Common sense often is only just common usually, and rarely is it really sensible.
Pundits (or trolls) like that are forgetting something simpler:
As a cop, you don't want your last job to be the guy who didn't notice
someone committing an act of mayhem at an event on your watch. Something like that will always be the last item on your resume.
Never mind "Homeland Security" or "Patriotism." These guys are operating at a historically unprecedented level of "Cover Your Own Ass."
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
A quick search on google for "lifevision3d" comes up with http://www.intrepiddefense.com./ There's even a picture: http://www.intrepiddefense.com/index_files/Page392 .html
Of course the picture doesn't show anything interesting except a box labled "Patent Pending U.S. Government Security Prototype"
The funniest thing is the url. Page392.html? Come on...don't tell me with all the money they're spending on this they have someone making a site in Microsoft Publisher. *view source* wow...
Blog: orange haired boy
Because the WTC was OBVIOUSLY military/government/industrial. Oh yes. You'll probably try to say that you consider it "industrial," but that's not technically correct. A better way to categorize the companies located there would be "commercial." You see, "industrial" would refer to companies that provide infrastructure (Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, etc.) for the military and the government. However, from what I understand, the World Trade Center housed mostly financial institutions that in and of themselves were not causing great harm to the world at large, and have no real link to the government or military. Terrorists DO target civilians. They do it to cause terror (funny how that works, eh?).
So bombing military/government/industrial targets would turn public opinion their way? Hell, from what I've seen in other comments here, bombing a football game would turn (geek) public opinion towards them. That's neither here nor there, however. As I mentioned above, terrorists work by inciting terror. What do you think would happen if the millions of people worldwide who were watching this "stupid football game" suddenly saw the thousands of people in the stadium get blown sky high? I'm thinking there'd be more than a few terrorized souls out there... Sound like something that terrorists would like? If it doesn't, you're not paying attention.
Being formally at war would require them to be formally recognized as a nation/state. This is not the case. We are not "formally" at war until Osama declares himself the Grand High Poobah of Terrorstan in Exile and the U.S. acknowledges Terrorstan as a legitimate nation. Since the chances of this happening are nigh unto zero, we cannot claim that we are "formally at war." As author Gore Vidal put it (and I'm paraphrasing here, as I'm quoting from memory off of a comment made on the History Channel's recent special on Abraham Lincoln): "The war on terror is a metaphor. It's like saying you're waging a war on dandruff."
Also (and more importantly), note that we were not at war (formally or otherwise) at the time of the 9/11 attacks.
So that's why they attacked us? Because we invaded them, bombed them, etc? It's funny, but I don't recall that happening until after 9/11. Yes, I'll grant you that no football team has done any of that and our military/government has. I'm not defending the actions taken on our behalf, but the fact that the football teams in question are innocent has no bearing on whether or not the game gets attacked. The fact that thousands upon thousands of Americans are all gathered in one spot is key. And on top of that, millions more people are focused directly on that one spot. I'm sure the janitors in the WTC never invaded/bombed/exploited the terrorists, either, but the terrorists killed them right alongside everyone else. Think about it.
WTF? (Score: -1, Offtopic)
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." -- Groucho Marx
I read the article and could only see pictures when I clicked one of the links referred in the article.
I'm disappointed to see that an article talking about some cool "viewing" device has no pictures of such device. The one of Chuck Close showed in the 2nd link was only a 8 1/2 x 11 picture of him (which was at the SF MoMa until recently) and does not portrait the large screen viewing devices mentioned in the article.
They would actually be called saboteurs if they only attacked military targets and infrastructure, without casualties being the primary target.
Or that's what they would have been called in more rational times, now maybe they wouldn't because the word doesn't end in 'ist', therefore doesn't fit the requirement to be an western government and mass media approved bogey man.
Anarchist, communist, socialist, pacifist, terrorist, sabotist, hmm doesnt quite work.
You're not thinking far enough outside of the (eye) box. The interference pattern in the hologram isn't of the images being presented. The hologram just determines which image reaches which eye.
0 2_Paper_Final.pdf which describes the basic process.
;)
See page 9-10 of: http://www.med-smart.org/publications2003/ITEC_20
Having worked for this company, I can attest to the fact that the technology does work. Gaylord Moss was their holographer when I was there.
There really is a hologram involved. No lasers are mentioned, because no lasers are needed in this configuration.
However, having left the company along with all of the technical personnel on the project at the time after they didn't pay me, I can also attest to the fact that they probably aren't going anywhere fast.
I at least got to get it set up to play Quake 3 before I left.
This is not a troll.
Sanity is a sandbox. I prefer the swings.
The parent poster may be a demented freak, but then again, the Israeli MFA site seems to support his facts:
Menachem Begin was the commander of the Etzel (his relation to the bombing incident is on paragraph 3), and according to the Etzel museum, responsible to the King David hotel bombingSmall issue with these viewpoints..."teh terrorists" aren't one globally aligned and centrally controlled force. Neither you or the parent can make such blanket statements about what they will target. Some groups might target military targets, some might go for ecconomic or infrastructure. Others go for nightclubs full of "infidels" or what have you.
Banding them together like this is the creation of a force designed to scare and cajole you into being a good little citizen, kind-of like a modern edition of Duck & Cover. Be afraid and do what you are told! Or the terrorists will get ya!!
I'm purely arguing about the definition. It does not matter whether it works or not, it only matters whether an interference pattern is created. Since one is not, therefore it's not a hologram by definition. It can still work using a different method :)
More to the point, I don't recall the Birmingham Six being terrorists.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
As I mentioned above, terrorists work by inciting terror.
Gandi was once considered a terrorist. Several countries view the BBC news network as a terrorist organization. "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" - Regan. It's just a word.
