Contact Lens Display System E-mail
Written by Chris Hunter   
researcher holding a contact with the circuit
The field of display technology has seen some impressive announcements recently, but this one tops the charts for this crew. The University of Washington has implemented microscopic manufacturing or self-assembly (capillary forces) to make a new kind of hybrid contact. This contact has a microscopic imprinted circuit with light emitting capabilities. This kind of breakthrough opens the door to a host of possible applications, including HUD overlays and immersive displays. Do not get too excited yet. There is also a patent filed under United States Patent 5682210 back in 1997, it is very similar in nature.
 
"Movie characters from the Terminator to the Bionic Woman use bionic eyes to zoom in on far-off scenes, have useful facts pop into their field of view, or create virtual crosshairs. Off the screen, virtual displays have been proposed for more practical purposes – visual aids to help vision-impaired people, holographic driving control panels and even as a way to surf the Web on the go.

The device to make this happen may be familiar. Engineers at the University of Washington have for the first time used manufacturing techniques at microscopic scales to combine a flexible, biologically safe contact lens with an imprinted electronic circuit and lights.

Contact lense display in a rabbit's eye "Looking through a completed lens, you would see what the display is generating superimposed on the world outside," said Babak Parviz, a UW assistant professor of electrical engineering. "This is a very small step toward that goal, but I think it's extremely promising." The results were presented today at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers' international conference on Micro Electro Mechanical Systems by Harvey Ho, a former graduate student of Parviz's now working at Sandia National Laboratories in Livermore, Calif. Other co-authors are Ehsan Saeedi and Samuel Kim in the UW's electrical engineering department and Tueng Shen in the UW Medical Center's ophthalmology department.

There are many possible uses for virtual displays. Drivers or pilots could see a vehicle's speed projected onto the windshield. Video-game companies could use the contact lenses to completely immerse players in a virtual world without restricting their range of motion. And for communications, people on the go could surf the Internet on a midair virtual display screen that only they would be able to see.

"People may find all sorts of applications for it that we have not thought about. Our goal is to demonstrate the basic technology and make sure it works and that it's safe," said Parviz, who heads a multi-disciplinary UW group that is developing electronics for contact lenses.
The prototype device contains an electric circuit as well as red light-emitting diodes for a display, though it does not yet light up. The lenses were tested on rabbits for up to 20 minutes and the animals showed no adverse effects.

Contact in rabbit's eye Ideally, installing or removing the bionic eye would be as easy as popping a contact lens in or out, and once installed the wearer would barely know the gadget was there, Parviz said.
Building the lenses was a challenge because materials that are safe for use in the body, such as the flexible organic materials used in contact lenses, are delicate. Manufacturing electrical circuits, however, involves inorganic materials, scorching temperatures and toxic chemicals. Researchers built the circuits from layers of metal only a few nanometers thick, about one thousandth the width of a human hair, and constructed light-emitting diodes one third of a millimeter across. They then sprinkled the grayish powder of electrical components onto a sheet of flexible plastic. The shape of each tiny component dictates which piece it can attach to, a microfabrication technique known as self-assembly. Capillary forces – the same type of forces that make water move up a plant's roots, and that cause the edge of a glass of water to curve upward – pull the pieces into position.

The prototype contact lens does not correct the wearer's vision, but the technique could be used on a corrective lens, Parviz said. And all the gadgetry won't obstruct a person's view.
 
"There is a large area outside of the transparent part of the eye that we can use for placing instrumentation," Parviz said. Future improvements will add wireless communication to and from the lens. The researchers hope to power the whole system using a combination of radio-frequency power and solar cells placed on the lens, Parviz said.

A full-fledged display won't be available for a while, but a version that has a basic display with just a few pixels could be operational "fairly quickly," according to Parviz."

Source: University of Washington~Hannah Hickey




Digg!Reddit!Del.icio.us!Google!Live!Facebook!Slashdot!Technorati!StumbleUpon!Spurl!Newsvine!Furl!Yahoo!Ma.gnolia!Tailrank!
Comments
Add NewSearch
I do want to participate in th
David McKibben (68.223.225.241) 2008-01-18 08:17:18

Give me the opportunity to act as a guinea pig for these lenses. The whole idea is so completely intriguing. Allowing us to actually do things with the blink of an eye.
agreed
Chelsy (69.230.99.98) 2008-02-02 03:17:10

ditto, these are amazing, I'd love to test them
David (71.127.142.116) 2008-02-07 21:59:37

Yea think about playing Video games with this nifty lense.

