Slashdot Mirror


Professor Rejects Camera Implanted In His Head

Stenchwarrior writes "A New York University professor temporarily removed the camera he had surgically installed in the back of his head to get rid of one of the apparatus' parts after his body rejected it, myFOXny.com reported Wednesday. Photography professor Wafaa Bilal was in near constant pain after part of a thumb-nail-size camera, implanted in December as part of an art project commissioned by a new museum in Qatar, was rejected by his body."

138 comments

  1. Ouch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All in the name of Art!

  2. Why didn't he wear a strap on? by Jophish · · Score: 4

    Did it never occur to him to just strap a camera to his head? Or just wear a hat with a camera on. Methinks that the main reason for having this implanted was to generate publicity for this project.

    1. Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Art isn't practical, reasonable or logical. It's art.

      Captcha: "congress", also not practical, reasonable or logical.

    2. Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? by Arancaytar · · Score: 5, Funny

      Art is not practical, reasonable or logical.

      Thus, everything that is neither practical, reasonable or logical must be art!

    3. Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That, sir, is a brilliant literary masterpiece.

    4. Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? by SnowHog · · Score: 0

      That wouldn't have been creepy enough. Unless by strap-on you mean that other kind...

    5. Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? by PseudonymousBraveguy · · Score: 1

      Non sequitur.

      Things that are neither practical, reasonable or logical may be art, but they may as well be simply stupid.

    6. Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? by DrXym · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Did it never occur to him to just strap a camera to his head? Or just wear a hat with a camera on. Methinks that the main reason for having this implanted was to generate publicity for this project.

      I think you nailed it. Only an attention whore would do this and it sounds like the bugger got his attention too. And a septic head.

    7. Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Your words are so artistic.

    8. Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? by Arancaytar · · Score: 2

      Ssh! Don't explain the joke!

    9. Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? by nautsch · · Score: 1

      Methinks that the main reason for having this implanted was to generate publicity for this project.

      You think?

      --
      If you find a typo, you may keep it.
    10. Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Thus, everything that is neither practical, reasonable or logical must be art!

      Yes. Everything that isn't directly and solely related to the practical actions necessary for survival is art.

      Just don't confuse "art" with "art that's worth a damn" or "art that isn't complete shit" and this won't bother you. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    11. Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? by Dishevel · · Score: 0

      In a majority of cases though it is both art and stupid.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    12. Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      That was the first thing I thought of when I first heard about this teacher. How much did it cost him in medical bills to implant a camera in his head? I'm sure insurance didn't cover that. (If it did, what kind of plan is he on?!!) How much less would it have cost for him to take a $5 hat and install a camera in it? Then, when you inevitably needed to replace some camera part (or the entire camera for an upgrade), it would be relatively easy to do. Either remove/replace camera or just get a new hat. No additional surgery/recovery required!

      Sometimes the super-cool sounding high tech approach isn't the best approach.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    13. Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      I dunno, what about architecture? You know, having a building look good and have a style but also be ultimately functional?

    14. Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      It's plain stupid. Now he has no choice but to stare at people behind him all day long. How uncomfortable is that. I think he'll end up removing it permanently at some point, or wearing a beanie cap to cover it until times when he "needs" it.

    15. Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he's a freak!!!

    16. Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? by Kozz · · Score: 2

      Why didn't he wear a strap on?

      I swear, if I had a nickel for every time I heard that... well .... *uncomfortable silence*

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    17. Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? by timeOday · · Score: 2

      It's plain stupid. Now he has no choice but to stare at people behind him all day long.

      That is the whole point. If he just wore it like a backwards headlamp, he could take it off at his convenience, which would defeat the purpose of committing to live with it as if it were natural. Even if he had the discipline to never take it off, his audience couldn't be sure. That does matter in an art project.

    18. Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? by noodler · · Score: 1

      "Yes. Everything that isn't directly and solely related to the practical actions necessary for survival is art."

      So me pissing on someones head from a bridge must be pure art then?
      O.M.G. i'm an artist!

    19. Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Or it may be simply stupid art.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    20. Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      "Yes. Everything that isn't directly and solely related to the practical actions necessary for survival is art."

      So me pissing on someones head from a bridge must be pure art then?

      Could be, actually. Why not?

