The advancement isn't in the attachment to the eye, but rather the machinerie of the device. The one that you're thinking of would have had a resolution of 4x4, meaning 16 pixels which where either black or white. If I understand corectly, this device has 60 pixels (about 7x7, it can't be square though) and produces some sort of grey scale (ether 16 or 256 both of wich beat 2). The thing is that they both interface into the optic nerve in the same way.

I can relate to this, except it took me *much* longer to realise that social interaction was important. Two years after finishing my collage education in fact. And then another two years of reading anecdotal stories like yours or formal studies saying the same thing in a different way, and trying to force my self into social interactions, which made my problem and by dependency on anti-depressants worse.

After that, a guy I'd known since the beginning of high school who I'd see on and off in the intervening decades said something that made me see the light: That I'm completely socially adjusted for people that I already know, people that I do get on with think that I'm getting better (I knew I wasn't changing) because I become more social around them, I meet a new person and this cycle starts again.
The light I saw wasn't that I was some sort of sociopath (which I thought I was for many years, therapy couldn't shake that out of me) but rather my mechanism for social interaction was different and slower than all the people around me.

The first thing that I thought was "sweet, the study was using open source games" quickly folowed by "How the hell did the suits who run these things find out about/where allowed by MS to use open source?" which ended in exactly the same thought that you had.

Actualy, a much better analogy would be a car company producing a car that is better in every way, but wouldn't run on ordanary fuels.

Say...... That souds farmiliar, I'm thinking alchahol, hydrogen, eletric.... nah, that's just the last party I went to.

AceM2 has a valid piont, that someone who is pionting a gun at you and wants you dead automaticaly becomes a "bad guy". Prehaps he's been conscripted or brainwashed, sold the idear of 40 virgins, mabye he's a nice guy you'd enjoy talking to over a pint at the local pub just looking for a steady paycheck. From his piont of view, you are at best an interfearing foreighner, at worse a blaspheming infidel but either way, you have a gun pionted at him and if someone with stripes on their sholder shouts "fire!" you'll do it and that make you a "bad guy" to him.

The piont I'm making is that *every body* in a warzone is a "bad guy" to somebody. You have to remember that languages in general and English specificaly are fluid things. Words take on new meanings all the time, originaly the word villan meant "someone from a village". I personaly don't mind this happening, but if *you* have a problem with it I sugest you lean Lantin.

The figure could be made up, but I suspect that the GGP didn't mean "percent of attacks made" but rather something more like "percent of bullets fired". One in a million bullets hitting a civilan sounds more likly than one in a million attacks resulting in civilian casualtys.

Of course the number is quite obviously made up, so it's all down to perception. Just my 2c worth.