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!

Implantable Eye Telescope Finally FDA Approved

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the all-the-better-to-see-you-with dept.

Medicine 112

kkleiner writes "A telescopic implant that fits directly into the eye to treat certain kinds of blindness has finally received FDA approval for use in the US after more than five years of waiting. The Implantable Miniature Telescope (IMT) is used to treat age-related macular degeneration (AMD), a condition that affects millions around the world. For many, the center part of their vision becomes blurred or completely dark. The IMT is surgically implanted into the cornea and acts to expand an incoming image onto the peripheral parts of the retina that are undamaged by AMD. The commercial version of the IMT is called CentraSight and is in development by VisionCare Inc. There are likely hundreds of thousands of potential patients in the US alone who may be able to have their vision partially restored now that CentraSight has garnered FDA approval."

cancel ×

112 comments

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

Take that, Steve.... (3, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 4 years ago | (#32842620)


Does each set come with cool "DOO Doo doo doo doooooo..." sound effects and a Lindsay Wagner blow up doll?

Re:Take that, Steve.... (4, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32842736)

Does each set come with cool "DOO Doo doo doo doooooo..." sound effects and a Lindsay Wagner blow up doll?

Sorry, but this is just a super-cool telescopic eye not a McDonald's Bionic Happy Meal.

Re:Take that, Steve.... (2, Funny)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843122)

Anyone remember the IBM "road warriors" commercial, where they're talking about Biometrics, and this one guy thinks it's "Bionics"?

He makes the "bionic sound", and a guy reading the newspaper says, "It's more like [insert better 'bionic sound' here]".

The guy with the newspaper is Lee Majors.

Re:Take that, Steve.... (2, Informative)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843150)

The ad in question [youtube.com]

Re:Take that, Steve.... (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843400)

Forget your sound effects, all I want is zoom, X-ray vision, night vision and thermal vision options.

Re:Take that, Steve.... (2, Interesting)

RsG (809189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844442)

zoom

Also known as "tunnel vision", and an excellent way to walk into fire hydrants if you forget to turn it off. I can see the lawsuits already.

X-ray vision

And we all despair, as the naughty bits of attractive ladies everywhere get cancer.

thermal vision

Thermographic cameras need to be cooled in order to pick up on heat signatures for objects at body temp. I sincerely hope your eyeball mounted version is well insulated, as the prospect of having one's vitreous fluid frozen solid is enough to make me wince.

And despite all this... Yeah, I want augmented vision too, dammit! :-P

Re:Take that, Steve.... (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32845652)

X-ray vision

And we all despair, as the naughty bits of attractive ladies everywhere get cancer.

X-Ray vision couldn't work like that - the eyes need to recieve x-rays. Either there are ambient x-rays (perhaps a component of sunlight, I didn't bother to look this up) or x-ray vision is just a catch-all term for seeing through shit.

Re:Take that, Steve.... (2, Insightful)

milkmage (795746) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843692)

better stronger faster.
the episodes with bigfoot scared the shit out of me.

and the one with the mars probe that went all HAL on 'em.

Still Need Battery Technology (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32842722)

Before they can emit laser beams, but we're almost there, guys!

Re:Still Need Battery Technology (3, Funny)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#32842888)

Laser beams? Silly boy! This is an eye implant! No room for the sharks.

Re:Still Need Battery Technology (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843008)

The eye has liquid. Real possible that we could genetically engineer really small sharks to go with the tiny lasers and let them swim around in your tears. It would though be a very sad life for the sharks.

Re:Still Need Battery Technology (1)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843100)

But what would they eat? Probably your retinea, which as far as I can tell, pretty much puts us back where we started.

Re:Still Need Battery Technology (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844392)

How about the floaters? Then once the vitreous humor was gone they could be removed via a syringe with blood in it to attract them.

Re:Still Need Battery Technology (1)

MoeDumb (1108389) | more than 4 years ago | (#32847610)

LOL that was vitreously humorous. Mind floating another one?

Re:Still Need Battery Technology (1)

ctchristmas (1821682) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843926)

good point, then how about the x-ray vision? I guess one of those giant TSA scanners won't fit in an eye either, huh?

I feel gipped... (5, Insightful)

cobryce (594622) | more than 4 years ago | (#32842740)

I know I'm not the only one expecting a device that would allow me to enjoy some backyard astronomy anytime, anywhere. I am very disappointed.

Re:I feel gipped... (1, Offtopic)

ricosalomar (630386) | more than 4 years ago | (#32842928)

Not trying to be a racial-slur-nazi, but it's Gypped.
Although I see that 'gip' is acceptable, why not strive for authenticity?

Re:I feel gipped... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32843084)

I won't take this disrespect, white man from town. Your karma shall get... THIIIIINNERRRRRR! ::strokes your cheek with a bony finger::

Re:I feel gipped... (1)

oddTodd123 (1806894) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843796)

Not trying to be a racial-slur-nazi, but it's Gypped. Although I see that 'gip' is acceptable, why not strive for authenticity?

Not trying to be a Nazi-Nazi, but it's Nazi, not nazi.

Re:I feel gipped... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32844134)

Not to be a Nazinazinazi, but it's Nazinazi, not Nazi-Nazi.

Re:I feel gipped... (1)

BobisOnlyBob (1438553) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844742)

We've entered an endless recursion of Nazi.

Re:I feel gipped... (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 4 years ago | (#32845802)

You mean a self-sustaining Godwin thread?

Re:I feel gipped... (2, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843282)

If it's going to fit in your eye, then the largest possible aperture would be too small to make for very enjoyable stargazing.

I have a 7x18 monocular that I carry with me, and it's decent for getting a little more detail on not-too-distant birds to maybe allow an ID, or general hey-I-have-a-spyglass fun, but it's useless for astronomy. Can't even see the Galilean moons of Jupiter with it.

I feel ya though, I too want telescope eyes. But for backyard astronomy anywhere (so, I guess not backyard), just pick up a decent pair of binoculars and leave em in your glove box. :)

Re:I feel gipped... (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844774)

Well, obviously it would just be the 'eye-piece' that fit in your eye. I was envisaging walking around with a telescope sticking out of your face.

Re:I feel gipped... (0, Offtopic)

Reilaos (1544173) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843320)

I was personally expecting an a telescopING eye.

Re:I feel gipped... (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843340)

I know I'm not the only one expecting a device that would allow me to enjoy some backyard astronomy anytime, anywhere. I am very disappointed.

I found a portable device that'll let you do this here [amazon.com] . Side effects include soreness of hands and shoulders and an occupation of physical space, but if you have an attractive neighbor it evens out.

Re:I feel gipped... (1)

nobodylocalhost (1343981) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843516)

Don't feel too bad, most of us were expecting a device that would allow us to enjoy some friendly neighbor watching of that hot chick across the street anytime, in the comfort of our living room. Suffice to say, we were disappointed as well.

Re:I feel gipped... (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 4 years ago | (#32845828)

I thought I had a way to get around that restraining order for the nude beaches. Makes me sad too.

Re:I feel gipped... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32843520)

Backyard astronomy? Does that require a special interest in Uranus?

Re:I feel gipped... (1)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843710)

I was expecting something that would let me zoom in on the window of the girl next door, anytime.

Awesome! (1)

Lazareth (1756336) | more than 4 years ago | (#32842748)

I want this with a burning red-light toggle!

Weeell~ (5, Funny)

Reilaos (1544173) | more than 4 years ago | (#32842758)

I certainly didn't have the foresight to see this coming!

Effect on Normal Eyes? (3, Interesting)

Haffner (1349071) | more than 4 years ago | (#32842760)

If implanted in a person with 20/20 vision, what would be the effects?

Re:Effect on Normal Eyes? (4, Informative)

northernfrights (1653323) | more than 4 years ago | (#32842794)

Apparently, all it would do is give you a fish eye bubble in the center of your vision. This is definitely not something that a person with normal vision wants. It's a 'better than nothing' option for people going blind.

Re:Effect on Normal Eyes? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32842802)

Well they'd be both pissed off and able to track you as you ran away.

