Jump to content

codhead

Regulars
  • Posts

    454
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by codhead

  1. Just because an iPod is capable of producing 115dB, youre not always

    going to get this kind of output. Depending on the level of the

    original recording and the type of music, you'd probably be lucky to

    hit 90 dB on some material.

    Anyone who has ever operated a changer knows this all too well. If you

    select random play, chances are you'll be adjusting the volume knob

    with great regularity.

    I also don't agree that just because a kid can buy one of these, that

    the parents should be absolved of their responsibility. A kid can also

    buy a slingshot, a pellet gun, or a machete. If you saw little Johnny

    walking around with a 2-foot knife, would you say "kids will be kids",

    or would you take it away before he plays "samurai veterinarian" with

    the cat?

    Hearing loss is gradual. If Johnny somehow manages to sneak that gold

    Double Eagle out of your coin collection, fences it, buys an iPod,

    loads the software, rips your Black Sabbath collection and rocks out,

    there'll still be time for an intervention.

    After a good whipping and the associated twinges of guilt, the parent

    can feel free to substitute a cheap set of open ear headphones, and go

    back to neglecting little Johnny.

    No lawsuit required.

  2. Oldtimer,

    Yeah, those little ones are a lot of fun. I once had a Spitfire, and 70

    MPH sure felt a lot faster that close to the ground. Only car I ever

    owned that I could turn over the engine by moving the fan. Real handy

    for valve adjustments.

    I almost bought a Spider in '79. Remember going for a test drive. It

    had an optional skid plate under the engine (to protect a beautiful

    finned cast aluminum oil pan). Think I bottomed it out 2 or 3 times - I

    know I made the salesman pretty nervous!

  3. "Now, if the vehicle cannot handle well at let's say mildly excessive

    speeds (which we all drive at from time to time, if not daily), that's

    different. That's why the rollover design cases were not only

    lucrative for attorneys, they caused the manufacturers to make SUV's

    that handled better. And aren't you glad they did? I hope

    you are."

    Nope. I've owned a couple of Jeep CJ-5's. They were much better off

    road vehicles than the current lawsuit-designed Wrangler. If you drive

    one like a Camaro, you're gonna get hurt. My daughter drives a

    Wrangler, and yes, they do handle better (not hers, with a lift kit and

    33" tires).

    If you go around a 35 MPH corner at 50 in a CJ-5, you'll most likely

    have a bad day. You'll probably get away with it in a Wrangler.

    I prefer to be able to purchase a product that was built to excel at

    it's intended purpose, and not a lawsuit-driven design compromise. If I

    want a Wrangler that will perform as well off road as a CJ, it's gonna

    cost me thousands to modify it for that purpose. Why? Because "Tort

    law" determines that someone should not be held responsible for their

    own actions.

    If I want a Discman that will drive my Sennheisers to a decent level, I have to buy an external amplifier. Why? "Tort law."

    If I want a lawnmower that does not shut off when I need to pick up a

    stick in front of it, I've got to modify it. Why? "Tort law."

    Basically, I'm paying a premium in money or inconvenience due to a legal system that piggybacks on the stupidity of others.

    Gimme the good old days. Lightweight lawn mowers, cars that'll start up

    in gear, headlights that I decide to turn on, electric fans with

    minimal guards around the blades, boat motors that don't need a safety

    lanyard, cars with beautiful little bumpers, 3-wheel all terrain

    cycles, darts with points on 'em, Jarts for the yard.

    Bring back personal responsibility, and reward stupidity with a "Darwin award" - not a settlement.

    Man, this is a lotta fun, but I really need to go to bed! [:)]

  4. Bottom line. Tort law NEVER holds anyone 100% responsible for their own actions.

    If psycho Johnny goes on a shooting rampage at school, the gun

    manufacturer should be at least PARTIALLY responsible (or the

    ammunition manufacturer, or the dealer, or the school for not having

    metal detectors). There's always SOMEONE else to blame.

    Generally this is a business/corporation/municipality with "deep

    pockets". The whole thing has to be presented as the little guy vs. the

    big guy, with the big guy being "punished" for their perceived

    complicity in the plaintiff's ignorance.

  5. "We don't expect the particular risk that McDonald's introduced

    by super-heating their coffee. Pure and simple. The danger was the

    spiller's fault, but not the extreme danger."

    We don't expect the particular risk that Ford introduced by designing a

    F150 that will travel at 115 MPH. Pure and simple. The danger was the

    16-year-old driver's fault, but not the extreme danger."

  6. Okay, I'll take the bait...

    "Okay, I just read the first article to educate myself better. It seems

    the lawsuit is not necessarily claiming the guy had hearing loss. He's

    just trying to claim, on behalf of all consumers, that the iPod is

    unreasonably dangerous because it can play 115dB. He wants the iPod to

    be re-designed or a software put into it to limit its output, like was

    done with the iPod in France.

    I

    see nothing at all wrong with this suit. It seems to be a straight up

    debate about risk of harm vs. utility - being whether the iPod is

    unreasonably dangerous since it plays at 115dB which is alleged to be

    unreasonably loud coming from headphones placed right up to the ear

    canal.

