3dzapper Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Ho,ho,ho! Don Ho that is. "Tiny bubbles, in the EAR" Jeff, You, I and most likely everybody else have gotten those class action settlement notices. The ones that are worth like $2 off on a new printer or something even though we had no problem with the product. Reading the literature that comes with the coupon you see where the lawyers were awarded millions in the settlement over nothing. IMO those are the types of suits that need reform not the unfortunate that is severly injured by a truly neglegent company or person. Speaking of class actions, I am looking to join a small one.... Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 I see many comments relating to the user's standard of care. This is an important point. Do we hold all users of products to the same standard of care? Should a 6 year old be expected to fully-appreciate the risks of harm like we'd expect of an adult?.....blah blah blah [] It is the responsibility of that child's parents to regulate such things....especially if they can be classified as dangerous. If a 10 year old kid can mow the lawn and not get his arms chopped off cleaning out clogs, then he should have no problem learning how to use a volume knob....if not, don't give it to the kid. The government is not supposed to be our mommy - too many people are trying to make it that way. blah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
customsteve01 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 I have a couple for you Jeff, A guy drives his work truck (he doesn't own it) into a hurricane and a tree has blown over the road. He runs into said tree destroying the truck and almost killing him self. Now others half to risk injury to rescue him. Should he get money or be liable for his stupidity??? A house burns down, investigation shows faulty wiring in kitchen to be the cause. Owner bought land with a condemned house on it, moved into house, added kitchen to house with no permits or inspections, also never paid taxes for house just land. Should this person get a new house or have to pay for his own stupidity?? We all have to pay extra for all the stupid things people do, ie: extra labels, safety devises. We pay more and lawyers get more. Hey Jeff do you know a district attorney that looks like Clark Clint??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skonopa Posted February 16, 2006 Author Share Posted February 16, 2006 Jeff, You, I and most likely everybody else have gotten those class action settlement notices. The ones that are worth like $2 off on a new printer or something even though we had no problem with the product. Reading the literature that comes with the coupon you see where the lawyers were awarded millions in the settlement over nothing. IMO those are the types of suits that need reform not the unfortunate that is severly injured by a truly neglegent company or person. Wow! Now, this has certainly turned into a bit of a monster! (Oh wait, I should've not said that! I guess I'll be getting one of those letters from Monster Cable's lawyers...) The above quote reminds of one of those notices I've gotten. It was from some class-action settlement with Discover Card. I don't remember the details, bit I think it had something to do with Discover Card charging late fees at the drop of a hat and so forth. Included with the notice was a check for something like 38 cents ($0.38). Like, whoopdy-friggan-doo! I remember reading how many millions the lawyers have gotten out this, and here, I got a whole friggan 38 cents. On the back of the check, it said something to the effect that if I did not cash it within 30 days or so, the left over money would be sent off to charity. I did not bother to cash the check, as it was not worth the trip to the bank for a whole 38 cents. I would've used up more than that just for the gas to get there. Now, as to the "usuability" of an iPod capable of doing 115db. First, I would love to know what measuring criteria that that plaintiff used to come to that result. What track was he playing? What did he use as the measuring equipment? A standard $30 Rat-Shack SPL meter and simply held one of the ear-buds up to it? Perhaps something a bit higher-end, more sophsitcated? Also, as was already indicated, there is much variance between the "gain" between tracks, as I am finding out with my own iPod (I have one of those new 5G ones, 30 gigs). There are some that I have to practially put it up to "full-blast" to get decent volume out, where as, there are some that I feel like my ears are being blasted out of my head at half-volume on the dial. Not only that, there are plenty of third-party attachments and headphones which have diffences in sensitivity. It is nice to have the juice behind it to drive something like a pair of Sennheiser HD650s to adequate volume without the need for an external amp. Also, there are plenty of external speakers (Klipsch even has two types) that can be attached to the iPod, and it would be nice to be able to get it loud enough to hear it across the room. So, there is usefulness to the loudness that the iPod is capable of attaining. And please, don't try to use the argument that "only a small percentage uses these accessories", because I am not buying it. You'd be surprised at how many people actually do use these (including myself). If nobody was using these attachments/accessories, than why is there such a huge number of them on the market? Despite all that about "manufacture responsibility", I still have say that this particular instance is just plain silly, and most likely, will be a huge waste of time and money for both parties (and guess who eventually ends up footing the bill at the end?). But a good point has been made, just where does the line get drawn between reasonable safety measures built into products vs simple common sense on the part of the users? i.e., I know my car can do over 120mph, but do I sue the manufactuerer because there is the potentional that I can get in a serious accident for pushing it that fast? After all, just what use do I have for that kind of speed around here, considering that the fastest speed limits are 65mph on the interstate (not that anybody actually follows them - I wonder if "I-95" is actually the speed limit, and not the route number, as in "I go 95")? Also to add: I don't completely buy that if there were no lawyers constantly breathing