As for "If SW Airlines doesn't want blind people for customers, so be it," replace with "If SW Airlines doesn't want black people or women for customers, so be it."
You will probably reply that it's different.
You bet it is. It isn't even technologically feasible to make an ATM (or web site) that only white men are capable of using. Even if it was, that would arguably take more effort than just making an ordinary ATM or web site (for example, you would have to add some way to detect whether the user was a white man or not). In those cases, I think it would be reasonable to prohibit such "features".
But this case is different. In this case, the user actually lacks the ability to see, which is a prerequisite for functioning normally in our society, and Southwest simply hasn't added support for such users. They haven't deliberately denied access, as in your hypothetical case. Whether they should be required to add such features is certainly something that can (and should) be debated, but don't try to equate it with anti-racism and "fairness".
There is nothing intrinsic to travel on Southwest airlines that precludes access to blind passengers.
Yes, but what do travel on Southwest and access to Southwest's web site have to do with each other? I assume that Southwest has some sort of telephone center, which should be more than sufficient to make reservations, purchase tickets, and do anything else necessary. Even if you do argue a "right" to ride on Southwest, that doesn't equate to a "right" to use Southwest's web site. Those are two distinct actions, with different prerequisites.
For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that Southwest shouldn't be forced to make such changes. People with disabilities ought to realize that they can't participate fully in society, and accept that. (Or else find a workaround--like the text-to-speech devices--but failings of that workaround shouldn't be made the fault of society!)
And before you ask, yes, I would still hold the same opinion even if I was, or became, blind. (And I likewise don't go screaming ADA at companies because I happen to use Lynx a lot. I realize that by using Lynx I may not be able to use some sites--and I accept that.)
I have a suspicion that news.au.com is getting one slipped to them. The closest Google result I could get with "NTT NoCoMo skin" is this article about a cell phone that conducts sound through bone and cartilage, enabling you to listen to the call by sticking your finger in your ear.
Maybe you could try actually reading the article? It clearly states the source of the news, the Nihon Keizai Shimbun, and in fact the article is right at the top of the "companies" section (link, or Fish translation).
All five fingers down simultaneously is rest position -- this is how you can reorient your hands on home row without typing gobbledygook.
So what if you don't use home row in the first place? I don't (my hands tend to rest in a bit of an arc above the home row keys); in fact, I think home row is one of the leading contributors to RSI--how can you possibly hold your hands in such an unnatural position day in and day out? I sure can't.
So what, exactly, prevents Congress from doing what I describe above?
Public domain. If the law is struck down, then at least some material (that which would have lapsed into public domain under the previous law) will, in fact, become public domain. And once that happens, it will be perfectly legal to make as many copies as you want--and Congress and the copyright cartel can't touch you. Even if laws were passed such as you suggest, they couldn't apply to material that had already entered the public domain; that would be ex post facto, because it was public domain when it was copied in the first place.
That wouldn't, of course, prevent another CTEA from being passed that applied to works still under copyright at that point, but that doesn't mean it would necessarily pass judicial scrutiny. I could also see Congress attempt to ban the future copying of works whose copyright had lapsed due to the court decision, but I strongly suspect such a law would be thrown out as soon as it was challenged. In any case, the courts aren't stupid, and they wouldn't take kindly to Congress trying to get around them; I could see a decision after two or three times around that "copyright extensions for any reason are invalid".
Suppose the system decides, for one reason or another, that you're a potential terrorist, and you get body-searched, dragged off somewhere, or whatever. Now maybe you come back out unscratched, demonstrating that there's really nothing suspicious about you. But the 50 people behind you in line are now thinking "gee, the computer said he's dangerous, is our flight okay?" Suddenly, without having ever done anything wrong, you've got a big black mark hanging over your head. Think "legalized defamation of character".
There are lots of other problems, too, which the other comments in this article explain well. But the issue of false positives is probably the clearest example of why you don't have to have ever done anything wrong to be worried.
Come on -- week long voting shouldn't be an issue.
Oh, yes, it is. Will people be patient enough to wait a whole week to find out the results of the election? More importantly, will the press, knowing that people are impatient, exhibit enough self-control to not publish any election-related information--including exit polls and what have you--before the election ends? If not, you're destroying any pretense of having a fair election.
