«

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:45:39 -0800, Irwell <> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:15:52 -0500, tony cooper wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:52:05 +1300, Eric Stevens
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:11:30 -0500, "ala" <>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"RichA" <> wrote in message
>>>>news:2183e849-3584-4c7d-ad73-...
>>>>> BBC:
>>>>>
>>>>> 23 December 2011 Last updated at 09:35 ET
>>>>> Smartphones eat into low-end camera sales in US, study
>>>>>
>>>>> Smartphones are eating into sales of basic cameras and camcorders in
>>>>> the US, according to market researchers.
>>>>
>>>>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
>>>
>>>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".
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> I once bought her a very nice, and expensive, wristwatch as a
>> Christmas gift. It didn't have a second hand, but I thought she could
>> wear it as a dress watch. I had to exchange it.
>>
>
>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.

I think it's because you are unconsciously a bit more anxious when the
doctor takes your BP. You are mentally thinking "He's going to find
something wrong!". You know the nurse isn't going to give you any
bad news. She'll tell the doc and he's paid the big bucks to give you
the bad news.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:17:17 +1100, "Trevor" <> wrote:

>
>"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.
>

As I understand it, some phones are actually capable of allowing you
to speak to people that are not in the same room you are in, and they
can speak back and you can hear them! They even have some sort of
mechanism in them that gives you an audible notification that the
other person is trying to get your attention.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

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.

unfortunately, not enough to use more modern and more capable methods
when available. i bet she ignores the digital monitors in the hospital
too.

> >> 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.

of course not. why am i not the least bit surprised. do you remember to
wind them every day?

> They have no style.

some do and some don't. the plastic ones that you have to squeeze to
make the leds light up (probably the ones you looked at), you're right,
those have no style. others, however, definitely do.

> I know, to you, "high style" is a pocket protector without
> an logo, but some of us have different views.

can't forgo an ad hominem can you? fortunately, very few share your
views, or technology would not advance.

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> As I understand it, some phones are actually capable of allowing you
> to speak to people that are not in the same room you are in, and they
> can speak back and you can hear them! They even have some sort of
> mechanism in them that gives you an audible notification that the
> other person is trying to get your attention.

you must mean the ones with rotary dials and mechanical bells. yea, i
had one of those once.

sorry to burst your bubble, but today's phones can do a *lot* more than
just make calls, and that's a very, very good thing.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:17:25 -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.
>
>unfortunately, not enough to use more modern and more capable methods
>when available. i bet she ignores the digital monitors in the hospital
>too.

You need a reading comprehension app. My post clearly stated that she
is retired. Before retirement, she was a Clinic Manager in a Public
Health Clinic. When we met, though, she was an operating room nurse
and did work in hospitals in the past.

I'm also retired, but I spent my working life in the specialty medical
equipment field and owned a company that distributed very high-tech
medical and surgical devices.

>> >> 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.
>
>of course not. why am i not the least bit surprised. do you remember to
>wind them every day?

>> They have no style.
>
>some do and some don't. the plastic ones that you have to squeeze to
>make the leds light up (probably the ones you looked at), you're right,
>those have no style. others, however, definitely do.

I really don't think I'll take style notes from you.

>> I know, to you, "high style" is a pocket protector without
>> an logo, but some of us have different views.
>
>can't forgo an ad hominem can you? .

It's no secret that I think that you are a boring little ****, but I
would never make derogatory comments about a family member of yours.
As you have of mine.

>fortunately, very few share your views, or technology would not advance

I don't think the advance of technology has been, or will be,
predicated on one's preference for analog vs digital wristwatches.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 22:17:28 -0800, nospam <>
wrote:

>In article <>, tony cooper
><> wrote:
>
>> As I understand it, some phones are actually capable of allowing you
>> to speak to people that are not in the same room you are in, and they
>> can speak back and you can hear them! They even have some sort of
>> mechanism in them that gives you an audible notification that the
>> other person is trying to get your attention.
>
>you must mean the ones with rotary dials and mechanical bells. yea, i
>had one of those once.
>
>sorry to burst your bubble, but today's phones can do a *lot* more than
>just make calls, and that's a very, very good thing.

My first mobile phone was hard-wired into my car, my second a "bag
phone", and my third one was one of those Motorolas roughly the size,
weight, and shape of a WWII walkie-talkie. Each successive mobile
phone I've owned has been smaller, thinner, and been capable of more
features than the last one.

