Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 ×

107 comments

I wonder ... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16779001)

I wonder if this procedure will work for Republicans? :-)

one down (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16779005)

Thr^H^H^HTwo blind mice.

awesome! (4, Funny)

chaos421 (531619) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779009)

...and here i thought the future of vision was a gold-plated bananaclip visor.

How many blind mice? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16779019)

And who's this wild woman with the carving knife!

Dashed childhood (4, Funny)

Centurix (249778) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779037)

"Holy crap, look at the size of that carving knife! Run!"

Blind mice (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16779051)

Now if they could just help them regenerate the tails the farmers wife cut off the mice will be whole again.

three blind mice... (2, Funny)

quickpick (1021471) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779077)

I guess they don't have any excuse now.

The research continues... (0, Redundant)

Starteck81 (917280) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779091)

In other news researchers are also on the verg of using stem cells to regrow the blind mices' tails that were cut off by the farmers wife, when they ran after her.

Would work for some (5, Insightful)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779101)

It could work for children who are discovered to be blind, or those who gradually lose their vision from macular degeneration. This won't help those who were blind from birth and are now adults since their visual cortex will not have developed.

And, of course, this only works on mice. Why is it that mice always get the best treatments?

Re:awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16779105)

And here I was thinking that we'd get a creative first post.

Re:Would work for some (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779161)

And, of course, this only works on mice. Why is it that mice always get the best treatments?

Now that's just cheesy.
Even I want to mod me down for that one.

What the fuck is wrong with slashdot today (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16779235)

Jesus Christ, this site is less reliable than myspace these days

Re:Would work for some (1)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779247)

Why is it that mice always get the best treatments?
It should be no surprise that hyperdimensional beings are able to trick humans into developing therapies for them.

Re:Would work for some (1)

MaXiMiUS (923393) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779281)

And, of course, this only works on mice. Why is it that mice always get the best treatments?

They talk about, and link to an article [com.com] going into detail on the application of this in humans.

Not Only the Democrats Have One (4, Funny)

zensufi (743379) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779283)

I for one welcome our new seeing mouse overlords.

first (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16779303)

post

Re:Would work for some (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779317)

Because it is the mice that paid for the building of this planet. They have enough money to pay for a copy to be built too, after the Earth I was destroyed by the Vogons.

Re:Would work for some (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16779321)

Why is it that mice always get the best treatments?


They work for it. We have to give them something to compensate for their time. If we tested on ourselves, we'd get the best treatments first.

See what tortoise stem cells do? (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779353)

Make you slow.

Prove it... (3, Interesting)

Firehed (942385) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779359)

We know this worked *how*?

"Now Petey, give us two squeeks if you can see again!"

Re:Prove it... (1)

fuo (941897) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779387)

I'm guessing they tested the mouse's reactions before and after the treatment... Like the "made you flinch" game.

Cell Transplants? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16779397)

Sony was right, Cell can do anything!

Failzors.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16779423)

resulted in the here, but what i5 every3ay...We right now. I tried,

Re:Prove it... (1)

From A Far Away Land (930780) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779451)

I'm just guessing too because I also didn't RTFA, but wouldn't showing them a picture of a predator scare them away from it?

Re:Would work for some (1)

DittoBox (978894) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779455)

And, of course, this only works on mice. Why is it that mice always get the best treatments?

They also get the worst.

In other news... (4, Funny)

realmolo (574068) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779493)

Surgeons have succeeded in transplanting a frog's brain into a cloned copy of The Handsome Prince's body.

This comes after last weeks news that Little Miss Muffet didn't know what a "tuffet" was at the time of the incident with the spider, and that her subsequent testimony was completely fabricated by her lawyers.

See How They Run (0, Redundant)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779523)

Mother Goose's "Three Blind Mice" [answers.com]

Three blind mice. Three blind mice.
See how they run. See how they run.
They all ran after the farmer's wife
Who cut off their tails with a carving knife.
Did you ever see such a thing in your life
As three blind mice?

