Artist Wants to Replace Lost Eyeball With Webcam

A one-eyed San Francisco artist, Tanya Vlach, wants to replace her missing eye with a Web cam. There has even been talk of her shooting a reality TV show using the video eye. "There have been all sorts of cyborgs in science fiction for a long time, and I'm sort of a sci-fi geek, with the advancement of technology, I thought, 'Why not?'" said Vlach. I'm a bit perplexed that the obvious things you'd want in a cyborg eye: range finder, infrared/lowlight vision, and a hypno-ray are not discussed in the article.

Comments

That's easy. . .

[smooth wombat]

just let the Borg come to 0, 0, 1 and she'll have her replacement eye in no time.

Re:That's easy. . .

[Yvan256]

I never understood why the borg had the Earth at coordinates 0,0,1. I mean, they didn't even know about humans before Q launched the Enterprise D into Borg space.

Are we back to the dark ages? The Earth as the center of the Universe?

Re:That's easy. . .

[scribblej]

I did not know that, and it is much more interesting than the article, but wouldn't 0,0,0 be the "center" of a cartesian system, and 0,0,1 be one unit off-center? What's with /that/ is what I'd like to know. It still means the previously-unknown Earth is at a pretty suspicious-looking place, but I'd sure like to see what's at 0,0,0.

Re:That's easy. . .

[morgan_greywolf]

I mean, they didn't even know about humans before Q launched the Enterprise D into Borg space.

That's no longer true once you consider First Contact. Don't you just love retcons? ;)

Re:That's easy. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I never understood why the borg had the Earth at coordinates 0,0,1. I mean, they didn't even know about humans before Q launched the Enterprise D into Borg space.

Are we back to the dark ages? The Earth as the center of the Universe?

Or maybe they use the human/Federation reference frame when speaking english.

Dude, it's Star Trek. They take all sorts of creative license.

Re:That's easy. . .

[Dragonshed]

Much can be explained as artistic license, or perhaps convenience, in Star Trek canon. Sometimes the writers work to have the audience understand that the story is from the human's perspective, but in many other ways this perspective is simply implicit.

If you must have an answer, consider that our current maps of the globe have no "center" because we understand it as a whole. Imagine the very first attempts at cartography where centered ideologically, with the unknowns at the fringe. This could also be said of Star Trek canon, that there are many unknowns of the universe, and that the Federation is mapping out what is understood as it's learned.

Re:That's easy. . .

[oneTheory]

I'd guess that 0,0,0 is Sol. The earth being at 0,0,1 means that 1 unit of measure in this co-ordinate system is the distance from the earth to the sun.

Still about as earth-centric as it gets.

Re:That's easy. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, the Borg new about humans when Q launched the Enterprise D into them, in fact they were on there way to earth at that very time. There is an episode of Enterprise in season 2 that puts it together pretty well.

That said, I don't think the Borg ever called it Sector 0 0 1. If they did then it could easily just be passed off as them communicating in starfleet coordinates

Re:That's easy. . .

[crazypip666]

The Borg are believed to have came from V'ger, and given that V'ger is from earth, is it so strange that Earth would be the approximate center of the Borg's coordinate system?

Re:That's easy. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

hrm. it could be that the borg thought of the distance between their homeworld and their first target as 1 unit, and that they thought the earth was directly "up" from their homeworld... it makes a twisted kind of sense in a way. //star trek apologist

Re:That's easy. . .

[Hellpop]

Actually, it was SECTOR 0,0,1. Brush up on your Locutus, buddy!
We would need to fully understand the Borg nav system to really know how big a sector is. Hell, it could have just been that they assign the star of any system 0,0,0 and by their system Earth was in 0,0,1.
Could be a larger scale and Earth just happened to be in Sector 0,0,1. One would assume that the Sector 0,0,0 would be a significant reference point, but you know those Borg, they didn't seem to feel like explaining it. I wasn't going to argue with them. Restising them would be, ... ahem ... futile.

Re:That's easy. . .

[Eudial]

I never understood why the borg had the Earth at coordinates 0,0,1. I mean, they didn't even know about humans before Q launched the Enterprise D into Borg space.

Are we back to the dark ages? The Earth as the center of the Universe?

I have no idea what radix and endianness the Borg are using. In decimal, 0 0 1 could be 10^23 digits long.

Re:That's easy. . .

[Khashishi]

Notice how much borg look like humans

Re:That's easy. . .

[tzhuge]

Isn't there some episode that suggests a human origin to the Borg? A Von Neumann probe or something?

Re:That's easy. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Well remember in that episode they scanned the Enterprise. And it must be how the Borg break up the galaxy. 001 being where our Sun is.

Re:That's easy. . .

[Chandon Seldon]

I'd guess that 0,0,0 is Sol. The earth being at 0,0,1 means that 1 unit of measure in this co-ordinate system is the distance from the earth to the sun.

lol. I couldn't even read that without immediately coming up with three or four problems with the geometry involved.

