If the sensors ("bumps") are anything like past technology (say, for traffic lights), they are simple induction loops. Car parks on sensor, magnetic field is disrupted, sensor sends signal to base station.
So, to reserve a spot for your friend coming over? Put a magnet on the sensor. Sensor registers a car parked there. Problem solved!
Personally, I don't care whether or not Pickens is in it for the fame, or whether his oil companies will be the ones supplying us with the wind turbines. If a company with big pockets wants to get into that industry, they're going to bring in lots of R&D money. This translates to lower cost implementation in the long run. Plus, lower CO emissions, too!
This is a completely inaccurate and fully misleading "test"
1) It is very dependent on your setup.
2) Equivalent Loudness is not an accurate measure of hearing ability for too many reasons to name here. Suffice it to say that "thresholds" are how we audiologists measure it.
3) THE "DIAGNOSES" ARE WRONG. Completely. None of them are remotely correct. High-frequency hearing loss almost never indicates a wax buildup or middle ear dysfunction. Mid-frequency (2-5kHz) loss is NOT middle ear dysfunction. Low-frequency (250-500) loss does not indicate noise-induced hearing loss. THEY ARE ALL WRONG, DISREGARD THEM COMPLETELY. Diagnoses can only be given by an audiologist or an ENT physician. And not one of these are anywhere near correct.
4) Hearing loss above 10kHz is natural and doesn't mean anything. Further, persons with normal hearing need a much higher output level at 15kHz than at 500Hz to even detect sound.
The best way to test your hearing? Visit an audiologist. They can help you.
If you want a MUCH more accurate hearing screening, you can visit Freehearingtest.com. It's a screening... not very accurate, but much more so than this. And easy to do as well.
The "researchers at Children's Hospital, Boston" consist of Dr. Brian Fligor, the author of the Ear & Hearing article. The article (Fligor & Cox, 2004) took a cohort of commerically available cd players and headphones. The 60% (really, it was 70%) mark comes from averaging the safe levels across devices. It is actually slightly on the conservative end of the scale, better than the average. This is indeed the first recommendation ever published on the subject, and is agreed upon (by audiologists and hearing scientists) to be a generally safe level for current electronics.
More current data is in the works, I promise.
The Fligor & Cox article (Ear & Hearing, 2004) took an average safe level across a bunch of commonly available portable CD players and different headphones. In this study, the 60% mark was the average safe point for 1-hour of listening per day (using current NIOSH damage-risk criteria). Certainly, you can have much much louder levels at "60%" of your volume dial. This is dependent purely on the outputs of your headphones and your stereo/portable music player.
If I remember correctly (sorry, on vacation, article is at home), it was actually 70%... but whatever. 60% is even safer, and would allow longer listening time.
That, unfortunately, is the best sort of generalization that one can make, due to the variations in output levels of portable electronics and headphones. There are, of course, some warning signs to heed. If you have ringing in your ears, or notice a temporary hearing loss after using your headphones... they are way too loud. Some good earphones do exist that have a fairly flat response, that attenuate sound from the outside. Shure and Etymotic Research both make in-the-ear type earphones with either custom-fit or foam-plugs that keep outside sounds out so that you can reduce the volume in your ear.
We're working (Dr. Fligor and I) on a follow-up with mp3 players. Should be done in a couple months. I'm sure it will hit/. when it's published.
Sorry... I guess I wasn't totally clear... I'm a Ph.D. student in Audiology, meaning that I have background in physiology/hearing science as well as clinical aspects (hearing loss, treatment). I do research specifically in noise-induced hearing loss. I'm working on MP3 player output levels at the moment...
As to your question about #3,4... that is a current speculation as to the additive properties of aspirin to tinnitus. However, tinnitus is typically idiopathic, meaning that it has no cause. Aspirin is related, but not causal at all. If you sever the auditory nerve, for example, tinnitis usually remains, indicating that it is central (brain). As to bloodflow, we're typically talking near the cochlea, not near the eardrum. You can have tinnitis caused by vascular problems in the middle ear (glomus tumor, for example)... which is real and caused, essentially, by hearing your own heart beat.
I'm not entirely sure what this post was supposed to be... but it contains quite a number of factual inaccuracies. While the audiologist identified here is an expert, the notes from her sessions are rather inaccurate. A few corrections are noted here:
1. The fluid in the scala media (endolymphatic fluid) and scala tympani (perilymphatic fluid), which house the basilar membrane within the cochlea, does NOT harden. Sensory hearing loss is caused by damage/loss of hair cells due to a variety of different causes.
2. "Smokers are twice as likely to suffer from hearing loss as smoking reduces the oxygen levels in and around the ears." -- This has not been substantiated by ANY research. It is pure speculation... and is wildly inaccurate.
