|
|
105-year old sets new record
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 11:31:57 AM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:
Any product, company, or researcher names? I don't make a habit of questioning someone that is cutting a suture out of my brother's eye but just the slightest look on the Internet shows: http://tinyurl.com/l27uskq |
105-year old sets new record
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 12:28:02 PM UTC-8, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per : Why, are you hungry? DNA sequencing + self-learning AI. Sooner-or-later we will have the ability to modify a person's genome on-the-fly. Feed enough people's DNA sequences to a big-enough AI and ask the right questions and I would expect it to return instructions as to how to achieve the desired characteristics.... My bet is that's is how we will beat cancer. -- Pete Cresswell You can't ask the right questions of an AI. For instance - there is a large amount of amyloid-beta in people with Alzheimer's. So they are working very hard on drugs that will wash out these A-beta hormones. The problem is that there is a large number of people that have even large amounts of amyloid-beta in their brains and show no signs. Therefore this has to do with multiple and ever increasing numbers of genes. AI really isn't artificial intelligence despite what they tell you. I programmed AI quite a bit and it is actually a dead end. You cannot program it to ask questions that you yourself couldn't ask. The latest results from the super collider in Switzerland turned up some odd results that negates most of Stephen Hawkings life's work and so now he is telling people that AI is going to take over the Earth. I expect it's his condition and losing a large part of his gift to science. I can get a job and do a better project but his physical limitations prevents him from redoing his. |
105-year old sets new record
wrote in
: On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 12:23:46 PM UTC-8, (PeteCresswell) wrote: Per : I do need glasses but sooner or later will have that taken care of. Think that one through before you make the move. My rationale (as one who is near-sighted): - After a certain age, *everybody* has a problem with focusing on close things. Something about the lens becoming turgid and unresponsive to the focusing muscles. - If I got the surgery, my far vision would be better, but then I would be unable to read without reading glasses. - OTOH, outside, I need sunglasses anyhow to prevent damage from UV.... whether they are prescription or not is almost moot convenience-wise.... so "needing glasses" for distant vision is a wash - at least outside. That decision was made about 25 years ago - when my far vision was so bad that I could not see the big "E" on the eye chart. Now, for some reason (and I can't imagine it's good... but still...) my nearsightedness has diminished to the point where I can navigate indoors quite well.... so well that I tend to put my glasses down somewhere, not wear them for 2-3 hours, and forget where they are.... -) Bottom line for me: I am *really* glad I did not get the surgery because needing glasses to read would be a major PITA for me whereas "Needing" glasses for distance is really just a matter of prescription sunglasses instead of plane sunglasses. In the interest of full disclosure.... my range of focus has now deteriorated to where I actually do use reading glasses for extended reading. Not because I cannot see without them, but because it's more relaxing with them.... still a major improvement over *needing* them to be able to read. OTOH, if I were far-sighted, I might have opted for surgery just to get out of needing reading glasses..... -- Pete Cresswell Pete, I'm given to understand that is isn't the muscles but growth along the back of the eyeballs that make them a little stiffer. I see at about 20" and either side I'm fuzzy. But I can pass the driver's eye test without glasses though I can't read the large signs above the freeway and either need glasses or to know where I'm going. And no comments about you know where I'm going as well. I am astigmatic, which makes things blurry for me, especially close up. I easily meet the requirements for driving with uncorrrected vision, but my spectacles reduce strain, so I drive with them on. -- Andrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) |
105-year old sets new record
On 1/7/2017 12:28 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2017 09:21:58 -0500, (PeteCresswell) wrote: Per Tim McNamara: If I get to my 80s and can still ride a bike, I would consider that a pretty darned big win. I'm delighted to still be riding in my 50s. I think your chances are pretty good. I'm in my late 70's and can barely walk - but riding a bike has not yet become a problem That's encouraging. I think one of the keys to being able to do those things in our later years is to start them in our younger years and to keep doing them. My wife is a backpacker and regularly meets people in their 70s and 80s who are still backpacking. Keep riding, Pete! I recall going to a national bike convention in Indianapolis, sometime in the 1980s and eating dinner with a gentleman who was 80 years old. He had ridden his bike, with full touring gear, from Toronto. I think there's a lot of luck involved. But I'm keeping my fingers crossed! -- - Frank Krygowski |
105-year old sets new record
On 1/8/2017 12:37 PM, Andrew Chaplin wrote:
