Superhuman Vision | Bionic Lens

[Waindo]

You must be registered for see images

In an incredible feat of modern science and medicine, a new bionic lens for the eye currently in development would give humans 3x 20/20 vision at any age. Called Ocumetics Bionic Lens, the lens was developed by Dr. Garth Webb, an optometrist from British Columbia, Canada, who sought a way to optimize eyesight.

With this lens, patients would have flawless vision. No more glasses for driving or reading and no more invasive contact lenses either. Glasses will one day be a thing of the past.

The lens is surgically implanted too, meaning you can never get cataracts as the lens replaces that of your natural eye. Anyone over the age of 25 is ideal for the surgery.

"This is vision enhancement that the world has never seen before," says Dr. Webb "If you can just barely see the clock at 10 feet, when you get the Bionic Lens you can see the clock at 30 feet away."

The project has been in development for 8 years and has cost $3 million in research and development fees. His mission has become an obsession to free himself and others from glasses and corrective lenses. Webb has been saddled with glasses since he was in the second grade.

"My heroes were cowboys, and cowboys just did not wear glasses," Dr. Webb says.​

 

[Passerby]

Can it warp space space and make me intangible?

 

[Waindo]

No it can't kamui sadly.

 

[SumnNarutoRelated]

can it see up to 10 km away and your chakra network?

 

[Nobel]

Heh, i rather want the ability to distinguish the electromagnetic spectrum of light waves and see differences like ultraviolet ,X-ray, infrared, gamma ray. My standard vision is good enough.

 

[Ryu Kishi]

Will be like

Bam

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

 

[SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO]

Nice but I already have Kamui. :sdo:

 

[Hawker]

What's the point of these threads of yours? Their all copy paste. Atleast put the original source in the OP, so that people could check the validity of the source and take a closer look at the topic.

And how bout for change you'd try projecting your own thoughts into the OP so that it would open up the discussion for everyone else.

 

[Marin]

What's the point of these threads of yours? Their all copy paste. Atleast put the original source in the OP, so that people could check the validity of the source and take a closer look at the topic.

And how bout for change you'd try projecting your own thoughts into the OP so that it would open up the discussion for everyone else.

Look who's talking.

OT: Wonder how its gonna be in the future. Some X-Ray stuff, better start wearing enchanced clothes btchz. *grins*

 

[Dark Sonic]

Awesome.

 

[Hawker]

Look who's talking.

It's complitely different thing to use quotes to opening up/strenghtening your points here and there than to have conversations based entirely on copy paste. You know that this guys OP's don't have single word from him. So far everyone of his threads has been like that. Usually the one who makes the thread should open up the discussion in some way. Just pointing that out.

 

[Marin]

It's complitely different thing to use quotes to opening up/strenghtening your points here and there than to have conversations based entirely on copy paste.

It doesn't matter when your arguments are just copy-pasted from someone else.

You know that this guys OP's don't have single word from him. So far everyone of his threads has been like that.

What you don't get is that not all topics are based on controversy and sensationalism. I know very well what his threads are like - the informative type wich you read while on a break and have fun learning something new.

Usually the one who makes the thread should open up the discussion in some way. Just pointing that out.

There is no need for him to add a useless "discuss" at the end of his posts if he doesn't feel like it. You missed the point by a mile.

 

[Hawker]

It doesn't matter when your arguments are just copy-pasted from someone else.

"when your arguments are just"..lmao. Exaggeration.

Also when I use them I use them as a part of an argument or strenghtening it like I said.

What you don't get is that not all topics are based on controversy and sensationalism. I know very well what his threads are like - the informative type wich you read while on a break and have fun learning something new.

I talked about discussion. You said it as if I meant controversy and sensationalism. That's your strawman.

Yes they are clearly informative, that's why I mentioned that putting a source in the op would also make the "information" credible. Read more carefully.

There is no need for him to add a useless "discuss" at the end of his posts if he doesn't feel like it. You missed the point by a mile.

No you missed my point. I meant he should add his own thoughts on the subject. He is starting a conversation, so he probably should have an opinion on it. Or if they are just meant to be informative, then add the sources and don't pretend you wrote the text, which is basically how it seems now.

 

[Marin]

"when your arguments are just"..lmao. Exaggeration.

Also when I use them I use them as a part of an argument or strenghtening it like I said.

Right...

I talked about discussion. You said it as if I meant controversy and sensationalism. That's your strawman.

That's your assumption. I mantioned those terms because all your threads are of such a kind as a counter-criticism for your own criticism of this thread.

Yes they are clearly informative, that's why I mentioned that putting a source in the op would also make the "information" credible. Read more carefully.

Where did I adress the source? This isn't even relevant to the quote. Besides, if you want a source, ask for it.

No you missed my point. I meant he should add his own thoughts on the subject. He is starting a conversation, so he probably should have an opinion on it. Or if they are just meant to be informative, then add the sources and don't pretend you wrote the text, which is basically how it seems now.

Your point was that this kind of thread is pointless because he didn't add his own toughts to the OP. Something that is completely unnecesarry for such a thread. I don't care what you meant. That's what you wrote.

Also, making a thread doesn't imply starting a conversation. Could have just posted this and went on.

