So, you know how my car is slowly dying, which is why I need to buy a new car this year. Well, here’s some interesting stuff happening with my car:
Not only did the car survive the recent trek across the prairies (i.e. from here to Fargo, Fargo to Minneapolis and back, and then back home on successive days), it did so without the check-engine light coming on at all. The light that’s usually on pretty much all the time in the city didn’t come on after I stopped to buy a soda on the way out of town (and got right on the highway), and stayed off until I stopped and idled at the border a while. Then it went off at some point, and didn’t come on at all the whole rest of the way. It’s come on a couple of times since, but for the most part it stays off. Weird. Makes me think it was a valve or the EGR or something that got blown out and fixed magically by staying at highway speeds for a while. But what do I know?
Okay, now today. On the way home tonight, approaching two different stops, the car gave a kind of shudder. Well, not a shudder, more of a thunk, but physically, not sound-wise. If you follow. “That’s odd,” thinks I, “probably means something is going very wrong with the car. I really do need to buy a new car this year. Possibly tomorrow.”
Then, approaching the light at Stafford, it just died. No power. No break assist. Volt and other lights on. I have the presence of mind to slap on the hazard lights (the switch is located on the steering column, which is a stupid place for it, now that I think about it, since it means I reach through the steering wheel to get at it), and slam it into neutral and coast to a stop. Then I put it in park, which I probably didn’t need to do, and turned the key. Vroom vroom. Started right up again, no problem. Made it all the way home without shuddering again.
So I’m thinking the shuddering was something weird happening to the automatic transmission as it tried to downshift as I was coasting to a stop, until finally at Stafford, it just failed and the car stalled, just like it would if you get to slow at too high a gear and fail to clutch it to neutral. Which makes me thing my transmission is going.
Interesting side note, still no check engine light all the way home.
Weird, eh?
Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Tuesday, 14 June 2011
On the subject of sociolinguistics
Teaching "Language in Society" in the winter. Looking for a textbook. The one that came most recommended isn't going to work for me: too jumbled in its presentation, too may different boxes and insets and asides, and print way too small (and sans serif!).
So casting around for a new book. This class is for 2nd year undergrads, so limited background. I am tempted to go back to a reading course I offered a grad student a few years ago, with Sociolinguistics by Milroy and Gordon as the backbone, supplemented with other readings. UGs hate that, but I've been meaning to post my reading lists to my 'courses' area of my website. But anyway, for anyone who cares, that course looked like this:
So casting around for a new book. This class is for 2nd year undergrads, so limited background. I am tempted to go back to a reading course I offered a grad student a few years ago, with Sociolinguistics by Milroy and Gordon as the backbone, supplemented with other readings. UGs hate that, but I've been meaning to post my reading lists to my 'courses' area of my website. But anyway, for anyone who cares, that course looked like this:
- Milroy & Gordon (2003). Sociolinguistics: Method and Interpretation. (Blackwell)
- Preliminaries and points of view (to accompany M&G Ch 1)
- Hymes, Dell (1971). On Communicative Competence. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Excerpted in J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (eds), Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings (Hammondsworth: Penguin Education), pp. 269-293.
- Labov, William (2003). Some sociolinguistic principles. In C. B. Paulston & G. R. Tucker (eds) Sociolinguistics: The Essential Readings. Malden: Blackwell. Apparently excerpted from W. Labov (1971), The Study of Non-Standard English, Champaign: National Council of Teachers of English.
- Hymes, Dell (1971). On Communicative Competence. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Excerpted in J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (eds), Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings (Hammondsworth: Penguin Education), pp. 269-293.
- Techniques, methodology and practical issues (Ch 3)
- Milroy, Lesley (1980a). “Studying language in the community: The fieldworker and the social network”. Ch. 3 of Language and Social Networks (Baltimore: University Park Press), pp. 40-69.
- Milroy, Lesley (1980b). “The quantitative analysis of linguistic data”. Ch. 5 of Language and Social Networks (Baltimore: University Park Press), pp. 109-138.
