Since they feel that Windows is great, and therefore "worth" $300-- but $1000 gets it to the point where it's seriously impacting their finances. And that is where most Americans put their collective foot down.
You do realize that you just invalidated any argument you made against MS for abusing a monopoly position, don't you?
If Americans think "Windows is great" and "worth" the $300 that MS is charging, then MS is doing nothing more than selling a "great" product to a happy population who feel it is "worth" the cost. Exactly how capitalism is supposed to work.
On the other hand, if you were to say that $300 is the upper limit that people will stand without openly revolting - and that MS is extorting that amount by virtue of being a Monopoly (thus, by definition, there being no comparable alternative to turn to) - THEN you can claim abuse.
According to your argument MS is just another well behaved, successful company, doing capitalist society good by their actions. I really hope YANAL.
Now we just need to find some tachyon eddies and we will be off to Cardassia in no time!
That, or a chesterfield will keep appearing, zipping around, and disappearing on my front lawn driving me nuts - before finally appearing in the middle of Lord's Stadium just as the cricket match is getting, err, "interesting"! Bloody eddies in the timespace continuum.
Be careful what you wish for. Thanks to fun things such as String Theory, TimeDilation, and Quantum TimeTravel you just might get that warp drive... yesterday!
On Nov. 4, 18 Canadian universities and will create the most powerful computer in Canada for a day to solve an important computational chemistry question in one day
Coincidentally, on Nov 4, Canadian Universities will create the world's first beer-cooled supercomputer, "Drunk Blue".
When asked why beer, the researchers involved explained that it was both plentiful and "what else would you use Blue for?".
IV. Personalities and Emotions
In addition, Dr Robot Inc. has planned to develop unique personalities and emotions of the robot based on the relationship with its owner. Personalities such as playful and shy, as well as emotions (such as happiness, sadness, fear, dislike, surprise, and anger) can be expressed by the robot via sophisticated voice synthesis and body language to hold intelligent conversation with its owner and other people.
Great, I'm going to shell out all that cash, get it home, and be greeted with "I'm soooooooooooooooooo depressed. Here I am, a brain the size of a planet, and he wants me to go fetch beer..."
Has Douglas taught us NOTHING?? Forget Asimov, Adams people, Adams!
My wife is a redhead. For her, more stimulation is better. (She's getting a Sybian for christmas. If you don't know how STIMULATING one of those can be... well, you need to do some "research".)
Just make sure your don't plug a 110v version into a 220v outlet... it really pissess off the morgue - it could take them hours to get that smile off her face!
It scared the shit out of me when I read it as "lion cells" and the "AAAAAAAA" seems like a scream of someone being eaten alive in one of those lion cells!
You know the scary thing? I read "lion" as being Lithium Ion right off the bat. Even the AAAAAAAAAAA as being a play on AA/AAA size batteries.
"Lion", as in the animal, never once occurred to me until I read your message.
Frankly, your interpretation would make more sense to the world at large. Proof positive that I need to get out more!
In fact, *I* have a small blind spot in one eye, just from being accidentally caught for a fraction of a second by a supermarket scanning laser.
I'm sorry, but this is bull. If supermarket scanners were capable of such damage, do you really think they would be allowed? No bloody way. I'm not sure which kind of scanner you are talking about, hand scanner of the kind built into the table, but there is no way it burned you. Absolute puppycock. The only possible way such a thing could have happened is if you'd been mucking about inside one of the large scanners and got beamed. Even then it's very, very, very unlikely. Don't believe me? Go tell your story on alt.laser where many a professional laserist & optical engineer hang out. They'll tell you the same story. In fact someone recently posted a comment along those lines, you'd have loved the response. I can scan a 5watt laser across your eye and you'd be totally fine. In fact, I used to do it routinely as part of laser shows. It's based on power density and exposure. A beam that held in your eye would burn cannot if it is in motion at sufficient speed.
And contrary to your assertion that any movement "will cause the eye to move" -- people have a natural tendency to look directly AT a bright point of light.
Not so. If you notice something you tend to look at it. But if you look towards a bright light (or have on projected at you) then your "Blink Response" takes over. You actually turn away and/or blink. Try it, flash a camera bulb at someone not expecting it. They'll avert their eyes.
Also you must consider the movement of the bodies... just try holding a laser pointer still on one spot at any distance. I guarantee you that it will move about no matter how hard you try to hold it still. The natural twitches in your hand will magnify the further you try to project that beam. Add in any movements of the person being beamed (be it of the body or of the eye itself) and you have a huge range of motion.
If you don't think this is a hazard, try it on yourself first. Remember not to stare into laser beam with remaining eye.
I have. I guess you missed that part of my original post. I used to routinely work with high power lasers (5-7 watts typically), both Pulsed and CW. Even a 5 watt CW laser is safe to scan across an audience, as long as the beam remains in motion. I wouldn't point a static beam of that power at anyone though.
You quote a standard, old, industry joke. That doesn't mean a pointer will do it.
As to the "you are here" nonsense, the beam from a laser is itself invisible. It is only made visible by passing thru something reflective, like clouds, fog, or smoke.
Not quite. The beam isn't "invisible" so much as it's just not aiming into your eye. Since the beam travels in a very straight line, there are no photons being directed away from this path and into your eye. Something must deflect the photons towards you. This is why haze is a favorite.
But guess what, high humidity can give enough air born particles of water to help diffract the beam. As can engine exhaust from, say, that theoretical helicopter. (BTW, I used that example for a reason - it happened)
Additionally take into account the fact that in order to see a laser beam it must enough photons have to be deflected towards your eye. Thus a laser will appear much brighter to someone looking towards the source, than to the person holding the source. Why? For the person holding the source photons must be reflected back the way they came. To someone looking towards the laser they only need to be diverted a few degrees.
Also, since we are talking about pointing it towards someone's eye, their eye is very near the beam - photons need only be deflected slightly from their original path to enter the eye. Not so for the person holding the laser, they require a much greater change in direction.
This is also why a laser appears dimmest when viewed at right angles - the photons must be deflected at a right angle to it's original path to be seen. This is the least likely angle of reflection.
Unfortunately it is people such as you who are responsible for the ridiculous draconian laws of the CDRH in regards to the use of lasers. The US is the only country in the world where audience scanning is illegal. The variance laws are also way out there. It's a shame, done correctly a laser show is a beautiful thing.
A normal laser pointer isn't going to cause any permanent damage, but having one shone in your eyes can certainly be distracting enough to cause a problem if you're driving when it happens.
Indeed. The temporary blindess (the same as if a flash bulb had gone off in your face) can cause issues when controlling all sorts of vehicles.
One of the major fears of law enforcement is precisely this problem. I've written about this before on/., but the scheme goes like this:
- Terrorists (or your bad guy of the day) purchases a 3watt solid state YAG laser (yours for only $12,000) and a pair of scanning galvos. Now he has a powerful, portable rig than can run off an AC inverter or other portable power source. Lets say this rig is mounted to a van.
- Go park your van at the end of a runway and proceed to scan the laser back and forth across the cockpits front window. With a tight scan pattern you are highly likely to scan across the pilots eyes.
- This won't blind the pilot for any long period of time... but final approach and near touchdown are critical stages in a landing. Startle or distract the pilot and you might be able to crash the plane.
- While everyone is responding to the crash you drive away... leaving no evidence.
Even though he mentions he's using low powered laser pointers, those still have the potential of harming someone.
No they don't. Casually shining a single laser pointer across someone's eye is not going to cause anyone any damage - unless they punch you out for it.
Most laser pointers are less than 1 milliwatt in power. That's really, really low. Factor in vibrations and movement and there is no way your going to damage an eye.
The reason a laser can harm your vision is that the eye sees a laser beam as a point source - it is unable to focus on it directly. Instead, the eye focuses to infinity. The beams light is also virtually parallel, allowing for the entire beam to be focused onto one very small part of the retina.
The good thing here in terms of pointers and safety is that any movement of the beam in relation to the eye (be it a person in motion, or the natural jitters in your hand) will cause the focal point on the retina to move.
Thus, in order for a laser to damage your eye it must have sufficient power to burn quickly - the spot being affected changes before cumulative affects can take place.
Laser pointers don't have that power. Short of bolting someone's head to a table, along with a pointer, then forcing their eyelids open, AND keeping the eyeball still, it's not going to happen.
This is not to say that staring into your pointer for kicks is a good idea! Don't do it. Don't do it to others. Don't say I told you you could. If nothing else it is incredibly annoying. But it's not about to permanantly blind anyone.
Now, if you have an unusually high powered pointer (ie those groovy YAG pens) you might be talking a different story.
I've had much nastier beams in the eye than any laser pointer will ever generate - luckily I've gotten away with it too.
