Back when the term "hacker" was first used to refer to people doing illegal activities as well as legal ones (yes, the meaning is fully agnostic, crackers can be hackers too), "cracker" only referred to a white male living in a trailer park in the southern US. It was later "retroactively defined" because "hacker" was getting a bad rap (from movies like Hackers).
My browser runs as a non-privileged user on a secure Unix system. The process itself doesn't have write permission on any executable file, not even itself.
That user is != to my actual user, so it won't even get to my docs or other information. It'll only affect my browser, which can write nowhere but it's own home directory. If something like that happened, restarting my browser and killing any process it might have spawn would be enough.
I presume you also do this with your torrent client, IM client, email client, etc? As well as having Adobe Reader under its own account?
I tried doing this for a while... having a separate user for each process that accessed the internet, and for each one that was a major exploit target. However, it became too much of a pain, as there was no process integration, and tossing stuff into the shared bin to transfer files between parts of the filesystem proved to be too annoying -- so I went back to a single userland and an AV solution, which has been much less annoying in the long run.
"Time machine had backed up a virus, so Sophos killed the entire Time machine backup image to get rid of it."
Not quite what happened, according to the article.
Time machine had backed up a virus, so Sophos blocked the user from meddling with it and stated it could not automatically remove the virus. The user then attempted to work around both Sophos and Time machine and discovered that not only did he remove the virus, he corrupted his TM plist, which meant that it lost the record of what files belonged in what snapshot. As a result, during the next backup, the plist was created from scratch, Time Machine wiped out all files not in the current backup (as they were dead weight, not belonging to any snapshot), and voila... empty TM.
You know what? Harper only represents two groups: 1) the members of his riding 2) the members of his caucus
Canada isn't the US -- we don't elect the Prime Minister; the other Ministers do. Until they elect him, he only represents his local riding.
What this means though, is that if enough elected representatives feel he has to go, they can get rid of him. So, if enough Canadians contact their representatives letting them know that this is the will of the people, they'll get rid of him and elect someone else to lead the cause....
In answer to your first question... no. I've messed up my kernel/kernel config and had to boot as far as GRUB numerous times, but I've only had to boot through the entire daemon loading process twice in a row. After it gets that far, the kernel is generally stable and I just have to restart daemons to fix the rest.
Rebooting to fix userland issues should only be a Windows headache.
Especially since it doesn't take much to port Mac software to Linux -- just write your software to run under GNUStep, and it'll easily compile for MacOS X OR Linux/GNUStep. Of course, you can't have XCode-specific dependencies like CoreImage, but hey... there's always libSDL.
The most interesting part of this is that I doubt Apple really cares... imagine if this were the same case with Windows and Linux.
A[n] art studio local to me moved to 100% windows systems because Photoshop couldn't even do 64bit on OS X, and they really needed the extra memory requirements. I know that BBC 1, 2 of the territorial television stations here use Windows systems almost exclusively for workstations.
So, what I am really asking is, can I have a source for this statement you made? Because it doesn't seem to be dominating the areas where Macs stereotypically [excel].
I agree 100% -- plus, there's a HUGE corporate library of custom scripts and apps that are win32-only -- they run under VMF/Parallels, but why bother?
What does OS X do that Windows 7 can't, which makes it so superior?
Interesting comparison -- compare Windows 7 BETA to OS X which came out in... 1999. Ten years ago. I agree -- about the only difference superiority-wise is that Windows 7 won't install on ten-year-old hardware, let alone the fourteen-year-old hardware that OS X was able to run on. Since then, however, Apple has spent ten years working on six major revisions of its OS -- and good luck comparing Windows 7 to OS X 10.6, which hasn't been released yet, but will likely still be released before Windows 7. It isn't any one big thing that makes OS X superior -- it's all the little things that have been fine-tuned over time to work together.
Of course, I still think that compared to MacOS 8, OS X is inferior in some ways, including UI issues, lack of continuity, lack of exposure through UI tools of some powerful underpinnings, etc.
Tranditionally, OS X has had in usability what Windows has had in sell-points. This isn't to diss Windows though, the OS, if used correctly, is GREAT -- there are thousands of features that, unfortunately, can't be used as intended as the third party software available doesn't work correctly with them. If it did, Windows could be a really nice (and way more secure) operating system.
