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!

Holograms Help Protect Super Bowl

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the three-inches-to-your-left-and-straight-ahead dept.

Security 287

Apache4857 writes to tell us CNet is reporting that Homeland Security agents monitoring the Superbowl will be doing so in 3D. Using streams from two cameras, the LifeVision 3D system is able to project images onto a 20-inch screen that is equipped with a depth tube. This depth tube makes images appear to rise 30 inches off the screen and sink 30 inches into the screen allowing real world volumes and distances to be displayed accurately. Using this system security officials will be able to search sidewalks, monitor faces, and even peer under vehicles.

cancel ×

287 comments

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

Problem. (1, Interesting)

Teresh (911815) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647210)

If there's a terrorist attack like the Bush Administration expects, how will it get reported? Last I checked the news was still in HDTV and not Holovision.

Re:Problem. (3, Insightful)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647470)

Persumably anything not equipped to do "holograms" can just use one camera feed or the other or both. That, of course, assumes that we are allowed to see the footage from the security tapes if there's an attack. Really the news'll prolly be limited to whatever cell phone cameras get, unless they catch it on their cameras.

And in related news (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14647214)

Jem and the Holograms will perform at the half-time show.

Finally (3, Interesting)

crass25 (884537) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647217)

We've all been waiting for this for a long time. I've heard of speakers like kurzeil using similiar technology to give speeches across the world. Now how long till this replaces standard tv?

But still... (5, Insightful)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647218)

this isnt a hologram.
(i know hologram sounds cool, but you cannot call any crap that has some stereoscopic view that way)

No lasers mentioned. (1)

IAAP (937607) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647264)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you need LASERs to make a Hologram? IIRC, you need a laser or two for making the Hologram and another to show it.

holograms (1)

thepotoo (829391) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647283)

Sort of. [wikipedia.org] . You need a light source, and that can be a laser, but I don't believe it has to be.

Re:No lasers mentioned. (4, Informative)

JohnFluxx (413620) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647337)

I am a holographic engineer.

This is not a hologram because it is not creating an interference pattern. No phase information is stored.

To make a real hologram, you do need a monochromatic light source. Before lasers they used various lamps (mercury lamp etc) that illuminate at specific wavelengths. This does kinda work, but has a very short coherence length so is bad for making analogue holograms (a hologram of an actual object). Quite possibly a lamp could be used for copying holograms or for digital holography.

Re:No lasers mentioned. (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647351)

What about those tags they put on NFL merchandise?

Are those holographs?

Re:But still... (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647276)

You're right. They should have used Arnold Rimmer instead.

3-D viewing (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14647220)

Maybe the agents just want to view the wardrobe malfunctions in 3-D.

Dozens of 20" screens..? (2, Interesting)

ds_job (896062) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647227)

I'd still prefer it if they had a couple of battalions of actual human beings out there. I doubt that the cost / benefit analysis has been done for this. Probably just makes people think they are being watched which will either make them feel secure or vindicated about their Orwellian nightmares. They'll all be checking out womens cleavages anyway...

Re:Dozens of 20" screens..? (1, Funny)

Mortirer (885969) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647261)

"They'll all be checking out womens cleavages anyway..." In 3D!

Re:Dozens of 20" screens..? (1)

paulthomas (685756) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647295)

I somewhat agree. If the DHS has to even be there in the first place, plain-clothes officers would make much more sense.

I think that you're right, too that this is how an Orwellian nightmare begins at least. It begins when it makes people feel secure. And cozy. And it ends when... well, I don't know if it ends.

Re:Dozens of 20" screens..? (1)

inter alias (947885) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647397)

plain-clothes officers...

Did someone say there wouldn't be? And if someone did, would you trust them?

Seriously, they won't be taking care of security in only one way.

Yes a cost benefit analysis was done. (3, Funny)

IAAP (937607) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647369)

I doubt that the cost / benefit analysis has been done for this.

A cost/benefit analysis was done and we found that this project is very wortwhile (to us)!

James Fischbach,
CEO of Intrepid Defense & Security Systems

Re:Dozens of 20" screens..? (1)

Fishstick (150821) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647379)

>I'd still prefer it if they had a couple of battalions of actual human beings out there

oh, I'm sure this isn't being used in place of human security assets.

I'm sure the main benefit of doing something like this is being able to say

The U.S. government will deploy a new "Star Wars-like" hologram technology to help safeguard the Super Bowl on Sunday.