      Whether anybody wants to come see your performances, or the gallery opening where you exhibit photos of yourself doing this is another matter entirely.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    21. Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't have been creepy enough. Unless by strap-on you mean that other kind...

      Surely the porn industry must, by now, have created a strap-on with a camera in it...

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    22. Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      A big cowboy hat that buzzes?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    23. Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? by Kenoli · · Score: 2

      That is the whole point. If he just wore it like a backwards headlamp, he could take it off at his convenience.

      He could cover the installed camera at his convenience just as easily. The only point is publicity.

    24. Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? by lgw · · Score: 1

      This is very clear: architecture becomes art exactly where you fail to do the things one normally expects a building to do. Have a river running through the house? Art. Have all the walls transparant so there's no privacy? Art. (These are real-world examples, of course.)

      If a building or car or whatever is quite functional, but looks appealing, that's marketing.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    25. Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      Thus, everything that is neither practical, reasonable or logical must be art!

      Sounds like slashdot must be art then.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    26. Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    27. Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      Depends on how high the bridge is and your aim!

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    28. Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? by pclminion · · Score: 1

      This was, you know, part of an art piece... What is art for if not to draw attention? For that matter, what's wrong with doing something "out there" and drawing some attention anyway? Are we all supposed to behave like soldier ants all the time?

    29. Re:Why didn't he wear a strap on? by Chardansearavitriol · · Score: 1

      I honestly didnt realise one could reject such things. I thought it was restricted to the organic. I mean, what happens when it rejects something? Is that what happens when a surgeon leaves a metal part in someone, and they heal over it? Or is it when that happens without the healing part?

  3. Stupid art tricks by bradley13 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is right up there with locking yourself in a cage for month - a totally meaningless, useless trick meant only to get attention.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Stupid art tricks by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, I totally agree. I mean, I'm clearly no art critic and claim no deep understanding of art, but what does this bring as "art"? This brings no insights and adds nothing. And frankly, the fact that it's funded by a new museum in Qatar makes it worse in my eyes. Places like Qatar and Abu Dhabi have demonstrated that they have more money than sense for decades, building one extravagant, useless building after another. This "art" project is about as artful as having a toddler splatter his spaghetti on a canvas.

      --
      My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
    2. Re:Stupid art tricks by mysidia · · Score: 1

      This is right up there with locking yourself in a cage for month - a totally meaningless, useless trick meant only to get attention.

      In the US, hundreds of thousands lock themselves in a cage every year by committing misdemeanors and getting jailed.

    3. Re:Stupid art tricks by Lakitu · · Score: 1

      Places like Qatar and Abu Dhabi have demonstrated that they have more money than sense for decades, building one extravagant, useless building after another.

      People have said the same thing about America for almost as long as it has existed.

    4. Re:Stupid art tricks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, like a Moon mission? Got it.

    5. Re:Stupid art tricks by Omega+Hacker · · Score: 1

      Given the fact that these days absolutely anything can be called "art", I think it's entirely fair to say that absolutely everybody is fully qualified as an "art critic".

      If this moron can call his publicity stunt "art", then I feel fully justified in critiquing it as "complete idiocy". More importantly, as per above, nobody can dispute my opinion (not fact!) as invalid in any way.

      --
      GStreamer - The only way to stream!
    6. Re:Stupid art tricks by somersault · · Score: 1

      Places like Qatar and Abu Dhabi have demonstrated that they have more money than sense for decades, building one extravagant, useless building after another.

      I agree with what you're saying, but that particular part just makes it sound like the rich guys in Qatar and Abu Dhabi care quite a lot about art.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    7. Re:Stupid art tricks by somersault · · Score: 1

      Or getting a job..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    8. Re:Stupid art tricks by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 2

      This brings no insights and adds nothing.

      Your failure to derive insight from this only speaks about you, not the work.

    9. Re:Stupid art tricks by timeOday · · Score: 2

      You are certainly entitled to your own opinion about any piece of art, yes. Whether you are qualified as an "art critic" is something for the audience of your criticism to decide. Do you have any insight that others have found worthy of listening to and/or paying for?

