Solar-Powered Augmented Reality Contact Lenses

ByronScott writes "Want eyesight that could put your neighborhood cyborg to shame? Well, University of Washington professor Babak Amir Parviz and his students are working on solar-powered contact lenses embedded with hundreds of semitransparent LEDs, letting wearers experience augmented reality right through their eyes. If their research proves successful, the applications — from health monitoring to gameplay to just plain bionic sight — could be endless."

Comments

Yes I Do Want

[alex_guy_CA]

Oh my. Yes indeed, if that is not the coolest sounding thing I've heard all day, I don't know what is.

Though now that I think a little more, a spam attack on your eyeballs could be troubling...

Re:Yes I Do Want

[socsoc]

Just wait for the malware on whatever drives the display... You could actually punch the monkey and win!

Re:Yes I Do Want

[interkin3tic]

Though now that I think a little more, a spam attack on your eyeballs could be troubling...

Yes, you'd have to [shivers] take off your contacts!

I kid, yes it would be troubling in situations like driving, doing surgery, or doing surgery while driving, all of which could be helped by these things conceivably.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[girlintraining]

Though now that I think a little more, a spam attack on your eyeballs could be troubling...

People always think of the best outcome when a new technology is created, forgetting the cesspool we call humanity that's going to use and pervert it. The day you have bionic eyes is the day people start paying good money to augment your "virtual reality" to replace competitors advertisements, add advertisements onto everyday objects surrepticiously, and what you'll end up with is drowning in useless information just as much now, sitting at your keyboard reading this, except you won't be able to unplug.

Most of my friends have the social expectation that if they send me a text or email, I reply in a few minutes, a half hour tops. Any longer, and they think something's gone wrong, and start calling me and everyone I know to find out what happened. God help us all the day we're linked continuously with each other over a massive communications network; Kiss democracy goodbye, privacy, anonymity, freedom, and the right to choose how you life your life goodbye. It'll all be auctioned off to the highest bidder. It'll be like Ghost in the Shell, with police, government agents, and large corporations being able to cloak themselves from being seen. And there won't be trials anymore -- the bionic eye's constant connection with the network will mean everything you see from the moment you wakeup until you go to bed will be available for review. They'll make their use mandatory because it results in zero crime. Or so they'll say.

It isn't fear-mongering to expect this. Not fifteen years ago when the internet was in its infancy, most of what was out there was high quality scientific research and most of the e-mails being sent were between real people, having real conversations. Today, it's a cesspool where 99% of what your inbox gets hit with is someone trying to sell you something. Every window into the web has advertisements hanging off of it. And here in Minnesota, the Supreme Court recently ruled that it was okay for people to be convicted of DUI if they could have been capable of operating a motor vehicle. People being thrown in jail because of the possibility that a crime could have occurred -- it is no longer necessary that the public (or yourself) be harmed for the law to reach into your lives. Today we live in a society where the merest possibility of a person engaging in a criminal act is sufficient grounds for conviction.

Technology does not change the way people think. Human intellectual capacity has not altered in the past 4,000 years (at least) as far as we can tell. We can laugh at people who believed the world was flat, but the fault is ours for doing so -- we did not understand how they saw the world. There wasn't anything wrong with their eyes, or their brains. We're fundamentally no smarter than they were. But we think we are. And we're so confident, so smugly superior to our predecessors that we know this future can't happen.

Of course there will be trials. And freedom. And democracy. And all that good stuff. We know it because, well, gosh darn it, that's how it has to be.

No.

No it doesn't.

All these things we value will die, and we can't blame technology for it. All technology does, this one included, is expose and direct us towards the fundamental question of what it means to be human. And let me just say -- that definition is not sunshine and rainbows. We were given free will. Nowhere in that does it say we are in any way inclined to do good; When it comes right down to it, very few people truly trust one another, and we'd believe our own direct sensory experiences over what anyone would tell us. We imitate others. That's all culture is -- the direct observation of our environment, which is translated into coping mechanisms (behaviors) that we then interpose between ourselves and it.

So tell me, where does that leave us when those sensory experiences become artificial and malleable?

Re:Yes I Do Want

[WrongSizeGlass]

So, I take it that you won't want to borrow my pair when I get them? I bet they'll make my iPad look even better than my rose colored glasses :-)

Re:Yes I Do Want

[WrongSizeGlass]

They're doing this with LED's and not LSD?

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Jazz-Masta]

Nothing like a BSOD on your contact lenses while driving

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Clandestine_Blaze]

A well thought-out, on-topic response being modded as redundant? Even if you don't agree with the poster's reasoning, this certainly isn't redundant.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wait for the malware on whatever drives the display... You could actually punch the monkey and win!

And in Australia, if you didn't stop spanking the monkey, you really would go blind!

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Anonymous Coward]

A well thought-out, on-topic response being modded as redundant? Even if you don't agree with the poster's reasoning, this certainly isn't redundant.

Agreed. I modded it up.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Anonymous Coward]

Same

Re:Yes I Do Want

[girlintraining]

A well thought-out, on-topic response being modded as redundant? Even if you don't agree with the poster's reasoning, this certainly isn't redundant.

You must be new here, so I'll make this simple: Most of my posts are well thought-out, on-topic, and therefore piss off a lot of people, who make it a point whenever they get mod points to nuke any post with my username associated with it into oblivion. So you need to make a diversionary post, like this:

Attention Moderator Who Put Me Down As Redundant:

You Have a Small Penis. No Amount of Mod Points Can Fix This.

Sincerely, The Girl Who's Pants You'll Never Get Into.

See? Works nicely. Now they'll waste their points moderating this down (with hopefully a few +1, Funny, to keep it afloat for awhile), thus providing the necessary diversion to get the well-thought out post past the haters. Now sit back and watch the fireworks, kiddo. ;)

Re:Yes I Do Want

[pieszynski]

Yesterday transcontinental high speed rail, today this. Beyond awesome, the 2020's could be good.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Ranzear]

Funnily enough theres a literature example of that. Persons with nanotechnologic eye implants in The Diamond Age are frequently hacked to show spam and advertisements at all waking hours, even when trying to sleep. Its cited as the biggest reason they aren't very popular.

I suppose contact lenses with much the same function wouldn't be so hard to be rid of in such a case though.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Anonymous Coward]

it is the 2010s

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Golddess]

Yes, but these things don't just pop up over night. Maybe in 10 years we'll see something consumer-grade, and guess what, it'll be 2020 :P

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Anonymous Coward]

That's "Whose" not "Who's."

After all, if you're set on letting ANYbody here into your pants, you're going to need to straighten that stuff out first. Heh. Heheh. Don't be ridiculous! :)

Thank you! I'll be here all week long. Try the veal!

Re:Yes I Do Want

[skine]

Except, in my case, as long as my vision isn't completely blocked out, it would be magnitudes better than being practically blind.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[girlintraining]

That's "Whose" not "Who's." After all, if you're set on letting ANYbody here into your pants, you're going to need to straighten that stuff out first. Heh. Heheh. Don't be ridiculous! :)

Fortunately, discovering that someone is an intellectual snob usually happens on the first date. That's when I split the tab, and then split for the exit. Besides, I'm under no illusions that there's any eligible lesbians who read slashdot in my zipcode. To date, I've found two regular posters here that ping the radar, and neither are even in my state. :(

Re:Yes I Do Want

[DigiShaman]

So tell me, where does that leave us when those sensory experiences become artificial and malleable?

I leaves us as members of the hive that is defined as a wired society.

I say this because I'm in an agreement with you. We are quickly losing our individuality and freedom as you so stated. I'm already at my breaking point of just "unplugging" myself from all this noise. I'm sure it will lead to depression and loneliness at first. Eventually however, I will feel liberated!

I need a very very long walk in the desert...alone. Just give me water and the clothes on my back. I will figure the rest out later.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[BronsCon]

Me too... oh... wait.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[opposabledumbs]

One of the best posts I've read in a long time, and definitely on topic - what the hell is going on with the moderating here?

Re:Yes I Do Want

[fractoid]

So tell me, where does that leave us when those sensory experiences become artificial and malleable?

Very, very interesting post. My guess would be that we'll be left exactly where we are now, but with an added element. We'll still trust our senses (or more accurately, our interpretation of our senses) above all. Those senses will just be technologically improved. There will still be cases where our senses are deceived, but that happens today (think camouflage, optical illusions and so on), these situations will just be different. We'll just include the hardware and software involved in our sensory augments in the black box of 'senses' that we must choose to trust.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[linzeal]

How quickly before these are adjusted so you can see through clothes?

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Anonymous Coward]

very interesting, but if i didnt undersand you wrong, the only downside you see is that there would be no turn off functionality right? And I agree, it would be kind of great to be able to take the contact lenses out, oh wait...

Re:Yes I Do Want

[siloko]

OK, cars. Just like any modern technology (take the Toyota Prius for example) there will be a fallback to tried and trusted 'old' technology. Yes indeedy.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Anonymous Coward]

All these things we value will die, and we can't blame technology for it.

You know what I value? Bionic fucking vision!

Re:Yes I Do Want

[opposabledumbs]

Just in time for me to use them while operating my flying car, then!

Re:Yes I Do Want

[siloko]

They'll make their use mandatory because it results in zero crime. Or so they'll say.

