Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Cloak of Invisibility Coming Soon

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the i've-heard-that-before dept.

296

davaguco writes "It seems that we will finally be able to make ourselves invisible" It seems like this story resurfaces every few months and then gets submitted a zillion times so here it is. Personally I'm still waiting for my cloak of evasion. 20% miss chance is awesome.

cancel ×

296 comments

Pictures (5, Funny)

nizo (81281) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255244)

The article doesn't have any pictures; one can be found here [jpassion.net] .

Re:Pictures (4, Funny)

clevershark (130296) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255252)

You just think there were no pictures! That's how effective the technology really is!

Re:Pictures (5, Funny)

systemic chaos (892935) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255414)

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect

Re:Pictures (5, Interesting)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255287)

> The article doesn't have any pictures; one can be found here [http://www.jpassion.net/sitepix/blank_square.gif] .

Nothing to see there. Moving right along...

From TFA:

Prof Milton's team calculated that when certain objects are placed next to superlenses, the light bouncing off them is essentially erased by light reflecting off the superlens, making the object invisible.

Sounds an awful lot like the technology speculated about in Dean Ing's Ransom of Black Stealth One [powells.com] about ten years ago.

Re:Pictures (0)

Rei (128717) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255402)

So lets cover the basics. There is a "superlens", which can make things invisible because it uses a "metamaterial", which has a negative index of refraction, to bend light, which is both a particle and a wave at the same time, and whose particles velocities cannot be both accurately measured in position and location at the same time, just one of the two.

This Is What Scientists Actually Believe!

Re:Pictures (3, Insightful)

servognome (738846) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255526)

This Is What Scientists Actually Believe!

Science isn't about the "truth," it is about models that explain a set of data. Doesn't matter if their model is real, it explains and predicts a set of behavior. Once data is discovered that contradicts the model, scientists work on reformulating it.

Re:Pictures (2, Funny)

LordMaxxon (898539) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255522)

Nothing to see there. Moving right along...

Am I the only one who finds this phrase particularly appropriate here?

Re:Pictures (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15255510)

I was more interested in the mislabeled picture on Yahoo news: http://news.yahoo.com/photo/060503/photos_sc/2006_ 05_03t132522_450x338_us_environment_ozone;_ylt=ArS vl2JDBHvisA1h53uMgVsiANEA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3bGk2OHYzBHN lYwN0bXA- [yahoo.com] I think the article comes from Reuters.

The Southern hemisphere is labeled as the Northern hemisphere. Is this a reflection on the geographical literacy of Y? Or of Reuters?

"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15255247)

Apparently the story has the cloak of invisibility.

Screw that! (4, Funny)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255248)

I want my Acme rocket roller skates!

Wouldn't it be easier... (5, Interesting)

Kelson (129150) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255250)

To create a Somebody Else's Problem field [wikipedia.org] ? People are quite good at ignoring what they think isn't important (or what they don't want to recognize), so if you could find a way to convince people to ignore something, it would be just as effective as actual invisibility.

Re:Wouldn't it be easier... (2, Insightful)

Vengeance (46019) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255294)

Judging by the American news media, I'd say it's already been invented and is in active use.

Re:Wouldn't it be easier... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15255424)

What do you get when you combine Steve Jobs and Fox news?

Re:Wouldn't it be easier... (0, Troll)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255583)

Yep, and it was used to great effectiveness by Stephen Colbert at the White House Press Association Dinner.

the way the mainstream media covered his speech, you would think he wasn't even there.

http://thankyoustephencolbert.org/ [thankyoust...olbert.org]

Re:Wouldn't it be easier... (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255317)

Ah, but I'm afraid this technology is going to be most useful in hiding things from machines that go "Ping!" when they "see" something.

It isn't going to be enough to create a Somebody Else's Problem Field around the object to be hidden. You'll also need one around the detecting device so that people ignore it. That's a much harder problem.

"Brain the size of a planet, but do they listen to me when I tell them they're standing right underneath a Vogon battle cruiser? Noooooooooooo! I'll just go sit over here on this rock and rust."

