backtop


Print 78 comment(s) - last by Lerianis.. on Dec 10 at 4:16 PM


One of the lens recipients is examined by a specialist. The new type of artificial lenses endow patients with "super-vision", better than the best standard adult human vision.  (Source: Sky News)
The era of cybernetic superpeople appears to be finally taking off

From the popular PC game Deus Ex to movies like Robocop, a consistent theme in science fiction has been cyborgs, humans implanted with advanced technology to offer them superior abilities to traditional humans.  Such inventions haven't exactly taken off -- RFID implants are about as "cyborgish" as people have become of late.  However, a new medical procedure should re-excite those who dream of synthetic super-capabilities.

Doctors and medical researchers at Spire Gatwick Park Hospital, a medical facility near Sussex in the UK, have completed the most advanced artificial lens implant to date and have endowed patients with vision better than the most able humans traditionally have.

The process to get "high definition" vision begins with the implantation of an artificial lens, using the standard procedure for cataracts.  Where as some lens implants are made of plastics PMMA or acrylic, the high tech lenses use special light-sensitive silicone.

Several days after the implant, doctors zap the lens with UV light, fine tuning it.  Over days, the lens is carefully tuned to overcome defects in the eye until patients have perfect vision.  A final blast of light fixes the lens in a final configuration.

The typical net result is that the recipients' vision significantly surpasses 20/20 sight, the best vision typically found in adults. 

Dr. Bobby Qureshi is the first ophthalmic surgeon in the UK to use the new lens and calls it "a hugely significant development".  Its not being used to give supervision to the masses quite yet, but rather is targeting patients with cataracts and long-sightedness, typically age-related conditions. 

Describes Dr. Qureshi, "We have the potential here to change patients' vision to how it was when they were young.  The change is so accurate that we can even make the lens bifocal or varifocal, so as well as giving them good vision at distance we can give them good vision for reading.  They won't need their glasses at all."

The patients are amazed at the results.  Gill Balfour, one of the first patients to receive the lens recalls how she used to have cataracts and other vision problems.  Now the world is a richer place for her.  She comments, "It's absolutely incredible. To think it's been tailor-made for you, matching any imperfections. It's the way forward, isn't it?"



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

sharingan
By lycium on 12/4/2009 8:56:28 AM , Rating: 5
finally! after some thorough scientific reviewing for safety and efficacy, why not?




RE: sharingan
By SlipDizzy on 12/4/2009 9:01:19 AM , Rating: 3
There aren't many of us that will understand that comment, but I think it would be more like Byakugan.


RE: sharingan
By amanojaku on 12/4/2009 9:15:22 AM , Rating: 5
Are you SURE you want to contradict someone who can make you see nightmares just by looking at his eyes? I get that from the missus and it ain't pretty...


RE: sharingan
By Anoxanmore on 12/4/2009 9:58:16 AM , Rating: 1
I can't decide what is worse, I knew that it was from anime, or the fact it came from NATURO...


RE: sharingan
By Kurz on 12/4/2009 11:23:38 AM , Rating: 1
Anime Fan myself... its the fact it came from Naruto.
Anoxanmore there are plenty of good anime shows, Naruto Jap verison with English Subs was good show.

Though I stop watching about 4 seasons, it was losing its flair. It was becoming too comericalized.

Again anime is not all about kids, it can be about nasty murders and awesome story line between characters. The fact that most series end means they are following a set story line so they don't die a slow drawn out death like most American Shows. Writers don't have to keep reinventing when there is already set experation date on the show.

Though I would love this tech for my eyes when I eventually need Bifocal Glasses.


RE: sharingan
By headbox on 12/4/2009 12:22:54 PM , Rating: 2
Oh great... another anime snob. You always talk about the "story line" because frankly, the animation sucks. Regardless of who makes the film, the characters have the exact same face. Still frames for a minute, mouths that only flap open and close, stationary "action" shots where only the background zooms... Anime is a joke. I can't watch it because all I see are crappy shortcuts where US-produced morning cartoons look 100X better. And those "awesome story-lines" are a joke too. How can you complain about the plot on US TV shows when you can't even design a new character's face with anime?