Thats even better then HD TVs

However with an image being superimposed upon whats already being seen i would imagine some form of motion sickness and or nausea.
Tyler (71.193.184.116) 2008-02-08 16:30:04

Seriously, I would LOVE to test these, this is like my career goal to make and advance this type of product.
kick ass
me (84.59.203.157) 2008-02-10 13:51:32

ME TOO!
allysource.com (74.236.29.105) 2008-01-18 16:05:25

how do they know that the animal see better
Noxx (76.105.78.70) 2008-02-02 20:13:40

they were probably trying to see if the lens would hurt the eye. because they would have no idea what the rabbit could see....they were trying to see if it was safe to try on humans...
TreeHugger (74.195.50.202) 2008-01-18 16:43:29

Ok, I'm 100% for the advancement of technology in every way. But why the hell couldn't this have been tested on a human? So rabbits are disposable but humans aren't?
SaveTheWhining (12.178.61.152) 2008-01-18 20:25:09

Basically, yes.
TreeHugger (74.195.50.202) 2008-01-18 21:03:00

Yes- because bunnies pollute and start wars.
Totally.

nedobrowsky (80.161.76.85) 2008-01-19 18:32:44

Yes. They do.


Jokes aside, how can you ever compare a bunny to a human being? Bunnies, cute as they are, are not self-aware, and have no concience or greater thought activity.

Would you rather that actual people got tested?
That we killed people, and infected them with all sorts of diseases, rather than it happening to an animal? Would you like this to happen to someone you know, or even yourself?

You, my TreeHugger, need common sense
Bundle (24.22.18.14) 2008-01-25 17:02:14

How do you know for a fact that rabbits are not self-aware or have a conscience or greater thought activity? We can only assume what their experience is like. Should we start testing on the mentally handicapped because they might fit those criteria? My guess is rabbits experience fear and confusion from having things jammed in their eyes. So at the very least we should acknowledge we are traumatizing somebody for our sole benefit.

I'd be happy to be called an AnimalHugger....we are, after all, just animal descendants ourselves. I'm not sure why we assume that just because we can dominate something means we should exploit it.
because
realist (74.72.91.237) 2008-01-30 19:04:24

animals don't have lawyers.
Anonymous (76.28.232.160) 2008-02-01 09:36:22

Hahahha
What?
Codes (68.37.43.27) 2008-02-05 20:21:33

Are you serious? I'm sorry but I would much rather have shampoo that can cause cancer tested on a rabbit than on a human being. It's either rabbits die, or I die of staff infections due to experimental medicines being invented 40 years too late. It's sad, but it's got to happen.
random hero (74.61.28.49) 2008-11-08 03:29:37

we're talking about bunnies? wtf come on people. maybe if the bunny made the fn contacts i'd give a crap about them. sorry but bunnies are disposable.
random hero (74.61.28.49) 2008-11-08 03:29:59

Ajax request failed.
Anonymous (76.15.162.49) 2009-11-16 19:38:46

I would rather see anything tested on criminals than animals.
Nice
Taylor (99.24.249.12) 2010-01-27 16:47:47

People are people
Daan (84.194.177.159) 2008-01-19 01:03:47

That' nature ;)
Hoq (170.215.152.140) 2008-01-19 09:12:13

You're absolutely right - let's save the rabbits and experiment on whacko enviro-nuts who equate a seal to a sentient human being.
SD (74.195.50.202) 2008-01-19 10:14:30

Well, I always thought using death row inmates for this sort of thing would be a slightly better waste of a life. But no- that would be inhumane. Let's test on harmless animals instead!
Anonymous (76.28.232.160) 2008-02-01 09:37:14

Indeed!
Sure that has got to be the du
Starfighter9652 (196.11.235.119) 2008-06-03 03:03:16

That has got to be the dumbest thing I've headrd all day. 1. These Contact lenses DONT help you see better coz that aint what they're meant to do. 2. Using death row convicts is just absurd. let them die in peace it's even drakonian that you even have the death penalty. 3. They use rabbits and such animals for experiments coz 1. they reproduce quickly. 2. They (Designers, invetors, scientist etc) use animals coz they don't want to end up killing, maiming or infecting a human that could turn around and sue them and or the research institution either for criminal malpractise, or the peoples families for a wrongfull death. 3. When ever you are going to use an animal for research you have to state how much pain and sufgfering the animal might endure and what are you going to do about the animals pain and suffering.
Really, man
...srsly? (72.92.98.2) 2008-07-02 23:51:43

