do contacts work if u get in a fight? I have this feeling that an eye punch would be devastating.
do contacts work if u get in a fight? I have this feeling that an eye punch would be devastating.
If it's not Isuzu-chan Mii~
Soft contacts won't really affect you much, well except giving you vision correction to avoid that punch in the first place.
Peace.
That's exactly the situation I was thinking of. When I used to wear glasses, I was a lot more timid and afraid to get into a fight because I was blind without them, plus I would have gotten into even more trouble with the parents if I broke my glasses (getting into a fight would be bad enough to them). But getting hit in the eye isn't too likely, especially if you can see to avoid the punch like shinta said.Originally Posted by Buffalobiian
“For God will not permit that we shall know what is to come... those who by some sorcery or by some dream might come to pierce the veil that lies so darkly over all that is before them may serve by just that vision to cause that God should wrench the world from its heading and set it upon another course altogether and then where stands the sorcerer? Where the dreamer and his dream?”
Having worn glasses for over 20 years now, and having been punched in the face while wearing them: It's hurts more when the frame concentrates some of the energy, but it's not that big of a deal. Bruising on the temple (from the frame) and around the eye socket (from the lens edges), maybe a minor cut on the nose (from the posts the nose pads are on). It's like getting a black eye, just concentrated.
I've broken/damaged more pairs of glasses by falling asleep with them on. Or messing around with them, snapping them myself: I'm never buying memory-metal frames again, extremely overpriced and not resistant to twisting or prolonged bending (like falling asleep).
I've also had to tape the lenses back in so I could drive home. An inconvenience at worst.
Contacts come with far greater hazards not related to physical injury. Increased chance of (occasionally rather serious) eye infection due to improper care or leaving them in too long, or having them stuck in there.
Last edited by Ryllharu; Fri, 11-23-2012 at 06:35 AM. Reason: added detail
Contact lens issues are generally from misuse and negligence. If you form a habit of taking care of them there will never really be any problems, aside from the expected gradual deterioration due to time and usage.
Peace.
shinta's got it right: if you do the proper things like washing your hands before handling, take out the contacts and soak them in saline solution every night, dispose of them according to schedule, and limit your wear time, contacts are virtually problem free. Unfortunately you're only supposed to wear them 10-12 hours a day unless you get some special contacts with improved breathability, otherwise you can cause problems for your eyes in the long term.
Like most people (probably), I wore glasses for years before switching to contacts. Contacts are definitely better.
“For God will not permit that we shall know what is to come... those who by some sorcery or by some dream might come to pierce the veil that lies so darkly over all that is before them may serve by just that vision to cause that God should wrench the world from its heading and set it upon another course altogether and then where stands the sorcerer? Where the dreamer and his dream?”
I doubt any service provider would let any customer use it as a reason to get out, hahaha.With the way the phone market is going, RIM might be out of business before 3 years, so you could get out of the contract that way..
Yeah they'd probably force you to switch to another carrier but continue the contract. Though it's been a few years since I had a cell plan so I'm not too sure how it works.
My dog got skunked today, right in the face/mouth too. I washed him off twice with an online recipe of hydrogen peroxide/baking soda/dish soap, but he still smells because I can't use the solution too liberally near his eyes and mouth. Funny thing is, once I washed most of the smell out, his fur still smelled like the yellow stuff in steamed crab, which is kind of delicious.
“For God will not permit that we shall know what is to come... those who by some sorcery or by some dream might come to pierce the veil that lies so darkly over all that is before them may serve by just that vision to cause that God should wrench the world from its heading and set it upon another course altogether and then where stands the sorcerer? Where the dreamer and his dream?”
I bought two humidifiers to help alleviate the extremely dry winter air in my house.
Returned one the same day. Damn POS leaked. Twin-tank design, one tank never emptied, other one overfilled the machine and proceeded promptly "humidified" the floor. (edit: Yes, it was level.)
The second bedroom-sized one worked wonderfully the first day. I cleaned it this morning, following the directions to the letter, and now it doesn't work at all. Wonderful. I'll be returning that one tomorrow after work, since the store is closed today.
I'm waiting to see how long the third different model (which replaced the first) lasts. I'm guessing not long.
I just don't get why humidifiers are such pieces of shit. It's basically impossible to find a quality one. I'd spend a lot more on one if the damn things would fucking last more than a week or work at all.
Last edited by Ryllharu; Tue, 01-01-2013 at 10:08 AM.
Are they made in America? That might be the problem. Electronic devices that hold and distribute liquids are problematic by nature.
“For God will not permit that we shall know what is to come... those who by some sorcery or by some dream might come to pierce the veil that lies so darkly over all that is before them may serve by just that vision to cause that God should wrench the world from its heading and set it upon another course altogether and then where stands the sorcerer? Where the dreamer and his dream?”