Doesn't seem like a good idea.

Re:Effect on Normal Eyes? Donut Vision (4, Informative)

Animaether (411575) | more than 4 years ago | (#32842812)

That person would see much the same as the patients with AMD. That is to say a loss of vision in the central region of your visual range (in the case of a non-AMD person: because the telescope is in the way, if nothing else), and all vision that -would- have fallen into the central region instead being expanded out toward the outer regions, essentially giving you a ring or donut shaped view of the world.
The article also mentions that if the person with AMD still has a good eye as well, that eye would be left untreated to provide for peripheral vision. That implies that with the device, peripheral vision would also be, to an extent, lost.

Re:Effect on Normal Eyes? Donut Vision (5, Funny)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 4 years ago | (#32842972)

Damn, that's horrible. The moral of the story is: Use Intel.

Re:Effect on Normal Eyes? Donut Vision (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32847780)

The moral of the story is: Use Intel.

They use IMTel (Implantable Miniature Telescope) to fight AMD.

Re:Effect on Normal Eyes? Donut Vision (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32842978)

What if they have Intel? Have to keep things competitive.

Re:Effect on Normal Eyes? Donut Vision (1)

Atraxen (790188) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843032)

It sounds like this could be a treatment that (with some modification) could be used to treat folks with laser damage to their eyes (or any other damage caused by highly focused light.) In that case, the 'donut hole' would be fairly small. To some degree, I also wonder if defocusing an area that illuminates small blind spots might be advantageous - instrad of a blind spot, instead the person would have a blurry spot...

Re:Effect on Normal Eyes? Donut Vision (2, Funny)

MrFurious5150 (1189479) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843346)

peripheral vision

Sometimes the jokes write themselves. :D

Re:Effect on Normal Eyes? Donut Vision (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843444)

giving you a ring or donut shaped view of the world.

So not unlike the vision normally enjoyed by new brides and cops?

Re:Effect on Normal Eyes? Donut Vision (1)

Syberz (1170343) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843652)

The way you're explaining this, that widget sounds more like a reflector than a telescope in the fact that it doesn't zoom what the eye sees but deflects it to a part of the eye that can interpret it.

Re:Effect on Normal Eyes? Donut Vision (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | more than 4 years ago | (#32846932)

yeah we knew that amd was shit. but it makes the user essentially BLIND?!!
thanks man, thanks for saving my eyesight.

Re:Effect on Normal Eyes? (4, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | more than 4 years ago | (#32842896)

It would make a normal person's vision worse.

Macular degeneration results in a blank spot in the centre of your vision. This thing works by routing around that blank spot to sections of the retina which are unobstructed. It sacrifices some visual acuity to allow a full field of vision.

Re:Effect on Normal Eyes? (2, Interesting)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843552)

The visual field would soon 'look' fairly normal as neural plasticity made the peripheral visual system do the job of the central and integrate that into visual processing. There would be loss of visual and color acuity since the peripheral retina isn't as densely populated, and had very little chromatic visual receptors. Within weeks any differences noted would fade as what's being presented became to seem normal.

Go Go (1)

AioKits (1235070) | more than 4 years ago | (#32842806)

Gadget binoculars!

Meh (1)

dlsso (1808390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32842818)

Call me again when it's got at least 10x zoom.

Re:Meh (3, Insightful)

east coast (590680) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843590)

Optical zoom only please. None of that digial zoom bullshit.

Life Imitates Ghost In the Shell (4, Insightful)

bmajik (96670) | more than 4 years ago | (#32842824)

Replacement:

Arms - Check
Legs - Check
Heart - Check
Hands - getting there
Eyes - getting there

Re:Life Imitates Ghost In the Shell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32842908)

What most people need is replacement brains

Re:Life Imitates Ghost In the Shell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32842942)

What about the Liver!

Re:Life Imitates Ghost In the Shell (1)

CecilPL (1258010) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843250)

Clearly you still don't have replacement opinions though. :)

Re:Life Imitates Ghost In the Shell (1)

S77IM (1371931) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843434)

97% of brain - replaced with Folgers(R) Instant Crystals! Can you tell the difference?

