I had mine done here http://www.elliseye.com/ in 2001 or 2002. At first my vision was 20/15 in one eye and 20/10 in the other and I felt like the bionic man. This over correction lasted about a year before it started to degrade and I am now worse than 20/20 I imagine. I can still pass a driver's test, spend hours everyday in front of a monitor, see well at night etc. My only complaint is the slight starburst effect around bright glowing objects at night but I consider that a small price to pay. To this day I consider it the best money I have ever spent.
Bah. Amazon didn't cave to political pressure, it made a sound business decision. While it may offend your politics this was about the bottom-line. It isn't Jeff Bezos' job to make polical statements with other peoples money, he has enough of his own for that. This isn't a privately held firm we are talking about folks. I doubt Amazon's PR team had to give this more than 5 minutes thought before calling the board. Whining about Amazon not fighting the fight is to either sorely misunderstand the nature of business OR a veiled attempt to promote anti-capitalism rhetoric. Liberal Capitalism (or however closely we approximated that during the last century) is in its death throes. The revolution is upon us and the bastards are winning. But to whine about Amazon acting in their own self interest? Wake up! As much as I love the Amazonians (as they refer to themselves) and have had the pleasure of gracing their halls on several occasions you need to realize that in the true scheme of things Amazon and the Federal elite are on the same side in this war. And it isn't the side many of you think you are on. But the power structure keeps selling the dream and enough of the poor and down trodden keep buying it up.
If you want to attack Amazon's decision, then you must attack the forces and structure behind it. If this was a game, Amazon made the right move. Don't hate the player, hate the game. Please.
Agreed. I don't like the politics of this "scandal" like many in this community, but this IS a serious fight AND I believe the stakes are even higher than many here on my side seem to think. It is how the battle is to be fought that concerns me as victory is my goal. This editorial, with all due respect to the EFF which I mostly support, is ultimately trite, pendantic, and shallow despite casual appearance to the contrary. This isn't just about freedom of speech. It is about putting a roof over our children's heads and food in their bellies. "You've got to get mad. You've gotta say 'I'm a human being God damn it, my life has value!'
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. If she has as big a problem with this as she claims then she has greater challenges facing her then learning how to set (or correct) a boundary. Seriously. I was recently fired by a client after rejecting her sexual advances. Maybe I'll make a blog post bragging about my animal magnetism to assuage my disappointment over my professional failure.
No matter how brilliant one is, its ridiculously hard to know what you don't know.
This cannot be overstated. And when ego is the cause...oy vey! I believe that one of the greatest intellectual challenges to overcome when one over identifies as being "brilliant" is the, oft youthful, focus on pedantry. How embarrassingly ironic to display one's ignorance as a result of flaunting one's intellect. As a recovering pendant well in to those years that separate true youth from "decidedly middle-aged" let me sincerely recommend to some of our (mostly) younger members that they put down the Bertrand Russell long enough to pick up some William Blake.
When used properly, I have found that one of the most powerful phrases I can use to build confidence, trust, and credibility with a client is "I don't know."
I think your perception that the entertainment industry is in anyway a meritocracy is naive. There are always exceptions to the rule but for the most part it is still a "it's not what you know it's who you know" industry. This discussion reminds me of one of my favorite all time bumper stickers: "Real Musicians Have Day Jobs."
I agree with many of the other respondents that you are grossly overstating the role the names played. Additionally, while I agree wholeheartedly that "Mint" is the better name, when considering the role the company names played (however large or small) in the eventual outcome, I think one needs to weigh Wesabe's poor choice of name at least as equally significant as Mint's good choice if not much more.
It's their job to try and collect as much as they can. Even if your contact is friendly and sympathetic, if they think you can pay on better terms than you offer they will hammer you. On the flip side it is your job to be honest about your situation and get them to accept terms that you can actually meet. Other people have given better and more specific advice but the bottom line is they will take what they can get. No hard feelings. Business is business.
I can't really comment on the viability/marketability of your product concept, but I will offer this very important, if not somewhat trite, piece of advice. If you are going to try to sell something to designers and use words like aesthetics in your sales copy, you will most likely fail if your own presentation is not aesthetically pleasing. Others have given some great suggestions below. I just want to emphasize that before you work to send any traffic to your site you should greatly enhance the look.
This is a lot of fun but the great variety of results I received left me without any sense of who I may actually write like. I analyzed a series of correspondence, all written within several weeks, and similar in tone, and I was told that I write like: Dan Brown, James Joyce, Isaac Asimov, Stephen King and Douglas Adams. Anyway, I love the concept. Please add Robert Louis Stevenson (Strange Case) to your collection. Thank you for the narcissistic pleasure :D