RE: sharingan
By ClownPuncher on 12/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: sharingan
By Kurz on 12/4/2009 1:03:25 PM , Rating: 1
Anime is all about subtle differences.
For example there was a study with how Americans tend to focus on the overall picture then details, while japanese tend to notice the details first and then overall picture later.

Japanese people actually notice the difference between characters on screen. By facial expressions the artist puts into a specific character. I guess

The reason I love anime is because most shows begin then End. Just like book and plus I love the humor and satire. Though I guess you can call it an aquired taste.

Like everything you have to watch the easily accessable shows (Action violence) before you can appreciate the more complicated shows.

Anime isn't for everyone, I just perfer it to American shows. If you've seen actually quality shows you'd see what you said about US cartoons are actually crap in comprison.


RE: sharingan
By Davelo on 12/4/2009 1:23:41 PM , Rating: 4
Kiddies got side tracked into discussing cartoons instead of the topic


RE: sharingan
By therealnickdanger on 12/4/2009 1:54:17 PM , Rating: 2
What were we talking about? Climate change? Mick VS Asher? GM bailouts? NVIDIA VS AMD?


RE: sharingan
By Low Key on 12/4/2009 4:25:57 PM , Rating: 2
I think overall the cartoon discussion is more stimulating than those usually are...


RE: sharingan
By MrPoletski on 12/9/2009 5:09:49 AM , Rating: 2
Just coz you fancy Wilma Flintstone...


RE: sharingan
By Cullinaire on 12/4/2009 3:06:43 PM , Rating: 2
Come on guys, the obvious reason anime is superior to american cartoons is fanservice.
Don't dodge the facts.


RE: sharingan
By nitrus on 12/5/2009 3:53:52 AM , Rating: 2
anime better? i've seen enough overdrawn over violent anime in my lifetime. Pixar and Futurama for me. how about this? fast sword slice.....slow motion and dialogue....torso and appendage or head separate.....blood gush. i thought it was cool the first time i saw it 15 years ago. im all for violence, but anime is a two trick pony (violence and female domination). BTW James Cameron's AVATAR on a level Japanese avatar and anime will never reach in the next 30 years. JC's Avatar is what Final Fantasy should have been.


RE: sharingan
By Hieyeck on 12/7/2009 1:49:24 PM , Rating: 2
You need to watch more anime, like ones that aren't geared for 12 year old males (unless you are a 12 year old male). There's a vast variety of anime.

If anything, Pixar's the one trick pony:

Give cute, shallow character (there's only so much you can develop in a 2 hour movie) a hope in dreary life. Crush dream. Character goes balls out. Fairy-tale ending.


RE: sharingan
By invidious on 12/4/2009 3:23:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The reason I love anime is because most shows begin then End.
Actually most anime's have painfully open-ended endings. But if you "love" anime then you probably don't understand why thats a bad thing.


RE: sharingan
By Parhel on 12/4/2009 1:13:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You always talk about the "story line" because frankly, the animation sucks


But it is about the story. Your comment sounds like those gamers who talk only about the graphics and don't care if the game is fun to play. Complaining about the animation quality is missing the point.

I've only seen a few anime, and they were cherry-picked by friends, so I'm no expert. But those were all very good, and 'Akira' in particular was absolutely brilliant.


RE: sharingan
By B3an on 12/4/2009 7:08:02 PM , Rating: 2
Akira is a one-off masterpiece with vastly VASTLY superior animation and detail to almost any other anime or cartoon ever created.

So obviously he didn't mean something like that. But i know what he's saying and i agree with it, most anime is very lazy and the complete opposite from something like Akira.


RE: sharingan
By camylarde on 12/9/2009 5:14:56 AM , Rating: 2
If Akira is an anime masterpiece, then god bless Pixar... I have hated the movie thoroughly, regard it as a mixup of nearly insane situations with very little rational explanation (or explanation of any sort) and the grand finale with the guy growing the stuff was plainly disgusting. I generally am prone to watch anything sci-fi related without prejudice or judging, but Akira was a mistake.

On the other hand "The girl who leapt through the time " was ok.


RE: sharingan
By Anoxanmore on 12/4/2009 1:46:12 PM , Rating: 2
Kruz, I do agree there are a lot of good Anime shows out there.