    10. Re:Stupid art tricks by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2

      Let's change the subject slightly

      Yeah, I totally agree. I mean, I'm clearly no astronomer and claim no deep understanding of the stars, but what does this bring as "science"? This [routine observation] brings no insights and adds nothing. And frankly, the fact that it's funded by a new observatory in California makes it worse in my eyes. Places like California and New Mexico have demonstrated that they have more money than sense for decades, building one extravagant, useless telescope after another. This "science" project is about as scientific as having a toddler point to the night sky and gurgle.

      Same ideas, different subject. We can't know in advance what we will see or discover when we look into the telescope. That's why we look at all. A similar thing can be said of art. We cannot know the impact or impression of a work until it is created.

      Now, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to your viewpoint, and frankly I have a low opinion of modern artists. But this professor went out on a limb to create something entirely unprecedented, and that's about as close to creative research as I think art professors can get. So I'm willing to cut him some slack here.

      In short, If I can spend time investigating the Goldbach Conjecture, I don't see why this guy can't bolt a camera to the back of his head.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    11. Re:Stupid art tricks by spxero · · Score: 1

      People listening/paying or not is not a defining attribute to being an art critic. It is to being a popular art critic, but not just being an art critic (or critic of anything else, for that matter). If the audience is only himself, he is still a critic.

      Just as it is completely in the "artist's" right to call it art, it is in our individual rights to determine if we consider it art. And likewise it is up to the population as a whole to determine if it is important or inane art.

      Personally, I consider this inane.

    12. Re:Stupid art tricks by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      My insight is that the man was a moron for dickering with his brain case for an 'art project'.

    13. Re:Stupid art tricks by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Or getting a job..

      No... that's much longer than a month for most people.

      If you are constrained by the job, that could be a life sentence.

      The rumors of "release" (also called retirement) are vastly overstated

    14. Re:Stupid art tricks by HaZardman27 · · Score: 1

      Interesting, seeing as how America has been a "rich" country for less than a century...

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
    15. Re:Stupid art tricks by kidcharles · · Score: 1

      You are certainly entitled to your own opinion about any piece of art, yes. Whether you are qualified as an "art critic" is something for the audience of your criticism to decide. Do you have any insight that others have found worthy of listening to and/or paying for?

      timeOday's criticism of Omega Hacker's art criticism is a powerful journey through the pupil of a discerning eye and into the mind of one of the great art critic critics of our time. (I'm an art critic critic critic.)

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une sig.
    16. Re:Stupid art tricks by somersault · · Score: 1

      "Buy this car to drive to work. Drive to work to pay for this car."

      --
      which is totally what she said
    17. Re:Stupid art tricks by numbski · · Score: 1

      Is there no clinical use for the experience the doctors gain by doing an implant of this type? I mean obviously they learn what it would take if we ever got an optic implant that restored vision to the blind? Whatever the "part" was that got rejected, seems like valuable information to me.

      --

      Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    18. Re:Stupid art tricks by RapmasterT · · Score: 1

      Is there no clinical use for the experience the doctors gain by doing an implant of this type? I mean obviously they learn what it would take if we ever got an optic implant that restored vision to the blind? Whatever the "part" was that got rejected, seems like valuable information to me.

      The "part" that got rejected was a simple dermal anchor he had put in at a tattoo/piercing shop...and it wasn't "rejected", he just got an infection. Even though the news has reported otherwise, the camera was NOT implanted in anything, it was simply hanging from hooks he had stuck under his skin, just like the skate punks you see at the bus stop have.

    19. Re:Stupid art tricks by Dabido · · Score: 1

      I mean, I'm clearly no art critic and claim no deep understanding of art, but what does this bring as "art"? This brings no insights and adds nothing.

      You would need to read the extract submitted to get the funding. Art isn't made for the masses, it is made for the people with the big bucks. It always has been. You admit to not being an art critic nor having a deep understanding of art, so by your own definition of yourself you are hardly qualified to make a judgement and lack the credentials. So, your conclusion that "This brings no insight and adds nothing." is already made irrelevant by the fact that you admit to being ignorant of such things.

      Your conclusion would be similar to someone unscientific making conclusions of the worth of scientific discoveries. To put this in a bit of perspective, an example is an old flatmate of mine (who was very unscientific) who considered going to the moon to be totally irresponsible as there is nothing there because it is just a rock in space. He couldn't see the point in discovering what was there and how the moon came to be, nor the point of using it as a springboard for getting to other planets. He just saw it as a waste of money that could have been better spent on things like ... his wage.