- Milroy, Lesley (1980a). “Studying language in the community: The fieldworker and the social network”. Ch. 3 of Language and Social Networks (Baltimore: University Park Press), pp. 40-69.
- Sociological factors (Ch 4)
- Rickford J. R. (1986). The need for new approaches to social class analysis in sociolinguistics. Language and Communication 6(3), 215-221.
- Eckert, P. (1989). “The whole woman: Sex and gender differences in variation.” LVC 1, 245-68.
- Eckert, P. (1997). “Age as a sociolinguistic variable”, in F. Coulmas (ed) Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 151-167
- Labov, W (1990). “The intersection off sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language Variation and Change 2, pp. 205-254.
- Rickford J. R. (1986). The need for new approaches to social class analysis in sociolinguistics. Language and Communication 6(3), 215-221.
- Cases – Phonology (Ch 6)
- Labov, William (1982). “The social stratification of (r) in New York City department stores”. Ch. 3 of The Social Stratification of English in New York City (3rd printing) (Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics), pp. 42-59.
- Dubois, S. and B. M. Horvath (1998). Let’s tink about dat: Interdental fricatives in Cajun English. LVC 10(3), 245-61.
- Eckert P. (1998). “Gender and sociolinguistic variation”. in J Coates (ed) Language and Gender: A Reader, Cambridge: CUP, 64-75.
- Labov, William (1982). “The social stratification of (r) in New York City department stores”. Ch. 3 of The Social Stratification of English in New York City (3rd printing) (Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics), pp. 42-59.
- Cases – Grammar and discourse (Ch 7)
- Sankoff, David, Henrietta J. Cedergren, William Kemp, Pierre Thibault & Diane Vincent (1989). “Montreal French: Language, class, and ideology”. In R. W. Fasold & D. Schiffrin (eds), Language Change and Variation (Philadelphia: John Benjamins), pp. 107-118.
- Schiffrin, Deborah (1999). “Oh as a marker of information management”. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (eds), The Discourse Reader (New York: Routledge), pp. 275-288. Excerpted from D. Schiffrin (1987), Discourse Markers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Sankoff, David, Henrietta J. Cedergren, William Kemp, Pierre Thibault & Diane Vincent (1989). “Montreal French: Language, class, and ideology”. In R. W. Fasold & D. Schiffrin (eds), Language Change and Variation (Philadelphia: John Benjamins), pp. 107-118.
- Sign Language
- Ann, Jean (2001). “Bilingualism and language contact”. In C. Lucas (ed.), The Sociolinguistics of Sign Languages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 33-60.
- Lucas, Ceil, Robert Bayley, Clayton Valli, Mary Rose & Alyssa Wulf (2001). “Sociolinguistic variation”. In C. Lucas (ed.), The Sociolinguistics of Sign Languages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 61-111.
- Ann, Jean (2001). “Bilingualism and language contact”. In C. Lucas (ed.), The Sociolinguistics of Sign Languages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 33-60.
Tuesday, 12 April 2011
Rob gets political
Well, the old country has a budget agreement, for the moment, and the new country is in the middle of an election. So I have a question for Mr Harper, leader of the incumbent Conservative party. Actually, for all the fiscal conservatives who want me to believe that cutting corporate taxes is for the purpose of creating jobs.
Dear Mr Harper,
If corporate tax cuts (to the largest and most profitable corporations, many of which benefited from public bail-outs and which already enjoy very low tax rates) is meant to 'trickle down' and create jobs, why not tie the corporate tax rate(s) or engineer a corporate tax credit tied directly to job creation.
For instance, how about for every 1% (or something) increase in full time equivalent jobs (regardless of level or pay scale) they add and keep for at least 8 months of the tax year, they can have a 0.5% (or something) credit on their tax bill. This will compensate all and only those companies that actually create jobs, and stimulate them to increase the number of employees at the lowest, (entry-level, and presumably the most attractive to the corporate bosses) pay rates. This way, adding 50 employees at $40,000/year will gain them a much better tax break than hiring four executives at $500,000/year. And presumably the tax break makes up more than the difference in their additional benefits (and don't try to tell me that the four getting $500,000 don't get much better benefits than the 50 at $40,000 combined).
As it is, the plan is to reward the greedy and allow them to hoard their money, to the detriment of potential employees and the public tax coffers.
I'm not saying my plan doesn't need some serious number crunchers to make it work, but if the idea is to create jobs, how about actually creating the jobs, instead of giving more money to the rich and hope they create jobs?
Dear Mr Harper,
If corporate tax cuts (to the largest and most profitable corporations, many of which benefited from public bail-outs and which already enjoy very low tax rates) is meant to 'trickle down' and create jobs, why not tie the corporate tax rate(s) or engineer a corporate tax credit tied directly to job creation.
For instance, how about for every 1% (or something) increase in full time equivalent jobs (regardless of level or pay scale) they add and keep for at least 8 months of the tax year, they can have a 0.5% (or something) credit on their tax bill. This will compensate all and only those companies that actually create jobs, and stimulate them to increase the number of employees at the lowest, (entry-level, and presumably the most attractive to the corporate bosses) pay rates. This way, adding 50 employees at $40,000/year will gain them a much better tax break than hiring four executives at $500,000/year. And presumably the tax break makes up more than the difference in their additional benefits (and don't try to tell me that the four getting $500,000 don't get much better benefits than the 50 at $40,000 combined).
As it is, the plan is to reward the greedy and allow them to hoard their money, to the detriment of potential employees and the public tax coffers.
I'm not saying my plan doesn't need some serious number crunchers to make it work, but if the idea is to create jobs, how about actually creating the jobs, instead of giving more money to the rich and hope they create jobs?
Wednesday, 9 March 2011
Prolix
I'm also getting some pressure from some quarters to start in with Twitter. 140 characters is a little limiting, but sometimes limits actually fuel creativity. If Blogger had actually blorfed on me completely, I'd definitely be going that way. Meantime, not so much. Although I'm considering "blueteddytweets" and "robjudgesyou" as handles.
Let's talk about distractions
Okay, so on the subject of posts that didn't, here's my thoughts on Mass Effect 3, slated for a 'holiday 2011' release.
What is great about the first two games in the series is that you can import characters/stories/histories from ME1 into ME2, and that effects how the second game plays out. If you kill someone in the first one, they're not in the second one. There's a Big Ethical Decision you have to make in the first one that affects who appears in the second one. In addition to your relationships with recruitable party members, there's other characters from the first game who play important parts in specific quest lines (or not, depending on whether you played the first game and how you interacted with them). We're told if you romanced one character in the first game and someone else in the second, this will have consequences in the third.
The second game is also littered with 'cameos'. Either characters who appeared in the first game popping up, or contaacting you by e-mail, to add depth to the story.
So here's my question, for those of you familiar with the series: Who do you want to see in ME3? and in what capacity (i.e. recruitable, quest-important, cameo appearance, or incidental contact)?
We've pretty much been promised an appearance of some kind by the Rachni Queen, if and only if she survives the first game. I'd like to see David Archer, the autistic mathematical savant who can talk to the Geth (robotic enemy race) appear as a recruitable, although he ended the second game pretty damaged and I don't know you you write/animate an interactive autistic character. Not that you can't, I just don't know how.
I'd like to see Kaidan/Ashley (recruitable in the first game and important cameo in the second) reappear as either a recruitable or a quest-important character, considering the history between the player character and those two. Thane, presumably, is not available, but it might be nice to see his son again, in some capacity.
There are others, but those are the ones I can think of at the moment. Your thoughts?
What is great about the first two games in the series is that you can import characters/stories/histories from ME1 into ME2, and that effects how the second game plays out. If you kill someone in the first one, they're not in the second one. There's a Big Ethical Decision you have to make in the first one that affects who appears in the second one. In addition to your relationships with recruitable party members, there's other characters from the first game who play important parts in specific quest lines (or not, depending on whether you played the first game and how you interacted with them). We're told if you romanced one character in the first game and someone else in the second, this will have consequences in the third.
