Ahh.. Apple is moving ahead with their new iCyborg strategy. Apple in your den, your pocket, your car and ... your body
Speaking of cyborgs if they could figure out how to feed images directly in to the visual cortex you wouldn't need to lug all that laser gear around. But that's the next-next generation.
There is just no bloody way I'm strapping on an HMD just to listen to my music. This is a preemptive patent filing by Apple, to keep their options open, but I think it's a really dumb one.
There is just no bloody way I'm strapping on an HMD just to listen to my music. This is a preemptive patent filing by Apple, to keep their options open, but I think it's a really dumb one.
I don't get it, you wouldn't need a video display to listen to music.
I think something like this is totally impractical! If you were listening and watching, you wouldn't even notice anything around you. Let's just hope Apple abandons this right away!
I think something like this is totally impractical! If you were listening and watching, you wouldn't even notice anything around you. Let's just hope Apple abandons this right away!
Ahh! you so right, thats why people are easier to mug when they have headphones on, and we all know what a failure headphones are!
The arrangement of reflective surfaces in that is pure genius. The light travels from a narrow angle at the bridge of the nose out to the temples then is reflected twice then onto the internal surface of the tapered proximal lens.
VTAS. In operational F4s by...um...late 60s early 70s. More head tracking than eye tracking but since the reticle is a known position relative to the helmet you know where the pilot must be looking. The helmet mounted unit generates a collimated virtual reticle image in a known location that is superimposed on the target aircraft and so the airplane knows which target is the one to shoot at.
AN/AVG-6? Maybe 8? Something like that. Sorry too lazy to google at the moment.
VTAS. In operational F4s by...um...late 60s early 70s. More head tracking than eye tracking but since the reticle is a known position relative to the helmet you know where the pilot must be looking. The helmet mounted unit generates a collimated virtual reticle image in a known location that is superimposed on the target aircraft and so the airplane knows which target is the one to shoot at.
AN/AVG-6? Maybe 8? Something like that. Sorry too lazy to google at the moment.
I remember that about that time they were doing itwith sensors on the helmet. But, that's much more primitive.
As far as I know, Canon was the first to release this as a commercial product. With the military, we don't always know until some time later.
I remember that about that time they were doing itwith sensors on the helmet. But, that's much more primitive.
As far as I know, Canon was the first to release this as a commercial product. With the military, we don't always know until some time later.
Yes, it is more primitive. But the process is evolutionary from the first primitive systems to what we have today. The first FLIR systems were also in Vietnam. The first wire guided missiles in WWII.
Yes, it is more primitive. But the process is evolutionary from the first primitive systems to what we have today. The first FLIR systems were also in Vietnam. The first wire guided missiles in WWII.
And now, even better with remote guidance. The new research has been very promising in the area of thought control. That has come a very long way as well. I've actually been lucky to have been invited to a demonstration of new artificial limbs that are thought controlled (in a sense,) in that they are using implants to connect to nerves. The user then, after some time in practice, just uses the limb as normal. Fine motor control is still a bit of time away, but is getting closer than many would think.
Direct thought control "by wire" for remote control is working out well also. I saw a DARPA demonstration where a pilot, wearing a helmet for the purpose, waggles the guidance and control surfaces of a jet equipped with the interface, though the jet was not in flight.
The idea there is for a pilot to eventually just decide what they want to do, and have the plane control how it's done, letting the pilot concentrate on the more important decisions without having to worry about having to control the plane as well.
Comments
Sharks with frickin' laser beams on their heads cannot be far behind!
A brother from a different mother.
iGoggles
Nope. iGlasses.
Ahh.. Apple is moving ahead with their new iCyborg strategy. Apple in your den, your pocket, your car and ... your body
Speaking of cyborgs if they could figure out how to feed images directly in to the visual cortex you wouldn't need to lug all that laser gear around. But that's the next-next generation.
That research is just entering the cranium now...
http://www.pinktentacle.com/2008/04/...ers-the-skull/
Quote:
Originally Posted by andypullen
iGoggles
Nope. iGlasses.
Nope.
ieyes!
There is just no bloody way I'm strapping on an HMD just to listen to my music. This is a preemptive patent filing by Apple, to keep their options open, but I think it's a really dumb one.
I don't get it, you wouldn't need a video display to listen to music.
I don't get it, you wouldn't need a video display to listen to music.
A decent HMD would be great for using a laptop when commuting (e.g on the train) since it is terrible posture to bend your neck to look at the screen.
I think something like this is totally impractical! If you were listening and watching, you wouldn't even notice anything around you.
Which would be OK commuting on the train or bus, or sitting on a long airplane flight,
or sitting in a boring lecture or sermon, or a chick movie your old lady dragged you to.
I think something like this is totally impractical! If you were listening and watching, you wouldn't even notice anything around you. Let's just hope Apple abandons this right away!
Ahh! you so right, thats why people are easier to mug when they have headphones on, and we all know what a failure headphones are!
Yeah, like having an earphone and microphone sprouting from the side of your head, while you walk around talking to yourself.
No one would be stupid enough to do that.
This is possibly part of a gestural computing initiative, so it is likely to be accompanied by some kind of 'robot dance'.
-Clive
-Clive
Ha ha I love it.
Shoot, we had heads-up guidance that steered missiles to target by following where the WO's eyes looked during fly-by in the early 70s.
I don't remember that. Do you have a reference?
I don't remember that. Do you have a reference?
VTAS. In operational F4s by...um...late 60s early 70s. More head tracking than eye tracking but since the reticle is a known position relative to the helmet you know where the pilot must be looking. The helmet mounted unit generates a collimated virtual reticle image in a known location that is superimposed on the target aircraft and so the airplane knows which target is the one to shoot at.
AN/AVG-6? Maybe 8? Something like that. Sorry too lazy to google at the moment.
VTAS. In operational F4s by...um...late 60s early 70s. More head tracking than eye tracking but since the reticle is a known position relative to the helmet you know where the pilot must be looking. The helmet mounted unit generates a collimated virtual reticle image in a known location that is superimposed on the target aircraft and so the airplane knows which target is the one to shoot at.
AN/AVG-6? Maybe 8? Something like that. Sorry too lazy to google at the moment.
I remember that about that time they were doing itwith sensors on the helmet. But, that's much more primitive.
As far as I know, Canon was the first to release this as a commercial product. With the military, we don't always know until some time later.
I remember that about that time they were doing itwith sensors on the helmet. But, that's much more primitive.
As far as I know, Canon was the first to release this as a commercial product. With the military, we don't always know until some time later.
Yes, it is more primitive. But the process is evolutionary from the first primitive systems to what we have today. The first FLIR systems were also in Vietnam. The first wire guided missiles in WWII.
Yes, it is more primitive. But the process is evolutionary from the first primitive systems to what we have today. The first FLIR systems were also in Vietnam. The first wire guided missiles in WWII.
And now, even better with remote guidance. The new research has been very promising in the area of thought control. That has come a very long way as well. I've actually been lucky to have been invited to a demonstration of new artificial limbs that are thought controlled (in a sense,) in that they are using implants to connect to nerves. The user then, after some time in practice, just uses the limb as normal. Fine motor control is still a bit of time away, but is getting closer than many would think.
Direct thought control "by wire" for remote control is working out well also. I saw a DARPA demonstration where a pilot, wearing a helmet for the purpose, waggles the guidance and control surfaces of a jet equipped with the interface, though the jet was not in flight.
The idea there is for a pilot to eventually just decide what they want to do, and have the plane control how it's done, letting the pilot concentrate on the more important decisions without having to worry about having to control the plane as well.