×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

171 comments

Blue eyes? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38916699)

Blue eyes? He just uses prescience to find if the answers he's about to write down are correct, much like Paul Muad-Dib the God-Emperor did later in his life. Nothing new here

Re:Blue eyes? (1)

Zerth (26112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38916781)

Or he is just using his fingers to feel the patterns of thickly printed ink on the form.

Re:Blue eyes? (5, Funny)

durrr (1316311) | more than 2 years ago | (#38916955)

Or it could be unregulated gene manipulation, this being china and all.
Which would totally fucking awsome.

Re:Blue eyes? (1)

Ironhandx (1762146) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917047)

Agreed.

Where do I get me some freaky blue night-vision eyes?

Re:Blue eyes? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917707)

Agreed.

Where do I get me some freaky blue night-vision eyes?

First you gotta kill a few people...
And then you get sent to a prison where they tell you you'll never see daylight again. So you dig up a doctor, pay him twenty menthol Kools to do a surgical shine job on your eyes

Re:Blue eyes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917969)

I love you so much.

Re:Blue eyes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918717)

You gotta kill a few people.
Then you get sent to the slam where they tell you that you will never see daylight again.
Then something about a doctor.

So, in other words, just be a bad ass and threaten to remove a persons lower region with a sewing needle and enjoy your new eyes.

Re:Blue eyes? (4, Funny)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 2 years ago | (#38919089)

Or he is just using his fingers to feel the patterns of thickly printed ink on the form.

Er, no. The obvious answer is that being cat-like, he shares their well-developed olfactory system, and hence reads by sense of smell.

Also, he sure plays a mean pinball.

Re:Blue eyes? (5, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#38916797)

The questionnaire was a Foxconn job application. He's certified to work on the low-light factory floor which is under development so the employees won't really be able to see how bad they have it. /sarcasm

Re:Blue eyes? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918449)

Paul Muad-Dib is not the God-Emperor. God Emperor was Leto II, Paul's son.

not mutually exclusive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38916711)

It is entirely within the normal operating parameters of a cat to have been litter box trained, and also occasionally mark it's territory.

I though I would offer this, as many readers of the summary might assume otherwise.

Re:not mutually exclusive (2)

shaitand (626655) | more than 2 years ago | (#38916931)

Litter box trained is actually sort of a misnomer. You don't have to train a cat to use a litter box just show it to them. It is the preference of a cat to use a clean, pleasant smelling, dry, powdery and easily dug location for their business and the litter box is generally the best location they are going to find. Although in a pinch a potted plant will do.

Re:not mutually exclusive (1)

compwizrd (166184) | more than 2 years ago | (#38916995)

I have a catgenie 120, and one of the two cats likes to sleep in it after it runs through the cycle.. Not sure what happens when the other cat wants to use it while the first cat is sleeping.

Re:not mutually exclusive (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 2 years ago | (#38919141)

Not sure what happens when the other cat wants to use it while the first cat is sleeping.

As the GP implied, don't look too closely at your plant pots.

Re:not mutually exclusive (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917211)

Most cats are trained at a very young age by their mother to use a litterbox. Although they instinctively prefer something with the qualities of a litterbox, there is some training involved in most cases.

Re:not mutually exclusive (2)

shaitand (626655) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917401)

I have a feeder for stray cats and often let them use my garage in the colder parts of winter along with a litter box. No training required and I have first hand knowledge at this point that these are cats that are on at least their third generation of being born outside and living feral.

Re:not mutually exclusive (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917589)

So they're separated from their mother before they can walk? Otherwise, she's the one training them to use anything that resembles a litter box. If nothing else resembles a litterbox except for the litterbox, then that's what they'll use.

Re:not mutually exclusive (4, Informative)

shaitand (626655) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918773)

So your stance is that mother cats who have no particular reason to prefer a litter box over the dirt in the yard (and may have never seen a litter box), teach the kittens to use a litter box... even when there is no litter box to teach them with? How do you explain that kittens acquired just after weaning also use a litter box automatically?

Cats instinctively dislike being messy, wet, and waste odors. Just as all cats instinctively pick at food in a delicate and selective manner and in general take almost every action in a careful deliberate way unless panicked. They all have a COMPULSION to chase and stalk that is triggered by certain movement patterns. I don't know that anyone has made a deliberate study of incubating a kitten from birth and keeping it in isolation from other cats into adulthood but it seems unlikely that every cat from the first evolution of cat to modern day has passed on the exact same training in this regard. Nature is a far simpler solution in this regard than nurture and therefore all else being equal is most likely correct.

