Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Privacy Science Technology

Smart Holograms Used as Biosensors 126

Posted by timothy from the now-stick-this-in-your-eye dept.
Roland Piquepaille writes "In this short article, eWEEK writes that the next generation of biosensors will consist of small holograms costing only fractions of a cent. Prototypes developed by a U.K. company, aptly named Smart Holograms, include contact lenses that monitor glucose levels or thin badges that detect alcohol levels. Not only these holograms used as sensors will be cheap to produce, they'll also require less training for nurses or police officers. This is because these holograms can be designed to show results graphically, such as morphing into an image of a green car if someone subjected to breath analysis is sober and can drive. Read this overview for other details and an illustration showing how to create a sensor hologram."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Smart Holograms Used as Biosensors More

Smart Holograms Used as Biosensors

Comments Filter:

  • Big Brother (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Great! More ways for the authorities to keep tab on our drinking and other habits...

    I wonder when they'll come up with a hologram that tells whether you've been handling a weapon (gasp!) recently or what's your religious affiliation.

  • Yeah, just what we need... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bjwest ( 14070 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @03:16PM (#11729773)
    "they'll also require less training for nurses or police officers."

    Less training for those that need more as it is.
    • If it leaves police cadets more time to learn the difference between a political opponent and a rioter, I'm all for it.
      • Your argument definitely makes sense... though, in the case of determining whether someone has a high BAC, I'd rather have the police officer et al still know what are the characteristics.

        Even though it's a hologram, I still think the concept is analogous to the scratch-and-sniff sticker; after a few hundred scratches, all you're left with is a sticker you can scratch. Holograms, whethre protected in a sheath of plastic, can still wear out. Put some element that'll really warp it next to it.
        • Well, since they are supposedly only a fraction of a cent to produce, I don't think we need to worry about them wearing out. I'm sure they will be disposable just to cover their ass - one time only. That way no one can use the argument that their test was tainted by a prior one.
          • True. Though I can just see the argument now...

            Officer: Your SmartHolograph badge expired a month ago.
            Person: Really? Oh gosh ::faking stupidity::, I didn't know this had an expiration date.

            If this badge has the capability to tattle, wouldn't the drinkers in the audience most likely 'conveniently' forget to get a new badge - and these are the drinking-driving folks that this item was meant to stop in the first place?

            I would probably be a little less skeptical if there was another element to the ba
    • The idea being that you can spend the time used training a policeman how to take and interpret a BAC on some other aspect of training that is glossed over or otherwise left out.

  • EMH (Score:5, Funny)

    by inertia187 ( 156602 ) * on Sunday February 20, 2005 @03:18PM (#11729780) Homepage Journal
    "Please state the nature of the medical emergency."

  • Good and Bad... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by raydobbs ( 99133 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @03:18PM (#11729783) Homepage Journal
    In a way, it's opened up the field of diagnostic medicine - as many of these functions require complex tests now. if technology can boil down the plethora of tests into a stick-it-on-and-read type instrument, then the standard level of healthcare will rise.

    Will it lower costs? Only time, and the health insurance companies will be able to answer that one...

    • Complex Tests (Score:4, Insightful)

      by buckhead_buddy ( 186384 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @05:02PM (#11730356)
      raydobbs said:
      In a way, it's opened up the field of diagnostic medicine - as many of these functions require complex tests now. if technology can boil down the plethora of tests into a stick-it-on-and-read type instrument, then the standard level of healthcare will rise.
      A complex test has more than the two positive and negative outcomes. Though I don't drink alcohol, I have a problem with a seizure-like condition that can confuse my coordination and reaction time like an inebriated person. In this condition, I'll pass all chemical tests for alcohol and drugs even though I shouldn't be driving. Now these tools will go ahead and render the verdict whether I can or can't drive? At least now with a result absurdly low (0%) it indicates that there's something else going on that is misleading the tests. With these tools obscuring the data the technician may just assume that I'm a "just squeaked under the borderline" case.

      I dislike "wizards" in my software development tools that tell me what kind of mentality I should use to start my development; I don't want "wizards" to bug the emt's, police, or nurses that have very tight and constrained opportunities to help people. These tools may very well cover up some sort of useful data that would have indicated some other problem or more complex outcome.