In my view, XP = OS X 10.0; Vista = OS X 10.2 (except that there's a resource drain instead of an improvement), and Windows 7 = OS X 10.4. By the time it comes out, however, Apple will already be on OS X 10.6, two major releases ahead, using a development pattern that improves upon the previous release instead of starting from scratch or inheriting all the foibles of what came before.
Apple realized in 1999 that to do things right, it had to allow itself to break third party software with major releases -- this has, surprisingly, worked out very well, not only for Apple, but for the TPA ecosystem (forced upgrades of software is a GOOD thing when you're selling it). Apple has traditionally found the balance of backwards-compatibility and forward-looking acumen that has allowed me to always run the (MacOS) software I've wanted to, while not failing to OS bloat (notwithstanding MacOS 9).
Seriously in case nobody noticed they Represent the "RECORDING INDUSTRY". Not you, not me, not the artists.
Musicians, their families, friends and fans (of the musicians, not their music) want them to earn something. These days it seems nobody else really cares, as they don't think they'll be earning enough to make a difference anyway.
Remember though, they (the RIAA) pay the artists much more than those pirating (where last time I checked the artists gets 0). So in some ways the RIAA way is protecting themselves, they overstep, but seriously look what they're up against.
I'm seriously looking: they appear to be up against people who want a vibrant culture without dealing with a bunch of middlemen, who have figured out that they have extremely low-cost, high-bandwidth access to cultural information via the internet. As a comparison: I could set up an info-booth where I sell information to people about where the best coffee shops are, where bus stops are, where you can stand to see a rainbow, and also sell quotes, quips, and famous sayings. As soon as people discover that they can use some more convenient way to share this information with each other, it doesn't really matter if the coffee shops are getting kickbacks every time I make a referral (or vice versa) -- culture has routed around a choke point in the sharing of cultural information (my info booth). My booth still has a legitimate place in the landscape, as my information is likely to be accurate, timely, and persistent, but that gives me no excuse to stoop to underhanded tactics to try and corner the market on the information I attempt to distribute. I am not a cultural gatekeeper; I'm one of many cultural mediators.
As someone who knows 2 professional musicians, publicity is good but at some point you need to pay the bills. A lot of smaller bands give away music if you just take the time to visit their sites.
As someone who knows many professional musicians, composers, studio managers and others, and also knows many, many, more casual musicians, composers and garage studio operators, selling the information is not a way to pay the bills; selling icons that act as cultural signposts pays the bills. These icons are generally live venue performance tickets, merchandise, and recordings. Notice that I said recordings, and not the right to perform a recording on a certain piece of equipment in specific conditions.
Music and acting are (or should be) such an intrinsic part of our society that everyone feels comfortable participating, not just consuming. The current Recording Industry tactics are turning something that was once part of who we all were into something that is produced by one strata of society and consumed by the rest -- this isn't healthy for the producers or the consumers.
Well, that's enough of a rant for now. I'll leave it to others to make the counter-points.
This is something someone has created in hopes that others will enjoy it and at the artists discretion would like to be compensated for that enjoyment.
I have lots of hopes. That doesn't change much. Our culture is based on shared knowledge. Entertainment is part of that. Storytelling is very important to human beings.
You can take this further too... Am I responsible for the content of all banner ads cached on my computer? I downloaded them, didn't I? I have them on my computer because I chose to look at a site that chose to have those banner ads.
(note: this is hypothetical, as I haven't seen a banner ad in years)
The site does not say "firefox may not be secure" they're saying "firefox poses a security risk". One of them is a statement of fact that they do nothing to back up, the other one is an opinion which may or may not be valid, but is theirs to hold.
I wonder if what they meant was "our site looks like crap in firefox so please don't use it". Or maybe by "poses a security risk" they mean "the secret fields we spent hours figuring out how to hide behind other stuff refuses to stay hidden in firefox, so using it is a risk to OUR security".
...and I just automatically assumed they meant JOB security.
It's probably also about copyright. For example, Peter Pan is still under copyright in the UK, but not in the US. There are many books that have different legal restrictions on publication and use in different countries -- it's even more complex than with audio -- especially since books have been around for longer.
Funny thing... most of the stuff I see on Google is *already* blurry. The outline of the bill doesn't say anything about objects being made unrecognizable, just blurry.
Also funny that they want to blur government buildings but not power plants and other infrastructure. Maybe they should add homes of major celebrities to the list? What about Disneyland, Universal Studios, and other likely targets?