Re:Would work for some (1)

BWJones (18351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779543)

A couple of points humeister,

1) The ganglion cells are the projection cells of the retina. If you assume that the visual cortex is already mapped, and the ganglion cells survive, the mapping remains intact.

2) Which brings up problem #2 What everybody needs to realize is that if you wait until the photoreceptors degenerate, it is too late in that downstream changes are taking place in the bipolar cells, amacrine cells, horiztonal cells, Muller cells and ganglion cells. The retina remodels and alters the existing circuitry to corrupt any subsequent inputs and any intervention biological or bionic is going to have to take this into account. We showed this back in 2001 and 2002 at the ARVO vision conferences and published it formally starting in 2003. I am not criticizing the work of this particular study however, in that it is a tour de force. All I am saying is that there is much more to the biology than simply finding new inputs to replace the degenerate ones.

As to the mice, human eyes are hard to get, particularly the diseased eyes. Also we can engineer mouse eyes to have the same biochemical/genetic/proteomic defect as in the human instances and get much more science done with mice.

Re:Prove it... (1)

brian_tanner (1022773) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779559)

Do you really think it's the hard to effectively test the visual acuity of an animal? Doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. See if you can teach them that the blue lever makes food and the red one doesn't. Or...see if they avoid obstacles when navigating. Or... anyway, seems like testing if a mouse is blind or not is probably a solved problem.

Re:Would work for some (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779577)

Why is it that mice always get the best treatments?

      Of course the price they pay is that they are sacrificed the minute the experiment is over...

Re:Prove it... (1)

shodai (970706) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779581)

Perhaps they stopped running into things? *shrug*

Re:I wonder ... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779607)

wonder if this procedure will work for Republicans?

      Nahh they'd just deny it if they could see it, or claim that they could see it all along anyway and everything was going according to plan.

Re:Cell Transplants? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779629)

Sony was right, Cell can do anything!

      Especially if you have a rootkit.

Re:I wonder ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16779643)

Sorry but if the current partisan shit throwing trend continues, Bush will veto anything and everything he doesn't like.

stem cells (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16779655)

Ooops, the magic of stem cells wasn't needed. Fucking George Bush. I hate him.

Re:Prove it... (1)

Mozk (844858) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779661)

You know a mouse can see because the cursor would move.

Re:Prove it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16779695)

In other news, a new science entitled 'movement' has been discovered. Theorists are working tirelessly to explain the phenomenon of so-called 'reaction' to 'movement'. More completely obvious news at ten!

Re:Would work for some (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16779715)

Mice get the best treatments because they are in charge, of course.

good (0, Offtopic)

Phrite (728691) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779763)

When my friend Helen Keller read this she screamed and jumped up and down for joy. ahref=http://www.bburr.com/rel=url2html-18208 [slashdot.org] http: //www.bburr.com/> .: Adventures of a 20 year old Entrepreneur. :.

Super vision? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16779771)

I wonder would this work for replacing the cones in a person's eye? Currently there are three types of cones sensitive to L-, M- and S-wavelengths of light. Colour blindness is caused by either missing or reduced function of cones. A potential fix for colour blindness? Presuming the brain is elastic enough and colour opponent neurons will kick in for missing cones.

Or add a fourth or fifth groups of cones sensitive to different wavelengths of light - UV, etc? If we can capture these extra wavelengths what will our brains do? Ignore or use?

Re:Prove it... (1)

thopkins (70408) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779779)

Perhaps the mice responded to a visual cue that had no sound or small. It's not that complicated.

Re:Would work for some (1)

docyahoo (864256) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779799)

An obvious step later in this research is to be able to transplant these photoreceptors into someone other than the donor. Additionally, taking a look at the atricle's final quote

"This technique gives us new insights in repairing damage to the retina and possibly other parts of the central nervous system,"
lends to the thought that some combination of implantation procedure, possibly along with something like anti-oxidant therapy [bbc.co.uk] , may be feasible therapy for rebuilding other disrupted nerve pathways as well.

