The parent is very correct. I remember reading an article about this technology a few years ago. Back then it was referred to as using 'soft x-rays' and not 'T-rays'. The image in the above link posted I would say has almost certainly been deliberately blurred. The images I saw a few years back were a hell of a lot clearer and more defined. The whole body was visible including the genitalia clearly shown. When the article states that the product can see weapons underneath clothing but will not reveal body details what the hell do they think will happen? Some sort of blurry patch to be automatically generated around a woman's breasts? The resolution of any such image is limited only by the wavelength of the radiation used. And anything in the terahertz region is able to show minute details on the scale of millimetres if desired. Perhaps the ThruVision contains software to automatically blur the image so as to preserve privacy. But I wouldn't trust it. Take a look here for a better example of what I'm talking about.
http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/20080309/camera-sees-through-clothes/
That to me, is not 'preserving ones privacy'. Like the parent states. What if that was your teenage daughter, your wife or your child. This stuff makes me sick.
I was always curious why futurists and cyborg fanboys get RFID chips implanted underneath their skin. What's wrong with just wearing one on a ring or perhaps a chain around your neck? Maybe both for multiple redundancy. Does it really happen THAT often you go to the pub for a few pints and comeback so drunk you've lost all your possessions? Does that slim probability warrant tagging yourself like cattle?
No kidding, try get a laptop these days without Vista already installed. The Dell XPS is a good example. Like buying a new car, its a mandatory extra. Want to boot linux? Still have to buy Vista anyway, yay!
Slashdot Mirror
He goes head-to-head against the world champion of Kung-fu Go.
The parent is very correct. I remember reading an article about this technology a few years ago. Back then it was referred to as using 'soft x-rays' and not 'T-rays'. The image in the above link posted I would say has almost certainly been deliberately blurred. The images I saw a few years back were a hell of a lot clearer and more defined. The whole body was visible including the genitalia clearly shown. When the article states that the product can see weapons underneath clothing but will not reveal body details what the hell do they think will happen? Some sort of blurry patch to be automatically generated around a woman's breasts? The resolution of any such image is limited only by the wavelength of the radiation used. And anything in the terahertz region is able to show minute details on the scale of millimetres if desired. Perhaps the ThruVision contains software to automatically blur the image so as to preserve privacy. But I wouldn't trust it. Take a look here for a better example of what I'm talking about. http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/20080309/camera-sees-through-clothes/ That to me, is not 'preserving ones privacy'. Like the parent states. What if that was your teenage daughter, your wife or your child. This stuff makes me sick.
I was always curious why futurists and cyborg fanboys get RFID chips implanted underneath their skin. What's wrong with just wearing one on a ring or perhaps a chain around your neck? Maybe both for multiple redundancy. Does it really happen THAT often you go to the pub for a few pints and comeback so drunk you've lost all your possessions? Does that slim probability warrant tagging yourself like cattle?
Now I can finally string one across a lane of traffic. Preferably at 4WD hight. I've been waiting a long time for shigawire.
Hes cracking dude.
No kidding, try get a laptop these days without Vista already installed. The Dell XPS is a good example. Like buying a new car, its a mandatory extra. Want to boot linux? Still have to buy Vista anyway, yay!