Learn grammar and spelling before you try to discredit something, dillweed.
Anonymous (69.253.144.249) 2008-07-03 09:18:10

Would you like cancer from your shampoo? Every time you use soap, get an infection in your eye? Nah, you don't want that, do you? Animal testing saves humans from life-long disorders caused by every day products we use. What if your cologne, if it got in your eyes, permanently blinded you? You'd be kind of pissed, right? Animals are an important part of studies and keeping dirty hippies like you form hurting yourselves with a bar of soap... Which I doubt you've even picked up lately. So... You know.... STFU fag.
Anonymous (70.180.196.126) 2008-11-08 01:57:44

well...
inmates who agree for the greater good.
it seems fruitless, yet, one never knows.
50\50

[yup]
Steve (72.84.22.214) 2008-01-26 19:04:23

I agree completely. Test the things that could be deadly on the people that want to save the animals. Then when they are gone we can test all the animals we want.
anonymous (71.65.114.241) 2008-02-07 23:01:27

it would be much easier to just test on the criminals on death row.. if we are just keeping them around for no reason, we might as well use them...
BUT,
me (84.59.203.157) 2008-02-10 13:56:17

not everyone on death-row is guilty some huge number of people that have been exicuted have been found out to be inocent later on - is it not bad enough to be falsely accused of a crime and get raped inthe ass by some guy named buhbuh for the rest of your short life but now you should be forced to be a guinea pig...
huh? (75.106.116.64) 2008-05-15 08:37:54

huge numbers, huh? prove that to me you lowly liar..... there are far less that should have been but were never incarcerated because of liberal thinkers like you.... like recently a woman was fined $310 for killing someone!!!!
:| Really. |:
anthony62490 (72.48.204.250) 2008-11-06 17:05:21

Huge numbers, huh? Name one. Just name one person who has been falsely executed. I don't think you can. Because last time I checked, no one could find a single person executed unjustly under the current set of laws. Not even one.
And even if they DID find one person, well, that's just collateral damage. It would be sad, people would get angry, but put that one innocent man up against thousands upon thousands of horrible, disgusting, and twisted people who have been put down and I think that is worth the price.

While I'm at it, look at the radical Muslims. Why don't you tell them to stop killing our soldiers and civilians for no reason. No reason other than the fact that America is a free, Christian country. That is murder.

And just as long as I'm ranting, let me go on to say that environmentalists astonish me. They whine and complain about the poor pitiful trees (whose numbers are actually growing), the helpless melting ice caps (not my fault, not your fault) and the adorable little Peruvian Acid-Spitting Scorpion From Hell (don't quote me on that), but when their own country is attacked, they accuse our own people, our brothers and sisters of the Marine Corps, of raping and murdering Iraqi citizens. Unbelievable. Treason. Someone needs to get their priorities in line.
RustyG (98.215.106.74) 2008-11-12 14:42:06

ahh, remember when treason was a crime? Good times, my friend, good times
Treason. Gotta love it.
anthony62490 (72.48.204.250) 2008-12-10 09:52:35

I'm pretty sure that time used to exist. In fact, I'm pretty sure that treason used to be punishable by death. But not today. Today, traitors are celebrated as heroes, enshrined and worshipped (See: Michael Dukakis // See: William Horton) because they can't fathom the idea of putting a contact lens into a poor bunny's eye. Pathetic.

Furthermore, how is this inhumane? The very defenition of being humane involves the other party being Human. I mean, feel free to choose another word if you want, but to be humane, you have to treat the rabbits as though they are human.

