How (and why) to Ramble on your goat sideways
10-27-2015, 08:38 AM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,024
Total Cats: 6,591
They offer that service as well.
No matter what the cause, if you suffer crippling emotional injury because one of your toes is slightly longer or shorter than you think it should be, elective cosmetic surgery can help.
Provided that you don't mind spending a couple of months unable to walk and looking like this:
Which, based on personal experience, I can tell you is just as unpleasant and painful as it looks.
No matter what the cause, if you suffer crippling emotional injury because one of your toes is slightly longer or shorter than you think it should be, elective cosmetic surgery can help.
Provided that you don't mind spending a couple of months unable to walk and looking like this:
Which, based on personal experience, I can tell you is just as unpleasant and painful as it looks.
Reply
0
0
10-27-2015, 09:32 AM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,024
Total Cats: 6,591
I'm not kidding. More than one of the news articles I came across (Google it for yourself) specifically cited the shoe fetish displayed by the lead character on that TV show as inspiring a whole generation of English-speaking white women with average-sized feet to rediscover the forgotten joy of trying to wedge yourself into expensive and uncomfortable shoes which are two sizes too small.
As a heterosexual male, I've personally never much cared for the look. There's a vast expanse in between crocs and stiletto heels which seems to be vastly under-appreciated by women in the 21st century. Timberlands are far sexier than Manolo Blahnik.
* = in the original Brothers Grimm version of the story, one of the sisters, at the insistence of the stepmother, actually cuts off her own toes in order to fit into the glass slipper.
Reply
0
0
10-27-2015, 07:39 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,024
Total Cats: 6,591
My 20th HS reunion was this past weekend, so facebook is abuzz with photos of people I haven't seen in 20 years.
Some of my classmates have NOT aged well. I'm feeling pretty good about myself at the moment.
Some of my classmates have NOT aged well. I'm feeling pretty good about myself at the moment.
Reply
0
0
10-27-2015, 08:22 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,024
Total Cats: 6,591
Twice under the knife is enough for me. Both times were reconstructive procedures after a traumatic incident in order to restore something approaching normal functionality (eg: putting me back together after I shattered / tore pieces off.) I have enough aches and pains from old wounds, I can't imagine wanting to add more.
If you are ever afforded the opportunity to have your bones broken and then re-assembled in an open surgical reduction with screws / pins holding them together, my advice to you is that unless it's necessary to perform some life-saving procedure (eg: heart surgery), to pass. It sucks. (Vash will no doubt back me up here.)
Reply
0
0
10-28-2015, 05:10 AM
Elite Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 5,165
Total Cats: 855
Supposedly there is a small but real chance of vision side effects from LASIK. Halos, starburst patterns, sometimes minimal improvement (or even worsening of vision). AIUI, if those happen then there's pretty much nothing they can do about it at that point.
Also, as you age your eyes get less flexible and you tend to become more nearsighted. If you are currently farsighted, then there's an argument that it's better to leave them as-is, so that they'll move into an ideal range at a later point in life. There's also an argument that if you're in your mid-30s, even if they fix them there then you'll be back to glasses in 10-15 years anyway, so the risk isn't worth the small period of not needing vision correction.
That's what I've read/been told, anyway, I've never needed to consider it myself. I had fighter pilot vision when I was in my 20s -- 20/10, they'd ask me to read the bottom line on the chart and I'd say "copyright 1991, made in China".
In my early 40s now, it's not that good any more, but I don't need glasses yet.
--Ian
Also, as you age your eyes get less flexible and you tend to become more nearsighted. If you are currently farsighted, then there's an argument that it's better to leave them as-is, so that they'll move into an ideal range at a later point in life. There's also an argument that if you're in your mid-30s, even if they fix them there then you'll be back to glasses in 10-15 years anyway, so the risk isn't worth the small period of not needing vision correction.
That's what I've read/been told, anyway, I've never needed to consider it myself. I had fighter pilot vision when I was in my 20s -- 20/10, they'd ask me to read the bottom line on the chart and I'd say "copyright 1991, made in China".
In my early 40s now, it's not that good any more, but I don't need glasses yet.--Ian
Reply
0
0
10-28-2015, 08:40 AM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,024
Total Cats: 6,591
Pain, possible side-effects, and a well-learned general aversion to the knife in general.
And codrus is right. I've been -4.5 in both eyes for about 20 years. This past year I went back to the optometrist (first time in ~5 years) and found that at age 38 I'm down to -3.25.
By the time the cataracts settle in, I'll have 20/20 vision.
And codrus is right. I've been -4.5 in both eyes for about 20 years. This past year I went back to the optometrist (first time in ~5 years) and found that at age 38 I'm down to -3.25.
By the time the cataracts settle in, I'll have 20/20 vision.
