http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26258971

OK cool tech at work here ... lot's of engineering reasons why this is a 
great idea, but for some reason I don't like it one bit!

It seems that some of the early sci-fi writers got it right ... we're 
headed of world that actually seeing something first hand is going the 
way of the dodo. Instead we'll get some sensors view. Sure there are 
/plenty/ of other examples, but this one just caught my eye.

Post a reply to this message

James Holsenback <nom### [at] nonecom> wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26258971
>
> OK cool tech at work here ... lot's of engineering reasons why this is a
> great idea, but for some reason I don't like it one bit!
>
> It seems that some of the early sci-fi writers got it right ... we're
> headed of world that actually seeing something first hand is going the
> way of the dodo. Instead we'll get some sensors view. Sure there are
> /plenty/ of other examples, but this one just caught my eye.

in this case makes perfect sense:  you can display beautifully symetric sunset
scenery while the airplane is spiraling down out of control :)

Post a reply to this message

On 02/19/2014 04:34 PM, nemesis wrote:
> James Holsenback <nom### [at] nonecom> wrote:
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26258971
>>
>> OK cool tech at work here ... lot's of engineering reasons why this is a
>> great idea, but for some reason I don't like it one bit!
>>
>> It seems that some of the early sci-fi writers got it right ... we're
>> headed of world that actually seeing something first hand is going the
>> way of the dodo. Instead we'll get some sensors view. Sure there are
>> /plenty/ of other examples, but this one just caught my eye.
>
> in this case makes perfect sense:  you can display beautifully symetric sunset
> scenery while the airplane is spiraling down out of control :)

exactly ... just another pablum (for the masses) delivery system

Post a reply to this message

> in this case makes perfect sense:  you can display beautifully symetric sunset
> scenery while the airplane is spiraling down out of control :)

I'm reminded of that scene from the Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy 
where they play the calm, soothing music just before the console explodes...

Post a reply to this message

On 19-2-2014 22:34, nemesis wrote:
> James Holsenback <nom### [at] nonecom> wrote:
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26258971
>>
>> OK cool tech at work here ... lot's of engineering reasons why this is a
>> great idea, but for some reason I don't like it one bit!
>>
>> It seems that some of the early sci-fi writers got it right ... we're
>> headed of world that actually seeing something first hand is going the
>> way of the dodo. Instead we'll get some sensors view. Sure there are
>> /plenty/ of other examples, but this one just caught my eye.
>
> in this case makes perfect sense:  you can display beautifully symetric sunset
> scenery while the airplane is spiraling down out of control :)
>
Or you play the footage of the best ever recorded flight form ethiopia 
to rome, so nobody notices they ended up in geneva.


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26258971
>
> OK cool tech at work here ... lot's of engineering reasons why this is a
> great idea, but for some reason I don't like it one bit!

I wonder how they will make the screens look high quality when sat next 
to them, without requiring gigapixels of camera data and TB/s of data.

> It seems that some of the early sci-fi writers got it right ... we're
> headed of world that actually seeing something first hand is going the
> way of the dodo. Instead we'll get some sensors view. Sure there are
> /plenty/ of other examples, but this one just caught my eye.

They recently got that monkey to control the limbs of another sedated 
monkey remotely, next you could connect the output of an eye in one 
person to the optic nerve of another, then after that there's nothing to 
stop a computer or camera being used to inject signals directly onto the 
optic nerve - no need for a screen ever again!

Post a reply to this message

On 02/20/2014 04:41 AM, scott wrote:
> They recently got that monkey to control the limbs of another sedated
> monkey remotely, next you could connect the output of an eye in one
> person to the optic nerve of another, then after that there's nothing to
> stop a computer or camera being used to inject signals directly onto the
> optic nerve - no need for a screen ever again!
>

resistance is futile

Post a reply to this message

On 20-2-2014 10:41, scott wrote:
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26258971
>>
>> OK cool tech at work here ... lot's of engineering reasons why this is a
>> great idea, but for some reason I don't like it one bit!
>
> I wonder how they will make the screens look high quality when sat next
> to them, without requiring gigapixels of camera data and TB/s of data.
>
>> It seems that some of the early sci-fi writers got it right ... we're
>> headed of world that actually seeing something first hand is going the
>> way of the dodo. Instead we'll get some sensors view. Sure there are
>> /plenty/ of other examples, but this one just caught my eye.
>
> They recently got that monkey to control the limbs of another sedated
> monkey remotely, next you could connect the output of an eye in one
> person to the optic nerve of another, then after that there's nothing to
> stop a computer or camera being used to inject signals directly onto the
> optic nerve - no need for a screen ever again!