Re:That's easy. . .

[mikael]

Wouldn't 0,0,0 be where the Borg Queen lived with 17 trillion servants (from First Contact.

The coordinates need not be Cartesian, they could also be Spherical (latitude/longitude/radius). But to have a perfect set of integer values would indicate pre-knowledge of Earth. Maybe the Borg enhanced the V'Ger probe, and it was the first alien device they encountered.

Re:That's easy. . .

[Duncan Blackthorne]

I'd assume that the Borg, having already assimilated Federation ships and technology already, naturally used the Federation's own mapping coordinates system when dealing with them, and since Starfleet and the Federation originated on Earth, Sol system ended up being sector 0,0,1.

Re:That's easy. . .

[JCSoRocks]

The entire concept of mapping space using coordinates is pretty insane. Everything is moving relative to everything else. Good luck space cartographers!

Re:That's easy. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

And those four problems are x, y, z and t.

Re:That's easy. . .

[camperdave]

The borg in First Contact were from the future relative to the borg in "Q-Who" and, as such, would have had knowledge of humans. While they were in the past, they were unable to complete construction of the transmitter necessary to contact the borg of that time. Thus, there is no conflict.

Re:That's easy. . .

[the real darkskye]

Until they are defrosted and are given chase by Archer (Way to ruin the franchise Bacula!) and get the message off to the delta quadrant.

Re:That's easy. . .

[camperdave]

I haven't seen Enterprise, therefore my concept of Star Trek is relatively intact and consistent.

Re:That's easy. . .

[Red Flayer]

Except that by mapping space using coordinates, we can have knowledge of absolute, as well as relative, location.

Sure, everything is moving... without coordinates in an absolute system, it'd pretty pretty damn difficult to calculate how things are moving.

A little bit rambling, but I find it annoying when people use transient landmarks when giving me directions ( thankfully not an issue anymore, due to the internet). "Take the second right after the Mobil station" they say... what if the Mobil station becomes an Exxon station due to their merger? Why can't you just tell me, "Proceed 2.4 miles then turn right onto Elm Street"? See why absolute coordinates are better?

What if I give you directions to get to Alpha Centauri using directions relative to Sol, but you're coming from Betelgeuse IV? Relative directions suck.

If you want to map the universe in a coordinate system, you'd simply add the movement curve and time to the location of an object. So location would be (x, y, z at t=0, t, curve). We'd just need to define the absolute location of (0,0,0,0) -- of course, this is assuming there is no warping of space-time, which is a big assumption... but I think we could adapt for this by compressing/expanding the axes where necessary. Please explain how in the universe you'd use a non-coordinate system to map the universe.

Re:That's easy. . .

[Chris Burke]

The entire concept of mapping space using coordinates is pretty insane. Everything is moving relative to everything else. Good luck space cartographers!

It works pretty well if you use polar coordinates, your point of reference is distant from the things you are locating, and you aren't expecting the coordinates to remain accurate over a long period of time. I.e. locating stars relative to earth with latitude, longitude, and distance works very well since even the closest extra-solar stars don't move much with respect to earth's rotation around the sun nor a years worth of their own movement. Sure in a thousand years the coordinates won't be accurate any more, but whatever civilization is around to care about that can update them over time. For planets/comets orbiting a star, this probably doesn't make sense, so give the coordinates as the star, with additional information defining the orbit.

Yeah, it'll be complex and I don't envy the jobs, but it's not insane.

Re:That's easy. . .

[sykes1024]

First, I'm fairly certain the coordinate system is based on 0,0,0 being the center of the galaxy. Also, when the refer to earth being at (0,0,1), they say that it is at sector 0,0,1. Potentially, the galaxy could be divided into relatively few sectors. Also, universal translators automatically convert units of measurement into those used by humans. So, even if the borg queen specified earth's location in some other coordinate system, it would be translated automatically into sector 0,0,1.

Re:That's easy. . .

[Lars T.]

Errm, no the Borg where responsible for the destruction of several Federation outpost (near the Romulan Neutral Zone) before that incident.

And while we are at it - did the Borg ever say anything about Sector 0,0,1 or was that just Starfleet personnel talking?

Re:That's easy. . .

[Velocir]

Somebody mod parent up. That was the most interesting and insightful post I've read in a long time.

Re:That's easy. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't you just tell me, "Proceed 2.4 miles then turn right onto Elm Street"? See why absolute coordinates are better?

See, the thing is, you are obviously different to most people. Virtually *everyone* in an Urban/Suburban context navigates by landmarks. They don't have a clue that the turn is in 2.4 miles (they maybe know it takes *them* about 30 minutes to walk it).
And they would most probably say 'the petrol/gas station' rather than specifying 'the mobil station' or whatever. And most landmarks don't change often enough for it to matter. That's why they're called landmarks.
I can go to a strange town by train, wander around without a map for several miles, and find my way back to the station easily purely using landmarks. I'd like to see you do that by remembering (no writing down allowed, distances to be calculated manually, by paces say) "0.12 miles north, left, 0.27 miles West, left, 0.03 miles South" etc. and enjoy the sights at the same time.

