Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Artist Wants to Replace Lost Eyeball With Webcam

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the all-the-better-to-film-you-with dept.

Technology 156

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

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

That's easy. . . (3, Funny)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790235)

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

Re:That's easy. . . (1, Offtopic)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790749)

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

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

Re:That's easy. . . (0, Offtopic)

scribblej (195445) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791033)

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

Re:That's easy. . . (1, Offtopic)

oneTheory (1194569) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791251)

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

Still about as earth-centric as it gets.

Re:That's easy. . . (1)

Chandon Seldon (43083) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791807)

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

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

Re:That's easy. . . (1, Offtopic)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792159)

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

Re:That's easy. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25792259)

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

Re:That's easy. . . (1)

mikael (484) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792019)

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

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

Re:That's easy. . . (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791039)

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

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

Re:That's easy. . . (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792375)

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

Re:That's easy. . . (1)

the real darkskye (723822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792497)

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

Re:That's easy. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25791047)

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

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

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

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

Re:That's easy. . . (1)

Dragonshed (206590) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791151)

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

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

Re:That's easy. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25791313)

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

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

Re:That's easy. . . (1)

crazypip666 (930562) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791317)

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

Re:That's easy. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25791325)

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

Re:That's easy. . . (1)

Hellpop (451893) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791369)

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

Re:That's easy. . . (1)

Eudial (590661) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791451)

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

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

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

Re:That's easy. . . (1)

Khashishi (775369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791503)

Notice how much borg look like humans

Re:That's easy. . . (1)

tzhuge (1031302) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791537)

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

Re:That's easy. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25791603)

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

Re:That's easy. . . (1)

Duncan Blackthorne (1095849) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792045)

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

Not quite what I want (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790247)

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

Re:Not quite what I want (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790289)

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

Re:Not quite what I want (1)

yincrash (854885) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790339)

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

Re:Not quite what I want (2, Insightful)

name*censored* (884880) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792601)

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

Re:Not quite what I want (1)

stickrnan (1290752) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792627)

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

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

Re:Not quite what I want (2, Funny)

MaxwellEdison (1368785) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790329)

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

Re:Not quite what I want (2, Funny)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792875)

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

Obvious things (4, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790275)

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

Re:Obvious things (1)

MaxwellEdison (1368785) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790357)

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

Re:Obvious things (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790763)

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

Re:Obvious things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25791277)

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

Alpha who?

Re:Obvious things (1)

timelorde (7880) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791483)

Alpha who?

Alpha Centauri [wikimedia.org] , that's who!

Re:Obvious things (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792463)

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

Re:Obvious things (5, Interesting)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790565)

Infrared and rangefinder is good

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

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

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

Re:Obvious things (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792719)

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

Hmmm, someone's never dated a redhead :)

Re:Obvious things (1)

PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790701)

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

Re:Obvious things (1)

textstring (924171) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791153)

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

Re:Obvious things (1)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791791)

I want the targeting crosshairs.

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

Seven of Nine (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25790347)

Tertiary Adjunct of Unimatrix Zero-One

Re:Seven of Nine (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790779)

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

Well, any feature is fine... (4, Funny)

Loibisch (964797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790359)

...as long as the world doesn't look like this. [icarusgames.net]

Webcam? (3, Funny)

Nasajin (967925) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790389)

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

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

Re:Webcam? (2, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790841)

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

They got them working at 15 fps now!

Re:Webcam? (1)

randyest (589159) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791155)

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

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

Re:Webcam? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792501)

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

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

Re:Webcam? (1)

randyest (589159) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792803)

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

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

Re:Webcam? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791199)

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

Re:Webcam? (1)

mikael (484) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792165)

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

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

but will it have bluetooth? (3, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790401)

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

Re:but will it have bluetooth? (1)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791383)

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

Re:but will it have bluetooth? (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791475)

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

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

F the camera (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25790413)

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

I think we need to combine this story (5, Funny)

fiordhraoi (1097731) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790423)

with this [slashdot.org] one, just for maximum creep out factor.

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

Re:I think we need to combine this story (1)

nategoose (1004564) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790735)

ROCKET FROM THEIR SOCKETS!

Re:I think we need to combine this story (1)

kcbanner (929309) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792811)

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

Re:I think we need to combine this story (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790855)

Still less creepy than a zoom [futurama.sk] function.

Let's go! (0, Troll)

Elsan (914644) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790427)

Start all the porn and CowboyNeil references!

Wireless? (4, Insightful)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790439)

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

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

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

Re:Wireless? (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790575)

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

Re:Wireless? (4, Funny)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790685)

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

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

Re:Wireless? (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790713)

Or an opening to the brain, I suppose.

Re:Wireless? (1)

kcbanner (929309) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792831)

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

Re:Wireless? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25790997)

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

I support her (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25791197)

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

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

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

how to lose your major medical plan (2, Interesting)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791201)

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

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

Re:Wireless? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25791669)

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

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

Re:Wireless? (1)

elgatozorbas (783538) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792151)

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

Power & Range (1)

DrYak (748999) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792703)

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

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

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

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

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

Basic anatomy failure.

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

Look at the pictures in wikipedia [wikipedia.org] .

Human hack (3, Interesting)

ItsColdOverHere (928704) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790455)

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

Re:Human hack (1)

HexaByte (817350) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790823)

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

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

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

Re:Human hack (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790879)

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

Re:Human hack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25790897)

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

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

Where this is going (1)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790459)

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

Think of the DMCA ! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25790573)

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

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

BANNED !!!

Re:Think of the DMCA ! (5, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790915)

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

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

Re:Think of the DMCA ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25791217)

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

In the movie, Doomsday (1)

Propaganda13 (312548) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790635)

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

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

Re:In the movie, Doomsday (0, Offtopic)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790773)

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

Should I give it another chance?

How about... (2, Funny)

ZarathustraDK (1291688) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790647)

...a Logitech Trackball instead?

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

Re:How about... (1)

randyest (589159) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791447)

No.

Aughra? (1)

jdb2 (800046) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790791)

This brings a whole new meaning to Aughra's [youtube.com] "I'll get my eye [youtube.com] to you!"

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

jdb2

Suggestion (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25790817)

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

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

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

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

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

Link to blog??? (1)

Eganicus (1374269) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790917)

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

see what I see (5, Funny)

nategoose (1004564) | more than 5 years ago | (#25790933)

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

Death Watch (1)

lapse (94787) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791115)

Didn't work out too well for Harvey Keitel [imdb.com] .

a one eyed san francisco artist (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791235)

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

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

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

badumpCHING

thanks, i'm here all week

Socketed Implants (pun intented) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25791433)

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

Re:Socketed Implants (pun intented) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25791943)

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

Legal ramifications? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25791505)

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

Re:Legal ramifications? (1)

kcbanner (929309) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792903)

Not if they don't know *wink*

Tanya wants 3D vision again... (3, Informative)

rtgarden (1098795) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791513)

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

not cyber in the usual sense (1)

nsteinme (909988) | more than 5 years ago | (#25791803)

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

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

So much for the sex life (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25792559)

She'll never get laid again. Not ever.

In related news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25792921)

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

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?