down manufacturer's necks to build safety into thier products, they would have no incentive. If a given product was inherently unsafe /unreliable, it has been found that people will simply not buy it and opt for the safer, more reliable alternative. If a given tire was known to blow out, people will quit buying that tire and find another one that is better/more reliable. I do agree that people should have the right to sue in cases where defective products can cause serious injury, such a car catching on fire and crashing for no apparent reason, ie. while simply driving down a road at reasonable speeds. Again, I guess this is also one of those thing as to just where that line is drawn between manufactuerers responsibility and the end-user's responsibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corvette6769 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 My hot water heater's top thermostat setting produces temperatures in excess of 150 degrees (I measured it when I moved in here.) Why would you need to heat hot water? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Garrison Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 "hot water" is, like, 120 degrees (don't know how to do little circle superscripted in post.) *This* water is at 150 degrees. To get there, we need to heat the hot water. [] Later today I'm gonna go shopping at the Milford mall - have to take the up escalator to the used 2nd hand store where they sell the tiny little action figures that my young six year old Nick likes to play with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Quite the continuum here. If Apple were making iPods that could play at 130dB I'd have no uncertainty about whether they were doing something wrong. If we arbitrarily draw a line at (fill in dB level) there will be some recordings, ironically usually those that are better recorded, mastered and produced, that will not play loudly enough because their increased dynamic range (even on an iPod) means that the average volume level is much lower than normal, and restricting the output level so the average recording won't exceed 100dB means those recordings might be averaging 85dB. What to do... Ford sold Pintos that exploded upon rear impact for years, knowing full well about the problem. Firestone sold tires that had the annoying habit of throwing their tread. Merck sold Vioxx for years after they knew it occationally killed people. 400 billion domestically manufactured cigarettes are sold every year (per www.ftc.gov ). The new top end Corvette has over 500 horsepower. I can turn on the gas burners on my stove even if the pilot light is not lit. My hot water heater's top thermostat setting produces temperatures in excess of 150 degrees (I measured it when I moved in here.) Many states won't let you ride your own motorcycle, by yourself, unless you're wearing a helmet. There's no minimum age for a pilots license. You can get married at 14 but can't go to an X rated movie until you're 21. Who draws the lines? Ray, you seem to get it. There's no easy answer like people want to think, and that's my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 For all you guys who keep throwing the phrase RESPONSIBLE PARENT around, I have a question for you.... Suppose you were going to, just for fun, build one of these earphone sets for your 6-year-old daughter. Would you build it to go as loud as the iPod or not? Just wondering.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Suppose you were going to, just for fun, build one of these earphone sets for your 6-year-old daughter. Would you build it to go as loud as the iPod or not? Just wondering.... Without a doubt I would have no problem building it to go even louder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEAR Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 For all you guys who keep throwing the phrase RESPONSIBLE PARENT around, I have a question for you.... Suppose you were going to, just for fun, build one of these earphone sets for your 6-year-old daughter. Would you build it to go as loud as the iPod or not? Just wondering.... A resounding YES! And for your kids I would use Klipsch style horn loading,and hire a comany like Krell to design the MRiP...Master Reference iPod with a 16KW output. Just so you could lose hearing in a nanosecond and sue me. [] Seriously I would supply earbuds that peak around 95dB,but then some hard rock fanatics would sue me for limiting thier right to gradually lose hearing. After all losing hearing is a choice and a right. In Jeff's world a knife knows when to cut and what to cut,earbuds can distinguish users and limit the output,cars auto have auto repair,farts smell like roses and Santa Claus throws gifts all year round(each gift being packed in extra safe Jeff approved packaging!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stan krajewski Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Quite the continuum here. If Apple were making iPods that could play at 130dB I'd have no uncertainty about whether they were doing something wrong. If we arbitrarily draw a line at (fill in dB level) there will be some recordings, ironically usually those that are better recorded, mastered and produced, that will not play loudly enough because their increased dynamic range (even on an iPod) means that the average volume level is much lower than normal, and restricting the output level so the average recording won't exceed 100dB means those recordings might be averaging 85dB. What to do... Ford sold Pintos that exploded upon rear impact for years, knowing full well about the problem. Firestone sold tires that had the annoying habit of throwing their tread. Merck sold Vioxx for years after they knew it occationally killed people. 