 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/09/2012 05:43 PM, nemesis wrote:
> hello, caveman. Our minimum smartphone screen sizes are now 4"
Wouldn't that make the phone too small to fit in your pocket?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> It still troubles me that here in the 21st century, the only way to
>> actually measure a person's blood pressure is [still] to crush their arm
>> until no blood reaches it, and measure how much force it takes to do
>> that. o_O
>
> nope. There are things like finger blood pressure meters (finapres and
> similar). NOn invasive and continuous and therefore used e.g in the OR.
I know they can measure blood oxygen saturation with a finger clamp.
(After all, blood helpfully changes colour depending on its degree of
saturation, and human flesh is fairly transparent at optical
wavelengths.) But I'm not aware of any such system that can do this for
blood /pressure/ measurements.
> But the method you describe is the more easy and cheap one.
> Now you are unemployed I suggest you do your research before making any
> sweeping statement. ;)
In particular, I know a guy who has high blood pressure. The doctor has
given him this very expensive-looking piece of automated blood pressure
measurement equipment. Now why would anybody design such a complicated
and expensive apparatus if a simple finger clamp could do the same job
with a few light sensors?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-9-2012 22:00, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> It still troubles me that here in the 21st century, the only way to
>>> actually measure a person's blood pressure is [still] to crush their arm
>>> until no blood reaches it, and measure how much force it takes to do
>>> that. o_O
>>
>> nope. There are things like finger blood pressure meters (finapres and
>> similar). NOn invasive and continuous and therefore used e.g in the OR.
>
> I know they can measure blood oxygen saturation with a finger clamp.
> (After all, blood helpfully changes colour depending on its degree of
> saturation, and human flesh is fairly transparent at optical
> wavelengths.) But I'm not aware of any such system that can do this for
> blood /pressure/ measurements.
well, now you are, you should have used a past tense.
>
>> But the method you describe is the more easy and cheap one.
>> Now you are unemployed I suggest you do your research before making any
>> sweeping statement. ;)
>
> In particular, I know a guy who has high blood pressure. The doctor has
> given him this very expensive-looking piece of automated blood pressure
> measurement equipment. Now why would anybody design such a complicated
> and expensive apparatus if a simple finger clamp could do the same job
> with a few light sensors?
Because it is not simple? It is for a patient more easy to screw up the
finger measurement than the arm cuff. You need to measure at the level
of the heart. Easy for a sitting/standing/lying person with the cuff on
the upper arm. The only way to do it wrong would be to lay down on your
side, not a very likely error. For the finger measurement lying down is
almost the only option.
Even if it does look expensive, it may not be and the finger measurement
system it not cheap and I am not even sure you can buy it as a private
person giving that it needs calibration and some training to use.
--
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> But the method you describe is the more easy and cheap one.
>>> Now you are unemployed I suggest you do your research before making any
>>> sweeping statement. ;)
>>
>> In particular, I know a guy who has high blood pressure. The doctor has
>> given him this very expensive-looking piece of automated blood pressure
>> measurement equipment. Now why would anybody design such a complicated
>> and expensive apparatus if a simple finger clamp could do the same job
>> with a few light sensors?
>
> Because it is not simple? It is for a patient more easy to screw up the
> finger measurement than the arm cuff. You need to measure at the level
> of the heart. Easy for a sitting/standing/lying person with the cuff on
> the upper arm. The only way to do it wrong would be to lay down on your
> side, not a very likely error. For the finger measurement lying down is
> almost the only option.
Hmm, interesting.
From what I've seen, as soon as the guy sits down to take a
measurement, he immediately becomes so totally apprehensive that his
blood pressure goes sky-high. I would imagine that has a way, way bigger
impact on the readings...
(But what do I know? I'm not a doctor.)
> Even if it does look expensive, it may not be and the finger measurement
> system it not cheap and I am not even sure you can buy it as a private
> person giving that it needs calibration and some training to use.
I did say "the doctor has given him" this gizmo. You would think they
would give him the cheapest possible device. It /is/ government money,
after all... And a brick-sized machine with sensitive specially
calibrated pressure sensors and complex mechanical parts cannot possibly
be cheaper than a device with no moving parts that literally consists of
just an LED and a photoresistor.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Now, if the real reason for using Twitter is to follow stuff that's
>>> happening in real life, then yes, I guess to me the system would be
>>> completely useless. I can't think of anything that happens in real life
>>> that I would actually give a damn about...
>>
>> Yeah, I fogrot that you live in a bubble completely isolated from the
>> outside world
>
> It's more that politics and commerce do not interest me.
>
>> For example, our province's new premier was almost assassinated last
>> night while giving her victory speech. There were lots of people in that
>> theater who wanted to know what the heck was going on. Following the
>> police's and tv stations' Twitter feed was all they had. Likewise, the
>> tv stations were following the twitter feeds of the people in the
>> theater to get as many details as they could.
>
> Damn. And here I was thinking that's what people watch the news and read
> newspapers for...
Not WHILE they are being shot at!
Did you miss the part where I said that "There were lots of people _in
that theater_ who wanted to know what the heck was going on."
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On 05/09/2012 02:57 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>> "Apps" are the software that you run on iThings.
>>
>> For example, the Wolfram Alpha app that you mentioned earlier.
>
> ...the Wolfram Alpha app I mentioned as an example of utter pointlessness?
