Slashdot Mirror


Poor Vision? There's an App For That

necro81 writes "Researchers at MIT's Media Lab have developed a smartphone app that allows users to measure how poor their vision is (myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism) and receive a corrective prescription. The user peers through a $2 optical adapter at the screen of a smartphone. The app displays lighted bars, and prompts the user to adjust the display until the bars line up. Repeating this with bars in different locations and orientations allows the vision distortion to be determined to within about 0.4 diopters using a Nexus One. The iPhone 4, with its higher-resolution display, should be able to improve that to 0.28 diopters. This could have broad application in the developing world, where experienced opticians and diagnostic equipment are hard to come by."

146 comments

  1. App for that by TheKidWho · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is there an app to bite my shiny metal ass?

    1. Re:App for that by GraZZ · · Score: 1, Informative

      Oh my yes.

      (Hey mods, go watch the newest Futurama episode. Highly relevant.)

    2. Re:App for that by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Hey mods, go watch the newest Futurama episode. Highly relevant.

      And why I went "lol" instead of "huh?" to the GP is why I torrent shows...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:App for that by antdude · · Score: 1

      How come Bender didn't even say that in the last Futurama (S6E3) episode? That was an awesome episode that made fun of Apple.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    4. Re:App for that by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      That's a great way to support Futurama!

      FYI You can get the episodes right away on iTunes via the Season Pass.

    5. Re:App for that by chronosan · · Score: 1

      ? At least three different ones.

    6. Re:App for that by antdude · · Score: 1

      Uh, when? I don't remember him saying it three times. Maybe I was super tired.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    7. Re:App for that by chronosan · · Score: 1

      He was not impressed with the eyePhone until he asked, then the Genius or whatever said something along the lines of "there's three", then Bender was all in.

    8. Re:App for that by antdude · · Score: 1

      Ah, I remember that scene but not that line. Thanks. What about the other two?

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  2. Which developing world? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The one without smartphones, you mean?

    1. Re:Which developing world? by DWMorse · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nobody said a steady 3G connection was required for this sort of use, or that for every person using the app, they had to own the device.

      Even an iPhone 4 is a ton more mobile than a phoroptor, and a lot less expensive, since phoroptors clock in around $5,000 and take a trained professional to use.

      A sole traveling, untrained, non-optometrist Peace Corps kid with an iPhone 4 and a box of donated used glasses could make a big damn difference.

      --
      There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
    2. Re:Which developing world? by The+Tyler · · Score: 1

      Or rather than trying to get a smartphone out into a developing country, why now just send some glasses?

    3. Re:Which developing world? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      My thoughts:

      What is the expense of those self correcting glasses? You can make basic non-adjusting glasses extremely cheap if you're willing to. I'm willing to bet that those 'self adjusting' ones are a lot more expensive per set.
      What is the durability?

      With the app and a good smartphone, it sounds like a volunteer would be able to get an actual prescription out of the screening, perhaps so far as to simply pull the common prescription out of a box($2 lens going into a predetermined frame) vs a $100 adjustable set.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    4. Re:Which developing world? by johncadengo · · Score: 1

      My thoughts:

      How many of these people who wear the self-adjusting glasses mis-prescribe themselves and end up straining their eyes or making their vision worse?

      --
      My page.
    5. Re:Which developing world? by The+Tyler · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure about the durability, but from the website:

      The current cost for a single pair of adjustable glasses is approximately $19. With increased mass production and emerging technology enabling delivery by anyone with minimal training, the cost per unit will significantly decrease.

      So premade glasses and the smartphone app would be cheaper currently, but if the technology becomes popular, this may be cheaper.

    6. Re:Which developing world? by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      About the same number that buy $20 reading glasses from Wal-Mart at the wrong strength.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    7. Re:Which developing world? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Informative
    8. Re:Which developing world? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Another sources says $4...

      However - 'Cannot yet help with astigmatism', '80% of refractive errors can be fixed'.

      Given that I have astigmatisms, I'd be out of luck with these, and I'm even outside of the 80% of people needing refraction correction (-8+).

      -Ah, article mentions 'AdSpecs' - $30k at $19/pair, vs 'Focusspec' for $4.

      In the end - this made me examine the article more closely - the device mentioned DOES compute astigmatism, which the 'self setting' glasses don't do.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    9. Re:Which developing world? by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      A sole traveling, untrained Peace Corps kid is already making a big damn difference.

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    10. Re:Which developing world? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Informative

      No need for the donated used glasses...

      There's at least two sides to that:
      (1) the glasses mentioned in your link have limited application where the wearer has comparatively complex issues such as astigmatism, and
      (2) many glasses donation programs have been shut down. I recently attempted to offload a few pairs of old-prescription glasses here in Western Australia, only to be informed that such programs were now regarded as counter-productive at best. As a result, they ended up in the bin. I can actually understand the reasoning behind this, but it is a bit disappointing to have to thus discard something that had obvious value.

    11. Re:Which developing world? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Funny

      I know a couple of people who actually drive cars wearing those damn things. Scary.

  3. So.... by abigsmurf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is great for countries that lack opticians with basic equiptment yet somehow have lots of people with large screened smartphones?

    1. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A $700 smartphone with simple operating instructions is cheaper than a $10000 piece of optician equipment, never mind the lack of a trained optician to operate it.

    2. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Think Doctors Without Borders able to travel to more remote villages without carting along huge pieces of equipment.

      This could allow even a doctor in a poor country to provide prescription glasses (through mail order) with a much smaller investment (one smartphone, even without service, and the $2 attachment.)

    3. Re:So.... by ntdesign · · Score: 1

      The test would be administered by an optician or someone else qualified, with a smartphone. It wouldn't be meant for consumers to test their own vision.

    4. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can shove your qualifications up your ass.

    5. Re:So.... by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      This is great for countries that lack opticians with basic equiptment yet somehow have lots of people with large screened smartphones?

      Exactly. I suspect there are far more phones in those areas than expensive optician sets. Despite the lack of cell coverage. Besides, it doesn't have to be a smartphone. This idea and application can be integrated into a lot of other equipment, such as the inexpensive laptops being deployed to the local schools or local clinics.