What makes you think they have not already done that?


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On 20/02/14 17:07, andrel wrote:
> 
> What makes you think they have not already done that?
> 
> 

We are all in the Matrix

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 02/20/2014 12:53 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 20/02/14 17:07, andrel wrote:
>>
>> What makes you think they have not already done that?
>>
>>
>
> We are all in the Matrix

or maybe ... we're a virus in someones petri dish

Post a reply to this message

James Holsenback <nom### [at] nonecom> wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26258971
>
> OK cool tech at work here ... lot's of engineering reasons why this is a
> great idea, but for some reason I don't like it one bit!
>

When I first saw this (and the photo of what the cabin would look like), I
thought the same thing: When will 'virtual' reality ever stop?! But I have to
admit that the idea of a hi-def, ultra-wide 'fake window' (as opposed to the
small and scratchy windows currently found on airline planes) would be really
cool. I don't fly much-- but when I do, I always like to sit near a window. Yet
I usually get a stiff neck from having to crank my neck sideways trying to peer
outside (or else I end up sitting over the wing, which is no fun.) Seeing
real-time imagery of the outside environment would be thrilling! Of course, the
addition of 3-D glasses would make it more immersive... (Hmm, no need for even
the fake window, in that case-- just wear a wide-angle hi-def headset, with
Dolby surround-sound of the engines roaring!)

Post a reply to this message

>> They recently got that monkey to control the limbs of another sedated
>> monkey remotely, next you could connect the output of an eye in one
>> person to the optic nerve of another, then after that there's nothing to
>> stop a computer or camera being used to inject signals directly onto the
>> optic nerve - no need for a screen ever again!
>
> What makes you think they have not already done that?

Only because I haven't heard or read anything about it, but of course 
that doesn't mean it hasn't been done. I imagine one of the main drivers 
would be to help people see again who have lost their sight.

Post a reply to this message

> (Hmm, no need for even
> the fake window, in that case-- just wear a wide-angle hi-def headset, with
> Dolby surround-sound of the engines roaring!)

The Oculus Rift will take over everywhere!

Post a reply to this message

Le 21/02/2014 08:57, scott a écrit :
>> (Hmm, no need for even
>> the fake window, in that case-- just wear a wide-angle hi-def headset,
>> with
>> Dolby surround-sound of the engines roaring!)
> 
> The Oculus Rift will take over everywhere!
> 
The Oculus Rift is for the "poor" people.
Really rich ones do not want to be bother with wearing Oculus Rift. The
plane is the Oculus Rift.

Btw, that plane is just more than 40 years old in conception: the
Concorde was initially planed to be without windows (for better
resilience) but the decision was changed due to psychological discomfort
(no flat lcd widescreen at that time).

planned Mach 1.6 when Concorde went Mach 2... seems someone has just
traded speed for range (Concorde was a bit short by today standard. Only
viable exploitation was New-york --(Paris/London), unable to go
further... not even Chicago)

-- 
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2014-02-21 02:55, scott a écrit :
>>> They recently got that monkey to control the limbs of another sedated
>>> monkey remotely, next you could connect the output of an eye in one
>>> person to the optic nerve of another, then after that there's nothing to
>>> stop a computer or camera being used to inject signals directly onto the
>>> optic nerve - no need for a screen ever again!
>>
>> What makes you think they have not already done that?
>
> Only because I haven't heard or read anything about it, but of course
> that doesn't mean it hasn't been done. I imagine one of the main drivers
> would be to help people see again who have lost their sight.
>
The other main driver of course, is to have someone sitting comfortably 
in Langley, Virginia be able to "see" through the eyes of a drone flying 
over Damascus or Pyongyang.  but that one we won't hear about for a few 
years.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

>>> What makes you think they have not already done that?
>>
>> Only because I haven't heard or read anything about it, but of course
>> that doesn't mean it hasn't been done. I imagine one of the main drivers
>> would be to help people see again who have lost their sight.
>>
> The other main driver of course, is to have someone sitting comfortably
> in Langley, Virginia be able to "see" through the eyes of a drone flying
> over Damascus or Pyongyang. but that one we won't hear about for a few
> years.