If we are going to be humane, those bunnies better start paying taxes.
TJ (65.214.178.222) 2008-01-23 08:19:30

it is idiots like you that are really screwing up the world.
Ignorant MOnkey
Treehuggerhater (134.134.136.5) 2008-01-26 06:59:56

Human life must be valued. All life must be valued. However, that said, I would rather see rabbits die than humans. I would rather KILL rabbits and kill humans. How about you?
Anonymous (69.228.119.122) 2008-02-28 02:06:38

I would rather see a human die rather than an animal. I can't say that i haven't killed an animal because I have. But if it were legal to kill people and such I'd much rather kill people than animals.
minty (71.32.180.199) 2008-09-11 20:39:29

Wow, you must be quite antisocial. Humans have far more potential than a rabbit or anyother small animal.
(*)_o
Owen (72.48.204.250) 2008-12-10 09:56:02

Wow. I can see why you listed yourself as Anonymous. I would have too.
Johanne (64.229.57.198) 2008-02-01 20:33:58

Umm... yeah, basically.
Lin Floyd (68.99.162.164) 2008-02-16 08:54:52

Rabbits are food and yes they are disposable. Equating the value of a rabbit life with that of a human life is disingenuous. Risking the eyesight of a human being is NOT the same as blinding a rabbit. The human is (hopefully) not destined for the stewpot.
K (84.74.175.72) 2008-01-18 18:07:02

A computer in the eyes, I'm so cheating my way out of life... If they could make this work together with mind controlled mouse/keyboard then I'd fake a vegetative state.
Anonymous (76.171.149.0) 2008-01-18 18:27:24

Just another tool which gives the general public yet another means of needlessly being able to check their e-mail on the go. Can't wait to see how the irresponsible take advantage of this new cutting edge technology.
Anonymous (76.28.232.160) 2008-02-01 09:40:03

Porn probably. Just imagine it: Guys sitting on the bus playing pocket pool when they can't see people staring at them in their blind spot, which would probably be a breast or something.
minty (71.32.180.199) 2008-09-11 20:42:47

It would be as bad as people texting while driving...
anthony62490 (72.48.204.250) 2008-11-06 17:27:36

No it wouldn't. By the time this comes out, all cars will have an autopilot function. Driving will be a thing of the past. As long as I'm dreaming, I want a Cyberpunk dream...
zero (194.83.71.166) 2008-01-19 05:49:47

more like the next hud for navy pilots, the next target designator...
Tholaris (70.130.204.183) 2008-01-19 11:38:55

Great, so now we can shave with one hand, drink our coffee with the other, and have our vision obscured while we do 80 mph on our way to work! The future is amazing!!!

-=jF
sdfiseklejkx (69.19.14.32) 2008-02-08 14:52:37

it will not obscure our vision, it will enhance it. it would help people focus on certain objects, zoom in on something, and they might even be able to expand this to night vision and heat vision and give it to soldiers or something.
=)
Str187 (85.97.136.217) 2008-01-19 11:50:02

i need one =))
Airitech (64.141.64.229) 2008-01-19 13:07:41

Most are underestimating the value of such technologies. From targeting systems to sight for the blind, from extreme condition vision enhancements to micro medical scanning technology for doctors and field medics! ... Plus I could totally watch porn anywhere!
King and Queen of Cheese
Megan S (158.135.236.45) 2008-01-19 20:57:08

"Plus I could totally watch porn anywhere!"

Haha, I was thinking that, too.

Also, it'll definitely help kids cheat on tests.

Yay for technology!
so
me (84.59.203.157) 2008-02-10 14:01:45

if you have all the enswers in the blink of an eye do you really need to KNOW anything? all you need is some common sense
YOU WOULDNT EVEN HAVE TO GO TO SCHOOL!

hell i have a REGULAR computer and i learned much more from the internet that i ever learned in school
re:
Elliott (71.235.14.149) 2008-01-25 10:02:56

nedobrowsky wrote:
Yes. They do.


Jokes aside, how can you ever compare a bunny to a human being? Bunnies, cute as they are, are not self-aware, and have no concience or greater thought activity.

Would you rather that actual people got tested?
That we killed people, and infected them with all sorts of diseases, rather than it happening to an animal? Would you like this to happen to someone you know, or even yourself?

You, my TreeHugger, need common sense
What a great comment! I thought I was the only one on the internet that WASN'T a treehugging, card carrying Liberal!
here we go again (24.161.114.237) 2008-02-07 17:47:59

Here we go again. No matter what the topic, from skateboards to food to computers, some idiot always has to bring up liberals and politics. If you had been hugged more often as a kid, you wouldn't hate liberals so much.

What a dumb ass.
???
anthony62490 (72.48.204.250) 2008-12-10 10:03:02

*raises hand* Me? What about me? I ain't no liberal. Maybe I lean a bit toward the Libertarians, but I'm no commie liberal.
nice
dude (66.98.5.209) 2008-01-25 16:51:40

just had a big bbq in the backyards we ate lots of bunnies they are very tasty!!!
can't focus
phil e. drifter (68.80.231.244) 2008-01-26 02:18:53

Put your finger, or some other small item directly in front of your eye, and you can't focus on it. I don't see how putting any type of information directly in front of the eye on a contact lense will be 'visible' to the person. (It'll be visible but very blurry because your eye can't focus on something at that short of a distance.)

