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!

Belgian Researchers Build LCD Contact Lenses

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the bright-eyes dept.

Technology 98

First time accepted submitter nickvad writes "The Belgian Centre for Microsystems Technology has built a spherical LCD display in a contact lens. The technology is groundbreaking and holds a wide range of applications from medical to cosmetic applications and more. The LCD technology has the potential to be used as a productivity or a social tool, paving the way for futuristic technological innovations like Google Glass."

cancel ×

98 comments

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

Oh yeah baby! (3, Insightful)

Johann Lau (1040920) | about 2 years ago | (#42199507)

People talking into headsets while walking down the street just isn't creepy enough.

Oblig (5, Funny)

Jimbob The Mighty (1282418) | about 2 years ago | (#42199557)

"Why is it called the eyePhone?"

Re:Oblig (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#42201881)

Lawnmower Man 2 had 'eyephones' before the iPhone was announced.

Gibson (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42203559)

Probably more importantly, so did Gibson [technovelgy.com] .

Re:Oblig (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42206573)

Lawnmower Man 2 had 'eyephones' before the iPhone was announced.

That means Apple should patent it now and sue them

Re:Oblig (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42202133)

"Why is it called the spyPhone?"

Re:Oh yeah baby! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42199727)

Yeah just imagine me walking down the street with my cock in your mouth.

Re:Oh yeah baby! (1, Funny)

Johann Lau (1040920) | about 2 years ago | (#42200237)

If if's and but's
were tits and butts
you'd get some
every day.

Re:Oh yeah baby! (2)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#42203961)

If if's and but's

Please educate me and reduce my ignorance -- why are those apostrophes there?

Re:Oh yeah baby! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42204567)

if apostrophe's and, comma's
were tits and butt's
you'd get some
every day.

Re:Oh yeah baby! (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | about 2 years ago | (#42205943)

I tried it without at first, but thought that can't be right haha... Oh well, now I have this awesome poem to remember it by. Thank's for pointing it out!

Re:Oh yeah baby! (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#42214979)

I take it English is a second language to you, so you may find this cartoon [angryflower.com] helpful. Also be aware that most English speakers don't read books and apparently don't pay much attention in school, so it's not wise to emulate anything you see in a messageboard, or even most blogs.

Re:Oh yeah baby! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42209215)

Because the poster is a chink and doesn't understand English grammar.

Re:Oh yeah baby! (2)

Hartree (191324) | about 2 years ago | (#42200031)

Oh, but wait till it hits the anime cons.

Hoards of catgirl cosplayers now with animated catseye contacts.

Re:Oh yeah baby! (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 2 years ago | (#42234467)

If you notice their eyes you're doing it wrong.

John McAfee was just arrested. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42200119)

As per Guatemalan policia, he was placed into quarantine.

The ultimate geek technology (2)

Caledfwlch (1434813) | about 2 years ago | (#42200247)

Finally! We'll be able to get laid! We'll be able to display subliminal messaging in our eyes, the gateway to the soul, "Yeah baby, you want me! I'm sexy!"

Re:The ultimate geek technology (2)

Johann Lau (1040920) | about 2 years ago | (#42200377)

It's LCD though, not LED. But I guess you could use it for the opposite, like fake dilated pupils when your boss hands you a memo. Or hey, why not send mixed signals by doing that only with one eye, kinda like going o_O

You may say that's silly, but surely it makes more sense than seeing blinking dollar signs... o_O

Re:The ultimate geek technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42205745)

There's a slight flaw in your plan; subliminal advertising doesn't work.

Re:The ultimate geek technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42234497)

Right. That must be why they don't do it, in fact there's no such thing so it doesn't even not work.

Massive summary and editorial fail (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42199541)

It is not similar at all to Google Glass. From the article:

The display is not intended for the wearer of the lens to view – the human eye would be unable to focus on such a close-up object – and it would only be seen by others

As for the actual purpose, well, you'll just have to RTFA... :)

Revenue stream (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 years ago | (#42200231)

I don't know about you guys, but I'm going to sell my LCD contact lens space for advertising.

