Ingenious condom usage
This is amazing:
Only a quarter of condoms made in India are used for sex, most of the others are used to make saris, toys and bathroom slippers, a newspaper reported on Saturday.My first thought was that I can't imagine that using condoms is cheaper than just buying a vat of lubricant, but then I figured that they must get them really cheap because the government gives them out for free. I guess it's an unintended government subsidy for textile manufacturers, but it's not a bad side effect for a policy that surely has much greater benefits (prevent AIDS, unwanted pregnancies, etc.)...
The condoms are valuable to manufacturers because of the lubricant on them. Sari weavers place the condoms on their thread spools and the lubricant on the prophylactics is rubbed off on the thread, making it move faster through their sewing machines, the newspaper quoted an Indian industry official as saying.
Sari makers also turn the condom's inside out, place them on their fingers and use the high-quality lubricant to polish gold and silver threads used in the traditional Indian women's outfits. India manufactures more than 1 billion condoms annually to check population growth and curb the spread of HIV/AIDS.
posted by Andrew @ 9:29 PM
8 Comments:
Hi Andrew,
I remember reading--I think it was in a Tangled Bank entry-- that in Africa mosquito nets intended to prevent the spread of malaria were also being put to all sorts of uses. The story then went into very unfamiliar territory for me- that the World Bank wanted to sell the nets (for a pittance by Western standards), rather than give them away, which would increase the perceived value of the nets.
Posted by gaw3
Interesting! Selling them for a pittance does make some sense, but you would always worry about those people who really are so poor that 5 cents would be more worthwhile spent on food or whatever than on a mosquito net. In cases of very cost-effective interventions like condoms and mosquito nets, I think we can afford to err on the safe side and hand them out for free, even if a lot of them get "wasted." (Still, it's always a matter of trade-offs and cost-benefit analysis...)
Posted by Andrew
The latter, Web 2.0, is not defined as a static architecture. Web 2.0 can be generally characterized as a common set of architecture and design patterns, which can be implemented in multiple contexts. bu sitede en saglam pornolar izlenir.The list of common patterns includes the Mashup, Collaboration-Participation, Software as a Service (SaaS), Semantic Tagging (folksonomy), and Rich User Experience (also known as Rich Internet Application) patterns among others. These are augmented with themes for software architects such as trusting your users and harnessing collective intelligence. Most Web 2.0 architecture patterns rely on Service Oriented Architecture in order to function
I think it's important that we all know a little about this subject so interesting, I think it's part of human culture tell us about such things.
Invertir en petroleo
Well that's stupid actually how it's possible that people don't use condom knowing the risk that represents for health...
I absolutely match with everything you've presented us.
This won't truly have success, I think this way.
well, at least they're using them :)
Post a Comment
<< Home