.. the only problem being that, if you're in a plane with actual life-vests under the seat, the seat cushions might not be easily detachable as they're not the primary flotation device. Also, is your life-vest located under your seat or in the bin above you? If it's under your seat, can you *reach* it?
I fly canadian airlines, seat cushions as floatation devices are not legal here, so the life vest is under the seat, always. and yes, I can reach it.
More-importantly, which of the exit doors are the kind that swing in and stay there? Which ones come completely off and need to be tossed out the doorway? Do you pull the door into the cabin from the top or bottom? Which doors release by swinging a single arm? Do you swing it up or down? Which ones don't have an arm, but a pull-down lever? Which of those have an additional cover over the lever which you must pull down *first*? Which doors should you not open in a water landing? Which doors have escape-slides? Which ones auto-deploy when you remove the door? Which ones require a tab to be pulled? Which ones detach to become rafts? How do you detach them?
Even more importantly, show me even one airline that includes that information in their safety briefing. (which is what this is talking about, not the seat card) (though I can tell you, the ones in exit rows over the wings you need to pull in and up and then throw out of the plane, they come completely off, you pull from the top. The other doors, and on planes with exit aisles instead of exit rows, swing outward, you use the big lever on the door, they all have escape-slides, and you can use all of them in a water landing, and they all auto-deploy when you open the door (assuming the flight attendant properly armed the door when the instruction to "arm and cross check" came over the PA)
I'm not a pilot, however I have volunteered with an air search and rescue group. On a commercial airliner I glance at the card, take a quick look around at the safety equipment, and completely ignore the "briefing" On a military or civil airplane, I pay full attention to the briefing, where everything is, and any other information I can get.
The difference is that the commercial airliners are all essentially the same, and haven't changed in decades. Each military or civil airplane is completely different. (there's also the bit about flying at 30,000ft, vs flying at 1,000ft (or less) AGL through the rocky mountains...)
I have always wondered whether or not it's a lie that if the oxygen bag doesn't inflate that it's still working. It sounds like a load of BS meant to prevent you from freaking out, and fighting with the person next to you who has obviously got a working mask.
Actually it's quite possible. As an EMT, when we give patients oxygen with a mask with a similar bad attached, the bag doesn't always inflate on it's own. Basically the bag inflates if the delivery of oxygen exceeds the amount you're consuming, and deflates if you use more than it's providing. It works as a way of providing a constant flow through fluctuations in demand and/or supply. If the mask isn't sealed well to your face, or if you're hyperventilating because the airplane is crashing and you're not in favour of this particular outcome to your flight, the bag will likely stay deflated, even though you're still getting oxygen through the mask. When we're giving a mask to a patient, we actually block the oxygen flow for a few seconds before giving it to them to force the bag to inflate, and if they're managing to suck the bag flat we'll turn up the supply until it stays inflated, however our goal is to increase oxygen for someone with breathing difficulties, the airline's goal is simply to provide adequate oxygen to simulate the normal amount you'd have if you weren't in an unpressurized plane at 36,000ft.
Where I live robocalls are already illegal (with exceptions for opt-in such as appointment reminders, and an exemption for political parties... must be nice to write the laws...) How much do you think that has reduced the number of robocalls I receive? If you guessed, not at all, you win. Problem is that Robocalls are generally from overseas and from scammers, there's no practical way for any enforcement.
Show me a libertarian that thinks the government making secret lists of people not allowed to participate in otherwise legal business transactions is a good idea... I'm not sure how libertarianism is the enemy here, it seems that secret government lists removing people's freedoms would be the opposite of libertarianism. Or are you actually trying to argue that a secret government list with zero oversight is a good idea?
I can't speak for AT&T's implementation, but where I live we also have a TV over DSL provider, and they can definitely tell the difference between TV traffic and non-TV traffic, and therefore can still see what your non-TV traffic totals up to if they want to bill for overage... the plus side is I've never heard of anyone actually receiving an overage bill, but they do reserve the right. This also means that they can limit bandwidth separately for TV and internet services, so for example you could watch 3HD streams (total of approx 18-20megs of bandwidth) but if you turn them all off, they could still limit your internet speed to the 15 meg you're paying for. (often the modem will be trained up at 50-80meg, but you only get the internet speed you pay for with the rest being reserved for the TV's use)
I think it more likely points to the fact that the advertising industry is completely out of touch with reality. People buy products regardless of if any advertising occurs or not, some things people just have to have, some things people want and research before buying, some things are impulse buys when they walk by them.