KFG

Re:Wouldn't it be easier... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15255610)

Look dude, no one really cares. Quit being a FAG!!! and go do your astronaut, cowboy, super secret agent shit.

...Some people.

"Certain Frequencies" (1)

everphilski (877346) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255373)

Think cloaking from machines that are scanning on frequencies close to that of light... IR/laser. That is where this would come in handy. We know that IR_TRACKER_X looks on frequency (or frequencies) X, if we can cloak that frequency we can now move freely around the tracker.

"Selective frequencies" already in use by the Navy (5, Interesting)

CustomDesigned (250089) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255604)

My Dad worked on creating "custom fog" for the Navy. He studied propagation, e.g. this civilian paper [aip.org] . Then he developed a method of modifying droplet size distribution in fogs over the ocean. The end product (details classified) allows ships to create a fog bank on demand over large bodies of water (within 1 or 2 hours) that blocks enemy frequencies, but has "holes" for friendly scanner frequencies. The details include taking temperature/humidity/droplet profiles [allenpress.com] by altitude of the atmosphere over the target area.

Re:Wouldn't it be easier... (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255549)

The current administration already patented it.

Just look at the issue of presidential accountability.

Nothing to see (5, Funny)

EnsilZah (575600) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255257)

I really find it hard to believe that the "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along." i just saw is accidental, some meta-humour by Taco perhaps?

That would just be (1)

Unski (821437) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255322)

..too transparent..I think.

Re:Nothing to see (1)

DebianDog (472284) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255569)

No his name is Officer Barbrady.

Hmmm. (5, Funny)

x_MeRLiN_x (935994) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255258)

I'll believe it when I see it.

Re:Hmmm. (4, Funny)

Soul-Burn666 (574119) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255663)

I'll believe it when I don't!

20% miss chance (0, Redundant)

sckeener (137243) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255260)

yeah that 20% miss chance is awesome...no more sneak attacks from co-workers!

Re:20% miss chance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15255428)

Typical Rogue. My Overpower loves you.

Re: cloak of evasion (5, Funny)

ltwally (313043) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255267)

"Personally I'm still waiting for my cloak of evasion. 20% miss chance is awesome."
Yeah, but it doesn't work against constructs or undead, which is why I'll take my epic level cloak of elvenkind any day of the week.

ahh (-1, Offtopic)

soloes (415223) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255275)

insert random post here that we ahve made the last 500 times this myth has been posted.. im too lazy to retype all that.

Yesss finally I will be able to.... (-1)

aqfire (885545) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255284)

eat Grandma's Pi without her knowing it was me

Re:Yesss finally I will be able to.... (5, Funny)

Professr3 (670356) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255367)

Do you realize how wrong that sounds?

Re:Yesss finally I will be able to.... (4, Funny)

moochfish (822730) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255447)

I assume it sounds wrong because he's talking about eating a mathematical constant right? ;D

Re:Yesss finally I will be able to.... (1)

aqfire (885545) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255614)

can i delete a comment? hahaha

You know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15255295)

I bought 2 of these the other day. This guy on the street corner was selling 1 for $100, but he threw in a second for only $50.

Problem is, I can't seem to find where I put them....

Actually invisibility gives 50% miss chance (5, Funny)

cculianu (183926) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255303)

Actually, according to D&D 3.5 rules, if you are invisible (as with improved invisibility), but are detected (ie enemies know where you are due to listen checks and/or maybe you just cast a spell, etc) you get a concealment bonus of 50%, which is better than that 20% evasion that you are talking about. So given a cloak of evasion or a cloak of invisibility, I would much rather have the invisibility, thank you very much. Even with regular invisibility I think it's a 25% concealment bonus -- still better than 20%.

Re:Actually invisibility gives 50% miss chance (5, Funny)

jt418-93 (450715) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255318)

seriously, get out and get laid dude.

Reply to mods (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255483)

Do you even understand what the OP is talking about? Maybe try a wiki article for "sex" (and I will leave the actual construction of the google search to the student).

Or better yet, step away from the computer (just leave those mod points alone, they're too dangerous for you now).

Go upstairs.

Go outside.

And play.

