Re: ARRRGGHH! Easy-to-solder RCA plugs???

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I am reminded of a Sesame Street (or was it Electric Company?) sketch,
> in which some guy can't take off his glasses, because then he couldn't
> hear anything - the glasses keep his hat up off his ears.

I can't find anything as small as my glasses unless I'm wearing my
glasses. Fortunately I have a good memory so I can remember that when
I went to bed I left them on the night table.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[RB]

When I was 48, I made the decision to have Lasik surgery. After 43 years of
wearing Coke-bottle glasses for distance (I had around 1400/20 vision at the
time of the surgery), I no longer need glasses for anything beyond about 7
to 10 feet. If the light is right though, I can read a book on my lap.
However, near-vision still requires reading glasses. For me, that is defined
mostly as computer lenses. But I can buy those for $15 at the drug store,
whereby before the Lasik, it cost me over $500 for each prescription
(progressive bifocals) for the previous 10 years. It didn't take long for
the Lasik to pay for itself.

Two things that I didn't count on after the surgery were that, wearing thick
glasses for so long, you don't think ahead about simple things like
irritation from wind in the eyes or what your eye sockets look like when you
no longer wear glasses. For me, previously wearing thick glasses has caused
a permanent squint. That kind of makes me look like I just got out of bed.
The other is skin puffiness around the eye sockets where the sharp inner
edge of the lenses depressed the skin for so long.

I don't regret having the surgery for one second though. When I'm sitting at
the computer (I'm a software engineer) or need to read something on paper, I
put on the $15 glasses. Driving and for everything else, I'm glasses-free.
I'm more than pleased. As always, your mileage may vary.

RB

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1077135704k@trad...
>
> In article >
writes:
>
> > I am reminded of a Sesame Street (or was it Electric Company?) sketch,
> > in which some guy can't take off his glasses, because then he couldn't
> > hear anything - the glasses keep his hat up off his ears.
>
> I can't find anything as small as my glasses unless I'm wearing my
> glasses. Fortunately I have a good memory so I can remember that when
> I went to bed I left them on the night table.
>
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers )
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> wearing thick
> glasses for so long, you don't think ahead about simple things like
> irritation from wind in the eyes or what your eye sockets look like when you
> no longer wear glasses.

I tried contact lenses twice (about 20 years apart) and just couldn't
get used to the feeling of air blowing on my eyes. I've heard enough
about LASIK surgery that I don't want to try it. I have my vision now,
with known problems with which I can deal. I don't want to learn how
to deal with other problems, or have to fix it again in 5-10 years.
And then there's the issue of the potential for a real disaster. Those
things are controlled by software. Do you really trust something as
valuable as your vision to software?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Jay Levitt]

In article >,
says...
> For me, previously wearing thick glasses has caused
> a permanent squint. That kind of makes me look like I just got out of bed.

No, no, no.. it makes you look like Clint Eastwood.

--
Jay Levitt |
Wellesley, MA | Hi!
Faster: jay at jay dot eff-em | Where are we going?
http://www.jay.fm | Why am I in this handbasket?

[steve]

Mike Rivers wrote:
>
> In article > writes:
>
> > wearing thick
> > glasses for so long, you don't think ahead about simple things like
> > irritation from wind in the eyes or what your eye sockets look like when you
> > no longer wear glasses.
>
> I tried contact lenses twice (about 20 years apart) and just couldn't
> get used to the feeling of air blowing on my eyes. I've heard enough
> about LASIK surgery that I don't want to try it. I have my vision now,
> with known problems with which I can deal. I don't want to learn how
> to deal with other problems, or have to fix it again in 5-10 years.
> And then there's the issue of the potential for a real disaster. Those
> things are controlled by software. Do you really trust something as
> valuable as your vision to software?
>
You certainly need to make an informed decision and consider the risks.
However the risks are slight (less than having your vision impaired by
injury, disease, etc.)
and the computer controlled laser is on the order of guiding the space
shuttle, running it by hand is pretty clumsy by comparison.

Also there's whether or not you're a good candidate, poor candidates get
poor results and more artifacts.

I'm very happy with my Lasik after 8 years, I have a floater in one eye
thats not too distracting. I also got mono-vision correction so I don't
have to wear reading glasses.

[Richard Kuschel]

>
>In article >
>writes:
>
>> bifocals are most often adjusted for reading length. I find it hard to work
>> closer than that, such as soldering, or working in the back of a rack.
>
>I wore bifocals from about the time I was 12 years old until the last
>set of glasses I got. I made an executive decision that I no longer
>needed to be able to read at "desk" distance like in school. These
>days when I read something, I'm more inclined to put my feet on my
>desk and put the book in my lap, which is far enough away so that the
>"distance" prescription worked OK. Then I started thinking about
>computers, so I asked for a "computer" prescription (to be a separate
>pair of glasses) that was tuned for a little more distant than the
>traditional reading prescription, but I ended up never using them, and
>just use my standard distance glasses.
>
>Now, I do the 'old man' thing and slide the glasses down on my nose
>when I want to look at something up close, or take them off entirely
>when I need to look at something really small like connector pin
>numbering. But I can't solder that way.
>
>> The hardest part is doing audio for a news network: It is hard to get
>glasses
>> that let me focus on the board, and on the monitors - director behind the
>> glass.
>
>I'm in the "trifocals needed" range now (I turn 61 later this week) as
>I find that when I'm driving at night, I have trouble seeing the
>odomoeter on the car. If I have directions that say "go 6.7 miles" I
>need to futz with my glasses in order to check the display. Getting
>old sucks when you discover that things are wearing out.
>
>> Hey, Mike or Scott: How 'bout an article in Recording about vision, about
>how
>> failing to concede that your eyes are failing can screw up an audio career?
>
>I doubt it. People with low vision learn how to deal with it, and most
>people who read Recording don't have an audio career that takes them
>that far before they start losing their hearing.
>
>
>--
>I'm really Mike Rivers - )
>However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
>lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
>you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
>and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
>
>

I have the same problem with my eyesight.

I went to the opthamologist and he said I had prespyopia, but it couldn't be
because I was raised Lutheran.

I used "reading glasses" over my contacts for a while, but this was less than
satisfactory in a studio situation as I was constantly putting them on and
taking them off, and still couldn't see at intermediate distances on the board.


I finally had a set of Varilux lenses made, which are a continuously variable
bifocal without lines. Mine are made with no correction at the top and a+ 2.25
dioptor correction at the bottom.
I'll probably get that bumped up to about a 2.5 or so on the next pair.

It took a couple of weeks to get used to them but they really have worked well.
I can see at distance as well as read a map or the automobile instruments.

It's been a couple of years now and I will get a new pair of them made with
even greater correction so that they will work better for repair work.

Even though I still use contacts because of my extreme near sightedness, I wear
the Varilux glasses about 90% of the time, unless I am skiing or engaging in
other sports such as racquetball.
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

[Wayne]

>Even though I still use contacts because of my extreme near sightedness, I
>wear
>the Varilux glasses about 90% of the time, unless I am skiing or engaging in
>other sports such as racquetball.
>
>Richard H. Kuschel
>
>

Kudos to you. :>)
Even if I could see the racquetball, I couldn't get out of the way quick
enough. LOL



--Wayne

-"sounded good to me"-