Surely a TV screen is way, *way* cheaper then nerve implant surgery?

Post a reply to this message

On 21/02/2014 07:55 AM, scott wrote:
>>> They recently got that monkey to control the limbs of another sedated
>>> monkey remotely, next you could connect the output of an eye in one
>>> person to the optic nerve of another, then after that there's nothing to
>>> stop a computer or camera being used to inject signals directly onto the
>>> optic nerve - no need for a screen ever again!
>>
>> What makes you think they have not already done that?
>
> Only because I haven't heard or read anything about it, but of course
> that doesn't mean it hasn't been done. I imagine one of the main drivers
> would be to help people see again who have lost their sight.

I know audio nerve stimulation is a real thing that they've actually 
tried to do. Of course, it's hard to tell how well it actually works...

Post a reply to this message

On 21/02/2014 3:42 AM, Kenneth wrote:
> I don't fly much-- but when I do, I always like to sit near a window.

Whereas I do fly a lot and I prefer to sit by the aisle. ;-)

But that might be because I hate flying and wouldn't want to look out of 
the window @ any price.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> Whereas I do fly a lot and I prefer to sit by the aisle. ;-)
>
> But that might be because I hate flying and wouldn't want to look out of
> the window @ any price.

I take it you don't enjoy watching the wings flexing in the breeze? ;-)

"I am not afraid of flying. I am afraid of being at thirty thousand feet 
and suddenly NOT flying..."

In all seriousness... I had no idea clouds come in so many different 
shapes until I saw them from above.

Post a reply to this message

On 21/02/2014 7:30 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Whereas I do fly a lot and I prefer to sit by the aisle. ;-)
>>
>> But that might be because I hate flying and wouldn't want to look out of
>> the window @ any price.
>
> I take it you don't enjoy watching the wings flexing in the breeze? ;-)
>

If 500 knots is your idea of a breeze...

But no, it is not a sight that I enjoy. No pleasure there, move along.
I've not always had a dislike of flying. I've just flown too many times 
in small aircraft and bad weather. Imagine what the landing was like 
when we had to disembark, holding a rope and walking on netting. So that 
we weren't blown overboard.

> "I am not afraid of flying. I am afraid of being at thirty thousand feet
> and suddenly NOT flying..."
>

They say that it is the stop at the end that smarts. The falling is fun. 
Weee!


> In all seriousness... I had no idea clouds come in so many different
> shapes until I saw them from above.


You mean like, horses, fire engines, trains and castles? Those sort of 
shapes? ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 22/02/14 09:51, Stephen wrote:
> On 21/02/2014 7:30 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> Whereas I do fly a lot and I prefer to sit by the aisle. ;-)
>>>
>>> But that might be because I hate flying and wouldn't want to look out of
>>> the window @ any price.
>>
>> I take it you don't enjoy watching the wings flexing in the breeze? ;-)
>>
> 
> If 500 knots is your idea of a breeze...
> 
> But no, it is not a sight that I enjoy. No pleasure there, move along.
> I've not always had a dislike of flying. I've just flown too many times
> in small aircraft and bad weather. Imagine what the landing was like
> when we had to disembark, holding a rope and walking on netting. So that
> we weren't blown overboard.
> 
>> "I am not afraid of flying. I am afraid of being at thirty thousand feet
>> and suddenly NOT flying..."
>>
'Morning, Steve. You might like to download and listen to this:
https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0B12xC3Vscb_aMFpmWEJHS2dOREE&export=download

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 22/02/14 10:44, Doctor John wrote:
> 'Morning, Steve. You might like to download and listen to this:
> https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0B12xC3Vscb_aMFpmWEJHS2dOREE&export=download
> 
> John
> 

Forgot to add ... It's an after-dinner speech by David Gunson - an
ex-pilot and air traffic controller. 49MB of hilarity

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 22/02/2014 10:44 AM, Doctor John wrote:
> 'Morning, Steve. You might like to download and listen to this:
> https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0B12xC3Vscb_aMFpmWEJHS2dOREE&export=download
>

'Afternoon.
Very funny although a bit dated in parts.

