Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (3226)	11/8/2000 11:31:37 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 28931

if you were being beaten how would you protect your "face"? You couldn't. It's good to have eyes- but it's even better to have them where they are, and where they can be protected. Well, I neither agree nor disagree with that. It is conjecture. How do you protect yourself when a mugger puts a gun against the back of your head, or simply silently drives a knife into your spine? Is it better to see everything for 1/2 mile around you, and never be surprised (I don't say "fooled"), or is it better to be able to protect your eyes--if someone (or something) is stupid (or gallant) enough, to attempt to kill you face to face--when they had a safer alternative?? Ideally, eyes everywhere--coupled with the backward kick of a moose--would be nice. In any case, assuming one knows the enemy, it is difficult to consider a better defense than a 5 minute headstart! I say this because of the experience of hunters, and their prey (including the human hunter). If they are truly prey--many of them survive by evasion. If they could survive by defending their eyes or their jugular, or their ankles...they would probably not be prey (although, admittedly, many do use these defenses as a back-up to evasion). The fact that evasion is almost alweays the first choice (other things being equal) is, I think, important. It is a huge survival mechanism which is emulated by humans, that avoid confrontation and risky situations, and that have a policy of getting along I don't think we know enough to give a dependable answer to these alternatives...

To: epicure who wrote (3226)	11/9/2000 12:45:50 AM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 28931

There is a theory now that even blue light is damaging to your eyes. The only real difference between UV and blue is a few nanometers. I'm from mostly northern European stock and I hate bright light. I wear dark glasses even on most cloudy days when I'm out doors and my favorite colored ones are brown which pass only long wavelengths. I always get good UV block coatings but I'm thinking I'm going to move toward photo-greys again which have a light pinkish tint when not greyed. The only down side is they are slightly radioactive so I'm not sure the net is positive, but the convenience of not having to carry sunglasses is great. The pigments we use to detect light at night are metabolically intensive. In fact, I think I mentioned this before, astronomers at altitude huff pure oxygen to boost visual purple production. They get about 0.5 magnitude increase in light sensitivity. I've not tried it, but think I might some time. Maybe on my next trip. Get one of those emphysema masks and a little "E" size cylinder on a cart.