Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Invisibility Cloak Created In 3-D

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the can-you-see-me-now dept.

Science 113

An anonymous reader writes "Scientists have created the first device to render an object invisible in three dimensions. The 'cloak,' described in the journal Science (abstract; full text requires login), hid an object from detection using light of wavelengths close to those that are visible to humans. Previous devices have been able to hide objects from light travelling in only one direction; viewed from any other angle, the object would remain visible. This is a very early but significant step towards a true invisibility cloak." The "object" hidden in this work was a bump one micrometer high. The light used was just longer than the wavelengths our eyes detect. To get a visible-light cloak, the features of the cloaking metamaterial would need to be reduced in size from 300 nm to 10 nm.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Um... (4, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31538392)

I don't mean to complain, but it would be nice to have a picture.

Even if the object is invisible...

Re:Um... (4, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 4 years ago | (#31538516)

...it would be nice to have a picture...

You realize that the object is only 1 micrometer, and the cloak only 300nm,
but here you go (photo) --> [ ]

OMG! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31538676)

Stop posting pics of CmdrTaco's micropenis!

Re:Um... (4, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#31538704)

I can't see it.

Re:Um... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31539000)

Then I guess the cloak works

Re:Um... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31539308)

Try squinting.

Re:Um... (1)

Lueseiseki (1189513) | more than 4 years ago | (#31543940)

Typical lossy JPEG, here's the same picture in PNG format -> [.]

Re:Um... (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539938)

You realize that the object is only 1 micrometer, and the cloak only 300nm,
but here you go (photo) --> [ ]

Gasp! INVISIBLE nanobot army! Transparent goo!

Re:Um... (1)

kiehlster (844523) | more than 4 years ago | (#31541222)

Could you blow that picture up for me? All I see are LCD cells and not the surface which the device resides on.

Re:Um... (1)

izomiac (815208) | more than 4 years ago | (#31543114)

You realize that the object is only 1 micrometer, and the cloak only 300nm

That doesn't seem very effective... I mean, I'm 1.67 m tall, so if I tried to wear a 50 cm invisibility cloak I suspect my floating head and disembodied legs would attract rather a lot of attention.

Re:Um... (1)

Trent Hawkins (1093109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31540294)

I don't mean to complain, but it would be nice to have a picture.

ok here you go [thearchnemesis.com]

Diplomatic Nightmare (5, Funny)

EvanED (569694) | more than 4 years ago | (#31538430)

Oh man, wait 'till the Romulans hear about this.

Re:Diplomatic Nightmare (2, Funny)

nomorecwrd (1193329) | more than 4 years ago | (#31538750)


Yeah... and I'm sure we will end up signing a stupid treaty that does not allow us to use the cloak device, but let them use it at will.
it's time to put some clear boundaries between us and them... better yet a Neutral Zone.

Just my two pesos-

Re:Diplomatic Nightmare (3, Funny)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 4 years ago | (#31538854)

Being invisible sounds ok, until you realize that with perfect invisibility you will be effective blind. That will end non military uses you had in mind.

Re:Diplomatic Nightmare (2, Interesting)

hanabal (717731) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539072)

just leave a pinhole in the cloak and put a camera there. then wear a hud that displays the image.

If someone looks straight at you in the right direction, they might see a tiny floating black dot. Even if they do notice it, they will most likely believe its dust or something

Re:Diplomatic Nightmare (3, Funny)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539516)

Or you can use a FLIR camera (Thermal). Off course, it's not good to look at naked ladies, but good enough to move around.

Re:Diplomatic Nightmare (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 4 years ago | (#31544418)

Obviously to solve that problem you'd only use it for travel. You can slip into someone's room unseen and build a small support structure out of this stuff, located where the person is least likely to look. You can then wait until the person returns, slip in (if not there already) and locate yourself in the support structure, which is out of direct eyesight. There you are free to remove the cloak from your eyeballs only, or any recording devices you have, until seen by the person's peripheral vision. A quick restoration of the cloak and you are invisible again, and the person thinks they simply hallucinated.

For the shower room application, you would need to ensure waterproofness and fogguplessness before attempting a visit, but it would suffice to plant and retrieve a camera after hours. You don't want to be caught using a transmitter, and the cloak would let you have physical access to bypass that restriction.