The sound quality of voice transmission has declined, though. The
durability has declined. None have the sound quality or the
durability of the ordinary house phone land-line. My current phone
is out-of-warrenty because it has a pink tab, but it has never been
exposed to water. Just humidity.

We have one mechanical land-line phone in the house that was installed
in 1972 when I had the house built. The sound is excellent, and phone
works today just as it worked in 1972. In Florida, it's a good thing
to have a hard-wired mechanical phone because hurricanes or storms
often cause the power to go out for days at a time and our wireless
phones won't work and mobile phones can't be charged unless you charge
them in the car. Also, the phone company charges for repairs to the
lines outside the home, but on your property, if a storm blows them
down and you don't have one of their phones in the house.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> My first mobile phone was hard-wired into my car, my second a "bag
> phone", and my third one was one of those Motorolas roughly the size,
> weight, and shape of a WWII walkie-talkie. Each successive mobile
> phone I've owned has been smaller, thinner, and been capable of more
> features than the last one.

i seem to recall you said you didn't have a smartphone and didn't plan
on getting one.

> The sound quality of voice transmission has declined, though. The
> durability has declined. None have the sound quality or the
> durability of the ordinary house phone land-line. My current phone
> is out-of-warrenty because it has a pink tab, but it has never been
> exposed to water. Just humidity.

maybe on the phones you've picked it has. sound quality might be worse
when there's very poor reception (digital does not degrade well).
however, the sound quality can also be much better since it's not
limited to the 8k bandwidth analog phone lines had.

> We have one mechanical land-line phone in the house that was installed
> in 1972 when I had the house built. The sound is excellent, and phone
> works today just as it worked in 1972. In Florida, it's a good thing
> to have a hard-wired mechanical phone because hurricanes or storms
> often cause the power to go out for days at a time and our wireless
> phones won't work and mobile phones can't be charged unless you charge
> them in the car.

both are useful. a mechanical landline at your house will not do you
one whit of good if a tree falls and snaps the wires leading to your
house, which happened to my aunt many years back, before cellular
phones were widespread. a mechanical landline also won't do you any
good if you are away from home and get stuck, storm or not.

also, cellphones can be charged in many ways other than in a car when
there's a power outage, but a car is certainly an easy way to do it,
and a lot of times, the cellular providers stay running when the
landline providers do not, as happened to me in the last power outage i
was in.

> Also, the phone company charges for repairs to the
> lines outside the home, but on your property, if a storm blows them
> down and you don't have one of their phones in the house.

bullshit. as a public utility, the phone company is required to repair
everything outside the house up to the demarc at no cost to you,
including the wires from the pole to the house. however, if you don't
have one of their phones, why does it matter what they do? it's not
like you are suddenly going to get service when you didn't have it
before.

anything beyond the demarc, however, is entirely your problem unless
you get one of their overpriced maintenance packages.

On Jan 16, 11:16*pm, "Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote:
> "Eric Stevens" <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>
> news:...
>
> > 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.
>
> Trevor.

Yes and idealy you'd end up with something like this.
Star Trek-style 'tricorder' invention offered $10m prize
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16518171

On Jan 17, 1:37*am, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com>
wrote:
> Irwell <h...@yahoo.com> 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?

for me it'd depending on what they're wearing, there's nothing quite
like a nurses uniform

>
> -Wolfgang

In rec.photo.digital Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
> 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?

Very definitely if you're partially sighted to the point of being
legally "blind", as some of my friends are.

> And is that indeed true?

Because some of my friends have such poor sight I keep an eye on
magnification technology. AFAIK nothing optical and hand held like a
magnfying glass can come close to the magnification easily available
digital camera.

>> 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.

Why do you think that? A 13 meter mirror falls way outside my
definition of a hand holdable magnifying glass. As does a 1200mm lens
of any aperture.

> 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.

You can't read text with a microscope for several practical
reasons. Of course they're optical and have much higher magnification,
but they're not practical text magnfication tools for the poor of
sight.

You're missing the whole point and purpose and practicality of the
hand-holdable magnifying glass.

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

Yes, you might want a tablet, but smarthpone screens are pannable and
some of the partially sighted find they work very well as text
magnifiers. Very much better than any hand holdable magnifying glass
at any price.

--
Chris Malcolm