I'm not a pilot myself--far from it--but one of my most thrilling experiences in an airplane was when I rode [airline censored to protect the innocent] once; I expressed interest in "how the thing works" (kids, don't try this at home) and the pilots actually let me into the cockpit! I got to look out the front window, look at the instrument panels, chat with the pilots . . . it was great. I actually thought about taking flying lessons for a while.
So you choose to judge a book by its cover, even though you know it's unfair?
Yes, I do. Undoubtedly I'll miss things that way, but I don't have the luxury of infinite time in which to ponder in detail everything that comes to my attention. No matter what I do I have to choose between things I read/view/etc. in detail and those I don't; the cover of a book, the spelling and grammar of a commentary, and so on are simply factors I use to make that decision. (And certainly not the only ones--for example, I did read the commentary despite its style because I heard from others that it had good things to say.)
If you can give me eternal life, I'll be more than happy to not judge books by their covers, or commentary by its style. If not, well, c'est la vie.
Perhaps he does recognize that some people will be turned off by his shorthand. That seems likely doesn't it, that he is willfully flouting conformity. Does that make it okay with you?
Certainly, as long as he realizes what he's doing.
It's bad manners for him to post 1n 31337 on his own web site, and good manners for you to rip him apart on Slashdot?
First, if he's writing a message for the general public to read (as opposed to an audience familiar with him), then regardless of where he posts it, he ought to avoid writing "1n 31337"--or at least recognize that doing so will lose him some readers. Second, I was focusing on the parent post, not on Prince's commentary itself, which I was just using as an example. Yes, I am criticizing the commentary, but hey, criticism happens; if you think Prince would be interested in hearing such criticism, feel free to pass it along, but since I don't see a "comments to" link or address on the page, I'll pass.
I mean seriously, if you're going to measure somebody's intelligence based on their shorthand (note: these aren't even typos we're talking abouthere) then wtf's the point? We're talking about the same group of people who uses email, instant messaging, IRC, and so on. Yet you're supposed to spell check everything you say?
Well, yes. Have you ever heard of "manners"? Sure, it's fine to abbreviate and such if you're talking to people you know, but otherwise it's only polite to use proper grammar and spelling. Call it "an attempt at a social class" or whatever you like, but how you write does make an impression on people, and you know what they say about first impressions. If I didn't already know about Prince, I would have been very disinclined to read his entire commentary.
If you don't take exception to such writing styles, well, good for you--but be aware that many, many people do, and no amount of telling them "don't judge a book by its cover" will change that.
how many people own and operate a MiniDisk player on a regular basis?
Um, how about a majority of Japan's teens/twenties population? MD players are literally all over the place here. They're way smaller than CD players, they don't skip (okay, maybe that's just that my CD player is too old), they're rewritable, 320 minutes per disc, no worries about discs getting scratched . . . need I say more?
SSH is only as insecure as the user is stupid, at least with respect to MITM. The only way to do MITM is to get the client to accept a bogus host key, and no one who has any clue what they're doing would do that. And yes, there are plenty of ways to get a host key onto a client machine without relying on an unsecured network connection; think floppies, dead trees, etc.
Of course, as another poster commented, securing the connection itself won't help you if you're connecting to competitor.com from your work machine--but if you're doing that you've got moral problems anyway and deserve to be screwed.
You are exactly wrong. You have *NO* right to use/distribute/sell code that isn't yours. The GPL *gives* you right to do that, which is quite different from a eula which restricts your rights.
Mostly correct, except for one thing: you don't have to agree to the GPL if you only use GPL'd software, since the GPL only covers (copying and) distribution. You can use GPL'd software without agreeing to the license and still be within the bounds of copyright law. Of course, this distinction is irrelevant to companies like RedHat which make money from selling GPL software, but it is an important one for users of the software.
The integration could gain a second or two also by not compiling the same header 3 or 4 times for diferent files in the same project. Gcc is a stand-alone compiler and cannot have this type of integration (could?).
I don't see any reason why this couldn't be done standalone. Back when I used an Amiga, my compiler of choice (DICE)--a standalone compiler, by the way--had an option to precompile header files and store the results (macros, structs, typedefs, etc.) in a separate file, and then read the results of preprocessing/compiling those headers from that file directly into memory. This sped up compilation of large projects by 2-3x IIRC (and this was in the days of multi-hour compiles).
In general, prices of Japanese stocks are higher than what you'd see in the U.S. (at least; it sounds like Canada is similar), with fewer shares of stock per company. For instance, Yahoo Japan made news here two or three years ago when it hit 100 million yen (about US$950,000 at contemporary exchange rates) per share, but that was divided among just 10,000 or so shares IIRC.