      As most slashdotters are in the same boat as yourself, (coming from science/engineering etc backgrounds), it is no wonder that most will not have an understanding of art. Your interests lie elsewhere (and there is nothing wrong with that). The 'Art' side of this story is really irrelevant to slashdot. The only thing of interest (that matters for slashdot) is the science of attaching a camera to the back of his head ... and even then I'm not sure if the surgery was somehow ground breaking or anything.

      --
      Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
  4. Typical new age disconnect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    His body rejects the camera that the professor had implanted. You know, they're totally not one and the same, the professor and his body. How dare you disobey your master, body? Perhaps the news should read "Professor apparently dumber than his pierced students, mutilates body for art project, suffers as expected."

    1. Re:Typical new age disconnect by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

      I wonder if it really was rejection or just an infection. A Google searched showed every site using the term "rejection", but since they just copy-paste from one another, I don't take it as evidence. Rejection is an immune reaction against an implanted tissue/organ. It is usually against certain proteins on cells, so it is a bit strange to have a rejection to a few screws in the head. OTOH, any foreign body can harbor bacteria and cause in infection - which would cause "near-constant pain".
      But I guess "reject" sounds cooler, facts be damned.

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    2. Re:Typical new age disconnect by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      Everyone is used to body modifications through hardware. Piercings, dental fittings, artificial joints, etc are all very mundane. This camera isn't much more exotic than dentures that snap in to a titanium post. It's certainly less impressive than an artificial hip. However, if you use the word, "rejected", you make it sound like it's somehow more tightly integrated with his body. You further the hype that this guy is somehow more of a cyborg than if i were to hang an ipod nano from my earring.

    3. Re:Typical new age disconnect by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Or there is a third option. The body does attempt to expel forign objects, or failing that to encapsulate them in a covering in order to prevent poisoning. Even non-living objects. They end up inside cysts. That's why implants have to be made of or at least coated with bioinert materials - you can't use just any old metal. It took many years of research just to find a way to transfuse blood without it clotting in the needle or tube. If that's whats happening, I imagine that the dumbing-down in reporting would turn it into simple 'rejection.'

    4. Re:Typical new age disconnect by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

      What you refer to is called Foreign Body Reaction which is pretty much how you described it: a reaction that encapsulates the foreign body so it is effectively "outside" of the body (i.e. separated from it). I am not sure this is related to what causes blood to clot outside of blood vessels.

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
  5. Well.. by RevWaldo · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...I guess he didn't see that coming.

    .

    1. Re:Well.. by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Sir, how do I best remove coffee from keyboards and monitors?

    2. Re:Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pee on it and shake it (the keyboard!) out.

    3. Re:Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He should have seen it going though.

    4. Re:Well.. by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      It's just as well, I hear the camera adds ten pounds, his neck was probably getting tired.

    5. Re:Well.. by Master+Moose · · Score: 1

      Hopefully now he will FOCUS on the positives and forget about the NEGATIVES

      --
      . . .gone when the morning comes
  6. The cia will just need find a new pain free one by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 0

    The cia will just need find a new pain free one

  7. Surprised Mann wasn't first by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm surprised that this artist was the first to try implanting a device, as Steve Mann has been increasingly merging technology with his body for three decades now.

    1. Re:Surprised Mann wasn't first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This seems more like something stupid Kevin Warwick would do.

    2. Re:Surprised Mann wasn't first by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I think this technology may be too sophisticated for him.

    3. Re:Surprised Mann wasn't first by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      I've always suspected that Steve Mann was at least somewhat an inspiration for the character Manfred Maxx in Charles Stross's Accelerando.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    4. Re:Surprised Mann wasn't first by denzacar · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised that this artist was the first to try implanting a device, as Steve Mann has been increasingly merging technology with his body for three decades now.

      I read that as Steve MARTIN at first. It made perfect sense. Well, except I thought that you were a bit off on your decades count.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    5. Re:Surprised Mann wasn't first by phantomcircuit · · Score: 1
    6. Re:Surprised Mann wasn't first by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure a page last updated in 2003 is better than a Wikipedia article that still gets additions from time to time.

    7. Re:Surprised Mann wasn't first by Destoo · · Score: 1

      He's already low on Essence, so he's waiting for Cybermancy to catch up before doing it too.