That said, I do concede that cats definitely do teach one another even when they aren't mother cats. If you succeed in toilet training one cat in the house it will most likely teach the others. The same with using cat doors and other tricks. In some respects despite not being pack animals cats are actually quite social. I haven't seen dogs teaching one another advanced behaviors like this.

I would even concede there are aspects of waste disposal that are likely trained. Burying behavior seems to be in my observation. Some cats bury in a deep and carefully buried hole, others just toss back a couple pawfuls of dirt. Generally these behaviors seem to be common to cats from the same litter but they aren't static. Some cats change behavior in this respect and that may be because they learn from other cats or just that they discover on their own that they prefer the results of a deep careful bury.

Re:not mutually exclusive (1)

evil_aaronm (671521) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917727)

I have to disagree with this. My wife came across a stray that was abandoned by its mother just after birth. Poor thing was still wet and hadn't opened his eyes, yet. We took him in, fed him, etc. We weren't cat people before this, and weren't sure how to "encourage" him to use the kitty sand, but when he saw it he just "knew" how to use it.

Re:not mutually exclusive (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918749)

Most cats are trained at a very young age by their mother to use a litterbox.

My cats never knew their mother but they still figured it out by themselves. They're eight years old now and never did anything outside the litter tray. Not once.

And there you were... (5, Funny)

Sez Zero (586611) | more than 2 years ago | (#38916719)

And there you were complaining about all the toxic waste that cheap manufacturing and lax environment laws in China.

We could have blue-eyed sightseeing children here in the US, but, OH NO, you had to have cheap iPhones!!

Re:And there you were... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38916743)

Not only that, but imagine what other kinds of mutants the Chinese have discovered and aren't telling us about!

Re:And there you were... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917755)

blue-eyed sightseeing children

Did you mean "nightseeing"? It's one hell of a Freudian slip to accidentally say "sightseeing" when talking about Chinese people.

What are the chances? (3, Informative)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | more than 2 years ago | (#38916751)

From an evolutionary standpoint, I would think such a radical mutation impossible, unless his family has been selectively breeding for night vision for thousands of years.

I suspect instead this is just sensationalism and the boy has moderately better vision in low light, without the reflective light collection mechanisms that exist in other animals.

Not a mutation (3, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 2 years ago | (#38916807)

He had a surgical shine job.

Re:Not a mutation (1)

Herkum01 (592704) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917745)

And had to kill a few people...

Re:Not a mutation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918955)

Then he had to get sent to the slammer, find a doctor, and pay him 5 menthol cools (apparently in the future you can pay for things in breath mints).

Re:What are the chances? (2)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 2 years ago | (#38916809)

maybe a dormant gene went active, if they find it that would be cool if anyone could go to a doctor's office and get gene therapy and after a couple of visits to a doctor BAM! you got night vision too

Re:What are the chances? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38916877)

If, and only if, you also had your iris recalibrated to handle the higher sensitivity...

I'm by no means in genetic-freak-vision territory; but even with merely good low light vision and pale blue eyes, going into sunlight downright hurts for a few minutes until a combination of squinting and iris closure gets the light levels back to acceptable.

You Would. Not. Want. to be the poor sucker who suddenly acquires inhuman low-light sensitivity without the accompanying optical gizmos for handling daylight...

Re:What are the chances? (4, Informative)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38916973)

Iris closure happens in seconds. What you are experiencing is a secondry, slow method by which the eye adapts to different light levels. The concentration of rhodopsin is actually changing. Light breaks it down, but the photosensitive cells continually regenerate it - so when you're in the dark, levels build up and increase sensitivity.

Re:What are the chances? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918057)

For a few minutes?

My friend, the pain does not stop until the sun goes away (or you just put on sunglasses)

Re:What are the chances? (2)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917007)

Except as the geneticist in TFA pointed out, it isn't 1 gene, its many, many.

They all produce some change, which is why evolution takes time to produce features or turn them on (and why, say, large portions of the population don't have a mutation to produce Vitamin C). There isn't just a magic switch to turn on adaptations, regardless if our ancestors might have had a trait in the past.

It took many generations to lose traits incrementally, and will be the same when getting them back in the same way.

Re:What are the chances? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917219)

Without incredibly shortsighted tinkering on our part, you mean. ;)

Re:What are the chances? (4, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38916999)

That isn't how mutation works. There does not need to be a goal for something to happen. This could be the result of a single gene affecting the expression of many proteins, or it could be a mutation that activated some of the dormant genetic material.

