Out of the Blue

Well that brief thaw was so neat and refreshing... I just hope it doesn't constitute the entirety of spring and summer, because we're buried in snow here again. I am not sure what's wrong with me shoveling before the crack of dawn (it seemed like a good idea at the time), but I have no one but myself to blame for my aching back. Creak... hobble...

Links of the Day: The Onion: North Dakota Found To Be Harboring Nuclear Missiles. Thanks Bunko Handoon.
Grand Central Signs. Thanks Markis. Going out with a bang.
Story of the Day: High Noon for Kasparov, Deep Jr. Thanks Mike Martinez.
E-Tailers' Sales Tax Surprise. Thanks Mike Martinez.
Wild Science: Bush reportedly orders cyberwarfare plan. Thanks Mike Martinez.
For the Smart Dresser, Electric Threads That Cosset You (NY Times free registration required). Thanks Mike Martinez.
Weird Science: Stalkers Use GPS to Track Victims. Thanks Mike Martinez.
Auction of the Day: NO E-MAIL ~ UNIQUE STREET SIGN MAGNET. Thanks Dave.
Follow-up: Optical Camouflage. Thanks David Brender.
View : : :
16 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
16.
 
Re: The Optical Camo rules
Feb 8, 2003, 04:04
16.
Re: The Optical Camo rules Feb 8, 2003, 04:04
Feb 8, 2003, 04:04
 
I understand what they are trying to describe, but I am pointing out how simple, how "basic," of an application it is.

With regards to the plane reference, it is just a matter of putting a camera outside of the plane, something that many planes have already, and just displaying it on the floor rather than a television or headset. With regards to the other applications, it would eventually be possible, but certainly overkill and relatively expensive.

As for the surgeon example, it really is not feasible, at least not in the truly "invisible" way. Many surgeons already utilize an optical system of sorts and all this would do would display it over the patient rather than the normal monitor/screen/headset.

As for the enforcement examples, you need to consider how much equipment is involved, the requirements of such equipment, and the required angle of sight. Unless you are looking sraight at the projected image, it will immediately be noticeable. Likewise, this is a purely visual measure; wars are being fought through computer screens, without any need for a direct, physical observation.

You knock the "Star Trek fed iedeas," applications that are in progress (bending/altering light), and then talk about how this will improve over time to not even require the projector or camera. I believe those were the original points; this is a "cheap" optical illusion of invisibility - just projectors, folks - and there are real attempts being made to produce real or much more advanced forms of "invisibility" - things that work on the properties of light and that do everything internally.

This, at least what they have, is a simple optical trick.

Edit: It would be a nice applications of an interface or display, but it does not make anything invisible.

Noting this would be like watching a television show of a televisions inside,
Ray


---------------------------------------------------------------------
9700 Pro installed; now where is my Barton???
http://users.ign.com/collection/RayMarden
HELLO!?! The *fish* have wings and the *cows* have toes!
This comment was edited on Feb 8, 04:24.
Everything is awesome!!!
http://www.kindafunny.com/
I love you, mom.
Avatar 2647
15.
 
Re: The Onion rules
Feb 7, 2003, 22:27
15.
Re: The Onion rules Feb 7, 2003, 22:27
Feb 7, 2003, 22:27
 
Being an ex-North Dakotan, what's really funny is that the article is completely accurate*, at least as far as factual items. (Yes, the missle fields are located as shown on the info-graphic. It was 150 intercontinental ballistic missiles for each of two fields last I checked, but it may be less now, post Cold War. What, you didn't do fallout shelter drills when you went to school?)

It's a brilliant spoof of how the media spin the facts to make a country seem villainous.


* Okay, so the Badlands are mostly in North Dakota (South Dakota has the Black Hills) and there are at least two theaters that occasionally show foreign films. Close enough.

14.
 
