Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Science Technology

Solar-Powered Augmented Reality Contact Lenses 213

Posted by samzenpus
from the are-they-covered-in-the-vision-plan dept.
ByronScott writes "Want eyesight that could put your neighborhood cyborg to shame? Well, University of Washington professor Babak Amir Parviz and his students are working on solar-powered contact lenses embedded with hundreds of semitransparent LEDs, letting wearers experience augmented reality right through their eyes. If their research proves successful, the applications — from health monitoring to gameplay to just plain bionic sight — could be endless."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Solar-Powered Augmented Reality Contact Lenses

Comments Filter:
  • Yes I Do Want (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alex_guy_CA (748887) <alex@schoenfeld[ ]om ['t.c' in gap]> on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @08:48PM (#31517640) Homepage
    Oh my. Yes indeed, if that is not the coolest sounding thing I've heard all day, I don't know what is.

    Though now that I think a little more, a spam attack on your eyeballs could be troubling...

    • by socsoc (1116769) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @08:52PM (#31517660)
      Just wait for the malware on whatever drives the display... You could actually punch the monkey and win!
      • Nothing like a BSOD on your contact lenses while driving

        • by siloko (1133863)
          OK, cars. Just like any modern technology (take the Toyota Prius for example) there will be a fallback to tried and trusted 'old' technology. Yes indeedy.
      • by CaptnMArk (9003)

        Just wait until the DRM activates the 'Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses' mode.

      • I cannot help but wonder if the new political group, "Tea Party" is only a Beta Test Group for this really good idea.
    • Though now that I think a little more, a spam attack on your eyeballs could be troubling...

      Yes, you'd have to [shivers] take off your contacts!

      I kid, yes it would be troubling in situations like driving, doing surgery, or doing surgery while driving, all of which could be helped by these things conceivably.

      • by skine (1524819)

        Except, in my case, as long as my vision isn't completely blocked out, it would be magnitudes better than being practically blind.

    • Re:Yes I Do Want (Score:5, Insightful)

      by girlintraining (1395911) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @09:22PM (#31517878)

      Though now that I think a little more, a spam attack on your eyeballs could be troubling...

      People always think of the best outcome when a new technology is created, forgetting the cesspool we call humanity that's going to use and pervert it. The day you have bionic eyes is the day people start paying good money to augment your "virtual reality" to replace competitors advertisements, add advertisements onto everyday objects surrepticiously, and what you'll end up with is drowning in useless information just as much now, sitting at your keyboard reading this, except you won't be able to unplug.

      Most of my friends have the social expectation that if they send me a text or email, I reply in a few minutes, a half hour tops. Any longer, and they think something's gone wrong, and start calling me and everyone I know to find out what happened. God help us all the day we're linked continuously with each other over a massive communications network; Kiss democracy goodbye, privacy, anonymity, freedom, and the right to choose how you life your life goodbye. It'll all be auctioned off to the highest bidder. It'll be like Ghost in the Shell, with police, government agents, and large corporations being able to cloak themselves from being seen. And there won't be trials anymore -- the bionic eye's constant connection with the network will mean everything you see from the moment you wakeup until you go to bed will be available for review. They'll make their use mandatory because it results in zero crime. Or so they'll say.

      It isn't fear-mongering to expect this. Not fifteen years ago when the internet was in its infancy, most of what was out there was high quality scientific research and most of the e-mails being sent were between real people, having real conversations. Today, it's a cesspool where 99% of what your inbox gets hit with is someone trying to sell you something. Every window into the web has advertisements hanging off of it. And here in Minnesota, the Supreme Court recently ruled that it was okay for people to be convicted of DUI if they could have been capable of operating a motor vehicle. People being thrown in jail because of the possibility that a crime could have occurred -- it is no longer necessary that the public (or yourself) be harmed for the law to reach into your lives. Today we live in a society where the merest possibility of a person engaging in a criminal act is sufficient grounds for conviction.

