Whut up, yo? Mostly moved to Twitter... You have an account... why don't I see you there much?
color printing(ink on paper) has been around for centuries, but was a selective process, applying color to discreet areas(initial caps, image insert pages). and it was a costly and time consuming process. true full color printing which was reporoducable at scale was when chromolithography and color separation process was refined. it was the advances of the halftone screening process that really propelled color printing to enter the mainstream.
3d printing is more complex the its flatland brother, since halftone color process might not be a viable solution to rendering color hues(maybe with multiple hotends). 3d printing is also complicated by the fact that your printing substrate is the "ink" you are using. i've been mulling over 3d printing in color, and my opinion is 6-7 colored filaments, not 5. CMYK+white for color spectrum mixing, grey(cause it's cheaper and faster than mixing expensive pigments) to also be used for infill, and a brittle rafting material.
Link to Original Source
i know this might be a cross-grain recommendation on
i purchased a couple of apps by peapod labs for my 4 year old daughter, and she can go for over an hour at a time exploring, reading singing and spelling with these apps. there are other good apps out there, try avoid the in-app purchase apps as they tend to be more entertainment and less education.
aside from tuxpaint, IMHO the best cross platform releases i've seen are the various humble bundle releases( goo, braid, etc). some of these title might be a bit mature for game playing for a 3/4 year old, but it might be a toddler and parent bonding experience smearing baddies on the screen together.
we also balance computer/tablet time with meatspace activities: reading, playing, cooking,.chores(ok cooking and chores are a bit challenging, but we try to gamify them for higher acceptance).
i live in chicago and have been bike commuting on and off for over 15 years, and i've notice the number of bike commuters increase dramatically in the last 2 years. most of the riders i see wear helmets, even the hipster fixies from wicker park and logan square.
unless you're riding on the lake front path for leisure, commuters riding on the streets should consider wearing helmets to protect themselves from head-and-vehicle or head-and-pavement impacts.
Check into it and ask about the impact of retinal remodeling on potential interventions.
Nossir. That is not correct. See my comment just above.
[sigh].... do not feed the troll.... do not feed the troll...
OK, I'll feed the troll. Yes, I am acutely aware of Paul Bach-y-Rita's work. You however apparently do not understand the concepts that you are invoking. There is plasticity in neural systems, yes. Plasticity is important in vision, sure. Nobody, *anywhere* has demonstrated that they can generate coherent "visual percepts" in a coordinated fashion with any kind of stimulus. Its far more complicated than hooking up electrodes and stimulating until someone "learns" what the stimulus means.
btw, the tongue thing is very, very cool. Its not vision and does not even map to vision, but those lingual electrodes can easily map topographic data, sonar data, relief data, contrast data onto the high resolution innervation of the tongue and allow people to interpret those stimulii as a map to be followed. The technology was originally developed for US Navy SEALS to navigate complex 3D environments at night, with no light and it works. It works incredibly well with very little training necessary. I would like to see more effort and funds put into techniques like that to help people live more independent lives.
I am familiar with Nirenberg's work. What Nirenberg seems to be missing is that the programming outflow of the retina is altered in retinal disease. ON and OFF channels are substantially altered in retinal disease and the whole programming substrate is altered because the circuitry and programming down to the molecular levels is altered.
Its not all pessimism though as we will need to understand how the normal retina signals and I find her work to be interesting and compelling. Though she is not addressing *which channels* of information outflow are being encoded. There are 14-16 separate outflow channels in the retina that project to different areas of cortex and sub cortex and she is not addressing how to separate those channels and what those separate channels mean in terms of the "visual world".
This is just my point. While I understand that science and engineering has to start somewhere, they have made promises to this woman and done surgery to her, potentially increasing risks for other problems where I would argue there is no hope of "seeing" anything coherent.
Yes, we can do remarkable things with even an 8x8 pixel array, but this approach has no promise of even delivering that to this woman. The electrode cuff on the optic nerve simply stimulates too many neurons that are not coherent and those neurons project to far too many areas of cortex. A retinal implant that appropriately targets cell populations would be more appropriate as would genetic engineering of targeted opsins to other cell classes.
As for implants directly in the cortex, I might argue that this has a better chance of stimulating phosphenes that could be interpreted as vision. I've participated in some of that early work http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/2009/08/bionic-implants/ and while I believe there are other approaches that will be more effective, that work still has some promise (particularly for motor interfaces).
Ah, ad hominem attacks from an Anonymous Coward... You will note that I am an "eye doctor". What are your qualifications to call someone else a clown?
We'll see... I would have liked to have seen some traditional methods of evaluation in animal models using psychophysics before moving directly to humans. Were I a betting man, I don't think the engineering is up to the biological task right now. A couple decades work already suggests that we don't yet understand how the information is coded to get into the brain.
Yeah, its easy for people to get enthused about rescuing vision loss. Its an important thing and keeps us working at all hours of the day as hard as we can to understand how the visual system works and how to fix it when it goes wrong. We've published before on this issue and I am sure they are aware of the work. My only concern is when promises are made to patients and expectations are built up that these devices will cure blindness when the biology has not been worked out and the engineering is predicated upon that imprecise understanding of the biology.