Idiot sues Apple over "defective" iPods

[TJdude825]

@D_Odds

FACT: Only Apple is named in the lawsuit (guess no one else makes loud MP3 players)

No, it’s just that people who buy other brands are smarter.

@the article in the OP

Patterson does not know if the device has damaged his hearing, said his attorney, Steve W. Berman, of Seattle. But that’s beside the point of the lawsuit, which takes issue with the potential the iPod has to cause irreparable hearing loss, Berman said.

I think I’d like to hear the judge say, “Ah, okay. Well then, Apple has the potential to give you free money if they want to. Good luck. Case dismissed.”

Personally, I’m for as few warning labels as possible, and a mandatory common sense test upon graduating high school, covering basic physics (hitting something when going fast is painful. Electricity + water = bad, etc.) and appliance use (guns can kill you, sharp things make you bleed, etc.)

<digression>
There’s a roller coaster (Psyclone, IIRC) at Six Flags Magic Mountain which has a large flat panel in the middle of the track. If you’ve ever seen a roller coaster before (and you have, because you walked by about 10 of them on the way to Psyclone, which is at the back of the park) you know that stepping on this platform will get you run over by a roller coaster train. Also, roller coaster trains are very large, so this is likely to hurt. Also, you couldn’t do this if you wanted to, because you’re held behind a gate until the train arrives.

Printed on the platform in friendly red letters: NOT A STEP. Yes, seriously.
</digression>

[Talon_Karrde]

@D_Odds

Perhaps you would like RFID chip in every speed limit sign and a receiver in every car that warns a driver every time he is exceeding the speed? Or maybe you want it automatic - a limiter on the engine that forbids exceeding the posted speed limit?

Or perhaps nanny government should make a law that one cannot listen to an iPod over 85 decibels under any circumstances?

Just as a street sign tells me I shouldn’t drive over a certain speed (and has legal authority behind it) because of safety concerns, the iPod ships with a warning about prolonged exposure to loud noise. And just as many millions of drivers routinely ignore the posted speed limit, placing not only themselves but also their passengers, pedestrians, and other drivers at risk, millions of iPod users, putting only their own hearing at risk, ignore the warnings.

There’s still a difference between speed limits and the warning on the iPod. The speed limit signs tell you what speed is considered dangerous. Not so with the iPods, unless they had some kind of decibelometer (I don’t know what the actual name is for a device that measures decibels)

[Weirddave]

@Cliffy

Interestingly, an irrelvant, factually questionable, ad hominem, and boorish comment like this is consistent with your posting history, too. I suppose we’re both creatures of habit.

Wow Cliffy, pants a little too tight today? It’s interesting that you feel like I’ve insulted you in some manner, because that sure wasn’t my intention. You’ve always made no bones about the fact that you think government exists to intervene in and improve out lives. In this thread you said:

@Cliffy

As a general rule, when liberals come to the Court, outside of a few areas (abortion and crime come to mind), we should be on the side of more regulation, not less. <snip> American liberalism is based on the assumption that governments can solve social problems; ergo, liberals should in general want government to have such tools as are available to go about their work. That’s why I honestly believe this decision is good for America.

And you followed it up for pages. Why on earth would you think that I’m offering an ad hominem attack when I was actually defending you? You’re consistent. You have every right to your beliefs. Your beliefs are consistently on the nanny state side of things. I think you’re wrong, but so what? At least you state what you believe and stand behind it. I was pointing out there was no sense berating you about being who you are.

[Largo62]

My two cents worth:

If you can sue iPod for making a “defective” product because it is possible to misuse it, then why aren’t we all parties to a class action suit against our maker (who or whatever that may be) because we were made capable of doing wrong? Not only are there warnings against doing wrong, but whole manuals devoted to telling us what is wrong and how we might avoid it. But we are absolutely capable of ignoring the warnings and the manuals and doing wrong anyway. Are we defective? If such a lawsuit were possible, what happens to free will?

I say, damn the lawsuits and the idiots who file them and hooray for personal responsibility. If you get hurt using a product when warnings were available (never mind stickers) you should have no recourse to the manufacturer. And who gives a flying fuck about French law? If they babysit their population, why should we follow suit?

I rest my case. I’m going to buy a hamburger or three, and sue McDonalds for making me fat. Same damn thing.

[Ms2001]

@Trunk

Have you ever noticed those black and white signs next to roads that have a big number in the middle and the words “Speed Limit” written above? A speed at which it’s ILLEGAL to drive above, because of safety concerns.

I don’t know much about the weather or local politics in Baltimore, but around here, speed limits often have little to do with safety.

Many of them are set too low for mysterious reasons; for example, the speed limit on a major commercial street a block from my home was recently raised by 50%, even though nothing had changed. On the other hand, if there’s rain, snow, or fog, a street where the posted limit is 55 MPH might not be safe at 35 MPH. You can and will be fined for driving “too fast for conditions” even if you’re going below the speed limit.

Point is, you’re expected to use your own judgment when you’re driving. You’re also expected to use your own judgment when you’re swinging a hammer - if you hit your thumb, or bash someone’s skull in, you (or his next of kin) don’t sue the hammer manufacturer for making the end out of hard metal instead of soft cotton. And you should be expected to use your own judgment when you’re listening to music, too, particularly since it only affects your own health.

[Cliffy]

Dave, when you stop refering to it as the nanny state I’ll start paying attention to you. Alternatively, I could say it’s no use trying to convince you of postions other than those you hold already because you’re one of those head-in-the-sand libertarians and then, by your reasoning, I could whine that it’s not an ad hominem attack. But I don’t say that because I choose not to tar others’ political positions with perjorative apellations.

–Cliffy

[Man_from_Mars]

I think the problem is that users try to compensate for outside noise by drowning it out with their music. This is what I did, without really thinking about it, until I read a small article in the Science section of the New York Times. Then I started to be more conscious of my habits and it really frightened me to realize that blasting at maximum volume to compete with New York City subway noise wasn’t a very good option. I tried the max volume in the comfort of my own bedroom and immediately pulled the speakers out of my ears, stunned that I would ever even use that volume at any time.

So, I have since invested in a pair of noise-cancelling headphones. I think it’s a good investment for me because I already have horrible eyesight and am not keen on complementing it with poor hearing. I was disappointed at first that the headphones didn’t literally cancel noise. But it does a good number on it and I can now listen to my tunes at less than half on the iPod’s volume meter.

There are plenty of other options too. But I think the key is keeping an eye on the volume meter and knowing that it should never go past a certain point. A problem though is that tracks come in different volumes. As of now, I am pretty much ignorant because I’m reading about 85 decibels and 100 decibels and then the song info for the tracks range from -1 to 3 dB. But somehow I think the key lies in understanding those stats and manipulating the individual song volume and then making a mental note of which portion of the volume bar is off limits.