Every little bit helps.

Re:Massive summary and editorial fail (2)

Guignol (159087) | about 2 years ago | (#42201875)

You don't have to RTFA to find out
The hilarious video makes it quite clear:
The intent is to reproduce tex avery cartoon like effects over people's eyes showing money signs when they see something valueable or some potential client/victim
This is huge, the next step it to force car dealers lawyers etc. to wear them, and ideally the dollars signs should be visible at the apropriate moment (when they are just about to screw you), but for a very good and cheap first approximation, it would work by letting them on all the time

Warning: DON'T use with Belgian politicians! (1)

freaker_TuC (7632) | about 2 years ago | (#42214065)

The display driver will instantly hang and get permanently stuck, showing only $$ symbols.

Re:Massive summary and editorial fail (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#42202965)

I assume a James Bond villain will wear these...when sitting carefully there and not walking around. They are little billboards for other people to see pictures on your eyes, rather than a sci-fi holy grail to feed data into your eye.

First true retina display (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42199567)

Obvious joke is obvious.

Re:First true retina display (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42200023)

The Apple users love the rectal display.

Re:First true retina display (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42200895)

Obvious anatomy fail is obvious. The joke would be to call this a cornea display. A retina display would be installed inside of the eye.

focus (2)

Rockstar Rich G (2217992) | about 2 years ago | (#42199587)

is it even possible to focus on a display that is literally on your cornea? I understand the 'light-adaptive sunglasses' application would not need a resolution, but if the intent is to deliver pixels of information, how feasible is this?

Re:focus (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42199635)

Not focus _on_, but focus _with_ these contact lenses. Now that they have figured out how to make very thin spherical membranes (in the FA) with optical quality, these could be used for any number of other devices. I'm thinking of the holy grail of contact lenses--active focus (by adding or subtracting small amounts of fluid between two layers to change the lens.

Re:focus (1)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | about 2 years ago | (#42199705)

Should be easier than that. Set up multiple concentric focus zones -- we've got contacts like that already for "bifocal" use -- and dynamically black out all zones but the one you want to use. It wouldn't work especially well in bright light, though, where your pupil is contracted, because you'd only be "seeing through" the central zone anyhow.

Re:focus (4, Funny)

yamum (893083) | about 2 years ago | (#42200003)

... we've got contacts like that already for "bifocal" use -- and dynamically black out ...

Peril Sensitive Contacts?

Re:focus (1)

EvolutionInAction (2623513) | about 2 years ago | (#42200313)

That... That's a really good idea. And the bright light thing isn't much of a problem, really - you can control the amount of light coming in simply by greying the active lens a little.

Re:focus (1)

Mal-2 (675116) | about 2 years ago | (#42208263)

A smaller pupil means a greater depth of field [wikipedia.org] to start with, so if the central "small pupil" part of the lens is the most "average", DOF will reduce accommodation requirements anyhow.

Re:focus (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#42199693)

I can. I can see the dust as it drifts across the surface of my eye. I never asked anyone else, but I assume others can, as I saw a joke on Family Guy about it once.

Re:focus (5, Informative)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#42199721)

That's most likely "floaters", and not dust on the cornea.

http://www.drhaefs.com/medical_eye_exam/eye_floaters.html [drhaefs.com]

Essentially, they are sluffed off epithelial cells floating around in the humor inside your eyeballs.

Re:focus (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#42200075)

The appearance of them is consistent with a string floating on water, with the visual effects around the floater. Not like a string submerged in water. They move delayed from eye movement, which if centered in the humor, they wouldn't be delayed unless they are not evenly distributed. If they are at the focal point in the eye, they should lead the eye movement, not follow, as images are reversed at the focal point as well, right?

Re:focus (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42201087)

They are floating at different depths near the retina, which is why some seem higher contrast than others as the ones closer to the retina cast a sharper shadow while those further away are blurred.