Oh yeah?
Feb 7, 2003, 20:05
Bronco
 
14.
Oh yeah? Feb 7, 2003, 20:05
Feb 7, 2003, 20:05
 Bronco
 
I made a 5' tall snowman today.

He has already fallen to the sun.

Best snow so far this winter. All the other snows would not pack at all.

-TPFKAS2S
http://www.braglio.org
How many toes does a fish have?
How many wings on a cow? I wonder, yep. I wonder!
-TPFKAS2S
Avatar 10139
13.
 
Ray!!!!!!
Feb 7, 2003, 17:44
13.
Ray!!!!!! Feb 7, 2003, 17:44
Feb 7, 2003, 17:44
 
Ray, dunno if you check the email you have listed on your account info but please check it, I sent you an email.

Otherwise i'll just have to hunt you down so that i can hear the lamentation of your women!


dave snider
comicvine.com
12.
 
OC
Feb 7, 2003, 17:32
12.
OC Feb 7, 2003, 17:32
Feb 7, 2003, 17:32
 
The OC is a pretty cool low cost way for low budget film makers to do an invis special effect, but it's limited in that you can't have the "background" updated in real time, or if you do, you have to place the camera BEHIND the invisible object, meaning that surgeon's can't use it.

And the problem with projectors is that you can't really move the camera without the perspective changing and scrrewing up. You can zoom though, which is neat!

This comment was edited on Feb 7, 17:40.
11.
 
Re: The Optical Camo rules
Feb 7, 2003, 16:57
11.
Re: The Optical Camo rules Feb 7, 2003, 16:57
Feb 7, 2003, 16:57
 
Picture a pilot in a plane, with the ourside projected on the opaque portions of his plane so he can see out all over. Maybe even removing the window. Or gunners in a tank. Or even better, wearing goggles that are opaque that can see through all portions of the plane.

Think of a surgeon who can see through his hands while operating.

Think of the cop on a stake-out, or military units laying an ambush. Instead of wearing camoflage, the set up projectors automatically have them wearing the surrounding terrain (especially good in urban environments). Not only them, but their equipment as well.

Stop thinking of the Star Trek fed ideas of cloaking devices as only useful for moving spaceships if you really want to see the application of technology like this. Later they won't need the projector, or even the camera, because the worn clothing or materials will do this.

10.
 
Re: The Onion rules
Feb 7, 2003, 16:32
10.
Re: The Onion rules Feb 7, 2003, 16:32
Feb 7, 2003, 16:32
 
Hey, my news got posted! Cool

The Onion's a pretty funny site. I should visit the site more often. Yeah, it definately does ring a bit true. I love their dark political sense of humor.

--------------------------------------------------
Teddy: You don't know who you are anymore.
Leonard Shelby: Of course I do. I'm Leonard Shelby. I'm from San Francisco.
Teddy: No, that's who you were! Maybe it's time you started investigating yourself.
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22
9.
 
Re: The Onion rules
Feb 7, 2003, 16:22
9.
Re: The Onion rules Feb 7, 2003, 16:22
Feb 7, 2003, 16:22
 
Well, there are some actual "camouflage" projects out there, ones that actually do all of this internally, but they are nowhere near to being fully realized, much less practical.

As for this current project, it is just hype. You have it exactly right. To follow the same example I listed before, it would be like going to a movie theater and, instead of playing the scheduled movie, showing an image of the parking lot/building/wall/whatever that sits directly behind the given screening room. Thus, it appears that the movie screen has become "invisible" and we would be looking outside.

On top of that, the whole recorder/projector thing is a pain in the butt and it is not like this would have any affect on electronic devices.

Wishing that I got paid to prove the obvious make these inventions :o,
Ray

---------------------------------------------------------------------
9700 Pro installed; now where is my Barton???
http://users.ign.com/collection/RayMarden
HELLO!?! The *fish* have wings and the *cows* have toes!
Everything is awesome!!!
http://www.kindafunny.com/
I love you, mom.
Avatar 2647
8.
 
