I bet you've had years to practice that one

Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.>> ^snoozedoctor:

I lost an eyelid in an accident years ago. They used my foreskin to fashion a new one. The wound healed fine, but it left me a little cock-eyed.

wah wah waaaaaahhhhhh...>> ^snoozedoctor:

I lost an eyelid in an accident years ago. They used my foreskin to fashion a new one. The wound healed fine, but it left me a little cock-eyed.

I lost an eyelid in an accident years ago. They used my foreskin to fashion a new one. The wound healed fine, but it left me a little cock-eyed.

Pretty sure humans do in fact have a vestigial third eyelid. That little red blob of semi-transparent shit in the corner of your eye? Yup, there it is.

Anyway, turns out the blind blink isn't antiquated at all. Theres probably a good reason why we got rid of it too, I mean, thats how Evolution works.

I think the real moral of the story is your puny human eyelids will not protect you from ARROWS.

But on the plus side, after the arrow hits, you won't blink any more. You won't be able to.

F*CK It scares me for critical thinking when SO MANY people on Engadget and here think this is real... for F*CK's sake do you not realize anything about reality and the ability of the human eyelid to open and shut 60 times a SECOND!

I'm just sad... sad

Cheers!
In reply to this comment by maatc:
*quality!

>> ^MaxWilder:

I started tearing up as soon as I realized what he was about to do. How could that be even remotely tolerable???


Strangely, while looking incredibly awkward and tiring it may not be that bad depending on how much he's causing the muscle group(s) to fire compared to typical methods of firing. Also, to what extent is the device causing the muscle group to fire it's nerves in relation to the maximum firing rate for that muscle, and does the electrical impulse have to be "strong"? Is the device simply causing a moderate firing; firing the group of muscles at about the same strength as we do? If it's just a bit less to just a bit more this device may work fairly well. Assuming you don't wear it all day.

The eyelid has (had to look this one up, it's been awhile) different groups to open and close (that's why it feels as though it's at rest when open or closed) the eyelid. There's a third group which helps control the widening of the eyelid. So while it looks odd, it may actually be fairly comfortable (again depending on the amplitude of the electric device versus the speed).

But, I certainly agree it "might" be OK for an hour or so, but long amounts of time will certainly tire the muscle groups no matter what (and probably give you a headache). Neat device, neat concept, but I highly doubt it'll go anywhere in it's current state.

Hopefully, it does force engineers to realize that the body is perhaps the best way to do a lot of these type of things. If someone else knows a lot more about stimulating that muscle group(s) as shown, please fill us in as I'm going off of old knowledge.

Those muscles are sure getting a workout. Imagine his eyelids after a couple of months of watching movies/tv like this!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'bot, fly, surgery, removal, oh, my, god, no' to 'bot fly, larva, surgery, eye, eyelid, removal, oh, my, god, no' - edited by kronosposeidon

>> ^Truckchase:

>> ^ghark:
Interesting points, but saying how bad $170k is then for Nick to come on and say he's spent 3 times that in a regular campaign run up, and for Rachel to not bat an eyelid - come on...
The Dem's are just as corrupt as the Republicans, look what happened when they had senate majority.... nothing.

Yeah! So we should elect people who will increase the income gap by lobbying for tax cuts for the rich individuals and the even richer businesses! "Trickle down" baby!
Hold on, I have to help Milton Friedman find his pants so he can go back to the psycho ward.


No, I never said the fix was to vote Republican, please read more carefully, I said they were both corrupt - the fix is to stop the flow of cash from business to politician - full stop.

Nope, never said she should be shocked, my point is that neither candidate should be in a position where $500,000 worth of expenses for this kind of campaign should be considered normal.

>> ^dgandhi:

>> ^ghark:
Nick to come on and say he's spent 3 times that in a regular campaign run up, and for Rachel to not bat an eyelid - come on...
Okay, so let me get this straight. You think Rachel should be shocked that the actual candidate for national office, would spend more in an entire campaign season, then some shadowy front group spent in two weeks? Sure half a mil is a chunk of changes, but at this rate, this unidentified front group will have outspent either of the candidates by election day.
The amount of money itself is not the salient issue. When the candidate spends money, he has a history, connections, historical funders, you can look into where his money came from. When an organization that has existed for less than a month is spending faster then either candidate, and you can't tell where the money is coming from, then how do you assess the motivations, or the ulterior motives of the message?

>> ^ghark:
Nick to come on and say he's spent 3 times that in a regular campaign run up, and for Rachel to not bat an eyelid - come on...

Okay, so let me get this straight. You think Rachel should be shocked that the actual candidate for national office, would spend more in an entire campaign season, then some shadowy front group spent in two weeks? Sure half a mil is a chunk of changes, but at this rate, this unidentified front group will have outspent either of the candidates by election day.

The amount of money itself is not the salient issue. When the candidate spends money, he has a history, connections, historical funders, you can look into where his money came from. When an organization that has existed for less than a month is spending faster then either candidate, and you can't tell where the money is coming from, then how do you assess the motivations, or the ulterior motives of the message?

>> ^ghark:

Interesting points, but saying how bad $170k is then for Nick to come on and say he's spent 3 times that in a regular campaign run up, and for Rachel to not bat an eyelid - come on...
The Dem's are just as corrupt as the Republicans, look what happened when they had senate majority.... nothing.


Yeah! So we should elect people who will increase the income gap by lobbying for tax cuts for the rich individuals and the even richer businesses! "Trickle down" baby!

Hold on, I have to help Milton Friedman find his pants so he can go back to the psycho ward.

Interesting points, but saying how bad $170k is then for Nick to come on and say he's spent 3 times that in a regular campaign run up, and for Rachel to not bat an eyelid - come on...

The Dem's are just as corrupt as the Republicans, look what happened when they had senate majority.... nothing.