I hate "survival of the fittest". It's not actually all that accurate for describing evolution, and it's used to excuse being a jerk so often.
It should have been "survival of the breediest". Anyway...
Many people misconstrue what Darwin meant by "fittest"; he didn't mean the most athletic or strongest, he meant the species that best fits it's habitat, or the most adaptable.
I'm missing part of a finger, but I can manage. I could live with a limp. But eyesight is a pretty big gamble. Yeah its small. But still higher than lottery.
That's why I opted for orthokeratology. I put my lens for one night, once every 7-ish days, and have 30/20 vision for the first 24h and then 20/20 for the rest of the week.
I used to do this. It's surprising how many people have never heard of this. The downside is of course, discomfort. It's a tad hard to sleep with a hard lens in your eye, at least, it was for me. Also, I find contacts to be a lot of hassle; including the fact that washing my hands so much leads to cracks in my fingertips in wintertime.
Still, I think maybe more people should give it a shot. If you miss a night or two, it's no big deal, which is a nice plus. If you stop wearing them at night altogether, it takes your eyes about 2 weeks to go back to their natural state.
One common technique for people who are close to or have age-induced presbyopia is to perform the surgery on only one eye, or, depending on the prescription, to apply it in different amounts. The idea is to get one eye which is good for near vision and one that is good for far vision. Sort of the same notion as bifocals, but applied directly to the eyes. Apparently the brain adjusts quickly and effectively to this and you end up feeling as though you have good vision at all ranges as long as both eyes are open.
I'm considering doing that. I'm 45 and my eyes have just begun to change. I'm still generally myopic, but so far the change just requires me to take my glasses off when doing close work. I'm going to give it a couple more years to be sure my eyes have more or less settled, then get surgery on one or both, in whatever degrees will give me the best overall visual acuity and flexibility.
If your eyes haven't actually changed yet, then it's something of a crapshoot. The idea is to adjust your vision based on guesses as to how they're going to change. That said, my optometrist says that they can make very good guesses. The only reason he's recommended that I wait is because I'm not far from the point where guessing won't be required, based on my history of general visual stability and current rate of change.
I tried that with contacts, personally I hated it. I got headaches, and it seemed more like a lose/lose than a win/win. It varies from person to person.
If you do that with LASIK, it's permanent. I'd highly recommend getting some contacts first and trying the monovision thing on a trial basis first.
It's wise to wait on LASIK til later years if presbyopia is just around the corner; for me, it's already here and settled in. My conundrum is choosing between leaving my vision as is and needing glasses for distance, or getting the LASIK and needing reading glasses. I'm hoping that such an operation might lead to a side benefit of reduced presbyopia too, but I haven't done my research on that yet.
Still, Google may have a presence in India but it's not an Indian company, per se.
At this rate, it seems like someday in the future we may have to deal with possibility that being on the Internet is like being a celebrity: no expectation of privacy.
It's only fair that you either get to protest when every and any country pulls something like this, or not at all.
My first thought was this was too similar and just as futile, but on further reflection, maybe not.. if you can just rest your arm on the desktop surface like you would for using a mouse, and not have to aim your fingers anywhere specific this might be comfortable and useful enough to be the "mouse killer" HID developers have been hoping for.
All the news media are becoming cartoonish extravagances of yellow journalism, but it's trite when when someone feels they must proselytize their bias by attacking selective news sources when news sources weren't a prior part of the conversation; besides, it's just a leftish mantra to be parrotted, no actual thought required. Fox News is not as bad as the strawman lefties make it out to be, but because it gives "those other guys" a strong voice, and it's popular in the face of it's competition, it must be attacked at all costs and at every available opportunity. It just smacks of desperation.
People have been saying that SS is going to be gone before they retire for years, and the danger is real; under Bush, no one challenged that claim, but now suddenly it's just derp?