Take a photography course, or read a photography book, and you'll understand it.
teddy (68.97.59.247) 2008-01-26 07:30:26

you may not have ever worn contacts before, or understand optics. photography and eye optics are two different subjects. Ever hear of tv glasses?...a "50 inch" screen in front of your eyes...yet they are a pair of glasses that sit an inch or two from your eye. The right lens can make anything visible at any distance.
Zalifer (75.141.206.57) 2008-07-13 22:15:51

Plus, say they couldn't avoid the focus problem. Then, if by calculating the amount of focus distortion caused by being under focus, the screen could compensate for that, by blurring its own images, so that the eyes blurring is like and "undo", making you receive clear images.
total anon :D (71.164.138.15) 2008-11-09 23:14:04

remember those things as a kid, which were basically binoculars, but you put a filmstrip thing in and it would show pictures of elmo or something? those were clear as day :D
Ah.
anthony62490 (72.48.204.250) 2008-12-10 11:17:58

Ah, yes. The ViewMaster. I had one of those. I had one of the REALLY old ones, though. The round, black metal ones. The TV of the future could work exactly the same way, couldn't it?
Moo (74.195.50.202) 2008-01-26 16:48:44

Pretty spiffy
re: =)
Anonymous (76.123.251.56) 2008-01-26 17:29:43

Str187 wrote:
i need one =))

Animal testing??
Biff (76.10.153.17) 2008-01-28 20:40:43

This makes me sick. Testing on animals is never right.
Anonymous (130.13.144.118) 2008-01-28 23:29:22

Testing on animals for the benifit of man is always right.
re: Animal testing??
pedro (88.106.188.38) 2008-02-06 05:35:45

Biff wrote:
This makes me sick. Testing on animals is never right.


oh dont be rediculous, cruelty to animals is never right, but as long as the tests aren't " how long can this rabbit bear the pain of a red hot needle sticking in all of its orrifices " then ussually you are ok

(maybe a bit of an over exageration but you get the point)
re:
pedro (88.106.188.38) 2008-02-06 05:41:51

But then again
Anonymous wrote:
Testing on animals for the benifit of man is always right.


thats a load of b*****ks, the kinda comment that deserves a slap in the face with a wet fish followed by a kick in the balls
Sad
Phillip (74.186.235.4) 2008-07-08 01:56:30

Testing on an animal I would agree is always right it benefits us and helps advance our causes. I won't even ask if your a vegetarian? Or have taken a medication? Imagine being without many of your medications? This allows us to know whats safe for humans. It helps us advance as people. Are you really going to disagree to helping humans and advancing our technology for OUR benefit? Or letting people die just because your worried about the poor little bunny? Would it make you feel better if we injected the animal with painkillers?
Just a concept
SadPanda (193.191.138.240) 2008-01-29 00:48:33

How strange to see that nobody here has picked up that this is all just a concept. They can't even display a single pixel yet...
x
al (121.54.66.3) 2008-01-31 02:34:14

this is crazy
if u use this u'll look like a futre bionic demon
cyberpunk!!!
dopey (76.27.192.48) 2008-02-03 14:50:32

Ok so you pick up some girl at a bar who is not so attractive. . . .you can use these to project your favorite porn stars face or body for that matter on to her. That would be awesome.
Yaria (216.49.220.19) 2008-02-04 18:29:37

I wonder how long it will take for the government to figure out a way to take this and twist it... Further privacy out the window...
Codes (68.37.43.27) 2008-02-05 20:25:25

As long as you don't take pictures of government buildings in detail and send them to suspected terrorists, I'm sure the Government doesn't give a damn what you're doing. You think they'd look at what you're looking at for shits and giggles?
Pinoy Compuword
Noel Nuguid | Pinoy Compuworld (202.138.158.33) 2008-02-05 19:42:56

This technology is amazing! I wonder how long will it last before it gets to consumers! More Games! more Screens more more more!
Super Bunny
I'm a Game Warden (144.96.21.137) 2008-02-06 14:11:10

f***ing awesome...

rabbits deserve because let's face it, they're cute. They have to pay a price somewhere, and it got a bionic eye! Why are you nature people freaking out, its like like rabbit on monty python now!