      I also see a marketing opportunity here. Sell the viewfinder for $10 online and then have a website with the application (possible with a subscription fee).

    6. Re:So.... by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      The iPhone has an app for that!

    7. Re:So.... by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we need to make sure they're an optician to run a smart-phone app, because there's so much science in repeatedly asking "Better, or Worse?".

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    8. Re:So.... by skids · · Score: 1

      It's great in general, not just for developing countries. Eyeglass centers could reduce the number of full tests, only doing a high precision test when a user's score drifts too far.

      Also neat was the stuff with the pinhole cameras that use computer aided recognition on the smartphone to count T-cells or whatever else they could make that apparatus do, maybe indicate staph from a throat swab.

      Could spawn a whole new generation of medical accessories for smartphones/PCs. Could also spawn a whole new generation of scam devices that do not really work. Or could be squelched by the FDA entirely under the guise of fighting scams. Knock on wood, and hope we figure out how to integrate it in a way that does the most people the most good.

    9. Re:So.... by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

      Not only would an iPhone 4 be cheaper than the current available equipment, you can also use an iPod touch which cuts the cost even further and more likely to be available.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    10. Re:So.... by ImNotAtWork · · Score: 1

      http://www.seeingisbelieving.ca/cell/dacca/ It does not address your large screen smart phone entry but a single cell phone can be the next step up in communication and technology for a community. However, If the community sees an advantage of getting a single smart phone with screen with useful applications then the health of the community will increase, meaning less days sick, unable to see, etc.

      --
      open source sub sim. I might start coding again for this. http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net/contribute/
    11. Re:So.... by hazem · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be better to actually _correct_ the problem, rather than just diagnose it with an app?

      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99838367

    12. Re:So.... by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      What makes you think doctors use science? I mean best practices are usually determined scientifically, but beyond that...

    13. Re:So.... by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be better to actually _correct_ the problem, rather than just diagnose it with an app?

      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99838367

      It would be. Of course, a doctor with the app and an assortment of premade glasses can correct the vision of several people for the cost of one of those self-adjusting things.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    14. Re:So.... by AJWM · · Score: 1

      The iPhone has an app for that!

      Thus making it an eyePhone.

      --
      -- Alastair
    15. Re:So.... by unkiereamus · · Score: 1

      Could spawn a whole new generation of medical accessories for smartphones/PCs..

      I can't find a link to the commercial product off hand, but quite a while ago (in the time frame of tech), there was an EKG unit that was designed to work with Palm pilots (To give you an idea of how long ago this was, I'm relatively certain it was designed to work with Palm IIIs).

      Now, I can't directly speak to how accurate it was, since this was well before I got into health care, so I didn't know what I was looking at, but I know a couple of people (One a doctor, the other a NP) who had them and liked them. (They also only did three leads, which are only really useful for diagnosis of arrhythmias, rather than MIs, so they wouldn't have to have had anywhere near the kind of accuracy that a 12-lead has to have.)

      --
      I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.
    16. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! Who needs diagnosis to figure out how to fix problems after all!

      Why, the last time my computer broke down I just ripped out the motherboard and replaced it and BAM, I had to get a new computer. PROBLEM. SOLVED.

    17. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humanitarians doing work in less fortunate countries have smartphones.

    18. Re:So.... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      A doctor with a lasik machine and the app could fix the eyes of a lot more people.

      Makes you wonder, if an open non-fda approved lasik system/laser flap cutter were built with easy to use software how much would it really need to cost?

      These days the doctor doesn't really need to do much the software/hardware does the actual correction.

    19. Re:So.... by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      Any optical assessment is based on the subjective evaluation of the assessee. Which, I guess, is why I (a scientist accustomed to giving accurate observations) tend to get better results with my optometrist than my mother-in-law who typically gives very woolly observations, and consequently ends up with prescriptions that leave her legally blind.

    20. Re:So.... by VTI9600 · · Score: 1

      This is great for countries that lack opticians with basic equiptment yet somehow have lots of people with large screened smartphones?

      The point is that they developed a new method of measuring visual impairment. The fact that they used a cell phone LCD screen is irrelevant. They would have used the cheapest possible method for attaching a programmable LCD display to their apparatus. This time it just happened to be a Nexus One (According to TFA, they never actually tried the iPhone).

    21. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The resolution (or more specifically the DPI) of the phone is an issue, which is why a high resolution phone (the Nexus One) was used, and the comment that you could get better results with a iPhone4 which has a higher resolution (and DPI). You might be able to use an iPod Touch, but you wouldn't get nearly as good results from it.

  4. And an Iphone is easier to get? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really wouldn't be easier to get real optical equipment? Sure maybe its a bit more expensive, but if you are heading to third world countries, being able to bring such things would probably be trivial for anyone who knew what they were doing.

    1. Re:And an Iphone is easier to get? by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Really wouldn't be easier to get real optical equipment?

      Are you serious? No, not by a long shot.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    2. Re:And an Iphone is easier to get? by X0563511 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yea, easier...

      Lets bring heavy, delicate equipment out to a harsh environment that in all likelyhood lacks either repair parts or appropriate tools, and spend a fortune in time and energy moving the fucker around.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    3. Re:And an Iphone is easier to get? by unkiereamus · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not even CLOSE to trivial to bring in expensive and bulky equipment to the third world.

      I live and volunteer in Honduras, and when one of the projects I work with needs something, one of the primary constraints is how do we get it here. Any piece of equipment that can do the same job and can be brought in with airline luggage will ALWAYS be preferable to something that have to be shipped.

      A couple of examples: Someone was kind enough to donate 20 complete new computes (monitor, keyboard etc) to one of the schools I work with. They even paid for shipping it down here. This was a year and a half ago, the container they came in is still sitting at the port it came in to, we could never get customs to clear the shipment. (The general assumption is that they were stolen and customs won't clear it so we don't find out.)

      Second example: The medevac service I work with has a Sikorsky S62A, one of very few in the world that still fly. They needed a couple of brackets for the steps, nothing fancy, total cost when new: about 15 bucks, but it's not something you can go down and pick up at the corner store. The owners of the helicopter had a few of them in Australia that they picked up surplus off the USCG when they retired the fleet. So the service paid to have them shipped in, total cost counting shipping and customs: just under 1000USD.

