or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › New standards to limit Apple iPod volume in Europe
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New standards to limit Apple iPod volume in Europe - Page 3

post #81 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

So they are ALL stupid and cant think for themselves?....



You may need protecting from yourself, but i certainly dont. How dare an authority tell me what I can or cant do to myself. It's my body not yours, not the governments, not the EU's. Mine.

If I want to skewer myself in the eye, thats up to me, but don't ban skewers, as it would ruin everyones barbecues.
Punishing the masses for the actions of a few is wrong.

Should we ban rock climbers? Do they need protecting from themselves?
Should we ban cars? For do they not kill hundreds of people every week?
Should we ban all kitchen knives because someone got stabbed?

Where does it end.

I dunno about you but the thought of walking to work and eating steak with a spoon sounds crap. I'l take the risk thanks, if I'm allowed that is?.

As I keep mentioning, this all comes down to money.

It's interesting that the same people who complain about nanny, will gladly accept that "free" hearing aid. It's not free, of course. A good heading aid costs at least $500 US, and can easily go to $1,000 US. This is per ear.

Who pays for that? All the people paying taxes, including the non stupid ones. Why should they pay for the stupid ones then?

Same thing for insurance.

Buy your own hearing aids.
post #82 of 104
Next the government will come up with a tax or fine on said "risky" behavior (ex. smoking). When less people are doing the risky behavior that is being taxed/fined, the government programs that were funded with that tax/fine money will not be scaled back or eliminated - the government will find another "risky behavior" to regulate and a new tax/fine to foist on us to make up for the lost revenue.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #83 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

You got your facts wrong. The cup was Styrofoam, she was the passenger, and the vehicle was parked. I find it strange that coffee spilled on somebody would give them third degree burns sending them to the hospital for three days. I expect to be burnt if I spill hot coffee on myself, but not sent to the hospital.

Further, MacDonald's manual at the time said 195 to 205 was the proper brewing temperature [perhaps true] and that is should be held at 180 to 190 degrees to serve. Skin burns at 140.

Most places around me serve hot beverages at 155 to 160 degrees.

It doesn't matter if it was cardboard or styrofoam, it's pretty much the same thing.

I don't remember her being the passenger, but the driver, perhaps that was wrong.

It hardly matters though. I'm a big coffee drinker. I buy my own blends, and grind them. Sometimes I even buy green beans and roast them myself. I also have several books on coffee.

One thing all agree on is that coffee is best served at 190 degrees, before using milk or cream.

McDonalds did NOTHING wrong. I've been on a lot of juries over the years. On the few civil trials I've been on, I've seen a propensity for jurors to want to side with the "little" person against the rich corporations.

Sometimes the companies are clearly at fault, but sometimes, stupidity gets in the picture. That was clearly a case of stupidity.

There are always some assumptions that people must make. One of those is clearly that coffee is going to be HOT.

If it weren't, then many people would be complaining that it's too cold.

Don't forget that this was a jury trial. The government didn't declare McDonalds guilty. It didn't decide the amount of fine. That was done by a jury. People like you an and me decided this.
post #84 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Next the government will come up with a tax or fine on said "risky" behavior (ex. smoking). When less people are doing the risky behavior that is being taxed/fined, the government programs that were funded with that tax/fine money will not be scaled back or eliminated - the government will find another "risky behavior" to regulate and a new tax/fine to foist on us to make up for the lost revenue.

That's a primitive way of looking at things.

It's estimated, by the medical community that about 40% of all illness and disabilities in this country are caused in one way or another, by smoking. It's also been estimated that as much as 75% of all medical costs here are related in some way to smoking.

So if we were able to stop smoking, eventually, those costs would disappear, and instead of medical care costs rising, they would begin to drop.

But there are a lot of stupid people who won't stop smoking, and even more stupid ones who keep starting.

There are also a lot of people who grow tobacco, and a bunch of large companies who make and sell the products. There are Ad agencies who get paid to do the Ads, etc.

So this is tough to stop.

In comparison, this hearing loss problem is simple, as it isn't putting anyone out of work.