      Technology does not change the way people think. Human intellectual capacity has not altered in the past 4,000 years (at least) as far as we can tell. We can laugh at people who believed the world was flat, but the fault is ours for doing so -- we did not understand how they saw the world. There wasn't anything wrong with their eyes, or their brains. We're fundamentally no smarter than they were. But we think we are. And we're so confident, so smugly superior to our predecessors that we know this future can't happen.

      Of course there will be trials. And freedom. And democracy. And all that good stuff. We know it because, well, gosh darn it, that's how it has to be.

      No.

      No it doesn't.

      All these things we value will die, and we can't blame technology for it. All technology does, this one included, is expose and direct us towards the fundamental question of what it means to be human. And let me just say -- that definition is not sunshine and rainbows. We were given free will. Nowhere in that does it say we are in any way inclined to do good; When it comes right down to it, very few people truly trust one another, and we'd believe our own direct sensory experiences over what anyone would tell us. We imitate others. That's all culture is -- the direct observation of our environment, which is translated into coping mechanisms (behaviors) that we then interpose between ourselves and it.

      So tell me, where does that leave us when those sensory experiences become artificial and malleable?

      • Re:Yes I Do Want (Score:4, Insightful)

        by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @09:36PM (#31517964)
        So, I take it that you won't want to borrow my pair when I get them? I bet they'll make my iPad look even better than my rose colored glasses :-)
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        A well thought-out, on-topic response being modded as redundant? Even if you don't agree with the poster's reasoning, this certainly isn't redundant.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DigiShaman (671371)

        So tell me, where does that leave us when those sensory experiences become artificial and malleable?

        I leaves us as members of the hive that is defined as a wired society.

        I say this because I'm in an agreement with you. We are quickly losing our individuality and freedom as you so stated. I'm already at my breaking point of just "unplugging" myself from all this noise. I'm sure it will lead to depression and loneliness at first. Eventually however, I will feel liberated!

        I need a very very long walk in the de

      • by fractoid (1076465)

        So tell me, where does that leave us when those sensory experiences become artificial and malleable?

        Very, very interesting post. My guess would be that we'll be left exactly where we are now, but with an added element. We'll still trust our senses (or more accurately, our interpretation of our senses) above all. Those senses will just be technologically improved. There will still be cases where our senses are deceived, but that happens today (think camouflage, optical illusions and so on), these situations will just be different. We'll just include the hardware and software involved in our sensory augment

      • Re:Yes I Do Want (Score:4, Interesting)

        by siloko (1133863) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @01:16AM (#31519336)

        They'll make their use mandatory because it results in zero crime. Or so they'll say.

        Given that this is extremely unlikely it sort of makes the rest of your post redundant. Even if I wore these multi-faceted, augmented reality, net aware, government monitored eye wear I could easily just take them out. You know, like regular contact lenses. And as to your nightmare scenario of a future 1984, please remember that the vast majority of people on this planet are not even on the net and unless and until we alter the economic framework on which we distribute wealth this ain't gonna change anytime soon!

        • by cp.tar (871488)

          Not only can you take these lenses out and replace them with common lenses (or nothing, as the case may be); just imagine the dystopian scenario presented above.
          Imagine, if you will, a world where there are omnipresent attacks on your eyeballs. No, wait, you don't have to imagine: you live in it.
          As far as I understand this technology, it is useless without outside input. And where there is outside input, there are also filters. For instance, you may connect your mobile phone (or a piece of hi-tech jeweler

      • by ghmh (73679)
        Maybe most of us will wait until theres an equivalent version that has adblock/noscript functionality.
        • I will personally wait until there is an open source implementation of all the hardware - allowing me to control the friggin' things.
      • Re:Yes I Do Want (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Onymous Coward (97719) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @01:51AM (#31519480) Homepage

        There's something about your posts that I find grating. I should try to figure out what it is.

        I think maybe... pronounced certainty... that exacerbates the irritation of caustic cynicism... and contempt for non-cynical thinking which you polarize into a hyperbolic strawman to mock, gosh darn it... A kind of exaggerated, hateful, pessimistic misanthropic venting.