3. Beer, salt, caffeine and chocolate are agents which have an impact on the ear. They do not have an impact on hearing, except for in some people with a certain disorder (Meniere's syndrome secondary to endolymphatic hydrops of the inner ear). They may have some influence on tinnitis.
4. Large doses of aspirin are ototoxic (dangerous to the ear). Think on the order of 8 aspirin per day. It is a temporary toxicity, with hearing restoring following the termination of the drug. Tinnitus may be permanent.
5. Temporary threshold shifts (TTS) resolve within 12 hours of noise exposure.
Andrew King, a professor of neurophysiology at Oxford University, said in an e-mail interview that while the ability to hear high frequencies deteriorates with age, the change happens so gradually that many non-teenagers might well hear the Mosquito's noise. "Unless the store owners wish to sell their goods only to senior citizens," he wrote, "I doubt that this would work."
So, essentially, all this does is make shopping at the store more annoying for everyone, especially those 20-somethings with disposable income. I think I would avoid a store that had an obnoxious high frequency pulsating sound. The store owners are trading their sales for having fewer teenagers hanging around.
I'm not entirely sure what this post was supposed to be... but it contains quite a number of factual inaccuracies. While the audiologist identified here is an expert, the notes you have are rather inaccurate. A few corrections are noted here:
1. The fluid in the scala media (endolymphatic fluid) and scala tympani (perilymphatic fluid), which house the basilar membrane within the cochlea, does NOT harden. Sensory hearing loss is caused by damage/loss of hair cells due to a variety of different causes.
2. "Smokers are twice as likely to suffer from hearing loss as smoking reduces the oxygen levels in and around the ears." -- This has not been substantiated by ANY research. It is pure speculation... and is wildly inaccurate.
3. Beer, salt, caffeine and chocolate are agents which have an impact on the ear. They do not have an impact on hearing, except for in some people with a certain disorder (Meniere's syndrome secondary to endolymphatic hydrops of the cochlea). They may have some influence on tinnitis.
4. Large doses of aspirin are ototoxic (dangerous to the ear). Think on the order of 8 aspirin per day. It is a temporary toxicity, with hearing restoring following the termination of the drug. Tinnitus may be permanent.
5. Temporary threshold shifts (TTS) resolve within 12 hours of noise exposure.
One big thing is missing in these articles. Namely: This is not a peer-reviewed publication. It is only a working paper. This throws an immediate question on the validity of the study and data analysis.
If anyone wants to actually *read* it, there's a PDF of it available from the University of Munich's Center for Economic Studies/IFO Center for Economic Research (CESifo).
I don't have the statistics knowledge in the field of Economics to truly analyze this study. I can see that the basic descriptive statistics do not match what they claim... but they apply complex economic formulas to the data to control for "family background and school characteristics". To quote from their conclusions:
This paper has found that despite bivariate correlations that show a positive relationship, once family background and school characteristics are extensively controlled for, the mere availability of computers at home is negatively related to student performance in math and reading, and the availability of computers at school is unrelated to student performance.
Anyone have a good knowledge of multivariate statistical analysis?
Re:Bullshit.. It's Hell or it's a waste of time.
on
Doom Movie Update
·
· Score: 1
Purchaser agrees to pay and remit to the Company herewith a holding deposit of $250.00, which shall be non-refundable whether or not a Cat is ever produced or delivered
There goes your money.
I think I'm going to do the same thing... Maybe I'll "genetically engineer" a ferret that doesn't stink, a dog that doesn't crap on your floor, and fish that you don't need to feed. And then take your money for "preorders".
I've got a Samsonite Ripple backpack that has served me pretty well. It's a soft laptop compartment but seems pretty secure. Good pockets and very comfortable on the back, with some awesome padding. Similar to the Rafter, it has a headphone pass through with CD/MP3 pocket. It's been decently water resistant, too. Samsonite quotes $50, though I got mine for $39 with a $12 rebate. This pack holds my 15" Presario 2100 without any problem, and with a little room to spare heightwise.
The biggest plus, though, is that you're not telegraphing your laptop with the word "TARGUS". That's like saying "Look at me! Rob me!!
These are just like hearing aids built into glasses... with the same sort of style: heavy frames, the electronics on the temples, and a little ear bud than hangs down and fits in your ear canal.
The only difference is that these can HURT your hearing instead of HELPING it.
Slashdot Mirror
Awesome! Science will soon catch up with Hollywood! What's next? Will John Travolta actually get to have wings added on?
If the sensors ("bumps") are anything like past technology (say, for traffic lights), they are simple induction loops. Car parks on sensor, magnetic field is disrupted, sensor sends signal to base station. So, to reserve a spot for your friend coming over? Put a magnet on the sensor. Sensor registers a car parked there. Problem solved!
