- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,229
- 9,990
- 126
I do have to question why something that goes inside your ear should even be capable of teaching a decibel that could damage your eardrum. Why wouldn't it be capped at a decibel level 10% below established safe levels, rather than some arbitrary hardware limitation of the speakers?If it was specifically the tone and not the device go after whoever set that system up (FCC?). I hate those tones and have turned alerts off wherever possible. Alerts are fine, but they don't have to be that shrill tone and they don't have to be that loud. Allow people to select a different tone and to adjust the volume of it.
There should still be a ceiling on the level of volume they're capable of, regardless of the source. There's a practical volume based on the hardware, no reason there can't be a coded decibel level, all I'm saying. We put safety limiters on every goddamn consumer product in existence, precisely for reasons like this.^^^ That's a device issue separate from the tones. If you want to listen to head banging music at insane volume, I guess that's your choice. But these tones are a prescribed frequency, pattern and volume. The intent is to be significanty different from and louder than any other music or background noises. It is intended to be disruptive, and on any mobile device I've had, you can't turn the volume of them down regardless of how you have your music or ringtone volume set. You can only turn alerts off entirely.
And no, I don't think they should be used for abductions or anything else that doesn't immediately threaten the safety of the public at large.
Huh? That was one of the earliest consumer product limiters we came up with, governors. You're trolling me right?^^^ Ain't no speed limiters on cars that I know of.
Seriously, it's like a phone screen that can flash bright enough to blind you. Who would think to limit that? Derp!Yeah, two things that seem obviously questionable:
1) why are Amber Alerts SO DAMN LOUD,
and 2) why would a set of in-ear wireless headphones, allow the transmission of sound waves LOUD ENOUGH TO DESTROY YOUR EARDRUMS. Surely, someone must have had some concern about liability along the way?
That's.. literally their reason to exist. I'm not sure you're making the argument you think you're making.Governors are not routinely factory installed to limit vehicles to a set speed like we're talking about audio devices being factory limited to set levels.
Today, BMW, Audi, Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz limit their production cars to 250 kilometres per hour (155 mph). Certain Quattro GmbH and AMG cars, and the Mercedes/McLaren SLR is an exception. The BMW Rolls-Royces are limited to 240 kilometres per hour (149 mph). Jaguars, although British, also have a limiter, as do the Swedish Saab and Volvo on cars where it is necessary.
German manufacturers initially started the "gentlemen's agreement", electronically limiting their vehicles to a top speed of 250 kilometres per hour (155 mph),[4][5] since such high speeds are more likely on the Autobahn. This was done to reduce the political desire to introduce a legal speed limit.
In European markets, General Motors Europe sometimes choose to discount the agreement, meaning that certain high-powered Opel or Vauxhall cars can exceed the 250 kilometres per hour (155 mph) mark, whereas their Cadillacs do not. Ferrari, Lamborghini, Maserati, Porsche, Aston Martin and Bentley also do not limit their cars, at least not to 250 kilometres per hour (155 mph). The Chrysler 300C SRT8 is limited to 270 km/h. Most Japanese domestic market vehicles are limited to only 180 kilometres per hour (112 mph) or 190 kilometres per hour (118 mph).[6] The top speed is a strong sales argument, though speeds above about 300 kilometres per hour (190 mph) are not likely reachable on public roads.[citation needed]
Many performance cars are limited to a speed of 250 kilometres per hour (155 mph)[7] to limit insurance costs of the vehicle, and reduce the risk of tires failing.[citation needed]
Because missing kids situations usually involve a "savvy" perp who is making a getaway, and the ensuing tragic news cycle afterwards would be damn humiliating to the state if notice wasn't given.Yeah, two things that seem obviously questionable:
1) why are Amber Alerts SO DAMN LOUD,
and 2) why would a set of in-ear wireless headphones, allow the transmission of sound waves LOUD ENOUGH TO DESTROY YOUR EARDRUMS. Surely, someone must have had some concern about liability along the way?
Many roads in the EU are designed for higher speeds, governors are generally limited to the factory tire limits (155mph, for instance). There's established safe levels for hearing damage based on decades of research. It would be trivial for Apple (and others) to limit this. I'd vote in favor of the lawsuit, pretty clear negligence.Those are not safe speeds. 100 would be more than enough. What is a safe level to prevent ear damage?
They should be suing for MILLIONS, I tell you.
^^^ Ain't no speed limiters on cars that I know of.
As far as I am aware, YES.Do these alerts ignore the volume setting altogether? Ex: if your volume is low will it still sound at full volume? This could be part of the issue.