Can PF Random Thoughts be Split to Help with Server Load?

In summary: Knew". It's a really great game.In summary, Irrational Games has released a new game called "God Only...Knew". It is a great game that is sure to please players.
  • #2,766
Enigman said:
And funnier too, milady!
-------------------------------
don't know if you got the joke or if I missed something...
"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(A_Clockwork_Orange)" - guy from zshoe's picture.
Adrenochrome

:wink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2,767
Enigman said:
"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(A_Clockwork_Orange)" - guy from zshoe's picture.
Adrenochrome
You learn something everyday at PF. I thought "drencrom" was a fake drug invented by Burgess in the novel. Here I find out the true origin of the nadsat term.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #2,768
Borek said:
This is so deeply "philosophical" it would get you instantly banned if posted in any other thread. At the same time I am not convinced it is random enough for this one.

The only related principals I am aware of are forum Mentors. You risk their wrath. Please read the forum rules.

this was actually pretty funny
 
  • #2,769
My old glasses weren't as clear as they used to be, so I figured I'm getting old, eyesight's getting worse, need new glasses.

Went to the eye doctor, yes, I needed new glasses because my eyesight has improved greatly and my old glasses are too strong for me now.

The optometrist/clerk told me that my posture was too perfect for progressive lenses, she said I held my head too high and straight, which was why I was having problems adapting to them, that most people slouch and lean their face down and that's how the glasses are designed for people.

I used to have progressives and had no problems. She asked if they were very expensive, I said yes, she said that's why.

Ok, cheaper progressives are made for slouchers? I switched to single vision lenses.
 
Last edited:
  • #2,770
Mediacom is down and out. I am sad but not depressed because I have a smart phone. Anyone else?
 
  • #2,771
Why can't anyone just get it right? Ack, back I go to the canon.
 
  • #2,772
Evo said:
The optometrist/clerk told me that my posture was too perfect for progressive lenses, she said I held my head too high and straight, which was why I was having problems adapting to them, that most people slouch and lean their face down and that's how the glasses are designed for people.

I used to have progressives and had no problems. She asked if they were very expensive, I said yes, she said that's why.

Ok, cheaper progressives are made for slouchers? I switched to single vision lenses.

I am testing progressives ATM (third week) and I am already sure I don't want them. I don't care much about distortions (they are inevitable, which is proven in a Minkwitz's theorem), but anything just to the side looks worse than what I see without glasses. Field of vision they advertise is not "the perfect view" but "not worse than 0.5D" - so in fact perfect view is limited to much more narrow area. I already know I will never use them for driving - too narrow field, too dangerous. I wanted them for field trips and picture taking (I have problems evaluating the picture I see on the camera display is OK without switching to reading glasses) - but again, field is too narrow for effective bird spotting or something like that.

As part of the deal they will replace the glasses with a pair of normal and reading glasses for no additional cost (other than the second frames), and that's what is most likely going to happen in March.

I will have to try bifocals.
 
  • #2,774
The word "restive" means exactly opposite what it sounds like it means.
 
  • #2,775
Not a yellow brick road, but sparkly -

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/10/30/starpath-glow-in-the-dark-roads-provide-energy-free-illumination


When I'm out at night, I prefer the dark.
 
  • #2,776
Borek said:
I am testing progressives ATM (third week) and I am already sure I don't want them. I don't care much about distortions (they are inevitable, which is proven in a Minkwitz's theorem), but anything just to the side looks worse than what I see without glasses. Field of vision they advertise is not "the perfect view" but "not worse than 0.5D" - so in fact perfect view is limited to much more narrow area. I already know I will never use them for driving - too narrow field, too dangerous. I wanted them for field trips and picture taking (I have problems evaluating the picture I see on the camera display is OK without switching to reading glasses) - but again, field is too narrow for effective bird spotting or something like that.

As part of the deal they will replace the glasses with a pair of normal and reading glasses for no additional cost (other than the second frames), and that's what is most likely going to happen in March.

I will have to try bifocals.
I could get progressives, but I'd have to go back to that high tech place I got my first pair, they are very expensive, mine were varilux tri-focals, apparently the material and expertise to make them so that you don't notice the distortion comes at a high price and very few places have the technology. I can't afford them now. Also, the eye doctor said it's possible that the difference in the near/far vision makes the progressives more difficult.

I had the same problems you're having Borek, I have a small point of clear vision directly ahead but peripheral vision looks like it's smeared with vaseline, very disorienting, I have to completely move my head to directly view anything, I can't just move my eyes because of the lenses.
 
  • #2,777
Borek said:
I am testing progressives ATM (third week) and I am already sure I don't want them. I don't care much about distortions (they are inevitable, which is proven in a Minkwitz's theorem), but anything just to the side looks worse than what I see without glasses. Field of vision they advertise is not "the perfect view" but "not worse than 0.5D" - so in fact perfect view is limited to much more narrow area. I already know I will never use them for driving - too narrow field, too dangerous. I wanted them for field trips and picture taking (I have problems evaluating the picture I see on the camera display is OK without switching to reading glasses) - but again, field is too narrow for effective bird spotting or something like that.

