|
 |
And lo on Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:44:24 -0000, St. <dot### [at] dot com> did spake,
saying:
>
> "Sherry Shaw" <ten### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
> news:47ea4ba0@news.povray.org...
>> St. wrote:
>
>
>>> I believe you, I'm the same. It's not nice. :o/
>
>> Yeah, me too.
>>
>> Actually, if I want magnification (at least at short distances, say
>> roughly at the end of my nose), I take my glasses *off*.
>
> Yes, same here. Everything looks SO sharp close-up when I take my
> glasses off. Long distance though, well, without my glasses, I wouldn't
> have a driving license that's for sure. :o/
Without my glasses things come into sharp focus at about 10cm I'd have
made a fortune as a Babylonian seal maker :-)
> The eye is such a magnificent (and of course a significant) part of
> our anatomy, that I wonder why it breaks down at all.
Oh yeah magnificent - jiggling around all the time because all the sensors
are plugged in back-to front and the wires have to go somewhere, high
processing overhead to deal with the filtering effects caused by said
wiring, susceptible to fractional errors leading to out of focus images,
laughably poor night-vision and a pathetically small visible range of the
EM spectrum. If someone built a camera like that you'd ask for your money
back.
> Are we to be blind one day because we no longer need them? (Some deep
> sea fish have lived like this for ages now). Or, will our eyesight get
> better as time travels on? *X-Ray Vision* :oO
>
> Heh... ;)
I recall a short story by Asimov/Dick/Anthony which included a forced
acceleration of human evolution, blind, toothless, hairless and nailless.
Our fingers grew larger and both more dextrous and sensitive and we could
still see/sense our surroundings (it doesn't go into details but suggests
some form of ESP, but it could easily have been the equivalent of sonar).
So that's something to look forward to :-)
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
