I bought an Enpower laptop from PC Club about a year ago, which is a rebranded Asus M3N.
When I ordered it, I asked to not have windows preinstalled, and that saved $100. So, you can order PCs from PC Club and not pay for windows. No rebate required.
BTW, I got Mepis linux (Debian derivitive) to run fine on this laptop, with the only issue being the modem, which I haven't spent any time trying to get working.
I'd like to reiterate what wcb4 said. Use one of the spot-beam lasers that can be progreammed to shape a larger area, if needed. Your surgeon will measure how much your pupils dilate in the dark. You need to correct a slightly larger area to not see halos.
My pupils dilate out to almost 8 mm. Standard lasik corrects out to 6.5. One surgeon was trying to convince me it wouldn't matter, but it does. I chatted with an opthamologist online and he said this is terrible advice. It does matter.
I had the spot-beam lasik 3 years ago, and it's great. Just make sure you do your research and get the right treatment.
You might want to consider corneal rings, which can be removed if they don't work. I preferred those, but again, they're 6.5 mm in diameter, too small for me.
Good luck.
I know this is a bit late to the discussion, but a book I found interesting regarding gravity is "Dark Mater Missing Planets & New Comets, Paradoxes Resolved Origins Illuminated", by Tom Van Flandern. In it, he discusses the idea that gravity doesn't eminate from massive bodies, but is composed of particles flying through space. The massive bodies effectively block some of these particles, pushing masses together, rather than the masses pulling themselves together.
The idea isn't new, and of course there's a lot more to it. A part of this theory that staes that light will become redshifted as it travels through space due to being absorbed and reemitted by these gravitons. This has been labelled the "tired light" theory to try and discredit it.
The only real criticism I have of this book is that he often states this theory explains observed phenomenon "a priori", whereas existing theories need to be changed. Of course, since he was aware of these phenomenon when he wrote the book, he would've made any such changes already. It's not exactly a priori. In that sense, he's guilty, IMHO, of the same close mindedness as others he criticizes for rejecting this theory without serious consideration.
But, I believe many of his ideas are at least very close to the truth. It is simple, compared to dark matter. Everytime I read an article talking about how the latest experiments haven't identified the nature of dark matter, I chuckle. I think they're chasing ghosts, and clinging to those ghosts is preventing us from making real progress.
Slashdot Mirror
I bought an Enpower laptop from PC Club about a year ago, which is a rebranded Asus M3N. When I ordered it, I asked to not have windows preinstalled, and that saved $100. So, you can order PCs from PC Club and not pay for windows. No rebate required. BTW, I got Mepis linux (Debian derivitive) to run fine on this laptop, with the only issue being the modem, which I haven't spent any time trying to get working.
I'd like to reiterate what wcb4 said. Use one of the spot-beam lasers that can be progreammed to shape a larger area, if needed. Your surgeon will measure how much your pupils dilate in the dark. You need to correct a slightly larger area to not see halos. My pupils dilate out to almost 8 mm. Standard lasik corrects out to 6.5. One surgeon was trying to convince me it wouldn't matter, but it does. I chatted with an opthamologist online and he said this is terrible advice. It does matter. I had the spot-beam lasik 3 years ago, and it's great. Just make sure you do your research and get the right treatment. You might want to consider corneal rings, which can be removed if they don't work. I preferred those, but again, they're 6.5 mm in diameter, too small for me. Good luck.
I know this is a bit late to the discussion, but a book I found interesting regarding gravity is "Dark Mater Missing Planets & New Comets, Paradoxes Resolved Origins Illuminated", by Tom Van Flandern. In it, he discusses the idea that gravity doesn't eminate from massive bodies, but is composed of particles flying through space. The massive bodies effectively block some of these particles, pushing masses together, rather than the masses pulling themselves together. The idea isn't new, and of course there's a lot more to it. A part of this theory that staes that light will become redshifted as it travels through space due to being absorbed and reemitted by these gravitons. This has been labelled the "tired light" theory to try and discredit it. The only real criticism I have of this book is that he often states this theory explains observed phenomenon "a priori", whereas existing theories need to be changed. Of course, since he was aware of these phenomenon when he wrote the book, he would've made any such changes already. It's not exactly a priori. In that sense, he's guilty, IMHO, of the same close mindedness as others he criticizes for rejecting this theory without serious consideration. But, I believe many of his ideas are at least very close to the truth. It is simple, compared to dark matter. Everytime I read an article talking about how the latest experiments haven't identified the nature of dark matter, I chuckle. I think they're chasing ghosts, and clinging to those ghosts is preventing us from making real progress.