You should look into blade-free intralasik. No cutting needed. I personally wouldnt want someone taking a knife to my eyes either.
I had so-called 'bladeless' LASIK, and I would recommend it, but to be perfectly fair the typical microkeratomes they use are very good. The femtosecond-laser cut flap is overall more even, but if a laser clinic is doing their job properly, those microkeratomes get used exactly once and then thrown away. There seems to be a real issue in the US with doctors for 'budget' clinics re-using these blades and fucking up people's eyes, and only the reputable clinics can really afford the gear, so it is a good bet.
(Anecdotally, I wore glasses from the age of 8 till a few months ago, now 31. Its been mindblowing getting my vision back.)
You recover in 3 - 5 days instead of 5 - 8 with PRK. But with PRK you don't have the heebie geebie factor of eye flaps busting loose. In fact most eye doctors will recommend PRK to those under 30 with any kind of an active lifestyle for sports, scuba diving, etc.
That's not quite accurate. "Most" doctors will recommend PRK for those with thin corneas. You need a certain amount or corneal tissue available to be ablated (12 microns per diopter of correction), that leaves your eyes with enough structural integrity that you won't get ectasia.
A LASIK flap will re-seal its outer interface within 5 days, but it actually continues to heal further over the next two years, forming a basement of tissue over the Bowman's layer, and the further adding tendrils of biomechanical 'thread'. At the end of about 18 months typically, a LASIK flap is (figuratively) sealed, glued and stiched to your eye. While the interface always exists, at this point the pressure required to dislodge it would damage any normal eye.
The fact that the military is doing PRK really only speaks to the fact that the LASIK prodecure gives you more immediate results (and much faster healing), but takes longer for the eye to return to full integrity.
With iTunes, you might get "package art" but unless Apple changes things, you get VCD resolution video with a single stereo audio track and no extras, with no package costs, no shipping, warehousing, no distributor markup, as well as a video DRM that hasn't been cracked yet.
That's not quite accurate, on two points. One, the 'distribution cost' is certainly not zero, it takes bandwidth to send thousands of video files over those pipes, and that bandwidth costs money. Two, the files are anything but 'VCD resolution'; H.264 is a pretty stunning codec and destroys VCD/SVCD in image quality, even at 320x240. I agree with your larger point about the price.
They typically don't do this. In your typical HMV or Virgin all the new singles and albums are much cheaper, as people who've heard it will pick it up on a whim. Then in a few months when it's left the common conscience the price rises.
Sure, but that whole method is tied to the fact that they must physically ship, warehouse, display and merchansise these physical music discs. If they don't sell new stuff, and that new stuff becomes old stuff taking up shelf space, they are potentially in a loss and need to get rid of it just to reclaim the space (ergo the Bargain Bin). There is no Bargain Bin on iTunes because there is no shelf space and therefore the whole argument goes out the window.
Well let's see what we can do it with. I don't care how little it is - or how much Apple think their computers are a media hub - If I can't burn a full DVD quality disk for use in my DVD player stuck under my TV I won't be paying $10 (inevitably £10 in the UK). Especially considering how long it will take to download (and thus hog my use of the web).
Out of curiosity, what if you can burn the actual episode you bought to DVD just fine, but it has no extras and is only 320x240 (albeit with an admittedly excellent codec)? How much are the 'extras' worth to you?
But doesn't the higher pricing for short-term demand imply that a digital delivery system is somehow tied to the economics of supply and demand, when it isn't? Supply is unlimited, everyone can have a copy downloaded to their machine in the entire world if they so chose as iTunes would just keep copying it over and over. If a similar system were implemented at say, Wal-Mart when they started selling out of a certain CD, they jack the price up to $20 a CD instead of $13.99, wouldn't the FTC cry foul and consumers issue claims of price gouging? How is doing that in the digital sense any different?
