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.
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
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.
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 ----
Require everyone to eat a strip of bacon before they're allowed in
I am a holographic engineer.
This is not a hologram because it is not creating an interference pattern. No phase information is stored.
To make a real hologram, you do need a monochromatic light source. Before lasers they used various lamps (mercury lamp etc) that illuminate at specific wavelengths. This does kinda work, but has a very short coherence length so is bad for making analogue holograms (a hologram of an actual object). Quite possibly a lamp could be used for copying holograms or for digital holography.
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).
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
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.
--
Persumably anything not equipped to do "holograms" can just use one camera feed or the other or both. That, of course, assumes that we are allowed to see the footage from the security tapes if there's an attack. Really the news'll prolly be limited to whatever cell phone cameras get, unless they catch it on their cameras.
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.
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.
Here we go. Another 3D trick, probably stereo, wrongly labeled as hologram. Fischbach who is quoted, should know what holograms are. Several years ago he was heading the ridiculously named "American Propylaea" and promising real time holograms. Looks like he's resurfaced! Please, do not call any 3D trick a hologram.
I am a holographic engineer.
Awesome! Just like the holographic doctor from Voyager.
Do you work if you get removed from engineering?
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
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.
The Super Bowl gets extra protection for the same reason why the Statue of Liberty gets more protection then the local diner. A suicide bomber probably could kill more people at the local diner when it is packed, but the Statue of Liberty is a far more likely target.
You can't stop all attacks everywhere. You can make the most likely targets more of a pain in the ass to hit. The Super Bowl is a big obvious target. It is an iconic American event. It has nothing to do with the advertising space and everything to do with how many eyes are watching. If you wanted to get the attention of the American people, blowing up something during the live airing the Super Bowl is a damn good place to start.
Terrorist are not after body count. Terrorist are after coverage and impact. Terrorist probably could have killed more people if they had simply plowed airplanes into the largest New York apartment complex at night time when everyone was at home. Instead, they went after symbolic targets; the twin towers, the Pentagon, and the Whitehouse. Body count was a side effect. Symbolism was what they were really aiming for.
So yes, blowing up during any other random sporting event will probably net you roughly the same body count. However, taking out the Holy Grail of American sporting events, like nailing the Pentagon, Twin Towers, or White House, is far more shocking and symbolic. The Super Bowl is a likely target that is probably worth the extra security. All the other sports events on the other hand are much less likely targets and thus less worthy of spending the same amount of time an effort defending.
"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.
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.
Do you work if you get removed from engineering?
Well, if you take the engineering out of the engineer, what's left?
A manager!
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.
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
The only good thing about the Super Bowl is the commercials.
And you can download them from this site, too.