The second game is also littered with 'cameos'. Either characters who appeared in the first game popping up, or contaacting you by e-mail, to add depth to the story.
So here's my question, for those of you familiar with the series: Who do you want to see in ME3? and in what capacity (i.e. recruitable, quest-important, cameo appearance, or incidental contact)?
We've pretty much been promised an appearance of some kind by the Rachni Queen, if and only if she survives the first game. I'd like to see David Archer, the autistic mathematical savant who can talk to the Geth (robotic enemy race) appear as a recruitable, although he ended the second game pretty damaged and I don't know you you write/animate an interactive autistic character. Not that you can't, I just don't know how.
I'd like to see Kaidan/Ashley (recruitable in the first game and important cameo in the second) reappear as either a recruitable or a quest-important character, considering the history between the player character and those two. Thane, presumably, is not available, but it might be nice to see his son again, in some capacity.
There are others, but those are the ones I can think of at the moment. Your thoughts?
Busy, not bizzay
Okay, I'm going to see if it's somehow the content of my attempted posts, as opposed to their length, by posting on something completely different.
Good news, I'm cooking again. In the sense that every weekend for the last couple, I've made soup. This is good. Trust me.
Bad news, I'm swamped. I need to do some research for a conference presentation in May, on a project I should have finished more than a year ago, and have barely started. But right now I'm swamped with coursework, since I'm making up a course based on a new textbook. And I have 24 letters to write recommending or not recommending admission to the graduate program, or rather informing the applicants of the decision. It's not up to us to actually admit anyone.
THe good news on that front is that tonight the Brier (Canadian men's curling championship) isn't on regular cable, so I can't watch unless I want to stream So maybe I'll take myself somewhere and write e-mails to applicants, instead of going home and eating soup. Which is what I've done for the last week or so, except for the odd night when I decided I deserved a taco salad or a burrito.
Good news, I'm cooking again. In the sense that every weekend for the last couple, I've made soup. This is good. Trust me.
Bad news, I'm swamped. I need to do some research for a conference presentation in May, on a project I should have finished more than a year ago, and have barely started. But right now I'm swamped with coursework, since I'm making up a course based on a new textbook. And I have 24 letters to write recommending or not recommending admission to the graduate program, or rather informing the applicants of the decision. It's not up to us to actually admit anyone.
THe good news on that front is that tonight the Brier (Canadian men's curling championship) isn't on regular cable, so I can't watch unless I want to stream So maybe I'll take myself somewhere and write e-mails to applicants, instead of going home and eating soup. Which is what I've done for the last week or so, except for the odd night when I decided I deserved a taco salad or a burrito.
Tuesday, 22 February 2011
Friday, 10 December 2010
Well, duh (or: Bethesda Blog Fail)
Readers of this blog will know that I enjoy solitary activities regarded as selfish and childish. By which I mean computer games. And I have been particularly fond of the Elder Scrolls serious, produced by Bethesda Softworks.
On 24 November 2009, the first of an advertised two novels set in the Elder Scrolls universe, according to some accounts set 40 years after the end of the last Elder Scrolls game (Oblivion) and potentially setting up the plot of the next (as yet unannounced) game was published. Written by Greg Keyes, the novel actually ends on something of a cliffhanger.
ElderScrolls.com, the official Elder Scrolls website from Bethesda, is still advertising the first book as its 'top story':
Okay, so a year later, there's no sign of the second book. There has been no mention of it at elderscrolls.com (beyond referring to The Infernal City as the first of two), there's no 'pre-order now' at Amazon. And no buzz.
So I whipped off a note to BethBlog.com, Bethesda Softworks's blog, and asked simply: "Is the sequel to Greg Keyes's Infernal City ever going to appear?"
Here is the reply:
"When we have more details on the book, we'll share the information with everyone."
Well, duh. I didn't think you had amazing things to say about the new book and were keeping it a secret from potential customers for kicks. So I infer the answer to my question is 'no', or at least 'not in the foreseeable'.