      Beyond just the annoyance and delay factor, we can also get into a Brazil or Philip K. Dick like realities where we no longer know what these results are showing us. Perhaps the CEO of the hologram company gets the DUI tests to check for a white list of genetic signatures and to always show them as passing the test no matter what the actual results. Perhaps a religiously obsessed development manager surreptitiously adds additional constraints that will cause certain pregnancy tests to fail until the fetus can't be aborted.

      These tools are not developed under security and strong testing now because they don't render the judgement. If these tools can in any way cloud or mislead the judgement of those using them then they are a bad idea.

    • Not to mention social health care systems like here in Canada -- this will ultimately aid in lowering diagnostic costs involved with serving patients

  • Article Moderation (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    -1, Roland
    • Hey, at least he linked to the actual site and not his blog-thing.
  • I want a hologram that shows me whether I have bad breath, and another that shows my blood-alcohol content - privately.

    • Re:Green Screen (Score:5, Funny)

      by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @03:37PM (#11729894)
      I want a hologram that shows me whether I have bad breath

      That's called a "girlfriend" and the display consists of her face pulling back with a funny face when you kiss her.

      and another that shows my blood-alcohol content - privately

      The "girlfriend" device above can detect that too. You may not count upon the privacy of the display though...
    • I want a hologram that shows me whether I have bad breath, and another that shows my blood-alcohol content - privately.

      I want a hologram with programmable morphing feature. From the original post:

      ... these holograms can be designed to show results graphically, such as morphing into an image of a green car if someone subjected to breath analysis is sober and can drive.

      A better morph would be a cute chick icon if I'm drunk enough to think the cop is a cute chick. If I'm not drunk, the cop icon is j

      • A better morph would be a cute chick icon if I'm drunk enough to think the cop is a cute chick. If I'm not drunk, the cop icon is just a cop.

        So...it's identical to just looking at the cop?

      • I think that's just a clueless reporter saying "morph" when they mean change. These holograms aren't animated; even changing color switched by a biochem state is quite a revolution. So you're looking for a red or blue cop hologram - and hoping your drunk ass can tell the difference between the unsympathetic one with a gun, and the cute one you've been carrying around all night.
        • I think that's just a clueless reporter saying "morph" when they mean change. These holograms aren't animated; even changing color switched by a biochem state is quite a revolution. So you're looking for a red or blue cop hologram - and hoping your drunk ass can tell the difference between the unsympathetic one with a gun, and the cute one you've been carrying around all night.

          Aww, c'mon Doc -- I wasn't being literal -- just karma-whoring for a +Funny mod.

          -kgj

    • Hey, I like the bad breath one -- what a great way to sell products.. imagine a "breathe here to test" sticker on every bottle of Listerene, etc.

      Of course, then it would need an antiseptic wipe attached to get all the crap off from people who breathed (i.e. spit) on it..

      Oh, then some government regulations on what level of smelly-ness is proper so companies can't cheat with false-positives..

      Ok, scratch that. Forget this idea. Please.
    • "I want a hologram that shows me whether I have bad breath,"

      I want a hologram of a chick that doesn't care about my bad breath.

  • Rather than reading Roland's poor description (Score:5, Informative)

    by nuntius ( 92696 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @03:23PM (#11729816)
    Get the pictures and facts straight from the source.
    http://www.smartholograms.com/site/sections/techno logy/creating_sensors.htm [smartholograms.com]

  • It's all in the cards (Score:3, Funny)

    by Solder Fumes ( 797270 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @03:25PM (#11729827)
    We'll go to tarot readers to find out we have low blood sugar, high cholesterol, trace amounts of lead, and are pregnant.

  • This kind of stuff is dangerous (Score:5, Interesting)

    by yog ( 19073 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @03:25PM (#11729829) Homepage Journal
    Humans are the best biosensors yet made, with dogs perhaps a close second. Intelligent, intuitive, experienced humans can scan someone's face, question them, trip them up in inconsistent statements, and otherwise sniff out intruders and frauds. Dogs can literally smell or otherwise somehow sense nervousness in people and make excellent guards. They ID people by scent and they don't forget scents quickly.

    If we focussed on human intelligence we would perhaps be able to avert more catastrophes, such as the series of missteps that allowed the 9/11 hijackers to get on board their planes despite some rather suspicious behavior.