Re:Actually invisibility gives 50% miss chance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15255345)

Is that you comic book guy?

Re:Actually invisibility gives 50% miss chance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15255519)

ah ok, so I wasn't the only one whose inner monologue immdiately snapped to CBG when reading that.

Re:Actually invisibility gives 50% miss chance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15255366)

what the hell are you talking about?

Re:Actually invisibility gives 50% miss chance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15255426)

Yes, but doesn't invisibility end when you attack?

Re:Actually invisibility gives 50% miss chance (4, Informative)

godscent (22976) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255445)

I assume CmdrTaco is talking about some other game. In D&D, evasion doesn't provide any kind of miss chance. It allows you to take less damage on certain attacks when making a successful reflex saving throw.

Also, there is no cloak of evasion. There is a ring of evasion, though.

Re:Actually invisibility gives 50% miss chance (1)

Cat_Byte (621676) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255605)

Also, there is no cloak of evasion. There is a ring of evasion, though.

Don't make me use my gauntlets of nuclear explosion on you. I've got the squirting ring of tobasco sauce on too.

Re:Actually invisibility gives 50% miss chance (5, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255467)

Because of your post, I would like to present you with this +3 Sceptre of Extreme Dorkdom. I'm confident that you'll know exactly what the benefits and disadvantages of wielding it are.

Re:Actually invisibility gives 50% miss chance (2, Interesting)

ElephanTS (624421) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255687)

brilliant :-)

Worthy of seenonslash.com - see you there . . .

Re:Actually invisibility gives 50% miss chance (1)

Arivia (783328) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255538)

I'd take the cloak of evasion instead; been awhile since I've been item-poking, but it's trivially easy to generate invisibility/concealment effects, while it's quite difficult to get the very useful evasion ability.

Apparently not quite reality yet (4, Informative)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255309)

From the end of TFA: So far the researchers have only worked through the mathematics to prove that the device is plausible. The practicalities of making one have yet to be solved.

Re:Apparently not quite reality yet (5, Insightful)

BaronHethorSamedi (970820) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255437)

Ah, but try proving the non-existence of an invisible device...

Slashdotters already have that power (2, Funny)

kimvette (919543) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255314)

Slashdotters already have the power of invisibility. They can snipe other users with impunity via the Anonymous Coward feature. ;)

Re:Slashdotters already have that power (4, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255444)

Motorcyclists have had this power far longer that slashdot AC's.

Wouldn't... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15255323)

based on the article, wouldn't a mirror work just as well?

Re:Wouldn't... (5, Insightful)

kimvette (919543) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255399)

No, but a mosaic of microscopic convex mirrors might. The effect is such that you get the kind of "invisibility" that a chameleon does; the material would refract (or in the case of mirrors reflect) a blending of colours from surrounding objects, such that when an object is motionless it becomes very hard to pick out from the background due to the lack of contrast. It might be similar in appearance to the "invisibility" you see in the Predator movies. Not 100% invisible, but more of a shimmering, blended-in look, only it would not be transparent. If an object were to move behind the camoflauged object, you would immediately be able to pick it out from the background and target it. That's my guess, anyhow.

A single mirror wouldn't cut it - if a flat mirror, you'd see a singular object from elsewhere in the region, or if a convex mirror, you'd see yourself in the mirror, along with your background. It would stand right out from the background, like an AC troll in an otherwise-reasonable discussion. ;)

Correction (1)

Orcspit (600792) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255340)

I believe the 20% miss chance is actually the Cloak of Minor Displacement. The Cloak of Displacement being a 50% miss chance..

Klingons vs. Romulans (1)

jeepmeister (241971) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255344)

How can anyone take this article seriously? It was the Romulans who had a cloaking device, not the Klingons.

Star Trek linked to pedophilia? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15255404)

This has very little to do with the article, but the L.A. Times recently published an article regarding the Toronto Sex Crimes Unit [torontopolice.on.ca] that focused on their fight against child pornography ("Sifting Clues to an Unsmiling Girl" [pqarchiver.com] ). They are the law enforcement organization that photoshopped the victims out of child porn photos in order to get the public's assistance in identifying the backgrounds (it worked). In any case, the article had this amazing claim:
On one wall is a "Star Trek" poster with investigators' faces substituted for the Starship Enterprise crew. But even that alludes to a dark fact of their work: All but one of the offenders they have arrested in the last four years was a hard-core Trekkie.
Wow. All but one in four years. Seemed rather unlikely to me.

