On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:05:05 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:

>St. wrote:
>>  Was there a build-up of static in the room??!  ;)
>
>It goes with the posters, for sure.

I was wondering who would start on that :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 25 Mar 2008 14:15:13 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
wrote:

>On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:38:10 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>Unfortunately, I now have a cold. This is not fun or interesting...
>> But common
>
>Ah, so *that's* why it's called "the common cold"? ;-)
>
>Jim

Yesss or were you thinking about the "class system"? :0
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:03:12 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 25 Mar 2008 14:15:13 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:38:10 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>>Unfortunately, I now have a cold. This is not fun or interesting...
>>> But common
>>
>>Ah, so *that's* why it's called "the common cold"? ;-)
>>
>>Jim
> 
> Yesss or were you thinking about the "class system"? :0

Well, I can admit that I've never had a royal cold....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 25 Mar 2008 17:00:08 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
wrote:

>>>> But common
>>>
>>>Ah, so *that's* why it's called "the common cold"? ;-)
>>>
>>>Jim
>> 
>> Yesss or were you thinking about the "class system"? :0
>
>Well, I can admit that I've never had a royal cold....

I thought that you might think that I thought Andrew was common. :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:16:27 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 25 Mar 2008 17:00:08 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>>>> But common
>>>>
>>>>Ah, so *that's* why it's called "the common cold"? ;-)
>>>>
>>>>Jim
>>> 
>>> Yesss or were you thinking about the "class system"? :0
>>
>>Well, I can admit that I've never had a royal cold....
> 
> I thought that you might think that I thought Andrew was common. :)

LOL

Jim

Post a reply to this message

nice to make your acquaintance, porcupine dude. :)

What the hell, I've bought a digicam myself these days...

this from a lowres video, playing with my daughter on TV... :P

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'me_and_daughter.png' (102 KB)

Preview of image 'me_and_daughter.png'

St. wrote:
> "Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
> news:47e8f0bf$1@news.povray.org...
>> Warp wrote:
>>
>>>   You get extra nerd points for the glasses with a stronger magnification
>>> than an average magnifying glass. ;)
>> ...would you believe me if I told you that when I take them off, I'm 
>> virtually blind?
> 
> 
>   I believe you, I'm the same. It's not nice.  :o/
> 
>    ~Steve~
> 

Yeah, me too.

Actually, if I want magnification (at least at short distances, say 
roughly at the end of my nose), I take my glasses *off*.

--Sherry Shaw


-- 
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}//                                   TenMoons

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:47e8fd7f@news.povray.org...
> St. <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
>
>> "Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
>> news:47e8f0bf$1@news.povray.org...
>> > Warp wrote:
>> >
>> >>   You get extra nerd points for the glasses with a stronger 
>> >> magnification
>> >> than an average magnifying glass. ;)
>> >
>> > ...would you believe me if I told you that when I take them off, I'm
>> > virtually blind?
>
>>   I believe you, I'm the same. It's not nice.  :o/
>
>  Ever considered LASIK?
>
>  It's expensive and not 100% risk-free (no surgery is), but the risks are
> rather small and the results rather effective.
>
>  I had glasses, and then LASIK. I haven't regretted it in the slightest.

     I have actually. Isn't this the one where a laser cuts a line in 360 
segments around the pupil developed by the great Russian scientists in the 
early '90's? I considered it because a good friend of mine had that same 
laser treatment and he swears that it's fantastic. In fact, he doesn't wear 
glasses anymore and says that his eyesight is "brilliant". The thing is, I 
don't think he had the same treatment as yourself, (I'll ask him tomorrow if 
poss.), but sometimes when I glance at any of his eyes (as you do when 
talking), I sometimes see a small circular 'disc' where the pupils are. I'm 
wondering if it's all the same thing?

    But no, I don't think I want to smell my eyeballs burning right now. 
Maybe in the future when I think I won't move my eyes in any direction in 
that 60 second time limit. I have a LOT of patience, but I don't think I can 
handle that.

     ~Steve~


>
> -- 
>                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Sherry Shaw" <ten### [at] aolcom> wrote in message 
news:47ea4ba0@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:


>>   I believe you, I'm the same. It's not nice.  :o/

> Yeah, me too.
>
> Actually, if I want magnification (at least at short distances, say 
> roughly at the end of my nose), I take my glasses *off*.

     Yes, same here. Everything looks SO sharp close-up when I take my 
glasses off. Long distance though, well, without my glasses, I wouldn't have 
a driving license that's for sure. :o/

      The eye is such a magnificent (and of course a significant) part of 
our anatomy, that I wonder why it breaks down at all. Are we to be blind one 
day because we no longer need them? (Some deep sea fish have lived like this 
for ages now). Or, will our eyesight get better as time travels on? *X-Ray 
Vision*  :oO

        Heh...  ;)

        ~Steve~



>
> --Sherry Shaw
>
>
> -- 
> #macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
> .3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
> 1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
> [1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}//                                   TenMoons

Post a reply to this message

St. wrote:

>       The eye is such a magnificent (and of course a significant) part of 
> our anatomy, that I wonder why it breaks down at all. Are we to be blind one 
> day because we no longer need them? (Some deep sea fish have lived like this 
> for ages now). Or, will our eyesight get better as time travels on? *X-Ray 
> Vision*  :oO

Apparently you can "see" with your tongue...

Some dude tried hooking up a grid of electrodes to a person's tongue, 
and after an hour or two they were able to navigate around a normal 
office block without using their eyes.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message