Frankly I'm much more worried about these yahoos who are taking a wad of them and bundling them together and pointing the results at low flying helicopters or other aircraft.
Note to anyone tempted to do this: lasers in the sky make a very nice YOU ARE HERE indicator. You're basically pinpointing your position for the Cops. None to bright (ack, pun) if you ask me.
What does the Internet have to do with the network of sexual partners?...present a general framework for improving the accuracy of Internet models' by treating the net 'as though it were a natural phenomenom.'
Uh huh.. I think we all know just what kind of 'Internet models' he's referring to! *wink wink* *nudge nudge*
I wonder which site, err section of the net, was his favorite?
it's often used to help those in the drill units under the earth to communicate with those above) - I'm not even bothering with this one...
The benefit of higher frequencies is that they travel in straight lines - This is apposed to, say, those low frequency waves that like to travel at right angles, right?
This is why 2.4Ghz wireless has become popular. 2.4Ghz was chosen for wireless networking because the frequency is the same as the resonance of trees and bricks, - Lovely thought. So you're saying all our forests are going to turn into the Tacoma Narrows Bridge? After all, that is what happens when you hit an objects resonate frequency.
antenna at the drill cage is secure, and then point a high powered (say 1MW) transmitter down towards the ground, and et voila.. - Hrmmm, metallic cages... hmmm, Faraday Cages. Yup, that'll help signal reception!
- 1 mw is high power you say? Damn, my old brick cellphone should be able to reach Istanbul!
I'm surprised a big networking company like Novell or nVidia hasn't jumped on to this and started to produce expensive proprietary gear for the rich oil companies to buy - nVidia is doing networks now? Won't they be surprised! Man, ATI will be ticked.
Either way, wireless (radio) is the way to go when sending a signal through an electrically busy area. This is why wireless networking is popular in power stations, since fiber optics tend to suck up too much interference. - Hahhaa, I'm just laughing to hard at this one.
You know, if you are going to troll, at least make it plausible.
Oddly, this bill focuses on notification that you're buying copy-restricted music disks instead of CDs (which is useful, but hardly major), and only contains a few vague amendments to the DMCA itself. Neither of these is worth paying much attention to: Congress is about to wrap up and go home for the year, and will start afresh in January with a clean slate. Perhaps in January some bright Congressperson will introduce a bill which actually takes strong steps toward repealing the DMCA.
I'd disagree in saying that this in not worth paying attention to, instead I'd say it's a good first step.
If someone goes in there all gung ho about repealing the DMCA it's easy to make inflametory comments like "Don't you care about the rights of artists?". Rather a lot like those who respond to any objection to the way an investigation is carried out could be met with "Don't you want to stop kiddie porn?", nor more commonly these days "Don't you want to stop terrorism?". While without merrit, these comments can really count against you.
Instead, start poking holes in the other side. Attack in bits and pieces, showing how this part 'here' or 'there' is contrary to existing rights/laws. Do this enough and the other side starts looking pretty bad... soon you can change everything without a petty argument stopping you.
...Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped,or turned back, for their private benefit.
It is interesting to note that Mr. Heinlein penned those words back in 1939.
In any event, the main difference between PRK and Lasik is that with PRK they don't slice your eyeball. No mechanical blade is used at all, it is entirely done by the Excemer laser.
This is incorrect. LASIK does involve making a flap incision on the cornea with a microtome (or something similar it anyway). Only after the flap is created does the laser do its work. It is very different from PRK for specifically this reason, and this is also the difference that makes it better. By only ablating the cornea cells under the eye, the outcome is more predictable, since the inner corneal cells heal together more predictably than ablated epithelial cells on the surface. This is also the reason LASIK hurts much less than PRK, as most of the pain receptors are on the surface of the cornea. My mother had PRK done years ago, and boy did it look miserable!
FUD! You didn't actually read what I wrote did you? I said the PRK = NO BLADE, and that LASIK = BLADE! Which IS correct, as you go on to state.
As for the more predictable, show me some stats - it's utter BS. In fact, PRK requires LESS skill on the part of the surgeon than does PRK.
The main problem with LASIK is the very cut you site as making it more predictable.
Pain? No, not really. I had it done remember. So have several friends. Discomfort yes, no serious pain and no more than LASIK.
You mention your mom having it done years ago, how many? I bet if you tried any operation when it was initally available it would hurt too.
I had PRK done about 5 years ago. Oddly enough I believe it is still considered experimental.
In any event, the main difference between PRK and Lasik is that with PRK they don't slice your eyeball. No mechanical blade is used at all, it is entirely done by the Excemer laser.