I'd totally watch ESPN whenever I'm in church
Super Bunny
I'm a Game Warden (68.97.59.247) 2008-02-07 17:53:57

wow, spell check please. What a retard
Anonymous (69.137.46.80) 2008-02-07 14:03:44

Even if you could just get a little HUD clock in the corner of your vision, it'd be worth it.

WATCHES ARE OBSOLETE
Amy (75.142.7.86) 2008-02-07 16:54:42

Hook it up with wireless access and let me surf the internet wherever I please....

*daydreams*
keen (63.226.136.254) 2008-02-08 08:12:31

does anyone else here wear contacts now?

i do, and they float around your eye, twisting and spinning. it's not a problem with aiding my vision because they are the same prescription all over the surface of the lens, so it doesn't matter if the contact is "upside-down" or not.

i wonder how lenses that would always need to be "rightside-up" would stay put in your eye. there have been bottom-weighted lenses for years, but even they don't stay put; they're always floating just a bit every time you blink (quite annoying actually). i'm presuming a display-lens would need to be stationary for the brain to process the information it's being shown; otherwise you'll be having a headache from hell all day long.
Code (68.37.43.27) 2008-02-08 13:37:56

It would probably have a magnetic compass that would keep your image upright. The display isn't stationary, so I'm guessing it'll rotate against the contact to stay upright digitally.
Image overlay etc
anon (198.103.172.9) 2008-03-05 13:42:00

How does the eye "see"? Light, reflecting back into your eye and the brain sending the image. (Or close enough)

For the contact to display the images properly with an overlay to your sight or to keep them upright, the lense will use the diodes to display the image upsidedown, and directly towards your eye. Not away from it.

The eye and brain would do the same to view the image as if it were light from an exterior force coming towards you.
Hmm...
jkillah1 (24.192.229.153) 2008-02-09 18:58:07

I'm still not sure that you would actually get an overlay effect... I mean, have you ever got really close to a window screen and looked out through it? You don't necessarily see rows of little squares interrupting the image behind it, but your eyes sort of compensate for the obstruction.
re:
Woohzal (210.49.253.250) 2008-02-14 03:59:54

TreeHugger wrote:
Ok, I'm 100% for the advancement of technology in every way. But why the hell couldn't this have been tested on a human? So rabbits are disposable but humans aren't?


I love the technology but I really cannot stand to see things like this tested on animals.

Russ (72.178.111.33) 2008-02-16 22:35:24

I already have to wear contacts all the time....it would be awesome to test these out.
Maybe I won't get that lasic corrective surgery after all....
Brog Dawg (70.142.56.161) 2008-03-19 12:04:53

They make weighted contact lenses for people wish Astigmatism whose contacts must be kept in a particular orientation to see correctly. It's just a couple tiny little dots toward one edge of the lens that pulls the thing in the right direction so down is always down and up is always up.

So your in-eye porn will always look as it was intended.
Several things, will focus on
The SpeedracerM (65.198.163.129) 2008-03-22 12:30:45

The animal testing issue is mute. Animals will always be the source of test subjects as long as man has issue with cheapening the value of another human life. Besides as several have said, rabbits are destined for the stew pot. Are rabbits going to research the cure for cancer or be the next Mozart? Rabbits will eat grass and poo in mounds of little balls from birth to death...get over...the animal thing. Stem cell research could be humanity's savior, but we can't use it for similar ignorance of rationality cutoff by a Human feeling. Human feelings negate rational thought so some group of touchy feely f u c k heads said no...because they can.

About the lens itself, its amazing that we have even gone this far into a prototype. It's sci-fi meets RL in a battle of funding and results. I'd love this to become a real product although you can imagine the cost will be astronomical, given then even normal contacts are not cheap. Which speaking for myself, means very little if i really want it. Which I do. Can you imagine the finished result? Seeing things like this would change life as we know it. No more cell phones competing for largest screen with most resolution, but who can adapt to optical lens displays. Life would never be the same after this is released, and I think paired with the already released and still being developed, Neural Impulse Actuator technology...there isn't a lot left except lightsabers to come up with.
annoynomous (75.107.186.143) 2008-04-01 19:18:29

i would LOVE to test them If you want i'll get my eye prescription.
Jeheace
Jeheace (98.212.70.156) 2008-04-17 18:20:46

Yes... there will be people who abuse this, but that's nothing new... there have been people abusing technology since the advent of the sharpened stick. And I'm sure some one argued that that very sharpened stick should be tested on people before it was tested on bunnies.