Given that this is extremely unlikely it sort of makes the rest of your post redundant. Even if I wore these multi-faceted, augmented reality, net aware, government monitored eye wear I could easily just take them out. You know, like regular contact lenses. And as to your nightmare scenario of a future 1984, please remember that the vast majority of people on this planet are not even on the net and unless and until we alter the economic framework on which we distribute wealth this ain't gonna change anytime soon!

Re:Yes I Do Want

[ghmh]

Maybe most of us will wait until theres an equivalent version that has adblock/noscript functionality.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I agree, it was thought-out. I wouldn't go so far as to say "well" thought-out, and it was clearly wrong, but it was thought-out.

Seriously, the part about the DUI?

People being thrown in jail because of the possibility that a crime could have occurred

Yeah, you ever heard of "conspiracy to commit murder", "attempted murder", etc.? Those are all charges for crimes that "could have occurred", as you say, and which - by definition - did not occur (well, at least in most jurisdictions you can't be convicted of both attempted murder and murder).

And to pick on your Minnesota example, I don't know about Minnesota in particular, but in many other states DUI is something like "driving or being in control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol" (I don't particularly care to look the exact wording up right now). The courts have simply expanded the meaning of "being in control" to even include people who are "sleeping it off" in their cars. Considering how unpredictable some people are when drunk, I don't think that's completely unreasonable. If you're drunk, don't go near your car (unless you have a designated driver). Did the Minnesota court convict a person who was drunk but not in or near a car? I don't think so.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Onymous Coward]

There's something about your posts that I find grating. I should try to figure out what it is.

I think maybe... pronounced certainty... that exacerbates the irritation of caustic cynicism... and contempt for non-cynical thinking which you polarize into a hyperbolic strawman to mock, gosh darn it... A kind of exaggerated, hateful, pessimistic misanthropic venting.

You "hold forth" rather than posit or ponder.

You talk about human nature and are quick to point out failings, but I'm guessing you'd be hard pressed to acknowledge prosocial inclinations.

Am I reading you wrong? Maybe I'm not remembering the character of your prior posts very well. Are you not cynical? Do you ever qualify any proclamations with "well, I'm not entirely sure...", "I think...", or "it could be..."? Or is it really all "damn straight -- people suck is how it is and I'm the person to tell it to ya, ya foolish dreamers"? Maybe it's more performance than measured analysis.

People always think of the best outcome when a new technology is created, forgetting the cesspool we call humanity that's going to use and pervert it.

But the very thing you were responding to was someone pointing out a negative application of technology? Yet, "people always think of the best..." Maybe this hyperbole isn't warranted? Especially just on the heels of a counterexample?

Experiences change the way people think. Sure, there are tendencies, but evidently a wide variety of outcomes -- have you noticed? -- which suggests thinking is pliable. Technology can enable experiences. Talk therapy is itself a kind of technology. Maybe technology itself doesn't change the way people think (modulo mood drugs... hm... and probably neurofeedback machines... okay, and maybe a number of other technologies), but technology can be leveraged. And that's a critical point which we ought not sweep under the rug mid-rant.

Message boards allow individuals to speak to a public of thousands or hundreds of thousands. That's powerful technology. What would you do with that kind of technology? Self-gratifyingly vent your gall bladder about the inherent and irremediable evil of humankind? But meanwhile thus paint an ugly picture of humanity for others to absorb? Did you know that the more we contemn and so fear others the less helpful we become? Indeed, the more we become the things we're hating? Selfish, ungenerous, unkind? Get my drift? If we call humans ugly we make it so. Technology has amplified your mouth. Watch your mouth.

I'm not suggesting we turn a blind eye to fault. Indeed, this post is all about calling you out on yours. We absolutely should be critical. Meaning we should apply our intellects to make fine distinctions in judgement. Being overly biased towards either gloom or rainbows is harmful. (Albeit, biased towards gloom more so.) Let us judge, and judge accurately, being wary of our emotions. Let's judge, but let's not be hateful or contemptuous. I don't hate you for your curmudgeonly ranting; hate doesn't improve anything. If you're upset about humanity's failings, I might suggest highlighting and promoting its good qualities. For example, you're obviously a clever thinker. Quite sharp. Seemingly a good arguer. I suggest that you take your mental gifts and apply them with a less cynical bias. Your life will be more pleasant, without losing any realism, and so will the lives of those around you. Including me. I make this recommendation for all our sake.

Next time I'm in Minnesota, you wanna grab a coffee?

Re:Yes I Do Want

[socceroos]

I will personally wait until there is an open source implementation of all the hardware - allowing me to control the friggin' things.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Degro]

People always think of the best outcome when a new technology is created, forgetting the cesspool we call humanity that's going to use and pervert it.

But, people perverting it is what I'm looking forward too...

Re:Yes I Do Want

[rdnetto]

What I don't get is why they haven't been trying this with glasses instead, since they're a lot larger and don't have to be as clean.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I will just use the fully open alternative (hardware / software) so I can control my own perception of reality. http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/ActiveVision/ http://www.eyetap.org/

Re:Yes I Do Want

[davidbofinger]

People always think of the best outcome when a new technology is created, forgetting the cesspool we call humanity that's going to use and pervert it.

I don't think this is true. I often hear people saying something new is undesirable.

The day you have bionic eyes is the day people start paying good money to augment your "virtual reality" to replace competitors advertisements, add advertisements onto everyday objects surrepticiously

As long as they're offering me the money, and I can decide whether or not to accept, I don't see this is a problem. Personally I shall decline.

except you won't be able to unplug.

It's a contact lens. If I want to unplug I take it out.

Not fifteen years ago when the internet was in its infancy, most of what was out there was high quality scientific research and most of the e-mails being sent were between real people, having real conversations. Today, it's a cesspool where 99% of what your inbox gets hit with is someone trying to sell you something.

And yet the internet remains useful, and is indeed even more useful than it was then. So these problems must be tolerable. Even spam is less of a problem now than it was recently, mostly because filters are better.

All technology does, this one included, is expose and direct us towards the fundamental question of what it means to be human.

This is obviously not true, especially for the dogs amongst us.

Seriously, I don't know whether this is true because it's impossible to tell what activities might fall under the umbrella of "expose and direct us towards the fundamental question of what it means to be human". But this is one of those sentences Twain was talking about when he said that it sounded very fine, but there wasn't a shred of sense to it or meaning in it.

The parent post was intended as an axeing of the modern net, amongst other things. But the fact a content-free rant like the parent post was modded "+5, insightful" is really a better indictment than anything the parent post itself can provide.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Anonymous Coward]

This is great... It could be like a Twinkie Defense applicable to the whole range of assault & battery.

Goodbye "justifiable homicide"... Hello "It said I'd win an XBox if I shot him!"

(also, Captcha sez "choking" - which could also be an option)

Re:Yes I Do Want

[zerospeaks]

Your a religious nutcase, and you sig proves it. Your a buzzkill. It is people like you that wanted Galileo in prison because he dared to challenge your world view. Just like the roman empire, American capitalism will fail. We will be dead and gone, and the world will have a new and better system of government and economics, and religion. Yes, that is right, your christianity will take it's place in the history books next to greek mythology. However, technology, science, reason, logic etc... will survive. And mankind will survive because of this. You and your beliefs will be extinct.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Space Guerilla]

Very well written: girlintraining The only way we can have true improvement (quality of life): is to increase lifespans and build a better human brain. There are so many bad incentives designed into the human mind. We do things that are bad for us, we do them a lot. We eat junk food when we know we shouldn't. We prefer to entertain ourselves with movies, tv shows and games. These things have no functional value. I think of the resources squandered on the creation of faster and faster gaming rigs, all for people to have that dopamine rush.

Would it be any different if we had electrodes hooked up to our brains in that same area? We seek immediate gratification rather than the long term reward. The greatest underminer of democracy, and capitalism is the human mind. Capitalism would work better if there weren't so many greedy people. You have a democracy for long enough and it boils down to group think decisions and mob rule. With each successive generation the society becomes dumbed down.

On the opposite spectrum we have poor people who don't work who think they are entitled what higher classes work for. Mean while the middle class (the Engineers, Doctors, Architects, Programmers, Fire Fighters) gets squeezed with additional taxes.

In theory a benevolent leader would be ideal, in theory communism would work. These things will never work, can never work with humans with such short lifespans, brains with bad incentives and illogical tendencies.

Just imagine what the world would be like if people were born unselfish, were logical (not just some people, but all people). I'm not encouraging a Gattaca style future either. I think people should be able to change their tendencies and lifespan even after they are born. Maybe even some kind of "soul transfer" (moving whatever part of us to another, that makes me me and you you).

~Wouldn't these contacts be a little blurry, it is so close to your peripheral vision.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[FrameRotBlues]

*sigh* And here I was about to ask what you're doing Friday night... Ah well.

Offtopic, there may be more /. lurkers in MN than you might think. I rarely post but I've seen your posts quite a bit, and I didn't know until now that you were from MN. I sincerely wish you the best of luck with that, because it's getting tougher to find someone to have an intellectual discussion with, period; let alone available lesbians.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[EspressoFreak]

Or...
Jill: "Did you see that?!"
Bob: "Hold on, damn pop-ups..."