This can prevent many of the nightmares associated with LASIK and long-term damage to the eye. Though I cannot speak for everyone, I personally have extremely good night vision with no flaring of lights at all. Additionally it was able to correct 4 diopter myopia to better than 20/20. My vision is actually closer to 20/10.
Not bad for someone who previous to the surgery couldn't read the dashboard of a car while sitting in the drivers seat without glasses!
Of course that is just my opinion, YMMV.
If anyone is interested in the surgery and lives in the Ottawa area I would recommend Dr. Denis Conrad - fantastic surgeon!
Laser MedCare (LMC)
o Dr. Dennis R. Conrad, M.D., F.R.C.S.(C.)
o 2430-6, Bank Street
o Ottawa (Ontario)
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that you just invalidated any argument you made against MS for abusing a monopoly position, don't you?
If Americans think "Windows is great" and "worth" the $300 that MS is charging, then MS is doing nothing more than selling a "great" product to a happy population who feel it is "worth" the cost. Exactly how capitalism is supposed to work.
On the other hand, if you were to say that $300 is the upper limit that people will stand without openly revolting - and that MS is extorting that amount by virtue of being a Monopoly (thus, by definition, there being no comparable alternative to turn to) - THEN you can claim abuse.
According to your argument MS is just another well behaved, successful company, doing capitalist society good by their actions. I really hope YANAL.
I didn't realize that growing old was optional! Cool!
So, where do I go to tell them "No"?
Frankly I find that rather scary.
Sheesh. Some people never learn! :)
Second? I thought it was the first!
Oh do give it a rest. You know what will happen once you get a post in motion around here.
Isn't that like a VHS tape showing you how to setup your VCR? I mean think about this for a moment...
"..hey man, nice shot!" - Filter
Read this, particularly the part about the three peasants.
What if someone were to turn around and declare you a terrorist?
Still finding it such a good idea?
That, or a chesterfield will keep appearing, zipping around, and disappearing on my front lawn driving me nuts - before finally appearing in the middle of Lord's Stadium just as the cricket match is getting, err, "interesting"! Bloody eddies in the timespace continuum.
Be careful what you wish for. Thanks to fun things such as String Theory, Time Dilation, and Quantum Time Travel you just might get that warp drive... yesterday!
Coincidentally, on Nov 4, Canadian Universities will create the world's first beer-cooled supercomputer, "Drunk Blue".
When asked why beer, the researchers involved explained that it was both plentiful and "what else would you use Blue for?".
Great, I'm going to shell out all that cash, get it home, and be greeted with "I'm soooooooooooooooooo depressed. Here I am, a brain the size of a planet, and he wants me to go fetch beer..."
Has Douglas taught us NOTHING?? Forget Asimov, Adams people, Adams!
Just make sure your don't plug a 110v version into a 220v outlet... it really pissess off the morgue - it could take them hours to get that smile off her face!
You know the scary thing? I read "lion" as being Lithium Ion right off the bat. Even the AAAAAAAAAAA as being a play on AA/AAA size batteries.
"Lion", as in the animal, never once occurred to me until I read your message.
Frankly, your interpretation would make more sense to the world at large. Proof positive that I need to get out more!
I'm sorry, but this is bull. If supermarket scanners were capable of such damage, do you really think they would be allowed? No bloody way. I'm not sure which kind of scanner you are talking about, hand scanner of the kind built into the table, but there is no way it burned you. Absolute puppycock. The only possible way such a thing could have happened is if you'd been mucking about inside one of the large scanners and got beamed. Even then it's very, very, very unlikely. Don't believe me? Go tell your story on alt.laser where many a professional laserist & optical engineer hang out. They'll tell you the same story. In fact someone recently posted a comment along those lines, you'd have loved the response. I can scan a 5watt laser across your eye and you'd be totally fine. In fact, I used to do it routinely as part of laser shows. It's based on power density and exposure. A beam that held in your eye would burn cannot if it is in motion at sufficient speed.
And contrary to your assertion that any movement "will cause the eye to move" -- people have a natural tendency to look directly AT a bright point of light.
Not so. If you notice something you tend to look at it. But if you look towards a bright light (or have on projected at you) then your "Blink Response" takes over. You actually turn away and/or blink. Try it, flash a camera bulb at someone not expecting it. They'll avert their eyes.
Also you must consider the movement of the bodies... just try holding a laser pointer still on one spot at any distance. I guarantee you that it will move about no matter how hard you try to hold it still. The natural twitches in your hand will magnify the further you try to project that beam. Add in any movements of the person being beamed (be it of the body or of the eye itself) and you have a huge range of motion.
If you don't think this is a hazard, try it on yourself first. Remember not to stare into laser beam with remaining eye.
I have. I guess you missed that part of my original post. I used to routinely work with high power lasers (5-7 watts typically), both Pulsed and CW. Even a 5 watt CW laser is safe to scan across an audience, as long as the beam remains in motion. I wouldn't point a static beam of that power at anyone though.
You quote a standard, old, industry joke. That doesn't mean a pointer will do it.
As to the "you are here" nonsense, the beam from a laser is itself invisible. It is only made visible by passing thru something reflective, like clouds, fog, or smoke.
Not quite. The beam isn't "invisible" so much as it's just not aiming into your eye. Since the beam travels in a very straight line, there are no photons being directed away from this path and into your eye. Something must deflect the photons towards you. This is why haze is a favorite.
But guess what, high humidity can give enough air born particles of water to help diffract the beam. As can engine exhaust from, say, that theoretical helicopter. (BTW, I used that example for a reason - it happened)
Additionally take into account the fact that in order to see a laser beam it must enough photons have to be deflected towards your eye. Thus a laser will appear much brighter to someone looking towards the source, than to the person holding the source. Why? For the person holding the source photons must be reflected back the way they came. To someone looking towards the laser they only need to be diverted a few degrees.
Also, since we are talking about pointing it towards someone's eye, their eye is very near the beam - photons need only be deflected slightly from their original path to enter the eye. Not so for the person holding the laser, they require a much greater change in direction.
This is also why a laser appears dimmest when viewed at right angles - the photons must be deflected at a right angle to it's original path to be seen. This is the least likely angle of reflection.
Unfortunately it is people such as you who are responsible for the ridiculous draconian laws of the CDRH in regards to the use of lasers. The US is the only country in the world where audience scanning is illegal. The variance laws are also way out there. It's a shame, done correctly a laser show is a beautiful thing.
Indeed. The temporary blindess (the same as if a flash bulb had gone off in your face) can cause issues when controlling all sorts of vehicles.
One of the major fears of law enforcement is precisely this problem. I've written about this before on /., but the scheme goes like this:
- Terrorists (or your bad guy of the day) purchases a 3watt solid state YAG laser (yours for only $12,000) and a pair of scanning galvos. Now he has a powerful, portable rig than can run off an AC inverter or other portable power source. Lets say this rig is mounted to a van.
- Go park your van at the end of a runway and proceed to scan the laser back and forth across the cockpits front window. With a tight scan pattern you are highly likely to scan across the pilots eyes.
- This won't blind the pilot for any long period of time... but final approach and near touchdown are critical stages in a landing. Startle or distract the pilot and you might be able to crash the plane.
- While everyone is responding to the crash you drive away... leaving no evidence.
Nasty, nasty thought.
No they don't. Casually shining a single laser pointer across someone's eye is not going to cause anyone any damage - unless they punch you out for it.
Most laser pointers are less than 1 milliwatt in power. That's really, really low. Factor in vibrations and movement and there is no way your going to damage an eye.
The reason a laser can harm your vision is that the eye sees a laser beam as a point source - it is unable to focus on it directly. Instead, the eye focuses to infinity. The beams light is also virtually parallel, allowing for the entire beam to be focused onto one very small part of the retina.
The good thing here in terms of pointers and safety is that any movement of the beam in relation to the eye (be it a person in motion, or the natural jitters in your hand) will cause the focal point on the retina to move.
Thus, in order for a laser to damage your eye it must have sufficient power to burn quickly - the spot being affected changes before cumulative affects can take place.
Laser pointers don't have that power. Short of bolting someone's head to a table, along with a pointer, then forcing their eyelids open, AND keeping the eyeball still, it's not going to happen.
This is not to say that staring into your pointer for kicks is a good idea! Don't do it. Don't do it to others. Don't say I told you you could. If nothing else it is incredibly annoying. But it's not about to permanantly blind anyone.
Now, if you have an unusually high powered pointer (ie those groovy YAG pens) you might be talking a different story.
I've had much nastier beams in the eye than any laser pointer will ever generate - luckily I've gotten away with it too.
Frankly I'm much more worried about these yahoos who are taking a wad of them and bundling them together and pointing the results at low flying helicopters or other aircraft.