    Computers are always going to be only as good as the programs that control them, and there are always going to be workarounds for people clever enough to find them. Insiders will create back doors in biosensor systems, or they will sell passwords to outsiders. A team of Japanese researchers already cracked a fingerprint biosensor a couple of years ago, so where's the security in using one? I would imagine even a DNA sample can be faked; just get someone's DNA, replicate it in a test tube using E. coli, and coat your hands with it. Standard laboratory biology.

    No one can steal your identity at the low-tech neighborhood store where you shop once a week and the clerks know you (if only this were always the case). The humans at the store will look at your credit card, then at the face that does not match yours, and they'll go in the back and call the police. A machine will simply pass the buck, leaving the owner to dispute the theft with the credit card company.

    The Israelis for decades have relied on human intelligence and it has stood them in good stead, with zero airline hijackings. They have very smart people who look at everyone before they board. We in the U.S. are just beginning to wake up to this level of need and we have a lot to learn.

    • Re:This kind of stuff is dangerous (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Solder Fumes ( 797270 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @03:31PM (#11729858)
      These aren't computers, they're basically a glorified version of litmus paper. A chemical response changes the size of molecules, which in these prototypes causes the sensor itself to become the display. You're not going to create a backdoor unless you actually make a door out of this stuff.
    • If we focussed on human intelligence we would perhaps be able to avert more catastrophes, such as the series of missteps that allowed the 9/11 hijackers to get on board their planes despite some rather suspicious behavior.

      Well, the whole point is to avoid using humans. If I may remind you, 9/11 terrorists boarded the planes under the nose of the "watchful" security guys, some of them were even scanned and let go. Besides, biosensing machines don't have vested interests in the persian gulf or whatever, to
    • Um, you realise that that has absolutely nothing to do with either the article or the blurb submitted, right? The article talks about things like alcohol tests for cops that pull over somebody, or for nurses to do tests much more quickly and easily. Maybe next time you should read more than just the headline before freaking out about "biometrics."
    • Humans are the best biosensors yet made

      So why is it that cops need trained dogs to find drugs in the trunk of a car?
      • Because, while you have no expectation of privacy for the contents of your vehicle's cab, you do have that expectation for the trunk.

        Without probable cause, the police officer can't search your car's trunk. (Interesting, refusing his request to search your trunk suffices for probable cause).

        This is neatly circumvented by having a dog trained to smell drugs indicate that there are drugs in the trunk. Now the cop has his probable cause and doesn't need to risk his career to search your trunk.

  • NOW HEAR THIS (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 20, 2005 @03:36PM (#11729888)
    Roland Piquepaille and Slashdot: Is there a connection?

    I think most of you are aware of the controversy surrounding regular Slashdot article submitter Roland Piquepaille. For those of you who don't know, please allow me to bring forth all the facts. Roland Piquepaille has an online journal (I refuse to use the word "blog") located at www.primidi.com [primidi.com]. It is titled "Roland Piquepaille's Technology Trends". It consists almost entirely of content, both text and pictures, taken from reputable news websites and online technical journals. He does give credit to the other websites, but it wasn't always so. Only after many complaints were raised by the Slashdot readership did he start giving credit where credit was due. However, this is not what the controversy is about.

    Roland Piquepaille's Technology Trends serves online advertisements through a service called Blogads, located at www.blogads.com. Blogads is not your traditional online advertiser; rather than base payments on click-throughs, Blogads pays a flat fee based on the level of traffic your online journal generates. This way Blogads can guarantee that an advertisement on a particular online journal will reach a particular number of users. So advertisements on high traffic online journals are appropriately more expensive to buy, but the advertisement is guaranteed to be seen by a large amount of people. This, in turn, encourages people like Roland Piquepaille to try their best to increase traffic to their journals in order to increase the going rates for advertisements on their web pages. But advertisers do have some flexibility. Blogads serves two classes of advertisements. The premium ad space that is seen at the top of the web page by all viewers is reserved for "Special Advertisers"; it holds only one advertisement. The secondary ad space is located near the bottom half of the page, so that the user must scroll down the window to see it. This space can contain up to four advertisements and is reserved for regular advertisers, or just "Advertisers". Visit Roland Piquepaille's Technology Trends (www.primidi.com [primidi.com]) to see it for yourself.

    Before we talk about money, let's talk about the service that Roland Piquepaille provides in his journal. He goes out and looks for interesting articles about new and emerging technologies. He provides a very brief overview of the articles, then copies a few choice paragraphs and the occasional picture from each article and puts them up on his web page. Finally, he adds a minimal amount of original content between the copied-and-pasted text in an effort to make the journal entry coherent and appear to add value to the original articles. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Now let's talk about money. Visit http://www.blogads.com/order_html?adstrip_category =tech&politics= [blogads.com] to check the following facts for yourself. As of today, December XX 2004, the going rate for the premium advertisement space on Roland Piquepaille's Technology Trends is $375 for one month. One of the four standard advertisements costs $150 for one month. So, the maximum advertising space brings in $375 x 1 + $150 x 4 = $975 for one month. Obviously not all $975 will go directly to Roland Piquepaille, as Blogads gets a portion of that as a service fee, but he will receive the majority of it. According to the FAQ [blogads.com], Blogads takes 20%. So Roland Piquepaille gets 80% of $975, a maximum of $780 each month. www.primidi.com is hosted by clara.net (look it up at http://www.networksolutions.com/en_US/whois/index. jhtml [networksolutions.com] [networksolutions.com]). Browsing clara.net's hosting solutions, the most expensive hosting service is their Clarahost Advanced (http://www.uk.clara.net/clarahost/advanced.php [clara.net]) priced at £69.99 GBP. This is roughly, at the time of this writing, $130 USD. Assuming Roland Piquepaille pays for the Clarahost Advanced hosting service, he is out $130 leaving him with a maximum net profit of $650 each month. K

    • Re:NOW HEAR THIS (Score:4, Interesting)

      by tod_miller ( 792541 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @04:15PM (#11730091) Journal
      I LOVE YOU! I also hate the word blogs. Your comment is... amazing.

      My new (and first) sig

      #update your host file now.
      #ultra-fucktard
      127.0.0.1 www.primidi.com

      I am in the process (ok, it hits his traffic, but, hey gotta do it) of emailing links to his sotries to the copyright owners, so that they can rape his ass for copy/pasting this content (even if it is promotional etc). Quoting sources is notok when you paste so much.

      If I paste a dvd into this site, with some funky cool javascript DeCSS, is it ok just to source it?

      no. ipipiapquiettee... how the fuck you say it... you are killfiled. thanks.
      • Instead of redirecting it to 127.0.0.1 just nullroute it ( 0.0.0.0 ). Saves you from the hassle if you're running any webservice on localhost.
      • You know what else is interesting that you should point out if you are writing to the original authors:

        © Copyright 2005 Roland Piquepaille.
        Last update: 20/02/2005; 19:13:58.

        He is claiming that his stories are copyright even though the majority of the article is not his own.

    • Sounds like a good idea.

      I should really start doing that :)
    • How is that any different from slashdot?

    • Re:NOW HEAR THIS (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @04:37PM (#11730227) Homepage
      What I want to know is why Slashdot editors accept Roland's site for the story, yet ignore links to the original site which must undoubtably get submitted as well. What is the incentive for them?

    • !!THE TRUTH ABOUT ROLAND!! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The simple fact is that Roland doesn't exist. It's a damn front for the slashdot editors to pocket a few more bucks each month with more ad-driven pages. Think about it: fake name, obviously fake pictures on the journal site, next to no participation in the comments.

      It's clever but sad that the salshdot crew are so greedy as to go after table scraps like this.
      • "It's clever but sad that the salshdot crew are so greedy as to go after table scraps like this."

        Who gives a flying fuck? Are you seriously trying to tell me this story isn't news for nerds?

        This whole obsession with Roland is really tiring. If you really want him gone, don't post comments in his related stories. Why? If this a form of advertisement, what could be more damaging than to have it shoo people away?

        All this modded up blabbering about Roland is giving Slashdot every interest in keeping h
    • As of today, it is clear that ten articles were accepted in October, six in November, and four in December (so far).

      I don't like opportunists, but I dislike reposters even more.This is clearly an old article, perhaps not even the reposter's; if this had been written in Feb, 2005 (or if the karma whore had actually read it), this statement would not have been made.

      As an aside, I'm not surprised that people don't read articles, but moderating without reading what you're moderating? Why even bother? This

    • I'm fairly certain I've read this before, but it is by no means any less true. I had forgotten the guy's name and stupidly clicked the link. I detest those making money in illegitimate ways. Of course, it is business. But it does brush far too close to plagiarism.

  • Roland (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @03:38PM (#11729895) Homepage
    Make sure you don't click on any of the links in the story. It was submitted by Roland, and by doing so you would just be contributing to his ad revenue and encouraging him to keep posting on Slashdot.

    God I wish we could have an option to not display Roland stories.

    • ...and encouraging him to keep posting on Slashdot.

      No it's "astroturfing".

    • Do not click on the link to eWeek.com, nor click on the source link (http://www.smartholograms.com/) either.
      You sit here on a commercial site which also exists to display adverts and make Taco rich, and bitch about someone else doing it.
      You are a hypocrite.
      • I don't mind supporting a site that has the original story on it. I DO mind supporting a site run by a leech who simply submits links to his website which in turn has links to the original story. I just want to cut out the middleman.

          • I DO mind supporting a site run by a leech who simply submits links to his website which in turn has links to the original story.


          *BASH BASH BASH*

          What the hell do you think slashdot is?
          • You don't understand. This is like Slashdot linking to another Slashdot which in turn links to a story. What should happen is that Slashdot just links to the story.

            • True, in this world of blogs, I read the same sotry linked AD INFINITUM with exactly the same text.

              You know, if someone did an RSS agg. of 10 random RSS feeds, then 80% of the headlines would be common across all ten feeds.

              One day it was be less about can we, and more about should we.

              Bloggers can go and take a flying fuck. of trackback [slashdot.org] or whatever the poncey self indulgent whacko terminology they are cooking up.

              gah. Yes, rule 1: slashdot should ONLY link to news sites.

              rule 2: WHY NOT have a url field w
    • Roland, like other submitters, has a Slashdot account [slashdot.org]. There should be an option to "hide stories submitted by Foes." That way those of us who don't want to see Roland's stories anymore could add him to our foes list, and his stories would go away.
    • "Make sure you don't click on any of the links in the story. It was submitted by Roland, and by doing so you would just be contributing to his ad revenue and encouraging him to keep posting on Slashdot."

      If his stories are generating comments, even if they're "Roland is an ass!" comments, Slashdot will keep him. Haven't you noticed that every reply is fed with a banner ad?

      Frankly, you'd also be doing a favor for those of us who don't give a flying fuck.
      • Haven't you noticed that every reply is fed with a banner ad?

        --Turns off Adblock in Firefox--

        Oh.... yea... I guess it is.

  • Wait a second... (Score:3, Funny)

    by yotto ( 590067 ) on Sunday February 20, 2005 @03:41PM (#11729908) Homepage
    ...they'll also require less training for nurses or police officers. This is because these holograms can be designed to show results graphically, such as morphing into an image of a green car if someone subjected to breath analysis is sober and can drive.

    So I have to be able to say the alphabet backwards while standing on one leg and touching my nose, but the cop who pulled me over doesn't need to be capable of knowing if the number on his digital readout is greater than 0.08?
  • "Breathalyzer" alcohol tests are notoriously unreliable. Judges often do not realise this - and will side with the officer who nailed you through the "scientific" method. (One should refuse submit himself to this balooney and insist on a regular blood sample test.)

    Developing new cheap alcohol tests is step in a very wrong directions.
    • "Breathalyzer" alcohol tests are notoriously unreliable.

      Any links to support this? In most US states (if not all), refusal to take a breahalyzer test automatically implies failing it, which will obviously work against you in court.

      • Here in louisiana you don't have to take a blood test or breathalyzer. What could you get? Obstruction of justice? Yeeeaaaaaah right. You want your license taken away? http://www.la-legal.com/drinking.htm
      • In all the states I have lived in, refusing to take the breathalyzer test in the field necessitates an arrest on suspicion of DUI to be determined by a blood alcohol test (if you've requested it).

        General refusal to submit to any sobriety test would require the arresting officer to make a sworn statement that you were drunk based upon the physical indicators he observed (slurred speech, slow reflexes, alcohol on breath, etc). Failure to complete a test is NOT evidence you are drunk. It doesn't help you ou
        • But refusing to take the breathalyzer DOES NOT by default imply failure of the test. *Evidence* is required by our judicial system, remember?

          It does imply failure of the test in NJ, at least according to the state driver's manual from about 10 years ago. Or at least that's how I understood it back then, with our driver's ed teacher being very insistent upon it.

          I do remember the driver's education teacher saying there was only one case in NJ history where someone refused the test and was found not guilty

          • You and that teacher could be a victim of spin control.
          • Yeah, well my driver's ed teacher told us that people who take LSD will cook babies. He wasn't the brightest bulb... I mean if you're going to scare us at least make it plausible.

            The 'sips from a flask' thing happens all the time, and is the best way to get out of a DUI if it's a single-car accident. You just abandon the car, and stumble to the nearest place with alcohol. I guy I knew did this in college- he was close enough to home that he just walked back. When the cops knocked on his door he had a dr

        • Nothing at all is way better than a crappy breathalyzer. I know of cops who've driven drunk while on duty. There definitely are bad cops, and as society further erodes over time there will be more than ever.

    • "Breathalyzer" alcohol tests are notoriously unreliable. Judges often do not realise this

      Oh yes they do - that is why in my country two blood samples are taken if you fail a breath test, one of the samples is tested by a more accurate measure, and it is taken very seriously if the samples go missing.

      However, I don't have a clue how it is treated as evidence in those areas where even polygraph tests are admissable evidence. I suppose all bets are off in that case, and what a machine says will be taken as

  • Nobody will like smart holograms (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    These researchers have obviously never seen Red Dwarf. They would know the whole concept was doomed to failure.

  • "The image is stored in a thin polymer film that is chemically sensitised to react with a specific substance in, for example, a bioassay or a sample of body fluid. During the test, the target substance reacts with the polymer leading to an alteration in the image displayed by the hologram. The test result is a change in the optical: brightness, image, wavelength or position." -SmartHolograms [smartholograms.com]

    So in other words this new tech could have big implications in the development of diagnostic and medical devices.

  • Here is a direct link to where he whored his info. [smartholograms.com]

    I mean, isn't copying swathes of content without permission STEALING (well no it isn't but I just rented a DVD where it said it was...)

    I think I hate this guy, but at least he adds to my argument that blogs are worse than showering in fetid pureed pigs innards.
  • I've seen several posts about the evils of Roland in this thread. Did no one read the URL's of those links? Only the last one was to his blog/journal/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, the other two were to legitimate sources (eWeek and the company developing these things). I personally don't like the setup Roland seems to have going, but I see no reason to not discuss something just because he posted it, just don't click the last link.
  • If/when this company ever goes to a publicly-traded stock available status, I'll be buying..
  • morphing into an image of a green car if someone subjected to breath analysis is sober and can drive

    Hmm.. if it doesn't work on an one individual-salinity, recent hair removal via electrolysis, scar tissue, whatever makes it work- fails to connect, and the car STAYS 'failed'

    I think it should start out green, and develop to identify 'drunken state' not the other way round..
  • ...More police officers and nurses who need a little picture of a green car to tell them what the equipment says. Does anyone here seriously think people who can't interpret a simple readout should be carrying guns and interfacing between patients and the poor excuse for doctors we already have to deal with today? I'm all in favor of hiring the handicapped, but folks whose IQ is lower than their shoe size should most assuredly be excluded from certain life critical functions.
  • Non invasive detection of blood glucose, by some sort of optical/spectral means, has been the subject of intense research in both the academic and commerical sectors (lotta money/nobel prize here) The problem is, that any optical signal you can obtain has a LOT of noise, and not much info on glucose levels. That is, you have a very noisy signal that varys (in every way - amplitude, magnitude, ) a LOT with time, and in this signal is some *very small, varying component tht is glucose levels (u can increase t
    • I don't see how adding a hologram to the system helps.

      That's becasuse you didn't read the article.

      The sensing isn't done optically, it's works by a chemical reactionwnith a polymer. Only the readout is optical: holographic effects enable a direct path from molecule-scale chemically induced displacements into clearly visible display, without electronics and stuff in between.
      • Precisely, you agree with me.
        the issue is not the optical detector, it is the specificity ofthe chemistry - how do you detect glucose in a sea of other molecules.
        simply saying chemical reactionw ith polymers is to recapitulate a lot of failed work.
        I suggest you get a few copies of Analytical Chemistry, published by the American Chemical Society, and read about glucose sensors
  • -in which way porn will be the first business to make money out of this.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close