Jophiel wrote:
I'm mostly amused that this "debate" is based on an assumption that the backers have sunk over four million pounds (approx. $6.5 million) into this project without, you know, maybe doing a little market research to show that people would actually want a smart phone STD-testing thingamabob. 'Cause my guess would be that this little debate was already settled for them ages ago.
Also, "thingamabob" is a valid word according to Firefox's spell check.
Virtua Boy?
Are you implying that projects don't fail or that failed projects only failed because of insufficient research? People are fickle and you really don't know how people will react to anything until it's released. The media is a prime example.
I would bet money that a portion of this was "let's see what cool new thing I can get a smart phone to do". As I mentioned, the thought of having the best and newest thing trumps versatility, so I'm sure these developers are simply riding off the success of smart phones, you know like the other 85% of worthless applications that are out there? People buy applications all of the time where there's a free version out there as well. Not only that, people buy applications for things that their phones can already perform. So, for you to think that people wouldn't buy this as a separate device is just stupid.
Pyscho wrote:
Uh, what? If the testing device isn't disposable, you would need to clean that off. Cleaning yourself isn't required in any case.
You missed the point. Your response was merely "ewww, it's pee". I responded that as humans, we have to clean ourselves daily and it isn't simply "urination" or "*****" that is the disgusting part of this concept, it's the concept of unnecessarily integrating those natural events with an every day object. I think it is safe to say that people would like to have minimal time performing such activities, unless you're reading a book. In that case, you're not actually wiping your behind, you're just reading.
Psycho wrote:
Unless they're in vending machines. Wasn't that mentioned in the OP too?
edit: oh, nvm, it wasn't in the OP, just the full article. My bad, i shouldn't have expected you to have read the whole thing.
Yes, vending machines. You mean the vending machines that are just oh-so scattered ALL over the US?! The only vending machines that I ever see that contained anything other than food or liquid resided outside the US. I don't even see the condom machines in the gas stations anymore.
This is not to say that these machines don't exist in the US, but if you're trying to reach the population, you're left with a decision. A) Build vending machines for the sole purpose of insecure people who have unprotected sex with questionable people or B) add the tests in the aisle next to the condoms and other birth control. Which option do you think will be taken?
Sir X wrote:
That would require alma to actually have read and become even moderately knowledgeable about the situation though.
I'm pretty sure everyone always assumed that the part that you actually put pee or saliva on would be disposable alma. Well, maybe not you. I always love alma's little explanation posts where he explains what everyone else was arguing.
That changes what how? I guess I must have missed that the last 10 times that was mentioned, including in my very own post. How did I miss that? Oh, wait, I didn't.
Majivo wrote:
Thanks for proving you don't have the first clue how this would work. The device is almost certainly based on a chemical reaction within the disposable chip, which the device then uses to test for the presence of certain chemicals. You can't simply build a device in such a way that you can clean it off and reuse it; it's based on a precisely calibrated chemical balance. You really think doctors would be using all of these disposable testing devices if you could build a device which was directly reusable, let alone in a sanitary fashion? You truly are ignorant.
Funny thing about this is that I wasn't the one who brought up the disposable feature, Gbaji did. I went off what he said. When you all contradicted what he said, I merely said that one of you is wrong. Instead of determining which of the two theories were wrong, you continued to attack me, when the truth doesn't even change my point in any way. So, which one is it? People have said at least 2 different ways how this thing works and you say that
I didn't read the article.
Belkira wrote:
Silly Majivo. Haven't you seen all of those reusable pregnancy tests they're selling on military bases? Oh, what's that? You aren't in the military? Oh, well, then. You can't understand it, obviously.
That's hogwash, such a device would require the power of the latest and greatest iPhone 7 and would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. No one would want to buy a separate device to determine if she is pregnant or not. Obviously you haven't done the research of the millions of dollars put in the project that
OBVIOUSLY proves that people would rather use their phone than a separate device such as a pregnancy test.
I mean, if you thought you were pregnant, wouldn't you rather use your phone rather than a device specifically designed for such a thing?