| invisibility? |
by unjust |
2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
| ka linka
so if i understand this it's not so much invisibility as you'd be black rather than transparent? |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
if you stopped it completely then yes | by McGowan | 2005-05-11 10:05:35 |
|
Oooh, Predator... (n/t) | by McNutcase | 2005-05-11 10:08:36 |
|
Didn't that work by bending light? (n/t) | by McGowan | 2005-05-11 10:10:47 |
|
hmm, maybe work should be "work" (n/t) | by McGowan | 2005-05-11 10:11:03 |
|
It worked by Movie Magic. | by McNutcase | 2005-05-11 10:11:43 |
|
It's a little worrying really. | by McGowan | 2005-05-11 10:14:27 |
|
hello ghost in the shell thermoptic camo (n/t) | by unjust | 2005-05-11 10:19:15 |
|
Doesn't scare me that much. | by wheresthefish | 2005-05-11 10:21:30 |
|
Yes but you wouldn't later be able to identify | by chipmunk2 | 2005-05-11 10:24:06 |
|
well after he has robbed the first bank | by McGowan | 2005-05-11 10:25:37 |
|
two words: | by cybergeek | 2005-05-11 10:26:07 |
|
hehe, that'd work too | by McGowan | 2005-05-11 10:27:31 |
|
three more words: | by cybergeek | 2005-05-11 10:28:16 |
|
they could make a registery of all purchases. (n/t) | by McGowan | 2005-05-11 10:30:16 |
|
two more words: | by packet-rat | 2005-05-11 11:23:27 |
|
oh for crying out loud... | by McGowan | 2005-05-11 11:48:55 |
|
Fairly happy, yes ;-) (n/t) | by packet-rat | 2005-05-11 11:56:51 |
|
no, man - no light would bounce offa you. | by cybergeek | 2005-05-11 10:06:42 |
|
But you still see something... | by imperito | 2005-05-11 10:09:33 |
|
....damn you for destroying my idealism :) (n/t) | by cybergeek | 2005-05-11 10:12:03 |
|
iirc Jack London wrote a story about this | by tran | 2005-05-11 10:54:03 |
|
The Shadow and the Flash," in Moon Face (1906). (n/t) | by tran | 2005-05-11 10:56:06 |
|
link to online version of the story | by tran | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
Well worth reading: I enjoyed it. (n/t) | by Esteis | 2005-05-11 13:17:10 |
|
What? No pictures? (n/t) | by RetiQlum2 | 2005-05-11 10:18:19 |
|
That's a joke, right? (n/t) | by bitflipper | 2005-05-11 10:27:00 |
|
Pictures. Of invisible things. | by RetiQlum2 | 2005-05-11 10:43:05 |
|
Have you ever seen a picture of a Muchness? (n/t) | by Esteis | 2005-05-11 10:56:07 |
|
Hard to tell. | by bitflipper | 2005-05-11 10:56:31 |
|
That article was clear as mud. | by mad_peter | 2005-05-11 10:21:42 |
|
Wikinews. | by dodrian | 2005-05-11 10:23:51 |
|
You've sussed it! | by bitflipper | 2005-05-11 10:25:15 |
|
Oh, never mind. | by bitflipper | 2005-05-11 10:26:04 |
|
Yes, that's it of course! | by mad_peter | 2005-05-11 10:46:43 |
|
I know! | by Esteis | 2005-05-11 10:59:08 |
|
I prefer shamoflage. Much cheaper. :-D (n/t) | by kahuana | 2005-05-11 11:07:54 |
|
Fo de reel bling-bling, ma bro, you be needing | by Esteis | 2005-05-11 11:14:31 |
|
"In battle we'd wear sequinned gowns... | by kahuana | 2005-05-11 11:17:42 |
|
Too tamed-down an article for me to say.. | by bitflipper | 2005-05-11 10:23:10 |
|
not to mention it wouln't work at night | by Freakazoid | 2005-05-11 11:36:31 |
|
I don't think that's what it does | by bitflipper | 2005-05-11 11:47:43 |
|
Wouldn't such a device become extremely hot? (n/t) | by kahuana | 2005-05-11 10:54:15 |
|
Not necessarily | by bitflipper | 2005-05-11 10:55:56 |
|
At the bottom is a link to the original paper | by Spudd86 | 2005-05-11 12:01:40 |
|
better Article | by Spudd86 | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
*MUCH* clearer and better article. (n/t) | by chipmunk2 | 2005-05-11 12:35:30 |
|
Much clearer... | by RetiQlum2 | 2005-05-11 12:45:54 |
|
Ah-ha! *Much* more elucidating | by bitflipper | 2005-05-11 12:59:33 |
|
yer Welcome | by Spudd86 | 2005-05-11 17:48:48 |