I hold a personal affinity for Noir because it was the first "adult" anime I saw. I don't count Pokemon, or Naturo among the first. Akira was also quite good.

So I do understand, I'm just sad I knew what that was because it was from Naturo.


RE: sharingan
By Kurz on 12/4/2009 4:30:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anime Fan myself... its the fact it came from Naruto.


Oh I know its sad we both know what Naruto is.


RE: sharingan
By invidious on 12/4/2009 3:19:09 PM , Rating: 3
Anyone who watches a lot of anime has bad taste in anime. I have watched probably 3 dozen animes and most of them are just really really bad. Naruto definately falls into the bad collumn, and I didn't need to watch it to figure that out. Anime movies/OVAs are generally better.

I suppose its not really fair to judge anime as a whole. After all most shows on TV are god aweful but I wouldn't say that I don't like TV. But I would say, and most people would probably agree, that anyone who sits around watching tv all day has bad taste in TV shows. Sports and news excluded.


RE: sharingan
By carniver on 12/4/2009 3:21:01 PM , Rating: 2
I'd prefer one that can shoot Mikuru-beams instead


RE: sharingan
By Flail on 12/6/2009 9:57:45 PM , Rating: 2
While we're on the topic of anime, I herd u guyz liek mudkipz?


Tuning
By drq on 12/4/2009 9:31:03 AM , Rating: 2
Can you "fine-tune" them to see through clothes ?




RE: Tuning
By Chudilo on 12/4/2009 9:47:22 AM , Rating: 2
I knew someone was going to ask that fairly quickly.


RE: Tuning
By Curelom on 12/4/2009 11:11:43 AM , Rating: 5
While that might have some upsides to it, there are defintly tons of people out there that you absolutely would NOT want to see through their clothes, like the 300 lbs guy sitting in the cubicle next to you, that you have to see day after day after day.


RE: Tuning
By ClownPuncher on 12/4/2009 12:36:21 PM , Rating: 5
At least you can help him find his wallet.

"Third fold down from the pack of hot dogs you call a neck!"


RE: Tuning
By Curelom on 12/4/2009 1:09:40 PM , Rating: 1
ROFL I wish I could upgrade your comment. That made my day.


RE: Tuning
By stirfry213 on 12/7/2009 12:31:36 PM , Rating: 1
Can we give this man a 6?! Best comment of the year I'd say!


RE: Tuning
By delphinus100 on 12/6/2009 2:32:58 AM , Rating: 3
No, but you may be able to count the fibers in her bikini top...

Sharp vision isn't x-ray vision. Especially if you only get the same wavelengths of light the rest of us do.


great
By masimons on 12/4/2009 9:38:26 AM , Rating: 2
When I got LASIK, the Dr said he didn't want to go "too far", and have me complain about seeing too good.
It's good to know people are demanding it.
20/20 isn't good enough.




RE: great
By Cheesew1z69 on 12/4/2009 10:33:59 AM , Rating: 2
ummm.....i would think the doctor would want to get the best vision possible, I think I would have talked to another doctor TBH


RE: great
By Omega215D on 12/4/2009 11:55:29 AM , Rating: 3
I had the old fashioned eye surgery done after getting hit by a car at age 10. the right side of my head was severely damaged and even with the surgery I was told I could be permanently blind in one eye. Then my right eye was able to see again in a few months, then my vision in that eye was around 40. After a year my vision had become 20/30 and has remained that way ever since.

I beat those damn naysayers and now stuff like this can help me get my vision back fully.

As for 20/20 not being good enough... at least now old people can see when they drive.


RE: great
By rcc on 12/4/2009 6:17:12 PM , Rating: 2
As I recall, 20/20 is optimal for the human eye. 20/10 isn't better, but it's more optimized for range. But you take a hit on close up.

So, do you want reading glasses, or distance glasses. : )


RE: great
By Captain Orgazmo on 12/4/2009 7:01:48 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry, you have no clue what you are talking about. There are muscles in the eye that control distance focus. 20/20 refers to visual acuity, or how finely the lens of eye can focus light on to the retina. 20/20 is just considered normal visual acuity, but many people have better. After getting lasik surgery for myopia with astigmatism my vision became 20/15, which means I can make out finer detail on objects near and far than someone with 20/20.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity#.22Norm...


