1) Ear buds are no "louder" than anything else on teh market, because earbuds aren't loud, period. Loudness is a measurement of the sound pressure levels at the eardrum. Ear bud may be nore effective in converting the signal from the device to sound waves, and so for the same driver levels produce a louder sound at the eardrum. But that sound level is TOTALLY UNDER TEH USER'S CONTROL!
2) As for your example, the parallel with the situation here would be if I returned my iPod to the factory for repairs, and I got a nice shiny set of earbuds to replace my open headphones. I put them on, and turn on the unit to my previous default volume setting, which equates to about 90dB. (Remember, the volume setting really controls amplitude of the electrical signal to the headphones). The music starts to play, but now at 110dB. What do I do?
a) Continue listening to something that is louder than I am accustomed to, on the basis that "that's my default volume so I must like it"
b) Return the whole unit as defective because it now plays at 110 db where it previously was set to 90dB.
c) Say "Holy Shit that's loud!" and turn down the volume.
Remember, only a) will cause permanent hearing loss - short exposure to loud noises can cause hearing loss, but not at the levels we are talking about here - this guy is complaining about hearing loss due to long term exposure.
3) Your last point seems to be that the ear phone manufacturer's should have some sort of protection built in so that they will not drive above a certain SPL. As a protection from dumbass lawsuits, that would work. In reality, they would go out of business. Why? Because I LIKE blasting Pink Floyd's "One of These Days" at full volume on occasion. It doesn't permanently damage my hearing, and I would return any set of earphones with such a limit.
Revisiting your analogy - there's a reason cars aren't limited tolow top speeds - no one would buy them.
Also, note that in Europe there are limits on maximum volume on iPods and a 130 mph limit on some cars. As for the former, read other posts here - people hate it.
You want to live in a Nanny state. That's fine, but don't try to use the court system to achieve your goal.
Except for that little volume control thingy on the iPod. The sound pressure level tht hits ones ears when using these devices is under 100% user control. Relative gain of the components is irrelevant.
Right now I drive a slow diesel car. If I trade it in for a sports car and wreck it, should I then sue the manufacturer because the gas pedal was so much more responsive?
A lot of your comment boils down to the idea that the tax structure should be used to further certain societal goals. I (and many others), have a fundamental problem with that. WHY should taxes be a means for societal change? It assumes 2 things:
1) the government should be setting priorities on how society should change, and 2) that the government will better spend the money it gets than an individual will.
In other words, you have become more liberal with age. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't know if it's an "objective" viewpoint. Neitehr is mine for that matter.
I like a simplified income tax system, as follows:
Income tax formula: Tax=Rate%*(Income-Regional Cost of Living), where:
Income=All the money one makes (labor, capital gains, etc.) Regional cost of living=Cost of living for a family of 4 (2 kids=population replacement rate)in any given zip code. Rate: Variable rate that covers the projected cost of operating the government for the next year plus complete coverage for last years shortfall)
Benefits: simplicity, lack of "incentivizing", and immediate feedback on government budget: when you get notice that your tax rate is going up on Jan 1, you will want to know why.
"companies who diminish the profits of the copyright holders"
And there's the rub.
How is Google News diminishing the profits of these copyright holders? If anything, it increases the traffic to the site, and so increases their profits.
If anything, a ruling that Google News is illegal would be a Pyrrhic(sp?)victory for the copyright holders - they will maintain strict "control" of their content, but lose revenues by Google not sending traffic their way.
My guess is this is a play to force Google to license the content. This will work as long as they all hang together in a cartel. As soon as the first one lets Google index for free, scads of traffic will be diverted to that site, and the rest of the content holders will come begging tyo Googkle to be included.
Its not that the purchaser gets nothing, its that they think that the purchase will somehow solve their problems without the purchaser having to change their behavior.
The real rub over Toy Story II was that, after Pixar made it and it was a huge whopping success, Disney pulled out the contract clause that all sequels did NOT contribute to the original Pixar committment to Disney - Disney, in effect, got a freebie.
This was a major reason behind Pixar's attempt to renegotiate the contract with Disney before its termination, and why they were willing to walk away from Disney in the end (or said they were, anyway).