Re:Yes I Do Want

[somersault]

Weird - from reading your journal ages ago I thought you were actually a transexual dude who liked other dudes. >_>

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Hurricane78]

The only problem: The resolution is still crap. (Yes, I assume it will improve. But it will take a few years.)
And of course you won’t be able to wear them forever, because just like throwaway lenses, I bet they will be designed so you have to throw them away once a week “for comfort”.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[L4t3r4lu5]

For those of you who don't speak "hoity-toity" here's a translation:

"I disagree with your pessimism regarding humanity. You're a clever bloke, but far too cynical.

Wanna make out?"

(N.B. This comment is fully-laden with humour.)

Re:Yes I Do Want

[somersault]

Mod parent up! Better to veer towards looking at things on the bright side - often it actually turns out that your fears are unfounded. My life has much improved since I started trying to focus on the positive parts of life. I still like to play devil's advocate and still could be considered cynical or at least detachedly rational at times, but I also try to foster good in myself and other people.

I was thinking similar things about her post but it's impossible to say that the things she mentions will not come true.. they'd certainly be possible in certain political climates - for example the current China - but I like to think that there are enough checks and balances in human nature to make sure that there will still be people in government who work to preserve dignity and privacy in our lives. There's also the fact that politicians have more to fear than most out of their lives being monitored, so I don't think they'd be too happy about this kind of tech being mandated.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[JosKarith]

Imagine a Goatse (or Tubgirl, or Lemon party or whatever) that didn't go away when you closed your eyes...

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Anonymous Coward]

We were "given" free will?
"Technology does not change the way people think."
I think technology is a tool through which truths of our physical universe can be revealed. Technology has clearly changed the way people think about a myriad of things.
There is a vast wasteland on the internet all of which you can ignore. You imply that the high quality scientific research has been replaced with rubbish. All that has really happened is that a bunch of stuff that doesn't interest you has been added. The good is still there. And the means to filter the crap get better and better.
People are too pessimistic. Fact: you are almost certainly better off living now then at any other point in history. Yes, a lot of shitty things still go on.
People who thought the world was flat did have something wrong with their brains. Less knowledge in it. New technologies are sometimes critical for gaining new knowledge. Sure people will do shitty things. But most people are pretty cool.
Do you really expect us to believe 99% of your email is spam? I barely get any at all now. It's almost as if the great weight of humanity falls on the side of people outdoing the shits. Circumventing their shittyness with awesomeness and coming out on top almost all of the time ridiculously quickly.
Lighten up and keep it in perspective. It's not like you had a life expectancy of 22 years and had to fight a sabre tooth tiger today with nothing but a fire hardened stick..

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Scrab]

There's quite a difference between what you're proposing and what TFA talks about.

These not bionic eyes, they are contact lenses, and they don't have cameras in them.

You're right that such things could happen, and in some nightmare society, we could end up with compulsary bionics for monitoring purposes.

Buit this isn't anything to do with that.

And you could make this argument about any technological advance. "We've found a way to write in the sky!" "But what if the government uses it for propaganda?"

I also take issue with the social expectations paragraph. If your friends require you to respond that quickly, then you're telling me that you never take a shower, you never sleep, and you never have a social life that involves going to the theatre, the cinema, ice skating... need I continue?

And it IS fear-mongering to expect that. You're telling me that a government organisation (and it'll have to be one that does it) can organise bionic implants for every person in (your country name here) AND manage the massive network and storage infrastructure that would be required to make it work? Given my (the Uk) government's experiences with technological projects, I'm seriously not worried.

We've also had stupid laws for a long time. I don't know if it still is one, but there was a law in the UK that said that you could shoot a man from the walls of York, I think it was, as long as he was Welsh. But you know what? We had an attack of common sense and got rid of it.

And yes, there will be trials and freedom and democracy, because there are still people out there that give a damn, and are willing to swim against the tide.

And you know what? Occaisionally, it works.

Stop being such a pessimist.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Anonymous Coward]

Suddenly, everybody has goatse faces!

Re:Yes I Do Want

[CaptnMArk]

Just wait until the DRM activates the 'Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses' mode.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, they are Contact lenses!!! Oh yeah and what you said was deep

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Dripdry]

--Off topic--: I have a number of friends in alternative lifetsyles/communities in the Twin Cities (that's all MN is, right?), if you're really looking I can ask around. Hey, always happy to help a fellow geek, right?

Oh, and perhaps the above poster was going for levity. One hopes.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Anonymous Coward]

Bravo. In the age of evolution, it's refreshing to read that someone still realizes that humans really haven't "evolved" or gotten better in any sense of the word. I don't want to make this a theological rant, but we must consider this before we go off worshiping at the alter of tech: what does it mean to be human, to live, to love, and to die. Will this tech make us more human? Seriously, we still can't get fresh water to billions of people in the world. Not that we can't do both (the tech and the humanity), but we don't. I doubt it's all just an economic consideration.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Nyder]

Though now that I think a little more, a spam attack on your eyeballs could be troubling...

People always think of the best outcome when a new technology is created, forgetting the cesspool we call humanity that's going to use and pervert it. The day you have bionic eyes is the day people start paying good money to augment your "virtual reality" to replace competitors advertisements, add advertisements onto everyday objects surrepticiously, and what you'll end up with is drowning in useless information just as much now, sitting at your keyboard reading this, except you won't be able to unplug.

um, if you took the contacts out, you'd be unplugged.

I mean, seriously, they are contact lenses, not new eyeballs.

=)

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Lumpy]

How about the hard part. Focusing on the data that is at a location that your eyes are incapable of focusing on.

One small hurdle... Otherwise it's the colorful light blob experiment

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Lumpy]

Look up wearable computing and Prof Steve Mann. He's the one that is the father of all this technology. He invented it and even invented a system to BLOCK advertisements from your vision... or at least started the research in that direction.

All of this stuff is old hat. I was working on Wearable computing and augmented reality in the 90's.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[LifesABeach]

I cannot help but wonder if the new political group, "Tea Party" is only a Beta Test Group for this really good idea.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Krupuk]

I don't get it either.

I don't like putting something on my eyes, that's why I wear glasses and not contact lenses. I would love to wear AR-enhanced glasses, but contact lenses?

And wouldn't it be simpler to implement this technology into glasses (bigger surface) too?

Re:Yes I Do Want

[KlaymenDK]

Really? Funny, I sort of have the opposite impression; that when a new technology is created, people [here] often think of how the cesspool we call humanity (and the corporations they've unleashed) is going to use and pervert it, forgetting the best outcome.

That's an ingenious idea though, installing AdBlockPlusPlus directly on your retina instead of having to install AdBlockPlus on every browser you come in contact with.

I'm not sure I follow (and pretty sure I don't agree with) your screed on the destruction of civilisation solely because of personalised in-eye displays. Alas, I do agree that we'll get there soon enough by any event, but I don't think this "eye" thing is going to be that much of a step forward.

I expect that we'll be interfacing with our pda's and entertainment devices using neuro and brain wave readers long before the judicial system will rely on that kind of tech. As you say, technology does not change the way people think, and the governing/judicial system is a rather sluggish thing. But yes, regardless of what the governing/judicial system is up to, the social change is going to imprison the non-believers. Really: mail, the telegraph, the Internet, and Facebook; these are all iterations towards greater coherence. For an average individual, not having a Facebook account today is comparable to not having a phone twenty years ago. Twenty years from now, I'm sure you'll be allowed to not wear "digi-eyes", but the resulting social isolation is going to make it mindbogglingly less acceptable, not to mention totally impractical (after all, in our present day it is still possible to lead some manner of social life without a Facebook account, but that of course ends if you can no longer get a meal or a job without digi-eyes).

So tell me, where does that leave us when those sensory experiences become artificial and malleable?

Seriously? That's not an easy question to answer, but I do believe that --assuming we ever find a way to not start WWIII --- we'll continue on the path towards greater intellectuality, past the point where we leave our physical bodies behind. Imagine what that will do to concepts of identity, privacy, family and so on!. ...and then, there'll be a power outage and kill us all.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. And it's so totally untrue that certain flashing frequencies zonk you out (or a noticeable percentage of the general pop) and render you susceptible to - er, suggestion.

Plus, I'm sure the mil version will be totally safe, and completely shielded from external interference. And those convenient nano-hooks will keep them secured to wearer's eyeballs in rugged conditions.

Although full implants will probably be even more, er, efficient - and those who opt for them upon recruitment will probably get some added incentive. And no, the brass doesn't black out your - er, the troop's - eyeballs to keep them manageable. Absolutely not! They only do it to help them rest.

Perhaps they'll.... well, never mind that.

G'day, guv!

Re:Yes I Do Want

[cp.tar]

Not only can you take these lenses out and replace them with common lenses (or nothing, as the case may be); just imagine the dystopian scenario presented above.
Imagine, if you will, a world where there are omnipresent attacks on your eyeballs. No, wait, you don't have to imagine: you live in it.
As far as I understand this technology, it is useless without outside input. And where there is outside input, there are also filters. For instance, you may connect your mobile phone (or a piece of hi-tech jewelery; I am certain there will be some, just as there are USB pendants and rings) to your lenses and have an ad-blocker running on the phone. Just imagine the augmented reality in a world where bulletin boards are digitized and you can block them...

If a technology catches on, each and every one of us who would use it would have to see some benefit in it. And that benefit would have to outweigh the disadvantages, or the technology would have to be abandoned.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[iktos]

No, the resolution isn't the only problem.