Re:That's easy. . .

[Red Flayer]

I'd like to see you do that by remembering (no writing down allowed, distances to be calculated manually, by paces say) "0.12 miles north, left, 0.27 miles West, left, 0.03 miles South" etc. and enjoy the sights at the same time.

That's a pretty specious argument, for two reasons.

First, navigating for yourself is a lot different than communicating to someone else.

Second, most people are a better judge of distance than that. There is no need to count paces, an estimate works just fine...

I will note that I agree I'm an exception to the rule, since I grew up in a rural area, where distances are referred to by units of length, not units of time.

My point, though, is that referring to distances, rather than than the time it takes to get somewhere, or landmarks in the vincinity, is more precise. In the original post I responded to, the poster made the claim that absolute coordinates are useless since everything is moving. On a galactic scale, landmarks have that problem. On a personal scale, like you describe, not so much... but what happens if you visit that town 30 yeas later and refer to your travel notes? Will you still be able to find what you're looking for? What about in 80 years? On a galactic scale, timespans are even more important, since we are only observing what actually occurred millions or billions of years ago.

Re:That's easy. . .

[platypussrex]

If you really want some fun, try asking for directions in a small town in the rural south. You'll get such gems as "turn left past where the old Walmart used to be " (it's been moved 10 years, and the building is now a flea market) or even "Go about a mile past where that old oyster roast place burned down" (it burned in the 1990s).

Re:That's easy. . .

[ByOhTek]

angle-angle-radian. Say the galaxy is of radius 2 or 3 (can't remember of exact position). One angle is for offset of the galactic plane (depending on the margin of error, we could be 0). The other is a vector is some direction (random chance could cause us to be on the '0' arc around the galaxy). Alternatively, it could be 'mission coordinates'. Set your target as the 0 point, such as 'the enemy's gate is down' in Ender's Game.

Not quite what I want

[Tubal-Cain]

I would prefer a video port wired to the brain.
Infinite resolution screen FTW!

Re:Not quite what I want

[pixelpusher220]

My first thought was "Blair Witch" will have *nothing* on the nausea inspiring motion of a human eye when someone views this recorded video stream on a stationary screen...

Re:Not quite what I want

[MaxwellEdison]

YES! A brand new prank avenue! Jab a flashdrive in your buddy's brain and he cannot escape the goatse [no link, for humanitarian reasons]. What has been seen can never be unseen!

Re:Not quite what I want

[yincrash]

the new scifi reality show cha$e have people with glasses mounted cameras. it's pretty much a headache to watch it when they switch to that view.

Re:Not quite what I want

[name*censored*]

Solution: Capture at twice the output resolution (eg, 1600x1200 for an 800x600 video), then correct jitter by moving the video window within the capture frame and using AI to determine whether something is jitter or intentional frame movement (eg. does the new direction return to near the old one within some time limit, is the camera focusing on an object I should be locking on to, does the new position of the capture frame force a static video frame outside of the capture frame, etc). Basically similar to the peripheral vision, except videos only have discrete capturing (either something's shown or it isn't, using various filters on the outskirting pixels looks strange) instead of continually diminishing awareness on the peripherals.

Re:Not quite what I want

[stickrnan]

the new scifi reality show cha$e have people with glasses mounted cameras. it's pretty much a headache to watch it when they switch to that view.

I wonder why they don't just put a gyro on the camera. They can get pretty small.
http://www.physorg.com/news639.html

Re:Not quite what I want

[hairyfeet]

Nah,you're thinking WAY too small there buddy! What you do is wait until they are asleep,and THEN plug in a flash drive,but not with the wussy Goatse,but with 2G1C on infinite loop! Imagine the horror of having THAT played over and over in your dreamscape!

Re:Not quite what I want

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I saw something on Discovery not too long ago where they did just that for some blind woman. The resolution was not enough for her to really see (she was previously sighted and remembers sight), but it did work.

Re:Not quite what I want

[MaxwellEdison]

Good Lord...thats war crime material there. You need help. Professional help.

Obvious things

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Infrared and rangefinder is good, but I want the targeting crosshairs.

Re:Obvious things

[MaxwellEdison]

Just black out some pixels. Crosshairs==linear blindspots in a perpendicular orientation intersecting over the origin.

Re:Obvious things

[corsec67]

Infrared and rangefinder is good

I don't know if I would want an infrared seeing eye. The top layers of skin become almost transparent, so any veins near the skin become much more obvious, like in this picture of a model wearing a swimsuit. The vein along the side of her stomach and on her legs are very obvious.