I bet the majority of non-technical citizens who hear that kind of statement are impressed. "Star Wars holograms! I feel safer already! Sweeet!!"

What a profitable use of funds... (2, Insightful)

paulthomas (685756) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647228)

I think this is a really good use of funds. Well, at least I would if I too were feeding at the trough.

Best,
Paul

Re:What a profitable use of funds... (2, Funny)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647365)

Narc out your roomate. I did, and I bought a Gateway FPD2185W with the reward. It has a native resolution of 1680 x 1050 pixels, an aspect Ratio: 16:10, triple video inputs: 2xComponent and one S-Video. PC Magazine described it as "a stylish 21-inch widescreen LCD that delivers better-than-average performance and lots of features". I also bought a 60GB iPod with a 2.5" 320 x 240 color TFT screen which I store all my Huey Lewis and the News mp3s on. Rolling Stone Magazine described Huey as the "misunderstood genius of American Rock".

2D works for Big Ben (3, Funny)

cwebb1977 (650175) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647229)

The two-dimensional thing called offensive line protects Roethlisberger well enough. Who needs 3D?

oh, the irony... (-1, Troll)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647232)

...that an icon of the engine of the mass entertainment and distraction that has rendered public discourse pureile is being monitored by the kinds of devices that public discourse, if it existed, would profoundly reject.

Re:oh, the irony... (3, Insightful)

Shihar (153932) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647290)

...that an icon of the engine of the mass entertainment and distraction that has rendered public discourse pureile is being monitored by the kinds of devices that public discourse, if it existed, would profoundly reject.

You think if the average person knew that they were using hologram like TVs to moniter the Super Bowl they would reject its use? That is down right silly. The Super Bowl is a big and obvious target. It is a target being attended by thousands and watched by hundreds of millions. Any terrorist worth his salt would hit the Super Bowl if they had the ability.

We accept cameras in banks because they are obvious targets for criminals. You honestly believe that people would not accept monitoring an even larger target with a significantly higher capacity for the loss of human life?

Really people. Just think before you post something silly like this. I imagine that everyone walking into the Super Bowl realizes that they are going to be on a camera, and I imagine that a super majority of them are glad that police, cameras, and all other manner of monitoring devices are trying to pick through the crowd to find the one crazy nut job with a bomb and a need to get some air time. If you believe otherwise, you are deeply out of touch with reality.

Speaking of irony (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647332)

I imagine that everyone walking into the Super Bowl realizes that they are going to be on a camera
The security people working the Super Bowl aren't using facial recognition this year.

So all those cameras are just there for the normal surveillance and not to actually compare faces to pictures of bad-guys.

Re:oh, the irony... (1, Insightful)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647353)

I imagine that everyone walking into the Super Bowl realizes that they are going to be on a camera, and I imagine that a super majority of them are glad that police, cameras, and all other manner of monitoring devices are trying to pick through the crowd to find the one crazy nut job with a bomb

Then they're idiots, because that one crazy nut job with the bomb would be hiding in plain sight with a bomb in his jacket and looking indistinguishable to a camera because it's January. And even if someone finds him or stops him to look under his jacket, no matter where he goes, he's always surrounded by dozens of people. When the cop puts his hand on him, they're all gone.

If you haven't caught him by the time he gets to the building, you lose.

Obviously I'm not discouraging security, 'cause you need that there anyway, but if anyone feels that the security presence has any hope of actually saving a life, they're just being silly.

Re:oh, the irony... (1)

Shihar (153932) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647471)

A security presence DOES have an effect on saving lives. If they just threw the doors open I would bet money some idiot with a bomb (domestic or foriegn) would go blow something up. Bomb sniffing dogs, security check points, bag searchers, all of these things absolutely decrease the risk of a bomb going off.

As to cameras, they serve two roles. First, they do serve as an extra set of eyes. If someone drops a bag and a camera spots a bag just sitting there, they can send security over to investigate.

Re:oh, the irony... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14647437)

Strongly agree with this parent.

Twenty some years back, I was a deputy sheriff for Los Angeles County when Menachem Bagin, the Prime Minister of Israel made an appearance at the Forum, in Inglewood. The Inglewood PD requested well in advance for the assistance of the LASD to help with security and the sheriff responded with a call to all available deputies to respond. We had so many deputies and Inglewood officers there that evening that we were a crowd. Every person entering the forum that evening was given one-on-one time with a deputy or officer, not a cursory check, but a detailed search as would be given to an arrestee in the field. During that slow entry process no one, absolutely none, complained about the intrusion. Several commented about how happy they were to see this level of security.

