DrQuine, you raise excellent points here. In a rush to experiment with wearable devices without FDA approval, a lot if precautions associated with 'clinical' devices are ignored here. I, for one, is not saying the government approval is everything. But I do see that we are treading dangerous territory when we deal with home health/wellness devices.
I find it ironic that more technology for wellness we have the less fit we become as society...I just put my shoes on and run...not sure what the technology fitness gadet will change in my running...I am actually thinking that time spend buying the gadget, studing its operation and analyzing the results will actually reduce time spend running ;-)...Kris
The wellness products at CES sound engaging - but what about the unintended consequences? The baby temperature monitor is likely to cause irritation of the skin and when it gets wet and comes loose the baby is sure to ingest (perhaps choke) on it. I'd suggest using a remote thermometer like the laser pyrometer that I use at home to check for cold air leaks in the winter. The SenseGiz Star activity monitor supports an admirable objective ... but how are false alarms prevented? I have a hunch that some elderly people are going to be crying wolf so frequently that they'll be ignored when they're in trouble. Maybe the manufacturer should start with something simple - like a pedometer that really works. I finally found one but most people I know find that their pedometers either ignore their walking or give them credit for breathing.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.