Programmable Tatoos

[Bob Russell]

What's a logical bio-extension of electronic paper technologies? Tatoos, of course!

"Finally, a technique for modifying subcutaneous tattoos using special inks has also been patented. It relies upon microencapsulated spheres injected under the skin. Such microencapsulation is typified by eInk's "digital ink" technology for use in electronic paper. A set of drive electrodes manually applied to the skin manipulates the tattoo image electrically." But there are medicinal applications also, like a display for nanobot sensors monitoring diabetes.

So now when you want to tell your daughter not to get that tatoo because she might not be dating "Milfred" anymore when she's twenty, you really don't have a decent argument left, do you?!

From PaperGadgets and OhMyNews.

[NatCh]

Heh, maybe this is the future form factor for the "Palm" PDA!

And of course, you'd sync with your 'puter using a thumb drive.

[CommanderROR]

Well,I'll have to admit that I'm not overly interested in applying this kind of technology for things like Tattoos. I think that is an extreme waste of time and resources...but that's perhaps just me.

The medical side could be interesting, but I'm afraid that there is still too little real development done in that science.
Nanotechnology, nanorobots and similar applications are constantly on the "verge of breakthrough", but if you look closely you will see that there is very little behind most of those announcements.

Now let me point out something that is a "personal dream" for me...
Some kind of Nanotechnology could be employed in the human body, but unlike current plans, I'd like to see maintenance crews instead of surgical implements...little security and repair bots floating around our system and taking care that things don't get out of control. These devices could create a basis for some serious medical, educational and entertaining applications, including eskin-like displays like the ones shown above.
If you look at what we have right now, it looks lik ehtis to me:

You have to implant the displays, prevent the body from "healing" and destroying or obscuring them. You'll also have to use some kind of energy supply because they most certainly won't be able to use the biochemical energy the body provides. Replacing the batteries for one of these would probably not be fun...

For applications like this I would rather go with the biological growing option: Instead of implanting a mini-screen somewhere in/on your body, you should try to either "grow" a biological equvalent of a screen or (even better but less impressive of course) have your nanobots transmit the information directly to your brain.

And here comes the problem:
The human body has a tremendous potential, but most of it is not user-accessible (to use a very computer-age wording).
If you could manage to create a brain-to-computer interface that gives ou more control over that potential, then you'd be able to do a lot more. the question is whether that would really work or just drive you mad...
the alternative as I see it would be an interface that does not change body-to-brain connection and awareness but rather acts as a communication relay from the brain to the artificially enhanced parts of your body and of course also things like a "memory-enhancement" could then be possible. Interaction would then work like a normal computer interface but without mouse-keyboard or similar input and with some mind-control instead.

Unfortunately we still know so little of how everthing works that such a system is impossible.
Until we know more and can do a lot more with our technology, I think concepts like the one shown above are not really going to do anything useful. Monitoring Insulin levels and things like that can be managed with an external device...and maybe that's better because you can always change the battery and/or buy a new device that way if something breaks...

[NatCh]

They've been experimenting with ways to get electricity from sugars, perhaps that might help with the battery situation, eventually.

Here's one example, there are lots of others using fuel cells and such, but I picked this one from the Google results because it's pure biological: http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/P...ArticleID=5906

[slayda]

I'm waiting for color e-ink tatoos for jewelry. My wife fuses because I can't wear a ring. This way I could get a wedding band e-ink ring that would bother my finger. -- Nah - just my luck it'd make my finger rot off!

[NatCh]

You could just get a gold colored tattoo -- low tech, I know, but it'd be effective.

[Turtle Woman]

I'd go for the microscopic bots that ran around and ate fat cells.

[NatCh]

I'd expect better results on that from this line of research.

If I recall correctly the variation of the article they circulated internally commented that this approach did not have the cholesterol raising side effects that other approaches previously tried generally did have.

[NatCh]

Personally, I'm most interested in some sort of implanted clock, preferably one that received signals from the Atomic Clock.

[UncleDuke]

So would you let your daughter get a tatoo? Er, forget that, she already has a few.

[nekokami]

So then they'd have to ban these tattoos in schools, right? Because otherwise you could program them to have answers to test questions or whatever and hide them whenever anyone's looking, plus you can fit more writing on your hand/arm if you can change the display....

I figured bioluminescent tattoos would be the next wacky form of self-mutilation, but this wouldn't surprise me either, if they could get it working.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by UncleDuke

So would you let your daughter get a tatoo? Er, forget that, she already has a few.

Moot point, my wife would have a conniption-fit -- I wouldn't even get a say! Doubly moot for the moment, as I also haven't any daughters.

Personally, I'd like to get a tattoo that only showed up under ultraviolet light, but the aforementioned conniption-fit applies to me, too -- I try not to do stuff that will make her genuinely mad, you understand.

[slayda]

Originally Posted by NatCh

I try not to do stuff that will make her genuinely mad, you understand.

Wise man! - If mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.

But I bet you let her have pierced ears!

[RWood]

Around here no tatoos or pierced ears -- on either one of us. No kids so that is not an issue.

[NatCh]

Pure self interest, I assure you, slayda.

Originally Posted by slayda

But I bet you let her have pierced ears!

Yup, but that's kind of a red-herring since they were pierced before I came along, and doubly so since she can't really wear pierced earrings due to allergies.

I asked her what she'd've thought if I'd had a pre-existing tattoo, and she said she'd've dealt with it, but that I wasn't allowed now -- when it comes down to it, hepatitis is what she's really worried about, and she won't be reassured on the point.