The Reveres are at the beach. It's not our natural habitat, but the generic Mrs. R. loves the beach so here we are. We often write in the morning (after emerging from our small flat in Hilbert space) but today we were otherwise occupied and then went to the beach and baked our brains out. Then we tracked sand into our rented unit ("Next time you vaccuum!") and now as we sit down at the keyboard we sense a distinct absence in neuronal activity. Our neurons, that is. Your neurons may be firing with alacrity, in which case you will want to go elsewhere. Because baked brains are a meal best served to others cold, to coin a phrase. Ours still have wisps of smoke coming from them. But as a snack, here's something from the Sydney Morning Herald, about a hearing aid. Hearing aid?
It turns out that hearing aids have come a long way in the last few years. The article in question is about someone who has had serious hearing loss for most of his life because of chronic ear infections secondary to a congenitally narrowed eustachian tube. He's 70 years old, now, has had seven surgeries and can't wear conventional hearing aids because they cause inflammation in his ear canal. He's been treated with so many antibiotics he is colonized by bugs that are resistant to all but the industrial strength kind. So Mr. Hughes was receiving a new type of bone anchored hearing implant with a microprocessor that adjusts to account for background noise, something conventional hearing aids often do poorly:
On Friday Mr Hughes had tiny titanium screws drilled into bone behind each ear during a 90-minute operation under general anaesthetic. Once the wounds heal and the screws have fused with bone, abutments will be screwed into the implants, and the processors, about the size of a postage stamp, are clicked into place.
Older-style hearing aids amplify all sounds, making it almost impossible for wearers to hear conversations in noisy environments. They also interfere with frequencies used by mobile and fixed phones and often emit high-pitched whistling sounds. But the newer processors, costing about $6000 each, shut out background noise, giving users up to 25 per cent better hearing, and can be attached directly to MP3 music players or wireless headsets for talking on the phone, Cochlear's territory manager, Katrina Martin, said. (Kate BEnson, Sidney Morning Herald [hat tip Boingboing via Neatorama])
Yes, that's right. You can plug your iPod into it! It sounds like there's a Bluetooth model, too. Baked brains or no baked brains, it seemed to us the possibilities were endless.
Just think. We could podcast EM directly into your skulls.
- Log in to post comments
Such technologies are one of the standard devices by science fiction writers to say "hey, we're in the future!", except they assume everyone will have them eventually.
No doubt it is a good hearing aid but this is advertising, not science. The key things that always give it away are "up to" so much better, and a meaningless statement, in this case 25% better hearing. Better than what? An old-fashioned aid? A modern digital aid? An ear trumpet? And how do you measure it? Hearing is a complex function that can't be defined by a single number. Anyway, how many of the recipients get 25% better hearing? Nearly all, or nearly none?
Tony: But they also get a jack for their .mp3 player! Of course this post was sort of tongue in cheek (less erotic than tongue in ear, to be sure).
I've heard that that sort of thing will sometimes filter out only most background noise, so that if you're at a party you'll be able to hear in crystal clear detail a conversation from all the way across the room.
A piece of vacation advice - sand is considered clean dirt and therefore is not required to be vacuumed regularly. This is true in the house and in the car as well.
Another piece of vaccuming advice.
Dirt, considered at the molecular level, is sterile and does not need vaccuming.
Also, on larger scales it hosts a wide range of minor pathogens whose presence is ideal for giving the immune system a workout.
This applies double to a holiday home and can be raised to the power of 10 for rental properties of all kinds.
Gee, I hope this means someone is working on an attachable RAM for extra memory!
Grace: LOL (but ruefully).
@Revere> Just think. We could podcast EM directly into your skulls.
Yeah, but if you can do it, so can Rush. A truly scary thought.
@Grace> i.e. Plug-in Ram: You can do that now, but you have to be running Vista, and you risk Blue Screening at any moment.
It seems you're describing a cochlear implant, which isn't all that new. Am I missing something.
But, Mom, I do know, speaking of El Rusbo, that he has bilateral cochlear implants that thankfully saved his ability to go on broadcasting from his EIB studios: proven to be correct 99.8% of the time.
I rarely miss his 3 hour shows.
Oh, and before anyone casts the first leftist stone, I'm curiour how many of you Rush-haters have ever, ever, listened to 5 minutes of his show...I'd bet none of you. You just repeat all your fellow travelers' MSM mantras about your disgust and disrspect for him, without ever having listened to him yourselves.
Thank G-d for cochlear implants and the great MahaRushie.
Oh how I love throwing bar room stools in the dens of lefties.
Go ahead, rever, ban me from your site; but I am sorry if I ruined your well-earned vacation.
As a science writer (for the Chicago Tribune), I have to say this - evaluating whether research is worth paying attention to or not - is the hardest and most important part of my job. I don't honestly see how a lay person just sitting at a computer can do it, except in the most obvious cases. I have the luxury (and honor, this is what makes me job so fun) of being able to call up the researchers, call up others in the field, ask independent folks specializing in biostats analyze the paper, ask people specializing in study design take a look, etc., and even then, it's not always clear whether something is worth writing about or waiting. It's a tricky thing, something I know I could not do without the ability to call everybody up (and importantly, have them answer my calls). I think the post at SBM offered some good, broad guidelines for lay folks, but still, I think it would be downright impossible for most to really separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.
As a science writer (for the Chicago Tribune), I have to say this - evaluating whether research is worth paying attention to or not - is the hardest and most important part of my job. I don't honestly see how a lay person just sitting at a computer can do it, except in the most obvious cases. I have the luxury (and honor, this is what makes me job so fun) of being able to call up the researchers, call up others in the field, ask independent folks specializing in biostats analyze the paper, ask people specializing in study design take a look, etc., and even then, it's not always clear whether something is worth writing about or waiting. It's a tricky thing, something I know I could not do without the ability to call everybody up (and importantly, have them answer my calls). I think the post at SBM offered some good, broad guidelines for lay folks, but still, I think it would be downright impossible for most to really separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.