Personally, I don't care whether or not Pickens is in it for the fame, or whether his oil companies will be the ones supplying us with the wind turbines. If a company with big pockets wants to get into that industry, they're going to bring in lots of R&D money. This translates to lower cost implementation in the long run. Plus, lower CO emissions, too!
Go T. Boone!
Vermont... Oregon... they're like the same state anyhow. Only 3,200 miles apart, after all.
It's only the title of the article, after all.
Anyone else having flashbacks to Starfox?
I am an audiologist.
This is a completely inaccurate and fully misleading "test"
1) It is very dependent on your setup.
2) Equivalent Loudness is not an accurate measure of hearing ability for too many reasons to name here. Suffice it to say that "thresholds" are how we audiologists measure it.
3) THE "DIAGNOSES" ARE WRONG. Completely. None of them are remotely correct. High-frequency hearing loss almost never indicates a wax buildup or middle ear dysfunction. Mid-frequency (2-5kHz) loss is NOT middle ear dysfunction. Low-frequency (250-500) loss does not indicate noise-induced hearing loss. THEY ARE ALL WRONG, DISREGARD THEM COMPLETELY. Diagnoses can only be given by an audiologist or an ENT physician. And not one of these are anywhere near correct.
4) Hearing loss above 10kHz is natural and doesn't mean anything. Further, persons with normal hearing need a much higher output level at 15kHz than at 500Hz to even detect sound.
The best way to test your hearing? Visit an audiologist. They can help you.
If you want a MUCH more accurate hearing screening, you can visit Freehearingtest.com. It's a screening... not very accurate, but much more so than this. And easy to do as well.
I suggest visiting wikipedia to learn more about hearing loss. Also, the American Academy of Audiology.
The "researchers at Children's Hospital, Boston" consist of Dr. Brian Fligor, the author of the Ear & Hearing article. The article (Fligor & Cox, 2004) took a cohort of commerically available cd players and headphones. The 60% (really, it was 70%) mark comes from averaging the safe levels across devices. It is actually slightly on the conservative end of the scale, better than the average. This is indeed the first recommendation ever published on the subject, and is agreed upon (by audiologists and hearing scientists) to be a generally safe level for current electronics. More current data is in the works, I promise.
The Fligor & Cox article (Ear & Hearing, 2004) took an average safe level across a bunch of commonly available portable CD players and different headphones. In this study, the 60% mark was the average safe point for 1-hour of listening per day (using current NIOSH damage-risk criteria). Certainly, you can have much much louder levels at "60%" of your volume dial. This is dependent purely on the outputs of your headphones and your stereo/portable music player.
/. when it's published.
If I remember correctly (sorry, on vacation, article is at home), it was actually 70%... but whatever. 60% is even safer, and would allow longer listening time.
That, unfortunately, is the best sort of generalization that one can make, due to the variations in output levels of portable electronics and headphones. There are, of course, some warning signs to heed. If you have ringing in your ears, or notice a temporary hearing loss after using your headphones... they are way too loud. Some good earphones do exist that have a fairly flat response, that attenuate sound from the outside. Shure and Etymotic Research both make in-the-ear type earphones with either custom-fit or foam-plugs that keep outside sounds out so that you can reduce the volume in your ear.
We're working (Dr. Fligor and I) on a follow-up with mp3 players. Should be done in a couple months. I'm sure it will hit
And kinda loud stuff, over sufficient time, hurts ears. (take home message? volume + duration = hearing loss)
Sorry... I guess I wasn't totally clear... I'm a Ph.D. student in Audiology, meaning that I have background in physiology/hearing science as well as clinical aspects (hearing loss, treatment). I do research specifically in noise-induced hearing loss. I'm working on MP3 player output levels at the moment...
As to your question about #3,4... that is a current speculation as to the additive properties of aspirin to tinnitus. However, tinnitus is typically idiopathic, meaning that it has no cause. Aspirin is related, but not causal at all. If you sever the auditory nerve, for example, tinnitis usually remains, indicating that it is central (brain). As to bloodflow, we're typically talking near the cochlea, not near the eardrum. You can have tinnitis caused by vascular problems in the middle ear (glomus tumor, for example)... which is real and caused, essentially, by hearing your own heart beat.
Unfortunately, tinnitis is a ridiculously difficult subject. I recommend the American Tinnitis Association's website for more info...
Some other links...
There are many more on the web, too!
