Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> On 1/25/2012, Dave posted:
>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:32:04 -0600, Sunshine wrote:
>
>>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:20:55 -0800, The Real Bev
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01/23/2012 02:41 PM, Carl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/23/2012, The Real Bev posted:
>>>>>>> Plus all the 99-cent readers (which are perfectly good, BTW)
>>>>>>> in different strengths depending on what I'm doing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On my previous prescription, my eyes differed by a diopter (they
>>>>>> were spherical then, but not now).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I bought a bunch of 99 cent reading glasses in a range of
>>>>>> strengths, every quarter diopter. Then I chose two pairs a
>>>>>> diopter apart, popped the right lens out of both, and replaced
>>>>>> the weaker one with the stronger one. I did this over a range
>>>>>> of about 1.25 to 3.75,
>>>>>> IIRC, and thereby got a set of proper reading glasses at each
>>>>>> value. Of course, I ended up with a left over pair with badly
>>>>>> mismatched lenses, but heck, I had fun, and they are still
>>>>>> useful, even though the eyes are now more like 3/4 D apart.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't repeated the job yet for the new prescription, since
>>>>>> these still work adequately.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Clever. If your understanding of the total Rx was correct, this
>>>>> would be a good idea. Of course, with Bev's high astig, this idea
>>>>> wouldn't work that way.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, it would if I were wearing my contacts. For some reason
>>>> my left eye and right eye always end up focusing at different
>>>> points -- and I've had at least 6 different
>>>> optometrists/ophthalmologists prescribe for me.
>>>>
>>>> I've thought of this, but it just seems like too much trouble for
>>>> too little gain. The only reason I wear my contacts now is so
>>>> that I can wear goggles rather than sunglasses when I ski. They're just
>>>> not good enough for serious seeing :-(
>>>
>>> I'm looking forward to the day when less-than-perfect eyes
>>> routinely get surgically replaced by imaging devices that offer far
>>> better acuity, a zoom function, improved night vision, infrared on
>>> demand, and so on.
>
>> With a HUD SatNav built in? (Gently nudges back topic :-))
>
> On or off topic, it's a very interesting idea.
>
> Would you get lifetime map updates? :-)
>
If you spend the extra $50 for the 2450 series and above model. Using the
free Traffic function, however, will cause ads to run across your new
eyeballs every 15 seconds with no way to turn them off.

Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> On 1/25/2012, Carl posted:
>> Dave wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:55:35 -0800, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/23/2012, Carl posted:
>>>>> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/22/2012, Carl posted:
>>>>>>> Dave wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:22:27 -0800, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A friend of mine, only ~65, just had her first cataract
>>>>>>>>> replacement this week.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Eh? Was the old cataract not good enough then?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> She wasn't talking about the automobile.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now THAT is unforgivable
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Same as "Groan!", the most favorable reaction to a pun...)
>>>>>>
>>>>> We can only try...not always successfully...
>>>>
>>>> I told my SO about your post; she got the pun (or at least she
>>>> interpreted as I did, FWIW).
>>>>
>>>> She's used to "bad" puns...
>>>
>>> Ahhhhhh.....Cadillac. /Now/ I get it. It's not and never has been
>>> much of a brand here on the east side of the pond other than in
>>> imported US TV shows/movies. I think the closest we have to
>>> Cadillac here would be something like this:
>>>
>>> http://www.army-technology.com/proje...llenger21.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Or do I get it? Was Cadillac/Cataract the pun?
>>>
>> Yes it was Dave. I have been using that line for a long time and it
>> never ceases to draw first a quizical look and then that light bulb
>> just lit up look. As you might tell, I have that kind of corny
>> sense of humor. In this case, it has been drawn from many years of
>> experience hearing people try to pronounce "cataract" in their own
>> unusual ways... ;-)
>
> Corny and punny both work here, AFAICT :-)
>
> Speaking of cataracts, we're having some (expensive) plumbing work
> done as I type...
>
You have cataracts in your urinary tract? ;-)

Carl wrote:
> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>> Speaking of cataracts, we're having some (expensive) plumbing work
>> done as I type...
>>
> You have cataracts in your urinary tract? ;-)

Ah, one-eyed trouser snake with dodgy vision...