The estimate is that everyone who is ever riding in a car will be in an accident.

If, someday, and I surely hope it never happens you understand, your loved one ends up dead sitting next to you because you said that silly rules about wearing seatbelts shouldn't apply to the both of you, and you were told that if she had her belt on she would have been ok, then you would feel differently about these rules.

I've seen it happen.
post #85 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

As I keep mentioning, this all comes down to money.

It's interesting that the same people who complain about nanny, will gladly accept that "free" hearing aid. It's not free, of course. A good heading aid costs at least $500 US, and can easily go to $1,000 US. This is per ear.

Who pays for that? All the people paying taxes, including the non stupid ones. Why should they pay for the stupid ones then?

Same thing for insurance.

Buy your own hearing aids.

I see your point and could't agree more, but here in Australia we provide for the most vulnerable of the community by providing free hearing aids, at a certain age (<18 then when a pensioner?) through the office of hearing services. Our hospitals in the national cities have hearing aid banks where those who cannot afford new hearing aids($1400 -$11500 AUS a pair) can get free hearing aids - these are used. I have worked in the hearing aid bank - these people are very very appreciative.

The Eu is just following the edict, prevention is better than cure!
post #86 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

That's a primitive way of looking at things.

It's estimated, by the medical community that about 40% of all illness and disabilities in this country are caused in one way or another, by smoking. It's also been estimated that as much as 75% of all medical costs here are related in some way to smoking.

So if we were able to stop smoking, eventually, those costs would disappear, and instead of medical care costs rising, they would begin to drop.

But there are a lot of stupid people who won't stop smoking, and even more stupid ones who keep starting.

There are also a lot of people who grow tobacco, and a bunch of large companies who make and sell the products. There are Ad agencies who get paid to do the Ads, etc.

So this is tough to stop.

In comparison, this hearing loss problem is simple, as it isn't putting anyone out of work.

The estimate is that everyone who is ever riding in a car will be in an accident.

If, someday, and I surely hope it never happens you understand, your loved one ends up dead sitting next to you because you said that silly rules about wearing seatbelts shouldn't apply to the both of you, and you were told that if she had her belt on she would have been ok, then you would feel differently about these rules.

I've seen it happen.

I totally understand and respect the need for rules - for laws. I believe that in whatever country I may dwell, it is my obligation to obey, honor, and sustain the laws of the land - whether or not I agree with them.

But I also believe this concept of the government "protecting us from ourselves" is a dangerous one, and contrary to the principles and ideals upon which my own country was founded. It can be used as an excuse to strip away personal liberties and exercise control over people.

I have no doubt that governments such as those in North Korea, Cuba, and other totalitarian states believe (or at least tell their people) that their strict laws (and the severe punishments that result from breaking them) are in place for their own protection.

I'm just concerned that if we are not careful, we will find that the government regulating the volume on our iPod is the least of our worries.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #87 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmjb View Post

I see your point and could't agree more, but here in Australia we provide for the most vulnerable of the community by providing free hearing aids, at a certain age (<18 then when a pensioner?) through the office of hearing services. Our hospitals in the national cities have hearing aid banks where those who cannot afford new hearing aids($1400 -$11500 AUS a pair) can get free hearing aids - these are used. I have worked in the hearing aid bank - these people are very very appreciative.

The Eu is just following the edict, prevention is better than cure!

I have no problem with supplying medical aids to people who need them. But if it can be shown that they abused themselves despite that they were told not to, well, it bothers me that I should have to pay for their disregard for themselves in favor of their having fun, or some other activity that they could have easily avoided, or stopped, even if it was difficult.

I don't want to prevent people from having medical care, so my postulation is more hypothetical than real, if you understand what I mean.

But, it still bothers me.
post #88 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I totally understand and respect the need for rules - for laws. I believe that in whatever country I may dwell, it is my obligation to obey, honor, and sustain the laws of the land - whether or not I agree with them.

But I also believe this concept of the government "protecting us from ourselves" is a dangerous one, and contrary to the principles and ideals upon which my own country was founded. It can be used as an excuse to strip away personal liberties and exercise control over people.

