But if you send something via email, you're an idiot if you don't consider the fact that you might accidentally be filed as spam by spam filters, so if someone doesn't respond to your letter, you try another contact method -- say, the next one down the list. No one is going to stop using a spam filter on their email, and like it or not spam email looks a lot like the stuff that was probably sent out.
And no one made you use email in the first place -- you had a list of choices and you chose the top one on the list even though you knew about this potential downside. And you whine when you run into the downside you knew about, or should have known about?
If you don't like being spam filtered, kindly solve the spam problem for the rest of us, making those filters unnecessary, then convince the rest of us to use your solution.
Exactly... advertisers whining that no one looks at their crap strikes me as ludicrous. If you make your message intrusive so that I can't do what I came around to do, then yes, you are going to get blocked. Don't whine at me about it -- you pushed too far.
Cut back on the annoyance factor and we'll look at you again, capisce?
And that is a joke all in itself. Yes, there are those who can do more than others, but that doesn't mean a damn thing regarding whether or not the deaf person has a perfectly valid reason to be accomodated under disability laws and by the rest of society. Or are you just trying to piss off everyone who isn't paralyzed from the neck down and has some other sort of disability?
Only on Slashdot and Fark do I see such fine display of such attitudes qualities as this. Congratulations. You suck.
Oh, no problem! The quick answer is: I can talk on the phone, but I prefer not to -- my hearing aid has been acting up and more and more lately (it's being replaced next month, hopefully) and I'm just a lot more comfortable with text messaging. I tell people to email me before trying to call me, but unfortunately some places (like two VW shops I contacted about having some maintenance done on my beloved Golf) didn't simply email me back... they called instead. (Why change the medium of communication, I don't know). Arg...
I myself usually don't like lawsuits either as many of them are pointless. However, unfortunately sometimes they're required to produce a beneficial end result, as was the case for accomodations for wheelchair users. I've been in other situations where I could sue before and chose not to because I felt it unnecessary... but this is one of the very rare issues where I do actually find myself willing to join in a court battle to help myself (and by so doing help millions of others now and in the future).
Thank you! I can't stand that. They even spell it with an E over on the photo forums I frequent.
I also have a D70, though I sold the kit lens to a friend when I picked up the 24-120 VR. I've debated getting that 50, but I haven't -- I want the 80-400 VR for airshow photography first, and I gotta save up for that (and some other stuff too). I'd love the 200-400 AF-S, but the price induces heart attacks. I'm an advanced amateur, not a pro...
Put AF-S and VR on the 70-300 and make it teleconverter-compatible and I'm all set!
And my opinion that you're a hypocrite is unchanged. Like I said. If you really dislike the idea of actually obeying the rules, then tell me your true feelings about those handicapped parking spaces, wheelchair ramps, wider doors, elevators, and so on. I don't see you bitching about those. I see a lot of whining and moaning directed against someone with a disability that you can't see or touch, which means you don't have to look at what you're so callously demeaning. I bet you'd change your tune pretty fucking quick if I ripped cochleas out, wouldn't you?
Do you also park in handicapped parking spaces when "no one was using them" just because it's more convenient for you and and saves you gas because you don't have to drive around the parking lot looking for a space like the rest of us do?
Unlike you, I respect the fact that some people need a little help to get through life. That's what this society as a whole does. I actually have that respect because I need that respect, and if you can't give a little, well then, pray you never have to be on the other end of it, because it's attitudes like yours that make life miserable (and yes, it IS miserable very frequently) for those who the law was designed to help.
If you don't want to help shoulder the cost, then I repeat: don't own a business, as that's part of the cost. Geez. I can't stand people who think they are above the rules.
And thank you for helping me respond to all the comments! I'm trying to keep up and explain where I'm coming from without insulting anyone. I'm not sure yet if I've succeeded, but I am trying. I really don't understand what all the comlaining is about and why there are several people outright telling me that my disability is somehow less in need of addressing than a guy in a wheelchair.
I'm female, but I'm on slashdot, one or two of them have assumed I'm a guy. Oh well!:p
I really think some of them would change their tune if they too lost some of their hearing (I've had loss since birth due to prenatal rubella) and had to contend with it every day.
I also think some peoples' minds will explode if I ever wind up in a wheelchair on top of using a hearing aid!
Hard of hearing and hearing impaired are sometimes used interchangeably, as I do.