Many others have pointed it out as well, but the critical difference between junk (snail) mail and junk faxes is that junk faxes use up actual resources of the recipient, namely paper and ink, while junk mail is paid for entirely by the sender and does not cost the recipient anything (other than the time to throw it away, which is generally considered insignificant--whether that's proper is another question). To draw an extreme example, because I can't think of a better one at the moment, it's like how yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is illegal; the right to free speech is not an unrestricted right.
Thanks for the clarification, and the URL in your second message. I'd personally want to look into the issue further, but on the other hand, one could probably make the argument that incidents like Columbine, etc. stand out because they're so infrequent--much like airplane crashes.
While I'm not debating your overall argument, what's your evidence for this particular point? Incidents like Columbine give people (including me) a pretty strong impression that juvenile violence is on the increase--maybe in numbers, maybe in level, but things like that sure didn't happen 10 years ago when I was in school.
They are blocking the RIAA (which I could care less about), and they are also blocking users of P2P software.
Wrong from the start. They aren't blocking "users of P2P software", they're blocking "[c]lients which connect to our peer-to-peer clients, and then afterwards attempt to illegally access the network". In other words, if you try to download the files over P2P and then try to break into their system then your IP is toast, but just accessing the files won't get you anything, except a bunch of junk data. RTFA (carefully).
With a book-sized modem, one gets voice quality comparable to that of regular voice lines -- at a fraction the cost.
They forget to say, "and with a hundred times the random dropouts."
Granted, I haven't personally tried the service so I can't say anything from personal experience, but here in Japan the Yahoo BB! (ADSL) service is widely recognized as the worst in the country in both connectivity and customer service, and I have to admit I'd be surprised if they can do much better than that on VoIP. Thanks, but I'll stick with my 7c/3min NTT phone line for now.
Slashdot Mirror
Fine. How about ATMs that only white men can use?
As for "If SW Airlines doesn't want blind people for customers, so be it," replace with "If SW Airlines doesn't want black people or women for customers, so be it."
You will probably reply that it's different.
You bet it is. It isn't even technologically feasible to make an ATM (or web site) that only white men are capable of using. Even if it was, that would arguably take more effort than just making an ordinary ATM or web site (for example, you would have to add some way to detect whether the user was a white man or not). In those cases, I think it would be reasonable to prohibit such "features".
But this case is different. In this case, the user actually lacks the ability to see, which is a prerequisite for functioning normally in our society, and Southwest simply hasn't added support for such users. They haven't deliberately denied access, as in your hypothetical case. Whether they should be required to add such features is certainly something that can (and should) be debated, but don't try to equate it with anti-racism and "fairness".
There is nothing intrinsic to travel on Southwest airlines that precludes access to blind passengers.
Yes, but what do travel on Southwest and access to Southwest's web site have to do with each other? I assume that Southwest has some sort of telephone center, which should be more than sufficient to make reservations, purchase tickets, and do anything else necessary. Even if you do argue a "right" to ride on Southwest, that doesn't equate to a "right" to use Southwest's web site. Those are two distinct actions, with different prerequisites.
For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that Southwest shouldn't be forced to make such changes. People with disabilities ought to realize that they can't participate fully in society, and accept that. (Or else find a workaround--like the text-to-speech devices--but failings of that workaround shouldn't be made the fault of society!)
And before you ask, yes, I would still hold the same opinion even if I was, or became, blind. (And I likewise don't go screaming ADA at companies because I happen to use Lynx a lot. I realize that by using Lynx I may not be able to use some sites--and I accept that.)
I have a suspicion that news.au.com is getting one slipped to them. The closest Google result I could get with "NTT NoCoMo skin" is this article about a cell phone that conducts sound through bone and cartilage, enabling you to listen to the call by sticking your finger in your ear.
Maybe you could try actually reading the article? It clearly states the source of the news, the Nihon Keizai Shimbun, and in fact the article is right at the top of the "companies" section (link, or Fish translation).
All five fingers down simultaneously is rest position -- this is how you can reorient your hands on home row without typing gobbledygook.
So what if you don't use home row in the first place? I don't (my hands tend to rest in a bit of an arc above the home row keys); in fact, I think home row is one of the leading contributors to RSI--how can you possibly hold your hands in such an unnatural position day in and day out? I sure can't.
Second: Note that you can play at least the zcode games on pretty much ANYTHING. Windows. Mac. Palm.