Think in terms of a viscous layer near the retina that gets accelerated in the direction you move your eye, then continues with a bit of momentum after the eye slows down or changes direction again. Try looking at a white ceiling while flat on your back, and try to play with one obvious floater for a while. If you want a physical analog, hold a snow globe upside-down and imagine that surface is your retina. Rotate the globe back end forth like an eye, and watch how the snow particles drift around near the globe's surface.

Re:focus (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#42201787)

The other thing I didn't realize until this is that it's common, but mainly as people age. I've had floaters as far back as I remember. I distinctly remember playing with floaters when I was under 10 years old. So I have a more uncommon kind that occurs in younger people. So I am still both uncommon and still not a freak. Good to know. Now hush, I'm playing with floaters. If you move your eye up slowly, then down rapidly, then up slowly, you can make the floaters climb higher in your field of vision.

Re:focus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42234737)

Essentially, they are sluffed off

You obviously have a very thoruff grasp of the English language.

Re:focus (5, Informative)

LordLucless (582312) | about 2 years ago | (#42199697)

is it even possible to focus on a display that is literally on your cornea

Nope. Despite what the summary says, this isn't intended to provide a view to the wearer at all. It's purely cosmetic - people looking at you could see dollar signs in your eyes, and you might be able to use your contacts as sunglasses.

Re:focus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42211595)

It's purely cosmetic - people looking at you could see dollar signs in your eyes, and you might be able to use your contacts as sunglasses.

Sunglasses are the best friend of anyone who has had a cornea transplant, not only dust/wind protection, also sensitivity to light.

Re:focus (1)

CityZen (464761) | about 2 years ago | (#42202631)

It is possible to have a display on your cornea that can show images you can focus on. However, it would work differently than other displays.

Once light is at your cornea, a pixel corresponds to a direction instead of a location. That is, for far away objects, all the rays coming from one point (location) enter your cornea as rays traveling in the same direction; it doesn't matter where they enter. For objects that are closer than "very far away", they produce a bundle of rays that are slightly diverging as they enter your cornea. In either case, your eye converges these rays to meet at a given point on your retina.

Thus for a display on your cornea to work, it has to be able to send out distinct light ray bundles in different directions, with each direction corresponding to a different logical pixel that you'd perceive spatially.

Figure out how to actually do that, and the world will beat a path to your door.

Re:focus (1)

Rockstar Rich G (2217992) | about 2 years ago | (#42203349)

Thus for a display on your cornea to work, it has to be able to send out distinct light ray bundles in different directions, with each direction corresponding to a different logical pixel that you'd perceive spatially.

Figure out how to actually do that, and the world will beat a path to your door.

sounds like an application for 3d holography

Re:focus (1)

perceptual.cyclotron (2561509) | about 2 years ago | (#42220405)

I think the bigger issue would be to coax the eye into not trying to focus (the lens does actively change shape to accomodate – albeit not by a huge amount). Displaying light from the surface of a lens in such a way that an image can be resolved on the other side isn't trivial, certainly, but it shouldn't be a huge issue if you can trust the lens to stay the same shape...

...oh-kay. (4, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#42199611)

about the best this could be useful as, is as a flash protection optical device. Couple a thin film photocell to the LCD layer, so that a bright light automatically powers the LCD and dims the light that reaches the eye. That way it wouldn't need all that data bus hanging off of it.

For an image display? Useless. The focal distance is way too close for the human eye. The resolution sucks balls. Displaying an image would require a data bus, and I don't want that crap irritating my eyeballs by hanging out plastic ribbon cables.

For welding goggles? Kick ass!
Protecting soldiers from flash burned retinas? Kick ass!
Displaying swirlies on your eyeballs as a conversation piece? Dude, you have ribbon cables hanging out of your eyes.

Augmented reality? What the fuck are you smoking? I want some.

Re:...oh-kay. (1)

Onuma (947856) | about 2 years ago | (#42199799)

For welding goggles? Kick ass!