RE: great
By rcc on 12/7/2009 12:58:44 PM , Rating: 2
I sit corrected. And am reminded that you need to check pretty much everything you are told. : )


RE: great
By zinfamous on 12/7/2009 8:23:27 PM , Rating: 2
actually...

my first thought is that perhaps the human brain isn't exactly capable of processing this so-called "HD" vision.

I mean, many birds are capable of seeing the flourescent spectrum, but they have ridiculously advanced optic nerves that can handle this info--consider that the FSB (or perhaps the chipset) to the CPU that is your brain.

Our optic nerve/brain size is paltry in comparison, and I'm pretty sure that the 20/10 upper limits that those with naturally exceptional vision is rather close to that upper limit that we can actually process. Think about it: ~4 billion years for this system to work its way to us. In fact, I believe it's been estimated that our eyes already have more advanced image resolving and information capturing ability but our brains simply can't keep up with all of it, so it parses the useful info into a few bits of info at a time.

We'd have massive throbbing headaches otherwise, and go about our days as drooling pussbags, incapable of forming a single coherent internal thought.

Now, once these guys can boost the capability of our optic info processing, then I'll be interested.


RE: great
By Lerianis on 12/10/2009 4:11:47 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, a lot of our 'optic nerve' is not used because our vision is so limited, so increasing the 'spectrum' of light that we can see wouldn't hurt at all.

Our brain most likely could learn, ala Georgi LaForge in Star Trek, to cope with the massive influx of information.


Do want
By FITCamaro on 12/4/2009 9:10:37 AM , Rating: 2
Wonder how long till this becomes available to the masses in the US.




RE: Do want
By karielash on 12/4/2009 2:11:31 PM , Rating: 1

Why would the USA want something from one of those communist health services....


RE: Do want
By FITCamaro on 12/4/2009 3:14:46 PM , Rating: 1
Yes because medical procedures only stay in a certain country.

Pretty much one of the dumbest posts in a while on here.


RE: Do want
By Jacerie on 12/4/2009 4:48:50 PM , Rating: 2
Well... there is the FDA and AMA to consider when talking about medical procedures available in other countries. There are procedures available to other parts of the world that we may never see in the States if they don't pass the governmental review process.


RE: Do want
By amagriva on 12/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: Do want
By DFranch on 12/5/2009 2:05:18 PM , Rating: 3
I did not know England was considered Communist.


RE: Do want
By karielash on 12/6/2009 9:51:17 AM , Rating: 5
Nor did I until I started reading these forums...


RE: Do want
By Lerianis on 12/10/2009 4:16:43 PM , Rating: 2
Well, a lot of people today think that any socialism or social-looking things automatically make a country 'communist' or 'socialist'.... no, they don't.... it just means that country in question is SMART and realizes that for some things...... capitalism FAILS MISERABLY!

As it has been doing lately in the United States.


considering the alternative...
By Redwin on 12/4/2009 9:42:43 AM , Rating: 3
If you consider that lasic-style laser correction surgery is quite common these days, it seems like this should have no problem getting accepted.

Lasic can also end up getting you better than 20/20 sometimes, but in very rare cases it can also screw up your eyes pretty bad, and even when it works correctly, after 10 or 20 years your eyes change due to aging, but the correction from the surgery does not and many people end up needing glasses again.

With these lenses, you could just get new ones if your eyes changed more, and if they screw up while making your lenses, they could make you new ones without any harm to your eyes. Sounds to me like laser eye surgeons might need to start worrying :)




RE: considering the alternative...
By eetnoyer on 12/4/2009 10:45:24 AM , Rating: 3
There is already a similar technology out there for people who want vision correction but are scared by the possible side effects and permanance of LASIK. They're called Implantable Corrective (Collagen/Contact) Lenses - ICL. Last I checked, there were only two version approved by the FDA. I think one of them is called the Visian ICL, but don't remember the name of the other.

I've been looking into it myself, but it's just the last couple of years that it's started picking up and I'm not the early adopter type for body modifications. Plus the wife says I need to save a few more pennies. The nice thing is, once your prescription changes or you have unacceptable side effects, they can be removed or replaced.