Yes, but will it run on my DoCoMo Java phone? (:
So what, exactly, prevents Congress from doing what I describe above?
Public domain. If the law is struck down, then at least some material (that which would have lapsed into public domain under the previous law) will, in fact, become public domain. And once that happens, it will be perfectly legal to make as many copies as you want--and Congress and the copyright cartel can't touch you. Even if laws were passed such as you suggest, they couldn't apply to material that had already entered the public domain; that would be ex post facto, because it was public domain when it was copied in the first place.
That wouldn't, of course, prevent another CTEA from being passed that applied to works still under copyright at that point, but that doesn't mean it would necessarily pass judicial scrutiny. I could also see Congress attempt to ban the future copying of works whose copyright had lapsed due to the court decision, but I strongly suspect such a law would be thrown out as soon as it was challenged. In any case, the courts aren't stupid, and they wouldn't take kindly to Congress trying to get around them; I could see a decision after two or three times around that "copyright extensions for any reason are invalid".
Voice mail comes as .wav attachments, open in your favorite player, skip the uninteresting parts and get to the point.
So, um, how do you tell which parts are the interesting parts?
Two words: false positives.
Suppose the system decides, for one reason or another, that you're a potential terrorist, and you get body-searched, dragged off somewhere, or whatever. Now maybe you come back out unscratched, demonstrating that there's really nothing suspicious about you. But the 50 people behind you in line are now thinking "gee, the computer said he's dangerous, is our flight okay?" Suddenly, without having ever done anything wrong, you've got a big black mark hanging over your head. Think "legalized defamation of character".
There are lots of other problems, too, which the other comments in this article explain well. But the issue of false positives is probably the clearest example of why you don't have to have ever done anything wrong to be worried.
Come on -- week long voting shouldn't be an issue.
Oh, yes, it is. Will people be patient enough to wait a whole week to find out the results of the election? More importantly, will the press, knowing that people are impatient, exhibit enough self-control to not publish any election-related information--including exit polls and what have you--before the election ends? If not, you're destroying any pretense of having a fair election.
I'm not a pilot myself--far from it--but one of my most thrilling experiences in an airplane was when I rode [airline censored to protect the innocent] once; I expressed interest in "how the thing works" (kids, don't try this at home) and the pilots actually let me into the cockpit! I got to look out the front window, look at the instrument panels, chat with the pilots . . . it was great. I actually thought about taking flying lessons for a while.
Sigh.
So you choose to judge a book by its cover, even though you know it's unfair?
Yes, I do. Undoubtedly I'll miss things that way, but I don't have the luxury of infinite time in which to ponder in detail everything that comes to my attention. No matter what I do I have to choose between things I read/view/etc. in detail and those I don't; the cover of a book, the spelling and grammar of a commentary, and so on are simply factors I use to make that decision. (And certainly not the only ones--for example, I did read the commentary despite its style because I heard from others that it had good things to say.)
If you can give me eternal life, I'll be more than happy to not judge books by their covers, or commentary by its style. If not, well, c'est la vie.
Perhaps he does recognize that some people will be turned off by his shorthand. That seems likely doesn't it, that he is willfully flouting conformity. Does that make it okay with you?
Certainly, as long as he realizes what he's doing.
It's bad manners for him to post 1n 31337 on his own web site, and good manners for you to rip him apart on Slashdot?
First, if he's writing a message for the general public to read (as opposed to an audience familiar with him), then regardless of where he posts it, he ought to avoid writing "1n 31337"--or at least recognize that doing so will lose him some readers. Second, I was focusing on the parent post, not on Prince's commentary itself, which I was just using as an example. Yes, I am criticizing the commentary, but hey, criticism happens; if you think Prince would be interested in hearing such criticism, feel free to pass it along, but since I don't see a "comments to" link or address on the page, I'll pass.
I mean seriously, if you're going to measure somebody's intelligence based on their shorthand (note: these aren't even typos we're talking abouthere) then wtf's the point? We're talking about the same group of people who uses email, instant messaging, IRC, and so on. Yet you're supposed to spell check everything you say?
Well, yes. Have you ever heard of "manners"? Sure, it's fine to abbreviate and such if you're talking to people you know, but otherwise it's only polite to use proper grammar and spelling. Call it "an attempt at a social class" or whatever you like, but how you write does make an impression on people, and you know what they say about first impressions. If I didn't already know about Prince, I would have been very disinclined to read his entire commentary.