This is what I was thinking. You'd still need a ventilator to filter away the toxic gases and particulates, but auto-dimming contact lenses would be pretty bitchin'!

Re:...oh-kay. (1)

TheLink (130905) | about 2 years ago | (#42201233)

It'll be nice if they can protect against class 3B lasers. There seem to be too many around nowadays in the hands of untrained people.

Re:...oh-kay. (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#42201951)

Displaying an image would require a data bus, and I don't want that crap irritating my eyeballs by hanging out plastic ribbon cables.

I take the idea of wireless data transfer is a new concept for you. Allow me to introduce you to, uhh, the past 150 years of technological progress, the latest of which are RFID chips smaller than a grain of sand and capable of complex two-way negotiation at fairly high speed for their simplicity. You will not need plastic ribbon cables. As well, there are some kinds of plastics that are electrically conductive; the etch could be painted directly onto the lens and would be so thin you'd be unable to see it or notice any real loss of contrast or brightness, yet be capable of acting as antenna and as simple circuits.

Re:...oh-kay. (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#42202083)

And also suffer from interference effects from being a very low power or passive antenna by necessity of design.

Eg, somebody turns on the microwave, and suddenly your vision goes dark as the LCD's data antenna gets swamped with noise.

Also, lots of people wearing said LCD contacts in an enclosed space would have competing signals in the same shared band.

Wireless data transfer always runs into this problem. Display tech needs LOTS of band to display fluid moving images.

You might say that the LCD lenses could be NFC devices, but then they need a bulky head piece nearby to have the NFC work efficiently.

Re:...oh-kay. (1)

kryliss (72493) | about 2 years ago | (#42205009)

Smaller than a grain of sand still feels like you have a friggen boulder in your eye.

Re:...oh-kay. (1)

dissy (172727) | about 2 years ago | (#42202093)

Augmented reality? What the fuck are you smoking? I want some.

I don't. I suspect it's dish soap.

Re:...oh-kay. (1)

xelah (176252) | about 2 years ago | (#42202227)

Isn't it possible to transmit data over skin? Maybe a bit slow, though.

Re:...oh-kay. (1)

CityZen (464761) | about 2 years ago | (#42202667)

I can think of many uses, assuming it's paired with a system for figuring out what you're looking at:
- nanny device (think of the children)
- automatic censorship device (nothing to see here; move along)
- DRM (the MPAA says you really can't watch this)
- court-ordered anti-stalker protection
- witness protection program ...

Re:...oh-kay. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42202799)

Oh Great !, It's a bloody merkin Advertisers wet dream straight to your eye. They have a god given right to that holy $ revenue stream after all

Re:...oh-kay. (2)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#42205007)

For welding goggles? Kick ass!

No way. I took a welding class in college, and one day the instructor came in wearing a red and white stripped t shirt, and underneath were red and white stripes on his skin -- the rays from the arc welder had "sunburned" through the white stripes on his shirt.

Your eyes can get sunburned. Even worse, if a hot spark hits your eyeball, you're blind in that eye forever. Goggles and hoods are for more than just protecting your eyes from rays.

How is it in practice? (1)

rs1n (1867908) | about 2 years ago | (#42199625)

While it's great to see this sort of technology, I cannot help but wonder if we will actually ever have LCD contact lens in actual use. The issue I have is that anything displayed on the lens will never be visible to the person wearing the lens as their eyes cannot physically focus on the image. Imagine trying to view a screen that is literally sitting on your eyeball -- how would you possibly focus your eyes to view something that close?!

Re:How is it in practice? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#42199715)

Ah yes, one of the hundreds of "I don't understand this, so it *must* be impossible." responses for every new tech. Since you can't think of a solution in 5 minutes, we know it must be impossible. Thanks. That makes it easy.

Re:How is it in practice? (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#42199813)

Instead of displaying an image the traditional way, it could simply be used as a prismatic refractor to alter incoming light to produce the 'perception' of having a distant image.

Eg, your eye's muscles focus "far away", because that is where the image would resolve from the controlled refraction done inside the lens.

This would be comfortable, but images would never appear opaque. (Relies on bright ambient light, and defraction of incoming light. Shadowy, shimmery outlines with candy pastel colors would be about the best you could do without completely obliterating the light patterns entering the prism, and blinding the subject to the real world.)

This would need multiple layers of LCD prism to make work though.

Re:How is it in practice? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#42200095)

Why not go with OLED and generate your own light?

Re:How is it in practice? (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 2 years ago | (#42200473)

Of course you couldn't put the image on the lenses, you'd have to device a system where it projects a virtual image into the eye which appears to be a few feet away or so. Should be possible. Tricky, since it isn't like any current display technology and would require extremely advanced miniaturization, but possible.

Re:How is it in practice? (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#42201499)

The idea here is to produce a "blurred" image by diffracting incoming light before it enters the cornea, that the eye then focuses with its internal lens. This is accomplished using the prismatic effects of "old school" LCD elements.

(Rememberr in the 90s whe color LCDs came out, with TFT displays? Remember how if you looked at them from an angle, all the colors were fucked up? That is because the color image was being created through prismatic diffraction.)

Combining several layers of these "prism" LCDs, along with some generalized raytracing on the part of the image processor, and the contact lenses would alter the incoming light such that a phantom image would be produced inside the eye, and appear as if it were a few feet in front of the user. Because the incident angle of the prism to the retina is fixed, the chromatic abberation would be fairly minimal, but some "pretty rainbow effects" would be unavoidable.

Much like a modern LCD has a prismatic layer before the LCD layer, you would need two LCD layers at least to get a reliable diffraction technology. The first layer selectively polarizes the incoming light, and the second layer selectively diffracts it to produce the "hologram illusion".

For lack of a better term, it would be a prismatic psycho-optometric display.

Some pretty sophisticated processing would be needed to generate the projected images though. The image would have to be generated out of focus on the corneal display layers, so the eye itself could bring it into focus. Otherwise it would never work.

Again, opaque images wouldn't be possible without completely diffracting the incoming light, and making you completely blind to the real world. Ghostly, and candy rainbow colored hologram like images would be about the best you could do.

Re:How is it in practice? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42203221)

Doing an fft on a simple image (ie. text and such) isn't too hard; ever seen those little diffraction gratings that come with cheap laser pointers? They just use a bunch of point holes/blockages as far as I could see, look through the one that looks like santa and you see motherfuckin' santas everywhere and focus is not an issue. At the simplest you could copy this method and supply the user with a bright light (or with sufficient uv/light blockage they could look at the sun). You could use slightly more sophisticated methods (just change the kernel of your transformation function from a point, I think?) to narrow a field of view and then the user could get their display to work by looking directly at the nearest bright light.
When this, or a trivial extension of it (ie. asking a mathematician 'hey, what kernel should I use?' and getting an answer after a couple of days) gets patented I'll be able to point futilely back to this comment and see it have no effect on whether or not the patent goes through.

At last! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42199627)

Finally I can get my swirly, spinning, hypno-eyes!

Very cool, but... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42199649)

this is just an LCD in Contact-Lens-Form, correct? Is it possible to actually "see" an image that sits directly on the eye?

Are they soft lenses? (2)

CockMonster (886033) | about 2 years ago | (#42199743)

I tried out Rigid Gas Permeable lenses a few days ago and could only tolerate them for about 20 minutes. I've been wearing soft lenses for over 15 years. I can't see anyone tolerating that level of discomfort without a really really good reason.

Re:Are they soft lenses? (1)

Onuma (947856) | about 2 years ago | (#42199823)

I know a couple of guys who wear those regularly. They both have degenerative eye diseases (the disorder name escapes me currently), but even these guys can't bear to have them in for more than ~12 hours or so, and that is with regular doses of eye drops/lubricant, etc.

