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

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: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.