    Either the iPod is found to be unreasonably dangerous, or it is not."

    Let's say my F150 can be driven at 115 MPH. This might kill me, as my

    truck's suspension is not designed to negotiate a highway corner at

    this speed. I'm not dead - but I could be. So I'm going to sue Ford.

    And I'm going to claim, on behalf of all consumers, that the F150 is

    unreasonably dangerous because it can be driven at 115 MPH. I want the

    F150 to be re-designed or a governor put into it to limit its speed,

    because something like this was mandated in a socialist European

    country where individual responsibility has been ceded to the state.

    I see nothing at all wrong with this suit. It seems to be a straight up

    debate about risk of harm vs. utility - being whether the F150 is

    unreasonably dangerous since it can be operated at speeds of 115 MPH by

    inexperienced drivers who are not aware of the vehicle's limitations.

    Either the F150 is found to be unreasonably dangerous, or it is not.

    Kind of like the whole McDonalds coffee issue. Take the number of

    injuries vs. cups of coffee sold. What's the injury rate? Almost zilch.

    Yep, it was hot. Someone was careless, and got burned.

    Ever hear of a device called a tea kettle? When that bad boy starts

    whistling on the stove burner, what's the water temperature? A whole

    lot hotter than a cup of McDonalds coffee. Do people get scalded making

    tea? Yep. Do you think the injury rate is higher than people getting

    burned by McDonalds coffee? Keep in mind there are more steps involved

    in making tea. An exposed stove burner, pouring a hot liquid, handling

    an uncovered container, etc.

    Should we sue the tea kettle manufacturers for designing a dangerous

    product? I've got a nice All-Clad tea kettle. Top of the line. And

    guess what? There's not a single label on it saying "WARNING - HOT

    WATER". No instructions came with it telling me how to use it either.

    If handling a hot cup of McDonalds coffee is dangerous, making tea

    would expose the consumer to danger on an almost unimaginable scale.

    Back to the iPod. If the iPod was found to be unreasonably dangerous,

    would the person that initiated the suit be entitled to any monetary

    compensation, or would he receive a couple of free iTunes downloads and

    a software upgrade like everyone else?

  7. Talked with the embroidary guy at work today. He says the pie slice

    would be a piece of cake. Does not sell clothing, but he can scale the

    logo and put it on almost anything.

    His concern is doing a copyrighted logo without the express permission

    of Klipsch. He'll make me one, but he really does not want to mass

    produce them without some kind of official blessing.

    So... maybe the Klipsch folks would be willing to give the okay to do a

    limited run just for Forum members (no outside sales). Whatcha think

    Klipsch folks?

  8. Anyone remember the early Sony CD players? I've got a D-9 Discman

    that'll blow the doors off any of the new portables. As a matter of

    fact, it's as loud as my iPod and my little portable headphone amp

    combined. I've seen these referred to as "pre-lawsuit" models, so Sony

    may have been through what Apple is now experiencing.

    The new Sony models come with a circuit called "AVLS" (Automatic Volume

    Limiting System) which can be switched off. When enabled, it will keep

    the volume at a more reasonable level. Can't help but wonder if this

    was in response to a lawsuit as well - or maybe out of fear of one.

    My new Discman still won't play half as loudly as the old one - even with the AVLS switched off.

    On the bright side, the new Discman will play about a dozen CD's on 2 AA batteries, and the D-9 won't even play 2 CD's.

  9. I'll post again tomorrow, when I get some details to pass on. I've got the logos on my memory stick to take to work with me. I'm going to try to get a jacket done with a large pie slice on the back, and a small one on the front. Don't know if he has jackets, or if I'll have to go buy one.

    I do know that he can do this. Same guy showed me an E-mail with a funny military patch on it. I said "Man, I wish I had one of those." The next morning, he threw one on my desk. Made it for me just for fun.

  10. "Eaters of carrion, ravens were messengers of death, pestilence, and
    battle. It was believed that these flesh-hungry birds could smell the
    scent of death upon a person before they died - even through the walls
    of a house. In paintings, the raven may be seen flying over
    battlefields, eager to feast on the dead. After the Battle of
    Armageddon, ravens will descend upon the lands of the wicked. [isa
    34:11].




    Morrigane, the celtic goddess, is accompanied by three ravens: Babd, Acha and Neman, the three goddess of war.




    These
    birds were thought to have a special taste for the bodies of hanged
    criminals and to enjoy plucking out the eyes of sinners. Christians
    thought they carried off the souls of the damned and associated this
    bird with Satan."




    Seen some little red dude with a pitchfork running around?


  11. I'll take him the artwork on Monday, and see what he says. I've seen

    some of his work, and it's nicer than a couple of Hard Rock jackets I

    have.

    I think the cost would be pretty reasonable. No middle man involved. I

    know he can do embroidary on just about anything, but not sure if he

    orders jackets or you have to supply them. I'll get the details, have

    one made up, and you guys can let me know what you think.

×
×
  • Create New...