Thing is, even if you didn't follow any advertising to find a product or service, you still pay for the advertising of that product or service when you purchase it. The tagline has always been "half of the money spent on advertising is wasted, we just don't know which half", but I contend that it is FAR worse than that, I suspect it's more like 95%+ is wasted, companies swear that by throwing their product in our face at every opportunity we'll be more likely to buy from them, but I don't think it always works that way.
So yes, you spend way more than $230 a year on product and services in general, and about $230 of that money you spend on stuff you want/need didn't go to the company you gave it to, but instead to advertising that you didn't care about.
The marketing industry is completely out of control, and it costs society an inordinate amount of money.
I own a 3D TV, So I'm part of that statistic that proves how well 3D TVs sell... I also do not own any 3D glasses, or any 3D content, or have any intention of ever doing so. I have a 3D TV, not because I wanted one, but because the manufacturer wanted me to. I couldn't find my other requirements without it at a price I was willing to pay. I'm certainly not alone in this category, many people have no interest in 3D, but own 3D TVs, not because they want a 3D TV, but because the TV they want happens to have that feature. Look at sales of 3D content and 3D glasses, not 3D TVs to gauge the interest, I'm sure it's a lot lower than the industry would have you believe. Thing is, the industry is desperate, we just went through the transition from SD to HD, which provided real value to the end user, this caused millions of people to go out and buy new TVs to replace ones that were still working fine, that's petering out now and most people have already replaced their old SD TVs. The industry desperately wants to replicate that situation and force people to go buy all new TVs again, but people just aren't biting.
This is one more reason to make extra sure that companies that you deal with have zero US presence. In fact in many jurisdictions it would be illegal to follow these US laws due local privacy laws. By doing business in the US, any data on individuals that you have, even stored in other jurisdictions is subject to their laws, meaning you'll often have the choice of breaking US law, or breaking the laws of the country you're in.
Much safer to just avoid all dealings with the USA.
Simple, they cut off your service for non-payment, and you move your internet connection to the competi....er... well, does Netflix still run a DVD service?
Only partially true though, what they ignore is that those same people need glasses for distance. So it's a choice of needing glasses for reading, or for distance, or for both. Not needing glasses isn't really the option there. With Lasik you'd need your reading glasses, without you'd need either distance glasses, or bi-focals, depending.
Although the risk of dislodging the "flap" is real, I question for how long it is an issue? I don't think you're likely to be able to dislodge it months later as it will "heal" the same way the new layer grows back after PRK
I know that the Canadian Army used to require PRK for this exact reason, but I believe they've now changed that and allow both.
For this reason the Canadian Army used to insist on PRK over Lasik, the difference is that in Lasik they open a flap in your eye, and then re-seal it. in PRK they cut the flap off and let it re-grow. That said, I believe with more experience that they've changed the rules to allow both now.
There is a risk of dislodging the flap after Lasik, though the risk goes away with time (I'm not sure how much time?) Though I don't think G-forces alone are enough (at least not survivable ones) they were worried about direct trauma to the eye.
I actually got my lasik done from the same surgeon that did my opthamologist... so I felt fairly confident (I did do quite a bit of my own research too, but when I asked my opthamologist and they gave me the name that did theirs I'll say it carried some weight)
I'm actually in the same boat, but that was one of the things that pushed me to do the Lasik, there's no way I could ever use a contact lens, I wouldn't be able to get it in to my eye, and glasses pissed me off. But for an hour of misery I bought a lifetime of freedom.
LASIK is permanent, but some people's eyes continue to change post surgery, a competent surgeon will refuse the surgery if your eyes haven't been stable for at least a couple of years pre-surgery for that reason. I had my lasik about 10 years ago. my vision is currently 20/15, same as it was a week after the surgery.
This is why most surgeons won't do the surgery unless your eyes have been stable for a couple of years already. The Lasik didn't wear-off, her eyes just hadn't stabilized before it was done, so they continued to degrade afterwards. I had the surgery approximately 10 years ago, and my vision now is 20/15, exactly the same as it was a week after the surgery.
Thats' not my understanding at all. my understanding is that when you get old your vision doesn't so much "change" as become less "elastic", you loose the ability to easily re-focus. The end result is that you no longer need just one prescription, but two (bi-focals) Lasik can't fix that, but it can set one of the two, so that you only need reading glasses instead of bi-focals.
vision changes throughout life, but for the most part people's vision pretty much stabilizes when they are in their early 20s, and stays that way until their 50s, at that point it's a different problem though, unlike in your younger years when your eyes are changing, the problem when you get older is that your eyes don't change as much making re-focusing more difficult. End result is that instead of needing one prescription, you end up needing two (bi-focals). I had my Lasik done at about age 25, and at age 35 my vision is still 20/15 (same as it was the week after the surgery) Eventually I'll probably need reading glasses, but there's a good chance I'll avoid needing bi-focals.