Its not completely unlimited, there are still costs associated with producing, hosting and transferring the data of those songs. Forgetting for a second the actual album production, which has to occur either way, you do need to rip the file, process it, store it, etc. But if its an old album that has made back its costs severalfold, there's no reason to be greedy about it - you charge a nominal fee for bandwidth and the like, and a tiny fraction for your trouble. Lower price = more sales.
There is also an argument to be made for educating consumers (ugh, hate that word) about bandwidth costs, as they will not necessarily understand why a film is so much bigger than a song, bytewise.
I work for a DSP, and we deal with this all the time. The problem is that the idea is actually sound, IF the major labels wanted to implement it properly... and they don't.
Tiered pricing makes sense as a way of dealing with demand and maximizing profit. New singles should cost more, especially if they are popular, for a short time. The problem is that the labels don't want to price things in the back catalog down, which is where this argument is really useful. They only want to go up from the base 99/$9.99 model that Apple has established.
There are songs in catalog that actually have a value approaching zero. You try telling a record exec that fact, and they will spin on one heel and exit the room before you finish your sentence.
I'd like to see a system whereby the price is directly tied to short-term popularity as measured by downloads. So your new Christina Aguilera single comes out at a base price of 99; it shortly becomes very popular and creeps up over the course of a few days to $1.99 (there should be a ceiling, obviously). If you really want that "hot new track" (gag) right now, you pay the premium (or go elsewhere; different story there). Conversely if you really want to buy old Fleetwood Mac tracks from Rumors, which has paid for itself several times over already, you should only need to pony up 19-29 per track to cover bandwidth and processing.
If labels wanted to really invest in the long tail argument they would probably find themselves with a lot of new cash and not only that, from basically no promotion! But they are too stuck in the old sticks and bricks mindset, which is to promote a lucky few lottery-winner bands and maximize profit from those acts, at the expense of literally everything else.
There ain't no money in it... Apple sells music at a loss to encourage sales of ipods.
They don't sell for a loss, but they do sell for just enough to cover bandwidth, plus a tiny fraction. But you are right in saying the focus is on selling iPods.
... one of the most arrogant comments I've ever seen out of a Microsoft shill, and we've all seen our share:
"They have been developing technologies that have really good music discovery and community," another source said. "iTunes is the 7-11 (of music stores). You don't hang out there."
They have got to be kidding. People spend hours sifting through iTMS. I know people who never close it!
iTMS is like Amazon, people just use it for basic music reference at this point. These people are on crack.
So if ms did support both the iPOD and their on Plays4Sure players, then i think they would stand a good chance to uprooting Apple. Especially considering they can run the store at a loss for years.
They have a better chance of buying Apple than they do of finding proper support for iPods without breaking the law.
Which is to say, no chance at all. Real tried it, look what happened.
It didn't change as completely as you are saying as Warcraft III was an RTS/RPG.
I disagree - there was no 'role' to play in WarCraft, you couldn't affect the story outcome at all. But I readily concede my definition is more stringent than most; I don't really classify WoW as a real 'RPG' either.
But for Aiur's sake, please don't wash all that out with an MMORPG. It works for some things, but it's a good way to absolutely murder good games from other genre's.
I agree - but hear me out for a sec. When Blizzard made WoW, they didn't really "re-create" Warcraft as MMORPG, as much as just wrote a whole new game in the Warcraft setting. The genre changed completely, from RTS to RPG (-ish). I imagine if they were ever to do World of Starcraft (or whatever), it would get the same treatment.
Oh, you thought I meant "[they] wouldn't want to sell (the company)." I meant "[they] wouldn't want to sell (their shares)."... Sure a hostile takeover can take away a family corporation, but not if the family's maintained a majority of the shares.
What? They always have a choice. They own those shares, and Yamauchi is currently the majority shareholder. I think it's entirely likely that Nintendo + Yamauchi + others who would never sell have a controlling interest (that is, greater than half) in Nintendo. There are no circumstances for publicly traded companies (short of... like, murder or something) that you can just abscond with someone's shares. They own them.