One other is saccadic eye movements. Anything shown via these would remain fixed relative to the eye, but as our eyes constantly shift the exact direction we look in, each "pixel" would appear to jump around.

One more is the very small field of view our eyes have sharp vision in. A single projected image (I'm not clear on whether they intend to project the light from each LED to a spot on the retina) would be VERY small. To simulate a larger (7+ characters?) image you'd have to have orientation sensors in the contact lenses (which also would help with the previous paragraph).

I really wonder if they or anyone else have put semitransparent letters or whatever on a contact lens to determine how information dense it really can be as a static display.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[criterzzz]

Am I reading you wrong? Maybe I'm not remembering the character of your prior posts very well. Are you not cynical? Do you ever qualify any proclamations with "well, I'm not entirely sure...", "I think...", or "it could be..."? Or is it really all "damn straight -- people suck is how it is and I'm the person to tell it to ya, ya foolish dreamers"? Maybe it's more performance than measured analysis.

Right on brother! I like the way you think. It is a pattern with most radicals that they are so convinced of their ideas, they never see the duality of the world. You put it in the words very well. I am going to use this logical chain in the next argument.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Espressor]

People always think of the best outcome when a new technology is created

This statement is a bit too clear-cut. AFAIK, history - and in particular the Industrial Revolution - begs to differ with you. It seems technological progress is often met with rejection - sometimes even accompanied with violence. People being scared of the potentially devastating effects of machines on their lives. A famous example is related here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

Excerpt: "The principal objection of the Luddites was against the introduction of new wide-framed automated looms that could be operated by cheap, relatively unskilled labour, resulting in the loss of jobs for many skilled textile workers."

Could this possibly sound familiar?

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

:)

Nevertheless:
> are working on solar-powered contact lenses embedded with hundreds of semitransparent LEDs,

DO WANT!!!

Re:Yes I Do Want

[mcgrew]

We are quickly losing our individuality and freedom

I'll agree with you about freedom, but nobody can take your individuality away from you is you. The only thing stopping you is fear of being thought of as "wierd".

Re:Yes I Do Want

[cp.tar]

Maybe because it is easier to keep things at the edge of your field of vision?
Just guessing...

Anyway, I already wear contact lenses. I wouldn't mind upgrading, though, as long as they were as easy to maintain as my gas-permeable hard lenses (which I wash in water and soap, not special overpriced solutions).

Re:Yes I Do Want

[mcgrew]

For those of you who only speak Ebonics or Redneck:

"You be too down on people, homey. You smart but you too fuckin' down, bitch. Let's fuck."

"Y'all need ta go ta church. Yer real smart, but goddamn, hon... why don't we drunk and screw!"

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather have something on my eye I can't even feel, than something on my face, which distorts the world and blocks my vision. To each his own. I'm always amazed to see people walking around with dirty glasses. Yes, I guess you don't have to clean them, but who wants a blurry distorted world?

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Anonymous Coward]

This is old news

http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/09/01/1619248/Augmented-Reality-In-a-Contact-Lens?from=rss

Re:Yes I Do Want

[vegiVamp]

Yes. Especially when the monkey appears right when you're having a face-to-face with your boss.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[DigiShaman]

No one can take your individuality. But, once you've allowed yourself to become absorbed into a hive like mindset, eventually you lose it. It's like a slow and eroding processes. Blind to what once was, if you will.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[girlintraining]

There's something about your posts that I find grating. I should try to figure out what it is.

I'm very intelligent, but unlike most, I'm also very direct. I don't sugar-coat, and I'm world-weary and don't care much about whether or not I hurt somebody else's feelings. I also do tend to over-generalize and draw on stereotypes because those are things people can emotionally relate to. It's that mixture of facts and emotional appeal that makes me both persuasive and irritating at the same time. So you're on the right track.

but I'm guessing you'd be hard pressed to acknowledge prosocial inclinations.

Well, actually I believe that at the root of human nature is the need for social acceptance. This need is so entrenched in us (being social creatures as all mammals are) that it often overrides our judgement or blinds us to the pain we cause others. For a far better elucidation on this, look up the speech The Perils of Indifference, by Elie Wiesel. As a holocaust survivor, he struggled to understand why so many people would be indifferent to the suffering of others like him. See also: Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram Experiment for additional insight. I'm not saying people are fundamentally evil. I'm saying we're fundamentally social creatures -- and our desire for acceptance (amongst other things) often leads us to abuse our fellow human beings in ways not easily understood or, if understood, are dismissed as cognitive dissonance -- "I'm not responsible. It's not my fault."

Maybe this hyperbole isn't warranted? Especially just on the heels of a counterexample?

Or maybe I just wanted to attach my post as high up on the tree as I could so as many people could read and comment on this as possible, rather than on a more relevant, but lower-ranked thread.

...but technology can be leveraged. And that's a critical point which we ought not sweep under the rug mid-rant.

You're saying technology is just a tool. It's neither good nor evil. I don't disagree.

Self-gratifyingly vent your gall bladder about the inherent and irremediable evil of humankind? But meanwhile thus paint an ugly picture of humanity for others to absorb? Did you know that the more we contemn and so fear others the less helpful we become? Indeed, the more we become the things we're hating? Selfish, ungenerous, unkind? Get my drift? If we call humans ugly we make it so. Technology has amplified your mouth. Watch your mouth.

People need to be held up to the mirror every now and then and reminded that they aren't perfect. They need reminders of our history -- they need to remember that many of the most tragic things that happened in the history of our race started with words like "It's for your own good," or "think of how much this could benefit others!" We have nuclear reactors now that power many of our cities. That same knowledge was used to destroy two cities. We should have a guarded vigilance towards any new technology -- that isn't to say don't develop it, or don't use it, but that we should carefully consider the rammifications of their widespread use before it becomes widely used. An ounce of prevention saves a pound of cure. You say I'm cynical and spit vitrol at the human condition -- no. Emphatically, no. What I say is we should be aware of it, and consider that although individually we may be moral and good people, the world as a whole is not filled with people like us, and we need to put our technology forward with that in mind from the beginning, not waiting until after and then going "Damn! Didn't see that one coming."

Next time I'm in Minnesota, you wanna grab a coffee?

Hmmm. You really do read most of my posts. Sure. Uptown, a place called Uncommon Grounds. They make the best chai tea you'll find this side of the mississippi.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[girlintraining]

"I disagree with your pessimism regarding humanity. You're a clever bloke, but far too cynical. Wanna make out?"

A bloke is a dude. If you're going to throw out british slang, at least use it right. The word you're looking for is 'skirt', or if you're feeling less charitable, 'Doris'.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[girlintraining]

Yeah... this is hugely off topic, but hey.

It's a common experience for lesbians. I am kindof a soft androgyny, whereas my girlfriend is quite butch (almost irritatingly so). She's also short for a girl, and I'm tall for one. So we make quite the spectacle. Needless to say, in the summertime people like to yell out the window dyke, cow, fat ass, etc., when they pass by. If approached, sometimes they'll ask me if I could "give their friend some love", despite the obviousness that I'm holding her hand and we're obviously a couple. She and I have both been called 'sir' in public on an irregular basis. And if I rebuff those sexual advances, they do sometimes mutter that "well you're just chicks with dicks anyway" and storm off. For the record, I'm not strictly a lesbian, I'm actually bi -- I've just had no luck with men. I don't know what journals this person is referring to, since I don't post any on slashdot, but hey. *shrugs* Who knows what google turns up given the right search words? Point is, it's just throwing hate out there because the poster wants women to be "put in their place" -- which in this case means subservient to heterosexual men. And that's just plain hateful bullshit.

On a somewhat different note, trans-women are part of the life and the community as much as any others. I know some lesbians would detest me for saying that, but we need to show a common front. I don't believe gender is in between your legs like most believe, it's in between your ears. How else would it be that my girlfriend acts more like a man and I act more like a woman? Sexuality, and for that matter physical sex itself, is a spectrum. Most people concentrate at the polls, but that's no reason to be hateful towards those who, for whatever reason, are found elsewhere.

Dunno about meeting up anywhere. I'm only looking for friends in the world right now. Pride is coming in a few months. Maybe I'll see you there?

Re:Yes I Do Want

[girlintraining]

Offtopic, there may be more /. lurkers in MN than you might think. I rarely post but I've seen your posts quite a bit, and I didn't know until now that you were from MN. I sincerely wish you the best of luck with that, because it's getting tougher to find someone to have an intellectual discussion with, period; let alone available lesbians.

Well, if you're looking for an intellectual discussion, there is this thing called instant messaging and e-mail. Reply back on a future thread and ask me. :)

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you buy the iLenses which cost twice as much and only let you look at one thing at a time.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[TheRaven64]

The only thing stopping you is fear of being thought of as "wierd".

Well, that and my thousands of adoring fans who adopt my eccentricities and make them no longer unique.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to correct someone on British slang, get it right. A female alternative to "bloke" would be "bird", "skirt" is rarely used and I've never heard "doris" used at all, at least where I live (south London).

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Dripdry]

Ok, someone can whack my karma for this, but here goes:

Thanks for the reply!