Reply
0
0
10-28-2015, 09:25 AM
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
Pain, possible side-effects, and a well-learned general aversion to the knife in general.
And codrus is right. I've been -4.5 in both eyes for about 20 years. This past year I went back to the optometrist (first time in ~5 years) and found that at age 38 I'm down to -3.25.
By the time the cataracts settle in, I'll have 20/20 vision.
And codrus is right. I've been -4.5 in both eyes for about 20 years. This past year I went back to the optometrist (first time in ~5 years) and found that at age 38 I'm down to -3.25.
By the time the cataracts settle in, I'll have 20/20 vision.
I'm -6.5 in one eye and -6.75 in the other (or is -7 instead of 6?, can't remember)
Reply
0
0
10-28-2015, 09:47 AM
Got mine done several years ago, I was about -6 in both eyes as well. I consider it money well spent. Don't even remember wearing glasses.
PE exam is in 48 hours, any last second advice from engineers on here?
PE exam is in 48 hours, any last second advice from engineers on here?
Reply
0
0
10-28-2015, 10:09 AM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,024
Total Cats: 6,591
If it doesn't move, and it should, use WD-40.
Sand shifts. Don't build important stuff on top of it.
Assume that the steelworkers will ignore your torque specs.
Just because you can specify a tolerance to six decimal places doesn't mean that a 500 ton brake can meet it.
Reply
0
0
10-28-2015, 10:25 AM
Supposedly there is a small but real chance of vision side effects from LASIK. Halos, starburst patterns, sometimes minimal improvement (or even worsening of vision). AIUI, if those happen then there's pretty much nothing they can do about it at that point.
Also, as you age your eyes get less flexible and you tend to become more nearsighted. If you are currently farsighted, then there's an argument that it's better to leave them as-is, so that they'll move into an ideal range at a later point in life. There's also an argument that if you're in your mid-30s, even if they fix them there then you'll be back to glasses in 10-15 years anyway, so the risk isn't worth the small period of not needing vision correction.
That's what I've read/been told, anyway, I've never needed to consider it myself. I had fighter pilot vision when I was in my 20s -- 20/10, they'd ask me to read the bottom line on the chart and I'd say "copyright 1991, made in China". In my early 40s now, it's not that good any more, but I don't need glasses yet.
--Ian
Also, as you age your eyes get less flexible and you tend to become more nearsighted. If you are currently farsighted, then there's an argument that it's better to leave them as-is, so that they'll move into an ideal range at a later point in life. There's also an argument that if you're in your mid-30s, even if they fix them there then you'll be back to glasses in 10-15 years anyway, so the risk isn't worth the small period of not needing vision correction.
That's what I've read/been told, anyway, I've never needed to consider it myself. I had fighter pilot vision when I was in my 20s -- 20/10, they'd ask me to read the bottom line on the chart and I'd say "copyright 1991, made in China".
In my early 40s now, it's not that good any more, but I don't need glasses yet.--Ian
Pain, possible side-effects, and a well-learned general aversion to the knife in general.
And codrus is right. I've been -4.5 in both eyes for about 20 years. This past year I went back to the optometrist (first time in ~5 years) and found that at age 38 I'm down to -3.25.
By the time the cataracts settle in, I'll have 20/20 vision.
And codrus is right. I've been -4.5 in both eyes for about 20 years. This past year I went back to the optometrist (first time in ~5 years) and found that at age 38 I'm down to -3.25.
By the time the cataracts settle in, I'll have 20/20 vision.
When I had my LASIK, I was 22 or 23 and had worn glasses since the 2nd grade. I tried contacts for a few years in high school and college, but I could never wear them for more than 3-4 hours at a time without some serious irritation. I was (and still am) pretty active and play sports and hated wearing glasses or putting contacts in for that stuff. It was worth the risks in order to massively change the quality of my life.
But now? My eyesight isn't perfect -- I've noticed distant signs are a bit harder to read, etc. -- but having another LASIK would be a very marginal improvement, not a life-changer. If my eyesight declines at a normal pace, by the time I'd really benefit from another procedure, I'll be needing reading glasses anyway (and probably not playing field sports at that point). It's just not worth the risk of a much worse visual artifact, much worse dryness or irritation, or some other potentially serious consequence.
And, it's not cheap. I (stupidly) paid for a "lifetime correction" package, which sounds great, but what they fail to tell you is that it (typically) only covers the exact same procedure. They aren't performing the exact same procedure anymore, which means I'd be paying out of pocket again for at least the difference in cost. Also, I skipped about 10 years' worth of examinations so I think I voided my "lifetime" contract that way.
So, I'm not saying I wouldn't do my first LASIK over again, given the choice: I probably would. But having done it once (to change my life), I wouldn't do it again (for a marginal improvement).
Also: You might end up killing yourself.
Reply
0
0
