Smart Holograms Used as Biosensors

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."

Comments

Good and Bad...

[raydobbs]

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...

This kind of stuff is dangerous

[yog]

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

[Solder Fumes]

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.

Re:This kind of stuff is dangerous

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

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 slant their judgement on what needs to be done to whom.

What I mean is, the point of this is to eliminate the human factor from the loop. Whenever someone tries to achieve this, it's to prevent unpredictability from human behaviours.

Nobody will like smart holograms

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:NOW HEAR THIS

[tod_miller]

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.

Re:NOW HEAR THIS

[Lord_Dweomer]

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!!

[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.