Of course, this would require some sort of coordination so you can know in advance if such a structure has already been built, or a camera already installed. I am therefore proud to announce my website cloakedstalkerstradingpost.com which allows you up-to-date information on which premises are prime targets, which have been built already, and which have been identified and disabled by the inhabitants. Our information is only as good as our users, but we also have information sharing agreements with creepy landlords, sons-of-milfs, and carefully screened psychotic ex-lovers, so sign up today for the most comprehensive coverage you can find. Beware other similar sites which promise a lot but fail to deliver. Only $4.99 per month charged automatically to your credit card (with one-time setup fee to cover administrative costs - we work hard, so it's worth it!)

Each month we will feature a review of the current and soon-to-be-announced cloaks available, an anonymous user giving us real-world tips on the other uses for this cloak such as, well whatever someone comes up with, and direct access to streaming NFL Cloaked (yes, since this gets asked a lot, it does look like nothing is happening but if you watch carefully, you can see the football when it is thrown or fumbled - in fact, cloaking the players makes it more likely that fumbles will occur, making the sport infinitely more enjoyable) and a selection of recipes from our users.

Order now and get a first-generation cloak free!*

(*) when the technology is available of course, we are not pre-selling vaporware!

Re:Diplomatic Nightmare (2, Interesting)

Shrike82 (1471633) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539256)

Being invisible sounds ok, until you realize that with perfect invisibility you will be effective blind. That will end non military uses you had in mind.

Blind in the visible light spectrum, which would still leave you with sonar, radar, possibly IR and UV if the material very selectively blocks the visible light portion of the EM spectrum. Not to mention the possibility of maintaining links to remote cameras and other visual/information sources using data transmitted ion wavelengths way, way outisde the visible light spectrum.

So yes, as a Harry Potter invisibility cloak this would suck, but as a Start Trek cloak this would be awesome.

Re:Diplomatic Nightmare (2, Interesting)

Sethumme (1313479) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539954)

Unless you were trying to evade sonar, radar, IR, and UV detection too.

Re:Diplomatic Nightmare (1)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 4 years ago | (#31541454)

I'm not getting a billion dollars, so I don't want the million you're offering me.

Re:Diplomatic Nightmare (1)

VisiX (765225) | more than 4 years ago | (#31541318)

Not everything you want to hide has people inside that need to see out. North Korea could cloak their nukes and have inspectors walk right past them.

Oblig ... (5, Funny)

krou (1027572) | more than 4 years ago | (#31538534)

Nothing to see here, move along ...

MGS (1)

PhongUK (1301747) | more than 4 years ago | (#31538536)

"Ugh, what was THAT noise?"

Re:MGS (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 4 years ago | (#31542540)

Someone in an invisibility cloak just accidentally placekicked our nuke.

Re:MGS (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#31543018)

Was it a woman saying "Nuclear launch detected."? Meh, it's probably nothing.

Factor 30 (3, Informative)

Rob Kaper (5960) | more than 4 years ago | (#31538548)

A factor 30 in wavelength difference is not "just longer" than visible light nor "close to" it. Still, impressive work. And surely, they'll get closer and closer. But cloaking a micrometer high bump is still a few pathways away from Klingon tech.

Re:Factor 30 (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31538888)

Yeah, but you can still get a tan with factor 30.

Re:Factor 30 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31539134)

That's the size of the cloak, dumbass.

Re:Factor 30 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31539140)

I'm not a huge Star Trek fan, but it's Romulans who had cloaking technology first.

Re:Factor 30 (1)

AtomicOrange (1667101) | more than 4 years ago | (#31542722)

He's obviously a Next Generation watcher, Not TOS. Only Romulans had it in TOS.

Re:Factor 30 (1)

TSchut (1314115) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539180)

According to TFA, they can currently make the structures as small as 200 nm, meaning that there is "only" a factor 20 difference. To make things worse, creating this "cloak" to hide a 1 micrometer object took 3 hours, so creating a cloak for Mr. Potter will probably take years, if not decades.

Re:Factor 30 (1)

mesri (993588) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539354)

From the abstract at Science: "Cloaking operation with large bandwidth of unpolarized light from 1.4- to 2.7-m wavelength is demonstrated" -- that's only a factor of 2 to 4 longer than visible red light. The factor of 30 is the reduction required in the size of the crystal features in the metamaterial. But I agree that we're still a long way from being able to NOT see a Klingon Bird of Prey...