Is testing on animals wrong..? Yes. But testing on humans is also wrong. Is testing on bunnies any less wrong..? I believe so.

If you are adamant in your beliefs that testing on animals is wrong, find out where the tests take place, and volunteer to take the bunnies place.
cheat
iCalvyn (124.13.5.217) 2008-07-22 09:16:04

is good for us to cheat during exam
zub (81.102.234.147) 2008-07-29 15:20:44

a real shame that those oppositing animal tests have been met here with immature derision, foul language and even threats of violence. i had always thought the scientific community was proud of progress, challenges to conventional wisdom and continued refinement and improvement. what a sad world we live in when those advocating an alternative viewpoint are automatically shunned as "freaks," or "treehuggers," and told to expect a "kick in the balls." such language is hardly a sign of intelligence, or precipitous of reasonable debate and education.
Dont care
Mike (69.253.144.249) 2008-07-29 19:44:33

I don't care about your civility, and your morals, and your reasonable debate. It's not worth the time, faggot. Shut up and get back on your short bus to "Lolsmertguyland" and shut up. Stay on topic. Animals are test subjects. Is it bad, or good, or a mix of both?
Lenses
Anonymous (65.202.140.16) 2008-11-08 15:55:35

The topic was the lenses you dumb shit.
Lenses
Anonymous (65.202.140.16) 2008-11-08 15:56:16

the topic was the lenses you dumb shit.
Mike (69.253.144.249) 2008-07-29 19:45:24

That's right, shut up twice. Shut up, shut up. It's how much you need to close your cock sucker.
zub (81.102.234.147) 2008-08-01 14:41:31

the comments above clearly indicate the mentality of those who make them; if we were in 2 minds about supporters of vivisection before, the picture is certainly clearer now!
Funny how I am chastised for going off-topic, yet that very detractor launches into an unwarranted homophobic rant, which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic in hand.
SMERT GUY (69.253.144.249) 2008-08-02 12:05:09

If you'd like me to 'rise to your level' and remove all internal instinct from my written word, I can do that too. It's quite simple really, this is the internet, where I have as much time as I like to formulate a response that can appease your simple mind, niggertits. Right now, I'd like to apply the rules of the jungle, but of course, this is the internet, I can't punch you in the mouth from here. I'll reiterate, 'STFU you tree hugging faggot.'
minty (71.32.180.199) 2008-09-11 21:06:16

The topic in hand, zub, is not animal testing but the contact lens display system. I assume that the animal testing arguement spawned from the reference to rabbit testing in the experiment, but it is irrelevent. You are right about the immaturity of some people in the way they debate and it is useless.
paresh (117.200.211.25) 2008-08-03 23:52:49

interesting, thanks for sharing.
lizy (75.74.133.190) 2008-08-08 10:38:03

i think that this is inhomane to animals a rrabit is been forced to put something in his eyes that he dose not want to like the comments on the bottom if its for humans then let humanas test it and them suffer the consequenses
tom (75.74.133.190) 2008-08-08 10:43:37

mmm why would you test this on a bunny thats new for me because how the hell do they know bunnys need contacts ... i find that really stupid beacuse if its fir humans i think that humans should test it and if tjeir not willing to do so then u shouldnt get any other type of animal!!!!!!!
REED (69.253.144.249) 2008-08-08 10:57:05

lern 2 reed. Rabbits get tested on because although inhuman, it keeps you from getting cancer from your shampoo. Animal testing is necessary to keep the human race progressing. Maybe you'd like living in a dirt hut and making fire with two sticks, unable to keep perishable food for more than a day, but I don't. All rabbits do is hop around and shit little balls of poo, then die. f not, their destined for the stew pot, as was said earlier.
zub (81.102.234.147) 2008-08-11 16:43:18