Re:Life Imitates Ghost In the Shell (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843502)

I think you just described the brain of most Slashdot readers.

Re:Life Imitates Ghost In the Shell et al. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32844468)

L. Frank Baum's 1900 Wonderful Wizard of Oz novel was doing this long before Masamune Shrow's GITS series, FWIW. There are earlier references to men-made-golems, but Baum's Tin Man is really fitting here. He was a woodcutter who, due to the Wicked Witch's interference, was obliged to have piecemeal replacements incrementally crafted for every part of his body (save his heart, hence his discomfiture). The novels made much more of this than did the movie (there were more Tin Men, for example).

Re:Life Imitates Ghost In the Shell (2, Insightful)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 4 years ago | (#32845930)

A ga maeba, kuwashime yoini keri
A ga maeba, teru tsuki toyomu nari
Yobai ni kami amakudarite,
Yoha ake, nuedori naku,
Tookamiemitame

Story icons (2, Interesting)

kehren77 (814078) | more than 4 years ago | (#32842864)

Shouldn't the /. Bill Gates Borg icon appear on this story?

Re:Story icons (4, Funny)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843118)

No, Steve Jobs, dummy. It's a Retinal Display, right?

Re:Story icons (1)

hviniciusg (1481907) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843296)

Where are my mods point when i need them :)

Re:Story icons (1)

kehren77 (814078) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844394)

No, Steve Jobs, dummy. It's a Retinal Display, right?

Sorry, didn't RTFA.

In my defense, our content filter blocked TFA.

Re:Story icons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32846178)

I tried to read the full article, but this damn donut vision makes it near-impossible!

Re:Story icons (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843352)

Shouldn't the /. Bill Gates Borg icon appear on this story?

Why would they start using that icon correctly now?

I never understood chasing FDA approval. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32842918)

Surely there's plenty of countries who will fast track med-tech that the FDA always seems to drag their feet on. What's to stop a company from setting up shop on the Mexican border for the latest in treatment?

Re:I never understood chasing FDA approval. (2, Insightful)

Maarx (1794262) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843214)

Surely there's plenty of countries who will fast track med-tech that the FDA always seems to drag their feet on. What's to stop a company from setting up shop on the Mexican border for the latest in treatment?

Pretty much this. [slashdot.org]

Re:I never understood chasing FDA approval. (1)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843974)

Why, nothing stops them. It happens all the time.

And if you want to travel to those countries and receive those treatments, nothing stops you. Assuming, of course, you can afford the trip. And also assuming you can afford the treatment without help from your insurance (which is sure to refuse coverage for such a thing). But then, you have no way to validate the efficacy or safety of the treatment you're going to receive, and basically no recourse if it backfires (up to and including killing you).

Some people are happy with those costs and risks. Others, including a lot of Americans (who happen to be among those most able to afford cutting-edge medical treatments) are not. So a company that doesn't pursue FDA approval is cutting itself off from a significant market segment. Still, as I said, nothing stops some companies (especially those that know for some reason that their treatment would never pass muster with the FDA) from doing exactly as you've suggested.

Resitance is useless (1)

StillNeedMoreCoffee (123989) | more than 4 years ago | (#32842944)

    Why do I get an uncomfortable feeling about this?

Re:Resitance is useless (1)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843534)

"Resistance is useless"? USELESS?

Get out.

Re:Resitance is useless (2, Informative)

hardburn (141468) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843968)

Hmmm, sure he's the one that should get out? I suspect you're thinking of the wrong SF series.

Re:Resitance is useless (1)

tophermeyer (1573841) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844122)

"Resistance is useless"? USELESS? Get out.

Who let him in in the first place?

Invisible to telescopic eye (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32842982)

Prologue:
In the constellation of Cygnus, there lurks a mysterious, invisible force: the black hole of Cygnus X-1....

Six Stars of the Northern Cross
In mourning for their sister's loss
In a final flash of glory
Nevermore to grace the night...