Re:Factor 30 (1)

517714 (762276) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539988)

This will never lead to the Klingon style cloaking device since the negative index of refraction reverse shifts the doppler affect - that will make it suitable only for stationary applications.

Re:Factor 30 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31541482)

On the contrary, by reversing the doppler effect, you can fool the target you're attacking into thinking you're retreating -- if they see you at all.

It never was Klingon tech (1)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 4 years ago | (#31540678)

Actually, the way I remember it, it never was Klingon tech as such. The Klingons managed to buy the technology from the Romulans, in exchange for a heck of a lot of D-7 battlecruisers.

(Or in RL terms when they first needed a Romulan Bird Of Prey, the model wasn't ready on time, so they used a Klingon Battlecruiser and slapped on a makeshift explanation of why the Romulans are flying Klingon vessels.)

Who's sig is that again? (3, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31538608)

"Ha! Invisibility Cloak? I'll believe it when I see it!"

For some reason Locke comes to mind...

Re:Who's sig is that again? (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539654)

Yeah, that's Locke's sig.

Re:Who's sig is that again? (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 4 years ago | (#31541288)

You mean lock-down?
(Ducks from stones.)

What good could come from invisibility? (2, Insightful)

KarlIsNotMyName (1529477) | more than 4 years ago | (#31538716)

Yes, invisibility is "cool", and I wouldn't mind an invisibility cloak for myself. But I can't immediately think of who would benefit the general public by having invisibility. Especially among the military, the police, criminals or terrorists (all of them sometimes interchangeable).

What practical use does invisibility have, other than as a weapon?

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31538834)

Sex in public places.

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (1)

andy19 (1250844) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539432)

Sex in public places.

Do you really think the type of people who want an invisibility cloak actually have sex at all, let alone in public places?

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (1)

MadKeithV (102058) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539598)

They might if they were invisible.

That's the point.

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31539614)

Sex in public places.

You don't need an invisibility cloak for that.

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539634)

Until you get run over by a car.

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31540130)

Just make the car invisible too and you're golden... And if it fails to cancel each other out you can still get away undetected with hit and run.

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31542648)

There are other public places besides roads, you know.

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31544984)

We're you thinking of German cars [thesun.co.uk] by any chance?

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (3, Funny)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 4 years ago | (#31540444)

are you really having sex in public if nobody can see you?

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 4 years ago | (#31544494)

Slow down, I'm still meditating on the one hand clapping thing and I have to get to the tree falling in a forest without a witness - maybe zen I can answer you.

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (1)

TekJannsen (1001150) | more than 4 years ago | (#31542108)

this is /. we need a device that would increase our chances of sex in private places.

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31542188)

Future people: "FAAAKE! They're using a cloak! Fuck! Where do I find any true voyeuristic porn?"

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31543032)

Pff, you obviously never had sex in public places. It’s only thrilling when you can be seen. (But aren’t. It’s the risk that makes it fun. With a cloak there is no risk, so there is no fun.
And by the way: For your purposes a tent will do. ^^
Just be sure to keep quiet.

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | more than 4 years ago | (#31544332)

Somebody could step on you.

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#31544918)

We have porn about sex in public places now.

With the invisibility cloak on, what would that porn look like? !

Like this, I guess:

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31539096)

For starters it could be adjusted to make something invisible to other wavelengths. So... protection from x-rays or other forms of radiation with useful applications?

Could also be used for other sorts of waves, at least in theory, to make an island invisible to a tsunami. Or maybe it's a cheap way to sound-proof a room.

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539664)

Good luck getting water to refract through a crystal.

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (1)

Sethumme (1313479) | more than 4 years ago | (#31540032)

All nanotech cloaking technology currently employs nanoscopic materials that capture, conduct, and re-emit electromagnetic radiation. It won't work for waves that are not constituted from both magnetic and electronic radiation.

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (1)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539160)

It would be a good defensive item. If someone breaks into your house, hiding in an invisibility cloak would be the next best thing to getting out of the house.

It would be a hilarious prank item. Cover a sheet of plywood in an invisibility cloak and put it in front of an open doorway.

It might be useful for people who want to observe wildlife. Various sorts of camouflage work, but this may be more effective (I'm not sure if there are any animals that are very good at detecting people even in camouflage).

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (2, Interesting)

hanabal (717731) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539202)

the ability to watch the military or police without fear of them beating you half to death just for watching

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (1)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539210)

Yes, invisibility is "cool", and I wouldn't mind an invisibility cloak for myself. But I can't immediately think of who would benefit the general public by having invisibility. Especially among the military, the police, criminals or terrorists (all of them sometimes interchangeable).