Re: The Onion rules
Feb 7, 2003, 16:07
nin
 
8.
Re: The Onion rules Feb 7, 2003, 16:07
Feb 7, 2003, 16:07
 nin
 
I was thinking the same thing, Ray.

1. Take a picture

2. Have a person in a white jack stand in front of where picture was taken.

3. Shine picture on person's white jack via a projector.


Am I missing something? Unless you can get someone to follow you around with a projector, it seems a bit limited. It reminds me of those crazy inventions you see on tv, like the amazing dent puller, and the pot with the holes in the top to strain out the water (which I know we've covered here before).

7.
 
Re: The Onion rules
Feb 7, 2003, 15:42
7.
Re: The Onion rules Feb 7, 2003, 15:42
Feb 7, 2003, 15:42
 
BAH!

The next time I want to see an image projected onto a screen or covering.......I will just go to the movies.

Not really sure what the profound "breakthrough" is,
Ray

---------------------------------------------------------------------
9700 Pro installed; now where is my Barton???
http://users.ign.com/collection/RayMarden
HELLO!?! The *fish* have wings and the *cows* have toes!
Everything is awesome!!!
http://www.kindafunny.com/
I love you, mom.
Avatar 2647
6.
 
Re: The Onion rules
Feb 7, 2003, 14:26
6.
Re: The Onion rules Feb 7, 2003, 14:26
Feb 7, 2003, 14:26
 
I'm not really sure if this is much of a breakthrough at all. Does it actually work on the human eye, because most of it seems to refer to a special camera that makes the jacket look the way it does. To me, it doesn't look like much more than a fancy projector shining on a cheap coat.

5.
 
OOTB - Storm
Feb 7, 2003, 14:10
5.
OOTB - Storm Feb 7, 2003, 14:10
Feb 7, 2003, 14:10
 
My sympathies. I am a little south of you and had over 10 inches of that slippery white stuff. Fortunately, a couple years ago, I decided to piss my wife off and spend some money on a snow thrower.

I managed to do not only my driveway, but also my next door neighbor's (70 something year old lady), the neighbor across the street (her hubby left early this morning for work) and another neighbor's 2 houses away (8 1/2 mo. pregnant).

Why did I do 4 driveways? Good karma.

Why am I writing this? To suggest to Blue that he should get a snowthrower too. Sure, it'll piss the wife off at first but that will change quickly. If you don't believe me, email me and I will only be too happy exchange contact info and you can ask her yourself.

Regards To All

DiGiTaL^DoG

4.
 
Re: The Onion rules
Feb 7, 2003, 13:12
4.
Re: The Onion rules Feb 7, 2003, 13:12
Feb 7, 2003, 13:12
 
The jacket by itself would do you no good without the projector system that is displaying the image on the jacket. It's just a semi-reflective jacket, I'm sure you can pick one of those up at a store near you.

3.
 
Re: The Onion rules
Feb 7, 2003, 12:42
3.
Re: The Onion rules Feb 7, 2003, 12:42
Feb 7, 2003, 12:42
 
I'm glad the camouflage link was reposted. I missed it the first time, and it looks really cool! When can I get a jacket like that?

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Avatar 9540
2.
 
Re: The Onion rules
Feb 7, 2003, 12:31
2.
Re: The Onion rules Feb 7, 2003, 12:31
Feb 7, 2003, 12:31
 
That optical camouflage link was definitely posted before; it's what I thought of when I saw the link yesterday. The page seems to have been updated with some new content, however.

~Jedi

1.
 
The Onion rules
Feb 7, 2003, 11:29
1.
The Onion rules Feb 7, 2003, 11:29
Feb 7, 2003, 11:29
 
The The Onion article is awesome. It's a joke, but it's got a pretty dark ring of truth to it, at least in my eyes and in the eyes of most of my fellow Europeans. It's also hilarious.

16 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older