This is one query I can answer.
If I had a grant, then, not more than $3-5,000 or $10,000 depending on the universal applicability in imaging.
Without a grant, I would have to purchase it personally, thus, following the dictates of our family CFO, not more than $125, which is the upper limit for any of my subscriptions.
I am not trying to be funny. Your question has, what I call, non-Randian coherence. For the inventor, the price is cost plus desired profit. S/he ordinarily does not ask the potential consumer to suggest a suggestion of price. If so, I could likely afford an IPhone, by Barry (or, is it George!). For at least half of the citizens of this nation, the cost should be borne by everyone regardless of personal need, and the ownership should reside with us all, because no one invents or discovers by her or himself. In other words, intuition and imagination based on current knowledge should be considered a legal "act of God" [theirs, NOT ours], and should be remanded, with all personal claims of ownership to the masses [their concept, not mine].
Thus, as a personal user without money, you should only expect to reap what I can afford, because I am one of the owners - since I exist.
Corporations, owned by the masses, should also pay less, because they are people too.
Educational corporations, public and private; well, they have needs that supersede all reason, thus, they will pay nothing.
Think of it this way. GM was rescued and salaries were capped in the bargain. The consequence, as I understand it [from YouTube of all places], is that GM is planning to move R&D to China where they can get a better deal. Apparently more than 70% of their production is foreign anyway. Hmmm! Does Schwab recommend GM as a personal investment?
I apologize for the content, but the source of the request has generated an unintended, involuntary consequence.
Cheers to all,
Fred Monson, who is still trying to understand everything, and who is ever grumpy, because he was not born equipped as was Richard Feynman. Imagine what he could have charged for our use of his gifts. Oh well, what do I care what other people think?
-----Original Message-----
From: ImageJ Interest Group [mailto:
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nick New
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 8:31 AM
To:
[hidden email]
Subject: Computer Generated Hologram / Diffractive and Fourier Optics kit with ImageJ
Dear ImageJ users,
My company is developing some kits aimed at providing researchers with the means to experiment with coherent optics at an affordable price. The kits would include a 1024x768 liquid crystal microdisplay (spatial light
modulator) driven as an external graphics display, in addition to a low power laser beam and camera interface. They would allow the user to practically experiment with beam shaping/steering and holographic reconstruction, for example in optical tweezers and correlation-type processes.
I wonder would this be of interest to ImageJ users if we were to offer a simple ImageJ interface? If anyone has any thoughts/suggestions I would be grateful if they could let us know and we will look to configure the kits accordingly. What kind of price point would be attractive to users?
Thanks very much for your time!
NICK NEW, www.cambridgecorrelators.com
--
ImageJ mailing list:
http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html--
ImageJ mailing list:
http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html
Locked
Nov 05, 2012; 1:30pm
