orangezero

Who makes the titles for these articles? Who checks the math? Is this really a finance website? Almost all of these "increases" are no where near double. It seems the cost of prescriptions are the only thing that doubled.

just to clarify, its 20/15, not 15/20. And the sharpness of you vision (which is what you guys are referring to) has little to do with visual performance. By that I mean you can be 20/20 with poor vision (tracking, pursuits, focusing, peripheral awareness) and also be 20/50 with excellent vision.

its too bad so many eye doctors only seem to tell patients what their snellen acuity is, and most patients are trained to only care what it is. snellen is so 1900s... :)

jvc still makes about the best of the vcrs made now, consumer wise. Doubt this is one of them. Its just a cheapo unit and the more you upscale a cruddy image, the worse it will look.

Still, kind of nice it at least plays almost anything you can throw at it.

the optic nerve is a somewhat small "wire", with many millions of nerve cells that all go into various parts of the brain. It is very complex, and poorly understood to put it lightly. It'd be great if we actually could understand all of how it works exactly. We'd be better able to understand diseases such as glaucoma, optic neuritis, optic neuropathies, etc and actually prevent blindness.

I don't have much faith in these type of bionic eyes for anything more that rudimentary vision, and what we would consider horrible vision (aka as "counting fingers") would appear to seem like a miracle to these researchers.

I don't like how its gets people's hopes up. If you want to help people with blindness, work on prevention, get regular eye exams, etc... don't just hope this will work.

I would argue that it IS too complex and it will be a very, very, very long time before these researches will be able to come up with anything that closely resembles the "vision" that most people take for granted on a daily basis. Its great they are doing this research, but this is such a poorly understood area (vision, brain activity, etc) and they always seem to promise more than they deliver.

The visual system, pathway, etc. would be fantastically difficult to replicate and the transition of electrical impulses from the ccd (or similar) to the correct location of the brain that interprets all of this into "vision" is just beyond current understanding.

IF they are able to determine those things, it will have further reaching outcomes than just helping those with retinitis pigmentosa. Optic Neuritis, brain injuries, brain tumors, all of the Glaucomas, etc will be more profoundly affected and there are a great many more people that would benefit from this research than those that are blind and need "magic bionic" implants. probably not as newsworthy though.

sorry if this seems uninspiring, i just hate it when reporters/researches review these technologies and get people's hopes up.

unfortunately, most don't really have any clue how the eye works. From what I've heard of this device, you need a functioning retina for this thing to even work, which most blind people don't have. And how exactly are you going to get people who have a poorly developed visual cortex to interpret the signals being sent to it? lots and lots and lots of problems, some that need better tech and some that are, sadly, almost impossible to replace.

not downplaying the idea, but there is a lot of unwarranted hope in "sighting the blind" whenever technology like this comes up.