On the plus side, some dyes are transparent in IR, along with some synthetic cloths, so what would normally be a dyed shirt looks transparent

(Maybe linking to a few pictures of girls in bikini's is karma-whoring, but they really do illustrate the point I am making. I modified that IR camera for taking pictures of burning stuff, not making models look like zombies.)

Re:Obvious things

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

what about xray vision? or 'undressing' on the fly post-processing?

Re:Obvious things

[Yvan256]

Black out some pixels? For crying out loud, ever heard of an alpha channel?

Re:Obvious things

[textstring]

A HUD for the other eye with thermals, facial recognition, 3D model generation, mapping & gps, optical zoom, macro lenses, depth of field cnotrol, focusing control based on the other eyes muscles, aim hackx, &c.

Re:Obvious things

[Anonymous Coward]

Black out some pixels? For crying out loud, ever heard of an alpha channel?

Alpha who?

Re:Obvious things

[timelorde]

Alpha who?

Alpha Centauri, that's who!

Re:Obvious things

[gyrogeerloose]

I want the targeting crosshairs.

Yeah, for the the laser death ray that no one has mentioned so far but we all really want...

Re:Obvious things

[Yvan256]

What do you mean you've never been to Alpha Centauri? For heaven's sake mankind, it's only four light years away you know. I'm sorry, but if you can't be bothered to take an interest in local affairs that's your own lookout.

Re:Obvious things

[MightyYar]

I don't know if I would want an infrared seeing eye. The top layers of skin become almost transparent

Hmmm, someone's never dated a redhead :)

Re:Obvious things

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought she looks kinda hot.

Re:Obvious things

[schizz69]

Crosshair would be good, you could even bundle that with the friend/foe targeting system and add a little bullet time for good measure.

Re:Obvious things

[Chris Burke]

Maybe linking to a few pictures of girls in bikini's is karma-whoring

I forgive you!

Re:Obvious things

[tsa]

Weird, not only does IR light make your knees on different heights, it apparently also makes some black transparent but other black not. The black in her shirt has become totally transparent, but her black bra hasn't.

Re:Obvious things

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't you find a bra made of the same material???

Re:Obvious things

[Jodka]

Infrared and rangefinder is good

Infared eyes work better if you are cold blooded, like pit vipers. Otherwise, infrared emissions from warm tissue surrounding the detector swamp the signal

Seven of Nine

[Anonymous Coward]

Tertiary Adjunct of Unimatrix Zero-One

Re:Seven of Nine

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Whoever modded this "offtopic" needs to turn in their geek card.

Re:Seven of Nine

[GuyverDH]

I always thought of her as Six of Nine...
   

Re:Seven of Nine

[plover]

Well then I get an extra punch on my geek card. I always referred to her as "three of nine".

Well, any feature is fine...

[Loibisch]

...as long as the world doesn't look like this.

Webcam?

[Nasajin]

Who would want a web-cam for an eye anyway? I mean, seriously, it's about 1fps, shitty resolution, terrible image, etc.

If I was paying for a new eye, I'd probably invest more than fifty bucks on it.

Re:Webcam?

[Yvan256]

You haven't used a webcam in a loooooooooong time, have you?

They got them working at 15 fps now!

Re:Webcam?

[randyest]

It hasn't been much more recent for you either, has it? 30fps (even at decent resolutions, like 1280x1024) is common. 60 fps is available, and you can even get 90 fps

Sorry to spoil the joke, but it's time to come up with a new one, don't you think?

Re:Webcam?

[morgan_greywolf]

Damn. I guess it is time to replace the ol' Connectix QuickCam....

Re:Webcam?

[mikael]

A web-cam goes up to 320x240 at 15 frames/second. You can get Firewire cameras that do 640x480, and mobile phones that go up to 1024x768

A mobile phone eyeball camera might just be the next thing ...

Re:Webcam?

[Yvan256]

Okay I guess I should've said "5 fps" for my original post, then.

However, you can't push 30 fps at 1280x1024 via USB 2.0, it's got to be interpolated from 640x480 or something. Even your Philips link mentions interpolated several times, too.

Re:Webcam?

[randyest]

You can do 30 fps at 1280x1024 with 8-bit or 10-bit color (480Mbps > 1280x1024x30x10) but of course lower resolutions are required for 32-bit color at 30/60/90fps.

Why would "5 fps" have made more sense in your original post? Was it supposed to be a joke?

Re:Webcam?

[Yvan256]

Yes it was supposed to be a joke. The parent said 1 fps, after all.

but will it have bluetooth?

[jollyreaper]

Sorry, I just can't read this article without thinking about G'Kar and what he spies with his little eye.

Re:but will it have bluetooth?

[cthulu_mt]

With your signature I would have assumed it to be Duncan Idaho and his metal eyes.

Re:but will it have bluetooth?

[jollyreaper]

With your signature I would have assumed it to be Duncan Idaho and his metal eyes.

Duncan never took his eye out of his head and put it in someone's bedchamber. "Did I tell you about the bluetooth?"