        You "hold forth" rather than posit or ponder.

        You talk about human nature and are quick to point out failings, but I'm guessing you'd be hard pressed to acknowledge prosocial inclinations.

        Am I reading you wrong? Maybe I'm not remembering the character of your prior posts very well. Are you not cynical? Do you ever qualify any proclamations with "well, I'm not entirely sure...", "I think...", or "it could be..."? Or is it really all "damn straight -- people suck is how it is and I'm the person to tell it to ya, ya foolish dreamers"? Maybe it's more performance than measured analysis.

        People always think of the best outcome when a new technology is created, forgetting the cesspool we call humanity that's going to use and pervert it.

        But the very thing you were responding to was someone pointing out a negative application of technology? Yet, "people always think of the best..." Maybe this hyperbole isn't warranted? Especially just on the heels of a counterexample?

        Experiences change the way people think. Sure, there are tendencies, but evidently a wide variety of outcomes -- have you noticed? -- which suggests thinking is pliable. Technology can enable experiences. Talk therapy is itself a kind of technology. Maybe technology itself doesn't change the way people think (modulo mood drugs... hm... and probably neurofeedback machines... okay, and maybe a number of other technologies), but technology can be leveraged. And that's a critical point which we ought not sweep under the rug mid-rant.

        Message boards allow individuals to speak to a public of thousands or hundreds of thousands. That's powerful technology. What would you do with that kind of technology? Self-gratifyingly vent your gall bladder about the inherent and irremediable evil of humankind? But meanwhile thus paint an ugly picture of humanity for others to absorb? Did you know that the more we contemn and so fear others the less helpful we become? Indeed, the more we become the things we're hating? Selfish, ungenerous, unkind? Get my drift? If we call humans ugly we make it so. Technology has amplified your mouth. Watch your mouth.

        I'm not suggesting we turn a blind eye to fault. Indeed, this post is all about calling you out on yours. We absolutely should be critical. Meaning we should apply our intellects to make fine distinctions in judgement. Being overly biased towards either gloom or rainbows is harmful. (Albeit, biased towards gloom more so.) Let us judge, and judge accurately, being wary of our emotions. Let's judge, but let's not be hateful or contemptuous. I don't hate you for your curmudgeonly ranting; hate doesn't improve anything. If you're upset about humanity's failings, I might suggest highlighting and promoting its good qualities. For example, you're obviously a clever thinker. Quite sharp. Seemingly a good arguer. I suggest that you take your mental gifts and apply them with a less cynical bias. Your life will be more pleasant, without losing any realism, and so will the lives of those around you. Including me. I make this recommendation for all our sake.

        Next time I'm in Minnesota, you wanna grab a coffee?

        • by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Thursday March 18, 2010 @05:21AM (#31520242)
          For those of you who don't speak "hoity-toity" here's a translation:

          "I disagree with your pessimism regarding humanity. You're a clever bloke, but far too cynical.

          Wanna make out?"

          (N.B. This comment is fully-laden with humour.)
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by somersault (912633)

          Mod parent up! Better to veer towards looking at things on the bright side - often it actually turns out that your fears are unfounded. My life has much improved since I started trying to focus on the positive parts of life. I still like to play devil's advocate and still could be considered cynical or at least detachedly rational at times, but I also try to foster good in myself and other people.

          I was thinking similar things about her post but it's impossible to say that the things she mentions will not co

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by criterzzz (818821)

          Am I reading you wrong? Maybe I'm not remembering the character of your prior posts very well. Are you not cynical? Do you ever qualify any proclamations with "well, I'm not entirely sure...", "I think...", or "it could be..."? Or is it really all "damn straight -- people suck is how it is and I'm the person to tell it to ya, ya foolish dreamers"? Maybe it's more performance than measured analysis.

          Right on brother! I like the way you think. It is a pattern with most radicals that they are so convinced of their ideas, they never see the duality of the world. You put it in the words very well. I am going to use this logical chain in the next argument.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Scrab (573004)
        There's quite a difference between what you're proposing and what TFA talks about.