Which makes me wonder. Here is a synopsis of my wonderings:
I can see why Greg Keyes and Bethesda may not want to talk about it, or may be contractually or legally obligatedd not to discuss it, but there's been absolutely no buzz about the (non)existence of the second book.< Now I grant the first book wasn't so great that I was bugging everyone I know to read it. But I still want to hear the end of the story, dammit. So getting back to my exchange with the folks at BethBlog, not even a 'It's in the works! It's coming! Shhhh! Don't tell anyone!'. "When we have more details on the book, we'll share the information with everyone." Well, you must have some details. They should be in the contract. They should be in the outline. They should be in the editor's and publisher's files. Greg Keyes should know something. Random House should know something. Maybe not what you need to make any kind of public announcement, but surely you have something. And surely someone besides me cares whether or not we hear the end of the story, even if it turns out to have nothing to do with, or be entirely contrary with, what Bethesda wants to do with the next game.
Which I can totally see. Keyes names the next emperor of Cyrodiil, develops his family, develops factions that would have to be dealt with in one way or another. But if you contract with somebody to write books set in your universe, you either a) micromanage the details of the universe so the author doesn't screw anything up, or you b) let the author do his/her thing and just declare them 'non-canonical' when developing the next game.
Or maybe there's still no plan to develop the next game, in which case still less is there a reason to hold up the second book.
So I think the second book just doesn't exist in any useful form yet. Once somebody has a reasonable draft, someone should be shouting about it. And they're not. So what does all this non-information (and more interestingly non-buzz mean)? The first book didn't do well enough so they're not bothering to produce the second? In which case someone needs to come up with another 'top story' at elderscrolls.com and just let the whole thing die. Or is there something really, really interesting going on that nobody can talk about.
In which case I wish WikiLeaks would get on this story. Because, being childish and selfish, I really care a lot more about this than the stuff WikiLeaks usually deals with.
On 24 November 2009, the first of an advertised two novels set in the Elder Scrolls universe, according to some accounts set 40 years after the end of the last Elder Scrolls game (Oblivion) and potentially setting up the plot of the next (as yet unannounced) game was published. Written by Greg Keyes, the novel actually ends on something of a cliffhanger.
ElderScrolls.com, the official Elder Scrolls website from Bethesda, is still advertising the first book as its 'top story':
NOW AVAILABLE - THE INFERNAL CITY
The Infernal City — the first of two books based on The Elder Scrolls' universe written by New York Times' Bestselling Author Greg Keyes — is now available.
Okay, so a year later, there's no sign of the second book. There has been no mention of it at elderscrolls.com (beyond referring to The Infernal City as the first of two), there's no 'pre-order now' at Amazon. And no buzz.
So I whipped off a note to BethBlog.com, Bethesda Softworks's blog, and asked simply: "Is the sequel to Greg Keyes's Infernal City ever going to appear?"
Here is the reply:
"When we have more details on the book, we'll share the information with everyone."
Well, duh. I didn't think you had amazing things to say about the new book and were keeping it a secret from potential customers for kicks. So I infer the answer to my question is 'no', or at least 'not in the foreseeable'.
Which makes me wonder. Here is a synopsis of my wonderings:
- Does a second book exist in any form?
- Was there not some kind of contract that two books should appear by some date?
- Is there some kind of problem (copyright, artistic differences, contractual dispute) delaying the second book, and if so, at what stage?
- Do you routinely publish and advertise the first of two books without reasonable hope that the second is in the pipeline?
- Do you publish the first book as a cliffhanger to be finished in the second book (as opposed to ending the story and following up with a proper sequel) without the second book in hand, or at least a good chunk of it?
- Why is no one talking about this?