First off.. I said "may not have a choice" not "do not have a choice". I don't follow Nintendo's business so I have no idea how the stock is divided, but I'm guessing you are probably right in that the major family who started it still controls majority interest.
What I was referring to was a hostile takeover. This barely happens in Japan because of the keiretsu. So, yes, there are circumstances short of murder.... these circumstances likely don't apply here.
Just because they're publicly traded, do you really think that the Yamauchis and other longtime (as in, decades-long) investors in Nintendo would be willing to sell?
Sure, I get that (and I agree - odds are high they really don't want to). But they may not have a choice in certain circumstances. This is what "publically traded companies" are about.
Anyways, it won't happen for zillions of reasons, not the least of which is: it would be stupid.
Most of the people here would be just as thrilled if Apple and Nintendo simply announced the intension to support one another somehow (i.e. iTunes for DS).
Slashdot Mirror
I had so-called 'bladeless' LASIK, and I would recommend it, but to be perfectly fair the typical microkeratomes they use are very good. The femtosecond-laser cut flap is overall more even, but if a laser clinic is doing their job properly, those microkeratomes get used exactly once and then thrown away. There seems to be a real issue in the US with doctors for 'budget' clinics re-using these blades and fucking up people's eyes, and only the reputable clinics can really afford the gear, so it is a good bet.
(Anecdotally, I wore glasses from the age of 8 till a few months ago, now 31. Its been mindblowing getting my vision back.)
That's not quite accurate. "Most" doctors will recommend PRK for those with thin corneas. You need a certain amount or corneal tissue available to be ablated (12 microns per diopter of correction), that leaves your eyes with enough structural integrity that you won't get ectasia.
A LASIK flap will re-seal its outer interface within 5 days, but it actually continues to heal further over the next two years, forming a basement of tissue over the Bowman's layer, and the further adding tendrils of biomechanical 'thread'. At the end of about 18 months typically, a LASIK flap is (figuratively) sealed, glued and stiched to your eye. While the interface always exists, at this point the pressure required to dislodge it would damage any normal eye.
The fact that the military is doing PRK really only speaks to the fact that the LASIK prodecure gives you more immediate results (and much faster healing), but takes longer for the eye to return to full integrity.
Ok: define 'value'.
That's not quite accurate, on two points. One, the 'distribution cost' is certainly not zero, it takes bandwidth to send thousands of video files over those pipes, and that bandwidth costs money. Two, the files are anything but 'VCD resolution'; H.264 is a pretty stunning codec and destroys VCD/SVCD in image quality, even at 320x240. I agree with your larger point about the price.
Sure, but that whole method is tied to the fact that they must physically ship, warehouse, display and merchansise these physical music discs. If they don't sell new stuff, and that new stuff becomes old stuff taking up shelf space, they are potentially in a loss and need to get rid of it just to reclaim the space (ergo the Bargain Bin). There is no Bargain Bin on iTunes because there is no shelf space and therefore the whole argument goes out the window.
Out of curiosity, what if you can burn the actual episode you bought to DVD just fine, but it has no extras and is only 320x240 (albeit with an admittedly excellent codec)? How much are the 'extras' worth to you?
Its not completely unlimited, there are still costs associated with producing, hosting and transferring the data of those songs. Forgetting for a second the actual album production, which has to occur either way, you do need to rip the file, process it, store it, etc. But if its an old album that has made back its costs severalfold, there's no reason to be greedy about it - you charge a nominal fee for bandwidth and the like, and a tiny fraction for your trouble. Lower price = more sales.
There is also an argument to be made for educating consumers (ugh, hate that word) about bandwidth costs, as they will not necessarily understand why a film is so much bigger than a song, bytewise.
Tiered pricing makes sense as a way of dealing with demand and maximizing profit. New singles should cost more, especially if they are popular, for a short time. The problem is that the labels don't want to price things in the back catalog down, which is where this argument is really useful. They only want to go up from the base 99/$9.99 model that Apple has established.
There are songs in catalog that actually have a value approaching zero. You try telling a record exec that fact, and they will spin on one heel and exit the room before you finish your sentence.
I'd like to see a system whereby the price is directly tied to short-term popularity as measured by downloads. So your new Christina Aguilera single comes out at a base price of 99; it shortly becomes very popular and creeps up over the course of a few days to $1.99 (there should be a ceiling, obviously). If you really want that "hot new track" (gag) right now, you pay the premium (or go elsewhere; different story there). Conversely if you really want to buy old Fleetwood Mac tracks from Rumors, which has paid for itself several times over already, you should only need to pony up 19-29 per track to cover bandwidth and processing.
If labels wanted to really invest in the long tail argument they would probably find themselves with a lot of new cash and not only that, from basically no promotion! But they are too stuck in the old sticks and bricks mindset, which is to promote a lucky few lottery-winner bands and maximize profit from those acts, at the expense of literally everything else.
(eMusic gets it, by the way.)
They don't sell for a loss, but they do sell for just enough to cover bandwidth, plus a tiny fraction. But you are right in saying the focus is on selling iPods.
"They have been developing technologies that have really good music discovery and community," another source said. "iTunes is the 7-11 (of music stores). You don't hang out there."
They have got to be kidding. People spend hours sifting through iTMS. I know people who never close it!
iTMS is like Amazon, people just use it for basic music reference at this point. These people are on crack.
They have a better chance of buying Apple than they do of finding proper support for iPods without breaking the law. Which is to say, no chance at all. Real tried it, look what happened.
Correct. They (MS) now endorse a 3rd-party plugin for Mac called Flip4Mac that makes a QuickTime wrapper for Windows Media content. It works.. ok.
Come on, don't they make this announcement every second week?
And when they put out toilet-looking boxes, their sales went beige.
I disagree - there was no 'role' to play in WarCraft, you couldn't affect the story outcome at all. But I readily concede my definition is more stringent than most; I don't really classify WoW as a real 'RPG' either.
I agree - but hear me out for a sec. When Blizzard made WoW, they didn't really "re-create" Warcraft as MMORPG, as much as just wrote a whole new game in the Warcraft setting. The genre changed completely, from RTS to RPG (-ish). I imagine if they were ever to do World of Starcraft (or whatever), it would get the same treatment.
Actually now that I think of it, that might be a nice proof-of-concept for resolution-independent animation recording... lots of CPU though...
Definitely not, since you weirdly included PaperBoy, and neglected Lode Runner.
BTW, not all classic games exist on Nintendo's platform. Many, but hardly all.
Ah, my bad. Cheers.
(Ok, maybe its not ubiquitous, and its a proprietary app, but still....)
First off.. I said "may not have a choice" not "do not have a choice". I don't follow Nintendo's business so I have no idea how the stock is divided, but I'm guessing you are probably right in that the major family who started it still controls majority interest.
What I was referring to was a hostile takeover. This barely happens in Japan because of the keiretsu. So, yes, there are circumstances short of murder.... these circumstances likely don't apply here.
Sure, I get that (and I agree - odds are high they really don't want to). But they may not have a choice in certain circumstances. This is what "publically traded companies" are about. Anyways, it won't happen for zillions of reasons, not the least of which is: it would be stupid.
Most of the people here would be just as thrilled if Apple and Nintendo simply announced the intension to support one another somehow (i.e. iTunes for DS).
So what? Honestly, does that make a difference, especially now that they are publically traded?
Nintendo was a card game company for a great many of those years. Things change.
More like, the very profitable Apple would never agree to acquire the maker of the Virtual Boy. (While we are dragging out ancient history of course.)
iWii Pro EXTREME
MacDS
MacGameBoy
marioTunes
Super Smash Garageband
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Ives
Metroid Nano
Bonjour Pokemon
NintenPods