«

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> >My medical nephew has an app which lets him measure the pulse.
>
> Every watch with a second hand I've ever owned has had that "app".

so you just pressed the watch to the person's skin and it directly read
out the pulse? amazing! and to think all those years people did it the
hard way by counting.

no, your watch did not have any such app. *you* were the app, not the
watch.

fortunately, technology has advanced since then. not only can a
smartphone measure one's pulse but it can measure many other things
too, including blood sugar, and even alert a doctor should the
measurements be outside of normal. did your watch do all of that?
didn't think so.

> My wife, a now-retired nurse, has never owned a watch without a second
> hand. No designer watch, no matter how stylish, has ever met with her
> approval to own.

did she at least accept digital watches or was she analog-only?

In article <jf2b40$487$>, Trevor <>
wrote:

> > My medical nephew has an app which lets him measure the pulse. He is
> > waiting for an app which will enable him to measure blood O2 in the
> > finger.
>
> It's amazing how non technical people think you simply need an 'app" to do
> anything, forgetting the sensors/interface are the real hardware, and the
> iphone simply adds a processor and display. In many cases the device can be
> made just as cheaply as a stand alone item rather than an iphone add-on.

it's amazing how many people resist advances in technology. why must
one carry multiple devices or do it manually the way our ancestors did,
when there's a perfectly capable device that slips into your pocket
that can do it all a whole lot easier and a lot more accurately too?

"nospam" <> wrote in message
news:160120121655531184%...
> fortunately, technology has advanced since then. not only can a
> smartphone measure one's pulse but it can measure many other things
> too, including blood sugar,

I'm impressed a phone can do it now, for so many years diabetics have had to
draw blood to do it. Or does the phone do that too?

Trevor.

"nospam" <> wrote in message
news:160120121658059092%...
> it's amazing how many people resist advances in technology. why must
> one carry multiple devices or do it manually the way our ancestors did,
> when there's a perfectly capable device that slips into your pocket
> that can do it all a whole lot easier and a lot more accurately too?

Yes, sometimes the phone can do amazing things with only a simple "app", in
which case I have no complaints. However other times you need to buy the
actual device that makes the measurement and simply use the phone as a
display, and that's an entirely different matter IMO.
And I bet you have NO idea what the accuracy is in any case.

Trevor.

In article <jf2i6u$ivt$>, Trevor <>
wrote:

> > it's amazing how many people resist advances in technology. why must
> > one carry multiple devices or do it manually the way our ancestors did,
> > when there's a perfectly capable device that slips into your pocket
> > that can do it all a whole lot easier and a lot more accurately too?
>
> Yes, sometimes the phone can do amazing things with only a simple "app", in
> which case I have no complaints. However other times you need to buy the
> actual device that makes the measurement and simply use the phone as a
> display, and that's an entirely different matter IMO.

not really.

> And I bet you have NO idea what the accuracy is in any case.

do you know the accuracy of the devices sold today that don't require a
smartphone? didn't think so.

the medical stuff requires fda approval, so it's should be just as
accurate, if not more so, than existing solutions.

In article <jf2hrk$iee$>, Trevor <>
wrote:

> > fortunately, technology has advanced since then. not only can a
> > smartphone measure one's pulse but it can measure many other things
> > too, including blood sugar,
>
> I'm impressed a phone can do it now, for so many years diabetics have had to
> draw blood to do it. Or does the phone do that too?

you still have to do the pin prick (until they get non-invasive methods
working well), but the phone can measure blood sugar, log it, and do
all of the manual work that people had to do (and often neglected).

here's one such device:
<http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/...t-glucometer/a
ll/1>

i remember reading about a normal watch that could measure blood sugar
through sweat on your skin but i haven't heard anything about it in a
few years.

let's see your analog watch do this:
<http://medgadget.com/2009/06/airstrip_telemetry_for_your_iphone.html>

Irwell <> wrote:

> Why do the blood pressures read by nurses differ so much from
> doctors, at least in the 'Health Fair' at the Mall, they do.
> The quacks findings are always higher for me.

Doctors are threatening. Nurses are not. What raises the
blood pressure more?

It's obvious, don't you think?

-Wolfgang

Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital Trevor <> wrote:
>> "ala" <> wrote in message

>>> I bought one for the camera because I can download an app from an
>>> advocacy group that deals with vision issues that uses the camera as a
>>> magnifier to enable reading of documents with small print

>> Wow, sounds like an expensive, power hungry magnifying glass to me.

> Which offers a degree of magnification and image quality at least an
> order of magnitude above any optical magnifying glass,

Is that needed?
And is that indeed true?

> plus a host of
> other features useful to those with poor sight. Have you checked the
> prices of the very best optical magnifying glasses you can get? Sounds
> a good deal to me.

I usually don't check the prices for 13 meter diameter parabol
mirror optics or even 1200mm f/5.6 lenses when looking for a
35mm-sized 50mm lens. You seem to.

BTW, the very best optical magnifying glass is quite more powerful
than your iWhatever or smartsomethingorother. After all, the
microscope's objective lens is nothing else and can enlarge
100x (and that can be enlarged at least by another factor 10x).
That means your 1mm³ will look like 1m² at the other end.

Oh, and you'll probably want a tablet, because smartphone
screens are ... well ... tiny.

-Wolfgang

MadHatter <> wrote:
> On Dec 24 2011, 11:42Â*am, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
[the usualy drivel, this time about [see subject]]

> Just out of curiosity, what makes them lazy?

They're unwilling to wet their glass plates themselves and
carry 30+kg of gear with them for just a few shots.

> If their phones are a
> tool sufficient for their needs why should they carry another camera?

Because RichA (who doesn't even own a camera nor a
smartphone) says so.

> Couldn't a large format photographer just as easily call SLR shooters
> lazy?

Of course, but SLRs are in the happy middle ground.

-Wolfgang

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:55:53 -0800, nospam <>
wrote:

>In article <>, tony cooper
><> wrote:
>
>> >My medical nephew has an app which lets him measure the pulse.
>>
>> Every watch with a second hand I've ever owned has had that "app".
>
>so you just pressed the watch to the person's skin and it directly read
>out the pulse? amazing! and to think all those years people did it the
>hard way by counting.
>
>no, your watch did not have any such app. *you* were the app, not the
>watch.

Fortunately, my wife has the training, skills, and intellectual
ability to not need an app for this.
>
>fortunately, technology has advanced since then. not only can a
>smartphone measure one's pulse but it can measure many other things
>too, including blood sugar, and even alert a doctor should the
>measurements be outside of normal. did your watch do all of that?
>didn't think so.
>
>> My wife, a now-retired nurse, has never owned a watch without a second
>> hand. No designer watch, no matter how stylish, has ever met with her
>> approval to own.
>
>did she at least accept digital watches or was she analog-only?

Neither my wife nor I would ever wear a digital wristwatch. They have
no style. I know, to you, "high style" is a pocket protector without
an logo, but some of us have different views.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida