"The audiologist suggests that the reason so many people listen to their ipod's with the volume turned up beyond what is safe is because they believe that the mp3 player manufacturers would not let their devices have volume settings beyond what is safe to listen to. Others may think that any setting other than maximum volume is safe to listen to for any amount of time. In the United States and other countries lawsuits have been filed against Apple because of hearing loss associated with use of iPods."
It must be that time of the year again. The time when all the quack doctors trying to make a name for themselves jump out of the woodwork and proclaim that young people are losing their hearing faster and faster because of MP3 players. If you remember, there was also a study a few years ago that blamed hearing loss on the range of sound reproducible in an MP3 file. Then, of course, there were the studies that said it was all about the headphones you used.
These dopey doctors even want you to believe that people aren't acting in a healthy fashion with their devices because they believe device makers wouldn't do anything to hurt them. Yep, since Apple and Creative love their customers so much, the devices must be safe to listen to for extended periods of time on full volume.
Frankly, if you believe that, there's a word for you: moron.
__________________
Current Apple Stuff: 24" iMac, iPhone 4, AppleTV (original), 4gb Shuffle, 64gb iPad 2.
I don't doubt that too many people listen to things with headphones way too loud. That said,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Ferrari
These dopey doctors even want you to believe that people aren't acting in a healthy fashion with their devices because they believe device makers wouldn't do anything to hurt them. Yep, since Apple and Creative love their customers so much, the devices must be safe to listen to for extended periods of time on full volume.
Yep; I don't think that's why people crank the volume.
People have free will, and if they make the choice to crank up the volume day in and day out, they're choosing to lose their hearing. Blaming that on Apple, Creative, or any other device maker is lunacy.
__________________ Want to contact me personally? Use this. Want to read my personal blog? Check it out. Want to follow me on Twitter? Here you go.
People have free will, and if they make the choice to crank up the volume day in and day out, they're choosing to lose their hearing. Blaming that on Apple, Creative, or any other device maker is lunacy.
Wow, Jason. That sounds dangerously close to asking for personal responsibility, which as we all know is just a right wing fascist way of absolving evil corporations (in this case, big headphone) from their responsibilities to protect the proletariat.
I'm shocked by such statements.
__________________
Current Apple Stuff: 24" iMac, iPhone 4, AppleTV (original), 4gb Shuffle, 64gb iPad 2.
Wow, Jason. That sounds dangerously close to asking for personal responsibility, which as we all know is just a right wing fascist way of absolving evil corporations (in this case, big headphone) from their responsibilities to protect the proletariat.
In a society where people sue for hot coffee being ... hot (and win!) does this really surprise anyone? You know fire burns, maybe we should sue the match companies. Lets sue the auto companies too (their struggling, they'll settle) because if you jump out of moving car you could get hurt. I looked in the manual and there is nothing about it.
In a society where people sue for hot coffee being ... hot (and win!) does this really surprise anyone? You know fire burns, maybe we should sue the match companies. Lets sue the auto companies too (their struggling, they'll settle) because if you jump out of moving car you could get hurt. I looked in the manual and there is nothing about it.
If you are referring to Liebeck v. McDonald's, She won the case, because she got third-degree burns. For those unfamiliar with the burn rating system, that roughly means her skin was melted off. Now do you think she deserved the $640,000 she was awarded? Her medical bills were probably at least a third of that, considering that skin grafts were involved. Also, the only reason her case was unique was because it went to court. McDonald's usually settles such cases out of court, since the rate of these lawsuits being brought up is not high enough to eat into their coffee profits.
Sorry, but this is a bit of a pet peeve. There are much better examples of frivolous litigation.
With that out of the way... I think this is all about the fine balance between consumer safety and corporate safety (as in, from lawsuits for things that many would deem should be "common sense"). That balance has always existed, and will always exist. And like everything else that's political, it will cycle leaning to one side or the other. So, in other words, calm down.
A few more punches:
First, the common populous uses iPod and PMP player interchangably, stemming from the fact that the iPod is by far the most popular PMP. You are now learning that this is a two-way street.
Secondly, I don't think there's any problem with these studies. How else are we going to learn what is harmful? How else are we going to learn what common behaviour is, in order to educate both consumers and manufacturers to better protect themselves.
Thirdly, if you are going to attack this study, why not attack it on actual mathmatical and/or scientific merit. Like the fact that the study was a whole 30 teenagers, possibly from a single location. A small group, with a very specific age range and possibly local, does not good statistical analysis make. That sounds a lot better than ranting about quack doctors and morons.
If you are referring to Liebeck v. McDonald's, She won the case, because she got third-degree burns. For those unfamiliar with the burn rating system, that roughly means her skin was melted off.
I'm not sure if this is in the Wikipedia entry, but I read elsewhere that the real problem with what McDonalds was doing was that they kept the coffee much hotter than they should have. Guess why? Because the hotter the coffee is kept, the longer it stays fresh, which means they have to make new pots less often. So it really came down to corporate greed - saving money on coffee - rather than the coffee being heated at a reasonable temperature for drinking like any sane person would do.
__________________ Want to contact me personally? Use this. Want to read my personal blog? Check it out. Want to follow me on Twitter? Here you go.
Lets sue the auto companies too (their struggling, they'll settle) because if you jump out of moving car you could get hurt. I looked in the manual and there is nothing about it.
Hahaha. Nice one! Let me know how that experiment works out for you.
__________________ Want to contact me personally? Use this. Want to read my personal blog? Check it out. Want to follow me on Twitter? Here you go.
Stupid Study Blames Deafness on iPods
Linear Mode