I can see why Greg Keyes and Bethesda may not want to talk about it, or may be contractually or legally obligatedd not to discuss it, but there's been absolutely no buzz about the (non)existence of the second book.< Now I grant the first book wasn't so great that I was bugging everyone I know to read it. But I still want to hear the end of the story, dammit. So getting back to my exchange with the folks at BethBlog, not even a 'It's in the works! It's coming! Shhhh! Don't tell anyone!'. "When we have more details on the book, we'll share the information with everyone." Well, you must have some details. They should be in the contract. They should be in the outline. They should be in the editor's and publisher's files. Greg Keyes should know something. Random House should know something. Maybe not what you need to make any kind of public announcement, but surely you have something. And surely someone besides me cares whether or not we hear the end of the story, even if it turns out to have nothing to do with, or be entirely contrary with, what Bethesda wants to do with the next game.
Which I can totally see. Keyes names the next emperor of Cyrodiil, develops his family, develops factions that would have to be dealt with in one way or another. But if you contract with somebody to write books set in your universe, you either a) micromanage the details of the universe so the author doesn't screw anything up, or you b) let the author do his/her thing and just declare them 'non-canonical' when developing the next game.
Or maybe there's still no plan to develop the next game, in which case still less is there a reason to hold up the second book.
So I think the second book just doesn't exist in any useful form yet. Once somebody has a reasonable draft, someone should be shouting about it. And they're not. So what does all this non-information (and more interestingly non-buzz mean)? The first book didn't do well enough so they're not bothering to produce the second? In which case someone needs to come up with another 'top story' at elderscrolls.com and just let the whole thing die. Or is there something really, really interesting going on that nobody can talk about.
In which case I wish WikiLeaks would get on this story. Because, being childish and selfish, I really care a lot more about this than the stuff WikiLeaks usually deals with.
Thursday, 16 September 2010
Adventures in eyecare
Giant Papillary Conjunctivitis. Just saying.
Okay, so I've been wearing contacts for about five years. Toric, because I have pretty significant astigmatism, 14-wear 30-day disposables that I change every six weeks or so (because, as it turns out, I'm stupid). Wore them about 1/3 of the time for the first year, then probably 2/3 of the time for a couple of years, and then just about evey day (not always weekends, if I'm just hanging around the house) for the last couple of years.
This turns out to lead to problems, especially when you don't change your contacts on schedule.
So for a few months, I've definitely notice that my vision is worse, even with the glasses, than perfect, and since the last time I got glasses was 2002, and it's been two years since they checked my prescription, it was time for a trip to the optometrist.
Also, just as an aside, for a couple weeks, I've had the feeling that there was something in my eye, not something owie/scratchy, but just 'something' under my left eyelid, when I took my contacts out at night.
So, turns out, I did. Little bumps. Giant Papillary Conjunctivitis. Basically little allergic bumps under my eyelids, from the build-up of proteins in the contacts, which I don't change often enough.
Readers of this blog will recall that I have any number of chronic health conditions, mostly well controlled, but that put me at risk for all kinds of things.
So while GPC is not 'dangerous' in any absolute sense, it can take a long time to heal, and diabetics take longer to heal than non-diabetics. For instance, being a diabetic means I'm not a candidate for laser eye surgery.
I also have a lot of mild but maddening and never ending environmental allergies. So once I start to break out in something, like little bumps, it doesn't go away quickly.
So I've been off the contacts completely for two weeks, and the eye doctor is 'encouraging' me to dump them completely, or at least be smarter about wearing them. Like not wearing them every day, and tossing them on schedule like a responsible adult human being.
So that's the first part. Second is that it is, in fact, time for new glasses, since my left eye in particular has changed a whole diopter. I'm still not 100% sure what that means, except that I can't really see distances with my left eye, even with lenses. I still think I see better than a lot of people who go through life, say driving, but whatever. Time for new glasses. Also, time for progressive lenses, since if they correct my eyes for distance, I lose near vision, and need 1.25-1.5 diopter magnification to see up close.
So astigmatism, high-index refraction, UV coating, anti-glare coating, and progressives add up to some expensive lenses. Then there's the frames.
I have a huge melon head. A pumpkin head, according to my optician, who, by the way, I adore.
