Whilst I read about it a while back, I found it really interesting and fascinating.

Now, reading it again, i find it depressing to be honest. It reads like it's only application will be for the military, who, as usual will use it to kill better.

What a great race we all are eh? Further ourselves, never - butcher each other... always

Chips, don't be so depressed. The prank potential alone is enough to make this technology worth developing.


People who take drugs are bad.

Damn customs agents

If this ever gets to a point where it can cloak objects against visible light (can't currently do that), it'd be useless for (most) military applications, i.e. vehicles, as the driver couldn't see where they were going... I quote from another article on this subject "any device used to see out would itself be visible". But, in defense of Chips, I suppose this could be used for something like minefields, etc where it could potentially be devastating. Use with caution!

So , if they used these on a tank or something, and it did completely cloak it, wouldn't the ground beneath it also be invisible? Or like J dawg said, I wonder what it would look like if everything around you was invisible. Would be like experiencing blindness?

Everything but the people in the tank, now that would be funny to see.


"It doesn’t matter what universe you’re from. That’s got to hurt!"

Cloak random objects in the street and watch people walk into them.

ya know what would be funny? an invisible landmine for little kids to step on. or how about an invisible bomber for dropping plausible deniability bombs?

its sad to think how much tax money is squandered on DARPA projects to make killer robots when we can't feed, house, and educate everyone in our own country. Look to the truly great scientists, men like George Washington Carver who find better ways to feed the world not men like Oppenheimer who find more efficient ways to destroy it.

WWJD? drop bombs or feed the poor..... hmmm i better think on this one

Uhm, not meaning to start a debate, or anything like that, and ill agree, it is sad, but we do have one of the best countries to educate children. We have enough food to feed everyone. Ill admit, we dont use it all unfortunatly. Like u say, were not perfect, but were not dumbos when it comes to helping the american people. But thats a tottally different wanting to start debate. my opion on the cloak, whether we like it or not, will eventtually become a reality. And that is sad it will kill people. But there are other ways for it not used to kill.
1. Policemen, hostage situation. All of the sudden the hostage taker is being tazered, and Cop uncloaks behind him.
2. If there are hazardous areas that we need to evacuate people from. Lets say a humanatarian aid turns hostile with people. Cloak civvies, put em in the cheap seats and get out of dodge.

But i will agree, yes, it will probably used 4 military, but its only a matter of time

Like I mentioned before, it is impossible to see out of a fully cloaked vehicle, so some military applications are scientifically impossible. This project, I might point out, is under development in a university , about as far from the military as possible, though it will surely show up there one day. Cold_Void raises some excellent points, though I will counter by saying that the 'bomb' and other military achievements were not the only breakthroughs to come out of the Manhattan Project.

much as I agree with your sentiments, CV, and I assure you that I do share your views on these sorts of military developements wholeheartedly, you're being a little unfair on Oppenheimer there. Although he was the prime mover in the development of the A-Bomb, he was appalled at the post-war nuclear hegemony and the subsequent nuclear arms race, and largely turned his back on it (so much so that he was accused by the McCarthyites of being in league with the Soviets.) I believe that he thought that the atom bomb project would only be used to win the war and then it would be discarded, a rather naive view of course, but his personal integrity and genuine dismay at the use of nuclear technology for mostly military purposes can't be doubted.

A more appropriate target for your scorn would be Edward Teller, "father of the H-Bomb" and extreme right-winger, who is indeed imo the archetype of the hawkish military scientist, in love with finding new and even more terrible means to kill even more people. Not a particularly pleasant man and always came across as rather obsessed and very narrow-minded (but quite brilliant nonetheless)

Didn't read the article...Is this the same sort of thing posted a few months ago, about those scientists cloaking some dust with that special material?

Pretty cool, although many points brought up about the potentially violent uses are very good. I'm sorry but my faith in humanity's ability to monitor not killing itself is very minimal.

-Xca/iber

i agree with what CV said however, who cares if its in a University. the government will "silence" anyone and take over the project. besides, the government could already have it created and able to see/look out of it. now theirs a scary thought eh?

As the article states, it's impossible to see out from inside a cloaked object without being seen yourself, though in the days of the internet and GPS that's hardly necessary. It will be years, perhaps even decades until this is conceivably useable in a military application, and until then the influence this has on the study of optics and waves is quite profound.

Wasnt it Oppenheimer, who after he saw what the bomb had caused in terms of human suffering, was appalled and quoted "Mankind carries the seed of his own destuction" ..

On another point... much effort is being put into remote control technology.. the idea being.. why go out where its nasty.. sit an a bunker in a 'virtual environment chair' put the headset on, grab the controls and take your 'tank' to battle..

Harrier

Edited by - harrier on 1/25/2007 9:14:48 PM