      --
      Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
    8. Re:Surprised Mann wasn't first by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      His own fault for installing half a dozen eye cameras just because the old ones weren't cool enough for him. And he didn't even think of investing in a datajack...

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  8. we're only human by georgesdev · · Score: 1

    No matter how much web2.0, augmented reality, buzz, money, etc ... we're only human http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlQ6Ka4yg_8

    1. Re:we're only human by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's worse than a rickroll. BTW you had a perfect opportunity for and blew it!

  9. I am reminded of the words of Red Forman, who said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Dumbass."

  10. Cool insight... by MoldySpore · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While many may say "this is just a stunt" or whatever, regardless if it is or not it was interesting none-the-less. There have been many instances of technology being implanted into people lately, especially in and around the head. While perhaps not as invasive and technical as a chip implant that gives the blind the ability to see, I think the day of artificial technological implants of this type are just around the corner. This sort of trial and error with the implanting of hardware on the human body is necessary for us to get an idea of what the human body will accept and reject, and what procedures of implantation can help reduce the chances of rejection.

    --

    "I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."

    1. Re:Cool insight... by PseudonymousBraveguy · · Score: 1

      I believe that infinitely more insight on what the human body will accept and reject comes from clinical studies and research on implants then from art projects, especially those actually implant technology (i.e. try to connect technology to nerves). From a medicinal standpoint, this professor could as well have implanted a plastic globe.

    2. Re:Cool insight... by crackspackle · · Score: 1

      While perhaps not as invasive and technical as a chip implant that gives the blind the ability to see, I think the day of artificial technological implants of this type are just around the corner.

      I doubt we have enough knowledge of human physiology to start doing ad hoc implants where not medically necessary. We still don't know why some people reject implants and others don't or even what causes rejection completely. This guy may be in for a lifetime of horrible medical consequences for what he did. Taking the camera out may only partially mitigate it. Even for common implants today like lap bands or pacemakers, the complications are numerous. To consider an implant simply to enhance your abilities is akin to taking steroids and hoping you balls don't fall off or you don't grow man boobs.

    3. Re:Cool insight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While you're right about everything you just said.. that was totally off-scope in relationship to this article.. This article was about him doing it for art... He was an "art" professor. If scientist want to research technological implants, then they need to stop doing it for "art" and get serious about it..

    4. Re:Cool insight... by fermat1313 · · Score: 1

      While perhaps not as invasive and technical as a chip implant that gives the blind the ability to see, I think the day of artificial technological implants of this type are just around the corner.

      I think we're a very long way from that type of technology. Yeah, we can build chips and sensors and what not. Doesn't matter if we can't effectively create a technology/brain interface. I've seen nothing to indicate we're even close to this type of a breakthrough. We simply no too little about how the brain actually works.

    5. Re:Cool insight... by EnglishDude · · Score: 1

      I've got a cochlear implant that makes me hear[1]. I had it implanted in 1994, still in perfect working order and it was old technology even then. My parents were even offered to get me implanted as a toddler. It is a massive help in improving my interaction with the real world. I wouldn't be able to do almost any job without having one. My point is that I'd say "I think the day of artificial technological implants of this type are just around the corner." is in fact already here. I do realise vision is much more complicated than hearing.

      As someone else posted, an one-off art project wouldn't give insights on how to manage rejection of implants - clinical studies of existing medical implants would be more useful. I have a friend who had an implant as a kid years before mine, but she had problems with rejection and had to have it taken out.

      [1] Yes, "makes", not "help". I have no hearing whatsoever if the external processor is taken off - I have problems convincing most deaf people that I have no hearing at all - I cannot even hear guns going off right next to my ears, or hear jet engines if I stand next to one. I'm a skydiver and I sometimes sit in a plane where the 2 turbines are 2 metres from my head either side, and while I can feel my eardrums vibrate, I cannot hear anything.

  11. Re:Coffee by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Develop Keyboards and Monitors that reject Coffee!

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  12. Groucho by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    Man goes to a doctor and says, "Doctor, I hurts when I do this!"
    Doctor says, "Well, don't do that."

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  13. I'm reminded of the Ren & Stimpy episode: by Cornwallis · · Score: 1

    The one where Stimpy's brain falls out.