        These not bionic eyes, they are contact lenses, and they don't have cameras in them.

        You're right that such things could happen, and in some nightmare society, we could end up with compulsary bionics for monitoring purposes.

        Buit this isn't anything to do with that.

        And you could make this argument about any technological advance. "We've found a way to write in the sky!" "But what if the government uses it for propaga
      • by Lumpy (12016)

        Look up wearable computing and Prof Steve Mann. He's the one that is the father of all this technology. He invented it and even invented a system to BLOCK advertisements from your vision... or at least started the research in that direction.

        All of this stuff is old hat. I was working on Wearable computing and augmented reality in the 90's.

      • by KlaymenDK (713149)

        Really? Funny, I sort of have the opposite impression; that when a new technology is created, people [here] often think of how the cesspool we call humanity (and the corporations they've unleashed) is going to use and pervert it, forgetting the best outcome.

        That's an ingenious idea though, installing AdBlockPlusPlus directly on your retina instead of having to install AdBlockPlus on every browser you come in contact with.

        I'm not sure I follow (and pretty sure I don't agree with) your screed on the destructi

    • "Yes indeed, if that is not the coolest sounding thing I've heard all day, I don't know what is."

      No, this is the coolest sounding thing:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYj31Y_IbcM [youtube.com]

    • by rdnetto (955205)

      What I don't get is why they haven't been trying this with glasses instead, since they're a lot larger and don't have to be as clean.

    • The only problem: The resolution is still crap. (Yes, I assume it will improve. But it will take a few years.)
      And of course you won’t be able to wear them forever, because just like throwaway lenses, I bet they will be designed so you have to throw them away once a week “for comfort”.

      • by iktos (166530) *

        No, the resolution isn't the only problem.

        One other is saccadic eye movements. Anything shown via these would remain fixed relative to the eye, but as our eyes constantly shift the exact direction we look in, each "pixel" would appear to jump around.

        One more is the very small field of view our eyes have sharp vision in. A single projected image (I'm not clear on whether they intend to project the light from each LED to a spot on the retina) would be VERY small. To simulate a larger (7+ characters?) image yo

    • by JosKarith (757063)

      Imagine a Goatse (or Tubgirl, or Lemon party or whatever) that didn't go away when you closed your eyes...

    • by Lumpy (12016)

      How about the hard part. Focusing on the data that is at a location that your eyes are incapable of focusing on.

      One small hurdle... Otherwise it's the colorful light blob experiment

    • "Want eyesight that could put your neighborhood cyborg to shame?"

      OK, I'm a cyborg with a crystalens implant in my left eye that gives me better than 20/20 vision at all distances, but don't you think we cyborgs could use this tech as well? I'd still have better vision than you!

      You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

  • It seems the goggles and glove VR dreams of 15 years ago are being replaced with AR devices that are smaller and smaller. Makes me wonder however if it would be self-contained (unlikely) or have to communicate with some hardware either broadcasting near your location or probably worn on your person somewhere.
    The only added feature that I would want for something like this is for it to work also as a corrective lens. Or else those of us without perfect sight are well... left in the dark.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by yukk (638002)

      Makes me wonder however if it would be self-contained (unlikely) or have to communicate with some hardware either broadcasting near your location or probably worn on your person somewhere.

      Well, it's unlikely to have much processing power and still actually stay in your eye, but I don't see too much downside of it connecting to a small (or large depending on the requirements) wearable computer on a personal network for the processing of information or connecting to the web for information to correlate or display. e.g. If it's giving you directions to the closest ATM the wearable could get your GPS position, look up the ATM and then display little arrows on the lens. I doubt they can build t

      • by hitmark (640295)

        and what power it do not have, it can grab from a service somewhere.

      • by SharpFang (651121)

        Possibly it could replace a display of a smartphone, which would be more than sufficient to support it.

  • by Trip6 (1184883) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @08:53PM (#31517670)

    It's in its "nascent" stages, years away from reality, and they mention that even a single pixel could be beneficial - already managing expectations downward. Seems like pretty good PR to me.