Was that a memory that you found or part of your collection?

If you were trying to wind me up. You failed. :-)
I am not afraid of flying but I am afraid when flying. But a small price 
to pay for very fast travelling. The thing that bugs me the most, is 
queuing for and going through, the security checks. It is worse than 
when I worked off shore and they were on the lookout for drugs and drink 
in one direction. Excess duty free in the other.
Flying! If I never step foot on an aircraft again. I would be surprised 
but happier.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 22/02/2014 1:14 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 22/02/14 10:44, Doctor John wrote:
>> 'Morning, Steve. You might like to download and listen to this:
>> https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0B12xC3Vscb_aMFpmWEJHS2dOREE&export=download
>>
>> John
>>
>
> Forgot to add ... It's an after-dinner speech by David Gunson - an
> ex-pilot and air traffic controller. 49MB of hilarity
>

I have vague memories of him. There is no wikipedia entry for him. :-(
Very funny.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 22/02/14 13:19, Stephen wrote:
> 
> 'Afternoon.
> Very funny although a bit dated in parts.
> 
> Was that a memory that you found or part of your collection?
> 

It's part of my collection. I've had it for years.
I assume you've downloaded it now so I can delete it from Google Drive.I
don't want to get in trouble with the Copyright Police.

> If you were trying to wind me up. You failed. :-)

No wind-up intended.

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 22/02/2014 2:53 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 22/02/14 13:19, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> 'Afternoon.
>> Very funny although a bit dated in parts.
>>
>> Was that a memory that you found or part of your collection?
>>
>
> It's part of my collection. I've had it for years.
> I assume you've downloaded it now so I can delete it from Google Drive.I
> don't want to get in trouble with the Copyright Police.
>

Thank you for sharing. I listened and it will now automatically 
self-destruct. :-)


>> If you were trying to wind me up. You failed. :-)
>
> No wind-up intended.
>

I didn't really think so but some people take a delight in telling 
horror stories. Like when I used to ride a motorbike. Everyone knew 
someone who's son or cousin, rode between two cyclists, in the dark. 
Only to find it was a horse and cart. (+1 Darwin)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
> I've not always had a dislike of flying. I've just flown too many times
> in small aircraft and bad weather.

I've flown in a small (propeller-driven) plane only once-- and that was enough
for me! :-0

Post a reply to this message

>> The other main driver of course, is to have someone sitting comfortably
>> in Langley, Virginia be able to "see" through the eyes of a drone flying
>> over Damascus or Pyongyang. but that one we won't hear about for a few
>> years.
>
> Surely a TV screen is way, *way* cheaper then nerve implant surgery?

I was more thinking it would be used where it was not practical to have 
a TV or display, (eg a solider in the field, or a spy that didn't want 
others to know what they were doing).

Still, if there is a demand and the implant process is developed then I 
don't see a reason why it should remain expensive, after all it's just 
going to be a chip and a few wires :-)

Post a reply to this message

>> Whereas I do fly a lot and I prefer to sit by the aisle. ;-)
>>
>> But that might be because I hate flying and wouldn't want to look out of
>> the window @ any price.

I love looking out of the window, you get other planes whizzing past at 
differential speeds of 1200 mph, get to see mountain ranges and anything 
from tiny isolated houses up to huge cities from above, get to watch all 
the control surfaces moving on the wing during the different phases of 
the flight. A fun one to try is to turn on your GPS navigation and watch 
how the software tries to handle a car driving in a straight line at 600 
mph :-)

Saying that though I always take the aisle seat on long haul flights as 
I prefer to be free to walk about whenever I want without disturbing 
others. Up to 2-3 hours I can manage to stay in my seat.