I have no doubt that governments such as those in North Korea, Cuba, and other totalitarian states believe (or at least tell their people) that their strict laws (and the severe punishments that result from breaking them) are in place for their own protection.

I'm just concerned that if we are not careful, we will find that the government regulating the volume on our iPod is the least of our worries.

I've already mentioned the slippery slope problem. Where does it stop?

Well, we have to have common sense about it.

I'm willing to bet that most people who have lost a large part of their hearing would admit that they would have kept sound levels down to the recommended levels if they understood that what happened to them would have happened to them.

But most people don't really think that it will happen.

I know some people who still smoke who are always pointing out the one person in a million who lives to 90 and who smokes and drinks plenty. Its like they're willing to bet a lottery ticket on their lives.
post #89 of 104
Smoking is nothing when you compare more people die from eating and drinking high frustose corn syrup which is in everything.
I don't know of anybody contacting diabetes or obesity from smoking. Soda (liquid candy )is more lethal - our children begin their sugar addiction and obesity at an early age due to it.
post #90 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Would someone really be able to sue Apple for hearing damage due to setting the volume too loud of their own free will and choice?

I suppose if a woman can sue McDonald's for spilling hot coffee on herself and win, anything's possible.

Yes is it, and has already been done :-

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...TL&tag=iLounge
post #91 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by sippincider View Post

Kinda ironic that the continent of the world's fastest cars would feel a need to protect people from themselves.

What next? A Ferrari that's government-limited to 5mph?

They are already speed limited.
post #92 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

The woman in the MacDonald's case was over eighty years old. The coffee was served at a temperature over the legal limit. MacDOnald's received hundred of warnings it was too hot. The elderly lady was a passenger in a parked car, where the lid popped off. She received third degree burns, and spend several days in the hospital.

If I spilled hot coffee on me, I 'd expect to be burnt, but not receive third degree burns and end up in the hospital for days.

The issue is reasonableness. Is it reasonable for Apple to allow you to turn the iPod up to any volume without warning you when you are possibly exceeding safe levels when it has technology that easily allows it to do so?

Get your facts right, yes the coffee was hot but the woman had the cup between her knees as she removed the lid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck...;s_Restaurants
post #93 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

This is all bull. I expect in a few moths to be told the exact way to wipe my ass by these busybodies. Its like a massive nanny state.

Oh, I'm playing music, hmm, its hurting my ears, maybe I should turn the volume down, why was it so loud, I'm a really stupid I don't know whats going on, oh no, I've gone deaf, if only there was a massive bunch of control freaks out there to limit the volume for me......

Damn control freaks.

I can see what your are trying to say, but as usual it is a selfish view.
Yes you know that the music is too loud and that it might damage your hearing.
BUT what about kids and people who are not as smart as you?
These laws are designed to protect people in general.
post #94 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by star-fish View Post

Most people don't even realise it though. My sister is younger than me and most people would describe her hearing as average (she listens to her iPod in the car loud enough for me to be able to hear songs in the front and distinguish words whilst the radio is on). However, I can hear a wider range of frequencies than her and my hearing is generally better. It doesn't affect her life - for now - but I'm willing to bet that most people listening to loud music on a regular basis assume their hearing is perfect. It will be interesting when the 11 year olds of the ipod age reach 65.




No, Zunes are sold in at least 1 European state (the UK).

Zunes are not sold in the UK.
post #95 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

The ruling applies to the default setting. Nothing more nothing less. Apple currently gives you the option of changing those settings to the ones the EU wants the device shipped with on default.

Apple do not give you the ability to remove the EU volume limit that is currently on iPods sold in the EU. This limit is fixed. The user adjustable volume limit on the iPods in the EU only allows you to make the volume lower than the EU limit, you cannot make the volume louder than the EU limit.
post #96 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Smoking is nothing when you compare more people die from eating and drinking high frustose corn syrup which is in everything.
I don't know of anybody contacting diabetes or obesity from smoking. Soda (liquid candy )is more lethal - our children begin their sugar addiction and obesity at an early age due to it.