    BTW, I'm working on teleportation. It too is in its nascent stages.

    • I could imagine as little as 2 pixels being useful. If you had them on the left and right edges of your vision you could vary their intensity with relation to your orientation towards an objective. Think how first person shooters often have a red glow on the edge of the screen in the direction you're being attacked from.

      • by Yvan256 (722131)

        And if you could block your left and right eyes alternatively at high speeds, you could see in 3D! Think of the possibilities!

      • by Barny (103770)

        Interesting thought, if you have high blood pressure you will sometimes get what's known as "floaters" in your eye, where a small part of the retina breaks off and leaves a spot in your vision, its kind of like a dead pixel in your monitor, and trust me, there is no warranty :/

        Anyway, reason I mention it is because due to medication I have gotten 2 of these little bastards now (thankfully the drug I was on I am no longer using), and having a little dot or 2 on the edge of your vision is not useful, it is ,i

    • by Anonymusing (1450747) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @09:52PM (#31518058)

      If you follow the trail of blog references, you end up here [justgetthere.us], which is apparently the blog of one of the researchers. It has far more information. To your particular point: "In recent trials, rabbits wore lenses containing metal circuit structures for 20 minutes at a time with no adverse effects. ... We’ve mainly pursued the active approach and have produced lenses that can accommodate an 8-by-8 array of LEDs. For now, active pixels are easier to attach to lenses. But using passive pixels would significantly reduce the contact’s overall power needs—if we can figure out how to make the pixels smaller, higher in contrast, and capable of reacting quickly to external signals."

      So it's probably a little bit further along than your teleportation research. Are you using rabbits too?

      • by yukk (638002) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @11:02PM (#31518554)

        So it's probably a little bit further along than your teleportation research. Are you using rabbits too?

        Heh. They're the primary subjects. Magicians have been teleporting rabbits into special receptacles for ages. Though what the top hats are for, I'm unsure of. Maybe they're just pretty packaging for the power supply.

  • Yeah, this sounds really cool. Now for the fun part - how do you communicate with these things? Wires hanging out of your eyes connected to a computer?

    I'd love such a tech. But let's not get too excited, as this has a LONG way to go before it'll become useful...

    • Yeah, this sounds really cool. Now for the fun part - how do you communicate with these things? Wires hanging out of your eyes connected to a computer?

      I'd love such a tech. But let's not get too excited, as this has a LONG way to go before it'll become useful...

      Yeah, fundamental research is often a LONG way from application in reality. I know you get that, but a lot of people posting here don't seem to grasp that concept, so it seemed worth pointing out.

    • by fractoid (1076465)

      Yeah, this sounds really cool. Now for the fun part - how do you communicate with these things?

      IR data transmission would be the obvious choice. They've already got LEDs built into it, and they work both ways (light of exactly the right wavelength will create a voltage difference across a LED).

    • Bluetooth?
      Blackeye?
      i-link?

  • by ryan.onsrc (1321531) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @09:01PM (#31517730) Homepage

    The charge on my contact lenses is running low.

    • but with the auto-dimmer functionality you won't need to worry about looking directly into the sun.

      I can see the headlines now: Mass pandemonium on highway 17, hacker turns on all bionic-eye auto-dimmers in area.
  • If these things are still meant to correct vision and if they fit me*, I would totally consider switching from glasses to these contacts. I'm a bit farsighted (I can still mostly read without my glasses, but it causes me a headache to try to do so), and I like my glasses because I don't feel like I'm going to poke out my eye whenever I want to see properly (I have never worn contacts, so please don't yell at me for believing what I see on TV). But, given the right interesting applications, I'd totally go

    • by socsoc (1116769)
      I had mild astigmatism and regular contacts worked fine. I also never poked out my eyes.
      • by X0563511 (793323)

        I have mild astigmatism and it takes at least 2 to 5 seconds for the lens to rotate/center appropriately (every time i blink, or even look far to the sides) - and during this time, my vision is actually twice as BAD as it is uncorrected. We tried all sorts of brands/types etc.