1.
Invisible to telescopic eye
Infinity, the star that would not die

All who dare to cross her course
Are swallowed by her fearsome force

Through the void
To be destroyed
Or is there something more?
Atomized...at the core?
Or through the Astral Door?
To soar...

2.
I set a course just east of Lyra
And northwest of Pegasus
Flew into the light of Deneb
Sailed across the Milky Way
On my ship, the "Rocinante"
Wheeling through the galaxies,
Headed for the heart of Cygnus
Headlong into mystery

The x-ray is her siren song
My ship cannot resist her long
Nearer to my deadly goal
Until the black hole
Gains control...

3.
Spinning, whirling,
Still descending
Like a spiral sea,
Unending...

Sound and fury
Drown my heart
Every nerve
Is torn apart...

Star Trek anyone?? (1)

blackdragon07 (1357701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843012)

Can anyone say were getting close to what Geordi La Forge had in the last Star Trek: Next Generation movie??

Re:Star Trek anyone?? (1)

grub (11606) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843040)


Can anyone say were getting close to what Geordi La Forge had in the last Star Trek: Next Generation movie??

I hope not, I'd look terrible with an afro.

Re:Star Trek anyone?? (1)

Ilsundal (3288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843138)

Seems more like the ocular implant used by Seven of Nine. Perhaps this technology can be expanded to use a display rather than a lens so we can have Terminator style vision.

Re:Star Trek anyone?? (2, Funny)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843218)

Can anyone say were getting close to what Geordi La Forge had in the last Star Trek: Next Generation movie??

"were getting close to what Geordi La Forge had in the last Star Trek: Next Generation movie".

But for the joke to work, you have to think it in Leslie Nielson's voice. It's sort of a "It's the little room at the front of the plane, but that's not important right now" thing.

Re:Star Trek anyone?? (2, Insightful)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844076)

Well, no, not really. This isn't even remotely the same technology path.

This involves using fairly conventional optics to make the best use of a person's existing visual capabilities, resulting in better (but still not "perfect") vision for those with certain types of eye damage. The innovation is overcoming the challenges to implant said optics in the eye.

Geordi's visor would use its own sensors to pull in a much wider spectrum of information than just visible light, bypassing his eyes (i.e. not trying to make use of his existing visual capabilities) to give him superhuman vision. The device would not be implanted in the eye and so would not use the innovations from the telescope.

The technological overlap is just about zero.

Re:Star Trek anyone?? (1)

blackdragon07 (1357701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844510)

Well, no, not really. This isn't even remotely the same technology path.

This involves using fairly conventional optics to make the best use of a person's existing visual capabilities, resulting in better (but still not "perfect") vision for those with certain types of eye damage. The innovation is overcoming the challenges to implant said optics in the eye.

Geordi's visor would use its own sensors to pull in a much wider spectrum of information than just visible light, bypassing his eyes (i.e. not trying to make use of his existing visual capabilities) to give him superhuman vision. The device would not be implanted in the eye and so would not use the innovations from the telescope.

The technological overlap is just about zero.

You must not have followed the movies then. The last two or three movies he had eye implants and not his visor. So the overlap is there it may not be the same thing but its on the same line.

Re:Star Trek anyone?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32845876)

His point remains valid, though. Visor or bionic eyes, either way Geordi effectively had a bunch of sensors piping data directly to his brain without going through his defective meat eyes. Nothing like what's described in the article.

Better Than Nothing (4, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843038)

This implant is a lot better than going blind.

But really what we want is stemcell therapies that restore the macula to a fully working retina without further complication. Especially if the stemcells come from the patient themself, without requiring a separate donor, or tissue banks.

Re:Better Than Nothing (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32843760)

Fuck your candyass stem-cell bullshit. I want my bionic eyes complete with infrared, night-vision, and (this is the important bit) video recording and playback.

Re:Better Than Nothing (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843944)

You'll have to wait for the genetic engineering version. So you should put all your money into v1.0 stemcell research, to speed up the time to the version you want for yourself.

Re:Better Than Nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32845536)

Okay, admittedly I was making a joke of the wheres-my-flying-car variety. But cliche geek humor aside, genetic engineering won't do that (well, maybe the night vision).

