Well, if we charge companies (rather than after-the-fact charging the public) maybe they'll choose not to pollute in the first place? If somebody made billions and I get charged, how are they supposed to learn to do something better? So, I'd rather have them pay.
I understand that Wall Street will not insure new nuclear plants, at all. And they require subsidy and federal investment guarantees in order to pencil out. Now if we had given "alternative" energy that kind of treatment for fifty years, we'd be in a different situation. And if we gave that kind of government (state-socialism!) support to solar or whatever now, somehow I think we might compete with the unviable-without-subsidy nuclear industry.
If you only watch TV, rioters from Eugene burned Seattle to the ground in '99. But if you were there or read studies (like the conservative Rand Corporation's, my fave ) you learn that maybe a hundred people came at mid-day intending to break windows and do property damage--that's your riot. But 30,000 people were there non-violently starting at dawn. And the cops started tear-gassing and pepper-spraying and all kinds of violence hours before any windows were harmed.
They assaulted non-violent crowds for blocking streets to prevent a meeting of what many saw as an undemocratic organization. I was there, and we fully intended that some of us would be arrested and the rest were ready to support us as we went off to jail singing "We shall overcome" or whatever, right? But the Seattle Police Department decided not to arrest people and instead used up their stock of chemical weopons by mid-afternoon and had to send to Montana to get more. And the next day they officially suspended the constitution and decided to arrest hundreds of people for singing the Star Spangled Banner and holding copies of the Bill of Rights in public. They were out of control.
That was not a riot (except on the part of the police, and hours later a small group of protesters), and the fact that people think it was only shows how little our media covers anything but sadly broken windows and smiling politicians. Meanwhile, the WTO has basically collapsed, and they're making a "24" style movie about the protests. I won't forget what happened those days, plenty to be learned from it.
I am a rank-beginner at site design, but from my pouring over books to help me learn, most of the mentions of accessibility mentioned that it made it much easier to get "ranked" on search engines, because search engins read text like us, not pictures. So I added little labels to our images and got good ratings on the online disability raters like the ones I found here: http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/abtools.html#te sting
Not like it's related, but we got good ratings on Google soon after. So it didn't hurt us at all.
What I want to know is: WHY DOES TARGET WANT TO PREVENT ALL BLIND PEOPLE FROM SHOPPING ON THEIR WEBSITE? Are they just stupid? Lemme tell you, the next step after(?) a lawsuit is you'll have a hundred blind adults and kids with their canes and aide-dogs chaining closed the doors to your store. Just showing everybody else what it's like to not be allowed to shop there. You can get rid of them by sending them to jail, your choice. But you'll do it to their face, on TV, not just while they sit home on their keyboards because you figure you'll save a buck.
Kind of a pain to make it on the bus down to the actual store, but if they won't sell to me online, I guess we'll be "seeing" you in person.
This case isn't decided; I hope to hear more about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if we charge companies (rather than after-the-fact charging the public) maybe they'll choose not to pollute in the first place? If somebody made billions and I get charged, how are they supposed to learn to do something better? So, I'd rather have them pay.
I understand that Wall Street will not insure new nuclear plants, at all. And they require subsidy and federal investment guarantees in order to pencil out. Now if we had given "alternative" energy that kind of treatment for fifty years, we'd be in a different situation. And if we gave that kind of government (state-socialism!) support to solar or whatever now, somehow I think we might compete with the unviable-without-subsidy nuclear industry.
If you only watch TV, rioters from Eugene burned Seattle to the ground in '99. But if you were there or read studies (like the conservative Rand Corporation's, my fave ) you learn that maybe a hundred people came at mid-day intending to break windows and do property damage--that's your riot. But 30,000 people were there non-violently starting at dawn. And the cops started tear-gassing and pepper-spraying and all kinds of violence hours before any windows were harmed.
They assaulted non-violent crowds for blocking streets to prevent a meeting of what many saw as an undemocratic organization. I was there, and we fully intended that some of us would be arrested and the rest were ready to support us as we went off to jail singing "We shall overcome" or whatever, right? But the Seattle Police Department decided not to arrest people and instead used up their stock of chemical weopons by mid-afternoon and had to send to Montana to get more. And the next day they officially suspended the constitution and decided to arrest hundreds of people for singing the Star Spangled Banner and holding copies of the Bill of Rights in public. They were out of control.
That was not a riot (except on the part of the police, and hours later a small group of protesters), and the fact that people think it was only shows how little our media covers anything but sadly broken windows and smiling politicians. Meanwhile, the WTO has basically collapsed, and they're making a "24" style movie about the protests. I won't forget what happened those days, plenty to be learned from it.
I am a rank-beginner at site design, but from my pouring over books to help me learn, most of the mentions of accessibility mentioned that it made it much easier to get "ranked" on search engines, because search engins read text like us, not pictures. So I added little labels to our images and got good ratings on the online disability raters like the ones I found here: http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/abtools.html#te sting
Not like it's related, but we got good ratings on Google soon after. So it didn't hurt us at all.
What I want to know is: WHY DOES TARGET WANT TO PREVENT ALL BLIND PEOPLE FROM SHOPPING ON THEIR WEBSITE? Are they just stupid? Lemme tell you, the next step after(?) a lawsuit is you'll have a hundred blind adults and kids with their canes and aide-dogs chaining closed the doors to your store. Just showing everybody else what it's like to not be allowed to shop there. You can get rid of them by sending them to jail, your choice. But you'll do it to their face, on TV, not just while they sit home on their keyboards because you figure you'll save a buck.
Kind of a pain to make it on the bus down to the actual store, but if they won't sell to me online, I guess we'll be "seeing" you in person.
This case isn't decided; I hope to hear more about it.
peace b