      The point I'm trying to make here is that the third world just doesn't work anything close to they way you think it does. If, for whatever reason I needed to bring in equipment to fit people for lenses, and I had the option of a donated piece of professional equipment vs a iPhone that I had to raise money for, I'd pick the iPhone every time.

      --
      I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.
    4. Re:And an Iphone is easier to get? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      delicate equipment? You mean that big heavy metal contraption built on 1950s precision technology that has levers and lets a doctor manually flip lenses while he repeatedly asks "better or worse" and then "better or just smaller" ones he homes in?

      They can do the same thing with a box full of lenses at different strengths.

  5. "Developed world" could use this too! by couchslug · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Great idea for the developed world too.

    I'd like an app like that for Linux so people can test their vision at home, multiple times, and optimize prescriptions for different distances (for example, close work like soldering).

    With the availability of an eye test app, people who know their eye health is good can refine their prescription cheaply (buying online instead of getting ass-raped for the same lens/frame combo locally) and save playing eye test/prescription/purchase roulette.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    1. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Here in the developed world, this $2 device will cost $1000, because it will be classified as a medical device and thus require lots of testing to satisfy the FDA, and kickbacks to keep the opticians from trying to ban it due to it stealing their jobs.

    2. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by foobsr · · Score: 1

      The Freiburg Vision Test (‘FrACT’) may be a start.

      Quote: "The “Freiburg Vision Test” encompasses the “Freiburg Visual Acuity & Contrast Test” (FrACT) and Vernier Test to assess acuity and other visual functions. It is a free computer program that uses psychometric methods combined with anti-aliasing and dithering to provide automated, self-paced measurement of visual acuity (Bach 1996), contrast sensitivity and vernier acuity ..."

      http://www.michaelbach.de/fract/index.html

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    3. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Too bad he doesn't provide source.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    4. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by BrianRoach · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately here in the US this would require a change to the law the healthcare industry bought that says you can't buy contacts or prescription glasses without a recent (within one year) prescription from an optometrist. Both contacts and prescription eyeglasses are classified as "medical devices".

      I've had the *exact* same prescription for 15 years (I have the slightest astigmatism in my right eye, I only glasses for coding to avoid eye strain). If I lose or break my glasses, I can't just go get another pair - I have to go get an eye exam. Same thing with a contact (yup, I only need one).

      I went recently because I wanted to try a contact again ... The exam cost $100 out of pocket ($20 co-pay + $80 extra for contacts that insurance doesn't cover) then an additional $200 billed to my insurance. To tell me what I already knew. It's quite a racket.

    5. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Here in the developed world, this $2 device will cost $1000, because it will be classified as a medical device and thus require lots of testing to satisfy the FDA, and kickbacks to keep the opticians from trying to ban it due to it stealing their jobs.

      So just call it a "health supplement" and you'll be good to go.

    6. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to make claims about this health supplement also helping to reduce the possibility colic, nausea, bad breath, and high blood pressure.

    7. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by Entropius · · Score: 1

      I had this experience too, and it pissed me off -- even more so since I know enough optics to test my eyes myself (for garden-variety myopia). Do you have a citation for the law?

    8. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by BrianRoach · · Score: 1

      The classification as "medical devices" by the FDA is what attaches the requirement of a prescription.

      A quick google brought this up: http://medgadget.com/archives/2005/08/contact_lenses_1.html

      So ... since 2005 this has been the case for contacts.

    9. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > Unfortunately here in the US this would require a change to the law the
      > healthcare industry bought...

      The industry would love to be able to sell you glasses over the counter (or over the Web). You wanted "regulation" and "oversight". You got it.

      Last time I needed new glasses I went to America's Best and got two pairs plus an exam for $70.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    10. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Unfortunately here in the US this would require a change to the law the healthcare industry bought that says you can't buy contacts or prescription glasses without a recent (within one year) prescription from an optometrist. Both contacts and prescription eyeglasses are classified as "medical devices"... It's quite a racket."

      Fuck the law, just buy online and lie about the prescription. I'll lie to anyone who obstructs me for no good reason. I don't owe human obstacles anything. They can cram their scam where the sun doesn't shine.

      Another scam is the restriction on getting "medical" oxygen without a prescription, yet the same (yes, I checked thoroughly) oxygen is sold for welding (and is often used by general aviation flyers and mixed-gas divers). I already use medical cylinders (filled off my large cylinder using a transfill adapter) to feed my mobile cutting torch, and if I ever have the need the same cylinders will feed me.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    11. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by mysidia · · Score: 1

      The problem with that idea, is without the visit to the optometrist, serious problems may go undiscovered.

      Sudden changes to your vision may be a sign of serious condition, and a visit to a medical professional is in order.

      So I could see access to a device like this being restricted, regulated, or limited (to licensed professionals) on that basis.

    12. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People without insurance in The United States are essentially at 3rd world level, a doctors visit would result in the rent not being paid and no food on the table.
      Yes it is THAT bad in The United States, most of it is actually 3rd world with small pockets at 1st world level.

      This device just needs to be made and sold as something else, perhaps a 'microscope' when combined with the cellphone camera.
      Have an adjustment that would allow correction for your vision and show those results as the microscope calibration.

    13. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Here in the developed world, this $2 device will cost $1000, because it will be classified as a medical device and thus require lots of testing to satisfy the FDA, and kickbacks to keep the opticians from trying to ban it due to it stealing their jobs.

      3/10 -- almost plausible if you ignore the vast number of cheap medical devices already on the market for OTC use, also, a little too light on the tinfoil/conspiracy angle

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    14. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by BrianRoach · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      People don't go to the optometrist because they don't want to see better or think they don't need it, they don't go because without insurance they can't afford it.

      Even while being in the class in the US that can afford insurance, the difference in what it costs and what it covers compared to 15 years ago is really quite staggering.

      15 years ago I paid something like $20 a month (for just myself) and had almost no out of pocket expenses. I have a plate and 5 screws holding my radius together, and it cost me like $100.