  14. No sh*t by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Idiot, he thought he could keep that sh*t this long inside his body without rejection.....funny man!

    1. Re:No sh*t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your body doesn't reject inorganic materials. My wife had a kidney/pancreas transplant and I have metal hips. Guess which one of us has to take anti-rejection drugs, you fuckin' moron.

    2. Re:No sh*t by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      My wife had a kidney/pancreas transplant and I have metal hips. Guess which one of us has to take anti-rejection drugs,.

      Which one of you had your "operation" in the high schools wood shop by one of your arts/crafts buddies?

      I get the feeling this thing wasn't medically sound. How well sealed was it around the lens? However it was done, it still sounds like a stupid thing to do.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    3. Re:No sh*t by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      The body does, in fact, reject most anorganic materials. Implants have to be made from specific materials or they will be covered in a cyst.

      Of course I expect him to be smart enough to have thought of that. However, the cavity his implant resides in is still connected to the outside world (like that assembly at the back of his head) and that means he has a risk of germs entering it through the connection. Like others have pointed out, it's likely to be an inflammation. (IANAPhysician)

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  15. Eye of the beholder by varmittang · · Score: 4, Funny

    Not everyone likes your artwork. Including your own body.

    --
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    12345
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    1. Re:Eye of the beholder by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Not everyone likes your artwork. Including your own body.

      Well, they say everyone's a critic

    2. Re:Eye of the beholder by geogob · · Score: 1

      I would even go as far as to say that no body likes his artwork.

    3. Re:Eye of the beholder by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, they say everybody's a critic.

      FTFY

    4. Re:Eye of the beholder by pclminion · · Score: 1

      If there isn't at least one person who doesn't like your artwork, you're doing it wrong.

  16. Ah, but hindsight... by Randwulf · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ah, but hindsight is 20/20!

    1. Re:Ah, but hindsight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then a hindsight camera would have served him better. Where did he install the camera?

    2. Re:Ah, but hindsight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is he a manager?

      Most managers leave their hindsight cameras at the factory, next to their foresight cameras.

    3. Re:Ah, but hindsight... by Like2Byte · · Score: 1

      Ah, but hindsight is 20/20!

      Wait. Don't you mean 20/20 is hindsight?

    4. Re:Ah, but hindsight... by Hojima · · Score: 3, Funny

      it looks like his idea didn't... *glasses*... develop well.

    5. Re:Ah, but hindsight... by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 1

      Or in this case, hindsight is 20 Megapixels

      --
      Loading...
    6. Re:Ah, but hindsight... by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      it looks like his idea didn't... *glasses*... develop well.

      Huh? I don't get it...

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    7. Re:Ah, but hindsight... by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      Butt then, wouldn't he have to walk around mooning everyone if he wanted to use the camera? I know Maplethorp calls it art, butt...

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    8. Re:Ah, but hindsight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? I don't get it...

      Well, It looks like this meme was addressed...*glasses*...'return to sender'.

      YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

      .

    9. Re:Ah, but hindsight... by Geminii · · Score: 1

      Still, some day he'll be able to look back on it all...

  17. Camera Mount - Not A Camera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only thing "implanted" in his brain were 3 screws to hold a camera mount.
    There was no camera implanted into his brain.

    1. Re:Camera Mount - Not A Camera by Script+Cat · · Score: 1

      Is hanging on clips really implanted. I think implanted would be unremovable like an eye. I sounds like he can just detatch it. At any rate it dosn't send signals directly in to his brain or anything like that. If I were doing this project I would forgo the whole implantation mumbojumbo and just put it on a strap. Also it would have a heads up diaplay and wireless uplink. Maybe throw in some haptics for good measure.

    2. Re:Camera Mount - Not A Camera by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps he had a screw loose that caused the infection.

  18. QUICK! BEHIND YOU! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hindsight is 20/20.

  19. Re:Coffee by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1

    Develop Keyboards and Monitors that reject Coffee!

    You, sir, owe me a new keyboard... because mind spat the hot coffee back on me. Please send new keyboard to the burn ward, or my lawyer's office.

  20. Not a big surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not a big surprise. open skin penetrations, particularly in the hair have a tendency to get infected. Really a bad idea honestly. Maybe after we perfect getting nail or horn material around the implant site, being durable and a barrier to infection the same way our fingernails or a deer antler is. Otherwise, No thanks.