As for dry eye... I do wish someone had mentioned that before the surgery, I never saw anything at all about that in all the research I did (and I did quite a bit) but I will say that post-surgery my eyes are much drier than they were before the surgery. I won't really say it's an issue, I just wish I had known ahead of time. (that said, I would still have done it again in a heartbeat, best decision I ever made!)
Nothing official, but I can say that even after the surgery I still seem to have better colour sensitivity than many others I know (I can tell subtle shades apart better, especially in low light) Actually drives my wife nuts some times, she'll tell me something is black and I'll have to point out that it's actually a very dark green, or dark blue, or I'll be able to tell the dark blue and dark green apart when she can not.
I can relate. I had Lasik done because I was sick of glasses, and there was no way I could ever put contacts in my eyes. The surgeon described me as having a "very aggresive blink reflex" and they had to pretty much pin me down to do the surgery. I'll admit, the surgery was probably the most miserable time of my life, but it doesn't last long, and it was so worth it in the end. (and yes, the eye drops needed for about a week afterwards were also extremely difficult for me, but I still don't regret the surgery even the least little bit.)
I was very worried about decreased night vision post surgery, stories of halos etc abound. But when I actually researched it, nobody could actually say that they had had a worse outcome post surgery than before. Most of it seemed to be propaganda more than anything. I even talked to a couple of people with poor night vision post-surgery, only to find out that they really didn't have decent night vision pre-surgery either.
I have very good night vision (apparently I have larger than average pupils) I have noticed zero issues post-surgery. no halos, no diffraction spikes, no increased glare. I continue to have better night vision than any of my friends.
Lasik was the best decision I ever made. absolutely zero regrets. I don't miss my glasses one bit.
Slashdot Mirror
.. the only problem being that, if you're in a plane with actual life-vests under the seat, the seat cushions might not be easily detachable as they're not the primary flotation device. Also, is your life-vest located under your seat or in the bin above you? If it's under your seat, can you *reach* it?
I fly canadian airlines, seat cushions as floatation devices are not legal here, so the life vest is under the seat, always. and yes, I can reach it.
More-importantly, which of the exit doors are the kind that swing in and stay there? Which ones come completely off and need to be tossed out the doorway? Do you pull the door into the cabin from the top or bottom? Which doors release by swinging a single arm? Do you swing it up or down? Which ones don't have an arm, but a pull-down lever? Which of those have an additional cover over the lever which you must pull down *first*? Which doors should you not open in a water landing? Which doors have escape-slides? Which ones auto-deploy when you remove the door? Which ones require a tab to be pulled? Which ones detach to become rafts? How do you detach them?
Even more importantly, show me even one airline that includes that information in their safety briefing. (which is what this is talking about, not the seat card) (though I can tell you, the ones in exit rows over the wings you need to pull in and up and then throw out of the plane, they come completely off, you pull from the top. The other doors, and on planes with exit aisles instead of exit rows, swing outward, you use the big lever on the door, they all have escape-slides, and you can use all of them in a water landing, and they all auto-deploy when you open the door (assuming the flight attendant properly armed the door when the instruction to "arm and cross check" came over the PA)
I'm not a pilot, however I have volunteered with an air search and rescue group.
On a commercial airliner I glance at the card, take a quick look around at the safety equipment, and completely ignore the "briefing"
On a military or civil airplane, I pay full attention to the briefing, where everything is, and any other information I can get.
The difference is that the commercial airliners are all essentially the same, and haven't changed in decades.
Each military or civil airplane is completely different.
(there's also the bit about flying at 30,000ft, vs flying at 1,000ft (or less) AGL through the rocky mountains...)
I have always wondered whether or not it's a lie that if the oxygen bag doesn't inflate that it's still working. It sounds like a load of BS meant to prevent you from freaking out, and fighting with the person next to you who has obviously got a working mask.
Actually it's quite possible. As an EMT, when we give patients oxygen with a mask with a similar bad attached, the bag doesn't always inflate on it's own. Basically the bag inflates if the delivery of oxygen exceeds the amount you're consuming, and deflates if you use more than it's providing. It works as a way of providing a constant flow through fluctuations in demand and/or supply. If the mask isn't sealed well to your face, or if you're hyperventilating because the airplane is crashing and you're not in favour of this particular outcome to your flight, the bag will likely stay deflated, even though you're still getting oxygen through the mask.
When we're giving a mask to a patient, we actually block the oxygen flow for a few seconds before giving it to them to force the bag to inflate, and if they're managing to suck the bag flat we'll turn up the supply until it stays inflated, however our goal is to increase oxygen for someone with breathing difficulties, the airline's goal is simply to provide adequate oxygen to simulate the normal amount you'd have if you weren't in an unpressurized plane at 36,000ft.
Where I live robocalls are already illegal (with exceptions for opt-in such as appointment reminders, and an exemption for political parties... must be nice to write the laws...) How much do you think that has reduced the number of robocalls I receive? If you guessed, not at all, you win. Problem is that Robocalls are generally from overseas and from scammers, there's no practical way for any enforcement.
Show me a libertarian that thinks the government making secret lists of people not allowed to participate in otherwise legal business transactions is a good idea... I'm not sure how libertarianism is the enemy here, it seems that secret government lists removing people's freedoms would be the opposite of libertarianism. Or are you actually trying to argue that a secret government list with zero oversight is a good idea?
I can't speak for AT&T's implementation, but where I live we also have a TV over DSL provider, and they can definitely tell the difference between TV traffic and non-TV traffic, and therefore can still see what your non-TV traffic totals up to if they want to bill for overage... the plus side is I've never heard of anyone actually receiving an overage bill, but they do reserve the right. This also means that they can limit bandwidth separately for TV and internet services, so for example you could watch 3HD streams (total of approx 18-20megs of bandwidth) but if you turn them all off, they could still limit your internet speed to the 15 meg you're paying for. (often the modem will be trained up at 50-80meg, but you only get the internet speed you pay for with the rest being reserved for the TV's use)
Bell Canada and all providers do that up here.
Not "all providers up here", only those where you live, in Western Canada I'm not aware of any PPPoE providers.
I think it more likely points to the fact that the advertising industry is completely out of touch with reality. People buy products regardless of if any advertising occurs or not, some things people just have to have, some things people want and research before buying, some things are impulse buys when they walk by them.
Thing is, even if you didn't follow any advertising to find a product or service, you still pay for the advertising of that product or service when you purchase it. The tagline has always been "half of the money spent on advertising is wasted, we just don't know which half", but I contend that it is FAR worse than that, I suspect it's more like 95%+ is wasted, companies swear that by throwing their product in our face at every opportunity we'll be more likely to buy from them, but I don't think it always works that way.
So yes, you spend way more than $230 a year on product and services in general, and about $230 of that money you spend on stuff you want/need didn't go to the company you gave it to, but instead to advertising that you didn't care about.
The marketing industry is completely out of control, and it costs society an inordinate amount of money.
I own a 3D TV, So I'm part of that statistic that proves how well 3D TVs sell. .. I also do not own any 3D glasses, or any 3D content, or have any intention of ever doing so.
I have a 3D TV, not because I wanted one, but because the manufacturer wanted me to. I couldn't find my other requirements without it at a price I was willing to pay. I'm certainly not alone in this category, many people have no interest in 3D, but own 3D TVs, not because they want a 3D TV, but because the TV they want happens to have that feature.
Look at sales of 3D content and 3D glasses, not 3D TVs to gauge the interest, I'm sure it's a lot lower than the industry would have you believe.
Thing is, the industry is desperate, we just went through the transition from SD to HD, which provided real value to the end user, this caused millions of people to go out and buy new TVs to replace ones that were still working fine, that's petering out now and most people have already replaced their old SD TVs. The industry desperately wants to replicate that situation and force people to go buy all new TVs again, but people just aren't biting.
This is one more reason to make extra sure that companies that you deal with have zero US presence. In fact in many jurisdictions it would be illegal to follow these US laws due local privacy laws. By doing business in the US, any data on individuals that you have, even stored in other jurisdictions is subject to their laws, meaning you'll often have the choice of breaking US law, or breaking the laws of the country you're in.
Much safer to just avoid all dealings with the USA.
Simple, they cut off your service for non-payment, and you move your internet connection to the competi....er... well, does Netflix still run a DVD service?
Only partially true though, what they ignore is that those same people need glasses for distance. So it's a choice of needing glasses for reading, or for distance, or for both. Not needing glasses isn't really the option there.
With Lasik you'd need your reading glasses, without you'd need either distance glasses, or bi-focals, depending.