So we pour millions of dollars in taxpayer funded security when the terrorists might as well go to the basketball game next door (or a mall) to do their dirty work. Not only is it easier but we end up buying useless 3D remote cameras to look under cars. I swear the government has been watching too much TV about govt. super agents.
Exactly. It is far easier for the administration to do the gee-whiz technology stuff than to do the really hard stuff required to fix the problem at the root. Because terrorists could attack literally anywhere it is virtually impossible to defend against determined attackers. Rather than spending billions on 3D cameras, electronic data mining and domestic surveillance, which only give us a false sense of security, it would be much better to focus our resources on figuring our exactly why these extremists are being spawned in certain cultures in the first place, and then fixing THAT problem.
America used to be incredibly ignorant and insensitive to Muslim religion (such as when we named military systems "Crusaders"). We know that there was no religious intent in those names, but many Muslims did not. Of course there are some policies we cannot and should not change, but there are also many policies which don't make one bit of diffrence to us that could be changed to improve the world's perception of America. There are even policy changes (no torture or rendition) that would be MORE in line with our American ideals AND reduce the creation of new terrorists. Changing bad policy is the way to stop terrorist attacks, not 3D cameras and predator drones. Unfortunately that takes a competent administration that actaully thinks about issues rather than just calling out the military, torturing suspects, and screaming "Security" every thirty seconds.
I'm not soft on terrorists - hunt them down, try them in courts and put a bullet in their heads. Good riddance. But we also have to do whatever it takes to prevent more of them being created. If your basement is flooding, the first thing to do is turn off the water - not buy a million dollar 3D camera to spot the leaks.
I bet i give more then the average person. And i do live a spartan life, as much as is practical in the 21st century and still provide an income to provide for my family, with adopted children.
When was the last time you donated blood, plasma.. ( and didnt take the $ in return ) or just time? I didnt see you out helping out after the last natural disaster, did I?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
With this new 3D technology, the incompetence really comes through with great clarity.
the problem is not how your acting via ROE .. the problem is that it never should have gotten this far.. and the fact that the leaders of the US are still pushing this course of action saddens me.. my grandfather gave his life for us (he didn't die in combat instead he was paralized testing quick fall cutes) i never got to see him walk.. he laid in a bed and slowly died.. i can't think of anything worse... and i belive in what he belived in .. this is a great country and well worth defending.. but that violence is the ultimate last resort... the US had to make an effort to send you guys over there we went out of our way to do it.. that seems like putting violence in front of every other option..
I feel that this whole mess is short sighted. And i feel sad that it seems that you guys are dieing for the crusade of one man.. that isn't how the US was intended to be..
I can only hope that the people serving how will realize that this is wrong and whill remember and reflect that once they move up the ranks..
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
I still don't understand how this is going to improve security.
/Mad
Being able to see under cars... why don't they just use the old technique of "extended reflective imaging"? Ie a mirror on a stick.
Also, at which point do these fake holograms help spot the the guy with a beard and a rather large jacket, or the two blokes with rucksacks?
Sounds like a waste of money to me. Would have been better to spend the 100's of thusnads of dollars on more Icams, yup, that;s right, people walking around the stadium looking with their own eyes.
And btw, when is the Superbowl. Must be soon as there is an awful lot of adverts on tv about it.
Did they catch anybody?
m
The only good thing about the Super Bowl is the commercials.
And you can download them from this site, too.
...the term Stereogram is so 19th century... and less likely to be understood as "3D pictures" by anyone under 60.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
An interference pattern is present and utilized, just not changed.
There is a nice little screen of good old silver halide with an interference pattern on it sitting in front of the user.
Sanity is a sandbox. I prefer the swings.
... Joe Lunatic with his suitcase dirty bomb will blow himself and 100 people up, contaminating the entire city while Homeland Security jerks off with its new 3D scanner at the Superbowl.. thus proving that all this heightened 'security' is a joke.
Seriously, what's the real likelihood that any terrorist will now try to ram a commercial airliner into a skyscraper? Pretty well zero. It's been done, and is just too obvious in hindsight. Terrorists would just be stupid to actually focus on the Superbowl, when it's obviously got such tight security. Makes for a great distraction, though, while they focus on some other highly-populated target. Sigh.
ERROR 144 - REBOOT ?
Junkie:Do you wanna buy some death tubes?
Jedi master: You don't want to sell me death tubes.
Junkie: I don't want to sell you death tubes.
Jedi master: You want to go home and rethink your life.
Junkie: I want to go home and rethink my life.
Oh... you mean depth tubes....
I'm sorry, I wasn't actually trying to make a blanket statement about what any terrorists will and won't target. I was merely trying to respond to the parent's assertion that terrorists do not strike civilian targets, and using a few concrete of examples where terrorists have in fact done so. I didn't think that in doing so I was actually lumping together all terrorists together (I certainly don't think I said anything to imply that I thought they were one globally aligned and centrally controlled force). I'm really not sure what there was about my post that warranted the condesending tone of your reply (if you actually knew more about me, you would know that I am actually pretty liberal and am not "scared into being a good little citizen").
The website is hokey and loaded with marketing platitudes - and that's it. I think something is really fishy here. I don't believe this is even a real product - and I'm questioning whether or not it was used at the superbowl _at all_ and whether someone just fabricated all of this for the press.
Why don't people get more skeptical about this stuff? Doesn't it seem weird to people that people have tried to make 3D displays that don't require glasses for ages, and the best people have come up with is lenticular lenses over a flat LCD screen? How could some company come out of nowhere with little fanfare and make a 3D CRT? Why would this type of company even deserve any press on slashdot, let alone the newswires of the world, without some PROOF of this concept?
I certainly hope not, considering who the halftime show is!
How disturbing...