The university here has been offering free hearing screenings this summer. I signed up and had one a month or so ago and the results confirmed what I had long suspected: I have a slight hearing loss in the higher frequencies. In addition to an audio test, the compliance of my ear drum was tested (measuring the pressure difference between my inner and outer ear), and a visual examination of my ear canal and ear drum was made. The visual inspection was done, in part, via a camera, so I got to see my ear on a small screen. Very cool.
The result of my test was “failed,” since I wasn’t able to hear the 4000 MHz range at normal speaking volume. The volume had to be increased from 25 decibels, to 35 before I could hear the highest pitched tones. The doctor recommended that I schedule a complete hearing test to determine what the underlying cause of this loss, and to establish a baseline for future hearing tests.
Since the screening was open to dependents and spouses, I signed Sibylle up for one too. She also has some hearing issues, primarily in her right ear. The result of her test was “passed.” Which wasn’t at all satisfying as she has real difficulty hearing with her right ear. On our way home from the exam we talked about the discrepancy between the test and her experience. In the end we figured out that the test was designed to measure only one axis of hearing. The truth is that Sibylle can hear the normal range of spoken frequencies at the normal volume of 25 decibels. However, the clarity of those sounds is muddy or muffled due to calcified fluid behind her ear drum.
The test produced a false positive, and a sense of frustration, since it only tested volume and range. Without a follow on test of clarity there is no way to draw a complete, or accurate, picture of her hearing. As an adult, who has lived with the hearing deficiency in her right year for most of her live, Sibylle has learned to compensate and adapt to her hearing perceptions. She can articulate what it is like, and could, I believe, successfully describe it to a doctor so that they could understand what she experiences.
But what if she were a child who was experiencing difficulty with the clarity of hearing? The screening as conducted would say to the child, and their parent or care-giver, that their hearing was perfectly normal when in fact it wasn’t. Imagine being that child, who knows that things sound funny, who can’t always understand what is said in a classroom, who complains that, “my ears feel like there’s cotton stuffed in them” - all to no avail because some 10 minute hearing screening showed that they could hear the normal frequencies at normal volumes.
I’m not saying that hearing screenings like the one that Sibylle and I participated in are without value, but I am saying that great care has to be taken in how they are framed. They should be described as a test of only hearing range, and not a test of clarity or comprehension. In a case like Sibylle’s, where the patient describes a long term situation that the test doesn’t provide corroboration for, additional tests or examinations should be undertaken. Looking at the results of a simple 5 minute test and saying that “your hearing is perfect” and discounting the patient’s described experience is a disservice.
Six, almost seven, years ago, I purchased two Apple computers using an “Apple Loan.” Originally this was backed by MBNA, but they’ve long since been purchased by Bank of America. B of A implemented a number of security measures for their online banking, including a visual “site pass” image that I got to select and that should always be present when I sign in. I often times chafe at the security measures employed in the name of account security, but I recognize they are a necessary evil.
Today, it seems, those security measures at B of A protected my account. At around 11 pm last night I was sent an email with an “account unlock” code for my account. Perfectly legitimate email, except that I hadn’t done anything to that account in months. While I was home for lunch today, Sibylle and I logged on to the account and discovered it was locked due to “repeated unsuccessful attempts to log in.” Someone had been trying to access our account. It’s the virtual equivalent of being at home and hearing someone try to open your front door.
As the unlock code only last for 30 minutes, we requested a new one and accessed the account. Everything thing there is fine, as far as we can tell. The password used there is a decent one, capitalization, numbers, not a dictionary word, et cetera. And even though I feel it is a relatively good password, knowing that someone was (or is) actively trying to guess it, makes me a bit nervous. If I get another, unlock code email from Bank of America, I will probably change the password to something really complex, just to give myself piece of mind. And I’ll suffer the indignities of calling customer support to let the B of A folks know that it isn’t me rattling the doors and testing the windows looking for a way in.
I was riveted to the television.
Richard Feynman explains how trains stay on their tracks. Hint: it’s not the flanges.
From kottke.org
The forecast for this week is hot. Hot. And still more hot. {{ $image := .ResourceGetMatch “hot.jpg” }}
Usually I am a huge fan of Pixar movies. However, I have to say that I was disappointed with Up. Well, not with the story, although I have some problems with it too, but primarily with the experience.
Why did this movie have to be in 3-D? What did we gain by having to wear polarized glasses in order to view the movie? In my opinion, nothing. In fact it made the movie nearly un-watchable. I wear trifocal glasses as a result of LASIK eye surgery 3 years ago. One of my eyes sees things up close and the other far away. I was unable to see the screen through my glasses and then the polarized oversized glasses needed to put the images in focus. I ended up taking my glasses off, which allowed the 3-D focus to work, but resulting in a nasty headache by the end of the movie.
Adding insult to this injury was the significant up-charge on the admission price. Instead of $9 per person we paid $11.75 each. The additional charge was for “the 3-D technology.” Right.
Finally the movie had obviously been “Disney-fied.” The portion of the story that outlined Carl and Ellie’s life was beautiful and poignant. No words, no dialog, no talking dogs, much less dogs flying biplanes. Wall-E suffered from the same duality, the first half of the movie was stunning, creative, and incredible. The last half had clearly defined good guys, bad guys, a moral, and some growth. I am looking forward to the day when Pixar gets to make a whole movie that is theirs, and not one that has been fed through Disney’s “It’s A Small World After All” think tank.
It will be a long time before I ever consent to watch a 3-D movie again.
Great story, lousy presentation.
A stunning performance.