Note to anyone tempted to do this: lasers in the sky make a very nice YOU ARE HERE indicator. You're basically pinpointing your position for the Cops. None to bright (ack, pun) if you ask me.
Uh huh.. I think we all know just what kind of 'Internet models' he's referring to! *wink wink* *nudge nudge*
I wonder which site, err section of the net, was his favorite?
it's often used to help those in the drill units under the earth to communicate with those above)
- I'm not even bothering with this one...
The benefit of higher frequencies is that they travel in straight lines
- This is apposed to, say, those low frequency waves that like to travel at right angles, right?
This is why 2.4Ghz wireless has become popular. 2.4Ghz was chosen for wireless networking because the frequency is the same as the resonance of trees and bricks,
- Lovely thought. So you're saying all our forests are going to turn into the Tacoma Narrows Bridge? After all, that is what happens when you hit an objects resonate frequency.
antenna at the drill cage is secure, and then point a high powered (say 1MW) transmitter down towards the ground, and et voila..
- Hrmmm, metallic cages... hmmm, Faraday Cages. Yup, that'll help signal reception!
- 1 mw is high power you say? Damn, my old brick cellphone should be able to reach Istanbul!
I'm surprised a big networking company like Novell or nVidia hasn't jumped on to this and started to produce expensive proprietary gear for the rich oil companies to buy
- nVidia is doing networks now? Won't they be surprised! Man, ATI will be ticked.
Either way, wireless (radio) is the way to go when sending a signal through an electrically busy area. This is why wireless networking is popular in power stations, since fiber optics tend to suck up too much interference.
- Hahhaa, I'm just laughing to hard at this one.
You know, if you are going to troll, at least make it plausible.
I'd disagree in saying that this in not worth paying attention to, instead I'd say it's a good first step.
If someone goes in there all gung ho about repealing the DMCA it's easy to make inflametory comments like "Don't you care about the rights of artists?". Rather a lot like those who respond to any objection to the way an investigation is carried out could be met with "Don't you want to stop kiddie porn?", nor more commonly these days "Don't you want to stop terrorism?". While without merrit, these comments can really count against you.
Instead, start poking holes in the other side. Attack in bits and pieces, showing how this part 'here' or 'there' is contrary to existing rights/laws. Do this enough and the other side starts looking pretty bad... soon you can change everything without a petty argument stopping you.
It is interesting to note that Mr. Heinlein penned those words back in 1939.
function history(){
history();
}
This is incorrect. LASIK does involve making a flap incision on the cornea with a microtome (or something similar it anyway). Only after the flap is created does the laser do its work. It is very different from PRK for specifically this reason, and this is also the difference that makes it better. By only ablating the cornea cells under the eye, the outcome is more predictable, since the inner corneal cells heal together more predictably than ablated epithelial cells on the surface. This is also the reason LASIK hurts much less than PRK, as most of the pain receptors are on the surface of the cornea. My mother had PRK done years ago, and boy did it look miserable!
FUD! You didn't actually read what I wrote did you? I said the PRK = NO BLADE, and that LASIK = BLADE! Which IS correct, as you go on to state.
As for the more predictable, show me some stats - it's utter BS. In fact, PRK requires LESS skill on the part of the surgeon than does PRK.
The main problem with LASIK is the very cut you site as making it more predictable.
Pain? No, not really. I had it done remember. So have several friends. Discomfort yes, no serious pain and no more than LASIK.
You mention your mom having it done years ago, how many? I bet if you tried any operation when it was initally available it would hurt too.
In any event, the main difference between PRK and Lasik is that with PRK they don't slice your eyeball. No mechanical blade is used at all, it is entirely done by the Excemer laser.
This can prevent many of the nightmares associated with LASIK and long-term damage to the eye. Though I cannot speak for everyone, I personally have extremely good night vision with no flaring of lights at all. Additionally it was able to correct 4 diopter myopia to better than 20/20. My vision is actually closer to 20/10.
Not bad for someone who previous to the surgery couldn't read the dashboard of a car while sitting in the drivers seat without glasses!
Of course that is just my opinion, YMMV.
If anyone is interested in the surgery and lives in the Ottawa area I would recommend Dr. Denis Conrad - fantastic surgeon!
Laser MedCare (LMC)
o Dr. Dennis R. Conrad, M.D., F.R.C.S.(C.)
o 2430-6, Bank Street
o Ottawa (Ontario)
Only if you try to overclock it.