Re:Better Than Nothing (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32845992)

Haha - you just haven't seen genetic engineering of cellular scale data recorders and neural splice playback yet.

Rats (1)

jmichaelg (148257) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843042)

I was hoping this was a treatment for presbyopia. I'd give a lot to be able to see as well as Chuck Yaeger did when he was in his teens.

Bionic man & inspector gadget coming to life (1)

youn (1516637) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843312)

go go gadget eye telescope!

Just imagine... (1)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843472)

"Honey, I think I'm going to bed now. Have you seen my lens cap?"

Covered by Obama? (1)

karcirate (1685354) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843738)

I'd like to know just two teeny things:

1 - How much $$ for this fantabulous gadget?

2 - Is it going to be required as part of basic health insurance coverage? (If so, how about a 99% deductible.)

Hundreds of thousands?!?!? (0, Flamebait)

offsides (1297547) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843778)

"There are likely hundreds of thousands of potential patients in the US alone"

Um, last I checked there were only ~300,000 people in the US, and I doubt that the vast majority of them are suffering from AMD. Yes, theoretically everyone is a potential patient I suppose, but that's still taking it a bit too far...

Re:Hundreds of thousands?!?!? (1)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843848)

Um, last I checked there were only ~300,000 people in the US

When, exactly, was the last time you checked?

Re:Hundreds of thousands?!?!? (1)

Ogive17 (691899) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843856)

When did you last check, the 1500's?

Re:Hundreds of thousands?!?!? (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843868)

last I checked there were only ~300,000

It's cool that you were around to check back in the early 1700's, but pretty crappy of you not to count the Native Americans.

Re:Hundreds of thousands?!?!? (1)

offsides (1297547) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843954)

D'oh - lack of sleep (2-month old baby) and the east coast heat wave have apparently finally gotten to me... I somehow swapped 'millons' with 'thousands' and went from there... *hang head in shame*

Cost (2, Funny)

JThundley (631154) | more than 4 years ago | (#32843864)

According to this site [teamliquid.net] , the implant will cost 100 minerals as well as 100 gas.

plasticity (1)

Something Witty Here (906670) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844268)

> The visual field would soon 'look' fairly normal as neural plasticity
> made the peripheral visual system do the job of the central and integrate
> that into visual processing. There would be loss of visual and color
> acuity since the peripheral retina isn't as densely populated, and had
> very little chromatic visual receptors. Within weeks any differences
> noted would fade as what's being presented became to seem normal.

I sincerely doubt that. I can't even get used to the "wide angle lens"
effect of my eyeglasses. (Changing the focus to correct for myopia
changes the magnification.) I would *really* like lenses that correct
the focus without changing the magnification.

This "donut" thing sounds worse.

What About Intel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32844308)

The IMT only works with AMD? But what if I'm using INTEL???

You insensitive clod! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32844838)

I use a Cyrix WinChip, you insensitive clod!

Basic Facts, or, the MSM fucks everything up (1)

StillConfused (1457253) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844328)

Jesus cries - really. The state of science reporting is beyond pathetic, it's a damn tragedy. This device isn't implanted into the CORNEA. The cornea is thin. The natural crystalline lens *inside* the eye is removed by the normal method (phaco - ultrasound plus suction) and then this is wedged in with a surgery that will make you pray to whatever ghods you love that you never ever get one of these diseases. My engineers made some of the very first of these devices Way Back When (it worked sorta kinda) and the current version (fifteen years later) of the device is a Good Thing if you already have significant vision loss from AMD. As to stem cell therapies for the retina... that's a ways off. If you have single eye corneal blindness from acid burns, we can harvest limbal stem cells from the other eye and make a real difference, but the retinal stem cell work is amazingly primitive. When it comes to bio interventions, we're still banging the rocks together...

Inspector Gadget (1)

Stick32 (975497) | more than 4 years ago | (#32844474)

Am I the only one who read the title and thought "Go go gadget eyes!"?

one step closer to an eyePhone (2, Funny)

plurgid (943247) | more than 4 years ago | (#32845306)

I want my eyePhone, dammit.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?