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.

Party of the idea behind cash is that regulations would be difficult to enforce. Not impossible, because if you're buying stuff with cash then you still need a delivery address. But difficult.

I could go on, but the point is that none of this is new with Bitcoin. Cash, which has been around a lot longer without society collapsing, has all the same regulatory problems.

And the appropriate way to treat it is like cash. Can you do untraceable cash deals and avoid taxes? Yes, but it's not legal to do so. Bitcoin is the same. I believe that the law already covers this anyway, technically you must pay tax even when bartering. Will people abuse this? Of course, but no more so than they do with cash today.

The thing is, I don't see why any new law is needed. If I pay you cash to fix my sink, tax is supposed to be paid, likewise, if I trade you supper for you fixing my sink, legally tax is supposed to be paid on the value of the meal. So why do they think a new law is needed just because it's Bitcoin? Do they need to write another law for litecoin separately? How about one for the next currency that comes along tomorrow? There are already laws, use them.

I was asked once to power up one of my radios, batteries were dead so it wouldn't power up, luckily it used AA batteries so I borrowed some from my girlfriend's Discman (this was a few years ago...) and although those batteries were also quite dead it was enough to get a "beep" out of the radio which seemed good enough for the people at the checkpoint. Not entirely sure if this was before or after 9/11, I suspect after, but I can't say for certain.

They need the agreements so that they can hash out how to allow trade for large multi-national corporations, while forbidding it to all private individuals, because allowing individuals to import things without barriers would lead to anarchy... or something like that.... For example, In Canada our auto manufacturers can produce their cars anywhere in the world and ship them in to the country, due to various free trade agreements they can often do this without any tariffs getting in their way. However as a consumer it is illegal for me to buy a car in a different country and import it myself. (with some small exceptions for cars from the USA, however even then the auto manufacturers write the list of which cars are allowed to be imported)
We have similar rules for many different industries, automotive is just one of the most obvious ones. Remember, "Free" trade is never the goal of any of these agreements, increased regulation for consumers, coupled with job movement to lower cost jurisdictions, combined with fewer trade barriers for multi-national corporations is what you can expect every single time.

This really is simple. If you believe in creationism you are not scientifically literate, saying that some of these people got the other questions right doesn't change the fact that they proved in the one question that they do not take science seriously. That said, belief in evolution, does not preclude scientific illiteracy, this is a topic with enough publicity that people who are clueless may still come down on the right side.