How it 'seems' and how it is are 2 different things. If you want a source so badly, ask for it.

 

[Hawker]

Right...



That's your assumption. I mantioned those terms because all your threads are of such a kind as a counter-criticism for your own criticism of this thread.



Where did I adress the source? This isn't even relevant to the quote. Besides, if you want a source, ask for it.



Your point was that this kind of thread is pointless because he didn't add his own toughts to the OP. Something that is completely unnecesarry for such a thread. I don't care what you meant. That's what you wrote.

Also, making a thread doesn't imply starting a conversation. Could have just posted this and went on.

How it 'seems' and how it is are 2 different things. If you want a source so badly, ask for it.

No it's not my assumption. It's your strawman. You adressed an argument which was not there = strawman.

You said his threads are informative, which is why you are defending it. I added that informative threads need sources, which is obvious, and you ignored this in my original post. Do you think we should just accept everything and just "learn" it while it's not been confirmed as a valid information? I'm not saying most of the stuff he posts isn't true though.

Also the reason why I questioned those things is that in one of earlier threads of his:

You must be registered for see links

There's a mention about "half of existing concrete masses on Earth have been built in just last 20 years". Now there's a source mentioned but I didn't find an explanation for this assertion nor did he give me one while I asked. Therefore I question the validity of that article as that statement doesn't seem realistic. Point being: when you make informative threads, make sure all of it is true.

 

[Waindo]

Now you won't get the source for this article solely because you're very annoying.

 

[Hawker]

Now you won't get the source for this article solely because you're very annoying.

Point was that people shouldn't have to ask them in the first place. Good talk

 

[Marin]

No it's not my assumption. It's your strawman. You adressed an argument which was not there = strawman.

Good to see you still don't know how to read. I specifically said that it is a criticism towards your threads all being the same type.

"I mantioned those terms because all your threads are of such a kind as a counter-criticism for your own criticism of this thread. "

You said his threads are informative, which is why you are defending it.

That's an assumption as well.

I added that informative threads need sources, which is obvious, and you ignored this in my original post.

Did I say he shouldn't give the source? Also, please don't go around accusing others of ignoring posts when that has been your trump card so far.

Do you think we should just accept everything and just "learn" it while it's not been confirmed as a valid information? I'm not saying most of the stuff he posts isn't true though.

Never said that. If you want to check out if something is true or not you can google it yourself. Even if his posts weren't true, it's still a fun idea. The point of his threads...

Also the reason why I questioned those things is that in one of earlier threads of his:

You must be registered for see links

There's a mention about "half of existing concrete masses on Earth have been built in just last 20 years". Now there's a source mentioned but I didn't find an explanation for this assertion nor did he give me one while I asked. Therefore I question the validity of that article as that statement doesn't seem realistic. Point being: when you make informative threads, make sure all of it is true.

Ofcourse, that's a given. None of it has anything to do with your first post tough, in wich you called a thread pointless for being a copy-paste without his opinion and a source in it.

 

[Hawker]

Good to see you still don't know how to read. I specifically said that it is a criticism towards your threads all being the same type.

"I mantioned those terms because all your threads are of such a kind as a counter-criticism for your own criticism of this thread. "

No I read it. It was a strawman and you know it. "counter criticism" was not needed as I didn't say that this thread needs to be about controversy or sensationalism. Also not all my threads are about that so that's again an exaggeration and a false accusation on your part.

Did I say he shouldn't give the source? Also, please don't go around accusing others of ignoring posts when that has been your trump card so far.

No, but that was my point with informative threads. You saying "this is an informative thread" achieves nothing as I already adressed it.

Never said that. If you want to check out if something is true or not you can google it yourself. Even if his posts weren't true, it's still a fun idea. The point of his threads...

I know you didn't say it, that's why I asked. lmao. Learn how to read. Yes it's a fun idea. All I'm saying is that it's appropriate especially with scientific subject that you post the source with the copy paste.

Ofcourse, that's a given. None of it has anything to do with your first post tough, in wich you called a thread pointless for being a copy-paste without his opinion and a source in it.

Yes it has. What I said about this thread applies to that aswell. Also if it's a given then why are you busting my balls over my original point?

 

[Marin]

No I read it. It was a strawman and you know it.

Whatever you say boss...

"counter criticism" was not needed as I didn't say that this thread needs to be about controversy or sensationalism. Also not all my threads are about that so that's again an exaggeration and a false accusation on your part.

Again, I didn't accuse you of saying that. I literrally quoted you the sentence with those words. It was adressed at your previous threads. All I've seen so far. If you have any share.

No, but that was my point with informative threads. You saying "this is an informative thread" achieves nothing as I already adressed it.

As I said, lacking a source is not a reason to call a thread pointless.

I know you didn't say it, that's why I asked. lmao. Learn how to read. Yes it's a fun idea. All I'm saying is that it's appropriate especially with scientific subject that you post the source with the copy paste.

Your sentence implied sarcasm, so I took it as such.

Yes it has. What I said about this thread applies to that aswell. Also if it's a given then why are you busting my balls over my original point?

Because:

1) It wasn't the only reason why you called his threads pointless
2) Even if it was it still isn't a good reason to call it pointless

That's the point.