By Spivonious on 12/4/2009 11:15:22 AM , Rating: 2
My dad got one of those lenses to replace his cataracted lense in his left eye. They even shaped the lense to correct his astygmatism, so now he has 20/20 vision in that eye without glasses, something he hasn't had for 35 years. All this with no lasers, and a 15 minute out-patient operation.

Technology can be pretty great.


By Hoser McMoose on 12/6/2009 5:34:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lasic can also end up getting you better than 20/20 sometimes

I just had LASIK a few months back and have since been tested at roughly 20/15 vision. The service came with a 'lifetime warranty' of sorts, so if my eyes change as I age they will re-do the procedure for free. This seems to be fairly common among the LASIK providers.

It wasn't cheap but it's the best damn $5,000 bucks I ever spent!

The one scenario where these lenses provide an advantage is that they can give you implantable bifocals. With LASIK it only corrects for myopia and therefore most people who get the surgery will need reading glasses in their 40's or 50's. These implanted lenses could potentially correct for both myopia and hyperopia, letting even older patients avoid glasses altogether.


RE: considering the alternative...
By Lerianis on 12/10/2009 4:14:21 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, they have fixed that 'aging problem' with the latest type of Lasik or laser-eye correction that they do. My cousin's doctor GUARANTEED, with a money-back guarantee, that his eyes would not 'weaken' anymore than say to..... 20/10 from the 20/5 that his doctor managed to get them to.


Do want!
By ChrisHF on 12/4/2009 9:15:59 AM , Rating: 5
Do want now!




RE: Do want!
By Davelo on 12/4/2009 1:46:57 PM , Rating: 2
Trusting, aren't you? If I can see ok I'll not let somebody cut on my eyes. These doctors always overestimate their abilities. How many will be blind from this operation?


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 12/4/2009 12:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
There is no way I am going to pay for someone to supervise me. I don't want no supervision, and these secret government tests to implant supervision technology in your eyes has gone too far. I am going to wrap the foil around my head a little tighter, and head for the fall out shelter! </impression of DT poster who only read part of the article before his preconceptions ran away with him>




By Grumpy1 on 12/4/2009 7:27:45 PM , Rating: 2
Get out of my fallout shelter. What the Hell is wrong with you can't you see.


next step
By invidious on 12/4/2009 3:32:23 PM , Rating: 2
Need some lense with zoom, night vision and heat vision modes.

We need to have our supersoldiers in perfect form to fight off the impending robot apocalypse that Japan is bound to unleash upon us.




RE: next step
By scrapsma54 on 12/4/2009 5:20:04 PM , Rating: 2
I see you watched vexille.


By marvdmartian on 12/4/2009 10:12:49 AM , Rating: 2
A number of years ago, my oldest sister had to get cataract surgery (due to complications from rheumatoid arthritis treatment), and basically had the choice between one fixed focus for both eyes (say, 20/20 at X feet away, which would require reading glasses), or one eye being close and the other being far focus (which will, eventually, cause the brain to learn how to combine both images into a basic variable focus).

Having the ability to auto-focus at variable distances, with just the lenses doing the work, would be a fantastic breakthrough for many people suffering from cataracts! :)




By scrapsma54 on 12/4/2009 7:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
We will be able to get these sunnuva guns in for free!




As a kerataconus sufferer...
By kmmatney on 12/4/2009 11:05:02 PM , Rating: 2
As someone with kerataconus, I have been waiting for something like this for a while. I currently have to wear rigid lens, custom made to fit my eyes. Glasses don't do anything - I need to always wear hard lens, 15 hours a day. I can get my vision to 20/25, but only with a lens that touches my cornea too much (and can possibly scar it), so my current lens are adjusted to be safer, although my wivision is only 20/30 or so. So far, the only surgical option is a cornea transplant, and I can't have lasik or other vision correction surgeries.




Human Resolution??
By Iketh on 12/4/2009 11:58:48 PM , Rating: 2
What's the resolution of the average human eye? How many "pixels" per square inch do we see before it's processed by the brain? What's the theoretical limit of the 20/x formula?