Re:but will it have bluetooth?

[cthulu_mt]

He was too busy being the ultimate bad ass.

F the camera

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd opt for one of the new picoprojectors. If it still looked like an eyeball it'd confuse the crap out of passers-by.

I think we need to combine this story

[fiordhraoi]

with this one, just for maximum creep out factor.

"I wonder what's going on down the hall?"
*Fwoomp*

Re:I think we need to combine this story

[nategoose]

ROCKET FROM THEIR SOCKETS!

Re:I think we need to combine this story

[Yvan256]

Still less creepy than a zoom function.

Re:I think we need to combine this story

[denis-The-menace]

Nah, get "the eye" from this movie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Room

Hint: it doesn't cure people...

Re:I think we need to combine this story

[kcbanner]

I was drinking red juice when I read that and almost rocketed it onto my keyboard, rofl

Re:I think we need to combine this story

[Moodie-1]

This one's even better:

http://www.badmovies.org/movies/crawleye/crawleye6.jpg

It's from a really creepy 50s B-movie.

Re:I think we need to combine this story

[danieltdp]

You wanna get a grenade on her eye socket! You crazy bastard!

Let's go!

[Elsan]

Start all the porn and CowboyNeil references!

Wireless?

[YrWrstNtmr]

FTA:
"It is possible to build a wireless camera with the dimensions of the eyeball,"
Want said the camera, which would be encased in Vlach's prosthesis to avoid moisture, could link wirelessly to a smart phone.
The smart phone could send power to the camera wirelessly and relay the camera's video feed by cell phone network to another person,

The effects of cellphone emissions are as yet unproven to be harmful or not harmful. But I'd think putting the rad source right next to your brain, without even the skull material as a blocker, would be a pretty bad idea.

But, if she wants to be the guinea pig...go for it.
Who knows...she may spontaneously sprout a 3rd eye.

Re:Wireless?

[plague3106]

Well.. the eye socket is already a hole in the brain. Any idea how much radiation your eyes actually block?

Re:Wireless?

[UncleTogie]

Well.. the eye socket is already a hole in the brain

Silly me... All this time I thought it was an opening in the skull...

Re:Wireless?

[plague3106]

Or an opening to the brain, I suppose.

Re:Wireless?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just use some kind of wireless-radiation-blocking material to encase most of the electronics, leaving the front uncovered so transmissions can be exchanged through the front of the "eye" (which is where the transmitter tip could be) to the cell phone or whatever? Since there's no human tissue directly in front of the eye (though the nose can be seen at the inner periphery) then this should greatly limit any radiation effect on the wearer/user/Borg (lol). Build in some kind of switch so that when eyelid closure is detected, the transmitter automatically cuts out (and back on again as the eyelid opens).

Re:Wireless?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are people really OK with this being called a "cyborg"?!? As I read it, the camera woudln't help her function in any way, she'd just be toting electronics around in a body cavity... Is everyone who wears a blue-tooth earpiece a cyborg too? (If you say yes to that, you are lame)

As soon as she can get that webcam to interface meaningfully with her visual cortex, then I'd say we have a cyborg on our hands.

Re:Wireless?

[elgatozorbas]

If I understand correctly, the transmission between the camera and the cell phone will not use the same technology as is used between the cell phone and its base station (i.e. gsm, umts etc). It may be a very low power system, especially if it needs to be powered over the air. A spread spectrum system or even FM would be very suitable as they allow to trade (frequency) band width for power. Obviously, taking up so much band width, you don't want to interfere with other wireless users, but this is unlikely anyway, precisely because the power is so low. Apart from this you are right: the health risks are not completely known.

Re:Wireless?

[kcbanner]

How much radiation does the back of the eye socket stop when a transmitter is stuffed into it

Re:Wireless?

[khellendros1984]

Protagonist: "I need that like I need a hole in the head."
Anita: "A Schreibman port IS a hole in the head."
- Beneath a Steel Sky

Human hack

[ItsColdOverHere]

Imagine cracking the encryption (if any) in the wireless feed from the eye to the receiver. Instant Ghost in the Shell

Re:Human hack

[HexaByte]

Can I crack the encryption and get a raw feed of the video?

If there's going to be a reality show, I want all the outtakes, like her in the shower! Okay, I don't really, but someone will. This is a bad idea!

If you think Big Brother is bad now, wait until they can monitor your every move as seen by you, yourself! "You're under arrest for buying dope, we have the recordings. No you can't get off by turning states evidence against the dealer, we got him too, thanks to your eye-cam!"

Re:Human hack

[Yvan256]

More like "spy on the shell's activities".

Re:Human hack

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine cracking the encryption (if any) in the wireless feed from the eye to the receiver. Instant Ghost in the Shell

That was the first thing I thought of when read this headline. Considering all the GITS-like possibilities makes me so excited, if only the current technology was up to par.....

Where this is going

[HangingChad]

You just know this is going to end with some type of new p0rn.