As for "losing money"... as I replied to that guy, you know there are laws governing businesses when you go into business, and things like handicapped parking spaces in the lot, or having to install ramps, etc., are all part of the cost of doing business, which you accept by going into business. So are taxes. I lose "profit" (the money I save out of each month's paycheck) by paying income taxes, and I don't like it necessarily, but I am required to pay the taxes -- that's part of the cost of living.
No, I'm not taking anyone's profit. I'm saying that something I am legally entitled to (so says the law) does not exist, and it wouldn't intrude on anyone else's enjoyment of a film if it did exist, and it's part of the cost of being in a given business to provide access to disabled users.
There have even been cases about websites that aren't accessible to handicapped users (usually blind people). But you wouldn't notice it when you were using a website that was blind-accessible unless you checked to see whether it was...
Do you say that about having to have fewer parking spaces in your parking lot that can be used by most of your patrons because you're required to have handicapped spaces available?
Do you say that you have one or two fewer stalls in your bathroom because you have to have one that can accomodate a wheelchair?
Do you say that having a ramp, elevator, etc, that are the most visible accomodations for the disabled digs into your profits because you had to install them as legally required?
Do you say that having slightly wider doors for wheelchair users creates more of a draft that your a/c system has to deal with, even though non-wheelchair users (like me) appreciate the slight extra space?
If you can't follow the laws governing businesses without complaining -- you knew they existed when you went into business and would affect profits -- why are you in business? Do you not pay sales tax, too, because having to pay the tax takes away from your profit?
Have fun with your late fees and property and account seizures.
And your question has been asked before, and experts have addressed it. The vastly simplified answer is that the cost to implement is minimal and will be made up over time with the cost of tickets and food, which is already quite high. Also, the increased sales from those who can now visit the theater (like me) would also offset the cost.
It's like renovations of buildings to accept wheelchairs (wider doors, ramps, lever-based doorknobs). The cost to add in at construction time is minimal and it's not difficult to add them to older facilities, it's legally required, and once the improvements are installed, everyone appreciates them and uses them, not just the formally disabled.
Again, as I have said multiple times in this thread, look up how rear window captioning actually works. It is NOT visible unless you check out a reflector from the box office or the ushers.
I strongly suspect, and have had those suspicions affirmed by this thread, that uninformed belief that accomodations for the disabled prove intrusive on those who don't want to use those accomodations.
Take the time to learn. It'd take about as much time as it did to post a complaining comment telling me I'm a selfish brat for wanting accomodations. I actually think it's quite rude and selfish on others' parts to tell those of us who have a legitimate disability, and a law protecting our needs, that we don't matter.
The fact that the captions are missing is the entire point. And yes, blind people have an equally valid reason to ask for help, and this can be done and has been -- look up the Descriptive Video Service, for instance. A way to make television programs accomodating to the blind or those who want an alternate-language soundtrack.
So yes, this can be done, has been done, and should be done.
"Basic human need"? Where does it say in the ADA that something has to be a "basic human need" to be accessible to the handicapped? No, it does not say that at all. It says that public places must be acceptable, as long as they fall under its jurisdiction. No matter what purpose they serve.
s it a "basic need" to be able to park right next to the door to the local shopping mall so a wheelchair-bound teenage brat can go to Hot Topic? No, but the parking spaces are there. Is it a basic need to be able to go to a sex shop? No, but the handicapped parking spaces are there, too. Any business above a certain size (or meeting other requirements, check local codes) HAS to provide this accomodation, whether it is a basic need or not.
Your logic seems to be saying that these spaces should not exist anywhere but the grocery store or other "vital" places. Yet, that's not what the law says, that's not what society has decided.
There are no different "levels" of disability. There are just different kinds. And many of them can be provided for, and that's what this law and my complaint are all about. And just because my disability isn't visible doesn't mean I don't have the same needs and wants as anyone else.
If you want to take away my desire for accomodations, then take away those special parking spaces. And start your stopwatch til you get hit with a lawsuit or a building-code-violation fine. Because it can and does happen.
It doesn't cost that much to install a RWC system. The development costs have been paid already. "Undue burden"? We're the ones who are getting the undue burden placed right on us!
I actually went to a movie once (Air Force One) that was run with the volume level cranked way too much. I was unable to hear properly for two days after that and I had persistent tinnitus for months. I was scared that what is left of my hearing was destroyed, but fortunately, the nerves recovered after a while.
So yeah. you don't just crank the volume.
