Slashdot Mirror
Laser HUD Projected on Retina
Ligur writes: "The scoop is at the Seattle P-I: 'This fall, Bothell-based Microvision Inc. plans to give people the same cybernetic experience that once existed only in a screenwriter's imagination.
Through a device called Nomad, people will be able to read information from a small, wearable computer that projects an image over their normal vision.'" Looks like they've come a long way in the past three years.
It would be interesting to see how this would be integrated with our current set of home devices. Right now it appears the cost is a bit too much for the average geek.
Still, this does sound like promising technology.
The problem that I have with their technology is that it seems to have a very narrow range of focus. Unless you're pretty still, it's out of focus. Unless there is some way to really anchor this unit to your head (like maybe some surgical implants!), I'm not really interested.
Sure, it's all fun and games until airport security starts ripping them off of people at the gates. Then we'll have starry-eyed cyborgs blundering into baggage racks and falling down all over the place :)
(yes, I feel sorry for the guy who got worked over by customs, but I also find the idea of confused cyborgs running into things very funny. So sue me.)
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
How about my contact lenses? Will they get messed up by this?
Nothing like a piece of melting plastic in your eye to wake you up. I highly recommend it.
Sent from your iPad.
I hope this HUD doesn't have the same problem as old monocrhome monitors with burn-in. That would suck a lot.
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
Yeah the product safty people will make them put a warning label on it.
"DO NOT LOOK DIRECTLY INTO LASER"
Combine this with a wearable computer to project the naked bodies of porn stars over people we see every day. Now, instead of undressing the girl in marketing with my eyes I can undress her with my cyborg-eye.
I would be interested to see if they have performed any studies (short term/long term) on the possibility of retinal damage due to projecting lasers directly on the retina. Anyone?
There's lots of stuff that folks are doing to their eyes these days that has no long term data on. For example, Viagra (yes, that Viagra) works because it is a phosphodiesterase inhibitor. We need phosphodiesterase for normal pigment turnover in the photoreceptors of the eyes and lots of evidence indicates photoreceptor loss in various models of phosphodiesterase genetic knock outs. Additionally, if you inhibit the phosphodiesterase of photoreceptors even short term, it leads to the build up of cyclic-GMP which results in increased Na+ permeability and continued deploarization of the photoreceptor membrane potential. The end result is that the photoreceptor no longer responds to light.
I wonder if folks are trading impotency for blindness. By projecting lasers on retinas are we trading more information for blindness?
On the other hand, projecting laser images onto the retina could certainly benefit those that suffer from various forms of vision loss. Perhaps by mapping out where folks have lost vision in their retinas, it may be possible to project the outside world onto the working portions of retina or magnify certain things onto retinas as well.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Uh, I'd rather have depth perception than my stock quotes superimposed on my field of vision.. That damn thing covers that guys entire right eye!!!
This needs to be able to identify what I'm looking at so that I can get more information on the subject. Things like "That tree is a Larch" or "That guy is the perfect size for kicking his ass and taking his clothes".
Every person walking down the street gets rendered to your eyes as Ali Larter.
Don't like the color or your car - write a mod so you see it as you like.
Change fonts on signs/books/etc... as you wish with OCR.
An interesting technology. Long-term it looks like it has a lot of potential. But for the time being, it looks like MicroOptical (http://www.microopticalcorp.com/) is a better choice for wearables. They're less obtrusive and they can already do color. And, while they're still not cheap, they are cheaper.
I definitely want to see power-consumption and resolution specs for Nomad, though!
Anybody else bothered by the fact that the article kept describing this as a holographic display?
-chrism
The article said that people who are legally blind (most likely because their eyes don't focus correctly) can see the laser image pasted on their retinas.
Attach this device to a head-mounted camera (even a cheap web-cam would work) and you could pretty much restore vision, much like hearing aids work. I would love to see these things helping the average person, as well as professionals who need the extra edge (doctors, astronauts, etc).
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
This device reminds me of the display Hiro uses in Neal Stephemson's "Snow Crash." No monitor, per se, but instead, a laser paints his eye with the image of the metaverse. Same idea, it seems. I like it (my 21 inch monitors are so bulky!), but I agree with an earlier post that these devices should be held under the same kind of scrutiny that medical eqipment is. The innovation is great (and it's about time!) but it _must_ be safe.
Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.
When you think about it, though, the phenomenon makes a lot of sense. The beam is as bright as (average pixel brightness) * (total pixels on the screen). If you concentrate the brightness of the entire screen on one point, that point is going to be very bright and may well be damaged.
And that brings us to the problem here. If you burn the phosper off a little dot on your TV's picture tube, it's not the end of the world - you can just buy a new TV. But if you burn a spot in your retina, it's there forever unless you can get an eye transplant. If you used such a low-power laser or electron beam that this wouldn't happen, your picture would be too dim to see.
Mr. Uptime
Free Open Source Naked Ladies!
I know that several others have mentioned it, but here's a bit different take.
We all know that when you release DNA modified foods (IE Monsanto et al) you only have to show that no one can prove it causes catestrophic damage. (I know, I'm simplifiying it alot, but that's the general standing.) Since there aren't any really well funded opponents to the technology, then it pretty much sails through. The general rule seems to be...If it's for business, we don't want to hold this up, cause it might cost someone a lot of money. If it might harm someone - well, the market will fix things...
Which brings me to another issue - why do the "market driven" proponents hate the tort/legal system so much? When the system works right, the "market" determines what works by trial and error! So, if you're one of the unfortunate few to pick the wrong one, you're injured (loss of funds, health etc.) and others learn from your unfortunate mistake. It's the ones injured by the "market" process that need the legal system the most, and also the ones that deserve it the most too! So, if you love the market, then you really should love the legal system too. It's the only way a true market can be fair - or do you not care that those who you "learned" from are uncompensated Guinea Pigs?
Back to the issue at hand - what serious tests are the FDA going to require for something like this? How long will the test run? I'd hate to use a product like this, and find out in ten years that my right eye was irreparably damaged, and in my later years of life I'd loose vision from that eye! I'd bet that the requirements for testing and use are quite a bit less than we'd all assume. Lastly, I'd bet that any company that releases such a device will put the manufacturer and the seller in a shell corp, to limit the liability losses. They won't hold many assets, and will pass revenue and such to the parent. 15 years from now, provided there is some problem, good luck suing the company - they just paid out huge bonuses to the execs and went out of business.
If you think the above is poppy-cock, go do some research about the IUD Dalcon Shield. The manufacturer (who was really regulated by the FDA) got a horrible product into the market, and didn't care when it irreparably damaged many many women - many couldn't have children after their problems!
The idea's cool and all, but the real killers are in the details. How much testing is done. Who peer reviews it. How often must they report problems to the FDA, and what problems do they have to report? These and many other details will significantly impact the safety of the device. Finally, what legal liability the company might risk, will also impact how informal they are with the testing and implimentation.
I wouldn't be using the product myself for any period of time, until I understood the impacts of the following, and knew where the company stood.
Cheers!
...by now -- since the article they linked is dated Monday, June 18, 2001. Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick! June of last year!
See here. It's already been on Slashdot, even.
Yeah, the hot news is always on Slashdot, kids.
"Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive" -- hey, that's me!
So, all in all, if they have a CDRH variance (and you have to have one to sell laser equipment), they're pretty safe. These values are all very conservative; the same regulations specify that laser pointers are not allowed to be used for commercial applications within 5 miles of an airport, because of the chance of accidently hitting and airplane and distracting the pilot. I've applied for a variance myself as a laser entertainer, and let me tell you; they're fairly complete in checking on everything... that's why most clubs don't have their laser effects anywhere near their audience... too difficult to get the equipment certified for that.
I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!