Re:What are the chances? (1)

Vegan Cyclist (1650427) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917173)

Exactly, and even a cat who could read and write could not "complete[..] a writing test in a pitch-black stairwell" - they need *some* light to see.

This silly piece is nothing but sensationalism and should not be on Slashdot.

Re:What are the chances? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917033)

Do you honestly think that all advancements in evolution happen because of "selective breeding"? Please, let the adults discuss science.

Re:What are the chances? (4, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917093)

From an evolutionary standpoint, I would think such a radical mutation impossible

From a reading-that-statement standpoint, I would think you having more than minimal education in the biological sciences would be impossible.

Mutations are a contributing factor to evolution, not a sole cause of it, or caused by it. There is no "evolutionary standpoint" on a single mutation occuring.

That being said, it may be an *unlikely* mutation, but with over 7billion people, quite a few people will have rather unlikely mutations. And a single point mutation could conceivably cause a change the density of photoreceptor in the eye, how good they are at capturing photons (the human eye "sees" only about 4-5% of the photons that pass through it).

Re:What are the chances? (1)

Paracelcus (151056) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918379)

The Chinese LOVE these kind of stunts (like the absurd claims regarding "Chi") "Monks" who use electric drills on their bodies or use a sweaty palm to pick up a large jar, etc. The Han/Communist Chinese seem to find it necessary to make extravagant claims about almost everything!

Bigger
Better
First
Faster
Older
Longer

Re:What are the chances? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918907)

People can be born with freakishly weird sets of arms and legs.

Some are born freakishly tall.

Some have been born with hair all over their bodies

Some have been born with all sorts of other weird mutations gone too far.

What's to say this isn't one of those cases?
For all we know, we may have already had such a gene that has slowly been phased out OVER thousands and thousands of generations. (likely longer of course)
We know human echo location exists now. So it isn't that far out to expect night vision stuffery to have happened through all that time too.

old (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38916753)

OMG, this is older than numa numa guy meme.

This just in (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38916815)

Asians have wierd eyes

Night vision (3, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38916861)

I still have very good night vision, but as I age it's not as effective as it was when I was a teenager. I have above average visual acuity, which I think is the basis of it. Having blue eyes I can't see as being relevent or even reflecting eyes (hay, anyone ever hear of red eye?) His irises are simply able to dilate enough to let in more of the limited light available and has sensitive Rod cells.

Re:Night vision (1)

tchdab1 (164848) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917331)

I was told that most animals can see better in the "dark" than we can because of a reflective lining inside their eyeball that augments available light.
Not true?

Re:Night vision (3, Interesting)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917555)

Many animals have such a coating, but not all do. Some of them just have bigger eyes, bigger pupils, better night-adapted biochemistry, or some other adaptation.

Re:Night vision (1, Informative)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918241)

Many animals have such a coating, but not all do. Some of them just have bigger eyes, bigger pupils, better night-adapted biochemistry, or some other adaptation.

And they often lack Cone cells, which provides more space for Rod cells. Nightvision is typically not in colour as the more sensitive of the two (Rods and Cones) are Rods.

Re:Night vision (1)

CowTipperGore (1081903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918733)

I've always had great vision, including night vision. A recent trip to the eye doctor (first one in at least 20 years) confirmed that my vision still scores at 20/20 or better. I found this hard to believe because my vision is noticeably worse than it was five or ten years ago, which makes me wonder how the world looks to people who live their whole life with bad vision. Also, curiously, I have blue eyes and have suffered with red eyes in every picture ever taken of me. Three of my kids have blue eyes and likewise always show up in pictures with demon eyes; however, even a normal lighted environment occasionally produces a silvery reflection in their eyes.

Old hoax (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38916869)

He doesn't even actually have blue eyes and this is an old story.

Re:Old hoax (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38916975)

Of course he has blue eyes! They're in a jar under his bed!

evolution via virus (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#38916905)

So many are missing is that evolution tends to jump like this. As such, the implication is not that radiation does it, but that life borrows from each other. We will find a number of virus in the future that are asymptomatic, but are carrying genes from one species to another.

Probability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38916909)

If there is one probability P among all human races for such a thing to happen, then China would be a place where Math.floor(P * population) just became > 0

Intelligent Design (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38916919)

Clearly God gave him low light vision.

mod Up (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38916929)

Good Manners is dying. Fact: o7 events today, paranoid conspiracy

Nothing weird about this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917107)

...to anyone with blue eyes. People with lighter eye color tend to have more sensitive eyes. When in bright light without sunglasses, I tend to walk with my eyes closed, only looking out every couple of seconds to make sure I won't trip, and as I live in southeast Texas, that's pretty often.

http://health.msn.com/health-topics/vision/eye-care-the-causes-of-light-sensitivity

Can't capture on camera? (5, Informative)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917139)

Despite the claims that his eyes have a retroreflective tapetum lucidum, they can't capture it on camera:

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/2115-china-cat-eyed-boy-night-vision.html [lifeslittlemysteries.com]

In the footage, Nong's teacher claims the boy's eyes flash when shined with a flashlight in the dark, but the reporters don't seem to be able to catch the effect on camera. When Nong's eyes are illuminated in the dark, they appear normal. James Reynolds, a pediatric ophthalmologist at State University of New York in Buffalo, noted, "A video could capture [eyeshine] easily, just like in nature films of leopards at night."

I can't seem to take a flash photo of my dog without seeing her eyes shine back at me, so I don't see why they can't capture the effect in this boy if it exists.

I think he's just a blue-eyed chinese boy (which is unusual but not unheard of) with exceptionally good low-light vision, but I don't believe he's developed the same low-light vision adaptation that some animals have.

Re:Can't capture on camera? (5, Funny)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917227)

Yes, his eyes look like ordinary blue eyes to me. Seems to me his mother really pulled off a fast one on his father. "Ooh, it's a mutation, has nothing to do with my job as a tour guide for Western visitors."

Re:Can't capture on camera? (2)

eggstasy (458692) | more than 2 years ago | (#38918219)

Blue is the "true" color of the eye. Anything else implies there is some pigment - such as melanin - being produced.
He could have simply gotten a mutation that prevents the eye from secreting melanin, and indeed blue-eyed people are supposedly more sensitive to light. They do, after all, come from those cloudy northern european countries full of pale white people.

Re:Can't capture on camera? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918343)

And pink is the "true" color of skin. Anything else implies there is some pigment - such as melanin - being produced.

Re:Can't capture on camera? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38919197)

Blue is the "true" color of the eye. Anything else implies there is some pigment - such as melanin - being produced.

White is the "true" color of leaves. Anything else implies there is some pigment - such as chlorophyll - being produced.
Black is the "true" color of the eye. Anything else implies there is a *deficiency* of melanin being produced.

In biological terms, it's absurd to use statements such as the above. There is only the presence or absence of physical characteristics - be it color, hirsuteness or the ability to fly - there is no "true", just what's more common in a given time or location.

Re:Can't capture on camera? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918151)

Reading this article the other day set off all sorts of alarm bells in my mind. When human eyes "shine" a color other than red, one should immediately suspect retinoblastoma. This is a rare form of cancer which only appears in children. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002025/ I hope it isn't and that he really is one of the first X-men, but the claims of this article are a bit too far fetched for me.

Re:Can't capture on camera? (1)

Chrontius (654879) | more than 2 years ago | (#38919023)

I had a biology professor who studied with someone who had a tapetum lucidum, which was great fun when they were working on a field survey in the desert at night -- the guy almost got shot as an aggressive coyote until he got close enough for the others to see his outline. Fortunately, the professor wasn't a trigger happy sort of person.

Anecdotal reports in that class suggested that humans were selectively bred for lousy night vision; those whose eyes glowed in the dark were burned as witches or lynched as werewolves or whatever during the middle ages. Also, physics suggests that increasing light sensitivity by using a tapetum lucidum comes at a cost to resolving power and angular resolution.

Re:Can't capture on camera? (1)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#38919209)

I had a biology professor who studied with someone who had a tapetum lucidum, which was great fun when they were working on a field survey in the desert at night -- the guy almost got shot as an aggressive coyote until he got close enough for the others to see his outline. Fortunately, the professor wasn't a trigger happy sort of person.

Anecdotal reports in that class suggested that humans were selectively bred for lousy night vision; those whose eyes glowed in the dark were burned as witches or lynched as werewolves or whatever during the middle ages. Also, physics suggests that increasing light sensitivity by using a tapetum lucidum comes at a cost to resolving power and angular resolution.