Re:Where this is going

[conureman]

I can't believe it took fifteen minutes to post that. Did everyone take the day off?

Think of the DMCA !

[Anonymous Coward]

she'll never be admitted into a movie-theatre again !!!

"im sorry ma'am ... is that a recording device in your eye socket ? "

BANNED !!!

Re:Think of the DMCA !

[Yvan256]

Actually it would be funny. She'd have to leave her eye at the counter. And then...

Some guy - What happened to your eye, lady?
Tanya Vlach - Movies prices, these days... They cost 10$ and an eye.

Re:Think of the DMCA !

[Anonymous Coward]

The world better hope that I never lose any limbs-- because I would not be able to resist making dumb "it cost an arm and a leg!" jokes at any opportunity.

Re:Think of the DMCA !

[Anonymous Coward]

Or say the movie was so bad she gouged her eyes out after seeing it.

Re:Think of the DMCA !

[kramulous]

At least she could get 3D half price. Except she may wonder why the actors keep waiving shit in front of the camera.

In the movie, Doomsday

[Propaganda13]

Reminds of Rhona Mitra in Doomsday (hey, I expected more from the guy behind Dog Soldiers)

Since the camera isn't connected to her brain, it's just a fancy pocket for a webcam. Just like Mitra, the only way she could use her eye-cam is to hold the video screen up to her good eye. Tell me what's wrong with that picture.

Re:In the movie, Doomsday

[jgtg32a]

That's the second time I saw someone mention Dog Soldiers and imply that it wasn't bad. I saw most of it before, but it was late at night on the Sci-Fi channel, I was thinking this is bad but there is nothing else on and I'm to tired to go to bed.

Should I give it another chance?

Re:In the movie, Doomsday

[Propaganda13]

It is one of the better werewolf movies out there. It has some shortcomings, but definitely rent it.

How about...

[ZarathustraDK]

...a Logitech Trackball instead?

Sure, it'd be quite useless, but it'd still rock somehow. No?

Re:How about...

[randyest]

No.

Re:How about...

[phision]

Why useless? Maybe with the proper technology you could control your mouse cursor with the movement of your eye.

oops, I should be running to the patent bureau now...

Aughra?

[jdb2]

This brings a whole new meaning to Aughra's "I'll get my eye to you!"

( You have to be a Dark Crystal fan to get this one ;)

jdb2

Suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

The first couple of versions aren't going to work right or be what you want anyway.

So make a couple breadboard versions first to try out different feature sets.

When you have the features you like, make a portable book-size prototype and work the bugs out.

And then worry about reducing the size to fit your cybernetic eyeball.

Remember Moore's Law. Electronic's size, power requirements and cost go down over time (yeah, I know, that's not exactly Moore's Law, but that's the effect of Moore's Law).

Link to blog???

[Eganicus]

I can't find an actual link to the blog, anyone?

see what I see

[nategoose]

She could have the camera transmit it's images to a screen positioned over her good eye so she could see what was going on.

Here's the blog link;

[Eganicus]

http://tanyavlach.wordpress.com/

Death Watch

[lapse]

Didn't work out too well for Harvey Keitel.

I support her

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a prostheic eye (wood, not glass - don't ask).

Needless to say, I had a difficult time dating. No girl would ever date me because of my wooden eye. There was one girl, who was OK looking, except she had larger than average ears. So I decided to ask her out. She didn't date much, so she was excited to go out. Even with me! Alas it was not to be.

I asked her, "Would you like to go to the dance Friday night?" She retorts, "Would I! Would I!" Well enough was enough. I tell her, "Forget it! I don't go around calling you Big Ears!"

how to lose your major medical plan

[westlake]

I'd think putting the rad source right next to your brain, without even the skull material as a blocker, would be a pretty bad idea.
But, if she wants to be the guinea pig...go for it.

I suspect my HMO would describe the rig as an unlicensed - untested - modification to the prosthesis, with all the risk of infection and other complications that implies - and they wouldn't want any part of it.

a one eyed san francisco artist

[circletimessquare]

goes to caltech and asks if any graduate students would be interested in building her a webcam eye

she meets with a professor who is intrigued by the idea and says he will see if he can drum up any further interest. he asks where she lives in san francisco and remarks she lives in the same neighborhood as his daughter, and that he'll be visiting there soon

the artist says "oh ok, i'll keep an eye out for you"

badumpCHING

thanks, i'm here all week

combine it with this story:

[circletimessquare]

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/15/2359233

Socketed Implants (pun intented)

[Anonymous Coward]

How about instead of 1 implant in her eye socket, she gets a device socket? Then she can upgrade when the new gadget comes out. IR Swimsuit cam, wifi cracker, cigarette lighter, etc.

Re:Socketed Implants (pun intented)

[Anonymous Coward]

But will it have Secure Socket Layer? yuck yuck yuck.

Legal ramifications?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are police/border guards allowed to confiscate her eye since it is a camera?

Re:Legal ramifications?

[kcbanner]

Not if they don't know *wink*

Tanya wants 3D vision again...

[rtgarden]

Tanya is my pal and we discussed this on facebook. Originally she asked about a webcam, however I pointed out to her that she may be able to regain vision properly if we can match her with the right scientist (who is that guy that helped people see with a chair?). She lost her eye in an auto accident returning from Burningman two years ago, and she would very much like her eye back please. She would also accept infrared, UV and any other type of alternative vision that could go along with this. She is the sort of artist who could genuinely take advantage of this technology, and I seriously hope that we can find someone to work with her.

Re:Tanya wants 3D vision again...

[ShadowBlasko]

Hmm, she should go big time.
It was done years ago.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.09/vision.html

Check that out. Wetware. Ya .. Rly!

Re:Tanya wants 3D vision again...

[camperdave]

She lost her eye in an auto accident returning from Burningman two years ago, and she would very much like her eye back please. She would also accept infrared, UV and any other type of alternative vision that could go along with this.

We don't have nearly enough understanding of the visual systems of the brain for that to happen. The eye does a lot of processing on its own (edge detection, direction of movement, etc) before the signal ever reaches the brain. It doesn't just pump a bitmap down the optic nerve.

Re:Tanya wants 3D vision again...

[Anonymous Coward]

i believe in the 80s they got a guy in britain to see at 4x4 resolution in grayscale by wiring a camera to his brain. the calibration process sounded excruciating. sadly, that's the only thing i've ever heard about "seeing" through a camera. and i don't think having an eye with that poor of resolution will really help someone that's not completely blind anyway.

Re:Tanya wants 3D vision again...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/19/1045330662016.html

Re:Tanya wants 3D vision again...

[hesaigo999ca]

If you are a friend to this "woman" maybe remind her that doing this will not only make her famous, but also in the spotlight...and if she wants to do it right, go see the movie doomsday....she has to gain 10 pounds of muscle if she wants the part.

Re:Tanya wants 3D vision again...

[rtgarden]

its happening http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/11/15/2008-11-15_san_francisco_artist_looks_to_replace_lo.html not really a true replacement, still something good to come from a tragedy. She is a bona fide arrtist and ready for whatever limelight might happen her way.

not cyber in the usual sense

[nsteinme]

They were talking about this on the radio this morning, and it is important to note that apparently the eye is not connected to her brain or anything; she is not getting direct sensory input from it like what one might expect from a "cyber eye." It is basically just a wireless camera that sits in her eye socket and transmits live to an outside source. Definitely loses coolness points, but still interesting.

If I were her, I would get some kind of smartphone to use with it to see infrared, crosshairs, (insert vision-related sci fi wetdreams here)...

So much for the sex life

[David Gerard]

She'll never get laid again. Not ever.

Re:So much for the sex life

[GodKingAmit]

I would hit it.

Re:So much for the sex life

[David Gerard]

New dimensions in pr0n.

*brain bleach*

Power & Range

[DrYak]

The effects of cellphone emissions are as yet unproven to be harmful or not harmful. But I'd think putting the rad source right next to your brain

Well, it's not as if her eye was directly beaming the video stream to the next cell-tower. (Anyway, you couldn't probably easily fit the necessary battery and anthena).
Given that the picture is relayed by the smartphone, probably Bluetooth would be the best protocol (already has a protocol for transmitting video, handy for this situation).
Given the short range involved a class 3 bluetooth (~1m range) is enough to transmit the feed from the eye-cam to the phone in the pocket.
Class 3 bluetooth emits at 1mW power.
(Class 2 : ~10m - is 2.5mW. Class 1 : ~100m is 100mw [source])
And this will be much more harmless than GSM/UMTS power.

And about the wireless power :
has been used already for several powered prosthesis since several year (Cochlear implants [=cyber ear], Pacemakers, etc...)
and I haven't read any reports of problems linked to the charging method.

So I think that the whole idea is a lot less dangerous than sticking a phone in the eyeball socket. Or next to your ears.

without even the skull material as a blocker, would be a pretty bad idea.

Basic anatomy failure.

The eyes aren't inside the skull.
The eyeball socket is entirely delimited with bone, except for a couple of small holes to let the nerves and blood vessel pass.
In short, it's as if the eye are on the skull surface, except the surface in question make an nice concave curvature in the form of a eyeball socket to better accomodate the eyes.

Look at the pictures in wikipedia.

In related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

The MPAA has pledged to put a bill before congress preemptively banning all "Cyborg-Americans" from motion picture theaters, calling the bill "Tanya's Law" after San Francisco artist and original Cyborg-American, Tanya Vlach.

Re:In related news...

[ravyne]

I logged in... I don't know WTF happened...

Visual search

[DrYak]

As soon as she can get that webcam to interface meaningfully with her visual cortex, then I'd say we have a cyborg on our hands.