Aside from this, it was my understanding that military installations in the US were already unavailable in the higher resolution levels; it's not that they don't want you to know where the thing is, it's that they don't want the internal compound layout to be publicly available for review. I can actually understand this, and it would make sense for other non-public locations as well.
As everyone else has stated... making public places blurry on maps is just silly.
I've always used IRL as a descriptor, not referring to events at all:
"He works at the cable company IRL"
whereas AFK is more a description of location:
"Sorry, he's AFK and can't respond."
In the usage in question, I wouldn't use either, as there's no reason to indicate being away from a computer while asking someone about an event when you're already in meatspace. If they wanted to differentiate between cyberspace and meatspace, they could use those monikers, as both involve real life. Otherwise, if cyberspace is fictional life, the prosecution almost shot themselves in the foot... you can't be charged for something that's fictional, even if the intent wasn't fictional.
I wonder what the PIN Number was that they all used in those ATM Machines. Maybe they used a custom PCB Board to prototype the hack. Then they downloaded the plans onto a CD Disc. I'll bet they literally died after they got away with all the cash.
Anyways, I could care less.
well, a lot of people die literally who survive physically....;)
I preferred hibiki_r's, but I think it was too subtle for more mods:D
There is more to it than being "good". Certain types of jobs are affected more during recessions than others. Departments seen as cost centers will be the last to regain reqs.
IT jobs of many kinds, but especially infrastructure optimization/planning jobs tend to fall into this category; companies are currently trying to get the most out of what they already have, which means they're going to hire specialists who know their current systems inside out, not generalists and designers who could optimize their current system and save them money in the long run.
One other thing I've found is that there are currently more "good" people looking for jobs than there are jobs. This means that you have to be: 1: good at what you do 2: good at social networking 3: in the right place at the right time 4: good at selling yourself to potential clients/employers 5: able to specialize as well as work with existing IT investments
Also, to echo EvilIdler: I know for a fact that a lot of companies have continual ads going out from HR for new hires, just so they can keep tabs on what talent is currently out there; one major company I know of currently has hundreds of job opportunities posted, but is in the middle of a hiring freeze -- they might even bring you in for an interview, but there are no plans to hire anyone for the remainder of the year.
For some reason Lawyers in the USA are demonised as being party to the crimes the people they defend commit or as being evil Disney movie Grand Vizier types. People should remember that life is not always like the movies. If you want the rule of law and not mindless vigalante action then you need people to defend every case, no matter how horrible. Unfortunately there are a lot of people that really do think that Taliban style law enforcement is the way to go - there you don't need lawyers just a pile of stones to throw at people that don't fit in. We don't want to go towards a society where your neighbour can have you locked up forever just by calling you a child molester - we need to have someone that can stand up and prove that you are innocent.
I've never actually needed a lawyer - I'm probably getting half of this from "Rumpole of the Bailey".
Actually, I don't think it's the level-field representation that people demonize in the US -- it's the fact that there are a lot of high profile lawyers out there who "specialize" in promoting cases that are morally questionable (think ambulance chasers and some patent attorneys), and others that use immoral, unethical (and sometimes illegal) tactics to defend their clients. Lawyers who fight a clean fight for a bad client generally are given grudging respect -- of course, generally bad clients don't have any qualms hiring morally and ethically bankrupt legal representation.
You would still be cloaked only from one side, and visible from other directions. Also, you wouldn't be able to see in the direction that you are cloaked from; if all of the light from that particular angle is passing around you, rather than reaching you, you would see the reverse side of the cloaking device/field as black. So, this technique would work if you were trying to hide from a sensor or observer at a particular angle to you, but wouldn't be particularly effective against a web of sensors that are sharing their results.
So what they need to do is create a holographic array of emitters that cover a large enough slice of the 3D plane that the remote sensors can't detect the object with accuracy.
One other aspect that doesn't seem to have been noted much on here is that this method seems to be applicable to all kinds of radiation, not just the visible spectrum. Would it be possible to use this as some sort of a radiation shield when the radiation signature is known?
Slashdot Mirror
Back when the term "hacker" was first used to refer to people doing illegal activities as well as legal ones (yes, the meaning is fully agnostic, crackers can be hackers too), "cracker" only referred to a white male living in a trailer park in the southern US. It was later "retroactively defined" because "hacker" was getting a bad rap (from movies like Hackers).
s/Canada/Ontario
Can you blame the government for wanting Monster cables for their security theatre?