It's probably also why "Cars" was looking to be a piece of crap - since the movie was simply being done to fulfill a contractual obligation, Pixar would phoen it in, and Disney could choke on their contract. I wouldn't be surprised if "Cars" goes into turnaround now that there's a real reason to make it.
My big fear is that the Disney brass learned their lessons from the Daimler-Chrysler scam: perform a "merger", let the new "partners" have their head for a while, but retain the real power. A year passes, and then there's a purge. I don't think there will be any Pixar people left at Disney after 1 year, and Jobs will leave in 18 months: substantially richer, but disgusted.
Too bad no one was making this joke decades ago when Carter set policy based on politics - maybe he wouldn't have made such a lame ass decision in the first place, what with all the folks making fun of the way he said "nucular."
Dude, she's spent a majority of her life squeezing something between her legs and building up her Kegel muscles (it's not like you can stop to pee every 5 minutes.
Baen has put a bunch of ebook/multimedia cd's out with the hardback versions of a number of books. The licensing is quite liberal: in a nutshell, you can give it away, but just can't sell it.
There's a site for torrents for all of them at http://oberon.zlynx.org/. I try to seed whenever I can, but it can be spotty, so be patient.
My brother in law got some genetic testing done in connection with some study. Turns out he (and presumably my wife, his sister) have a Nordic phenotype. Her known ancestry is Irish and German. She attributed it to Viking migrants settling in other areas. I pointed out that the Vikings didn't really settle, they raided, and Ireland was a favorite stomping ground.
Irish lass with a Viking lover? More likely rape victim.
She still refers to herself as Norwegialicious. I respond that I'm still waiting for the blond hair and big tits. Unsurprisingly, that line doesn't get me laid.
"That's an intuitive statement, yes. We are not talking hard numbers in this thread. That would have to be left to scientific papers, and economic analysis."
But you are saying that the hard numbers and economic analysis that has already been done is wrong, because your intuition says so!
When I was younger, my intuition told me that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. Almost everyone has this same intuition. But then I read about Gallileo, and saw his experiment performed in grade school science class, and I realized my intuition was incorrect, and that reality was different than I expected.
You advocate that I take the position that, because heavier objects SHOULD fall faster, there must be something wrong with the laws of physics, and therefore physical reality itself is somehow incorrect.
You seem to be under the impression that, because you believe something to be true, then it IS true. Glad to know we have a new Deity.
All Hail Renegade Lisp! The God of Physical and Economic Phenomenon!
Uh, no. The oil does very little cooling, about 20%. The balance is direct heat transfer from the cylinder walls and cylinder heads to cooling air via cooling fins. If it was truly oil cooled, there would be oil passages throughout the heads and cylinder walls. But the oil passages only go to bearings and other wear surfaces.
The main reason for the oil cooler is to keep the oil temperatures down so the oil doesn't break down and lose its lubricating properties.
The Beetle needed oil changes no more frequently than other cars of the era (3000 mi), but was less tolerant of extended intervals due to a lack of filtration and the aforementioned heating.
I just had this argument with someone last nigh, on a different topic, and you may as well have quoted him. (Larry, is that you?)
You are describing rights based morality which, although the most prevalent one in our culture, is not the only moral system. There are also utility based, duty based, and care based moral systems. Each one has it's issues, and each one *generally* arrives at the same conclusion given a set of conditions and choices for an individual, but not always.
That being said, my coworker argued that the rights based moral system was the best one, or most correct. This I disputed, but he reached his train stop. Would you argue the same?
Slashdot Mirror
1) Ear buds are no "louder" than anything else on teh market, because earbuds aren't loud, period. Loudness is a measurement of the sound pressure levels at the eardrum. Ear bud may be nore effective in converting the signal from the device to sound waves, and so for the same driver levels produce a louder sound at the eardrum. But that sound level is TOTALLY UNDER TEH USER'S CONTROL!
2) As for your example, the parallel with the situation here would be if I returned my iPod to the factory for repairs, and I got a nice shiny set of earbuds to replace my open headphones. I put them on, and turn on the unit to my previous default volume setting, which equates to about 90dB. (Remember, the volume setting really controls amplitude of the electrical signal to the headphones). The music starts to play, but now at 110dB. What do I do?
a) Continue listening to something that is louder than I am accustomed to, on the basis that "that's my default volume so I must like it"
b) Return the whole unit as defective because it now plays at 110 db where it previously was set to 90dB.
c) Say "Holy Shit that's loud!" and turn down the volume.