Obviously that crowd was nothing like the cross section of humanity something like the Super Bowl brings into an arena but it does imply that when conditions might reasonably warrant it, people tend to respect extra scrutany.

Re:oh, the irony... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14647476)

Twenty some years back, I was a deputy sheriff for Los Angeles County when Menachem Bagin, the Prime Minister of Israel made an appearance at the Forum, in Inglewood. ... [N]o one, absolutely none, complained about the intrusion. Several commented about how happy they were to see this level of security.

That's kind of funny, given that Begin was responsible for the terrorist bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem back in 1946, in which 91 people died.

Re:oh, the irony... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14647442)

I dont accept cameras in banks, kmart, walmart, on the interstate, or any other place. Period.

Which is why I don't patronize any of those places. And I sure as heck am not going to the superbowl.

Re:oh, the irony... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14647449)

"We accept cameras in banks because they are obvious targets for criminals. You honestly believe that people would not accept monitoring an even larger target with a significantly higher capacity for the loss of human life?"

Sadly Shihar, you have spectacularly failed to appreciate the point to which you reply, thus validating the OPs position. Discourse is not about the means, methods and mechanisms of surveillance, it is about the presumed necessity for it in the first place. Your description of the Superbowl as a 'target' belies the extent to which you have swallowed hook line and sinker the philosophy of defensive fear. If "terrorists" want to do the Superbowl then they will do the Superbowl, and it will happen by some hideously clever, unexpected and audacious method that no amount of vigillance could have prevented. You and I and every other intelligent man and woman alive know this to be a truth. At which point the "failure" of intelligence will be used as an excuse to heap on even greater degrees of surveillance until you have cameras in your house watching you take a piss, and still they will fail to stop terrorism. That (for those of you still waking up) is because "terrorists" have nothing to do with this. Go figure.

Re:oh, the irony... (1)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647506)

> You think if the average person knew that they were using hologram like TVs to
> moniter the Super Bowl they would reject its use? That is down right silly.

You're taking my comment too literally.

I'm thinking of centralised, computerized State survillience in general and the lack of meaningful public discourse caused by television.

I don't get it (5, Funny)

g253 (855070) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647234)

This is massively cool and all, but how is it helpful to peer under vehicles? You don't need 3D for that, and 3D won't help if the cameras are too high above ground... Anyway, they'll just use it to peer under skirts, like we would.

Re:I don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14647303)

oh, please. You make us all out to be so immature.

OT, but, has anyone been able to find a good Natalie Portman nudie pic? Been looking everywhere and all I can find is some grainy thing. Torrent would be great.

Re:I don't get it (1)

slavemowgli (585321) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647360)

Support civil liberties, wear a kilt to the next SuperBowl!

(If you're wondering how this would help civil liberties. well, let's just say it will probably cause naughty camera operators to go blind. Or at least wish they had.)

Re:I don't get it (-1, Flamebait)

east coast (590680) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647488)

Support civil liberties

No civil liberties are being violated here, fucking retard. You're just another knee jerk reaction asshole that's too stupid to understand these things.

Homeland Security Purchase Order (5, Funny)

sabNetwork (416076) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647466)

Sir, uh, we need $150,000 for a holographic 3D TV to watch the Superbowl on. For uh, national security.

Oh yeah, and... we need $1,000 for a large order of chicken wings. Those bad guys might try to poison those. We want to be the first to know.

And some beer. No reason for that one, just thought I'd ask.

--

Cool tech, but.... (5, Funny)

Vengeance_au (318990) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647236)

What the hell is this technology doing being deployed in a security role? The rule is : ALL COOL TECH IS DEVELOPED FOR PORN! It then trickles down into other mundane uses, like saving our lives.

Re:Cool tech, but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14647249)

Don't worry, it's been used for peeking up skirts already, so it's on to the lifesaving phase of its development.

Thank God! (5, Funny)

RyatNrrd (662756) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647237)

Nothing is too elaborate to protect us from Janet's Terror-Boobs!

Re:Thank God! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14647247)

Nothing is too elaborate to protect us from Janet's Terror-Boobs!

Those boobs were a terror, many a nerd cried out in fear!

Re:Thank God! (1)

mordors9 (665662) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647258)

Yes, but imagine.... her boobs popping out 30 inches at you...yikes.