  21. Dear mom by Ribbons+Almark · · Score: 1

    I may not have eyes in the back of my head BUT I HAVE A CAMERA! LOL. But the fact that this was rejected by the body does not bode well for some future tech implementations, im hoping that the material was just faulty. Cause I would hate to think that if we created a bionic leg or arm that it would be rejected by the body.

    1. Re:Dear mom by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      My guess (and it's just that) is that he failed to keep the screws keeping the camera attached clean enough. Germs creep in and he has a nasty inflammation on his hands. Well, on the back of his head.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  22. A touch surprising... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    I'm a bit surprised that he ran into trouble, my understanding was that titanium/bone interfacing, while still a bit more brutal than would be ideal, was a more or less solved problem. All sorts of rods, plates, screws, and whatnot get used routinely to patch together assorted horrors of skeletal misfortune, and remain implanted for the life of the patient.

    Perhaps it was an issue with having the implant protruding through the skin, or carrying a load that probably got bumped and jostled from time to time?

  23. A future revolution by ItsIllak · · Score: 1

    I strongly believe this is going to be a future social revolution along the same lines of the Internet and Social Media.

    The point at which we have all got our mobile phone/camera embedded in our body with the ability to record at at thought will be a revolution in personal security. It will no longer be possible to commit crime against the person without serious risk of being identified.

    This may come as a wearable device or it may come as an implanted device. Hell, as we're blue sky thinking it may simply interface to the retina, but I think it's the next logical step in convergent devices - converge with the user. This is a step towards that.

    1. Re:A future revolution by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Providing it's also affordable for everyone to continually stream the data to a server elsewhere over the future version of the cellphone network. Otherwise any criminal only need learn exactly where he needs to smash the sock-full-of-rocks in order to destroy the implant.

    2. Re:A future revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a nice way of looking at it. I look at the same technological advances and see all but the most financially disciplined (or bloody rich) being unable to afford the up-front cost of the device+installation, so they go with a subsidized arrangement where the service provider retains practical ownership of the device, and controls all the data. Governments always want a little more information, and sometimes want to destroy/falsify someone else's information, so you can bet they'll find a way to gain a level of access here.

      Yeah, you'll be safe from muggings, unless you go to the few really bad parts of town where the police still can't just bull in and arrest someone, even with photographic evidence. But the corporations (and to the extent they still exist/are relevant, governments) will know everything you do, and will be in a position to offer a rock-solid frameup if they get pissed off.

      And folks like me, who want to own our own hardware, control what software's on it, and archive stuff by encrypted links to the servers of our own choice? We'll probably be forced to the black market; the law is for protection of the people, rules are rules, and anyone can see we don't individualists like Molly Millions scaring decent folk like you and me.

  24. unsolved by t2t10 · · Score: 1

    Implants are OK, for both bones and pace makers.

    But anything that protrudes through the skin is asking for trouble: it's tough to get a seal even with natural substances, let alone anything artificial. Note that in a healthy human, the skin is one continuous sheet, covering your insides and outsides, with no holes anywhere.

    The only animals I can think of that have stuff sticking through their skin are animals with antlers or horns. People are trying to figure out how to replicate that. But the point of antlers/horns is that they are risky to the animal, so even they may not have solved the problem completely.

    1. Re:unsolved by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      You may be interested in this story. There, veterinarians attached titanium pegs to the leg bones of a cat that had lost its feet; they were designed to mimic deer antlers, and protruded through the skin in such a way that the skin would grow into a groove in the metal and, it was hoped, form a tight seal. I haven't heard any updates on this story, so hopefully the project has been successful and the cat hasn't been getting infections.

      Looks like an active research area.

    2. Re:unsolved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Toothless argument...

    3. Re:unsolved by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      Your teeth actually do not go through your skin and they are not connected to your bone.

    4. Re:unsolved by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      You can get experimental prostheses like that for humans; it's called ITAP. It looks promising, but it's very specialized materials, and it's unclear how it works long term. Those materials don't seem to have been used with the camera.