What practical use does invisibility have, other than as a weapon?

It could be useful to hide some things that are generally considered an eyesore... You probably wouldn't want to render the thing completely invisible from every angle, but you could greatly reduce the visual impact of the bathrooms at some scenic park for example. Or those green electrical boxes they've got scattered around town. It could make for some interesting furniture and decorating options. You could make materials transparent or translucent without actually using glass/plastic/whatever.

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31539270)

What practical use does invisibility have, other than as a weapon?

So where did you get the idea that it had to be used as anything more than a weapon? From all of those pseky nuclear non-weapon bombs we have lying around? I thought for sure they'd have come up with an alternative use for them by now.

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (3, Insightful)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539582)

Why does science need a reason? Once we have this stuff people will dream up creative aplications you or I could never have dreamed of.

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31540500)

Exactly. You could make your middle finger go invisible so you can flip people off without offending them.

Or you could use it to scare people, like all those Gag television shows...

And the Peeping Tom applications are ENDLESS!

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31541246)

Right, like sneaking into the women's locker room, or... um... yeah, that's about it.

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (1)

ksandom (718283) | more than 4 years ago | (#31544510)

This would be great for when the parents come over. Just put all the mess in one big pile in the middle of the room, drop a cloak over the top and tell then that some ancient voodoo person died in this house right there, and you mustn't stand there because it's cursed!

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31539650)

Non-invasive landscaping.
See-through tools so you can see what you are doing in difficult places.
Home decoration (hide ugly stuff).

There are tons of uses that one can think of that are trivial but useful. But I guarantee you or I will not think of a fraction of the most awesome uses.

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31540108)

...
Home decoration (hide ugly stuff).

There are tons of uses that one can think of that are trivial but useful. But I guarantee you or I will not think of a fraction of the most awesome uses.

We already have that. It's called the attic.

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31539832)

Special effects in a Harry Potter movie....

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (2, Interesting)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 4 years ago | (#31540172)

If it only works in a limited spectrum, cell phone towers. The Neo-Luddites that make up stupid excuses to try to fight the existance of cell phones often use the "Eye Sore" excuss to try to stop antennas from being put up. This would put an end to that. Of course, it would probably lead to a whole new argument of "Invisibility gives you cancer".

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (2, Funny)

Grimbleton (1034446) | more than 4 years ago | (#31542226)

Worse than just giving you cancer, it gives you invisible cancer.

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (1)

Tobenisstinky (853306) | more than 4 years ago | (#31543028)

But then they'll complain about the random piles of dead birds! Think of the Birds!

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#31540502)

Privacy is a big one, making it much more difficult for someone to build up a full picture of your life. Also as a purely defensive device to get around, avoiding the fanatics trying to kill you because of something legal but controversial you said [cnn.com] .

Mostly privacy, really.

Re:What good could come from invisibility? (2, Insightful)

shadowfaxcrx (1736978) | more than 4 years ago | (#31543600)

Hunting. No more constructing complex deer blinds. Have the cloak flash visible light in a spectrum the deer can't see so that you don't get shot by another hunter.

Spy tech. A lot easier to hide a bug if the bug is invisible.

Visual nuisances. Don't like that telephone pole in your back yard wrecking your view of the valley? Cloak the bastard.

Military. A cloaked sniper nest's advantages are obvious. Cloak secret military installations. Cloak factories making military hardware (we've already done this, the low-tech way. Back in WWII they disguised the Lockheed factory as a housing development by using giant canvas coverings painted like houses). Cloak troop camps. Cloak airfields. Cloak airplanes. Cloak airplanes in the air (eventually).

Of course, as with any technology, there are lots of malevolent uses too. Peeping toms will love it, as will criminals of all sorts. Hard to find the murder weapon when it's cloaked. Practical jokers will become a nuisance. Put crap on a sidewalk and cloak it, then wait for people to stumble into it.

That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure people will come up with lots more uses.

good (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31538732)

something that will be able to hide goatse.

Yo Mamma... (1)

PhongUK (1301747) | more than 4 years ago | (#31538778)

... so far not even a 3d cloak could hide her!

Re:Yo Mamma... (3, Insightful)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 4 years ago | (#31538864)

... so far not even a 3d cloak could hide her!