Cost (3, Insightful)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647239)

I only skimmed the article, so maybe I missed it, but what are taxpayers paying for this system that still will not stop someone from strapping a ring of explosives under their coat?

Re:Cost (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647436)

Hmm.. could it be because they have pat-downs for those?

Or because they're concerned about the threat associated with a vehicle strapped with enough explosives to take out and/or destabilize a large part of a stadium?

I give up, which is it?

Re:Cost (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647463)

Yeah, God forbid your tax money is being spent on a project that won't end world hunger, cure cancer, rid us of the need of foreign oil and wipe our collective asses all at the same time. You know, it's the slashdot way, if a tax funded project doesn't stop every potential vulnerability in a system it is a complete waste of cash and time. Outraegous I say! I won't put up with it!

Instead I'll sit around slashdot and talk up how cool a case mod is that uses old pizza boxes as a cooling system or about how someone reinventing the wheel is a noble pursuit.

Re:Cost (1)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647507)

I only skimmed the article, so maybe I missed it, but what are taxpayers paying for this system that still will not stop someone from strapping a ring of explosives under their coat?

Its not mentioned how much this costs. But I would imagine that they are not looking for a pipe bomb kinda guy like the one that showed up at the 1996 Olympic games in Atlanta. They are looking under cars and through the crowd for the guy that just got a job from Budweiser that will deliver all of the poisoned beer. Or they might be looking for the Cessna plane that will shower the crowd with antrax. Or the handicapped guy in a wheelchair with the assemble and shoot machine gun.

With all points of possible destruction taken care of with the new "Star Wars" holograms, everybody is assured that the game will be a happy and safe time.

Oh, and the best part is if another bobbie gets revealed, the Homeland Security People will see it in 3d with a depth of +-30"

More importantly, when is this technology going to be consumer affordable? 3d porn with no glasses. Yeah!

Under vehicles, ya right (3, Insightful)

Stalke (20083) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647241)

Even if they can "pear under vehicles", they won't have any additional information that is available on the video screen. The advantage with a 3D environment is have a better perception of what the 2D image is recording. It doesn't provide any additional information (unless one of those cameras is infrared or better yet, baggage scanner from an airport).

Gosh, how terribly impressive! (5, Insightful)

imipak (254310) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647242)

but, astonishing as it sounds, terrorists watch TV, too. No doubt the people physically at the Superbowl are a little bit safer (and probably feel a bit safer, as well) for all this techno. Sadly, however, the hypothetical station-wagon full of stereotypical evil bearded Muslim fundamentalists (possibly with swords between their teeth and eyepatches? Who dares imagine what shapes the great American subconscious dreams...) - anyway, they're going to screech to a halt in a cloud of rubber. "Mustapha, you son of an infidel! The place is swarming with cops. Curses!!!!!!" *twirls moustache furiously for a moment* "I know, we'll do it next Saturday, at the Denver Earthworms vs. Seattle Turnipfarmers game, instead. Bwaa,hahahahaha!"

Net result in security: nil.

Bruce Schneier has some excellent things to say about "security" measures that defend against movie-plot threats. If you don't read Crypto-Gram yet, go sign yourself up, and learn how counter-intuitive reality can be.

(You might also think about how little you should trust your own intuition, and then deduce things about people who boast of theirs... but I don't want to interfere with domestic political matters :)

Re:Gosh, how terribly impressive! (1)

Grey Ninja (739021) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647344)

God I wish I had mod points. I can't believe some idiot actually modded you as a troll for pointing out the obvious. I honestly have nothing to add to your statement. You said it better than I could, and have voiced something that did a little more than cross my mind every time this whole "superbowl terrorist" topic comes up. I'm sure that there's something more worthwhile to be doing than to spend a few million dollars to carefully observe every event that comes along. I mean, it's just leading to the stage where the average American is deathly afraid to take the dog for a walk, as there could be terrorists hiding in the bushes. I just can't believe how easy it is to perpetuate mass hysteria.

Re:Gosh, how terribly impressive! (1)

Onuma (947856) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647384)

I wouldn't confuse mass hysteria and mass paranoia. Hysteria would be when the shit already happens and people have no idea what to do out of sheer panic.

Re:Gosh, how terribly impressive! (2, Insightful)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647454)

Right. As you may have heard, there was a little incident about, oh, 4 and a half years ago, and ever since it's been mass hysteria. That's probably why he chose to use the word "perpetuate" rather than "instigate," although it could also just be a happy coincidence.