Hmm... I propose a new word... securityphile.
I presume you also do this with your torrent client, IM client, email client, etc? As well as having Adobe Reader under its own account?
I tried doing this for a while... having a separate user for each process that accessed the internet, and for each one that was a major exploit target. However, it became too much of a pain, as there was no process integration, and tossing stuff into the shared bin to transfer files between parts of the filesystem proved to be too annoying -- so I went back to a single userland and an AV solution, which has been much less annoying in the long run.
Sounds like an excellent idea for a Firefox add-on!
"Time machine had backed up a virus, so Sophos killed the entire Time machine backup image to get rid of it."
Not quite what happened, according to the article.
Time machine had backed up a virus, so Sophos blocked the user from meddling with it and stated it could not automatically remove the virus. The user then attempted to work around both Sophos and Time machine and discovered that not only did he remove the virus, he corrupted his TM plist, which meant that it lost the record of what files belonged in what snapshot. As a result, during the next backup, the plist was created from scratch, Time Machine wiped out all files not in the current backup (as they were dead weight, not belonging to any snapshot), and voila... empty TM.
You know what? Harper only represents two groups:
1) the members of his riding
2) the members of his caucus
Canada isn't the US -- we don't elect the Prime Minister; the other Ministers do. Until they elect him, he only represents his local riding.
What this means though, is that if enough elected representatives feel he has to go, they can get rid of him. So, if enough Canadians contact their representatives letting them know that this is the will of the people, they'll get rid of him and elect someone else to lead the cause....
oh well.
I'm sure it's all in the translation, but that explains a few things ;)
In reality, they don't want the Illegal Immigrants emigrating to other countries like Canada, and killing all the innocent baby seals.
Won't somebody think of the seals?
In answer to your first question... no.
I've messed up my kernel/kernel config and had to boot as far as GRUB numerous times, but I've only had to boot through the entire daemon loading process twice in a row. After it gets that far, the kernel is generally stable and I just have to restart daemons to fix the rest.
Rebooting to fix userland issues should only be a Windows headache.
Especially since it doesn't take much to port Mac software to Linux -- just write your software to run under GNUStep, and it'll easily compile for MacOS X OR Linux/GNUStep. Of course, you can't have XCode-specific dependencies like CoreImage, but hey... there's always libSDL.
The most interesting part of this is that I doubt Apple really cares... imagine if this were the same case with Windows and Linux.
I think he really meant that the windowing system isn't XOrg and the BSD framework isn't Linux.
A[n] art studio local to me moved to 100% windows systems because Photoshop couldn't even do 64bit on OS X, and they really needed the extra memory requirements. I know that BBC 1, 2 of the territorial television stations here use Windows systems almost exclusively for workstations.
So, what I am really asking is, can I have a source for this statement you made? Because it doesn't seem to be dominating the areas where Macs stereotypically [excel].
I agree 100% -- plus, there's a HUGE corporate library of custom scripts and apps that are win32-only -- they run under VMF/Parallels, but why bother?
What does OS X do that Windows 7 can't, which makes it so superior?
Interesting comparison -- compare Windows 7 BETA to OS X which came out in... 1999. Ten years ago. I agree -- about the only difference superiority-wise is that Windows 7 won't install on ten-year-old hardware, let alone the fourteen-year-old hardware that OS X was able to run on. Since then, however, Apple has spent ten years working on six major revisions of its OS -- and good luck comparing Windows 7 to OS X 10.6, which hasn't been released yet, but will likely still be released before Windows 7. It isn't any one big thing that makes OS X superior -- it's all the little things that have been fine-tuned over time to work together.
Of course, I still think that compared to MacOS 8, OS X is inferior in some ways, including UI issues, lack of continuity, lack of exposure through UI tools of some powerful underpinnings, etc.
Tranditionally, OS X has had in usability what Windows has had in sell-points. This isn't to diss Windows though, the OS, if used correctly, is GREAT -- there are thousands of features that, unfortunately, can't be used as intended as the third party software available doesn't work correctly with them. If it did, Windows could be a really nice (and way more secure) operating system.