Smoking is the main problem. Eating sugar in excess is never good. but it's been shown in many studies that smoking it a mediator of many illnesses. In other words, smoking makes one much more susceptible to the effects of other drugs or unhealthy substances in our diet or other pollution.

In the '60's, when birth control pills first came out, it was found that women taking them had much higher chances of getting heart problems or cancer, and so they withdrew the pills. It was then found that it was the women who smoked who were at much higher risk, and that otherwise, there was little problem. As a result of those studies, coincidentally, if was also found that lower levels of the hormones worked just as well as the levels they were using originally, so there was a side benefit to the research done on the illnesses.

The same thing happened a few years ago when a study was done on women who worked, and women who stayed at home. They found that the women who stayed at home surprisingly had higher levels of heart disease and emphysema. The opposite had been expected.

It turned out that women at home were cooking at a gas stove without venting the gas outside. The carbon monoxide resulting from that (this is the same thing we put up the chimney from the boiler and hot water heater!) was causing the problem. Carbon monoxide is one of the main byproducts from smoking.

Another study done a few years ago showed that women's historically low heart disease and cancer rates were catching up to men, and mens levels had gone down during the same time. The reason for that was found that women began to smoke in much larger numbers during WWII, and again later during the '60's, while mens smoking had begun tailing off during the late '60's.

If you know anything about these problems, you would know how devious smoking can be.
post #97 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by parky View Post

Get your facts right, yes the coffee was hot but the woman had the cup between her knees as she removed the lid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck...;s_Restaurants

Well, at least I got the part about putting it between her legs correct, a very stupid thing to do.

I'm happy to see that in the UK, they have a better understanding of this kind of thing than we do here.
post #98 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Yeah, the london to Brussels train works, but that's a pretty short route. Try doing that for 3,400 miles while under 5 or more miles of water.

Just a quick google and I found this:
http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showthread.php?t=62256
But I don't believe it. :o
post #99 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Smoking is nothing when you compare more people die from eating and drinking high frustose corn syrup which is in everything.
I don't know of anybody contacting diabetes or obesity from smoking. Soda (liquid candy )is more lethal - our children begin their sugar addiction and obesity at an early age due to it.

Not really.
post #100 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by scamander24 View Post

Just a quick google and I found this:
http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showthread.php?t=62256
But I don't believe it. :o

That's very funny. Considering that the vastly cheaper and easier to build and maintain Chunnel has been losing money from the first day, and was saved from going under more than once, the likelihood that someone will be spending trillions of dollars to build this technically impossible (any time in the foreseeable future) route is a laugh.

Even if somehow it could be built, it would take, what, a century to do it? And it would never be able to carry enough passengers or freight to even pay for maintenance, much less pay back the cost of building it.

The cost of the overruns and delays alone would dwarf the cost of the biggest construction projects ever built.

No - it would dwarf the cost of ALL the biggest construction projects ever built.
post #101 of 104
This is bullshit, it's hard enough trying to drive a decent pair of headphones with an ipod already never mind with it limited even more. I really hope the limit can be bypassed or else I might need to start looking for a new mp3 player
post #102 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by 20khz View Post

This is bullshit, it's hard enough trying to drive a decent pair of headphones with an ipod already never mind with it limited even more. I really hope the limit can be bypassed or else I might need to start looking for a new mp3 player

Do you understand that this is for EVERY manufacturers players, not just Apple's?
post #103 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post

Exactly... if they want to protect people's hearing, they should ban French music instead.

With a name like Zoolook, you should be ashamed of yourself!
post #104 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackthemac View Post

Oh I wish the EU would just piss off and leave me alone
They're regulating my iPod, my ears and my phone
If you're in Stuttgart, in Milan or Cologne
The EU have your number and know when you're at home
So don't tweak your volume to find a pure tone
Just bugger off out of the Euro Zone

Sounds even better if you imagine that being spoken by Pam Ayres.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › New standards to limit Apple iPod volume in Europe