I'm not entirely sure what this post was supposed to be... but it contains quite a number of factual inaccuracies. While the audiologist identified here is an expert, the notes from her sessions are rather inaccurate. A few corrections are noted here:
1. The fluid in the scala media (endolymphatic fluid) and scala tympani (perilymphatic fluid), which house the basilar membrane within the cochlea, does NOT harden. Sensory hearing loss is caused by damage/loss of hair cells due to a variety of different causes.
2. "Smokers are twice as likely to suffer from hearing loss as smoking reduces the oxygen levels in and around the ears." -- This has not been substantiated by ANY research. It is pure speculation... and is wildly inaccurate.
3. Beer, salt, caffeine and chocolate are agents which have an impact on the ear. They do not have an impact on hearing, except for in some people with a certain disorder (Meniere's syndrome secondary to endolymphatic hydrops of the inner ear). They may have some influence on tinnitis.
4. Large doses of aspirin are ototoxic (dangerous to the ear). Think on the order of 8 aspirin per day. It is a temporary toxicity, with hearing restoring following the termination of the drug. Tinnitus may be permanent.
5. Temporary threshold shifts (TTS) resolve within 12 hours of noise exposure.
The article itself quotes Dr. Andrew King...
So, essentially, all this does is make shopping at the store more annoying for everyone, especially those 20-somethings with disposable income. I think I would avoid a store that had an obnoxious high frequency pulsating sound. The store owners are trading their sales for having fewer teenagers hanging around.
I'm not entirely sure what this post was supposed to be... but it contains quite a number of factual inaccuracies. While the audiologist identified here is an expert, the notes you have are rather inaccurate. A few corrections are noted here: 1. The fluid in the scala media (endolymphatic fluid) and scala tympani (perilymphatic fluid), which house the basilar membrane within the cochlea, does NOT harden. Sensory hearing loss is caused by damage/loss of hair cells due to a variety of different causes. 2. "Smokers are twice as likely to suffer from hearing loss as smoking reduces the oxygen levels in and around the ears." -- This has not been substantiated by ANY research. It is pure speculation... and is wildly inaccurate. 3. Beer, salt, caffeine and chocolate are agents which have an impact on the ear. They do not have an impact on hearing, except for in some people with a certain disorder (Meniere's syndrome secondary to endolymphatic hydrops of the cochlea). They may have some influence on tinnitis. 4. Large doses of aspirin are ototoxic (dangerous to the ear). Think on the order of 8 aspirin per day. It is a temporary toxicity, with hearing restoring following the termination of the drug. Tinnitus may be permanent. 5. Temporary threshold shifts (TTS) resolve within 12 hours of noise exposure.
Right. Unless you're Lorena Bobbit.
I hereby dub each page of your cluster a "txt file".
Right... just way more expensive paper.
Now this desk just needs to have a place for my joystick so I could PLAY that game on it.
That's modding the user... not the device.
At least modding their nasal passage. Let's hope it's not lemonade. Ow.
One big thing is missing in these articles. Namely: This is not a peer-reviewed publication. It is only a working paper. This throws an immediate question on the validity of the study and data analysis.
If anyone wants to actually *read* it, there's a PDF of it available from the University of Munich's Center for Economic Studies/IFO Center for Economic Research (CESifo).
I don't have the statistics knowledge in the field of Economics to truly analyze this study. I can see that the basic descriptive statistics do not match what they claim... but they apply complex economic formulas to the data to control for "family background and school characteristics". To quote from their conclusions:
Anyone have a good knowledge of multivariate statistical analysis?But, you see... they couldn't have the monsters be from Hell©. That wouldn't be right...
I mean, isn't Hell copyrighted by the Catholic church? And the MPAA couldn't be charged with stealing copyrighted works...But... what if they never develop this cat? Straight from their "Reservation and Purchase Agreement"...
There goes your money.
I think I'm going to do the same thing... Maybe I'll "genetically engineer" a ferret that doesn't stink, a dog that doesn't crap on your floor, and fish that you don't need to feed. And then take your money for "preorders".
Mwahahaha!
I've got a Samsonite Ripple backpack that has served me pretty well. It's a soft laptop compartment but seems pretty secure. Good pockets and very comfortable on the back, with some awesome padding. Similar to the Rafter, it has a headphone pass through with CD/MP3 pocket. It's been decently water resistant, too. Samsonite quotes $50, though I got mine for $39 with a $12 rebate. This pack holds my 15" Presario 2100 without any problem, and with a little room to spare heightwise.
The biggest plus, though, is that you're not telegraphing your laptop with the word "TARGUS". That's like saying "Look at me! Rob me!!
These are just like hearing aids built into glasses... with the same sort of style: heavy frames, the electronics on the temples, and a little ear bud than hangs down and fits in your ear canal.
The only difference is that these can HURT your hearing instead of HELPING it.