51–60 of 68 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought of Steve Mann's "eye tap"
Was just about to post the same thing. Pretty nifty device, I've considered building my own for a while now. It's pretty simple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EyeTap
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Luckily it was only a single retina that was damaged, and it was due to a parasite when I was under a year old, so I've never actually known what it was like to have two good eyes. You can get by with only one eye, but you don't have any real depth perception and you don't get any benefits from 3D movies (although you still get all the downsides). Plus, although I would love to try laser surgery to improve my vision…
Do doctors think you're brain did enough development when you were an infant that it would handle visual info coming from your bad eye if your retina were replaced? I was under the impression that someone like you (who grew up without using the eye) might not be able to usefully interpret the signals from the eye if it were repaired.
Wirelessly powering something that sits in my eye? I don't think so. Isn't it about 10,000 times easier and safer to do a HUD using glasses than contacts?
At these scales? Probably not.
"The test lens was powered remotely using a 5-millimetre-long antenna printed on the lens to receive gigahertz-range radio-frequency energy from a transmitter placed ten centimetres from the rabbit's eye. "
I'm a pretty rational person and I have no problem holding a cell phone up to my head, but this scares me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Luckily it was only a single retina that was damaged, and it was due to a parasite when I was under a year old, so I've never actually known what it was like to have two good eyes. You can get by with only one eye, but you don't have any real depth perception and you don't get any benefits from 3D movies (although you still get all the downsides). Plus, although I would love to try laser surgery to improve my vision…
Do doctors think you're brain did enough development when you were an infant that it would handle visual info coming from your bad eye if your retina were replaced? I was under the impression that someone like you (who grew up without using the eye) might not be able to usefully interpret the signals from the eye if it were repaired.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At these scales? Probably not.
From the article: "The test lens was powered remotely using a 5-millimetre-long antenna printed on the lens to receive gigahertz-range radio-frequency energy from a transmitter placed ten centimetres from the rabbit's eye. " I'm a pretty rational person and I have no problem holding a cell phone up to my head, but this scares me.
That sound you hear is the sound thousands of advertisers creaming their pants. Now you will have to look at that ad, even if you close your eyes.
Not if the software is open source. On the contrary, you could run Adblock and never see another billboard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At these scales? Probably not.
From the article: "The test lens was powered remotely using a 5-millimetre-long antenna printed on the lens to receive gigahertz-range radio-frequency energy from a transmitter placed ten centimetres from the rabbit's eye. " I'm a pretty rational person and I have no problem holding a cell phone up to my head, but this scares me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hardware isn't software. I run open source on my hardware, but my hardware isn't open source. If your logic held, open source wouldn't be possible.
Sometimes open source on locked down and jailbroken hardware is better. Sometimes it bricks the hardware. I wonder what it's like to have a brick in the eye? Also this is a thing that goes in your body, and the FDA might have something to say about open source in that context. Is there any open source software running on pacemakers at the moment? I think there are many more issues involved than simply "it's my hardwa…
Actually, that's kind of my point more than yours. It isn't as simple as a knee-jerk "it must be closed source". You argued black and I argued not-black; not-black isn't "white", it's white and the greys, too.