Actually, 2048 bits on a symmetric key (which is what a password is) is insane overkill. You are making the classic mistake of comparing the number of bits in an asymmetric key to the number in a symmetric key. SSH, at best, uses 256 bit symmetric encryption for the session, so you would only need a (using your numbers for 6 bits per char) password that was 43 chars long. Anything longer is pointless, because your encryption/authentication scheme is only as good as the weakest link.
Lawyer/Accountant - Hell no, I'm not getting disbarred/whatever for you guys, and furthermore there's not a lawyer/accountant in the country who will put
their name on %dodgy_thing%, unless of course you buy lunch.
I don't think we disagree that much. If it would require major modifications to the product, or put a major burden on the manufacturer/designer/whoever, then I don't think that making the product accessible should be required.
Still you might consider that in this instance it's easy to dismiss the request for accessibility, because it's just a video game, and regardless of what this guy claims, I doubt it's going to have that big of an impact if this game remains inaccessible. However, what about Second Life? Many would argue that that is just a game as well. Yet, a number of universities and businesses offer services in Second Life. (I haven't looked into Second Life, so I don't know how accessible it is, but that's beside the point.)
The question is at what point do we decide that a disabled person deserves the right of access?
Check YouTube for videos on "screen readers". You can see the couple I've done at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmUPhEVWu_E
In short the web page is linearized, and read one line at a time by my screen reader. If there is a link for replying, my screen reader will say "link reply". It also tells me about tables, headings, ETC.
Without going into too many details (half of which I don't remember because it's been years since I played) the answer to your question is simply that a lot of information is given away in the audio. Also, the timing of punches, especially with the early opponents, tends to be quite predictable.
I have a hard time disagreeing with you completely. After all, it is just a game, and while I used to play frequently, I don't do so anymore, and so I couldn't care less how this case turns out.
I do disagree on one point however. Congress has decided that the value of including the disabled in society out-weighs the cost to companies of making that possible, when feasible. So, yes. If it is not too expensive to do so, then I think the law should require Sony to do what it reasonably can to accommodate disabled players.
To summarize: Should the suit have been brought? No. Should Sony have to follow the law like every other company and do what it reasonably can to accomidate the disabled? Yes. Should Sony have to spend tons of money or make major alterations to the game? No, and the law doesn't require that.
What are you talking about? Cars are quite accessible. I'm totally blind, and I've driven several times with friends (never on public roads). Aside from the gages, there is nothing about a car that I can't use. The problem is not the car, but my ability to see while driving (or rather its lack). There's nothing that the car manufacturers can do about that with current technology.
Sony, on the other hand, presumably may be able to do something to make the game accessible. On the other hand, they may not. My view is that if they can do something, and it's not unreasonably expensive, and if it doesn't require them to substantially alter their product, they should do so.
That being said, I think there are more important accessibility issues facing the blind, and I would much rather see those addressed first.
I am totally blind, and I have played video games, specifically Punch Out, so I can definitively say that it is possible, at least to play some games. Whether or not this lawsuit is justified depends on many facts that haven't been revealed.
If this guy is expecting the game to be substantially altered, then I think he's wrong, and the ADA (based on my reading) would not support his position. However, if he is simply asking Sony to add some small features to the game that would make it more accessible, then I think his suit is reasonable and he should win.
My understanding of the ADA is that it doesn't allow you to sue to change the laws of the universe. It just allows you to sue when a company does not provide reasonable accommodation when it is within their power to reasonably do so. Unfortunately, the definition of reasonable is quite relative.
Slashdot Mirror
Wonder if this classic from Slant 6 and the Jumpstarts, which was played on the Dr. Demento show several times had something to do with it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPfH-umG_ms
If there must be a sequel, can we at least get someone competent to write it? Is that Brandon Sanderson guy working on anything right now?
I don't recall stating that symmetric keys are related to authentication. May I suggest a careful reread?
Actually, 2048 bits on a symmetric key (which is what a password is) is insane overkill. You are making the classic mistake of comparing the number of bits in an asymmetric key to the number in a symmetric key. SSH, at best, uses 256 bit symmetric encryption for the session, so you would only need a (using your numbers for 6 bits per char) password that was 43 chars long. Anything longer is pointless, because your encryption/authentication scheme is only as good as the weakest link.
Lawyer/Accountant - Hell no, I'm not getting disbarred/whatever for you guys, and furthermore there's not a lawyer/accountant in the country who will put their name on %dodgy_thing%, unless of course you buy lunch.
I don't think we disagree that much. If it would require major modifications to the product, or put a major burden on the manufacturer/designer/whoever, then I don't think that making the product accessible should be required. Still you might consider that in this instance it's easy to dismiss the request for accessibility, because it's just a video game, and regardless of what this guy claims, I doubt it's going to have that big of an impact if this game remains inaccessible. However, what about Second Life? Many would argue that that is just a game as well. Yet, a number of universities and businesses offer services in Second Life. (I haven't looked into Second Life, so I don't know how accessible it is, but that's beside the point.) The question is at what point do we decide that a disabled person deserves the right of access?
Check YouTube for videos on "screen readers". You can see the couple I've done at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmUPhEVWu_E In short the web page is linearized, and read one line at a time by my screen reader. If there is a link for replying, my screen reader will say "link reply". It also tells me about tables, headings, ETC.
Without going into too many details (half of which I don't remember because it's been years since I played) the answer to your question is simply that a lot of information is given away in the audio. Also, the timing of punches, especially with the early opponents, tends to be quite predictable.
I have a hard time disagreeing with you completely. After all, it is just a game, and while I used to play frequently, I don't do so anymore, and so I couldn't care less how this case turns out. I do disagree on one point however. Congress has decided that the value of including the disabled in society out-weighs the cost to companies of making that possible, when feasible. So, yes. If it is not too expensive to do so, then I think the law should require Sony to do what it reasonably can to accommodate disabled players. To summarize: Should the suit have been brought? No. Should Sony have to follow the law like every other company and do what it reasonably can to accomidate the disabled? Yes. Should Sony have to spend tons of money or make major alterations to the game? No, and the law doesn't require that.
What are you talking about? Cars are quite accessible. I'm totally blind, and I've driven several times with friends (never on public roads). Aside from the gages, there is nothing about a car that I can't use. The problem is not the car, but my ability to see while driving (or rather its lack). There's nothing that the car manufacturers can do about that with current technology. Sony, on the other hand, presumably may be able to do something to make the game accessible. On the other hand, they may not. My view is that if they can do something, and it's not unreasonably expensive, and if it doesn't require them to substantially alter their product, they should do so. That being said, I think there are more important accessibility issues facing the blind, and I would much rather see those addressed first.
I am totally blind, and I have played video games, specifically Punch Out, so I can definitively say that it is possible, at least to play some games. Whether or not this lawsuit is justified depends on many facts that haven't been revealed. If this guy is expecting the game to be substantially altered, then I think he's wrong, and the ADA (based on my reading) would not support his position. However, if he is simply asking Sony to add some small features to the game that would make it more accessible, then I think his suit is reasonable and he should win. My understanding of the ADA is that it doesn't allow you to sue to change the laws of the universe. It just allows you to sue when a company does not provide reasonable accommodation when it is within their power to reasonably do so. Unfortunately, the definition of reasonable is quite relative.
It's nice to see that China is slowly but surely entering the 18th century. You can do it guys!