And those devices don't help given that they use the kind of cheap headphones you get with cheap walkmans, etc., and I can't plug in my hearing-aid adapter because they don't have the flippin' five-cent STANDARD stereo jack that 99% of the rest of the audio equipment on the planet uses.
I am actually getting a digital hearing aid late this month or early next, and I expect that it will help somewhat -- but I doubt it will be a deus ex machina that will make all my problems go away.
You also raise a very good point about popular movies that didn't have English dialogue (Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon did this also, didn't it? I haven't seen it or the movie you cited, though). I haven't heard (pun unintended) anyone complain about the subtitles being intrusive, and actually, several people mentioned those films to me as ones I might be able to see in theaters, even though they aren't the kind of subject matter I prefer (I'm an SF&F fan).
That is not my problem. As long as they insist on charging insane amounts of money when I can get the same thing for less, I will -- especially with what it costs to see a movie in the first place at the rare times I do go to the movies.
I suspect many people will share that same attitude as long as they fail to realize they can make more money by having fair prices and selling more food, and since it's Right There and convenient, people WILL buy it.
Right now, though, the few minutes' effort required to go across the street to Walgreens is worth it -- and the Walgreens planners know it. And I don't feel bad about leaving my "outside food" on the floor for the ushers to clean up -- I clean up after myself and throw my empty containers in the trash on my way out.
I do have decent speakers at home that provide pretty good sound. They're not surround (I'm totally deaf in my left ear, so I have no stereo perception), and not quite as good as a theater's, but they're pretty good. My ultimate home video setup is a CableCard2-capable HD TiVo, a wall-mounted 40-50-inch monitor (selected in part based on the font used in its caption decoder chip, as it must be readable across the room and look good), and my pair of stereo tower speakers.
Hearing aids amplify everything equally. When the music and sound effects drown out the dialogue, turning the sound up does not help because it distorts the sound and because when you make the dialogue louder, you also make the music and effects louder. The now-distorted dialogue is still drowned out by the distorted effects and distorted music.
Slashdot Mirror
But if you send something via email, you're an idiot if you don't consider the fact that you might accidentally be filed as spam by spam filters, so if someone doesn't respond to your letter, you try another contact method -- say, the next one down the list. No one is going to stop using a spam filter on their email, and like it or not spam email looks a lot like the stuff that was probably sent out.
And no one made you use email in the first place -- you had a list of choices and you chose the top one on the list even though you knew about this potential downside. And you whine when you run into the downside you knew about, or should have known about?
If you don't like being spam filtered, kindly solve the spam problem for the rest of us, making those filters unnecessary, then convince the rest of us to use your solution.
Or stop bitching.
Exactly... advertisers whining that no one looks at their crap strikes me as ludicrous. If you make your message intrusive so that I can't do what I came around to do, then yes, you are going to get blocked. Don't whine at me about it -- you pushed too far.
Cut back on the annoyance factor and we'll look at you again, capisce?
Ah, so you must want to beam content straight into peoples' brains, as here we all are using a specialized application to read your comment ...
And why I don't accept cookies from thirdparty sites.
And that is a joke all in itself. Yes, there are those who can do more than others, but that doesn't mean a damn thing regarding whether or not the deaf person has a perfectly valid reason to be accomodated under disability laws and by the rest of society. Or are you just trying to piss off everyone who isn't paralyzed from the neck down and has some other sort of disability?
Only on Slashdot and Fark do I see such fine display of such attitudes qualities as this. Congratulations. You suck.
Oh, no problem! The quick answer is: I can talk on the phone, but I prefer not to -- my hearing aid has been acting up and more and more lately (it's being replaced next month, hopefully) and I'm just a lot more comfortable with text messaging. I tell people to email me before trying to call me, but unfortunately some places (like two VW shops I contacted about having some maintenance done on my beloved Golf) didn't simply email me back ... they called instead. (Why change the medium of communication, I don't know). Arg ...
I myself usually don't like lawsuits either as many of them are pointless. However, unfortunately sometimes they're required to produce a beneficial end result, as was the case for accomodations for wheelchair users. I've been in other situations where I could sue before and chose not to because I felt it unnecessary ... but this is one of the very rare issues where I do actually find myself willing to join in a court battle to help myself (and by so doing help millions of others now and in the future).
(For the record, lens. No e.)
Thank you! I can't stand that. They even spell it with an E over on the photo forums I frequent.