Mike.
--
If reply address is Mike@@mjcoon.+.com (invalid), remove spurious "@"
and substitute "plus" for +.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:27:15 -0500, Carl wrote:

> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>> On 1/25/2012, Dave posted:
>>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:32:04 -0600, Sunshine wrote:
>>
>>>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:20:55 -0800, The Real Bev
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 01/23/2012 02:41 PM, Carl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/23/2012, The Real Bev posted:
>>>>>>>> Plus all the 99-cent readers (which are perfectly good, BTW)
>>>>>>>> in different strengths depending on what I'm doing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On my previous prescription, my eyes differed by a diopter (they
>>>>>>> were spherical then, but not now).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I bought a bunch of 99 cent reading glasses in a range of
>>>>>>> strengths, every quarter diopter. Then I chose two pairs a
>>>>>>> diopter apart, popped the right lens out of both, and replaced
>>>>>>> the weaker one with the stronger one. I did this over a range
>>>>>>> of about 1.25 to 3.75,
>>>>>>> IIRC, and thereby got a set of proper reading glasses at each
>>>>>>> value. Of course, I ended up with a left over pair with badly
>>>>>>> mismatched lenses, but heck, I had fun, and they are still
>>>>>>> useful, even though the eyes are now more like 3/4 D apart.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I haven't repeated the job yet for the new prescription, since
>>>>>>> these still work adequately.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clever. If your understanding of the total Rx was correct, this
>>>>>> would be a good idea. Of course, with Bev's high astig, this idea
>>>>>> wouldn't work that way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, it would if I were wearing my contacts. For some reason
>>>>> my left eye and right eye always end up focusing at different points
>>>>> -- and I've had at least 6 different optometrists/ophthalmologists
>>>>> prescribe for me.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've thought of this, but it just seems like too much trouble for
>>>>> too little gain. The only reason I wear my contacts now is so that
>>>>> I can wear goggles rather than sunglasses when I ski. They're just
>>>>> not good enough for serious seeing :-(
>>>>
>>>> I'm looking forward to the day when less-than-perfect eyes routinely
>>>> get surgically replaced by imaging devices that offer far better
>>>> acuity, a zoom function, improved night vision, infrared on demand,
>>>> and so on.
>>
>>> With a HUD SatNav built in? (Gently nudges back topic :-))
>>
>> On or off topic, it's a very interesting idea.
>>
>> Would you get lifetime map updates? :-)
>>
> If you spend the extra $50 for the 2450 series and above model. Using
> the free Traffic function, however, will cause ads to run across your
> new eyeballs every 15 seconds with no way to turn them off.

Imagine getting hacked. You have the "augmented reality" option we are
now seeing on smartphones. You try to cross the street and your "vision"
tells you there's no traffic...

--
You cannot simply assume someone is honest
just because they are not an MP.

On 1/25/2012, Carl posted:
> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>> On 1/25/2012, Carl posted:
>>> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>>> On 1/23/2012, Carl posted:
>>>>> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/23/2012, The Real Bev posted:
>>>>>>> Plus all the 99-cent readers (which are perfectly good, BTW) in
>>>>>>> different strengths depending on what I'm doing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On my previous prescription, my eyes differed by a diopter (they
>>>>>> were spherical then, but not now).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I bought a bunch of 99 cent reading glasses in a range of
>>>>>> strengths, every quarter diopter. Then I chose two pairs a diopter
>>>>>> apart, popped the right lens out of both, and replaced the weaker
>>>>>> one with the stronger one. I did this over a range of about 1.25
>>>>>> to 3.75, IIRC, and thereby got a set of proper reading glasses at
>>>>>> each value. Of course, I ended up with a left over pair with
>>>>>> badly mismatched lenses, but heck, I had fun, and they are still
>>>>>> useful, even though the eyes are now more like 3/4 D apart.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't repeated the job yet for the new prescription, since
>>>>>> these still work adequately.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Clever. If your understanding of the total Rx was correct, this
>>>>> would be a good idea. Of course, with Bev's high astig, this idea
>>>>> wouldn't work that way.
>>>>
>>>> It's OK for my mild astigmatism (0.5 in both eyes), but of course it
>>>> was better before the most recent warping of my corneas :-)
>>>>
>>>> My current difference between OD & OS is 0.75 D, close enough for
>>>> comfort to the 1.0 that I had when I made the reading/working
>>>> glasses. And of course my understanding of the total Rx was correct. I've
>>>> told you this before: to assume I'm a dolt is extremely wrong.
>>>>
>>> I don't think I said anything like that. You are, from what I can
>>> gather, a lay person. People go to school for a long time to learn
>>> to read Rx's properly and I have hired graduates who still couldn't
>>> do it correctly. In NYS, a person has to have a license to do what
>>> you're doing. It's not something the average person-in-the-street
>>> understands intuitively.
>>
>>> I have just been trying to have a conversation with you about this.
>>> I am a professional at this. To assume you understand Rx analysis by
>>> intuition could be a mistake on your part. To think I am calling you
>>> a "dolt" when my first reaction was to call your method "clever",
>>> does add reason for me to take pause here.
>>
>>> I'm going to withdraw myself from this part of the thread. Best of
>>> luck with your self-help tactic. It seems to be working for you.
>>
>> Perhaps I over-reacted...
>>
> By a long way. Quasi-apology accepted.
>>
>> I have dealt with optics for a rather long time, and at the time I
>> read it, your remark seemed to me to be very condescending at best.
>>
> I have read and re-read my remark. I don't even see a hint of that.
>>

