Slashdot Mirror
Vietnam Medic Makes Homemade Endoscope
Davian writes "As reported by the BBC a Vietnamese doctor has managed to create an endoscope using an apparatus consisting of lenses and a webcam, linked to a Pentium 4. Total cost of extra hardware - less than $1000." The doctor plans to also assist other local hospitals that are facing similar budgetary contraints.
I just hope that this webcam is a little smaller than the one sitting on top of my monitor.
$1000? For all the good that bit of cheap kit is going to do, he might as well shove it up his arse.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
RTFA.. in the beginning he had problems installing programs on the PC, and he had to ask a guy for help... don't you think that it would hinder progress of his project if he had to use linux, and find another guy to help him... im not to sure there are to many tech savy people hanging around a region in vietnam, where they can't afford a 30 k endoscope.
off topic.. sort of...
i know a guy who has an endoscope in his attick, thats not beeing used.. isn't this world nice and unfair..
spelling is for people who doens't know better...
read the article. the only thing they 'bought' was the scope itself, which cost $800 .. i'm sure you can read between the lines on that one.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
That's one webcam link which will not be slashdotted.
For once, the goatse trolls may well be on-topic.
Unfortunately, I am not Wil Wheaton
That's the part I've never understanded about the US. On one hand the US is ultra-religious. But on the other hand helping the poor is totaly unamerican (socialism is baaaaaaaad). Now what I don't get is this: is the US hypocritical (a lot of talking, but noone really meaning what they say) or is this a case of a splitten personality? (radical differences in oppinion)
This isn't meant as flamebait or anti-americanism or something. It's just strange that a society that holds on to religion in so many ways, seems to disagree with a major portion of it.
Part of that is probably the roots of America's predominant religion - US Christianity stems from Puritan and other sects where being poor wasn't a sin but sloth was - hard work was a virtue (which fit in nicely with what was needed to survive in a foreign land)and neighbors helped each other through hard times when luck, not sloth, caused someone to fall onto hard times. Coupled with America's belief that you can triumph through hard work provides an American view of charity - help people get on their feet but don't let them stay on the dole forever - hence work fare vs welfare.
Americans and America are generally generous people - in the context of how they view charity, which is to say not better or worse, but different.
As a side note - America's disdain for socialism is rooted in the innate distrust of government and a belief in the "American Dream." American's don't like taxes (ask the English about that)so establishing a broad social net funded by high tax rates is very unlikely.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Americans are not opposed to helping the poor on a personal level. In fact, americans spent a lot more (absolute and as % of GDP) on charity than europeans. In my experience, americans also have a culture of doing volunteer work to an extend that doesn't exist in europe. For example, I've seen a complete new school building be built by the student's parents. Some gave money, some gave machines, some did the work.
What is different is the role of government in charity: while europeans see helping the poor mainly as a job of the state, americans do it themselves. If you look at the financial structure of shelters, soup kitchens but also museums and operas, you'll find that they are mostly financed by governments in europe, while they rely heavily on individual's contributions in the US.
So it's nearsighted to say that Americans don't want to help the poor. They simply don't want the government involved, want to do it on their own terms and want it to be seen as what it is, namely charity, and not as some god-given right of other people over one's own money.
Now, this doesn't mean there aren't some seriously crack-smocking right-wing jesus-nuts whose actions and words don't match. But that's another story.
Fleur de Sel
...to Intel Inside.
A nice, insightful parent post and you spin it back into a tedious little morality play. I knew it was too good to last.
Regarding porn, I remind you that there is more than one American and if one person loves Jesus while another stars in jizz flicks, this does not meet any definition of hypocrisy.
Saving Private Ryan was on TV, so it's difficult to sustain your argument that you can't show it on TV. Further, despite concerns from some stations, the FCC issued a preemptive ruling stating that there would be no fines for showing the movie uncut.
As for Janet Jackson, even the Ameriphobic Guardian cited a poll in which on 17% of Americans were "very concerned" about the Jackson incident -- the same percentage of people who voted for Le Pen in France. Neither is a sign of the impending apocalypse.
Kill, Tux, kill!