I drink your milkshake!

I hope he got a lot of money from the lawsuit. If he didn't, then it sounds like it is mostly due to that pre-existing condition and not the fault of the doctor or equipment.

Your distance vision will be clearer. You may need stronger reading glasses though.

I highly doubt that most doctors will perform a 3rd or 4th operation on a patient. The procedure involves removing material. Obviously, there is only so much you can remove before the integrity of the eye is put at risk. That's one of the reasons I didn't get it a second time. I was a perfect candidate initially, but by the time that I needed adjustments came I considered the risks unacceptably high and went back to glasses and contacts. It was really great during the years when I could wake up with perfect vision though, I wish I would have waited the first time until my eyes really stopped changing.

That's what actually happens. They use suction to make your eyeball stick out so they can work on it, and the explanation I got was that you lose vision when that happens because the eye stops getting blood.

I actually fainted during the initial exam, prior to surgery. My doctor was using a little yellow tool to poke my eye, and every time he poked it my vision went blurry and a machine went "BING!" I don't know why, maybe I was just holding my breath, but I went right out. Woke up to my doctor laughing.

The surgery itself was no problem, I was more interested than nervous. I could see the laser getting closer and shooting a purple beam. They sucked my eye out and I could see the vision slowly fade to black as the blood drained, and then watch it return then they were done. It was an interesting experience, I wasn't scared at all by it.

That little yellow thing though, that thing got me. Another in the list of amusing times when I've fainted.

That's what happened to me. I got the surgery when I was around 23 or 24, and yeah I had 20/15 vision for at least a year, but my eyes kept changing. After about 7 years I went back for glasses and to talk about doing the surgery again. I was advised that 7 years between surgeries is risky, because the original cut portion would have healed and they would need to cut it back again. Additionally, the possibility of complications had risen, I had something like a 20% chance of things going wrong like my lens collapsing from being too thin after 2 surgeries, things that would be fairly serious for my vision. 20% is a fairly low chance, but I considered it unacceptably high when dealing with my vision. My doctor also said that, as my eyes are now, I won't need reading glasses when I'm older. I opted to just get contacts and glasses again. I went back for contacts again recently and my eyes had only barely changed from the previous prescription. If I had waited until around 32 or 34 to get it done the first time then it probably would have stuck around a lot longer. It was really great while it lasted though.

I'm not fan of Obama, but I'm suspicious about the results of that (single) survey. 35% of respondents rated Reagan as the best president since WW2, followed by Clinton (18%), Kennedy (15%), and Obama (8%). On the other side, 33% said Obama was the worst, followed by GWB (28%), Nixon (13%), and Carter (8%). As far as "worst president" goes, it looks like recent memory plays more of a role than anything the guys actually did. Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy, the 3 directly after WW2, got 0-1% of the votes. Carter is probably happy just to be included.

Maybe it's because Ada envisioned that the machines that would become computers would one day be capable of all kinds of useful things, as opposed to Babbage who saw them strictly as number crunchers.

Hardly. She didn't translate the book for a programmer, she translated the book for a machine. She was the programmer.

They aren't spending all of their oil money to gear themselves up to be a power producer and distributor. They are positioning themselves to be a financial center and tourist destination. If that fails then they have nothing to show for their oil wealth except a shiny city built on top of sand.

I sure don't, but that has no bearing on this conversation. At all.

Yes, she was wronged. Who wronged her? Was it Pinkmeth? Was it Verisign? Was it Katz? Was it the Tor project? No, it was none of those. It was whoever she sent those pictures to, whoever stole her phone, etc. I don't see that individual listed on her lawsuit, which is the reason her lawsuit (not her personally) is deserving of ridicule. Asserting that Pinkmeth is engaged in a conspiracy with Tor is ridiculous (literally - deserving of ridicule). The reason I included links was to show that suing Pinkmeth will have no effect on whether or not people will see her pictures. Those links were within the first 8 pages of Google results for her name, and none of them point to Pinkmeth. In short, not Pinkmeth, nor Verisign, nor Katz, nor Tor are the reasons why her images are online. The person who posted the images is the reason why they are online. If she wants justice, she needs to go after that person, not useful things that plenty of other people use for completely legitimate reasons.

It's a little strange that I have to point this out, but the benefit of Tor is anonymity and the ability to not be tracked. Hopefully you understand why protection of privacy is a good thing for everyone, not just people interested in committing a crime. If you want the argument for why Tor is a good thing, read what the EFF has to say about it.

I think that they'll find that selling solar power is far less profitable than selling oil.

She's on quite the fishing expedition. Here is another lawsuit filed by her, from 2012, suing Pinkmeth (again), Katz Global Media (for the crime of providing anonymous hosting), and Verisign. Yeah, she sued Verisign. Maybe that suit didn't work out so well, so she thought she would try her hand against Tor. Not exactly the best way to make a name for herself as a criminal justice major. I suspect that pursuing suits like these will serve is much more of a "loss in earning capacity" than a porn picture ever would. She might also be interested that her Facebook profile is open for the world to see. Here she is.

Maybe she's just trying to clog up the Google search results for her name with information about lawsuits instead of her actual pictures. You have to go to page 4 to find this one (which is not Pinkmeth), page 6 for this one (also not Pinkmeth), and page 8 for this one (again, not Pinkmeth).

I'm assuming she has no proof that would allow her to sue the person actually responsible for distributing the pictures (you know, other than her). Life lesson learned, I suppose. Try not to clog up the justice system.

Scroll down to the list of pictures and see if you can detect any DC-owned intellectual property.

http://sf.wish.org/wishes/wish...

And why limit it to just passwords? There's a whole onscreen keyboard there to be watched.

Who is going to rob, rape, and/or murder you? The person being tracked via satellite who is specifically responding to your request for a pick up? It's not even worth it to try and rob an Uber driver. You would need a stolen phone and credit card in order to be able to do that, otherwise it's pretty easy to prove exactly who was there. It's not like with a taxi that you can anonymously hail, shoot them while they're sitting in the seat, take everything and go.