So, I called the Child Exploitation Section of the Toronto Sex Crimes Unit and spoke to Det. Ian Lamond, who was familiar with the Times article. He claims they were misquoted, or if that figure was given it was done so jokingly. Of course, even if the figure was given jokingly, shouldn't the Times reporter have clarified something that seems rather odd? Shouldn't her editors have questioned her sources?

Nevertheless, Det. Lamond does confirm that a majority of those arrested show "at least a passing interest in Star Trek, if not a strong interest." They've arrested well over one hundred people over the past four years and they can gauge this interest in Star Trek by the arrestees' "paraphenalia, books, videotapes and DVDs."
Det. Constable Warren Bulmer slips on a Klingon sash and shield they confiscated in a recent raid. "It has something to do with a fantasy world where mutants and monsters have power and where the usual rules don't apply," Bulmer reflects. "But beyond that, I can't really explain it."
I asked Det. Lamond if this wasn't simply a general interest in science fiction and fantasy, such as Star Wars or Harry Potter or similar. Paraphrasing his answer, he said, while there was sometimes other science fiction and fantasy paraphenalia, Star Trek was the most consistent and when he referred to a majority of the arrestees being Star Trek fans, it was Star Trek-specific.

Re:Klingons vs. Romulans (1)

Umbral Blot (737704) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255450)

I don't know about the other series, but in DS9 the Klingons had cloak.

Re:Klingons vs. Romulans (1)

Jupix (916634) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255630)

Umm, I think it's time for you to turn over your geek license, friend. The Klingons do have a cloak, they "bought" an early version from the Romulans. In fact, the Enterprise had a cloak, too.. Too bad it was illegal. See the TNG episode about the ship Pegasus (IIRC) for more info..

Caution, YASD (5, Funny)

dmeranda (120061) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255352)

You pick up a tattered cape (K unpaid). Only $250 for you.
You put on the tattered cape.
Suddenly, you can see through yourself.
The nurse hits.
You can not remove the cloak, it seems to be cursed.
The nurse hits.
The floor is too hard to dig here.
Really attack Wengretik the shopkeeper?
Wengretik strikes at thin air.
The nurse hits.
Wengretik hits. Wengretik hits.
You die.

Invisible... or black?!?? (5, Interesting)

Izhido (702328) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255362)

... when certain objects are placed next to superlenses, the light bouncing off them is essentially erased by light reflecting off the superlens, making the object invisible.
Maybe I'm getting this the wrong way, but if the object "absorbs" the light coming to it through the lens, wouldn't that object be perceived as black? I thought "invisible" is when any light coming behind the object passes through it, and into the observer's eye, with no obstacles whatsoever. But maybe it's just me...

Re:Invisible... or black?!?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15255629)

As you quoted, it doesn't absorb the light; it reflects light and relies on destructive interference with the light coming off the object. Would have to see the actual math, but since it only works on close objects, one would assume that light coming from farther sources behind the object (i.e. the wall behind it or some such) would not experience such interference. So it would be invisible, not black.

Another Jack Bauer fact... (5, Funny)

flagstone (464079) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255372)

Didn't Jack Bauer already employ the "hoodie of invisibility" a couple of weeks (hours?) ago when sneaking onto the airplane?

Yes ... but .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15255375)

Can the device be used to cloak Bush's low poll ratings. If not, he's not interested ....

I already have one of these (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15255378)

See! It hides my true identity on Slashdot!

It seems a phletora of new laws would be coming .. (1, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255382)

... to define and limit where these cloaks can and can not be used. Just think of the mischief that can be done with that gadget ! Crime. And other stuff.

I need cloaking device (1)

KimmoKM (833851) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255385)

..to go to girls's bathroom invisible! And I will share the pics wich I will take with you if you give me the device. :)

Huh? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15255393)

I must not be a big enough nerd. I thought the cloak of evasion was something that helped you pay less taxes.