I also have a D70, though I sold the kit lens to a friend when I picked up the 24-120 VR. I've debated getting that 50, but I haven't -- I want the 80-400 VR for airshow photography first, and I gotta save up for that (and some other stuff too). I'd love the 200-400 AF-S, but the price induces heart attacks. I'm an advanced amateur, not a pro...
Put AF-S and VR on the 70-300 and make it teleconverter-compatible and I'm all set!
Add one. Sit back. Laugh. ;)
And my opinion that you're a hypocrite is unchanged. Like I said. If you really dislike the idea of actually obeying the rules, then tell me your true feelings about those handicapped parking spaces, wheelchair ramps, wider doors, elevators, and so on. I don't see you bitching about those. I see a lot of whining and moaning directed against someone with a disability that you can't see or touch, which means you don't have to look at what you're so callously demeaning. I bet you'd change your tune pretty fucking quick if I ripped cochleas out, wouldn't you?
Do you also park in handicapped parking spaces when "no one was using them" just because it's more convenient for you and and saves you gas because you don't have to drive around the parking lot looking for a space like the rest of us do?
Unlike you, I respect the fact that some people need a little help to get through life. That's what this society as a whole does. I actually have that respect because I need that respect, and if you can't give a little, well then, pray you never have to be on the other end of it, because it's attitudes like yours that make life miserable (and yes, it IS miserable very frequently) for those who the law was designed to help.
If you don't want to help shoulder the cost, then I repeat: don't own a business, as that's part of the cost. Geez. I can't stand people who think they are above the rules.
And thank you for helping me respond to all the comments! I'm trying to keep up and explain where I'm coming from without insulting anyone. I'm not sure yet if I've succeeded, but I am trying. I really don't understand what all the comlaining is about and why there are several people outright telling me that my disability is somehow less in need of addressing than a guy in a wheelchair.
:p
I'm female, but I'm on slashdot, one or two of them have assumed I'm a guy. Oh well!
I really think some of them would change their tune if they too lost some of their hearing (I've had loss since birth due to prenatal rubella) and had to contend with it every day.
I also think some peoples' minds will explode if I ever wind up in a wheelchair on top of using a hearing aid!
Hard of hearing and hearing impaired are sometimes used interchangeably, as I do.
... as I replied to that guy, you know there are laws governing businesses when you go into business, and things like handicapped parking spaces in the lot, or having to install ramps, etc., are all part of the cost of doing business, which you accept by going into business. So are taxes. I lose "profit" (the money I save out of each month's paycheck) by paying income taxes, and I don't like it necessarily, but I am required to pay the taxes -- that's part of the cost of living.
...
As for "losing money"
No, I'm not taking anyone's profit. I'm saying that something I am legally entitled to (so says the law) does not exist, and it wouldn't intrude on anyone else's enjoyment of a film if it did exist, and it's part of the cost of being in a given business to provide access to disabled users.
There have even been cases about websites that aren't accessible to handicapped users (usually blind people). But you wouldn't notice it when you were using a website that was blind-accessible unless you checked to see whether it was
Cost Of Doing Business. It's a fact of life.
No. I explained elsewhere in the thread, even though it does seem an oxymoron, so skepticism understood and no offense taken.
Do you say that about having to have fewer parking spaces in your parking lot that can be used by most of your patrons because you're required to have handicapped spaces available?
Do you say that you have one or two fewer stalls in your bathroom because you have to have one that can accomodate a wheelchair?
Do you say that having a ramp, elevator, etc, that are the most visible accomodations for the disabled digs into your profits because you had to install them as legally required?
Do you say that having slightly wider doors for wheelchair users creates more of a draft that your a/c system has to deal with, even though non-wheelchair users (like me) appreciate the slight extra space?
If you can't follow the laws governing businesses without complaining -- you knew they existed when you went into business and would affect profits -- why are you in business? Do you not pay sales tax, too, because having to pay the tax takes away from your profit?
Have fun with your late fees and property and account seizures.
St. Louis, Missouri.
And your question has been asked before, and experts have addressed it. The vastly simplified answer is that the cost to implement is minimal and will be made up over time with the cost of tickets and food, which is already quite high. Also, the increased sales from those who can now visit the theater (like me) would also offset the cost.
It's like renovations of buildings to accept wheelchairs (wider doors, ramps, lever-based doorknobs). The cost to add in at construction time is minimal and it's not difficult to add them to older facilities, it's legally required, and once the improvements are installed, everyone appreciates them and uses them, not just the formally disabled.
on those who do want to use those accomodations
Again, as I have said multiple times in this thread, look up how rear window captioning actually works. It is NOT visible unless you check out a reflector from the box office or the ushers.