wrote Pete, I'm given to understand that is isn't the muscles but growth along the back of the eyeballs that make them a little stiffer. I see at about 20" and either side I'm fuzzy. But I can pass the driver's eye test without glasses though I can't read the large signs above the freeway and either need glasses or to know where I'm going. And no comments about you know where I'm going as well. I am astigmatic, which makes things blurry for me, especially close up. I easily meet the requirements for driving with uncorrrected vision, but my spectacles reduce strain, so I drive with them on. I'm a bit myopic, but I'm not required to use glasses for driving. I have progressive lenses, and it's sometimes nice to get a clearer view of the instrument panel by using the glasses. But I've noticed that my night view of the road is significantly better with the glasses off. It seems at night, anyway, I lose more vision acuity by glare & reflections with the glasses lenses than I gain from the slight refractory correction. BTW, bike content: I'm happy to use the same glasses for riding, as opposed to special glasses. And as a bonus, my homebrew mirrors clip onto these glasses. They're tiny enough I stash one in each bike's bag. No searching for special specs, the funny hat, the mirror that won't work without it, etc. -- - Frank Krygowski |
105-year old sets new record
"(PeteCresswell)" writes:
Per : I do need glasses but sooner or later will have that taken care of. Think that one through before you make the move. My rationale (as one who is near-sighted): - After a certain age, *everybody* has a problem with focusing on close things. Something about the lens becoming turgid and unresponsive to the focusing muscles. - If I got the surgery, my far vision would be better, but then I would be unable to read without reading glasses. - OTOH, outside, I need sunglasses anyhow to prevent damage from UV.... whether they are prescription or not is almost moot convenience-wise.... so "needing glasses" for distant vision is a wash - at least outside. That decision was made about 25 years ago - when my far vision was so bad that I could not see the big "E" on the eye chart. Now, for some reason (and I can't imagine it's good... but still...) my nearsightedness has diminished to the point where I can navigate indoors quite well.... so well that I tend to put my glasses down somewhere, not wear them for 2-3 hours, and forget where they are.... -) I'm no expert on vision, but suspect that the improvement is due to presbyopia, or the natural loss of accomodation you described. Some of your myopia was probably due to your eye focusing incorrectly. Now that it no longer can adjust focus, the problem is less. Bottom line for me: I am *really* glad I did not get the surgery because needing glasses to read would be a major PITA for me whereas "Needing" glasses for distance is really just a matter of prescription sunglasses instead of plane sunglasses. I'm with you there. It would seem technically possible that you could get your eyes adjusted to focus at any length, not just at infinity, with either cataract surgery (prosthetic lens) or laser surgery, but I don't know that eye surgeons do that. In the interest of full disclosure.... my range of focus has now deteriorated to where I actually do use reading glasses for extended reading. Not because I cannot see without them, but because it's more relaxing with them.... still a major improvement over *needing* them to be able to read. OTOH, if I were far-sighted, I might have opted for surgery just to get out of needing reading glasses..... Agreed -- hyperopia seems a bigger problem, since as one loses accomodation he finds that clear vision is possible nowhere. There are many more myopes than hyperopes in modern times. This seems clearly to have an environmental cause, but I haven't seen that reflected in treatment. -- |
105-year old sets new record
Frank Krygowski writes:
On 1/8/2017 12:37 PM, Andrew Chaplin wrote: wrote Pete, I'm given to understand that is isn't the muscles but growth along the back of the eyeballs that make them a little stiffer. I see at about 20" and either side I'm fuzzy. But I can pass the driver's eye test without glasses though I can't read the large signs above the freeway and either need glasses or to know where I'm going. And no comments about you know where I'm going as well. I am astigmatic, which makes things blurry for me, especially close up. I easily meet the requirements for driving with uncorrrected vision, but my spectacles reduce strain, so I drive with them on. I'm a bit myopic, but I'm not required to use glasses for driving. I have progressive lenses, and it's sometimes nice to get a clearer view of the instrument panel by using the glasses. But I've noticed that my night view of the road is significantly better with the glasses off. It seems at night, anyway, I lose more vision acuity by glare & reflections with the glasses lenses than I gain from the slight refractory correction. BTW, bike content: I'm happy to use the same glasses for riding, as opposed to special glasses. And as a bonus, my homebrew mirrors clip onto these glasses. They're tiny enough I stash one in each bike's bag. No searching for special specs, the funny hat, the mirror that won't work without it, etc. So your night vision on the bike is ok with glasses? What's the difference? I would like to hear some magic for eliminating foggy glasses and raindrops when riding, but last time the question came up no good answers were forthcoming. -- |
105-year old sets new record
|
105-year old sets new record
Per Radey Shouman:
I would like to hear some magic for eliminating foggy glasses and raindrops when riding, but last time the question came up no good answers were forthcoming. Three words: "Disposable Contact Lenses". I spend more time on the water than most and there are those maddening days when the temp/humidity is "just so" so that glasses simply won't stop fogging up... and disposable contacts are the ticket. I don't even wear two most of the time.... One is enough and it leaves me good close vision for reading charts and instruments. Used to wear contacts 100% of the time on water. Last season I switched to these things (prescription, Polaroid) and I think they are going to be my SOP except for those fogging days: https://www.seaspecs.com/seaspecs-classic-c-5 -- Pete Cresswell |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com