If you don't take exception to such writing styles, well, good for you--but be aware that many, many people do, and no amount of telling them "don't judge a book by its cover" will change that.
how many people own and operate a MiniDisk player on a regular basis?
Um, how about a majority of Japan's teens/twenties population? MD players are literally all over the place here. They're way smaller than CD players, they don't skip (okay, maybe that's just that my CD player is too old), they're rewritable, 320 minutes per disc, no worries about discs getting scratched . . . need I say more?
SSH is only as insecure as the user is stupid, at least with respect to MITM. The only way to do MITM is to get the client to accept a bogus host key, and no one who has any clue what they're doing would do that. And yes, there are plenty of ways to get a host key onto a client machine without relying on an unsecured network connection; think floppies, dead trees, etc.
Of course, as another poster commented, securing the connection itself won't help you if you're connecting to competitor.com from your work machine--but if you're doing that you've got moral problems anyway and deserve to be screwed.
You are exactly wrong. You have *NO* right to use/distribute/sell code that isn't yours. The GPL *gives* you right to do that, which is quite different from a eula which restricts your rights.
Mostly correct, except for one thing: you don't have to agree to the GPL if you only use GPL'd software, since the GPL only covers (copying and) distribution. You can use GPL'd software without agreeing to the license and still be within the bounds of copyright law. Of course, this distinction is irrelevant to companies like RedHat which make money from selling GPL software, but it is an important one for users of the software.
The integration could gain a second or two also by not compiling the same header 3 or 4 times for diferent files in the same project. Gcc is a stand-alone compiler and cannot have this type of integration (could?).
I don't see any reason why this couldn't be done standalone. Back when I used an Amiga, my compiler of choice (DICE)--a standalone compiler, by the way--had an option to precompile header files and store the results (macros, structs, typedefs, etc.) in a separate file, and then read the results of preprocessing/compiling those headers from that file directly into memory. This sped up compilation of large projects by 2-3x IIRC (and this was in the days of multi-hour compiles).
In general, prices of Japanese stocks are higher than what you'd see in the U.S. (at least; it sounds like Canada is similar), with fewer shares of stock per company. For instance, Yahoo Japan made news here two or three years ago when it hit 100 million yen (about US$950,000 at contemporary exchange rates) per share, but that was divided among just 10,000 or so shares IIRC.
With one of these gizmos, I'll be first posting every time!
Right along with everybody else on Slashdot!
This small [just over 3mb] mod to the original quake engine . . .
And to think I used to worry about how to squeeze an extra 1024 bytes onto my games floppy. Wow.
Many others have pointed it out as well, but the critical difference between junk (snail) mail and junk faxes is that junk faxes use up actual resources of the recipient, namely paper and ink, while junk mail is paid for entirely by the sender and does not cost the recipient anything (other than the time to throw it away, which is generally considered insignificant--whether that's proper is another question). To draw an extreme example, because I can't think of a better one at the moment, it's like how yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is illegal; the right to free speech is not an unrestricted right.
Thanks for the clarification, and the URL in your second message. I'd personally want to look into the issue further, but on the other hand, one could probably make the argument that incidents like Columbine, etc. stand out because they're so infrequent--much like airplane crashes.
1. Juvenile violence is at a 30-year low.
While I'm not debating your overall argument, what's your evidence for this particular point? Incidents like Columbine give people (including me) a pretty strong impression that juvenile violence is on the increase--maybe in numbers, maybe in level, but things like that sure didn't happen 10 years ago when I was in school.
They are blocking the RIAA (which I could care less about), and they are also blocking users of P2P software.
Wrong from the start. They aren't blocking "users of P2P software", they're blocking "[c]lients which connect to our peer-to-peer clients, and then afterwards attempt to illegally access the network". In other words, if you try to download the files over P2P and then try to break into their system then your IP is toast, but just accessing the files won't get you anything, except a bunch of junk data. RTFA (carefully).
With a book-sized modem, one gets voice quality comparable to that of regular voice lines -- at a fraction the cost.
They forget to say, "and with a hundred times the random dropouts."
Granted, I haven't personally tried the service so I can't say anything from personal experience, but here in Japan the Yahoo BB! (ADSL) service is widely recognized as the worst in the country in both connectivity and customer service, and I have to admit I'd be surprised if they can do much better than that on VoIP. Thanks, but I'll stick with my 7c/3min NTT phone line for now.