Although the risk of dislodging the "flap" is real, I question for how long it is an issue? I don't think you're likely to be able to dislodge it months later as it will "heal" the same way the new layer grows back after PRK
I know that the Canadian Army used to require PRK for this exact reason, but I believe they've now changed that and allow both.
For this reason the Canadian Army used to insist on PRK over Lasik, the difference is that in Lasik they open a flap in your eye, and then re-seal it. in PRK they cut the flap off and let it re-grow. That said, I believe with more experience that they've changed the rules to allow both now.
There is a risk of dislodging the flap after Lasik, though the risk goes away with time (I'm not sure how much time?) Though I don't think G-forces alone are enough (at least not survivable ones) they were worried about direct trauma to the eye.
I actually got my lasik done from the same surgeon that did my opthamologist... so I felt fairly confident (I did do quite a bit of my own research too, but when I asked my opthamologist and they gave me the name that did theirs I'll say it carried some weight)
I'm actually in the same boat, but that was one of the things that pushed me to do the Lasik, there's no way I could ever use a contact lens, I wouldn't be able to get it in to my eye, and glasses pissed me off. But for an hour of misery I bought a lifetime of freedom.
Hated every moment of it, one of the most miserable experiences of my life. And worth every moment.
You think there's no risk to wearing contacts?
http://o.canada.com/news/stude...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
Lasik is actually quite safe.
LASIK is permanent, but some people's eyes continue to change post surgery, a competent surgeon will refuse the surgery if your eyes haven't been stable for at least a couple of years pre-surgery for that reason.
I had my lasik about 10 years ago. my vision is currently 20/15, same as it was a week after the surgery.
This is why most surgeons won't do the surgery unless your eyes have been stable for a couple of years already. The Lasik didn't wear-off, her eyes just hadn't stabilized before it was done, so they continued to degrade afterwards.
I had the surgery approximately 10 years ago, and my vision now is 20/15, exactly the same as it was a week after the surgery.
Thats' not my understanding at all. my understanding is that when you get old your vision doesn't so much "change" as become less "elastic", you loose the ability to easily re-focus. The end result is that you no longer need just one prescription, but two (bi-focals) Lasik can't fix that, but it can set one of the two, so that you only need reading glasses instead of bi-focals.
vision changes throughout life, but for the most part people's vision pretty much stabilizes when they are in their early 20s, and stays that way until their 50s, at that point it's a different problem though, unlike in your younger years when your eyes are changing, the problem when you get older is that your eyes don't change as much making re-focusing more difficult. End result is that instead of needing one prescription, you end up needing two (bi-focals). I had my Lasik done at about age 25, and at age 35 my vision is still 20/15 (same as it was the week after the surgery) Eventually I'll probably need reading glasses, but there's a good chance I'll avoid needing bi-focals.
As for dry eye... I do wish someone had mentioned that before the surgery, I never saw anything at all about that in all the research I did (and I did quite a bit) but I will say that post-surgery my eyes are much drier than they were before the surgery. I won't really say it's an issue, I just wish I had known ahead of time. (that said, I would still have done it again in a heartbeat, best decision I ever made!)
Nothing official, but I can say that even after the surgery I still seem to have better colour sensitivity than many others I know (I can tell subtle shades apart better, especially in low light) Actually drives my wife nuts some times, she'll tell me something is black and I'll have to point out that it's actually a very dark green, or dark blue, or I'll be able to tell the dark blue and dark green apart when she can not.
I can relate. I had Lasik done because I was sick of glasses, and there was no way I could ever put contacts in my eyes. The surgeon described me as having a "very aggresive blink reflex" and they had to pretty much pin me down to do the surgery. I'll admit, the surgery was probably the most miserable time of my life, but it doesn't last long, and it was so worth it in the end. (and yes, the eye drops needed for about a week afterwards were also extremely difficult for me, but I still don't regret the surgery even the least little bit.)
I was very worried about decreased night vision post surgery, stories of halos etc abound. But when I actually researched it, nobody could actually say that they had had a worse outcome post surgery than before. Most of it seemed to be propaganda more than anything. I even talked to a couple of people with poor night vision post-surgery, only to find out that they really didn't have decent night vision pre-surgery either.
I have very good night vision (apparently I have larger than average pupils) I have noticed zero issues post-surgery. no halos, no diffraction spikes, no increased glare. I continue to have better night vision than any of my friends.
Lasik was the best decision I ever made. absolutely zero regrets. I don't miss my glasses one bit.