New lenses
By TerryS on 12/5/2009 3:14:22 AM , Rating: 2
In my youth I had better than 20/20 vision which deteriorated with age (I'm now 60).

As a result of various radiation exposures to my eyes, both UV and ionizing (work related), I was at risk for cataracts and it did come to pass. By the fall of 2009 I was nearly blind - I couldn't even read a book unless the type was huge or I used a magnifying glass - and even then it was badly blurred. Other activities were similarly severely limited.

In September and October I had cataract surgery. The lens implants are of a type that can accommodate (focus) for distance and are made using one of these new silicone materials. Focusing is accomplished by two small "haptics" - arms that attach to the ciliary muscles that used to focus the natural lens. They also include UV protection and a type of filtration that really makes colors "pop".

Result: I can now see as good as when I was in my late 20's and only need glasses for extreme close up work outside the range of the implants ability to focus, basically within a few inches of my eyes. Night vision? Extreme. Couldn't believe it. Seeing my 11 year old son's face clearly for the first time in 2-3 years brought tears to my newly "bionic" eyes.

Anyone who has cataracts, or any of the other conditions newer ocular implants can help, seriously needs to check them out. They won't regret it.

They're not cheap and insurance usually only covers half, but how do you place a price on your vision?




Lasers, plz
By EricMartello on 12/5/2009 5:42:21 PM , Rating: 2
I'm all in as soon as these implants grant me the ability to blast lasers from my eyes. Still waiting...




ermmm
By zinfamous on 12/7/2009 8:16:27 PM , Rating: 2
UV blast to the eye?

...not sure I'm too excited about this.




By Nichols1986 on 12/9/2009 9:06:07 AM , Rating: 1
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,Here are the most popular, most stylish and avant-garde shoes,handbags,Tshirts, jacket,Tracksuit w ect... For details, please consult http://www.coolforsale.com Christmas sale, free shipping discounts are beautifully gift.




Information Overload anyone?
By XZerg on 12/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: Information Overload anyone?
By lagitup on 12/4/2009 9:42:47 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder if someone with poor vision and someone with super vision get the same amount of info to the brain, one is just blurrier. This is just a lense, the human optical hardware is still stock.


By AnnihilatorX on 12/4/2009 9:42:41 AM , Rating: 2
You surely won't get information overload looking at p0rn


RE: Information Overload anyone?
By Richlet on 12/4/2009 9:56:11 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Can the brain handle it? What about bright lights? Seeing more than you are used to could cause migraine imho.


I have 20/12 vision, and I can vouch for the fact that yes, the brain can handle it. I never get headaches, let alone migraines. But I was born this way (good genes I guess). And I have a friend in China who just had laser surgery on her eyes, and while her waiting period isn't over for protecting them, she's gone from 20/120 (really bad) to almost 20/16 vision.. she's shocked at how amazing the world looks. And no headaches for her either.


RE: Information Overload anyone?
By phattyboombatty on 12/4/2009 11:12:49 AM , Rating: 4
Good vision doesn't mean the world is brighter, it means the world is sharper.


RE: Information Overload anyone?
By Mitch101 on 12/4/2009 12:34:18 PM , Rating: 4
I refuse to get them unless they make that cool sound when I look at something far away. "NA NA NA Na Na Na na na na"


RE: Information Overload anyone?
By johnsonx on 12/4/2009 11:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
clearly you are too old for teh interwebs... as am I.


RE: Information Overload anyone?
By Mitch101 on 12/6/2009 12:44:49 AM , Rating: 2
True In 2012 that reference might make sense to the younger generation.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1371146/

Jim Carrey will play the six million dollar man. Supposed to be a comedy.


RE: Information Overload anyone?
By Shadowself on 12/4/2009 2:51:54 PM , Rating: 2
The amount of information the brain receives is dependent upon the number of rods and combs in a person's eyes. It has absolutely nothing to do with the lens (unless, of course, the lens is opaque). A billion pieces of information about a blurry image is still a billion pieces of information -- the brain still gets it then interprets it as a blurry image. This is no different from a billion pieces of information about a sharp image.

Now how much an individual pays attention to that sharper imagery is a totally different story... but that is different person to person and is more personality and training based rather than an inherent limitation of the processing ability of the human brain.


"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki