Searching \ for '[TECH] Invent medical tricorder and win $10M' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=invent+medical+tricorder
Search entire site for: 'Invent medical tricorder and win $10M'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[TECH] Invent medical tricorder and win $10M'
2012\01\20@155709 by YES NOPE9

flavicon
face
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-1651817

2012\01\21@042227 by V G

picon face
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 3:57 PM, YES NOPE9 <spam_OUTyesTakeThisOuTspamnope9.com> wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16518171

LOL!

If I ever invent that, and money is what I wanted, I would sell it and
make a lot more than $10M

2012\01\21@082651 by Yigit Turgut

picon face
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 11:22 AM, V G <.....x.solarwind.xKILLspamspam@spam@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 3:57 PM, YES NOPE9 <yesspamKILLspamnope9.com> wrote:
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16518171
>
> LOL!
>
> If I ever invent that, and money is what I wanted, I would sell it and
> make a lot more than $10M.
>

2012\01\21@173903 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

>> If I ever invent that, and money is what I wanted, I would sell it and
>> make a lot more than $10M.

I believe that like the Space X-prize, the idea is that you can win the prize AND sell the product (for as much as you're able to make.)

Having reached the age where I undergo entirely too many medical tests and procedures, it is sort of glaringly obvious how poorly technology has penetrated into the average doctor's office.  I mean, ultrasound machines with FLOPPY drives?  Really?

Another example is the CAT scan.  Computationally intensive.  So you'd think that maybe Moore's law had come into play and made these things common and cheap?  It sure doesn't look that way from the bill-paying side of things..

(OTOH, it's not clear that jumping on the "we need to upgrade our cpu/memory/display/disk technology every two years or we'll be obsolete" bandwagon is a great way to actually save costs, either.  All those primary schools promised cheap educational devices wound up with an expensive new department and constant upgrade and training issues.)

BillW

2012\01\21@182041 by peter green
flavicon
face

> I believe that like the Space X-prize, the idea is that you can win the prize AND sell the product (for as much as you're able to make.)
>
> Having reached the age where I undergo entirely too many medical tests and procedures, it is sort of glaringly obvious how poorly technology has penetrated into the average doctor's office. There is certainly a time lag with medical technology because of certification requirements :(
>  I mean, ultrasound machines with FLOPPY drives?  Really?
>   Most equipment has far longer life cycles than your typical PC. So it's not unusual to find PCs that seem archaic driving expensive equipment. I know that we have a milling machine at uni that is driven by a pentium (the original, not one of the later things marketed under the name) and it was only upgraded from a 486 because the 486 board stopped working right. The important cards are ISA and the machine runs windows 3.x (not sure the exact version offhand). We have a drilling machine controlled serially from a dos machine (which was an upgrade, the machine was originally meant to be driven from a paper tape reader).  I haven't seen them personally but i've head of some experiments still being driven by BBC micros.

We also have lots of fairly modern osciloscopes with floppy drives. Afaict it's only in the last few years that tektronix and agilent have switched to USB memory sticks as media for saving your traces on.

In general expensive equipment is kept until either it dies and can't be repaired or there is a need for more performance and there is nowhere to demote it to. Noones going to replace expensive equipment just because the computer that drives it seems a bit archaic.
> Another example is the CAT scan.  Computationally intensive.  So you'd think that maybe Moore's law had come into play and made these things common and cheap? Yes it's computationally expensive but as I understand it the main cost is in the prescision sensing (the inverse radon transform is very unstable so you need very good measurements to produce acceptable output) and the certification requirements (it's firing x-rays through a human body in nontrivial ammounts...), not in the computing hardware.

2012\01\22@010732 by V G

picon face
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 5:39 PM, William "Chops" Westfield
<.....westfwKILLspamspam.....mac.com> wrote:
> I believe that like the Space X-prize, the idea is that you can win the prize AND sell the product (for as much as you're able to make.)

Ah, didn't realize that

2012\01\22@024647 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Jan 21, 2012, at 10:07 PM, V G wrote:

>> the idea is that you can win the prize AND sell the product
>
> Ah, didn't realize that.

I lot of the "little" prizes give relatively strong rights to the awarder of the prizes; usually in the form of a perpetual royalty free license that allows them to publish the entries (whether they win or not.) (It's not much good to fund a contest to show off your product if you can't show anyone the results.)  (TI recently started a contest with such awful rules that the community complained and TI corrected them: http://dangerousprototypes.com/2012/01/18/texas-instruments-changes-outrageous-contest-rules/ )

The bigger prizes (X, Pullitzer, Nobel) tend to be simpler motivation/reward for doing something that the funders considered desirable.  There's a reasonable looking wikipedia entry for the X prizes that explains some of the history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Prize_Foundation

BillW

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2012 , 2013 only
- Today
- New search...