Re:Prove it... (1)

zigziggityzoo (915650) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779855)

Simple. Put an electrode in the visual cortex of the animal, and see if it's got increased activity. Or, an fMRI would do the trick. compare the reading from before with the after, and see where the increased activity resides.

In other news... (0, Offtopic)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779929)

Shrek 3 [comingsoon.net] is being revised.

Neat trick... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779947)

If the three blind men have this treatment, would they still recognized the elephant?

Re:Prove it... (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 7 years ago | (#16779985)

Well generally if a animal can see and you make a sudden move they flinch dont they?
When blind mice start getting visual reflexes then you know they can see again.

(No I dont know if thats how they do it but its a good assumption)

Re:I wonder ... (1)

jimbojw (1010949) | more than 7 years ago | (#16780019)

No, it doesn't provide x-ray vision. They'd require a cure for head-in-ass-edness first.

Re:Prove it... (1)

biocute (936687) | more than 7 years ago | (#16780045)

Did you read the friendly article?

They placed a mousetrap (this type [matcmadison.edu] ) and a plate with cheese, next to each other, and the mouse lived to give us two squeeks.

Re:Prove it... (1)

Chinju (662523) | more than 7 years ago | (#16780111)

Yeah, the only way I can tell someone is blind or seeing is by asking him. There are no other tests possible, none other even conceivable, by which I might tell if someone were blind or not. This is why babies are never diagnosed as blind until they have first acquired speaking skills, the distinction being necessarily unobservable previously.

Re:Prove it... (1)

podwich (766178) | more than 7 years ago | (#16780131)

They tested the pupillary reflex. This tests the retina, the optic nerve (CN II in humans), the visual cortex, and efferent cranial nerves that control the pupil (oculomotor nerve (CN III) in humans). All of these need to be intact and functioning to have an intact pupillary reflex.

responds to visual stimuli (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16780161)

Shine a bright light directly at it and see if it reacts?

Three Spliced Mice (5, Funny)

Etherwalk (681268) | more than 7 years ago | (#16780169)

Three blind mice, three blind mice,
See how they run, see how they run,
They all ran after the lab tech's wife,
were given new sight with one gene splice,
saw her and ran for the rest of their life.
The three spliced mice.

----------------
(No offense to the lab tech's wives out there. =))

Cultures of Photoreceptor Wannabee's (4, Interesting)

ryeinn (844805) | more than 7 years ago | (#16780193)

I read TFA, maybe I missed it. The question I want answered is whether they can harvest these cells once and grow them to use them many times. You can do that with stem cells. Curious if it works that way here. It seems that way but I'm not sure.

You also have to wonder about type matches. Maybe it's an incorrect analogy, but blood and organ transfusions need to be matched by type. Is the same true here? I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

Just some food for thought in a more serious vein.

Re:Prove it... (1)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 7 years ago | (#16780199)

Disable alternative sensory inputs and place the animal in a strange environment with a reward goal that can be visually sensed. Observe multiple interations of blind, treated, and normal-visioned mice and decide if the result allow you to conclude the treated mice performed similarly better as the normal-visioned over the blind mice.

Re:Would work for some (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 7 years ago | (#16780221)

And, of course, this only works on mice. Why is it that mice always get the best treatments?

Indeed! I say we offer up tens of millions of our fellow human beings until we too get the cool shit.

Where do I sign?

Re:Prove it... (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 7 years ago | (#16780259)

Easy - tests of response to stimuli.

Flash a light, show things etc. and observe responses.

This is cool but... (5, Informative)

green453 (889049) | more than 7 years ago | (#16780297)

How about not transplanting any cells and instead infecting existing cells with a virus that causes them express to CHOP-2? CHOP-2 (channelrhodopsin) is a light activated cation/proton channel excited by blue (~480nm if I remember right) light. Basically, if a neural cell expresses CHOP-2, shining a blue light on it will activate it. A http://www.neuron.org/content/article/abstract?uid =PIIS0896627306001760 [neuron.org] paper in Neuron last spring explained how this technique was used to overcome blindness in mice. I call dibs on mutating the channel to change its excitability spectrum into IR, allowing me to see in the (visible spectrum) dark after being infected with it. Or maybe I can sell it to the military...