That experience sounds terrible. In fact, if we *do* end up somehow getting in touch (for Pride or just email) I def. have some questions that it sounds like you'd be willing to field. We actually are in Andersonville, just north and the quieter version of Boys' Town on the north side.

One of my interests is something you kind of brought up: Male/female rights and cultural views/roles, and "hegemonic masculinity/femininity".

I've slowly begun getting to know a couple MtF's and FtM's (my girlfriend was recently at a small discussion with Lee Harrington actually) That courage is incredible and an inspiration.

Yeah, friends are good. If you come into town and want to meet, we (girlfriend and I) might be able to introduce you to a few people. If you're cool emailing it sounds like there's a possibility of a good conversation. We can talk to a couple people in the Minnesota scene and ask for some guidance, if that helps you at all. However, I know one couple who moved from there specifically because it's pretty oppressive up there. It's not San Francisco here in Chi-town (of course) but it's better.

Alright, mod me down!!

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Bottles]

Hey! Being weird is a good thing! -> http://tr.im/beweird-go

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Miser]

I wish I had mod points, as this so far as the most insightful comment I've seen on slashdot today.

Cheers,

Miser

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Anonymous Coward]

What a terribly apt signature for your post.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Trillian_1138]

Wait, I'm _also_ in Andersonville (and am a trans lesbian who is always looking for more queer geeks). Email me and lets grab coffee at Kopi? :)

Re:Yes I Do Want

[vertinox]

Technology does not change the way people think.

Depends:

1. If technology involves chemicals or invasive measures to the neural system.

or

2. If the technology involved traumatic or behavior changing events that result in a self induced neural change of sorts.

You may think I'm being funny...

But check out this guy's talk at standford and a video demonstration on who he basically changed the way rats behaved with fiber optics in their brain.

And he's stops in the middle of the presentation and turns to the audience and says "You know... This is actually scary."

Oh and don't forget about the military use of Pro-Vigil etc in their fighter pilots.

Yes... I know you mostly mean how technology hasn't really changed the way people think in terms of cell phones and the internet, but some technology is actually changing the biology of the human mind.

And also... One last think. Instead of replacing competitors ads with your, when not the user just replace them with nothing at all.

I was watching TV the other night and thought how cool it would be if I just have add block for my eyes.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Philip_the_physicist]

A lot of people seem to think that girlintraining is an MtF transsexual, simply based on her username (I thought that too, for a while) and there are many who would refer to transsexuals by their original sex, so he probably got his slang right but the message wrong.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[mcgrew]

That kind of happened (on a small scale) to my daughter. She adopted an odd hairstyle and wardrobe when she was 13, by the time she was 15 all the other kids were copying her.

Have you ever seen Allegro Non Troppo? There's a cartoon in that film that is exactly about what you're talking about.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[Ol Olsoc]

I looked at TFA, and didn't see where they were delivering the internets to your eye.

You Slashdotters are starting to complain about every technological achievement any more. What's worse, you are looking at every technological achievement with blinders on.

Seriously, I can see it now.... The just invented a rocket that can travel faster than light - reply is "Wait until spam clogs it up". Alternate replay, "Iis there a hostfile for that?"

A cure for cancer is found - the response is "But does it run on Linux?", or "Now the Government is trying to take away my right to a horrible death!"

I'm here to help you prepare for your future, repeat after me:

Get off my lawn

Get off MY lawn!

Get the Hell off my LAWN!

GEt the HELL off MY Damn LAWN!

That's all you need to know.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[girlintraining]

Well, my public throw-away email is raindropsbear something gmail...you-know-the-rest. Dunno where Andersonville is, but I'm sure I'll be finding out soon. ;)

Re:Yes I Do Want

[girlintraining]

Well, my public throw-away email is raindropsbear something gmail...you-know-the-rest. Minneapolis is pretty open, and the suburbs of St. Louis Park, Uptown, and the 'nicer' parts of north minneapolis (read: any where the 5 doesn't run) are pretty gay-friendly. Naturally north-east minneapolis is friendlier too -- a younger, mostly college crowd. The rural parts of this state though are full of asshats though. Stay out of out-state if you're gay. Not to say there aren't haters in the heart of loring park -- I got a shout-out from a passerby of "dykes!" while kissing my girlfriend not a stone's throw from there during Pride.

Re:Yes I Do Want

[girlintraining]

And as to your nightmare scenario of a future 1984, please remember that the vast majority of people on this planet are not even on the net and unless and until we alter the economic framework on which we distribute wealth this ain't gonna change anytime soon!

Yeah, about that wealth distribution so how are those unemployment checks working out for you? Buy anything that wasn't made in China lately?

Re:Yes I Do Want

[siloko]

Yeah, about that wealth distribution so how are those unemployment checks working out for you?

Being unemployed in the U.S. is no quite the same as dieing from unclean drinking water in Africa or Asia. Grow up.

Fascinating

[Johnny Fusion]

It seems the goggles and glove VR dreams of 15 years ago are being replaced with AR devices that are smaller and smaller. Makes me wonder however if it would be self-contained (unlikely) or have to communicate with some hardware either broadcasting near your location or probably worn on your person somewhere.
The only added feature that I would want for something like this is for it to work also as a corrective lens. Or else those of us without perfect sight are well... left in the dark.

Re:Fascinating

[Anonymous Coward]

Or continue wearing you glass over.

Re:Fascinating

[yukk]

Makes me wonder however if it would be self-contained (unlikely) or have to communicate with some hardware either broadcasting near your location or probably worn on your person somewhere.

Well, it's unlikely to have much processing power and still actually stay in your eye, but I don't see too much downside of it connecting to a small (or large depending on the requirements) wearable computer on a personal network for the processing of information or connecting to the web for information to correlate or display. e.g. If it's giving you directions to the closest ATM the wearable could get your GPS position, look up the ATM and then display little arrows on the lens. I doubt they can build this into the lens itself. That functionality may even be an app on your Android phone. That;s probably powerful enough to manage much of what folks would want. No need to lug around a whole PC.

Re:Fascinating

[hitmark]

and what power it do not have, it can grab from a service somewhere.

Re:Fascinating

[Benaiah]

it will be more likely that you have a wireless net connection to the cloud which does your processing for you. and sends you back the results. Bandwidth will be infinately cheaper then computer power. Will make us more connected but as previous posters have said, possibly more enslaved should this technology be used for control.

Re:Fascinating

[SlothDead]

Wouldn't that mean that only reality is sharp, while the AR from the lenses remains blurry?

Anyway, how do you focus on something that is in your lense? Is that even possible?

Re:Fascinating

[SharpFang]

Possibly it could replace a display of a smartphone, which would be more than sufficient to support it.

Re:Fascinating

[bostongraf]

Good question! If only there were some way of partnering this without the need for wires...Perhaps pair it with some device that is generally carried by most members of society that would be able to afford something like this. There might even be some device like that that tracks where the user is via some form of satellite system. Now if only this type of device also had a means of establishing a connection to some sort of vast world wide network!

Looks Pretty Vapory

[Trip6]

It's in its "nascent" stages, years away from reality, and they mention that even a single pixel could be beneficial - already managing expectations downward. Seems like pretty good PR to me.

BTW, I'm working on teleportation. It too is in its nascent stages.

Re:Looks Pretty Vapory

[Anonymous Coward]

Would teleporting a single atom be beneficial?

Re:Looks Pretty Vapory

[WillDraven]

I could imagine as little as 2 pixels being useful. If you had them on the left and right edges of your vision you could vary their intensity with relation to your orientation towards an objective. Think how first person shooters often have a red glow on the edge of the screen in the direction you're being attacked from.

Re:Looks Pretty Vapory

[Anonymusing]

If you follow the trail of blog references, you end up here, which is apparently the blog of one of the researchers. It has far more information. To your particular point: "In recent trials, rabbits wore lenses containing metal circuit structures for 20 minutes at a time with no adverse effects. ... We’ve mainly pursued the active approach and have produced lenses that can accommodate an 8-by-8 array of LEDs. For now, active pixels are easier to attach to lenses. But using passive pixels would significantly reduce the contact’s overall power needs—if we can figure out how to make the pixels smaller, higher in contrast, and capable of reacting quickly to external signals."

So it's probably a little bit further along than your teleportation research. Are you using rabbits too?

Re:Looks Pretty Vapory

[MentlFlos]

Would teleporting a single atom be beneficial?

It all depends on how long it takes and how fast you can do another one.

Re:Looks Pretty Vapory

[tagno25]

Would teleporting a single atom be beneficial?

That is already possible, and no it is not beneficial.

Re:Looks Pretty Vapory

[Yvan256]

And if you could block your left and right eyes alternatively at high speeds, you could see in 3D! Think of the possibilities!

Re:Looks Pretty Vapory

[yukk]

So it's probably a little bit further along than your teleportation research. Are you using rabbits too?

Heh. They're the primary subjects. Magicians have been teleporting rabbits into special receptacles for ages. Though what the top hats are for, I'm unsure of. Maybe they're just pretty packaging for the power supply.

Re:Looks Pretty Vapory

[Barny]

Interesting thought, if you have high blood pressure you will sometimes get what's known as "floaters" in your eye, where a small part of the retina breaks off and leaves a spot in your vision, its kind of like a dead pixel in your monitor, and trust me, there is no warranty :/

Anyway, reason I mention it is because due to medication I have gotten 2 of these little bastards now (thankfully the drug I was on I am no longer using), and having a little dot or 2 on the edge of your vision is not useful, it is ,in fact, VERY FUCKING ANNOYING.