      Now? My wife and I pay close to $300 (pre-tax) but even a minor usage outside of the basic doctor-visit co-pay would end up being at least a grand out of our pocket - and that's considered "good" coverage these days. Break an arm? Yeah, that's going to cost you. Even people who *have* insurance struggle to pay their medical bills these days.

    15. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      The problem with that idea, is without the visit to the optometrist, serious problems may go undiscovered.

      Sudden changes to your vision may be a sign of serious condition, and a visit to a medical professional is in order.

      And for not so sudden changes? You know the perfectly ordinary, gradual changes that come with age?

      Without a visit to the optometrist, serious problems may go undiscovered. So instead we have the current situation, where due to the laws and the cost, serious problems go undiscovered, and minor problems don't get fixed either, since people who can't afford to don't go to the optometrist either way, so the only change here is they don't get anything fixed at all.

      So I could see access to a device like this being restricted, regulated, or limited (to licensed professionals) on that basis.

      If and only if the government is then picking up the tab for the bill, sure. However, in a country without universal health care, this kind of law does more harm than good. It just leaves people without treatment for minor things they could otherwise take care of themselves. If you take the ability to fix it out of people's hands, you need to take the need to pay someone else to fix it away too. If you aren't going to pick up the tab, you need to let people do it themselves as best they can.

      By outlawing less than ideal treatment, you're leaving a lot of people with the only remaining option: no treatment at all. You've made the perfect the enemy of the good.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    16. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because it is such a good idea to not test for the numerous major problems that are detected by regular visits to an eye doctor, such as glaucoma, macular degeneration, loss of peripheral vision (which can very easily impact only one quadrant and go unnoticed until it is very dangerous).

      Those eye exams, such a waste of time.

    17. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by shaitand · · Score: 1

      and erectile dysfunction. That will guarantee you a successful product.

    18. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Those cheap medical devices are cheap because they are old designs or because they are a slightly new spin on the old design so cheap to approve and can be sold in massive quantities.

    19. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by shaitand · · Score: 1

      try buying disposables online or cheap chinese import glasses

    20. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by shaitand · · Score: 1

      http://www.justlenses.com/

      Seriously, how hard is this? They don't require you to show the prescription you just punch in the numbers.

    21. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by BrianRoach · · Score: 1

      Any legitimate online retailer (1800contacts, etc) requires a prescription, they won't break the law.

      Now, considering you can fax them the prescription rather than providing them with your optometrist's contact info, a little work with a scanner and a graphics package would prob do the trick ... but it's still not legal.

    22. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by sjames · · Score: 1

      The U.S. has a serious need to fix the laws surrounding medical care anyway. Mandatory insurance is just an insult, as if making it mandatory somehow magically makes it affordable.

      One recent legal-medical atrocity was Colchicine. The drug was grandfathered in and so never had to have FDA approval and that apparently ticked them off mightily. In spite of centuries of safe use, the FDA granted a single company exclucivity in exchange for an abbreviated set of studies aimed primarily at stroking egos at the FDA. As a result, a supply that used to cost $9 now costs $485 for exactly the same thing. Good job FDA!

      While I wouldn't advise removing all regulation, it is clear that mindless regulation is adding massively to the cost of healthcare. When it gets to the point that the people supposedly being protected are going without due to the costs, it has failed miserably.

      Back to corrective lenses, the vast majority of corrective lenses are simple convex and concave lenses. They are selected simply by a process of successive guessing during the exam. The special coatings that cost so much are applied using the incredibly complex and technical process of dipping them in a solution and letting it dry.

      To put it all in an analogy we can all relate to, just imagine if Monster cable was able to get an exclusive right to sell network audio and video cables. That's exactly what's wrong with healthcare in the U.S. Fix that and much of the problem is solved.

    23. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by sjames · · Score: 1

      Sudden changes to your vision may be a sign of serious condition, and a visit to a medical professional is in order.

      By that argument, Dr. Scholl's inserts should be prescription only since foot pain could be a sign of a much more serious degenerative bone disease. Sure, they'll suddenly cost more than the shoes they get inserted into and as a result, millions of people will suffer needless extra foot pain (and remain undiagnosed for their more serious degenerative disease), but what the heck, money is no object (to the people passing the laws).

      How about just including a card on the device that says "Sudden changes to your vision may be a sign of serious condition, and a visit to a medical professional is in order."? Better yet, add a history function to the device and if the change is too severe since the last time you were checked, the screen can flash that message in big text so you can read it. Or just remind people through PSAs that an eye exam wouldn't be a bad idea. That and make it so they don't have to utter the phrase "yeah, I'm saving up for an eye exam".

    24. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by BrianRoach · · Score: 1

      It's even more vicious than that, however.

      Healthcare costs are jacked through the roof, in part, because the healthcare industry knows the insurance industry will pay for it. They effectively charge the most the insurance company will pay. No insurance? Unless you're dealing with a doctor/practice with some part of their soul left intact, you pretty much can't afford it.

      My dentist, for example, offers a "cash discount". Translation: We can't hammer an insurance company so we'll just charge you what it should cost in the first place.

      As far as I can tell, there's really only two classes of people in this country that think we have good healthcare - the rich, and the people who have never had to use it outside of a routine office visit (For which they are paying X thousand dollars per year in premiums, in addition to their copay). Oh, and Faux News.

    25. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by sjames · · Score: 1

      My dentist, for example, offers a "cash discount". Translation: We can't hammer an insurance company so we'll just charge you what it should cost in the first place.

      Even that price is outrageous, but it's not the Dentist's fault. He has to charge that much because he has to pay outrageous prices for equipment and supplies. Replace a few $10,000 and $100,000 pieces of equipment with $100 an $1000 pieces of equipment and suddenly he can charge you a lot less on the cash discount plan.

    26. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by shaitand · · Score: 1

      what does legality have to do with anything? seriously, who cares if its legal?

      My idea of legitimate is delivering the product I purchased in accord with the description and without tricks or low quality.

      Any of the first ten results on google fit that bill. Hell of them are in US. Yes they require you to have a script, says so right on the page. But they don't require you prove it via contact info or fax, the only 'proof' required is to input it.