In my view, XP = OS X 10.0; Vista = OS X 10.2 (except that there's a resource drain instead of an improvement), and Windows 7 = OS X 10.4. By the time it comes out, however, Apple will already be on OS X 10.6, two major releases ahead, using a development pattern that improves upon the previous release instead of starting from scratch or inheriting all the foibles of what came before.
Apple realized in 1999 that to do things right, it had to allow itself to break third party software with major releases -- this has, surprisingly, worked out very well, not only for Apple, but for the TPA ecosystem (forced upgrades of software is a GOOD thing when you're selling it). Apple has traditionally found the balance of backwards-compatibility and forward-looking acumen that has allowed me to always run the (MacOS) software I've wanted to, while not failing to OS bloat (notwithstanding MacOS 9).
Doesn't anyone want musicians to earn something?
Seriously in case nobody noticed they Represent the "RECORDING INDUSTRY". Not you, not me, not the artists.
Musicians, their families, friends and fans (of the musicians, not their music) want them to earn something. These days it seems nobody else really cares, as they don't think they'll be earning enough to make a difference anyway.
Remember though, they (the RIAA) pay the artists much more than those pirating (where last time I checked the artists gets 0). So in some ways the RIAA way is protecting themselves, they overstep, but seriously look what they're up against.
I'm seriously looking: they appear to be up against people who want a vibrant culture without dealing with a bunch of middlemen, who have figured out that they have extremely low-cost, high-bandwidth access to cultural information via the internet. As a comparison: I could set up an info-booth where I sell information to people about where the best coffee shops are, where bus stops are, where you can stand to see a rainbow, and also sell quotes, quips, and famous sayings. As soon as people discover that they can use some more convenient way to share this information with each other, it doesn't really matter if the coffee shops are getting kickbacks every time I make a referral (or vice versa) -- culture has routed around a choke point in the sharing of cultural information (my info booth). My booth still has a legitimate place in the landscape, as my information is likely to be accurate, timely, and persistent, but that gives me no excuse to stoop to underhanded tactics to try and corner the market on the information I attempt to distribute. I am not a cultural gatekeeper; I'm one of many cultural mediators.
As someone who knows 2 professional musicians, publicity is good but at some point you need to pay the bills. A lot of smaller bands give away music if you just take the time to visit their sites.
As someone who knows many professional musicians, composers, studio managers and others, and also knows many, many, more casual musicians, composers and garage studio operators, selling the information is not a way to pay the bills; selling icons that act as cultural signposts pays the bills. These icons are generally live venue performance tickets, merchandise, and recordings. Notice that I said recordings, and not the right to perform a recording on a certain piece of equipment in specific conditions.
Music and acting are (or should be) such an intrinsic part of our society that everyone feels comfortable participating, not just consuming. The current Recording Industry tactics are turning something that was once part of who we all were into something that is produced by one strata of society and consumed by the rest -- this isn't healthy for the producers or the consumers.
Well, that's enough of a rant for now. I'll leave it to others to make the counter-points.
This is something someone has created in hopes that others will enjoy it and at the artists discretion would like to be compensated for that enjoyment.
I have lots of hopes. That doesn't change much. Our culture is based on shared knowledge. Entertainment is part of that. Storytelling is very important to human beings.
You can take this further too...
Am I responsible for the content of all banner ads cached on my computer? I downloaded them, didn't I? I have them on my computer because I chose to look at a site that chose to have those banner ads.
(note: this is hypothetical, as I haven't seen a banner ad in years)
The site does not say "firefox may not be secure" they're saying "firefox poses a security risk". One of them is a statement of fact that they do nothing to back up, the other one is an opinion which may or may not be valid, but is theirs to hold.
I wonder if what they meant was "our site looks like crap in firefox so please don't use it". Or maybe by "poses a security risk" they mean "the secret fields we spent hours figuring out how to hide behind other stuff refuses to stay hidden in firefox, so using it is a risk to OUR security".
...and I just automatically assumed they meant JOB security.
It's probably also about copyright. For example, Peter Pan is still under copyright in the UK, but not in the US. There are many books that have different legal restrictions on publication and use in different countries -- it's even more complex than with audio -- especially since books have been around for longer.
Funny thing... most of the stuff I see on Google is *already* blurry. The outline of the bill doesn't say anything about objects being made unrecognizable, just blurry.
Also funny that they want to blur government buildings but not power plants and other infrastructure. Maybe they should add homes of major celebrities to the list? What about Disneyland, Universal Studios, and other likely targets?