Re:Are they soft lenses? (1)

sick_em (1603731) | about 2 years ago | (#42200773)

guy with degenerative eye disease here! mine is keratoconus, and I've had the unfortunate opportunity to have used soft lenses at first. they're amazing in comfort compared to rgp lenses, but I find that the rgp lenses don't pose that much of a difficulty. sure they're a bit of a nuisance, but once I remember to use my drops I can wear them all day no problem.

i see that these lcd lenses can't be used for personal screens, so i would definitely say in that case they're not worth the effort if they're similar to rgp lenses. the effort is worth it when you're actually getting to see something

Re:Are they soft lenses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42202111)

Check out Kerasoft IC contacts. Soft contacts that are much better than RGP for comfort, designed for complex eye corrections (people with keratoconus, or who have had RK surgery, etc)

Re:Are they soft lenses? (1)

Onuma (947856) | about 2 years ago | (#42209129)

That is, indeed, the disease to which I was referring. Thanks for chiming in :) I hate when names and words escape me.

Re:Are they soft lenses? (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | about 2 years ago | (#42199949)

I can't see anyone tolerating that level of discomfort without a really really good reason.

Says "CockMonster"

Re:Are they soft lenses? (1)

gawbl (941021) | about 2 years ago | (#42201127)

RGP lenses don't hurt, after your eyes have become accustomed to them. Admittedly, the acclimatization is ... unpleasant. However, it can be done, and I've worn hard lenses for about thirty years. I've never tried soft lenses.

Perhaps you should try some rigid scleral lenses; they ride only on the sclera (white part) of your eye, and don't touch your eyeball lens at all. (Google for: scleral contact lens)

Re:Are they soft lenses? (1)

maestroX (1061960) | about 2 years ago | (#42211797)

Perhaps you should try some rigid scleral lenses; they ride only on the sclera (white part) of your eye, and don't touch your eyeball lens at all.

Ehh. Nightmare on elmstreet with a bulbing keratoconus... Main use of sclerals is prosthetic to keep the eyeball lens at bay.
An experienced hospital optometrist (specialized in lenses, not glasses) will try not to rest any non-soft (ie RPG,hard) material on your eyeball lens to ease wearing (movement/blinking) and minimize scratching eyeball lens surface.

Re:Are they soft lenses? (2)

Freultwah (739055) | about 2 years ago | (#42202691)

I've been wearing rigid lenses for about 24 years now, as I have a cylindrical vision defect that could not be corrected with soft lenses. I did not have lense conditioner solutions available back then, so I had to apply the lenses dry and therefore experienced slight discomfort at the beginning and they took a bit (about a week) of getting used to. There would have been no discomfort with the correct solutions. I have found rigid lenses cheaper, way more practical, useful, comfortable and easier to use and care for than soft lenses that I have also tried. Properly cared for, they can last forever – my personal best is nine years per lens and I only had to replace it because I lost it on a windy day – and by proper care I mean washing them once or twice a week. You don't have to worry about them absorbing some agent or preservative present in eye drops etc etc. All in all, much less crap to be dealt with day by day, with many times less money spent on upkeep.

But can they be made (2)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 years ago | (#42199841)

...peril sensitive?

Re:But can they be made (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#42203009)

Sensing a laser or nuclear flash and reacting quickly enough might be difficult.

They might be useful as adaptive sunglasses depending on transparency ability or maybe a checkerboard.

Also they could function as glasses of a sort by providing a pinhole opening, which limits light and focuses, however dimly, the image for people with glasses.

Re:But can they be made (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#42203019)

As for general-purpose peril blinding ala Hitchhiker's, I suppose they could be adapted when merged with other tech to blind you whenever it detects something scary such as a female nearing you.

Re:But can they be made (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 years ago | (#42207287)

Oh, to be a female pickpocket at the next Star Trek convention.

Dead pixel test (1)

Hsien-Ko (1090623) | about 2 years ago | (#42199885)

Good luck donig one of those in your eyes.

Re:Dead pixel test (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#42199925)

Worse, remote attack induced epileptic seizure, caused by cycling the LCD at 25hz.