I adore him because he can always find frames that a) fit my huge head and b) look good on my increasingly fat face. So I try some cheap frames, no go. I try some moderately priced frames, mabye. And then Howard hands me the expensive ones. The high end ones. Titanium. Silver and black. Rimless lenses with cool floating frames around them. Gonna take some serious fitting to get them to sit right on my fat head and my uneven ears. But HAWT.
So, $560 for frames. $830 for the lenses. Add another couple hundred for the clip on shades. *sigh*
I need to check how much is in my healthcare spending account. I think it's $500 or $520 or so.
But if I have to start wearing glasses again (except when I expect to be in a position to get other people's face (and sometimes other body part) prints on them), they'd better be a) good looking and b) actually correct my vision. So there we go.
Oh, and no more contacts for a while, if ever, and lots of eyedrops in the meantime. Check back with me in about 3 weeks when the glasses come. Maybe four, as I get used to the progressive thing.
Getting old sucks.
Okay, so I've been wearing contacts for about five years. Toric, because I have pretty significant astigmatism, 14-wear 30-day disposables that I change every six weeks or so (because, as it turns out, I'm stupid). Wore them about 1/3 of the time for the first year, then probably 2/3 of the time for a couple of years, and then just about evey day (not always weekends, if I'm just hanging around the house) for the last couple of years.
This turns out to lead to problems, especially when you don't change your contacts on schedule.
So for a few months, I've definitely notice that my vision is worse, even with the glasses, than perfect, and since the last time I got glasses was 2002, and it's been two years since they checked my prescription, it was time for a trip to the optometrist.
Also, just as an aside, for a couple weeks, I've had the feeling that there was something in my eye, not something owie/scratchy, but just 'something' under my left eyelid, when I took my contacts out at night.
So, turns out, I did. Little bumps. Giant Papillary Conjunctivitis. Basically little allergic bumps under my eyelids, from the build-up of proteins in the contacts, which I don't change often enough.
Readers of this blog will recall that I have any number of chronic health conditions, mostly well controlled, but that put me at risk for all kinds of things.
So while GPC is not 'dangerous' in any absolute sense, it can take a long time to heal, and diabetics take longer to heal than non-diabetics. For instance, being a diabetic means I'm not a candidate for laser eye surgery.
I also have a lot of mild but maddening and never ending environmental allergies. So once I start to break out in something, like little bumps, it doesn't go away quickly.
So I've been off the contacts completely for two weeks, and the eye doctor is 'encouraging' me to dump them completely, or at least be smarter about wearing them. Like not wearing them every day, and tossing them on schedule like a responsible adult human being.
So that's the first part. Second is that it is, in fact, time for new glasses, since my left eye in particular has changed a whole diopter. I'm still not 100% sure what that means, except that I can't really see distances with my left eye, even with lenses. I still think I see better than a lot of people who go through life, say driving, but whatever. Time for new glasses. Also, time for progressive lenses, since if they correct my eyes for distance, I lose near vision, and need 1.25-1.5 diopter magnification to see up close.
So astigmatism, high-index refraction, UV coating, anti-glare coating, and progressives add up to some expensive lenses. Then there's the frames.
I have a huge melon head. A pumpkin head, according to my optician, who, by the way, I adore.
I adore him because he can always find frames that a) fit my huge head and b) look good on my increasingly fat face. So I try some cheap frames, no go. I try some moderately priced frames, mabye. And then Howard hands me the expensive ones. The high end ones. Titanium. Silver and black. Rimless lenses with cool floating frames around them. Gonna take some serious fitting to get them to sit right on my fat head and my uneven ears. But HAWT.
So, $560 for frames. $830 for the lenses. Add another couple hundred for the clip on shades. *sigh*
I need to check how much is in my healthcare spending account. I think it's $500 or $520 or so.
But if I have to start wearing glasses again (except when I expect to be in a position to get other people's face (and sometimes other body part) prints on them), they'd better be a) good looking and b) actually correct my vision. So there we go.
Oh, and no more contacts for a while, if ever, and lots of eyedrops in the meantime. Check back with me in about 3 weeks when the glasses come. Maybe four, as I get used to the progressive thing.
Getting old sucks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)