As part of the deal they will replace the glasses with a pair of normal and reading glasses for no additional cost (other than the second frames), and that's what is most likely going to happen in March.

I will have to try bifocals.
It's hell getting old but luckily we have options, albeit they all have their disadvantages.

Bifocals:

Can't see your feet causing falls (luckily we have hip replacements)

When viewing a desk-top computer monitor you must tip the head back causing what I call 'bifocal neck' (luckily we have good pain relief drugs)


You could do what my friend does. Use contacts; a "far sighted" lens in one eye and a "near sighted" lens in the other eye. (luckily our brains can spatially adapt?)
 
  • #2,778
I don't like insurance commercials where someone else's voice suddenly comes out of people.
 
  • #2,779
dlgoff said:
Bifocals:

Can't see your feet causing falls (luckily we have hip replacements)

New one! And they say you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

When viewing a desk-top computer monitor you must tip the head back causing what I call 'bifocal neck' (luckily we have good pain relief drugs)

That's a non-issue for me - I have separate glasses for computer work.
 
  • #2,780
Tartini is a god and youtube the devil. BUFFER, DARN IT!

EDIT: Note to self: Cursing in PF works wonders with youtube videos.
 
Last edited:
  • #2,781
Variables are a PITA. I have opted for single-vision lenses. Luckily, I can see well at close distances. I tried variables for a few years, but the "scissoring" effect was quite unnerving, and I hated having to tilt my head to get just the right amount of correction for various distances. These effects became much more evident when eyeglass frames narrowed.

As a dispensing optician, I had a great deal more latitude when lenses were larger (think Bailey Quarters). You could get a whole lot of correction variables into large lenses like that, without introducing much distortion. Polycarbonate lenses (Lexan) made such lenses much lighter, then perversely the frame styles tightened up so there was much less territory to provide the range of correction without huge distortions.
 
  • #2,782
Je suis mallvelient...
Ok I can still do some french...
 
  • #2,783
I have successfully assimilated my wife's cold. I really need better goals in life. :rolleyes:
 
  • #2,784
Borg: Resistance is 'flu-tile.

My train home splits into two somewhere further down the line. The front four coaches go to destination X, according to the automatic voice, and the rear three go to destination Y. It then helpfully informed me that I was in coach 8 of 7...
 
  • #2,785
I'm opting for lasik eye surgery once I'm old enough. Granted, I've been told I look better with my glasses on rather than off, but contacts and glasses are both very tedious, especially with a physically active life-style.
 
  • #2,786
Installed lucid puppy... it's cute, fits my low specs beautifully. Now to get the VM running.
 
  • #2,787
"A rubber mold of Matt Damon's torso was built for these shots."

"Matt Damon had just starred in 'Ocean's 11."

"That's Chris Cooper from 'American Beauty'"
 
  • #2,788
Enigman said:
Installed lucid puppy... it's cute, fits my low specs beautifully. Now to get the VM running.

This is freaky fast...could do with more apps though...
 
  • #2,790
  • #2,791
Enigman said:
457 is a prime.

Factor your post count and let's see if anyone's has a prime greater than 457 as a factor. If not, Enigman wins.
 
  • #2,792
zoobyshoe said:
Factor your post count and let's see if anyone's has a prime greater than 457 as a factor. If not, Enigman wins.

Borg has 701, that is prime.
 
  • #2,793
Charmar said:
Borg has 701, that is prime.
Yes it is. So far, Borg wins.
 
  • #2,794
[tex]\setlength{\unitlength}{5cm}
\begin{picture}(1,1)
\put(0,0){\line(0,1){1}}
\end{picture}[/tex]
E: that didn't work...
 
  • #2,795
22023=3*3*2447
 
  • #2,796
Today is a good day...repeating that enough times should put me in a self-hypnotic trance so that it might actually start to feel like it.
At least the mangas got updated.
 
  • #2,797
Borek said:
22023=3*3*2447
Typical. I get beat at something before I even know I'm in the competition. :-p
Ibix said:
Borg: Resistance is 'flu-tile.
:smile:
 
  • #2,798
Borek said:
22023=3*3*2447
So far, Borek wins.
 
  • #2,799
zoobyshoe said:
So far, Borek wins.

Make 17 posts out of the lounge and you will win.
 
  • #2,800
To be blunt: I am three posts away from 22027.

But in a few days from now Doc Al will have 40471, and no one will be able to beat that soon.
 

Similar threads

Is it time for Random Thoughts - Part 4?
65
Replies
2K
Views
157K
Random Thoughts Part 5: Time to Split Again
77
Replies
3K
Views
144K
Forum Game - Where's That Landmark? Part 2
10
Replies
348
Views
47K
Random Thoughts Part 4 - Split Thread
115
Replies
4K
Views
213K
What is the newest installment of 'Random Thoughts' on Physics Forums?
317
Replies
11K
Views
498K
Random Thoughts 7
34
Replies
1K
Views
30K
  • Sticky
How to use the "w" in www
Replies
0
Views
2K
Chemical Forums down, or how I learned what slowloris is
Replies
8
Views
671
Is Anything in the Universe Truly Random?
2
Replies
40
Views
17K
Photo Contest - Train of Thought (5/25-5/31)
Replies
15
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top