Re:Prove it... (1)

The Step Child (216708) | more than 7 years ago | (#16780299)

My guess is that (in a nutshell) they examined the histology of the eye after transplantation, and made conclusions based what we know of what the normal eye should look like.

Reuters being a popular press outlet, it's understandable that they wouldn't give a quite detailed explanation, but here is a link to the Nature article:

http://ww w.nature.com/news/2006/061106/full/061106-10.html [nature.com]

It's not much better than the Reuters bit, but at least it offers a link to the abstract at the bottom (and the full pdf, if you have access to Nature).

... if voters read the proposed bills? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16780303)

This treatment did not use embryonic stem cells, if that's what you're referring to. In fact, the researchers didn't use stem cells at all.

FTFA:

Previous studies that had used stem cells, master cells in the body that have the potential to become any type of cell in the body, had failed because the cells did not form into photoreceptors.

Scientists have recently found cells on the margin of the retina in humans which have stem-cell like properties and could potentially be grown in the lab to become photoreceptor precursor cells for treatment.

The ethical objection is to cloning/creating human embryos for stem cell research, not stem cell research in general. Don't believe everything the biotech venture capitalists would like you to believe, or they will buy your laws, and take your tax dollars like they just did in Missouri [blogspot.com]

Re:Prove it... (1)

piano-in-a-box (851921) | more than 7 years ago | (#16780407)

Surely it wouldn't be too difficult to see how the mice react to various kinds of visual stimulation before and after?

Re:I wonder ... (1)

Cracked Pottery (947450) | more than 7 years ago | (#16780429)

It would be ironic if a cure for Republicanism were developed from stem cell research.

Re:Prove it... (1)

Dirtside (91468) | more than 7 years ago | (#16780643)

Um, by holding a visual stimulus in front of the mouse and noting whether it responded to it, pointed its head at it, etc.?

Primary article? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16780751)

Does anyone have a link to a copy of the actual article? These articles don't provide nearly enough detail.

Re:Prove it... (1)

greylion3 (555507) | more than 7 years ago | (#16780815)

Maybe he hooked it up to a polygraph, and had a cat walk by on the other side of a glass wall?

Re:Prove it... (1)

Tychon (771855) | more than 7 years ago | (#16780833)

I would suspect by basic reaction tests. Take a sufficiently small but still notable object and move it very quickly at the mouse. If the mouse is blind, the movement of air and sound should be minimal enough that he can't really distinguish it above other ambient sources, so he doesn't do much of anything. If he can see, he freaks out like any sane creature would when a needle-like object is moving rapidly for them.

Of course, I may be thinking about this too complexly. Just shine a bright light in his face. If he's flinching or really buggered by it, voila, he can see.

Re:Prove it... (1)

KKlaus (1012919) | more than 7 years ago | (#16780967)

Granted the article doesn't say, but come on. You really can't tell if people are blind unless they tell you?

Same thing with mice... they could tell because they responded to visual stimulae. Again, granted the article didn't say that explicitly, but really that should be obvious.

Re:Super vision? (1)

PsiPsiStar (95676) | more than 7 years ago | (#16781023)

If we can capture these extra wavelengths what will our brains do? Ignore or use?

Use, most likely. There are several explanations for the evolutionary advantage of colorblindness. One explanation is that people who are totally colorblind are better at making out shapes since they don't rely on color. The army uses them for these purposes. However, another explanation is the fact that the mothers of colorblind sons are tetrachromats and capable of seeing in four channels of colors. So at the very least, humans are plastic enough that they can adapt to see in four channels of color. Though I don't know how late in life this advantage has to accrue for it to work.

Of course, with normal tetrachromats the pigmetation is still made from beta carotene, IIRC, and I don't know how a cone that relied on a different pathway for its pigment would work. Maybe you'd get burnout if the chemical wasn't properly replenished? I don't know enough about the area to say.

Re:Prove it... (1)

podwich (766178) | more than 7 years ago | (#16781025)

As my previous attempt at a reply seems to have been lost in the ether...

They tested the pupillary reflex. This tests the retina, the optic nerve (CN II in humans), the visual cortex, and efferent cranial nerves that control the pupil (oculomotor nerve (CN III) in humans). All of these need to be intact and functioning to have an intact pupillary reflex.

What kind Scientists! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16781115)

Now guess who blinded those mice in the first place.

Ok, Bob. Hold the little furry baster down while I pick up this soldering iron. And let's do this quick. I have to vote Republican later today.

Re:Would work for some (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 7 years ago | (#16781151)

Because we don't do initial tests on humans. We find a lot of the procedures that work on mice, but not humans. We don't find many procedures that work on humans, but not mice.

Re:Not Only the Democrats Have One (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16781229)

Oh hell, Pinkie, that's what you tell the Brain every morning. No wait, I meant, hell Dubya, that's what you tell Dick every morning. Same thing.

Re:Prove it... (1)

theundergroundman (944494) | more than 7 years ago | (#16781231)

Certainly some sort of behavioral test. Blind mice and mice with vision behave differently since they respond to different stimuli. The blind mice obviously not being able to respond to visual stimuli. Behavioral neuroscientists develop tasks to test perception in animals that cannot give us direct feedback among other things. It's just another part of their line of work. That said, we really need to see the primary journal article to know what sort of test they used and if it was adequate.

Re:Prove it... (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#16781237)

The same way we knew they were blind in the first place.

It's not that tough to judge whether an animal is blind or not. Just expose it to something you know mice would react to visually.

Re:Prove it... (1)

Philotic (957984) | more than 7 years ago | (#16781257)

Perhaps the mice stopped running into walls?

Re:What kind Scientists! (1)

theundergroundman (944494) | more than 7 years ago | (#16781265)

It's likely a strain of mice that are born without vision. And even though your post is relatively frivolous, there are a lot of liberals involved in animal research. Virtually all of my professors included in that group.

Re:Super vision? (1)

caenorhabditas (914198) | more than 7 years ago | (#16781391)

The biggest problem with this would be that the procedure would, barring some rapid advances in our knowledge of brain development, have to be performed on a very young child. Adult brains are not well-equipped to deal with the addition of a new stimulus such as new visible wavelengths. Of course, the parents could theoretically consent to such a procedure, but it'd be a pretty shady operation, especially in the early stages of the research.

Barny Google (2, Funny)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#16781513)

What if somthing goes wrong & the cells become cancerous ?
Would someone have to walk around looking like this [warriorlibrarian.com] ?

Re:Prove it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16781683)

Uh..

Before procedure: Runs into things, doesn't avoid swatting researcher hands.

After procedure: Avoids walls, bites researcher hands.

Good enough?

Wouldn't it be cheaper... (1)

StoatBringer (552938) | more than 7 years ago | (#16781689)

Wouldn't it be cheaper to simply genetically engineer miniature guide-dogs for them?

Re:Super vision? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16781831)

How about laying a raster mesh of color filters over rod cells and let visual cortex learn the difference between colors? We would need:
  1. a color filtering dye that can be absorbed by the retinal cells,
  2. a method to let only, say ... "illuminated", exposed cells to absorb or keep/fixate the dye and
  3. raster masks for selective exposition of retinal cells.
The same method could be used for acquiring UV "supervision", by using fluorescent dye. OTST, maybe not: perhaps there's a reason why insects can see wider spectrum then us - they don't have lenses while we do and lenses are intrinsically, by the principle of their operation, prone to chromatic aberration. Move to far away from their central wavelength and your picture will blur.

