It's always good to see what the current estimate on the bionic eye is; I think the last time I checked, it was ten years out, which would be about right (I started having my current problems in 2001). I probably have about another decade before they really have to get aggro on the issue; my retinal condition is stable in my bad eye (the one UFme's had replaced) and degenerative-but-not-seriously-threatening in my good eye.

It's also nice to see Wired focusing on peer-reviewed, standards-compliant university research on this topic for once; the last time they had a restoring-sight article, it was about some procedure that required you to have an extra USD250K on-hand and the willingness to go to Spain to have seriously dodgy surgery performed, after which you'd basically be the guinea pig for some guy in his workshop. I pretty much had to stop reading when it got to the point where the only guy who's ever had the implant procedure managed to give himself a grand mal seizure while working with the camera controller. That's really not science; it's not going to give anyone any reproducible results, and it's highly unlikely to ever get safer if they've got a sample size of one. However, it *is* great shock journalism. :P

Ard Sumhenner
that Janice chick
Usual Suspect and general menace