Re:Gosh, how terribly impressive! (1)

saifatlast (659446) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647451)

Right, because terrorists never strike [wikipedia.org] at major sporting events [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Gosh, how terribly impressive! (1)

KevinIsOwn (618900) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647493)

And the grandparent poster's argument hits a gigantic brick wall. Good post.

Corporate Welfare (2, Insightful)

PingXao (153057) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647244)

The Super Bowl is a game played by privately owned teams. It brings in hundreds of millions in revenue for the NFL from advertising.

Tell me again... why do taxpayer dollars have to pay for security at this game? Let the NFL pay for their own damn security. Or is the NFL technically a "foreign country"?

Re:Corporate Welfare (4, Insightful)

green pizza (159161) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647279)

Tell me again... why do taxpayer dollars have to pay for security at this game? Let the NFL pay for their own damn security.

Because tax-paying Americans are the vast majority of those attending the Super Bowl, which is held here on our homeland, in the United States of America.

Put another way, if there is an emergency at your local shopping mall, it's the local taxpayer-supported police and fire departments that will come to help. The mall rent-a-cops are only there as first responders and as a first line of defense. The local taxpayer-supported agencies do all of the real work, including booking/charging teenage petty theft.

Bad Analogy (2, Insightful)

SauroNlord (707570) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647513)

The analogy should read: "Why should police, technology, and the media focus on the safety of one stadium(say 25k+ people) versus another of the odd 100-1000's of other stadium(25k+ people)? " It seems like the superbowl is given a lot more public attention than other another 25k grouping of people. Could this be just a way to guarantee that the football game goes as planned-so all television commercial slots will be seen as planned. Imagine the horror of a scare/bomb going off and then losing all the commercial spots. There is a lot of money riding on those commercials. I might be crazy, but it can *almost* see there viewpoint. Do you think any of this 'works'?

Re:Corporate Welfare (1)

IAAP (937607) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647299)

Tell me again... why do taxpayer dollars have to pay for security at this game

Well, it's not like taxpayer money is used to build the stadiums, the infrastructure to support the stadium, the ...oh wait...

Nevermind.

Re:Corporate Welfare (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647311)

The way security gets paid for, is usually laid out as part of the haggling when a stadium is first built.

Part of it security costs are normally paid by the National Football League and part by the City the stadium is in.

So, to answer your question directly, the reason "taxpayer dollars have to pay for security at this game" is because when the stadium was built in Chicago, it was probably part of the agreement.

I bet Chicago is also getting State and Federal funds earmarked for anti-terrorism efforts too.

Last, but not least, the insurance companies get a big say in how much and what type of security is put in place.

Re:Corporate Welfare (1)

karnal (22275) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647331)

Chicago is kinda near Michigan, but it isn't Detroit :)

Re:Corporate Welfare (1)

Fishstick (150821) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647350)

>the stadium was built in Chicago

boy, I missed they day when they uprooted Soldier Field, moved it to Detroit and renamed it Ford Field. ;-)

Re:Corporate Welfare (1)

chicagotypewriter (933271) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647362)

So, to answer your question directly, the reason "taxpayer dollars have to pay for security at this game" is because when the stadium was built in Chicago, it was probably part of the agreement.

I bet Chicago is also getting State and Federal funds earmarked for anti-terrorism efforts too.


I would venture to say the answer here is yes, because Chicago's Soldier Field is owned by the Chicago Park District.

The Super Bowl is being held in Detroit though, and I don't really know who specifically owns that stadium.

Re:Corporate Welfare (1)

mblase (200735) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647315)

Tell me again... why do taxpayer dollars have to pay for security at this game?

Because the players, coaches and fans are still American citizens?

I dunno, that's just a guess.

Re:Corporate Welfare (1)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647373)

Detroit is similar in many ways to Beirut... gunfire, explosions, and slums. So I guess yeah, it is kinda like a foreign country. Can we give Detroit to Canada?

Re:Corporate Welfare (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14647410)

Hell no, you can keep it as well as quebec :)

National Special Security Event (2, Informative)

Brendor (208073) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647391)

Certain high profile events such as the Olympics, political conventions and the super-bowl are protected by the US secret service.

"When an event is designated a National Special Security Event, the Secret Service assumes its mandated role as the lead agency for the design and implementation of the operational security plan."

details here [secretservice.gov]

I must be wasting my time... (-1, Offtopic)

Onuma (947856) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647407)

Tell me why we're sending tax-paying volunteers called US Military into dozens of countries, routing and killing terrorists?

Oh yeah, it's because the threat is to Americans (and our allies...but they're not first priority). Would you rather have the poorly funded and undermanned law enforcement/military of countries such as Iraq take care of the threats to United States citizens & soldiers?

Then I suppose I shouldn't be deployed to Iraq right now, nor should all of my brothers in arms.

You want something done right? You've gotta do it yourself.

Re:I must be wasting my time... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14647503)

Tell me why we're sending tax-paying volunteers called US Military into dozens of countries, routing and killing terrorists? Oh yeah, it's because the threat is to Americans...

Dude, if you believe Iraq posed the slightest risk to Americans, the Army's the right place for you, because son, you have shit for brains. If you really want to know what you're doing in Iraq, go read "Manufacture of Consent" by Noam Chomsky. Congratulations, you are now bitter and angry as you realise your life and those of your friends have been used as throwaway units of resource in order to further the get-rich-quick and pax-americana schemes to the sect of neo-cons who've subverted your democracy. You are now in a prime position to join the others your nation's miltary chewed up and spat out: on the streets, on booze and drugs, pscyhologically crippled by post-traumatic stress. Guess you should have read more books in school and paid less attention to getting on the football team and nailing that cheerleader.

Re:Corporate Welfare (1)

JourneyExpertApe (906162) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647409)

And the NFL pays millions in taxes for those millions of dollars that it earns. Are you saying that the police should only protect you if you are on public property and are not currently earning any money? I really don't see your point.

General Welfare (1)

lasindi (770329) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647472)

Tell me again... why do taxpayer dollars have to pay for security at this game? Let the NFL pay for their own damn security. Or is the NFL technically a "foreign country"?

To the extent that the government shouldn't be involved in doing special favors for various private interests, I agree with you. However, the job of Homeland Security isn't just to protect public buildings (the White House, Capitol, etc.); it's to protect the *public*, no matter where the public is. The police provide security for political party conventions, for example, because some of the public is there, and they are definitely a target. The federal government provides security at airports because a lot of the public flies, even though everyone flies on private airlines. Today, the government provides security for lots of skyscrapers in cities, even though most of them house private, corporate offices (the World Trade Center did).

The government will provide security, at least in theory (and the public should make sure it happens in practice), to whoever needs it, whether it's the NFL or anyone else. If you decide to have a large gathering of people that should be considered a terrorist target, Homeland Security is supposed to be there to protect you, even though your gathering may not be a public function, because A) terrorists do not only want to attack government targets (as 9/11 demonstrated) and B) it is good for society if large gatherings of people can happen without being completely vulnerable to attack.

and what the hell is super bolw ? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14647245)

speak europe to me!

Re:and what the hell is super bolw ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14647277)

No idea what the super bolw is, but I'm watching the puppy bowl on Animal Planet.

TAB FOR MVP!!!

Re:and what the hell is super bolw ? (1)

PenGun (794213) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647447)

The kitten half time show made it for me.

    PenGun
  Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !

Protecting a stupid ball game (-1, Flamebait)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647251)

How about using all these resources for something useful.. like ending hunger.. or curing some illness.. or even going to mars..

its a f-ing BALL GAME.. geesh.

ya, i know i know.. mod me down..

Protecting an obvious target (5, Insightful)

Shihar (153932) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647275)

It is a fucking high porfile ball game with tens of thousands of people attending it and being watched by hundreds millions of people. If you want to kill a lot of people and have it seen live on TV around the world, the Super Bowl is the place to do it. You couldn't pick a better target in terms of mass death and live coverage. They are not protecting it because they love football. They are protecting it because it is a big gleeming target with a bulls eye on it.

There goes my business plan. (1)

IAAP (937607) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647316)

You couldn't pick a better target in terms of mass death and live coverage.

I'll have to trash my business plan for a security firm that specializes in "Politics on Ice" shows.

Re:Protecting an obvious target (0, Troll)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647334)

Its a *total* waste of resources was my point. Using your analogy of 'its for the people': if we lost '10s of thousands' of idiots, no great loss.

Re:Protecting an obvious target (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14647358)

Who the *fuck* are you to place a value on thousands of peoples' lives, you sick fuck?

Re:Protecting an obvious target (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14647389)

Apparently he's the person arguing against someone without an understanding of sarcasm

Re:Protecting an obvious target (4, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647445)

Anywhere that there's an attack will be on TV pretty quick. I dunno about you, but I didn't know of the existance of a WTC-channel prior to the 9/11 attacks. And boy did that get media coverage. Why'd they choose there? Not only because that it stood for things they're against, but because you have an incredibly high density of civilians. They could just as easily blow up a concert where you also have a high density of people, and it'll get just as much coverage. The only reason they'd target the Super Bowl in the first place is because we're so fired up over security, and it would help thier cause to demonstrate our incompetence if they were to succeed. Remember that whacko at the Olympics a while back? There's a huge density of people there *because* it's so popular. Can you think of a more densely-populated thing to attack than a massive sporting event or a skyscraper office building?

Attacks don't follow the media; the media follows the attacks. If they happen to be in the same place at the same time, it's just more convenient for both of them. If anything, this would be the day to go the capitol building or something, just because security's all scrabling over the game.

Re:Protecting a stupid ball game (0, Troll)

Fluffy_Kitten (911430) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647374)

It's not even a BALL game!
They don't even use a BALL!!

Breasts in 3D?! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14647253)

Nothing beats 3D porn. Why people like us are deprived of it, while the Homland security can watch Janet Jackson's breasts in 3D?!

Oh wait.. this year, its Jagger!

Scant on details (2, Insightful)

paulthomas (685756) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647262)

The article makes this technology look like some otherwordly system for perception; they specifically cite Star Wars. My first question was how effective this could be. The article was very scant on technical details: When you're constructing 3D images from multiple view points, you aren't probably doing too much to improve the overall resolution of the image. And, unless you are starting with very high resolution cameras to begin with (and ones with coordinated zoom capabilities), I suspect that what you get is a very expensive and cool looking toy without enough detail to actually be of any help.

Best
Paul

B*lls**t (5, Interesting)

scdeimos (632778) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647270)

"For the military, it can offer much better facial recognition," Fischbach said. "Instead of looking at a two-dimensional photo, you're looking at an entire head."
Anyone who's worked on stereoscopic vision (which is all that this is) will tell you this is crap. With a pair of cameras mounted like "eyes" (5-15cm apart) you're still only seeing one side of the object. The depth information is extremely helpful in feature extraction, but you're still only seeing one side of the object.

Re:B*lls**t (1)

Solder Fumes (797270) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647467)

Not to mention the fact that people trying to recognize troublemakers probably have a couple of 2D mugshots to work with, at best. Seems that looking at someone in a vastly different perspective would make it harder to match up.

Re:B*lls**t (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647485)

Well, the end of the article suggests that they actually use four cameras:

"If George Lucas had four cameras on her when he shot it, I could take them and present a real-world image of her right now," Fischbach said.

They may only project the images from two at a time because it's probably harder to look at an object when you can see both sides of it, because it's harder than it sounds to make light opaque.

Terrorists obviously want to attack the Superbowl (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14647288)

because we think it is important. So we pour millions of dollars in taxpayer funded security when the terrorists might as well go to the basketball game next door (or a mall) to do their dirty work. Not only is it easier but we end up buying useless 3D remote cameras to look under cars. I swear the government has been watching too much TV about govt. super agents.

Re:Terrorists obviously want to attack the Superbo (1)

codegen (103601) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647363)

I swear the government has been watching too much TV about govt. super agents.

Nahh, just reading too much Tom Clancy


Re:Terrorists obviously want to attack the Superbo (1)

KarmaMB84 (743001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647368)

But there will be more wealthy people at the super bowl than at that basketball game or mall. Who else pays those ticket prices?

Re:Terrorists obviously want to attack the Superbo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14647468)

Exactly. When will someone (or a bunch of actors) take the next step and show up at the airport with all their baggage (which is really a bunch of package bombs, and they really don't have any plans to check it in anyways), in line say at El Al in La Guardia or Kennedy, and set off the bombs in the ticket line area? Even sicker would be entire family groups recruited to do the dirty deed (but only with one person in the family knowing of the plan).

Or drive a truck bomb at the same time at any airport with a departure area above the arrival area (like SeaTac, PDX, et al), again, during a busy holiday period when the deck is crammed with cars (as well as people waiting to pick up below), and blow it up?

So then we push the security fences even further out so that cars are examined before getting into the airport area per se. OK, so now the choke points are even further out and even more centralized, and a whole lot harder to check efficiently.

All it would take is one instance of this at an airport to seriously screw up air travel within the US far more so than 9/11 did.

