The Old New Thing

>> For some reason, traffic is significantly worse on sunny days.

Funny, here is the opposite! (and the reason is understandable.. if you take a bus you'd probably have to walk a bit and under the rain....)

In Atlanta, the traffic is notorious for being worse in rain.  The two philosophies seem to be, "There isn't any problems with wet roads which can't be solved by driving faster and closer together," and, "instant idiots, just add water."

I live north of Seattle (north of Bothell), and the traffic is way worse running north/south when it rains.  Maybe it is just my luck :)

Same thing happens in RI, poochner.

clip-on sungalsses =  bad design

The Rayomnd suffers problem created by bad desing = looses clip-ons from normal carryingplace.  

The Raymond replaces bad design with identical bad design rather than solving the problem but upgrading the sun-protection design.  Or have you simply not informed this nit-picker of the preventative steps you've taken to overcome this design inadeaucy?

Admittedly reactalite glasses often react rather slowly,  too slowly for diring into a tunel,  but they may reduce your replacement costs....  ...and maybe they've been made more responsive since I last purchased a pair...

Wendy, for a nit-picker, you sure make a lot of mistakes. I counted at least 11.

Btw Raymond - "Traffic across the 520 bridge during the evening rush is always a disaster" - could have phrased that better, really - we must remain politically correct! :-)

::Wendy:: --

Photochromic lenses are great, but they've got a few quirks that prevent them from being used in every situation.

Most photochromics work nice and quick (<60 sec for full range), but they usually *don't* work inside a car (glass, such as the windshield, blocks most UV, and photochromics react to UV). There are special designs ("Drivewear") that do work in cars, but they lighten only to amber, not clear, so they're not very useful at night. One way or another, "The Raymond" (I like that!) would still have to change glasses, or use clip-ons, at some time.

Hey, it just occurred to me: the problem here was that the clip-ons fell out of your pocket while you were running. So the issue is that the clip-ons weren't properly fastened in place when you weren't wearing them over your glasses.

Easy solution: flip-up sunglasses! Stylish *and* practical. Well, practical. Well...

I had the expensive clip-ons for my glasses disappear as well. They were the "rare-earth magnets on the hinges" type. I had my visor up and turned my head to make a lane change and the airstream just sucked them right off.

I replaced them with clip-ons where there's a claw at each corner and the temple is spring-loaded so you pull them apart to release them.

So did you see Harry in IMAX 3D? That's WELL worth hunting down an IMAX theatre, and I'm probably going again since that's something you're not going to ever get at home on DVD.

I had the expensive clip-ons for my glasses disappear as well. They were the "rare-earth magnets on the hinges" type. I had my visor up and turned my head to make a lane change and the air stream just sucked them right off. Price: $116 bucks

I replaced them with clip-ons where there's a claw at each corner and the temple is spring-loaded so you pull them apart to release them. They're also a little darker. Price: $25 clams

So more expensive does not always equal better.

> clip-ons are easier to carry than a second pair of glasses

My problem is that I can't find a case for them. If they're not in a case, they're GOING to get crunched, and the enormous cases out there are big enough to hide an elephant in, and totally ridiculous. You expect me to fit THAT in a pocket??!!

Zoinks? How did my post get partially posted?

Glad you enjoyed the movie.

Haven't seen it myself because my friends were all like: "Harry Potter? No way".

> Haven't seen it myself because my friends were all like: "Harry Potter? No way".

Errr, well, so are mine... thus I am in search of new friends.

PingBack from http://www.nointrigue.com/blog/2007/08/05/clip-ons/

Gene: Agreed, it cost me 1/3 more to see it in 3D, which was well worth it just to ooh and aah - that's come a long way since the old red/green lenses of twenty years ago.

I thought that was pretty good value - of course my sunglasses remained in my pocket the entire time, I imagine my verdict might have been similar to Raymond's had they not.

But did you see it in 3D?!?!... they could have provided you some high quality sexy glasses!

The 3d trailers were far better than the 3d in the film! One upside, I've got a new photo with the posse in some full retro geddup!

Sometimes I wonder what value blogging provides, and every now and then, I happen across a delightfully insightful specimen that reminds me of the enormous power of open, free, mass communication of thoughts and ideas.

It's just unfortunate that I have to sort through this sort of rubbish to find it.