400 billion domestically manufactured cigarettes are sold every year (per www.ftc.gov ). The new top end Corvette has over 500 horsepower. I can turn on the gas burners on my stove even if the pilot light is not lit. My hot water heater's top thermostat setting produces temperatures in excess of 150 degrees (I measured it when I moved in here.) Many states won't let you ride your own motorcycle, by yourself, unless you're wearing a helmet. There's no minimum age for a pilots license. You can get married at 14 but can't go to an X rated movie until you're 21. Who draws the lines? Ray, you seem to get it. There's no easy answer like people want to think, and that's my point. The EAR is the one who "gets it". The point is that the individual is not responsible for his or her actions anymore. And to clear their conciences and restore their pride they wind up suing the crap out of someone else. I guess if a judge rewards you with 88 million dollars for a spouse that smoked themselves to death, you can sleep well at night. You won. And thats all that counts. What a bad joke the law has become. If a tree in your backyard falls on a loved one and hammers them into the ground, can you sue God? If you are an atheist and that was the only way to get the money, do you go for it anyway? Shouldn't all trees be labeled "Warning ! Don't climb" , "Do not stand here during a lightning storm", etc, etc, ad nauseum. Sick. And getting sicker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEAR Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Szanowny panie Krajewski, Ludzie disiaj udajal niemowleta umyslu. [A] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 For all you guys who keep throwing the phrase RESPONSIBLE PARENT around, I have a question for you.... Suppose you were going to, just for fun, build one of these earphone sets for your 6-year-old daughter. Would you build it to go as loud as the iPod or not? Just wondering.... Seriously I would supply earbuds that peak around 95dB.... Why would you design this differently for your 6 year-old daughter? Be serious in your answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Ho,ho,ho! Don Ho that is. "Tiny bubbles, in the EAR" Jeff, You, I and most likely everybody else have gotten those class action settlement notices. The ones that are worth like $2 off on a new printer or something even though we had no problem with the product. Reading the literature that comes with the coupon you see where the lawyers were awarded millions in the settlement over nothing. IMO those are the types of suits that need reform not the unfortunate that is severly injured by a truly neglegent company or person. Speaking of class actions, I am looking to join a small one.... Rick Rick, hey. Sorry I've procrastinated on forwarding the xovers to BEC. I need to get motivated to get mine out for my Corns and send them together. It'll be soon. Now, to your topic. Yep. We've all seen those notices. The one thing you note is how we all get $.32, and the lawyers get rich. Good point. The only thing I have to ask is that supposing the lawyers don't hawk over companies that steal small amounts from vast numbers of people, who would keep them in check? I think I'd rather see the lawyers make money keeping companies from stealing than to see the companies be able to steal without anything to stop them. We all know the government is not big enough to take on the task by itself, and I'm not sure we want government to be that big. If it was left to resolve these issues one consumer at a time, nobody would bother with cases that small. I won't sue for the $20 a company wrongfully charged/took from a consumer. I would if the company did the same exact thing to 100,000 consumers. When the case gets settled, there's no surprise that the lawyers get a piece of everyone's settlement, but each class member only gets his/her own piece. I don't see a real issue with that. Not a reflection on your comments, except that it seems a little envy/jealousy drives the disdain for the lawyers making the big bucks in these cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEAR Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 For all you guys who keep throwing the phrase RESPONSIBLE PARENT around, I have a question for you.... Suppose you were going to, just for fun, build one of these earphone sets for your 6-year-old daughter. Would you build it to go as loud as the iPod or not? Just wondering.... Seriously I would supply earbuds that peak around 95dB.... Why would you design this differently for your 6 year-old daughter? Be serious in your answer. Serious yes. If a device is designed for a target audience consisting mostly of young kids it has to follow the safety first rule. And again... The iPod is not a product that targets kids,it targets young adults and not kids,these people are RESPONSIBLE people and know how loud they want to listen,if they damage their own hearing by making the choice to listen at HIGH SPL its thier own choice and they can not blame Santa and Steve Jobs for their own IRRESPONSIBLE choices. Jeff you can ask questions,I have answers(and no I do not work at the Rat Shack ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 The iPod is not a product that targets kids,it targets young adults and not kids..... Jeff you can ask questions,I have answers(and no I do not work at the Rat Shack ) Where did you come up with that? Is it just a guess? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEAR Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 The iPod is not a product that targets kids,it targets young adults and not kids..... Jeff you can ask questions,I have answers(and no I do not work at the Rat Shack ) Where did you come up with that? Is it just a guess? An educated guess,do they advertise using little kids? Do they sell them in toy stores or any store proposing them to parents with young kids? Do they write ages 4 and up on the box? Do they offer Mickey Mouse and Goofy models? DO they at least have a GI Joe The Real American Hero collectible edition? Apple products are for older kids(12 and up)and adults.SInce when did they target kids,young kids? NEVER You could blame gun companies because kids sometimes use guns and shoot family and friends. [:|] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codhead Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Maybe we need a "loser pays" law like the Great White North. Would sure keep a lot of the beesse out of the court system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 What we need is an all knowing, benevolent dictator, you know, like me! So vote for me, Pete Tagliani, I'm your guy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEAR Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Jeff where are you? We need solid opposition,at least someone to defend the IRRESPONSIBLE suing it all tools of this world. [] Thanks to this thread I thing I am BACK to the Klipsch forums,I know bad news for some who love to hate TheEAR.Heh you cannot please everybody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.