Problems with people jerking off? Or problems with the police? 
1 Like
Of course it is. Some red, yellow and green fuzzy dots, wave graphs showing an object exists, or wifi tech that shows something moved are nothing like transparency. You said it would make the house our wall transparent It does not. You moved the goalpost and started trying to say it depends on the wavelength tech or some other such nonsense. I say nonsense because I was saying transparent. This is about uncovered windows. If a window is uncovered, there is no expectation of privacy. If you put even the thinnest sheet, that attempt at privacy affords a reasonable expectation of privacy. When you try to argue that some tech can see through walls, you are heading to the deep end of the crazy pool. Anyone using tech to look through walls is violating privacy which is what the discussion is about. But you keep trying to move the goalpost and make the discussion fit your narrative. Iâm sure someone is impressed.
1 Like
What I saw is about as off the shelf as it can be, sir. About as imaginary as canned milk.
If it can shine through a material without much scattering, the material is transparent for it. Want higher resolution? Use a bigger antenna array.
The walls are already transparent for these wavelengths.
That you donât understand it does not make it nonsense.
And I was understanding it as transparent and responding accordingly.
That works in visible spectrum. Less so in RF, xray, and others. Other technologies have to be used. And you are lawyering.
Or towards a DARPA grant.
No, the discussion is about transparency of materials. At least the subthread you started.
You placed the goalposts. I am just playing with them.
Maybe. I, for one, am having fun.
Shifting sands and overwrought definitions. Yup, shaddack still has nothing.
You seem to be forgetting that this case centers on legal precedent and case law about expectations of privacy and the decisions of a judge. Not bothering to cover your windows when facing a building across the street shows you didnât expect privacy. Even a token attempt (a drape or sheet) shows you did. This is leaving aside your imaginary tech to see through walls. If you have to come up with crazy DARPA stuff to see me, then the judge would easily infer that I had an expectation of privacy and that is what this case centers on.
Donât get lost in the forest of being impressed with technology. This is about the law and social norms.
1 Like
In common use, âtransparentâ refers to visible light.
Try googling âtransparent to microwavesâ and âtransparent to far infraredâ (including quotes), and you get enough hits to assume that âtransparentâ is commonly used for wider area of EM spectrum than just visible light.
And not just visible light. Try âtransparent to neutronsâ.
Thatâs true, but I am not arguing that point. I am arguing dacreeâs point of transparency.
FTFY. 
Youâre tempting me to just build that antenna array⌠Would take time, though, as at this moment I am just getting my toes wet in the software-defined radio field.
My position is consistent.
After rounding errors, my nothing is more than your everything.
In resolution comparable to photography and enabling you to make photorealistic images? I think not.
Iâm not disagreeing with those uses; Iâm pointing out that if you look up (âgoogle/bingâ) the word âtransparentâ you will see [via visible light] the words âvisible lightâ appear.
Thatâs the common use of the term, and you are parlaying a technical use.
IâM JUST SAYINâ, OKAY?!?!
âThis topic will automatically close in 21 hours.â
Longest 21 hours ever.
2 Likes
If only there was a way to make this topic less visible.
1 Like
Far from it. You began by saying you knew of sensors that make walls transparent. When it was pointed out to you that those are not sensors you replied
âNone of what I said in a direct reply to you is a sensor, that is trueâ
Then you argue what transparent means. Your next step was to argue what visible means. Then you went back to arguing transparent again. You are all over the place. But, the shifting sands comment was directed towards your posts as an entirety. Shifting sands refers to an informal logical fallacy which you employ in most of your conversations. In other words, as soon as you enter in to a discussion you will switch focus as soon as it is shown that you are wrong.
Thatâs another spectrum area where the phase works.
I may be biased from all those consultations for laser (cutting/welding) and imaging tech. Transparency for all sorts of wavelengths is pretty important in the industry.
It would be helpful to everybody if they would realize that there is more in the world than the tiny slice of the spectrum we can naturally see; in comparison to the vast multispectral richness around us weâre blinder than newborn mice.
True, my fault. The walls were transparent there to start with. It however takes a sensor to take advantage of the transparency, whether it is a diode array, a microbolometer array, an antenna array, or the standard-issue Mk.1 Eyeball. Transparency of materials, radiation type (wavelength, or particles in case of neutrons), and the sensors are three inseparable facets of the same problematics.
Only because I have to clarify your own inaccuracies and vernacular uses.
No, but that was not in the specs. However, even the low-res of the 2.45GHz microwave imaging can be fairly intrusive, despite showing merely the positions and movements.
âŚand given the attractivity of such sensing for e.g. burglar alarms and other security systems, and the prices of ADCs and processing power dropping fast, it will become a more real problem in next years.
ZZZZZZZzzzzzz
Lack of caring.
Lack of forward-thinking. However, that seems to be fairly prevalent in the population.
Yes, Iâm not worried about your masturbatory fantasy of assembling tech to see the shadows of people through their walls when weâre discussing the limits and acceptability of photography through windows and the legal system. No one cares about this particular nerd fantasy here but you.
I drew my blinds.
.
.
Wait for it.
.
.
Waaaaiiit.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
There it is.
3 Likes