Unless they can give us readable heads-up displays forget it, flashing dots and crap just mean your either on bad meds or drinking too much ;)

Re:Looks Pretty Vapory

[SIR_Taco]

We’ve mainly pursued the active approach and have produced lenses that can accommodate an 8-by-8 array of LEDs.

So.... for the lay-person..... you're saying that the rabbits can now play Mario?

Re:Looks Pretty Vapory

[Space Guerilla]

Surrogates are a logical next step after internet bandwidths increase. We have the technology.

Re:Looks Pretty Vapory

[M8e]

Two dead "dots" are useless, and therefore two working ones is also useless.

Re:Looks Pretty Vapory

[Barny]

Well, if they get two dots working, its not so much like having two working dots, as n-2 dead pixels ;)

Re:Looks Pretty Vapory

[Anonymous Coward]

Rabbits? Pah. Whats wrong with flies?

Re:Looks Pretty Vapory

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, vapor ware PR. Also the lense surface is out of focus. Direct retinal laser projection might be more likely? 3VCSEL+EO SCANNER perhaps.

Okay, so they've got *part* of an awesome idea

[Lloyd_Bryant]

Yeah, this sounds really cool. Now for the fun part - how do you communicate with these things? Wires hanging out of your eyes connected to a computer?

I'd love such a tech. But let's not get too excited, as this has a LONG way to go before it'll become useful...

Re:Okay, so they've got *part* of an awesome idea

[Anonymous Coward]

meh - if they can do the other proposed things, wireless comms are the least of their problems (if they can fab led arrays, photo cells and a display controller, they can do bluetooth-esque comms or worse case an optical receiver - worse case because you would need line of sight to your control module)

Re:Okay, so they've got *part* of an awesome idea

[nanospook]

No of course not, no wares.. (scrolls by quickly) Would you like to DOWNLOAD the latest VISION Driver? Blink Once for YES Blink Twice for NO Blink Thrice for EJECT You blinked once for YES. Is this correct? Blink Once for YES Blink Twice for NO I'm sorry, we could not catch your blink. Please try again later..

Re:Okay, so they've got *part* of an awesome idea

[LingNoi]

In the diagram it labels a wireless antenna. It seems they've already thought it through.

Re:Okay, so they've got *part* of an awesome idea

[93 Escort Wagon]

Yeah, this sounds really cool. Now for the fun part - how do you communicate with these things? Wires hanging out of your eyes connected to a computer?

I'd love such a tech. But let's not get too excited, as this has a LONG way to go before it'll become useful...

Yeah, fundamental research is often a LONG way from application in reality. I know you get that, but a lot of people posting here don't seem to grasp that concept, so it seemed worth pointing out.

Re:Okay, so they've got *part* of an awesome idea

[fractoid]

Yeah, this sounds really cool. Now for the fun part - how do you communicate with these things?

IR data transmission would be the obvious choice. They've already got LEDs built into it, and they work both ways (light of exactly the right wavelength will create a voltage difference across a LED).

Re:Okay, so they've got *part* of an awesome idea

[Linker3000]

Bluetooth?
Blackeye?
i-link?

Re:Okay, so they've got *part* of an awesome idea

[MrResistor]

IR? So I have to have the controlling device within my field of view? What would be the point then? Just put your 8x8 pixel array on the controller and forget the contacts.

Try bluetooth. For that matter, with so few pixels, something like RFID might even work, especially if they can get passive pixels going.

Why are you staring into the sun ?

[ryan.onsrc]

The charge on my contact lenses is running low.

Re:Why are you staring into the sun ?

[socceroos]

but with the auto-dimmer functionality you won't need to worry about looking directly into the sun.

I can see the headlines now: Mass pandemonium on highway 17, hacker turns on all bionic-eye auto-dimmers in area.

Re:Why are you staring into the sun ?

[cp.tar]

Oh, great. Now sungazing could actually have a purpose.

Contact lenses that I would use

[icannotthinkofaname]

If these things are still meant to correct vision and if they fit me*, I would totally consider switching from glasses to these contacts. I'm a bit farsighted (I can still mostly read without my glasses, but it causes me a headache to try to do so), and I like my glasses because I don't feel like I'm going to poke out my eye whenever I want to see properly (I have never worn contacts, so please don't yell at me for believing what I see on TV). But, given the right interesting applications, I'd totally go for these contacts. For example, the possibility of real-time IRL speech captioning mentioned in TFA sounds really awesome! :D

* Part of my eye problem is an astigmatism. I'm sure we've all heard how well-engineered contacts have to be to fit that sort of problem.

Re:Contact lenses that I would use

[socsoc]

I had mild astigmatism and regular contacts worked fine. I also never poked out my eyes.

Re:Contact lenses that I would use

[X0563511]

I have mild astigmatism and it takes at least 2 to 5 seconds for the lens to rotate/center appropriately (every time i blink, or even look far to the sides) - and during this time, my vision is actually twice as BAD as it is uncorrected. We tried all sorts of brands/types etc.

Because of this, I have to stick with glasses.

Re:Contact lenses that I would use

[socsoc]

Bummer, I guess mine was super mild.

Re:Contact lenses that I would use

[leon.gandalf]

At 32 I have just started needing correction and contacts are not that bad. Just do not handle any kind of hot pepper before you install or remove them.

Re:Contact lenses that I would use

[X0563511]

Mine's bad enough that oncoming traffic looks like they have double the headlights, and reading streen signs is nearly impossible at any respectable distance.

In the daytime it's not so bad. Additionally, since both eyes have a different angle to it, my brain can normally 'filter' it out (the bits common to each eye stay after I look at something for a second or two)

Re:Contact lenses that I would use

[yukk]

At 32 I have just started needing correction and contacts are not that bad. Just do not handle any kind of hot pepper before you install or remove them.

On the other hand they're great for onions. My wife can chop onions without any problems as long as she's wearing her contacts. With her glasses on she suffers as much as anyone.

Re:Contact lenses that I would use

[mcgrew]

If you have a spare $7k per eye laying around, you can have your eye's focusing lens replaced with a CrystaLens implant; no more glasses or contacts. I have one in my left eye; I used to have 20/400 vision (nearsighted), plus as I'm over 40 I wore reading glasses. Now my vision is better than 20/20 at all distances. I'll be 58 next month and I don't even need reading glasses.

If you can develop cataracts insurance will pay for all but about $1k per eye. Steroid eye drops will give you cataracts; that's what caused the cataract in my left eye.

The implant cures nearsightedness, farsightedness, astigmatism, and cataracts. Almost all patients wind up with better than 20/25 vision; mine is about 20/16 at distance and 20/12 close up.

Focus?

[Anonymous Coward]

The article doesn't address how they plan to get the display in focus despite being right on the surface of the cornea. Seems like the biggest problem to me.

Re:Focus?

[X0563511]

The individual LEDs would have lenses in them already. Shape them correctly and the light appears to come from X feet away.

Bullcrap

[oldhack]

Get back to us when you have some sorta prototype.

Re:Bullcrap

[interkin3tic]

Get back to us when you have some sorta prototype.

I think you're in the wrong part of the internet. This is news for nerds. Really cool tech, even if it might turn out to be vaporware, qualifies.

Re:Bullcrap

[Khyber]

We already have people seeing things using their tongues as neural relays to the brain. Why would this be fundamentally different, besides using already-functioning organs and augmenting them?

Re:Bullcrap

[Anonymusing]

FWIW, there's a bit more about it here. They've apparently got prototypes working on rabbits, or something. Not sure what they're showing the rabbits -- "Look! Virtual carrots!" -- but it's a start.

Re:Bullcrap

[yukk]

Get back to us when you have some sorta prototype.

From the blog of one of the scientists involved:

in fact, my students and I are already producing such devices in small numbers in my laboratory at the University of Washington, in Seattle. These lenses don’t give us the vision of an eagle or the benefit of running subtitles on our surroundings yet. But we have built a lens with one LED, which we’ve powered wirelessly with RF. What we’ve done so far barely hints at what will soon be possible with this technology.

That sounds like a working prototype to me.

Hundreds? I count 64

[topham]

Hundreds? I count 64 LEDs.

Hardly revolutionary.

Re:Hundreds? I count 64

[Anonymous Coward]

So the first microprocessor wasn't revolutionary because it couldn't run Bioshock 2?

