Best Money I've spent it a long time. It's weird, I only get a little halo off of yellow street signs.
-----Original Message----- From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 12:47 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: The "Duh" Question of the Day 8/4/09 That's awesome.. most folks I've talked to have at least a little halation > -----Original Message----- > From: Ames Matthew B [mailto:mba...@qinetiq.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 1:31 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: The "Duh" Question of the Day 8/4/09 > > I had the same op in the UK about 3 years ago.... Was expensive but > certainly the best "investment" of my money. I had to stop wearing > contacts due to scaring on the inside of my eye lids, so was back to > glasses which was a pain. Fortunately I don't suffer from the halo > affect at all, although it was suggested I might. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] > Sent: 05 August 2009 17:37 > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: The "Duh" Question of the Day 8/4/09 > > Yeah, it's great. > > I still have some slight halo effect for high contrast scenes (i.e. > lights at nite time), but the tradeoff is well worth it. > > Not having to futz with glasses... not having the "tired eyes" after > the contacts had been in my head for 12+ hours, etc... > > -sc > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 12:33 PM > > To: NT System Admin Issues > > Subject: Re: The "Duh" Question of the Day 8/4/09 > > > > I got lasik done when I was 41. That was, uh, some number of years > ago. > > > > I was seeing at distance - blurred a bit by the drops and the > > protective plastic lenses - on my way home. No, I didn't drive, but > > being able to see the road signs on the way home added to the > > blurriness, if you catch my meaning. It's something I hadn't been > able > > to do since the 5th grade. > > > > Yes, that was a long time ago, and as a relatively early adopter, it > > cost a lot of money. I've never regretted it, despite the fact that > > I needed reading glasses immediately thereafter. > > > > Kurt > > > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 07:33, Steven M. > > Caesare<scaes...@caesare.com> > > wrote: > > > Old enuff to know better, yet still manage to be an idiot most of > > > the > > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > ve needed corrective lenses since 7th grade. Glasses for several > > years, > > > then contacts. I had Lasik a year ago[1]. I need about +2.5 > diopters > > of > > > correction in each eye. > > > > > > > > > > > > -sc > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] Lasik rocks. > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 10:17 AM > > > To: NT System Admin Issues > > > Subject: Re: The "Duh" Question of the Day 8/4/09 > > > > > > > > > > > > Out of curiosity, how old are you? > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Steven M. Caesare > > <scaes...@caesare.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > I prefer to shrink the scale on most docs and have _TWO_ side by > > > side > > pages. > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, actually, thas a lie.m almost always bouncing between > > multiple > > > windows, so when m editing I actually have a full height doc (@ > > 80%)on the > > > right and then room on the left to get at other things (CMD > windows, > > emails, > > > e) > > > > > > > > > > > > With a decent resolution monitor, and ClearType enabled, there are > > very few > > > cases where I find I need to use the Office Apps or a browser at > > > 100% > > scale. > > > I find 75-80% works well, and I can usually get a full page in > there. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ditto for CMD window. I permanently crank the font down to a ~9 > > point(as > > > well as go green-on-black) and can get a couple of 50-line tall > > windows > > > rolling without sucking up all the screen real estate. > > > > > > > > > > > > Lasik not included. > > > > > > > > > > > > -sc > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 9:23 AM > > > > > > To: NT System Admin Issues > > > Subject: Re: The "Duh" Question of the Day 8/4/09 > > > > > > > > > > > > Two words: protrait mode. > > > > > > > > > > > > I changed my 22" to portrait and have never looked back. PDF > > > files, > > page at > > > a time and readabl Websites, no scrolling to get to the bottom > > > (or significantly less). Since most websites are aligned for 1024 > > horizontal > > > resolution, you won't have to scroll left or right. And, I find I > > prefer a > > > long screen than a wide screen when remoting into servers. > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Sherry Abercrombie > > <saber...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > So yesterday afternoon just before I leave for the day, the > > HelpDesk/Desktop > > > lead comes to my cube and asks this question: "Would you be > > > willing > > to give > > > up one of your 19" monitors for a new 23" monitor Well DUH..... > > > > > > So now I get to setup my new 23" Samsung monitor..... > > > > > > -- > > > Sherry Abercrombie > > > > > > "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from > > magic." > > > Arthur C. Clarke > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ > > <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ > <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ The > information contained in this E-Mail and any subsequent correspondence > is private and is intended solely for the intended recipient(s). The > information in this communication may be confidential and/or legally > privileged. Nothing in this e-mail is intended to conclude a contract > on behalf of QinetiQ or make QinetiQ subject to any other legally > binding commitments, unless the e-mail contains an express statement > to the contrary or incorporates a formal Purchase Order. > > For those other than the recipient any disclosure, copying, > distribution, or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance > on such information is prohibited and may be unlawful. > > Emails and other electronic communication with QinetiQ may be > monitored and recorded for business purposes including security, audit > and archival purposes. Any response to this email indicates consent > to this. > > Telephone calls to QinetiQ may be monitored or recorded for quality > control, security and other business purposes. > > QinetiQ Limited > Registered in England & Wales: Company Number:3796233 Registered > office: 85 Buckingham Gate, London SW1E 6PD, United Kingdom Trading > address: Cody Technology Park, Cody Building, Ively Road, Farnborough, > Hampshire, GU14 0LX, United Kingdom > http://www.qinetiq.com/home/notices/legal.html > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ > <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