        Because of this, I have to stick with glasses.

        • by socsoc (1116769)
          Bummer, I guess mine was super mild.
          • by X0563511 (793323)

            Mine's bad enough that oncoming traffic looks like they have double the headlights, and reading streen signs is nearly impossible at any respectable distance.

            In the daytime it's not so bad. Additionally, since both eyes have a different angle to it, my brain can normally 'filter' it out (the bits common to each eye stay after I look at something for a second or two)

  • Bullcrap (Score:2, Insightful)

    by oldhack (1037484)
    Get back to us when you have some sorta prototype.
    • Re:Bullcrap (Score:5, Informative)

      by interkin3tic (1469267) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @09:21PM (#31517872)

      Get back to us when you have some sorta prototype.

      I think you're in the wrong part of the internet. This is news for nerds. Really cool tech, even if it might turn out to be vaporware, qualifies.

    • by Khyber (864651)

      We already have people seeing things using their tongues as neural relays to the brain. Why would this be fundamentally different, besides using already-functioning organs and augmenting them?

    • FWIW, there's a bit more about it here [justgetthere.us]. They've apparently got prototypes working on rabbits, or something. Not sure what they're showing the rabbits -- "Look! Virtual carrots!" -- but it's a start.

    • by yukk (638002)

      Get back to us when you have some sorta prototype.

      From the blog [justgetthere.us] of one of the scientists involved:

      in fact, my students and I are already producing such devices in small numbers in my laboratory at the University of Washington, in Seattle. These lenses don’t give us the vision of an eagle or the benefit of running subtitles on our surroundings yet. But we have built a lens with one LED, which we’ve powered wirelessly with RF. What we’ve done so far barely hints at what will soon be possible with this technology.

      That sounds like a working prototype to me.

  • Hundreds? I count 64 LEDs.

    Hardly revolutionary.

  • Problems (Score:5, Informative)

    by rabiddeity (941737) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @09:09PM (#31517796) Homepage

    There are several difficulties with this type of system that have prevented it from becoming a reality. Here are a few:

    1. This is too close to the eye to be able to resolve focus in most situations. The light isn't collimated or directional (it appears to be focused with some sort of "microlens" system), so one LED turned on can spread out to stimulate a wide patch of retinal cells. With any regular LED system you'd just see a big blur. For information requiring a single light this isn't a problem (flash an LED on/off under certain conditions, or change the color) but anything more will require something which can project cleanly onto the retina. This is not a trivial problem.
    2. The detail-oriented part of your retina is near the center, in a part called the fovea [wikipedia.org]. While you think your vision is equally clear across a wide range, this is actually a trick of your brain. Your eyes are quite sensitive to rapid movement (low latency) on the edges, and more sensitive to detail in the center. When observing fine detail such as text, your eye actually "scans" an area and forms a larger, detailed image from the composite. Even if you could project the light cleanly 1:1 onto the retina, for any textual/HUD information you'd have to track eye motion very precisely and provide the information that the brain "expects" to see at each point. And again, the light has to be projected onto a very small part of the retina.
    3. Retinal cells can get easily overstimulated, much like the burn-in on old CRTs. Even when looking at one object of normal intensity for any period of time longer than a few seconds, your eye will "jitter" back and forth. This involuntary movement is called nystagmus [wikipedia.org], and your brain compensates for it. (The rhythm changes when alcohol or drugs are ingested, which is why nystagmus tests are part of a DUI test.) Lab tests have shown that when the eye is physically restrained from moving in this way, objects effectively become invisible to the subject. So any 1:1 projection would also have to track nystagmus and then "jitter" in the same way as the eye, or the conveyed information would also become invisible.