You think the annoy-a-tron, and the universal off button remote were power trips for angry nerds? Try having a bluetooth dongle that makes people have siezures.

Re:Dead pixel test (1)

pokoteng (2729771) | about 2 years ago | (#42200337)

Not as fun as remotely playing with people's pacemakers.

Re:Dead pixel test (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42203273)

When the beating of your heart echoes the beating of the drums....

Innovations? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42199959)

Could someone explain to me what's so innovated about Google Glass? HMDs have been being sold for YEARS and people often wanted to do AR with them. Portable computers were a bit too large and power hungry for useful AR, but linking an EyeTop to remote controlled cameras (used battery operated X10s) was always fun (and not the way you just though of). The only 'innovation' I can see about Google Glass is better marketing and the introduction of tracking things you do for 3rd parties (compared to recording your entire life only for yourself).

Sight video one step closer to reality (3, Insightful)

Rashkae (59673) | about 2 years ago | (#42200571)

Re:Sight video one step closer to reality (2)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 2 years ago | (#42200747)

10 years ago, I would have though this technical was badass! Now, I just find it disturbing in a societal way. I don't know. Maybe I find our elective reliance on technology to be intrusive to what it means to be "human". Cell phones, social media, personal vision stuff like this, it all feels so...so detached from reality.

Yes. I'm starting to question my geekness. I'm not sure I like where the future is headed.

Re:Sight video one step closer to reality (1)

Chrontius (654879) | about 2 years ago | (#42201617)

To be more than human is merely to be human. And I think they probably said the same thing about vaccines and spectacles.

Re:Sight video one step closer to reality (1)

GLMDesigns (2044134) | about 2 years ago | (#42203243)

Any technology that aides can also hinder. The "wingman" aspect was not invasive and is quite useful. But direct control over another, whether by date drug or synapse manipulation is, and should always remain, criminal.

Re:Sight video one step closer to reality (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#42208157)

Maybe I find our elective reliance on technology to be intrusive to what it means to be "human".

I'm not 100% human; I have an implant in my left eye that replaces its lens and gives me better than 20/20 vision at all distances. Being human is overrated, if you ask me. I wouldn't trade my implant for 20/400 vision for Bill Gates' money. Would you trade your car for a horse and buggy? Trade your phone for snail mail? These things make our lives better, they don't detract from our humanity.

I notice your user name, what psychoactive substances are you taking? Yes, shamans take natural drugs for spiritual enlightenment; reat the Carlos Castaneda books (I may have misspelled his name, haven't read the books in 40 years). Well, if they're still in print... I find our insanely long copyrights take away from our humanity and especially human culture -- which is actually what humanity is.

Animals don't have tech, we do. Tech makes us MORE human.

Re:Sight video one step closer to reality (1)

GLMDesigns (2044134) | about 2 years ago | (#42203219)

Thanks for the video. Excellent clip.

A New Meaning (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42202291)

into "retina display"

ouch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42202921)

let's just hope they don't make it touch screens...

Enjoy A Vision of This Future (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42203201)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK_cdkpazjI

This is the future. It is here now. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42203819)

This is the way all communications and entertainment will be, either contacts or ocular implants or glasses for the get of my lawn crowd.

Think of it TV, Skype, gaming, internet browsing all the time.

Couple that with kinect type usability, voice recog and your there.

Re:This is the future. It is here now. (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#42204167)

This is the way all communications and entertainment will be, either contacts or ocular implants or glasses for the get of my lawn crowd.

Think of it TV, Skype, gaming, internet browsing all the time.

Couple that with kinect type usability, voice recog and your there.

In other words, no more pesky interpersonal interaction!

FYI, there's already a movie about that, and you've seen it. [wikipedia.org]

Cheating at poker (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42205411)

I can think of a few uses.

exciting news for some epileptics and migraineurs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42229547)

As someone who has seizures in response to flickering lights, this is very exciting to me. With any luck, it's only a matter of time now before I can put in contact lenses that filter out flickering light and allow me to go into grocery stores without seizures induced by the lighting :)

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?