Re:Huh? (1)

GungaDan (195739) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255652)

No, no... that's avoision.

you 1nsensitive clod! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15255397)

members a8e

concepts are here (2, Informative)

mikesd81 (518581) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255398)

I can only imagine the power it would take to run a cloak like in Start Trek or Stargate, howerver certain concepts are here. For instance Active Camoflage [wikipedia.org] . Granted it's not refracting light around the object, but it still gets the same result. I don't think we'll see a personal cloaking device, or for that matter one for a ship (where it makes it invisible) for a long time.

Re:concepts are here (1)

Leffe (686621) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255457)

I can only imagine the power it would take to run a cloak like in Start Trek or Stargate

I'd imagine it takes a bit less than a device that allows a spaceship to travel at speeds faster than light for years on end.

Misleading article headline. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15255417)

I know it, and you know it.

No prototype has been built to demonstrate that it works for any real meaning of "invisible" whether optical, radar or what-have-you.

I'll believe it when I fail to see it.

Keep it Away (2, Funny)

Luscious868 (679143) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255422)

Keep it away from future Dick Cheney hunting parties. He already shoots at people he can see, imagine the damage something like this could cause.

/. is the invisibility club (4, Funny)

blair1q (305137) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255459)

most slashdotters can make themselves invisible simply by entering a room

(you're nodding your head right now, aren't you?)

No, the cat does not "got my tongue." (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255461)

> Personally I'm still waiting for my cloak of evasion. 20% miss chance is awesome.

No it isn't. It's better than nothing, but it's next to useless in an actual battle as something to maintain confidence in.

I'll be interested in this... (1)

ZSpade (812879) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255471)

When it is more than simple theory. They've worked it out mathmatically, but still have no idea of how they'll actually build it. There are no prototypes, or indeed any labwork. Even when they are done with it they stated it would only block one wavelength of light, and that is a short one. So if someone get's really close to you they might not be able to see you *as well* as they could when they were further away.

This still has some pretty interesting implications, but I'd like to see this theory proven before I'll get my hopes up.

That's OK (3, Informative)

Salsaman (141471) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255568)

If it only blocks one wavelength of light, you just paint the object that colour.

Re:That's OK (1)

ZSpade (812879) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255588)

haha, simple genius. Mod parent up.

Well.. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15255473)

I, for one, welcome our... Hey! Where did they go?

Cloak of evasion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15255474)

20% chance to meet a miss and get laid with her?
Not bad, not bad...

erm... are they sure they have the physics right (4, Insightful)

moochfish (822730) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255480)

Prof Milton's team calculated that when certain objects are placed next to superlenses, the light bouncing off them is essentially erased by light reflecting off the superlens, making the object invisible.

Wouldn't that make the cloak appear like a big black void of light?? Making things "invisible" requires light from the objects behind the cloak to pass through it.

The potential ramifications... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15255485)

Corn is no place for a mighty warrior.

MMPPI (2, Funny)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255491)

MMPPI = Megnetic Multiplexing Photon Phase Inversion.

Ya, I made it up. Sounds cool though, so it must work. :P

Military Interests (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15255495)

"The military is extremely interested in this..."

This would be fine, so long as when they shoot, they are temporarily visible (just to be fair).

OH My GOD! - Star Trek Rules (1)

y86 (111726) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255498)

We cannot violate our treaty with the romulans! It has happened once before with the pegasus incident and it could leader to a war!

http://www.starfleetlibrary.com/tng/tng7/the_pegas us.htm/ [starfleetlibrary.com]

Related article (1)

el johnno (964271) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255503)

The BBC also has its own article on it here [bbc.co.uk] .

Cloak of evasion? (1, Flamebait)

ratta (760424) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255517)

and why not a cloak of immolation?

Re:Cloak of evasion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15255580)

FEZZIK is dressed in the black cloak and being pushed from behind in the Wheelbarrow. He now looks enormous and fearsome.

FEZZIK

[Shouting] I am the Dread Pirate Roberts! There will be no survivors!

INIGO

Now?