    • Follow the article's trail of blog references and you get back to the source [justgetthere.us]. It answers your points, in a fashion. For what it's worth:

      By now you’re probably wondering how a person wearing one of our contact lenses would be able to focus on an image generated on the surface of the eye. After all, a normal and healthy eye cannot focus on objects that are fewer than 10 centimeters from the corneal surface. The LEDs by themselves merely produce a fuzzy splotch of color in the wearer’s field of v

    • by SharpFang (651121)

      1) instead of LEDs, make it an LCD matrix, obscuring daylight instead of generating light. Way easier to do and allows for exquisite resolutions. Also, it's a lens, for goodness sake, it can collimate the light if it needs to.

      2) It can't do any "augmented reality" without a camera anyway. So the camera could observe movements of the eye too. So, yes, the projection follows the "world outside", not the eye - if you look at a page of text, you can turn your eye towards the upper-left corner and it will displa

  • by Eth1csGrad1ent (1175557) on Wednesday March 17, 2010 @09:18PM (#31517842)
    ...where the hell is my FLYING CAR !?
    • You can only see it if you're wearing these contacts...

    • ...where the hell is my FLYING CAR !?

      due to the high energy demand of the flying car factories, we are focusing on a Cold Fusion Plant for a while...but I tell you that it'll be released before Duke Nukem Forever.

    • by socsoc (1116769)
      Moller is trying as hard as they can.
    • by Yvan256 (722131)

      Simply buy four jetpacks and duct tape them to your car!

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      We were flying it out to you, but your payment was delayed and we had to disable it. Feel free to pick up your wreckage once you drop off your next payment.

      Regards,
      Texas Auto Center
    • Coming to you as soon as I find a suitable large catapult.
  • These images and this concept have been floating around for years now. The only new pitch is the solar-poweredness. Besides that, this is old hat just sitting on the back burner. Call me when there's a press demonstration
  • .... I wish the URL shortener had been stripped. Always makes me nervous because in some cases they might be altered -- I remember the days before Slashdot revealed URLs in comments when people would direct unsuspecting readers to Goatse. Also I just think it's better in terms of longevity of a post (if that makes sense -- a full URL more likely to be valid for longer than a shortened link).
    • by cbhacking (979169)

      There's an annoying but simple reason for their use: Slashdot tracks the URL of submitted articles, and if one submission is rejected you can't place another submission with the same URL. Supposedly it cuts down on the junk submissions, but it also means that if you have a good article with a bad submission, the bad submission gets rejected and somebody with a good submission now can't use that URL. Hence, the use of shorteners.

  • Mandatory Dennou Coil [wikipedia.org] reference.

  • Come on guys, solar was mentioned, what are you waiting for. Tell us how superior nuclear would be for this application.
  • Am I the only one who thought you might get cool glowy eyes like in Stargate SG-1?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa'uld [wikipedia.org]

  • I can finally have Yuri Goggles?
    Awesome!
  • Why would you link to a StumbleUpon frame rather than the actual FA!

    http://www.inhabitat.com/2010/03/17/solar-powered-augmented-contact-lenses-cover-your-eye-with-100s-of-leds/ [inhabitat.com]

  • I've thought a bit about what really good augmented reality could do.

    Expensive at first, it is used by fighter pilots to give themselves 4 pi steradian field of view, unobstructed by bits of airplanes, with head-up-or-down-or-whichever-way-it-is-pointing display.

    If the first application of a new technology is military, the second application will be pornography. You could order up a visible-only-to-you lap dancer to liven up that boring meeting at work.

    When visiting the Parthenon, with the flick of a switch

  • They can link this into my new iBrain and can overlay direction information over my field of vision or even find other iBrain users in a crowd as they will have a Rotating 3-D Apple Logo over their heads.

    Could be a good first step before they integrate the iBrain interface directly into the visual cortex.

  • And I trip my balls off on them... Bitches
  • I would be more interested in seeing a contact lens with a photonic array embedding in it. Small crystal lasers fashioned into arrays such that they can cause a beam to be projected in virtually any direction through interference. Such an array could scan the retina and create a display with potentially higher resolution that any standard technology today, and would be the perfect heart of immersive visual virtual reality. That would be augmentation worth talking about.

Air is water with holes in it.

Working...