  25. Not surprising at all by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    It's actually not very surprising at all. If you look at, say, tooth implants, they require a dental hygiene taken to OCD extremes and have a MTBF of just a few years. Then an infection happens. Anything that goes through the skin can do just that.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  26. Obvious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everything isn't art.. If i took a sh*t on the sidewalk of some major city street because it was different, socially odd and not logical could I call that pile of poo art?
    N

    1. Re:Obvious. by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Everything isn't art.. If i took a sh*t on the sidewalk of some major city street because it was different, socially odd and not logical could I call that pile of poo art?
      N

      Sure, why not? Take whatever you like, call it art. There aren't any strict rules about what you can call "art". So go ahead, create a body of work, write an elaborate load of bullshit to accompany it ("artist's statement") and see if you have any success showing and selling it, if that's what you want.

      Will it be well-received? Who knows? Maybe people will see the work in the spirit in which you apparently intend it - a harsh criticism of the art world in general. "I can do this and it's art and you'll love me for it and buy it - that's what's wrong with art." Some may buy it because they feel the art world richly deserves that kind of treatment. Some may enjoy the fact that you're pissing people off, and support the work so they can piss people off, too. Some may think your work is popular, or that it could one day be valuable, and buy it because of that. You can game the system that you don't respect. Some people have been rather successful at this.

      And some may just say, "Oh, this again," point to a dozen artists who did the same thing, devise rationalizations for why their version was better than yours, etc. In reality it's possible the novelty of the idea has just worn off.

      The point is, "art" doesn't imply "good art" or "worthwhile art" or "interesting art" or "popular art". Really, all those subsets of "art" are largely independent of one another. You can create whatever you want and call it "art". You may find this personally rewarding or you may hope to profit from it... The term "art" doesn't actually convey any special status.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
  27. The Body doesn't reject non-living tissue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The only time the body rejects anything, is when donor tissue is of a different immunologic background - thus the need for immune supression drugs after organ transplants.
    Metal and plastic items don't typically mount an immune response, but rather either become infected, or becomes encased in scar tissue which might bother some local nerves.
        Seeing that this camera was mounted with part of it outside his body, I'd say that it became infected, which tends to hurt a lot.

  28. Which doctor decided this was medically necessary? by n7ytd · · Score: 1

    I'm curious if the surgeon that assisted with this "art project" is still licensed to practice medicine. I'm no MD, but if I were on an ethics board reviewing his malpractice insurance application or continued employment at my hospital, it would be a tough sell to justify to me attaching an experimental camera to a normally-sighted man's skull for the entertainment value.

  29. Re:Which doctor decided this was medically necessa by Richard_J_N · · Score: 1

    It may be a stupid idea, but presumably the patient gave his informed consent. Much cosmetic surgery isn't medically necessary either.

  30. Re:Coffee by kidcharles · · Score: 1

    Develop Keyboards and Monitors that reject Coffee!

    That's easy, surgically implant the display and keys on the opposite side of the devices, then they will be protected from splashes.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une sig.
  31. This reminds me of southpark. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THere is a southpark episode where they rip on the harley riders that drive around making as much noise as possible to get attention and then think that attention means everyone thinks they are hardcore and badass. I think this is the equivulant to that same theory. "Ill put a camera in my head for art" when deep down he just wants attention so he can feel cool when people look at him.

  32. Plan B by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps he can just use one of these... not as stealthy... but he won't have to worry about rejection.
    http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/andrewtaylor/pom-turn-your-iphone-4-into-a-point-of-view-camera

  33. Strapon camera NSFW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  34. Suggested Alternative Headline by severoon · · Score: 1

    "Professor's Head Differentiates Itself from London Citizenry"

    --
    but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
  35. Re:Which doctor decided this was medically necessa by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

    You must not have read the article. It was done by a body piercing shop because all local doctors had refused to implant it.

  36. Whoops by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

    Whoops! This all important tidbit is not in the linked article, I was confusing it with the article I just read on BBC on the same subject: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12429353

  37. Now We Know by BinBoy · · Score: 1

    This is what could possibly go wrong.

  38. Maybe the camera rejected the professor. by donrich39 · · Score: 1

    I'm just saying ...

  39. Obligatory XKCD by Unequivocal · · Score: 1
  40. Re: Every body's a critic. by NotForRent · · Score: 1

    That’s rejection for you

    --
    [This space is NotForRent]