I strongly suspect, and have had those suspicions affirmed by this thread, that uninformed belief that accomodations for the disabled prove intrusive on those who don't want to use those accomodations.
Take the time to learn. It'd take about as much time as it did to post a complaining comment telling me I'm a selfish brat for wanting accomodations. I actually think it's quite rude and selfish on others' parts to tell those of us who have a legitimate disability, and a law protecting our needs, that we don't matter.
Correction: "public spaces must be accessible".
The fact that the captions are missing is the entire point. And yes, blind people have an equally valid reason to ask for help, and this can be done and has been -- look up the Descriptive Video Service, for instance. A way to make television programs accomodating to the blind or those who want an alternate-language soundtrack.
So yes, this can be done, has been done, and should be done.
"Basic human need"? Where does it say in the ADA that something has to be a "basic human need" to be accessible to the handicapped? No, it does not say that at all. It says that public places must be acceptable, as long as they fall under its jurisdiction. No matter what purpose they serve.
s it a "basic need" to be able to park right next to the door to the local shopping mall so a wheelchair-bound teenage brat can go to Hot Topic? No, but the parking spaces are there. Is it a basic need to be able to go to a sex shop? No, but the handicapped parking spaces are there, too. Any business above a certain size (or meeting other requirements, check local codes) HAS to provide this accomodation, whether it is a basic need or not.
Your logic seems to be saying that these spaces should not exist anywhere but the grocery store or other "vital" places. Yet, that's not what the law says, that's not what society has decided.
There are no different "levels" of disability. There are just different kinds. And many of them can be provided for, and that's what this law and my complaint are all about. And just because my disability isn't visible doesn't mean I don't have the same needs and wants as anyone else.
If you want to take away my desire for accomodations, then take away those special parking spaces. And start your stopwatch til you get hit with a lawsuit or a building-code-violation fine. Because it can and does happen.
It doesn't cost that much to install a RWC system. The development costs have been paid already. "Undue burden"? We're the ones who are getting the undue burden placed right on us!
I actually went to a movie once (Air Force One) that was run with the volume level cranked way too much. I was unable to hear properly for two days after that and I had persistent tinnitus for months. I was scared that what is left of my hearing was destroyed, but fortunately, the nerves recovered after a while.
So yeah. you don't just crank the volume.
And those devices don't help given that they use the kind of cheap headphones you get with cheap walkmans, etc., and I can't plug in my hearing-aid adapter because they don't have the flippin' five-cent STANDARD stereo jack that 99% of the rest of the audio equipment on the planet uses.
So no, those aren't the solution.
I am actually getting a digital hearing aid late this month or early next, and I expect that it will help somewhat -- but I doubt it will be a deus ex machina that will make all my problems go away.
You also raise a very good point about popular movies that didn't have English dialogue (Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon did this also, didn't it? I haven't seen it or the movie you cited, though). I haven't heard (pun unintended) anyone complain about the subtitles being intrusive, and actually, several people mentioned those films to me as ones I might be able to see in theaters, even though they aren't the kind of subject matter I prefer (I'm an SF&F fan).
That is not my problem. As long as they insist on charging insane amounts of money when I can get the same thing for less, I will -- especially with what it costs to see a movie in the first place at the rare times I do go to the movies.
I suspect many people will share that same attitude as long as they fail to realize they can make more money by having fair prices and selling more food, and since it's Right There and convenient, people WILL buy it.
Right now, though, the few minutes' effort required to go across the street to Walgreens is worth it -- and the Walgreens planners know it. And I don't feel bad about leaving my "outside food" on the floor for the ushers to clean up -- I clean up after myself and throw my empty containers in the trash on my way out.
I do have decent speakers at home that provide pretty good sound. They're not surround (I'm totally deaf in my left ear, so I have no stereo perception), and not quite as good as a theater's, but they're pretty good. My ultimate home video setup is a CableCard2-capable HD TiVo, a wall-mounted 40-50-inch monitor (selected in part based on the font used in its caption decoder chip, as it must be readable across the room and look good), and my pair of stereo tower speakers.
Hearing aids amplify everything equally. When the music and sound effects drown out the dialogue, turning the sound up does not help because it distorts the sound and because when you make the dialogue louder, you also make the music and effects louder. The now-distorted dialogue is still drowned out by the distorted effects and distorted music.