Granted, it is hard to see that an airport has quite the "symbolism" as the WTC did, but if El Queso's intent is to seriously screw up the US into a logistical bundle of knots, this would be one serious way to do it. But I can see one of the fixes now. To drive to the terminal areas, you must show ID and your "reservations", so Mr Terrorist just has copies of old on-line boarding passes made that have been photoshopped sufficiently, because no one will be willing to tie in all the airlines' reservation systems to allow verification of these things, or at least nothing that wouldn't take some period of time, and will still be gameable.

Not as glamorous as blowing up the Golden Gate bridge or caving in the Hudson & Lincoln tunnels, but far, FAR more effective. The Super Bowl happens once a year, and we can live without it. But seriously exposing the sham that airport security is in a big f'ing way, now, that will seriously cause some problems that we just are not prepared to handle.

even peer under vehicles (2, Funny)

future assassin (639396) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647304)

or a new niche of Up Skirts.

Peering under anything doubtful. (2, Insightful)

paulthomas (685756) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647361)

You bring up a good point. When they say peer under, I suspect they mean look straight through as if laying on the ground twenty feet away. Now, that's not exciting.

You are not going to see the undercarriage of a car, or of a skirt-donning femme. As Stevie Wonder put it, you can't turn nothing into something... Without some vantage point from a camera actually on the ground looking up, you can infer nothing and cannot create the image of the underside of the target.

This sounds like a severe case of security theater (or budding fascism depending on how you see it).

Hologram? (3, Informative)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647308)

Looking at the rather skimpy article, it doesnt appear to be a hologram, any more then the special effects were in the movie it references.

holograms *require* interferrence patterns.. i dont see that happening with this product.

Re:Hologram? (2, Informative)

jacksonj04 (800021) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647398)

It's a holographic projection of an image taken with stereoscopic cameras? The article was a bit short on details.

Terror defense (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14647333)

Require everyone to eat a strip of bacon before they're allowed in

Re:Terror defense (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14647457)

Oh so all Muslims are terrorists now?
Your mentality is no different to the one of the REAL terrorists.

Re:Terror defense (1)

Andrew Clegg (952015) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647462)

I don't recall Timothy McVeigh or the Birmingham Six being vegetarians.

They had this for years (1)

Legodude522 (847797) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647383)

They had this for years. It was at the 1936 Berlin Olympic games.

To all the technocrats (1)

LordMyren (15499) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647430)

I believe this rote is called Virtual Holography.

What are they going to do about they real danger? (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647487)

There is a real danger for people watching this, both in the dome as on TV. People will be dying from boredom.

Terrorists strike military targets (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14647492)

Terrorists strike only military / government / industrial targets. Bombing civilians and civilian populations is solely the domain of state governments.

Terrorists just don't have the kind of funds to waste bombs like that. They have to chose very carefully what to attack. Bombing some stupid football game would only turn public opinion against them, which is not tactical nor strategic.

Flying a plane into the Pentagon, now that is something else entirely. That's a bonafide military target with a power they are formally at war with. I don't think Osama or any other terrorist has any bone to pick with any major league football team. For one, no football team has every invaded and bombed or exploited their country and killed their women and children and friends and family. No, those football players and their silly fans can beat themselves senseless and play in peace for as much as its worth.

The superbowl is less about football and more about statistics and gambling anyway. In fact, I'd say its just about all about statistics and gambling now.

Terroists want to strike at the centeres of hated oppressors, spiritual corrupters, exploiters, and criminal organizations. While I'm sure the Superbowl powers that pull the strings behind the show (the mafia?) fit all those bills, its not their target nor ever really will be.

Unless theres some disenfranchised regiaonal American croquet league out there that has been run into the ground by the football leagues, its not going to happen. A total waste of resources and another example of American bumbling security ineptitude.

I myself don't want your security. I am quite comfortable living in a rough and tumble world of chance, which no mater how many police you put on the streets or how many of my civil liberties you try to take away, its still going to be anyway. I don't need to feel "secure". Life inherently is not secure. Who's going to protect you from old age and death, or you children for that matter. No one. Its the nature of reality.

Don't be fooled into giving away the farm (your liberties and privacy) for bag of worthless magic beans (false promises that you are more secure).

   

Free PR = They gave it to them to use for free (2, Insightful)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 8 years ago | (#14647495)

I'm sure the security team did not buy it. Instead this Press release was given out, using the NFL and Superbowl as some sort of legitimizing example of in the field use.

I'm almost certain that it is sitting there, turned off... with 3 beers sitting on it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?