Re:Super vision? (1)

neuro_guy (1021643) | more than 7 years ago | (#16781895)

my (only slightly edicated) guess is: perfectly possible! And visual cortex seems to be highly capable of adult plasticity, so I'd say the new wavelength range will be merged into the visual impression. Not that you'd be able to tell "this is UV" or this is "IR" but maybe brightness? Central color coding in the brain is quite complicated. Maybe the rod receptor cells would be better candidates for adding new wavelength ranges, as they only "code" light intensity anyway?

Re:Prove it... (1)

JorDan Clock (664877) | more than 7 years ago | (#16781903)

My guess is a simple test involving doors and colors. The food will always be behind color X, so they train the mice that way. Then they switch the doors around and if the mouse can see again, they can find the door with the food.

Of course, IANAS, so I don't know what exact process they used, but really, it's not that hard to find out. You could substitute the colors for shapes on the doors or any other visual cue. I mean, they must have had some kind of test to see if they were even blind in the first place...

Re:Prove it... (1)

neuro_guy (1021643) | more than 7 years ago | (#16781921)

actually I think there are whole batteries of behavioral test that can figure out rodent visual acuity and other properties of vision. Just imagine a setup like this: mouse learns decision whether to take left or right arm of Y-maze depending on image shown above entrance. Train mouse a lot. Change image properties until mouse performance drops significantly. Find acuity threshold.... et cetera ad nauseam

because (1)

scotbot (906561) | more than 7 years ago | (#16782373)

... mice rule the world, gawddamit!

Re:Prove it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16782469)

Um... Try moving your hand towards a blind mouse and a seeing mouse. The one that moves out of the away can see. It's not rocket science.

Re:Prove it... (1)

g253 (855070) | more than 7 years ago | (#16783145)

We know this worked *how*?

Because they no longer bump into every wall they encounter? Because they run like hell when you show them a cat? I don't think you need to be great scientist to be able to tell wether a mouse is blind...

Re:Super vision? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16783185)

I have no idea if it would work but I would love to be able to see UV or infrared. Just for the bragging rights.

Re:I wonder ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16783269)

Who knows... it probably won't work for Democrats seeing as how it doesn't involve stem cells. But, young Democrats can avoid blindness by not sitting so close to the TV images of their ministers of misinformation like Dan Rather, George Clooney, and other CNN morons. ;-)

Re:See How They Run (1)

Bastard of Subhumani (827601) | more than 7 years ago | (#16783359)

I don't care how they run - I want to know what they run. It's Linux, right?

Re:Super vision? (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 7 years ago | (#16783445)

There are actually some women who have 4 color cones [post-gazette.com] instead of three.

Re:Primary article? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16783811)

www.nature.com

Re:I wonder ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16783893)

I wonder if this would work for Democrats

blind mice? (1)

mad_minstrel (943049) | more than 7 years ago | (#16784489)

I thought cleaning the sensor once in a while would be enough...

Re:I wonder ... (1)

NeedMoreCowbell (1002552) | more than 7 years ago | (#16784709)

If it goes as swimmingly as the foot-in-ass transplant they received yesterday, they'll have 20/20 vision!

another article (1)

brunascle (994197) | more than 7 years ago | (#16784733)

Technology Review had another article [technologyreview.com] on this yesterday.

Re:Prove it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16784819)

Their pupils began to dilate in response to light, and their optic nerves became active.

Re:I wonder ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16785197)

Keep spinning lib-O! Don't forget that Republicans are equaly as supportive of stem cell research. The issue is EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS, which, according to the articles on this, aren't necessary or even effective.
If you're suggesting Republicans are blind, then Democrats must be mentally deficient.

threading is gone? (1)

neuro_guy (1021643) | more than 7 years ago | (#16785487)

Why does the threading of comments work in yesterdays threads but not in this one or any other one of today? I mean, I posted something and it's there (I find it in the post history) but it doesn't get displayed???
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...