Re:Hundreds? I count 64

[Anonymous Coward]

Remind me to attend your revolution

Problems

[rabiddeity]

There are several difficulties with this type of system that have prevented it from becoming a reality. Here are a few:

1. This is too close to the eye to be able to resolve focus in most situations. The light isn't collimated or directional (it appears to be focused with some sort of "microlens" system), so one LED turned on can spread out to stimulate a wide patch of retinal cells. With any regular LED system you'd just see a big blur. For information requiring a single light this isn't a problem (flash an LED on/off under certain conditions, or change the color) but anything more will require something which can project cleanly onto the retina. This is not a trivial problem.
2. The detail-oriented part of your retina is near the center, in a part called the fovea. While you think your vision is equally clear across a wide range, this is actually a trick of your brain. Your eyes are quite sensitive to rapid movement (low latency) on the edges, and more sensitive to detail in the center. When observing fine detail such as text, your eye actually "scans" an area and forms a larger, detailed image from the composite. Even if you could project the light cleanly 1:1 onto the retina, for any textual/HUD information you'd have to track eye motion very precisely and provide the information that the brain "expects" to see at each point. And again, the light has to be projected onto a very small part of the retina.
3. Retinal cells can get easily overstimulated, much like the burn-in on old CRTs. Even when looking at one object of normal intensity for any period of time longer than a few seconds, your eye will "jitter" back and forth. This involuntary movement is called nystagmus, and your brain compensates for it. (The rhythm changes when alcohol or drugs are ingested, which is why nystagmus tests are part of a DUI test.) Lab tests have shown that when the eye is physically restrained from moving in this way, objects effectively become invisible to the subject. So any 1:1 projection would also have to track nystagmus and then "jitter" in the same way as the eye, or the conveyed information would also become invisible.

Re:Problems

[spun]

1. You say each LED is not collimated or directional but then you mention a microlens system. What does this microlens do, if not collimate?

2. Contact lenses move with the eye.

3. See 2.

Re:Problems

[JobyOne]

2 and 3: the contact lenses moving with the eye is exactly the problem. If the image remains locked to the same point in your field of view your brain will quickly assume it's a problem and correct for it (by ignoring it).

Unless eye tracking can make the projected image appear to be floating in front of you somehow (by adjusting its location in your FOV based on eye alignment) this will never work. For purely biological reasons.

Re:Problems

[rabiddeity]

> 1. You say each LED is not collimated or directional but then you mention a microlens system. What does this microlens do, if not collimate?

Think. Why are lasers of such importance? Why can't we just use LEDs with mirrors and lenses to accomplish the same thing as lasers in optical drives? The reasons here are very similar. There will be leakage, there will be diffraction, and the light won't focus cleanly on a single region of the retina.

> 2. Contact lenses move with the eye.

That's exactly the problem. When your eyes move the patterns from the outside world "move" across the retina, and the visual-optical response system can function properly. This set of lights is stuck to the front of your eyeball, so the light emitted by the LED array does not move. The way to solve this is to have some very intelligent circuitry that can pan the LED patterns on the display along with the eye movements.

Normal contact lenses do not produce light. They act as a surface to modify the shape of the cornea in order to fix aberrations in the lens system. (The lens inside your eye is one source of refraction, but the boundary of your cornea with air is the other major one. This is why refractive eye surgery can correct your vision.)

Does this make more sense?

Re:Problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Micro-accelerometers. 2&3 solved.

Re:Problems

[Anonymusing]

Follow the article's trail of blog references and you get back to the source. It answers your points, in a fashion. For what it's worth:

By now you’re probably wondering how a person wearing one of our contact lenses would be able to focus on an image generated on the surface of the eye. After all, a normal and healthy eye cannot focus on objects that are fewer than 10 centimeters from the corneal surface. The LEDs by themselves merely produce a fuzzy splotch of color in the wearer’s field of vision. Somehow the image must be pushed away from the cornea. One way to do that is to employ an array of even smaller lenses placed on the surface of the contact lens. Arrays of such microlenses have been used in the past to focus lasers and, in photolithography, to draw patterns of light on a photoresist. On a contact lens, each pixel or small group of pixels would be assigned to a microlens placed between the eye and the pixels. Spacing a pixel and a microlens 360 micrometers apart would be enough to push back the virtual image and let the eye focus on it easily. To the wearer, the image would seem to hang in space about half a meter away, depending on the microlens.

Another way to make sharp images is to use a scanning microlaser or an array of microlasers. Laser beams diverge much less than LED light does, so they would produce a sharper image. A kind of actuated mirror would scan the beams from a red, a green, and a blue laser to generate an image. The resolution of the image would be limited primarily by the narrowness of the beams, and the lasers would obviously have to be extremely small, which would be a substantial challenge. However, using lasers would ensure that the image is in focus at all times and eliminate the need for microlenses.

Whether we use LEDs or lasers for our display, the area available for optoelectronics on the surface of the contact is really small: roughly 1.2 millimeters in diameter. The display must also be semitransparent, so that wearers can still see their surroundings. Those are tough but not impossible requirements. The LED chips we’ve built so far are 300 m in diameter, and the light-emitting zone on each chip is a 60-m-wide ring with a radius of 112 m. We’re trying to reduce that by an order of magnitude. Our goal is an array of 3600 10-m-wide pixels spaced 10 m apart.

One other difficulty in putting a display on the eye is keeping it from moving around relative to the pupil. Normal contact lenses that correct for astigmatism are weighted on the bottom to maintain a specific orientation, give or take a few degrees. I figure the same technique could keep a display from tilting (unless the wearer blinked too often!).

Re:Problems

[aXis100]

It makes complete sense. Projection/LED spectacles would overcome all of those issues - the image stays still relative to your head, and you eye can scan them like a regular screen. They are also far easier to build and less medical risk.

Re:Problems

[SharpFang]

1) instead of LEDs, make it an LCD matrix, obscuring daylight instead of generating light. Way easier to do and allows for exquisite resolutions. Also, it's a lens, for goodness sake, it can collimate the light if it needs to.

2) It can't do any "augmented reality" without a camera anyway. So the camera could observe movements of the eye too. So, yes, the projection follows the "world outside", not the eye - if you look at a page of text, you can turn your eye towards the upper-left corner and it will display in the middle of your iris, while the bottom-right is removed from the display. That would also solve the problem of adjusting the lens on top of the eye precisely.

Re:Problems

[spun]

1. Then what is the microlens for?

2. If the contact lens moves with the eye, it will always be in the same position relative to the retina. Meaning, it will always be focuses on the same patch of retina (assuming the microlenses are actually, you know, lenses and not just fluffy bunnies.)

sounds cool but...

[Eth1csGrad1ent]

...where the hell is my FLYING CAR !?

Re:sounds cool but...

[dudpixel]

have you checked under the couch?

Re:sounds cool but...

[Anonymusing]

You can only see it if you're wearing these contacts...

Re:sounds cool but...

[brunokummel]

...where the hell is my FLYING CAR !?

due to the high energy demand of the flying car factories, we are focusing on a Cold Fusion Plant for a while...but I tell you that it'll be released before Duke Nukem Forever.

Re:sounds cool but...

[socsoc]

Moller is trying as hard as they can.

Re:sounds cool but...

[Yvan256]

Simply buy four jetpacks and duct tape them to your car!

Re:sounds cool but...

[Anonymous Coward]

We were flying it out to you, but your payment was delayed and we had to disable it. Feel free to pick up your wreckage once you drop off your next payment.

Regards,
Texas Auto Center

Re:sounds cool but...

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

Coming to you as soon as I find a suitable large catapult.

Re:sounds cool but...

[mcgrew]

It flew away.

Re:sounds cool but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Right here:

http://video.foxnews.com/g4108133/fast-and-furious-flying-machine?category_id=86861

OK, it's a hovercraft, not a car, but that makes it even more cool!

OK, it can't actually get above ground effect, but, still!

Call me when there's a demo

[beatsme]

These images and this concept have been floating around for years now. The only new pitch is the solar-poweredness. Besides that, this is old hat just sitting on the back burner. Call me when there's a press demonstration

Re:Call me when there's a demo

[vertinox]

These images and this concept have been floating around for years now. The only new pitch is the solar-poweredness. Besides that, this is old hat just sitting on the back burner. Call me when there's a press demonstration

I think the main reason VR goggles never took off is that they:

1. Made you look dumb
2. Strained your eyes
3. were uncomfortable to wear on your head
4. cumbersome to use while interacting with the real world

With contacts, as long they don't strain your eyes then the majority of the problems would be solved.

That said, when I saw a article on this or something similar years ago, I wondered how comfortable it would be to have wires attached to your contacts to the power source.

The solar power kind of solves that.

Re:The joy of teh ganja

[Anonymous Coward]

In the morning, you'll be straight again. But you'll still be a moron.

du-du-du-du

[sanman2]

"Yes indeed, if that is not the coolest sounding thing I've heard all day, I don't know what is."

No, this is the coolest sounding thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYj31Y_IbcM

Interesting article, but...

[angry tapir]

.... I wish the URL shortener had been stripped. Always makes me nervous because in some cases they might be altered -- I remember the days before Slashdot revealed URLs in comments when people would direct unsuspecting readers to Goatse. Also I just think it's better in terms of longevity of a post (if that makes sense -- a full URL more likely to be valid for longer than a shortened link).

Re:Interesting article, but...

[cbhacking]

There's an annoying but simple reason for their use: Slashdot tracks the URL of submitted articles, and if one submission is rejected you can't place another submission with the same URL. Supposedly it cuts down on the junk submissions, but it also means that if you have a good article with a bad submission, the bad submission gets rejected and somebody with a good submission now can't use that URL. Hence, the use of shorteners.

Missing tag: Rainbows End

[grayshirtninja]

If these ever hit the market as a product I would buy them in an instant. I've wanted this kind of thing ever since I read Vernor Vinge's excellent Rainbows End. Augmented reality is one of the most exciting technologies being developed right now (I'm just glad it hasn't become a buzzword yet).