Having a front-end client that sanitizes the user's input before sending
transactions back to the back-end server is NOT pointless when you are
dealing with devices that have limited (and/or expensive) bandwidth
capabilities, or small screen resolutions.
for example, on my phone, I could fire up the browser and access the
phone book web site, wait while it downloads the logos, ads, etc... and
then have to either zoom in and scroll all over the place to put the
person's name and city and then scroll some more until I get to the
"search" button, or I can use the app that acts as a front-end client
for the web site and is more suited to the 640x480 resolution of the
phone's screen. I suspect the Wolfram app is similar. (Disclaimer: I
may be wrong, as I haven't tried it.)
This being said, I freely admit that most apps are totally useless, for
example, there are many apps from store chains that will grab your
coordinates from the phone's embedded GPS, or by the location of the
tower it's communicating with, and tell you where the closest store is.
Privacy concerns aside, I don't know of anyone who would want to have
their phone vibrate whenever they get in the vicinity of a particular
chain of clothing store. Then again, I'm not a teenage girl!
>
>> There are
>> also word processors, spreadsheets, presentation packages, etc...
>
> How can you operate a word processor or a spreadsheet without a keyboard?
Magic!
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTWfurnBt-2DPkqVngr0dQE37Vj8xclsMZDmmuGo9_BR38Ne2-t
>
>> Who said the only thing you could do on a tablet was surf the net?
>
> I didn't say tablet, I said iPad.
And the iPad is what, in your opinion, if not a tablet?
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 20:53:37 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 05/09/2012 05:43 PM, nemesis wrote:
>> hello, caveman. Our minimum smartphone screen sizes are now 4"
>
> Wouldn't that make the phone too small to fit in your pocket?
Is there /any/ physical circumstances where something could be /too
small/ to fit in a container?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On 05/09/2012 05:05 PM, scott wrote:
>>
>> Hold your phone closer to your eyes then, Nokia have a full-HD
>> (1920x1080) phone in the pipeline/announced, so quality should be fine
>> for making out actors faces :-)
>
> Full HD, on a screen only an inch across. How pointless...
>
Where do you get this 1" figure that you keep repeating?
http://osxdaily.com/2012/05/16/iphone-5-will-have-larger-4-inch-screen/
This being said, i wouldn't want to watch a full movie on a phone, but
to view a two minute youtube video explaining how to prepare a certain
food item, while you have the thing in hand, on the kitchen counter has
come in handy once or twice.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5-9-2012 22:49, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>>> But the method you describe is the more easy and cheap one.
>>>> Now you are unemployed I suggest you do your research before making any
>>>> sweeping statement. ;)
>>>
>>> In particular, I know a guy who has high blood pressure. The doctor has
>>> given him this very expensive-looking piece of automated blood pressure
>>> measurement equipment. Now why would anybody design such a complicated
>>> and expensive apparatus if a simple finger clamp could do the same job
>>> with a few light sensors?
>>
>> Because it is not simple? It is for a patient more easy to screw up the
>> finger measurement than the arm cuff. You need to measure at the level
>> of the heart. Easy for a sitting/standing/lying person with the cuff on
>> the upper arm. The only way to do it wrong would be to lay down on your
>> side, not a very likely error. For the finger measurement lying down is
>> almost the only option.
>
> Hmm, interesting.
typical pressures that you measure are about 1-2 meters of water (though
generally expressed as mmHg).
> From what I've seen, as soon as the guy sits down to take a
> measurement, he immediately becomes so totally apprehensive that his
> blood pressure goes sky-high. I would imagine that has a way, way bigger
> impact on the readings...
>
> (But what do I know? I'm not a doctor.)
No, well known effect. That is why it in general better to let someone
measure themselves and not someone in a white coat. If his blood
pressure still rises after a week of use, perhaps better consult a
psychiatrist.
>> Even if it does look expensive, it may not be and the finger measurement
>> system it not cheap and I am not even sure you can buy it as a private
>> person giving that it needs calibration and some training to use.
>
> I did say "the doctor has given him" this gizmo. You would think they
> would give him the cheapest possible device.
No I wouldn't. the cheapest device may be so unreliable that it is not
the best price/performance. And there are many other factors, some you
may not wish to know as a consumer in the medical market.
> It /is/ government money,
> after all... And a brick-sized machine with sensitive specially
> calibrated pressure sensors and complex mechanical parts cannot possibly
> be cheaper than a device with no moving parts that literally consists of
> just an LED and a photoresistor.
well, perhaps you should do some research before claiming that something
is not possible. Or claiming to know how something works.
--
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/4/2012 11:43, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 9/3/2012 1:07 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> On 9/2/2012 17:28, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> The same identical, save in electronic form,
>>> technology is at the center of cell tower systems.
>>
>> Well, no, not really.
>>
> Odd then that, a few years back, she was recognized, finally, for having
> invented the idea, and it was attributed as one of the key features that
> make cell phone networks possible.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr
>
> "Lamarr's and Antheil's frequency-hopping idea serves as a basis for modern
> spread-spectrum communication technology, such as Bluetooth, COFDM used in
> Wi-Fi network connections, and CDMA used in some cordless and wireless
> telephones."
Spread spectrum and frequency hopping are two different things. Frequency
hopping is only one possible way of doing spread spectrum.
In CDMA, everyone is transmitting on the same frequencies, in both
directions, at different baud rates, all the time. There's no frequency
hopping involved: every phone and every tower uses the entire frequency band.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"They're the 1-800-#-GORILA of the telecom business."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