That's going to be rather difficult. The retina already process the signals.
The signal exiting the eye on the optic nerve are already somewhat multiplexed(*)

Are people really OK with this being called a "cyborg"?!? As I read it, the camera woudln't help her function in any way

Well, although the device wouldn't help her regain stereoscopic vision, the end of the article spoke of converting the video stream into a searchable-database on the phone. Thus "augmenting" her memory.

The ability to finally have a search engine able to answer to the question "Where are my fucking keys ?" grants the idea enough awesomeness points so we can concede the "cyborg" title in recognition.

--

(*) For the medical nerds :
The optic nerve, isn't technically a nerve (a structure transmitting raw data from the periphery to the central nervous system) but is much more like a tractus (link between two region of the central nervous system).
The "nerve" function is done by the middle layer of cells in the retina. The top layer process the input, the same way the spine does for inputs from skin for example.
Retina thus process signal (edge detection and other difference comparision) and the result of this process is what is sent down the optical nerve.

Re:Visual search

[Anonymous Coward]

>>That's going to be rather difficult. The retina already process the signals.

Since when are edge detection and difference comparison things that are so difficult to embed next to a webcam? Give me an FPGA and I'll do whatever processing you need...

The hard part will be figuring out the interface, not dealing with the processing.

Anyway, I'm glad that agree that the term cyborg in this instance is a concession at best. No doubt there are some cool applications for the webcam, but they're all just as cool as what you could get by strapping a webcam on a hat.

Hmmm...

[MaxwellEdison]

Could be interesting if it had its own LED lightsource as well. Creepy and marginally effective. Bonus points if the light's on and she puts it in backwards... YUCK!

Doesn't seem to matter...

[Chris Burke]

And then worry about reducing the size to fit your cybernetic eyeball.

Well since as far as I can tell, she's not intending to wire this webcam into her optic nerve (the technology to do this exists but is rather preliminary at this point), who cares? I say get the best eyeball-sized wireless webcam she can get today, and then in two years, get the new greatest eyeball-sized webcam, and so forth. Maybe by the time she feels she's done all she can with successive webcam upgrades, the synthetic eye technology will be advanced enough that she can make the jump to actually replacing her missing eye with a wireless webcam so she can see out of it while simultaneously recording what she sees.

Look

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody's mentioned her great photo...

She IS easy on the eye...

A Canticle for Liebowitz

[R2.0]

I'm reminded of the scene where, at a banquet full of notables, the artist/gadfly type turns over a goblet, pops his glass eye out, looks at it and says "Watch them", places it on the upturned goblet, and leaves.

I'm half tempted to poke my own eye out just to be able to pull that off at parties.

No fair

[Ender_Wiggin]

Hey, I had totally thought of that first.

I'm actually blind in one eye, due to a badly-formed optic nerve before birth. I was hoping to replace it with something like Olhado had in Speaker for the Dead, he had a in-socket camera that would record everything, and he could plug it in and play it back for anyone interested.

Personally I'd get Terminator-style vision instead.

thebinarysoul

[Anonymous Coward]

interesting that this article is right below one about the new ender book. Very very cool though if it happens

I replaced my third eye ...

[Anonymous Coward]

with a blind camera and now I can't see the future.

Don't spoil it for me though.

What about...

[Skudd]

...the I-Ball (http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/11/17/1629223.shtml)

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

As a one eyed person myself I wonder how much time it could stay alive.

Eye prosthetics are kinda small (they did a great bit on them on 'how its made' on TV which kind of shows the average size.) Probably would need hearing aid batteries to power it, wonder how much juice is needed for a camera and transmitter, also how the added weight of the prosthetic would affect her.

P.O.V.

[ConfrontationalGrayh]

Gives a whole new meaning to P.O.V. doesn't it?

From the photo...

[master_p]

...it seems that Tanya has other artificial members on her...

Odd coincidence...

[Spasemunki]

I broke my web cam, and I've been trying to find someone who will sell me a human eye...

Seriously?

[hesaigo999ca]

This is like that movie doomsday, where she is missing an eye, and has a sort of webcam eye that she can throw into hostile environment to know whats ahead etc... except she was way prettier then this one. I guess when doing remakes of movies , you can't always copy everything!

Cyber retina

[DrYak]

all just as cool as what you could get by strapping a webcam on a hat.

Except that you remove your hat from time to time. Whereas, thank to wireless-power battery charging this thing remains in place 24/7 and is able to function except for a couple of hours per day when the artist is sleeping (with her eyes closed).

There are a lot of place where this cam can be used and where a hat would have been removed and an external cam would have looking weird (swimming pool for example). Whereas a glass looks perfectly normal. ...Hum in fact, she could work as a hidden cam in girls showers... {drools}

Obligatory Link

[danieltdp]

http://xkcd.com/467/

Artist thing

[danieltdp]

She don't wanna get the webcam for her. Its for others to see thru her eye