    27. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by BrianRoach · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not, most people are fairly law abiding and follow directions.

      Geeks, somewhat by nature, seem to be ok with "gaming" the system (and I'm not excluding myself).

    28. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by mysidia · · Score: 1

      And for not so sudden changes? You know the perfectly ordinary, gradual changes that come with age?

      I am not agreeing that it should be banned/restricted.

      I am saying, politicians are too dumb to think of other consequences like that, when the lobbying groups whose financial backers stand to lose from such device becoming commonplace.

    29. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Well, I can see why there would be regulation on the manufacture and labeling of medical oxygen, since it needs to be fit for purpose and the reading on the pressure gauge being right could be a matter of life or death if somebody doesn't bring enough with them.

      However, I agree completely that regulating the SALE of medical oxygen is just crazy.

      Frankly, I don't think there should be any need to regulate the sale of any drug or medical device, with the exception of those that could cause disproportionate harm to others if misused. So, I'd probably require a prescription for antibiotics, or maybe for all but a few already-widely-used antibiotics. If you want to mess up your own body go ahead, just don't ask me to pay for it.

      Glasses are just nuts. If you just put a bunch of lenses on a shelf somebody with an IQ of 60 could probably figure out which one to use. Most eyedoctors have automated machines that will get you close to a prescription, and if you stuck one of these on a shelf at walmart and then had people use trial-and-error to refine the prescription they'd leave with perfectly adequate vision. Glasses would be dirt cheap, and I'd rather have people driving around with six-month-old non-prescription lenses than 6-year-old prescription lenses because they can't afford to update them.

    30. Re:"Developed world" could use this too! by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Yup - by forcing people to see an eye doctor to get updated glasses, we're not giving them an opportunity to catch some serious health problem like retinopathy. Instead we're giving them the opportunity to get in a car crash as they just try to get by with blurry vision that could be fixed by spending $20 on glasses.

      Medicine is filled with these kinds of false dichotomies. Preventing somebody from getting care doesn't mean that they'll line up to pay a specialist $200 to fix their ails. Instead it just means that they'll suffer, or find care via some shady source since they're unable to afford access to a drug that at least has documented safety and efficacy data.

  6. Not just great for developing countries by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not only is it great for developing countries. It's great for those of us in countries like the USA, Canada, Easter Europe, and many other places. Health care costs are increasing. It's about time we came up with some ways to make health care cheaper. My province spends half of it's revenue on health care. I would love for them to start using ideas like this to make it possible for lower skilled people who demand less money to give medical care in simple cases such as prescribing glasses, so that doctor's have more time for real important stuff and also so that health care costs would go down. With all the advancements in science it seems that health care is just getting more and more expensive. Really, we should be using those advancements to make it cheap and accessible to all.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    1. Re:Not just great for developing countries by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

      Just try buying glasses by telling them what your phone prescription is.. I doubt they will do it.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    2. Re:Not just great for developing countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Canada you can walk in and buy what ever type of lenses you want. However it most likely wouldn't be tax deductable (if audited) and your medical plan wouldn't reimburse you without a board certified prescription.

    3. Re:Not just great for developing countries by Inda · · Score: 1

      Those of us?

      Those of us, who sit at a monitor all day, get free yearly eye tests in the UK.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    4. Re:Not just great for developing countries by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's great for those of us in countries like the USA, Canada, Easter Europe

      It's really not needed in Easter Europe; they all have good eyesight, what with being bunnies... who eat lots of carrots... which are good for your eyes...

      I'll show myself out.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:Not just great for developing countries by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      But I'm sure your smartphone taking your prescription, uploading the data to your Google Health account, and having Costco/Walmart make the glasses at their facility and overnight them to you isn't as far off as you'd think.

    6. Re:Not just great for developing countries by wayward_bruce · · Score: 1

      I'm not quite sure what connection exists between Eastern Europe and "developing world with no experienced opticians nor diagnostic equipment", but I'll let it pass.

    7. Re:Not just great for developing countries by smart_ass · · Score: 1

      Opthomologist does more than just update your prescription.
      Think of you annual eye check-up is like a 20 point inspection on your car ...
      If all I needed was a new prescription I might agree, but you minimize their job in doing so.

      --
      Ouch ... did I just say that.
    8. Re:Not just great for developing countries by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I suggest you try reading the OP again.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    9. Re:Not just great for developing countries by wayward_bruce · · Score: 1

      *sigh*

  7. next up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next up, they can tackle basic web design! There's really no reason to stick a 3000 pixel wide image of a group shot onto the page.

    That said, this is really cool. This is exactly how technology should be used to help out the developing world.

    1. Re:next up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus! I just realized that all the images on that page are like 6000 and 7000 pixels tall. I only focused on the group shot because that's the one I noticed still loading when I was looking over the page.

  8. actual innovation by Dolphinzilla · · Score: 1

    now that is really really cool - much more impressive to me than a patent on a battery holder. Kudos to the developers, I hope they make something of it !

  9. Magnify signal strength view? by MalHavoc · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Maybe this app can help clear up Apple's issue with poor signal strength on their phone. Can't see how many bars you have left? Maybe you need a $2 optical adapter. And look at that -- we've got them for sale in the app store!

  10. Quite practical even for the developed world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering that we're all sitting in front of computer screens for 90% of our non-asleep time, and are thus growing into near-sightedness (the long-term adaptation algorithm used for eye growth is adjusting to what it's used for - eyes would never grow to the correct size without any feedback control - though not everyone believes...), it might be quite a handy device to regularly re-check ones own eyes.

    I want one.

    It's sufficiently precise for that purpose. Final check before buying new glasses to be done by Zeiss' refractometric toy (measures 0.01 diopters, and higher orders of errors than just cylindrical/spherical. Plus, you can glasses that correct them for just based price + 100).

  11. but Nexus ones and iPhone 4s grow on trees. by Voxol · · Score: 1

    "This could have broad application in the developing world, where experienced opticians and diagnostic equipment are hard to come by"

    but Nexus ones and iPhone 4s grow on trees.