I think you're doing it wrong.

Re:Yo Mamma... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31539388)

You sense of humour must be cloaked perfectly

Re:Yo Mamma... (1)

DIplomatic (1759914) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539796)

.
.

There! My new text-invisibility-cloak nearly perfectly conceals posts with awkward misspellings!

Good News Everyone! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31538804)

Scientists have made an invisibility cloak! Unfortunately it only works on invisible bumps...

Damn! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31538810)

I seem to have misplaced my 1 micrometer bump. I was sure i put it over here.

fa1lzors! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31538836)

Am protesting what provides the ultimately, we [idge.net] reaper Nor do the person. Ask your fe4r the reaper At times. From this post up.

Major technical downside (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31538884)

You have to be wearing special glasses to not see the cloak in 3D. Everyone else just gets a headache.

Not really what you'd think it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31538928)

This isn't really the kind of invisibility cloak in SciFi or fantasy, it's fundamentally different.

This is essentially you're bending the light around the object, so you don't see it's there. The way it's being done however, has the inherent problem of being limited in angle. That is, theoretically it could be hidden from 180 degrees, but anything beyond that there would be at least visible distortion. You could hide a feature on a surface, but you can't hide the surface like this.

Re:Not really what you'd think it is (2, Insightful)

pclminion (145572) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539086)

Holy shit, we're not even reading the article TITLES now? The whole reason this is new is because it makes the object invisible from all angles.

Re:Not really what you'd think it is (1)

sillybilly (668960) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539410)

Also, metamaterials only work for a special range of wavelengths, comparable to the feature/aperture size of the metamaterial. If that range covers the full optical range, objects can be made invisible to human eyes, but not to short wavelength xrays/gamma rays, or even long wavelength radar/terahertz/infrared. Another way to have invisible objects is complete darkness, but infrared goggles that collect the emitted thermal radiation work in the dark too. If they had many layers of metamaterials, each targeted for a different range of wavelengths, then the topmost layer would still be visible in one of the ranges covered by the lower layers. It would need a special material that covers any and all frequencies at the same time. Things that have features, but are scale independent, that is zooming in and zooming out preserves the features and appearance, are called fractals.

This was actually much easier than it sounds... (3, Insightful)

RapmasterT (787426) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539244)

all it really took to accomplish "Invisibility Cloak Created In 3D", was to redefine the terms "invisibility", "cloak" and "created" in new, creative ways that fit what they actually did.

Re:This was actually much easier than it sounds... (1)

wye43 (769759) | more than 4 years ago | (#31542358)

I agree, nothing but a lame PR stunt.

It exists (1)

PhongUK (1301747) | more than 4 years ago | (#31539290)

I'm wearing an invisibility cloak right now and im right beside you.

Re:It exists (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 4 years ago | (#31544594)

Either you're inside a wall, trapped under a fat guy, or your cloak is not working. Might I suggest a diet plan?

Anything that small... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31539338)

... is practically invisible anyways.

invis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31540228)

FANTASTIC achievement now we can make virtual stuff invisible

mod do3n (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31540334)

we need to address Centr[alized models have the energy lead developers There are only off the play area world. GNAA members by BSDI who sell

I'm skeptical (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31540634)

I'll believe it when I see it.

Not close, but flamebait (1)

wye43 (769759) | more than 4 years ago | (#31542336)

300 nm to 10 nm, while claiming "close" in the summary. Flamebait. Simple.

Yes but (1)

tekproxy2 (1386447) | more than 4 years ago | (#31542434)

Yes, but will the Federation reverse it's stance on the use of cloaking technology?

Invisibility is not undetectability (1)

bradbury (33372) | more than 4 years ago | (#31543604)

This seems to be a fantasy riding on the broomstick of a certain young English wizard (to name a few). In the age of modern technology, one needs to not only make something "invisible" in the realm of visible wavelengths -- one also has to hide its radar signature, its infrared signature (good luck doing that if you've got any significant computing capabilities on board), its magnetic signature and presumably its mass (gravimetric) signature.

If you can't do all of those things you are only "undetectable" to primitive (read "nontechnological") humans and not any relatively simplistic robots, sensor assisted humans or airborne drones.

Re:Invisibility is not undetectability (1)

ksandom (718283) | more than 4 years ago | (#31544558)

Not to mention if you fart while you're in the womens' changing room!

joel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31544238)

yes

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?