Not all lenses are animal tested. Apart from being totally inhumane, such testing is insufficiently predictive of human outcomes. This is much documented, not least by the testing side of the industry its self for reasons of legality. When Dr. Vernon Coleman put this argument to national debate some years ago, he issued a challenge to vivisectors to present indisputable scientific evidence that any single result could not have been obtained similarly or better via animal free testing, or to demonstrate one individual case where testing had been neccesary. None could offer any, and the investigation was forced to conclude that no product successfully tested yielded results that could not have otherwise been obtained. This is not anti vivisectionism, this is the animal testing industry its self. In fact, far from proclaiming the reliability of their methods, most animal testing pharmaceutical companies go to considerable lengths to publicise the fact their products are not guaranteed to be safe. Add to this the gargantuan list of fatal miscalculations brought about through animal expriments, including many pharmaceutical deaths since the 1950's, and the picture is bleak indeed. To date, no independant scientific study corroborates the charge that animal testing is required for this purpose, and over ten of these studies have appeared in recent years (www.AnimalExperimentsFacts.info)
my rant
Caleb (24.79.156.192) 2008-11-09 12:22:05

I know this is an old post, but I just stumbled upon it and read all the comments so I felt like saying something before I stumbled on.

"To date, no independent scientific study corroborates the charge that animal testing is required for this purpose, and over ten of these studies have appeared in recent years"

This seems like your rearranging the words to twist facts.

You can only do so many tests with a contact lens display before you have to try it on. To test it on an animal would only be one animal, and it would only leave it blind in one eye. We eat animals every day, all the time. Killed humanely or not, those animals still suffer. They don't live free, a test rabbit probably lives a better life.

I agree, any test facility should allow volunteers. In the first few posts, people were saying they wanted to test it out just for the sake of trying a new technology.

There are a lot of big questions about this kind of stuff that only human testing could answer. What would it be like to see the time, all the time?

Would you be able to see things when your eyes are closed? What if you slept with these things in your eyes? Could they affect your dreams?

Only the rabbit knows... lol
I've Got A Proposal...
anthony62490 (70.242.202.75) 2008-11-10 20:36:39

How about this? I will personally shut up all of the caribou-coddling liberals on this page. Listen up all you tree-huggers! If you will shut up about this inhumane treatment of animals crap, I will personally stick one of those contacts in my eye. And I will smile while doing it.
What's that? You want me to film it and post it on YouTube? I'd be happy to. Personally, I can't think of a better way to spend the afternoon. I would love to wear one of those things.
Internet for Environuts
KAPP10 (98.223.88.224) 2008-11-09 14:58:25

Hey hippies! If you are so environmentally conscious, why are you even using a computer? Did you carve it out of a tree or something? And how are you powering it? With your magical sunbeam eyes? Also, if you don't believe in animal testing, then go volunteer yourself to be tested on.
WOOT!
NAKEDnick (98.223.88.224) 2008-11-09 15:01:13

WOW! I can't wait till those contact lenses hit the market!
lol'd so hard
LMFAO (75.171.57.244) 2008-11-10 18:36:56

Yeah this stuff is funny, reading all of these ppl talking about animal rights. lol. I think these contacts are cool, I wouldn't volunteer for them, but if they were found safe, I'd probably use them. The problem is the responsibility that follows on having such advanced technology. Just like how a tv has a parental control it should have a control for certain things like driving, working hours, school hours, and other things. Seriously the texting and driving is the last accident I want to hear about. I also wonder what will happen if a virus was loaded onto these contacts. You can hijack an electric train with an ipod using a virus. Some things I really worry about with our new coming technology, if we're not careful it could destroy us. In our world, with technology on the forefront of our minds anything can happen.
jacob rice (71.146.251.14) 2008-11-19 11:43:58

i would like to test you'r product
sweet!
Lue Kyiosk (72.86.15.220) 2008-11-27 11:54:44

Dude! I read about this before it happened in a book a few years ago! It's nice to know that technology is finally catching up to science fiction! When do we start on the lightsabers? Seriously though, I'd love to test this once they get that it's safe and all. So, keep up with the bunnies. I'd rather they die than me!:)
Anonymous (173.53.189.204) 2010-01-28 07:03:40

this is wrong, technology is getting to the point where we are becoming less active and more destructive. This is all we need more of a reason to sit on our ass and play video games!
Write comment
Name:
Website:
Title:
UBBCode:
[b] [i] [u] [url] [quote] [code] [img] 
 
Security Image
Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved.

 
SEO by Artio
BHFO Menu
Home
News
Articles
Reviews
News Feeds
Site Map
Contact Us
About Us
Login





Lost Password?
No account yet? Register
Polls
What Review Products Interest You the Most?
 
RSS
Latest
Popular
© 2008 BHFO