altho i'm a grammar nazi, i'm totally with you on this; it seems pretty fragile for many, many use-cases, as well as probably easily technically circumventable.
consider even the darkened movie-theater case: there's going to be a lot of legitimate CCDs facing the screen - people checking their politely silenced cell-phones.
if you've ever directed an LED laser-pointer towards your own face in the dark, you'll know that the beam is highly visible and pretty disturbing! i don't think that'll sit well with movie patrons.
w/r/t daylight applications such as blacking out protests, altho it may be theoretically possible, i highly doubt this technology will perform well. also don't forget that in such scenarios it can be easily overcome with a $7 disposable camera.
Well, no kidding, but the article didn't say "absorbs all the light",
it went out of its way to use the obviously ambiguous term "essentially erased".
This is a clue that there's more to be understood here than they're willing to put into a short and lay-person article.
IIRC about two years ago negative indices of refraction had only been achieved in the infra-red spectrum, but that may have changed by now.
Slashdot Mirror
yes, you'd think they'd need a plural lens!
mod this up !
.. you know where. but, uh, boy, about those puns !
altho i'm a grammar nazi, i'm totally with you on this;
it seems pretty fragile for many, many use-cases,
as well as probably easily technically circumventable.
consider even the darkened movie-theater case:
there's going to be a lot of legitimate CCDs facing the screen -
people checking their politely silenced cell-phones.
if you've ever directed an LED laser-pointer towards your own face in the dark,
you'll know that the beam is highly visible and pretty disturbing!
i don't think that'll sit well with movie patrons.
w/r/t daylight applications such as blacking out protests,
altho it may be theoretically possible,
i highly doubt this technology will perform well.
also don't forget that in such scenarios
it can be easily overcome with a $7 disposable camera.
hahahaha
ditto.
that's the better way to do it, allright.
Well, no kidding, but the article didn't say "absorbs all the light", it went out of its way to use the obviously ambiguous term "essentially erased". This is a clue that there's more to be understood here than they're willing to put into a short and lay-person article. IIRC about two years ago negative indices of refraction had only been achieved in the infra-red spectrum, but that may have changed by now.