>> The reading glasses situation didn't even require much knowledge, just
>> subtracting OD from OS, basically. It did require not getting mixed up
>> as to which eye needed the stronger lens :-)
>>
> For example, from what I can tell, you have opted to ignore your .50D of
> astigmatism. In eyecare optics, we have a concept called "spherical
> equivalency". We generally don't just throw out the astigmatic correction,
> even when someone wants spherical drugstore reading glasses. Technically,
> your level of astigmatism reduces your total reading Rx by .25D to form the
> spherical equivalent. I was trying to avoid getting into all this technical
> stuff with you and I was being complimentary of your creativity.

> Going further, in the real world, the .25D may not mean anything to you, and
> some people don't mind being over-corrected by .25D, but in the technical
> world, you may have over-corrected your reading Rx by .25D. Irregardless,
> you won't go blind from it, but your focal point may be closer than you need
> or want (or perhaps not). Also please note my use of the word "may". I can't
> really tell from this vantage point and I'm not pretending to "know".
>>
>> I also put together a spreadsheet so it would be easy to remind myself
>> of the effective strength of each pair.
>>
> The chances are that you've created a pair of reading glasses that are just
> fine for you, that are in the close-enough ballpark to be functional, and
> that you won't go blind from the project. I applaud your creativity and let's
> leave it at that.

I guess we better leave it at that. Among other things, you have
apparently not read my descriptions all that carefully.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On 01/25/2012 10:48 AM, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

> On 1/20/2012, Sunshine posted:
>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:22:27 -0800, Gene E. Bloch
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>> A friend of mine, only ~65, just had her first cataract replacement
>>> this week. She's planning on a total of two :-)
>>>
>>> I haven't spoken to her since just before the operation - which took
>>> only ~20 minutes, according to her husband - so I don't know her
>>> reaction yet.
>>>
>>> But everyone I've spoken to who's done it has been very pleased with
>>> their lens replacement.
>
>> Not to be a downer, but while the success rate is very high, I don't
>> think it's 100%. A friend of mine had his cataract surgeries when he
>> was in his mid 70's. One eye was successful, the other had issues over
>> the next few months that he wasn't able to overcome, eventually going
>> blind in that eye. He took it in stride, just as he took everything
>> else in stride. He was that kind of guy.
>
> I spoke to my friend yesterday. She's very pleased with the results
> with OD and is looking forward to having OS done next month.

Excellent!


--
Cheers, Bev
################################################## #################
"Johnston [Island] was the home of a U.S. chemical weapons disposal
facility for 10 years before operations ended in November 2000.
The island was turned into a wildlife preserve."
© 2002 The Associated Press

On 01/25/2012 12:27 PM, Carl wrote:

> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>> On 1/25/2012, Dave posted:
>>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:32:04 -0600, Sunshine wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:20:55 -0800, The Real Bev
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> On 01/23/2012 02:41 PM, Carl wrote:
>>>>>> Gene E. Bloch wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/23/2012, The Real Bev posted:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Plus all the 99-cent readers (which are perfectly good, BTW)
>>>>>>>> in different strengths depending on what I'm doing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On my previous prescription, my eyes differed by a diopter (they
>>>>>>> were spherical then, but not now).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I bought a bunch of 99 cent reading glasses in a range of
>>>>>>> strengths, every quarter diopter. Then I chose two pairs a
>>>>>>> diopter apart, popped the right lens out of both, and replaced
>>>>>>> the weaker one with the stronger one. I did this over a range
>>>>>>> of about 1.25 to 3.75,
>>>>>>> IIRC, and thereby got a set of proper reading glasses at each
>>>>>>> value. Of course, I ended up with a left over pair with badly
>>>>>>> mismatched lenses, but heck, I had fun, and they are still
>>>>>>> useful, even though the eyes are now more like 3/4 D apart.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I haven't repeated the job yet for the new prescription, since
>>>>>>> these still work adequately.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clever. If your understanding of the total Rx was correct, this
>>>>>> would be a good idea. Of course, with Bev's high astig, this idea
>>>>>> wouldn't work that way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, it would if I were wearing my contacts. For some reason
>>>>> my left eye and right eye always end up focusing at different
>>>>> points -- and I've had at least 6 different
>>>>> optometrists/ophthalmologists prescribe for me.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've thought of this, but it just seems like too much trouble for
>>>>> too little gain. The only reason I wear my contacts now is so
>>>>> that I can wear goggles rather than sunglasses when I ski. They're just
>>>>> not good enough for serious seeing :-(
>>>>
>>>> I'm looking forward to the day when less-than-perfect eyes
>>>> routinely get surgically replaced by imaging devices that offer far
>>>> better acuity, a zoom function, improved night vision, infrared on
>>>> demand, and so on.
>>
>>> With a HUD SatNav built in? (Gently nudges back topic :-))
>>
>> On or off topic, it's a very interesting idea.
>>
>> Would you get lifetime map updates? :-)

And would you or your spherical imaging device be considered the device
whose life is in question?

> If you spend the extra $50 for the 2450 series and above model. Using the
> free Traffic function, however, will cause ads to run across your new
> eyeballs every 15 seconds with no way to turn them off.

My evil 255W has the little green car most of the time I'm on the
freeway, but I've never seen an ad. Is this a feature that I somehow
managed to inadvertently turn off? Will I be punished?

--
Cheers, Bev
----------------------------------------------------------
A spokesperson for 60s band 'the animals' has today made a
public apology saying they were mistaken and there isn't a
house in New Orleans after all.

The Real Bev wrote on Jan 27, 2012:

> On 01/25/2012 12:27 PM, Carl wrote:
>
>
>> If you spend the extra $50 for the 2450 series and above model. Using the
>> free Traffic function, however, will cause ads to run across your new
>> eyeballs every 15 seconds with no way to turn them off.
>
> My evil 255W has the little green car most of the time I'm on the
> freeway, but I've never seen an ad. Is this a feature that I somehow
> managed to inadvertently turn off? Will I be punished?
>
>
I've always been totally confused about the traffic feature on my Nuvi 765.
It came with what apparently is an 'FM TMC traffic receiver' in the form of
an extra bulbous wire which connects to the cradle.

I leave it permanently connected although in this country (uk) I've never
seen it have any effect whatsoever. When I first took it abroad though, it
sprang to life and in Germany, Austria and Italy I almost always get the
little green, yellow, or red car symbol on the screen, and sometimes other
information like the estimated delay on the planned route.

The problem is that I never quite know what to do about it when I get the red
warning symbol...

--
Mike Lane
UK North Yorkshire
mike_lane at mac dot com

On 01/27/2012 12:50 AM, Mike Lane wrote:

> The Real Bev wrote on Jan 27, 2012:
>> On 01/25/2012 12:27 PM, Carl wrote:
>>
>>> If you spend the extra $50 for the 2450 series and above model. Using the
>>> free Traffic function, however, will cause ads to run across your new
>>> eyeballs every 15 seconds with no way to turn them off.
>>
>> My evil 255W has the little green car most of the time I'm on the
>> freeway, but I've never seen an ad. Is this a feature that I somehow
>> managed to inadvertently turn off? Will I be punished?
>>
> I've always been totally confused about the traffic feature on my Nuvi 765.
> It came with what apparently is an 'FM TMC traffic receiver' in the form of
> an extra bulbous wire which connects to the cradle.

Mine doesn't have that, it receives its signal from...somewhere...
Apparently only along some freeways. Next time I see it I'll play with
it -- getting off at the next off-ramp, of course -- if I'm not in a hurry.

> I leave it permanently connected although in this country (uk) I've never
> seen it have any effect whatsoever. When I first took it abroad though, it
> sprang to life and in Germany, Austria and Italy I almost always get the
> little green, yellow, or red car symbol on the screen, and sometimes other
> information like the estimated delay on the planned route.
>
> The problem is that I never quite know what to do about it when I get the red
> warning symbol...

Suffer!

--
Cheers, Bev
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
"In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime
is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin
is stupidity." -- H.S. Thompson