> In all seriousness... I had no idea clouds come in so many different
> shapes until I saw them from above.

That too, some of the sites are beautiful especially when the sun is 
near the horizon. It's inspired me on several occasions to crack out POV 
and play with media (and usually fail miserably).

Post a reply to this message

>> Surely a TV screen is way, *way* cheaper then nerve implant surgery?
>
> I was more thinking it would be used where it was not practical to have
> a TV or display, (eg a solider in the field, or a spy that didn't want
> others to know what they were doing).
>
> Still, if there is a demand and the implant process is developed then I
> don't see a reason why it should remain expensive, after all it's just
> going to be a chip and a few wires :-)

...and a team of highly trained experts to implant the thing, who have 
to be insured against being sued for causing death or serious injury...

Post a reply to this message

>> Still, if there is a demand and the implant process is developed then I
>> don't see a reason why it should remain expensive, after all it's just
>> going to be a chip and a few wires :-)
>
> ...and a team of highly trained experts to implant the thing, who have
> to be insured against being sued for causing death or serious injury...

"developed" as in developed enough so that a team of highly trained 
experts are not needed and the chance of success is pretty much 
guaranteed. Obviously that is not the case at the moment, but it never 
is with new techniques.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >> Whereas I do fly a lot and I prefer to sit by the aisle. ;-)
> >>
> >> But that might be because I hate flying and wouldn't want to look out of
> >> the window @ any price.
>
> I love looking out of the window, you get other planes whizzing past at
> differential speeds of 1200 mph, get to see mountain ranges and anything
> from tiny isolated houses up to huge cities from above, get to watch all
> the control surfaces moving on the wing during the different phases of
> the flight.

I used to like that. No problem with vertigo when sitting in a chair or looking
through a window. It just lost its appeal when I once saw the port prop, winding
down as we were making a turn to line up with the runway.

> A fun one to try is to turn on your GPS navigation and watch
> how the software tries to handle a car driving in a straight line at 600
> mph :-)
>

It is only recently that you have been able to switch your phone on during
flights. So how do you know? ^^


> Saying that though I always take the aisle seat on long haul flights as
> I prefer to be free to walk about whenever I want without disturbing
> others. Up to 2-3 hours I can manage to stay in my seat.
>

They’re  my reasons too. Sitting at the emergency exit is a good place to sit,
as well. There is more legroom and you get first go on the chute. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

> I used to like that. No problem with vertigo when sitting in a chair or looking
> through a window. It just lost its appeal when I once saw the port prop, winding
> down as we were making a turn to line up with the runway.

At least you hadn't taken off yet, the pilot would have hopefully 
figured out they didn't have enough thrust before getting to V1 :-) I 
saw a lightning strike on the wing tip once, it was a fairly subdued 
bang and I don't think anyone else really noticed. I didn't think 
anything of it until another flight which was delayed because they were 
"checking the plane over as it got struck by lightning on the way in".

>> A fun one to try is to turn on your GPS navigation and watch
>> how the software tries to handle a car driving in a straight line at 600
>> mph :-)
>
> It is only recently that you have been able to switch your phone on during
> flights. So how do you know? ^^

This was a standalone navigation unit. I think you've been able to use 
your phone with the radio turned off for a long time haven't you? The 
recent change AFAIK is just that you can use it during take-off and 
landing (but still the radio must be off). But I don't fly as much now 
so am not really up to speed with this stuff.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > I used to like that. No problem with vertigo when sitting in a chair or looking
> > through a window. It just lost its appeal when I once saw the port prop, winding
> > down as we were making a turn to line up with the runway.
>
> At least you hadn't taken off yet, the pilot would have hopefully
> figured out they didn't have enough thrust before getting to V1 :-)

We were coming in for landing at Sumburgh in a Dash 8, when it happened. At a
guess we were about 200 ~ 300 feet up, not very high anyway. The incident
quietened the plane down a bit.