    1. Re:but Nexus ones and iPhone 4s grow on trees. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but Nexus ones and iPhone 4s grow on trees.

      Are you seriously this dense? I can go down to the mall or Best Buy and walk out with one for a few hundred bucks. What's it take to get the optician's equipment?

    2. Re:but Nexus ones and iPhone 4s grow on trees. by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      He's not dense, he just wants to be witty and smug.

  12. Much cheaper and easier method already around by Levocmk1 · · Score: 1

    Josh Silver already has a better way to correct vision, and at a much cheaper cost too. No need for an optometrist either.
    Movie demonstration: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/josh_silver_demos_adjustable_liquid_filled_eyeglasses.html
    Text Article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=adjustable-eyeglasses-poor

    1. Re:Much cheaper and easier method already around by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      That's awesome! What I wouldn't give for a pair of the eyeglasses-mounted loupes like dentists/surgeons wear that could do that.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Much cheaper and easier method already around by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      As has been pointed out already: No.

      You can have a $100 set of adjustable glasses or you can have one guy with this app and a box full of $2 perscription glasses that he can then match to everybody in line.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
  13. Could be used to test vision for driving by noidentity · · Score: 1

    This will be great to be sure my vision is good while driving. Don't worry, I can multitask.

  14. Cartridge alignment on inkjet printer? by perpenso · · Score: 1

    now that is really really cool - much more impressive to me than a patent on a battery holder. Kudos to the developers, I hope they make something of it !

    Agreed, definitely cool, but it does sound a little like cartridge alignment on inkjet printer.

    --
    Perpenso Calc for iPhone. Classic Scientific and HEX functionality plus RPN, fractions, complex numbers, dotted quads, 32/64-bit signed/unsigned bitwise operations, UTF-8, IEEE FP decode, and RGB decode with color preview.

    1. Re:Cartridge alignment on inkjet printer? by skids · · Score: 2, Funny

      First, align your thermal laser etcher. Then align your eyeball. Then insert plastic sheet and print your eyeglasses. Do not operate with cover open!

  15. What would be nice.. by n1hilist · · Score: 1

    If you could tie this in with your OS with some useful tools so that it could make a useful profile for your desktop environment based on your visual acuity.

    I'm legally blind myself (-23 diopters in both eyes) and I also sometimes help visually impaired kids customise their desktops for better use.

    Obviously there's no one size fits all approach and configuring DPI, colour etc; in a UI is a very personal thing but I'm sure this could be of use for PCs and even cellphone user interfaces.

  16. Wondering why, is there an app for that? by Britz · · Score: 1

    Come on. How many times do you need to check your eyes. And shouldn't somebody do this that has an idea of what they are doing?

    1. Re:Wondering why, is there an app for that? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Right. Far better that millions have no access to such a test at all than that people be given the opportunity to decide for themselves whether or not they can handle it.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  17. When I'm done with the iPhone... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    ...can I sell it for most of what I'd pay for it? Otherwise I'm better of going to America's Best and getting an exam plus two pairs of glasses for $70.

    This might actually be interesting if it worked on a computers other than "smartphones" and required no special device.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:When I'm done with the iPhone... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Or the America's Best could use it instead of the hyper-expensive device and pass the savings in overhead on to you.

  18. PUB CRAWL! by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Funny

    Repeating this with bars in different locations

    ... won't your vision be affected by all the booze?

    and orientations

    ... straight, gay, leather fetish, republican ...

    I thought Apple wouldn't approve stuff like that?

    1. Re:PUB CRAWL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... straight, gay, leather fetish, republican ...

      I thought Apple wouldn't approve stuff like that?

      Straight, gay and leather fetish, sure. Republican, NEVER!!!

  19. Cost effective? by josath · · Score: 1

    How cost effective is this? Sure it's only a $2 adapter, but then you need a $400-$700 phone to attach it to (that's the actual price of the hardware mentioned, when not subsidized by a long term monthly contract, which costs even more). Surely for $400 someone could build a standalone vision testing device that is more accurate?

    --
    sig? uhh, umm, ok
    1. Re:Cost effective? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With a smartphone, other adapters could be used for other diagnostic tests. One smartphone with ten $2 to $20 sensors, versus ten $400 single-purpose devices? And who said everyone would buy these? One per 50 families would be more than enough.

      The smartphone can be used to place the order for correctives (spectacles, drugs) too. And to contact a trained specialist in New Delhi or Nairobi if the app decides your case is beyond it. If your single-purpose device can do that, it's just a locked-down smartphone.

      Engage brain. There is a revolution coming in health (and education), but it's coming to developing countries. You in the US will be stuck with the traditional high-cost, low-return model, because of rent-seeking insurance companies (and an entrenched education system).

    2. Re:Cost effective? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Oh trust me, in this case it isn't the insurance companies causing the problem. Most of them don't even cover eye glasses anyway, and if people didn't need eye exams that would mean that they wouldn't be paying for them. The insurance company would probably be happy to pay Walmart to have one of these devices in every store in America.

      In this case the rent-seekers are the ophthalmologists.

      NPR had a good 2-part series on health care costs. A doctor said that he was asked how bad a patient's vision should be before recommending surgery for glacoma. The answer depended on how many other doctors were performing this surgery in the town. If he was the only one, then only the worst got treated. If there were 5 people doing the surgery in the same town, then you might get it at 20/40. Gotta do something to collect fees...

  20. Will insurance cover it? by rossdee · · Score: 1

    Can I get my health insurance to buy me a shiny new 4g Iphone?

  21. Useless in the US thanks to optometrist lobbying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's no longer possible to get glasses/contacts without a prescription made in the past 12 months. This law went into effect 6 or 7 years ago, after online contact lens stores started appearing in large numbers. Optometrists make a big profit by forcing people to get eye exams once per year in order to get their prescriptions filled. Until that gets rolled back, it doesn't matter whether people can test themselves at home.

    But it does sound like a big win for the developing world.

  22. Mod parent up. by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    That's an excellent idea.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  23. Self-medication by westlake · · Score: 1
    Come on. How many times do you need to check your eyes. And shouldn't somebody do this that has an idea of what they are doing?