Aside from this, it was my understanding that military installations in the US were already unavailable in the higher resolution levels; it's not that they don't want you to know where the thing is, it's that they don't want the internal compound layout to be publicly available for review. I can actually understand this, and it would make sense for other non-public locations as well.
As everyone else has stated... making public places blurry on maps is just silly.
Well the answer is pretty obvious. Besides IE, people will have the option to install:
AOL Explorer
Avant Browser
and, of course,
MSN Explorer!
(I would have added Yahoo! Browser except that I'm pretty sure that would never happen).
Funny... I've always used them differently:
IRL = In Real Life
AFK = Away From Keyboard
I've always used IRL as a descriptor, not referring to events at all:
"He works at the cable company IRL"
whereas AFK is more a description of location:
"Sorry, he's AFK and can't respond."
In the usage in question, I wouldn't use either, as there's no reason to indicate being away from a computer while asking someone about an event when you're already in meatspace. If they wanted to differentiate between cyberspace and meatspace, they could use those monikers, as both involve real life. Otherwise, if cyberspace is fictional life, the prosecution almost shot themselves in the foot... you can't be charged for something that's fictional, even if the intent wasn't fictional.
I wonder what the PIN Number was that they all used in those ATM Machines. Maybe they used a custom PCB Board to prototype the hack. Then they downloaded the plans onto a CD Disc. I'll bet they literally died after they got away with all the cash.
Anyways, I could care less.
well, a lot of people die literally who survive physically.... ;)
I preferred hibiki_r's, but I think it was too subtle for more mods :D
There is more to it than being "good". Certain types of jobs are affected more during recessions than others. Departments seen as cost centers will be the last to regain reqs.
IT jobs of many kinds, but especially infrastructure optimization/planning jobs tend to fall into this category; companies are currently trying to get the most out of what they already have, which means they're going to hire specialists who know their current systems inside out, not generalists and designers who could optimize their current system and save them money in the long run.
One other thing I've found is that there are currently more "good" people looking for jobs than there are jobs. This means that you have to be:
1: good at what you do
2: good at social networking
3: in the right place at the right time
4: good at selling yourself to potential clients/employers
5: able to specialize as well as work with existing IT investments
Also, to echo EvilIdler: I know for a fact that a lot of companies have continual ads going out from HR for new hires, just so they can keep tabs on what talent is currently out there; one major company I know of currently has hundreds of job opportunities posted, but is in the middle of a hiring freeze -- they might even bring you in for an interview, but there are no plans to hire anyone for the remainder of the year.
For some reason Lawyers in the USA are demonised as being party to the crimes the people they defend commit or as being evil Disney movie Grand Vizier types. People should remember that life is not always like the movies. If you want the rule of law and not mindless vigalante action then you need people to defend every case, no matter how horrible. Unfortunately there are a lot of people that really do think that Taliban style law enforcement is the way to go - there you don't need lawyers just a pile of stones to throw at people that don't fit in. We don't want to go towards a society where your neighbour can have you locked up forever just by calling you a child molester - we need to have someone that can stand up and prove that you are innocent.
I've never actually needed a lawyer - I'm probably getting half of this from "Rumpole of the Bailey".
Actually, I don't think it's the level-field representation that people demonize in the US -- it's the fact that there are a lot of high profile lawyers out there who "specialize" in promoting cases that are morally questionable (think ambulance chasers and some patent attorneys), and others that use immoral, unethical (and sometimes illegal) tactics to defend their clients. Lawyers who fight a clean fight for a bad client generally are given grudging respect -- of course, generally bad clients don't have any qualms hiring morally and ethically bankrupt legal representation.
You would still be cloaked only from one side, and visible from other directions. Also, you wouldn't be able to see in the direction that you are cloaked from; if all of the light from that particular angle is passing around you, rather than reaching you, you would see the reverse side of the cloaking device/field as black. So, this technique would work if you were trying to hide from a sensor or observer at a particular angle to you, but wouldn't be particularly effective against a web of sensors that are sharing their results.
So what they need to do is create a holographic array of emitters that cover a large enough slice of the 3D plane that the remote sensors can't detect the object with accuracy.
One other aspect that doesn't seem to have been noted much on here is that this method seems to be applicable to all kinds of radiation, not just the visible spectrum. Would it be possible to use this as some sort of a radiation shield when the radiation signature is known?