[Styxx]

Becoming a possibility, it would seem:
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/09/03/1234219.shtml?tid=126

Thoughts?

[Redfang]

Hmm, nice. At least if it will really be possible some day.

[Blue Lion]

Girl's locker room

'Nuff said

[vadar_1]

Thats not the sci-fi method of cloaking (bending light around the object), but as blue lion pointed out... this technology does have some very practical uses.

[vyper]

w00t!:D

The question is - does the system run fast enough to cloak you while you're moving? Heh, Predator style :devil:

[Zeronet]

Yeah a few people have thought up that idea.

[Nico]

freaky. with that you can post a sniper on top of a building, nobody will see him. cool, I feel safer now.
really, I doubt this way is that easy...
btw, bending light around an object wouldn't turn you invisible, it'd turn you perfectly black. still efficient during night, ok.

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by venom2506
freaky. with that you can post a sniper on top of a building, nobody will see him. cool, I feel safer now.
really, I doubt this way is that easy...
btw, bending light around an object wouldn't turn you invisible, it'd turn you perfectly black. still efficient during night, ok.

I dont think you grasp what they mean by bending light.

[Cannikin]

No, bending light around you wouldn't make you appear black. That would happen if you blocked light completely. Bending light around objects happens tons of times (such as being able to see objects behind stars because the light is bent around the gravity source). Of course the system would cause some serious distortion problems such as blurry forms or even double images (which could be very useful for distracting in itself ).

And now it's time to punch massive holes in the idea posted...

For the system in question, the way it looks right now is completely useless. The way they describe it it works from a single angle and thus would be a piece of junk. Of course if they're describing that they would completely surround the person with these receptors, that would be simply impractical. Each receptor would have to be both a reciever and an output. There would be an inifinite (or effectively infinite) number of vectors to calculate and output at an instantaneous rate. At the very least you'd have to lug around a supercomputer just to get somewhat of a reasonable image, though because of the impossibly high number of light vectors you have to calculate, it would cause significant image drag for moving objects which instantly gives it away. Oh and in addition to hauling around a multi-ton supercomputer you'd have to drag around a generator to power it. And finally the whole thing would be infinitely more complex and beyond modern computational capabilities is if the photo-receptors are on a flexible material such as a cloak that you would put on yourself.

I love ripping massive holes in stupid ideas that you could fly a Sathanas through.

[Dr.Zer0]

Originally posted by Blue Lion
Girl's locker room

'Nuff said

watch your self in the showers...

[Stryke 9]

This isn't really a cloaking device sorta tech. Ever read Gibson, the Panther Moderns' equipment? This is basically that- an advanced sort of camouflage. Rich people already have access to a crude version for their beach houses, supposedly "concealing" the house by projecting a picture of the ocean behind the house on a giant screen covering the front.

[Styxx]

Originally posted by Cannikin
I love ripping massive holes in stupid ideas that you could fly a Sathanas through.

All those holes were posted on slashdot already...

[Gortef]

"The Invisible Man" anyone

neat stuff behind that link. But as venom said, it could be used the wrong way and well...

[diamondgeezer]

I saw an article about this system ten years ago.

[Styxx]

Originally posted by diamondgeezer
I saw an article about this system ten years ago.

But it wasn't patented by then.

[CP5670]

Interesting, but as Corhellion said, it doesn't seem very practical in that state. I have no doubt that a useful cloaking technology will come along some time in the future, though.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by CP5670
Interesting, but as Corhellion said, it doesn't seem very practical in that state. I have no doubt that it will come along some time in the future, though.

where did Corhellion say anything?  he hasn't posted in this thread

[CP5670]

never mind that, I meant Cannikin; got the two mixed up. I should probably stop thinking about math so much while writing posts...

[diamondgeezer]

Originally posted by Styxx

But it wasn't patented by then.

Damn! Why... didn't... I...?

Oh, never mind.