WESTLEY

Not yet.

FEZZIK

My men are here! I am here! ... But soon you will not be here!

INIGO

[Barely coping with FEZZIK's weight] Now?!

WESTLEY

Light him!

They light FEZZIK's cloak with a torch.

FEZZIK

The Dread Pirate Roberts takes no survivors! All your worst nightmares have but to come true!

The gate guards scatter in all directions.

CLERGYMAN

Then wove, twue wove, will follow you fowever ...

FEZZIK

[Outside] The Dread Pirate Roberts is here for your soul!

YELLIN yells for the guards to fight. The rest run.

Radar? (1)

RickPartin (892479) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255520)

Me is confused

"Effectively, they are making a piece of space seem to disappear, at least as far as light is concerned."

And then

Prof Pendry said the technology has great potential for hiding objects from radar

So they've figured out how to bend light for optical camo. Neeto. Now how in the hell does this have anything to do with radar?

Y'know, just tell me when this stuff is here. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15255532)

Flying cars, inviso-fabric, moonbases, robo-wives... all sound great but just let me know when this stuff has actualized rather than telling me "it's on the way". Otherwise I'll have to start rooting around 20-30 year old issues of Popular Mechanics finding the exact same stories over and over and post them as "well, if it was just around the corner in 1976 it's sure to be here by now!" stories.

Ummm... I have one in my bathroom... (5, Funny)

phamlen (304054) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255548)

From the article:
The cloaking device relies on recently discovered materials used to make superlenses that make light behave in a highly unusual way. Instead of having a positive refractive index - the property which makes light bend as it passes through a prism or water - the materials have a negative refractive index, which effectively makes light travel backwards.

Trust scientists to come up with a complicated term for "mirror" ... :)

Link to an abstract of a seminar on the subject... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15255572)

http://math.stanford.edu/~applmath/spring06/graeme .htm [stanford.edu]

"The hope of using cloaking to see the interior of an object by making half of it invisible remains an intriguing possibility."

The commercial (4, Funny)

bastardknight (918695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255602)

Can you seen me now? .... no? good. Can you see me now? .... no? Good. Can you see me now? .... no? Good.

oblivion invisibility (1)

Nesetril (969734) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255617)

Just to set the record straight, invisibility gets dispelled every time you pick up an object or open a door. On the other hand, 100% Chameleon doesn't have the vulnerability. So, to eliminate the confusion, it is better to refer to the effect as the chameleon effect, not invisibility.

I want a Cloak of Evading Meetings (1)

Infoport (935541) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255627)

Until that Cloak of Invisibility surfaces,
I just want a Cloak of Evading Meetings (and Pointless Questions)

Apparently a big stack of papers on your desk, or carrying a notepad and looking concerned doesn't quite do it anymore.

(For those RPG players who need a number)
Cloak of Evading Meetings gives a +40% chance to Completing Projects, and a +25% chance to Leaving On Time.

*sigh*

What? Wizards have them (1)

hjf (703092) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255640)

Just ask Harry Potter, he's got an invisibility cloak. And a magic wand. And sends messages via owl.

Invisibility cloak. What a bunch of morons.

Ctrl-A (1)

Bromskloss (750445) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255644)

...will enable you to see it. Hope it works in the so called reality too..

But have you seen it? (1)

azav (469988) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255649)

I saw the technology at the Wired Nextfest in San Francisco, about a year ago.

If you're standing, looking straight on to the "invidible item" it sorta works.

Otherwise, there's a fair amount more work to be done.

Probably been done before. (1)

suparjerk (784861) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255668)

I'm sure said technology has already been done before multiple times, if not by our government in secret studies, then by some crazy independent garage scientist that NSA was monitoring and threatened/apprehended before (s)he was able to go public.

Invisibility ?? (1)

thePig (964303) | more than 8 years ago | (#15255671)

This is a nifty idea. But how can this be considered invisible?
For invisibility, should the images of the objects behind the invisible object be seen to the eyes of the beholder?
If not, how can this be considered invisible? It will be a square where nothing is there, but not invisible. It is visible in the sense that a person can sense the object being there.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...