Remember, only a) will cause permanent hearing loss - short exposure to loud noises can cause hearing loss, but not at the levels we are talking about here - this guy is complaining about hearing loss due to long term exposure.
3) Your last point seems to be that the ear phone manufacturer's should have some sort of protection built in so that they will not drive above a certain SPL. As a protection from dumbass lawsuits, that would work. In reality, they would go out of business. Why? Because I LIKE blasting Pink Floyd's "One of These Days" at full volume on occasion. It doesn't permanently damage my hearing, and I would return any set of earphones with such a limit.
Revisiting your analogy - there's a reason cars aren't limited tolow top speeds - no one would buy them.
Also, note that in Europe there are limits on maximum volume on iPods and a 130 mph limit on some cars. As for the former, read other posts here - people hate it.
You want to live in a Nanny state. That's fine, but don't try to use the court system to achieve your goal.
Except for that little volume control thingy on the iPod. The sound pressure level tht hits ones ears when using these devices is under 100% user control. Relative gain of the components is irrelevant.
Right now I drive a slow diesel car. If I trade it in for a sports car and wreck it, should I then sue the manufacturer because the gas pedal was so much more responsive?
on the Capitol steps when Toshiba sold advanced milling machines to the Soviets in the laet 80's.
Generally, when Congressmen resort to theatrics, its a sure sign the actually plan to do nothing.
Fundamentalist Christian world view: humans on top and all else is subject to Man's dominion (says so in Genesis)
Far Left Environmentalist world view: Nature (i.e. everything but Humans) is supreme and people are a plague on the face of the earth.
A lot of your comment boils down to the idea that the tax structure should be used to further certain societal goals. I (and many others), have a fundamental problem with that. WHY should taxes be a means for societal change? It assumes 2 things:
1) the government should be setting priorities on how society should change, and
2) that the government will better spend the money it gets than an individual will.
In other words, you have become more liberal with age. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't know if it's an "objective" viewpoint. Neitehr is mine for that matter.
Its actually more like 2.1 or 2.2 birth per female per lifetime - the total fertility rate.
P ages/P/Populations.html
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/Biology
I like a simplified income tax system, as follows:
Income tax formula:
Tax=Rate%*(Income-Regional Cost of Living), where:
Income=All the money one makes (labor, capital gains, etc.)
Regional cost of living=Cost of living for a family of 4 (2 kids=population replacement rate)in any given zip code.
Rate: Variable rate that covers the projected cost of operating the government for the next year plus complete coverage for last years shortfall)
Benefits: simplicity, lack of "incentivizing", and immediate feedback on government budget: when you get notice that your tax rate is going up on Jan 1, you will want to know why.
Why?
No, really. WHY is "progressive" taxation a necessity. Why are tax deductions a necessity?
You made a statement of fact. Defend it.
"companies who diminish the profits of the copyright holders"
And there's the rub.
How is Google News diminishing the profits of these copyright holders? If anything, it increases the traffic to the site, and so increases their profits.
If anything, a ruling that Google News is illegal would be a Pyrrhic(sp?)victory for the copyright holders - they will maintain strict "control" of their content, but lose revenues by Google not sending traffic their way.
My guess is this is a play to force Google to license the content. This will work as long as they all hang together in a cartel. As soon as the first one lets Google index for free, scads of traffic will be diverted to that site, and the rest of the content holders will come begging tyo Googkle to be included.
Time Warner buys AOL
HP buys Compaq
GM buys EDS
Its not that the purchaser gets nothing, its that they think that the purchase will somehow solve their problems without the purchaser having to change their behavior.
I would disagree with you on "Emperor's New Groove"; it's certainly watchable and Eartha Kitt was the best villain in years.
Howver, I believe you forgot "Chicken Little" - the Rat owes me $30 for that piece of crap.
The real rub over Toy Story II was that, after Pixar made it and it was a huge whopping success, Disney pulled out the contract clause that all sequels did NOT contribute to the original Pixar committment to Disney - Disney, in effect, got a freebie.