Re:Missing tag: Rainbows End

[ooshna]

not a buzzword yet? Buzzword's are fun

Internet Glasses

[enoz]

Mandatory Dennou Coil reference.

Re:Internet Glasses

[socsoc]

There is nothing about this story that invokes a mandatory reference to anime.

Old news, actually.

[kurokame]

Wow, flashback from early 2008. Okay, firstly, "if" is not really an issue. It works fine. Also, not a very good article. There are a number of articles about Prof. Parviz's work at this point, most of which are much better. Try the UW News or IEEE Spectrum articles for starters (the first is a good summary, the second is more in-depth).

As to "if their research proves successful" - again, it works fine. The main issue right now is that the existing prototype is a low-budget / small-scale version...in short, it's at the "please insert more funding to continue" stage. As in, the only thing stopping them from building decently high-resolution wireless solar-powered contact lens displays right now is the need for more money to actually build the things. The know-how is pretty much all there.

Re:Old news, actually.

[Antique Geekmeister]

> All we need is more money.

Yes, that's a flashback to a lot of projects since the invention of money. Oh, and you also need bio-compatible LED's tested on real animals and real humans. And you need to provide, and test, actually enhanced signals that the human eye can use, rather than Powerpoint presentations and Microsoft Project plans and startup budget plans. And oh, yes, a valid reason to justify stuffing the system into expensive contact lenses rather than ordinary, more robust and safer to wear goggles.

Re:Old news, actually.

[yukk]

Well, first, they have the devices (I read another article as described by GP) and while they components aren't bio-compatible, they encapsulate them so they're safe. They have also tested them on real, live, fluffy bunnies which were unharmed by the tests.
As for goggles, well, some of us like to look somewhat like regular people and not wear goggles and propeller hats in public.

Honestly Officer, ...

[Katchu]

Honestly Officer, I swerved to miss a giraffe.

Nuclear trolls are slow today

[dbIII]

Come on guys, solar was mentioned, what are you waiting for. Tell us how superior nuclear would be for this application.

Re:Nuclear trolls are slow today

[sjames]

If they were nuclear powered, they could give us super night vision.

Re:Nuclear trolls are slow today

[FrameRotBlues]

Best laugh I've had all day, thanks!

One cool use...

[Polo]

Am I the only one who thought you might get cool glowy eyes like in Stargate SG-1?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa'uld

Does this mean...

[Samah]

I can finally have Yuri Goggles?
Awesome!

WTF!!?One

[zobier]

Why would you link to a StumbleUpon frame rather than the actual FA!

http://www.inhabitat.com/2010/03/17/solar-powered-augmented-contact-lenses-cover-your-eye-with-100s-of-leds/

Someday they'll reach kilopixel resolution...

[AmazingRuss]

... and the singularity will be at hand!

Solar powered?!

[ScaryMonkey]

"To recharge, stare directly into sun."

The future of AR

[Michael Woodhams]

I've thought a bit about what really good augmented reality could do.

Expensive at first, it is used by fighter pilots to give themselves 4 pi steradian field of view, unobstructed by bits of airplanes, with head-up-or-down-or-whichever-way-it-is-pointing display.

If the first application of a new technology is military, the second application will be pornography. You could order up a visible-only-to-you lap dancer to liven up that boring meeting at work.

When visiting the Parthenon, with the flick of a switch it transforms from ruins to a reconstruction of what it used to look like. Or why visit the Parthenon at all? Download the data and look at it while wandering around in a field.

Don't like your home decor? Just download a Regency England skin for your living room. Same old beat up sofa, but now it looks like a priceless antique.

People could broadcast avatar descriptions. If you have your AR set to accept avatars, you see that fat balding male programmer as a buxom bikini-clad feline-humanoid. There are clubs where you're not allowed in unless you have an avatar and have your AR set to see avatars.

Why be satisfied with the avatars other people choose for themselves? Give your credit card number to a dodgy website and you can download a program to make everyone else appear naked. Just try to ignore the online pharmacy ads which sometimes scroll across young women's breasts.

Contact lenses are clumsy: bionic implants are the way of the future. Wire that AR direct into your optic nerve!

Now that the AR system can't be removed, the Big Evil Government starts demanding overrides be installed. You never know where the Thought Police are, because your AR is programmed to not see them - they are invisible. (The word "fnord" will also be invisible, but will trigger stress hormones.)

Not in the expected context... but

[Anonymous Coward]

I could see it working with glasses, but not in contact lenses. I don't care how advanced technology gets contact lenses slip. Hence the need for special lenses for people with astigmatism. (torrik lenses?) The lens itself would have to have a way to monitor it's own position on the eye, In all three axis'. Then, it would need to be able to adjust output instantaneously. It would also have to adjust relative screen positioning and ''size" according to the focus of the wearer. This kind of on the fly-instantaneous processing is very intensive, and I highly doubt anything that fits between your cornea and eyelid could contain everything needed. Think about it, your focus changes in-literally-the blink of an eye. You change your focus from speedometer to that white crown vic half a mile away in an instant and think nothing of it. Augmented reality I doubt, but I could see practical usage in immerse-ment technology. For augmented reality I see a simple refraction based lens that works only on outside influence and paints an image directly to your retina, instead of projecting from outside your eye. Like DLP's mirror setup only on a much smaller format. This way it can bypass any distortion to your regular vision, yet still augment your vision the way it's intended. There might be a small dot/semi-circle of distortion where the mirror/lens setup is positioned, but the actual projector would be positioned on something like the frame of your eyeglasses, instead of needing to be positioned directly in your line of sight. Or for people without glasses, perhaps sitting on the bridge of your nose.

OMG JC!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can finally say...

My vision's augmented

The Emperors' New Clothes

[LongearedBat]

You know the old story "The Emperors' New Clothes"?
The emperor walked around naked thinking he was wearing the latest fashion.

Actually, the "tailor" was really a computer graphics artist who created a simulation of clothes that was visible only on the emperors' contact lenses.

The Perfect Accessory for my Cyberbrain!

[jameskojiro]

They can link this into my new iBrain and can overlay direction information over my field of vision or even find other iBrain users in a crowd as they will have a Rotating 3-D Apple Logo over their heads.

Could be a good first step before they integrate the iBrain interface directly into the visual cortex.

engorgement

[XeroSine]

heh, penis enlargement ads will become MUCH more personal.... "6 inches....is that ALL? Try extenze FREE today"

So what. I have Steam powered Contacts

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

And I trip my balls off on them... Bitches

Last one I saw with those lenses...

[PePe242]

sent my on a suicidal mission to kill collectors.

A different contact...

[Genda]

I would be more interested in seeing a contact lens with a photonic array embedding in it. Small crystal lasers fashioned into arrays such that they can cause a beam to be projected in virtually any direction through interference. Such an array could scan the retina and create a display with potentially higher resolution that any standard technology today, and would be the perfect heart of immersive visual virtual reality. That would be augmentation worth talking about.

Reminds me of...

[Anonymous Coward]

Denno Coil[Wikipedia]. After reading this summary I realized that Denno Coil is all about an augmented reality interface with the real world. This would be an amazing outcome if the tech pans out.

Too little, too late!

[Anonymous Coward]

TV-contacts ? Oh my, is this all those slackers have to show? This late in the game. In this day and age ? :^

Let's skip the small stuff, shall we? Just point me to my dalek-pod, give me the keys, and I'll go it from there! :)

Solar powered?

[Anonymous Coward]

So where do you put the solar panel or are they suggesting wearers look at the sun all day?

(No I've not read TFA - it didn't sound very interesting)

Awesome future awaits us

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't this type of augmented reality products remind you of 'Denno Coil'

a minor detail....

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the point is to image a point from an LED on the contact lens to a point on the retina, right? How can this happen if the LEDs aren't at a distance greater than the focal length of the eye away from the front of the lens? How do they avoid getting just an illegibly blurred image on the user's retina? That's part of what made old VR goggles so big, you had to create an image, but you also had to optically collimate it so that the user could see it.

If they already have an answer to that (I'm guessing that they do), this could be really cool.

Those images look a lot like...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the ones on the IEEE Spectrum article about the same topic

Want eyesight that could put your neighborhood cyb

[mcgrew]

"Want eyesight that could put your neighborhood cyborg to shame?"

OK, I'm a cyborg with a crystalens implant in my left eye that gives me better than 20/20 vision at all distances, but don't you think we cyborgs could use this tech as well? I'd still have better vision than you!

You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

Night Vision Please

[drinkypoo]

It seems like night vision is the ultimate first application for something like this. Solar power might be problematic, but recent advances in non-wasteful wireless power transmission give me hope that it could be executed anyway. You can already get earplugs that give you enhanced hearing, where's my super-vision?

Only one problem...

[GameMaster]

The only problem with their design is that you have to spend half an hour staring, directly, at the noon day sun in order to charge them up.

Your sig (plus a not OT comment)...

[mcgrew]

Homonyms are fun!
You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.

Apparently a lot of people on slashdot are afraid of using homonyms correctly. Should we call these people "homophobes"?

Now on topic: To hell with the contact lenses, that would be like contact reading glasses or contact sunglasses. You're not going to want them in all the time, only in certain situations. Give me a pair of reality-augmented spectacles instead. I can keep thim in a case in my shirt pocket, and slip them on easily when I need them. Contacts are for wearing 24/7, or at least from waking to going back to bed.