    That's a fair question to ask.

    Particularly for the very young or very old, or anyone with a complex medical history, a diabetic, for example.

    1. Re:Self-medication by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but many of these people won't get checked out for retinopathy. Instead they'll just suffer with blurry vision. There is no reason that a prescription shouldn't be free and eyeglasses shouldn't be $15 at Walmart. A machine can do the former just fine, and the latter is just some metal and plastic. Sure, it won't be as good as what we currently spend $200 on, but does it have to be? Nobody is saying that we need to prevent doctors from offering the $200 exam to those who need it.

      If somebody invented the belt today it would be classified as a girth adjustment device and you'd need to have a calibrated waist measurement to buy one. After all, sudden weight gain or loss can be a symptom of serious problems.

  24. Please proceed by estestvoispytatel · · Score: 1

    Clever idea, also they can made use of built-in accelerometers and gyroscopes for measuring of pulse and blood pressure (with some pump). I hope in future smartphones will be equipped (strictly for usability purposes) with cheap thermometers and maybe even sensors for galvanic skin response metering.

    1. Re:Please proceed by estestvoispytatel · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh wait, you have one with the galvanic skin response metering. Just use some nice phone with two well placed antennas, short them with the patient's bare skin and do the math on the signal's drop.

  25. As easy as that? by Twinbee · · Score: 1

    Strange, I didn't know it would be so easy to check for oneself like that. It makes me wonder what else can be done without the need to visit a health specialist.

    --
    Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    1. Re:As easy as that? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1
      Give the proper low-power laser emitter and electronics, you could probably not only replace an auto-refractor (the device you look through to see an image go from blurry to clear; it's using infrared to determine your prescription, which the optometrist uses to double-check his work) but also the Wavefront system:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LASIK#Wavefront-guided_LASIK

      Ignore the part about LASIK. Wavefront is the brand name of the system used to map your cornea and is fed to the eximer laser to do the actual work.

  26. There... Fixed that for you... by denzacar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A sole traveling, untrained, non-optometrist Peace Corps kid with a box of donated used glasses could bring a box of glasses.

    You almost had it there. You did (almost) stumble blindly on it (no pun intended), but still...

    1 - Based on the "Developing countries can't be choosers" axiom, it is not really THAT important to people living there if the eyeglasses really fit their prescription 100%.
    Particularly, if the glasses are free.

    2 - Based on 1, there is a much simpler way of testing for the right prescription under those conditions (choosers not too picky, choice rather limited anyway...).
    It consists of the "patient" trying out several sets of glasses until he/she finds the one that works for him/her.
    You know, like you would with a pair of sunglasses.

    And, based on my own day-to-day observation from what you might call a "developing nation" (Bosnia) that model works perfectly well even for the paying customers.
    E.g. people who can't really afford money to visit a private optometrist or they lack time or health insurance for a visit to a government one.
    All of those cases mostly resulting from the case of being employed "off the books".

    Only thing is... There is really no need for donated eyeglasses cause Chinese ones are dirt cheap.
    Like, plastic sunglasses prices. Often sold side by side on the same stand.

    Sure, if you have a rather specific need (different prescription for each eye, or a relatively rare case of visual impairment) you are probably not gonna find what you are looking for "over the counter".
    Then again, chances of finding EXACTLY what you need in a "box of donated used glasses" with or without an eyePhone (Get it? EYE-PHONE!) are far lower than that.

    Oh... and one more thing.
    While there are plenty enough iPhones here (just today I saw one "barely used" 3G 16GB being sold for ~320$) - ALL of them are jailbroken.
    Also, you can forget using the app store directly from it even if you have somehow gotten your hands on an actual "virgin" iPhone.
    Cause even if your iPhone is perfectly legal, with no cracking/jailbreaking attached - your money is no good.
    So, that "non-optometrist Peace Corps kid" should better get all his app-needs before going on his "mission of mercy".
    If any of those apps need to "call home", well... sucks to be him in the "developing world".

    Again, this is one of those inventions that are pitched by people who have either never been outside of a developed "1st world" country, OR who have only ever been to some village in the middle of the African jungle so they base their understanding of every "developing country" on that one experience or on what they see on CNN. Or in the movies.
    Invention is then being pitched as intended for developing countries - where in reality there is no demand or need for it.
    On the other hand, hypochondriacs and "I_am_my_own_wikipedia-diagnostician"-people will probably love it.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:There... Fixed that for you... by put_it_down · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can see how people might be upset. Still you can't blame everyone in the west for Apple's actions. Besides, why not just run it on android?

    2. Re:There... Fixed that for you... by Meneguzzi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't want to be an argument killer, but if you had read the article and saw the names and descriptions of the group members, you'd have seen that the main developers of this project are two Indians and two Brazilians, so my guess is that they have been to a lot more than a single village in the middle of the African jungle (well, maybe not in Africa, but in India and Brazil), and that they do have a, shall we say, decent grip on the resource limitations of the developing world.
      But then again I might be wrong, but last time I checked, India and Brazil were still considered developing world, weren't they?

      --
      www.meneguzzi.eu/felipe
  27. Wonderful news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Going to the "eye doctor" is so damn expensive.

  28. HMO vs Real Insurance by CustomDesigned · · Score: 1

    While HMO plans are a choice people should be able to make, you should look into actual high deductible insurance. Our family of 6 pays $500/mo with a $5500/yr deductible. We pay "out of pocket" by depositing the money into a Health Savings Account (HSA) first, and paying from that. This deducts the expense on the same line as IRA contributions. Fully funding the HSA for the deductible, plus the premiums, is about the cost of HMO coverage with the same exclusions and tax benefits. BUT, if we don't spend the entire deductible from the HSA, the balance stays in the account which can be used for non-covered expenses (e.g. our plan doesn't cover dental) or saved for retirement (it can be used like an IRA after retirement age). Notice that if you hit the deductible (which our daughter did last year by breaking two fingers), your total premium plus "out of pocket" expense is about the same as HMO premiums.

    One nasty aspect of the current Obamacare bill is phasing out HSA accounts by 2015 ("forcing" people to buy HMO coverage similarly to how people are "forced" to use public schools because of the tax induced expense of private school).