You can always try the Japanese way and boil water in your room. If you go with an induction-stove, you can even minimize your risk of fire (as opposed to using kerosene).
If it's not Isuzu-chan Mii~
Considering how commonplace appliances they are, surely there must be good ones around, as long as you avoid the cheap Chinese things. Nobody's going to profit if they are all returned to the stores.
Jason Statham has a new movie in theaters soon called Porter. It's about a guy who gets double-crossed by his former criminal associates and gets payback in order to recover the money they took from his cut of the proceeds. The movie stars Mel Gibson and comes out in 1999.
“For God will not permit that we shall know what is to come... those who by some sorcery or by some dream might come to pierce the veil that lies so darkly over all that is before them may serve by just that vision to cause that God should wrench the world from its heading and set it upon another course altogether and then where stands the sorcerer? Where the dreamer and his dream?”
First off, it is Parker (in 2013). The character is 1999 was Porter.
And actually...it comes out in 1967 (also much better), stars Lee Marvin, as Walker.
It's all based of The Hunter, where the role was named Parker.
Parker -> Walker -> Porter -> Parker
Isn't this fun?
Last edited by Ryllharu; Wed, 01-09-2013 at 04:03 PM. Reason: for the underlines!
I've never heard of any of them.
I don't watch as much movies as I'd like to, which is weird, because I don't do anything all day.
Lee Marvin was, and still sorta is, the fucking man. Everyone should see Point Blank.
(and The Dirty Dozen for that matter)
You're not missing much. It's typical Hollywood recycling concepts because there's a dearth of originality and daring in the business. These movies might be good for a boring Sunday afternoon freebie rerun once American football season is over, but not worth a movie ticket at the theater.
Old time American cinema is fucking terrible. I try watching these "classics" and it's just unbearable. So to a point a remake is worthwhile, but Payback isn't so dated that they need to make another clone movie just so Statham can get acting work.
“For God will not permit that we shall know what is to come... those who by some sorcery or by some dream might come to pierce the veil that lies so darkly over all that is before them may serve by just that vision to cause that God should wrench the world from its heading and set it upon another course altogether and then where stands the sorcerer? Where the dreamer and his dream?”
Most movie buffs would say the same thing about Payback, because it was a pretty terrible version.
If you think that Point Blank or The Dirty Dozen are terrible cinema...well, you have just no taste at all. I'd give you Zardoz or something (also directed by the Point Blank guy). But there isn't a whole lot different from today's movies (other than the shit writing in current movies) with Point Blank or The Dirty Dozen.
Furthermore...Parker (2013) won't even be the first time the story was reused since Payback (1999). It's the main plot to GTA3.
And there are two dozen novels with the character. Who knows, they might even be going for a trilogy here.
Payback was pretty terrible, which is another reason why a remake is a terrible idea.
Old time movies aren't intrinsically terrible cinema, they just pale when compared to modern movie-making. The acting is stilted, the effects are usually laughable, and the editing is choppy and ruins the flow of the story. TV and movies have come so far in technical aspects, but they have to reuse stories and concepts from older movies because writers/producers lack imagination and daring.
“For God will not permit that we shall know what is to come... those who by some sorcery or by some dream might come to pierce the veil that lies so darkly over all that is before them may serve by just that vision to cause that God should wrench the world from its heading and set it upon another course altogether and then where stands the sorcerer? Where the dreamer and his dream?”
I think it just comes down to allowing yourself to appreciate the aspects of a film in the context of their own eras. While acting is probably one of the few things you can compare to its modern-day counterparts.... I think a strong argument could be made for directing and editing as well. Sure there have been tons of advancements in the technology that has clearly made these jobs easier, but if you can't recognize good directing and editing from years ago then chances are you can't recognize it in this age either.
I would like to point out that I don't think you're entirely wrong Meniax, that for the most part directing and editing.... hell lets not forget cinematography's vast improvements.... have been made much easier to accomplish well. So nowadays you can go see almost any movie in the cinema and it will possess at least moderately skilled directing and editing. But the point I guess I'm trying to make is that just because its easier these days, doesn't mean films are better. Hell I'd say its the opposite. It takes less skill to produce something of great quality.
So instead of there being a lot of great directors making okay films and occasionally making an outstanding movie.... we have a lot of okay directors making decent films and sometimes not even achieving that. Then there's the few geniuses in both eras of film who produce consistently great cinema and occasionally reach perfection. If you want to try to compare those to each other, good luck with that, but thats not what I'm saying.
Last edited by Kagemane_no_Jutsu; Thu, 01-10-2013 at 04:34 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