This was a major reason behind Pixar's attempt to renegotiate the contract with Disney before its termination, and why they were willing to walk away from Disney in the end (or said they were, anyway).
It's probably also why "Cars" was looking to be a piece of crap - since the movie was simply being done to fulfill a contractual obligation, Pixar would phoen it in, and Disney could choke on their contract. I wouldn't be surprised if "Cars" goes into turnaround now that there's a real reason to make it.
My big fear is that the Disney brass learned their lessons from the Daimler-Chrysler scam: perform a "merger", let the new "partners" have their head for a while, but retain the real power. A year passes, and then there's a purge. I don't think there will be any Pixar people left at Disney after 1 year, and Jobs will leave in 18 months: substantially richer, but disgusted.
Too bad no one was making this joke decades ago when Carter set policy based on politics - maybe he wouldn't have made such a lame ass decision in the first place, what with all the folks making fun of the way he said "nucular."
Bush reverses a policy that has been controversial for over 20 years.
Reason? Bush is an asshole.
Trenchant political analysis brought to you by Slashdot.
Haha...Now thatDisney owns Pixar, a sequel is assured - direct to video crap.
Almost had the Coke I was drinking spraying all over the keyboard.
Where are my Goddam mod points now...
"Al Gore is a pornstar?"
Probably not, but he definitely was a whore. (Just like every other politician.)
Have any suggested settings?
"50 year old biker chick"
Dude, she's spent a majority of her life squeezing something between her legs and building up her Kegel muscles (it's not like you can stop to pee every 5 minutes.
She'd fuck you to death.
Baen has put a bunch of ebook/multimedia cd's out with the hardback versions of a number of books. The licensing is quite liberal: in a nutshell, you can give it away, but just can't sell it.
There's a site for torrents for all of them at http://oberon.zlynx.org/. I try to seed whenever I can, but it can be spotty, so be patient.
Oh yeah - Buy Baen Books!
My brother in law got some genetic testing done in connection with some study. Turns out he (and presumably my wife, his sister) have a Nordic phenotype. Her known ancestry is Irish and German. She attributed it to Viking migrants settling in other areas. I pointed out that the Vikings didn't really settle, they raided, and Ireland was a favorite stomping ground.
Irish lass with a Viking lover? More likely rape victim.
She still refers to herself as Norwegialicious. I respond that I'm still waiting for the blond hair and big tits. Unsurprisingly, that line doesn't get me laid.
the lube is right there!
Pre-warmed, even.
"That's an intuitive statement, yes. We are not talking hard numbers in this thread. That would have to be left to scientific papers, and economic analysis."
But you are saying that the hard numbers and economic analysis that has already been done is wrong, because your intuition says so!
When I was younger, my intuition told me that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. Almost everyone has this same intuition. But then I read about Gallileo, and saw his experiment performed in grade school science class, and I realized my intuition was incorrect, and that reality was different than I expected.
You advocate that I take the position that, because heavier objects SHOULD fall faster, there must be something wrong with the laws of physics, and therefore physical reality itself is somehow incorrect.
You seem to be under the impression that, because you believe something to be true, then it IS true. Glad to know we have a new Deity.
All Hail Renegade Lisp! The God of Physical and Economic Phenomenon!
Uh, no. The oil does very little cooling, about 20%. The balance is direct heat transfer from the cylinder walls and cylinder heads to cooling air via cooling fins. If it was truly oil cooled, there would be oil passages throughout the heads and cylinder walls. But the oil passages only go to bearings and other wear surfaces.
The main reason for the oil cooler is to keep the oil temperatures down so the oil doesn't break down and lose its lubricating properties.
The Beetle needed oil changes no more frequently than other cars of the era (3000 mi), but was less tolerant of extended intervals due to a lack of filtration and the aforementioned heating.
I just had this argument with someone last nigh, on a different topic, and you may as well have quoted him. (Larry, is that you?)
You are describing rights based morality which, although the most prevalent one in our culture, is not the only moral system. There are also utility based, duty based, and care based moral systems. Each one has it's issues, and each one *generally* arrives at the same conclusion given a set of conditions and choices for an individual, but not always.
That being said, my coworker argued that the rights based moral system was the best one, or most correct. This I disputed, but he reached his train stop. Would you argue the same?