    1. Re:HMO vs Real Insurance by BrianRoach · · Score: 1

      When I was running my own business and paying out of pocket I did exactly that, carried a $5k/year deductible.

      My point, however, was that we're rapidly trending toward that as the norm even with group plans as our healthcare costs spiral out of control.

      When you're billed $15k to fix a compound fracture and your insurance is 80/20 up to $X ... you're right there. I believe the watered down "reform" even guarantees that, putting yearly out-of-pocket maxes right around that level in the "basic" package which sadly, most Americans will not be able to cover in the case of having a significant health problem / accident.

      The new job I'm starting actually has good insurance at $125/mo for both of us. But that's somewhat of a rarity these days.

  29. Oblig Picard by safetyinnumbers · · Score: 1

    "I see FOUR BARS!"

    (I had a hard time deciding whether to post this in the iPhone signal strength thread instead, but it's probably already been done.)

    1. Re:Oblig Picard by Megane · · Score: 1

      Before or after the next iPhone update?

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  30. Loads of medical procedures... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Like lobotomy, amputations, various forms of self-medication, minor surgical foreign body removal, amateur dentistry...

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  31. There's a branding joke in there somewhere... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Something along the lines of phones, eyes and Apple's tendency to name their products by sticking a vowel in front of another word.
    Can't quite put my finger on it though.

    o-Phone? i-Ris-Phone? pho-O-pil?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:There's a branding joke in there somewhere... by xaxa · · Score: 1

      iGlasses ;-)

  32. I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah but is there a Sub for that? mmm...

  33. Re:Passive Agressive Marketing by adamdoyle · · Score: 1

    For "developing world" read "we're too shit scared to try this in the domestic market so will run a backdoor field trial and hope it gets enough attention to launch back home". It's the same with gutless politicians and academics. They don't have the balls to take on domestic interests or want to get some brownie points for patronising the poor. Take a look at Microsoft's feeble attempts to capture the mobile phone market or the One Laptop Per Child bollocks. They're all risk averse chicken shit unimaginative patronising wankers.

    Yeah! How dare they try and help the poor in third world countries!

  34. Need some help? by zogger · · Score: 1

    If you think slashdotting the Honduran ambassador with some "please help to get this aid shipment cleared" emails might help with that container of computers, provide some more details. To me, it sorta seems like someone in that customs area has his hand out for a "consultation and redtape/paperwork" fee to get it through.

    1. Re:Need some help? by unkiereamus · · Score: 1

      I appreciate the thought, but even if the computers weren't stolen originally, they probably have by now. And even if they haven't, they've been sitting essentially unprotected on the sea side for a year and a half, they've probably been ruined by now.

      As far as the bribery goes, believe me, that thought occurred to us. We made the approaches to a few people, but got no bites.

      --
      I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.
  35. buy your glasses over the web, moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF you talking about? Go to glassyeyes.com. I bought my formerly $800 pair of titanium bendy frame blended bifocals for $60 from zennioptical.com. And for the first time in my life, I had an accurately filled prescription - fucking opticians had never got the segment height right.

    Where do you slashtards come from?

  36. There's a cheap set of optics for that by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    I suspect that the cost of optical equipment required to reach the level of accuracy and durability of this app, the phone, and its $2 adapter, is much less than the professional equipment opticians currently use.

    My droid has a nice camera but you wouldn't expect a professional photographer to use one as his primary tool. I suspect this scenario is similar.

    1. Re:There's a cheap set of optics for that by shaitand · · Score: 1

      I doubt it. Opticians are using equipment right out of the 50's and the accuracy is based on your subjective feedback.

      There is automated equipment that shines light into the eye and measures its response while flipping lenses (they use this for prescriptions in the military). This works but it is arguably less accurate than the manual system.

  37. Optics question by Something+Witty+Here · · Score: 1

    For the optical wizards out there, what would it take to make
    eyeglasses that can correct extreme myopia without changing
    the magnification? Would a multiple element lens be able to
    do this?

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99838367
    Adjustable power lenses for $19 ? What's the catch?
    More distortion or other optical problem? Are they fragile
    or otherwise not very durable? These sound wonderful as
    an alternative to bifocals/trifocals/etc. Need to look
    at something X distance away? Just adjust your glasses
    as needed.

    > The classification as "medical devices" by the FDA is what
    > attaches the requirement of a prescription.

    Why aren't drugstore reading glasses classified as "medical devices"?
    If you are slightly far-sighted you can get 3 pairs for $10 and
    the quality is surprising decent. If you are near-sighted you
    have to spend hundreds of dollars.

    The eyephone app thingy sounds useful, (was planning on actually
    reading TFA ( *gasp* ), but it crashed my browser) but will it
    check your eyes for health problems? Of course none of my eye
    doctors ever warned me that I was at high risk for retinal
    detachment, so maybe the eyephone app would have been just as good?
    GRUMBLE

  38. Well I dunno about Canada by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    But in the US, eye tests aren't expensive. Health insurance does not cover corrective optics normally. Yo either have to get separate insurance, or pay yourself. The cost of the separate insurance generally works out to the same cost you'd pay yourself, just spread out. The most expensive you usually see is around $100 and that's at a private optician's office and is usually quite a comprehensive test. $50 is not that hard to find at chain locations.

    The expensive part of corrective optics is not the test, it is the optics themselves. If you want light, thin, glasses with high end anti-glare and so on and so forth you can spend $500 no sweat.

    I'm not disagreeing about health care costs, but vision isn't one of the expensive ones, at least not an annual eye check (and let's face it, most of us are lazy enough to not do one unless we see the need).

  39. yeah, glassyeyes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I stumbled across that dude on Lifehacker. Wanted arms length glasses for computing, I was looking through the bottom of my geezer glasses with my head tilted back. Shopko wanted $350 for single vision. I figured out how to read my prescription, guessed at the order, and got a perfect fit for $20.

    And they're made by the same Chinese 10 year old slave labor as Shopko.

  40. Bars on a n iPhone? by Dr.Ruud · · Score: 1

    Bars? On an iPhone? I thought we already gave up on that.