> I saw a lightning strike on the wing tip once, it was a fairly subdued
> bang and I don't think anyone else really noticed.

I bet the instruments showed something.

>I didn't think
> anything of it until another flight which was delayed because they were
> "checking the plane over as it got struck by lightning on the way in".
>

A friend was in a helicopter when it was struck by lightning. They were close to
shore and ditched on a sandbank. The rotor blades were frayed as its layers were
coming apart. But that is supposed to be unusual.


> This was a standalone navigation unit.
Okay, you are forgiven. ;-)

> I think you've been able to use
> your phone with the radio turned off for a long time haven't you?

In airplane mode, yes. But until January it had to be off during takeoff and
landing.

>The
> recent change AFAIK is just that you can use it during take-off and
> landing (but still the radio must be off). But I don't fly as much now
> so am not really up to speed with this stuff.

Now you can use a phone or laptop with the radio off but no headphones until the
seatbelt light goes off.

Post a reply to this message

> We were coming in for landing at Sumburgh in a Dash 8, when it happened. At a
> guess we were about 200 ~ 300 feet up, not very high anyway. The incident
> quietened the plane down a bit.

Oh OK that makes it a bit scarier - I thought you meant you were taxiing 
:-) I know planes are meant to be able to fly with one failed engine 
(assuming they have more than one obviously) but you really don't want 
that happening so close to the ground...

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > We were coming in for landing at Sumburgh in a Dash 8, when it happened. At a
> > guess we were about 200 ~ 300 feet up, not very high anyway. The incident
> > quietened the plane down a bit.
>
> Oh OK that makes it a bit scarier - I thought you meant you were taxiing
> :-) I know planes are meant to be able to fly with one failed engine
> (assuming they have more than one obviously) but you really don't want
> that happening so close to the ground...

No, my taxiing story is when I was in a helicopter by a window. When I saw oil
streaming down it. Yup, off with the seat belt and leaned into the cabin to tell
the crew. (A filler cap had been left untightened.) Or the friend whose chopper
was hit by lightning also had the joy of sitting next to the door when it fell
off. (I never liked to travel with him, BTW)

Post a reply to this message

El 21/02/2014 03:39 p.m., Orchid Win7 v1 escribió:
> On 21/02/2014 07:55 AM, scott wrote:
>>>> They recently got that monkey to control the limbs of another sedated
>>>> monkey remotely, next you could connect the output of an eye in one
>>>> person to the optic nerve of another, then after that there's
>>>> nothing to
>>>> stop a computer or camera being used to inject signals directly onto
>>>> the optic nerve - no need for a screen ever again!
>>>
>>> What makes you think they have not already done that?
>>
>> Only because I haven't heard or read anything about it, but of course
>> that doesn't mean it hasn't been done. I imagine one of the main drivers
>> would be to help people see again who have lost their sight.
>
> I know audio nerve stimulation is a real thing that they've actually
> tried to do. Of course, it's hard to tell how well it actually works...

"Tried" to do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochlear_implant

Post a reply to this message

>> I know audio nerve stimulation is a real thing that they've actually
>> tried to do. Of course, it's hard to tell how well it actually works...
>
> "Tried" to do?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochlear_implant

As I say, it's difficult to decide how well it actually works. "Up to 22 
electrodes" hardly compares to the several *million* nerve endings that 
were there to start with. Short of deliberately making yourself deaf and 
then installing one of these, it's difficult to figure out what this 
sounds like to a person who knows what real sound is like.

Doing this with the eye would be a harder problem. (Although *actually* 
the human eye doesn't have nearly the resolving power you think it does; 
the crystal-clear high-resolution 3-dimensional image you perceive is 
actually due to sophisticated signal processing rather than precision 
optics.)

Having said all that, there was an experiment where subjects slowly 
learned to "see" using their tongue. Experimenters placed electrodes 
onto the tongue [which is naturally bathed in suitable electrolytes], 
and projected a very low-resolution image onto them. Eventually subjects 
learned to walk around without bumping into objects, and to have some 
idea where the hell they're going. Weird, but true... I think they call 
it "neuroplasticity".

Post a reply to this message