The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This is the thread for general chat.
Tell us how your day was, say hello or just introduce yourself if you're new to the site.
Post edited by Hmmm... on 29/12/2018 at 18:19.
Tell us how your day was, say hello or just introduce yourself if you're new to the site.
Post edited by Hmmm... on 29/12/2018 at 18:19.
Page:
pb wrote:
Even between the 90s when I first wore contact lenses and last year, when I started wearing them again, there is a huge difference thanks to the improvement in the material to allow more oxygen in and keep eyes from getting dry (which is one of the reasons I stopped wearing them.
She did need glasses, as I assumed. -1 in both eyes and most likely genetic as I'm short sighted too and her mother is slightly short sighted.
I'd imagine the most difficult eye tests are for pre-readers who can't use the letter charts.
It's interesting you say that, as going through our clinics and lectures, we really only get to use the modern ones (but hear the tales of lenses in the past).
-1.00 isn't too bad, quite a common low prescription. Essentially comes over that anything more than a metre away starts to get a little blurry. And you are quite right, although there are plenty of other techniques we can use to test the vision in those who can't - varying from watching eyes move to targets to picture naming tasks. But they can be tricky to do!
@DL ouch, I think back then the soft lenses were poor at letting the eye breathe and the more modern ones may mean you can wear them again...and.... Some new materials (especially the silicon hydrogels) have a lower water content, so should prevent the dryness - always an option if you ever wanted to go back to them...
Even between the 90s when I first wore contact lenses and last year, when I started wearing them again, there is a huge difference thanks to the improvement in the material to allow more oxygen in and keep eyes from getting dry (which is one of the reasons I stopped wearing them.
She did need glasses, as I assumed. -1 in both eyes and most likely genetic as I'm short sighted too and her mother is slightly short sighted.
I'd imagine the most difficult eye tests are for pre-readers who can't use the letter charts.
It's interesting you say that, as going through our clinics and lectures, we really only get to use the modern ones (but hear the tales of lenses in the past).
-1.00 isn't too bad, quite a common low prescription. Essentially comes over that anything more than a metre away starts to get a little blurry. And you are quite right, although there are plenty of other techniques we can use to test the vision in those who can't - varying from watching eyes move to targets to picture naming tasks. But they can be tricky to do!
@DL ouch, I think back then the soft lenses were poor at letting the eye breathe and the more modern ones may mean you can wear them again...and.... Some new materials (especially the silicon hydrogels) have a lower water content, so should prevent the dryness - always an option if you ever wanted to go back to them...
@pb ... exactly ... so who is to blame
Feel like I haven't posted in ages even though it's probably been about two days.
Here is a picture I like and I think you will too
Here is a picture I like and I think you will too
DL wrote:
pete_21 wrote:
[i]pb wrote:
[i]And this is why stupid people should not own smartphones.
Am I right that in both cases it was their children who racked up the bills on these accounts? Even though these people may have been foolish to have allowed this to happen those bills do seem seriously excessive for what they were.[/i]
Mornin all ...
Have to agree there pete ... especially £70 for a 'mountain of food' etc etc[/i]
But also in both cases the parents gave the kids their password.
pete_21 wrote:
[i]pb wrote:
[i]And this is why stupid people should not own smartphones.
Am I right that in both cases it was their children who racked up the bills on these accounts? Even though these people may have been foolish to have allowed this to happen those bills do seem seriously excessive for what they were.[/i]
Mornin all ...
Have to agree there pete ... especially £70 for a 'mountain of food' etc etc[/i]
But also in both cases the parents gave the kids their password.
Even between the 90s when I first wore contact lenses and last year, when I started wearing them again, there is a huge difference thanks to the improvement in the material to allow more oxygen in and keep eyes from getting dry (which is one of the reasons I stopped wearing them.
She did need glasses, as I assumed. -1 in both eyes and most likely genetic as I'm short sighted too and her mother is slightly short sighted.
I'd imagine the most difficult eye tests are for pre-readers who can't use the letter charts.
She did need glasses, as I assumed. -1 in both eyes and most likely genetic as I'm short sighted too and her mother is slightly short sighted.
I'd imagine the most difficult eye tests are for pre-readers who can't use the letter charts.
HM wrote:
How have you found the changes in contact lenses across the years DL, much better?
Can't really make any comment HM regarding contact lenses. I only wore the large, soft lenses in the early 1980's. I really liked them, especially when climbing, but as the years rolled on my eyes became more susceptible to dryness especially during the winter months, indoors and central heating, so much so that the veins in my eye began to grow across my iris and some even followed the shape of the lens itself. So, about 1988/89 went back to glasses.
How have you found the changes in contact lenses across the years DL, much better?
Can't really make any comment HM regarding contact lenses. I only wore the large, soft lenses in the early 1980's. I really liked them, especially when climbing, but as the years rolled on my eyes became more susceptible to dryness especially during the winter months, indoors and central heating, so much so that the veins in my eye began to grow across my iris and some even followed the shape of the lens itself. So, about 1988/89 went back to glasses.
Aha, uncorrected refractive error can cause problems around school age when you use your eyes for more than just "seeing". I was told I have astigmatism at aged 8 (which, being in the field and knowing, is to a high degree) and there was a chance my eye would be lazy. Worn glasses constantly ever since.
How have you found the changes in contact lenses across the years DL, much better?
And yes, well written...
EDIT: I must have misread some of your original post pb, looks like she may need some spectacles after all, much better choice of frames now than when I was younger!
How have you found the changes in contact lenses across the years DL, much better?
And yes, well written...
EDIT: I must have misread some of your original post pb, looks like she may need some spectacles after all, much better choice of frames now than when I was younger!
HM wrote:
What makes you think she will need glasses?
Same happened to me at the age of 10 HM. Couldn't read the blackboard ... finally persuaded my parents and an eye examination revealed one short-sighted eye which was also degrading the sight in the other 'good' eye. I've worn glasses or contact lenses since then.
In other news ... see we've got another 'well written' post appearing in General Chat :¬)
What makes you think she will need glasses?
Same happened to me at the age of 10 HM. Couldn't read the blackboard ... finally persuaded my parents and an eye examination revealed one short-sighted eye which was also degrading the sight in the other 'good' eye. I've worn glasses or contact lenses since then.
In other news ... see we've got another 'well written' post appearing in General Chat :¬)
Hope it goes well pb, I'm yet to do an eye test on anyone under the age of 18. What makes you think she will need glasses?
pete_21 wrote:
pb wrote:
[i]And this is why stupid people should not own smartphones.
Am I right that in both cases it was their children who racked up the bills on these accounts? Even though these people may have been foolish to have allowed this to happen those bills do seem seriously excessive for what they were.[/i]
Mornin all ...
Have to agree there pete ... especially £70 for a 'mountain of food' etc etc
pb wrote:
[i]And this is why stupid people should not own smartphones.
Am I right that in both cases it was their children who racked up the bills on these accounts? Even though these people may have been foolish to have allowed this to happen those bills do seem seriously excessive for what they were.[/i]
Mornin all ...
Have to agree there pete ... especially £70 for a 'mountain of food' etc etc
Page: