I don't think that auto manufacturers should be required to create cars that drive themselves for the blind, or make other accommodations for people of other disabilities.
I'm not uncompassionate to the misfortunes of others, in fact the town I live is a leader-blind city, they train the dogs here, they have installed beeping/talking crosswalks, etc.
Very nice! But at some point we have to just say sorry, this just wasn't designed for you! Web applications (whether flash based, web 2.0/AJAX, etc.) in particular are designed to provide feature-rich, VISUAL interaction. These tools are created mostly to increase productivity, simplicity, and hopefully more intuitive interfaces.
Frankly, we have bigger fish to fry... and its simply not feasible/economical or in some cases even technologically possible to ask the web developer to build accessibility in to a web-based application.
Informational websites, on the other hand have come a long way... most screen readers don't have a problem with these types of sites. Not to mention rss feeds etc, which I'm sure the blind have a high appreciation for.
So while there is some progress on this front, I just don't see how its ever going to be fixed. One day, the technology will be there to supplement vision, so there is that. Until then, it seems like tunnel-vision (excuse the pun) to expect any law or enforcement mechanism (unlikely) to fix the problem.
"I predict that by the end of the year, we will have high quality bots that can beat 99% of players, and by the end of 2010 No Limit Texas will be a computer dominated game. "... and the cow jumped over the moon.
I'd take that bet. Hold 'em is not chess and it's certainly not math. You might as well write the program to make random plays, because unless the bot has the hand won (within the top 2 or 3 possible winning hands), no amount of math (which in the end, is all that computers really do), will make a bot beat an opponent of even average skill.
As a programmer who actually wins at poker, I find this entire thread ridiculous to the point of absurdity. Poker is more than the chips, more than the cards. You can not quantify luck, nor can you predict with any certainty the actions of a player in any given hand.
Any player can make the mathematically correct move 100% of the time, and still lose the game. Good players change their play on each hand, sometimes run aggressive, then slow down a bit, sometimes trap, sometimes fold "Good" hands based on "trends", betting patterns, and INTUITION. Good players can recover from mistakes in math, judgment, and the others players' "lucky streak".
Never will, in my judgment, a computer program have the heart, to lets say, to call an passive-aggressive player at showdown holding only a Jack high.
As for the 2029 prediction, and from someone who has actually written ELIZA-like bots, from the age of 8 years old on my Commodore, to more modern "self-teaching" bots as a hobby... I've always thought that it would be possible to write a program that beats the Turing test, but never would I make the leap from a computer's math, to a living creature's intellect. If it's even possible to model and duplicate a human brain (which I believe is a fallacy), a computer will never "think" or "comprehend", it will always be a trick, a man behind the curtains, pulling the strings.
This PRIVACY INVASION. Plain and simple. It should not be allowed without a warrant under the law. It's the same as wire tapping, could possibly argued as violation of the first amendment "freedom of speech", not to mention the 4th amendment protections against illegal "search and seizure".
If Intellectual Property is indeed property, then we OWN the packets we transmit (until proved otherwise). Monitoring bandwidth is one thing, but opening packets to determine their contents should *NOT* be lawful without a warrant.
I suppose if you agree to them listening in on your phone calls (VOIP, etc.) in their small print, then its the consumers fault(?) But also taking in to consideration they have virtual monopolies over certain juridictions, there really needs to be legal recourse for consumers against this practice.
I charge my phone with USB, I control my camcorder with Firewire.
But the thing is, the average Joe has heard the term USB upteem times more then they've heard Firewire. It comes down to name recognition, which I'm sure has as much to do with cost and marketshare factors.
As my plumber friend would say "what the hell is firewire?"
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not uncompassionate to the misfortunes of others, in fact the town I live is a leader-blind city, they train the dogs here, they have installed beeping/talking crosswalks, etc.
Very nice! But at some point we have to just say sorry, this just wasn't designed for you! Web applications (whether flash based, web 2.0/AJAX, etc.) in particular are designed to provide feature-rich, VISUAL interaction. These tools are created mostly to increase productivity, simplicity, and hopefully more intuitive interfaces.
Frankly, we have bigger fish to fry... and its simply not feasible/economical or in some cases even technologically possible to ask the web developer to build accessibility in to a web-based application.
Informational websites, on the other hand have come a long way... most screen readers don't have a problem with these types of sites. Not to mention rss feeds etc, which I'm sure the blind have a high appreciation for.
So while there is some progress on this front, I just don't see how its ever going to be fixed. One day, the technology will be there to supplement vision, so there is that. Until then, it seems like tunnel-vision (excuse the pun) to expect any law or enforcement mechanism (unlikely) to fix the problem.
"I predict that by the end of the year, we will have high quality bots that can beat 99% of players, and by the end of 2010 No Limit Texas will be a computer dominated game. " ... and the cow jumped over the moon.
I'd take that bet. Hold 'em is not chess and it's certainly not math. You might as well write the program to make random plays, because unless the bot has the hand won (within the top 2 or 3 possible winning hands), no amount of math (which in the end, is all that computers really do), will make a bot beat an opponent of even average skill.
As a programmer who actually wins at poker, I find this entire thread ridiculous to the point of absurdity. Poker is more than the chips, more than the cards. You can not quantify luck, nor can you predict with any certainty the actions of a player in any given hand.
Any player can make the mathematically correct move 100% of the time, and still lose the game. Good players change their play on each hand, sometimes run aggressive, then slow down a bit, sometimes trap, sometimes fold "Good" hands based on "trends", betting patterns, and INTUITION. Good players can recover from mistakes in math, judgment, and the others players' "lucky streak".
Never will, in my judgment, a computer program have the heart, to lets say, to call an passive-aggressive player at showdown holding only a Jack high.
As for the 2029 prediction, and from someone who has actually written ELIZA-like bots, from the age of 8 years old on my Commodore, to more modern "self-teaching" bots as a hobby... I've always thought that it would be possible to write a program that beats the Turing test, but never would I make the leap from a computer's math, to a living creature's intellect. If it's even possible to model and duplicate a human brain (which I believe is a fallacy), a computer will never "think" or "comprehend", it will always be a trick, a man behind the curtains, pulling the strings.
This PRIVACY INVASION. Plain and simple. It should not be allowed without a warrant under the law. It's the same as wire tapping, could possibly argued as violation of the first amendment "freedom of speech", not to mention the 4th amendment protections against illegal "search and seizure". If Intellectual Property is indeed property, then we OWN the packets we transmit (until proved otherwise). Monitoring bandwidth is one thing, but opening packets to determine their contents should *NOT* be lawful without a warrant. I suppose if you agree to them listening in on your phone calls (VOIP, etc.) in their small print, then its the consumers fault(?) But also taking in to consideration they have virtual monopolies over certain juridictions, there really needs to be legal recourse for consumers against this practice.
Do you also fix the plumbing? Paint the walls? Change your own oil? Quit beiung a cheap ass, HIRE A PROFESSIONAL.
I charge my phone with USB, I control my camcorder with Firewire. But the thing is, the average Joe has heard the term USB upteem times more then they've heard Firewire. It comes down to name recognition, which I'm sure has as much to do with cost and marketshare factors. As my plumber friend would say "what the hell is firewire?"
You know once somehting is publically broadcast there is no controlling it. Try as you might, the public domain is the public domain!