I'd like to see a source for this -- having a human spontaneously develop a tapetum lucidum seems unlikely and details about any human who did so should be well documented since it would be such an unusual case.

http://www.livescience.com/18209-china-cat-eyed-boy-night-vision.html [livescience.com]

Furthermore, there is no single genetic mutation that could produce a fully formed and functioning tapetum lucidum, Reynolds explained; such an ability would require multiple mutations, which don't just happen all at once. Evolution happens incrementally, he said, not by leaps and bounds. "Evolutionarily, mutations can result in differences that allow for new environmental niche exploitation. But such mutations are modified over long periods. A functional tapetum in a human would be just as absurd as a human born with wings. It can't happen,

So is he color blind as well? (2)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917149)

Yeah, I know that cats aren't completely color blind, but they only have about a tenth the density of cones in their eye as a human with normal vision does, and to us, such imagery would look highly desaturated.

Re:So is he color blind as well? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917637)

I would expect it'd be more like a low-quality mjpg video: The grayscale/brightness part is sharp and well-defined, while the color is blurry and blocky, while being saturated enough. I'd expect that any lack of saturation would be compensated by the brain, at least as far as relative saturation is concerned.

has this been verified or is it bullcrap? (2, Insightful)

Karmashock (2415832) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917191)

Looking for some authentication here...

Re:has this been verified or is it bullcrap? (2, Insightful)

bWareiWare.co.uk (660144) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917713)

It is 100% verified bullcrap. The fact the voice-over SAYS his eyes glow like a cat's doesn't really cover up the fact the video shows they don't.
How dose this stuff get on /.?

Re:has this been verified or is it bullcrap? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918835)

No bullcrap. Mom doesn't want to say to Dad she cheated on him.

My brown eyed wife sees worse in the dark than me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917415)

My brown eyed wife sees worse in the dark than me.

And I have blue eyes.

Two cases in a row, out of 7,000,000,000 people!

Spice on Earth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917769)

I, for one, welcome our new Atreides overlords.

Calling BS (1)

toxonix (1793960) | more than 2 years ago | (#38917791)

Scientifically not likely. A working tapetum lucidum doesn't just appear in a mutation. I think those are contacts anyhow.

Pitch Black (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38917823)

Jack: Where the hell can I get eyes like that?
Riddick: Gotta kill a few people.
Jack: 'Kay, I can do it.
Riddick: Then you got to get sent to a slam, where they tell you you'll never see daylight again. You dig up a doctor, and you pay him 20 menthol Kools to do a surgical shine job on your eyeballs.
Jack: So you can see who's sneaking up on you in the dark?
Riddick: Exactly.

Possible explanation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918129)

I have red/green colour blindness, and I know I see better in low light than people with normal vision.

According to New Scientist (sorry, can't find the reference), people with colour blindness have the same total number of light-collecting cells in their retina, as people with normal vision - but with a different mix of colour-sensitive cells versus light-shade sensitive cells. The light-sensitive operate down to much lower light levels ("at dusk, all cats are grey").. So the colour-blind person has more of the sensitive cells than a normal-sighted person, and sees better in the dark as a result.

This guy is perhaps an example of an unusual retina - either more cells than usual, or at least more of the light-sensitive cells.

Re:Possible explanation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918577)

That's interesting -- I didn't know, but had just assumed the missing color photoreceptors (cones) were replaced by the other two "flavors" of cones, not by rods.

A chinese boy with CAT-like night vision... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918213)

Might I remind you of the phrase "You are what you eat!" It's no wonder a Chinese boy developed a cat-like ability!

It's possible he just has rods, no cones. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918359)

It's possible he just has rods, no cones. Is he colorblind to all or most shades of color?

I'm about halfway there. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918503)

I think it happened because, when I was in gradeschool, my theoretical bedtime was 8pm, but I was allowed to read as long as I could do so by the light coming in the window. By the time I was in junior high, I could read by starlight during a new moon.

The downside is, going outdoors in the daytime is physically uncomfortable, even on overcast days.

Within normal variation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918559)

A lesser variant of this is not uncommon, or at least not unheard of - the light reflects inside the cornea, helping to amplify and gather light. In bright light, however, this can result in double vision to a greater or lesser extent, and also tends to cause headaches. (I assume that actual feline eyes work differently and/solve these problems)

Speaking as one who has this, it means I wear sunglasses All The Time, I don't turn on lights indoors very often, and I've been pulled over three times so far for forgetting to turn on my headlights. It's not a superpower, it's just above-average night vision.

Journalist didn't understand what the boys teacher (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38918775)

said about him being his star pupil!

Driver? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38919077)

He will soon be the best driver in all of Asia
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...